I Cogitate
|
|||||||
|
October 10, 2007
Why isn't George Bush labeled a radical? Why isn't George Bush labeled a radical by our national media? The dictionary defines a radical as someone favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms and also a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods. Do these definitions conjure up an image of a certain someone for you? If the picture you are receivng is a bit fuzzy, well, here's some assistance in advancing towards clarity: *** Who lied in order to 'reform' Social Security, the bedrock social program that alleviated a degrading existence for millions, with his offer of privatization?Isn't the above enough for at least the consideration of George Bush as a radical? Actually, I understand why the corporate media will never do so but I do not understand the factual and intellectual basis of such a decision. On a related matter, just why is the term radical reserved by the mass media for smearing so-called left-of-center individuals? Think about this -- can anyone name a rightwinger who the corporate media has ever described as a radical? Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and that ilk, despite their silly fatwas issued against a number of people, remain free of any description involving the word radical. That's quite telling. top |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||