If you want to see a revealing look at the emotional, and not simply political, investment liberals have in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, watch Mika Brzezinski and Jeffrey Sachs respond to Newt Gingrich’s comments over the weekend that the protesters should get a job and take a bath. Their rage is uncontained, almost tear-inducing, and comical. The whole crew and conversation, with one liberal egging on the other, is a fantastic window into the dominant mindset of modern-day liberal journalists.
One can see that without Joe Scarborough’s presence, the show is essentially the morning version of the shows hosted by Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow (though Maddow is a good deal more intelligent and informed than Brzezinski). Speaking of which: One of her colleagues would do Brzezinski a huge favor if they pulled her aside and explained to her the difference between “literal” and “figurative.” During this short segment Brzezinski claims Gingrich was “literally” standing on his “high horse” and his words “literally made my skin crawl.”
Actually, neither was “literally” true. There was no horse on the stage where Gingrich appeared, and Mika’s skin wasn’t crawling, at least from what we can tell. Then again, what would you expect from a woman who, in mocking Sarah Palin, named Abraham Lincoln as one of her favorite founders?
Not just the media. A seemingly intelligent, very highly educated liberal acquaintance on facebook called the pepper spraying of the OWS protesters at UC Davis typical of the kind of oppression Republicans engage in. When I pointed out the CA is definitely run by Democrats and that UC and the town of Davis are very probably run by Democrats he said I just don't get it and repeated that its the sort of thing Republicans do.
A good rule of thumb for guestimating the past date of a cultural template is to backdate the same number of years spanning from the paradigm's origin to its latest incarnation, in the opposite direction, from the first instance backwards. n nSo, OWS as cultural theater (that puts display over typical revolutionary activities like, say, well, mass murder a la French Revolution or the Bolsheviks etc.) dates to the love-ins and the be-ins and the Mobilization Against the War (in Vietnam) circa 1967-1969. Or about 43 years past due. n nIt would be as if THOSE affectations of political theater had reached backwards to styles current in 1923. n nNot the Bolshies (they were hard core) but, hmmm, the flappers. n nWhy today's kids feel compelled to resurrect the Port Huron Statement, SDS, and the communatard vibes of Ginsberg, ooom, and the rest is baffling. n nAre Phish and Bonnaroo on permanent hiatus? n nAnd, yes, why the media, why anyone would buy into the significance of a phenomenon which is dwarfed geometrically the the number of fans turning out for professional football on any given week does tell us something about the reactionary tropism of the media and our ruling elites.
How does Mika Brzezinski even have a job? It is common knowledge that Lincoln wasn't a founding father, or at least it should be. And how is Gingrich's comment distasteful when compared to Occupy Wall Street?
I’m not sure why, but your piece made me think of these two quotes. n nFirst is John Lennon on politics and how it had “almost ruined” his music: n n n
n nSecond is Keith Richards: n n n