Skullduggery
--The White Rabbit, running behind
We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done
we haven't told you a thing
--Dirty Laundry,
Don Henley
Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation
that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.
This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation;
this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers;
this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force
in the whole godless world
--Network (1976)
Just think of those shocks you've got
And those knocks you've got
And those blues you've got
From that news you've got
And those pains you've got
(If any brains you've got)
From those little radios
--Anything Goes,
Cole Porter
______________________
We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done
we haven't told you a thing
--Dirty Laundry,
Don Henley
Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation
that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.
This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation;
this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers;
this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force
in the whole godless world
--Network (1976)
Just think of those shocks you've got
And those knocks you've got
And those blues you've got
From that news you've got
And those pains you've got
(If any brains you've got)
From those little radios
--Anything Goes,
Cole Porter
______________________
What is this madness engulfing our news? Y'say you are shocked that tribalism and racism exists in America? Really?
If you are in the above category, you have fallen prey to the media's skulduggery.
In a true democracy, the events in Charlottesville were a law and order failure, not a civil rights one. In the absence of a proper threat assessment, there were not adequate police on site to maintain order, and violence happened.
The new normal should be: lots of police on-station when people will be exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly, if it is a situation the press may conceivably exploit to pump up viewership. There will be a flash mob on-site -- count on it.
The recent Charlottesville march should have been a quiet affair. The United States is a Republic, and contains multitudes. We have freedom of speech and of assembly. The marchers in VA had a permit (and the blessings of the ACLU) to do so.
Had agitators opposing the march not made a rumpus of it, and the press not shined a spotlight upon it, it would have been an event of no moment. Tension requires two things in opposition.
In a democracy, we are allowed to hate who and what we hate, love who and what we love. There are no thought police. To borrow from founder Thomas Jefferson, the beliefs of another "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
The only rule is, we may not deprive another of life and liberty. Further, if we do so motivated by our hatreds, there will be an added designation of "hate crime" appended to the charge.
In 1978, the KKK marched in Skokie (IL) with the blessing of the ACLU. In contrast, today we are cudgeled en masse into outrage over the press's non-p.c. image du jour.
Meanwhile, within days the news cycle will direct your attention to something new to raise your ire, and you will have forgotten what had seemed so important yesterday. You will have invested no analysis into the things to which you are responding so viscerally, as there is no time or encouragement for you to do so.
Your opinions are handed to you, and they are designed to make you feel a constant undertow of menace. You have become Henny Penny, much to the delight of the press, for they are the dope pushers, and you are now a user mainlining their drivel.
The NYT recently ran a story on the "antifa" or "anti-fascist" movement. (The antifas are the liberal fascists, as opposed to the conservative ones.) They see their mission as muzzling the free speech of those with whom they disagree.
One of the group's members is quoted as saying, “You need violence in order to protect nonviolence ... [t]hat’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi would be rolling over in their graves at the madness. As liberal darling Noam Chomsky wrote, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all."
What the news will not tell you is, the antifas were illegally attempting to abridge the marcher's rights. That is all.
Do I really need to say this?
--by Lisa
Labels: antifas, Charlotteville march, corrupt media, madness in the United States, press as running dogs
posted by Lisa at 3:23 PM
29 Comments:
Superb analysis and I agree with the police.
The only thing I would chime in with is a tactical thought, but maybe you already had it since you're mentioning Gandhi. There was a time when the side that claimed to be representing the non-white marginalized peoples would have stood, very openly unarmed and nonviolent, and offered an otherwise absurd collection of would-be Confederates and Nazis to beat them up in front of the cameras of the world's press corps. This opportunity was lost in favour of pointless violence.
I confess, in a twisted way I find myself almost relieved it was a Nazi who decided to take things to the level of murder, because at least I'm not a Nazi. It could very easily have gone the other way.
I'm also relieved that it's not my man in the White House who said some good people were marching with the Nazis, but again, had things turned out another way, I can very easily see a Democrat saying pretty much the same thing after some leftist kook decided he was going to reenact the Civil War by driving over some southerners.
Spot on assessment.
David, why is it wrong to say that there were some good people marching along side the Nazis? Is it not possible to protest the removal of a statue simultaneous to a neo-Nazi doing the same, and still be a good person?
I mean, otherwise, all that needs to be done is to have a neo-Nazi show up at any event that you want to disband.
All this social shaming is like a bunch of hen pecking women. If a neo-Nazi and agree on something we agree. I'm not going to change my outlook just because a neo-Nazi shares it. I want to preserve the statue. Neo-nazi wants to preserve the statue. Fine with me. Only a spineless weasel would deny the statue because of the neo-Nazi, but that is what the left and their craven mouth pieces in the media are trying to shame people into doing.
avedis
Avedis
Witness -- not for the first time -- the political fallout from speaking it and you can see what I mean. As usual, Trump trades the short-term satisfaction of speaking his mind for another week of mayhem preventing him from implementing the agenda he promised you. This may be foolish, but as I said, it swings both directions, and it is the environment one must live in. Failure to recognize that unfortunate fact means political failure.
I didn't mention the politics of the statues because I thought it was obvious, but if you want to know my opinion, I'd say it's a pretty depressing state of affairs when such a large contingent of Americans now gets so loudly and proudly offended by the existence of some old sculptures.
I remember once upon a time the Taliban were bad people for blowing up some old Buddhist statues. Not at all, it turns out! They just didn't want their people to be offended!
David,
If Trump doesn't speak it, then his base sees him as "cucking out" (as it's called these days).
Also, the anti-Trump factions are playing a lot of semantic games. I see them as setting up something like this; anyone who protests the statue removal is hater bigot Nazi or "alt-right". Neo-nazis showed up to protest. Good people don't side with Nazis. Our point is proven. The statues have to go and protestors don't even have a right to speak out because they're all Nazis and Nazi - sympathizers. ....or something like that. BTW, I consider myself an alt-right type. This means, to me, that I am a conservative, but I don't go for the establishment conservatives (Romney, Bush, Cruz, et al) because I think they're all crooks, liars and war pigs. I think the progressives are the party of - often quite literally - insane people. We already know that socialism doesn't work. We have many historic and present examples. I also don't go for identity politics. I am not, never have been and never will be a Nazi. The establishment and the crazies hate people like me for not joining them and, is their wont, call us nasty names (that's what propagandists appealing to naughty child-like intellects do).
More generically, the anti-Trumpers are saying that freedom of speech only applies to approved speech and that hate speech - which is all that statue protesters and Nazis are capable of - is most definitely banned. If you disagree, you're a Nazi.
FURTHERMORE....
Soviet sympathizing Leftist hordes that oppose free speech - often violently (see Berkeley, and "what do we want? Dead cops!" as well as actual dead cops, lots of them in the past year or so, etc) - are good guys because they are bravely standing up to Nazis (apparently law enforcement are a form of Nazis too).
So what is Trump to do with this amalgamation of a mishmash of radical emotional energy, infantile thinking on the part of half the country and deliberate turning of ideas and words into political IEDs?
The way it's set up, if Trump thoroughly denounces Nazis and only Nazis, then he is seen as denouncing the right to free speech, the statues themselves and signaling approval of dangerous radical elements like antifa and black lives matter (both groups are racist haters of whites if you take the time to actually see what they write about beneath the boiler plate social justice ideology).
If he tries to be rational and denounces antifa/blm along with Nazis, as he did the first time he communicated about the CVille incident, then he is seen as not offering a strong enough denouncement by his weasel enemies. That is indeed what happened. It's all illogical (but then we're dealing with leftists and propaganda mongers, so what do you expect).
If he tries to tone down the condemnation of both sides, as he did in his next utterances, by saying that both sides had some fine people with good intentions along with bad people that caused trouble, then he is clobbered with black and white absolutism by his enemies, as happened.
IMO, the correct response to CVille was his first. But it didn't fly.
What would you have him do given the above?
avedis
Thanks, David. As I sit here watching the wheels, the whole sorry state of this nothingness, really, becomes so clear.
I just wrote it all out in a torrent of insight, and meted some out here; there is more, and it's all of a piece.
Have we so little to do that we must concern ourselves with every iteration of anything with which we (which means, "everyone") finds offense? What a sorry waste of time.
Per this:
There was a time when the side that claimed to be representing the non-white marginalized peoples would have stood, very openly unarmed and nonviolent, and offered an otherwise absurd collection of would-be Confederates and Nazis to beat them up in front of the cameras of the world's press corps. This opportunity was lost in favour of pointless violence.
... yes, and no. Why must we deride the marchers as "absurd", and what have proof have we that they wished to perpetrate violence? I think, two unsubstantiated presumptions.
My parents worked at a newspaper during the Civil Rights movement, and one of the marchers came in at the conclusion to speak with the editor. My mother recalled his answer to the question, "Was it a good day?"
"No", he said. "There were no attack dogs and no fire hydrants." Peaceful protests are most powerful when they generate that frisson.
Charlottesville was not the same thing. It's a stone statue of an American General. The marchers were not going to attack themselves in some sort of St. Vitus's Dance fury of self flagellation.
No, the marchers were peaceful. It was the protesters who intervened who brought the incitation to violence, because that makes good press.
Plus, we have been so inclined to violence by the anti-Trump media that we think hating on anything that might remotely be hung on his neck will be praised.
Forever and ever. Amen.
Lisa
I hope that question is rhetorical. Surely you would agree that a statue or an errant tweet are far more serious matters than, say, equal protection under the law. Indeed, how can I have equal protection of the law if a statue stands in a park somewhere and I don't like the person it's sculpted in memory of?
Logic.
"Logic", y'say? Some quaint notion that a guy with pointy ears on a 20th cen. t.v. program advocated, right? Alas, how passe.
Our salvation may be found in humor. Certainly, the press is providing us copious raw material, no?
Sadly this is no longer just an American problem.
They are roaming the country looking for old building and highway names to change up here, too.
One of my biggest worries in life is that I might drive to work on a highway named after a terrible dead person and forget to tweet my outrage.
Avedis -
"why is it wrong to say that there were some good people marching along side the Nazis? Is it not possible to protest the removal of a statue simultaneous to a neo-Nazi doing the same, and still be a good person?
Let me take a stab at the 2nd question first. My answer and the answer of most Americans would be of course! Yes it is possible for a good person to protest at any time, whether or not criminal white supremacists are doing the same.
Regarding your 1st question. 'Good people' do not march shoulder to shoulder with neoNAZIs, KKK members or white supremacists. Once they do that they have crossed a line IMHO and are with the extremists. If they were there to protest statue removal, but distanced themselves from the extremists then IMHO good on them.
As for me I have no problems with statues of Bobby Lee or other Confederate veterans, let them stand. That is other than any memorials to the founder of the Klan, former CSA General Nathan Bedford Forrest. I am sorry to see them come down. But ANTIFA is not just about statues. They were there to counter what the FBI and DHS call WSE, or white supremacist extremism, which the FBI says is more dangerous to Americans than Islamic terrorism. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3924852-White-Supremacist-Extremism-JIB.html
But since the FBI and police have their hands tied in responding to these thugs, so ANTIFA went to protect the town of Cville and the people. Looks like they might have gone a bit overboard in administering some street justice to a few fascist thugs calling for the extermination of Jews and Blacks. Naughty children you might call ANTIFA. But I seem to remember that some of the worlds first anti-fascists were Armenians who administered some vigilante justice of their own when they offed Talaat Pasha and a few other Turks and Azeris responsible for genocide. Good on them I say. Melania Trump's Slovenia fought against Mussolini's fascists. 77,000 Germans in Hitler's Third Reich were executed for fighting against fascism and they were NOT all communists as most post-war propaganda would have you believe. We could go on and on about the struggles in Franco's Spain and Vichy France and Englad's BUF. I am glad ANTIFA is around. We need to put the fear of God into these wannabee mass killers who masquerade as the saviours of Robert E Lee.
Mike
Yes, any time you find yourself waving a tiki torch chanting "Jews will not replace us," you're probably in a wrong place.
On Antifa, though, what you're describing is basically terrorism. It is not as if the Nazis and their ilk were going to burn down Charlottesville. Vigilante justice is wrong, period. Implying you'll use it to shut down protests is wrong, period. It's also unnecessary. You draw moral equivalents between Antifa and fascism when you do so.
