[at-l] Natural Disasters and Solutions to Future Problems

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Steve Landis wrote:
>Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>
>>BTW - you might find this of interest - 
>>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011547.php
>
>An unverifiable blog entry, interesting - maybe, but reliable - doubtful.
>
>Here's an entry from another blog - "But, this absurd notion on the part
>of some bloggers that they are taking down the big time media brick by
>brick is just absurd. And by "some bloggers" I'm referring to those
>schmucks over at Powerline. Jesus, has there ever been a bigger bunch of 
>vainglorious nobodies in the history of the world?"
>
>Which one to believe, which one to believe...???

Gee, Steve - would the blog you cited perhaps be the same one that 
immediately after the election started discussing the question "Is it 
immoral to shoot Republicans?"  It wasn't a joke.  It wasn't humor - it was 
serious.

Anyway - if you really want an answer - or even if you don't - the blogs 
have little or no interest in the destruction of the "big time media" aka 
MSM (Mainstream Media). They are in, fact, among the most avid readers of 
newspapers - although I suspect few of them watch much TV.  Does anyone 
remember - aaah, what was his name?  Oh, yeah - Rather wasn't it?  Yeah - 
Dan Rather.  How soon we forget.  There are more than a  few rotten bricks 
that need to be pulled down.

What the right wing blogs want is for the newspapers - and the media in 
general, to actually do their job, report the news rather than "making" it 
and stop trying to be "king makers"  (trying to ensure that  the "kings" are 
only liberal left Democrats).  What the left wing blogs want is for the MSM 
to shift even further into fantasyland.

You may not take the blogs seriously - but the MSM certainly does.  For 
example - have you followed the American Political Science Association 
meeting in DC?  That was this week - did your local media cover it?  Did you 
know that Peter Canellos from the Boston Globe was a participant?  Do you 
know what was said about blogs?  Allow me to provide a link for your 
edification - if you follow the links there's always more information

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011555.php

There have been other confrontations with participants from, for example, 
the NY Times and the LA Times.  THEY take it seriously - why don't you?

Of course, sometimes the MSM gets it at least partially right - this from 
the Washington Post, for example re: Katrina:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005368.php

But then, this is a Katrina story that likely won't show up at all in most 
of the MSM - we'll see

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005372.php

So - do the words "Able Danger" mean anything to you?  I'd bet not if your 
information sources are your TV and newpapers:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005361.php

Or how about the Air America grand theft story that has yet to break in any 
of the MSM?  But it's been thoroughly investigated by the blogs - and is now 
being prosecuted by the New York States Attorney - do you know his name?

Or maybe you'd like to tell me how much money was raised earlier this year 
for tsunami relief by the right wing blogs?  And how much by the left wing 
blogs?  The answers are enlightening.

The list goes on - the number of stories that have been broken by the right 
wing blogs is mind boggling - and many of them fail to show up in places 
like the NY Times until they've become common knowledge to those who read 
the blogs.  Many times they never show up at all.  So - are the blogs wrong 
- or is the MSM biased?  Or both?

"schmuck"?  -- interesting word.  But, like many words - mis-used.  And 
generally applies neatly to those who use it.

Hmmm- y'all can argue till the cows come home about this if you want, but 
I'm done.  I'll answer reasonable questions - but I won't argue because I've 
got better things to do with my life right now.  But that's another post.

Walk softly,
Jim

http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"