Whatever Happened to Aleppo?

“Follow the money.”

It’s a short phrase with a lot of impact. If you keep it in the back of your mind, it will help answer a lot of questions.

Why does healthcare cost so much? Follow the money.

Who benefits from this particular legislation? Follow the money.

Why all the vitriol over this person or issue? Follow the money.

I’m hearing a lot of conversation over free speech, hate speech, social media, fake news, and election impact. How many times is Mark Zuckerberg going to stand before a government to explain what he is doing in these areas? And, to be honest, why should he?

Follow the money.

This goes back many, many years, but for the sake of this post, let’s keep it to the more recent past.

In 2016, Donald Trump beat the “favorite”, Hillary Clinton, in the race for President. According to the talking heads of the “major” media outlets, this should NOT have happened. And since it did, there MUST have been some kind of interference in the election process. We’ve blamed the Russians for meddling. We’ve blamed “fake news” for meddling. And we’ve blamed social media for allowing all of this meddling to take place.

And it’s bullsh*t. Follow the money.

The Clinton campaign spent about $72 million on television ads and about $16 million on digital ads. The Trump campaign spent about $39 million on television ads and about $29 million on digital ads. Oh, and according to talking heads, the Russians spent about $100,000 (that’s thousand - not million) on Facebook ads.

Now, let’s look at the impact. Apparently, $100,000 of Russian ads had MORE impact on the election than the Clinton $16 million and the Trump $29 million. Does that make sense to you? And since Facebook “allowed” those ads, it must be Zuckerberg’s fault. Thus his CSPAN performances.

So, if the impact of Russia was, in reality, NOT the impact the Democrats (and some Republicans) are saying, what’s all the crying about?

Follow the money.

Who traditionally benefits the most from political advertising dollars? The “mainstream” media: newspapers, television, and direct mail. Who has the potential to LOSE the most IF social media proves to have the most impact over elections? The same “mainstream” media. So, who do you think are holding the Democrat and Republican parties feet to the flames? You guessed it: the “mainstream” media.

There is a reciprocal relationship here. The Democrats and Republicans spend MILLIONS on advertising and the same outlets provide untold HOURS of FREE advertising by talking incessantly about them on their "news" shows. (Which is another reason third-party candidates are shut out. More on that later.)

Here’s a question: Why the concern over “fake news” being spread on social media, when traditional campaign advertising is FULL of lies, slander, and false statements (which, conveniently, is considered “protected speech” for politicians)?

The answer is simple. If more impact can be had via social media without the spend (only $45 million for digital vs. $111 million for televised), why would anybody spend so much over the “mainstream” media outlets? Thus the “war” on free speech, and the rise of what is considered “hate speech”.

The Bird loves political ads as much as we do!

There will come a time when the traditional media outlets will find themselves with a voice and no ears listening to it. It’s already happening. Back during the campaign, there was a third-party candidate that was taking a major chunk of the voting block by the ear. That was Libertarian Party member Gary Johnson. Now, as we know, there can only be two parties that you can vote between: Democrat and Republican. They not only get your tax dollars to run their campaigns, but they also control who can be in the televised debates, who shows up in polls (and what is reported by the “mainstream” media about those poll results), and who ultimately can show up on the ballot.

During a “mainstream” media interview, Gary Johnson was asked about what he thought about Aleppo. He famously responded, “What’s Aleppo?”

He quickly became a laughing stock - with that response being played over and over and over again. Now, when the interviewer clarified that it was a city in Syria, Johnson replied with a well-thought out and intelligent response. Didn’t matter. They got him.

What that little slice of baloney showed was Johnson had a good grasp on the goings on in the Middle East, but did NOT look to the “mainstream” media for his briefings. Shame on him! You know what? Until that interview, I had never heard of Aleppo either. Thus the reason the game is called “TriviaL Pursuit”.

Whatever happened to Aleppo? I don’t remember really hearing much about it after that. Syria, yes. The Middle East, yes. But Aleppo? Nada.

You have to understand, the Democrats, Republicans, and the “Fourth Estate” believe that YOU, the general populous, are nothing more than slow-minded children that need to be told what to think, how to think, and what is important. You need to be protected from yourself. You can’t make decisions on your own. The great trio will guide you to Nirvana (the transcendent state, not the rock band). They can’t have you making decisions, or worse yet, having intelligent conversations, over the major issues (in other words, “candidates”) on your own.

So, follow the money. As Tony Montana said, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.” (“Scarface”)

Or the votes.

© Emittravel 2018

D.U.I. (Driving Under Imbecility)

The other day, while my wife and I were on the freeway (she was driving), I noticed that after the person passed us on the left, they drifted partially into our lane then swerved back into their own.

Now, if you were a police officer and witnessed this, you might flash your blue and reds and pull the person over. You might also give the person a breathalyzer test due to the erratic driving. But, most likely, you would not be able to arrest this particular person for driving under the influence of alcohol. You see, as this person was passing us they were looking down at the phone in their lap.

