Rearranged - Rush Limbaugh, CBS, and Cindy Sheehan
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
At one time he was the outlaw Rush "Jose Wales" Limbaugh! LOL
Posted on 08/22/2005 7:28:30 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
I've been listening...GO RUSH! --Finally REALLY taking it to the Lefty Losers.
Everyone at the Patriot Camp in Crawford should be BLASTING this new voice of america broadcast!
Excellent idea! Hope they have their transistors on full blast!
I totally concur with comment number two having just completed a career in the National Guard that ran from 17 Jun 71 through 04 May 04. I have done my share of deployments in that time span and don't regret a minute of it.
It made, and still makes my blood boil, when people insinuate that service in the Guard and Reserves is not the "real" military. Tell that to my family when I was gone for long periods of time.
Nuff said.
Pelican Five
Thanks for giving important background information and context. No apology necessary.
The one thing the crowning accomplished was to give a leg up to the few gentry who qualified for the honor. Broadcast media, particularly teevee, became a monopoly in practice if not in fact(a point that someone made along the way; maybe you?). Collusion almost certainly occurred amongst the "big three" so as to not upset the apple cart, eh?
FGS
You have every right to your anger. I served twenty years on active duty, but I also have six years with the Army Reserve and National Guard. The soldiers who served in the Guard and Reserve were just as good soldiers as any with whom I served on active duty.
I once had a liberal friend. During the 2004 presidential election campaign he sent me an e-mail yapping all the Michael Moore talking points about President Bush being a draft dodger because he was in the Air National Guard. I sent him back a blistering e-mail telling him how wrong he was and reminding him that neither he nor his friend Michael Moore had ever worn any kind of military uniform. Haven't heard any more from him.
Another war story back at you. When I was fresh out of pilot training I flew copilot for an Air Guard pilot on loan to our squadron. He was somewhat unkempt, was in need of a haircut, and acted very much like a civilian [he was a corporate pilot with thousands of hours] but he was the PIC [pilot in command]. We crossed the Atlantic in a C-124 and were scheduled to land in Mildenhall, Eng. The wx was terrible: windy, heavy rains and very low visibility. I heard the stories of the rag tag Guard and started saying "Hail Mary's" from the final approach inbound. Well, my fears were ill founded. This guy flew the airplane like he was born in it and made a fantastic landing in spite of the rotten conditions.
Never again did I use the phrase rag tag militia without the greatest respect and fondness.
A C-124? That has to be from the early sixties, right? Or am I thinking of another aircraft? If I remember correctly the C-124 had clamshell cargo loading doors in the nose.
I was always Army, but I grew up around Air Force bases. Broke my dad's heart when I put on Army green instead of Air Force blue.
Yep, that's it. Flew it from 1964-68. And, I am sure your Dad was proud that you served, regardless of the branch.
Now I will again play devil's advocate, just for the hellovit.
"It isn't Cindy Sheehan - she's no more significant than I am. The problem is the broadcasters who get her to stand on her son's coffin and use it for a soapbox."
Shameless, yes; BUT, it sells soap to dopes.
Doesn't it.
The *new* depth of shamelessness the quisling mediots have sunk to I find consistent with the quality of people today in 2005 America.
Don't like it, never have & never will; nonetheless, that's the way it is.
Isn't it.
"And it isn't even the broadcasters, but the sheeple who would take offense at the idea that the broadcasters should lose their priveldge - not their right, but their privilege - to transmit at particular frequencies at particular places."
The *sheeple* take "offense" at anything?
Surely you jest.
The "sheeple" *are* "sheeple" because they follow don'tcha know, otherwise, they'd be *people*. {g}
To expect anything [more] than that which one witnesses coming from "sheeple" is to hold hope elephants will/can fly.
"And the reason they should lose their privileges is that those privileges - denied to you and me but given to the government's pets for free - is that the FCC license proclaim that the FCC licensee is "more equal" than you and me. An FCC license makes the licensee's voice in politics louder than yours and mine, and proclaims that what the licensee says and does not say, and what the licensee shows and does not show, is 'in the public interest.'"
*Excellent*
Real power, eh?
And the FCC, quisling mediots & their *corporate* bosses?
They got an *army*?
Our -- Republican controlled -- government has an army, y'know.
The puppet quislings dance at the pleasure *&* direction of their *corporate* bosses.
