Ok, a quick gloss of my diaries of late will reveal a man who is unemployed and has few friends for what seem like obvious reasons: I don't keep my feelings to myself, and when revealing them, polite discourse and decorum take a school-bus distant back seat to what I really feel.
Having said that, When Rupert Murdoch added the Wall Street Journal to his list of far-right media outlets, he of course vowed to the family who built it that he would maintain objectivity. I believe he has already fired at least five editors, but I'm too lazy to go deep into that.
My obligitory and cursory check on Google News every twenty minutes led me to this gem of an article posted today:
I'll unleash my anger after the fold. Read with me, please. Bring your helmet.
Now let's get past the idea that the Right Wing talking points of late insist that we're always supposed to be more suspicious of the "devil we don't know than the devil we do". That's the same fear of the unknown that sadly still carries grown adults to act like there really is monster in their closet just because they can't see there isn't one when the lights go off.
We're not supposed to reprint whole articles, so here's the line that made my computer mouse fear for it's life when I gripped it so tightly it stopped working:
Amid a recession, with the mortgage market already nationalized and the banking industry partly so, the next President needs to draw some lines against further politicization of our economy.
Did you catch that?
No explanation of why we are in a recession, or how we got here, or who might have contributed to the circumstances that made it possible (and some say inevitable) but merely the fear, "We're in a recession - this is no time to experiment"
Kind of like "We're in a war - this is no time to cling to the Constitution"
More crisis-driven fear mongering. Makes you wonder if these bastards could even have a platform if there was peace and stability in the world.
But here's the bait & switch:
with the mortgage market already nationalized and the banking industry partly so
All right, now I want ten minutes in a room with no windows with this asshole and explain some fundamental truths to him: The goddamn treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is a Republican-appointed man who's history includes time working for a mortgage banking industry giant. So if the asshole that is pissed that anything got "nationalized" - and you know that is polite code for "socialized" - he need look no farther up than to the party he admires so much, not the one Barack Obama belongs to.
But why is he writing this article one day before the election?
Simple - If Obama wins, the "nationalization" of the banks that took us on the path of making "socialism" acceptable, can now be laid solely on the backs of the party that has been maligned with socialism in recent months.
So if the economy turns around, the Red Scare will be back in our laps because that would mean we must be headed toward a socialist economy; and if the economy does not turn around, that will be presented as proof that those dastardly socialists failed to do a goddamn thing right.
No matter what Barack Obama does in the next four (eight?) years, it will now all be blamed on him. It must be fun to be a Republican and always be so confident who the enemy is - whoever you want it to be.
Which is why I said to my neighbor, and I have said in previous rants, if the Democratic party really is as dangerous, destructive, and devious, everyone knows it and the evidence is incontrovertable (which is what one might believe if you were stuck in a truck all day with only an AM radio to keep you company) then you don't just sit back and hope those dastardly people don't destroy your country and leave it up to something so capricious as an election. I'm waiting for them to make us wear armbands so they can know us from across the street.
Please understand my argument: I'm saying that if the rhetoric is true, and not just rhetoric, then those who exclaim it have a patriotic duty to save their country from such obvious evil. Short of that, they should be condemned for going far beyond simple free speech and creating a spirit of demonization and demogoguery that is bordering on riot. I guess we have to wait until there really are bricks and bottles being thrown before we can say it's headed there.
You can't be pre-emptive about those kinds of things, you know?
My neighbor says to this day that the economic expansion and growth of Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House (1992-2000) was solely due to the tax cuts Ronald Reagan initiated in the early 1980's. When I remind my neighbor that there was a recession of the late 80's/early 90's that lasted almost two years, which was preceded by the then-largest drop in Stock market value than the one we just went through, he just says he doesn't remember that.
So the revision of history is nothing new, but now they are getting so good at that they start before it's actually history.
Would that make it "pre-emptive" revisionist history?