WHO NEEDS A FREE PRESS ANYWAY ?

Let's be honest shall we? Our founding fathers may have had some very good ideas, in fact many very good ideas, but a free press just may not have been one of them. They gave us a government by and for the people which was truly a wonderful revolution at the time; so if they gave us such a gov't why do we need a free press to independently report on what our gov't, by and for the people, is doing? After all, a gov't that is so much for us can tell us all by themselves what they are doing, on our behalf.

And now, 200 years later, we see that our founders have succeeded so well that we don't have the slightest fear that gov't really needs to be monitored by the press to safeguard our freedoms. In fact, we believe the opposite, i.e., that our beloved gov't should not be monitored and contained, but rather expanded to generally make all things better, on our behalf. Indeed, we have been so grateful to gov't that in each decade for the last 200 years we have seen to it that gov't has been given all the power, scope and authority it needs. In fact, we even have the Democrats who consistently stand for nothing other than insuring that the gov't gets bigger and bigger so that our freedoms will correspondingly get bigger and bigger too, and they have succeeded by almost any standard of measurement, at least in making the gov't bigger, on our behalf. Our gov't doesn't need to be guarded by a free press, it needs to be set free to achieve its full glory. And so even after 200 years, the Democrats have never said that there is a limit to how big, big is.

So why make a mess of this happy situation by throwing a free press into it? Look what happened to poor Judith Miller. She now sits in jail hiding information that she delusionally thinks will might make our beloved gov't look bad. If she had just patriotically trusted our beloved gov't in the first place she wouldn't have needed the information, and would not now be sitting in jail. This is the kind of confusing stuff that happens when you have a free press. We all love gov't yet there are people among us like Judith Miller who are willing to rat it out? exactly , how do you explain that?

Interestingly, Judith Miller and her famous Democratic newspaper (NYTIMES) may figure that a free press is necessary when you have Republicans holding the executive and legislative branches of gov't. The Republicans, lest we forget, are well known to be insensitive, uncaring and generally for only the upper class and certain big businesses (Hailiburton, although certainly not GM and Ford which seem to gong bankrupt at the moment) and therefore exposing them is an obvious necessity. And worse, you often hear Republicans talking about cutting taxes, an ownership society, and other things that would actually diminish the power of our wonderful gov't that obviously needs to grow. The more gov't grows the more freedom we will all have- right?

But, perhaps when the Democrats are back in power the free press will feel compelled to go on voluntary hiatus given that the bigger, better, and ever growing gov't they love so much will be so wonderfully big and powerful and doing so much good by then that it alone can surely be trusted to tell us all about what it is doing, without the help of a free press? Why would we need a free press to report on what a burgeoning liberal gov't is doing when, by definition, liberals think gov't is good? It would seem very odd wouldn't it if they argued that that they need to keep an eye on even a liberal gov't the size of ours while they support an even bigger gov't subject to, theoretically at least, even more dishonesty, inefficiency, and corruption?

It makes you wonder what on earth our founders had in mind when they installed a free press even for the tiny little gov't they created. It also makes you wonder what they would proscribe for our current liberal gov't which is 1000 times bigger than the one a free press was supposed to monitor 200 years ago? Mostly though you wonder why it is that when Judith Miller gets out of jail she and her neuroticially liberal colleagues will continue to support and rat out an even bigger and more powerful liberal gov't than the one that put her in jail. If gov't is naturally so lovable why did it put her in jail and why does it need to be monitored by a free press at all? What were those founding fathers thinking, on our behalf?