Heroes, Villains & Idiots
(And then there’s Mary Poppins)
Another important part of our necessary cerebral transformation has to do with our own personal management of media. Intelligent thinkers can't just listen to the radio or watch CNN and swallow everything we hear. We have to learn to distinguish between news and opinion. We can't let the media dictate our conclusions; we should look to them for information only, and then verify it.
It is easier to validate news than it ever has been in the past. Today we have the internet to check on every story we see or hear. If we learn to extrapolate from what is reported what is news, and what is opinion, we have a very good start. We can now develop our own opinions rationally and much more easily than ever before.
We can't be lazy. Trusting our own judgment rather than relying on the opinion of the talking head will mean more work. To understand the issues, we have to know the facts, not a biased opinion in disguise. Most media outlets want to decide for us which candidate we should want, and which policies we should support.
Let’s face facts here. If there are two news stories, one which benefits their favored candidate, and the other questioning his integrity, the station will not likely air both. Maybe they air both if they can't avoid it, but they will spin one of them their way and the other the reverse. They will select from the news what they want the public to know to advance their own views and more importantly slant it in the specific direction in which they want us to obediently follow. Over time they will intentionally try to develop our political heroes, villains, and idiots.
They all do it. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC all spin their news to favor the left. FOX is beginning to lean left as well, but still slightly favors the right.
The problem is not one of varying opinions, we can deal with that. It is one of intentional deception. Opinion can be debated openly. When facts are withheld, it makes it a little more difficult. It is OK to support a candidate who has faults, but the primary purpose of many of our news outlets seems not to provide unbiased news, but to promote propaganda and sway public opinion. They report only those selected facts they would rather we know, much like the Soviet TASS media has done for decades in Russia. Afterwards they defend this course of action by arguing that they only have so much air time and therefore some news just doesn't make the cut. They must edit something after all.
For example, a major news outlet had a news story recently detailing the horror that 20% of women live a shorter life span today due to various socio-economic reasons. They were hinting not too indiscretly that catastrophic number is based on our selfish refusal to accept Universal Health Care - and our obvious need for more governmental control. These women were unable to obtain proper medical attention and so therefore, lived shorter, less healthy lives. How tragic it is for this large number of women.
Hold on while I calculate: If 20% live shorter lives, doesn't that mean that 80% are living longer? Shouldn't the story have been about the 80% whose longevity and quality of life and health has increased despite the lack of governmental interference in health care?
If four out of five women are living longer, doesn't that indicate that health care availability is improving and is about as good as we should expect, maybe even better? Wouldn't that suggest that governmental intervention would more than likely make it worse?
The news is reported differently today. It is less about reporting facts for the people to decide and far more about selecting, twisting and spinning the news to satisfy their desire to promote their own personal political agendas.
Another example of selective reporting is the number of deaths reported in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems like every day when George Bush was president there were stories of the death toll from the war. Deaths are indeed tragic. Injuries and deaths are inevitable in war. To engage in battle without suffering damages would have been quite a story. To have soldiers die defending their country is not earth shattering news. It is not my intention to belittle the damage done to the families of our fallen war heroes; I wish no one had to die for freedom. It is horrible, but not a surprise for soldiers to die in battle. It is not a surprise or newsworthy event unless it is an unusually large amount or some kind of slaughter. They often compared the reasoning of the war itself to that of Viet Nam, but not the death tolls because far fewer had to give their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the Bush administration, if the death toll was low, the mass media would spin it whichever way that would effectively exaggerate its horror. If it was relatively high during a particular week or month, it was a leading news item. Since Barack Obama has been coronated, I am wondering if no one has been hurt over there. Think about it. How many times have we heard about casualty rates since January 2009?
Individuals who buck the socialist trends are targeted for media assignation. There are noteworthy political figures who are not media darlings, and so what is reported regarding their activities is intentionally selected to sway opinion rather than actually report news.
Sarah Palin - Idiot
One of those who seems to express conservative ideas most clearly, even if she does do it with that hoaky Alaskan accent is Sarah Palin. She believes in family, responsibility, courage, capitalism, honesty, integrity, private generosity, national strength, God and country. She is vilified, mocked and intentionally misquoted by the media as an extremist for these radical right-wing views.