What?!? You mean someone was texting (or Facebooking, or Twittering, or whatevering) while driving?!?

Hard to believe, I know, but true.

In the State of Ohio, it is illegal to use any electronic wireless communications device while driving. If you are over the age of 18 this is considered a secondary law. This means that a police officer has to have another reason to pull a driver over other than texting. If you are under the age of 18 it is a primary law, which means they don’t need another reason to pull you over.

So, if you are weaving or driving erratically a police officer can pull you over. But here is where it gets tricky. Just because you are driving erratically does NOT mean you were texting. You could have been drinking. Or you could have been dealing with Mayhem under your seat.

If the officer smells alcohol on you, they have a few options to prove you were driving under the influence. One of these is a breathalyzer. However, they cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test right there. You can refuse it. Of course, this is much like pleading the Fifth; which makes you “guilty” regardless of the truth.

If, on the other hand, you were texting and driving, it is much more difficult for the officer to prove. First off, they have to have seen you with your phone in your hand. And you are too savvy to get caught doing that. That is why you drive looking at your lap. You aren’t stupid enough to hold the phone up in view. (I’m clearly being sarcastic here.)

What if the officer asks you to hand over your phone? Can they take it to prove whether or not you were using it while you were driving? Nope. A police officer may take your phone if there is reasonable cause, but they may not search the data on the phone without either the driver’s consent OR a warrant.

You see, you have this little thing you can hide behind called “privacy” and there is NO WAY you are going to voluntarily give a police officer the evidence to condemn you for your own stupidity.

And that needs to change right now.

When I was a kid the police cars used to have the words, “To Serve And Protect” emblazoned on them. If those words are true, they should ABSOLUTELY be able to stop a car from driving erratically to protect US.

There should be a simple test available that if a police officer stops you for erratic driving they would be able to TAKE your phone, run the test, and figure out whether or not you’ve been using it. Like a breathalyzer. And if you refuse to hand over your phone, you should IMMEDIATELY be arrested, have your car impounded, and taken to the police station where you can sit and wait for the warrant which would OBVIOUSLY be provided.

Oh, and one major difference between driving under the influence of alcohol and texting: after a period of time the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream will go down - so if you can delay the time between the traffic stop and the breathalyzer long enough, your blood/alcohol level may drop enough to be proven "not guilty". But your phone? Baby, that shtuff is out there FOREVER!

And if you WERE texting and driving?!? That should be a felony charge. You want to put your life at risk? Go to prison. Just don’t stay on the road and put OUR lives at risk.

Make up your damn minds. If you want to text, text. If you want to drive, drive. If that Facebook post is so important, pull your car over and take care of it. Just don’t do both at the same time. Because, regardless of how good a multitasker you think you may be, in reality, you suck at it.

I’m reminded of a Gallagher routine where he thinks we should be driving with those rubber-tipped dart guns we had as a kid. Whenever we see someone driving like an idiot we could lean out and shoot a dart at their car with a flag that says, “IDIOT!” A cop sees you driving down the road with a half-dozen flags on the trunk of your car, they pull you over and give you a ticket for being an A**HOLE!!

For some people, they wouldn’t be able to see past the flags.

© Emittravel 2018

Get Out the Get Out the Vote

“Get Out the Vote.” Remember that? It came about a few election cycles ago. The idea was to get as many people to the polls as possible. Now, at first glance that seems a great idea. But when you give it a little more thought, like me, you discover it is not such a good idea. Especially when it comes to this current election.

I've joked that my Twitter feed seems to be all liberal and my Facebook feed seems to be all conservative. My social networking is a bit bipolar. And since I'm the same guy in both networks, the algorithms seem to be a bit . . . off.

Now, in both the emphasis is the same: you have to vote for one candidate to make sure the other candidate doesn't win. And if you are thinking of voting for a third-party candidate, you are guaranteeing the other candidate will win. In all cases, I see very little convincing for you to vote FOR a candidate, only AGAINST the other one. This tells me that people really don't like the candidate they are voting for, but the other candidate is so much worse and needs to be stopped.

As I've written previously, this is a job interview, and we are the potential employers. We are trying to find the best person for the job. When you hire someone, you not only look at their background and opinions, but you look to see what their job qualifications are. You don't have to go much further than the last three Presidential debates, to know that the emphasis of this particular job interview has very little to do with qualifications.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone only in order to vote against someone: DON'T VOTE!

If your intention is to blindly vote along party lines: DON'T VOTE!

“J.P., are you seriously telling us not to vote?” Yup. Absolutely. What's more dangerous than a wasted vote? A vote made in ignorance.

I don't care how many women Trump may have groped. I don't care how many emails Clinton may have deleted. I don't care if Johnson can't find Aleppo on a map. If you can't honestly say you are voting FOR someone because you AGREE with MOST (not necessarily ALL) of what they have stated their POLICIES are, DON'T VOTE!

