Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

After the recent mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, people were outraged and looking for answers. How could someone get and use an AR-15 on a group of unsuspecting teenagers? If you answered “mental health issues” or “failure of the local and federal authorities to act before the shooter could commit murder”, you’d be wrong.

It’s gun culture.

Did I mention the people who were getting the most attention with their answers were Leftists?

With every mass shooting, the phrase “gun culture” gets brought out as an explanation/scapegoat for every death. If you do it right, you can even sing “Blame gun culture” to the tune of “Blame Canada” from the South Park movie. But what is it? Glad you asked because otherwise this would be a very short Leftist Lexicon entry.

gun culture

What the Left thinks it means – an environment where anyone is allowed to have guns without responsibility and a regard for human life

What it really means – more proof the Left doesn’t understand people outside of their bubble

Whenever I hear a Leftist talk about gun culture, one question always seems to come to mind: have you been around gun owners aside from your armed security detail? I’ll bet most, if not all, of them haven’t. On the other hand, I have, and let me tell you it was some of the scariest times of my life. And by “scariest” I mean “awesomest.” (I know it’s not a word, but the point is the same.)

I’m not a gun guy by any stretch of the imagination, but hanging out with the average gun owner is eye-opening. They aren’t the weekend militia types or the paranoid guy with an arsenal ranting about black helicopters. They’re men and women just like you and me. Most are polite, law-abiding citizens who would never dream of pulling a gun on another person unless their lives or the lives of others were in danger. In other words, the opposite of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department.

And, I’m sure some of them might even vote Democrat.

But, since they’re gun owners, they’re all lumped together with the aforementioned militia and paranoid folks because it’s easier to paint all gun owners with the same broad brush than it is to paint with a finer brush and paint an honest picture. Remember, the Left thinks its members are smarter, more moral, and all in all better than everyone else. For them to admit they could be wrong about gun owners, even ones who might agree with every other issue the Left advocates, would be like Bill Clinton giving up extramarital sex: it just isn’t going to happen. So, the Left will continue to use a souped-up Wagner Power Painter to give a false picture of gun owners.

And that’s where people like us come in. Even if you don’t own a gun (like yours truly), you can still respect gun ownership and realize the Left’s game. If they can make gun owners less popular than NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch at a gun control rally, then they can control the debate on guns and gun culture without even having to fire a shot, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. That only works, however, if people like us hold our tongues. Granted, coming out as pro-gun today isn’t going to be easy. There are voices, young and old, screaming for us to get rid of assault weapons, restrict gun rights even more, and even taxing bullets to the point guns become restrictive to own.

But that doesn’t frighten me. I’ve had more unpopular opinions in my life than Michael Bloomberg has gun control mouthpieces. Yet, as unpopular as they may have been, they have been honest. And that’s not something the gun control side can claim. If you speak honestly, you need not fear the barbs of others.

This is why the Left needs to discourage and disparage what they call the gun culture. If the truth gets out, their arguments go out the window. If people find out gun owners aren’t dangerous and might actually be safe to be around, there is no Plan B for the Left. You don’t have to own a gun to be part of the gun culture. You just need to respect the Second Amendment and recognize the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, from a Glock to an AR-15. This is a fight we can, and must, win because if the Left gets what it wants, it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle and there will continue to be mass shootings. And there will be more calls for stricter gun control that will also fail to stop mass shootings.

Maybe it’s not the gun culture that’s dangerous, but rather the anti-gun culture.

Share This:

Why we can’t be like the others

 
image_pdfimage_print

There is always the question after a gun related tragedy on why can’t the United States have gun laws similar to fill in the blank. Generally, some nation in Europe, or all of Europe collectively. And of course now due to the Olympics, it is South Korea as the example.

The answer to this question is very simple. The United States isn’t any of these other locations. We do not share a common culture or heritage with any of these other nations.

We are far removed from our colonial roots. Our culture and heritage is unique to the United States. And the right to keep and bear arms is part of that culture and heritage. The United States is a free Republic unlike any other in the world before or sense.

That is why we cannot have gun laws that are like some other country’s. There solutions just do not work in the United States. Unless of course your goal is to transform America into some other kind of government. Otherwise the American solution will have to be uniquely American.

Share This:

Modern English 2nd Amendment

 
image_pdfimage_print

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was the language used by our 18th Century Founding Fathers. So let us update the language a bit into the modern era so it can be undertood even by a 5th grader. Since apparently the majority of people are ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment rewritten in Moderen English:

Since we are not creating a standing army with the Constitution, we must rely on every able bodied person to insure that our nation remains free and secure against all who would attempt to take those freedoms and rights away from us, including ourselves. Therefore everyone must be able to have and keep any weapon necessary to protect such freedoms and rights. We are also preventing Congress, and the States, from makings laws against having weapons.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

It’s been a bad week for the Left, although you’ll never get them to admit it. Not only are the DNC’s coffers drier than a Mormon keg party, but their one hope to undo the 2016 election is coming to a close with no actual connection between President Donald Trump and Russia’s alleged attempts to rig the election in Trump’s favor. Yep, Mueller Time may be ending soon, and the Left are already pushing the denial meter to 11 because, well, it’s one higher.

As the end of this farce of a snipe hunt comes to a close, it’s time we add the term to the Leftist Lexicon for further review.

Russiagate

What the Left believes it means – criminal collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to win Trump the Presidency and subvert our democracy

What it really means – a scandal cooked up by Leftists to avoid admitting Hillary Clinton sucked as a candidate

We’ve talked about various aspects of Russiagate, but I’ve shied away from tackling it head-on for two reasons. One, I can’t fit my head in my old football helmet, and, two, I wanted to wait for more facts to come in. The Left and the Right ran with every piece of information they could to condemn or exonerate President Trump. Robert Mueller had an overdue library book in the fourth grade? Why, that’s proof his investigation is a witch hunt! Donald Trump’s brother’s cousin’s college roommate’s hairdresser’s little brother’s accordion teacher loves Russian dressing? Collusion!

Meanwhile outside of Bizarro World, people like me got tired of all the allegations being tossed about without any basis in evidence. Sure, Mueller got indictments of four members of Trump’s campaign, but a grand total of zero of them had anything to do with the campaign itself. Now, with the recent report saying Mueller found no collusion between the Trump team and Russia to disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, this fairy tale is coming to a close, and the Left has no answers left.

So, they do what they always do: pretend the truth doesn’t exist.

Within the past three or four days, I have seen several attempts by Leftists to downplay Mueller’s findings (or lack thereof). Some say the investigation isn’t over yet (which, technically, it isn’t), but let’s just say the fat lady’s on in five. Others say we’re misinterpreting Mueller’s findings when people say he’s exonerated Trump. Still others insist Russiagate is real, dammit! Just like white privilege, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jennifer Lopez’s talent, I just haven’t seen enough to believe.

That leads us to the most obvious conclusion: Hillary Clinton lost because she’s a bad candidate. I mean, it’s possible the Russians hacked her campaign so she didn’t campaign in three vital states that typically vote Democrat, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.

Although we haven’t seen any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia, there have been more than a few Democrats who have been caught red-handed (see what I did there?) dealing with the Russians. Under the Left’s own logic, that’s proof they colluded with a hostile foreign government, which is a threat to our country. But, of course, the Left exempts themselves from their own logic. Only Trump can be guilty of undermining democracy because they say so. And we know they never lie, right?

Say, I seem to have misplaced my $2500 savings from Obamacare. Has anyone else seen it?

Unfortunately for them, I don’t play by their rules. If you advance a particular argument, you had better be ready to defend it even at the expense of your own self interests. It’s that little thing called consistency that I try to live by and has done me well in my near 50 years of walking on this floating ball of rock we call planet Earth. The minute you start making exceptions for your arguments, especially self-serving exceptions, your argument goes the way of Kathy Griffin’s career options today.

And right now, the Left’s Russiagate argument is dying the death of a thousand goose chases, as it should. However, the investigation has opened up another avenue that should be explored, that being Democrats’ possible collusion with Russia. Let’s launch a full scale investigation, complete with Independent Counsel, and see where the threads take us.

After all, only those who would want to undermine our country would object to that, right?

