check this piece from the ever-foul, former reagan speechwriter, peggy noonan, from the ever-foul wsjop - http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005162
ive largely given up ranting about foul people like peggy et al - but i cant resist this one. peggy seems to be the journalistic lovechild of tomtomfriedman and anncoulter...
"I have been paying attention to the
graduates of Ivy League universities. Every
one I see the past few weeks is beautiful.
They are tall and handsome and gay-
spirited; they are strong and laughing and
bright. I ask them what they are going to do
now. I am repeatedly told things like, "I
want to go into TV." And "I'm going to drama
school." And "I'm going to journalism school."
It occurs to me that all young people who
graduate from elite American universities
now want to go into communications. It's a
whole generation that wants to communicate."
note how peggy says that smart people are 'gay.......spirited' as it spills over to the next line. its the same as the 'pause 2, 3, 4, 5' thing that fox uses, and gwb for that matter. its quite apparent that she uses the 'gay-spirited' thing purely cos of the 'gay' connotations - theres no other reason she'd use it, and holding over the 'spirited' to the next line is priceless. and to continue the point, a few lines later 'They believe racial and sexual diversity is good'.
"It occurs to me that all young people who graduate from elite American universities now want to go into communications. It's a whole generation that wants to communicate. But what do they want to communicate? They don't seem to have a clue. For this is a question that involves the area of Deeply Held Beliefs... I think of this problem as "big mike, no message." ... when they turn on the microphone, they have nothing serious to say."
the idea of the wsj being anti-elite and anti-smart people is funny. she also draws the obvious link between journos and poofter actor queenies.
now watch this bit - (keep following the bouncing ball - here we go loop-de-loop)
" But they do remind me of something that occurred to me one day about 30 years ago. I was watching on TV one of the great movies of the British new wave of the 1960s. I think it was "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner." I thought to myself: British acting is simply the best in the world, England is drenched in great acting now. Then I realized it had been for generations--Gielgud, Redgrave, et al. Then I thought: Hmmmm. The rise of England's acting class the past century seems to coincide perfectly with the fall of its power as a wealthy and powerful nation that made a difference in the world--an exploring nation, a conquering one.
I wondered if the loss of a kind of national manliness, or force, tends to coincide in modern nations with a rise in expertise in the delicate arts. Then I thought: I wonder if in general one can say of Western nations that the loss of one tends to be accompanied by a rise in the other."
speaking of a loss of manliness: "European bureaucrats continue to resist references to God or Christianity in the new constitution they are drafting for the European Union... Europe is a post-Christian society on a continent devoted to the material except when it is considering astrology, witchcraft and worshiping rocks."
and then she uses a story about cigarettes to take a potshot (via foetal murder)at those evil terrorists who sell condoms (keep following the bouncing ball - here we go loop-de-la):
"NBC reported Monday night that there is a new movement in California to ban smoking on public beaches... I actually thought to myself: I want to make sure I understand. If you smoke a cigarette on a beach in modern America you are harming the innocent. If you have a baby scraped from your womb, you are protecting your freedom. If you sell a pack of cigarettes to a 12-year-old boy you can be jailed, fined and sent to Guantanamo Bay with the other killers. If you sell a pack of contraceptives to a 12 year old boy in modern America you are socially responsible citizen."
now, in case you were wondering where we'd end up:
"The presidential election began to take shape this week - President Bush made it clear he is running on three things:
1. Iraq, and its profound promise for a better world in spite of the struggle; 2. faith-based social reform, which is to say the allowance of the reality of God in certain publicly financed organizations aimed at helping the young and the stressed;
3. and the legitimacy of his tax cuts, both their practical benefits and their inherent justice.
"This seems to me pretty smart as a way to go, and clear." (that sentence is an entire para)
"It is a paradox. Mr. Kerry is more naturally articulate than Mr. Bush. He is facile with words and speaks in structured sentences and paragraphs. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, speaks in bursts, in little gusts of words. And yet Mr. Bush manages to communicate why he is thinking what he is thinking, what logic is guiding him, what philosophy is guiding him. "
"He's going to have to become a candidate who can explain why he stands where he stands if he wants to go beyond the impression he currently gives, which is that he's a haircut with a person attached."
im surprised she didnt call kerry "french-looking".
apparently peggys hypothesis is that elite school types like kerry are pooftahs and godless like europeans with no message and if kerry is elected we'll end up like the british with good acting and buggery which inevitably leads to imperial decline, kiddie condoms and swiss boarding schools. those who are inarticulate are not like those articulate ivyleaguers, however, and are therefore "strong" and "clear".
to be sure, uneducated actors are presumably not gay, and are good leaders
her reagan article is titled: "Thanks From a Grateful Country - For a man who changed the world, Ronald Reagan sure was modest."
"Today I imagine saluting (him). Do you? "
and she was "positively ecstatic over Schwarzenegger's victory", (and ftr, her contribution wrt gibson "What choked me was thinking of Jesus" - http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004016)
in doing some 'research' for this rant, i came across this intriguing snippet (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=65000413) from oct 2000 (fri 13th no less), after a debate bush/ gore - the article is subtitled 'Gov. Bush is Reaganesque. Now America knows it.' and it ends thus: " One thing about 43 Wednesday night: he sure didn't look afraid. He didn't look cowed. He looked happy. Like someone who knows something." - which brings back memories of that fateful november nite when he was told that he had lost florida, and he simply dismissed it as being untrue... praps moore put it in f911.
happy mondays
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment