Week of 01/28/2008

No More Presidential Draftees. Please!
– by David Matthews 2

“Draft Lou Dobbs for President!”

I couldn’t help but to roll my eyes upward when I saw that.

I don’t know what’s worse in the 2008 Presidential Campaign season… the number of hacks and wannabes that TEASE the masses with possibly running, or the ones who are being TEMPTED into running.

The teasers, at least, have a DESIRE to run. People like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich toss their names out there to essentially test to see what kind of reaction they’d get IF they decide to run. They actually SEE themselves in the White House, as opposed to those who are TEMPTED to run because they seem to be the better candidates than the current bunch of yahoos.

The CNN commentator’s name wasn’t the only one being thrown out there for “draft consideration” either. Current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also one of the names getting tossed about. Dobbs has said repeatedly that he won’t run, but Bloomberg hasn’t been that definitive. He’s been at least talking with people about what it would take and if he could do it.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart is also bantered about as a draftee choice, as is his “conservative” counterpart, Stephen Colbert… played, of course, by Stephen Colbert. Colbert took it one step further and actually ANNOUNCED his candidacy in 2007, but dropped out after his “home state” of South Carolina – the only state he was running for President in – refused to put him on the ballot, claiming that he wasn’t “serious” about running. Apparently nobody there was in on the joke. But there are still plenty of people who would put “Stewart-Colbert” or “Colbert-Stewart” bumper stickers on their cars and yearn for the time when those two would be taken seriously enough to be elected to the White House.

But, really, if you think about it, this whole business of “drafting” someone to run for office is outright stupid. Why are you wasting time and effort trying to convince people to run that really don’t have the inclination to?

First of all, getting people to run for office is not something you can do on a whim. There are documents that you have to get filled out, petitions to sign, and LOADS of campaign dollars to generate for the commercials. Boring little tidbits, but they have to be done nonetheless to get that person’s name on the ballot in all 50 states. Time is certainly not on the side of those who simply decide to run on a whim if they want to get through all of that junk.

It gets even harder if you don’t have the blessings of the party bosses. The Democrats and the Republicans are equally guilty of rigging the game so that it is next-to-impossible for independent or third-party candidates to get the kind of access they have. Ross Perot could do it in 1992, but that’s only because he had oodles of cash to call on and plenty of determined pissed-off voters to make sure he was on the ballot in all 50 states.

Then there’s a sad little reality that people like Lou Dobbs have to face when they run for higher office.

Let’s suppose for argument’s sake that Lou Dobbs succumbs to the calls to run for office. He’s currently getting big bucks doing his own show on CNN, which in turn gives him enough publicity to plug his books. The moment he announces his intention to run for president, he is FORCED to leave his cushy job at CNN. Not just because of the burdens of campaigning, mind you, but because keeping him on the air would be violating any semblance of political neutrality that CNN claims. That is, of course, even if such neutrality is only theoretical.

Remember when Pat Buchannan ran for office in 1996? He had to step down from his cushy job on CNN’s “Crossfire” show as soon as he announced his intentions. Dobbs would have to do the same thing.

Once people like Dobbs get in the running, then things can get hairy. Politics is rough. It’s essentially mental and rhetorical warfare on all of the participants, and there is NOTHING out of bounds when you’re running for the White House! Once you start running, your whole life and the lives of everyone even remotely connected to you are under a microscope. Did your spouse or relative have a nervous breakdown? Is there anyone in your family that was treated for some kind of mental disorder? Have any convicted criminals as friends? Do your children party hard? All of it is fair game as far as the Democrats and Republicans are concerned!

Let’s not forget that we have Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in the running this time around. They BOTH have a history of some nasty dirty campaign tricks to get what they want. And also let’s not forget that Karl Rove, the dark lord of neo-conservative scheming, didn’t exactly vanish off the face of the planet after stepping down as White House Deputy Chief of Staff. He’s back working behind the scenes for one of the GOP contenders. These guys LIVE for any kind of weakness, any kind of wedge that they can use against you.

