Paralysis of the Mind

That is what Comair President Don Bornhorst said on Sunday afternoon during a live press conference that was picked up by CNN and MSNBC. I assume it was on Fox, too, but I generally prefer my propaganda with cream and sugar.

So, what do you think MSNBC (who I, surprisingly, stuck it out with) did mere seconds after pulling it back to the studio?

If your answer was, "Speculated wildly," you can have a cookie.

My blatantly cruel and cynical side thinks Bornhorst was thinking about the poor families of the victims -- somewhere buried below lawsuit worries and the fact that his airline's future isn't so rosy post-crash when he asked for no speculation.

Better angels or not, the simple fact is that when it comes to breaking news or big stories, TV news can speculate up like nobody's business. It gets to the point where, finally, you have no choice other than to vomit the propaganda back up -- cream and all.

Which brings me to my favorite knock-knock joke of the day.

Knock, knock
Who's there?
John Mark Karr.
John Mark Karr who?
I don't know -- but he didn't kill Jon Benet Ramsey!

It slays me every time. Cynically hy-larious humor aside, it turns out the media was jumping the gun just a hair on this story. If you can imagine.

Caught a look at People magazine tonight when I was buying some dinner. The front cover posed the question, "Did he kill Jon Benet Ramsey?" I didn't read further, but I didn't have to. How they put out a magazine with a story that's one word long -- "no" -- is beyond me.

But I guess that's the business these days. And if I can indulge in my own speculation for a moment: It's only a matter of time before an esteemed pundit suggests that Karr's innoncence benefits Bush's popularity.

But as I remember, 'bout this time last year, there was something the press didn't speculate much on at all.

Remember it?

I'll give you a hint...



Yes, the Katrina coverage was (this is terrible, but here we go) a high-water mark for the media. Remember that? When they stopped believing the official story because they could clearly see how it was a pack of lies? When they got off their lazy asses and actually reported -- took their questions to the people instead of cheerfully jotting down what the official sources were saying?

If only it had lasted beyond the shocking images that forced them to take notice. If I didn't have friends and family living in Florida, I might root for Ernesto to take a big enough chunk of land to make people sit up and notice. Because, apparently, John Mark Karr is news, but suffering is speculative, only.

Bornhorst is right: this isn't a time for speculation. This is a time where hard questions need to be asked -- and feet held to the fire until we get answers. And a great one is: Why IS the Ninth Ward worse off than other parts of New Orleans? Where's the money? How long are people going to be living in those horrible FEMA trailers?

Feel free to speculate.

Why is conservatism taken more seriously than liberalism?

It can't be because liberal ideas were on the wrong side of history. I'd completely understand our culture being able to look down its nose at them if that were the case. But the truth? The antiwar left was entirely correct about Vietnam. It was a disaster, and not only did we "lose" a (probably) unwinnable war, it severely damaged our military's morale for a generation, and helped fracture the country.

The left was on the right side of history on civil rights. We were certainly right on in Iraq.

In short, the track record is hardly one that we should scoff at. Even the more out-there things that are seemingly unpopular, we're right about. No, not every stoner has given it thought, but prison overcrowding is a problem. And what puts all those people in jail? Yeah, that's right -- drug laws. Legalization may not be the absolute answer -- but it's a hell of a lot better than the "let's throw 'em all in jail" standard in play now.

It could hardly be the people who are involved. Why anyone would take Dick Cheney seriously is beyond me. The bluster of Rush Limbaugh? The intellectual dishonesty of Sean Hannity? Even widely respected conservatives have made a mess of their good names recently. Somehow, I don't think Colin Powell is going to be taken seriously in the future. Turns out John McCain wants to be President wayyy more than he cares about the truth or being consistent. And, uh, the geniuses at Enron ... you can insert your easy joke here. (Because defrauding pension/stock holders is hy-larious!)

