Sunday, May 01, 2011
That's why
Somewhat interesting discussion on Meet the Press, with Comrade Bloomberg of NY and Gov McDonnell of VA. Comrade Gregory tried to criticize politicians for focusing on Trump's birther question, and both Mayor and Gov slapped back at Gregory. It wasn't the politicians who magnified the question, it was "your industry", the media.
But nobody asked why the media magnified it.
Here's why: By focusing only on the "crazy" side of Trump's agenda, the politicians AND the media can completely avoid handling the more serious side of Trump's agenda.
All "acceptable" politicians and media agree that American industry must die, to give China a monopoly on industry.
All agree that American soldiers must die in countries that compete with Saudi oil, to give Arabia a monopoly on oil.
Trump disagrees on both. He says we should defend American industry against China, and he says our imperial activities should benefit America, not Arabia.
That's a serious disagreement, but it doesn't fit inside the chalk lines of "acceptable fair and balanced debate", so it must be utterly ignored.
(Those chalk lines have become unspeakably narrow. All shouting, cussing and "debate" are now confined to one question: "Should we cut 0.00000000001% from the rate of growth of federal spending, or should we cut 0.00000000002% from the rate of growth of federal spending?" All other topics are strictly out of bounds, and anyone who tries to ask any other question is crazyracistfascistsexistcrazy by automatic definition.) ¶ 8:16 AM
But nobody asked why the media magnified it.
Here's why: By focusing only on the "crazy" side of Trump's agenda, the politicians AND the media can completely avoid handling the more serious side of Trump's agenda.
All "acceptable" politicians and media agree that American industry must die, to give China a monopoly on industry.
All agree that American soldiers must die in countries that compete with Saudi oil, to give Arabia a monopoly on oil.
Trump disagrees on both. He says we should defend American industry against China, and he says our imperial activities should benefit America, not Arabia.
That's a serious disagreement, but it doesn't fit inside the chalk lines of "acceptable fair and balanced debate", so it must be utterly ignored.
(Those chalk lines have become unspeakably narrow. All shouting, cussing and "debate" are now confined to one question: "Should we cut 0.00000000001% from the rate of growth of federal spending, or should we cut 0.00000000002% from the rate of growth of federal spending?" All other topics are strictly out of bounds, and anyone who tries to ask any other question is crazyracistfascistsexistcrazy by automatic definition.) ¶ 8:16 AM
