Tipping points ...

Public opinion and political movements move in cycles.

There’s usually a tipping point that sets off a new cycle.

Some person or group goes too far. A defining moment happens. It doesn’t have to be a single event; it can be a sequence of seemingly unrelated events that suddenly appear to be connected.

The tipping point is reached.  Public opinion can quickly and dramatically shift, often catching politicians, activists, and the media by surprise. The public doesn’t simply stop believing and supporting what it did; it starts moving in a completely opposite direction. 

It’s like Newton’s Third Law – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

When the tipping point is reached heroes can become villains, villains can become heroes, and sympathies can reverse – all in what seems like the blink of an eye. 

The shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the death of Eric Garner, and to a lesser extent the shooting of a 12-year-old in Cleveland holding a toy gun, are seen as tipping points for black activists who have long maintained that our justice system places little value on black lives. They’ve used these to rally the black base, as well as young whites, and liberals in general, all of whom have a an ingrained distrust of authority in general, and the police in particular.   

At first blush it’s been very successful with lots of media coverage of crowds in the streets, die-ins at shopping malls, temporary shut-downs of major roadways, and symbolic gestures by sports celebrities.  Sharpton’s gotten a lot of on-camera face time.  Members of Congress have taken to the floor to do the “hands up, don’t shoot” pose, as have some anchors on cable news shows.  Basketball players have worn “I can’t breathe” shirts.  The Mayor of New York got into the act as well, claiming he had to teach his biracial son to be wary of police. 

Then it happened. Things went out of control. Protesters went too far. Protesting crowds attacked police officers, injuring some.  People at one of Sharpton’s rallies started chanting “What do we want?  Dead cops!  When do we want it? Now!”  

And someone took them at their word.  A dirt bag from Baltimore – who had just shot his girlfriend – boasted online about how he was going to kill cops.  Then he did, assassinating two innocent New York cops as they sat in their car, before killing himself. He probably thought he’d be a hero; after all, didn’t he do what protesters wanted?   

About 24 hours later a Florida cop was shot and killed by a suspect who was afraid he would be sent back to prison. 

A black Philly paramedic posted a still from a rap video at about the same time showing two black guys holding guns to the head of a white cop with the caption:  “Our real enemy...need 2 stop pointing guns at each other & at the ones that's legally killing innocents." 

Are all these events unrelated?  Perhaps. 

But there’s a synchronicity in these for many people, especially for those in law enforcement.

Cops believe activists as well as politicians are sending a signal that cops are the enemy. Cops can’t be trusted. Cops routinely target black males.  If you’re black and stopped by a cop you’re much more likely than a white guy to be arrested, beaten, or even killed by them.  

Add those messages to what comes out of the White House, and Holder at the DOJ – that the civil rights of blacks are often violated by police, and the justice system unfairly treats blacks more harshly than whites.  It’s no wonder that people in law enforcement feel threatened.  And why some more radical critics of the police feel emboldened.   

It’s also no wonder then why cops are less willing to take a chance when they feel their lives are in danger. That’s what happened in Ferguson and in Cleveland. 

So what happens now?      

Black activists like Sharpton and others think the tipping point has moved in their favor.  They believe they’ll be able to extract – or more accurately, extort – concessions from law enforcement and the justice system to give a special pass to blacks because, well, they’re black. They want the authority to oversee hiring, training, and enforcement policies of police forces. They want the ability to decide when and if any officer has used excessive force and how they should be punished. 

They think they have the “right” to demand these as retribution for recent events.  And that public opinion is now firmly on their side.

They are wrong. 

The mob they have created has moved ahead of them. It’s no longer theirs to control, nor is it listening to the “leaders” like Sharpton, de Blasio and others that helped spawn it.  Mayor de Blasio, trying to regain some credibility, had asked protesters to hold off at least until the funerals of the two dead cops were completed. They’ve ignored him. 

Protesters are still in the streets and assaulting cops as if nothing has changed.

Meanwhile, a lot changed.  The cold-blooded assassination of the two New York cops by a deranged black guy is still fresh in the public’s mind.  Another cop in Florida checking out a simple domestic disturbance was shot and killed by a career criminal. Cops in Philly were arresting a man for shooting out windows when he turned his gun them, pulling the trigger several times; fortunately, he was out of bullets.    

At one of the recent anti-cop protests, police tried to arrest a Brooklyn English professor who was attempting to throw a metal trash can on a road to block traffic.  A melee ensued, during which the professor – joined by other protesters – attacked the arresting officers, breaking the nose of one of the officers before fleeing.  He left behind the backpack he’d been carrying, in which police found three hammers and a ski mask.

None of this helps the “black lives matter” or “I can’t breathe” crowd intent on painting police everywhere as jackbooted thugs singling out black males for execution.    

The public perception of the whole situation is changing.  We are approaching another tipping point, but not the one black activists and anti-cop protesters think we’ve already hit.

This one’s the reactive tipping point. It’s what happens when the other side goes too far. 

It’s important to remember that the American public generally favors the police.  It believes in law and order; always has, and probably always will. It is appalled by wanton violence. Killing cops is a bright line to most Americans; juries that convict cop killers usually show little mercy.   

The media, activists, and certain politicians can spin things all they want, but down deep the overwhelming majority of Americans generally will side with the police and the courts.  They believe the police and the legal system aren’t perfect by any measure, but can be trusted to do the right thing in most cases. Polls tend to bear this out, year after year.

So it would take a monumental amount of evidence to overcome that.

Frankly, that evidence doesn’t exist. 

Tangible evidence of people targeting cops is equally scant, but far more powerful. Someone physically assaulting a cop deeply disturbs us. Anyone openly advocating or actually killing cops just because they’re cops goes way beyond that. They cross a far more emotional line – a cultural barrier, if you will, between anarchy and civilization. 

The public will always choose civilization and order over anarchy.  When the public feels things are getting out of control – hitting a tipping point – they will swing toward greater control.

It’s what happened when the anti-war movement went too far in the 60’s – blowing up buildings, calling our soldiers murderers, robbing banks, and rioting at the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago.  The anti-war movement felt it had gotten the attention of the nation. It had. The result was the election of Richard Nixon on a strict law-and-order platform, and his continuation of the Vietnam war.

In 1972, the anti-war movement became even more violent and strident and seized control of the Democrat Party.  They nominated George McGovern – their peace candidate – who promised to end the war even if he had to go to North Vietnam on his hands and knees.  Again, too much.  McGovern lost to Nixon in a landslide. 

That’s what tipping points are all about.    

You’ll notice that the big stories of anti-cop protests have fallen from the front pages of newspapers and the landing pages of online news networks recently.  The general public, much to the consternation of cop haters and the Sharptons and of the world, have already moved on to widespread sympathy, rather than isolated antipathy, toward police. 

This was always going to happen.  Sadly, it took the deaths of three officers, and attacks on others to move it forward.  But it was inevitable.   

RIP Officers Ramos, Liu, and Kondek.  

“Whitewashing the Bible”

There’s outrage about the just released movie “Exodus.”

It seems a bunch of folks are upset that the main characters are white, while Egyptian assassins and thieves are darker skinned. 

Some see this as a continuing whitewashing of the Bible by Western cultures intent on presenting lighter-skinned Caucasians as inherently better than their darker brethren.

An article online I read today claims this movie perpetuates historical inaccuracies reinforced by Renaissance painters.  Adam and Eve,  Moses, Jesus and other religious figures were almost always depicted as white. In reality, given where they lived, Jesus, Mary, Joseph and others at that time probably had skin colors more like Middle Easterners than Mid-Westerners. 

Then there are the Egyptians in the movie. Apparently, the ruling class is depicted as mostly white; slaves and bad guys are not. It’s not known what skin color Egyptians were back then. They were in North Africa, so maybe more Middle Eastern looking, but were probably darker overall having interbred with other Sub-Saharan Africans in lands they conquered. 

Then the article morphs into a discussion of white supremacists and slavers in America who used the Bible as justification for subjugating black Africans as an intellectually and physically inferior race. It's clear to the author that this "dangerous association of whiteness, divine favor and heroism" such as seen in this movie and in what's referred to as the "bleaching of the Bible" has "plagued modern Christianity." 

Whoa. 

Let me get this straight …   

A movie is called into question because it’s not historically accurate?  And because it’s not reflecting the actual skin colors of the people of that time it’s perpetuating racist stereotypes?   

Hello. It’s a movie. It’s not real.

Maybe that’s been lost on these people.  Maybe they didn’t notice that everybody in the movie is speaking English.  Or that the story line itself is loosely based on the Bible – a collection of stories which, while meant to be inspirational, aren’t generally considered to be all that historically, or factually, accurate.  And then on a specific set of stories in the Bible most folks have a particularly hard time taking literally – like the killing of all the first-born of Egypt and God’s parting of the Red Sea.

So it’s kind of hard to get too worked up over the other details when the basic foundation of the whole movie is more than just a tad sketchy.  A bit like worrying whether they got the sandals just right for the time period. Who cares. 

The people who made this movie did it to make money, not to set the record straight. 

Lighten up, Francis.

But now that someone has opened this subject, what about the remakes of classic movies, recasting them with different races than originally intended? 

Where was the outrage and charges of racism when they remade the Wizard of Oz with an all-black cast?  Or now with the new black Annie? 

Oh. That’s right. 

Never mind. 

  

Enhanced interrogation by the CIA

As promised – or threatened – the Democrats have released their report on the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques following 9/11.

I haven’t read it, and probably won’t.

I really don’t care what the CIA did to terror suspects following 9/11.

Muslim terrorists had just murdered thousands of innocent people in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacking of Flight 93. The same terrorists were promising to kill as many more of us as they could.

They attacked and killed folks whose only crime was going to work that day or getting on a plane. The terrorists weren’t interested in “fairness,” the Geneva Convention, or human rights. They were only interested in killing as many Americans as possible in the most spectacular way. 

This was not an act of war on the United States. It was an act of terror, committed against a much broader target – Western Civilization.

The terrorists focused on us because they especially despised our American values, our tolerance of other faiths and beliefs, our culture, and our democratic principles. In short, all the things we hold most dear were anathema to them.  A successful attack on us also offered the biggest bang for the buck in worldwide publicity.

So they did whatever was necessary for shock factor and a high body count. They hijacked commercial planes, killed any passengers who tried to stop them, and then flew those planes and their passengers into office buildings killing more innocent people inside.  In the case of flight 93, passengers tried to overcome the hijackers only to perish when this plane hit the ground.

It was a good day for the terrorists. They got what they wanted. 

The wanton slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11 was a crime not just against us, but against humanity. The perpetrators were monsters who committed premeditated murder, and publicly pledged to commit more such murders of innocents.

Bless George W. Bush for pulling us together when we needed it, and for putting the world on notice that we weren’t afraid, we weren’t intimidated, we were united and would hunt down these monsters, wherever they hid, however long it took. 

First, however, we obviously needed to prevent – by whatever means necessary – another attack by the same or like-minded terrorist organizations.  

This is apparently what we told our intelligence-gathering agencies, and for good reason. We didn’t want another 9/11.  We didn’t want to let these terrorist sociopaths kill even more Americans, especially on our own soil. And so they did what we and Congress asked.     

When our intelligence services swept up some terrorists, dropped some in Gitmo and others in various black ops sites around the world, and subjected them to “enhanced interrogation techniques” most Americans didn’t care. Despite media outing of waterboarding and sleep deprivation as “torture” interrogation tools, most Americans still didn’t care. If anything, most Americans probably felt we were going too easy on captured terrorists.

Of course, there were those at the time who thought we were abandoning our principles by engaging in “torture” as an interrogation tool. They claimed we were violating international law, human rights, and established rules of war regarding the treatment of prisoners. These captured terrorists were also being denied their Constitutional rights.

The majority of Americans weren’t buying it back then. They were okay with dumping suspected terrorists in Gitmo and elsewhere; some would have approved of dropping them into shark-infested waters, to be honest. They were certainly okay with waterboarding these suspected terrorists.  They were okay with harassing them with loud music and sleep deprivation.  They would have been okay with pretty much anything at this time, as long as it helped make Americans safer. 

They ignored the constant whining from enhanced interrogation opponents. They tuned out the common refrains.  “We’re Americans.  We’re better than that. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards.” And also: “If we start acting like them, we’re no better than them.” 

Instead, a lot of us were thinking:  “We’re Americans.  We’re the most powerful nation in the world and now we’re severely pissed.  Your rights as a terrorist?  You have the right to be hunted. You have the right to be interrogated long and hard until you give us what we want.  You have the right to rot in Gitmo until Hell freezes over. You gave up any other rights when you attacked us.”   

Candidly, we wanted to be as safe as possible.  We were willing to do just about anything to be safe.  We were also willing to allow our military, and our intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies to do whatever they needed to do to make us safe. 

And they did a great job.  Remarkably, they did so with far greater restraint than most of us would have in their place. Yes, terrorism suspects were treated roughly at times, but none were seriously harmed.  Was it unpleasant for the suspects?  Of course, but nobody had electrodes attached to their genitals, were raped, had their fingernails pulled out, or lost fingers or toes – all fairly common interrogation tools where the suspects came from. 

Plus, nobody was beheaded.

I don’t need to read the Democrats’ report to know this.  If any of this had happened we’d have learned of it long before now. 

I didn’t care back then what the CIA did to squeeze information out of the terrorists we captured. And I don’t care now.   

The world is never going to love us. We need to give that up. It’s far better that our friends respect us and our enemies fear us. That’s how the world really works. And that's how we need to conduct ourselves in today's world if we want to be as safe as possible.  

To paraphrase Al Capone:  A kind word and a gun will get your further than a kind word alone.   

Pick your battles

It always wise to make sure that the battle you’ve chosen is worth it.    

This seems to be lost on race-baiters like Sharpton, Marc Lamont Hill, and Eric Holder.  They’ve all embraced the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown’s death – as they did Trayvon Martin’s – as emblematic of continuing racism in America’s justice system. They’ve waved the bloody shirt to other activists to signal that it’s okay to riot, loot, burn, and destroy in protest when they don’t agree with the results of court decisions. They’re also using these cases to support their narrative that young black males are disproportionally targeted by law enforcement simply for being black.

This is a mistake; it’s likely to be a costly one. It’s the wrong battle, at the wrong time, based on the wrong circumstances, for all the wrong reasons. There’s little to be gained when the facts, the law, and the circumstances are not on your side. 

Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are not Emmett Till.  They are not the four young girls killed in the Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham. They are not Medgar Evers or Dr. King. 

If you want to draw parallels to the civil rights movement, these aren’t your guys. 

Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were not innocents slain by racists. They were both gangsta wannabes; self-styled “tough guys” with a history of petty crimes and violence against others.  They took selfies holding guns and wads of money. They didn’t die simply because they were young black males, but because they stupidly attacked someone who had a gun.     

It was only news because they were shot by someone who wasn’t black. 

Had Michael Brown – or Trayvon Martin – been fatally shot by a black cop, or another black male, there would be no story. He would just be added to the statistics that already show that the overwhelming majority of young black males who are murdered are killed by other black males.

And murder remains the top cause of death for young black males.

Moreover, Brown’s death was not a “tragedy.” He was a criminal and a bully – captured on video committing a strong-arm robbery 10 minutes before he got shot by the cop he attacked. The real tragedy was the destruction of Ferguson businesses and public property by those who used the death of this punk as an excuse to loot, burn and create havoc.

                                                                                                                                           

His parents, step-parents, and other family members can wail on TV all they like about what a “good” kid he was, and how their “child” did nothing that warranted him being “gunned down in cold blood,” or “murdered” by the police.  Sobbing, tearful family members make good TV, as does the staged clip of a mother collapsing in grief into the arms of friends. 

But it’s all for show; parents of thugs like Michael Brown aren’t terribly surprised when their kid gets killed. However, they rarely expect that to happen as a result of a confrontation with police, because, well, it almost never happens.

Between 2010 and 2012 black teens 15-19 were killed by police at a rate of 31.17 per million. Death by homicide among black males in the same age group averages 48.8 per 100,000.  Large numbers of black kids dying at the hands of cops of any color is pure mythology.  

That’s the inconvenient truth.  Here’s more … 

If you’re a young black male, your probability of being a homicide victim is almost 17 times greater than a white male the same age.  (Homicide rates for young white males are about 2.9 per 100,000.) And since for the most part homicides are overwhelmingly between people of the same race, most likely you’ll be killed by another black male.   

Now, critics claim the reason for this has more to do with poverty and proximity than anything else.  Poverty breeds crime, they say, and more blacks live in crime-ridden areas.  Since most homicides regardless of race happen between people who know each other and live near to each other, there’s some merit to this argument. 

But it doesn’t explain why so many in the black community – including race baiters like Sharpton and Hill – turn a blind eye to black on black murder rates, or dismiss these as media distortions. Apparently a black kid killing another black kid is no big deal; but in the extremely rare event that someone who isn’t black kills a black kid, then society doesn’t value black lives.   

No one wants to admit that a growing thug culture embraced and emulated by a lot of young blacks – and some young whites – glorifies violence against others in general and the police in particular. That doesn’t mean it’s a direct line from movies and music to murder, as some suggest. Still, if artists you idolize say that killing or being killed is the path to fame and respect, and right now you feel you have neither, then it’s going to have an effect.     

Black on black murder in some areas is so common that a thriving business is making and selling “RIP” t-shirts with screen-printed pictures of the deceased, often in gangsta gear while holding guns and flashing gang signs. Sadder still is that some black kids collect these like baseball cards, building a wardrobe that brings  a whole new meaning to “fashion to die for.”       

Michael Brown, like Trayvon before him, was a product of this culture.  He was far from a gentle giant who, as one family member said, “wouldn’t hurt nobody.” The video clip of his robbery demonstrates otherwise.  A recent picture posted online shows him with a gun and a wad of money.  So the media can display all the choir-boy images of him they like but it won’t change who and what he was. He was destined to have his face screen-printed on a t-shirt. It was only a matter of time. 

I am sorry, but I can’t find it in me to have a single iota of sympathy for Trayvon, Michael, or their families. To me, Trayvon and Michael were self-absorbed punks, raised by self-absorbed mothers, fathers and step parents who failed in their duties to civilize their offspring. Now, after the fact, they all want to blame someone or something else – the police, the justice system, society, racism, whatever – for the monsters they produced through their own neglect and indifference. 

Am I sorry they died? I suppose – but mainly in a philosophical way.  Trust me, when the verdicts were announced, I neither wept nor celebrated.  Based on what I did know from digging beyond the breathless headlines and talking heads, justice was served. 

What happened to Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin is not evidence of a racially biased justice system, but the opposite – the system worked the way it should, based on evidence instead of emotion. Nor are they martyrs for civil rights; neither of them gave a damn about anything but themselves. 

Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are the wrong ponies to ride into battle.  And this is the wrong battle to fight at the wrong time. 

The images of rioting and looting in Ferguson, the destruction of black-owned businesses there and Brown’s step father on video telling everyone to “burn this bitch down” are still fresh in everyone’s minds.  So is the media coverage of other acts of violence and mayhem in various cities.  Add the fact that “hands up, don’t shoot” never happened according to testimony from witnesses in the grand jury hearings. And don’t forget the outing of Officer Wilson’s home address and marriage license, and the subsequent threats on his and his pregnant wife’s lives. 

Overall, the Michael Brown case is not likely to sustain sympathy for very long. When more of the facts come out he’ll be just another punk, not a folk hero.

Linking it to the Trayvon Martin debacle does nothing to change that.  That will remind most of us of how the media shamelessly manipulated its coverage to support a false narrative about an innocent young man executed by a white vigilante for the crime of being black and wearing a hoodie. The media manipulation of the Brown case will be seen as more of the same.        

There are only so many times you can play the race card before it starts losing its potency. When you play it all the time, even when it’s not applicable, you decrease its value even faster. 

And this is one of those times. 

The shooting of Michael Brown – like that of Trayvon Martin – had nothing to do with race. The acquittal of Zimmerman, and the decision not to indict Wilson had nothing to do with race, either. Falsely claiming both did may play well in the black community, but that’s only about 13% of the population. Add the big-city liberals and NPR crowd and you add maybe another 20%

The rest of the country isn’t buying it. Been there, done that. Won’t get fooled again.    

Between inflammatory statements by Michele and Barack Obama over the years, and the perpetual animus of Holder, Sharpton, and others who see racism in everything, race relations in this country have already been set back by decades. 

Choosing to rally around the Brown and Martin events to focus America on the need to address distrust among minorities of police and the justice system is a poor decision.  Especially now. 

A better battle would be to address how to prevent crime in minority communities. 

That would make more sense than focusing on what happens after a crime is committed.  

Net neutrality

Maybe you’re a bit confused about this.

The term sounds like something good – I mean, “neutrality” is usually a good thing, right?  If you subscribe to Netflix or another streaming service, they want you to write your legislators in support of net neutrality.  And if you’re someone who has built an extensive music and movie library from “free” stuff you downloaded online, you’re all in favor of it. 

Or maybe, like a lot of folks, you just can’t see how net neutrality makes a damn bit of difference to you.  You can’t understand what all the fuss is about.   

That’s what proponents of net neutrality are counting on. 

Net neutrality is actually a very big deal. For the record, I am opposed to it. 

Net neutrality is not about “fairness,” as many proponents claims. It’s about taking advantage of what other companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have built – and yes, they did build it, with billions of their shareholders’ dollars – and preventing them from controlling what they built.

It will convert what are now shareholder-owned assets into public property and effectively hand those over to government regulators and politicians to manage.  If there’s a more egregious recent example of “unlawful taking” by the government I can’t think of one off hand. 

What are we talking about here?

Proponents and critics both throw around that it’s about “the Internet.”  It is, and it isn’t – it’s actually about Internet access speeds to customers of one of the Internet access providers. Think Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and the other firms that you use to connect to web sites like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, or NaughtyNurses.com.

What these access providers give you is space on their pipeline to send and receive data at a certain speed. Granted, these pipelines are now huge, but only after the providers invested billions in new technology and in running fiber and cable from their operations to your address. It costs them billions more each year to continually upgrade capacity, also known as bandwidth.    

Yet prices for bandwidth – on a Mbps (megabits per second) basis – continue to fall.  My business is paying less today for 100-times the bandwidth we had only a few years ago, for example.  Bandwidth is an amazing bargain for consumer and business end users. 

But as bandwidth has gotten cheaper, web marketers and services – legitimate and nefarious – have jumped in to suck up the bandwidth.

The idea of downloading a two-hour movie in the 4 GB range would have been unthinkable a few years back; it would have taken hours or even days. However, that’s what Netflix users do all the time.  Several music services offer real-time streaming over the Internet.  Some music and movie pirate sites allow their audiences to steal copyrighted materials in unlimited quantities. 

Make no mistake, demand for bandwidth is expanding exponentially. Those offering or pulling /stealing massive files every minute of every day are spiking this demand. The main reason is that it doesn’t cost them anything extra. A weasel in his mom’s basement can pull HD movies off porn sites around the clock; if he has a grandfathered unlimited data plan he can suck all the bandwidth he wants—which is why many providers don’t offer those anymore. The same goes for the porn sites he’s patronizing; bandwidth is dirt cheap.   

Many access providers want to be able to charge a premium to sites, like Netflix, whose main business is delivering huge files to subscribers, to ensure that a site’s subscribers get faster download speeds. The providers also want greater latitude to throttle down access speeds to those who suck a lot of bandwidth, like our proverbial weasel in his mom’s basement. 

Honestly, I don’t blame them.

They built it. They own it. They have plenty of competition to keep them honest.  And they have the right to reap the rewards from their investment. You may bitch about your monthly bill, but what they built is certainly better than listening to the modem mating call and watching our computer screens paint one character at a time.   

Proponents of net neutrality are a mixed bag of commercial entities that want to preserve their free ride, looney leftists, anti-capitalists, moochers and politicians (admittedly redundant). 

I understand why companies like Netflix and others like them want to keep things as they are. The overwhelming majority of their business is online.  The Apple iTunes store is the same.  Online music and video download services have practically zero distribution expense.  Their support for net neutrality is based on economic self-interest. 

Publicly though, the net neutrality pitch appears more altruistic:  FCC regulators and politicians need to step in to save the “free” Internet and prevent providers from creating a two-tiered system. If they don’t, the Internet will no longer be “free” and available to everyone equally.    

In this case, appearances are very deceiving. 

There’s nothing altruistic about net neutrality.  It’s a power grab, plain and simple, by politicians and regulators who want to turn all the providers into public utilities. Why? Because once something is a public utility, politicians and regulators have total control. They can dictate what services have to be provided to whom and for how much. They can require that certain classes of customers get free or reduced-cost services. They can also decide what’s allowed and what isn’t. 

Wonder why your utility bills are so high? Go ahead, pull one out and take a look – it makes no difference whether it’s your electric bill, your phone bill, or water bill. Look at the cost-recovery charges to offset the free or dirt-cheap services regulators make your utility provide to low-income consumers.  See the additional charges and special taxes to offset other giveaways. 

This is what happens when politicians and regulators control a “utility.”  It’s no longer about providing reliable service at a fair price to everyone; it’s about using the utility as another social welfare program for purely political purposes. One-time luxuries like air conditioning, cable TV, and cell phones with data packages become subsidized entitlements paid for by others. 

The FCC and politicians already control the public airwaves, which gives them incredible power over broadcast TV as to what’s allowed, what appears, who can be owners, and how much free time must be given to “community” programming.  By extension, they also have control over the wireless spectrum, which allows them to control cell service providers. 

But controlling the Internet is the ultimate wet dream for politicians and regulators. 

They can choose winners and losers. They can require that selected classes get free broadband hookups, setups, and service. They can raise rates on others to pay for that. They can diddle with the economics to force providers they don’t like out of business, and to subsidize providers they favor. I can envision a special tax treatment for a provider that invests in wind turbines, powers their offices with solar, or makes their service techs drive hybrids, for example. 

But there are other, scarier possibilities.   

They can then control which sites are allowed and which are blocked. They can snoop on the public to their hearts’ delight and monitor everybody’s online activities. In case you weren’t aware, access providers already keep track of every site and web page you visit, when, and how long you stay there, plus your private e-mail, online chat room discussions, and more.  Now imagine sharing all that with your government. 

Creepy, huh?  Kind of like China …

Look, net neutrality is a Trojan Horse.  It’s not about keeping the Internet “free.”  It’s about the exact opposite – putting the Internet under the control of politicians, politically appointed regulators, and faceless bureaucratic hacks. 

I’d rather rely on the motives of a handful of access providers – who can be held accountable – than on the motives of politicians and regulators who can’t. 

Don’t fall for it. 

Dining with Democrats

We had dinner this past weekend with a couple we haven’t been out with in some time.  He’s retired; she’s a bit younger and still working. 

All went well until the conversation veered toward politics.  Not my doing, BTW. 

It happened because we started talking about how amateurish the local news is here in the early morning.  I said the local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates lost me long ago.  I liked the goofiness of Fox 29 in the morning; the two morning hosts always appear to be  seriously stoned. And Steve Keely, to me, always seems like a caveman they shaved.   

The guy’s wife said she doesn’t see much morning news – cable or otherwise.  She said he’s always glued to Morning Joe on MSNBC when she’s getting ready for work. At night he has Rachel Maddow on – another MSNBC personality, who his wife thinks is just too extreme. 

Between us, I’m sure MSNBC would appreciate his loyalty.  In most ratings day parts MSNBC is in a death match with CNN for distant second or third.  On most days Morning Joe gets about a quarter of the viewers of Fox & Friends in the same time slot.      

That aside, I told them my pattern for national and world news is to check out FoxNews.com, then CNN.com, then NBCNews.com to get a balanced view of what’s really happening.  Somewhere in between all those, I said, is probably what’s true.  I lamented that so many of the cable and broadcast media outlets (not calling out any of them by name) now report what their audiences want to hear, instead of what’s true.  

I thought that was pretty neutral. Apparently not.   

That got him going on Fox and how unfair they were to Obama.  And it went downhill.  

He thinks MSNBC is unbiased. Then again, that’s all he watches. Their reality is his.  If you were fed a nonstop diet of Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, and the like, and never looked at anything else, you would believe what he now believes. I find the same myopia from those who only read the NYT and consider it the most balanced of all the newspapers.

So, based on the self-limited info he’s selected, he believed Obama’s primary problem was that he was a really smart guy, perhaps too idealistic when he took office. Obama’s biggest mistake was that he approached Congress with an open mind and open heart and expected that if he was willing to meet them halfway, they’d reciprocate, he said. 

As far as passing ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, changing Senate rules to bulldoze Republican opposition to Obama appointees, and all of the Executive Actions to bypass Congress, in his mind Obama and the Democrats had no other choice. There was no alternative to get important things done for the country. Obama and the Democrats did what they had to do. 

The recent mid-term elections didn’t matter, he added.  In fact, Republicans gaining control of both House and Senate just made it easier for the Democrats to win those back the next time because Republicans wouldn’t do anything between now and 2016.  

More importantly, that would also cement Hillary’s inevitability as the next President. 

Huh? 

To him, Hillary was the best qualified candidate – one of her key qualifications being that she had lived in the White House with Bill. She had also been a Senator and Secretary of State. So she knew already better than any governor or Senator how government should operate. 

Hillary would sweep the primaries.  Democrats would unite behind her. There would be nobody of substance to run against her from the Republicans.  She would win in a landslide.

But what about her baggage and her age, I asked.  What about the “What difference does it make now?” moment?  What about the fact that a lot of liberals don’t think she is liberal enough?  What about a challenge from Elizabeth Warren?  Or maybe Bernie Sanders? 

More importantly, I asked, if she is so invincible, then how did Obama beat her?

He said Obama won because he was a fresh face.  (I didn’t push back on that but I did think to myself, well, she wasn’t a fresh enough face back then and now she’s six years older.  And those years have not been kind to her. Sorry, but that’s true.)

Anyway, he was so convinced that Hillary would be the next President he was willing to bet on it. So I said how about $100?  He said okay. We shook on it. We'll see who is right.  

I don’t think Hillary makes it through the Democrat primaries, much less wins the Presidency. Obama isn’t going to support her or let her use his OFA organization. Elizabeth Warren – a fresher and younger face and darling of the “true” liberals and class warriors – will attack Hillary as part of the old establishment.  Hillary will come off as old news compared to Warren. 

After Hillary loses a primary of two, my guess is she drops out claiming health issues.  

I could be wrong.  But I don’t think so. 

One thing’s for sure:  My friend is the true face of the Democrat party and typical MSNBC Kool-Aid drinker.  Ill-informed, smugly confident and immune to what’s happening in the world beyond their like-minded friends, and what MSNBC says. Like the NYT critic years ago who couldn’t believe Nixon won because no one she knew voted for him, they only talk to each other.   

Bless his heart, as we would say in the South, but he has lost touch with reality. To think that the mid-term losses were not important is wishful thinking; to think Democrats' resounding defeat somehow guarantees them retaking the Senate and House is pure fantasy.  But that’s what the liberal talking heads on MSNBC are preaching. Tune in sometime and see for yourself.    

Maybe you’ve had the same experience recently with your more liberal friends. They seem to be seething these days; just waiting for the opportunity lash out.  It’s uncomfortable when it happens.  All you can do is say “Wow, it’s getting late …” and make your escape. 

Even if you make a sincere effort to avoid discussing politics, it's increasingly difficult to have a pleasant conversation with many liberal friends anymore. And I suspect they are only going to get worse over the next two years.     

To make sense of the numbers, just do the math ...

I’ll readily admit a prejudice against people who can’t do simple math. 

I’m talking about the basic stuff – addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

I’m certainly no math snob.  Trust me, like most of us, I haven’t faced a quadratic equation to solve since I left high school.  That’s good, because I wouldn’t remember how – if I ever did.  I’ve never had a need for most of the algebra I sat through in school. That’s the truth. 

My wife was taking a college course once and asked me how I would solve it one of its math problems. I told her my solution. She told me I was wrong. I told her I didn’t care anymore.

But I’m a whiz at the basics.  Maybe it was all those years of drilling on multiplication tables and the endless hours doing long division, but most times I don’t need a calculator.  If I can’t do the math in my head, then I just need paper and pencil.  It’s not that hard.

So I’m stunned when a number comes out and people don’t understand how over-the-top it is.  All they’d have to do is divide that number by whatever to see how excessive it is. 

When it was announced that Rick Perry was sending 1,000 National Guard troops to secure his southern border at a cost of $12 million a month, nobody blinked.  Except me, apparently. 

Since a thousand thousands is a million, that meant it would cost $12,000 a month, per Guardsman, to patrol the border.  Roll that up and that’s $144,000 a year, per Guardsman. 

Now, I believe we don’t pay our soldiers enough, and I’m sure there are associated expenses I’m not considering, but I’m going to go way out on limb here and say something is wrong with this number.  I’m betting those Guardsmen aren’t making $50,000 a year on average for active duty.  So what accounts for the other $94,000? Housing?  Even if we put each Guardsman up in their own apartment for $2000 a month that’s only $24,000. Food? I think they could eat pretty well – like at $150 a day – on the remaining $70,000 and still have $15,250 left over for incidentals and entertainment. 

Then there are those government contracts issued to house and feed the illegal alien kids streaming across our border.  Somebody did the math and it came out to almost $350 a day per kid. You could put them up at an all-inclusive resort for that.  No wonder they’re coming here. 

Then there are the various make-work government programs.  Someone calculated that in one big stimulus program alone, each new job created cost almost $150,000. In other Federal "jobs" programs, the cost per job is even higher.    

A few years back HUD investigated a program that gave Philly roughly $50 million to provide grants to homeowners for rehabbing their properties.  That investigation revealed the city gave out only a handful of grants, but the $50 million was completely gone – consumed by “administrative expenses.” That might have surprised HUD but not anybody who knows how the city works.   

So where do these numbers come from? 

And why isn’t anybody paying any attention to them? 

I have two theories. 

The first is the belief by politicians and the general public that the government has access to endless supplies of money from the taxes it collects, and also because it can print money.  They honestly believe our government is Scrooge McDuck rich, wallowing in money.  And all that money is just looking for a place to be spent.  If we start running out, we can simply print more.  So government money is like “found” money; if there’s waste, so what? 

My second theory is that most of the public has reached what I call the point of diminishing astonishment.  A million bucks was once a big number.  Until we got used to billions. And now that the national debt is in the trillions, a billion dollars can seem kind of small.  Everything’s relative. 

So when Obama originally asked for $2 billion in Federal money to take care of the 50,000 illegal kids who crossed our border recently not many people blinked.  That’s $40,000 per kid, BTW.  Then, Obama almost doubled down by raising the request to $3.7 billion for the same 50,000 kids.  Now we’re talking about $74,000 per kid. 

To put that in perspective, we could probably fly each of those kids back to where they came from on their own chartered private jet for less. 

But that’s not the point.  It’s not about the math.  It’s not about a cost/benefit analysis. 

It’s all about the optics; the appearance of "doing something." And the realization that the public really doesn’t understand the numbers anymore.  It’s easier than ever before to pad the bills to cover wasteful government programs and egregiously overpriced contracts handed out to cronies. 

