I don’t know if I can even stand to listen to another minute of talk radio or talking head news punditry. At what point, in America, did the population stop thinking? Look at McCain and his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Look at the boon of support it gave to his rotting campaign? Just take in for a minute the mountains of bullshit the media unloaded in to the cars and living rooms of the American People.

Suddenly, pundits who were saying that if Hillary couldn’t take the blows from the men candidates she should drop out of the race, are saying that the cruel media make it hard for women politicians to get a fair shot. Those who dismissed Senator Clinton as a candidate that pandered to the lesbians and the feminists were quick to point out that in 2008, it’s unfair to make such stereotypical claims about someone just because of their sex.

I know it sounds cliched, but in just watching the gears of our new system turn, I feel like the exchange of ideas is becoming the consumption of ideas. People have completely given up on forming their own opinions. They opt, instead, to adopt someone else’s philosophy, for the sole reason that they are on TV, and that they claim that they’re right.

Long, Long ago, the idea was that in order to get on TV and lecture about how right you were, that somebody has checked to see if the things you say apply to the same reality that we all live in. This is no longer the case. Out of the hundreds of people that CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, Ad Nauseum, would call experts in some way or another, are only experts at looking in to a camera and talking for two minutes straight. They have about as much business talking about politics and policies than Clayton Bigsby has talking about white supremacy.

Take FOX News. They have a show called Hannity and Colmes, a ‘fair and balanced’ debate show featuring the greatest manipulative mastermind in the known universe, Sean Hannity, and some idiot who couldn’t argue his way out of a french bathroom.

I guess the Competitive Media look at it like this. They have 24 hours in a day, the entire time they are expected to be on the air talking about the news. Since you couldn’t possibly objectively report the days events for that long without losing market share to the weather channel and that one channel that plays a local radio station and a PowerPoint presentation promoting local events, they are forced to make the news interesting by making the discussions adversarial in nature.

I can sort of understand the logic behind that. Ideally, Discussions equal discourse, discourse is the cornerstone of democracy, and your news station is no longer bland and neutral, it’s exciting and patriotic.

So, they come up with the two archetypes of American politics; the Neo-con and the Flaming Liberal. They put them in a room together, they turn on a camera, and they throw some money in the middle and film the bloodbath.

So, you get extremists on both sides, both of which have to make legions of yes-men want to watch them. Neither of the two are capable of understanding the first thing that happens in our government. Nevertheless, pick your issue. One of them is fanatically in favor of the topic, the other is fanatically against it.

I used the term Competitive Media, and I think it works in the purview of this topic. The American People asked the Corporate News Media to inform us. The Corporations decided that they would take on this stupendous responsibility, and then - after a track record of doing a decent job with it - finally decided that it’s duty to our society just wasn’t making them enough  money. So, they decided to dedicate more time to the news throughout the day, and exponentially piss all over the quality of the journalism to make it entertaining.

The result? Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and every author and bobble head that makes it in one of those little camera output squares. You know, the ones that are being interviewed by the CNN anchor you’ve never heard of who was hired because he could read a teleprompter and banter during the segways.

It’s been a glacieral process. It started when the American People decided that TV news was good enough and felt secure that religiously watching 24 hour news channels was a sound method of staying informed. It’s inevitable result? A population that will accept any answer you give it. A castrated America that couldn’t make an informed decision if civilization as we knew it hung in the balance.

That’s the real irony here, isn’t it? Even the atheists are starting to worry about the apocalypse. Yet, we have one political campaign telling us that we need bumper sticker quotes and lackluster legislation, and we have another who’s telling us that we do, in fact, need bumper sticker quotes and lackluster legislation, just from a different tent.

We have hour and a half debates where candidates are encouraged to keep their responses to short blurbs, and even then, all they do is call each other liars and cheats. The issues are swept under the rug, if you were reading a transcript, you wouldn’t even be able to tell the two apart.

Yet, when people step up with opinions which go against the two usual talking points, those people tend to be censured.

