on the rise

a popular question this election cycle is - knowing what we know now, would you have invaded iraq? by which they mean, since it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction found, do you think it was right to have gone in there, based on what was clearly faulty intelligence. well, hell. what are you supposed to say to that? it's like asking - knowing what we know now, would you have gotten into WWII sooner? would you have let the damn wooden horse through the gates? would you have eaten the fucking apple??

c'mon, esteemed press corps. you can do better. of the-hell course, anyone would do anything differently, in retropect. that's where the saying "hindsight is 20-20" freaking the-hell CAME FROM!

GAH.

yes, i am upset.

in 1787, great britain opened the work of the house of commons to press reporting. in the british empire of the time, there were considered to be three estates: first was clergy; second, nobility; and finally, third, commoners. when the press was introduced into the mix, edmund burke christened them the fourth estate.

each of the estates has a role. the commoners work. the clergy pray. the nobility rule. the press speak. it's honorable - all of it - when it's done properly, purely. honest work. honest prayer. honest rule. honest voice.

people aren't pure, though, or generally very honest, to themselves or to others. it all breaks down, sure, i get that. but it's one thing to break down and give in, and it's another to break down and yet strive to rise above. it's like we've lost all sense of rising above, that's what gets me.