६ फेब्रुवारी, २०१३
"My duck does a wonderful trick. My duck can lay an egg!"
Via EDH in the comments to "Signs that people are tired of thinking about politics," which highlighted the Washington Post article about the amazing fact that a bird laid an egg. And who better than Shirley Temple to epitomize the desire for distraction from politics?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
And who better than Shirley Temple to epitomize the desire for distraction from politics?
Jenna Jameson (sp?}
Today's gay politics would be completely different had Shirley Temple been cast in The Wizard of Oz.
As an adult, Shirley Temple Black was quite political.
Althouse posted the clip of Shirley Temple tap dancing with Buddy Ebsen At the Codfish Ball several years ago! What a delight!
@ jacksonjay Click the "Shirley Temple" tag on this post and you'll get to that and other old posts (including the long one about the movie she made with Ronald Reagan).
Barack Obama has brought about a consensus in American politics. Elections have consequences.
Good job President Obama!
We have a President that lays several every day.
PS No, bad job. All his consequences are bad one.
"Is that a golden egg?.. Off with that unfair duck's head!"
-- The democrat party collective, fairness police
Speaking of bad eggs.
"Say the secret word, and the duck will give you twenty dollars." --Marx
But we really don't talk about politics, we merely engage in superficial complaining and exchange of meaningless soundbites. There is no real conversation about matters of great moment to the society, about issues that really affect our society as a whole or the lives of the people in it.
One finds stray bits of serious talk, on such shows as Moyers & Company on PBS, and fleeting moments or seconds here and there elsewhere, but there is no national serious conversation, engaging citizens at large, on the whys and wherefores of our society and how and why it functions (or not) as it does.
It does not serve the interests of the powers that be that we have such an ongoing serious conversation, and so we get what amounts to the "reality show" version of politics, a "Real Housewives of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives" distortion, all artifice, theatrics, obfuscation and lies.
It's no wonder people are tired of it...we know we're being lied to and one does get quite fucking fed up with that.
Robert Cook said...
One finds stray bits of serious talk, on such shows as Moyers & Company on PBS,
Moyers, Mr Mean-spirited Sack Of Slime himself?
Cook, you need a girlfriend.
I knew watching Fox News and all those ads for the "Shirley Temple DVD" collection would pay off one day!
Edutcher,
You're more a "mean-spirited Sack of Slime" when you're trying to be nice than I've ever seen Moyers be.
And whether you agree or disagree with his politics, he does engage his guests in serious conversations about the issues of the day in our society, and he does play the devil's advocate and ask the questions that skeptics from the "other side" might pose.
If that's not good enough for you, where's a serious public affairs show from your side of the divide?
I stopped contributing to PBS over Bill Moyers.
Can the duck lay a trillion dollare platinum egg?
Robert Cook said...
Edutcher,
You're more a "mean-spirited Sack of Slime" when you're trying to be nice than I've ever seen Moyers be.
You obviously don't remember 1964.
And maybe even 1981
When was it that Moyers slandered James Watt by claiming Watt had testified before Congress that there was no need protect the environment because the second coming of Christ was near?
Or Moyers asking the FBI to investigate Lyndon Johnson's political enemies for evidence that they might be homosexual?
I think that qualifies Moyers to be considered a scumbag for the rest of his life.
Ah, here it is: 2005
"...and he does play the devil's advocate and ask the questions that skeptics from the "other side" might pose."
He only does that as a vehicle to disingenously mischaracterize his opponent's position. I used to have a stroke over exactly this issue when I watched him (don't watch him anymore).
Bill Moyers is a fundamentally dishonest man. It's a travesty that he is allowed to do what he does on the taxpayers dime, which is why I withdrew my support to PBS.
Moyers apologizes to Watt, Feb. 2005
Original Mike and others are right about Moyers. He is one sainted Five-star General in the Effort, though, and there are battalions of Good Soldiers vying to move up in our New Order or political narrative.. ( a few do their "nothing to see here, move along" charm work right here )
Shoot! I should have/ could have posted my day's NPR installment on this post instead of the earlier "Signs that
People are tired of politics post" -- overchoice! Hard to keep in front, haha
"Bill Moyers is a fundamentally dishonest man."
So you claim, so you believe. Can you prove it?
Even assuming it were true, or that you prove it to be true...my question still stands: where is there a serious public affairs program your side of the divide on national tv?
Taking your characterization of Moyers at face value, if he is a "fundamentally dishonest" figure but presents the only national television forum that even approaches serious conversation about issues of the day, what does this say about the low level and base nature of the non-stop braying that we are expected to accept as "political conversation?"
Moyers apologized after he got caught. Big deal.
"Can you prove it?"
I watched him for years. He time and again mischaracterized his opponent's positions. There is little in this world I am more sure of than that Bill Moyers is a dishonest man.
"Or Moyers asking the FBI to investigate Lyndon Johnson's political enemies for evidence that they might be homosexual?
"I think that qualifies Moyers to be considered a scumbag for the rest of his life."
Only if you assume that humans beings cannot and do not change and grow over time, gaining wisdom with experience both good and bad, and through reflection on one's actions and judgments in the past that one subsequently regrets or sees as folly.
Look at Chuck Colson, for instance.
"what does this say about the low level and base nature of the non-stop braying that we are expected to accept as "political conversation?"
On this, we agree. But that doesn't provide a reason to watch or support someone because of his scholarly patina.
"I watched him for years. He time and again mischaracterized his opponent's positions. There is little in this world I am more sure of than that Bill Moyers is a dishonest man."
Your certainty is no more proof of his "fundamental" dishonesty than is my own perception and belief that he is fundamentally honest.
No doubt. But his lying over James Watt is an objective fact.
"...my own perception and belief that he is fundamentally honest."
With (sincere) respect, I don't think you're well suited to recognize his straw man characterizations of conservative positions.
"No doubt. But his lying over James Watt is an objective fact."
It is your assertion and belief he was lying, not "objective fact." He says he believed and repeated a statement attributed to Mr. Watt that was, in fact, false, and erred in not first confirming with Mr. Watt whether the quote was true.
"With (sincere) respect, I don't think you're well suited to recognize his straw man characterizations of conservative positions."
Possibly I'm not, as few of us maintain perceptions of the world completely unblighted by our biases, but, given that I was raised in a (still) Republican family and registered as a Republican when I turned 18, and voted for for Ford in '76 and Reagan in '80, and that I still hear the conservative point of view from family members, (and that I frequent this blog, uh, frequently), I think I have a reasonably good (if not perfect) idea whether I'm hearing a fair or unfair presentation of current conservative positions.
Oh, that Shirley Temple. She was not always all innocence and sunshine. See and see. I blush.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा