Era şi timpul!!
În continuare o ironie mai mult sau mai puţin sau mai puţin „ironică” în Noua Americă….
O imagine a Preşedintelui American, Barak [Hussein] Obama, reprezentat ca sfînt, sub forma unor candele de aproximatv jumătate de metru, expuse în vitrina „Just For Fun,” pe 2 martie 2009 în San Francisco, California […], realizate de Johnny Oliver […], ca un „mişto la adresa lui Iisus”.[…]. Candelele au fost vîndute cu $395.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images North America)
prin: Atlas Shrugs
Romanian
14 comentarii
adi
3 martie 2009Aproape in fiecare magazin Borders (una dintre cele mai mari librarii din SUA) chiar la intrare se gaseste cate o carte de dimensiuni mari cu poza lui Obama pe coperta. Obama este in mod fortat introdus ca un super-star de dimensiuni mari, mai ceva ca Oprah. Pericolul este ca Obama joaca un rol politic in schimb ce Oprah sau alte astfel de holograme sunt niste papusi usor de ignorat.
dr jones
3 martie 2009librarii? adica biblioteci?
pai sa vezi in supermarket-uri! gen jewel, dominicks… stai la coada: te uiti in dreapta, te uiti in stanga, spate fata sus si jos – si pe cine crezi ca vezi? toate revistele au pe frontispiciu ceva in legatura cu.
Obama’s Relationship with the Press – The “Honeymo” is Over “A Slobbering Love Affair” – Liberals in Love
An Interview with Bernie Goldberg
by Bill Steigerwald
Award-winning network TV reporter Bernard Goldberg first hit pay dirt in the book world with “Bias,” his 2001 best-seller exposing how the news we saw was distorted by the liberal bias of the journalists he worked with during his long career with CBS News. Several media books later, Goldberg is back with “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.” The Regnery Publishing book, which goes on sale Monday, Jan. 26, indicts mainstream print and electronic journalists not for having liberal biases, which are a given, but for becoming open and unapologetic activists for Obama.
Q: What’s your 60-second synopsis of your book?
A: This is not a book about the same old media bias. This time journalists cross a very bright line. This time they stopped being witnesses to history and they were intent on helping to shape history. They moved from media bias to media activism. In my whole life I have never seen the media get on board for one candidate the way they did this time around and — this is very important — they did it without even a hint of embarrassment.
It isn’t just conservatives that feel this way. Lots of people feel the media was in the tank for Barack Obama. They were because he was young, because he was cool, because he was black and because he was liberal. There’s no way in the world we would have seen this kind of slobbering if we would had just inaugurated the first black president who was conservative and Republican.
Q: You’re not talking about opinion writers and pundits, you’re talking about news coverage?
A: I’m talking about two things. In terms of news coverage, forget about what I say. There are polls conducted by nonpartisan groups that said the media was way, way more positive in its Obama coverage than its McCain coverage. In other words, everybody has seen what I’ve seen. I’m not the only one. The media who were on Obama’s team, they didn’t just put a thumb on the scale; this time they sat on the scale.
But we’re talking about lots of supposedly hard-news reporters, but even in opinion — and this is an important point that I’m glad you brought up — I think opinion has to be relatively intelligent. I mean, Chris Matthews saying he had “a thrill running up his leg” when he heard Barack Obama speak. And Matthews said “You’re not an American if you don’t cry when you hear Obama speak.”
This isn’t political commentary. This is a man crush. This is embarrassing. He is by far the most embarrassing commentator on television. I want to make it clear — commentators are allowed to comment. I get that. But the commentary has to have a semblance of intelligence to it, and Chris Matthews has become the single biggest embarrassment in all of the media in terms of this campaign coverage.
