Why the media is liberal...

It used to amaze me how the double-faced nature of the press was often so blatant and transparent.
A few quick examples ... Right now, we are in an economy that is not so different than the eight years of Clinton... Last year employment rose in 44 of the 50 states, and *unemployment* hovers at or below 5.6% (less than the national averages in the 70's 80's or 90's) There is no mention of this in the mainstream press, nor that the 9/11 attacks directly resulted in 1,000,000 lost jobs.... or that the internet bubble and corporate scandals (which have shaken consumer confidence) all took place *before* January 2001.
Saddam was a worse tyrant than Slobodan Milosevic, and was in fact a far greater threat to the US than Slobie, the UN didn't approve our actions in Kosovo... and yet none of the criticisms thrown at Bush were thrown at Clinton.
The bias is obvious!
But why? Why would the press so often lean left instead of the centrist "objective" path they are ethically supposed to take?

The liberal left and the media have two very "sympatico" traits about them that make them perfect bed fellows:

1) "We have more knowledge than you. We are enlightened. We can't explain to you simpletons in a short news report, a short newspaper column, or in a sound bite all the complexities of these issues, so we graciously give you the pieces we know you need. You need to trust us, and you should.... after all, we are so much smarter and better informed than you."

2)"It is our job to look after you... to take care of you... to baby you and spoon feed you. Knowledge is power, and aren't we the benevolent ones giving you the scraps of knowledge from our table.

With the liberals, it is a sense that power (in the form of entitlements, govn't programs, and "assistance") is bequeathed by them to the "people." They are great Lords sharing the jewels of the realm with the common folk. For the media, they are graciously sharing their infinite knowledge with us simple folk.

In both instances, the "giver" holds an image of a benevolent master giving to the underlings. Along with it comes great condescension, arrogance, and classism. What is given (be it knowledge or power) is limited to what is in the best interests of the giver.

Robert Byrd will be praised for this civil rights move or another, yet will not denounce his deep involvement with the Klu Klux Klan. Kennedy can call Bush a liar, yet has never been held accountable for the 15-minute-long drowning of a 28-year-old-girl in his car. The liberals, and press, shouted sex! sex! sex! when the issues of impeachment were lying to a federal grand jury, perjury, and obstruction of justice... the EXACT same actions that forced Richard Nixon from office!

The problems with "benevolent" givers like the liberals and the press are many. Most particularly that they can choose what to give and what to keep, that they have an innate power that is only deepened by their largesse (the more they give, the more we crave... thereby the more power they have over us). Most importantly, their "giving" creates an image of generosity while in fact they are only giving that which serves their own interests... thay are ANYTHING but generous! When the American citizen is so beholden to a group, he can not be independent, and this is the greatest crime of the media and the Democrats. They seep freedom from the individual while duping him/her into thinking they are actually giving him/her something. What they creat is an environment of dependancy, and that goes against the very nature of the American culture.

The press and the liberals strive to maintain control and power and influence over the simpleton masses, while claiming selfless benevolence. This is the very nature that holds these two groups so closely together.

Shrek 2, or why can't most sequels be this good?

Chaz, my eldest son, and I ventured off this weekend to the movie theatre and enjoyed hours of really, REALLY good fun. Really, Really!
Shrek 2 was clever, witty, held the best parts of Shrek 1 and did a pretty good job of dropping the most crass and sophomoric parts of the first movie that lessened my enthusiasm for it.

At first, I tried to direct Chaz in the direction of Van Helsing, or another movie - somewhat leery of the "let down" potential of a sequel. Honestly, I was concerned that the fart jokes and such would be MORE prevalent after the success of the first Shrek.

Quite to the contrary, Shrek 2 steps away from the "dumb and dumber" simpleton gags and goes for cleaner (I won't venture far enough to say "wholesome") visual/verbal humor. It was a perfect blend of childhood fun and not-so-childish laughs.

Chaz and I are already repeating our favorite lines in normal conversation (a very good sign for any movie.)

The plot: Shrek and Fiona are living happily in Shrek's swamp when they receive an invitation to the land of "Far Far Away" where Fiona's parents are King and Queen. Shrek is typically nonplussed at meeting the in-laws, and he doesn't even know the half of it! The King is set to have Shrek assassinated so Fiona can marry Prince Charming. Donkey tags along because he and his Purple Dragon beloved are "on the rocks." The hired assassin, Puss in Boots, becomes a member of the Shrek-Fiona-Donkey entourage, and adds an even greater dimension of fun to this worthy trio.

If you liked Shrek 1, you're gunna' feel like Shrek 1 was just an hors d`oeuvre to the tasty, filling, and glorious main course that is Shrek 2. If you didn't like Shrek 1, or (gasp!) haven't seen it, then you should still see the sequel... it's that good!

I must interject here; it was SO refreshing to see Eddie Murphy in a quality flick after (what I consider) such a fluff piece of caca that was "The Haunted Mansion." He sorely needed to reclaim his status as a talented movie actor and comedic master... thank heavens for Shrek 2!