Who are you gonna believe — politicians and the press, or your lying eyes.

So, Ted Stevens isn't guilty after all.  Imagine that.  His case was just tossed out of court for prosecutorial misconduct . . . after the 2008 election, when the charges cost him his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Add Ted to the ever-growing number of exclusively Republican non-crooks who are frog-marched by partisan elements in the American justice system in time to ruin their electoral chances, only to see the actual charges vanish in a waft of political smoke once their seat is safely in the hands of the opposition party.

Remember the horrible, patently unconstitutional actions of Tom Delay, who was forced out of the 2006 race?  Whatever happened to those charges, by the way?  They seem to have dropped off the judicial radar.  And then there's the prosecution of Scooter Libby for "lying" about not lying about not outing Valerie Plame.  This non-lie "lie" was only possible since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald kept the investigation alive for a couple of years after learning that Colin Powell's lackey was the real perpetrator.  But Dick Armitage was never charged with any crime for actually doing what the Special Prosecutor was charged with investigating, since Powell, though nominally a Republican, had already gone public with his disdain for the Bush Administration.

The only thing that saved Sarah Palin from a flood of phony ethics charges in 2008 was that her political opponents thought that a single charge against firing her ex-brother-in-law who carried a badge and had a tendency toward violence was sufficient to damage her political prospects in Alaska.  When she rose to the national stage, there wasn't enough time to gin up additional ethics violations.  But since she still polls well as a prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate, a small cottage industry of ethics violations charges has already been launched.  Even if none of them end up sticking, as history tends to suggest, it will take time and significant amounts of money to fight them.  And, even though none of them will have any real credibility, her opponents can still raise the charge in 2012 that she had a dozen ethics charges leveled against her.  Unless the politically ignorant dig for the truth, which the politically ignorant by definition never do, a charge becomes as good as a conviction.

None of this even takes into consideration the non-criminal, but just as politically destructive, double standard of driving Republican Senator Packwood from office for making unwanted sexual advances (i.e. kissing) several females, while giving Bill Clinton a pass for, shall we say, considerably more effort in this same regard.  Or that child predator and notorious Homo Republican Mark Foley, who sent suggestive text messages to an over-18-year-old Congressional page.  He too was driven from office for the public good, unlike Democrat Congressman Gary Studds, who actually had sex with an underage Congressional page.  Rather than be portrayed as a dangerous homosexual predator, Studds was hailed as a role model for Gay Rights, with his and the young boy's "affair" nothing more than a meaningful expression of love between two consenting almost adults.

Notice the trend here?  Not yet?  Well, let me lay it out a bit more clearly.  The same Federal Prosecutor who went after Karl Rove and had to settle after two years for Scooter Libby while ignoring the real perpetrator of the original "crime" of outing Valerie Plame, prematurely ended an investigation against a sitting Democrat governor when the Obama White House stumbled into the conversation.  Better to go public now with overwhelming evidence against Governor Blago, than risk having Rahm Emanuel get caught on tape saying something criminal — even if it means going back to court a few days after going public with your overwhelming evidence to ask for more time to prepare your case.

Still don't see it?  Well, consider the political affiliation of those recently in the news who forgot to pay their taxes, even though they currently head a powerful economic Congressional committee, were the leading Senator on Capitol Hill for a number of years and wanted to become an Obama Cabinet official, and were in charge of the most powerful Federal Reserve in the country and slated to become the next Secretary of Treasury.  Because you won't find an "R" after any of their names, Charles Rangel still faces no consequences for his actions, Tom Daschle was forced to pay his back taxes — but only the magnitude of his oversight made him withdraw his name from consideration with no further condemnation nor consequences — and Turbo Tax Timothy Geitner is now the head of the U.S. Treasury in charge of collecting the taxes he originally decided not to pay.  And this doesn't even take into consideration the ability of a Democrat Congressmen to keep his seat in Congress after the Feds found $90,000 in illegal campaign contributions hidden in his New Orleans house.  Rather than being drummed out of office, he continued to stay in Congress until defeated in an actual election.

Okay.  So you really knew about all of this, and didn't need me to remind you.  But my plodding recitation has a purpose, and it isn't to excuse actual crooks or simply cry about political double standards.  The Republican Party has had some people who violated the law end up in prison, and that's great to my way of thinking.  I may be a bit old fashioned here, but when there's a real crime committed by a real person, I believe in real consequences.  It doesn't matter what their political affiliation is. 

As for the press and Democrat party maintaining a double standard in the way they assign guilt or assess blame, no one said that life is fair.  When your excuse is that you can't be held to the same standards as Conservatives or Republicans because you haven't made an issue out of honesty, integrity, family values, or any principles beyond simple political expediency, there's not a lot to say.  If your excuse is that your illegality and immorality is okay because unlike my guys, you have no real values that express these beliefs, then my only thought is that I'm glad I'm not affiliated with your side.

So why this article then?  Because, even though nothing in kind has changed in the past thirty years regarding these matters, it has in degree.  And, the consequences of this extend far beyond whether a Democrat or Republican holds political office.

The one thing you learn when you study history is that the good times were never quite as "good" as popular myths imply.  There was never a period of genuine harmony and  equal justice in America — or anywhere else in the world.  There were certainly times when things were better or worse than some standard to which we strive, but it's important to understand that every era has had its crooks, double standards, yellow press, and thoroughly despicable people in high office. 

Look at the degree of an activity for guidance here, not its kind, and you'll sleep better at night.  And when you do, measure these actions against some effort at objective reality, instead of viewing them exclusively through a political prism.  Bush is not Hitler, any more than FDR was a dictator.  It's still possible for an honest conservative to objectively assess a liberal's actions, just as the opposite is true.  But it requires one to at least attempt to make an objective analysis, instead of automatically condemning your political opponents for everything you automatically excuse your own people from doing.

