Posted on 11/09/2009 9:01:01 PM PST by Saije
America has a bad case of the doomsday jitters. You don't have to be a Glenn Beck follower to know that whenever things go wrong in this country, you can always find all the anger, bitterness and fear-mongering bubbling up and over into our popular culture. As Shakespeare's witches exulted in "Macbeth," when things go wrong, it's time to stir the pot: "double, double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble."
With Wall Street fat cats still cashing in while the rest of the country still suffers from double-digit unemployment, with partisan bickering at an all-time high and a war in Afghanistan threatening to suck up another 40,000 more troops, the country is in a sour mood, full of nasty, dark suspicions about the future. It's as good an explanation as any for why Beck is the hottest guy on TV right now, trumpeting his fears of one-world government, assailing corrupt politicians and worrying that Barack Obama, with "his deep-seated hatred for white people," could be angling to subvert our constitutional government.
Peril is around every corner -- even Beck's Fox News colleague, Shepard Smith, jokingly dubbed Beck's studio "the fear chamber." It's telling that Hollywood also has a batch of scary, post-apocalyptic films coming our way, filled with even more doomsday imagery. Roland Emmerich's "2012" takes off this weekend, promising a vivid, special-effects-filled look at the Earth's possible demise. There are more bad vibes in the air. John Hillcoat's brooding adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" opens later this month, offering a bleak view of a father and son attempting to survive in an ash-covered America where nothing grows. Denzel Washington returns, "Road Warrior" style, in January, starring in "The Book of Eli," another stark, days-end vision of the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Let’s see... Republicans are fear mongering partisans, and Hollywood’s trying to make a buck out of scaring people.
Yup, it’s a LA Times article.
Hope and change, hope and change, hope and change..
Mmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmmm, Barak Hussien Obama, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmmm
(/sarc)
He isn’t angry. They are framing frustration and incredulity and real criticism as ‘anger’.
Want to know the difference, MSM?????
Glenn Beck is ‘criticism’. Muslim ex-major Nidal Hassan shooting 43 fellow army soldiers because he hates infidels who are going to Afghanistan to fight against other muslims - THAT is ANGER.
Got it morons in the MSM?
uh SecretAgentMan, why would you even argue with this? are you saying that we aren’t angry that the libs are taking over the country? the tea-parties aren’t about anger at the government? there isn’t anger here at obama? Are you serious????
I might add that calling someone who makes a post here “morons in the MSM” is a sign of anger as well... is it possible that you are angry? or it just frustration? or are you simply really really miffed.... doesn’t really matter does it? we all get the idea.... you’re pissed-off. period. end of story... it is funny actually that you are angry at being called angry.... its kind of ridiculous when you think about it.... just go with your anger.... its OK. it is ok to be angry. I am angry too sometimes.
I took a packet of MSM for my knee and it hurts worse than ever now.
We need to support him at every opportunity.
He's pissed off all the thugs in the Obama mafia...so, lookout!!
Christ with the Temple money-changers taught us that anger is a legitimate emotion.
If you don’t get what the MSM are up to I don’t know if you can understand it.
Words mean things. He who controls the language controls the debate. You frame an issue with certain strategic words.
They are attempting to frame criticism, any real objections, as one who is “angry”. This is the over-arching goal. They do this for a number of reasons:
- to forward the argument that they are not calm and reasonable people with real criticisms
- to marginalize the people they smear with the ‘angry’ label
- to be able to say what criticism is legitimate and what isn’t based on if the person saying it is ‘angry’ or not
Again, if you don’t understand this, the Delphi Technique, and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, that are being employed here, I hope you can figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.