Most people of any political stripe take their view because they feel it looks in the direction of utopia. From the extreme right of fascism to the extreme left of communism (This popular spectrum, by the way, is misleading, since a person's rights are almost identically trampled on by a nationalist's jack-boot as by a socialist's sandal. It is not so much a spectrum as it is a circle, with authoritarianism having the force of gravity, and drawing everything continually, inexorably down to 6 o'clock.), people form their opinions as to which form of government is best because of the results they expect, or claim to have already observed.
I take my view not because I have any utopian expectations or even any real conviction that my ways will make things better (at least as we think of better) but because I think my ways are right. I make no claims or guarantees that my ideas will lead us shortly out of this mess and into order. It should be obvious, in fact, that with my insistence upon leaving more things to individual choice, combined with my view that human nature is fallen, that the individual will not always, or even most of the time, make the right choice. My views are not the results of surveys and studies that indicate that if people are trusted more they will rise to the occasion. My view is not result based. If some well-meaning leftist were to ask me "But does your idea work?", my ready response would be, "Frankly, my dear........." If they were to ask "Will the individual make the right choice?", my response would be, "What business is it of mine, or, more to point, yours?"
Now, I think that giving people more freedom is the right thing to do, and although I don't believe that gives any promise that things will all work out, doing the right thing is the best we can do. And, since I believe in an active, involved Creator, I believe that doing the best we can do gives us a right to expect better results,
or at least be able to blame God when we don't get better results.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Next To Last Word on Donald Trump
I probably should have done this a long time ago.
It might have spared me some anger. Then, again, it might not have, and it may not yet. I suppose it's even possible that announcing my last word on the subject may even cause me some great frustration. Which is why I won't announce this is my last word on the subject, but I do promise this speaking of my piece will be followed by fewer, if not a complete cessation of, posts about Donald Trump.
One of the reasons I have continued to speak about Trump, apart from it being quite possibly the most bizarre developments in political campaign history, and if the electoral gods will it so, the office of the presidency, is it's hard not to shoot at such a gigantic target.
His outsized persona, once the humorous if abrasive reality TV schtick, is now amplified a thousand times by the scrutiny of an incredulous, ratings-giddy national media. Full disclosure: I do not like people whose self-confidence approaches arrogance, so you can imagine how I feel about this person who has taken "self-confidence" to a Kanye West level in an arena that directly affects us all.
I have said much about his arrogance, mocked his ego, and memed his incoherence.
I have been first amused, then concerned, then shocked, then stunned, then catatonic, then enraged by his continuing popularity, then amused, then enraged, and so on, perpetuating a parallel to that cycle of grief.
It's safe to say that the sheer violent volume of my vocal vehemence regarding this villain (sorry) has caused ears to fall deaf to me, and eyes to avoid any of my posts containing "Trump" by rolling upwards. And that's one reason I pledge to discuss him less.
Among the many things I've said, I have hinted at what I believe is the largest culpable player in this hoodwinking, but I haven't said as much as I'd like, believe it or not.
The conservative so called alternative media has crafted this candidacy as surely as the so called main stream media aided and abetted the candidacy of the man whose politics and sympathies in large part led to the rise of Trump.
First, FOX news. Yes, the very same network whose personalities have been in open warfare with Trump. I have developed some admiration that I did not have for individuals within that organization, specifically Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and John Stossel, but I, of course can have no idea of what sort of possible ratings conspiracies may have involved these television journalists, or if it has been some sort of happy coincidence. If it is the former, I expect Trump will have gotten the better end of that deal, since his many followers have expressed extreme distaste for their formerly go to news source, and will have, I assume, stopped watching, although one can't imagine to what other source they would turn. But, more on that later. FOX has indeed been far from effusive regarding the billionaire, their bias has been more practical. It's called ratings. A synonym for ratings is money. One (perhaps the only) dispassionate observation I can make about Trump is that there has probably never been a presidential candidate in the history of US media that has been more of a financial boon to those covering him. Trump= Yuuuge ratings. He is already an established TV star, an established boss who once tried to copyright "You're fired." And far from what some of us expected, his outrageousness has only seemed to inflate since he began what was up to this point the more serious business of running for President of the United States. The strongest and subtlest form of biased reporting is deciding what to report. I can hardly blame FOX to the extent that I blame other outlets, because I sincerely believe they are motivated by naught but gain, and I don't despise businessmen, I simply distrust them.
Secondly, Drudge Report. I find Matt Drudge on quite the opposite end of this blame spectrum. I don't think that Drudge is not motivated by money, but his complete abandonment of any pretense of objectivity would seem to indicate that his desire for traffic is at least matched by his desire for revenge. Drudge has always been more or less unpretentiously biased. He does, indeed link to various and sundry news outlets, many of which are hardly conservative, but they are all handpicked to fit a narrative that is hardly unique in purpose to Drudge, but definitely unique in unapologetic malice.