All of which brings me to my point, which isn't to praise Ted Stevens or condemn Charles Rangel.  Rather, it's to point out the serious consequences this ongoing, deliberate dissembling about truth and justice has had on all aspects of public life.

Thirty years ago, if a major study said that the Earth was warming, or that red meat caused cancer, or that Candidate X was 30 points ahead in the polls, I may not automatically believe everything it says, but I wouldn't immediately dismiss it out of hand.  Depending upon the degree of institutional credibility the study had (that is, The American Cancer Society vs. some organization I never heard of), I may start with the assumption that it's more right than wrong and proceed from there.  If I had any questions, I'd look to see how and why the report arrived at its conclusions, and on this basis form a preliminary judgment about those issues.

Now the problem here is that unless you happen to have a degree in statistics, understand survey and polling methodology, or have an expertise in the scientific area of investigation under study, most people (myself included) can't really do this.  So, we look instead for certain obvious clues.  Is the study of 100 people, or 100,000?  Does it say "will happen," or "might happen," or contain other qualifiers?  Is the study peer reviewed, or put out by some organization with a vested interest in the matter?

These were the types of clues an intelligent observer would look to in forming an initial judgment.  That opinion would be supplemented or diminished over the coming weeks and months as opposing experts in the field — who actually understood the technical stuff I didn't — would debate the matter.  I'd learn about this debate from the press, which would summarize and report their findings in sufficient detail for me to see both sides of the issue.

But today there is no "press."  There are newspapers and TV companies that have chosen a side and become advocates, not reporters.  We've always had opinion-guided journalism in this country, so this in itself is nothing new.  But again we're dealing with a sufficiently different degree of bias that has caused even Hillary (the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") Clinton to condemn the press for its favoritism and prejudice.

This bias doesn't limit itself to swaying elections.  Do you remember the last time you saw a debate on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or read about it in The New York Times, etc.  that explored the reality of man-made global warming?  Don't bother to look it up.  There hasn't been.

Despite the fact that sea levels aren't rising, that winters are getting colder, that virtually none of Al Gore's predictions have come true and an increasing number of mainstream scientists are challenging the methodology that produced these conclusions, the matter is "settled" in the eyes of the press.  This is because there's a lot more riding on this belief than whether we all need an extra pair of summer shorts to add to our wardrobe.  An entire economic and political agenda of the Left is built around the premise that man is producing "global climate change" (the new term of choice since the Earth clearly isn't warming like it was supposed to).  Challenge the premise, or at the very least allow for reasonable people to disagree, and suddenly the momentum is gone for acting now!  Or, acting at all.

If the only consequence was that we could no longer believe our lying eyes (and ears) about what's being said about Republican politicians and global CO2 emissions, it would be bad enough.  But the problem today extends much further than this.  Because so much of what's being portrayed as "totally, completely, unmitigatedly true" in fact isn't, and adding insult to injury, the so-called truth of the matter may be the exact opposite of what is stated, the only reasonable course of action is to doubt everything. 

And yet, not everything deserves to be automatically doubted.  Some studies which show that X causes cancer, Y prolongs life, or Z is harmful or hurtful to man or the environment are undoubtedly legitimate.  But damned if I can tell which ones are honestly conducted.  Given how politics (with a small "p") has been injected into everything from eating beef to exhaling Co2, and that most studies rely on government funds (which means government biases) or private finds (which means private agendas), only a fool would automatically believe everything he's told.  And momma Jackson didn't raise her little boy Phillip to be no fool, much like other people in this country who actually think.

Now, instead of accepting what "objective" sources tell me is true, my first reaction is to make them prove it.  I don't care if their conclusions or remedy seem outwardly reasonable or not, or the scientific panel seemed wholly legitimate.  I don't accept anything on face value anymore, regardless of its source.  I rely entirely on my common sense, which is okay for those things I happen to have some direct experience in or knowledge about.  But there's a lot more I don't know than I do know, and therein lies the problem.  In the absence of legitimate, objective, trustworthy outside sources, I still need to rely on my own common sense to figure things out.  Better to trust my gut on an issue I know nothing about, than put my trust in some political hack whose only purpose is to advance an agenda.  I may not make the right choice, but at least I'm not a mindless lemming begging to be deceived.

Therefore, if 100 "independent" experts tell me that eating red meat causes cancer, I'll think about it between bites as I put some more Worchester sauce on my steak.  If they tell me that more people are likely to die in car accidents if they're driving 75 instead of 55 mph while talking on their cell phones, I'll set the cruise control on 80 while I dial up my brother and ask him what he thinks.  I may end up following the experts' advice, or I may not.  They're no longer an intrinsic source of information, but rather simply a source of information — to be sifted through with as accepting and questioning an eye as I have for any other report or assessment, from any other source.

This is the true consequence of the selective outrage against Conservatives and Republicans, and the selective reporting about real world events. When there's no one you can really trust to give you the truth, you trust no one.  Or, you make that source earn your trust with every new report they issue, rather than accepting what they say at face value.

Verify, then trust.  And in the absence of either, ignore what they say and make your own judgment, as ignorant or informed as it may be.

By the way, speaking of current events, have you heard recently that we need to spend a few trillion dollars on saving the economy from imminent collapse, as well as introduce radical changes into our lifestyle and the economy to clean up the planet?  Otherwise, the consequences could be dire.  

I know this is true because the press, and "experts," have told me so.