Y'know that too, right?
I've stopped thinking in terms of "Liberal", "Conservative" and/or "Socialist" when it comes to our nation's media of any kind.
Why?
Because the ideological component & capitalist concepts don't reconcile, period.
As such *that* fact provides a LOT (for me) of answer(s) when it comes to explaining the unexplainable I see.
That said...
"But isn't that true?"
No.
"Aren't the broadcast journalists objective?"
No.
Never in the history of the Republic have "journalists" been "objective".
Ever.
"Aren't they moderate?"
No.
Never in the history of the Republic have "journalists" been "moderate".
Ever.
"The burden of proof of that question properly lies with them."
For who, you?
Me?
Cut it out now, please.
"Journalists" report what they're told to report however outrageous.
That they just so happen to *believe* the swill penned -- however that was *arranged* -- is just sauce for the goose as far as their corporate handlers are concerned.
As for you, me and/or anyone else who disagrees with their message?
*Pound sand*.
"How can the licensees - how can the FCC - conceivably prove what is essentially an unprovable negative? It is impossible, and that is why the First Amendment ruled out governmental regulation of newspapers, books, or speakers. Because the objection is not to the fact that the broadcasters transmit radio signals, it is the fact that the government censors all but the few - and certifies the transmissions of the few as being 'in the public interest.'"
Say it again.
Who is "the government"?
Isn't it whoever's in power at any given time?
"Who's" the government *today*?
That we're seeing things in direct opposition to the "powers" that be today, therein lies the answer(s).
"But isn't it true?"
No.
In the world according to Conservatism_IS_compassion, Forgod'ssake, Landru it is.
But our influence is *it*, assuming those in our immediate circles *understand* and/or even care.
"Aren't the broadcast journalists objective and moderate? It's certain that CBS spent 5 years looking for an excuse for proclaiming that President George W. Bush's TANG service had been criticized by his superiors."
Yea, they did that alright.
Still aren't finished trying to torpedo the sucker, too.
Hardly.
Just because they *missed* that time doesn't mean they went away, ceased their objectives(s) insofar as this particular POTUS -- & his *party*, BTW -- goes.
In the words of one of the Liberal-Socialist's *darlings*, Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman: So what?".
"Mary Mapes looked for such an excuse for 5 years - and when the Burkett "documents" came over the transom they were too good to be true:"
Uh-huh.
And?
You heard M.Mopes won some kind of an award, didn't you?
Uh-huh, a journalism award. ;^)
"First, since they weren't originals with original signatures, they would never have stood up in court."
What court?
The "court of public opinion"?
"Justice"?
What "justice" would you be speaking of expecting?
From the USSC?
HA!!
You're making me laugh out loud, c_I_c.
"On that basis alone, proclaiming that the "documents" proved anything was not in the public interest."
Everything you're saying the quislings should abide by is your definition of "public interest", can't you see that?
Your sense of fairness, justice?
That's not how the game's played, any "rules" you're thinking about enforcing are your rules, not their's.
The "truth" is whatever the quisling(s) *say* the "truth" is, be they of apparent "right" or "left" position.
Period.
And to that there's not a damned thing anyone can do to change it; UNLESS, there were a coup d'etat overthrowing the United States government & our Constitution as written.
"Second, the "documents" were not merely copies, but very poor quality copies - of the sort that are produced when the copy in hand is a copy of a copy of a copy, perhaps ten generations. That is suspicious because the "documents" turned up only in 2004, ten years at least after their publication would have been political dynamite. How strange that people obtained copies and made copies from them, over many generations - yet only in 2004 did they surface at CBS. Some of the "documents" purport to have been produced only for file and would have embarrassed their putative author "I'll backdate but I won't rate" if seen by other officers. the family of the deceased putative author, who would have had the decedent's effects, deny having had those "documents" - yet they did not turn up until ten years after they would have been highly valuable to Bush's opposition. But in 2004, the "documents" turn up at CBS - with no chain of custody. poor copy quality - and no original - is routine for forgeries."
Sweet Jesus!!
Your incredible, knowledgeable attention to event, detail(s), ability to *reason* is virtually light years beyond 99.9% of the nation's voting population.
Believe me when I say most people have no idea -- whatsoever -- what you're speaking about, none.
