Okay, so you’re George W. Bush, sitting in the oval office, with your feet up on the coffee table, channel surfing because what little attention span you had at the start of the day, went wandering off into the rose garden about the time you were getting briefed on the dire implications for the double-jointed jack springer if we don’t reduce methane emissions from landfills. Needless to say, you put your most capable unpaid intern (worth every penny) on it, and moved on to the plight of the percussive moat dweller of the Dominican Republic. Well, now here it is, 8:30 at night, and you’ve got 10 minutes to kick back before the second half of your day starts. All of a sudden, while flipping between re-runs of Gilligan’s Island and some new reality dating show where the secret the guy has been keeping from his suitors is that he was trapped in an avalanche and ate his companions, there it is. There are three men in suits, engaged in debates, where under the pretense of answering a question, they begin to dig into to you and your policies. They question your honesty, your integrity, your military service, and probably would go on to your ancestry if the moderator nudged that door open even a little.
Well, you’re a big guy, you can take it. Besides, you’ll be able to return the favor, once they narrow the field down to one, right..? WRONG! After having been eviscerated on national television, by these men, who reduced the nomination process to a simple piñata contest to see who can beat on you hardest for the longest, when you actually take a moment to point out some awfully inconsistent aspects of his voting record, the presumptive nominee cries foul and with a straight face, turns to anyone who will listen and accuses you of going negative in the campaign. Okay, you had to know that was coming, but surely a fair and impartial media will point out the fact that your presumptive opponent just spent the last six weeks bashing you like a walnut that just won’t open. Hmm. Was that a pin drop? I wasn’t sure, I couldn’t hear over the crickets.
The fact of the matter is, I do not blame the presumptive nominee for trying this. It’s reprehensible, but certainly no less than I’d expect from any seasoned politician. My issue is the way every single media outlet I have come in contact with has chosen to ignore that this was not a sucker punch. The democrats had been wailing on him like a prison snitch at a blanket party, and when he finally wrestles free and throws a few punches in return, his opponent goes to the guards, says "he hit me," and they haul him off to solitary. Am I missing something here?
I imagine right now, you might be asking yourself, "How come he doesn’t just speak up?" It’s a fair question. I pondered it myself before I came to the conclusion it was a no-win situation. When the majority of the people who hold sway with public opinion are going to attack you no matter what you say, better to let it go than utter something as un-Presidential as "He started it," or "you’re all ganging up on me." I can hear the media now… "Apparently, the W. stands for whiner."
I know… I know… Some of you out there are criticizing me right now for blaming the media. Okay, I own up to it. It reeks of paranoia. I have cringed when I have heard other people resort to it. Why is that? Could it be because the media portrays them as crackpots? Admittedly, it’s a circular argument, akin to the old "How do you know she’s a virgin?" "She told me." "What if she lied?" "Stupid, virgins don’t lie." I probably wouldn’t even bring it up, if I didn’t have the king of liberal media backing me up. Not too long ago, I saw Andy Rooney doing an interview where he came right out and said that most of the news outlets today, if they don’t have a liberal agenda, they at least have a liberal slant. However, he went on to defend it as not a bad thing. "You ever notice how when you open up your mouth and the truth comes out, you instantly feel obliged to spin it… Like we don’t know it was a simple case of the seven-second delay between your mind and your mouth malfunctioning. Let’s just call it what it is… a bad case of the oops."
So we got a peek behind the curtain and saw the old man pulling levers to create the illusion of the all-knowing wizard. Unfortunately, we have a much bigger problem… Complacency. As much as many of us might have enjoyed watching a movie like "the Matrix," our pattern of behavior indicates we would have taken the blue pill. Having your reality exposed as nothing more than a set of pre-digested images and thoughts is quite frankly, a little more than most people are prepared to accept. When faced with the stark blinding light of truth, a little wool over the eyes can feel pretty good. As long as no one tells you the steak you’re eating doesn’t really exist… like Cipher said, "Ignorance is bliss."