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

With everything going on in Washington right now, it’s enough to make people shake their heads in disbelief. The FBI scandal (complete with dueling memos), continued and escalating partisan strife (complete with dueling Tweets), Robert Mueller’s investigation (complete with dueling dumbassery), and many more pain points have left people asking one question.

Is it too late to move to Canada?

But there’s another question that needs to be asked: do we need a large government? Maybe we should downsize our government just a bit (and by “a bit” I mean a lot). Those are words the Left hates worse than President Donald Trump, so it makes for a perfect entry to the Leftist Lexicon.

limited government

What the Left believes it means – a dangerous idea that will leave people dying, poisoned, and enslaved by unaccountable corporations

What it really means – a benign idea that will leave people freer, more secure, and free from being enslaved by unaccountable politicans

When the concept of limited government comes up, the Left spins all sorts of nightmare scenarios to argue against it. Food, air, and water would be poisoned. Airplanes and cars would be unsafe. There would be bodies piling up in the streets. They would bring back “Roseanne.” (Okay, so that last one was made up…or was it?) And, they’re all wrong.

In fact, big government has been at least partially to blame for bringing those nightmare scenarios to life. Remember Olestra? Approved by the Food and Drug Administration…and lead to a lot of people having to change their underwear due to what was called “anal leakage.” Dirty air? Ask Nancy Pelosi about her cross-country airplane trips as Speaker of the House. Poisonous water? Flint, Michigan, would like to have a talk with you big government fans. You know, something about poisonous water.

The Left needs to get people to reject the idea of smaller government by using fear because they can’t find a legitimate argument against it, given the multiple screw-ups created by big government. And they are afraid that people will realize smaller government makes sense and act on it by electing candidates who agree. So, the Left has a vested interest in keeping people distrustful of small government advocates.

Remember the TEA Party? The Left poisoned the well by painting them all as kooks who take from the government and want to deny everyone else. Oh, and they’re racists because reasons. Now, most people who would normally agree with the TEA Party’s message of lower taxes and smaller government shy away from the label. And those who were elected under the TEA Party mantle have either been marginalized by the GOP leadership or sucked up by them. Make no mistake, Leftists have found their way into both major parties, so it’s not a Democrat/Republican thing.

And Leftists in both parties lust after the prospect of bigger government.

One of my Undeniable Truths is the sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow so large as to become indispensable. Whether it’s the Department of Homeland Security (who hasn’t done all that great a job securing the homeland) or the Environmental Protection Agency (who hasn’t done all that great a job protecting the environment), Leftists in both major parties think they can run big government better than the other party. And they’re both wrong. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican President, the federal government will be filled with people who want to get paid for doing next to nothing. And the people outside of Congress are pretty bad, too!

Whenever there is a government shutdown, Leftists talk about how horrible things will become, but by and large it hasn’t affected us as a country. That should be a major red flag for anyone who believes big government is best. The fact we’re still able to function relatively well without Big Daddy Government holding our hands is a good thing and should be celebrated instead of denigrated. If you question this, answer me this. Why are we paying for non-essential government employees if they’re non-essential?

Here’s the thing that gets me the most. We are seeing multiple examples of government malfeasance in real time, but no one is putting 2 and 2 together. Maybe it’s because no one can do simple math anymore thanks to Common Core, but maybe it has more to do with the idea we need a big government when we really don’t. An easy way to cut down on the corruption in government is to give bad players fewer access points. Plus, with a smaller government, there will be fewer people willing or able to cover up the corruption.  A smaller government won’t completely eliminate the possibility of government corruption, but it will make it infinitely easier to locate and subsequently punish the guilty.

And think about how much money could be saved by cutting government! Take food safety, for example. There are multiple government agencies, departments, and sub-departments covering this one aspect of government. Why do we need more than one organization to take care of this? When a private company finds redundancies, the leadership tries to find ways to be more efficient because it saves them money in the long run. If there are 10 agencies doing the same job, that is 9 too many, and several millions of our tax dollars being wasted in the process. Let’s cut the fat and put that money back in the hands of the people or into infrastructure. You know, that thing the Left always says is worse than Harvey Weinstein’s dating habits, but never seems to spend money on?

The larger the government, the more it will find ways to work its way into our lives and deprive us of freedom. Yet, people are afraid to push for limited government out of fear of being seen as heartless or selfish. Yet, the people who try to make you believe you’re being heartless or selfish are the ones who want to take your money and spend it without any consideration of whether the spending is needed. Not that you need it, but you have my permission to be selfish and demand government be as small as possible to ensure it can be as effective as possible.

And let me know if any Leftists can come up with an answer to my question about non-essential government employees.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the men and women of the FBI, namely because of the House Intelligence Committee and a little memo put together by Republican member Devin Nunes. The memo released this past Friday outlines a number of issues with a FISA warrant issued against the Donald Trump campaign, not the least of which being a little oopsie involving a questionable dossier that people like former FBI Director James Comey neglected to tell the FISA Court wasn’t fully vetted and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. You know, like happens to us every day.

As a result, the Left has become a vocal proponent of the FBI. The fact the memo was even released was an affront to national security and would lead to everything from enemies getting our secrets to the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But a day or so removed from Memo Day and nothing like that has happened.

However, what has happened is the FBI is undergoing scrutiny for what is perceived to be pretty shady dealings. That, and the latest entry into the Leftist Lexicon.

the FBI

What the Left believes it means – a group of devoted public servants who are being unfairly attacked by the Trump Administration and the Right to divert attention from the Trump/Russia investigation

What it really means – a group of public servants caught between duty and bad leadership

This is one point where I agree with the Left. The FBI rank and file are the backbone of our law enforcement community. They deserve to be held in high esteem, especially when they aren’t guilty of the things their leaders are being accused of doing.

Now, if you’re expecting a big “but” here, you’re right. There is a huge but here, and I cannot lie. The rank and file who are involved in the FISA court abuse are not the kind of people who should be in the FBI. However, they should be in Fort Leavenworth. One of the important decisions that any leader and his or her subordinates have to make is whether a particular decision is a worthy goal. The more honest you are, the tougher the decision becomes, and vice versa.

This is where members of the FBI’s leadership, including the aforementioned Mr. Comey, have a reason to be sweating more than Michael Moore running the first quarter mile of the Boston Marathon. Even if you are the top cop in the country, you are subject to our laws (Just ask all the Leftists who want Trump impeached.)

Which brings up a troubling point for Leftists. If they believe the President isn’t above the law, why would they believe the FBI (which is in the Executive Branch along with the President) should be? The Nunes memo lays out some pretty significant and damaging charges that even Lady Justice can see have some heft to them, contrary to the charges the Left have against Trump which are flimsier than a toilet paper negligee. If they want to hold the high ground on Trump, they can’t overlook the current issue with the FBI.

They can’t, but they will.

Another problem the Left has to contend with is their messaging related to the Nunes memo. In the past two weeks alone, it’s been portrayed as a bunch of lies, a “nothingburger”, a political hit job, and a threat to national security. And that’s just from Nancy Pelosi! To put it mildly, the Left has more faces on this issue than, well, Nancy Pelosi. So, when Leftists come out and say they support the FBI, one has to wonder if they’re telling the truth.

Consider just a year or so ago, these same Leftists voiced support for Black Lives Matter, a group with leaders and members whose attitudes towards law enforcement are less than favorable. In fact, some have even said they want to kill police officers.

Yeah, not exactly making a solid case today for backing law enforcement.

The Left is getting behind the FBI for political expediency and cover. As cynical as that sounds, it’s the only logical explanation. On the other hand, Republicans are staying consistent with their “Back the Blue” message. This may seem counter-intuitive given what appears to be happening, but the truth is they aren’t attacking the entire FBI, just the parts that have betrayed their duty to serve the country and its laws. No matter what these particular agents are alleged to have done, it doesn’t tarnish the entire FBI, just like a few bad police officers don’t tarnish the entire police force.

Of course, the Left doesn’t want you to remember that. They want you to ignore the misdeeds of the bad players and get caught up in the positive feelings we’re supposed to feel towards police officers. But without calling out the bad players, we can never get to a point where the good players are honored and held in high esteem.