In the past, he has displayed vendettas against sometimes inexplicable targets. Newt Gingrich found himself the unlikely target of Drudge's ire, likely because he was running against Romney in 2008. Yes, Drudge was once an obvious Romney disciple. http://www.webpronews.com/romney-has-drudge-2012-01/ In fact, inexplicable becomes explicable when you know who Drudge supports. This time around, his bromance with Donald became painfully, awkwardly obvious after the debate in which Marco Rubio went after Trump, mocking his incoherence and lack of knowledge of.......anything. A couple of memorable Drudge headlines following that brawl read WINLESS RUBIO PECKS AT TRUMP and a photo shopped image of the Florida senator as a dwarf accompanied by the headline THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CAMPAIGN after Rubio bombed the Mississippi and Michigan primaries. http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/drudge-report-resorts-to-using-photoshopped-marco-rubio-pic-in-latest-pro-trump-move-60336/
That link segues into the third largest player in this deception, Brietbart.com
I believe that Andrew Brietbart would be dismayed at the PR firm his dream has become. He seemed to be an independent thinker with a conservative bias, not a revanchist carnival barker. If you only read one link in this article, read this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/01/breitbart-news-the-conservative-outlet-taking-swings-at-all-of-donald-trumps-opponents/ It has ample evidence of Breitbart's targeting of the clearest and most present dangers to Donald Trump, even to the diminution of attacks on who you would suppose might be their primary target, the self declared democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.
NewsMax follows, not as a true news site, but as an aggregate site of syndicated columnists and bears not as much responsibility for this travesty in actual content as in their advertising pitches for new viewers using Trump as their bait and spokesman.
Now for the last, possibly most influential form of pro Trump media.
Facebook memes. Memery has encapsulated everything that is best and worst about the information superhighway.
Succinctness is a reckless wager. It can certainly get across a point with levity and brevity. It can deliver a message that would otherwise go unread, but in streamlining a message, you can very easily omit information. But the very entertaining nature of these sometimes factoids, more often obfuscations makes them ubiquitous and therefore perhaps even more influential than all the other sources combined. A picture is already worth a thousand words. Combined with the 10-45 words often contributing to the meme, you have up to 1,045 unaccountable words, who have no obligation to be truthful, or even well-intentioned.
As a result of this betrayal of any sort of journalistic ideals in favor of ratings and Fight Clubism, I have fortunately found a few sources who, although I don't exactly trust because....I can't anymore, appear to be issue honest, and have had Donald Trump's number for some time. Reason.com, Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh come to mind.
Ultimately, I am left with a sobering, boring lesson. Believe nothing you hear, and nothing you see.
The best you can do, in order to be informed about important issues (although another lesson I have learned is it might not be a bad idea to shrink your circle of concern, "Worry Local", perhaps) is to keep reading. Read conservative and liberal media, national and international, and rely on your instincts, not your biases, and not your disgust for the status quo.
It might have spared me some anger. Then, again, it might not have, and it may not yet. I suppose it's even possible that announcing my last word on the subject may even cause me some great frustration. Which is why I won't announce this is my last word on the subject, but I do promise this speaking of my piece will be followed by fewer, if not a complete cessation of, posts about Donald Trump.
One of the reasons I have continued to speak about Trump, apart from it being quite possibly the most bizarre developments in political campaign history, and if the electoral gods will it so, the office of the presidency, is it's hard not to shoot at such a gigantic target.
His outsized persona, once the humorous if abrasive reality TV schtick, is now amplified a thousand times by the scrutiny of an incredulous, ratings-giddy national media. Full disclosure: I do not like people whose self-confidence approaches arrogance, so you can imagine how I feel about this person who has taken "self-confidence" to a Kanye West level in an arena that directly affects us all.
I have said much about his arrogance, mocked his ego, and memed his incoherence.
I have been first amused, then concerned, then shocked, then stunned, then catatonic, then enraged by his continuing popularity, then amused, then enraged, and so on, perpetuating a parallel to that cycle of grief.
It's safe to say that the sheer violent volume of my vocal vehemence regarding this villain (sorry) has caused ears to fall deaf to me, and eyes to avoid any of my posts containing "Trump" by rolling upwards. And that's one reason I pledge to discuss him less.
Among the many things I've said, I have hinted at what I believe is the largest culpable player in this hoodwinking, but I haven't said as much as I'd like, believe it or not.
The conservative so called alternative media has crafted this candidacy as surely as the so called main stream media aided and abetted the candidacy of the man whose politics and sympathies in large part led to the rise of Trump.
