Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Time for a Rant, I Guess

The Fury of Athamasby John Flaxman (1755–1826)(Public Domain)
Rant(s) or The Rant(s) may refer to:
  • Monologue, a lengthy discourse by a single performer, especially if irritated or upset
  • Rant (novel), novel by Chuck Palahniuk
  • Rant (Ian Hunter album), 2001 album by Ian Hunter
  • Rant (The Futureheads album), 2012 album by The Futureheads
  • RantMedia, media organization
  • Rant, a type of fictional character in the children's fantasy book series Leven Thumps
  • "The Rant", a commercial in the I Am Canadian media campaign for Molson Canadian Beer
  • The Rants, a book by Dennis Miller
  • Rant, a lively Scottish tune (see Jamie McPherson) (W)
Etymology
From Dutch ranten, randen (“talk nonsense, rave”).

Noun
rant (plural rants)

A criticism done by ranting.
A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation.

Verb
rant (third-person singular simple present rants, present participle ranting, simple past and past participle ranted)

To speak or shout at length in an uncontrollable anger.
To criticize by ranting. (W)

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for rant:
Displaying 2 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
Rant (Page: 1188)
Rant (?), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Ranted; p. pr. & vb. n. Ranting.] [OD. ranten, randen, to dote, to be enraged.] To rave in violent, high-sounding, or extravagant language, without dignity of thought; to be noisy, boisterous, and bombastic in talk or declamation; as, a ranting preacher.

Look where my ranting host of the Garter comes! Shak.
Rant (Page: 1188)
Rant, n. High-sounding language, without importance or dignity of thought; boisterous, empty declamation; bombast; as, the rant of fanatics.

This is a stoical rant, without any foundation in the nature of man or reason of things. Atterbury.  (S)


With the recent hullabaloo regarding Rolling Stone magazine and a number of other items in the so-called "news" I felt like a good rant.

While it seems that the a-holes are gradually taking over the world, in reality they are simply the ones who make the most noise. What was that The Bard said about "much sound and fury"?

The modern day media seems not very reliable. So where does one get their news in these modern times?

The internet?

Please.

There is so much garbage and nonsense promulgated on the internet that you have to wonder where the people who put this stuff out find the time to do so. Don't they have jobs?

It's getting so I monitor the news only remotely and only for certain things. Such as -

  • Is there some new government regulation or mandate that impacts me directly? Such as a new tax or perhaps a cut in the cost of living increase in my Air Force retirement check. (Like I could actually live on that. Believe me, I appreciate having it but I earned it. They said "serve 20 or more years, we'll give you a pension." So I did and they pay me once a month.)
  • Have the Chinese (or Russians, or North Koreans, or some other pack of ne'er-do-wells) landed on the shores of my country with evil intent? Requiring me to shoulder my trusty musket and head out to repel the invaders.
  • Is there some massive weather phenomenon heading my way which could cause power and civilization to fail? (No joke, in the blizzard of '13 we were without power for three days. Candlelight is only romantic in restaurants.)
  • Is there an election issue about which I may actually care and about which I can actually, maybe, make a difference? (In Rhode Island, every election they put a few items on the ballot asking for money. Money to build a new police station in one town and perhaps make repairs to the Death Star we're building in orbit. Hhmm, I think that was supposed to be a secret. Was.)
So reports of political evil doing in California (or whatever state irks you the most) or some tomfoolery in Washington DC don't really get my attention.

Whatever happened to journalists? You know, the people who would report the news. The who, what, when, and where of events WITHOUT the snide opinions thrown in.

It's all editorials these days. Damn few facts colored by a lot of opinion.

Really, really ticks me off.

There. I feel better now.

Truth be told, that wasn't much of a rant.

But that's just my opinion.

28 comments:

  1. Rant? I know you can don better than that...must be the Christmas Season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I know. I started out with a full head of steam which quickly dissipated nearly as soon as I started typing.

      'Tis the season to be jolly I suppose.

      Delete
    2. "It's all editorials these days. Damn few facts colored by a lot of opinion."

      I think it has probably always been that way. The problem nowadays is almost all seem to be espousing one position. Growing up, there seemed to be news agencies with different points of view. You knew that newspaper A would report from the right and newspaper B from the left. You would know that the truth was somewhere in the middle. Additionally, the fact that there was competition meant neither side could afford to be too extreme.

      That counterbalance seems to be gone, especially at the State and Local levels. And that I think is at the heart of your most excellent rant.