Former U.S. Senator William Proxmire used to put out his annual Golden Fleece Awards to spotlight often ridiculous government projects.  More recently Senator Tom Coburn has published his annual “Wastebook.”  The media always had a good time with stuff like rabbit massages at Ohio State, teaching mountain lions to use treadmills and other goofy programs funded by the government.  Fun yes, but all of this is pretty small stuff – maybe $25 billion in the latest Wastebook; not even a rounding error in a trillion-dollar Federal budget. 

The real question is whether our politicians and bureaucrats are spending far more than we need to on practically everything.  I suspect we are.  And I suspect the reason has more to do with political payoffs, Congressional back-scratching and home-state pork than anything else.  A lot of the numbers just don’t make any sense when you analyze them. 

If I can do the math, so can those in Washington. They’re hoping you don’t bother.

So the next time politicians start yammering about the need to raise taxes, why we can’t cut spending, and the budget deficit, realize it’s all crap.

Just do the math.   

Thought for the Day – November 5, 2014

Republicans won control of the Senate last night and now will hold 52 of the 100 seats. They may add to their majority in runoffs to come. They also added more seats to their majority in the House. 

Now what?

Well, now we start the season of bullshit from the Democrats.

Despite a stinging defeat practically everywhere Democrats will say that this election had absolutely nothing to do with their policies, or those of Obama and his imperial presidency. They’ll say their turnout was low; they’ll say this is not uncommon in mid-term elections, especially in the sixth year of an incumbent President. They'll note that Republicans only won a "narrow majority" anyway, so they shouldn’t consider this a mandate, by any means. 

They’ll deny this was a referendum on where the country is headed under their leadership. 

Then they’ll say the most outrageous and hypocritical thing of all. 

They’ll say Republicans now need to start reaching across the aisle and learn to compromise with Democrats if they want to get anything passed. 

No, seriously, that’s coming.  Just wait for it. Some Democrat hack like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin or “Plugs McKenzie” Biden is going to say those words. And the weirdest part of all is that they will honestly believe that the Republicans need to take a more conciliatory tone with Obama and Democrats now that Republicans control both the House and Senate.

WTF? 

This will come from the same weasels that used their Senate majority to block every piece of legislation from the Republican-controlled House for years.  The same people that – when they controlled both House and Senate – rammed legislation down Republicans' throats with zero Republican input, and passed it with zero Republican votes.  It was Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who used the “nuclear option” – a procedural sleight of hand – to bypass Republicans entirely and lower the threshold for certain Senate confirmations from 60 to 51. 

The only time Democrats reached across the aisle was to give Republicans the finger.  

And now they’ll want Republicans to compromise?   

I think the appropriate response would be to quote what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy. 

Please, dear God, I hope the Republicans don’t fall for this nonsense about their “responsibility” to compromise.  When the Democrats held all the cards, did they compromise?  And don’t get caught up in restoring the “traditions of the Senate” by repealing the confirmation rules change the Democrats railroaded through when they were in power.  Don’t do it. Use it. 

Republicans – do not forgive and forget. That’s what Obama and the Democrats hope you are naïve enough to do. They’ll take advantage of any goodwill you show them and turn on you. They will backstab you in a heartbeat.

Democrats are not interested in moving the country forward, just making the Democrat party bigger.  They hope to do that by allowing more illegals in and empowering them to vote, increasing the number of people dependent of government handouts, and appealing to people who prefer to vote for living instead of work for a living.

So I hope for once Republicans don’t get sucked into the phony compassion issues.  Republicans need to deal with securing our borders, and then deciding what to do with everyone here illegally already – in that order.  They need to start reining in entitlements rationally, not expanding them. They need to make it more attractive to work than to not work. They need to drop the pretense of making our enemies love us and let them start to fear us again. 

Most of all they need to start making government more trustworthy. 

Republicans need to get off the issues of cutting taxes, excessive regulation, personhood, repealing ObamaCare entirely, and personal vendettas against the IRS, Eric Holder, and yes, Obama. These are all non-starters and “trap games” not worth expending political capital.   

The reason Republicans won big yesterday had nothing to do with these specific issues.  Instead, they won because of an overall sense that the Democrats and Obama were incompetent in governing and had been unable to fix the continuing bad economy. 

So the people voted against the Democrats, and by proxy Obama, rather than for Republican red-meat issues.  If the Republicans have a modicum of common sense, they’ll keep this in mind. 

Fix what’s broken and move on. 

And don’t feel compelled to compromise. 

Thought for the Day -- November 4, 2014

I was voter #25 in my township this morning. 

For the record I voted a straight Republican ticket. I did that mainly because I so deeply despise the Democrat brand locally, regionally and nationally.

A perfect example is the race for governor here.  

In fairness, the much maligned incumbent Republican Governor Tom Corbett is a truly awful politician.  He’s wooden, doesn’t do a good job selling himself, his policies, or his accomplishments and doesn’t seem to like glad-handing and baby kissing. 

But he’s actually done a very good job, considering what he inherited from Fast Eddie Rendell.  He’s taken a lot of heat for cutting spending on education to give tax breaks to corporations, when, in fact, he didn’t. Rendell used a billion bucks in one-time stimulus money to artificially inflate education hiring and spending; when that money ran out Corbett faced a billion-dollar “deficit” on paper in education funding.  He had no choice but to scale back some of the temporary jobs and spending that one-time pop of money had created. 

Even then, Corbett was able to make up $500 million of that budget hole without raising income taxes. In any other world, he’d be a hero, but Democrats here tore him to pieces for “hurting” schools.  Because he cut corporate taxes, which created jobs here, and refused to support additional taxes on the Marcellus Shale drillers, which created even more jobs here and drove down utility prices for consumers, Dems claimed he sold out school kids for corporate interests. 

In an unprecedented low, even for them, they've even blamed his "budget cuts" for the lack of toilet paper in Philadelphia public schools. His opponent, Democrat Tom Wolfe, ran with that and did a TV spot interviewing teachers who made the same claim.  Of course, it wasn't true; the reason schools didn't have toilet paper in their bathrooms was because, as soon as it was replaced, students stole it or used it for vandalism, like flushing rolls down toilets.

No matter that it wasn't true, like the other Democrat attacks on Corbett, the damage was done.  

Corbett will probably lose today, which is sad because he’s a decent, honorable man.  Terrible politician and campaigner, that’s true, but a good, responsible governor who did the right things, and for which he was tarred unjustly. 

Which brings me back to my utter disdain for the Democrat brand. 

Granted, the Republican brand right now sucks, to quote Rand Paul, who is brave enough to state the obvious. I may not agree with him on everything, but on this he is dead on. I have no idea what the Republican brand stands for, and I follow these things. The only thing it has going for it is that the Democrat brand is so awful.   

I know politics is a contact sport and can be brutal. But the Democrats are hitting new lows in pandering to the worst fears of their constituencies. 

They are blaming Republicans for Ferguson, Ebola, the rise of ISIS, no progress on immigration, the threatened end of life-saving mammograms at Planned Parenthood, attacks on legal abortion, attempts to limit access to birth control, and of course the Republican plan to impeach Obama and roll back civil rights laws to “put y’all back in chains,“ if they win control of the Senate.   

When the Democrats send out mailers featuring black children holding up signs saying “don’t shoot” with the message to vote for Democrats to avoid another Ferguson, that’s way over the top. When leading Democrats say that Republican cuts to health programs fueled the spread of Ebola, and that prior Republican administrations helped create ISIS, it’s reprehensible. 

