National Review Article - Online Issue 18th October 2011

Subject: Re: National Review Article - Online Issue 18th October 2011

Some interesting comments by Jim Geraghty.  

My first thought in reading his comments is that not only are there more people today than back in the 80's, but there are dozens more TV channels to select from and dozens of personal entertainment devices to satisfy even the smallest of factions. 

My second thought is that there never was a Main Street, U.S.A.  It has always been one of those Fairy Tales, along with the Easter Bunny. 

Time alone will blur the many differences that always existed in this Melting Pot of a nation.  But add to that the deliberate lies the Ruling Class tell in order to create that Great Nation which we all want to return to, and you have a real fantasy story that would make Dean Koontz blush. 

 

The fact that only 1 in 3 believe that it is Wall Street at the bottom of our economic woes and 56% who blame Washington should tell us just who has the real power to deceive the American Public.  With all its supposed power and influence, Washington can't seem to deflect the blame nearly as well as Wall Street.  Gee, who owns the Mass Media?  In fact, who owns the politicians? 

 

Jim Geraghty makes no comment on why there are so many people crowding into the public squares around the Globe, while in Washington D.C. a small group of "Do Nothing" politicians block all efforts to pass any legislation that will go against the will of their Owners, the Ruling Class. 

Think of it Jim Geraghty, here we have the largest, longest mass protest in years, spreading world-wide, and you and your conservative friends just kiss it off as a throw back to the Hippies of the 60's. 

You represent a proud line of "protectors of the status quo" Jim Geraghty. 

But change is coming and your 1% will find itself on the short end of the new Order. 

 

Carl Jarvis

Morning Jolt

. . . with Jim Geraghty

October 18, 2011

1. For Good or for Ill, Body-Painted Marxist Women Are Not Yet 'Mainstream'

 

A recent topic of one of my Thursday-night, pre-show dinners with Cam was whether there was such a thing as "mainstream" anymore.

I'm sure a lot of folks will read that sentence and declare, "Of course there is; it's a lot of people who are like me." I hate to tell you this, but if you're reading this newsletter, you're a lot more interested in politics than the average American. (You're also smarter, wiser, and better looking, and you have a better sense of humor.) But put it aside from the realm of politics for a moment.

In the late 1980s, the No. 1 show on television was The Cosby Show and had an average audience of 30 million. Last year, the final performances for American Idol had 20.5 million in a country with many more viewers. There are few remaining unifying cultural events (other than maybe the Super Bowl or the Olympics), and in this country of 300 million, it's easier than ever to tune out the aspects of life that don't interest you. We have a more diversified and fragmented culture, served by a more diversified and fragmented media. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- I'm a guy who writes for a niche audience of mostly right-of-center political junkies. But I wonder if this gives every faction in our culture and our politics a misguided sense that it's a lot more popular or "mainstream" than it is.

Thus, the Occupy Wall Street crowd might be convinced that it's "mainstream" because the vast majority of the people it encounters have the same views and grievances. Of course, they've made some "smart" moves in how they've set out to get attention. They've done so in lower Manhattan, where every major media entity in the country is either located or has a news bureau. They're clearly playing to baby-boomer Woodstock nostalgia, appealing to the aging boomers working within major mainstream media organizations. They've got interesting visuals. And sometimes they have naked women. And there's no real deadline; just show up at any time, day or night, and the story will be there.

Still, what stirs nostalgia and excitement in a newsroom just around the corner from Wall Street may not be so appealing to voters who live closer to Main Street in the rest of the country. The Hill:

 

The Hill poll found that only one in three likely voters blames Wall Street for the country's financial troubles, whereas more than half -- 56 percent -- blame Washington.

Moreover, when it comes to the political consequences of the protest, voters tend to believe that there are more perils than positives for Obama and the Democrats.  

 

A plurality believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement will hurt Democrats and Obama in the 2012 election. Even those whose sympathies lie on the left of center seem unsure about the likely political repercussions. Just half of all liberal likely voters -- the group most likely to blame Wall Street for the recession -- and fewer than half of all Democrats believe the protests will help their side next year.

 

"Those who fan the flames may be consumed by them," observes Don Surber.  
"As the more radical groups attempt to join as well (see this photo essay for an example), the folks in flyover country are going to get even more turned off," predicts Bruce McQuain at Q and O:

 

Personal observation, but it just seems to me the radical left just hasn't had much to protest about since Bush left office. The anti-war movement (of which most of these groups showing up for OWS were a part) melted away when Obama took office. He even started a third war and not a peep. 

There will obviously be those who try to compare this to the Tea Party movement, but those comparisons will fall flat. This is just the left looking for an excuse for the usual suspects to do what they do best -- protest. And, despite all the effort by the media to paint the OWS as something other than that is only going to prove the voters are a bit more sophisticated than the spin artists believe.

 

Susan Duclos writes, "Obama created them, embraced them, he owns them now. The voting public is smarter than progressives give them credit for and have not bought into the coordinated 'message', despite the media's now proven complicity in helping craft that message rather than doing their job of just reporting."