Q: So is he the most egregious example –
A: Let me give you two. Chris Matthews is the most egregious example of media slobbering I have ever seen…. Chris Matthews is an embarrassment of the first order. But I’ll tell you something else — and this is the single most embarrassing sentence I have ever seen in the Washington Post. This is a story on Christmas morning, Page 1, Washington Post, about Barack Obama’s exercise regimen. I’m going to read you the line and I don’t blame you if you think I am making it up. I swear to God I’m not: “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weight-lifting sessions each week and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
Let me tell you something. If there has been a more embarrassing sentence ever published in the Washington Post, please, somebody tell me what it is. You’d read something like this in a romance novel with Fabio on the cover. This is the kind of slobbering I’m talking about. This is not the same old, same old. They jumped the shark this time. They really took sides and they didn’t care who knew it. That’s different from anything that happened in the past.
Q: You already knew the way the media tilts, so were you just waiting for this to happen or did it shock even you?
Q: That’s a very interesting question. It’s the latter. I figured it was going to be the same old thing. Of course they were going to root for the Democrat. They always root for the Democrat, the more liberal the better. That I expected. And believe me, I wasn’t going to sit down and write a book about that. But the more I looked at it, the more I watched, I said, “I can’t actually be seeing what I am seeing. I can’t believe I’m reading what I’m reading.” What pushed me over the edge in terms of wanting to write a book about it was the incredible lack of concern for what anybody thought. Even Howard Kurtz in today’s Washington Post said it’s not just conservatives who think the media rolled over for Barack Obama — and they better change.
Q: Hillary Clinton has to be pretty annoyed at the media.
A: She’s the biggest single loser in all of this. If the media had done its job early on, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee for president of the United States and probably elected president of the United States.
Q: What are you trying to prove and who are you trying to persuade with this book?
A: Because I am a journalist, I want to document things that I think are important. And since the only group mentioned in the Constitution with constitutional protections that is a real business is the press, the media. I think they are worth taking a look at. It’s not what I am trying to prove; it’s that as a reporter, as a journalist, I like to write about things that I think are important. And I think how the media behaves in a free society is very important. It’s not enough to simply have a free press; you have to have a fair press. That’s what I am trying to document.
The second part of the question is, “Who am I trying to persuade?” I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. I reach out to liberals in my books. They criticize not liberals but they criticize liberal biases or liberal insanity or liberals going too far, or whatever. I would love for liberals to also read this book, in addition to conservatives, and say, “Hey, he’s making a good point.” But the fact is, too many liberals, while they acknowledge the bias of the media — and they do — they don’t care. I can’t deal with that. If they are willing to accept corruption because the corruption helped their guy get elected, that’s on them, not me.
Q: Which media institution — print or electronic — should be most ashamed of its coverage?
A: Oh that’s easy. Thank you. That’s a softball. MSNBC. Not even close.
Q: And we all know where Chris Matthews works, right?
A: (Laughs) That’s right.
Q: Have you seen any improvement in the coverage of Obama since you finished your book?
A: Absolutely not. If anything, the slobbering has continued. The question when I finished writing my book was, “Will the slobbering continue?” I thought it would. It has. And the best example of the worst kind of slobbering is that line in The Washington Post that said “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals … .” And this was after he got elected. So the slobbering continues. And by the way, I don’t see an end in sight.
emil
3 martie 2009Economistul si ginditorul ???? conservator Thomas Sowell despre noul presedinte (toamna ’08):
Un studiu in contrast:
Francesco
3 martie 2009@dr.Jones,
Nu numai media din USA este cazuta in cap dupa Obama, acelasi fenomen era pe cale sa se intample si la noi. Am avut destui jurnalisti care incepusera sa-i cante osanale. Din fericire au fost destui care sa-si dea seama ca Obama este un balon de sapun media.
Francesco
3 martie 2009@Costin,
De ce ai pus prenumele Husein intre paranteze drepte? Presedintele in exercitiu asa si-a spus numele la ceremonia de investitura: Barack Husein Obama. Pentru ca este reprezentat ca un sfant crestin?
costin
3 martie 2009Francesco,
Am pus Hussein in paranteze drepte pentru ca l-am adaugat eu, in textul original nu exista
costin
3 martie 2009am adaugat o poza care merge mai bine cu titlul ????
difrerenta e ca asta nu mai e la misto
dr jones
3 martie 2009sincer. eu nu condamn gafele presedintilor. mi se pare normal, logic si firesc ca acestia sa faca gafe. sunt cu atat mai aproape de noi. insa felul de a fi prezentat de catre presa leftista este jignitor materiei cenusii.
cand former president Bush a aplicat un ” masaj” Angelei Merkel – presa a rabufnit de indignare. asa ceva nu se face, iese din protocol, o rusine nationala.
acum, insa, cand prima doamna a americii ia in brate regina imperiului britanic cu capitala in Londonistan ( stiu, exagerez) – ei bine, e cool :).
