First blog in a while, been occupied with other stuff.
The four of you who drop by here once in awhile need to know that my writing is sporadic. Either I have a lot going on or I don't.
So here's a thought, as I watch the Spanish channel's translation of "Journey to the 7th Planet".
The New York Times has a bitchin' article about that creep Ralph Reed, and his ties to that creep Jack Abramoff, tied to the uber creep Tom DeLay.
And although I hate the Christian right more than... well, more than just about anything, I have to say I see where some of their followers go off on these "liberal media" jihads.
The true believers will read the above article and say, "Damn liberal media. Even if it IS true, they only picked now to bring it out and take us down."
But you know, they have a point, but it only explains why the media isn't so much liberal as it is self-interested. I've known for years that the right-wing Christians are zealots, their political allies corrupt, and you know what? All of my friends and family know it too. It's just a matter of fact, the same way the sky is blue. So only NOW the New York Times decides to say something about it, only NOW the New York Times decides this is something to be concerned about?
Mind, I'm not opposed to the New York Times doing a three page article exposing Ralph Reed as a hypocrite, but a REALLY liberal paper would have point out his Abramoff ties YEARS ago.
And thus, the New York Times' self-interest, which does happen to be a conservative type of liberalism in terms of social issues, finds itself perpetuating its own myth as "the liberal media", as it chooses only now to expose Mr. Reed as the phoney he is, annoying both conservatives and real liberals, albeit for different reasons.
The four of you who drop by here once in awhile need to know that my writing is sporadic. Either I have a lot going on or I don't.
So here's a thought, as I watch the Spanish channel's translation of "Journey to the 7th Planet".
The New York Times has a bitchin' article about that creep Ralph Reed, and his ties to that creep Jack Abramoff, tied to the uber creep Tom DeLay.
And although I hate the Christian right more than... well, more than just about anything, I have to say I see where some of their followers go off on these "liberal media" jihads.
The true believers will read the above article and say, "Damn liberal media. Even if it IS true, they only picked now to bring it out and take us down."
But you know, they have a point, but it only explains why the media isn't so much liberal as it is self-interested. I've known for years that the right-wing Christians are zealots, their political allies corrupt, and you know what? All of my friends and family know it too. It's just a matter of fact, the same way the sky is blue. So only NOW the New York Times decides to say something about it, only NOW the New York Times decides this is something to be concerned about?
Mind, I'm not opposed to the New York Times doing a three page article exposing Ralph Reed as a hypocrite, but a REALLY liberal paper would have point out his Abramoff ties YEARS ago.
And thus, the New York Times' self-interest, which does happen to be a conservative type of liberalism in terms of social issues, finds itself perpetuating its own myth as "the liberal media", as it chooses only now to expose Mr. Reed as the phoney he is, annoying both conservatives and real liberals, albeit for different reasons.