It just goes on and on – there is apparently no depth so deep they won’t plumb it, no lie so outrageous they won’t use it, and no baseless accusation they won’t promote to further their cause.

They have no shame whatsoever for milking tragedies for political gain.  They don’t hesitate to play the race card whenever possible – whether that’s about Abu Jamal, Trayvon Martin, or more recently Michael Brown – long before the facts are in, and long after the facts have come out. They are quick to use the mass murders of children in Connecticut, or of innocent movie-goers in Colorado, to push their anti-gun agenda. There are no limits. No moral or ethical boundaries.  

They recognize the truth but prefer to lie, whether that’s about IRS targeting, Secret Service lapses, the Bergdahl fiasco, ObamaCare, NSA snooping, or Benghazi.  

At the street level, they enlist the aid of union goons and paid provocateurs to shout down anyone who questions the Democrat orthodoxy, and disrupt appearances by anyone who dares run against them.  When strong arm tactics seem to fail, they resort to using the force of government to harass and intimidate opponents into submission. 

There’s literally nothing they will not do, no matter how base, how dishonest, or how disgusting.  And their Democrat supporters seem to cheer them on. 

Which begs the question: Do their supporters actually approve of the Democrats’ tactics? 

If so, that’s a very scary proposition; that means that a large percentage of the population has no moral compass whatsoever. They have decided there's no right or wrong, and they have no remorse for the pain they cause.  They might as well be sociopaths.      

That’s the Democrat brand.  And that why I despise it so. 

Thought for the Day -- November 3, 2014

Tomorrow is election day.  Well, actually the past few weeks have been “election day” for all the states that allow early voting.

So tomorrow will be somewhat anticlimactic.  That will be true in more ways than one. 

A large percentage of the potential votes have already been cast.  Whether most of those are legitimate is another question.  Between the absentee ballots or early voting by people who might not be citizens or who have registered in more than one state like college students, by house pets, and the ever-reliable “dead” and vacant-lot voters, a sizable number of the living and dead have already exercised their Constitutionally-protected right to vote. 

I suspect most of those votes have been for Democrats. That’s not surprising given the Democrats’ adroit use of tactics to thwart or delay any voter ID requirements.   

Motor-voter registration has been a god-send to the Democrats.  In some states with motor-voter they’ve found that up to 7% of registered voters aren’t even U.S. citizens.  And with never-ending Federal lawsuits to prevent states from purging their voter rolls of convicted felons, the dead, people registered in multiple states, and non-citizens, there’s no telling who a legal voter is.

That’s intentional, and why Democrats can’t afford to see their base reduced by something as silly as proving who you say you are when voting. 

This year it may not make that much of a difference. Obama is deeply unpopular not just with Republicans, but with independents and a lot of Democrats, too.  Even Senate and House candidates running as Democrats act like they’ve never met him. 

That doesn’t mean the Republicans will take the races they need to win to hold the House and take back the Senate. And even if they do, so what?

First, they have to get past the Democrats. That will be tough.  Democrats have proven to be exceptionally skilled at “finding” lost ballots when they need to, even as far back as the Kennedy/Nixon race and more recently with Al Franken’s “victory” in Minnesota.

Plus, Democrats generally believe the end always justifies the means, no matter how sleazy or dishonest the path to that end might be.  Liberal Democrats in particular see nothing wrong with voting a few times, voting for their pet, or channeling their dead or imprisoned relatives’ voting preferences so their voices are heard on election day, because it’s all for a righteous cause. 

It’s not going to be easy to overcome all that. 

But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Republicans running for the House or Senate somehow manage to overcome all the Democrat chicanery – and the Republicans’ own propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and manage to hold the House and retake the Senate.  Then what? Can we expect sweeping change in Washington? 

Don’t bet on it.  In reality – and that’s what this blog is all about – nothing much will change.  The Republicans will huff and they’ll puff but they won’t be all that different than the Democrats they replace. Sure, the first few months may be interesting, but before long they’ll slide into the comfortable Congressional status quo we suffer from now.

They won’t control spending. They won’t cut back on pork. They won’t rein in entitlements. They’ll do little of substance to change ObamaCare, protect Social Security, resolve our illegal immigration problem, or deal with the need for term limits. They might move on Voter ID and a national ID card but don’t count on it. But they will preserve all their Congressional perks. They’ll reward their friends and punish their enemies. And gridlock will still reign supreme, just as before. 

What’s the difference?  Honestly, there isn’t much.   

So why vote? 

Politicians need to be constantly reminded that they serve at the pleasure of the people – not just the special interests – they are supposed to represent. Voting is a way to show politicians that their power is not absolute, and can be challenged and revoked. 

That’s the primary reason to vote. Even if you think one side is as bad as the other, you need to vote for the lesser of two evils if need be.  Just hold your nose and vote. 

If you don’t vote, apathy wins. Our current politicians in both parties have gotten to where they are largely because of voter apathy. That’s allowed the extremists in both parties to hijack primaries to our collective detriment, and prevent more rational voices to be heard. 

Right now we have a two-party system which isn’t working. Many people, including me, believe it is irrevocably broken. Today there are more people registered as independents than registered as Democrats, or as Republicans.    

That means there’s hope.  Maybe one day we will have a viable alternative to the parties that share power at present.

But we won’t get there if we allow politicians to rely on apathy to keep them in office. 

The myth of responsible journalism

Journalism has always been a sleazy business. 

What we now call “the media” – newspapers, TV, radio, cable networks and now online sites and bloggers – like to wear the mantle of “journalists” as if that’s something of pride, honor and dignity, nonetheless. 

Honestly, they know better.   

Journalism is not now, nor ever was, a bastion of objectivity, integrity or truth.  It’s always been and always will be a field rife with prejudice and manipulation of information. To what end? Well, usually to promote something or someone the reporter and owner believe in, and to disparage or destroy something or someone they don’t like.

Trust me, this isn’t secret information.  Every J-school grad knows this. 

Just as they know that freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.  Or in this day and age, whoever owns or controls the newspaper, TV or radio station, cable network or website. 

Now that the power to publish is within reach of anyone with an Internet connection, including any uninformed nebbish in his mom’s basement with an ax to grind, the concept of “honest” journalism is as realistic as a “virtuous” whore, and about as apt an analogy.

In the never-ending quest for fame, fans and followers, making waves is more important than truth or accuracy.  So just about anything intentionally provocative gets published – right, wrong, vindictive, malicious, whatever.  A slip of the tongue gets blown out of proportion. An innocuous comment is taken out of context. Unverifiable claims are attributed to “unnamed sources.”

Those who create and publish even the most outrageous fabrications and distortions often claim they are exercising their First Amendment right to be a free and unfettered press.    

Reporters and publishers like to imply that the First Amendment gives them special privileges and an exalted position in our society – in effect the Fourth Estate. Most outside the media have been led to believe the First Amendment has something to do with freedom of speech – which it does – and also grants the media extraordinary status – which it doesn’t. 

Here’s the actual text: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note that the first thing addressed in the First Amendment has to do with religion.  Freedom of speech comes next. And freedom of the press is third. 

