Okay, the election is over. The people who won are the people who won, agree or disagree.
In an earlier post, I bemoaned the loss of civil discourse in our political debates. It seems to be the fashion now, instead of exchanging ideas in vigorous discussion, we resort to belittling those who would disagree with us. After all, it's much easier to paint your opponent as a blithering idiot than it is to formulate a well-thought counterpoint.
It seems thinking for oneself has gone the way of the dodo, with everyone spouting the latest talking points from moveon.org or Rush Limbaugh. That just makes it all the more rankling when one is called upon to actually respond on one's own, and has no good argument formulated on thought. So the mud starts flying: "You only say that because you want to leave women and children on their own. You just want dirty air and water! You don't care!!!I" Or even, "You bleeding heart liberals are all socialists. You just want to take from those who've earned it to give to some lazy slob who hasn't worked a day in his life! Bunch of tree-hugging freaks!!!"
Seriously, don't you see where all this name-calling and these generalities are damaging our culture? America is the greatest nation on Earth. One of the things that made it great was the reputation we've earned as "The Great Melting Pot." It doesn't mean everyone who comes here has to give up their individuality. On the contrary, America was founded on the power of the individual to carve his own destiny, and in his own style.
Sure, we have the right to say whatever we want. It's carved in stone, in our constitution (the rulebook of The United States, for those who aren't aware. Seriously, have you read your own rulebook? If not, why not?). Anyway, the constitution says we have the right to say whatever we want to, with no political repercussions. But with every right comes the responsibility to use it in a way that furthers civility. Read the part that says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility..." That "domestic tranquility" thing? You signed on to that by becoming a citizen of this nation, either by birth or by process.
I'll admit, our leaders haven't been doing a very good job of furthering that civility. Just one memory from the recent campaign should remind you how visceral and irresponsible it was, on both sides. It seems when one has nothing positive to say about oneself, the only remaining option is to paint one's opponent as the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Attila the Hun, all rolled into one, with an appetite for human blood on top for good measure. The press certainly didn't rise above the mud either, as truth always gives way to sensationalism for the sake of higher ratings. I mean, why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good smear story? Am I the only one who thinks this way?
So where does civility, or domestic tranquility, come from? Is it the responsibility of our leaders? Surely, for this is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It is, isn't it? One may hope. But that responsibility also extends to "we the people" as in US. WE the people are responsible for insuring domestic tranquility. You and me.
It has to start somewhere, too. Now, I'm not going to be one who points a finger at everyone else without taking my own example, as my close friends all can attest. We get along, even though I'm a conservative and some of them are liberals. I'm a straight man who loves his gay friends as much as everyone else. Just because we don't agree on some things doesn't mean we can't get along in the same country.
So I am going to start a movement. Let's call it The Civility Movement. That means we agree to stop calling each other names and start getting along in spite of our differences. It means we read our own rulebook, and agree to abide by it. It means we take it upon ourselves to "insure domestic tranquility" by actually offering thoughtful discussion instead of hateful labels and vitriol.
Can we do this? Who's in?
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Divertissement: "The Watch"
This week is Thanksgiving in the USA. This year there's a lot for which to be thankful in the Keith household.
I reconnected with two of my late brother's children (well, they ain't children anymore, but still).
My first novel, Becoming NADIA, won Best Thriller at EPICon in San Antonio, and is coming to print before the end of the year.
My son's latest round of surgeries should be his last, God willing. Keeping our fingers crossed.
And the latest thing is the outcome of my colonoscopy/endoscopy: Clean. Almost.
Which brings me to my next point. My family history is rich and storied with cancer in various forms and types, which mandates me being on a regular cycle of checkups and exams, because high risk is high risk, and not acknowledging that is just plain stupid.
I'm talking to you this week about scoping because it isn't just for high risk people like me. Plain and simple, colon cancer is the single most treatable cancer known. It grows slowly enough to head off in its earliest stages, and its survivability rate is very high these days, because the signs are so easy to catch in time.
If one takes the necessary steps.
My little sister died at age 46 from colon cancer. She didn't get scoped. I know the books all say you don't need to get checked before age 50, and that's true for the most part as long as you're not in a high risk group. I had little trouble getting my insurance company to cover my checks before I was 50, once I explained the risk and my family's story with that monster. Anyway, Cindy never got herself checked, and when she started having symptoms, it was already too late.
