To Be Fair–

June 2, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Posted in Political | 2 Comments
  I’m about to get political on you.  I’ve written many things that I thought would be offensive to many people, but it turns out I never really touched on politics.  This should offend lots of people.  You’re welcome.
  Liberals want to bring back the "fairness doctrine" because they can’t compete in the free market.  They say it’s for everyone, but since they are in complete denial about the media slant, it doesn’t apply to their interest.  Right wing radio has to show the other point of view because they are right wing media, and they all agree.  But the left wing media doesn’t have to show the other side, because they aren’t left wing.  They are "fair" and they are "responsible," and they are "representative of a cross-section of America."  The TRUTH IS, Wall Street Journal and talk radio are on the right, and EVERY OTHER media outlet is on the left, and the left media can’t stand that that the right has a voice at all.  Call me a liar.  If you disagree, it proves my point.
  Like Henry Ford said, "You can have any color car you want, as long as it is black."  In the same way, the Liberals say, "You can have any point of view you want, as long as it liberal."
  Of course, some people believe that the traditional media isn’t liberal, because it isn’t liberal ENOUGH.  Not until the newspapers are printed in red ink, I suppose.
  Seriously.  Any half-assed, maudlin attempt the old news media makes to appear fair, just so they have a token to point to, the extreme left wing liberals point at it and scream:  SEE!  SEE HOW RIGHT-WINGED AND BIASED THEY ARE?  SEE!  To the liberal, the only "Fair and Balanced" reporting is to constantly, unceasingly, unendingly bash the President, conservatives,  and all they stand for.  Anything else simply wouldn’t be truthful.  Obviously, nothing he has ever done, said, or thought has ever been right.  He is, of course, immensely stupid and evil.
  The truth is, most people on the right can see, understand, and somewhat respect *some* of the views on the left, or at least concede they have a right to that view, no matter how skewed and bizarre it may be.  Meanwhile, the leftists and liberals shout down, scream down–and in many cases, beat down–any view that is not their own.  Either you agree with them or you are wrong, and you are stupid for believing anything else.  There is no room for discussion.
  This is an interesting thing I noticed, the not too subtle creation of a different reality.  Anyone on the right who has an opinion is "stupid."  Or "Dumb."  Or "a Moron.  An Idiot."
  This has probably happened way into the past as well, but with our media in recent history it can be traced directly to Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan was not stupid, or incompetent.  But he was painted as such by the liberals in an effort to discredit him.  The typical liberal lie that was lapped up by the media is that he was a puppet, controlled by behind-the-scenes masters, Orwellian conspirators.  For the liberals, the socialists, it is difficult to believe that EVERYONE doesn’t OF COURSE see the world logically, as they do, so it is incomprehensible that they could lose an election.  Instead of the very obvious fact that people feel differently, it always has to be something sinister, like election-stealing and ballot-stuffing.  I mean, how else could conservatives win?  After all we did to destroy their message in the media?
  The same was done to Bush 41, as well as his VP, Dan Quayle.  I bought into all of it, too, at the time.  I was young; now I regret it.  Poor Dan Quayle.  I am pretty sure anyone who had accomplished what he has is no lightweight.  Que sera sera.  But I see it as obvious now when the media does it to George W.  He has a moral compass, he believes in God, he believes in right and wrong, he believes in his values, therefore he must be an idiot.  The carefully chosen soundbites, the hand-picked photos are all part of the nexus the media has created to make sure the President is shown in a "less-than-flattering" manner.  This was never done with Bill Clinton.  It was never done with Carter, and it should have been.  And George is obviously controlled by Dick Cheney, the grand puppet master, head of the secret government, ruler of all conspiracies and ultimately, your fate.  Republicans are either stupid or evil, or both, and yet Democrats never are.  Hmmm.
  Bill Clinton, despite his dirty dealings (White Water, various illegal dealings, ALL the women, et cetera) was always painted as a charming "rascal."  I was so indoctrinated by the media that I even liked the guy, despite his. . . shortcomings.
  Back to the news.  Even news that is supposed to be straight reporting is so filled with buzz words and propaganda that it is impossible to make a fair judgment.  It is carefully crafted so that news takes on the flavor or op-ed in a very subtle manner. 
  Case in point is Fox News.  Fox news tries to be fair and balanced, and that has become a joke among the left wing news media–i.e., ALL the rest of them.  Fox attempt to show both sides.  To the liberal media, there is no "both" sides, just THEIR side, so any attempt to show the other side is obviously right-wing propaganda.  Because there is nothing on the right that can be correct.  Ever.  And you are stupid for believing that there is.  That is there stance.
  Fox News has both liberal and conservative commentators.  The liberals are dismissed as "soft."  I guess Hugo Chavez wasn’t available? 
  The far left liberals–socialists, actually–do they believe this is a bad country?  Most of them are heavily invested in conspiracy theories.  Anything that looks like the government is doing something down and dirty under the table is far more believable than the outlandish idea that people want to kill them just because of their religion.  That concept is so bizarre, so alien to them, that socialists and liberals have no way of processing that information. 
  In their mind, their enlightened view, all mankind wants to live in peace and harmony, and it is the evil capitalist (the United States) that is keeping that from happening.  Never mind that we’ve given more aid to any and every country on the planet than any OTHER country on the planet.
  Never mind the fact that despite the view of the world, we are not an imperialist nation, taking over countries left and right, like the Europeans did centuries ago, and we have helped every country we ever gone to war with (Germany?  Japan, anyone?  No one remember?)
  Never mind the fact that the Muslim Jihadists, the extremists, have declared war on us, have told us WHY they have declared war on us, and that reason has nothing to do with our so-called "imperialism," but rather their faith and their belief and the idea that Israel must be destroyed and we support Israel therefore we must be destroyed, plus we are infidels because we are not Muslim–
  Never mind that. 
  Never mind the fact that even though all these other countries, as a matter of policy, routinely rape, kill, mutilate, starve, and otherwise impoverish their own people–the United States is actually the inhumane country because we coddle suspected terrorists in a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, bending over backwards to be culturally sensitive to these murderous thugs, under the careful scrutiny of a liberal media that is just dying to catch us not being super-sensitive of their *needs* and understanding of their *cultural identity.*  Whatever.
  Never mind that in the Middle East they control the oil, and if we were really how they think we are, we would nuke them, or air strike them, destroy them–all of them–and walk in and take the oil.  By the way, we haven’t taken the oil in Iraq.  Did anyone notice that?  Anyone?
  That picture is painted of us, around the world.  Part of it is our own news media, helping.  Our country is the big boy on the block, and no matter what we do, we are going to be perceived as the bully.  We need to be taken down a notch, down to their level.
  Well, you know what?  If there is going to be a country that is bigger and more powerful than the rest, it is best for the world that it is the United States.  How about if China was the most powerful?  Or North Korea?  How about Venezuala?  How about Germany?  Remember how well Germany did when they ran the show?  Do you REALLY want Iran to be the most powerful nation on the planet?  Do you?  Anyone but the US, huh?  Because we are "evil," and "oppressive," and not "enlightened."  They will believe anything the president of Iran says when he is lying straight to their face, and not believe ANYTHING from our government.
  Everyone wants to be number one, no one wants to be number two, or three, or last.  Well, too bad.  If you suck, that’s what happens to you.  Losers.
  When I was younger, I voted Democrat.  Not because it’s what I believed, but because it was what I was told.  Only since my mid-thirties,  for the 2000 election, did I start to vote Republican.  Of course, I still believe in an individual’s right to believe what he wants, and I don’t begrudge the Democratic party one iota.  I don’t hold some pie-in-the-sky vision that my side is perfect; far from it.  (However, I believe the libs do.  They stand by their people no matter how wrong they are.  They don’t have to be right, they just have to be left.)  I just feel that the Republican party more closely aligns with my views and feelings. 
