Paralysis of the Mind

It's beginning to reach critical mass time for all the problems that political media coverage is having and causing.

For instance, just this week, the idiotic Congressman Peter King, a disappointment to my state, wanted the New York Times brought up on charges followed by George Bush angrily denouncing the Times for being a detriment to national security.

Never mind that "the greatest danger our nation has ever faced" (what Bush likes to call terror) apparently are SO dumb that they can't figure out we're doing everything we can to spy on them. And never mind what the media's job actually is. Those things matter very little.

What matters a lot, though, is that for 30 years, the right wing has been telling their faithful that the media -- ALL media -- is liberal and untrustable.(Well, except maybe Fox. Some of the time.) This works doubly for them. To start with, it gives conservatives big and small the excuse that, in every situation, the media was against them, so no wonder they didn't win (or pass the bill, or save their marriage after teabagging that hooker on video). And of course, this leaves the rubes who buy fully into conservatism from ignoring anything that isn't on message from the leaders of their movement.

So Bush and King can happily go around bashing the media. Ann Coulter's greatest regret is the fact that Timothy McVeigh destroyed a federal building, and not the New York Times building. Everyone can bandy about the horrid liberal media, cheerfully secure in knowing that it doesn't matter if its true or not, because enough people say it.

The media is the right's ultimate punching bag, yet at the same time, their ultimate boogeyman. They say that, of course, the media is against them -- yet they obsess over every perceived slight the media hands them.

And the left is hardly a champion of the media. They can see the media trying to play to the right -- The racist Glenn Beck getting an hour a night on CNN, for instance -- and they can't help but wonder about the treatment of Bush. Yes, now the daily White House press briefing is a bloodbath, but during the Iraq war, most major newspapers were totally behind it. How I, a guy living in the hinterlands, could sense that the idea was crazy and would end badly and yet they couldn't, I'll never understand.

And yes, the entire country ripped Clinton on the media's cue -- but somehow the media can't explain adquately why Bush is doing illegal things? And I definitely don't remember any cheering or crying at a Clinton press conference. Unlike what happened to Dan Rather's on-air caress of Bush after 9/11, or the sickening cheering of the media during the announcement that Saddam Hussein was caught.

So, the right cognoscenti make sure the right hate the media, the intellects on the left have been burned badly by the press -- and the great middle? Well, they ignore the media on principle, unless they're doing breathless reporting of a Kidman-Urban wedding. The media, in its job description, can't really stand up for itself. Which leaves it so weak that press freedom is at its lowest point since the John Adams passed the Sedition Act.

Many people don't even see the point of a free press anymore. (Presuming, of course, we have a free press at all in the entertainment age where news programs are more worried about making money than finding the truth.) And that's a really giant loss.

Every regime of the past 100 years had to co-opt the media to exist. Be it Pravda, the North Korean news, the radio talk hosts in Rwanda who urged violence -- regimes exist on controlling everything, and information is an extremely important part of "everything." Which makes the media far more important to our general freedom than even, say, everyone being armed to the teeth. (Don't tell the gun nuts.)

But, lo, we're a forgetful people, here in America. And as media-bashing turns into the answer for every political problem, we'll forget exactly why we instituted the freedom in the first place. (And holding a newspaper doesn't make up for your other shortcomings like holding a gun does. So we're missing that.)

Will people come around?

...

...

No chance.

Is the best hope for the future of the national media is a system similiar to England's, where certain papers have a well-known bend (and, unlike here, actually are of that bend, rather than being called something they're not)?

Maybe... and as America gets dumber (and hoo boy, it's coming) we can expect the national media to do a much better job covering celebrity births, rather than, say, figuring out how much authority the executive branch has stolen from the legislative branch over the past few years.

And as people decide they don't care, well, someone will step into the void. From the right or the left, someone is going to try to grab that brass ring left bare by public apathy, media incompetence and political expediency.

We, as a country, might not be up for a real free press anymore, but I'm sad to say that I think we're perfectly ready for a strongman in power.

Perhaps we already have one. But I won't hold my breath to find out, one way or the other.

What this country really needs is an amendment against flag burning.

Hardly a day goes by when I'm driving to work and don't I see someone -- typically a wild-eyed hippie who hasn't showered -- setting fire to Old Glory. While I'm no Rick Monday, I'm typically concerned enough to stop, make a citizen's arrest, and then have to explain to my boss that yes, yet again, I had to uphold the foundations of our fine Republic.

Although, the LIBERAL media prattles on about the first amendment and says there aren't "that many" flags being burned, I know for a fact that those dirty Boy Scouts burn flags all the damn time. I used to think they were fine, upstanding young men, but I now realize that the homosexuals have tarnished this once-great organization.

So, we're talking thousands of flags burned every week. This is a serious problem. When we have wars on, the troops must know they're supported 100% by every single American, or else bad things happen. And while killing Iraqis isn't the worst thing (as we all know, brown people only count as maybe 1/10th of a white one), if there was more support from home, bad things wouldn't ever happen.

Which is why this amendment is so important.