The First Amendment does cover a lot of ground rather vaguely. That makes it subject to a lot of interpretation, and parsing of words, as to what the founders meant.  I tend to believe that the founders wanted to restrict Congress from creating laws designed specifically to stifle criticism of the government, government policies, and government officials. 

There’s been a lot of case law since then on what the First Amendment covers in terms of the acceptable scope of free speech and freedom of the press.

Almost none of that has given a pass to the media to publish with a reckless disregard for the facts, or with a predetermined mindset to cause harm. That hasn’t stopped many in the media from doing both, and then trying to use the First Amendment as their get-out-of-jail-free card.       

Quite frankly, members of the today’s media rabble – print, broadcast, or online – don’t hesitate to consider themselves above the law, or to welcome and make heroes of those who break the law. Actually, they always have on both counts.

It’s not surprising since many of them entered journalism as a way to get even with someone or some institution for some real or imagined injustice. That’s the dirty little secret many of them share.  Forget the Hollywood stereotype of the tough but fair journalist doggedly seeking the truth, no matter the personal risk; it’s about exacting revenge for many of them.      

That’s not to say that there aren’t decent, honest folks in journalism today trying to bring critical, accurate information to the public. You just aren’t going to hear much about them. Big headlines, exposés, titillating and shocking stories build careers, so simply reporting the actual facts won’t get you very far.

Unless – as a journalist – you become the story. Then your peers pull out all the stops. 

The media is obsessed with itself to an extent that would be unimaginable in any other profession – presuming of course that you consider such an ethically challenged industry a “profession.”  (I say that at the risk of offending other professions, such as prostitution.)

If ISIS chops off someone’s head that’s bad; but if ISIS chops off a journalist’s head – well that’s much, much worse. The same goes for just about anything. There’s nothing more important to those in the media than what happens to one of their peers. 

It’s clear that I have a bias against modern day “journalists,” most of whom I see as pompous, self-indulgent hacks for whom “objectivity” is a ship that sailed far away long ago. I think most are intellectually lazy and only look for “facts” that support what they already believe. To me they are more interested in self-promotion and appeasing their fans and like-minded peers than reporting uncomfortable truths that compromise their ideology or their “mission.”

It’s not just journalists with a liberal bent; their conservative counterparts are just as bad.  If you believe nbcnews.com, Obama is a modern-day Gulliver, held back from fixing the country by Lilliputian Republicans. If you believe FoxNews.com, Obama is a Marxist dictator running roughshod over the Constitution. Both are false narratives. (No, really … they are.)     

The casualty of all this is reality.  And that really pisses me off. 

It’s small wonder our population is so ignorant; people generally have no idea what’s true and what isn’t anymore. That’s not good for a country that needs an educated and informed populace to pull the levers in voting booths. Otherwise, critical elections devolve into mere popularity contests. 

And then we are doomed as a democracy. 

Part of it is our own fault for relying too much on media sources that do nothing more than present their version of the news that confirms what we want to believe. It’s disingenuous to blame the management of NBC, CNN or Fox for giving their audiences what they want – their business is to sell ads, and you need an audience to attract advertisers.

So what’s to be done? Maybe reporters and publishers need to be held to the same standards as advertisers.  As strange as it sounds, it makes sense, especially since most journalists are now like advertisers these days; both are trying to persuade consumers to buy what they’re selling.

And right now – as bizarre as this seems – advertisers are held to higher standards. 

When advertisers make a claim media outlets and the government can require them to show proof of its validity before it’s allowed to be aired.  If an advertiser misleads and/or defrauds a consumer – whether by omission or commission – they face stiff financial penalties or even jail time.  

Wouldn’t it be better if journalists had to meet the same standards? 

Don’t count on it anytime soon. 

The NEW Bill of Rights II

You knew I’d have more.  Just trying to adjust to the realities of our times. 

Freedom to be a Hypocrite

You have the right to chastise others publicly for things you also do.  If challenged, you have the right to claim the moral high ground, fabricate self-serving rationalizations, and justify your actions with “moral equivalencies” where there are none.  Your stated intentions – true or not – matter much more than your actions, and are a perfectly acceptable alternative to following the same rules as everyone else. This allows you to be on both sides of an issue – an important virtue in our democracy – such as publicly supporting calls for raising income taxes when you know privately you won’t have to pay those.  Or criticizing policies that enable inner-city parents to abandon failing public schools in favor of charters when your own kids go to good schools in the suburbs.  It’s your right.    

Freedom to Be Rude

You have the right to be a self-centered, thoughtless and insensitive jerk at all times.  You have the right to think only of yourself whether you’re driving, talking on your cell, boarding a plane, out with your kids, in the grocery store, in a restaurant, wherever – you have the right to act as if there’s nobody else in the world that matters but you.  You have the right to say: “So what?  Everybody does it …” as the excuse for whatever you do. So use the handicap tag you don’t qualify for. Take two spots in a parking lot and leave your cart in one of them when you drive off.  Ignore the 10-items-or-less signs. Intentionally arrive late for your flight so you can jump the check-in line.  Board planes with a backpack, and a duffel, and a rolling cart, and a shoulder bag and a shopping bag as your “two” carry-on items – then shove all these in the overhead bin so there’s no room for anybody else. Pay no attention to flight attendants’ requests to turn off your phone, tablet or notebook. Demand restaurants honor your reservation even when you’re more than 30 minutes late. Change your kid’s diaper at the table.  Hold up everyone in line – or at a light – while you talk on your phone.  It’s okay. Everybody does it.   

Freedom to Be Special

You are unique in the universe.  No one feels pain the way you do, has the same problems as you, suffers from so many circumstances beyond their control, works as hard as you do, or has faced the obstacles you’ve faced. You are truly remarkable and others are jealous of your intelligence, your ability to see things they don’t, and your humility in spite of your obvious greatness. No one ever has been as worthy of adulation and special treatment as you and your offspring – especially your offspring, who are like no other children in the world since the beginning of time. Because of this uniqueness, your offspring deserve special handling by coaches and instructors, access to prescription drugs to address their special conditions, special menus and control over what others can eat in lunch rooms, special latitude when there are family vacations, and endless do-overs for tests, papers and other assignments erroneously graded.  Teach your offspring just how special they are at all times and they’ll grow up just like you. 

Freedom From Responsibility

You are not personally responsible for anything bad that happens, even if it is entirely of your own making. It will always be someone else’s fault, and someone else’s task to fix.  All you need to do is attribute blame to some circumstance, historical event, or another person or persons. You are not responsible for anything you do to yourself, such as dropping out of school, smoking, drinking to excess, drug addiction, overeating, gambling, pregnancy, getting shot in the commission of a crime, and overuse of tanning beds.  You are also not responsible for any consequences of your personal behavior on others, such as vehicular homicide, family poverty, eviction, property seizure by DEA, spreading HIV and STDs, carjacking, murder, rape, and accidental shooting, for example. If you put yourself in danger, put those around you in danger, commit a crime and get incarcerated, have your children taken by Child Services, or become a prostitute to support a drug habit, understand that there’s surely a reasonable explanation that removes the burden of personal responsibility from you.  And there’s always someone, something, or some event – even in the distant past – that’s actually to blame.   It’s never your fault.