Mrs. Obama clearly made an impression with the 82-year-old monarch — so much that the smiling queen strayed slightly from protocol and briefly wrapped her arm around the first lady in a rare public show of affection.
sunt tare curios sa vad cum se va rezolva criza iraniana cu politica lugu-lugu versus politica cowboy-iana care a inlaturat de la putere un dictator.
banuiesc deznodamantul: Chamberlain versus Churchill. insa e prematur sa ma arunc in premonitii…
dr jones
3 martie 2009emil te rog corecteaza tu greseala de typo din dreptul numelui batranului winston.
dr jones
3 martie 2009inca ceva: eu sunt un mare admirator al presedintelui american Ronald Reagan. poate ar fi binevenit un topic dedicat.
Margaret Thatcher on Ronald Reagan
We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.
In his lifetime Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set himself. He sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism. These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.
Yet they were pursued with almost a lightness of spirit. For Ronald Reagan also embodied another great cause – what Arnold Bennett once called ‘the great cause of cheering us all up’. His politics had a freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every nation – and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire.
Yet his humour often had a purpose beyond humour. In the terrible hours after the attempt on his life, his easy jokes gave reassurance to an anxious world. They were evidence that in the aftermath of terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained sane and jocular. They were truly grace under pressure.
And perhaps they signified grace of a deeper kind. Ronnie himself certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose. As he told a priest after his recovery ‘Whatever time I’ve got left now belongs to the Big Fella Upstairs’.
And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan’s life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.
Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.
Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.
Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War – not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.
I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on his words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: ‘Let me tell you why it is we distrust you.’ Those words are candid and tough and they cannot have been easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to a new beginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.
We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape with those words. It is a very different world with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president.
As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president.
Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles – and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively.
When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.
When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew ‘the Old Man’ would never wear.
When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership.
And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding.
Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.
Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow’s ‘evil empire’. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.
So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.
Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity – and nothing was more American.
Therein lies perhaps the final explanation of his achievements. Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for – freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.
As an actor in Hollywood’s golden age, he helped to make the American dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a fulfilment of that dream. He never succumbed to the embarrassment some people feel about an honest expression of love of country.
He was able to say ‘God Bless America’ with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America – and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.
With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself – the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer „God Bless America”.
Ronald Reagan’s life was rich not only in public achievement, but also in private happiness. Indeed, his public achievements were rooted in his private happiness. The great turning point of his life was his meeting and marriage with Nancy.
On that we have the plain testimony of a loving and grateful husband: ‘Nancy came along and saved my soul’. We share her grief today. But we also share her pride – and the grief and pride of Ronnie’s children.
For the final years of his life, Ronnie’s mind was clouded by illness. That cloud has now lifted. He is himself again – more himself than at any time on this earth. For we may be sure that the Big Fella Upstairs never forgets those who remember Him. And as the last journey of this faithful pilgrim took him beyond the sunset, and as heaven’s morning broke, I like to think – in the words of Bunyan – that ‘all the trumpets sounded on the other side’.
We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God’s children.”
Francesco
3 martie 2009Am facut corectura dr. Jones. Cred ca o sa ma apuc de traducerea acestui text de Margaret Thatcher aparut in The Guardian.
dr. jones
3 martie 2009http://www.wikio.com/video/990862
dr. jones
3 martie 2009ps:
limba moldoveneasca vs limba austriaca:
http://www.jurnaltv.md/?article=2153
Francesco
3 martie 2009Barack Obama nu a aflat ca in Austria se vorbeste germana. Ei si ce? Mare scofala, am intalnit un blogger – nu i-am retinut numele – american care a scrie: „si ce daca Obama a facut o plecaciune in fata sauditului”?