Thursday, February 21, 2008

A Sad Day For American Journalism

The charges leveled by the New York Times against John McCain regarding his relationship with a K Street lobbyist mark the current low water mark for the newspaper and American journalism. The alleged "affair" took place during the 1990s, why wasn't this brought up then? The Times refuses to allow the authors of these charges to speak with other media outlets;why?

Apparently Rush Limbaugh's so-called decline will be discounted by the publication of these allegations. Limbaugh had predicted, when the Times endorsed McCain for president, that once he gained momentum that some type of smear campaign would be launched against him by the "liberal drive-by media". Is this Times article the opening salvo? The disgusting aspect of the charges is that they are unsubstantiated and in fact made by innuendo rather than directly; something beneath the dignity and misssion of the New York Times.

Has the immaturity level of liberalism pushed the Times to the level of a high school gossip publication? How the Times expect to be taken seriously now? This the latest in a few years long decline in its integrity. The vacuity of the liberal press is made obvious by those who read, believe, and espouse its ramblings. A close examination of the Obama phenomenom makes it clear that emotion not thought is the driving force behind his candidacy. This same attitude permeates the media: make a charge and see if it sticks seems to be the guiding editorial principle.

The New York Times masthead proclaims "All The News That's Fit To Print" one should remember the Mad Magazine parody of "All The News That Fits" when considering its efficacy.

World opinion appears to be important to most Americans, why then is there no blushing when stories like the McCain allegations are published. This is not reporting, nor is it thoughtful editorial posturing. It is simply aping the National Enquirer.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008


During a dinner party I met several Europeans who had become US citizens. It was clear that their cultural biases probably will never be overcome by their commitment to citizenship. During the conversations they parrotted the media biased lines about the incompetence of George Bush; almost verbatum from NBC. Remarkably their voting inclination is towards John McCain, a paradox of large proportions.

It must be quite a struggle for a person born in one culture to take on the responsibility of adopting another. There are unconcious aspects of one's environment which are absorbed willingly but unkowingly. It is difficult for anyone to separate themselves from the prism of experience when considering a situation. For naturalized US citizens, particularly Euros, it is nearly impossible.

Europeans guage the United States from a perspective of history that they like to say is lengthy enough to make decisions that cannot be questioned. Their sense of superiority is based on overturning monarchies, destroying Christianity, adopting malicious socialism verging on communism, and with only a little help throwing out totalitarian facisim at the expense of millions of lives. To Europeans the United States is a lucky group of failed Euros forced to emigrate to escape their shortcomings. Of course this begs the question of their presence here.

Another view is that of Latinos who fear the repetition of oppressive government and so never really get integrated in society. Gang dominated social groups and neighborhood are a serious cancer within the American body politic. As Latinos are the fastest growing demographic within the US borders any failure to assimilate is bound to be dangerous. Of course Latino activists scoff at the idea of assimilation; a disturbing continuity of recent immigrants from any source.

The hope is that the third generation will be one that can only speak English.