Before I started blogging myself, most of the stuff I sought out online to read (bloggers and mainstream media) were usually the type of thing that I agreed with. I didn?t actively avert my eyes from things that challenged my viewpoints, but I didn?t make a point of reading them either. Most of the liberal/left leaning stuff I tended to read online came from referenced exchanges between bloggers whom I generally agreed with, and when they linked to those pages, I would usually read them, so as to get the opposition straight from the horse?s mouth. That was about the extent to which I surveyed ?the other side? of things, so much of the time, the information coming from that philosophical/political side was garnered secondhand, having read the refutation before the original piece.

I realized at the time that I wasn?t getting ?the whole stor?? exactly, but I acknowledged it and didn?t really let it worry me either. I enjoyed what I read and also felt very informed, if only from the sheer amount of knowledge gained from sites like the USS Clueless and the new directions of inquiry they gave.

After I started blogging last July, however, I realized very quickly that one would often be at a loss to find interesting and/or engaging topics when all you were doing was reading and linking people with whom you already shared a viewpoint. So that, more than anything else, started me reading things such The Guardian, Tapped, and some of the more leftist blogs.

A good amount of the time, the views I found there did indeed cause me to think and re-examine my own beliefs and conclusions. As often as not, however, (especially concerning the major media outlets) I was shocked at just how poor, ill-informed, dishonest or just plain shoddy much of the commentary was.

Now, I’m 22 years old. I consider myself fairly intelligent and well-informed, and am not compeltely without experience in the real world. At the same time, I am usually inclined to think of myself as just another stupid kid. I mean, really, what the hell do I know anyway, especially when contrasted with people who are twice my age and whose opinions are sufficiently incisive and sophisticated to merit them receiving a handsome wage just to tell people what they think?

This impulse was then placed against the other frequent reaction when I read major media opinion makers, which went something like, “What the hell? These guys are paid to write this shit? I’m just a stupid kid and I can smell the bullshit coming off this thing from 20 feet away! What gives?”

There were two possibilities, as I saw it. Either I was unusually intelligent, or much of major media was horribly shoddy. Now, I know for a fact that I’m not that bright, so there was only one possible solution.

I’m sure most folks in the blogosphere at this point would marshall up their most hearty “Well, DUH .”

Yes, yes. We’ve all been inundated with stories detailing the huge amount of bias and shoddiness that goes into mainstream media these days, but still I expected that major newspapers, major networks, the types of places that are supposed to reflect and also to form public opinion would somehow be of a much higher caliber.

I’ve come to the realization recently that no, much of the the time, they’re just plain bad. And when you read those pieces, riddled with abject silliness, it’s hard to not feel a sense of arrogance building in your chest, which comes with the recognition that these pathetic bits of poor thinking are supposed to be representative of the country’s best editorial writing.

I try my best to not let that arrogance win out, but it is supremely difficult to do when you can say “I’m 22 years old, not particularly intelligent, and I don’t know shit about shit, yet still I can see right away that stuff like this is crap. Poorly written, fallacious, and simply irritatingly bad.

So let’s see why!

I’d like to play poker with George W. Bush. I’d get rich. Any poker player worth his salt knows you always call when the other guy is bluffing. If he’s bluffing, and you’re holding any cards at all, you’ve got him beat. You can’t lose.

So how does George W. Bush respond to a bluff? He throws in his cards! He gives up. That’s what he did recently in the never-ending saga of the Bush family versus Saddam Hussein.

You can always tell you’re in for trouble when your columnist takes a page from the book of Dowd, reducing the massive conflict going on between Saddam and, well, just about everybody to a silly personal spat between the Husseins and the Bushes, as if they lived on opposing Ozark hillsides and were a-fussin’ and a-feudin’ over a stolen pig.

Sigh . Isn’t it irritating when you’re forced to feel embarrassed for these people who unwittingly make fools of themselves in national print and online media? I’m not even going to talk about the pangs of sympathy I feel for all the millions of people around here (this is thre Bay Area, remember) and elsewhere in the nation who will read something of this brand of idiocy and just cackle with pleasure, thinking it a real zinger. Those poor, poor people.

First, Bush insisted that Saddam allow arms inspectors into Iraq. Second, Saddam said, “Okay, bring ’em on. We have nothing to hide.” Third, Bush said, “He’s bluffing. We’re not sending any inspectors.”

If anybody else had been president (except maybe Papa Bush), arms inspectors would have been on the next flight to Baghdad. If Saddam was bluffing, there was one sure way to prove it: Call his bluff.

If you think the two situations are really comparable, then you must be playing a wildly different game of poker than I’m used to.

Apparently in your version, when you call the bluffing player, he’s allowed to appeal to the other players for extensive negotiation on the subject first, and the other players, being jealous and apprehensive of the fact that you hold most of the aces, readily agree to this. The bluffer then discusses that he may be amendable to laying down his cards, but not all of them. Certainly not the two that are most personally dear to him. Secondly, he will only lay down one card per hour, and furthermore, if he ever suspects that you’re using this call to unfairly advantage yourself in the game, he will immediately cover his cards again and tell you to go to hell.

And all the while he’s been fingering his left hand pocket with his other hand, trying desperately to get at that ace of spades before you really force him to lay them down.

Is that the game of poker you play?


Then kindly shut the hell up until you know what you’re talking about.

But Bush is not as stupid as he pretends to be . And I’d guess, all kidding aside, that he’s a pretty decent poker player. So when Bush does something that appears not to make sense, as in this case, look for the hidden agenda.

In this case, the hidden agenda is Bush’s burning desire to invade Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein, the man who tried to kill his father.

It’s nice that he won’t let more than a couple paragraphs go by without claiming that this is just another Bush/Hussein grudge-match, with two rich men whipping it out to see whose is bigger. It’s quite a nice way of brushing aside all those complicated strategic and geopolitical issues, isn’t it? Can’t let the audience’s attention wander, can we? After all, we’re talking about people who think it’s uproariously funny to make “dumb Bush” jokes.

If the arms inspectors had gone in, the problem with Iraq building weapons of mass destruction (our kind of weapons) could have been resolved without war.

Weapons inspections didn’t “stop” or “resolve” Saddam’s programs. At best, they slowed them down, especially since the inspections were never unhindered or cooperated with, and there is every indication that Saddma will be playing that same game if they return.

But Bush doesn’t want a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem. He wants a war that will conclude with chaos. That will require us to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

The Bush plan (actually developed by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 and at that time called Defense Policy Guidance) is to maintain American dominance over the whole world. Right now, our permanent presence in southwest Asia is a mite weak, because nobody wants us there.


There it is again. The sadness.

The US is taking steps to make sure that there are no nations or entities in the world that would threaten us .

Do you hear that?

It’s the hordes of idiotarians gasping, “He admitted it! He admitted Bush is building an empire!”

Please sit down and take your fucking valium.

Erasing aggressive credible and non-trivial threats is not the same thing as establishing dominion over the world. Newsflash, friend: The American people don’t want an empire. Bush doesn’t want an empire. Cheney doesn’t want an empire. Rumsfield doesn’t want an empire. Powell doesn’t want an empire.

What all of these people do want, however, and what they are in the process of bringing about, is a world where there is no power that exists that both can and would threaten us. It’s not the same thing.

But of course, that doesn’t matter, because even though it isn’t the same, to people who accuse the US of creating an empire, that situation is just as bad.

They never say this, and I’m not even sure if some of them realize it themselves, but what they really want is a world where the United States is held in check by some alternate power, and if that power is Saddam Hussein, so be it. I’m sure they’d happily prefer that it was some sort of progressive force for enlightenment like the Soviet Union (ah, those were the days, weren’t they?), but for now Saddam will do. At least he isn’t white.

They want someone, something out there that is able to threaten us, because the US needs to be restrained in its evil, capitalistic behavior. They know that culturally and economically we will dominate the world unless we have some sort of serious opposition that constrains us. And what keeps them up at night is the idea that this will happen without us even trying to do it.

I always wonder how sincerely they believe their own rhetoric about clandestoine efforts to economically and culturally enslave the entire world . Can they really be serious? Do they really refuse to realize that the rest of the world, if given the honest choice, would like to become like we are, and that this will happen just by itself eventually?

Well, whether they recognize the real mechanism behind this transformation, the fact remains that it would be an abomination to them. The US is so crass, so greedy, so uncultured, so ingenuine, so gauche. Pick your favorite leftist boogeyman. Either way, what the world really needs is America kept in check, no matter what kind of entity is doing it.

It doesn’t mean they’d like to see Saddam Hussein ruling the world, or the Soviet Union for that matter, but in God’s name, someone keep these simplisitic Americans from getting too big for their britches!

Read the rest of the column. It’s equal parts stupidity and wide-eyed paranoia.

Then, when you notice that swelling hot feeling in the pit of your stomach , just say to yourself, “It’s not that I’m a genius. It’s just that he’s an idiot.”

last update : 23-5-2018

Comments are closed.