Anti-fascist protesters should think very hard about what they're doing. If the purpose is to demonstrate that the Nazis are detestable people, then you do that better by NOT coming armed to defend yourself with force. If the goal is to draw attention to the fact that there is a Nazi rally going on, this is unnecessary. Believe me, the torchlit rally was already going to be seen around the world.
And if the goal is to remove the statues so that the Nazis don't have symbols to group around, which I don't agree but at least is a legitimate political goal, then Antifa would probably better spend their time investing in the municipal political processes by which these statues can actually be moved.
Antifa got "lucky." They "won" the Charlottesville round in the public eye because one of the Nazis used lethal force. They won't always be that lucky. Sometimes it will be an "antifascist" who takes such extreme measures. At least one Nazi didn't follow my advice here, and look what's happened to them. I'm sorry, but just as you're right to say it's morally indefensible to support Nazism, it's also morally indefensible to say that your violence is okay because at least you aren't Nazis.
Mike,
The Armenians that whacked a few Turks were not Americans. Neither are the Mossad agents that zapped some former Nazis. Sure, good on them......as long as they're not Americans pulling that crap in the USA. In the USA we have a system of law, without which, we are nothing.
Antifas are physically attacking people all over California who are not members of any Nazi group. How do you explain that other than what I already said?
Finally, I reject your guilty by association argument. Two people on the same street protesting something. I can't help what the other guy says or does. And I won't go home because he is deemed to be something "undesirable"....that word undesirable....seems I've heard it somewhere before utter by fascists in reference to certain ethnic groups.
Nazis have a right to speak. Period. Social shaming into silence for having some superficial overlap with them aint gonna cut it. If I was a Soros type, I'd send a squad of paid Nazi actors to show up at any rally I didn't like and have the media focus cameras on them. Guys like you would do the rest. Thx
avedis
Avedis -
anti-fascists "...attacking people all over California..."? I guess you are referring to the Berkeley protest earlier this year against alt-right British pedophile Milo Yiannopoulos? You are right, that was uncalled for.
Or the later (March?) pro-Trump rally at Berkeley in which the street fighting wing of the Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights started whacking people with sticks and then whined when anti-fascists fought back?
Or the April protest when various far-right activists in the crowd held antisemitic signs and made Nazi salutes. That was the one where Nathan Damigo, the 30-year-old founder of the white supremacist group 'Identity Evropa' was filmed on camera punching an old woman in the face and then ran into the crowd to hide.
Other than the Milo incident can you provide some actual evidence of anti-fascists attacking non-NAZIs, non-KKK, or non-WSE?
You say in the USA we have a system of law. I agree! Yet you say NAZIs have a right to speak. And yet the Supreme Court has ruled that: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Yelling death to Jews or Blacks or Catholics sound like 'fighting' words to me.
By the way 'undesirable' is your choice of words, not mine.
PS - ...sending actors to show up and focus cameras on them... That is right out of the alt-right playbook, page one. Except they go one step further and doctor the video if they did not get the reactions they wanted.
Avedis -
PPS: You say guys like me would do the rest?
I'm 74 years old with five great-grandchildren. If you think I am going to protests to bash fascists, you are mistaken. But when the fascists come for me I plan to resist with my 12 gauge if they try to break down my door.
Mike.
What ever happened to "mind your own business"? Who are these people that need to police what others think and believe? Who are these people that can't go about their life's mission because there's a statue in the park? Or a stupid Nazi wannabe in the park? What would your DI have said about such a person (rhetorical question alert)?
What are people scared off if neo-nazis are aloud to speak? Don't you think that people would be more likely to be turned off, rather than turned on by Nazi-talk? Why not let them talk then from a purely strategic standpoint? Can't people decide responsibly for themselves? If not, then aren't we just totally screwed anyhow? Who will be the philosopher king that will end the republic and herald the glorious new age where the dangerously ignorant populace is no longer allowed to decide (for their own good, of course). I sure as hell hope is me.
avedis
Mike,
just for starts, the protests against Ann Coulter and Charles Murray.
Milo is a child molester? I didn't know that. He is gay. That I knew. So there really is a connection? How many child molesters on the antifa side. I can think of several confirms. Good people don't hang out with child molesters.
How about people threatening to kill the President? Check. Several on the antifa side. Decent people don't hand out with political assassins...........or do they in the brave new world?
How about black lives matter, also present at CVille as "counter protesters"? What is the count of cops killed by them? I've got 20 since last May.
BLM is a major problem for you guys.
+ Do you recall the "zebra killings" That was Louis Farakhan, one of the progenitors of BLM. Much racial hate and racist evil deeds on the black activist faction's part.
Fine people don't hang with political action groups associated with zebra killers.
avedis
Mike,
I will most definitely be lighting up any BLMs or antifas that come to my door bearing anything more than a stupid educational handout. A wide range of ventilation holes from 5.56mm to 12 gauge (slug) will be introduced to their centers of mass. What's the point? Is that what's come down to?
Why? What is this fundamental thing that is being fought over? I say it's people that can't hack independence versus those who can. The former being useful idiots for megalomaniacs that see the Constitution as a barrier to the megalomaniacal aspirations. You see a real social justice issue here that worth killing for?
avedis
Avedis -
Fascists by definition are the ones that cannot hack independence.
No, I do not see 'social justice' worth killing for. I do not even know what the term means. Nothing is worth killing for except self defense.
I do agree with you that megalomaniacs see the constitution as a barrier to their aspirations. You and I just disagree on who are the megalomaniacs. I say fascists, you say anti-fascists and blacks. Famous megalomaniacs both historical and current day: Caligula, Ivan the Terrible, George III, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadaam, Erdogan, Kim Jong-un (and his father). Sounds like all fascists to me.
And I would not worry about BLM or AntiFA activists coming to your door. Why would they come after you? I do not believe you are a fascist or a KKK/WSE member, even though you have quaint ideas about them.
Avedis -
Milo Y. is on record as saying on video that "I think particularly in the gay world, and outside the Catholic Church — if that's where some of you want to go with this — I think in the gay world some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life-affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences." Isn't that why he left Breitbart?
Please cite the child molestering AntiFA activists you claim to have confirmed. Get their names out in the open. Don't protect them. But I hope you won't make any false accusations just for one-ups-man-ship.
Mike, seriously, you list Stalin and Mao among the historic fascists. I agree. Don't you find it at least a little telling that the antifas and other groups bear the colors of both of those guy's fascist systems? + Che guevera, etc.
Milo Y is a known provocateur. I wouldn't take his statements seriously. I can't stand the guy, personally, but antifas weren't protesting him because he says he's a gay that likes sex with underage boys (sheesh that's like 80% of San Francisco anyhow). They probably like him for that. No, it's his conservative talk that they seek to silence, along with other conservative that aren't gay child sex fans.
avedis
and to return to the "through the looking glass" meme.......A bunch of people are foaming at the mouth that Trump allegedly "colluded" w/ Russia to win the election; even though there is no evidence for any of that.
Yet, there are mobs on the street burning cars, smashing out windows and hitting people with bike locks and clubs WHILE CARRYING SOVIET FLAGS and wearing shirts with soviet iconography and the same people going after alleged Trump/ Russia collusion are cheering on the mobs. They're being painted as the good guys.
Can anyone explain this? There is an actual diagnosis being floated called "Trump derangement syndrome". It's kind of like people had a psychotic break when Trump won the election and they haven't bounced back and they won't take their medication to control the symptoms.
avedis
avedis
Mike, Lena Dunham. A child molester, leftist and proud of it
avedis
Avedis -
My dictionary defines fascism as a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce. That is an exact fit for Stalin’s so-called Soviet paradise. I should have also added Fidel, Pol Pot, Le Duan, and many others. Apologies for giving you a much too rapid response. And a close fit for the way that the neo-NAZIs and KKK want to take this country.
AntiFA flag and symbolism is NOT the Soviet flag. They lean to Socialism, Anarchy or Libertarianism (NOT the Rand/Ron version). Stalin violently purged and repressed the first two. They were sent to the Gulag in Siberia or were disappeared. Stalin even sent death squads into Russian émigré communities in Europe to assassinate the ones that had fled his purges. You claimed that there were good people with CSA flags among the NAZIs, KKKers, and WSEers at C’ville. Okay, if that is true then why is not also true that there were good people on the other side that had one or two whackos among them waving a Soviet flag? Many on the left (and in the alt-right) have praised the Russian role in defeating Hitler. So it could have been leftists. Or maybe it was just a false flag operation that the alt-right is famous for? Or is my tinfoil showing?