First, FOX news. Yes, the very same network whose personalities have been in open warfare with Trump. I have developed some admiration that I did not have for individuals within that organization, specifically Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and John Stossel, but I, of course can have no idea of what sort of possible ratings conspiracies may have involved these television journalists, or if it has been some sort of happy coincidence. If it is the former, I expect Trump will have gotten the better end of that deal, since his many followers have expressed extreme distaste for their formerly go to news source, and will have, I assume, stopped watching, although one can't imagine to what other source they would turn. But, more on that later. FOX has indeed been far from effusive regarding the billionaire, their bias has been more practical. It's called ratings. A synonym for ratings is money. One (perhaps the only) dispassionate observation I can make about Trump is that there has probably never been a presidential candidate in the history of US media that has been more of a financial boon to those covering him. Trump= Yuuuge ratings. He is already an established TV star, an established boss who once tried to copyright "You're fired." And far from what some of us expected, his outrageousness has only seemed to inflate since he began what was up to this point the more serious business of running for President of the United States. The strongest and subtlest form of biased reporting is deciding what to report. I can hardly blame FOX to the extent that I blame other outlets, because I sincerely believe they are motivated by naught but gain, and I don't despise businessmen, I simply distrust them.
Secondly, Drudge Report. I find Matt Drudge on quite the opposite end of this blame spectrum. I don't think that Drudge is not motivated by money, but his complete abandonment of any pretense of objectivity would seem to indicate that his desire for traffic is at least matched by his desire for revenge. Drudge has always been more or less unpretentiously biased. He does, indeed link to various and sundry news outlets, many of which are hardly conservative, but they are all handpicked to fit a narrative that is hardly unique in purpose to Drudge, but definitely unique in unapologetic malice.
In the past, he has displayed vendettas against sometimes inexplicable targets. Newt Gingrich found himself the unlikely target of Drudge's ire, likely because he was running against Romney in 2008. Yes, Drudge was once an obvious Romney disciple. http://www.webpronews.com/romney-has-drudge-2012-01/ In fact, inexplicable becomes explicable when you know who Drudge supports. This time around, his bromance with Donald became painfully, awkwardly obvious after the debate in which Marco Rubio went after Trump, mocking his incoherence and lack of knowledge of.......anything. A couple of memorable Drudge headlines following that brawl read WINLESS RUBIO PECKS AT TRUMP and a photo shopped image of the Florida senator as a dwarf accompanied by the headline THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CAMPAIGN after Rubio bombed the Mississippi and Michigan primaries. http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/drudge-report-resorts-to-using-photoshopped-marco-rubio-pic-in-latest-pro-trump-move-60336/
That link segues into the third largest player in this deception, Brietbart.com
I believe that Andrew Brietbart would be dismayed at the PR firm his dream has become. He seemed to be an independent thinker with a conservative bias, not a revanchist carnival barker. If you only read one link in this article, read this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/01/breitbart-news-the-conservative-outlet-taking-swings-at-all-of-donald-trumps-opponents/ It has ample evidence of Breitbart's targeting of the clearest and most present dangers to Donald Trump, even to the diminution of attacks on who you would suppose might be their primary target, the self declared democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.
NewsMax follows, not as a true news site, but as an aggregate site of syndicated columnists and bears not as much responsibility for this travesty in actual content as in their advertising pitches for new viewers using Trump as their bait and spokesman.
Now for the last, possibly most influential form of pro Trump media.
Facebook memes. Memery has encapsulated everything that is best and worst about the information superhighway.
Succinctness is a reckless wager. It can certainly get across a point with levity and brevity. It can deliver a message that would otherwise go unread, but in streamlining a message, you can very easily omit information. But the very entertaining nature of these sometimes factoids, more often obfuscations makes them ubiquitous and therefore perhaps even more influential than all the other sources combined. A picture is already worth a thousand words. Combined with the 10-45 words often contributing to the meme, you have up to 1,045 unaccountable words, who have no obligation to be truthful, or even well-intentioned.
As a result of this betrayal of any sort of journalistic ideals in favor of ratings and Fight Clubism, I have fortunately found a few sources who, although I don't exactly trust because....I can't anymore, appear to be issue honest, and have had Donald Trump's number for some time. Reason.com, Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh come to mind.
Ultimately, I am left with a sobering, boring lesson. Believe nothing you hear, and nothing you see.
The best you can do, in order to be informed about important issues (although another lesson I have learned is it might not be a bad idea to shrink your circle of concern, "Worry Local", perhaps) is to keep reading. Read conservative and liberal media, national and international, and rely on your instincts, not your biases, and not your disgust for the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)