The Jade Monkey

I didn't have a superiority complex until inferior people gave me one.

Location: San Antonio, Texas, United States


Look where you're going!

I don't know the legalities of copying a picture from a magazine, so...

If you bought TIME magazine's Person of the Year issue featuring President George W. Bush, turn with me to page 105. That's right, the cartoonish introduction to their story on Mel Gibson and Michael Moore, of a Gibson in shepherd's dress leading one column of followers out of the wilderness while a bulbous, baseball-cap-bearing, basketball-bellied buffoon leads his team into it. I certainly doubt it was intentional, but there is a subtle message here. Note the first man in the file behind Moore. His glasses are completely opaque. Does it surprise anyone that a man who has so blinded himself would follow Moore into his iniquitous den of deceit (that is, were Moore's ample backside alone not enough to block the view of where he led)?

What also shouldn't surprise anyone is the deceptive false comparisons and moral ambiguity prevalent in the article, although I think they're mostly from trying to fit a (not altogether untrue, and certainly not uninteresting) predetermined premise in the comparison of two filmmakers and their works. The end result is for the most part fair, however, so my issue is not so much with Richard Lacayo, but with the common leftist tactics his piece may unwittingly - but instructively - mirror.

That said, let's look at some of the side-splittig hilarity:

Both seem like guys who maintain a clear channel, albeit from different locations, into that enigmatic, shape-shifting thing, the American mainstream.

Mainstream? Michael Moore and his myrmidons wouldn't know mainstream if it bit him on his aforementioned ample backside. But more on mainstream or not-mainstream and the ever fluid Newspeak of the Left in a moment.

These were filmmakers operating in the very largest realms - the longing for faith, the demand for truth - in a world that can be patronizing to the first and indifferent to the second.

While I don't at all dispute the second part of the statement, the dichotomy implied here - that Gibson sought faith, and Moore, that Overlord of Obfuscation, truth, is nothing short of laughable. Then again, I guess Moore, like Jim McGreevy, could just be seeking his own truth.

...Moore's acrobatic wit...

Somehow I doubt his wit is any more acrobatic than he is. Okay, so that was a cheap shot. Moving on (even though he and his champions won't).

There were times last summer and fall when [Moore] was a virtual one-man opposition party,

Must... not... make joke... about Moore being big enough to be a one-man party...

... the guy who went regularly and brazenly where the Democratic standard bearers feared to tread,

You mean to an even farther outpost in the land of outrageous lies and vicious smears?

... the one unafraid to roughhouse with George W. Bush over his family's links to the Saudis or his slow-motion response on the morning the planes hit the towers.

Yep, looks like that's where he meant. And here we see surface the meme that has achieved legendary status as a mantra in the leftist echo-chambers: "If only we had been tougher!" As if for 4 years their party had not put on the most shameful and reckless display of dirty politics to ever disgrace our country. It is the same mindset that lies to itself about not addressing the swift vets more, well, swiftly, even though their media appendage had suppressed the story until it could no longer do so, and then aided it as it immediately sent its surrogates to defame and assassinate the character of men who had already suffered far too much of that after serving their country with honor, and that decried any attempt to point out Kerry's less-than-stellar record or his endless stream of flip-flops (now there's acrobatic) as personal attacks while ignoring the infinitely worse examples they routinely committed themselves. It is entirely consistent with their lack of clarity regarding each side's attack dogs, to wit:

In fact, one key to the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 was its willingness to humiliate, belittle and demistify a President with a fierceness not seen since, well, Sean Hannity, the Fox News conservative fang barer, last glared in the direction of Bill Clinton.

It is this type of ridiculous false comparison that the left is most fond of, as if there was the slightest similarity to the denouncement of actual moral failings of a leader and the politicization of war and national security based largely on spin if not outright falsehood, and always sprinkled liberally with hate. I do not doubt that some commentators may have gone overboard in attacking Clinton (I personally cannot say either way regarding Hannity, as I didn't even know who he was then, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me), but how can anyone claim that, on the whole, in either depth of hatred or the consequences, the actions of the opposition are anything alike in any respect other than that they were opposition?

I have routinely argued with liberals who at once want to claim Moore is not the Democrat mainstream "so don't blame us," despite the same rhetoric coming from the mouths of their leaders: Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Nancy Palosi, et al., all the while patting him on the back with a wink and a nod as he does the large part of the heavy work of filling the public with hate and misinformation. They also want to give Moore and his ilk the same absolute value as solid, but nowhere near as extreme, right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh on the political number line, thus trying to make themselves appear more moderate and shift the center of the spectrum further to the left.

I suspect the reason they are able to get away with this is, in part, that the Right shuns their true extremists (only to have themselves associated with them anyway), while the Left invites theirs to sit in Jimmy Carter's Presidential box. Thus, the "extreme" side of the Republican mainstream is far more moderate than the extreme side of the Democrat "mainstream," allowing the Left to point to the ends and call them equal.

Fortunately, with the demise of the mainstream media's monopoly on news and opinion, the public is beginning to see it. But the Democrats remain convinced that if they get tougher and move further left (and commit enough fraud while charging it of their opposition) they can win elections (when they're not convinced that wrapping their package nicer with changed language and honeyed words and pretending to share common values, a.k.a. lying, won't do the trick, anyway). The Democrat party is starting to remind me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip in which Calvin is playing baseball and, no athlete, has been exiled to the depths of left field where he picks dandelions until he is awakened by the urgent calls of the fielders that a long fly ball is headed to his position. He catches it much to his amazement, and then to his dread, as he realizes that the inning has switched sides and that it had been his team up to bat, his team he had just deprived of a hit. Just so the Loony Left is destroying Team Democrat. The rational members of the party must wrest control of it back from the extremists if they want it, and our country, to survive.

So, some free advice to our Democrat friends: look where you're going! Or for God's sake (if you aren't too offended by the mention of His name), at least let Moore's plummet off the cliff unblock your view enough that you don't follow him to your lemming-like deaths.


Post a Comment

<< Home