These people, who arbitrarily make up the sides to the opinions of the day, poll the population on which of the sides they came up with they agree with. Then, they use that polling information to justify what they’ve been saying all along.

This is what passes for news in my country. This is the main reason my country will be in a recession for the next decade, and probably taken over by the British in the decade following.

I love how people do things. Like in conversations, where they’re asking you about something, and they segway in to asking a favor after they pussy foot around the topic until you give them something to work with. I like how most conversations that take place are half pretense, one quarter is filler, and the rest selfish gain.

It’s funny, but it’s true. We’re all guilty of it. Half the shit that comes out of your mouth is a lie, and most every time you talk to someone, you’re looking to get something out of it. When you tell that to some people, they act all offended like they’ve never told a lie before. You tell that to other people, and they claim that they share your pessimistic view on humanity.

You see, in the one hand, the notion that everyone lies and manipulates means that you do it too. Some people like to perpetuate the notion that people should be beacons of virtue, and since lying is always wrong, they would NEVER lie. Of course they’re lying. The goal of that lie is to convince me that they are virtuous, when even if they are, doesn’t mean that they don’t lie. The whole ‘how dare you say’ crap is filler, the point, i.e. that they’d never tell a lie is selfish gain (they want people to think they are better than others - ed.), and their whole ‘I’m spiritual and/or religous and my gizard says’ is pretense.

In the other hand, you’ve got those who claim that they share your ‘pessimistic’ point of view and that human beings are ultimately bad. Of course, ultimately bad would mean that they are ultimately bad, which they’d probably deny, and when you point out that they’ve got at least a dozen humans in their address book that they would defend as ‘the exceptions to the rule’ they would come up with some unifying theory that doesn’t hold water. The part where they pretended to agree with you when you’re point is much deeper than their interpretation is pretense, the antidote about how he was stabbed in the back by his ex is filler. And his idea where everyone is either X or Y, and Y is evil is just a thinly veiled attempt for pity and compassion is just as selfish as wanting to be respected for your perfect honesty record.

In reality, this is how human conversation works. There’s always a gain. If it pained me to go talk to others, I wouldn’t do it. If I felt more satisfied by sitting in a cave all day playing with myself, then I would. The fact is, no one person can do everything, and the diversity of skills within our social structures enables us to get more done. We need each other, and the world would quickly erode if we didn’t inner depend on one another.

You see this in Evolution. When the higher primates became aware of how to use objects surrounding us as tools to accomplish goals, they began to realize that by working together, we could make bigger goals that no individual would realistically be able to do. After a long stretch of time, we developed language as a way to coordinate and evaluate.

After another long stretch of time, it became clear that expressing ones self was oftentimes hurtful to those around us. We developed rules of expression, we developed internal laws that helped us express ourselves in a way that is usually very receptive of people.

The need to coordinate and evaluate is obvious. Without it, we might as well go sit in a cave and sleep. The need for people to like us is just as important, as if they didn’t, we’d be at a great disadvantage as far as acomplishing anything. So, you bite your tounge. You tell a little white lie to make others feel better. If your really mad at someone, you pretend that you aren’t. You embellish on the phone when talking to the parts house so you can save a little money.

You develop internal processes on the assumption that everyone else does it, or that it’s for the greater good, or that it would be less moral to tell the truth and blah blah. 

In reality, the reasons of doing it aren’t important. The mechanics of language, the need of the human soul to be accepted and liked demand that people don’t share their innermost feelings and always tell the truth. If the first words out of your mouth when you see someone is ‘I hate that shirt, and you’re nasty and you smell bad’ would land you alone, bored, with many enemies. Lies are a tool, lies are useful. Without lies, the truth is meaningless.

Huh? Yeah, without lies, the truth is meaningless. When you lie to someone, you’re not doing it because you’re a douche. Well, maybe you are. I mean, sure - there is that. But, most of the time, you’re telling them what you believe they want to hear. you’re not doing this because you’re an asshole, you’re doing this because you don’t want them to think that you’re an asshole. You care about their opinion of you, and you want them to think that you think highly of them.

