January 17, 2018

Rotten, Filthy Social Media Expanding Its Cancerous Grip

Mainstream Media has muddled along for centuries calmly and without much real opposition to their canned lies and misinformation, until lately, all designed to manipulate public opinion and thought. While the overwhelming majority of Americans will mouth that Media cannot be trusted and that they lie, they obviously do not believe that because, like an addict, they run to them and put on their feed bags. They just can’t help it.

I’ve been at this blogging stuff for many years. When I first began, Mainstream Media, went out of their way to discredit anyone who offered anything that they didn’t control. Evidently, some, anyway, saw Alternative Media as a threat. They fought against it and then joined the circus attempting to take it over and control it.

Certainly, Alternative Media has had an influence on mass media and in particular newsprint. News websites are still trying to find ways to force readers to pay for their misinformation and lies. In short, they are struggling and it will only get worse with each passing generation.

Then Social Media happened. A well-planned and design-specific tool that would cause immediate, widespread and long-lasting societal destruction. In no time at all, millions became addicted. They found a place where they could be anything they wanted to be. They could hate, send a message, laugh, hate some more, be rude, be filthy, be disgusting, threaten people, wish them dead, you name it. It’s all bad and I mean ALL BAD!

That addiction soon put my efforts as an independent writer/blogger in jeopardy. Because the designers of Social Media knew that the programmed automatons couldn’t stay focused longer than 141 characters, well researched, precisely written and honest journalism was doomed…or at least well-controlled.

Whether you and I hate or are head over heels addicted to Social Media matters very little. It is what drives Americans today and there’s little any of us can do about it. I would suppose, to be nice, I should congratulate the designers of Social Media that they could come up with something so compellingly enslaving while at the same time grabbing control over and striking a crushing blow to truth, integrity, and common decency.

It appears that Social Media is having its effects on writers for Mainstream Media outlets. Here’s one example.

In Maine, a Warden Service plane, while attempting to land on a frozen lake in Northern Maine, went through the ice. A reporter for the Bangor Daily News reported on the event.

Yesterday another Bangor News reporter followed up the event with a piece of his own. In his report, it seems that his entire article is driven by his displeasure with Social Media and the comments made about how stupid it was that a government plane would disregard their own advice and attempt to land a plane on ice some deemed unsafe. He writes: “Before any details were made public on Wednesday, social media outlets were buzzing with opinions from those bold enough — or rude enough — to spew their opinions…” Throughout the article, the author refers to those participants in Social Media as, “armchair quarterbacks,” “finger-pointers who are yucking it up,” and “Joe Ice Fisher.”

Because the article was actually more about how and why outdoor recreationists should consider that even Wardens can make mistakes and that we should be absolutely certain it’s safe before venturing onto any ice to have some fun, it did not need to nasty with truthful comments directed at Social Media.

I’m not even going to pretend to preach about how journalists need to present themselves better and different than mere Social Mediaites because maybe they are not capable of rising above it. I’ll save that discussion for another time.

Regardless of your own perspective of Social Media, which I’m guessing is much like that of Mainstream Media – you say one thing and do another – it has its power, as is seen here. It, at its least, influences what columnists are writing. The sad part is, if you can see it, Social Media is worse than the most radical of malignant tumors. It is a reflection of what has become of a society that relies on pleasures and satisfaction rather than on the truth and decency of their Creator God. As it grows bigger, it becomes more powerful and eventually chokes off the life all around it until one day the entire body is choked off and dies.

Sad!

Share

Fox and Whine’s Whines

I have recently come to rename Fox News Channel’s morning show, Fox and Friends, as Fox and Whine. That name should be self explanatory because all they ever do is whine about the left. However of late, their whining about the left carries with it a certain degree of Second Grade excitement due to the results of the recent presidential selection.

But I did have to laugh this morning, as I listened to the blonde bimbo, interviewing somebody, the topic of which is irrelevant. Often I have heard anchors on Fox and Whine refer to “The Mainstream Media” and presenting it in such a way that one would think they were excluding themselves from that labeling.