Now, you'll notice I did not say to stay home. Go! Vote! There are usually local issues and candidates on the ballot, and those you need to vote for. Oh, and as in the above, if you can't honestly say you agree with most of what the candidate's policies are, you don't for them either.

Here is what I do: I read the ballot carefully. If I do not know enough to make an informed decision on an issue, I skip it. A non-vote is not counted as For OR Against. If I cannot say I agree with a candidate based on their policies, I skip them too. I do NOT vote along party lines (to be honest, I'm a registered Independent, so I don't HAVE a party line to vote for). And that includes those situations when there is only one candidate running for a position.

I hear that voting is one of the most important things an individual can do, outside of running for office. I say that is wrong. INFORMED voting is one of the most important things an individual can do. UNINFORMED voting is one of the most DANGEROUS things an individual can do.

So, get out and vote, or get out the get out the vote. This is too important for an emotional decision.

Our democracy depends on it.

©Emittravel 2016

The Invincibles

(Note: As I type this blog, there is a red squiggly line under the title. That word does not exist. As a matter of fact, neither do those it describes.)

As a continuation of last week's blog post, I wanted look a little deeper into the concept that there isn't just one "Me" generation; that many people could be described in such a manner.

Last week I focused on those individuals who arrive late to a church service and make a "show" of their entrance. That mentality goes well beyond those sacred halls. There is a selfishness that goes beyond the "I'm more important than you", and rises (or falls?) to "I’m above that".

Let me explain. People think they are indestructible. Invincible. That no matter how much evidence to the contrary, they are immune to the hazards of life. It's one thing when that mentality only affects the individual, it is another entirely when it affects those around you - even putting them in danger.

There is the guy who stands outside of the funeral home to grab a quick cigarette break, while inside there is a casket with his father who died of emphysema. "My dad died from smoking, but that won't happen to me. I know I should quit, but . . . you know."

There is the lady who drives down the freeway with her head in her lap - checking her most recent Facebook activity, or reading that oh-so-important text message, or responding to one with those emoji's that are a matter of life-altering importance to the recipient - believing that if she doesn't hold up her phone no one will know.

I would like to refer you to a recent blog post from my darling wife that talks about those "morons" (my word, not hers) who would rather focus on that little 4.7" screen, than focus through that huge piece of glass in front of them. Please take a moment to read her post and click on the video she linked to at the end. It was watching that video that helped spawn these last two posts of mine.

Apparently, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, or laws are passed, people will still live like they are John Travolta in a bubble, protected from the hazards that affect only those "others". The American Lung Association used to show human lungs after years of smoking on their commercials. Didn't do a damn thing. You still see people huddled around their little embers, sucking ionized radiation into their lungs, with temperatures outside that are well below freezing. Smoking only hurts the "other guy". There are commercials (like the one my wife linked to in her blog post - don't forget to read it!) showing the hazards of the driver with more than driving on the mind. Or worse, driving like they've starred in every "The Fast and the Furious" movie.

I remember a bumper sticker once that said something similar to "Please don't risk my life by driving so you can arrive someplace three minutes faster."

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #37

Wait. Either it is, or it isn't. On one hand we have the coveted "Buffet Rule" (an increased tax percentage on the so-called "wealthy") that is being touted as truly fair by our President. You see, according to the Buffet Rule, wealthy people are not paying enough in taxes and it's not fair - so says Warren Buffet, the one for whom the bill is named. On the other hand, we have people like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) who want to make it so that any person with a net worth of over so much who leaves the country and renounces their citizenship as having left PRIMARILY for tax reasons, and bar them from ever returning to the country. You see, there is a gentleman named Eduardo Saverin (a co-founder of Facebook) who is doing that very thing. Wait. I thought all wealthy people felt they didn't pay enough in taxes and should pay more. Why would anyone want to ever leave this country based on paying too much? Which way do you want it? Either they want to pay more or they don't. It can't be both.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says

For those who have been reading this blog will note that I tend to write sometimes long, but always well-thought out articles. I normally don't post a link to an article, or a picture, with a comment or two. The bright side is that you the reader get to read articles that try to establish a point or two. The not-so bright side is that I find that I'm posting once or twice a month.

I was having a conversation with my wife, a.k.a "my better half", and she noted that I've been posting short quips to my Facebook page that I don't post to this blog. She stated that the comments are quick, poignant, and sometimes funny, and would give readers of my blog other insights into MHBAO. In other words, give them spoon fulls instead of steam shovel fulls all of the time. Keep writing the full articles, but eliminate the larger gaps between posts.

She is not only beautiful, but extremely wise.

So, in being the good husband and actually LISTENING to my wife, I will start posting these thoughts under the heading of "Stuff My Brain Says". Some will be posted as they strike me, others will be from some of the previous comments I've made on Facebook.

So here is the first installment of "Stuff My Brain Says". Enjoy!

"What? What do you mean: 72 sturgeons?!?" - Osama bin Laden (in honor of his death and burial at sea)

© Emittravel 2011