      Delete
    3. Well that's the point I was trying to get across.

      I guess I don't do the "wild eyed ranting crazy man" very well.

      Thanks Juvat.

      Delete
    4. Editorials remind me of the old Texas cattleman who described a Presidential speech: "It kinda reminds me of a longhorn: a point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in-between."

      Delete
    5. Must have been something in all of our coffee this morning. Here's another rant along the same line.

      Delete
    6. Great read Juvat.

      (Crap, something else I need to read everyday. Just kidding, I will, no doubt go back there. Good stuff.)

      Delete
  2. Rant? Seems like a pretty well reasoned philosophy to me :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why thank you Sir.

      (I'll go with the philosophy slant next time.)

      Delete
  3. Amen, Sarge.
    Seems that every news-reader wants to be a pundit and dispense their opinion so that we, the great unwashed masses, can appreciate their wisdom.
    (I judge a newscaster by how many adjectives are used in a given story. The more "descriptive" the report, the more the reporter is editorializing.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a pretty good rule of thumb, Snuff!

      Delete
  4. I'm kinda-sorta in agreement with you, except for the fact the PBS Newshour is required viewing on my part every day. I've been watching them since the days of McNeil/Lehrer... nigh on 30 years now... and they really do a good show. I know it's not fashionable in the circles I run in (those would be center-right circles) to praise anything about public broadcasting, but the Newshour folks get it right, most of the time.

    OK. We're done with the infomercial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may have to pay more attention to that.

      I do like PBS, after all that's where I would get my Monty Python fix back in the day.

      I may give it a try.

      Delete
  5. "Whatever happened to journalists? You know, the people who would report the news. The who, what, when, and where of events WITHOUT the snide opinions thrown in."

    I think the issue is everyone wants to be an editor, but they don't want to edit.
    Give the journalists a college degree and they think that makes them smart.
    It doesn't.
    It only makes them parrot whatever drivel the maroon who taught them foisted upon their tender souls.
    The first rule they seem to learn is to seek only facts that support your position and report those... nothing more.

    Golly!
    Where did that come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have the crux of it Skip.

      One thing I learned in college (at the ripe age of 30) was how to reason things out based on available facts, not how or what to think. Perhaps it's a liberal arts failing these days. But not all schools suffer from it.

      And regarding whatever drivel the maroon who taught them foisted upon their tender souls. That, my friend, is a classic line. Bravo!

      Delete
  6. "I guess I don't do the "wild eyed ranting crazy man" very well." I can recollect some excellent, soul satisfying, wild eyed crazy man rants from you in the distant past. Methinks you have just mellowed with age!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Joe observed up top, it might be the holidays as well. I tend to get all sentimental around this time of year.

      Tough to sustain a rant when you've just wrapped Christmas gifts for your grandchildren.

      But yeah, could be the age thing as well. I won't deny that I'm getting on in years.

      Delete
  7. à la Mick Dundee, "Nah, 'at's not a rant...THIS is a rant!" (micro rant)

    They wouldn't be sellin' it if the fools wasn't buyin' it.

    My $0.02

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've officially banned CNN from my home due to blatant race-baiting. I get more timely news about things that matter in the palm of my hand via Twitter, anyway...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. CNN is not allowed in my home either.

      Delete
  9. At your age , ok, our age, gotta be choosy about ranting, dont want to be so wound up we start kicking puppies and yelling at innocents.I wholeheartedly agree with the blogger in Juvat's link. I wish I could write without letting anger taint my writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I could write with half that guy's talent!

      (Yelling at innocents? Yup, been there, done that.)

      Delete
  10. I don't watch TV. Pulled the plug on cable four years ago and don't miss it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. T'was ever thus.
    William Randolph Hearst kicked off Yellow Journalism and arranged The Spanish American War.
    William Durranty reported glowingly about the USSR and totally missed the forced famine in the Ukraine that starved up to 7,000,000 Ukrainians to death on Stalin's orders.
    Those people with very strict authoritarian ideas gravitate to the news realm just as they did to the university professoriate and see the world through the lens of their authoritarian doctrines.

    I used to listen to Radio Pacifica as I drove out of San Jose at night heading for San Diego after a long week in the Bay Area. Those guys kept my blood boiling for a good hour or two until their signal faded away entirely. One can see why, come the revolution those guys are going to be the first up against the wall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had forgotten about Hearst and Duranty. Their ilk are alive and well.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)