Bear in mind that not everyone who has good intentions and probably could make a superb president could pass the scandal test. Before he became Secretary of State, retired General Colin Powell’s name was being tossed around as a presidential contender in 1996. But he supposedly had to back away from that because of the scrutiny that would be placed on his family. It’s one thing to be in the public eye like Dobbs is on a regular basis through CNN. It’s another to have your entire life under a microscope and judged accordingly, as the politicians are. It probably explains why many of them work so hard to make our lives equally miserable.

It’s also the same reason why many other people who would make outstanding world leaders refuse to step up. The stink of corruption and the unrealistic demands put on those who do throw their hats into the ring are poison for any kind of quality leadership.

Okay, so let’s suppose that Dobbs decides to run and he somehow manages to get his name on all of the ballots in all 50 states as an independent candidate, AND he manages to pass the scandal test. How would he be different from the other wannabes?

I know the reflexive response to that would be “Duh! Just read his books!”

And that seems to be the easy way out, isn’t it? Don’t worry about campaign speeches or commercials spots; just have everyone read “War on the Middle Class” and “Independents Day” and you’ll know all that you need to about what he would do as president!

Unfortunately, most people don’t make their decisions on political leaders based on their books. They don’t have time to read books. They’re lucky if they just get in the daily paper. Most folks will base their decisions on the sound bytes they catch of the campaigns speeches and commercial spots. They will give more credence to rumors floated about via email than from any kind of legitimate publication.

Not to mention there is an inherent flaw in the rationality that Dobbs would make an excellent candidate simply because of what he writes in his books. When Dobbs cobbled together his books criticizing the politicians and the screwed-up system we have to deal with, he didn’t do so as someone wanting to fix it from inside the system. He was doing so from the perspective of someone on the OUTSIDE looking in!

And this is where the whole “draft Dobbs” effort falls apart. It’s one thing to rally the masses up against the failings of our government, and to encourage them to break away from the static hold by the two dominant political parties and to vote independent. It is another thing entirely to actually DO something about it. And when you’re running for higher office, you can’t just spend all of your time complaining about what isn’t working. Now you have to come up with a way to MAKE it work! Now you’re trying to get INSIDE that flawed system and you’ll have to work with those very flawed and corrupt and incompetent politicians that you spent so much time criticizing and cajoling and rallying up against. You go from raging AGAINST the machine to actually BEING the machine.

And I would suspect that Mr. Dobbs knows this as well, which explains why he is so steadfast against running for office, no matter how many people beg and plead for him to do so. He knows that a populist stance doesn’t necessarily translate into a platform for real change. All he is really doing is just stirring the pudding. And that’s good to BRING about change, but that in and of itself does not equate INTO change.

Let’s get brutally honest here… we need to STOP trying to DRAFT people who have no desire to run for office and instead concentrate on those who currently WANT the job. They are the ones that have already done the legwork and the paperwork and have amassed the war chest of campaign dollars. They have the desire and the ambition for the job, even if they are some of the most unqualified people in the world. And they will GET that job if all we do is just sit around and fume about how we need “someone better”. OF COURSE we need “someone better”! But they have to first WANT to run for the job.

Besides, folks, we ALREADY had a “draft candidate” for the 2008 campaign! You may remember him. You probably saw him on “Law and Order”. Of course I’m talking about former US Senator and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson.

Thompson was drafted by those who believed that he would bring about the next era of Ronald Reagan. They forgot that the Reagan era pretty much died not long after it began. So too was Thompson’s campaign. The “draft pick” simply lacked the desire and the drive to go up against the ones that have been campaigning for over a year now.

WANTING someone to run for president is not enough. Not now. Not in today’s age of career politicians with oodles of cash and no limits to their willingness to do whatever it takes for the job. Those that run have to WANT to run as well. That’s the only way they can prove that they are the better candidates.

Week of 01/21/2008

Outing a Theocrat
– by David Matthews 2

For quite some time there was a certain word that I’ve been hesitant to attach to any of the candidates running for President in 2008. Not for fear of retaliation, mind you, but because I didn’t think that any of the candidates would be brazen enough about to have this tag attached to them.

But apparently it’s true… someone in that collection of presidential contenders is a theocrat.

Now when I say “theocrat”, I’m not talking about someone who simply has strong religious beliefs. We’ve had plenty of those folks in the running, and there have been PLENTY of people in office with strong religious beliefs. And there’s nothing wrong with someone with strong religious beliefs as long as they can properly do their jobs in a free society without trying to convert everyone over.

Nor, when I say “theocrat”, am I talking about a theo-conservative. We’re currently under the influence of both neocons and theocons in Washington with the neocons pretty much keeping us scared, and the theocons slowly worming their agendas into government. But even though a theo-conservative will spew the fraudulent rhetoric about America being this fictional “Christian Nation”, they will still work within the framework of the current society. They still adhere to the notion that they can force you to convert over to their beliefs as long as they have people in that framework.

No, I’m talking about an actual, honest, tried-and-true THEOCRAT. Someone who actively believes that the government should be REMADE so that it reflects their religious beliefs! Someone who wants to do to America what the Muslim extremists did to Iran in 1978-79, and what the Taliban did to Afghanistan in 1996.

Now in normal situations, an actual, honest, no-bones-about-it theocrat would be something of an oddity in American politics. Sure they exist, but they really would have less clout than a libertarian. At least libertarians actively support the current government infrastructure and the U.S. Constitution, even if they have an issue with some of the abuses. Not so with a theocrat, though. Theocrats REJECT the infrastructure itself! They wouldn’t want to replace it otherwise.

Normally a theocrat wouldn’t last very long in a presidential campaign. Most people are wary of theocrats, especially after what they’ve seen in places like Iran and Afghanistan and some of the other countries in the Middle East where power-mad clerics are the source of so much pain and human misery. A woman being convicted and sentenced to be whipped 200 times for getting gang-raped because she violated some asinine religious law is not exactly the kind of political message you want to spread. Or how about the power-mad clerics that called for the outright EXECUTION of a British schoolteacher because she ALLOWED her students to name a stuff animal Mohammed? This kind of stuff would make the “Swift Boat” and “Willie Horton” campaigns look like amateur hour.

Given those kinds of horror stories attributed to theocrats, it’s easy to see how Christian theocrats would be careful about what they say and how they are perceived. Even infamous televangelist and God Squad leader Pat Robertson had to lay off the God-fearing rhetoric during his failed 1988 campaign for the White House and focus strictly on secular conservative materials. It also explains why Robertson is now endorsing the “9/11 Saint” Rudy Giuliani instead of some of the other candidates who are making religion their sole campaign platform.

That is why I sadly say that we have found a theocrat in the bunch of presidential wannabes.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is that theocrat.

I didn’t want to believe it myself! Sure he’s never hidden his religion. He’s always put it out there as one of his key qualifications to run for president. But one would think that someone like Huckabee would at least temper his platforms as that of a Republican candidate, not as a solidly CHRISTIAN candidate, especially given the early lead he picked up in the Iowa Caucus.

So it surprised me that, in a recent political rally in South Carolina, Huckabee said the following:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it's in God’s standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

That, my friends, is a statement of a theocrat. Not a theocon. Not a heavily-religious conservative. A THEOCRAT.

Theocons would want to amend the Constitution, sure, but they wouldn’t come out and say that it was to be in “God’s standards”. They would claim that their religion was the justification for their actions, but certainly not the STANDARD. Even an otherwise heavily-religious person would use established euphemisms like “family” or “tradition” or “heritage” or “decency”. Only an actual theocrat would come out and say “Our government needs to be reorganized to adhere to God’s Standards!”

Let’s remember that the U.S. Constitution is the actual FOUNDATION of our government! It spells out what government CAN and CANNOT do! The last time the self-righteous got their hands on the Constitution, they used it to outlaw alcohol for over a decade and thus were single-handedly responsible for turning career criminals into millionaires and turning ordinary people into criminals. Do you REALLY want them to have another shot at it?

And let’s get brutally honest here… by his own words, Mike Huckabee has so branded himself a theocrat. This is someone who is eager to get his hand on the reigns of power and then transform government until it meets HIS religious standards.

By the way, let’s get rid of this rhetorical reflexive question of “whose version of God’s standards do you want to impose on us?” It’s a moot point because theocrats have only ONE version and ONE view of religion that they are trying to impose, and it is THEIR OWN! They are NEVER going to look for a consensus of the various viewpoints, and they certainly will not settle for any kind of compromise. Theocrats do not want agreement. They want conversion. Specifically, YOUR conversion to THEIR religion.