Because she is also very pretty, she is depicted as a bimbo, an idiot. Where are all you feminists out there? Must a woman look like Whoopie Goldberg or Groucho Marx in order to be taken seriously? Or is it that she must think and propose policy more similar in philosophy to Karl Marx?
Although I like everything she seems to stand for, and would vote for her in an instant, I do not want to see her as a candidate again. She has been mercilessly attacked in the press. Because of the lack of wisdom of the voters, she is an easy target for the liberal media, and would not fare very well in a national election. Others with similar views are more difficult to sabotage.
Donald Trump - Villain
The former president promotes many of the same ideas as Sarah Palin - mostly. Why is he a villain and not an idiot? He is rich, not only that, he is an outsider, he is not a lifetime politician. Unlike the current crew running amuck in Washington in need of adult supervision, Trump has the business background and acumen to understand how capitalism works and what policies a national economy needs to implement in order to prosper. Pretty much everyone knows this, and so he can't be an idiot. Since he is on the right, and can't be classified as an idiot, by default then, he must be a villain.
As discussed earlier, we can say we don't like a particular idea, policy, or personal character flaw and still support the candidate. We don't pretend everything he or she does is right and always was. Trump is abrasive. He says what he means, I find that refreshing. We are all human beings. Even presidents they are not mystical creatures endowed with supernatural knowledge or uncanny insight. They are human beings complete with human frailties.
When we evaluate policy, we do so on its merit, not based on who proposed it. Some in the media later admitted that since it was Trump who stated that Hydroxychloroquine was a good idea for Covid-19 treatment, they opposed it merely because it we he who endorsed it. That attitude likely have cost thousands of lives.
We evaluate politicians' one issue at a time. Hate to break this to the Barack Obama worshippers, but there is no perfect candidate, they are all defective in some way. We try to support the one we believe to be less imperfect than the others, whose policies we like. If there is something we don't like, (there always is) we vote for him or her anyway. We don't deny that we disagree with some of the values or principles or policies, we just do the best we can.
If our favored politician is elected, we praise and criticize depending on what happens next. We don't suggest that because we voted for him, therefore everything he does must be right due to our undying allegiance. Does your left-wing friend feel the same way? Not likely. Barack Obama does nothing wrong. Just ask him or his supporters.
George Bush – Villain and Idiot
Many liked George Bush - mostly - but we didn't like him a lot of the time. We believe him to be an honest and patriotic man. However, he often spent our money like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Amsterdam.
As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the absence of the intelligence reports, we can't know if he lied or not. Those who claim he lied must have a copy of those top-secret classified intelligence reports. If you know he lied, please send me your copy of the report, apparently mine must have been lost in the mail.
Other nations claimed to have had the same information and came to identical conclusions (even France, who would have gleefully joined in with the Bush-hating "he lied" crowd). Based on the evidence, George Bush likely did not lie about the belief that there were still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
That said, it was aggravating that he never admitted anything might be going wrong. No war goes exactly as planned, we run into glitches we all expect that, at least those of us with a rational mind do. George Bush never admitted anything was wrong. He never defended himself against media attacks or suggested maybe some plans should be reconsidered. Classified intelligence reports do not have to be jeopardized for GW to appear on TV and admit it was a little more difficult than we thought, and mistakes were made, we are doing our best, reasons for what is going on, etc, etc. He wouldn't have had to divulge any classified information.
George Bush ignored all criticism. The media claimed he went to war to avenge his father over Saddam Hussein, or to steal their oil. It didn't really matter which one we believed, as long as we believed he was a villain. They claimed he lied about the weapons of mass destruction in order to achieve this personal vendetta. They ignored the fact that Iraq had used similar weapons in the past and so it was obvious that they were real. It is very difficult for a nation to employ armaments in battle if those weapons never existed. They also ignored the fact that some, albeit small amounts were actually found.
George Bush should have addressed his critics and explained why they were wrong. He could have harped on the fact that we did find small amounts of these chemical weapons. He didn't bother. His silence seemed to give them reason to attack even more. He hurt the country by letting those accusations against him go unchallenged because he allowed people to lose confidence in him. He could have restored it. He didn't. It is George Bush's own fault that we lost confidence in him. Despite the fact that he was under constant media attack, he was the president; he should have overcome it.
Intentional Media Fabrications
During the 2004 presidential campaign, a news story emerged just a few weeks before the election by a major news network. They had type written proof from the 1970's that George Bush shirked his duty while a young fighter pilot in the military. It aired for several days and voters were beginning to wonder about his patriotism. Was he a phony? Did he abandon his post while in the service? Is he a hypocrite? Is this the kind of man we want to have as president?
As it turned out, that proof was written on Microsoft Word, which wasn't even a gleam in Bill Gates eye at the time. It was a fake. The purpose of the story was to advance the candidacy of John Kerry for president. The anchorman who approved the story was dismissed. On his way out the door, he claimed that although the proof was a forgery, it didn't mean the story wasn't true. Say what? He hated George Bush so much that he fabricated the story, was caught with the forgery, and then refused to apologize for his intentions. These are the types of people in powerful positions determining the direction of our media reporting today. They really believe that the end justifies any means, and will do just about anything to advance their own agenda, truth be damned.
Many conservatives voted for GHWB twice, and would again given the same choices. Some things maybe we like, others not so much. If a better candidate would have run, he gets our vote. Unlike many on the far left, and admittedly some on the right, we don't worship politicians. They work for us.
Bill Clinton – Hero
Many will just go along with almost anything their politician says or does. Unlike the above example with President Bush, many on the left see their candidate as heroic, one who always does the right thing. For example, President Bill Clinton never did anything wrong, he was a great man, the greatest president ever. He presided over the finest stock market surge in history. The market gains of the 1980's under Reagan and his tax cuts were phony paper gains full of pixie dust and deceptive financial illusions and incidentally, helped only the rich.
Bill Clinton's market magic somehow also worked on the poor. Again, just ask them. The 1990's were real, substantial gains. The fact that this was the time the Internet was born and exploding (and subsequently busted) was not relevant, it was all because Bill Clinton was president. As far as Monica Lewinski, doesn’t every President do that in the Oval Office with his presidential cigars? He never did anything wrong.
No. Every president does not do that with his cigars. Some others may have, and those that did were also wrong; just like he was. The market surge was real, and it crashed towards the end of his reign - neither was his doing.
The terrorist attacks on the embassies in Nairobi and Beirut or the one on the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center car bombing, and the Beirut Marine barracks were not Bill Clinton's fault. The several car-bomb attacks in Saudi Arabia upon military personal under his watch were not his fault. The failure to capture Bin Laden when he had the chance was not his fault.
Agreed. The terrorist attacks weren't his fault. Muslim extremists hate us for no rational reason. They want us dead and we don't understand why, so the left fabricates reasons for their hatred that is based on international policy under only republican administrations. No blame is accepted by those on the left. Since it isn't the terrorists fault, it must be the conservative's fault that we are so hated by the extremist Muslims. Conservative policies - capitalism.
When speaking with an insider, one who trains foreign military and police, I asked if he knew why they hate us so much. He replied: "We are the New York Yankees. Every baseball fan who isn't a Yankee fan, hates the Yankees. They have the most money, the most publicity, and they almost always win. They hate the United States for being the United States, the most free and economically successful nation in the world and they are jealous of us and so naturally, they want us to suffer."
Apparently, at least from this insider's knowledge, they hate us because we win, we are successful, and don't have the problems they do, so they hate us. Some on the left want to justify terrorist actions as it somehow being our fault. They claim that if we had just acted differently, they wouldn't have murdered so many of us, so it is really our own fault that they kill us at every opportunity. We need to change somehow to stop them from hating us. We need to be more European, less successful economically, more poor like they are.
When a person or country is attacked, the attacker is at fault, not the victim. If former New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter were attacked by a lunatic Red Sox fan, would we justify his assault and not punish him because the Yankees won more and the Red Sox just experienced their annual September collapse? Why then was the attack on the World Trade Centers George Bush's fault as was the consensus of opinion from so many Clinton supporters? Some even claim he did more than handle it terribly; he was directly responsible for the planning of the attack himself. How did they come to this conclusion? Very simple; irrational hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, they hated him, so they came to irrational conclusions. George Bush was a villain, Bill Clinton a hero.
