Thursday, March 24, 2005now that's a good bunch of sentences.
Was going to try to give the NTAGS sentence award to The Poor Man tonight, but couldn't decide on the best sentence. Is it:It’s funny that this stupid Schiavo case should be a defining moment - that matters of state and billions of dollars and millions of lives should take a back seat to this “my baby fell down a well!” human interest crap, but ain’t it America? - but I suppose, scale aside, it’s an illustrative enough example, thanks to the fractal self-similarity of the Wingnut Function.Or is it:Asking oneself “why do they keep playing me for a chump?” is a question that chumps are always asking themselves, a question which answers itself, chumps.Or is it the sentence immediately following:Yes, the Republican Party is primarily concerned with A) diminishing the government’s power over large corporations and the very rich, and B) pandering to a sizeable constituency who want to increase the government’s power over every other facet of American life, and over the rest of the world, in accordance with God’s Holy Bible, a book they have not read.Or is it:However, one must note, in the interest of Kristofian non-partisan fairness, that none of this makes Michael Moore any slimmer.Every other funny-political blogger is, tonight, the poor man's The Poor Man.
posted by sam 7:45 PM 2 comments
oh, fuck. it's either 2 or 3 or 4.
It looks like we could be pretty much screwed, though. Here's the example that struck me the most, recently:
I saw an MSM piece the other night on Bush's old claims to being a 'compassionate conservative' and his failure to deliver on faith-based initiatives. After explaining the background, and the problem, the piece reported that Bush says he hasn't delivered on the faith-based initiatives because he couldn't. The next sentence of the report was that liberals are opposed to faith-based initiatives because of concerns over separation of church and state.
No mention that Bush is spending all the gvt's money on things that only help the rich; no mention that liberals want gvt to give more to people through gvt than conservatives do, but that liberals just don't want to do it through subsidizing religious institutions.
Hoping corporate media will give the public an accurate account of what's going on in the world is like asking a prolific womanizer to tell some hot woman that you'd like a date, when you're not going to have a chance to ask her yourself. It's anybody's guess whether the guy is going to give her the message.
To quote an exchange from The Goon Show:
"What kind of chump do you take me for?"
"A prize one."