Drill Baby Drill

What could possibly go wrong? How could a plan that expedites untested technology on the deepest well ever in order to speed up production have any flaws? Surely BP was completely prepared for any contingencies and thought everything through... otherwise they'd never be able to get this spill under control in only 6 months.

No, really, why should anyone be concerned with gulf coast mom and pop shrimpers, fishermen, tourist-trade folk or anyone else down there who just walks away from a multi-generational family business just because of a little oil and a few tar balls? They were just waiting for an excuse to get unemployment. They're just lazy socialists. We can make fun of them now for being dumb enough to think the government can or should save them. Let's face it, they don't contribute to national campaigns anyway. And we can always find some other beach at which to vacation... who needs the Gulf of Mexico? Or the southern part of the east coast?



Seriously, what could go wrong with a plan to burn up every last drop of fossil fuel, watch the world come to a screeching halt, and THEN start thinking about alternative fuel sources? If we came up with something better than that, then it wouldn't work to say such genius things like "the Democrats only want you to have power when the sun shines or the wind blows... their energy plan is for you to drive a smaller car."

Besides, who would ever want cheap, clean energy that doesn't melt glaciers or destroy mountain tops or drop acid rain? How else would we fade the paint on our cars and houses without acid rain?! There's simply no reason to question the sound thinking and firm logic behind Drill Baby Drill!

I'll ask it one more time, Treehuggers, why do you hate America?!

Luth,
Out

Still Think Sexual Repression Is a Family Value?

If you're like me, and let's face, not many are... wait, where was I? Oh yeah, if you're like me, you too probably think "that dude spends more time in the closet than that snowman sweater my grandma sent me for Christmas in 1983" any time you hear some righteous Righty extolling the evils of homosexuality. I honestly can't believe anyone even says anti-gay shit in public anymore. It's practically the first alert that they'll soon be caught in or coming out of the closet. Funny thing is, if they weren't such hypocrites, no one would care these days. Most of us are beginning to understand that folks are the way they are. Those who believe in God understand we don't understand how He or She makes us. Those who don't believe know that arbitrarily created and randomly enforced "morals" don't count for much anyway.

So when the world learned this George Alan Rekers guy, who advised W, worked with James Dobson, and built an empire of anti-gay BS, hired a gay prostitute to accompany him on a European vacation, it wasn't all that surprising. What's surprising is how many people don't get the connection between the hypocrisy of his behavior and the religious guilt and repression that almost inevitably leads to it. Heard the one about the Catholic priest and the altar boy? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

When your mission is to guilt people out of natural, instinctive behavior, you're bound to end up with some unwanted side effects like fanning the flames of AIDS in third world countries because condoms are evil ( ahem Mother Theresa ahem) or steering pedophiles into the calling because "normal" men aren't really interested and women aren't allowed.

Look, Reker's Freddy Mercury moustache means only that he likes moustaches. It was his vehement and vociferous anti-gay crap that tells us all he didn't hire his boy toy to carry his luggage. And I don't think he was trying to save the young man either... at least not in any Christian way. As funny as it is to make jokes about this guy, it's scary that he has in fact shaped American legislation. He's advised the Department of Health and Human Services, was instrumental in Florida's gay adoption ban and the Family Research Council that he co-founded with James Dobson serves as an initiation for any Republican who wants to run for national office. I really don't care if he likes boys, what scares me is that he helps make laws that tell others they shouldn't. Thank goodness the story gets funnier or I'd begin to think we were in an Orwell novel.

Even funnier: speaking of values, a recent report indicates Blue states seem to be better at family values than Red ones. Who'd a thunk? Don't believe it? I wouldn't either, so don't take my word for it. An article in National Journal Magazine notes the following strange stats:

Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red.

What's even funnier still is how a couple of professors (and, granted, one is from the insanely liberal George Washington University and the other is from the even more insanely liberal University of Missouri's flamboyant Kansas City campus) explain the phenomena. I'll have to use their quote because it's precious, but after this, you'll have to read the rest of the article on your own cuz I'm going back to blabbing about it...

In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.

Or at least that's how it used to be. In other words, Blue folks wait until they are adults to have kids and form families, but Red folks, who cling to 50's morals and birth control technology, have babies while they're still kids and then the family responsibilities turn them into adults. Only problem is, modern society no longer forces them to stay married so instead of learning how to be adults by stepping up to the responsibilities of their unprotected fornicating, they walk away. (for further anecdotal evidence, see "Alaska" or "Palin")

Hey, don't be mad at me, these are social scientists observing the real world and saying this stuff, not me.

I actually have a number of problems with this aside from the obvious things like: a) no state, city, street, or even one-bedroom apartment is completely red or blue, b) even red folks have learned to ignore ridiculous rules about who should use birth control, c) even blue households include single moms and fatherless kids, 4) this crazy new idea of allowing women in the workplace now allows them the option of escaping dangerous or worthless husbands more than they could in the 50's (and that's a good thing) in both red and blue households, etc. and so on.

But the real problem I have with it is that someone, somewhere, will miss the point entirely and assume it means that we should look to Democrats for values.

What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, they apparently follow the "values" that Republicans pretend to, right? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: The same thing that's wrong with anyone telling me how to run my house. Values are individual, cultural, religious, historical, social, physical, you name it. What's important to you may never be important to me (BMWs for instance). What's important to me may never be important to a desert nomad who has never heard a White Stripes song. So don't tell me what I should believe, or how I should raise my kids, or how to have sex, or whether I should ever get married...(that actually sounds pretty conservative, don't it?)... whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or Ghandi or Elvis. It's not up to you. And it sure as hell shouldn't be up to a political party. They're second only to organized religions when it comes to mass damage through values imposition. (The HUAC, The Inquisition...)

When it comes to the values of a community, it's best to keep it simple - do the most good and the least harm. Or just leave people alone. Seriously, what difference does it make in your life if your neighbor is a lesbian... or your pastor ran off to Europe with a gay prostitute... unless you're jealous!

Luth

Out

Healthcare Reform Bill Top Ten list

Here it is, just in time for tomorrow's vote on healthcare reform, the top ten reasons why this bill, weak as it is by now, needs to pass:


1. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!

AAaaagghhh! - Here's a tip: we already have it. We already pay for people who don't have healthcare to go to an emergency room for sniffles or care that could be provided much more effectively and less expensively in a clinic that would gladly see them if they had insurance. We already pay TOO much for that and there's no stopping it under our current "system." Ever complain about a $50 Tylenol or a $50 bandage from the ER? Guess why that is? Ever wonder why the only insurance available for a self-employed head of a healthy household costs around $500 a month JUST for catastrophic limits? (that's right, you still pay cash for every doctor visit, prescription, etc. but for the privilege of paying $500 a month, you can rest assured that at least you won't be bankrupted by a sudden illness or accident.) Why do you think that is? It's because that insurance company has "socialized" their profit by having YOUR healthy family subsidize a less healthy family. So tell me why doing that without lining the insurance company's CEOs' pockets would be such a bad thing?!

1a. - Tell me one more time why the world's richest, most free, most productive, highest GDP country is the ONLY one that doesn't provide its people with nationalized health insurance? Tell me one more time why we shouldn't be embarrassed about that rather than ignorantly insistent that what we have is better?

1b. - The DoD's (military's) Tri-Care system and the DVA's Veterans Health Administration are BOTH "socialized" healthcare systems. They are also consistently ranked among the top systems in the country for customer satisfaction, quality of care, and thriftiness. Sure, they have their occasional problems: Tri-Care is having some trouble providing consistent coverage for the "on again/off again" reservists and guardsmen who are called to active duty and then returned to their civilian lives too frequently these days, and VHA occasionally has some trouble with one or two of its 250,000 employees, but both socialized systems are far more effective than the lack of a system the rest of us have.

2. Abortion

(You're right, you're right... it looks like a silly topic to include on this list... like there's no relevance... or like any argument surrounding it is as ridiculous as some rumor you heard but ignored like "only black jazz musicians smoke marijuana" OR "Bill Gates will mail you a personal check for $400 if you complete this survey." I know, I know, but still) When it comes to the abortion argument, we need to stop the hypocrisy. Stop PRETENDING human life is sacred while we gladly support practices that end it quickly and expensively, or put profit way ahead of it - like our current model of health insurance! Don't believe me? Here are some examples: support for the death penalty or the Global War on Terrorism, opposition to helmet and seatbelt and gun laws, opposition to taxing alcohol and tobacco and junkfood, opposition to regulating giant food additive makers, oil companies and other environment destroyers. There's support for the freedom to build your house in a forest that burns regularly or on a flood plain... or any part of some other deadly natural cycle, but then the cries for help and bailouts when that natural cycle threatens your overpriced home and pets - you want us to subsidize THAT when it was your own stupid decision that put your own "sacred life" in harm's way?!

The abortion argument has about as much relevance to insurance reform as WMD had to the invasion of Iraq.
I'll grant you one little shred of connection - public money MIGHT save a mom's life by terminating her tubal pregnancy so that she can live and raise her BORN children, BUT even if we personally oppose saving that mom's life, don't we have an obligation to promote the greater good rather than childishly cling to this one little personal peeve? (I can't believe we're still talking about this.)

3. Logic

The only logical reason to support the current system is if you personally profit from it. Unless your name is among lists that include George Halvorson, Jeff Kindler, or Cleve Killingsworth, you really don't have any evidence-based reason to oppose public healthcare. Sure you can believe what Glenn Beck tells you about what it will cost, or that it's some evil liberal conspiracy, but that's all political puffery... emotional appeal... and everyone knows it. You can cite the people who complain about the system in Canada or the UK or Switzerland, but be sure to ask them if they'd trade that system while you're at it, cuz they generally offer up a quick, "no f-ing way." It's human nature to complain and there will always be anecdotal "evidence" that all systems involving humans have flaws, but those public health systems have legions of loyal supporters and they provide economic and family stability that our "system" actually seems to be destroying.

4. Portability

Tired of that dead end job, but too tied up in its insurance plan to get a new one? Thinking about starting up a small business of your own to cure cancer in your garage but know you can't afford the coverage for your kid's wheelchair batteries? Want to give up that gig at Wal-mart in order to start a non-profit that feeds and shelters homeless nuns, war heroes, and people who lost their jobs for blowing the whistle on their pedophile bosses? How great would that option be... if only you weren't beholden to your current employer's insurance plan. Sorry, your small business venture (once thought to be sacred in America) will have to take a back seat to giant insurance's profits, because that's apparently what we collectively believe in these days.

5. Profit

Yeah, speaking of that, I can't emphasize enough that there's nothing inherently evil about making a profit. I'm an American. Hell, I'm one who has signed on the line to die for my country. I believe in capitalism wholeheartedly. But I also understand that life is slightly more complex than sound bites generally allow for and thus I grasp the concept that sometimes profit and product are mutually exclusive. For instance, many aspects of health maintenance or "wellness" require long-term investments... to make it concrete let's say investments in electronic health records for example (like VHA developed and uses), or wellness exams that make use of these long-term records in order to increase a patients quality of life now and until they die. The typical insurance company only has that patient for 3-5 years, until the patient moves on to another employer-paid insurance plan. It's simply bad business for a for-profit healthcare system under our current model to invest in any kind of long term plan. it's far more profitable for them to push high-profit "treatments" or diagnostics for which they get paid now. (thus far I've picked primarily on health insurance companies, but here's where the Big Pharm gets in the game too) The bottom line is simple: AS LONG AS SOME COMPANY'S PROFIT IS THE PRIME MOVER IN THE HEALTHCARE MATRIX, YOUR HEALTH AND WELLNESS IS NOT. Perhaps healthcare is one of those things, like the military, that's best left to the non-profit realm. (Adam Smith seemed to think so)

6. The Current Model

Under our current model, an estimated 30-70 million American households are one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. (while the numbers are similar, we're not talking about "the uninsured" here - we're talking about people with good jobs and insurance right now) That means 30-70 million American households just one hospital stay away from shutting down a mom and pop business, or joining the welfare role, or withdrawing everything they currently buy from the national economy. Still think "socialized medicine" is a bigger threat to the American way of life? Consider the trend since you first learned how your parents' coverage worked compared to how your coverage works today. Is your policy more or less comprehensive than it used to be? Do you pay more or less of a percentage of your monthly income for that coverage. Do you pay more or less/higher or lower co-pays these days? Is that really the direction you want to keep going? If the trend continues, soon only college-aged non-smokers, non-drinkers who can prove they exercise three times per week will be able to get a catastrophic protection policy for thousands per month. The rest of us will have been deemed uninsurable for conditions like "over the age of 30" or "served in military" or "mined coal." When you speak of this current model that you so want to protect, is THAT what you're talking about? Cuz that's where it seems we're headed.

