Hoping It's Insults From Ancient PR Policies, and, Learning to Fight Darfur's Horrors

I can't remember the last time I had the patience to sit through much more than five minutes of a traditional newscast. I find the pace is too slow for my Internet-paced brain. That, and the fact that the topics they most often choose to focus on are often pointless in the extreme (or is pointless a superlative?). But isn't it mainly just infruriating how the media will print and broadcast ("push!") the most insulting comments from those who serve us and lead us in government?

I'm watching The News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight and they show a clip of a Democrat citing some ridiculous study that shamefully purports to somehow scientifically refute some other ridiculous study from a similarly in-the-pocket research shop of that other fraternity, er, "mainstream political party" -- that we collectively pretend provide us some substance of the actual concept of democracy. Said report cited by the Sigma Chi, er, Democrat dude purportedly scientifically proving that we're safer today because of some combined, compromised foreign political policies that the Republican party I suppose rightly claims as being mostly closest to their compromised-among-hundreds-of-millions-of-individuals-in-the-fraternity (er, party). This followed a similarly embarrassing clip from the President (fraternities and this nation each have Presidents, right? Do sororities call their presidents, "Presidents"? Have to ask my mom that one) in which he cited that other report.

On a "flip it" side of things, I'd like to think that maybe all these endless insults and avoidance of responsibility for both the good and the bad of this world is all the collective result of ancient political PR parties and that most of the time these guys who can't possibly be so stupid as to believe for one second their own spewing of this pointlessness (to the extreme...or superlative?) is somehow going to determine whether each us "public" individuals out here think the policies of frat parties', er, political parties in power are responsible for how protected we are or aren't. It might be just a wee bit more complicated than that, no?

But then again, sometimes optimism can be naivety , just as sometimes pessimism can be cynicism. (And sometimes that's okay, btw.)

It also upset when they briefly overviewed the the horrors of of Darfur and the rest of Sudan and they bothered to show and appeared to objectively imply that the people they chose to quote who shamefully/horrifyingly (neither superlatives, right (...or wrong?) ) said that a UN deployment of troops would be about expanding US/western values (man, I think I'm making the jackass they quoted sound good here). THE PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, IN DARFUR ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED. Seriously, this is like one of the the very few ways in which the UN could do some good and serve its purpose.

It's as if objectivity of any sense gets suspended in the name of trying to remain objective. The horrid murderers and criminals which the mainstream press chooses to give any semblance of credibility as a government might be a case of when objectivity dictates not implicitly verifying such a body as a government. Which is conceptually parallel to the idea of my complaining about the made-for-scroll-paper-town-crying coverage of the insulting claims/soundbites of our own politicians.

A few frustrations, er, "flip it's" in this one, eh? Let's keep reading, learning and trying to figure out ways to help.