Unfortunately, I can’t say with certainty that it isn’t that same ignorance that drives reporters to make the decisions they do without any actual malice. Granted it’s a little hard to believe when you see them not only provide a place for a liberal spin doctor to speak, but then put down a soap box for them to stand on. I was listening to a radio news magazine that I normally have a lot of respect for when I felt the rabbit hole opening up under my feet, threatening to pull me down into Wonderland. Here I was, listening to this defense of comments made into an open microphone, which the presumptive nominee didn’t know was open, that did not answer the softball question that had been asked. Instead, I had to listen to why the slanderous comments the candidate made were not really the issue, but that anything the Democrats did was justified because they don’t have the access to the money, the back-channels and the "echo chambers" that the Republicans do… not that the Democrats did anything, mind you. And to make matters worse, the reporter didn’t even call them on how evasive and disingenuous the answer was.
It might even be laughable if it wasn’t all so familiar. Let me regale you with this little bit of history. It was November of 2000, when a national election came down to one state with real close margin and an antiquated voting system. When the results became official, the man who currently occupies the White House was declared the winner. At this point, the then Vice-President got a team of lawyers together and sued for a "partial re-count," all the time saying he wanted "every ballot to count." Once these machinations were under way, the declared winner went to court to block the suit, only to have the person who dragged the case before the judge in the first place accuse him of running to court to steal the election. Now let me see if I got this straight… Somebody wins an election… with me so far..? his opponent files a lawsuit to have the districts where he stands the best chance of gaining votes, and only those districts recounted, under the pretense of having every vote count… see where I’m going with this..? the declared winner appears to challenge this selective recount and is accused of trying to steal the election… I’m definitely missing something here… and to top it all off, every news source reports it exactly that way… try not to break the looking glass as you wander through that little tale.
For the purposes of full disclosure, let me offer my take on the Florida elections. I personally think the butterfly ballot is the single greatest thing that ever happened to the democratic process. Not because the candidate I wanted won, but for the reason I will now give you. Throughout the history of this Democratic Republic, we have permitted, nay, even encouraged, the ill informed, the disinterested, and the downright sheep of America to get out and vote. The butterfly ballot is the closest thing we have ever had to an intelligence test at the polling place. If you are not motivated or mentally adept enough to either figure it out, or locate someone who can… your vote shouldn’t count. Let me explain it this way, we’ve all been in the situation where there’s some ballot initiative or other that is so convoluted we’re not really sure what a yes or no vote will do. Why in the world would you check a box when doing so could directly lead to exactly the opposite of what you want to happen taking place? It’s exactly the same when voting for a candidate. If you don’t understand the full implications of voting for one party over another, you could end up closing down the factory you work for, or taxing away the money you were saving for your child’s education. When the penalties are so much more severe than the ones for the S.A.T.; don’t guess! When they tell you it’s you civic duty… that’s peer pressure… the same thing that got you drunk the night before a big test and kept you from getting into the college of your choice. Stop listening to the prom king who’s only interested in helping his class rank by taking down yours. He’s not your friend, he just plays one in school.
The point I’m trying to make is that bias is not always the lies they’re telling; it’s also the truth they’re concealing. By picking up the story after the person you favor has committed some act of villainy, you get an entirely different view, as divorced from reality as Tom Arnold is from Roseanne Barr. Once the victim is painted as the initiator, any effort to go back and get at the truth will be dismissed as "damage control," and leave them on the defensive until they give up trying to justify their actions. With this in mind, I recall a little tidbit I picked up a few years back. I’ve heard it said that the best way to discredit someone is to accuse them of exactly what you’re doing. If you get it out there first, the victim can only give a weak reply of, "No, you are," which carries about as much weight as a wet tissue. It’s not unlike baiting an offensive lineman into a personal foul, and for that reason I sometimes see the media as officials on the football field. Assuming they’re not trying to give the game to one team, which for the purposes of this analogy I can’t be certain isn’t the case, when their backs are turned, one player will take a cheap shot at another, they’ll hear the commotion, and eject the player who threw the retaliatory punch. STOP DOING THAT! You’re not bound by the same rules as referees. Go back and look at the tape… You’re missing one heck of a game.
