I'm always amazed that among the absolute madding chaos of words churned out by the Democrats, the main stream media, their willing hand maidens, former Democratic Presidents--enfeebled or otherwise--unhinged one-time Democratic Vice Presidents, Hollywood “actors”, associated hangers on, peace activists, nutters, repressed liberal Satanists, progressives with an axe to grind, San Francisco city councilors, exalted members of the NaaCP, teachers' unions, the aCLU, members of the 9th Circuit, apologists for Hugo Chavez, folks from MoveOn.org, anybody from Berkeley, CNN commentators, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, perky Katie Couric and her look alikes desperately seeking her paycheck, advocates for illegal aliens and the innocent gentlemen facing imminent execution for mass murder, and all the other openly progressive shills, that a single key idiom can float to the top of this vast statistical incoherence.
In the beginning was the word, and it marked Dick Cheney's selection as Vice President, and the word was “gravitas.” and over the years the word has evolved and has been applied to different people along the way and in different manners and for varying periods of time.
Most recently the word was applied to former FEMa Director Michael Brown. The word before his departure was “fired.” Everybody said he was going to be fired, or lose his head, or get sacked. Though the word wasn't quite as transpicuous on the early and first call, the last word on Michael Brown was “scapegoat”--and was much more unambiguous. and all the confederates united in the destruction of the President and the Union cried “scapegoat” on demand, offered it up when coaxed, when kicked under the table by a pointed stiletto heeled shoe or a tasseled loafer, when told what to say by the teleprompter, when glared at by a vicious camera man or when ordered what to write by an uptight editor--who, in turn, took his orders from the small nervous man upstairs.
Now, however, we are treated to the latest word on the news hen's and left leaning politico's short list--“incompetent.” and everything any Republican, and anyone having the misfortune to have been appointed or promoted by a Republican, or anyone who has ever known or associated with a Republican bears this awful, obvious and lifetime stigma.
George Bush is totally incompetent, and war in Iraq is incompetently managed, the generals are incompetent, NaSa is incompetent--though the Pluto mission appears to be just fine, the NSa is incompetent--unless they're wire tapping (which they can't do), then they're a menace, the CIa is incompetent--unless they're leaking secrets to the Democrats, then they become laudable “whistleblowers” and need protection, otherwise they'll become “scapegoats” (see above), FEMa is incompetent--unless it's managed by a Clinton appointee, then it's a paragon of managerial excellence--like Hillary's travel office, Chuck Schumer's staff was incompetent in their wholesale mining of the private information about the Maryland Lieutenant Governor, but Chuck swears he never knew a thing about any of it, so he's “exonerated”--a key term, applied only Democrats, and then forever--See Clinton, Bill, impeachment.
So, amazingly, all the talking heads use the magic word “incompetent” in unison. and you can hear all the biggies from the least used channels on the TV dial and the left side of the Senate using it, choir-like, in a building crescendo--from Harry Reed to the nattering dream boxes on television. It's an amazing thing, a true oddity, a bit of serendipity, to hear folks all use the exactly the same word, now, all the time, in every conversation, describing the President and every element of his administration, from the bogus body armor caper to selection of the scene and the artist for the White House Christmas cards.
The exigency for the usage of this momentous word has even filtered down to the staff heavy office of that noted wordsmith Senator Ted Kennedy and was successfully shoehorned into his stunted and highly exaggerated lexicon, where he recently commented on the third anniversary of the Iraq War, after completely and generously failing to note the recent commemoration of the first attack on the World Trade Center--said by some to be an early but equally clear telegraphing of the news of the war he steadfastly refuses to fight today--that, “The administration has been dangerously incompetent…” He, being an anti-war pro-feminist Democrat, is not, however, and will never be, no matter how many high court appointees he grossly and incompetently adumbrates.
But two questions remain, how is the “word” selected for mass propaganda purposes and how is this word, once selected, placed on every Democratic, progressive and liberal mind or teleprompter at exactly the same time?
Does the word selection begin with that fading Goliath, the New York Times, and its top heavy bevy of talented barking mad left leaning ideologues? Does it begin with the jargon blubbering liberal political hacks and their boot licking lackeys, who are continually searching for the perfect adjectives with which to cast their legion of enemies, and for whom the number 666 is far too low? Is it initiated with the pulchritudinous talking heads on TV, who are blessed with better writers than the majority of the senatorial Democrats but who, many times, possess--though in fairness, it may in many instances be a close run thing--less upstairs?
But, in any case, somehow, the “word” is selected, accepted, polished up, and punched out by the millions, in a mad production line, which runs at all hours of the day and night, to all and sundry for immediate use. and a coded signal is broadcast, announcing the exact date and time to honk its worldwide enunciation.
Maybe this is the pinnacle of the main stream media's evolution, the final branch on its tree of life. It can no longer print and broadcast anything of note. What it does produce for the consumption of its dwindling market share, for the most part, is riddled with lies, innuendo, falsities, science fiction, rumor and trumpery. The visibility of its non-fiction is disappearing daily, while its unverifiable fictive story telling grows exponentially. Hard science is thrown to the wolves of superstition, just as any semblance of objectivity is tossed aside for its openly transparent and slavish adherence to the base elements of the Democratic Party line. CNN has become a parody of a soap opera of a news show, while the New York Times is an open joke, though the final punch line, recently delivered by Moody's Investment Services, has so far escaped the management's notice.
Yet the MSM can, finally, by aD 2006--with all the electronic wizardry available today, like computers, internet connections, satellites, telephones, cell phones, pagers, flares, PDa's, Blackberries, carrier pigeons, moles, couriers, gossip, bathroom graffiti, bloggers, rumor mongers, net rangers, sell outs, spies, laser window microphones, telegraphers, n'er-do-wells, flunkies --without a doubt, broadcast a single word brilliantly, to the movers, shakers and propagandistic broadcasters of the progressive lines of thought. and it is done clearly enough so that even I can hear it, up here, in the middle of nowhere, with my limited exposure to the most corrosive elements of liberal thought.
Despite the Brodbinagian power of babble, I can hear “gravitas,” “scapegoat,” and “incompetent,” clear as a bell, and I'm equally and abundantly pleased that the liberal television pundits have the vast and seemingly limitless natural endowments to recognize, memorize and repeat these crucial watchwords verbatim in perpetuity--well at least until the next “word” comes along and the whole intensive process begins again.
In the beginning was the word. and the word was with the media, and the word was the media. It was dug up and shoveled across the broadcast sprectra perfectly, while truth, once identified, was thrown into the dust bin along with the last great “word.” and neither will be resurrected, dusted off or ever used again.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement