The problem? I’m glad you asked. Their post does a couple of things. First, it misses the mark completely by ignoring the fact the PBS News Hour announces all service members who have died in the line of duty overseas as soon as the names and portraits become available. Their post just misses this completely, end of story. Except, secondly, their post implicitly blames Americans (aka, Facebook users) for what has always been a failing of media and government to protect us.

On an almost weekly basis, I’m reminded of when an internal NBC memo was leaked regarding Phil Donahue’s cancellation stating that he would provide, “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” I always find it curious the things people get mad at, and yet do absolutely nothing about.

The president has not only governed as a liberal—he’s governed as an incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters that electing a Republican Congress and president next year is the only way to change direction.

It deals away with so much context, fact, and history, that I struggle to believe that Michele Bachmann didn’t say it.

Oh, and “uncontroversially, Bushs’ crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.”Uncontroversially. It’s that word that proves you are listening to a fanatic.

And I think Sully’s right, but just because Chomsky says its uncontroversial, doesn’t mean it is. So why doesn’t Andrew make that easy argument? Who knows, maybe Andrew looked at the number of dead people between “them” and “us.” But I know what the real point is that no one else will say: it’s easier to kill the asshole that kills innocent people, turtles, anything really to promote their bake sale; rather than a nice guy who accidentally kills innocent people.

I love this post from Andrew Sullivan (in a sick, sadistic way). And he’s been making this point for a while now.

His idea is that anything to get a conversation going on the budget is good. By that logic, we can assume that talking about how Quadaffi is a psycho  will change the way things happen in the Middle East. Discussing these topics isn’t going to change anything because no one with any money wants anything to change.

In fact, I’d bet that Ryan made the plan in a manner knowing that it wouldn’t be put out to the floor so that he only has to stand behind it in a rhetorical sense and say, “See, at least I tried, and you’re too scared to try anything.” Which, for those of you paying attention sounds like the same excuse I would give if I lost a pensioner his 401K plan in AAA rated collateralized loan lottery tickets.

I am in no way, shape, or form, amazed at the agreement many viewers have regarding the take away of funding towards public broadcasting. In fact, if America is amazing at anything, it’s the ability to make the smallest, most insignificant sacrifice such a dire cause to the march of freedom that is our nation’s narrative. Oh, you don’t believe me? Then why do we order diet coke when we get the number 4 at McDonalds?

And then there’s the hatred from whoever wrote into Michael Getler. In between Getler’s weekly “I’m-an-ombudsman-I-can’t-have-an-opinion-or-I’ll-lose-the-integrity-that-no-one-notices-or-cares-about” high school paper article, viewers shared with him their frustrations that PBS would stoop to the level of advocating funding for itself, as opposed to allowing others to simply say they suck and accept such critique as fact. You know, the way NPR does it.

But once again, the entertainment of these consequences is too much to withhold me from writing such a wondrous review of the saga. A man, alone, willingly watches programming, and when reminded that the provider of such programming is losing funding and would need their viewer’s support, gets angry at the prospect that the thing he consumes for free is not, in fact, free. It’s as if I’m reading some real life version of The Machinist.

And all of this, for programming that simply legitimizes the narrow ideology between the two parties. No Republican hates a Democrat for a position being held, or vice versa. They hate each other because they are on differing teams, while their positions are fundamentally identical.

I do have a secret though as to why we, as a people, are not worried about global warming: because we don’t care. There are YouTube videos of white, suburban, well-off, youths who kick footballs into oncoming cars. And you’re going to tell me that you’re shocked that species that produces that has yet to do anything about global warming?

All in all, it should be kind of comforting. I mean, think about it, all that means now is that George Will has more in common with those suburban youths that anyone would have originally thought. And the point is that no one cares because they can get away with not caring.

Oh, you don’t believe me? Then why do you think it would be “rad” if we had 50-70 degree weather in February?

We do nothing but make fun of Carter (I can’t say I completely blame anyone), but complain when politicians don’t reenact the one thing, for which, he is hated.

After the apparent flight of President Mubarak to his resort home, everyone is left wondering what will happen. One fervent church go-er commented that we should be afraid of The Muslim Brotherhood. Which, only further goes to show just how awesome America thinks popular uprisings are.  It only takes 12 hours for many to start missing the man who reigned over his country for 30 years. Moreover, have we apparently not noticed just how military centric Egypt is? I mean, they have one, which really gives them some points in that area of the world and puts them apart from Afghanistan in regards to “things we can control.” And the Muslim Brotherhood has barely reached Tea Party status over there.

Another Righty McBlowstuff-Upperton commented, “If it only takes that much of the population of Egypt to overthrow their President, how many would it take to get rid of Obama?” That’s the spirit. For once I can finally agree with the thinking of the embattled white man and his want for revolution. “You know, I really hate the French. We should start acting more like them.”

But here’s my question, um, er, in all of your uprising endeavors, do I get a job? Or, do I get an unemployment check?

I just don’t care for revolution in the US right now. It’s a common-man / militia / militaristic parallel of a political campaign for change. You know what I care about? A job, and providing a service in exchange for legal tender which keeps me alive in trade for other people’s goods and services. And honestly, that’s what most people care about. That’s what keeps them (me included) content to go on living their lives. The state exists to perpetuate its own existence, and it does so by the ability to keep the people passive, and a great way of keeping the pitch fork mobs and torches at bay is by making sure we’re content, by being employed.

Remember, I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m simply stating institutional fact. Of how things operate, and why they do. Why does a firm (or government) continue to grow beyond the point where it’s profitable? Because the bigger it gets, the more tangled into the system it becomes, and the tougher it is do away with, or let go. It exists so that it can continue its existence. I’m not even saying it’s bad, I’m just explaining to you the first layer of “why.”

***

On a side note, why do I not pick on anyone on the left? Well, I do, but my friends who identify as on the left didn’t like President Bush because he tortured people. And they’re not exactly praising Obama because, well, his administration has continued a great many of their predecessor’s policies. Just go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon.com for a week, and wait until he brings you another “This person isn’t being let back into the US because he was just put on a no-fly list, and he is now being tortured and held in another country without charges.”

The ninth decision – the opportunity on which Obama and the 111^th Congress took a pass – was the chance to tackle the massive concentration and dysfunctionality of the US financial industry that emerged from the crisis of 2008.

Instead of using the short period between his election and inauguration to draw up blueprints for a restructuring of the banking industry, including its deeply-troubled government-sponsored mortgage markets, Obama and his economic team simply ratified the emergency policies of the autumn of 2008 – policies that made US financial institutions bigger, fewer, more dominant and probably less stable than before.

While I agree with David, the point that he is unknowingly making is how these decisions past muster in this country. Simply, any politician can now (rather, “and has”) go on television and say simply this: “This idea is so bad that even our crazy left-wing president won’t do it.”

It’s a tactic so simple that if Machiavelli were to be reanimated now, he would find himself outmoded and utterly useless. You see Mac, we don’t need you anymore because in reality, we want the horse shit you were lying about.

Bank of America could literally be found of torturing its own employees, and not enough people would care.  How do I know this?  We, as a nation, actually torture people and not enough people care.  You know what people will care about?  If they find out that Bank of America stole their money.  Ironically, the transfer of wealth from the public to the oligarchy that is business through the middleman of government in the U.S. seems to be amiss among the public.