Boo Radley's Porch

I'm not the typist I was, so I wish I could talk-to-text on here and then edit it. I could probably do that on my phone, but the editing part would suck. Here goes.

In the 24-36 hours since Rob Reiner was murdered and Trump posted his unnecessary comments, I've had all the reactions, read and heard a few, too. Scott Adams in his livestream from the hospital today expressed something unique to him, as usual, and it turned me, which happens often enough that I realize I'm not as deep a thinker as I sometimes think I am. 

My spin, however, my thing to add to the conversation is this: empathy. You see, all everyone is doing is wanting Trump to be like them, to react like they did (or would, or rather think they would). It's always ALWAYS projection of a kind. They never, ever have that end-of-To-Kill-A-Mockingbird moment when Scout is on the porch, looking up the street, seeing everything, physically, from Boo Radley's view, which leads to maybe, just maybe, grasping a part of his perspective. Everyone thinks they are Boo in this story, finally being "seen" like they all say these days, but almost never does anyone think or say "what's their perspective?" Especially when it's someone you dislike as much as they hate Donald Trump, when they hate Trump....just as much as Rob Reiner did. People want others to behave like they imagine they would have behaved, and that's ridiculous. Most empathy is fake, I guess, it's neediness disguised as connection.

Today, we see a memo from the FBI that advised the Justice Department that there was NOT cause to raid Mar-A-Largo, but they ignored it and did it. That's a part of it, people. They literally went through the First Lady's underwear drawer. Through his son's belongings. They made it personal.

Why? Well, let's trace it back to the Russia collusion hoax (and we know without a doubt that it was always a bogus investigation to undermine Trump initiated by Hilary Rodham Clinton). Do you know who helped create and fund the Committee to Investigate Russia with 3 (eventually 7!) former CIA heads to push that and quash contradictory (which means true, in this case) information? Do you know who relentlessly went after Trump and his entire family publicly as well? Rob Reiner. Trump's comment was, as Scott Adams says, honest. Hell, it could have been worse, he could have said "Sad news from Hollywood about Rob and Michelle Reiner. He hated me more than anyone, he spent the last 10 or more years saying horrible things about me, he tried to get me jailed for the fake Russia collusion that was an op against me which may have led to people trying to kill me. So while I feel bad for the family, I won't mourn him any more than he would have mourned me." How does that fall upon your ears? 

So forgive me if I think that while it was politically clumsy and ugly to couch his statement of sympathy with "it was TDS that ruined this guy's life and now, look, he's dead and that's regrettable" I can stand on Trump's porch and say "From here, I can kinda see why. Maybe."

Do I wish he hadn't said what he said? Yup. But that's my problem, not his.

John Wesley's Name in Vain?

 Sometimes I amaze myself.... 

Ok, that's kind of a joke, because. like most us, I mostly call myself names, but I actually do have very good instincts when it comes to B.S. My bullsh*t detector is pretty solid. 

Case in point, I was mildly bothered by some suppositions in a sermon a few weeks ago as the new pastors are pretty lefty and I'm clearly not, and even though I like them both quite a bit, I do a fair amount of eye-rolling (invisibly, I hope) during church. This particular offense was the use of this supposed possible "manifesto" of John Wesley, one of the founder of our Methodist denomination: 

Now, our pastor knew enough to explain that Wesley didn't create this, that it was an amalgam of things from many of his writings, but the graphic he used was similar to this one, in that it removed the question mark at the end of the originator's version, asking if it was a 'manifesto for today?' rather that stating it was one from the past.

My B.S. detector went off immediately: of course he was for many of these things, but this was clearly a cherry-picked list of statements supporting a modern sensibility and I wagered in my head that an intrepid reader could probably come up with a VASTLY different, supportable list of positions from John Wesley's writings....

Of course, a quick Google today showed me that my instincts remain intact. Indeed the very source of the list provides citations that show that it is (and I'm being generous here) quite a stretch: I'll leave it here for you to make up your own minds, but I feel pretty confident in my stance... I daresay that the author wrote his list and then found quotes that kinda sorta fit what he stated. I mean, seriously, #9 is anti-slavery, and from a treatise actually called Thoughts On Slavery, that was the best you could come up with? Jeesh.

JOHN WESLEY: A POLITICAL MANIFESTO FOR TODAY? 

1.Reduce the gap between rich and poor 

2.Seek to ensure full employment 

3. Introduce measures to help the poorest, including a living wage 

4.Offer the best possible education  

5.Empower individuals to feel they can make a difference 

6.Promote tolerance 

7.Promote equal treatment for women 

8.Create a society based on values and not on profits and consumerism   

9.End all forms of enslavement 

10.Avoid engaging in wars 

11.Avoid narrow self-interest and promote a world view 

12.Care for the environment 

Who said this?  JOHN WESLEY in the 18th century:  

 

1. Be ye ready to distribute to every one, according to his necessity. (Sermon 28: Eighth Discourse on the Sermon on the Mount, 1747/8) 

2.Wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor only because they are idle…. Find thems work…. They will then earn and eat their own bread.’ (First sentence: 8 Feb 1753 Journal; second sentence is from Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Provisions 1773) 

3. How many are there in this Christian country that toil, and labour, and sweat… but struggle with weariness and hunger together? Is it not worse for one, after a hard days labour, to come back to a poor, cold, dirty, uncomfortable lodging, and to find there not even the food which is needful to repair his wasted strength? (Sermon 47: Heaviness Through Temptation 1754/1760) 

4. Beware of that common, but accursed, way of making children parrots …. Regard not how much, but how well, to what good purpose, they read…. The end of education….[is to] help us discover every false judgement of our minds, and to subdue every wrong passion in our hearts… [and] to understand as much as we are able .’ (Lessons for Children 1746) 

5. ‘Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as you ever can.’ (Attributed to Wesley but source unknown.  Possibly written after his death as a summary of his teaching). 

6. Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? (Sermon 39: On a Catholic Spirit 1749/50) 

7. May not women as well as men bear an honourable part….…..yield not to the vile bondage any longer. You, as well as men, are rational creatures. You, like them, were made in the image of God.’ (Sermon 98: On Visiting the Sick 1786) 

8. In seeking happiness from riches, you are only striving to drink out of empty cups. And let them be painted and gilded ever so finely, they are empty still’ (Sermon 126: Danger of Increasing Riches 1790) 

9. Let  none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary action.  Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion!…. Do with everyone else as you would he should do to you.. (Thoughts on Slavery 1774) 

10.War: What farther proof of do we need of the utter degeneracy of all nations from the plainest principles of reason and virtue? Of the absolute want, both of common sense and common humanity, which runs through the whole race of mankind? (The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason and Experience 1757) 

11.I look upon the whole world as my parish (Letter written to John Clayton March 1739) 

12.Lead us beyond an exclusive concern for the well-being of other human beings to the broader concern for the well-being of the birds in our backyards, the fish in our rivers, and every living creature on the face of the earth. (Sermon 60: The General Deliverance 1781) 

© Gary Best, The New Room Bristol – please use this credit if you wish to share this list offline or online

In Googling, it's amazing how many folks take this on it's misrepresented face and don't engage in any kind of critical thinking...more proof that Confirmation Bias is the most powerful force on the earth.

Oh, Noes, Is Recycling Plastic A Lie?

 Simply put, recycling is as complicated as you think it is (if you think it's simple, then you are part of the problem). I don't intend to write a huge article here, but I hope you find this useful....

At the risk of sounding like a food blogger's recipe post starting with a life story, I do need to set some context. I'm a GenX'er, so I was educated in the days of Greenpeace, Jacques Cousteau, Earth Day, etc. and I took the conservation part to heart, (hence my conservative politics?) for the most part. In my youth I was a camper, canoe-er, horseback rider, leave it cleaner than you found it kinda guy. I don't do some of those activities much anymore, but still believe it. I HATE litter. Graffiti. Not using turn signals (oops, that's not pertinent, even if true). 

I've left a couple of can-crushers and receptacles at former places of work, and have said on more that one occasion that I don't understand NOT recycling as most waste management companies have made it so easy. Well, that's a joke, as it turns out.

I don't even remember how this little documentary/video news story found its way into my attention, but a reporter placed trackers in some recycling at the British grocery giant Tesco and learned a lot. Watch it, it's only 10 minutes or so. One cool thing is that Poland's cement industry does is take the plastic waste and use it for feeding their kilns instead of coal. They actually get paid a little to take the waste from the recycling/waste handlers.

It's not all clean, of course, much is disposed of and burned illegally and dangerously. There are plenty of legit energy companies doing it as cleanly as possible.

Here's another video, this one is from Frontline.

