Thursday, July 15, 2004


I can understand Republican conservatives’ distress with Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”. Moore Limbaughed them pretty good. He outFoxed them, he did; O’Reilly, he did. Pat Rubbertongue never fact twisted better. I wonder if they've Hannity enough?


When Bush says he stands behind all his misstatements, he leaves us in a quandary. Does he mean that all his misstatements are true and not misstatements? Or, when he misspoke, did we hear correctly what he meant with his misstatements? Did we mishear him? Was our mishearing more accurate than his misspeaking? Or he misspoke, and we misquoted his truth behind what we actually heard?

Ah... well... gee... whatever he missaid and we heard or misheard, and confabulation aside—maybe Bush did say, “con passionate conservative”, and we misheard him as saying, “compassionate conservative”. The truth is so dissimilar to what we thought he said that we are dumfounded to explain his duplicity. I guess we need to pay more attention to what he’s doing as his priorities continue to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor. Maybe the truth is in what he does rather than in what he says, after all.


Uneducated white male conservatives (by far the largest number are uneducated) suffer under a misconception. They universally think that the media is liberal because they don’t hear their world view in the media very often. But this is not because the press is liberal; it’s because most (not all, but most) of the facts reported in the news prove that the liberal view of reality is more accurate than a conservative view. A responsible press will report the most reliable facts and data available to it and if those facts happen to support a liberal world reality, they let the chips fall where they may. The facts don’t make the media liberal; the facts are liberal so whatever the media reports, of course, sounds liberal.

For example, these uneducated conservatives hear a report about how spanking is bad on kids, and they don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that what their dad did to them is perfectly okay. Otherwise, they might have to be angry at their dads and that would be scary as hell. They want to keep thinking that their dads hit them because that’s all they know about love from their dads. So rather than look at their real emotions, they displace that anger toward the “liberal” press for threatening the idea of “good” daddy in their heads.


Poor Bush must falsify documents in order to support his conservative base’s conservative ideas. He removed all the information about birth control and the lack of success from abstinence only teaching from Department of Health documents before release. He removed all the data showing bad news for the atmosphere from environmental documents. Bush altered intelligence documents so that he could make a case for his war in Iraq. Bush altered financial documents so that the true cost of the drug benefit wouldn't be known until after the vote. Bush’s blatant altering of documents is why responsible scientists have written two public letters which point out that Bush threatens scientific integrity. Now, if a man must falsify documents and distort reality in order to make a document more conservative, then how accurate is the conservative’s judgment that the media which reports these facts truthfully is liberal? If the truth is liberal so be it. I just want the facts, ma'am.


"O, well, half of one, six dozen of another." —Joe Garagiola

No comments: