armchair political economy and you.

so, i was just watching ABC news for a few minutes.

note that a few minutes is about as long as i can watch network news before i get really bitter and change the channel. this is why i changed the channel from abc.

now i'm going to admit that i haven't got all the details about social security. but from my dilettantish point of view, and from what i've read in the new york times (some of those nuggets!) and commie shit like atlantic, it's not as bad as bush makes it out to be. it could be basically tweaked a bit, just like it has been already, and it would go on functioning perfectly well. i dunno, i'm not writing a paper, look it up if you're interested.

so ABC is doing this lame-ass feature about social security, complete with bullshit computer animations and other glitzy crappery. and they pretend to be halfass objective. they have TWO economist talking head types. TWO DIFFERENT ONES! no way. well, my need for objectivity is satisfied.

and my roomate commented about how lame and neocon these talking heads were. which is true. they are right-wingish, just like everyone else tainted by the ol' capitalist mode. these days, close involvement with the economy is to neoconservativism as HIV is to AIDS.

but the worst thing, the thing that made me want to change the channel, was the format of this documentary. the talking heads leaned a bit to the right, but they tried to be realistic. after all, they were experts and as such have to maintain at least a semblance of sticking to facts. (never mind, for the moment, that the entire capitalist economy is a fiction, and has no "facts," that's a completely different story.) but their attempts at realism were pretty much beaten into submission by Concerned News Anchor Type. basically, he just kept throwing such pointed questions at them, that their loyalty to 'facts' betrayed them. he would basically ask for specific figures which would highlight the weaknesses of social security, then cut to a lame animation of some sort. at which point Concerned Narrator Voice would draw his own conclusions about how fucked the system was, with the implicit decision that it would have to be privatized. you could practically see the talking heads realizing that their words were about to be twisted in this creepy neocon way and desperately trying to drive home that it wasn't really so fucked as all that.

but then... the kicker.

after enough pretending to be based in fact, ABC decided to turn to the old standby of dubya worship. they played a little clip of bush being witty... and then cut back to Concerned News Anchor Type saying this. and i quote, as best as i can remember:

"It's obvious that this system is in need of an overhaul. Now the question is, will Bush's proposed reforms be enough?"

OK.

tell me where i lost you. so, your lame talking heads tried to tell you that this system has a slight problem. and needs some reforms. so you conclude that privatizing the damn thing and pulling out grandma's damn social net might not be enough? jesus. what should we do, you fuck? put them on an ice floe?

i'm not going to work out the truth table for that one, but i have the feeling that it's not a truth-functionally valid argument.

i got bitter and changed the channel at that point. marginalization of dissent? hmm?

fuck.

then i watched cnn though, and it was relatively good. or at least, pretended better.