Yet here we are. The media sure knows what the score is. This is from a Washington Post chat with reporter Jonathan Weisman:

West Coast: Dick Cheney said he was stuck with the grave decision of whether to shoot down the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania or not. The recently released NORAD tapes confirm that the government first knew of the flight one minute before it went down. Is Cheney lying, again, or was he thinking very fast that day, with his drama unfolding within 60 seconds? I've yet to read anywhere that Cheney has been queried about his story. THANKS.

Jonathan Weisman: If I can get him on the phone, I will query him. Cheney's statements present a quandary for us reporters. Sometimes we write them up and are accused of being White House stenographers and stooges for repeating them. Then if we don't write them up, we are accused of being complicit for covering them up. So, all you folks on the left, what'll it be? Complicity or stenography?

I know, I know, how dare we ask you to analyze something. But he was hardly done bashing the left:

Washington, D.C.: ... You report what Cheney said and what Norad said, and then people decide what they believe. Some folks will only be happy if Cheney or Bush falls down during a press conference and wails, "I'm awful! Hate me!"

Jonathan Weisman: Amen, brother (or sister). Folks seem to think that Daily Kos does all its own reporting.
____

Jonathan Weisman: Please, don't try to tell me Cheney was not called on his comments that the insurgency was in its last throes, that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators and that Saddam was reconstituting nuclear weapons. Sometimes, you folks really drive us nuts.
____

Jonathan Weisman: Ahh, the media's fault again. Do you really think people who felt positively about the president's response to 9-11 and the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan were duped by the media? That is giving us a whole lot of power that you otherwise like to deny us.

And my absolute favorite:

Complicity or stenography: Oh Please. Care to explain how catching the VP in a fairly obvious lie and calling him on it means either.

Okay, since this seems beyond you, I'll explain your job.

1. Typing up the tale of the VP's "harrowing choice" without having verified the timeline (what did happen already) = "Stenography".

2. Deciding not to call the VP on it, once outsiders have spoon fed you the timeline = "Complicity".

3. Contacting the VP, having carefully researched the timeline and questioning how his story applied when he had, according to his own later statementments and those of other Admin officials less than 60 seconds notice = "Good Reporting".

You see, it's that funny research and intelligent questions based on said research that makes up "Reporting". Retyping statements without research is "Stenography". Avoiding asking tough questions because it makes your original stenography look really, really bad is "Complicity".

Glad I could help.

Jonathan Weisman: Please apply for my job.

I'll overlook Weisman's almost child-like insecurity. But what he says is telling. How dare these unserious liberals criticize the Post?!

Yet, liberals beg for coverage that takes a closer look. Even in the last quoted material, the questioner was making the point -- again -- that just reporting what someone says is NOT journalism. And Weisman whines about the difficulty involved. But the questioner was hardly being over the top or cruel.

The same cannot be said of conservative pundits. No questioner suggested Weisman should be targeted for death, as many right-wing blogs have suggested for other journalists. Nobody suggested Weisman should be bombed, as Ann Coulter famously said about the New York Times building.

But, of course, liberals are nutty -- and so darn pesky! And it's hardly just the news media that think so. One only need watch a single episode of South Park to know that a) hippies are stupid b) all liberals care about is the environment c) anyone who wants to make a difference in the world is either stupidly smug (Prius owners) a looney tune (Al Gore) or gay (because homophobia is hy-sterical!)

Why is wanting to change the world looked down upon? Do we really have such a perfect Earth that change is unnecessary? I don't think anyone feels that way.

In fact, things have changed on our little rock very little. Great -- we can drop a bomb down a chimney with GPS precision to take out one person instead of killing everyone on the block. But we're still killing over stupid nonsense (for instance, in the name of every religion that explicitly says "Don't kill?")

And hey, great, we can make it across the oceans in hours instead of weeks. But instead of carrying the flags of great kingdoms and nation-states ... the world sees the rise of corporate branding that spans the globe. Yes, Virginia, you can get a Big Mac in Bora Bora. I guess that's progress -- if you're a McDonald's executive.

