I have many hair-brained theories. They distract me when all logic has failed. So, when I feel the world is veering off course to a reality only distinguishable by ex-hippies, or worse yet, political pundits, I take solace in my theories. They make me happy. Let's face it, when Ted Nugent seems grounded, you better hold on to everything you have.
Recently I have been developing a new theory. I must say I find it particularly brilliant. Moreover, I feel that I may finally remove the crushing moral influence that has built up over the last 10 years or so.
My new theory, once enacted, will allow the county to be free once again to engage in conversation based on free thought. Most important to me, eliminating stupid. My theory has moved, more or less, to a doctrine. This demands action not just snide remarks and parlor talk.
"Hence forth, all 24-hour cable news networks must turn in an application for every 15 minutes of air time. After review, a panel of three fifth-graders will decide if there is anything of value whatsoever. If not, the next 15 minutes will be comprised of re-runs on old Tom and Jerry cartoons."
I need to set some parameters to clarify that I am not just shooting from my hip.
ADVERTISEMENT
1) The cartoons must be of the vintage where Tom and Jerry hated each other. The newer versions do nearly as much damage as the "news."
2) The applications must be made on a running-time basis. A good idea could get terribly stupid. That is the point of pulling the plug.
3) The panel will, under no circumstances, have honor students.
I also feel that when discussing an issue that the number of participants shown on the screen be limited to three. This includes the host. The other night I saw 10 talking heads. And yes they were all talking at the same time. I am just taking a stab in the dark, but I am pretty sure that only one had a clue of what was going on.
This leads me to the experts or pundits. There should be universal rules that constitute what exactly gives someone the authority to appear on FCC regulated air time. A good start would be holding even remote knowledge on the topic. The next would most likely be some vague grasp on reality.
However, that insanity rule is off when they are in a one-on-one interview with an actual network. This deviation is simply justified: train wrecks are fun to watch. It is an old practice of booking a guest who is nuts. Ask them real, qualified questions and watch the engine of crazy town roar to life. However, when you put the same nut on to comment and give insight you give them credibility.
The recent election coverage has put me over the edge. The networks are so far from reality that it boggles my mind. We have had to listen to them pick apart this Joe the Plumber guy. Who cares a lick about any of his personal details? He was meant to be a generic example. And, I need to point out, everyone completely missed the point. The $250,000 that has been referenced is Joe's personal income, not his business. If poor old Joe is making that kind of coin, pay up. All the plumbers I know are having a heck of a time finding work, along with everyone else.
We have real issues and need real answers. So submit your application and get on TV. We can focus on issues that are affecting the nation. Hey, I would love to actually hear someone with real knowledge get some airtime. The problem: because these people are smart, they are too smart to join in the current sideshow.
