I listen to too much NPR and read too much, it's true. And much of it tends to come from sources that lean in the same direction I do. I'm certain that my view of things might be mellowed ever so slightly if I could find a source of information that was neutral. I don't know what that source is, but in my imaginary perfect world, that is where I would get my news. NPR comes very close, but you can't have that many people 'doing it for the love of it' when they could make more elsewhere, and not have their views skewed towards the little guy.
That said, I was listening to a program on my local NPR (the show is syndicated - it's called On Point) that featured a conversation about our government's warrantless wiretapping. I came in late to the show and only caught the end of the host talking to Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Jim Leach (R-IA) though what little I heard was somewhat comforting. If nothing else they weren't acting as the president's press secretary. That could not be said for one of the next two guests.
The next pairing was of a constitutional law scholar (lawyer) and a 'conservative' columnist. Why this was seen as a match of equals I have no idea, but it certainly turned out exactly as I should have expected. Nonetheless I found myself screaming (I was in the car on the way to b-ball) at the columnist, whose responses to questions were almost entirely devoid of reality.
Right off the bat she begins with things like, "there is no question that what the administration is doing is legal," completely ignoring the fact that LOTS of people seem to think that it is. And not just batshit crazy Democrats either. Later she stated that the 4th Amendment has no language about 'probable cause' and that the FISA statute enacted in 1978 added that. Well, that's completely and totally wrong, and the same statement was made by a guy named General Hayden yesterday, the guy who ran the NSA since the wiretapping was authorized. I could have called this woman on all the bullshit she was spewing, but here she was, a so-called 'conservative' acting essentially as a propoganda arm for the Bush administration. Who knows, maybe they're paying her to do that. I mean, maybe we're paying her to do that, like all the other 'columnists' that have been ratted out in the last couple years. But I digress.
There was a time when to be a conservative appeared to mean that you were for things. Fiscal responsibility, state's rights, limited government, individual rights, and on and on and on. Under the umbrella of these things were specifc things that I think are horribly misguided, but all in all, I don't necessarily disagree with any of those basic tenets. I could probably even vote for someone who stood for these things.
But who are those people? What I have witnessed over the last 5 years is a party that stands for none of those things. They seem entirely willing to throw all of that away as part of swearing fealty to the idea of power. Power for themselves, selfishly, and power for our would-be king. Looking back at the origins of our country it seems abundantly clear that the debates our founding fathers had with one another boiled down to those that wanted to wrest power from the king, and those that liked having him there to protect him. There were no Democratic or Republican parties at the time, and I'm not sure exactly what a Whig stood for. But there it was, all the way back at the beginning. Those willing to sacrifice for the chance at a greater good, and those wanting to run to mommy.
Everything that Republicans claim they stand for is crap. They are a hollow shell, held together by a hope of what they wish to be, and propelled by a rabid bunch who wish to pass judgement on us all. They hate everyone who doesn't believe what they believe, believe they are the only ones that know the right answer, and hope to enforce their narrow world view on everyone in an effort to return this country to a Leave it To Beaver utopia. They cannot debate, because they do not think. They will not suffer dissent, for it shows them as they truly are.
Where are the Republicans willing to truly stand up and call the president on his criminal activity? Where are those that would fight for what they claim to believe in? Will they be killed if they speak strongly? Will they be taken to the woodshed? It's time for a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment among the Republicans. They run the entire show. Democrats can bluster all they want, but they have no real power, and everything they say gets characterized as partisan by the news media. We need someone from the party of Lincoln. A man willing to make extraordinarily tough decisions, and risk everything for a greater good.
Lincoln's foetus is not up to the job.
4 comments:
Right on. In the topic of "neutral journalism" is another really interesting and pretty disturbing trend in the media. It's this crazy phenomenon where, in some misguided effort to be "neutral," the media offers pundits from two increasingly far extremes of the political spectrum. It's a lot easier than facilitating though-provoking discussion on their own, it's a lot cheaper than doing high-quality reporting, and it presumably keeps "media watchdog" groups from both sides off their case just a bit. But, of course, it's the old "one half of the thermometer is in ice water and the other half is in boiling water and the temperature reads as neutral" deal. This isn't presenting a lot of useful information for the public to digest. It's not adding anything to the dialogue. It's not a dialogue at all-just two bickering sides that can't meet in the middle.
In the program I listened to, one person was a reasonable expert, and the other was a partisan hack. That doesn't even get you to neutral except for the fact that all her arguments were easily refuted and this was a NPR audience.
Sheesh.
That's the other side of this equation. Partisan as many Democrats can be, in 2006, a large portion of their platform is based upon reality and compassion. There's no NEED to lie. On the other side, it's almost a necessity for you to completely divorce yourself from both of the above concepts in order to remain in the good graces of the Republican Party establishment.
The nut Democrats can't crack: For years, they keep on blindly plugging ahead, assuming that if they have truth on their side, the voting public can't help but to open their eyes. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and what the public really wants is to vote on whatever epithet most rings their bell in any given election.
The truth is marching on!
Where it ends up, nobody knows.
I get a kick out of the return of strong socialist movements in South America. Don't know enough to know whether this is good for the people of Argentina and Bolivia, but I do love that they are a sharp stick in the eye of Republicans.
Post a Comment