Yesterday NPR fired Ron Schiller who was busted on video by James O’ Keefe bashing conservatives as racist xenophobes. They also accepted his superior’s resignation. They’re hoping that this ends all the talk about defunding NPR. We’re assured that Schiller was a lone wolf and this is no way represents how NPR views conservatives. News reports quote an NPR official saying that NPR needed a “sacrificial lamb.”
It reminds me of the fallout surrounding Lila Rose’s videos with Planned Parenthood. Time and again Lila Rose catches Planned Parenthood in illegalities from aiding and abetting underage prostitution to illegally covering up rape allegations. What happens? Some low-level employee gets fired but we’re assured that their actions are in no way indicative of Planned Parenthood at large. No matter how many times it’s happened we’re assured that these are long wolves acting outside the high high standards that Planned Parenthood holds itself to. And then we get the sacrificial lambs.
Same thing with O’Keefe’s and Hannah Giles’ ACORN videos. Those videos were devastating but what was the response from ACORN and their political apologists? We were assured that the misbehavior was just a few lone wolves. And more sacrificial lambs were instantly created.
I’ve gotta’ ask, how many lone wolves make up a den? Planned Parenthood, ACORN, NPR all have fired lone wolves. You mean to tell me that all these people were acting of their own volition completely opposed to the standards of their organizations? Who knew that leftists were such rugged individualists?
All of these organizations thrive due to taxpayer funding and when exposed they fire low level employees who they claim acted as lone wolves. I think in actuality Lila Rose and James O’ Keefe have uncovered dens of taxpayer subsidized wolves who are simply surviving by turning on the people they trained to break the law because they got caught. In fact when you think about it, wolves will sometimes eat their young or weaker members so this makes a lot of sense. In so many ways.
Pro-lifers and conservatives cannot depend on the media to do their job so this kind of undercover investigation should continue. It must continue. We must keep shining light into the darkness. It’ll be amazing what we find.
March 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The sad thing is that despite the bias this reveals, NPR is probably still the least biased of the main stream media outlets.
March 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm
To expand the metaphor, I seem to remember the old books mentioning that the smartest thing to do when faced by a pack of wolves is to shoot the biggest, meanest looking one– the others will turn on him, if you do it well enough.
Might have a tactical suggestion in there, I've got no idea how to pull it off.
March 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm
"how many lone wolves make up a den?"
Answer: None. A den is where wolves rest. A group of wolves is a pack.
"wolves will sometimes eat their young or weaker members."
Wrong again. Yes, wolves will kill weaker members, or interlopers, but not for food; they don't "eat their young or weaker members."
As for Foxfier's reference to "old books" – nonsense. Wolves won't turn on the "biggest, meanest wolf" when confronted with a person who has just shot that wolf. What do you think they are, idiots? They'll either press the attack on the human if that's what they were doing already, or they will flee. They're certainly not going to settle a dispute about dominance hierarchies at such a time.
Please stay away from the animal metaphors if you don't know anything about the animals in question. It's just irritating & distracts from whatever point you're trying to make.
March 10, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Yes, I'll believe some anonymous person over eyewitness accounts from folks who survived being cornered by wolves.
Especially when they're too dim to figure out that "den of wolves" is a pretty standard expression that's the opposite of a "lone wolf" when talking about a person behaving badly in an organization.
Oh, wait, I forgot– wolf apologists insist there hasn't been a "credible" attack by a wolf in North America. (It's easy when you define any reported attack as incredible.)
March 10, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Hhmmm…so now "seem to remember the old books" has suddenly morphed into "eyewitness accounts." How very persuasive. And saying "den OF wolves" is not at all the same thing as saying "how many wolves make up a den?" The latter is akin to saying "How many chickens make up a coop?" rather than "How many chickens make up a flock?" See the difference, Foxfier? How many geese make up a gaggle, how many lions make up a pride, how many horses make a herd, how many wolves make a pack, etc., etc. As for your comment on wolf apologists and credible attacks – what in the world does that have to do with the issue at hand – which is bad animal metaphors?
March 10, 2011 at 11:02 pm
*sigh*
Just because you can't read biographical books doesn't mean the rest of us are as limited, same way that you failing to understand some rather nice wordplay doesn't mean the rest of us are incapable of it.
Some of us even enjoyed reading first-hand accounts from old books, just as we enjoy some wordcraft — even if that wordcraft makes a point some 'nomless person on the net dislikes.
March 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm
As for your comment on wolf apologists and credible attacks – what in the world does that have to do with the issue at hand – which is bad animal metaphors?
It has to do with your claim that wolves will not turn on wounded pack members; of anything outside of metaphors too advanced for you is beyond the issue at hand, why did you bring it up?