But this morning, there was no doubt left as the bimbo spoke the term “Mainstream Media” to the interviewee, following the comment with an explanation that “there are three members of the Mainstream Media.” She didn’t name them, but obviously intended to mean ABC, CBS and NBC.

This is akin to a member of the United States Congress being interviewed and shitting on “Congress” for how terrible they are and how the public has a very low opinion of them…somehow putting him or herself on the high ground and above reproach.

Isn’t it easy to call and label others while exempting yourself? It is more a reflection of how most people support more and tougher laws, including more restrictions on our rights, believing they are not supporting any of them to effect them in any way.

SMART!

There ought to be a law!!! Bwahahahahahahaha

Share

Why Newspapers Can’t Be Relied on as Intelligent, Factual Source of Information

DontUnderstandIt began this way. On April 4, 2014, Pulse published an article by Jim Lundstrum called, “Wolves at the Door.” That same day Jim Beers, a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper with a comment to make about the substance of the article, “Wolves at the Door.”

The entire back and forth between Mr. Beers and the newspaper editor would make a fantastic comedic routine for any pair of standup comics. The problem is, this actually really happened. Beers introduces the act this way:

Talking to a (WI) Newspaper about Wolves

The following interchange followed a Letter to an Editor regarding an article about wolves recently arriving in his popular and populous NE Wisconsin County, where one would (mistakenly evidently) assume a modicum of familiarity with wolves. It is enlightening for anyone dealing with wolves and the media. I say this not to impugn my skill or this editor’s response, but only to present this rare glimpse of what often is the case when we assume we are having a conversation that is merely gibberish, for whatever reason, to a listener. Jim

“Are you Druids?

When you quote a respected warden regarding wolves in Wolves at the Door, to wit “It comes back to, what can the landscape tolerate” you are simply using your human-owned newspaper to promulgate a secular animal rights’ belief to justify government force to oppress rural people with dangerous and deadly urban fantasies.

To paraphrase the good warden, wolf presence and tolerance “comes back to what those being forced to live with them can tolerate.” It is really quite simple and quite American, I might add.

Jim Beers
Eagan, MN
4 April 2014”

The editor of the newspaper writes back to Beers and says:

“I have no idea what you are implying. I can’t run a letter that makes no sense.”

Perhaps a bit frustrated or something more, Jim Beers makes another attempt at making his point:

I imply that you present the matter of the presence and abundance of wolves as only limited by what “the landscape” can tolerate.

What you publish is literally that human objections and perceived harm to human values are of no importance. In other words, humans and their objections are of less importance than the amount of food and surface conditions wolves encounter.

This philosophical difference supports the value difference between us that establishes people like myself believing that the threats and harms from diseases, dog loss, livestock loss, game reduction and human safety concerns caused by wolves are not justifiable and others like Druids (?) or nature worshippers that believe that human enterprise and society like the rest of “the landscape” must and should adjust to whatever wolves cause much like, for example, what is happening to the Minnesota moose, European sheep flocks and The Northern Yellowstone elk herd thanks to wolves placed and protected by the force of government fiat.

I assume the warden’s job security is tied to such a statement and that your paper would only engender strong reactions from readers that obviously are not hosting many or any wolves to date and like other public factions from urban donors and environmental activists to bureaucrats and politicians whose families and livelihoods remain unaffected by what we are talking about here. It might be better stated (though more words) as:

When you report that a Wisconsin warden believes that the presence and abundance of wolves is limited only by “what can the landscape tolerate” you and he are legitimizing an environmental falsehood that dates back to ancient pagan nature worship. This justification for forcing wolves and their continued presence by government fiat on local communities where residents strongly object to them is greatly flawed because it treats human concerns as equal to or lesser than food availability and other survival conditions that affect wolves. Human concerns about wolves in settled landscapes are always superior to other factors. These concerns include but are not limited to, diseases and infections, livestock losses, dog losses, game herd reductions and most important the human safety of those forced to “live with wolves”.

To paraphrase the warden, wolf presence and abundance is ultimately limited only by “what those being forced to live with them will tolerate.”

It is really quite simple, quite sensible, and it reflects American traditional cultural values I might add.

To which the editor once again responded”

“Sorry. I still don’t get it.”

Share