Thank you to the men and women of the FBI. Just know some of us out here are rooting for you to have a brighter tomorrow once the rats within your ranks are brought to justice today.

Share This:

It’s been 5 years

 
image_pdfimage_print

Today marks the 5th anniversary of Dawson’s passing from this earth. I still think of my son often. There are many times that something comes up and I think “Dawson would like that.”

I smile at his memory and miss him. I am far from alone in my feelings. His mom, his birth father, his sister. Jen and his grandparents. His many friends and members of his Fairemly. And his wife Meaghan.

All of us deeply miss his simile, his humor, and his physical presence with us.

To me, he was and always shall be my oldest son. But he also was a fellow gamer, a co-worker, and my friend.

My greatest hope was he would be able to get his seizures under control. And then I always to teach him the basics of driving so he could eventually get his drivers licence. It would have been a highlight of my life.

Although Dawson’s life on this earth was short. It was meaningful in the way he toucheed all of our lives.

He was a good example to follow. In his kindness, his generosity, and his love and forgiveness.

So on this day, have a Macallan in honor of Dawson. If you don’t drink, that is fine, just toast him with your beverage of choice. He’ll understand.

Share This:

The First of Eight

 
image_pdfimage_print

The President’s first State of the Union speech was worthy of being called Presidential. It was well written and executed by our nation’s chief executive officer. If President Trump ad-libbed anything you couldn’t tell. Bravo Mr. President.

In typical fashion the President remarked on the successes of the past year. The concerns currently facing our great nation. And his hopes for our coming future.

After any State of the Union address many news organizations reach out to the public and ask them for a letter grade. My grade for the President is A-.
Far better than a grade of B but not quite good enough for a solid A or an A+.

With any State of the Union address it is important to watch the reactions of our Senators and Congressmen in attendance. No matter what party affiliation they express to have, as their true colors will come to light.

Most of the nights applause came from the Republican side of the chamber. This is expected during the speech of a Republican President. But it is worth noting what the Democrats did not applaud.

The Democratic Party did not applaud to any of the advances made under the Trump Administration to the economy.

They did not applaud the creation of new jobs or the lowest unemployment ratings across all segments of our nations population. Including the lowest figures on record for black and Hispanic minorities.

They did not applaud the boom in small businesses. The very backbone of the American economy.

They did not applaud the near total destruction and loss of territory once held by ISIS and Alqida.

They did not applaud the recent tax cuts that enable businesses to reinvest in America. That bring jobs and manufacturing back to our shores instead of leaving them overseas.

And they did not applaud those same tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of the hard working middle class Americans. More money that I have already seen on my paycheck. The Democrats don’t want me to have that income.

The Democrats also did not applaud the President’s plans for the future either.

They rejected his call to remove funding limits on military and defense spending imposed under the Obama Administration. With additional funds available our military can complete the work they started against ISIS and Alqida and eradicate them. And American can build up her defenses to the point that no one will dare threaten or attack our shores or interests abroad.

They rejected his call to improve infrastructure. To repair our crumbling roads, bridges, and waterways. Removing the needless governmental regulations and permits that take decades to get anything approved. We built the Empire State Building in just over a year but it takes decades to fix a road. This must come to an end.

The Democrats even rejected the President’s immigration reform package that includes one of their most expressed talking points.

A path to citizenship for the 1.8 million illegal immigrants that arrived as children, the so-called DREAMers.

All of these plans by President Trump were rejected by the Democratic Party in attendance by their actions of not standing, not applauding, and looking sour-faced at every opportunity when the cameras focused in on them.

Given the Democratic Party reaction to the President’s State of the Union address. They are against defeating ISIS and terrorists. They are against having a strong defense against foreign aggression. They are against a thriving and strong economy. They are against minorities from being employed and having good high paying jobs. They are against a path to citizenship for the DREAMers.

Be sure to remember come the mid term elections this fall. And again in 2020 when we decide who leads our nation for the next four years.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Remember the story of Chicken Little? You know, the story where a conspiracy-minded fowl convinces other barnyard animals of impending doom due to suspected, yet unfounded, gravitational inversion? Wait, that’s the Art Bell Show. Either way, the story reminds us of the importance of getting all the facts before deciding on a course of action.