  And the views and feelings of Liberals are more closely aligned with socialism.  And communism.  While I don’t think we need to fear our country becoming communist, the truth is that we are much closer to being "The Socialist Republic of the United Balkanized States."  That is what *they* want.
  What is the role of government, honestly?  What is the role of *your* government?
  To take care of you?  Is that what you said, you, there in the back?  "To take care of you"?
  I remember this from junior high and high school, government class.  I always got A’s.  I memorized the Bill of Rights, and all the rest of the amendments.
  Let’s see now. . . "We the people–"  that’s us, you and me.  That’s the part that makes this a republic.  Continue.  "In order to form a more perfect union–"  Hmmm.  This goes right into the purpose of our government.  "More perfect," not "the most perfect."  Because that. . . is beyond our grasp.  But we want the best we can make.  Right?  Right?  "Establish justice–"  In a society, any society, there is going to be conflict and the need for resolution between parties.  This is pretty standard.  "–Ensure domestic tranquility–"  And now I’m singing that song in my head from Schoolhouse Rock. . . This is a tough one.  What does it mean?  Peace. . . at home?  Okay, I’ll buy that.  Peace in our homeland, peace in your house.  These are good goals.  Not always possible, but for the most part, we’ve done it.  "Domestic tranquility–"?  Does that mean social programs to make things better for you and your family?  Does it?  Or is it more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers thought, which was "Less Government interference in how we live our lives equals more peace within the home.  Hmmm.  "–Provide for the common defense–"  Well, this is self-explanatory.  An army, and a big one.  Defense spending, training, tanks, guns, ships, and submarines.  And helicopters.  Can’t argue with that.  Although, some peaceniks believe, contrary to all actual evidence, if we just give up all of our guns and armies and war machines, everyone else in the world will just magically fall in line and everyone will live in peace and harmony.  I’d like to buy the world a Coke, myself, but the reality is– this isn’t going to happen.  "Promote the general welfare, and–"  See?  The song keeps coming back. 
  But the point of that one, versus the previous one, is this:  Provide defense, promote welfare.  Not "provide welfare" also.  The difference is not subtle.  The difference is the difference between capitalism and socialism.  If you "provide" welfare, you are doing just that:  taking care of everyone, cradle to grave entitlements, much like most of Europe with their crumbling economies.  If you "promote" welfare–promote the well-being–you are fostering an environment where people can live and work and take care of themselves.  Allowing people to make a living, earn their own money, own their own property.  In short, capitalism.  Well, what the hell is wrong with capitalism, anyway?  The poor schmuck who can’t make it on his own, the stupid, the illiterate, the weak, the pathetic, the losers–they are not apart of this system.  Well, they should be taken care of, or at least gotten out of the damn way.  And we do that.  But pretending that these people, these dregs of society, are equal to the bread winners, the makers and shapers, the *achievers*–Is completely wrong.
  There are people that are not as good as me.  Losers, lazy people, drug addicts, whores, people too stupid to pay their bills, ignorant white (and black) (and hispanic) trash.  Am I elitist?  Maybe.
  And there are people who are better than me.  Business owners, giants of industry, smart people, creative people, good people, moral people.  People born into wealth, or born with amazing genius, or talent, or physical ability.  Hard-working and dedicated.  I know my place.  I’m not at the top, no way, no how.  But I’ll be goddamned if I’m at the bottom.  I’ll be goddamned–
  And the people at the bottom–ankle-biters, whiners and complainers, all of them–are looking for someone to blame for their predicament.  They may actually believe it, that it’s someone else’s fault, "if only–" and crap like that.  Whatever gets them through the night, I suppose.  But we have the largest middle-class in the world, people who would normally be lower class.  Even our lower class is better off than the lower class anywhere else in the world.  So don’t bitch because EVERYONE isn’t middle class.  SOMEBODY has to be at the bottom.  Be glad that we have what we have, and shut the fuck up.