Let me say without reservation that there is a deal of suffering and humiliation (for me) in getting scoped. First off, there is that godawful "cleansing" you have to do the day before and the morning of the scope. Take these pills, take some more pills, take some more pills, and make sure you're within ten feet of a bathroom door. Thank God they knock my keister out before they come at me with that scope. I couldn't lay there awake while they're in there looking for lost miners or whatever it is they eventually turn up. I can tell you, that "five pounds of undigested red meat" the vegans go on about is simply nonexistent. The docs looked. It ain't there. So, red meat, look out. here I come.
As it was, my first check wasn't perfect, but it could have been worse. I had some polyps which were removed and tested negative. Same thing this time, as far as my colon was concerned. But my endoscopy turned up some abnormalities which required biopsies to be taken.
So yes, I was out like a light (propofol is my friend). AND, before they knocked me out, I did look to see they had two scopes set up, one for each end. Call me weird, but you know, I like to make sure, 'cause that would be... yeah.
Did I enjoy the experience? Not really. I lost two days of work, and I still have to go back and get another endoscope to follow up on the esophageal ulcers. But I'd rather suffer a little misery for a day or two than to suffer through months or years of torment while tumors eat me alive like they did my father, my sister, and my great-grandmother.
So now, let me say this: You are a fool if you don't take care of yourself. If you're over fifty years, get checked. And if you're high risk, get checked. This is one area over which you can take control. Don't let it get out of control before you decide to do something about it.
This week, I will be thankful for the blessings we've experienced this year, and watchful for that which would steal what is mine, including my health. You would do well to stay on watch as well.
I reconnected with two of my late brother's children (well, they ain't children anymore, but still).
My first novel, Becoming NADIA, won Best Thriller at EPICon in San Antonio, and is coming to print before the end of the year.
My son's latest round of surgeries should be his last, God willing. Keeping our fingers crossed.
And the latest thing is the outcome of my colonoscopy/endoscopy: Clean. Almost.
Which brings me to my next point. My family history is rich and storied with cancer in various forms and types, which mandates me being on a regular cycle of checkups and exams, because high risk is high risk, and not acknowledging that is just plain stupid.
I'm talking to you this week about scoping because it isn't just for high risk people like me. Plain and simple, colon cancer is the single most treatable cancer known. It grows slowly enough to head off in its earliest stages, and its survivability rate is very high these days, because the signs are so easy to catch in time.
If one takes the necessary steps.
My little sister died at age 46 from colon cancer. She didn't get scoped. I know the books all say you don't need to get checked before age 50, and that's true for the most part as long as you're not in a high risk group. I had little trouble getting my insurance company to cover my checks before I was 50, once I explained the risk and my family's story with that monster. Anyway, Cindy never got herself checked, and when she started having symptoms, it was already too late.
Let me say without reservation that there is a deal of suffering and humiliation (for me) in getting scoped. First off, there is that godawful "cleansing" you have to do the day before and the morning of the scope. Take these pills, take some more pills, take some more pills, and make sure you're within ten feet of a bathroom door. Thank God they knock my keister out before they come at me with that scope. I couldn't lay there awake while they're in there looking for lost miners or whatever it is they eventually turn up. I can tell you, that "five pounds of undigested red meat" the vegans go on about is simply nonexistent. The docs looked. It ain't there. So, red meat, look out. here I come.
As it was, my first check wasn't perfect, but it could have been worse. I had some polyps which were removed and tested negative. Same thing this time, as far as my colon was concerned. But my endoscopy turned up some abnormalities which required biopsies to be taken.
So yes, I was out like a light (propofol is my friend). AND, before they knocked me out, I did look to see they had two scopes set up, one for each end. Call me weird, but you know, I like to make sure, 'cause that would be... yeah.
Did I enjoy the experience? Not really. I lost two days of work, and I still have to go back and get another endoscope to follow up on the esophageal ulcers. But I'd rather suffer a little misery for a day or two than to suffer through months or years of torment while tumors eat me alive like they did my father, my sister, and my great-grandmother.
So now, let me say this: You are a fool if you don't take care of yourself. If you're over fifty years, get checked. And if you're high risk, get checked. This is one area over which you can take control. Don't let it get out of control before you decide to do something about it.
