What are you a whore to?

I have begun to ask outloud of talking heads, "Who are you a whore to?"

I'm so tired of being disappointed by media people that I used to respect. Talking heads used to tell the truth based on principles of truth, fairness, and reality, even when their subjective biases came into play on issues that were open to interpretation.

Now, many talking heads have morphed into people who are arguing untruths in order to keep their corporate jobs, or because they have bought into an ideology that always puts power above ethical principles. I was struck by this when I heard Bill Kristol on Fox News incorrectly say something like, "Edwards didn't say anything about Kerry's congressional record!" after the debate with Cheney. When he was immediately told that he wasn't telling the truth he took narcissistic offense at the accusation rather than admitting something as simple as, "Okay, I was mistakenly generalizing, but in fact, Edwards wasn't convincing..."

It may sound harsh to call someone a whore, but we can all be whores. I think it's fine if you're a whore to your family, a whore to the environment, a whore to your lover, it's all a matter (as Bush might say) of who you love. Bush, for instance, is a whore to both money and power. Like a whore gives up sexual choice for money, we can give up clean air for corporate wealth, or a beautiful body for oral gratification, or more positively, we give up a career for family, or a big house for no debt. One can be a whore for a positive thing or a negative thing. It all depends on our basic principles and priorities--but whoring comes into play when you give up or compromise one thing for another thing. It's more than setting priorities, it's a specific exchange of one thing or idea for another thing or idea.

So, I ask myself, is that talking head giving up the truth for power or money?

Granted, most of the people in the media are intrinsically whores to fame/status (thereby sacrificing privacy and/or family), no biggie, but these people used to be far more concerned about the truth and ethical principles in government than towing the party line (with the exception of Coulter).

I'm interested in what it is that can cause a person to compromise the truth, the most compromising whoredom (in this case: Bush's presidency is a disaster) for money (financial reward) or power (the ends justifies the means).

Bill Kristol: power
Ann Coulter (never liked her): power
Morton Kondrake: money
John McCain: power
Rudy Giuliani: power
Arnold Schwarzenegger: power

Note: I differentiate a whore to money from a whore to power if the individual demonstrates any dissention from the ideology of power (Kondracke did this after debate 2). McCain is a dissenter, but his endorsement of Bush's presidency and his "war on terror" overwhelmingly counters his dissent, and he can only redeem himself from being a whore to power if he endorses Kerry before Nov. 2 (plausible). Schwarzenegger is willing to dissent from business interests when it comes to the environment and ill children, but not for consumers in general.

I'm doing this because of my fundamental belief that those who support Bush's presidency are defying truthful rationality and reality. I've decided that the only people who can support Bush without compromising the basic principle of truth would have questionable principles like these:

This person believes that the wealthy should be rewarded more than the poor, so rich people and global corporations benefit from government more than middle class workers, overtime workers, and small businesses; he believes that moral beliefs should be legislated, as in no birth control or abortion should be legal; she is a supporter of debt, so thinks large deficits and loans are wonderful; he believes in over spending, so taxes should be cut while spending is dramatically raised; she believes that every man is an "island", and so is the U.S. when she isolates herself to fight terrorism virtually alone; he believes in the importance of greed and bribery, so our political system is working just fine as it is, the money, the corporate monopolies, the press, and the lobbyists; she believes that man has unchecked dominion over the animals and the earth, so polluting and environmental wreckage is par for the course. A person who had such principles would be mean and strange, but I guess such a person might exist.