And if you’ve been paying attention, it seems the Left hired Chicken Little to write their talking points because everything is going to kill us. The latest threat to our lives is…tax cuts. If you think I’m exaggerating, I point you to most Leftist’s Twitter feeds. I have literally (and I’m not using it incorrectly) read people saying people will die because of President Donald Trump’s tax cut proposal, which has already passed Congress.

Admittedly, this is a more modern take on tax cuts, which Leftists love as much as getting an eye wash with a sandblaster, but the general disdain the Left has for tax cuts has been a constant for decades. Whether it was Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Donald Trump, no tax cuts are good enough for Leftists. But they are good enough for this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

tax cuts

What the Left believes it means – stealing money from the poor and middle class to fund unnecessary spending by the wealthy

What it really means – taking back money from the government to fund necessary spending by taxpayers and avoid unnecessary spending by wealthy politicians

The driving force behind the Left’s attitude about tax cuts is control. If the government keeps more of our money, it controls how the money is spent. By extension, it also gives the government control over us. Conversely, if the government gives back more of our money, it loses control over how that money can be spent. The Left believes we can’t be trusted with our money because we might spend it on stupid things like food, gas, and housing. They know how the money should be spent on important projects like…researching shrimp workout programs!

And that’s one of the main reasons I like tax cuts: our government makes worse fiscal decisions than a failed stock broker with a $10,000 a day cocaine habit. Come to think of it, that’s not fair. Some of our politicians spend way more than that on cocaine (which, incidentally, might explain how they can justify spending on the “Bridge to Nowhere.”) Contrary to Leftist beliefs, some of us have more on the ball than they realize. Why, some of us actually have to make a living by working at a real job instead of writing bad poetry at a Starbucks because we decided Albino Eskimo Midget Feminist Basket Weaving was a good major.

The Leftists’ fiscal failure doesn’t end there. During the 1990s, the Left became obsessed with the idea of a middle class tax cut, an idea Leftists still cling to today. They believe the key to a booming economy is to give the middle class a tax cut. On paper, it sounds good. The problem? These same people who believe the middle class tax cut is the cure to all of our economic woes simultaneously believe the middle class is shrinking due to a widening gap between the rich and poor. So, in order to create a booming economy, we have to give tax cuts to fewer people because reasons?

The Underpants Gnomes have nothing on Leftists.

A recent example of the Left’s attitude towards tax cuts came from our favorite former Speaker of the House, Nancy “If I Have Any More Facelifts, I’ll Have a Widow’s Peak” Pelosi. In her attempts to sour public opinion on the Trump tax cuts, she called $1000 “crumbs.” As you might have guessed, that went over as well as Ben Shapiro Week at UC Berkeley. The Left came to her rescue, citing the billions in tax cuts the wealthy and corporations are getting. Of course, that would be the case since they pay more in taxes than we do. And with corporations, they pass increases in production costs (like…oh, I don’t know…having to pay more taxes) to us, so we ultimately pay for their tax increases. And unless the rich decide to hold onto their money and not spend any of it, that money will get pumped back into the economy by purchasing goods and services. This, in turn, will create demand, which drives purchasing and hiring decisions, which creates a ripple effect for those companies who provide goods and services to the companies providing goods and services.

That, in a nutshell, is supply side economics. So simple, and yet way above Nancy Pelosi’s pay grade.

Without going too much further into the weeds with technical jargon, let’s just say tax cuts work pretty well for stimulating our economy, and the Left has no answer for it. I mean, how stupid is it to argue that people should be upset at higher pay, more jobs, and a booming economy? Then again, the people who argue that are the same ones who thought Hillary Clinton was the most qualified Presidential candidate in history because the least qualified President ever said so.

Oh, and the other reason I like tax cuts? It makes Leftists look dumb. (Hey, I didn’t say it was a good reason!)

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

The media obsess over the weirdest things these days. They can write and talk for days over whether President Donald Trump has one scoop of ice cream or two, how many Diet Cokes he drinks a day, whether a psychologist who hasn’t examined the President personally is credible enough to speak on his mental fitness, and other minutia with literally nothing to do with actual news.

