Here’s your media bias for the week. Favorite headline: “Bush Defends Spying.”

Show me the headline that has a different take on the issue. Where’s the headline that reads, “Bush calls on Senate to stay tough on terrorism.” Where’s the headline that says, “Bush defends anti-terrorism measures.”

I haven’t seen it, and I won’t. Not in the irresponsible major media outlets anyway. Meanwhile they try to convince us that media bias is a myth. Sure it is.

I just keep having this image in my head of Dr. Nick Riviera saying, “Bias? What media bias? Hey, look over there!” Then as we turn around he makes his way out the window and scrambles away. I don’t know why, but that keeps running through my head.

The new motto of the MSM seems to be, “We report, you decide what we decide.

Media Bias

More than a few people seem to be confused as to how the Democrats claim to support the troops, while at the same time behaving in a fashion that seems so clearly UNsupportive. I have a little educational primer to help you along, and clear up some of the confusion. Mostly this entails pointing out the difference between the troops, and the terrorists. It can sometimes be easy to confuse the two.

Lesson one:
What do you see here? Look closely. Did you guess right? This is a terrorist. You can tell because terrorists dress in street clothes and try to blend in with the ordinary citizens.

Ok, now what do you see here? These are the troops. How can you tell? Unlike the terrorists, who attempt to blend in, you can see that the troops wear protective body armor, to keep terrorist bullets from piercing vital organs.

*

Lesson two:
Here we see typical terrorist behavior. They are using fear and intimidation to torture the captured freedom fighter. Clearly, this in no way resembles the championing of the Iraqi people exemplified by the troops.

Now, what did you see here? Did you think that this was a picture of American soldiers? Don’t be silly. American soldiers would be “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children.” Clearly, we see here, insurgent Freedom Fighters. Did you get that one right? How did you know? Look how the Freedom Fighter is welcomed by the Iraqi family. Terrorist Americans would not be appreciated in such a grateful fashion.

*

Lesson three:
What did you see when you saw this picture? Hmm? Saddam’s Mass graves. Why, no, stupid neo-con. Thanks to evil corporate capitalist nations, poor Iraqi’s were forbidden to sell their oil for profit. This left people too poor to allow for proper burial of their loved ones. It’s all America’s fault. Duh!

Did you see the troops in this picture? Look hard. They are the freedom fighters that have commandeered the plane. Yes, the troops have regained control of the rougue plane, and used it to sacrifice themselves in order to send an important political message about the evils of capitalism.

I hope this clears things up for you. The Democrats DO support the troops. You were just confused about who the troops were because you’re a dumb, redneck neocon.

Thanks for reading this conservative satire

One thing that really irritates me is when people justify judicial activism by stating that the Constitution is over 200 years old, its authors did not have the foresight to know what changes in technology and society would bring.

If you think that the Constitution doesn’t account for the way you think something should be, you don’t disregard what the Constitution says, and have a judge rule in favor of your position.

Our Founding Fathers may not have had the foresight to know what kind of place America would be in the 21st Century, but they did have the foresight to include a process for making changes, and it wasn’t by judicial fiat.

There is a democratic method for making changes, and that process is outlined in the Constitution itself. There is an amendment process for making changes to update aspects to reflect changes in society, or technology or whatever.

For example, slavery was allowed at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution (and wrongly so). How was slavery abolished? Did the Supreme Court determine that some part of the Constitution gave them equal protection? No, it was changed by passing an amendment to the Constitution.

When the Constitution was written, and ratified, women did not have the right to vote (and wrongly so). How did women get the right to vote? Did a judge decide that women should have the right to vote, and cite the laws of another nation as a precedent? No. An amendment to the Constitution was passed.

If you want abortion to be legal, or illegal, as a law of the land, rather than a state by state issue, then pass an amendment, or try anyway. That’s the way our system is constructed.

If you want to overturn the right to bear arms, you need an amendment. You don’t declare the 2nd Amendment archaic and outdated. Try to get an amendment repealing it.

If you want a completely secular government, you need an amendment. You don’t try to find something that’s not there to support your position. Try to get an amendment changing it.

I see no point to debating issues in terms of their Constitutionality, when what you are really debating are your views on them. Go ahead and debate your views, but don’t try to twist the Constitution to fit your ideals. Try to change the Constitution to fit your ideals, and debate those ideals to persuade others to support such an amendment.

You do this with an amendment (and your powers of persuasion), not by ignoring the Constitution, or declaring it outdated and irrelevant.

You may now attempt to persuade me that I’m not always right.

Return to the Political Humor Home Page