Like when Democratic bloggers OK with the idea of mass arrests, trials and executions for political dissenting opinions pat themselves on the back for calling Republican bloggers crazy who believe God told them that abortion and homosexuality are mortal sins and therefore should be legislated out of existence.
Yeah, serious policy stuff like that, designed to instill public confidence.
But, just occasionally, you find something like Glenn Greenwald discussing media culpability in keeping this whole charade running [the specific case is the current, bizarre NPR refusal to use the word torture anymore, but the context could be health care, climate change, bail-outs, or terrorism]:
There are two sides and only two sides to every "debate" -- the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment. If those two sides agree on X, then X is deemed true, no matter how false it actually is. If one side disputes X, then X cannot be asserted as fact, no matter how indisputably true it is. The mere fact that another country's behavior is described as X doesn't mean that this is how identical behavior by the U.S. should be described. They do everything except investigate and state what is true. In their view, that -- stating what is and is not true -- is not their role.
Yeah: the two parties have nothing in common--except the shell game that keeps them in power while the military industrial complex, giant corporations, and blood-sucking bureaucrats all prosper.