This week, I will be thankful for the blessings we've experienced this year, and watchful for that which would steal what is mine, including my health. You would do well to stay on watch as well.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Interview: Charity Martinez of 5Girls Book Reviews
The sky over the Shores is clear today. The walls of the beach cabana flap in the breeze coming off the ocean. The sherry in my glass is almost gone, the heady liqueur still honey-sweet on my tongue.
I stand and pack my notebook, pens, and the bottle into my messenger bag. Dinner waits at the cabin on the cliff. As I straighten, the bag over my shoulder, a new sound rises above the roar of the surf. A flurry of giggles floats down the beach.
Funny. I don't remember having a girls' slumber party any time recently.
Throwing aside the tent flap, I step into the sunlight, right into a freshly-spiked volleyball. I rub the sting away from my forehead and look to the source of the assault.
Not ten yards away, a skiff has been hauled up on the beach. Its five occupants are apologetic as they gather round to retrieve their missile for the next point.
Folks, this week I'm pleased to introduce Charity Martinez and her "junior staff." Together they make up 5Girls Book Reviews.
FULL DISCLOSURE TIME: I do have a review request pending with 5Girls. This interview is not an effort to garner a better review for my work. I fully expect an impartial and honest review when the time comes. I just thought this sounded like too good an interview to pass up. So here's my conversation with Charity:
I stand and pack my notebook, pens, and the bottle into my messenger bag. Dinner waits at the cabin on the cliff. As I straighten, the bag over my shoulder, a new sound rises above the roar of the surf. A flurry of giggles floats down the beach.
Funny. I don't remember having a girls' slumber party any time recently.
Throwing aside the tent flap, I step into the sunlight, right into a freshly-spiked volleyball. I rub the sting away from my forehead and look to the source of the assault.
Not ten yards away, a skiff has been hauled up on the beach. Its five occupants are apologetic as they gather round to retrieve their missile for the next point.
Folks, this week I'm pleased to introduce Charity Martinez and her "junior staff." Together they make up 5Girls Book Reviews.
FULL DISCLOSURE TIME: I do have a review request pending with 5Girls. This interview is not an effort to garner a better review for my work. I fully expect an impartial and honest review when the time comes. I just thought this sounded like too good an interview to pass up. So here's my conversation with Charity:
Cyrus: What
got you started doing book reviews?
Charity: I
turned the dirty thirty and was thinking that I wanted to do more with my life
and I love to read and want to share my love of books with others so I decided
to start a book review blog. I think by someone having a review handy of a
book, it helps decide on if you want to read it or not.
Cyrus:You
have several “junior staff members” working with you. What kinds of books are
each of you looking for?
Charity: I
do have 4 “junior staffers” with me and they have my passion of reading.
Arianna
is looking for books that are captivating to her either middle grade, Tween, or
mom approved YA. Her favorite author is Rick Riordan and she loves any books
that have to do with Greek mythology, dragons, the Romans. adventures, etc. She
is more into the fantasy aspects of reading instead of the “girly” aspects. She
also loves mysteries. She accepts books in Kindle and print format.
Angel
is looking for books that are mysteries, ghost stories, and books that are
“girly” in a sort. She does not enjoy the fantasy books like her sister does.
She reads mainly MG books, Tween and a few mom approved YA books. She accepts
books only in print format.
Michaela
is all about art and design. She loves books about God and Jesus. She also
likes the “girly” books. She currently reads MG books and can only accept books
in print format.
Angelina
loves any and all picture books. She LOVES books that have to do with dogs and
God. She just turned 6 and loves getting new books to review. She has just
started learning to read so she currently is only available for picture books
and young children books (i.e. First readers, etc.). She can only accept print
books.
Cyrus: What
do you look for in a book?
Charity: The
main thing I look for in a book is how captivating the blurb is on the back or
the inside cover. If it sounds like something I like then I will read it. Books
that I read right now are YA, Chick Lit, Contemporary Fiction, Christian
Fiction, Indie and some mysteries. I am not real big on fantasy/sci fi. I also
don’t like reading Erotica. I will admit that I did like 50 Shades of Grey, but
I don’t feel its too appropriate to have reviews of books such as that on my
blog where my children’s reviews are, however, if someone has a “light” erotica
book that they would like reviewed, I would consider it, but I would have to
feature it under a special tab on my blog. I haven’t had to make a new tab yet,
but I would consider it. I also am a huge fan of the Twilight and Hunger Games
Series, so if you have any books like that, I would gladly read them :-)
Cyrus: What
kinds of elements are a huge turn-off?
Charity: A
huge turn off for me is fantasy/sci fit, hardcore Erotica, Western and
historical romances. I am not big into romances unless they are contemporary YA
romance or chick lit kind of romance. No “Fabio” romances for me!
Cyrus: Tell
us about your favorite-ever book and why it is.
Cyrus: I
have several favorite books, but I would like to talk about the one that I just
read that is now in my “favorite” category. I just finished Snow by
Kathryn Hewitt (blog tour spot will be featured on my blog November 5) and this
book brought out raw emotions in me that I thought no longer existed. It takes
a lot for me to get emotional over a book and this one was able to do it. The
main character, Ruth, has a lot to handle at a tender age of 15. She is a Godly
teenager and then meets Luke and goes against everything she has believed in.
She has to make some very hard decisions and her relationship is not a
“healthy” one. This book reminded me of my past and difficult decisions and
relationships that I chose to be in at one point. I just really think that
every teenage girl should read this book as it brings up very tender topics.
Cyrus: Same question for your “junior staffers.”
Arianna’s
favorite book is “Dragon Slippers” by Jessica Day George because it’s
interesting. It is adventurous like she likes.
Angel’s
favorite book is “Deep, Dark, and Dangerous” by Mary Downing Hahn
because she likes ghost stories and it is really interesting.
Michaela’s
favorite book is “Just Because” because it tells her about the stories
of God and Jesus did.
Cyrus: Have
you received any review requests on books that just don’t cut muster? What do
you do then?
Charity: Yes,
we have. In a situation such as this, we notify the author and let them know
that the book isn’t for us. We give them the option of us doing a review on
what we have already read or just not doing a review at all. We do guarantee
that we will give every book the first 40 pages for us to get “in to”. If we
are not able to relate with the story by then, we stop and notify the author.
Cyrus: How
does one submit a review request to 5 Girls Reviews?
Charity: To
submit a request to us, please first check out our blog at 5girlsbookreviews.blogspot.com
and after you have read the welcome tab and still want us to review your book,
please email us your request at 5girlsbookreviews@gmail.com.
Please tell us the name of the book, a brief blurb about the book, and the
formats you have available.
Cyrus: You
seem to have a new venture launching as well. Tell us more about that one.
Charity: Well
since our review blog took off so well, we decided to try our hand at
organizing blog tours. We have created a new blog for that at
5girlsbooktours.blogspot.com and all the information on pricing/packages can be
found there. Since we just launched our book tour company, we are giving the
first 5 authors/publishers to book with us a 25% discount on the package of
their choice. We also have a special
holiday promotion as well, but this promotion CANNOT be used in conjunction
with the 25% offer. We are very excited to start helping authors/publishers in
getting the word out about their new books (old books too) and hosting tours
for them. If you would like for us to book a tour for you, please email us at 5girlsbookreviews@gmail.com
with the name of the tour you have
selected in the subject line. Please provide us with the name of your book, the
package you have chosen, and the date(s) or month(s) you would like to book. We
are now accepting tours for the following genres:
Young
Adult
Middle Grade
Children's Books
Chick Lit
Contemporary Fiction
Indie
Tween
If your book is one that is not listed in one of these genres, please email us at 5girlsbookreviews@gmail.com and we will gladly decide if it is one that we would like to host for you.
We accept books from publishers and self-published books.
Middle Grade
Children's Books
Chick Lit
Contemporary Fiction
Indie
Tween
If your book is one that is not listed in one of these genres, please email us at 5girlsbookreviews@gmail.com and we will gladly decide if it is one that we would like to host for you.
We accept books from publishers and self-published books.
Please help us get our company off
the ground!!
If
you are interested in hosting tours for 5 Girls Book Tours, please email us at
5girlsbookreviews@gmail.com with "Blog Tour Host" in the subject
line.
We will need the following information:
Your name.
Blog name.
Blog address.
Email address.
