What Do We Want? How About Everything.

So many people are put off by the current state of the country, they’ve taken to public demonstrations in big cities across the land. They started in New York and are calling themselves “Occupy Wall Street.”

Like a page out of history, these demonstrations have the mien of some passionate peasant uprising, laying honorable siege to the oppressive nobleman’s castle.

But here’s the rub: Not even they are sure what they want to achieve.

In reality, more than anything, they just want their movement to gain enough steam so they can force everyone to begin a “dialog.” And they want that dialog to begin yesterday.

Speak for Yourself, Mr. President

What’s up with the need for having a presidential “spokesman?” (No, I’m not worried about being politically correct—we haven’t yet had a spokeswoman, probably because we haven’t yet had a female president.)

Editor’s note: Much to my chagrin, I’ve been gently reminded that we have had some spokeswomen. Thus my coy attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor fell flat on its face. Thanks to a reader for the correction…

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

In the old days you did your own talking. From all I’ve been able to gather, there was never a need for someone else to explain on behalf of a president what they thought on a particular issue—they could do it all by themselves. This was the case with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others. I’d like to think they’d find it pretty odd to have someone trying to tell others what their positions were on the problems of the day.

But somewhere along the way (post Abraham Lincoln), President’s began this modern practice of having a Press Secretary. It went along with the new practice of hiring White House staff, the numbers of which have of course grown dramatically over the years.

Media Credibility Suffers Trying to Persuade Birthers

A recent article unveils the results of a “new CNN investigation” into the birther claims against Obama. But CNN, just like the rest of the media, doesn’t seem to understand that they no longer have the credibility to persuade.

The crux of the story deals with how ridiculous the birthers are for insisting that more persuasive evidence should be provided that Obama is indeed a U.S. citizen. But in attempting to make the birther movement look stupid, CNN ultimately falls flat on its collective face.

Why?

Well, because it’s intrinsically absurd. Those who believe in the theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. (obviously) don’t trust the media—not one whit! Then a representative of that very media comes along and writes a story that tries to call adherents of the movement into question and make them look fringe and goofy?

Now. for my part I don’t see the writer (or those who did the “research”) really addressing the issue as the so-called “birthers” see it. What are their positions on the issue?