Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts

Sunday, November 4, 2018

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

Monday, September 4, 2017

You Really Don’t Want a Democracy

After the 2016 Presidential Election, many were upset that even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Donald Trump took the presidency by winning the Electoral College vote. Cries of “unfair”, and “he’s not my President” rang out; along with a push to eliminate the Electoral College because, after all, we are a Democracy.

Actually, no. We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Thus the Electoral College.

I bring this up because we have a current movement that is trying to rewrite history and remove anything deemed offensive from the public eye. Included are statues, flags, and even baseball team mascots.

As a Cleveland Indians fan, I’ve been pummeled by the anti-Wahoo folks for years. Even a recent article I read lumped the mascot with statues of Robert E. Lee as being equally racist. Hogwash!

First off, the Supreme Court has determined that trademarks cannot be considered “hate speech”. So as far as the law is concerned, Chief Wahoo is not hate speech.

Nevertheless, those few are screaming the loudest in hopes to bully a decision in their favor. Even the MLB Commissioner is pressuring the Cleveland Indians owners to remove the mascot.

Dear MLB Commissioner: IF you bow down to the pressure of a few and remove Chief Wahoo from the Cleveland Indians, we the fans will NOT go quietly into the night. Third-party vendors will start making a killing selling Chief Wahoo merchandise - which means the MLB gets none of that sweet, sweet cash.

I for one am getting a bit tired of a few hypocrites calling the shots.

Hypocrites? Yep. Hypocrites.

Go back and reread the first paragraph of this post.

The same folks calling us a democracy don’t really WANT a democracy. Why? Because the majority of people don’t want the mascots removed, or history to be rewritten. And IF we WERE a democracy, you crybabies would have to go away.

It’s called the First Amendment. If you like the idea of freedom of speech, then you have to accept that you will be exposed to speech you disagree with. That gives you a choice: You can either move to a country that does not respect the freedom of speech - which would eliminate you hearing anything that might offend you, or you can go ahead and get thicker skin.

As far as whether or not to remove statues, flags, mascots, or whatever, I direct you to Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” (ascribed to Chesterton by John F. Kennedy).

Do you honestly believe that the people who erected a statue (that includes designing, creating, paying for, and authorizing it) did it BECAUSE they were racist?

"Let's put up a statue to show the world how racist we are. Good idea, huh? All in favor?"

"Aye!"

That’s hard to believe. Just because you are offended by CHANGING the original intention, does NOT give you the right to force the majority to accept your cries as truth.

So, before you “like” a tweet or Facebook post that encourages the removal of this or that, do a little research to find out WHY this or that was erected in the first place.

And if you don’t agree, go ahead, move to North Korea, and shout that statues of their dear leader are racist and hate speech. I’m sure they’ll praise your bravery.

(Idiots.)

© Emittravel 2017