So, when you speak, you oftentimes say things that aren’t encompassing of what you really feel. Sometimes, you’ll tell other people - word will get back to them - and you’re labeled a liar. Other times, you’ll stick to that story for ever and ever, and you’ll go to your grave with your wife thinking that you like her meat-loaf.

People tell lies, they lie every day. Hopefully, they just tell the same lie to everyone who asks. However, some people change their lies depending on who they talk to. They want to be liked by everyone, and that means a different spin depending on the situation. It is what it is, and you do it too.

The difference between people like me, and those people who take sides, is that I believe that this engine which we call society adheres to certain rules that human beings naturally fall in to. Others like to think in terms of how life is ultimately my body and soul, and what other people see when they interact with it. They pretense everything they say and do with the idea that they must act a certain way to be accepted, they fill in the gap between pretense and gain with bullshit they’ve never given twenty minutes of serious thought about, all of which sounds good in the space of one short conversation, and they gain respect and profit for their troubles.

Again, without this system, there’d be no need to communicate. I’m sure it’s more complicated, and I’m sure my explaination is nothing short of bullshit when compared to an actual experts oppinion, but I bet i’m not far off when I say that everyone lies, and most good people are better liars than the folks they’d call liars. 

Do you want to know the real kicker, though? Every time you explain this to someone, they automatically think you’re some kind of liar. I explained this same exact concept to my Aunt the other day, and now she thinks I lie about everything and she can’t trust me anymore. At least she lies about it when she wants something from me. Figures, right?

and he’s like, Dougie, we’ve got to solve this Checkloslavakia problem before it becomes an issue! I’m like, Yeah John, you think? You look like a total idiot out there talking about their trade relations with Russia, you know Checkloslavakia disbanded in like the early 90’s, right?

He’s all like, No Dougie, I didn’t know that. That’s exactly my point! Rove keeps telling me that I can’t make any stupid n00b mistakes and I’m afraid he’s going to dump me for some younger politician with hair and a winning smile! What the hell am I suppose to do? I can’t keep all these facts in my head! This Campaign is driving me crazy! I need help! Please!

And I’m just sitting there stunned, like dude! I’m voting for Obama. Fuck you, John. Your party blows, and I’m not going to help you win the office.

He’s like I understand completely, but I don’t need your help getting back in office. What are your thoughts on getting Checklo and Slavakia back together? Between you and me, I thought they were perfect for each other. Checklo with his mean business senses and his razor wit, and Slavakia with her Nuclear disarmament treaty and the hidden bunkers of nukes we’ve had there since dubbya-dubbya two.

I’m totally stuned. For real, y’all - I think he’s tripping nuts. I hear you start in to delusions after taking too much lipitor and ambien. I told him to calm down, we’ll get something figured out before too long and he’s like Thanks Dougie, you always come through for me. Have a proposal on my desk by tommorow afternoon and we’ll show the liberal media what an Administration of Ideas can accomplish. If you play ball, Son - I might clear off the Straight Talk Express Couch and get you to come campaign with me. Would you like a job writing my speaches?

I’m like John, dude - it’s been fun, but I’ve got to take this call. No, I’ll be in touch man, yeah - tomorrow, whatever! Yeah! Bye John!

Mr. Cruise, you are ruining populations. Your adamant and unwavering condemnation on pharmaceuticals and physiatrics is inhumane, and are not supported by the greater scientific community. Although these technologies are vastly misunderstood by the general populace, the notion that you understand them better is laughable. Take a look at pharmaceuticals, for example.

Decades of imperial evidence, study and implementation, have proven that some drugs effectively treat serious mental conditions. Now, although a case could be made as to the validity of the argument that we don’t understand the true nature of the changes that our medications have on the human brain, especially after pointing out that we don’t have an underlining theory as to how the brain operates, or any real point of reference to understand it’s construction, nobody can deny the transitive effects some pharmaceuticals can have on population control.

Let’s not kid ourselves, Mr. Cruise, that’s what we are talking about. Your view of the world predicates a particular understanding of the nature of a universe you undoubtedly figured wrong. You believe that manipulation of the mind can be achieved through logic and truth, were we maintain that ingestion of science is all that is required.