Lena Dunham? Had to look her up. #1 I see no link with her to AntiFA. Details please. #2 A seven year old pedophile! Come on Avedis. Check out the DSM on mental disorders: ”pedophilia is when an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.” #3 For myself I don’t think the behavior described is normal. But touching and exploration is common in young children. I recall playing doctor with a female cousin when I was that age (at her instigation not mine, I was clueless and usually the patient). #4 Milo bragged about it publicly. Dunham and the sister involved have denied any harm.
Gentleman,
I appreciate the impassioned debate. But I also hope it becoming clear that the people who think they are "correct" might not be, and this "much ado about nothing" may all be a diversionary waste of our time. Yet another impotent vent for our seemingly endless rage.
Thank you to avedis for mentioning Stalin and Mao, and making the analogy. Are we to have 10 year re-education programs to erase the less palatable parts of our history? Are we to "Stalinize" (=sanitize) media representations of all of those who are burrs in someone's side?
Bowdlerize books like Kipling's "Jungle Book" and Twain's "Huck Finn"? (oh, sorry -- that's already been done.)
Thanks to David for keeping it frosty:
"One of my biggest worries in life is that I might drive to work on a highway named after a terrible dead person and forget to tweet my outrage.
Lisa -
I appreciate the forum.
Re "an actual diagnosis of Trump derangement syndrome" --
Sure, Avedis. Only in the minds of Trump supporters who think it's a useful way of dismissing criticism. Incidentally, I believe the last country to consider opposition to the government of the day as a psychiatric ailment was the Soviet Union. Food for thought.
David -
Touche!
David,
Criticism is one thing - and it's healthy.
The foaming at the mouth insanity displayed by the MSM and many individuals when the name of "Trump" is involved is a mental illness being displayed.
Like all the LGBTQCRXLMNO types that are convinced that Trump is going to do something horrible to them. Ask them, what, specifically, Trump is going to do and all you get is "He's a Nazi, a hater...blah blah blah". Redirect "No. I didn't ask your impression of Trump. I asked what he is going to do to people like you that is wrong"......crickets. They can't tell you. Yet, the go all apoplectic when Trump's name is mentioned. If that isn't hysterical irrational madness on display, I don't what is. And there's a lot of going around.
avedis
Avedis
You sure about that? To take the most recent example, Trump announced he was banning trans people from the military. A couple months ago, to take another one off the top of my head, he cancelled anti-bullying programs intended to protect trans kids in schools.
Now, what you or I may think about, say, the "right" of people to serve in the military regardless of their "nontraditional/nonconforming gender identity" is another matter entirely, but at least to them, I imagine that fear has proven out to be justified.
Identity politics is a pretty zero-sum game, which would be very convenient if, say, you were an elite bloc that wanted to keep your fundamental economic and political agenda intact while keeping the rest of the population eternally distracted by superficial nattering. That is certainly the reason why the same people who voted for Obama in 2008 hoping he would end NAFTA, stick it to the rich bankers, and end foreign wars happily voted for Clinton in 2016 who was promising exactly the opposite of all of those things.
avedis,
Per your, "they go all apoplectic when Trump's name is mentioned", yup, that's the problem. I may NOT have any sort of sensible dialog with any of my liberal friends once the President's name is mentioned -- they go MAD! I've never seen anything like it.
This AM, Ranger mentioned a news clip he's seen on the Pres, yet another of the infinite things which drives he and his fellows mad, something about The Wall.
I reminded him of a PBS Jill Stein clip during the election which made her appear a fool by excising several minutes of the brief interview and splicing it inappropriately (or appropriately, depending upon your side.) A dear liberal friend brought this to our attention.
Ergo, one may simply not believe what one sees, as one may not be seeing the entirety of what is.
Piteous state of the news when such suspicion on the viewer's part must be the norm. And who really has the time to question what they are given?
Probably most of us walk around ill-informed, despite our sincere efforts to be otherwise.
Post a Comment
<< Home