Maybe the news business has changed since I decided journalism and I should spend a few decades away from each other to get our heads straight. And I can assure you one of us has (and for once it’s me).

Whether you think today’s news is hard-hitting and factual or a DNC public relations release, we should spend a little time delving into what news has become.

news

What Leftists believe it means – information that needs to get into the public’s hands no matter what

What it really means – political narratives with bylines

When we think back to how newscasters and reporters used to report the day’s events, it wasn’t remarkable. The stories they covered may have been, but they tended not to wear their ideologies on their sleeves. You got the facts and were left to make up your mind on how to think about them.

Today? Not so much. In fact, according to MSNBC’s Mika “I’m a Barbie Girl in a Newsie World” Brzezinski, the media’s job is to “control what people think.” And she’s not alone. During the Obama Administration, news figures said it was their jobs to help the President. Now that Trump’s in office, those same news figures are upset at how “soft” their coverage has become.

From watchdogs to lapdogs, kids.

The truth of the matter is news isn’t about helping or hurting a President or control what people think. News should only be about, well, news. There is a vast difference between a news show and an opinion show, just like there is a difference between a news article and an opinion piece. The difference is how facts are presented.

Let’s say you see a car accident outside your living room window. As a witness, the police may ask you to provide your account of what happened. They don’t care about your opinions on seatbelt laws or cracking down on distracted driving; they want details so they can investigate the matter further. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, reporters treated news like that. No fluff, no personal insights, just information.

So, how did we get from there to here? A change in culture and politics. During the 60s and 70s, the youth became more socially conscious (which isn’t a bad thing, necessarily) and believed they could change the world (also, not a bad thing in and of itself). Then, they discovered Leftist ideas (which is a bad thing), and the rest is history. By embracing ideas that work great on paper, but suck when implemented, the youth of the 60s and 70s became the adults of the 80s, 90s, and today, and they put their feelings ahead of facts. And that mindset infiltrated the media, which lead to seeing newspeople asking Hillary Clinton what kind of dessert she likes to have while delving into the “dark history” of Sarah Palin’s son’s girlfriend’s mother’s dog groomer’s cousin’s accountant’s pet sitter’s favorite teacher because if Palin associated with that kind of person, she’s utterly unfit to be a political leader!

And when they’re not trying to tear down any Right-leaning person for an overdue library book, these same serious news reporters fawn all over celebrities. What kind of pizza does Taylor Swift order? Find out in this multi-page article in the New York Times! Want to know the secret behind all things Kardashian? Watch this 6 minute news video! Do you absolutely need to know what is going through Nikki Minaj’s mind right now?

It’s air. I saved you from having to find out on your national newscasts. You’re welcome.

News organizations tell us the crap they’re serving us as news is what we ask for, and it’s not their fault we demand dreck. Although there are some people who do (I’m looking right at you, Jerry Springer fans), some of us want more. Let’s have a news report on global climate change where both sides are presented in a fair and balanced light and let us decide for ourselves what needs to be done. Ditto with racism, gay rights, Islam, and other controversial topics.

But the news people can’t do that. They feel anything that is outside of their ideological bubble isn’t worth discussing. There’s a reason these people call the land between the East and West Coasts “flyover country” and it’s not because they’re high when they travel through this part of the country. (Although, given what they choose to report, drug use isn’t completely off the table.) It’s because these serious news reporters don’t think anything happens here. In fact, if they had their druthers, they wouldn’t venture outside of Manhattan or Los Angeles to track down a story.

Which is part of the problem. The minute you start purposely excluding yourself from potential stories, the minute you cease being a good reporter and become a stenographer for whatever ideology you deny you have in public. But, then don’t call yourselves news people.

My rule of thumb when it comes to news is Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify.” Seek out multiple sources of information, paying close attention to what is being said and how it’s being said. There are subtle clues in turns of a phrase that will reveal the leanings of a writer or reporter, but you have to be looking for them. And, yes, my Leftist friends, that includes Fox News, Breitbart, and other right-leaning sources.

In the meantime, maybe the news folks will get the hint if we start ignoring them. Or, if you can’t do that, do what I do and point and laugh at them. I hear Jim Acosta is particularly salty about being mocked.

Share This: