‘Symbolic’ is the New ‘Bullshit’

Headline:

Ban on pet projects mostly symbolic

“This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington,” Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, in line to be House speaker next year, said Thursday.

Yet earmarks remain popular with many lawmakers who consider it part of their jobs to win money for deserving projects back home — and view the projects as a way to please voters.

Or as kids in the schoolyard call it, LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

Seriously, that’s what this is. It’s a whole story about how there really is no ban on earmarks, and how even if there was, it wouldn’t do what these teawads claim it would do which is to make ponies appear in Washington, and instead of just saying something along the lines of “this is just total crap,” we get mealy-mouthed words like “symbolic.” And people wonder why nobody loves the AP anymore.

This is my favorite part of the whole thing, though, the description of the feature:

EDITOR’S NOTE — An occasional look at assertions by government officials and how well they adhere to the facts.

Well, I mean, I guess if you really want to put your shoulders into it, you couldoccasionally take a look at assertions by government officials and how well they adhere to the facts.

The rest of the time, you should just uncritically spew out whatever they tell you, and certainly don’t “fact check” anything. That’s up to other “fact-checking” organizations anyway, except when you want to make a fancy “fact check” feature.

I mean, I’m sorry, I thought seeing how various versions of the facts squared with reailty was kind of your entire JOB. Certainly it’s the one you like to pretend has been deeded to you alone among all media by God and we filthy bloggers should shut up, so I’m confused as to why this sacred trust is only exercised once in a while.

A.

7 thoughts on “‘Symbolic’ is the New ‘Bullshit’

  1. Susie Madrak says:

    I think I need to start drinking. Seriously.

  2. CVS says:

    I think you just have to work with the assumption that anything that comes out of a Republican’s mouth is a bullshit lie and work down from there. That’s what I do, and I am rarely surprised anymore 🙂

  3. Athenae says:

    Suze, what do you mean, start?
    Shit, we live in a global village, which means it’s ALWAYS five o’clock.
    A.

  4. mbarnato says:

    I get gobsmacked (thx, Molly!) just reading AP stories sometimes. I think I do more fact checking for my damn facebook posts than they do for some of their stories. It’s clear that some stories are written by someone who has no knowledge of history, and doesn’t get out from behind the computer much. I despair, and know that the pendulum swings, but wish it were starting to swing a bit in the opposite direction toward accountability…

  5. Xboxershorts says:

    Symbolic it is, indeed. Yet, banning earmarks does strip away one of the layers of opaqueness that Congress used to put things over on the American people. So, even though it IS symbolic, the earmark ban is not a bad thing.

  6. si;verball says:

    Xboxershorts…”So, even though it IS symbolic, the earmark ban is not a bad thing.”…so, fantasy works as well as reality???…? if they really want to do as they CLAIM…why not do it EXACTLY as that??…? or would that impact their lying, misrepresentation and other campaign promises bs instead of governing for WE, THE PEOPLE…??? as they “CLAIM”…

  7. PWL says:

    I always thought the “no earmarks” bit was bullshit. Figured this was a way the Repubs could show they were “doing something” and were “serious about debt reduction” while actually doing nothing much at all.
    And I’m sure they’re going to use this against the Dems. Something along the lines of: “See, WE did something about the debt! SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY??!!??”
    And then, when no one’s looking, they’ll bring back the earmarks–or redefine them as “non-earmarks,” as Mad Ms. Bachmann is doing already…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: