From a Fool to all the Imbeciles out there

     Joseph Rago thinks I'm a fool. He may be right, but since we've never met, and there's nothing out there on me for him to research, I'd be willing to be that he's painting with a brush the size of an SUV.
     Rago, in his WSJ extra, The Blog Mob, exhibits all we've come to expect from Old Media journalists, loquacious pomposity to the point that a Merriam-Webster should be provided alongside, a heavy dose of denigrating sarcasm, and the wonderful dearth of comprehension that so pervades the Old Media. Rago writes of the blogosphere,
          "Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially, boast
          about how the alternative media corrodes the 'MSM,'
          for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness
          and elitism."
Rago's failure to comprehend that, as we perceive it, the redolent "MSM" fits the bill perfectly, accurately describing the unfairness and elitism we observe on a regular basis, is typical of the Old Media. Perception is everything in a world where the truth is so often ignored.
     Rago also thinks we're so self-absorbed and narcissistic that we consider ourselves and our work 'significant'. Perhaps some are significant, like Powerline or The Radio Equalizer, but if so, it no result of self-promotion. These blogs have become respected sources of information, researched carefully, written carefully, edited carefully. It is in their lack of journalistic credentials that Rago finds all he needs to deem them insignificant. I'd love to listen as Mr. Rago tries to explain the insignificance of the blogosphere to Dan Rather.
     In truth, much of what Rago writes is technically correct. The blogosphere has given birth to a mob mentality, just glance at the Daily Kos for one. Many blogs, even those with rabid followings, are truly awful. Pronouncement is favored over persuasion, instantaneity has overrun the editorial process, and vapid, ideological ranting has taken precedence over discussion and debate. Of just such blogs, Rago's article is a perfect example. He jumps from pronouncement to pronouncement, often within paragraphs, without so much as a hint of persuasive effort. He allows no room for a future paradigm shift based on his theories, makes no attempt to foster discussion or debate, and gives no hope that things will get better. Rago even goes so far as to claim that grief over the state of things is pointless.
     What Rago seems to be so confused about is the fundamental nature, not of the medium, but of the blog itself. All great inventions are reactionary to the status quo. The electric light, the automobile, and even sliced bread were reactions to dissatisfaction, not as a general rule, but for someone personally, with the status quo. Bloggers aren't blogging to break news or make news, and bloggers know that reporting is best left to reporters. Yet Rago pines for the lack of actual reporting in blogs, citing such as his first basis for its insignificance. Bloggers blog to give analysis and commentary. The Blogosphere is the reactionary invention of men and women dissatisfied with the unwillingness of the Old Media to present both sides of an issue without bias or an agenda. Perhaps when Rago learns that the Blog is a correcting factor, not a news organization, he'll have more hope for the future of both.

Countdown to World War III

     It's coming. Give it six to twelve months, but sometime next year, we'll be at war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran, Israel, and our own intelligence sources all say that by 2008, Iran will have nuclear weapons, and neither Israel nor the US will allow that to happen. Diplomacy is no longer an option. War is inevitable. The outcome is dependent upon too many "What if" questions. What if Iran's new bedfellow, Russia, decides to get tough and play deterrent to our aggressor. What if Iran or Syria strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. What if Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and possible Iraq, decide we've had enough of an influence in the area, and take the side of their Muslim brothers. And what if our president is hamstrung by an anti-Semitic, leftist fifth column, which now seems to be running the show, both in Media and in Politics.
     If none of these what if's come to fruition, the regional conflict will be comprised of aerial bombardment and bloody house-to-house fighting. If any of the first three what if's happen, The global landscape will change forever. No longer will nuclear weapons be a deterrent, the middle eastern enemy will use them as an offensive first strike option. They don't care about deterrence. Annihilation is completely acceptable to them, as long as its mutual. The only real deterrent will be a functional deterrence on the part of Russia, keeping us from retaliating in kind, and trying to make us keep Israel from retaliating in kind. A combined Russo-Middle Eastern pact will be more than enough to make even our most earnest erstwhile supporters turn ostrich. It will be America and Israel against the Arab world. To my mind, Egypt is the only questionable participant, for which history suggest it may remain neutral.