To those who disagree: You hate America, and I hope you and your children are run over by 18-wheel trucks.

This post was guest authored by Ann Coulter

Americans vote like children.

We are told that it's magically possible to have super-low taxes, yet have moderately tuned social programs, the most expensive army in history, a few wars at a time, secure prisons and plenty of sharp looking roads, bridges, tunnels.

This, obviously, is ridiculous. Even an 8-year-old could tell you that stuff isn't free. Businessmen know full well that it takes money to make money. And smart families know how to budget realistically.

But when it comes to voting, Americans have to be reassured constantly that their taxes will be continually lowered -- but that all the services they've come to rely on will continue unabated.

Take the nonsensical blaring coming in my own home state of New York. On one side, we have Eliot Spitzer discussing his plans to slash billions of dollars in property taxes. On the other side, we have John Faso discussing HIS plans to slash billions of dollars in property taxes.

All of this would be fantastic if New York was running deep into the black, with projections to stay there. But, in fact, the state's running in the red -- with projections to go even deeper into debt. So why are these supposedly smart people loudly declaring how much they're going to cut taxes?

Because Americans vote like children who think mom and dad (Government) has an endless wallet, and it's only their cruelty and stinginess that keeps taxes from being charged at all.

The real problem is New York is Medicaid expenses. Pretty much everyone knows it. But it's difficult to toss Grandma into the street. Mostly because, hey, she's grandma, but also because old people vote, and any candidate foolish enough to shaft the poor knows he or she (OK, he) is going to get creamed at the polls.

And yeah, maybe someone out there is actually trying to look out for the elderly because they think it's the right thing to do. But I don't buy it, and neither should you. If young people voted in massive numbers, there would be free tattoos and piercings for all. It's as simple as that.

On a national level, of course, the big bear of spending is the military, with social security checking in just behind. Nobody in their right might would suggest cutting the military, because then you obviously wouldn't support the troops! Republicans today believe in constant war (on your scorecard, mark this as Cold War -> War on Terra) and the weak spineless Democrats who won WWII and started Korea and Vietnam, obviously would be publically vilified if they tried to cut even a buck off the military fiefdom. They're anti-troop, anti-freedom, etc etc etc.

We're left, back in reality, with mostly uncuttable budget items. So, to support them, you need to have taxes at a level that can break the country even. Or, as we're more wont to do, borrow money like a thief hitting a stolen ATM card at every bank in town.

Everyone borrows money once in a while, but we've raised it to an art form. And it's no surprise, as the government quietly raised the debt limit recently that many Americans are drowning in their own debt. Because nobody wants to take the damn responsibility to break even anymore, I guess.

Why did the debt limit get raised? It was for tax cuts ... of course.

I'm not the doom-and-gloom naysayer who looks at the American economy and says it's built on a house of cards of debt and could come crashing down. But it simply isn't healthy for politicians -- ALL pols, mind you, from far right to far left -- to act like first-time credit-card holders on a binge. Firstly, all we end up doing is paying interest on our debt. (We'll be paying for Iraq/Afghanistan 20 years from now, easy). And secondly, what sort of message does this send? Our leaders can spend as much as they want with no consequences, so it's no wonder the millions of Americans who can't pay the bills can't budget either.

It all comes back to the fact that we can't vote for realistic candidates. We have to weigh the impossible promises and -- like children -- pick whomever can give us, personally, the most satisfaction.

And it leads to a federal budget that would bankrupt any other country in the world. We have a President who spends wildly on a pair of costly wars but finds time to cut taxes for people who can, frankly, totally afford to pay in. And we have governments who compulsive try to cut taxes while hiding them under the rug in the form of fees. Fees on everything.

So what's the answer? Either we slash services, or we raise taxes. It's one or the other. But I'm not holding my breath to wait for the candidate who's really going to do either. Because raising taxes is a way to lose an election, and so is promising cutbacks. And because reason and sense are good ways to govern -- but not so well to get yourself re-elected.

Yes, it's a big story. The gay marriage ban failed to get going in the Senate today.

It only took three whole days of discussion.

Think of it. Three whole days. Luckily, we don't have anything else going on in the world that more worthwhile.

No worries about a war based on lies. (Or the very bad things some soldiers have been doing in our country's name in said war.)

Or untracable electronic balloting that could easily be tampered with.

No need to consider what happens when the oil runs out. Or what to do if the polar ice caps keep breaking up for some totally unexplainable reason.

Rebuilding New Orleans or southern Mississippi or worrying about the upcoming hurricane season? Nah. And don't think for a minute we should discuss plans should we find a space object that may be coming our way.

The federal debt? Forgotten.

Hell, why not other red meat that the great ignorants love? No discussion of the War on Adjectives?

No, our body politic had to sit around and try to make sure that the great unwashed masses were kept in line by being told who they can't spend their lives with.

If you think marriage is just a word, forget it. The hoops you have to jump through to be declared "domestic partners" (top of the list, of course, living in state where it's possible to get benefits through a domestic partnership) are manyfold.

Whereas, through marriage, if you have a deputized Elvis in Las Vegas or a Justice of the Peace downtown, you can ride off your spouse's benefits forever. It takes about 10 minutes.

Voting conservatives see it as a "moral" issue. Because it explicitly says right in the Bible that gay people cannot get married. (I don't know exactly where, I'm sorry to admit. I'll look it up later.) And voting rich people are OK with fewer people being able to take advantage of costly benefits.

And, of course, marriages like, say, Britney Spears and that hick she married for 10 minutes a few years ago, are totally valid and worthwhile.

It's all so pathetic, how much people who are crazier than shithouse rats have hijacked our entire country ... the entire political system, even. The Senate actually had to waste time discussing a ban on gay marriage? Can anyone in their right mind explain this to me? Are there not a million things more worthwhile to worry about? A million things more pressing? A million things more important?

I can only hope that someday, we'll look back at these continued travesties in wasting the nation's time on trying to ban gay marriage in the same way we talk about Jim Crow, sundown towns and the Klu Klux Klan.

It's every bit as bad. And someday, hopefully, every bit as shameful and embarassing.

"Democracy dies behind closed doors."

RFK Jr. worked on an article for the latest issue of Rolling Stone about all of the voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election. I don't buy into all of it 100%, but it's a nice read:

Here it is. (Warning, it's long)

And while the article features that spiffy quote that starts this post (frankly, a quote good enough to take home to mom and dad, maybe settle down with and start thinking about a future...) it's more what follows the quote that kills me.

Rolling Stone has an open blog, and -- of course -- the vitriol spews wildly. Especially when someone has the audacity to criticize George W. Bush.

I'll never understand why Republicans fall in love with such odd characters. But that's fine, I guess. We're all allowed to root for whomever we feel like. I choose the adorable and totally awesome David Ortiz; some foolish types prefer the non-clutch and totally sucktastic Alex Rodriguez.

But, it's the invective and insanity that this love has spawned. You say, "Ah, it's all politics" but ...

As if it means anything anyways, as College students get the full indoctrination nowadays.

How about the fact that people who earn over 50K per year tend to vote for Pubs over Dems?

You know those people - the ones who actually go out in the real world and do something with their lives, and pay a majority of the taxes that the left leaches off of, instead of some lib arts major working at Micky D’s.

***

If you think that not going to some marxist run college means being uneducated, than you’re even stupider than you claim Bush to be.

No, I’m smart enough not to get into debt paying back college loans to have some idealogue lefty spewing his marxist bullshit at me, and to get my education in the real world, where it will be useful, and where I succeeded, unlike these liberal arts majors slinging burgers at Mick D’s, and thier elitist thinking of thinking that they are so much smarter than those stupid Republicans like Bush.

Now, we all know that the media, of course, are anti-GOP. And judges... nay, the entire judicial system, is made up of Bible-burning liberals who want to force homosexuals to marry and then to take away our guns. But I guess I wasn't fully aware that the fifth column had taken over all of higher education.

I mean, seriously, this is the sort of unbelievable nonsense that people swallow as practical thought in this country because they can be reassured of its truth by other people every bit as nutty as they are online.

Believe me, it's not like the rabid left online is any better, either. But my, my. How convenient to teach that only those who agree with you should be trusted for information!

It's literally an illness on the internet, but it's growing offline, too. If Hillary Clinton hired a CNN anchor to be her press secretary tomorrow -- the Internet very well might explode due to too much rage. There would be boycott efforts, there would be violent attacks from all sides. But it would say -- to everyone -- that CNN was in her (and by extension, her party's) pocket. It would be dubbed propaganda, for totally good and fair reason.

Bush? Fox News Anchor? No, that's the REAL story.

Real, because it tells them what they want to hear. Real, because it doesn't ask the hard questions. Real, because they're so sheltered by what they think they know, they don't need to learn anything.

But in reality? That guy, ranting and raving at Rolling Stone, isn't going to send his kids to college. He's going to teach them the same scary and untrue things he's learned. And we'll have another couple of kids to use as cogs in the machine at the local Target or Wal-Mart.

And in reality, we're going to have a negative blight on society. Nothing about a college degree makes you smarter or a harder worker. But the price of top employment, in this day and age, IS a college degree.

The blue-collar, untrained, work-a-day world, where you could get a factory job and afford a family, house and car, has been killed off by those who wanted a bigger piece of the pie by sending the jobs elsewhere. Our economy simply isn't powered by manufacturing jobs anymore.

You tell enough people that going to college -- excuse me, Marxist indoctrination camp -- isn't worthwhile, many will pass. And then what? High school diplomas just don't pack a punch anymore. Student loans DO suck, I agree -- but I work at a job in my field with plenty of advancement opportunities. And you know what? Getting my experience in the real world doesn't interest me that much.

Want to know why? It's because I worked a bunch of crappy jobs through high school and college. Fact is, I learned pretty quickly that I didn't want to do them for the rest of my life. Fact is, I worked my ass off to pay for college. Fact is, none of my professors were Marxists (so far as I know, anyway.)

But, there are facts, and then there are facts, I guess. The truth, after all, is rarely fair and almost never balanced.