We love having our hands slapped. The voices of reason and cynicism lull us, even when they're speaking nonsense.

Take George Will, currently employed by the WaPo and Newsweek. He recently wrote a column in which he states it's "silly" to think even .01 percent of Americans will ever ride their bikes to work, never mind that .04 percent already do. He also says a lot of other stupid stuff. However, George Will is white, wears glasses, a tie, and speaks with a sneer. That's how you know he's right, or at least deserves his spot at the head of the table.

Will is at his most harmful when he's dissuading Americans from doing the right thing, I guess because we're morally corrupt slobs. He's a Hobbsian, clearly, for whom the status quo of the past less-than-a-century is so firmly engrained our human nature that we are incapable of switching paradigms. Americans, capable of biking, bussing, or training? Humbug. 

George Will looking eminently reasonable

Tom Friedman is another good example. He occupies the center like a sumo wrestler, clearing the ring of any who would dare enter from the fringes, never mind if they are actually correct. Of course, he writes with such eloquence and authority you don't even consider he might not know what the hell he's talking about -- the sort of moderate positions you could balance a house of cards on. 

Friedman looking like a douche with a moustache 

Then there's our problem with false equivalence for the sake of balance. This noise emanates most frequently from the blowhards cable news. Apparently if there are two well-established persons or organizations spouting different views, they both must have some worth, even if one or both of those views is utter insanity. This sort of thinking leads to phrases like "advanced interrogation," because if we used a word like "torture," we simply couldn't have a debate in the first place. Or deriding factual points, like the fact that inflating car tires saves more oil than drilling for oil would ever gain. There is no debate, and yet there is. 

I especially love when "reasonable" people tell everyone else to behave. Like, when Wanda Sykes went over the line suggesting that she might not be too upset of Rush Limbaugh died. I mean, it's not like Limbaugh actively vies for the title of "Most Reprehensible Man on Earth." Should I respect him because he's on the radio? Because he's never jacked a car radio (that we know of?) Or maybe it's because a lot of people agree with him.

Couldn't that just mean there are a lot of crazy people? 

We're a democracy, of course, and so we revere the least common denominator. We deride fringe positions, even if they're 100% right. (Maybe the Earth  IS melting, which at least warrants a SCREAM or something; maybe we should all grow food on our rooftops, bike to work, and SHRINK the global economy so we pollute less; maybe we shouldn't leave the FATE of the HUMAN RACE up to CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING; could be wrong, but we might all die; I mean, either way, I guess. Wait. What am I worried about? This is all in a parenthetical bubble, like I never even said it. Does Google even find stuff in parentheses?)

It's ok to tell people that they're wrong, when they are. In fact, we should pass a law requiring K-12 teachers to moderate all debate -- at least they call a spade a spade.

Anyway, apparently our salvation lies in a former professional wrestler (that shit's totally hard work, btw).