Sunday, July 22, 2018

You're being lied to...

Every day. From every possible angle. Every Day.

Yeah, you are. Every day, the news you are being spoon-fed is laced with half-truths and whole lies. Some lies are obvious and some are really pretty sneaky. The news industry is feeding you lies wholesale banking on the fact that human nature makes us readily susceptible to believing what we hear. Oh, the airplane crashes, erupting volcanoes and such are pretty much ordinary news, but anything to do with politics is laced with descriptive adjectives and misleading headlines meant to influence your thinking.  And the reason why they do it is clear: The liberal mass media hates Donald Trump and will stoop to any depth to lower your opinion of him. The continued onslaught of manufactured crisises by the liberal media is the preferred method of delivery.

It's almost like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. One week it's about the children of illegal immigrants being separated from their parents (a regular Obama-era practice), the next it's the Supreme Court candidate, and then back to Russia, Putin, and whatever sort of darkness they can cast on their take of the events. It's their ink, their paper, their broadcasting equipment and they get to choose the words. Never mind that they get it wrong. Never mind that the cover of Time magazine with Trump and the small child is a compete and utter 100% lie and fabrication, one that resulted in Time's apologetic retraction. They will cherry-pick what fits their agenda first and foremost and they will seek out comments from individuals friendly to their cause.

Take for example when I see President Trump is meeting with Vladimir Putin and it's presented as Trump's fondness for the Russian leader, I immediately know I've been lobbied by Trump-hating liberal news media to believe Trump actually has a fondness for Putin. Does he? Who determined that? It's an opinion, not  factual news.  It is a deliberate attempt to make you suspect that Trump is up to no good, and further sway your opinion against a President that the liberal media detests.

The other night, I watched Lester Holt open NBC News with the story that Trump attacked our allies. Good Lord, how awful. Did he use airplanes and bombs? But when the story got to the meat of it, we found out the President is telling these allies they are going to have to start paying more for their own military defense. This is an attack? No, it's another example of network news that hates Trump and is going to carefully and continually choose words to deliver the message that no matter what he does, they are going to do everything in their power to present it in a bad light. Let's take a careful look at how the information you base your opinions on is presented to you.

First, let's identify the majority of news presenters and how they feed you their lies. For convenience and simplicity, I've broken the news groups into subsets and I've grouped them together. I've even assigned them a weight, but let me be the first to say my numbers are just an estimate and probably vary greatly. They may be close for some and far off for others; but in any event the news we hear and how we hear it adds up to 100%. Feel free to ignore my percentages if you think they are inaccurate.

Average people get their news from major TV and radio networks. These include (but are not limited to) ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MS-NBC. I've assigned 40% as a number to start from realizing that this is an arbitrary number, but I have to start somewhere. These major network news channels do dominate the airwaves.

The next three groups are Local news, Internet/Social media and Print media. By these I mean your local newspaper/TV/Radio/subscription news magazines and what you read on social media such as Facebook (or other internet sites). Beware of what you read on the internet! A good deal of it is completely made up foolishness, and what is actually real is often mixed or slanted so as to make you believe it all because some of it is true.

The last two groups are entertainment and other. Entertainment would be late-night TV such as the two Jimmy's, Colbert, SNL and daytime feeds such as The View and Rush Limbaugh. I assign these such a low number because most of us are smart enough to recognize these people are bobble-heads that take news and twist it into jokes we might find funny. In the case of SNL and the View, these are off-the-chart left wingnut shows that play the same broken record over and over again, so much that many of us won't bother with them because we know they're played out by left-wingers doing the bidding of other left-wingers. Remember, when you see people clap on these shows, it's because their bosses turned on the applause sign to emphasize a point; more often than not, a liberal viewpoint.

And there are some wild cards in the mix: News sources that sell their stories (AP, Reuters) ... Off the wall liberal college campuses that brainwash students and then send them out into the world ... and some radical far-left and far-right groups that pose as legitimate news sources, but are pretty transparent. These news sources will do everything to paint themselves out as reliable and untainted, but don't be so easily fooled. They are selling the same soap with a different label. Add to this mix the opinion pages and political cartoons that have a left-bias; pretty soon you begin to see how tilted the tables are in what is called news. Let's look at another example of media bias and use the coverage of President Trump when he travels to a location to give a speech. Fox News covered it extensively, giving the President hours of prime-time TV coverage. MS-NBC covered eight minutes of his location-based speeches since April. CNN didn't give it any prime-time coverage whatsoever.

The point here is that if there is a chance that airing the President will make him look good, the liberal media will give it little or no coverage.

Have you watched any of the White House press conferences in the last year? When reporters (and I use the term loosely) ask a question, often they put an opinionated narrative into their comments before they actually ask a question. When did this begin? Just ask the questions, please. We already know what you think politically;

So, looking at 100% of where you get your news ... Based on the chart above, how would you break them down on the political spectrum? Conservative or Liberal?

