America is being trained to accept all unexplained phenomenon without asking any questions. Skeptics might question that assertion and demand some evidence to back it up because nature abhors a vacuum and people just naturally want answers when the "Why?" question pops up.
Can anyone who is not one of those conspiracy theory lunatics provide an explanation for phenomenon such as:
Building Seven falls down.
No photos of the airplane hitting the Pentagon have ever turned up.
Bush really thought Saddam helped al Qaeda and had WMD's so an invasion was necessary. Now, reasons seem so irrelevant.
John Kerry was going to protest the Ohio results, next day his attitude had suddenly become: "no problem."
Candidate Obama disapproved of Americans getting killed in Afghanistan, after being sworn in, it was suddenly a case of needing a new application of the surge strategy.
There were other times when nagging questions went begging.
First accounts of the flight 800 disaster contained descriptions of a missile being seen, then it morphed into "explosion in the fuel tank."
A swarthy gentleman who got away was reported to be part of the group of suspects for the explosion at the AlfredP.MurrahBuilding in Oklahoma, and then it became more of a "lone gunman" type operation.
Howard Dean was an inconvenient frontrunner. He whooped it up at a victory party, and then John Kerry was quickly anointed as "frontrunner." Did the press ever try to explain that clever bit of politics?
Democrats were concerned that the electronic voting machines were suborning democracy, and then Senator Obama became the first African American to be elected President. The attitude changed to: "No worries mate."
Immediately after President Obama was inaugurated, the media went wild with conjecture about the prospects for the Republican Party to survive. Now, the press calmly reports that a shift back to a Republican majority in the Congress and the Senate is to be expected. What ever happened to the old concept of a "nose for news"? Isn't any reporter going to attempt the monumental challenge of explaining just how that big of a change occurred (stealth style) so fast? If they value a regular paycheck, they won't.
This columnist notes that no one has resurrected the old cliché about "charisma" to explain the baffling aspect of the Alvin Greene win in the South Carolina Democratic Primary. Hey, that as good as any other explanation available to the public.
The next "elephant in the room" question seems to be: If the Republicans have said that they will (in effect) play a passive-aggressive game while Obama is President, why would America opt for a two year stalemate during hard times? (The Stephanie Miller radio show recently played a sound byte of Republican John Boehner saying, at the time President Obama was sworn in, that the Republicans would in effect use the passive-aggressive tactic to sabotage the Democrat's entire term in office. ) The prospect of a reversal in Congress and the Senate back to a Republican majority carries with it the implied prospect for giving President Obama the longest "lame duck" period in American History. Why (the ***k) would America want to do that? Oh, sorry we forgot: "don't ask don't tell."
Does the prospect of the longest lame duck period in American History during tough times conjure up the image in the news photo of a fellow holding off police while pointing a gun to is own head?
1 | 2
