Where's The Balance?
I was in Wal-Mart a few weeks ago and I eavesdropped on their staff meeting - they're more exciting then you'd give them credit for. The manager messed up part of his dialogue and one of the staff made a comparison between the manager and President Obama's swearing in. Immediately after these words left this poor soul's lips one of her co-workers made sure she was informed that it was not President Obama's fault, but Judge Roberts who made the error.
Ignoring the actual facts (that President Obama talked over Roberts, and was too scatter-brained to take Roberts' hints about the next words in the 'puzzle') we can see some serious change in the political bias. For the past 4 years every time President Bush stuttered on a word or made a goofy face we'd be overwhelmed with 'extreme journalism', "Bush is dumb," "Retard as President," "Miserable Failure", etc. But now we see a mistake made by our leader-in-chief and people are instantly covering for him.
During the first week of President Obama's administration, he tried to open and walk through...a window. Instantly, media who covered this epic event (because everything President Obama is doing is apparently epic), reported that due to the newness of his surrounding he wasn't sure what was a window and a door, but he'd figure it out soon enough because he is...amazing.
On the same news page were I read that story, there was a link to photos of President Bush living up to his "lame duck legacy." The first picture in this amazing collage of photos is of President Bush trying to pull open a door. And it's locked. And this makes him stupid. Trying to walk through a window is not stupid. But trying to open a door. Now that is stupid.
Oh, and the door President Bush was trying to open? It was in Beijing. Only a fool wouldn't know that door in Beijing is locked.
What's my point? This media bias is absurd. Bush made mistakes and got treated like a monkey. Obama makes mistakes and people throw themselves in front of him, trying to take the blame bullet. Why? What has President Obama done to make the media worship him in such zombie-like fashion?
Needless to say, take what you hear with a grain of salt. It's like hearing about someone from their best friend – all you hear is good things. Only till you hear from the people they've hurt and lied to do you start to get a good picture of who they are.
The one 'good' effect this Obama-fascination might have is unifying our nation. It has been a long time since people have rallied behind someone to the extent that we've seen with President Obama. But is this actually a good thing? Unity is great and all, but it's not all it's cracked up to be when we're blindly uniting behind a person with bad morals.
Nazi Germany. Hitler. There was definitely unity. But it didn't produce anything but terrible blot on human history, reminding us just how evil mankind can be. We see the same with Russia and Stalin. And Cuba with Castro. Unity behind a political leader seems to always head south.
Does unity always come with a negative price tag? Only depending on how it is applied. We can all unite behind a leader we believe in and stay there until they crash and burn. What is the alternative? Uniting behind an idea, a truth, an absolute.
Looking to the past, our constitution was written by great leaders, but it wasn't built on those leaders. They gave us their morals - what they believed in and united behind. We've followed these guidelines - not people - and it's safe to say that is the reason we are still a nation. The moment we turn from uniting behind a set of morals to a 'great leader', we open the door to great tragedy, and great failure.