Your cult is dangerous, Mr. Cruise, and for obvious reasons. No one can deny the allure of a belief system that promotes knowledge and understanding, adaptability and that has thought out obvious ideas in ways that most rational people would probably agree with. Your beliefs and ours are similar in that respect. Science and medicine, in it’s very nature, are studies of fact and evidence. Scientology has the same precepts, teaching methods in learning that include starting light and working up to more complicated theories. Our main difference is in implementation. Where being a scientologist is only effective if you dedicated yourself to the pursuits, prozac works regardless of your mental attitude.

In a governed population where solutions to problems are sold in pill form, effective no-matter the religion, telling people to give up the gratification of effective treatment for the hope that changing how they live might be a better solution is wrong. It’s plain wrong, because… well… if people were truly able to achieve those kinds of lives, they wouldn’t be supporting our profession.

The fact is, for all the allure and excitement of change, we cannot tolerate it and still be able to survive. Some people must live lives of servitude and meaningless labor. For those people, our pills can help. Without them, our society would crumble, with them, institutions are strong. We don’t need you, Mr. Cruise. Change, in the way you see it, is bad for business. I mean evil. It represents a new way of looking at the world, a way we can’t adapt to. We refuse to try, because we control populations. You just communicate with them.

-Pfizer

By “you”, of course, I mean You - the one reading this now, and to those of you involved in making this debate possible. The Athiest’s agenda is an interesting question? First, the main reason I didn’t like Krauss in the mentioned forum was because he kept telling us how he likes to seduce people in to athiesm.

What the fuck are you people talking about, anyways? Seducing people in to athiesm, to me that’s a moral argument your both on the wrong side of. By middle school, I refused to enter in to the religious debate with the folks who firmly held their ground on their standing with God, or the merits of Christianity as a whole. Of course, if you were around often enough, we’d probably have a decent conversation about it, but this idea that Atheism is somehow a closeted choice, and a ideology with a firm standing in any scientific ranking is absurd.

Listen to me, this is important. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s not a system of morals or ideologies, it’s simply a label for one who does not believe in a theist ideology of any stripe. Although it’s universally assumed that these people would hold the scientific understanding to substantiate their claims, that is no more the case than a twenty six year old kid who knows Jesus Christ to be his personal savior actually has the Theological background to substantiate his claims through scripture.

No, In our society we are forced to be beings who chooses one or the other. You either believe in God, or you don’t. Your either a Christian, especially in America, or your an athiest. Of course, we phrase it differently in the verbage as ‘believe in god or not’, allowing the other religious minorities a chance to pick a side.

The liberals, they get the intellectual pals, the athiests and the marxists. The conservatives, they are the Christian majority. So, you go to an Obama rally and he talks in that seductivly loud tone, with the microphone where his lapel pin should be, talking about hope and how We Can, in the face of adversity.

He talks for forty-five minutes, and it’s all circular reteric designed to insight facism and nationalism. Then, you look over - across the isle - and you have Rush Limbaugh telling republicans to register with the DNC and vote for Hillary so she’ll keep beating up on the obvious nominee, effectively doing McCain’s job for him. McCain, who is just sitting back enjoying the show, is watching the two only viable Presidential Candidates in the entire country destroy the others creditability.

Yet, our News Media won’t report that story. You have to get online and piece it together yourself, and listen to Rush on the Radio gloat about how well it’s working. The media focuses on Rush’s involvement, and ignores the fact that his ‘Operation Chaos’ handed Hillary the Indiana victory.

Our News media has picked sides. Fox News on the right, CNN on the left, others scattered in between, who bring up ‘issues’, decide who’s on which side, and then encourages folks to vote in polls to get their opinions on if it’s good or not. You have rich people and poor people, believers and non-believers, we are an adversarial society, and we tend to choose one side over the other.

It’s Good versus Evil with y’all, it’s Right versus Wrong. It’s Yes versus No, it’s Hillary versus Obama. Coke versus Pepsi, ad nausium.