And yes, that's definitely a part of it. In America we're on top, and when you're on top, your first urge is to stay there as long as possible. Our foreign policy is based on it. Our multinational corporations fight for it. And somehow, that filters into a national outlook that squelches new ideas -- even if those ideas help keep the masses locked into a stressful, unfair system. Idealism is dead, and logic isn't doing so hot, either.

Well, I'll tell you: I'm tired of being right. How I, an uninformed college student in 2003, knew that Iraq would be a complete disaster while millions of people convinced themselves that Iraqis would meet us halfway with flowers and chocolate ... it's hard to believe.

But then again, it isn't. I was just a dumb hippie idealist. And history keeps proving that we're not as dumb as we look.

So.

Um.

You see ...

If you're wondering why this post is beating around the proverbial bush, it's mainly because something happened this week that violates one of the completely inviolate. Mainly, that conventional wisdom can't possibly be wrong.

Well.

See, the thing of it is...

OK, OK, so yeah -- looks like JonBenet Ramsey's parents did not, in fact, technically kill her. And, at least from the early news reports, it looks like they had absolutely nothing to do with her death. So, we'll just wait a few minutes to get some apologies. I'm sure the major media will want to offer their sympathies. Oh, yeah, and the comedians. Hey, didn't South Park do an episode about how her parents didn't tell the truth? I'm sure some apologies are coming, right after these important messages.

Really? They're not? Are you... OK, you're sure.

Or maybe an apology from Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado, for telling JonBenét's parents in 1999 to "quit hiding behind their attorneys, quit hiding behind their PR firm."

No? Maybe the media should ask him... no? OK, no. I getcha.

The media, of course, has a very serious rule about these things. Yes, it is OK to run corrections and occasionally admit that mistakes are made. But when it comes to conventional wisdom, the media is NEVER EVER WRONG.

And eight years ago, the media -- and Governor Owens -- decided that the Ramseys were guilty. And that was that. Case closed, as Nancy Grace might spew. Of course, the inconvenient truth of the matter is slightly different. Again, relying on the media, it really looks like police have found a real insight into the case, and the suspect's statements look -- to say the least -- very ominous for his future plans, unless they involve incarceration.

The media's ALL over this one. Never mind a shaky Lebanese cease-fire, a few wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama at large, an imbalanced President, the specter of terrorism, instability in Mexico, global warming, THE HORRIFYING IMMIGRANT MENACE (courtesy of Lou Dobbs), North Korea, China's emergence as a world power, the No Child Left Behind act that's crippling our education system and, of course, the all-important celebrity news ... JonBenet's suspected murder definitely leads the day. I mean, obviously.

And for what, exactly? We've already convicted her parents, so... this is just sort of an unwanted coda to the real story, is it not? And if this fella is just mentally unstable and, in fact, not technically guilty of anything ... what then?

The answer, of course, is to ignore the facts and stick with what the media know: Conventional wisdom. Get it? And the conventional wisdom is this: Whomever the police suspect is guilty at the time they're suspected. So at the moment? It's Karr. And if he's not it? It'll be the parents. Are they going to apologize?

Uh huh.

And, while members of the media can make comparisons between Ned Lamont and al-Qaeda, do you think Gov. Owens -- a possible candidate for higher office come 2008 -- will ever be asked about his ridiculous remarks?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

Because, remember, Republicans are tough on crime and terror. And that's the lead story, no matter what reality might say.

Nice work, guys. And I really mean that.

It's official: Holy Joe Lieberman won't be the Democratic nominee for Senate from the Nutmeg State.

Already, those not in the know (aka the media, the pundits and, by extension, the non-news-following public) are saying this is a terrible defeat for centrism. Candy Crowley of CNN referred to this as "Honey, I shrunk the middle," which sets records for silliness and ignorance.

Let's look at the facts.

Fact: Joe Lieberman has absolutely no party loyalty

Within minutes of conceding, Joe was on stage saying he'd fight on as an independent. Now, if you know me, I agree with the wacko notion that there are more than two schools of thought on given issues, and there ought to be more parties to represent those people.

