Hmmmm!!
President Bush's approval ratings are the worst ever recorded since approval ratings began. Yet the media continues to portray him as a colossus bestride the worshipful earth, except for a couple of cranky godless commie liberals.
(And may I just say that while I'm busy having the Rude Pundit's babies, I would like to have Gore Vidal's babies too [Gore Vidal being the subject of that last link].)
Anyhow! As the author of the second piece points out, the media still continues to treat Bush with kid gloves, although they had no problem going after a very popular President (Clinton) on a comparatively trivial matter as if they were wolverines on a meth bender. Double standard, anyone?
I wonder what historians will make of this. This is one of the issues that bedevils a lot of Alexander scholars (at least as far as I am able to understand): whose accounts of him do you believe? Really. The Athenians always hated him, and it's hard to believe that such hatred doesn't have at least some basis in reality--and then you get to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was really, truly, seriously just-plain-hated by a group of far-right ideologues. The media spearheaded this group's attack on Clinton while gently soft-pedaling and then swiftly dropping everything to come down the pike on Bush (from the lingering unanswered questions on 9/11, like WHY THE HELL WEREN'T FIGHTER JETS SCRAMBLED ACCORDING TO LONGSTANDING PROCEDURE WHEN THE AIRLINERS DEVIATED FROM THEIR FLIGHT PATH??, to the WMDs, to Valerie Plame, to Jeff Gannon), thus revealing very clearly what side it's on, all the while steadfastly protesting its impartiality. You wouldn't think that this kind of unfairness would be possible, but there it is, staring us in the face.
One is left with a haunting question: what if Mary Renault was right?
(And may I just say that while I'm busy having the Rude Pundit's babies, I would like to have Gore Vidal's babies too [Gore Vidal being the subject of that last link].)
Anyhow! As the author of the second piece points out, the media still continues to treat Bush with kid gloves, although they had no problem going after a very popular President (Clinton) on a comparatively trivial matter as if they were wolverines on a meth bender. Double standard, anyone?
I wonder what historians will make of this. This is one of the issues that bedevils a lot of Alexander scholars (at least as far as I am able to understand): whose accounts of him do you believe? Really. The Athenians always hated him, and it's hard to believe that such hatred doesn't have at least some basis in reality--and then you get to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was really, truly, seriously just-plain-hated by a group of far-right ideologues. The media spearheaded this group's attack on Clinton while gently soft-pedaling and then swiftly dropping everything to come down the pike on Bush (from the lingering unanswered questions on 9/11, like WHY THE HELL WEREN'T FIGHTER JETS SCRAMBLED ACCORDING TO LONGSTANDING PROCEDURE WHEN THE AIRLINERS DEVIATED FROM THEIR FLIGHT PATH??, to the WMDs, to Valerie Plame, to Jeff Gannon), thus revealing very clearly what side it's on, all the while steadfastly protesting its impartiality. You wouldn't think that this kind of unfairness would be possible, but there it is, staring us in the face.
One is left with a haunting question: what if Mary Renault was right?
posted by Savannah at
4:03 PM
2 Comments:
(Michelle) This past Sunday's Parade Magazine had an article called "Where Does Your Tax Money Go?" Lots of appalling disparities, of course, but the one that really struck me was, "The government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, but only $15 million for the 9/11 Commission to examine the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
By
Anonymous, at 6:50 PM
Yup, there's the double standard right there in black and white.
By
Savannah, at 11:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home