  To continue:
  "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity–"  Wow.  This one is a loaded harpoon, waiting to go off.  "Secure the blessings of liberty"?  Secure?  What does that mean?  And what, exactly, is liberty?  Really, I mean.
lib·er·ty  [lib-er-tee] –noun, plural -ties.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.  
  . . .So. . .in essence, in plain language, "Do what it takes to ensure we all have freedom and the ability to enjoy that freedom, and take into account the future, so our progeny can enjoy those same freedoms."  Wow, what a mouthful.
  "Ensure freedom."  Well, this is where the ACLU comes in.  They have done so much for our freedom.  Bravely going against the grain, pushing against all things both popular and logical, getting "rights" for the littlest, the dirtiest, the most damned, the most heinous, the smallest groups among us, at the expense of the majority and what they want.  What heroes they are.
  Wake up call, idiots.  The ACLU was founded by a deep red communist, and if you look up the communist party goals from 1963, you will see they nicely align with the ACLU’s vision.  And freedom is nowhere a part of that vision.
  Ensure freedom. . .  With freedom, with rights–and freedom is a right–with freedom comes responsibility.  Without it, you have anarchy.  Then only a few people have rights, and the rest live in fear.  Therein lies the balance.  You can’t have COMPLETE freedom, because then you would have no responsibility.  The converse is the same:  If you are saddled with all responsibility, then you have no freedom.  See?  Balance is necessary.  One person, or group of people, can’t have complete freedom that hinders the freedom of others.
  That is why giving freedom to one group over another takes freedom from the other group.  Take racial quotas.  Giving preference to one group takes away from the other.  Making up for the past?  The past is over, that’s why it’s called the past.  Time to move on, join us in the present.
  Freedom of the press?  Freedom, sure.  Pornography?  What about responsibility?  By the way, important note here, idiots:  The spirit of freedom of the press had to do with political commentary, and was never meant to protect smut and filth.  It should be kept away from the eyes of children, and it is obvious self-policing doesn’t work.  Look, I’m not going to be a hypocrite and say I never look at.  But it has it’s place, and doesn’t need to be openly displayed and lauded about.  Show some sense and, if possible, decency.  Quit pushing to have your wares openly displayed on every street corner, in every house.  Just knock it off, already.  There is a time and a place for these things.  Our TV and Movies are already too far gone to–
  You’re already going to hell; quit trying to take us with you.
  Freedom of religion, oh boy.  Separation of church and state.  Yeah, buddy.  If you’re anti-religious to start, like the ACLU, then you approach the whole argument that ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that mentions God, or Jesus, or Religion, or Church, or a supreme being, or anything else that will make you wet your pants in displeasure is inherently wrong, evil, and highly suspect.
  Well, I have news for you idiots.  Most people in this country DO NOT feel the way you do, and again, you are in the MINORITY.  In theory, the majority should rule. We should be sensitive to your wish to be a heathen and burn in hell if you so desire, but we shouldn’t have to bend over backwards for you by eliminating everything we hold dear from the public square for fear it might hurt your delicate little feelings.  You should know, either by growing up in this country or moving here from elsewhere that we are a mostly Christian nation.  You’ve come to expect it, or should.
  Are your delicate little feelings hurt because the all the currency says, "In God We Trust"?  Too bad.  The majority still wants it on there.  You know, I don’t like how we drive on the right side of the road, I think we should drive on the left.  It kind of hurts my feelings.  I think we should change EVERYTHING based solely on how the minority (me) feels about it.  I think I’ll start a lost cause.
  Do you not like that elected officials swear on a Bible?  Wow.  Sucks to be you.  Oh, oh!  Are you Michael Newdow, famous atheist sorehead, and feel that all religious expression everywhere should be eliminated from everything?  And then you run for a local office and blame religion as the reason no one will vote for you?  Get a clue, dumbass.  The reason is simple:  People want to elect someone who has similar beliefs and values; that’s the whole point.  If no one will vote for you, it’s because they don’t share your beliefs, and, in this case, because you’re an ass-clown.
  People much smarter than you have believed in God, dickhead.  Like me.  Oh, yes, I quite handily place myself in the group of people that is smarter than you.  Until you can prove otherwise, dude. . .
  I have an idea.  I tell you what, try this as an experiment, let me know how it goes:  Move to someplace like the Sudan, or Iran, Saudi Arabia.  Demand that your "rights" be respected about religion, and that all reference to Allah be taken from the public square, the law books, the media, everything.  Because they offend YOU.  Let me know how that goes for you.  Jackoff.
  The whole point is that the rights of the majority need to be respected as well, not pushed aside for fear of "offending* some one.  One of the rights that should be in the constitution, and in fact, I am in favor of starting a grassroots campaign to get a referendum for a new Amendment:  You have the right to be offended.  In fact, expect it.
  You know, I’m not quite sure how it would be worded.  I’ll work on that.
  But this is about freedom.  We have the freedom to believe as we wish.  Having "In God We Trust" on our money doesn’t hinder him in any way, shape or form from believing what he wants.  His desire to take it away from the majority is an effort on his part to hinder OUR freedom, solely based on the fact that it is there, and he wants it gone.

  So where does that leave us?  There are some people who want this country to be a radically different place?  Why?  That’s a good question.  A really good one.  Most people LIKE this country the way it is–the values, the culture, the overall sense of community.  But the people that want to change it, that have an agenda to change it–what is their goal, their angle?
  They feel that we are not a good country?  Based on what?  On other countries’ feelings?  Or based on the fact that we have a system based on essentially a Christian philosophy, that there is a right and there is a wrong?  That is slowly, steadily being swept under the rug.  Whatever they are doing, it’s working.  We are not the same country we were fifty years ago.
  And whenever someone says that, they immediately jump to "Oh!  You want to return to segregation and no civil rights for blacks, and Jim Crow laws, and the KKK and lynch mobs!"
  Christ, what a leap.  No.  That’s not what I want.  Of course that did happen, but you make it sound like that was all that was going on, every day, all the time.  And what about now, with an epidemic of black on black crime, an epidemic of unwed black mothers, an epidemic of poverty in black neighborhoods, and high death rate, high dropout rate, and rampant drug use?  Exponential increase in violence, and the new factor of more and more youth committing violent acts?  Drugs, pedophilia?  What about that?  In fifty years, are you going to look back on this time of "hope and equality," and ignore that?
  First and foremost, I am not saying we were better off with the lynchings and the discrimination.  Let’s be clear:  One did not cause the other.  The causes are too wide and varied to be traced to one culprit.  (I guess I have to spell this out, because many will read this and interpret it in their own way, trying to get the worst possible read from it.  I do not mean that the social ills of today’s minorities are the direct result of the civil rights movement.  If you try to say that I am saying that, you are wrong, you are a liar, and you are dishonest, and probably a communist, because here I am, right here, saying no, that is not what I am saying.)
  But we look at the past with rose colored glasses.  The Leave-it-to-Beaver world of the late 50’s and early 60’s, the middle America, suburban to rural life.  I’d like to see some statistics, I really would, on how many people live in the big cities versus how many live in. . . everywhere else.  The United States is not "Friends," not "Seinfeld," not  "90210," not "NYPD Blue."  Maybe it is–in minute amounts.  But more of America is "Andy Griffith."  Even Mary Tyler Moore’s Minniapolis was better.  Even today.

  Do you want to raise your children in Mayberry or Melrose Place?  Is that a fair assessment?  Is that what you want your country to be? NYPD Blue?  Is that what you want your life to be like?  Honestly?  Like Dallas?  Dynasty?  Exciting to watch, but not to live.
  How about the perfect societies in Europe?  Free and open–  Christ in a sidecar.  You know, I just realized what Europe is:  Europe is The United States’ lazy, shiftless brother-in-law.  Out of work, won’t look for work, expects a handout, and then get surly when the US says we can get them a job.  Europe has been sleeping on our couch for 50 years, eating our food, trying to date our cousin, and they can’t get up off their ass once in a while and cut the grass.