7. Socialism (not to be confused with #1 - Socialized Medicine)

The founding of this nation, to include the formation of a representative democracy as our form of government, is a socialist idea. Pooling resources for the common good is hardly a bad or ineffective or un-American idea. The Cold War is over. There really aren't any communists any more to rail against or fear, and most of the "socialists" of the world provide their people with things America simply can't figure out how to provide. So why is socialism such a bad word? And why, again, shouldn't we be embarrassed that we can't do what so many other countries do? Why can't we do it better?! Giving up on our ability to do it better than any other country seems rather unpatriotic to me. I think if we could get past this meaningless and irrelevant political debate, we'd all agree that Americans should DEMAND that our government provide us BETTER public healthcare than lesser governments provide their people!!

8. Selfishness

I want better coverage than I have now. I want my decision, or my wife's decision to leave or stay at our current jobs to be based solely on the jobs, not the insurance coverage I can't get anywhere else. I want the decisions about my healthcare to be made by my healthcare providers, NOT insurance company policy. I want my kids to focus on college when they're in college, not the fact that they will have no coverage when they turn 22. I want struggling chemists (or my mechanic, or my favorite local musician...) to be able to get a tooth replaced and get back to the lab/shop/stage rather than worrying for weeks about how they'll pay the dentist. I want dentists to focus on replacing that tooth, not how or if they'll get paid. I want my entire medical team, from physical therapists, to social workers, to surgeons to be paid for their expertise, not some code created by an insurance company. I want my neighbor's kids' asthma medicine to be as well subsidized as Viagra or Nicorette. I want my mom to be able to visit an audiologist and compare the virtues and performance of a variety of hearing aids from a variety of manufacturers rather than having to visit the retail stores/sales staff of each manufacturer. She's not shopping for a TV, but that's how hearing aid shopping works these days! What other health related issue requires you to go the Best Buy route?! Is THAT the current model of which we're all so fond?!

9. Money

Since the Reagan era, when record breaking deficit spending became the norm, we have paid more and more but expected less and less from our government. I can't live with that. Since there's no indication that we're ever going to pay less, then let's expect more. There are plenty of government managed models of successful, efficient healthcare out there, some in foreign countries with 40% income tax rates, but some right here in this country. Let's pick one, and run with it. 10 years from now, other countries will be lining up to see how they can do what we do. It will hurt a little at first, but soon we'll wonder how we ever managed to be without it. Not only that, but systems like VHA get better results and higher customer satisfaction at about 2/3 the cost of commercial systems. Why should we continue to throw that extra 33% away?

10. F the "party of No"

And I'm not just talking about Republicans here. I'm talking about anyone who votes no on issues from local school levies to national politics without offering up a better solution in place of what they're voting against. For the longest time I wasted my breath asking these folks for THEIR better ideas. A wise Republican actually pointed out to me that those kinds of people have no better ideas. They just vote no and believe they've done their part. I'm not foolish enough to believe that will ever change, nor should everyone have to have every solution to every problem in order to be justified in working to defeat an issue. But in this case, it's a little beyond granny voting down the school levy she can't afford on Social Security. The folks who vote on healthcare reform this week are paid public officials who have had since the early 90s to come up with a better plan. Their JOB is to solve this problem and they've had 20 years to come up with something more than just a NO vote. At this point, let's not let perfection be mud on the wheels of progress. Let's not let their FAILURE for 20 years prevent even a small step at a move toward a solution. Let's start with "good enough" and then work to make it better. And in the next election, let's make it better by getting rid of anyone who thinks that a NO vote is sufficient performance for the pay and the lifelong healthcare benefits we provide for them.

