Mr. Wow Blog
A Note on the ‘News,’ From Mr. wOw
4:00 pm | May 27, 2009

Author: Mr. Wow | Category: Culture | Comments: None

Post-Memorial Day weekend, Mr. wOw has something he needs to get off his chest.

Mr. wOw has had enough.

No, I’m not going complain about Bristol Palin’s astounding People magazine cover in graduation drag, holding her child, and proclaiming nobody would have sex if they “knew the consequences.” No comment. OK, put in a giggle. Sometimes the consequences are fun.

Look, the poor girl has to have her mother’s stalker, Greta Van Susteren, in her life, so let’s cut her a break. (Especially as Miss Van S. will likely be a member of President Palin’s cabinet in 2012. I don’t like it either, but smug Dems are assuring it – I mean you Madame Speaker!)

And I am not going to decry GQ’s takes on Christian Bale and Larry King. The Bale interviewer concentrates almost exclusively on the actor’s infamous caught-on-audio rant. And even when not probing that nonsense, the questions are of the type and tone that should make everybody sympathetic even to the rich and famous. As for the King piece, it’s a cutesy, we-are-not-seriously-ageist-but-really-we-are poke at his literal longevity (75 years) and his career longevity (75 years at least, it seems). I’m no fan of Mr. King. I simply cannot understand his popularity, but his age is never an issue. Mr. wOw is getting up there himself, even to the point of tugging on his neck, going, “Hmm … What was that doctor’s name?” 

Also, Larry King is father of two young children, ages nine and ten. How come nobody was up his kazoo about making babies in his sunset years like they did to that poor woman in England? Leave people’s reproductive matters alone – and that means you, men-who-cannot-get-pregnant-so-don’t-make-laws-about-women-who-do.

No, no … Mr. wOw’s Memorial Day weekend magazine browsing is not what has brought him back to you. Channel-surfing the “news,” I heard over and over a phrase that has become a mantra for the Cheney-Bush administration: “We have not been attacked since 9/11!”

Look, I hate to break it to some people, but we were not the Middle East on 9/10. The United States of America, contrary to what you might come to believe, was not under attack every day. In fact, in fact, there have been three attacks from foreign powers on American soil in the last 100 years. Three.

Pearl Harbor, the first attack on the WTC in 1993 and then the horrors of 9/11 eight years later. (I’m not counting American embassies, ships or targets in other countries.)

Why is it so extraordinary – such a feat – that we have not been attacked again on our soil? We weren’t being bombed every couple of days or weeks or years. It took eight years to plan 9/11.

Are there no real reporters left who can ask these questions? Is the media a bunch of lazy jackasses, more interested in making noise and having personality than in making a point so simple even a showbiz simpleton like Mr. wOw can voice it? Is the so-called “liberal media” really still a little afraid of the so-called “defunct” Republican Party?

Yes they are. And I refer to the Repubs as “so-called defunct” because, despite the seemingly negative PR attached to Rush Limbaugh and other partisan entertainers, a major core – millions of people – remain socially conservative and open to any and all devices to undermine Obama. Don’t dismiss the South; it can rise again and bite the Dems in the ass when they are not looking.

But why expect journalists to ask the obvious and the serious? They are all too busy trying to decipher the meaning of Kate Goselin’s whacked-up hairdo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <br> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <img alt="" align="" border="" class="" height="" hspace="" longdesc="" vspace="" src="" style="" width=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <li> <ol> <p> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul>