For Colonel Makeup, who misses entirely the point of the article, another old saying is pertinent:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

And then, there's putting sad cliches in print, for all the readers to see. That's icing on the cake, alright.

Perhaps Col is still expiating his "youthful follies", like so many fossilised intellects that were caught in amber when they discovered that lefties could on average be as cynical, propagandistic and manipulative as righties.

So Col Rouge becomes (metaphorically) Elmer Fudd, out to shoot the Easter Bunny in front of the (metaphorical) children. He still has a few months yet. Perhaps he could print a copy of Tim's essay and read it in the loo - I prescribe daily, from now through Lent. Mind the left hand.

And if you have your wireless laptop in the loo with you, Col, why not Google "Club of Rome", and get a clue about some of natural bounds of your style of economy?

I would suggest thay anyone who accepts and identifies with Col Rouge's definition of what we inevitably become after our 20's is confessing that they are effectively already dead. That they are
Dead at HEART, or at the feeling dimension of our being which is the very essence of our humanity. Quite simply heartless.

It would be pretty obvious by now to most regular OLO visitors that the old left/right, communist/freedom crusaders divisons poor old Col describes are a myth.

You'd be hard pressed to find an OLO commenter who thinks CEOs deserve their squillions or that market fundamentalism should apply to every area of life. Any more than believing that Medicare should be kept going automatically makes you a homosexual, tree hugging, bleeding heart multiculturalist.

Most of us have problems with what passes for media these days, knowing we're largely being fed BS and only ever being told one side of any story, which is probably why so many of us are here in the first place.

And as the sometimes furious debates that go on around here demonstrate, we're interested in what the other side has to say, even if it's only to argue with it.

Even though we're often divided on particular issues, we're united on the idea of open debate, and open debate is what is not happening in our mainstream media when one side gets an A4 sheet of paper and the other gets both the A-K and L-Z of the Sydney white pages.

What a delusional world Col must live in. McCarthyism at it's most extreme.

Everything is a communist plot:

- A balanced view in our media: Communist plot.
- Free health for those who can't afford it: Communist plot.
- Free education: Communist plot.
- Disability pension: Communist plot.
- Feelings of compassion for the less fortunate: Communist plot.

Here's a plan...

- Abolish Medicare. That way, any poor people, who would ultimately become Communist lefties, will die when they get sick. Less Communists!
- Abolish all welfare. That way, anyone who's poor and loses their job (Communist lefty just waiting to happen), will also lose their home as well, and then eventually, they'll wither on the streets and die. Less Communists!
- Abolish free education. That way, anyone who's poor (and hence, will become a Communist), will never be educated enough to make a difference in the world and spread their evil leftist propaganda. Hopefully they won't have a job good enough to shelter themselves either, and will then eventually die on the streets. Less Communists!

If George Bush is anything to go by (or Col's delusions for that matter), then I'll pass on the sudden intellect I am supposed to gain.

Quite frankly I'd rather be dead than share Col's so-called view of what Conservatism is. It's sick, twisted and delusional, just as his views on Liberalism are.

And another thing...

"This is just another sour grapes whine about how the left lost the debate, the initiative and the right to direct the rest of us."

Yeah, 'cos The Right don't want to direct anyone, do they?!

If the article was just a whine, then it wouldn't have suggested any solutions.

Gee, there may be a "superior" Conservative intellect in that head of Col's, but if so, the delusions and emotional immaturity prevent it from ever showing.

Back to the article:

Tim makes some very good points. One solution would be to provide media ratings. Most industries have quality and safety standards.

The media has only safety standards, ie you can't offend anyone and there are rules for libel and slander.

There are no quality standards. Any one can claim that all their news is fair and balanced. No one is held to account. This is like selling meat pies filled with offal and getting away with it.

We now have the kernel of this idea with the ABC. The ABC has a bias assessor. His role is to look at the overall output of the ABC and look for political bias.

Though oft maligned this is a very powerful change and we should have bias assessors at all major media outlets. Media can then get a rating on its overall bias (and hey how about news worthiness) of its content.

The rating should be made readily available. It would still be possible to broadcast biased news but people would know. A bit like you can buy a fridge with a one star energy rating if you really want.

Bias would be assessed at a monthly or quarterly scale. Not on a per program basis. That way an hour with Philip Adams can be balanced by an hour with Alan Jones.

It would take a brave government to implement such a solution and I doubt sen Noonan would take it on.

In the meantime we can always switch to the internet. I stopped buying the incredibly biased and increasingly vacuous West Australian years ago. The money covers my broadband connection. Unsurprisingly its major sponsors the super markets still reach me through the junk mail medium.