Luth

Out

Activist judges complete W's legacy

It took me a while to figure out that W was actually a genius who was boldly, blatantly, and with no regard for individual Americans, selling out individual Americans to the corporate interests that got him elected and promised to keep him rich long after his presidency.

I never wanted to believe that anyone would do that... not even W, but over the course of two terms, he convinced me. What other goals could he possibly have had? He never mentioned any others. He's certainly got little to show for any other efforts. He didn't address the runaway irresponsibility piling up on Wall Street. He blew the savings accounts on wars for... for... what was it again? Oh nevermind. And then he promised us his legacy.

And now the Supreme Court has delivered that legacy. They have iced the corporate cake by interpreting the 1st amendment to apply to corporations as though they truly were individuals (but without the individual responsibility, of course) AND by equating CASH with SPEECH.

So, while the old quaint saying, "one man, one vote" still holds true in this great nation, if that man is a CEO, he can buy up all the air time in every small market during every election for the next 10 years to ensure that no one who opposes his candidate can run a TV ad in that market. But at least we all still get our one vote!

...and he can do it by spending his shareholder's money without their consent, permission or input.

...he can even do it by spending his employees' salaries without their consent, permission or input.

...and we can all just lie there and take it, losing our jobs, then our homes, while the CEO and politician BOTH pass the cost of it all right back down to us. Yep, that's the best part. We get to pay for it, we just don't get choose the message.

OK, so union presidents and the CE or CFOs of PACS can do the same thing. Is THAT supposed to make an individual American voter feel better?

With this interpretation, it will become even harder to tell where the CEO ends and the politician he or she owns begins. It's already difficult to tell a lobbyist from a legislator, but those middlemen can be eliminated now. The CEO can just hand the $$ right on over. Of course, that's only fair since for the last 15 years, the politicians have handed everything right on over to the CEOs.

The lack of an individual conscience that has allowed corporate greed to run DC since the Reagan administration (Yes, including the Clinton years) is directly responsible for our current economic crisis. Those same crybabies who complained about Clinton's activist judges used to talk a lot about Adam Smith too. They talked about leaving the market alone.

They're quiet about Smith and the activist judges now because the activist judges gave them what they wanted.

And so did Adam Smith. When you read him a little more thoroughly/a little less selectively, you discover that not only would Smith have advocated public healthcare in the world's richest nation (have I mentioned that completely irrelevant to this argument idea here before?), but also that the corporate greed of the unchecked "invisible hand" would first destroy all competing markets, and then, finally, destroy itself. (Unless, of course, we prop them up with cash WE will never see again... and by WE I mean anyone who doesn't have a half million or more to invest tomorrow.)

As long as you're on top of the game when it happens, it's a great short term, get-rich-quick plan....just like that of just about every CEO in the last 20 years. Now the rest of us have to clean up the messes they've left behind and pay all the tabs they ran up while they were making sure they got theirs.

And thanks to the Supreme Court decision, they'll be buying up the next round of politicians, running up that tab again, to make sure that broken wheel just keeps on spinnin! Unless, just maybe, we get tired of the reality TV they pay for, and find some way to make a decision on our own.

I ain't holdin my breath.

Luth
Out

Fox News to public: If anyone out there still takes us seriously, we'll show YOU!

Welcome back dear fans. It's been a while and though I did miss all three of you, it's Fox News that brought me back.

In case there was anyone out there who still took them seriously, they hired WHO?! You've got to be FKM! I get that networks hire folks with ratings in mind, but no real NEWS network would do that to the point of hiring someone completely unqualified to read news, would they? Oh wait, nevermind, it's Fox. Of course they would because they don't expect to be taken seriously.

I joked during the presidential election that I was more qualified to be a vice president than Fox's newest commentator, but geez ow! If you're here, reading this, then this time you know this 'blog alone is proof that I'm not joking when I say I think I've really got her beat in the qualifications department. You betcha.

Think about it:

-I spout off un- or ill-formed opinions with little basis in reality

-I used to be able to see Canada from my back porch

-I once edited a newspaper

-I'm professionally trained in communications

True, I'm no Joe Beercan. I'm happily married. My spouse has a degree and a better job than I do and no one in our family has supported a bridge to nowhere or been involved in domestic disputes. I was never in a beauty contest. I'm actually a veteran. In fact, I prefer thinking for myself... occasionally even before I speak!

