Let Me Count The Ways Modern Media Is A Curse (ok, it has some good points, too)

So, my diversions do far today have included this excellent video rant:

I love it when someone takes the media to task. Now, the media does do stuff, but they also are slaves to the need for advertising dolllars, so they do stupid stuff like telling us total bs about how horrible things are. That Cracked article provides lots of links, but here are 3 pertinent ones that make my point. The crime and murder rates are down, yet all we think it's worse. I've enjoyed many Cracked articles lately, here's another one about guns that is fairly honest about what so many people are wrong about, including the fact that it's stupid to say that you need a gun because of rising crime because crime isn't rising. (Ok, it has one of the stupid link-bait headlines that I despise, and the language is pretty strong, but it raises several excellent points).

The major drivers of what gets reported around the country are the wire services and they are horribly biased, you can google it yourself, no need for me to find examples. I will offer some thoughts, though.

The major news media are the ones that are horribly racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic. Seriously. At the same time, they are absolutely using racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc., to drive ratings and, therefore, what they can charge for ad time. Seriously. At the same time they are afraid of being labeled as racists, etc.

Let's start with the most recent (and what got this line of thought started on my brain this morning) example, Donald Sterling, the Clippers, and Magic Johnson. "What," you ask, "does Magic Johnson have to do with Sterling, how bleeping racist he is and his team?" I'll tell you, and others have, but you will never see it on NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or maybe even FOX.

Why? Because if they tell the tale of Magic Johnson's work behind the scenes to get Sterling out of the league so that his group CAN BUY THE CLIPPERS, they would be accused of racism against poor old, HIV surviving Magic Johnson with his charming smile and all that. Anyway, the thing is that Magic has been angling for a while to get a share of the Clipper with his investment group, and that's one of the reasons Sterling said what he said to his lover: she was fraternizing with his economic enemy (who also happens to be black, which isn't something Sterling is in favor of, either, apparently). Mind you, the other guy in the offensive instagram photo was a Dodger, which Magic's group also owns. Can you see why he was pissed off? This Business Week article hints at this in the last paragraph. This article says it straight out:

Make no mistake: Magic's Dodgers group is angling for a Southern California sports empire. Magic Johnson and Guggenheim had been aggressive in pursuing a purchase of the Los Angeles Lakers – only to have the Buss family make clear to them the franchise isn't for sale, sources told Yahoo Sports.

Nevertheless, this is business and Magic's willing to change colors and make himself a Clipper. Between the Dodgers and Clippers, Magic Johnson could be the face of two championship contenders.

Magic could have it all.

"This is 100 percent Magic's plan," a league official intimately involved in the buying and selling of franchises told Yahoo Sports.

Let me be clear: Sterling is a racist. He has shown that for years, but why now the furor? I'm not the only one pointing out the fake shock about this "discovery."

But now that the storyline has progressed to "Sterling said bad things about Magic," the fact that he actually had a reason to dislike him, and that Magic's business dealings are pretty aggressive (crony capitalism is on every side of the political spectrum) will never see the light of day on any major news story. Take that to the bank, folks.

But, implicit in the stories are the disdain for Sterling's "jewishness." This story also shares the opinion that Magic is not upset by the turn of events.

What does this have to do with the stated thesis of this rant?

The media. The media has a point of view that they are pushing and they aren't doing their actual job (gosh, i don't know, like playing the entire tape showing the full context of Sterling saying the dumb things he said? Maybe investigating V's relationship with Magic as some are suggesting it was all about getting him on tape so that an uproar could be caused, leading to a sale of the Clippers?) It's pretty transparent now that Magic is saying Mrs. Sterling has no place in the ownership, either, but don't expect any reporter to question him on that scary opinion. Seriously, why are they even asking him that question? Why does he get a say?

The media doesn't even think to ask questions like those, just like they aren't bothered by the things we don't know about Benghazi.

Michael Sam is gay, did you know that? He's double protected by the media because he's black and he's gay. I have said 1000 times, "if it's not supposed to matter, why are all the media telling me it should matter that he's gay?" There have been plenty of gay NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS, NHL, etc. players, and as one owner said "we all knew, and we didn't care." Why are we supposed to care so much about it now? There's an answer to that, and I don't think people will like it because it sounds all tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy. It seems to me there has been a shift from "I don't care as long as you do your job" to identity-politics finally infiltrating the NFL (and the NBA, etc.). It reminds me of the Tebow situation. Do you know how many evangelical Christians there are in the NFL? Why was his career destroyed because of his evangelism? He did a great job at Denver, why should he switch positions to kowtow to the religious bigots? He was a championship winning quarterback, not just some random drafted QB, after all. (note: he beat my college team in a bowl game, so I'm supposed to hate him, right? Take that, haters).

How many players were drafted to the NFL? Here's a case in point: I just Googled that, and the first hit was about Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend. Complete with a picture. Point made. He was number 249. How many other players names do you know? How many kissed their lovers, wives, partners? Why is he a story? His abilities on the field have been challenged, but now that he has been drafted, he will make the team, he has to in this modern media world, because if he doesn't, it will be called bias. St. Louis knew this when they picked him, so it's their albatross. I think that this is a true case of a political stance (progressive) being pushed on us via equality as a meme.

This is painful to me, by the way, to point out because I have had so many friends in my life that are gay. Not in the "oh, some of my friends are gay" defensive cliche, I'm serious. I've known that some of my friends were gay before they did. My gaydar is legendary. Good lord, I've been a singer and performer my whole life. This recent trend, though, that all things are about Gay is strange. Again, if it's 2014 and I'm not supposed to care, why are you constantly telling me how much it matters that Michael Sam is gay?

On a side note, I saw some picture of a young actress that came out recently, and thought "oh, yes, brave, as there are no gays in entertainment..."

The show Nashville has a gay character hiding because the bigoted country music fans will care! Crap. It's clearly being written by someone too old to get that music fans don't care about any kind of stuff like that: if they did, how many cds would Chris Brown sell? Country music has become pop, and the fans are all girls wearing short shorts and cowboy boots. Justin Timberlake could come out and it wouldn't hurt his sales a bit. Again, notice who I am criticizing here: the writers.

And the media, well they go for the stories that they believe will bring the biggest bang for the buck. Seriously, take some time to go to your local news stations' sites and critically take a look at what you see, then get back to me.

I think you will see white stories. Both stories that are designed to appeal to white audiences, and stories that shore up white feelings of all kinds: race guilt, fear, whatever. While calling out guys like Sterling, supporting the idea that those that merely disagree with the President's politics are racist, they live in fear of being branded racist themselves, so they don't tell all of any story. Remember Trayvon Martin? His friend that was talking to him during the events leading up to his death said publicly, on tv, that he thought the guy following him was a homo rapist and he was going to teach him a lesson and keep him away from his little brother who was home alone. I bet you didn't know that, or even the little white lie about what drink he actually bought, because if they reported the truth it might make them look racist. The "story" had been decided, so saying he might have actually started the fight (oh no, an angry black youth! watermelon drink!) would get in the way of the narrative. I bet you think I'm racist for pointing it out, but doesn't the truth matter? What drink he bought shouldn't matter, so why change that detail? (Actually, there are reasons to change that detail).

Perceptions matter, of course. But if you watched Bill Whittle's video, you might see that we agree on this: the media (Big Media, if you will) has an agenda that often makes facts and truth irrelevant to them. People will think we're racist if we tell the truth that Trayvon's drink was watermelon, so go along with the crowd calling it "tea." People will think we are homophobic if we treat Michael Sam like any other 249th pick in the NFL draft, so it's wall-to-wall gayness.

Now, Benghazi? That's another kind of bias, the kind of bias that makes calling people "teabaggers" ok in these United States of America. We can't show a story that possibly shows the First Black President as weak, foolish, or negligent (ditto for Hilary), because we might get called racist (or worse, teabaggers), so we avoid it at all costs, to the point that we don't know the basic answers to what should be basic questions asked by Trey Gowdy.

It's fear, isn't it? Rush Limbaugh made the point today that the hashtag war againt Boko Haram is silly: we (ok, Michelle and Hilary) are so afraid of terrorists and what they might do that the most they will do is take a selfie with a hashtag. God forbid we offend the people that want to kill us, steal children and convert them to provide "wives" for their fellow terrorists so they can say they didn't rape them to impregnate them to make more terrorists.

Pathetic, isn't it?

Why Do You Hate Government, David?

I don't "hate government," but I think it should be limited, right? This week has been full of examples, but here's a subtler one.

Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you

That isn't very subtle, is it? The ever-growing maw of public spending demands to be fed, so this kind of crap happens. It's happening in Cincinnati right now with the shortfall, the streetcar, the cuts, etc. Every level of government is broke (with a few notable exceptions). Stop spending so much. Encourage business while encouraging thrift. Don't waste.

Most importantly, don't do stuff that the government wasn't intended to do in a representative republic. If you don't, then these traps of spending and cutting and wasting are much less likely.

I'm going to quote myself from a post from last year, it was a part of a conversation, but I think I explained myself fairly well:

The Administration gave...gave away $500 Million to one solar energy company that they knew would fail, and it did, Solyndra. Twice Romney's reported net worth, our tax dollars, given away. That is why I don't care about one rich guy's capital gain rate, it's chump change to the larceny going on by both groups in power in DC, I could grab a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter administration example, as could many: if you like imagine how many teachers' taxes went to Solyndra, or whatever. We, the people, as a group, participating in the market, will choose better than the folks at the capital, so I say let us keep more and quit trying to do so much that our wise founders never intended our government to handle.
...

Before I nod off, I just want to clarify what the Solyndra example meant to me: the problem with empowering govt to do what the reactive market should do. Using our money to pick winners and losers (bank/car maker bailouts) is just wrong, and Solyndra is just one on a long line of what I see as an example of misguided spendings, that taken by itself, is chump change, but shows the flaw in trusting, expecting, or allowing govt to decide: this business shall succeed. Why? The reasons are always political, and I trust the market (that collective decision making of the citizens) over the influence-peddled, lobbied, donated-to, "I really like being a Senator and will do whatever is necessary to keep the job" guys and gals we elect. Now, I realize that opens up a new can o' worms, but let's not get too distracted! This then verges into philosophy (rather than party nitpicking, which I have tried to avoid), but that is where the crux is, isn't it? If you, like me, are a kind of Founding Principles guy, then it isn't a revenue problem, it's a political philosophy one: our Federal Government is doing way more then that wonderful document says it should be, so, the decisions get much easier. If it's not enumerated, no matter how worthwhile, no matter how kindly or whatever, (and here I wish for italics), the federal government doesn't get to do it. That doesn't mean it doesn't get done, there are all kinds of things the states are specifically enabled to do, but not the federal government.
...
Obviously, that isn't the only political philosophy at play in the country, so there will be a conversation about what should be done, what can be done, and how. I guess I will always fall on the individual liberty side: if the church decides it's wasteful to pay soloists, that it's right, right? Is it the government's job, and do they (or should they) have the right to determine what you called "wealth equality?" How? Seriously, how? Who gets to decide? I think we are all very reasonable people, and I wouldn't trust us to decide that because it isn't for us to decide, in my opinion, nor the govt. I'm back to the idea that no government of any country should be able to say "you get to succeed, but you are on your own" because those decisions are always tainted. One side will say the oil companies lobbied to gain dominance just as others will observe as Mike did, that alternative energy companies did the exact same thing. My thought is that if you remove the creeping ability of the government to reward the benefactors, then there may be no favoritism, as there will be no tax abatements, green energy loans, CO2 credits to curry favor or votes with. Imagine that! Of course, all those lobbyist jobs would be lost, as they will have nothing to lobby for when the Feds have no power to give their industry a dime.
...
How is it a function of the federal government? Confiscating a portion of one person's income to supplement another's? Again I ask, who gets to decide? Who do we trust? With the changes in power, office holders, etc. how can that possibly work? How's the track record so far for the federal war on poverty? Don't mistake me here, I'm not saying do nothing, just pointing out that of all the ways to help those in need, using a central government is possibly the worst choice, that's all.
...

Our country is a unique experiment, there is only our short history to try to get some lessons about how our representative republic with it's focus on individual liberty and free(ish) markets have worked, but it's been pretty powerful, I think. The other ways, central planning, benevolent dictatorships, monarchies, tyrannical despots, are all there marching through history saying "tried it, failed." century after century. I happen to think that we are in many ways fighting against very basic human natures, conflicting ones: the scary, yet liberating desire to be free against the desire to have someone, anyone, take care of us, to push away responsibility and say "you decide, fix it for me, you take care of me" because that is so much easier than being an independent, self-actualized person. We head toward wanting more from our government to do stuff because it feeds that side of our nature, and our founders knew this as well. Similarly, I think that free markets are the most humane markets, they provide the most dignity and hope for those that need it, that capitalism has rescued more people from poverty than governments ever have, as it is what exists when there is no imposed economic system. Show me every poor country in the world and we will see closed market, meddling government (usually corrupt strong central, personality-driven Marxist-leaning), despots, many democratically elected.

...

That's what makes America unique in all of human history. All of human history is a long time. To want or expect or wait for our government, even though they are largely nice people that we chose, to take care of us isn't US!

It absolutely is not the American Way.

Lies and Death

I started a discussion on Facebook by posting this Reuters story. Well, folks, for me, this is the place for this, not Facebook. I know nobody reads this, so my audience is larger there, but I will write more openly here.... :) There's a link in my profile there, right?

Anyway, there is no excuse for what the President did and said about Benghazi, and now we know that they knew all along it was a direct terror attack yet lied and misrepresented for 10 days (right? 10? 14?).

A Facebook friend tried to minimize it, saying "it was a crazy, chaotic time, a lot of information was coming in, all of it contradictory...." Sorry, that's just not true. They had a live video feed from a drone and did nothing for 7 hours. 4 Americans died. They knew and did nothing, then lied about it (Obama, Carney, Rice, and Clinton) for weeks, and lied during 2 debates. Lied.

 Derek Hunter at the NY Daily News has harsh words, and I agree with every one of them.

Let me say again what I've said before: when you know something isn't true and you say it anyway, that's a lie. Every intelligence agency on the planet said Weapons of Mass Destruction, so when Bush said it, and when Powell said it, with photos, it wasn't a lie.

This is what a lie looks like, liberal progressive Democrats: your guys talking.