But if you're going to be an independent candidate ... BE an independent candidate. Don't put yourself on the shingle and then, when you can't win, fall back to Plan B. That's hardly an independent thought. Lieberman apparently seems to think he's bigger than the party that's suckled him ... a party that placed him within a few corrupt judges of being the second most powerful person on Earth. Since his independent bid was hardly an open secret, Lieberman showed a long time ago that he had no loyalty to the Democratic party. Why would any self-professed Democrat vote for someone who wasn't going to be a member of their party?

Fact: Joe Lieberman is not a centrist at all

This point keeps being made, and for the life of me, I can't understand why. Just because Lieberman hands his votes to the Republicans on important issues (his vote for the hideous bankruptcy bill is revolting, and he voted for cloture on Alito) hardly means he was playing the center, and winning compromises.

Tell me, what have the Republicans given back to Lieberman since he's handed them key votes? We went to Afghanistan. We're in Iraq. The bankruptcy bill passed. Gitmo's still open. The Patriot Act passed. The bankruptcy bill passed. Illegal wiretapping is ignored. Bush ignores legislation through his signing statements. Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the cabal have erected the strongest Executive branch in the history of the country.

I hate to make the analogy to a woman who keeps coming back to the boyfriend who beats her, but eventually, you have say, "OK, enough. I'm not doing this anymore." Lieberman plays the white hat as the Republicans wreck everything they can get their hands on. That's not centrism; that's closing your eyes to the reality of the situation.

Fact: Joe Lieberman breaks with his constituents on the most important issue of the day.

What is a bigger issue than Iraq? The only reason the war retains the amount of popularity is continues to have (and it ain't much) is because a) Americans are trained seals when it comes to supporting the troops b) the media has overtly tried to ignore the war -- Anderson Cooper continually calls Iraq "the other war" on his show (which is obscene) and c) one person in three would support George W. Bush even if he turned around and nuked Kentucky.

Iraq is the centerpiece of everything that has gone wrong in America over the past 35 years. Most of America remembered Vietnam and thought, "Not again." And yet, here we are -- hut to, about face, rapidly reconstructing the worst foreign policy blunder in real time. That the President and his cabal lied about the reasoning for the war in the first place -- at least to me -- is the whipped cream on top of the stupid sundae. It was a bad idea, even IF Saddam magically concocted those weapons he didn't have.

But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from being behind the plan from the beginning. And it hasn't stopped his criticism from being muted -- at best. It hasn't stopped him from being a leading Democratic voice on Fox News. It hasn't stopped him from publically appealing in print for us to "stay the course." And it hasn't stopped him from acting like he was forced to mute his words because his state might not support him in criticizing the president. Conn is as blue as they come. It isn't a red state. And forgetting what your constituents vote for is a sure way to lose elections...

You take all this and you can only draw one conclusion: Lieberman deserved to lose. Sugarcoat the political reality all you'd like, but the right-wing is playing for keeps, and any Republican who reaches across the aisle is likely to lose his seat for trying to be a "centrist" (Note how the media has mostly not covered the fact that a "Liberal Republican" is losing his seat while a "Centrist Democrat" is being "purged" for his beliefs. We'll see how that plays out.)

I made the victim analogy earlier, and I'll make it again: Going back into the same situation with the same tactics and continually being hurt is dumb. Either you change tactics (like, for instance, fighting back a little bit) or you run away -- and while a two-party system isn't great, we've seen the beginnings of one-party rule over the past six years.

I don't need to say more.

In short, this result puts the Democrats on notice. It isn't enough to be Vichy Republicans anymore, guys and gals. There's a chance that the center-left can take control of at least half of Congress this election cycle. And this time, you need to do something with it -- the natives are far, far beyond restless.

Democrats can't undo even half the damage Bush has done at home and abroad within the next few years -- even with a stunning Congressional victory in November. But putting a Band-Aid on the pus-spewing boil that is the Bush Presidency is at least a start. I'm not expecting impeachment proceedings. But my oh my, how about a Congress that doesn't roll over and play dead?

Perhaps I'll ask Senator Lamont what he feels about it in January.