Descent into Irrelevancy
     The final what if is a more diabolical one, in my estimation. Despite a wonderfully rich history, short though it may be, rising to heights undreamed of by it's founders, the descent of America into irrelevancy is assured. The questions are, how much longer before we reach that point, and how do we get there from here? Readers will no doubt ask why I state my thesis so emphatically, and without an inherent option for falseness. Simply put, I am a theologian, a believer of the scriptures, and a student of prophecy. From a political standpoint, the study of Biblical prophecy is beneficial, if only to see how it has been correct time after time, but also to see, if one recognizes it to have been correct in the past, what it says about the future, and it has little to say about America. Indeed, it mentions only "the West", and implies it to be impotent to affect the course of action taken by European, Middle-Eastern, and Eastern nations.
     Impotence. Strange, applying that term to the most powerful nation on Earth. And yet that is what the future holds for us, at some point. The problem is, I see the seeds being sown now for just such a future. Those responsible? The Old Media, and the New Left.
     The Old Media consists of those who have held sway over American broadcasting for decades, namely, PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with CNN, MSNBC, and various print organizations, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Washington Post. These have played a major part in the degradation of America over the past century. They lost us Vietnam, and are now losing us Iraq. Their decisions on what to broadcast and how to color it have been responsible for more damage to the greatness of America in her own people's eyes than anything done by any country, friend or foe.
     The New Left is the Old Left of the Sixties, only much more vocal and hatriolic. They are the radical hippies all grown up, entrenched in academia and politics, propagating vicariously the likes of the Kos-ites. The bitterness with which they attack even their own is evidence of the hatred they have for anything remotely leaning conservative. The New Left is against Senator Lieberman, no matter how often he might agree with them on most issues, because he disagrees on one. The New Left is against Senator Clinton, for she is not Left enough for their agenda. The New Left sees no need for America to be stronger than any other nation, to have an advantage over any other nation, to be greater or grander than any other nation. Indeed, the New Left sees in America the root of all evil, the cause of all tragedy, and the source of every problem that plagues the world.
     Together, the Old Media and the New Left have set us upon the road to a loss of national sovereignty and an impotent irrelevance on the global stage. They drive for open borders, without thought that what they may succeed in creating is nothing more than a fractured band of city-states, as often warring amongst themselves as with others, fighting for prominence while the rest of the world waits for a weakened victor. They drive for quitting the field of battle in Iraq, without thought of what that nation might become without us, subjugated to Iran, as Lebanon is to Syria, just another enemy, this time united with the other enemies we face in that region. Withdraw, redeploy, draw-down, all euphemisms for surrender.

The End Gambit
     In the end, this will be the ultimate test for President Bush. Already, his actions with Iraq and North Korea seem to imply a loss of confidence in what he can get Congress and the American people to go along with. If we cannot weather the coming storm, we have only the Old Media and the New Left to blame.

Who is Mr. Bush?

     Paul Begala knows him. Mr. Begala has compared him to President Clinton on CNN's Crossfire. Mr. Bush is obviously a great man among men, to be compared, even negatively, to a former President.
     Fred Barnes knows him. Mr. Barnes has written about his ideas for the partial privatization of Social Security. Mr. Bush is a brave man, for not even Ronaldus Maximus, the great President Reagan, wanted to go there.
     Howard Wolfson knows him. Mr. Wolfson seems to think he has the ability to replace Supreme Court Justices. Mr. Bush obviously weilds enormous political power, to be able to dictate candidates for the Supreme Court.
     Peggy Noonan knows him. Ms. Noonan has claimed that Senator Clinton is trying to position herself to the ideological right of this man, and, though I'm not sure what his belief's are, that may not be a good thing for the leftists. What if Mr. Bush is a moderate?
     Jed Babbin knows him. Writing in the American Spectator, Mr. Babbin has offered that Kofi Annan might consider Mr. Bush "a despotic aggressor." If that is so, perhaps Mr. Bush is not a great man after all. Then again, this is Kofi Annan we're discussing.
     David Sanger knows him. In a New York Times story about the 2004 election, Mr. Sanger found the attack upon Mr. Bush by a Mr. Kerry highly unsual. That attack must have been a local story, for, as I follow the news closely, I didn't see anything about Mr. Kerry attacking Mr. Bush in the national news.
     Just who is this incredibly mysterious Mr. Bush? Power, influence, prestige, all these things men aspire to, but anonymity? While I have heard the forty-third President of our United States called many things by the hate-filled liberal left, I didn't expect this. Begala, Wolfson, and Sanger are not exactly hate-filled liberal leftists, but they are members of the left-leaning old media crowd, which means they should know better, but can be excused. But Mr. Barnes? Ms. Noonan? Mr. Babbin? Please. Having fallen into the old media trap of familiarizing a sitting president, and thereby demeaning him in his position, by referring to him as Mister, they owe us an apology, for these and other conservatives have added to the environment of political disrespect.

Mr. Rangel's Wake Up Call

Here it is. I said he needed one, and I've not seen it done so well as the following editorial response from one Cliff Woodhall, printed in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal online.


     "Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.
     "Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.
     "It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.
     "We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:
     "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs."


All I can add is that I wish I'd written this. Cliff, if you ever read this, well said, Sir, well said.