Bouncing ’round the blog block
Let’s see….Lileks (or as he’s known around the homestead, “Idiot”) is spending a lot of time looking at women’s catalogs, because sometimes those Sunday morning lingerie ads won’t get you over the…hump. Glad to see that the Star/Tribune is still running his picture sans his enormous fivehead in an effort to cut down on printing costs.
Barbara Simpson, the “Babe in the Bunker” discovers a new technology that allows propagandists to manipulate their audience. It’s called: “moving pictures”:
He’s no fool. People believe what they see on a screen. It’s the old idea of not believing unless it’s in the newspaper. Now we use moving pictures in living color with crafty writing and editing to lead viewers to the desired conclusion. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
My goodness. Next thing you know some large corporation will be using Philo Farnsworth’s Image Dissector to beam cleverly edited images, lies, and propaganda into our homes, playing on the fears and insecurities of our more easily manipulated citizens. They’ll probably hire Sean Hannity too.
Oh. And Barbara is still going to bat for a huffy Ray Bradbury:
I wonder if they’ll tell students that Moore ripped off his title from the classic Ray Bradbury book, “Fahrenheit 451,” and ignored overtures from Mr. Bradbury to talk about the theft of his title. In fact, Ray Bradbury told me he wanted an apology from Moore. He was ignored.
One can only imagine how Bill Shakepeare must feel.
Meanwhile Matt Drudge reports on John Kerry’s flaming heterosexuality which leaves Matt uncomprehending… not to mention flaccid.
Byron York is asking himself, “They can’t do that?…Can they?”.
Which leads us to…The Thing from the Lucianne Swamp:
One of the things which really frustrated me during the Clinton years was the way the White House was successful in portraying anyone who disliked â€“ AKA â€œhatedâ€ â€“ Bill Clinton as being unreasonable. The moment you described Clinton as a terrible president or a terrible man â€“ or both â€“ you were effectively written-off as â€œirrational.â€ Indeed, the phrase â€œirrational Clinton haterâ€ was bandied around with the clear implication that the â€œirrationalâ€ part was redundant. Opposing Clinton was irrational, period.
Itâ€™s not clear to me that Bush has tried hard enough to exploit a similar strategy. The Bush-haters â€“ who are just as extreme and nasty as the Clinton-haters were, and in many ways more so â€“ offer a real opportunity for Bush. I am sure that some of the people who booed Linda Ronstadt or the Dixie Chicks were die-hard Bush supporters. But some of them, Iâ€™m sure, were merely people who detested the rudeness and arrogance of performers who thought it was their place to bad-mouth Bush and inject politics into a situation where people had every right to expect a politics-free zone. Obviously this strategy is more difficult for Bush because Clinton had much of the media and almost all of Hollywood on his side. The premise of â€œThe American President,â€ â€œWest Wing,â€ and pretty much every political declaration made by the Barbra Streisand crowd popularized the notion that disliking Clinton was an indication you were a weirdo, a crank, an opponent of progress. Bush-haters include many of those same people. With the exception of Fox News thereâ€™s really no mainstream outlet available for the White House to get the message out that irrational Bush hatred is not only irrational but annoying. Bush needs a way to tell the Michael Moore fans to â€œmove on.â€
Yeah. I can’t find anything about “irrational Bush-hatred” anywhere.
As usual, Jonah is sooooo right.