Posted by
Ginny on Monday, October 06, 2008 10:30:01 AM
Most reporters, talking heads, columnists and bloggers (talkers) want to be known as
the wag,
the one to get it right, to select the topic of conversation in as much as that topic is buss words and sound bites. I am heartily sick of them all. There is almost no information out there of the kind that will help people make decisions about the coming election.
These talkers are not putting out ideas, points to consider and discuss, or possible scenarios for what might come to pass. For example, there are no discussions of how, based on her interactions to date, Palin might use her position as Vice President to further Republican or conservative ideals.
How might she interact with Senators and Congressmen?
How might her family’s long term connection to unions alter a presidential administration’s interaction with union representatives and Lobbyists?
What would happen if, during a McCain Administration, Senator Ted Stevens comes up for censure, and the vote in the Senate is a tie
How strong is Palin’s state administration in reference to retaining her agenda if she is elected Vice President and moves out of state government?
How much in-fighting will we see with Republicans if two mavericks are installed at the head of the party (let alone the country)?
How much should issues like this count when we discuss the pros and cons of her election?
No one asks these questions. Instead we get rude, insulting sound bites, nasty comments about candidates from talkers and random fools with 15 minutes of fame. Their aim is to gain publicity and entertain some associates while they are at it. It diesn't matter what issue is befrore us, the talkers have nothing of soubstance to say. Their insults soemtimes stay with me.
A few topics developed in this election cycle are stuck in my craw and no matter how far down the road we travel I cannot get past these obnoxious, insulting sound bites. The media is consumed with the economy but I am still so annoyed by the past issues that I don’t even read or listen to the current histrionics. Instead I will have my own rant about the President as Terrorist, "nice" countries, border fences, and health care.
Because I do not refer to you as an immoral terrorist when discussing your work habits, I do not refer to the President as such when discussing his work habits. I had a former colleague who was genius at bringing up the President—to his discredit—apropos of nothing: an ad for hiring a new coworker, clogged toilets, poor internet access, etc., all were reminders, to her, of the President’s psychosis and evilness. But random people like my former colleague are not as troublesome as are minor celebrities, talking heads, and bloggers, who call the President the Terrorist in Chief at every opportunity.
Declaring the need for war, as Commander in Chief, makes the President no more a terrorist than supporting the ACLU makes its celebrity supporters child molesters. In case you don’t know—and you should—the ACLU supports convicted pedophiles in their choice of living environments—next to schools, next to you, next to a playground. Here’s a small bit of homage to that former colleague I mentioned; apropos of nothing, try to find the physical address of ACLU employees or judges, or celebrities. This information is not available because they could be at risk from someone like you or me; this is completely different from you being at risk from a pedophile. Here’s another example of apropos of nothing: how many of our lawmakers and celebrities who do not support the fence between the United States and Mexico live behind fences, gates, and security guards? Go knock on their front doors and ask them, why don’t you? The threat to these august personalities from people like you and me is completely different from the threat to you and me from random criminals, terrorists, and ne’er-do-wells that run freely cross the border.
--If the United States is a “mean” country, what is an example of a “nice” country? If there are no “nice” countries, what is the value in ascribing the U.S. as “mean”?
--If you support nationalized health care, what are the workings of such a system? For example, how does a national health care system determine the criteria for illnesses (diagnoses) and how does that system determine who gets treatment for illnesses? Does the system you chose as a example use age limits (e.g., no one over 65 qualifies for chemotherapy, no one under 35 gets infertility treatment) or does that system use other qualifiers, such as professional status? In a country with nationalized health care, can individuals still purchase private care? Should that be illegal? Why or why not? If it is illegal, what should happen to those who try to provide private medical services? (HINT: for assistance in developing your argument on this topic, research Canadian law and Canadian Supreme Court decisions this century.)
I have yet to come across a single individual who can articulate answers to these questions. They say things like, “Canada has health care for everyone!!” and “Most European countries have better health care than the United States!!” While you are at it, check out the government’s Country Reports; these often list the tax rate in various countries. Then sit down and calculate how much take-home pay you would have after paying 78% of your wages in taxes. Is that more than a private health care plan would cost you? Do you even know how much a private health care plan costs?
I don’t agree that the substance of these issues is uninteresting to the average person. Substance is a problem for the blind supporters of issues because often the details cause embarrassment. Most important of all, the details do not support the positions of the talking heads. Find the details in other places and then ignore the “talkers” who put out the insults, nonsense, and meaningless statements. If more people followed this example, we wouldn’t even be talking about the mainstream media. It wouldn’t exist; imploded on its own invented gravitas. That’s a nice thought.