The detail(s) you, "Buckhead" et al spotted tipping y'all off to the scam which resulted in your questioning those documents STILL aren't understood by the average person in the streets.
I know, I speak with plenty of ordinary people every single day and have a sense of what they do & don't know, deem "important" in/to/for their lives and believe me SeeBS pulling some crap ain't one of 'em.
Those who are aware, incidentally, in all likelihood still believe the initial "report".
They believe what they want to believe.
The seriousness *is* the charge after all, not that there's a gram of truth to support it.
That was the [*only*] objective "reporting" the "news" based on phony docs so easily disproved by laypeople -- or anyone else -- with a discerning eye & minimal knowledge of trivia facts such as typewriters & word processors.
Hell's bell a typewriter repairman whose passion was politics could've outed the frauds just as well as a shyster.
We're just fortunate the people who did out the scam were of the right; because, in all likelihood there were probably a couple on the left who spotted the ruse, too.
They of course opted to keep their pieholes shut fore their partisan reasons.
"Minor anachronisms such as old address for GW Bush when the current address would have been known and its use de rigeur; nonstandard formatting of memos and nonstandard usage within them. And a memo complains of undue influence by an officer who was already retired at the time to which the "memo" was dated."
Totally missed by the *target* brains the "report" was aimed/intended.
As gambled.
The quisling's modus operandi, based on their 1st Amendment rights *and* thorough understanding of citizen apathy, ignorance & today's political polarization.
Who's fault is that?
The shameless quislings selling laundry soap?
Honestly is the quisling mediots ever told me anything I found myself believing, in agreement with, I'd be checking & *rechecking* my facts over & over.
"The "documents" match perfectly the results of keying the same text into Microsoft Word operating at its default settings. This is amazing because: USAF stationary of that time was not 8.5 inches wide; a memo typed on narrower paper would naturally tend to be laid out differently than the same memo typed on 8.5 inch wide paper. Among all four memos there was not a single hyphenated word at the end of a line, as would be common with the use of a typewriter. the memos contain centered text - and Microsoft Word centers perfectly, down to the pixel level whereas typewriters center down to only the character level - an odd number of typed characters is not truly centered in the same way as an even number of typed characters because that would require adding a half of a space in the line. Microsoft Word not only assigns differing character space widths to various letters - "w" being given more space than than "i" - but actually nests adjoining characters together if (for example) the hook of a "j" can fit under the top of a preceding "T". This is impossible on a normal 1970's vintage typewriter."
:o)
Great scam!!
Almost worked, too.
But didn't.
And ISee SeeBS is still around, eh?
Amazing stuff, SOS.
America, ain't it great. ;^)
"Mr. Bush was running, not as a former Lieutenant but as a sitting commander-in-chief, so from the Republican perspective thirty-year-old TANG memos are merely quint. But Senator Kerry wanted scrutiny of that history because he was running as a former Navy Lieutenant."
Uh-huh.
"Power of the press"!! (print or air-wave, all the same handlers...)
Propaganda at its finest hour, I thought, shaming anything Joe Goebbels conjured, that's for damned sure.
"CBS gave Senator Kerry a pass on an amazingly thin record as a politician in the past thirty years..."
And don't forget totally ignoring the Swift Vets!!
*After* they completely discredited that which they never took a public moment to examine? :o)
As I said, great stuff.
...but pursued the merest possibility of evidence of mal/nonfeasance by Lt. Bush in the distant past in a way resembling nothing so much as Captain Ahab searching the Pacific for the great white whale."
Wellll in that the quisling mediots & their corporate handlers were *obsessed* preventing the Shrub's election & reelection goes, yes.
Can't argue the analogy, a'tall.
"The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting 'documents.'"
SeeBS didn't *care* about the "validity" of the docs, for chrissakes.
If anyone thinks -- for one instant -- SeeBS didn't know wayyy ahead of time those docs were as phony as $3 bills they're delusional, should seek professional help asap.
"At that point CBS reverted to the "modified limited hangout." CBS created an "independent commission" to make a show of investigating the matter - and to conclude that it was not possible to conclude that those patent forgeries were forgeries and to conclude that CBS's fanatical pursuit of the flimsiest "evidence" for the Democrat and against the Republican was not politically motivated."
All preconceived, *everything*, in the advent they were caught.
No doubt in my military mind 'bout the fix.