Now, I should mention (not in the name of fairness, cuz let's face it, that has no business anywhere near this discussion) that Mrs. Palin and I do have some things in common. I've already mentioned the thinking for myself and the being able to see a foreign country from the back porch, but there 's more. I too once ran for a local public office. I too questioned why Americans should be sent to Iraq (though I wasn't referring only to an immediate family member at the time). I too believe in smaller government, although my version of it would mean gov't keeping its hands out of our wombs and weddings and coroporate sponsorship... and maybe out of marijuana enforcement! I too believe in evolution, no wait....

Look, I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a great gal and just like W, she's probably great to have a beer with, but if that's the qualification for high profile jobs these days, then I went to college with some great potential commentators and U.S. presidents even if some of them never finished. In fact many of the ones who were most fun to have a beer with didn't make it past Thanksgiving of our freshman year!

I also understand that both Fox and Palin have their loyal followers - MILLIONS on Twitter!! - but this really comes down to one of those things where you can't have it both ways. Either Fox News is serious about being a news channel, or they're not. If they were serious, they'd hire professional journalists rather than just ratings grabbers. Likewise, I think the Republicans need to decide if they're serious about a candidate to run against Obama. If they think like Fox, they can only be serious about giving Obama a second term!

Luth,

Out

If Obama said it, it's wrong

"...the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties."

Judge William Young said this to shoe bomber, Richard Reid, before sentencing him to several life sentences for attempting to blow up an American passenger plane with plastic explosives in his shoes. Here's how we treated him: humanely... including a fair trial, defense, the whole nine. The life sentences prevented him from becoming a martyr and this example of American justice did more to unite the nation and the world than just about anything since. And then, just as Judge Young predicted, we all forgot all about it.

The rest of Judge Young's speech is available here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/ I defy you to read it without getting goosebumps... without being proud of this country and how our justice system - not "revenge" system - represents us. It's even available on Snopes.com too 'cuz apparently not too many people believe in our justice system enough to believe this story can be true. At the time, Rudy Giuliani believed in it wholeheartedly. Jeff Sessions praised the outcome as well.

A few years later, 9/11 co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, fell victim to a similar example of American justice. Again, his tirade at the judge was ignored, a jury spared him the death penalty and he too was prevented from being held up as a martyer among his supporters, and in spite of our having invaded Iraq in the time between these two trials, many throughout the world felt these verdicts were a true symbol of what America is really about: freedom, fairness, individual justice, to use Judge Young's words.

Giuliani praised both verdicts, although he did say he thought Moussaoui should have been sentenced to death, but he had no qualms with both trials being held in civilian courts. (He apparently wanted to grant Moussaoui martyrdom) As a matter of fact, Senator Sessions praised the outcomes of both trials as well. Now they've changed their minds about trying terrorists in U.S. Courts. As have a lot of others from their camp.

So tell me: what's changed other than the fact that the guy suggesting Moussaoui's boss be tried in a civilian court is an Obama appointee?

I hate to play the cynic card here but let's face it, justice IS what the American justice system says it is. Something tells me legal technicalities won't get this guy off. For that matter, military trials have their own brand of technicalities as well. Sessions is either naive or stupid to suggest we can't predict an outcome to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial. I'll give Sessions the "naive" option if he really believes otherwise, but he's stupid for forcing us to admit it up front.

So let's just admit it now: if KSM gets the same treatment as Moussaoui and Reid, (and Vegas odds say he will) and especially if the judge is able to rip off a Young-like speech at the sentencing hearing, all will agree it's a great idea. The only thing stopping some people from admitting it now is that the idea came from the Obama camp.

That's starting to get old.

Luth

Out

Fair and Balanced White House Press Policy

As a teenager, I was a bit of a rebellious sort. I spent most of my idle time pushing the boundaries of what a kid might get away with without actually breaking any laws or at least without getting caught. At some point I learned that when you live your life dangerously close to those boundaries, a lot of people are watching you just waiting for you to slip over that line, no matter how innocently or accidentally. When you do, they pounce and make an example of you.

It’s not necessarily fair… ok, maybe it is fair. After all, while the slip may have been innocent and accidental, toeing the line was very much on purpose! Either way, the reaction is certainly to be expected. One might even say I was asking for it. No adult wants to be made a fool by some smart assed high school kid! And you can bet that if you practice like I did, there’s someone practicing just as hard to nail your ass at the first opportunity. Tough lesson, maybe, but one we tend to have to learn for ourselves.

That’s what happened with Fox News’s access to the White House. And since Fox News, ostensibly, is comprised of grown-ups who should have learned this lesson at least back when I did, I’m a little surprised at their whining about it.

Sure, there are fans of Fox out there who will argue that this is a form of censorship, or ask, “who are they to determine what a ‘news agency’ is or who produces ‘real news?!’” But there’s an easy answer to that one… THEY are the White House Press Secretary, and determining who is and isn’t a legitimate news agency and thus who gets access to the White House – whether they are right or wrong about it – is exactly “their” job.

But there’s also another, simple answer even if a number of folks won’t to hear it: Fox really is no more a news agency than The Daily Show or The National Enquirer. Do they have White House access?

IMHO, this particular press secretary isn’t guilty of any of the things of which Fox fans accuse him. He simply said out loud what a lot of folks, including Fox, per their own propaganda, have known but been afraid to say for a long time. They enjoyed quite a run, but it’s finally ended. They can now choose to drop their single-minded agenda and operate as a real news agency, or they can assume their rightful place among the other less-than actual news agencies.

Don’t buy that? Here’s the argument:

Fox was created, by their own account, to counter what they perceived as a liberal bias among mainstream media. This bias however, only existed if Fox twisted what was actually meant by the word “liberal” as it applies to the media. Here’s what I mean by that: as applied to the press, “liberal” is actually a fundamental requirement of journalists… or should be. It means that a reporter extends all the rights of citizenship to the subject of his or her story. It means assuming a suspect’s innocence until that suspect is proven guilty. It means reporting the facts of a story and accounting for as many possible perspectives on it as may exist. It means NOT creating a story where there is none, making oneself the story, or pushing an agenda onto the story or shaping the story to fit an agenda.

This kind of fundamental journalism is sometimes perceived as having undue sympathy toward a suspect or subject of a big story, but it’s actually rather patriotic to assume a fellow citizen should be given the rights and protections promised in our Constitution. You’d think Fox would be all over that, but no, they weren’t. Instead they played upon this notion that a well-trained reporter is overly sympathetic to the evils that plague society (simply because that reporter didn’t act as judge, jury and executioner). This play on the real meaning of liberal was then mixed in with how the word also tends to be associated with a particular political party and wham, bam, Fox’s self-professed reason for existing translates into them being a tool of the Republican Party.

First they twist the definition of liberal (as it applied to journalism) into a political meaning, then they falsely assert that when folks describe journalists as liberals, folks mean “Democratic-leaning” (a premise neither proved nor accepted) and they then use this overly simplified and invalid argument to justify their Republican propaganda. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. They’ve done it for years. Most of the time they brag about doing it. I was initially impressed by the balls it took to try to get away with it.

In fact, I’d be completely sympathetic to there being just another opinion out there or another perspective on a particular news story, but that’s not what Fox says they do. They say, “we’re bringing our bias… to counter someone else’s bias, but still, we’re biased… we admit it, hell, we brag about it. It’s been our business model for years. We’ve succeeded on it as a form of entertainment to the point where our market share allowed to us into the real news arena and before anyone realized what was going on, our news people were right beside the network news people at all the big events! And then, because we’d portrayed this false “left-leaning bias” myth for so long, folks were afraid to point out that we weren’t ever really a “news” organization except in the sense that we reported bad news about Dems and good news about Repubs and there we were. Deal with us.”

But the Obama White House, bringing the change they promised, dealt with it.

Sorry boys, your charade is over. You can argue that the White House can’t tell the difference between opinion pieces and regular news all you want. Just like you can’t shake the Devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding - if Glenn and Rush and Bill and folks like them dominate your airtime, then they are what your network represents just as stories about fallen celebrities and alien probes ARE what the Enquirer represents.

It’s not a matter of the White House getting to decide what is or isn’t real news (although that IS the job of the White House Press Secretary) it’s about Fox getting away with being so close to the line for so long that they forgot there was a line until they got caught standing way on the other side of it. You sowed, you reaped. Congrats. Now quit yer whinin’

Luth

Out

Ohio's Gamble

If we saved all the money that the two sides on the Ohio gambling issue have spent in the last (what seems like) 20 elections, we probably wouldn't have a recession in Ohio. My favorite pro-gambling commercial shows two "corn-fed" (typical, healthy) middle-aged Ohio women sitting on a tour bus explaining that they're old high school classmates and that they've been getting together for years for this gambling trip to a neighboring state.

They make clear that they are upstanding, moral citizens (though they stop just short of calling themselves good Christians) who think it's silly that they have to take their money elsewhere for this annual get together.

It's cute, probably effective but it just emphasizes that the money behind it and the pro-gambling side comes from deep, generally out of Ohio pockets and thus, that most of the profits from any future legalized gambling here will end up back in those already deep, out of Ohio pockets.

I don't care about any of that. If you want to toss your money away in a casino, more power to ya... and yeah, I feel for you having to drive all that way to do it. Maybe you should be able to do it in Ohio. What do I care - as long as it's not in my neighborhood because I do know that I do not want my neighborhood to end up looking like the neighborhoods surrounding the strip in Vegas or Atlantic City, but there are plenty of places in Ohio where even THAT would be an improvement. The only concern I have is that details in this and past proposals seem to favor a specific out of state company who already has permits in place for construction that may never happen. That just strikes me as a little odd... a little not right.

But the real reason I'm posting about this commercial is because of a thought that makes me laugh every time I see it. Whenever I hear these two women pleading their innocence and the absurdity of having to drive elsewhere to gamble, I can't help but projecting other stories of "vice" into that commercial. I had hoped to find time to actually write little screenplays for my own versions, but that ain't gonna happen so instead, I'll just drop some little variants proposals on you and see if maybe it doesn't make you think about the topic before you vote in a couple of weeks:

OK, so instead of two middle aged women dressed conservatively, casually, riding a nice charter bus to Indiana or Detroit/Windsor or Erie or Buffalo to gamble... picture this:

Two slacker college kids on a flight bound for Amsterdam where they must fly to buy good, legal pot. They'd love to spend their money vacationing right here in Cleveland, but, darn it, the prudes here in the US won't legalize it so all that money and all those jobs are only on the other side of the ocean. If only we could pass issue 3 and keep that money and those jobs right here in Ohio!

Or how about two business men on a flight to Tokyo, Frankfurt (or maybe even parts of Nevada, Honduras, Mexico?? I really don't know much about this issue) because these two high school classmates, husbands, fathers, upstanding community members, active in local community organizations, just can't find local, legal prostitutes in Ohio like they can elsewhere. If we could all join them in passing issue 69, they could keep their money and all those jobs right here in Ohio! How silly is it that they must fly overseas or out of state for their once a year prostitute weekends?!

I'm sure you get the picture by now but let's throw one more in there: This time 4 friends wait on a small, remote, rural air strip in Texas as a less than poorly maintained looking commuter plane makes its approach to land. As the plane taxis toward the 4 guys they explain how they went to college together and now all have families and responsibilities - they're great guys! - who get together once a year for this trip to Columbia... just to maintain the bond of their friendship... and to snort coke all weekend long. They'd love to be able to do this back in Ohio, supporting small business airports, dealers, hotels and restaurants, but those darned prudes in Ohio just won't legalize coke and bring up to 50,000 jobs back to the heartland. Join these 4 guys in voting YES on issue 3. Bring those jobs back to Ohio!

As I mentioned, I have no moral qualms with legalizing gambling in Ohio... or drugs or prostitution for that matter! Just as long as it's not in my backyard. AND like most of my conservative friends, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on that matter and just buy a big enough backyard that I don't have to worry about it. After all, why should government tell us what kind of business we should run. We're capitalists and we oppose big government/socialist intervention!

If gambling is good enough to provide fundraising for schools and churches, it's good enough for the rest of us and big gov should keep its hands off!

Luth

Out