The reality is that recycling isn't really helping, but is still being pushed for emotional and public perception reasons. That's unfortunate.

The Reaction To The Leak Was Swift!

Today is Tuesday, May 3rd, 2022. 

Yesterday, in anticipation of primary elections all across the country, a Supreme Court staffer leaked the draft opinion of the majority that Roe v Wade is not Constitutional, and should be stricken down, and that they issue should rightfully be decided by the legislatures, in each state, if necessary.

My initial response is that this seems very expected and not a big deal: you've had 50 years to plead your case to the voters and lawmakers (which doesn't include the Supreme Court) and get all the states, etc, to pass laws legalizing abortion. Colorado just passed a law, apparently (that I don't know the details of). 

That's how the process is supposed to work, right? The Constitution enumerates the responsibilities of the Federal Government. Anything not in it is left to the States to legislate. Over the course of our country's history, the legislatures have enacted laws that are in contradiction to the Constitution, and sometimes those laws have gotten struck down, and sometimes they haven't. Some weren't until years later when the Supreme Court has revisited prior decisions. It's been a messy process quite a few times.

Opponents to Roe v Wade come from different stances, for sure. Some believe that all abortion is wrong, evil, even. Some believe that it was an incorrect decision based on the law, believe it or not. I don't think anyone is in a room saying "I want to control what women do with their bodies."

Here's the conclusion paragraph of the opinion:

"Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

Here's the link to the leaked document. 

If your read it, you may learn several things, which may or may not change your stance, but should educate you that this is, as mentioned above, a messy bit of legislative history..

I Thought I Knew Stuff...

 So, I learned a lot today.

Strangely, it was about stuff that I thought I knew a fair amount about. I have in my stack of stuff somewhere a photocopy of a page from an old history textbook that had a graphic on the trans-Atlantic slave trade which clearly showed that by far the US received the fewest slaves... the Caribbean and S America being the biggest recipients of human lives. I know that the primary reason this is true is because slaveholders in the US were poorer and couldn't afford to treat their slaves as disposable, the way the non-US ones did: "oh, 300 died today from the heat? Increase the order for the next shipment!" as though they were chickens, not humans. Now, don't get me wrong, being a slave in America sucked, because being a slave sucks, but like today, it's better to be poor in the US than to be poor in pretty much anywhere else in the world. The famous economist and writer Walter Williams took a lot of flack for his assertion that the horrible evil of slavery meant that generations of black people escaped an early death in Africa, which is a good thing, if you are alive now in this country. If not for slavery, your bloodline wouldn't exist, your ancestors would have died poor in Africa. You understand his point, right? 

So, a guy I follow on Twitter, Leonydus Johnson, had a similar line of thought today:

Now, of course the discussion is rich, with people misinterpreting his point, which is why he added the "ultimate point" of course, but one person posted a link to an article about the messy history of free blacks owning slaves. in response to Joe's assertion there and someone asking for a source.

It's a very thorough article and a well-sourced one. I learned a lot. My point after all that is to say that the old proverb that history is written by the victors isn't quite right, is it? Modern "historians" (I'm looking at you 1619) seem to have left out this very important and messy part of our history. 

One, that the actual amount of slave owners was pretty small.

Two, that that number included free blacks.

Three, that no, they weren't just buying family members to protect them

Four, they did pretty well financially (despite the "systemic institutionalized racism" that supposedly plagues us to this very day).

Is any of this taught via the lens of CRT? Does Mrs White Fragility even know this, or X Kendi whatever? Indeed, does any high school US History have this in the curriculum?

Probably not, because it's messy. It obscures the depiction of white = slave owners = bad, even though it was an extreme minority of people in this country. I would challenge his assertion actually to say that any of us, white or black, are MORE likely to be descended from a slave than an owner!

Keep learning people.

On a sidenote, if a free black slave-owning business man (and his children) could become that successful in South Carolina including during the Civil War, staunchly supporting the Confederacy, even, what changed between now and then? I often think of how Harlem was during the 40s and 50s compared to the 70s thru today? What changed? I'll give you one guess....

Oh, That Pesky Doctor Title Keruffle...

** update already: the columnist is active on twitter and has posted the link herself, so my fears are unfounded, it will live! :)

I really am only posting this to make sure the article isn't lost forever, but here's some context. I used to work for my in-laws in their small electronics manufacturing facility, hand wiring control panels, shipping, all kinds of stuff. One employee was working on his PhD in Electrical Engineering, and he'd say things like "when it looks like I'm just sitting and thinking, it's because as an engineer I get paid to sit and think." When he finished his degree, he actually wanted us, a bunch of mostly blue collar guys (I would soon get my M Ed) to refer to him as "Dr." 