They knew they would be caught, later hopefully than sooner.
It's the only way the whole sordid mess *fits*.
And even then SeeBS et al were *off* to (un)cover & *report* more "truths" in the "public interest".
They've never looked back are wellll beyond C.Sheehan as I write.
Planning the logistics of their next "assault", it's a *gimme*.
Get used to it because it ain't gonna stop until they get *their* guy(s) where ever they *want* 'em, politically.
That's not *me* just shooting off my big mouth, that's *history*.
And the best forecaster of events to come, is and always has been past history.
"So much for the good faith of CBS..."
What "good faith" are you speaking of?
If you've a "problem", it'd be you'r wayyy too honest.
Don't change, I like you as-is.
But don't think "they're} like you either, they're not.
They're exactly what you/we see, no more & no less.
"...with malice aforethought they aired a vicious, fraudulent hit piece in an attempt to manipulate the electorate and produce the election result they favored."
Yup sure did, and then they denied it.
Big surprise to me, lemme tell ya.
Were you surprised, too? :o)
"And when caught, they stonewalled shamelessly."
Yup.
They're good at that, shamelessness, that is.
"No objective journalist could fail to know that that is what happened."
There are NO "objective journalist(s)", anywhere.
None.
Nada.
Nyet.
Nietz.
Can't say when they "died", perhaps when our "choice" was eliminated, back when the print media was threatened most. 1993? Clintigula's reign?
"And no journalist who wishes to be considered "objective" by establishment journalism..."
Would be *employable* by "establishment journalism", or otherwise.
If they could they would, but they aren't so there aren't.
...- including but not limited to CBS - dares to state the obvious truth."
Why should they?
They don't need to speak anything except that which we hear and that's *what* we hear.
"Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism - would tell the obvious truth of the matter."
I'm sorry but Rush himself says he's an "entertainer" & Rush is selling soap (or wood flooring, as it were).
That those who hunger to hear the truth of what's happening today in our society must turn to a self proclaimed entertainer sort of says it all about where we as a nation stand, today.
But Rush et al *did* turn the dieing media band AM into a real *profit center*, eh?
"And the "conservative talk show host" journalists like Rush learned the obvious truth from the Internet. Ultimately, from Free Republic."
Yea, and?
Sold soap with [it].
Although in all fairness without the Internet & mainly this place & its cyber-citizens.
Because I'll tell you something, the other places are monstrously polluted shit-holes infested by quacks, misfits, rejects and freaks of every stripe.
But even so we have all seen the result of the effort exposing SeeBS' scheme.
Danny boy's gone & a new puppet has assumed the seat as Master Mouthpiece.
Message hasn't changed, no?
"The conclusion is that the government was arrogant to create the broadcast bands by means of censorship, in direct contravention of the First Amendment."
Yes!!
As did CFR, 2nd Amendment restriction(s) and long list of other blatant violations of our beloved constitutional protections.
All gone.
So what.
They got the *army*, eh? :o)
"FCC licenses are actually illegitimate titles of nobility which the Constitution explicitly forbids."
Yup.
No doubt, no truer words have been spoken.
"And the result of that creation of a commanding political height has been the promotion of socialism - of the importance of government."
Of which both parties hands are dirty filthy.
Don't forget that, either.
"The Internet produces no such commanding height..."
So far.
Just wait.
"...it is the realization of a "poor man's soap box" with a nationwide reach."
Uh-huh and they'll make their move to *gag* the Internet -- as we know it -- the *moment* they're power's really being threatened.
That hasn't happened quite yet, not even close.
"Print journalism and personal speech and assembly are constitutionally protected, and if anyone uses the Internet then everyone who wants to is entitled to. But broadcast journalism - arrogant, partisan "objective" broadcast journalism - is fundamentally illegitimate and should be banished from the airwaves."
Back to revolution, huh.
For better or worse?
There aren't many Americans left anymore with the kind of fight in their belly for that kind of talk, never-mind real action.
The ones who are left out there would quickly deliver to us a governmental hell of their choosing, too.
"Ironically, Air America is more legitimate than CBS News - at least Air America is openly liberal."
Yea, maybe they are; BUT, they're broadcasting on airspace licensed by the FCC, too.
Great essay, full of common sense.
...as usual ;^)
IMHO the collusion is done in plain sight, in full view of the public. You need only ask yourself how anyone maintains a reputation for objectivity. You cannot factually make the case that CBS News if objective; my article points out that during the last election CBS News functioned as operatives for the Democratic Party and the Kerry for President campaign. The tendentiousness is in plain sight - but no other so-called "objective journalist" would say anything about that for all the tea in China. Not on a broadcast, and not in print.But they didn't get together in a room and map out that strategy; it's just understood that the way to "get along" - have an unchallenged (in the MSM) reputation for objectivity - is to "go along" with everyone else in the MSM. And woe betide the journalist who does not respect and enforce that rule. Not just CBS but the entire MSM would declare that the offender was "not objective, not a journalist." Poof! Just like that you are out of the journalism business.
So to actually be an objective reporter means giving up your MSM reputation for being an objective reporter. And only someone with principle, conviction, and courage will do that. And any such person is instantly labeled a "right wing extremist" by the MSM. That is why I said in the article that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist. He doesn't claim to be a journalist because he doesn't claim to be objective - at least, not outside the context of a mock-heroic parody of the MSM.
Certainly it is true that avoiding the claim of objectivity is not sufficient to actually make you objective. It is not sufficient, but it is necessary. From my point of view Rush appears to be objective most of the time. But then, I understand that there are people whose POV is so radically different from mine that they think that Al Franken is objective.
But of course Al Franken presumably doesn't think that the Burkett "documents" were fraudulent, either. And in fact Al Franken would presumably tell you that the MSM are either unbiased, or too conservative. And I would argue that ratings of Air America are small because the MSM are so far to the left that the niche market for an even more radical Air America is de minimus.
That says it all. The woman used her son's coffin as her soapbox. I hope she is freaking happy.
Oh, believe me, I know! I have a Democrat friend, who if ever I mentioned the slightest inkling of the reasons proving that the Burkett "memos" are fraudulent, would react as if he were a werewolf and I had just lifted up a cross."None so blind . . ."
It's a phenomenon cut from the same cloth as the 2002 Paul Wellstonememorialpolitical rally.
You're absolutely correct.
But why so surprised by that, my friend?
The quislings in our MSM have been using the same mo for seems like forever.
Let me ask you a different question.
Why aren't [we] believing what [we] see when [we] see it?
Why aren't [we] interpreting the behavior for what it is?
Why would anyone expect any other outcome (more to their liking) when we also know -- damned well -- it can, and probably will only get worse?
Hasn't it been said a definition for mental illness could be doing the same thing every time & expecting a different outcome?
If so isn't that -- in essence -- what [we're] doing if we wait for the quislings to obey some "code of honor" which in reality doesn't exist?
I think so, my friend.
"You need only ask yourself how anyone maintains a reputation for objectivity."
I must first ask myself *what* reputation might you be talking about?
The quislings we see every single day, be they the talking heads reading the "news" right down to their wo/man in the streets, were chosen by someone who knew exactly what they wanted for the employee who'd fill the role to be filled.
Do you really believe any one -- or combination of -- character traits of say integrity, honesty, passion, righteousness, shame, ethics, or fairness were to be found in any candidate interviewing for MSM quisling positions?
If you do, you're stark raving nuts.
Quite the contrary.
If one displayed any *single* one of those characteristics as their "goal", and that characteristics wasn't clearly demonstrated to be skewered to the Liberal-Socilaist left, that candidate was politely thanked for interviewing & told, "We'll be in touch.".
We've been SEEING the result of [that] process for yeaaaaarsss.
"You cannot factually make the case that CBS News if ["is"?] objective..."
Who here would *want* to?
That's the question I'm left asking myself.
"...my article points out that during the last election CBS News functioned as operatives for the Democratic Party and the Kerry for President campaign."
Yea, annnnddd?
We're left to only *guess* what kind of Faustian Deal was made that'd make an entire industry actually *want* to see the nation & its duly elected leader damaged, hurt and even destroyed.
But they have, and do, with aplomb.
"The tendentiousness is in plain sight..."
Yes and WASPs call it unmitigated gall, the Hebrews chutzpah but whatever it is they have it, in spades, use it *liberally* and couldn't care less what you, I or tens of millions of others may *think* of them.
We've SEEN that, many times, too.