Look at how the Taliban ruled in Afghanistan. Do you REALLY think that they ever wanted a “consensus” when they took over that country and turned it into a terrorist haven? Hell no!

Well the same applies to ANY OTHER kind of theocrat, no matter the religion. Theocrat only one thing from others, and that is their unconditional surrender. That’s why they call it a “holy war”, because it really is a war AGAINST the rest of the world!

Now there are plenty of people who are quick to say that Huckabee’s theocratic statement has pretty much doomed his presidential campaign, but I think that is just wishful thinking at this point. Sure, I’d like to believe that his campaign is over with, but I wouldn’t write it off until he actually announces that he is ending it.

Huckabee doesn’t even have to win the nomination to get what he really wants. Remember when Pat Buchanan ran for President in 1996? Even though he kept on losing in every primary and caucus to Bob Dole, he never backed out. He never even hinted at backing out. He stayed in the race all the way to the Republican Convention, and then only after he made sure the GOP adopted the strict hardcore conservative platform he was looking for. Sure it was Bob Dole’s name on the GOP ticket, but it was Pat Buchannan’s platform that Dole was running on.

Now imagine how the GOP platform would look if Huckabee does the same thing for the 2008 National Convention.

What really scares this commentator is that even if Huckabee doesn’t eventually win the nomination, the strides that he makes sends a signal to the estimated 48 MILLION people who call themselves evangelical Christians that such a religious takeover of the United States IS POSSIBLE. They may not win this time around, but they know that they could have a chance in the next election. 48 million certainly doesn’t fall under the category of “fringe extremists”.

THESE are the folks that are the coming storm for freedom in America. Sure many of them seem disorganized now, but when rallied together under one leader and under one common cause – the forced religious conversion of the rest of the United States through government – and add the continued political apathy of the rest of the voting populace, and you get a serious threat to everything that we take for granted in this country. Some of these groups have been preparing for and yearning for this very scenario for years now! You think Iran is a threat to the world? Imagine a NUCLEAR superpower being run by the same mindset!

These are the folks that Mike Huckabee taps into when he makes theocratic statements.

Yes, terrorism by radical Islamic extremists is a threat to the Western world, but it is not the ONLY threat. The power-mad clerics do not have a monopoly on using force and fear to impose their will over others. They’re just the ones getting all of the media attention right now.

Week of 01/14/2008

MTV’s Manufactured Reality
– by David Matthews 2

Once upon a time there was a cable channel called MTV.

Back then, the “M” part of MTV stood for “Music”, as in “Music Television”. MTV validated that by airing non-stop music videos. They didn’t just talk about music, they SHOWED it.

MTV used to insist that cable providers carry their channel. “I want my MTV” was the battle cry of artists turned into pop-culture celebrities. Remember those days? This commentator certainly does. And he wonders where HIS MTV went. They certainly don’t air music videos like they used to! Gone are the days when you could turn on MTV at any time of the day and find a music video. No, you have to switch to MTV2 to see music videos because they simply don’t have the TIME to air them.

Nowadays the “M” in MTV stands for something else. It stands for “Manufactured”.

First and foremost, MTV manufactures an image, not only for itself, but also for its viewers. MTV sells an image of a pop superstar’s life as being glamorous, wealthy, and fun-filled. We get to see their “Cribs” and be amazed by all the really neat things they have. We get to see Escalades and Cristal and flat-screen TVs. They push hip-hop fashion, they pimp out vehicles, and they encourage kids to be reckless and wild and crazy by showcasing crazy stunts, even going so far as to show the gory mishaps of those crazy stunts.

But the other thing that MTV loves to pride itself in is reality-based programming. The “Real World” is probably the oldest-running reality-TV series to date. And, unfortunately, it pretty much set the stage for every other reality-TV show that followed. If they didn’t succeed, then it’s highly unlikely that you would have ever seen “Big Brother” or “Survivor” at all. Even the European shows that those were based on got their lead from “Real World”.

Now obviously there is very little about so-called “reality TV” that is truly “real”. You put a pre-select group of people chosen for their quirky personalities into a heavily controlled situation, you tell those people to really exaggerate their quirky personalities for the camera, and then tape it all and call that “real”. It doesn’t matter if those quirky personalities are relative nobodies or celebrities or even relatives of celebrities, it’s still a glorified rat maze, and it’s still all done for the sake of entertainment.

Now I will give MTV credit for SOME of their “reality TV” programs. Their series “Made”, for instance, helps otherwise hopeless young people make their dreams a reality. They’re usually not the “perfect people”, but they get some help, they get a trainer, they get a makeover, and their lives are much better because of it. THAT is the kind of quality positive programming that people are looking for.

Sadly, though, what has been falling under the category of “reality TV” of late are shows that are narcissistic by nature. For every show like “Made”, you have eight variations of “My Super Sweet Spoiled Bitchy Sweet 16”, which highlights spoiled rich bitches having their heavily-catered “Sweet 16” parties complete with private concerts, horse-drawn carriages, and of course getting that brand new ultra-expensive fuel-guzzling car. Spoiled little primadonnas whose true values in this world are worth less than that of a slug compared to the people who are highlighted in shows like “Made”. BUT they are, by their narcissistic nature, “quirky personalities” that encourage reckless consumerism, so the programming executives at MTV consider them to be marketable. Or you have shows like “Remote Control” where nosy parents blatantly conspire to break up their child’s relationship with an obnoxious jerk or bitch and then the whole half hour is spent insulting everyone before the child (in most instances anyway) stick with their current relationship.

That’s how MTV sees their viewers: reckless, stupid, lazy, narcissistic, eager to party, and having money to burn even when it seems that they really have none.

Of late, though, MTV has really put out some shows that make you question whether or not they are truly real.

First there’s “Laguna Beach” and it spin-off “The Hills”. They CLAIM that these shows are “not scripted”; that these are actual people living “real lives”. But watching just five minutes into either show will cause you to question that claim. Perfect little personalities living seemingly perfect lives full of continual drama and conflict and so much phoniness than you just want to puke your guts out in frustration!

Hey, here’s a clue: real life does not have guest stars! They don’t have “special appearances by”. And they sure as hell DO NOT HAVE “season finales”!

Then there’s Tila Tequila; the former Playboy model who transformed herself into a MySpace diva, and then into a singer. MTV decided to give her a “reality TV” show called “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila”. And if that in and of itself wasn’t enough to get the attention of the masses, they decided to really spice it up and have her announce that she is a bisexual and that the prospective suitors would be both guys and girls!

Sure the moralists threw screaming hissy fits! That was expected! The more they bitched, the more people would want to see the show just to see what the fuss is all about. And to a large extent, it worked.

But then on November 30, 2007, as the series started moving towards its conclusion, the New York Post fired off a devastating bombshell about Tila and the whole show. According to the Post’s “unnamed source”, not only is Tila NOT a bisexual, but the whole concept itself is a SCAM. Tila supposedly isn’t “looking for love”, because she’s had a steady boyfriend that she is unwilling to part with. The story also claims that Tila is a diva that is always late and doesn’t associate or communicate with anyone outside of the cameras.

Let’s drop the whole bisexual part of the accusation and all of the usual accusations of being a “diva” for a moment here. The bisexual thing is pretty much shock value anyway. The core issue here is whether or not “A Shot at Love” is a scam.

Now I don’t know about anyone else, but one of the really cruelest tricks you can play is with a person’s heart. To set someone up, to lead them on, and let them believe that something magical could happen if they just give a little bit of themselves. Let them jump a few hoops and embarrass themselves and built up their hopes of that “something special” that would make it all worthwhile. And then, suddenly, break their hearts and show that they made fools of themselves FOR NOTHING! Or, worse yet, for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT!

That is cruel! It shows a degree of malevolence and just plain EVIL that not even soap opera writers are willing to explore!

So you would think that if MTV and Tila Tequila herself wanted to dispel the accusation that her show is a fraud that they would show the “happy couple” in as many places as possible, right? Maybe a quick video up on MySpace of the two of them happy together? You know, after the finale when the winner is announced?

No such luck.

Rather than refute the accusation, they simply plowed on through the reunion show and then just a couple of weeks later they have the MTV New Year’s Eve party, with Tila as the host.

But right off the bat you have to wonder… where’s the lucky winner? Where’s Bobby?

Well wouldn’t you know it? Bobby “broke up” with Tila! He supposedly couldn’t “handle her busy schedule”! You know, that “busy schedule” that Tila constantly talked about during the whole series.

How utterly convenient! Bobby supposedly called Tila, even though he himself said in his own MySpace page that he never had Tila’s phone number. It’s a little hard to call someone when nobody will provide you with the means to contact them. Their reunion show host pointed out that Bobby and Tila were kept separated after the show, supposedly for “legal reasons”, which seems to be the standard for reality-based shows when relationships are involved, and probably explains why many of them ultimately fail.

But Tila doesn’t just leave it at that. Eager to show that she’s really not distraught by this loss, she not only announces that MTV has given her another season of “A Shot at Love”, but also proudly says “This time I wanna find love for real!”

For REAL? You mean to say, Ms. Tila, that the sixteen guys and girls who embarrassed themselves on TV… that ate disgusting foods… got humiliated by you in an S&M dungeon… who took you into their homes and introduced you to their family and friends… who got into knock-down drag-out FIGHTS over you… and in the case of “poor Bobby” even went to the HOSPITAL for you… did it all FOR NOTHING? For the sake of ENTERTAINMENT? That you REALLY weren’t “serious” about “finding love”, and now, suddenly, you are?

In other words, boys and girls, Tila Tequila pretty much VALIDATED the claim made by the mystery source in the New York Post that the show is in fact A SCAM! A cruel, cruel joke played on those that put their names and reputations on the line.

Of course it’s not ALL sad news for the cast members… two of the “personalities” get to have their own spin-off dating show. And the lesbian firefighter who came in second is something of a local celebrity herself now, simply because she was “dumped” by Tila Tequila.

But let’s get brutally honest here… MTV has a SERIOUS credibility problem because of this! It is one thing to fudge the rat maze and stack the deck with “personalities” and encourage them to go to extremes… it’s another thing entirely to fudge the ultimate prize. That’s called FALSE ADVERTISING!

It’s like telling the contestants that the grand prize is a brand new Porsche and then handing the winner a Matchbox toy car. If you tell the contestants that the grand prize is to be in a relationship with Tila Tequila, then that is what they are going to compete for, and it does THEM and it does the viewers a huge disservice if you either tell them or let them believe that this is all just for entertainment and that they really won’t get anything other than notoriety of being the fools that they are.

Plus it sort of kills the whole deal for the next time around. WHY SHOULD people either compete in or watch the next season of “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” if they suspect that the winner won’t get Tila in the end? Why go through it all? For what? Notoriety? Fame? And why bother watching it? They know – or at least now suspect – that the winner will be conveniently dumped at the end of the whole thing anyway. He said, she said… it doesn’t matter who breaks up with whom at that point. It’s all meaningless because you won’t have any viewers left who will care!

Not to mention that this sort of crap doesn’t do Tila any favors either. It’s one thing to be called the “MySpace Diva”. It is another thing to be accused of actually BEING a diva. Nobody likes an actual diva.

For the record, I should point out that MTV isn’t the only one fudging on the “ultimate prize”. Fox’s show “Hell’s Kitchen” originally promised ownership of a restaurant, but then changed it behind the scenes so now putting up with Gordon Ramsey’s foul mouth and abusive antics for a whole season can get you A cooking job, but not THE cooking job. But even then MTV still takes the cake by creating not one but two ad-libbed soap operas and trying to convince people that those are reality.

The claim of “being real” carries with it the responsibility to prove that it really IS REAL. You can’t say that something is REAL and then say that certain elements are scripted. The whole game show genre found out the hard way that you can’t fix the results. Likewise, the world of professional wrestling lost quite of bit of credibility when World Wresting Entertainment had to grudgingly admit first that what they’re doing is really not SPORTS, but SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, and then had to admit even then that much of what they do may be ad-libbed, but the outcomes are still scripted. Even seasoned journalists have been caught fabricating stories, and it has come back to hurt them.

Clearly MTV is falling down that same path. Whether or not they will have to answer to the same people that humbled the game show and wrestling genres is not clear, but one thing is for certain… there will come a time when they will have to rely on that credibility and they won’t have it, and it will hurt them. And when that moment arrives, if they want to know how it could happen, all they have to do is think back to when they started passing off fiction as “reality”.