Truth, Justice, and the Homeschool Way





Share & $ave

My Links

» Home
» My Profile
» RSS Feed
» Weblog Archives
» Scott's Speaking Calendar



Fatherbloggers


» Steve Walden
» Daryl Cobranchi
» Chris O'Donnell
» The Mango Times
» Homeschooling With Dad
» A Pilgrim's Journey
» Leaving a Legacy
» Wayne Walker
» R.C. Elliott
» Scott Costa
» Jeff Clark

Homeschool Moms

» My Beloved
» Spunky Homeschool
» Izzy Lyman
» Principled Discovery
» Kay in Maine
» Gena Suarez

Homeschool Couples

» The Cates

Homeschool Grannies

» I Must Be Crazy!

Regenerators

» Agent Tim
» Spunky Junior (and friends)
» Boy Scout Blogger
» Janice Phillips
» Doing It For Him
» Uncomformed
» Every Orphan's Hope
» Andrew Kerr

Somerville Family

» Nate
» Mike and Jess
» Scansion
» David
» Posy

Homeschool Blogroll


Left Blogistan v. Mainstream Media

I don't think the mainstream media is intentionally biased... they just don't know anybody who thinks like I do.  From what I can tell, the elite journalists all run in the same little secular, progressive circles that don't have room for people like me.  Apparently, those mainstream circles don't have room for left-wing bloggers, either.

Peter Dauo reports on the phenomenon this way:

A is for Angry ~ B is for Bush ~ C is for Clueless.  Let me explain. In recent months, several prominent media and political figures have had run-ins with left-leaning bloggers (examples here, here, here, here, and here). Their reactions have been eerily similar. Greg Sargent describes it accurately: "In recent weeks, one member after another of the D.C. media establishment has gone out of his way to depict bloggers as hysterical, angry and destructive. To hear them tell it, bloggers sitting at their computers are akin to squalling brats in high-chairs chucking baby food at their sober, serious elders -- i.e., major figures at the established news organizations."

Dauo thinks the left needs more anger, not less.  I find this ironic, coming from people who drive around with bumper stickers that say, "Hate is not a family value."  These folks label themselves the "reality-based community" (as opposed to the "faith-based community"), but I think it must be an alternate reality.



Posted: 9:09 PM, May. 9, 2006
Add Comment

Try again

The "reality-based community" has NOTHING to do with faith. It's taken fromthis quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Some Christians really do have a persecution complex.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:13 PM, May. 15, 2006

Link

<- Last Page | Next Page ->