"...but no other so-called "objective journalist" would say anything about that for all the tea in China. Not on a broadcast, and not in print."
Because there are none!
Not anymore.
The entire paradigm has *changed*, with it all the rules of engagement & if people like you & I want to survive, we'd damned well better accept that fact and the sooner the better.
"But they didn't get together in a room and map out that strategy; it's just understood that the way to "get along" - have an unchallenged (in the MSM) reputation for objectivity - is to "go along" with everyone else in the MSM."
Here's where we [strongly] disagree.
I maintain "they" most certainly DID "get together in a room and map out that strategy..."
Doing so is a critical component in their all *getting* along, so well. ;^)
We've witnessed the *product* of their kibitzing, many times, continue to this very day, and I don't see it ending any time, soon.
If they [ever] falter it'll surely be their demise & the *end* of 'em *all*, so the stakes for them are indeed quite high.
Safety in numbers, y'know.
"And woe betide the journalist who does not respect and enforce that rule. Not just CBS but the entire MSM would declare that the offender was "not objective, not a journalist." Poof! Just like that you are out of the journalism business."
Righteo!
Bernard Goldberg, the fella from Investor's Business Daily & the guy who wrote the book on the *real* Hillary are all finished, fini, forevermore.
Good thing we *pay* their wages buying their book(s), huh.
"So to actually be an objective reporter means giving up your MSM reputation for being an objective reporter."
A non sequitor.
"And only someone with principle, conviction, and courage will do that."
Or a nut, a masochist any other of a type of psychological defective.
The price of righteousness is *indeed* high in circa 2005 America.
"And any such person is instantly labeled a "right wing extremist" by the MSM."
Well of course!
Who else?
C/wouldn't be *them*, would it?
"That is why I said in the article that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist."
He *is* functioning *as* a journalist & damned entertaining as he plies his skills.
But even Rush realizes IF he ever admitted he was functioning solely *as* a "journalist" he'd be finished, his credibility instantly & hopelessly ruined.
Who'd he skewer as he was *entertaining* us (& selling soap & wood flooring)?
"He doesn't claim to be a journalist because he doesn't claim to be objective - at least, not outside the context of a mock-heroic parody of the MSM."
Yet he's the *only* truly "objective" media personality I know of.
He tries so damned hard sometimes to be "objective" when we all know the rules have changed so drastically that it actually pisses me off.
That he tries to appease the center at the expense of the "truth" for someone like myself is nothing less than *infuriating*.
"Certainly it is true that avoiding the claim of objectivity is not sufficient to actually make you objective. It is not sufficient, but it is necessary. From my point of view Rush appears to be objective most of the time. But then, I understand that there are people whose POV is so radically different from mine that they think that Al Franken is objective."
Yup, and so it goes: the "truth is what they say the "truth" is, which then translates into what one *thinks* the "truth" is.
Stinks but nonetheless, *true*.
"But of course Al Franken presumably doesn't think that the Burkett "documents" were fraudulent, either."
Who cares what that nut thinks.
Let's study what he's *doing*.
The Franken-nut is "playing the room", selling soap to all the nuts of the same tree.
No revelation here, is there?
"And in fact Al Franken would presumably tell you that the MSM are either unbiased, or too conservative."
Yea he would, and insodoing taking a calculated risk he wasn't alientating the touchy-feely demo, pacifying the Lefts center element, or putting to sleep the radical constituency.
Just *like* Rush does, every day.
"And I would argue that ratings of Air America are small because the MSM are so far to the left that the niche market for an even more radical Air America is de minimus."
Maybe so, but corporate America doesn't give a damn, either.
They just want to *reach* as many people as possible to sell their stinking soap.
Nuts have to bath too, sooner or later.
...& it's all that simple.
In any case, good points, and a question has bubbled back to the top; that is, is the media the gas that drives the consumerism engine???
FGS
FGS
You've just GOT to get a handle on the liberal mindset(or lack thereof); in its simplest terms, they are children. Or more accurately, rebellious teens. They gather in peer groups(candlelight vigils, demonstrations of every stripe) to hassle the adults whenever possible; stomping their feet, waving their arms and generally making a nuisance of themselves. As you may know, rebellious teens have got to have a good sounding board and a strong backstop.
IOW, who/what do children think about more than themselves??? Nothing. Selfishness in the guise of, you guessed it, altruism.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.