Tuesday, July 06, 2004

Bush Isn't the Problem. It's the Media.

I honestly believe that the biggest trouble liberals have is that we've been blaming Bush this whole time instead of putting the blame where it really belongs: The Media.

The Bush Administration has just been doing what ALL presidential administrations want to do. Did Clinton want unintended leaks or did he want things confidential, on-message, with only controlled leaks? Did Clinton want to push his left-wing agenda on America, or did he want to be constantly battling to stay relevant? What President WOULDN'T have done much of what Bush did? I'm not talking about the specific agenda, but the overall coup of doing what you wanted?

And that's the point, Bush did what they all would have done. So why weren't we attacking the enablers instead? The media went along with this crap and the whole time most liberals kept saying "Impeach Chimp" or "Cheney is a crook". The message should have been: The Media has sold us out to their own celebrity.

That's how the conservatives did it. They got the media so worried about a liberal bias that their lack of real coverage gave us a conservative bias. And the Washington conservative elite convinced the media that they should be more like the conservatives than like those rowdy protestors. And they became convinced that any item which did not make Bush look good was "unfair" and made a point of limiting our intimacy with such items. Pointing out the Bush Family connections with the Bin Laden family was in poor taste. Showing Bush in unscripted moments acting like a doof when he should be serious was saved for The Daily Show. And showing him yachting conflicted with the "real" Bush we constantly see clearing brush in sweltering Crawford.

And now this movie comes out which destroys the case for Bush that they've been making since before the 2000 election. They painted Bush either as a competent "everyman" or as a nice guy boob that was surrounded by competent advisors who would do what was best for America; and America bought it. And that's why the media hates the movie so much. They complain about the facts, but what they really hate is that Moore showed us what they thought was off-script and therefore unfair. They act like a book author who sees their characters altered in the film adaptation. But in this case, it was the author who forgot to flesh out the character accurately.

Hell, many liberals have complained that the movie wasn't STRONG enough. But that just backs up my point. This relatively mild indictment of Bush is nothing new, yet it is clearly impacting millions of people. There is no reason the media hasn't been telling us this stuff. No reason except they've been duped into believing that these facts are somehow wrong to mention. And instead of us blaming the messanger who wouldn't deliver the message, liberals have been blaming the guy that took advantage of it.

But it's not Bush's fault, he was just being human. It was the media's fault for not doing their job.

Monday, July 05, 2004

On Fahrenheit 9/11

What I'd like to see discussed is why most movie reviewers liked the movie and said it was powerful and moving, while most political pundits on both sides say it was boring or mediocre. I kind of have an idea about which of those two groups knows more about film-making and the quality of the film, and I'm fairly sure it's not the political guys. Did "knowing" that the facts were fake or deceptive make it less powerful?

And I think it's obvious that the pundits, especially the liberal ones, wanted to disassociate themselves from Mr. Moore before they even saw the movie. It was a scripted spin-point to say that Moore was biased and didn't represent them. And the only issue was just how far they'd go to disassociate themselves from Moore. Paul Krugman mentioned this in a recent column, and I note that Krugman is one of the few pundits without a journalistic background, which is probably why he's often the only one not reading from the script.

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but I've read a partial transcript, and I can say that those disassociating themselves from the movie are being foolish. It is obvious that Moore makes a point to only bring up claims that are factually correct and purposefully avoids making conclusions on what those facts mean. But it's the facts that he brings up that pundits find unfair.

It's considered unfair and cheap to point out the fact of the Bin Laden Family/Bush Family connection. It's considered unfair to show Bush being doofy shortly before announcing that he was sending people off to kill, die, wound, and be wounded. And it's considered unfair to show Bush doing what he was doing a month before 9/11.

People attack specific numbers that he gives or insist (without evidence) that Bush must have been working more during that time, but they can't argue against the overall truthfulness of those claims. They chip away at the minor issues, and pretend that this destroys the bigger ones; but they do not. And it's the overall idea of all this that most pundits find most appalling, due to it's "unfair" nature.

But what in the hell does fairness have to do with anything? These are facts and Moore does not say that Bush is scum for doing these things. He is only bringing up facts and letting us be the judge of what it means. And if we the people judge that Bush is scum for doing that, isn't that our right? Who is the media to decide which facts are "fair" or "unfair" to mention? And isn't that the real reason that the pundits dislike the movie? They say it's boring and deceptive, but their true complaint is that Moore is doing what they see is their god given right, and doing it in a way they think is "unfair".

But I say enough of that. Fox News has given one contribution to journalism which should not be ignored: it is the reporter's job to report the facts, and let us decide what they mean. Fox doesn't actually do that, and now the pundits are attacking Moore for doing so. Well I say, enough with the pundits and gatekeepers. We need to take our media back. Their job should be to check the facts and report what they find, and let us do the rest.

Friday, July 02, 2004

Oh, and I Do Tax Questions Too

I should add that I am also a licensed CPA in the great state of Texas, and would be perfectly happy to assist people either with the theories behind tax and accounting laws, or the practical demands of your personal life. If you'd like to know what items are deductible, why some items are deductible, or why we have to pay taxes, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer your questions. I enjoy accounting and find that I only learn more by answering questions.

As a disclaimer, this website and it's contents are for infotainment purposes only, and I will not be held liable for any mistakes or bad advice given. I am not your personal accountant and do not know of your specific financial situation or any details which may alter the advice given. If you require detailed and specific tax information, please seek a professional tax advisor. I'm just trying to help, but I'm not getting paid for this so don't expect too much.

Well Here It Is

This is my first real post. As I said on the main page, this is Ask Doctor Biobrain, your source for interesting answers to interesting questions. I will handle all questions pertaining to politics, philosophy, religion, or any other field that I find interesting. And by "interesting", I mean anything where there is no definite "answer" and you can't find it easily on the internet. I do not do baseball scores, trivia, television shows, or mind reading; and I cannot tell you where your lost keys are. (did you check the window sill?)

And as a disclaimer, all of my answers will be from an agnostic liberal Americans point of view, so the answers given may not apply to you. If you are Buddhist and want the meaning of life, my answer will likely fall short of your expectation and you might need to meet me at least halfway. I am well versed in many different religions (including Orthodox Typtcha), and would be happy to discuss the specific details of your beliefs. But in the end, my final answer will not agree with your unless you renounce all ability to know, understand, or comprehend any and all supreme beings.

Also, I will gladly engage in a full-on heated debate with anyone, as long as it is done so with the full understanding that in the end, I am right. I don't even mind petty insults and personal attacks, as long as they are part of a fuller dialogue and not the end of it. There will also be an understanding that grammar police are frowned upon, with a strong emphasis placed on comprehension. Basically, if it sounds good, go with it.

Finally, I would like to point out that I have a wry and often stupid sense of humor, and if you think I'm joking then I probably am. I hope you enjoy this site, find it interesting, learn something, and send me lots of money so I can quit my day job. Thank you.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004