As a Red Sox fan, I always hated Derek Jeter. I hated him even more than that ugly dopey-looking Smart Car - but I have no intention of waging Jihad because I know my hatred is really misplaced admiration and respect for his accomplishments. Unlike the Muslim terrorists, I am a rational person, so Derek will be safe should I ever meet him. The villainous cheating Yankee bastard.
Barack Obama - Mary Poppins: Practically Perfect in Every Way
Barack Obama is the media's Mary Poppins, with an extra spoonful of sugar to take the bitterness away, the bitterness away. So what that he attended services of the racist preacher for 20 years. That doesn't mean he is a racist, after all, he is half white, he can't be. Here again we have hypocrisy at the highest level. Reverend Wright is a pastor of a "Black Theology" church, yet he is not a racist. I was trying to find a "White Theology" church, and funny, I couldn't find any, try it on Google. There is no “White Theology” If there were, (maybe there will be) we all know what would happen. Here we have media manipulation through passivity. Better not look into this, it may not be very good for Barack. Any candidate who happened to be a member of a white theology church with a white racist pastor, continuously hammering the United States in his sermons and accusing the black race of being satanic, would never had a chance to rise to be town clerk.
So what if Obama hasn't had any executive experience and none at all in business or executive management? Ignore that. It didn't matter that he was only a U.S. Senator for six months before he started running for President. Not important. It doesn't matter that he called working in the private sector "Working behind enemy lines" because government was the place to be, and capitalist ventures were the enemy of government. It is not important that he was linked with communist organizations and radical extremists, even terrorists. He is Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
Opinions (and even lies) are reported today as if they were facts when clearly they are not. Whoever liberals don't like is vilified with unabashed irrationality. (Fill in your conservative lout here) can't do anything right. Donald Trump has been unmercilessly attacked since he was elevcted.
Sarah Palin was mayor of a town, and governor of a state, yet somehow the media got away with depicting her as an inexperienced bimbo. The reality was she had far more business and governmental executive experience than Barack Obama, and he was at the top of the other ticket. She had years more administrative experience in the mayor's office and governor’s mansion than he did - zero. She also had more executive experience than either John McCain or Joe Biden.
Where were the feminists when this was going on? Aren't they interested in strong, powerful women getting the chance to obtain positions of influence? Intellectual dishonesty. They are only interested in liberal women being treated with respect. When a conservative woman is being unjustly hammered by the press, they jump on board and start pounding too.
Republicans seem to be more willing to criticize their guy primarily because so often they act like democrats. Conservative republicans don't like the RINOs, the left-leaning republicans, yet most won't change parties, they just whine about the liberalism of the Republican Party.
There are also some disingenuous conservatives who believe the attack on the Trade Center was Bill Clinton's fault because he didn't quell the terrorism under his watch. They claim that their guy, GWB did a great job after the fact cleaning up his mess.
We don't look for reasons to justify murdering thousands of Americans. If someone accidentally steps on your toe, a rational person doesn’t retaliate by shooting him in the head. It was the radical Muslims who attacked those towers. If they believe we stepped on their toe, and want us punished for that - No - get over it. We don't care whether they like us Yankees or not, we still plan on winning. Work on your game if you want to win. Damn Derek Jeter.
There are lots of intellectually dishonest political hypocrites who are either not smart enough, or just too plain lazy to formulate their own opinions about policy, so they follow their guy (or gal) no matter what. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of blatantly and intentionally intellectually dishonest political thinkers who will deny any truth coming from the other side of the isle based solely on its source. To agree with any point offered in objection, regardless of its validity, is to admit defeat. Their supporters mindlessly follow like the lemmings they are and chant the words of their leaders, right or wrong.
We have to learn to verify what we hear with another source as much as we can. It is important to know what has been left out. It is just common sense today, and it is easier than it has ever been to do it.
It is up to us to enlighten ourselves and be active listeners. There is a difference between fact and opinion. We all have an obligation to our families to at least try to learn to distinguish that important difference so we can make better decisions.