  They lay around the house all day, which we paid for, watching Oprah on our big screen TV and our cable–again, which we paid for, and wonder why we get uptight when they come stumbling in late at night, drunk from partying with the money we gave them, and try to get in bed with our wife.  Who is *their* sister, by the way.  They have no idea why we consider them a bad influence and don’t want them picking up our daughter from school.  "Why do you have to work all the time?  Why can’t you just come and party with us?  See how free and easy life can be?"
  "Well, I’d love to, but I can’t.  Since you aren’t working and you aren’t paying the bills, someone has to or we’ll get evicted."  But they never see the bills coming in, they only see how grand their free and easy lifestyle is, and how we should be more like them.
  What do you really want America to be like?  The Utopia that Karl Marx described?  The problem with all of these visions is that you have to get everyone behind it, and there are going to be the leaders who benefit, and the sweaty masses who fall numbly in line.
  But no one ever sees themselves as the sweaty masses.  Trust me:  you are.  The socialists don’t want equality for everyone, they want Control.  Control over your life.  The freedom *they* give you.  The healthcare *they* provide for you.  The jobs *they* have prepared for you.  You have the freedom to do whatever they want you to do.  All you have to give them is everything you make, and they’ll take care of the rest.  Fair is fair, right?  You trust them, right?  They are the government after all, right?
  These freedoms the socialists fight for on your behalf, freedom of religion, free speech–are really just ways to get rid of inconveniences, like religion and, ironically, free speech.  Which brings us full circle back to the Fairness Doctrine.  It’s so much like 1984 that it’s frightening.  Words mean the exact opposite of what you think they mean.  Like Political correctness.  This will be our doom.  "Fairness."  Smother opposing views in the interest of being "fair."
  How is that?  How, exactly, is the "Fairness Doctrine" not fair?  I don’t understand–
  You can draw a corollary with the Fairness Doctrine and racial quotas. . .even though there is a stronger case for quotas, because the purpose is to make up for past transgressions.  The Fairness Doctrine is like a quota:
  There needs to be time given to opposing views, because that’s "Only fair." 
  It’s not so much like a quota as it is like this:  You start a business in competition with me, but eventually you go under.  The law says I have to make space on my shelves and sell your wares for you.  It’s only fair.  Isn’t it?
  Right wing radio has listeners, advertisers, revenue.  Left wing radio tried, with much fanfair, financial backing, revenue, free publicity.  It fell flat on its face.  So now–since they went out of business, they want the right wing media to subsidize their message?  It’s only fair.
  It’s really hard to say that with a straight face; I wonder how they manage.

  PS–Any comments anyone leaves cursing me out, calling me names, casting aspersions on my character–They prove my point.  The left, the liberals, the socialists don’t want any dissent.  And they sure as shit don’t want to hear the truth.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. You want to try living in Blair\’s Britain. Then you\’d know all about living in shit under a manic control freak.
    Self denying, self loathing and self pitying. But the ones who pay for it are the ones who keep the country going.
    Regarding one thing you said, it has often amused the cynic in me when the dear old BBC is reporting on yet more self inflicted tragedy in Africa or the Middle East, blaming the USA, Israel & Britain for all of the world\’s problems and there, behind the reporter, unremarked upon, are lorry loads of sacks of grain etc. clearly marked with the Stars & Stripes, "A gift from the People of the USA." And you expect gratitude?!? Or even aknowledgement???! This is the world!
    But that\’s our ruling class. \’We\’ll\’ only see what \’we\’ want to see. And the truth is whatever \’we\’ decide it will be.
    So there we are. It seems it\’s the same all over.
    All the best,

  2. huh?it took me three days…. THREE DAYS!.. to read this! I don\’t remember what I read at the beginning and I\’m afraid to start over again. good thing I live with you, lol.. when you get long winded I can just smile and look pretty and nod my you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: