Labor dispute in progress! This column has not been fact checked.
Good officiating is just as important in American politics
as it is in the NFL and some curmudgeonly columnists will not be surprised if
the Presidential Election ends with a call by the referees (or Supreme Court?)
that gives the win to someone who was an ineligible receiver.
Rush Limbaugh early in the week was cackling with delight over the furor the poor officiating by the replacement referees over the weekend (and the Monday night Sea Hawks vs. Greenbay game) had generated among football fans. Uncle Rushbo was gleefully asserting that the dispute points out the underlying fault in the liberal argument that the replacements are equal to the referees with years of experience.
It is a clever way to make the central issue (for Uncle
Rushbo) seem to be that inexperienced rookies make excellent examples for the
principle of giving quota hires the same priority as more qualified job
applicants.
That, in turn, is a slick way of diverting the focus away from the idea that (economic) might makes right makes sense to the one percent.
It seems quite likely that Uncle Rushbo wouldn't want to
read any commentary that makes the assertion that the team owners might
(metaphorically speaking) wanted to do to football fans, players, and bookies,
what the Republican politicians would like to do to America's voters.
Since a goodly number of media owners seem to relish the opportunity to cozy up to Uncle Rushbo and the team owners, it could be that there was an unwritten edict is in effect in the mainstream media to ignore the arrogance and greed of the team owners and focus on the ineptness of the scab laborers. Didn't Ayn Rand advise team owners involved in labor disputes that "winning isn't everything . . . it's the only thing!"?
Americans have traditionally supported the underdog and so
folks like Uncle Rushbo derive a certain level of perverse pleasure when the
conservative punderati have to defend the poor persecuted
minority of people who own sports franchises against the unwashed rabble who
are howling like a crowd at the gladiator games to see the team owners eaten
alive by high tax rates. It is up to the
likes of Uncle Rushbo and the Republican politicians to come to the defense of
the one percenters.
The Billionaires for Bush organization has morphed into Billionaires for Wealthfare and is recording their antics for posterity online. Has a spokesperson for that group been a guest on Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report show? If not; why not?
Speaking of cash bonuses for debilitating hits, are the TV
networks giving out any bonus money to the cameramen if they record vignettes
of people reduced to tears? We have
noticed that lately CBS Evening News does seem to be helping reinforce the
conservative selling point that Obama has failed by showing someone crying each
night because they can't cope with the contemporary American economic
situation. It kinda seems like the
managing editors are specifically sending the news reporters into the field to
get shots of weepy women saying they don't know how they are going to feed
their kids and pay for college. Did they
show that kind of melodrama journalism back when George W. Bush was
President?
Do network owners bother to get involved with the story selection process? Would it build ratings if we had Ed Murrow interview Marilyn Monroe on "Person to Person"?
Do Americans want celebrity gossip or do they want a full
explanation of what happened to Harold Holt?
Australia's Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, recently made a comment about the Republican Party in the USA being taken over by "cranks and crazies." Did Fox News run any story about that bit of international criticism? If not, why not?
Stanford University released a study, titled "Living Under
Drones," that asserted that the American drone bombers were spawning a great
deal of resentment in the Middle East because of the high number of civilian
casualties they caused. The authors of
the study seemed to be implying that the carnage would motivate future
retaliation against the USA
and thus prove that President George W. Bush was accurate in calling the
conflict the "Forever War."
President Obama was quoted as saying that the drones attacked high value military targets and that civilian casualties were "exceedingly rare." Will Uncle Rushbo validate Obama's claim or will America's anchor side with the Muslims and dispute the President's claim?
Didn't Reich Marshal Hermann Goering assure journalists
during WWII that the V2 buzz bombs were only used against military sites and
that very few Brits were being sent to the hospital (or morgue) as a result?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