He got laughed at. Literally. I was nice enough to say "my rule is that if I knew you before you go the degree, I get to continue using your first name, same as my childhood friends that are now MDs" or some words to that effect.

Also, during my education career, I have worked for at least one Ed D that was not much of an intellect... so, there's that. I think any PhD is as much (or more) a testament to your work ethic, fortitude, and perseverance as it is to your intelligence.

So, in current events, some opinion writer in the Wall Street Journal suggested that referring to Pres-elect Biden's wife as "Dr. Biden" was silly, problematic, confusing, whatever. I haven't read the behind-a-paywall article, but the reactions are instructive. 

I was being generous while composing a tweet that said, essentially, "I have no idea if Jill asks to be called Doctor, but I know the media insists on it, so blame them for the fuss," when I stopped and googled "who started called her Dr B" or something like that, and found this article from 2009, which is the article I wish to preserve in case it gets "archived."

Hi, I’m Jill. Jill Biden. But please, call me Dr. Biden

By ROBIN ABCARIAN

FEB. 2, 2009

12 AM

Vice President Joe Biden often joked on the campaign trail about his wife’s lofty educational achievements. She had two master’s degrees and had already worked for nearly a quarter-century as a college community instructor. But he had a better idea.

“Why don’t you go out and get a doctorate and make us some real money?” he said he told her. (That was always good for a laugh, especially in university towns.)

In 2007, at 55, Jill Biden did earn a doctorate -- in education, from the University of Delaware. Since then, in campaign news releases and now in White House announcements, she is “Dr. Jill Biden.” This strikes some people as perfectly appropriate and others as slightly pompous, a quality often ascribed to her voluble husband.

Last week, the White House announced that Jill Biden had returned to the classroom -- thought by some who study the presidency and vice presidency to be a historical first. She is teaching two courses at Northern Virginia Community College, the second-largest community college in the U.S. She began her new job before last month’s inauguration; the announcement was delayed out of respect for that event.

“She’s just really excited to be back in the classroom,” said Courtney O’Donnell, her spokeswoman. “Teaching is such a huge passion and a joy for her.”

Some second ladies, as vice presidents’ wives are called, have been accomplished professionals. Marilyn Quayle is a lawyer, but she did not practice while her husband, Dan, was in office. Lynne Cheney, Jill Biden’s immediate predecessor, is a novelist who earned a doctorate in English with a dissertation titled “Matthew Arnold’s Possible Perfection: A Study of the Kantian Strain in Arnold’s Poetry.” She goes by Mrs. Cheney.

But Biden is thought to be the first second lady to hold a paying job while her husband is in office.

“I think she is unique,” said Joel Goldstein, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law and an expert on the vice presidency. Other second ladies -- Cheney, Quayle, Tipper Gore and Joan Mondale -- wrote, lectured or did important volunteer work.

“But I think Dr. Biden is the first . . . to basically continue in the regular workforce,” said Goldstein, who has a DPhil (the English term for doctor of philosophy) from Oxford and a JD (juris doctor) from Harvard. He seemed mildly amused upon hearing that Biden liked to be called “Dr.”

“It’s a funny topic,” Goldstein said. “Occasionally someone will call me ‘doctor,’ and when that happens my wife makes fun of me a little bit. But nobody thought it was pretentious to call Henry Kissinger ‘Dr. Kissinger.’ ”

Joe Biden, on the campaign trail, explained that his wife’s desire for the highest degree was in response to what she perceived as her second-class status on their mail.

“She said, ‘I was so sick of the mail coming to Sen. and Mrs. Biden. I wanted to get mail addressed to Dr. and Sen. Biden.’ That’s the real reason she got her doctorate,” he said.

Amy Sullivan, a religion writer for Time magazine, said she smiled when she heard the vice president’s wife announced as Dr. Jill Biden during the national prayer service the day after President Obama’s inauguration.

“Ordinarily when someone goes by doctor and they are a PhD, not an MD, I find it a little bit obnoxious,” Sullivan said. “But it makes me smile because it’s a reminder that she’s her own person. She wasn’t there as an appendage; she was there as a professional in her own right.”

Newspapers, including The Times, generally do not use the honorific “Dr.” unless the person in question has a medical degree.

“My feeling is if you can’t heal the sick, we don’t call you doctor,” said Bill Walsh, copy desk chief for the Washington Post’s A section and the author of two language books.

Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is expected to travel widely in his new job. But he may need to tone down the Dr. Jill Biden stories, should he find himself in Germany with his wife.

Last year, according to the Post, at least seven Americans (with degrees from places like Cornell and Caltech) were investigated for the crime of “title fraud” for calling themselves doctor on business cards, resumes and websites. Only people who have earned advanced degrees in Germany or other European Union countries may legally call themselves that.

Estela Bensimon, a professor at USC’s Center for Education, said she cared about being called Dr. Bensimon only if she was being addressed by her first name while male colleagues were called doctor.

“That often happens with women academics around male academics,” she said. “I don’t feel I need to be called doctor to be respected. Also, just think if you were on an airplane and you called yourself doctor and there was an emergency.”

Jill Biden’s new boss, Jim McClellan, dean of humanities and social sciences at Northern Virginia, said she was teaching English as a second language and developmental English 3. Her students, he said, were delighted to learn the identity of their teacher. (When students at her old school, Delaware Technical & Community College, would ask whether she was married to Joe Biden, she usually would say she was “a relative.”)

McClellan declined to say exactly how much Biden would earn, but said she was teaching 10 hours a week and that the range of pay for her adjunct position was $900 to $1,227 per credit hour. (That means each semester her pay could be from $9,000 to $12,270.)

“It’s not that much,” McClellan said. “She could have done anything with her time and make a difference, but she chose to teach, and teach at a community college. That says to our students that they are important and that community colleges are an important piece of the American educational system.”

As for how the new professor will be addressed, O’Donnell, her spokeswoman, said: “This week, she encouraged her students to call her Dr. B.”

--

robin.abcarian@latimes.com

I bet the writer gets some attention from this old article, though... :) 

Back to The Lord of The Rings and Why The Movie Failed The Characters

 

Here's the tweets I posted today that are the short version of what I hope to flesh out one day:

Thread: I've been re-reading #LOTR and re-watching the films, which was a bad idea. I didn't need to be reminded of the invented scenes and conflicts (when there are already plenty) and outright destruction of character's core traits and strengths: that point bugs me the most.

Don't get me wrong, the films are lovely to look at, and the attention to detail make them epic examples of movie craft. I almost enjoy the special features more than the movies, as I am a Tolkien originalist, basically... :)

The character assignation starts almost immediately with Bilbo, making him seem doddering when he was totally in control of the plans around his birthday. This is a fundamental change, not a minor one. Literary Bilbo is sharp as a tack, the Master of Bag End, indeed.

Frodo matures into the Master as well, as the years pass. The maudlin doubting weepy-eyed movie Frodo is far from the hobbit that Bilbo and Gandalf considered the "best hobbit in the Shire." Again, a fundamental change.

I am especially bothered by the ruination of Merry and Pippin. From the get-go, literary Merry Brandybuck is smart, reliable, and just, for lack of a better word, cool. They manage to show some of it with his decisiveness in the movies: the Black Rider incident in the Shire, eg.

Pippin isn't a useless comic in the books, and his growth to a warrior of Gondor that saves the Shire short-shrifts the character unforgivably. The Scouring of the Shire is sorely missed from the movies as it truly completes the character arc of Merry and Pip.

Samwise is perhaps the most closely tied to the character in the books, frankly, except for maybe Gandalf. Then they had to invent that stupid Frodo-Sam-Smeagol triangle on the climb to Cirith Ungol. Ugh.

Even old Barliman Butterbur gets buffooned rather than given an honest depiction. So frustrating. It would have been easier to depict him as a busy barman, than add a ridiculous line about not really knowing who Gandalf was....

Sean Bean's Boromir is pretty good, I must say. Fell to temptation to help his people, redeemed in battle protecting Merry and Pippin. Few complaints from me.

Theoden is so frustrating. Like Frodo, waaaaay too young. Too indecisive. And that transformation scene? Yuck. When he is cowed in the book he rises. Why diminish such a character, why not show his (regained) nobility that causes his people to love and follow him as they do?

Side note: When I first saw the films, I was shocked by the Galadriel's Mirror scene, so I got the book out and saw that they pretty much nailed it, much like when Bilbo sees the ring again in Rivendell. See, I can give props, too... :)

OK, Legolas and Gimli. In this re-reading I caught that their friendship was cemented not in battle, but in Lorien, walking about this most Elvish place remaining in Middle Earth. While I found the dwarf-tossing bits funny, well, you know what I'm going to say, right?

They get plenty right, though. I just object to using Gimli as comic relief and, well, Legolas as the magic surfing elf warrior with endless arrows. I really missed the line in Fangorn about him almost feeling young again after "journeying with you children."

The whole of Merry and Pippin with Treebeard is wrong. All of it.

Aragorn and Arwen, also almost entirely fabricated wrongness. Elrond's role in that was so messed up. It's not in Elrond's character to do any of what he did in that relationship, and it belittles who he is, who Arwen is (the Evenstar of her people), and who Aragorn is.

This is about character, not plot points, remember. Elrond is far too old and wise to "interfere" how he does in the film. Ok, it's also about the invented plot points and conflict. He knows what's up, who Aragorn is and will become, no need to create out of whole cloth.

Faramir comes last. (His dad, Denethor is a mess, you don't need me to tell you that. My complaints for him are like to Theoden, his destroyed nobility, etc. Who would respect or follow him?) He is deliberately a contrast to his beloved brother, especially in terms of the ring.

He is not tempted. Not. Tempted. He perceives clearly and rightly, why change that? I can't reconcile that. That it added more stupid invented plot scenes in Osgilliath, that's secondary. He's such a great character, and they ruined him entirely. This is unforgivable to me.

Gollum/Smeagol? In terms of character, I really can't complain much. Even the fake Cirith Ungol stair framing of Sam was in character, actually, even though it was fabricated and unnecessary. A monumental achievement for a CGI character portrayal that will hold up for years.

Sorry, I'm distracted by the Osgilliath scene right now: the portrayal of Frodo as weak bothers me so much. His resoluteness is so remarkable in the book that his failure in the Cracks of Doom is such a shock. They blew that.

Oh, I forgot Eomer. Why? Because the movie pretty much does, too. Again, plenty of meat in the book, barely acknowledged. A shame. Eowyn is well done! Minor observations not worth mentioning that actually enhance her, in my opinion, while retaining her qualities from the book.

I understand why they "humanized" so many characters. I just disagree that it was necessary. The characters are meant to by mythic, if you will. Inspirational and aspirational, if you will. Not merely "relatable." That's too low of a goal. Fini.

All The Red Pills

It is the red pill, right? LOL

Stream of thought went like this: FB friend shared a Mike Rowe post about why he's continuing to shoot his show (in response to a "Karen" (not really)). Today I thought I'd share it on twitter, but Mike doesn't share that stuff on twitter (and I couldn't believe I wasn't already following him) but rather his podcast links, mostly. The most recent one was about a "Line in the Sand" and George Bush Sr's bullshit coverage about the time he was in a grocery store and they had a fancy barcode reader. Not a regular one, but a new model that had a scale built-in and could read pretty messed up barcodes, etc... and the media painted him as out-of touch for being wowed by a scanner. Media assholes.

Remember Dan Quayle and the spelling flashcards that he honored by not challenging the teacher in front of her students by correcting the error on the card? Of course you don't. Because the asshole media didn't tell you that.

It doesn't take too many of these incidents to make a reasonable person very skeptical. Now, I'm going to tell you that while I am sure this applies to Clinton and Obama, there is a pattern of this type of bullshit coverage of conservatives that far outweighs any that they got. I mean, c'mon, when Ted Kennedy died, the coverage was slobbering. He KILLED A GIRL.

Trump draws so much crap, much of it deserved, but there are folk out there that have been red-pilled regarding him as well. The two main incidents are the "making fun of a disabled guy" and "fine people." I can't find the well-produced video I saw once of a liberal writer artist dude that found out that the mocking of the disabled guy was total BS perpetuated by the media and that's when he woke up to the reality that they lie like the rest of us do, when it suits us. Scott Adams regularly uses the "fine people hoax" as a litmus test for idiots.

Now, I have to include this next bit, because googling to make sure I got the Pill right led me to this movie and TED talk about Men's Rights.  She learned some valuable lessons while making the movie, definitely, but skip to the end if you like where she says something that is SO RELEVANT: drop your agendas and bias and actually listen to people, especially those with whom you disagree. Only then can we move forward.

If you are trusting the media to help you with that, you need to choose the red pill.