Overwhelmingly, Liberal. Fox may lean Conservative, Rush Limbaugh may be a right winger, but after that, it doesn't take much to conclude the vast majority of your daily news feed is being carefully crafted to deliver a left-leaning bias in what you hear. CNN and MS-NBC are pretty much liberal organs that often can't even get their corrections right. People like Chris Mathews and Rachael Madcow are nothing more than snake-oil salespeople. They prey on weak minds that want to believe the Kool-Aid these people hash out on a regular basis. Sadly, my siblings and their families drink this Kool-Aid readily and worse, believe it. I'm the lone Republican left standing.

Is all of the Liberal viewpoint wrong? No. Is all of the Conservative viewpoint wrong? Again, no. But the sources aren't even close to being balanced. If the world were flat, many of them would have fallen off the left edge by now.

I'm going to leave you with some sage advice: Be suspicious of what you hear from the mass media organizations. Learn to question what they say. Cast a jaundiced eye on the adjectives they use and ask yourself why they would choose, out of thousands of possible words, to have carefully chosen those. Don't readily accept what you read or hear no matter how reliable you deem the source. Consider every picture as photoshopped until proven otherwise. Disregard memes posted on social media for the most part.

Or, just keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It comes in many flavors nowadays.


Friday, July 13, 2018

Dear ABC Television:

To: Ms. Channing Dungey, somewhere in ABC TV Lala-land

Dear Ms. Dungey:

I see you canceled your highly-watched and successful TV remake of the Roseanne show after she shot her mouth off. What she said was not very PC, but you see, those of us end-consumers of the crap you put on TV really don't care what TV stars say in their own time. We're numbed with the endless stream of political diarrhea from other brain-dead Tinseltown personalities and we notice the industry hasn't really addressed their potty mouth. It came as a shock when you canned one of the TV shows that we would actually pencil in time to watch. Rebooting Roseanne was a stroke of pure genius. Americans are nostalgic and we really liked the idea of catching up with the Connor family 25 years later. You didn't hurt Roseanne Barr anywhere near as much as you hurt your viewing audience ... You know, the ones you shove the ads to that end up paying for it all. You were worried about losing advertisers? Tut tut. The ones that are stupid enough to publicize they are leaving over what she said are the ones many of us are going to go out of our way to avoid anyway. The blacklist works both ways, Ms. Dungey. If you don't believe me, just ask a few million NRA members where they stopped spending their money recently.

I have to ask in all earnest, Ms. Dungey why you and your ilk have turned a blind eye to what others have said and either never apologized for, or took their sweet time for a half-baked insincere apology later on ... Let's start with one of your own, Channing. May I call you Channing?

Your network runs a daytime show called 'The View' and may I say it is one of the worst pieces of excrement on the air... ever. Simply put, it is a veritable toilet that one Joy Behar seems to dominate. When she shot her mouth off about the Vice-President and his religion, she offended TENS OF MILLIONS with her comments when she intimated Pence was a mental case for how he addressed deity regularly. Her apology not only came late, but only after an uproar which, as you know, may affect ratings and cost you some advertisers. Why didn't you fire Joy Behar  then, Channing? Why don't you fire her now? Why the double standard? If there is any one person that rises to the top of my list of people I'd like to shove a fluffy cream pie in their face, she's the winner. Considering the people who have earned place and show slots on my list, the fact that she's number one speaks volumes on how average people like me rate your network.

You're not alone; many other channels boil the liberal cauldron also. When Bill Maher dropped the N-bomb on his show, he found out quickly it was not well received. He ran for cover, hid for a while and now he's back blowing his liberal horn. When the feckless runt Samantha Bee used a gutter slang word to describe the President's daughter, her apology was also nowhere as immediate as Roseanne Barrs was, yet Barr is the only one that paid the price. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here, Channing. Liberals get a wink and a nod and Conservatives get the guillotine immediately. We're not stupid, Channing. We can tell the difference. Actually, some of us think your canning her had more to do with delivering a pro-Trump message than what she said. Perhaps the danger of Roseanne delivering an explanation of why Trump got elected was dangerous to you. So you waited for the former stand-up comedienne to shoot off her mouth as she always does, and that was that. She may have handed you the rope, but you pulled the lever on the trap-door just as quick as you could. In your haste, tens of millions viewers like me were hit in the crossfire. It's not as if your channel lineup is anything to write home about, Channing.

I notice one of your divisions (ABC News) is not doing all that well, so much so to the point of having to sell your prime location in Manhattan and move some distance away. I notice your network is not getting top ratings. Yet you shot from the hip without taking time to ruminate over things. You screwed up, Channing and we're pissed. We're taking notice of the rumors that you plan to reboot the Roseanne show, sans Roseanne.. Let me save you some time: Most of us won't watch it. Sara Gilbert without Roseanne to prop her up is a nobody. It didn't take her long to verbally stab Roseanne in the back after you canned the show, and considering how Gilbert owes her career to Roseanne, we found that distasteful. Here's a heads-up, Channing: Don't bother.

Thanks for nothing, Channing. You over-reacted and we're the ones suffering for it. If it's any consolation, you didn't make my pie-in-the-face list, though. Try harder, maybe next time.


A former ABC watcher.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

A Lesson in Incivility

It started out innocuously; a phone call from an out-of-town relative asking how I was and the usuals, what was new, etc. And as our conversations often do, it moved into politics. As usual, we disagreed. I am rather conservative and this relative is pretty liberal. Not quite a left wing-nut, but active enough to have worked arduously to elect Barack Obama 10 years ago. First we talked about the immigration problem. I was told we need immigrants and replied we had a system to address that need called 'legal immigration.' We ventured into the problem of the immigrant's children. I was lectured how inhumane Trump is and asked where the outrage was when Obama did the same thing years ago. The reply was a lame excuse that the pictures from the Obama era were children sent here without parents. Oh, I see. Only during Trump's Presidency did parents start arriving with their children. How convenient. The response was how poorly we were treating people seeking asylum. Of course, my reply that these people are being coached on what to say when they get here fell on deaf ears. And then the bazinga happened: I mentioned the Sarah Huckabee Sanders dining incident in Virginia and the line that divided us just got wider. I heard laughter, and that's when I lost it. I knew logical and civil debate was all but impossible, and I hung up.

I've ignored the phone calls (deleted the voice messages without listening to them) and emails. One email contained a veiled threat; that's how I perceived it anyway.

We were cut from the same cloth, but I'd have to say it was from opposite ends of the rag at this point. Not only do we disagree on politics, but we vehemently disagree. This relative gets news from such reliable sources as Morning Joe, Rachael Madcow and some liberal wingnut named O'Brien on the known fake-news liberal channels (which is most of them, by the way).

In mid-conversation before I hung up, I posed this scenario and asked what the proper response is:

It's April 1912 and you have booked a trans-Atlantic trip on a brand new ocean liner. You leave Southhampton, England bound for New York City. Everything seems normal and everybody is having a good time. The entertainment and meals are excellent. A couple of days goes by, and then you are awakened early in the morning by alarms. The boat is listing and it is obvious it is going to sink shortly. You make your way to the deck and are lucky enough to get a seat in one of the 20 lifeboats. Some hold 40, some hold 47 and most of them hold 65. You end up in one of the boats holding 65, but notice there are a couple of empty seats as the boat hits the water. The boat is oared away from the sinking ship and you notice many people jumping in the water to flee the sinking boat. You cry to the boatsman to oar over and pick some of them up, and he complies. You pick up two people and are now at full capacity. Still, there are many people in the water waving their arms and they are swimming towards you as they noticed you pulled some people in. You pick up another, and then another. You notice the boat is overloaded and getting lower in the water. You realize you cannot pick up any more people, but they are trying to climb into your boat anyway. Their hands are clinging over the edge.

What do you do?

There are two choices here. Either you can take your oars and hit the hands of the people trying to climb into your boat off the hull, or you can keep letting more in until the entire lifeboat sinks and all are lost.

So, what do you do? Come on, it's not pretty. Either answer can be described as inhumane. Do you save some or do you choose to lose everybody, including yourself?

I can predict one of the answers. Liberals will say it's not a fair analogy, which was the first response I heard. Ah, but it is. The US cannot keep on letting people in unchecked. We simply cannot hold everybody. Make a choice and live with it. Survival is a basic instinct.

But I digress. The title of this essay is about a lesson in incivility. The country is divided. I was stupid enough to think the left would come to their senses and work with the President. I was wrong. Watching Huckabee-Sanders not only get ejected from a restaurant but also get accosted and lectured while she and her dining party were walking across the street to another eatery educated me. I now know the era of civil debate is over. The dividing line just got wider, and it is the Democratic-Liberal left that moved it. Watching vermin like Maxine Waters throw gas on the fire only drives the point home.

So it's the left versus the right, and it's heating up. As I fondly tell my liberal relatives and friends, I notice they are very liberal with other people's money, but not so much with their own money. Some of them are misers and penny pinchers. One of them likes to put up anti-Trump memes on Facebook and when a meme criticizing Trump for his charity was posted, I asked how much this relative gave to charity ... which, of course, is -ZERO-. Hey, I admit I live a frugal life well below my means, but that's native to my conservatism. And I do give to carefully-selected charities, especially ones that I have personally witnessed do good works. Probably not often enough as I should, but giving is a personal choice. Ridiculing somebody else's level of giving when you don't give at all is, of course, hypocrisy and I was quick to point that out.

Oh, the lesson in incivility: I have decided to extend this lesson in incivility to my liberal relative for a while to impart the lesson that it comes in different shapes and forms, and that I can be just as easily offended as the other side can. I'm pretty intractable when it comes to educational discipline. When I think the lesson has been fully imparted, I'll probably ease up to what another relative lovingly calls a 'cordial distance.' And that's how it will go from there on.

About national politics: I'd like to think things will get better, but I'm not sure they will. Another Democrat will, sooner or later be elected to the White House. I smile thinking how just it would be to treat that person -EXACTLY-  the way the left has treated Trump, but then again I know it will just produce more gridlock and we will all suffer for it.

We're all in the lifeboats, if you can't figure it out already. Keep rowing. And let's not consider the possibility of sinking, even though we have to make some unsavory decisions to stay afloat.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Alexandria, Andrew and Amazon

Off the record, it's called corporate welfare. But it's a reality in the times we live in. Every village, every town and every city ...