At this time, we do not require a certain number of followers, but we would like you to have at least 1 month of blogging experience. Once we have your information, you will be notified of any new tours coming up by email.
We will need the following information:
Your name.
Blog name.
Blog address.
Email address.
At this time, we do not require a certain number of followers, but we would like you to have at least 1 month of blogging experience. Once we have your information, you will be notified of any new tours coming up by email.
Cyrus: Thanks for stopping by, Charity. Your projects sure sound exciting, and I wish you good luck in getting them off the ground.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Cy's Political Vocabulary
Hi, folks. This week, let's just look at some more of the dirty tricks our politicians pull on us to steal our faith and votes.
First off, let me state that there is a difference between a statesman and a politician. No matter what side of the aisle you stand, history has shown us statesmen who stood above polls and public opinion, and made the unpopular decisions that had to be made for the best of the Republic. It seems , however, that men like Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagen are no more. We're being led by men and women whose sole desire is to be elected for one more term no matter what they have to promise, and look where that has gotten us.
It used to be that candidates told us what they wanted to do in the office. Now they all just seem to want to scare us away from the other guy. Here's a few of the terms that get thrown around, and their real definitions:
Special Interests: A phantom that needs no definition. The Boogeyman. Originally refers to a term to define a group that sends a lobbyist to represent the views of a minority for the puroposes of pushing through some pet legislation. Now, it means anyone the candidate wants to demonize.
The 1%: People who deserve to have their money taken from them and given to "those less fortunate." In reality, of course, it just goes to the bureaucrats who run the program.
The 99%: A term employed to make the rest of us feel like we're entitled to take from the 1%, only because there's more of us than there are of them. Actually, we don't get a penny. The money gets thrown into a bottomless pit of committees, clerks and bureaucrats who run the program. In other words, it's a scam job.
Their Fair Share: Another excuse to raise taxes. One more lie to convince us that, somehow, we will be exempt when the rates go up.
Kennedy: Cut taxes to create jobs. Whenever anyone tries to use Kennedy as an example of cutting taxes to create jobs, the other side is obliged to scream, "You're not Kennedy!" It must be specifically forgotten that his approval rating had dropped into the 30-40% range, hence the reason he went to Dallas to begin with.
Tax Breaks For The Rich: A convenient label to hang onto any legislation that favors business owners and other job creators.
Created or Saved Job: Cheap and easy claim. Totally unprovable. If you want brownie points, just say you've created XX number of jobs, and even better (though more vague), saved XX number of jobs. No one can disprove you or show any numbers to undermine the claim. How can they prove you didn't? Just say you did, and you look like a saint.
Independent: Slanted in the candidates favor.
Poll: We asked a bunch of people who agreed with us, and they said we're right.
How one chooses one's words is essential in flavoring the lie, after all. Now, we've got an election this Tuesday. Open your eyes already, and vote what you believe, not what they tell you to believe. Sort through the mud and get your answers. As a country, we have precious little time left in which to turn the tide. Make your vote count. Just vote.
First off, let me state that there is a difference between a statesman and a politician. No matter what side of the aisle you stand, history has shown us statesmen who stood above polls and public opinion, and made the unpopular decisions that had to be made for the best of the Republic. It seems , however, that men like Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagen are no more. We're being led by men and women whose sole desire is to be elected for one more term no matter what they have to promise, and look where that has gotten us.
It used to be that candidates told us what they wanted to do in the office. Now they all just seem to want to scare us away from the other guy. Here's a few of the terms that get thrown around, and their real definitions:
Special Interests: A phantom that needs no definition. The Boogeyman. Originally refers to a term to define a group that sends a lobbyist to represent the views of a minority for the puroposes of pushing through some pet legislation. Now, it means anyone the candidate wants to demonize.
The 1%: People who deserve to have their money taken from them and given to "those less fortunate." In reality, of course, it just goes to the bureaucrats who run the program.
The 99%: A term employed to make the rest of us feel like we're entitled to take from the 1%, only because there's more of us than there are of them. Actually, we don't get a penny. The money gets thrown into a bottomless pit of committees, clerks and bureaucrats who run the program. In other words, it's a scam job.
Their Fair Share: Another excuse to raise taxes. One more lie to convince us that, somehow, we will be exempt when the rates go up.
Kennedy: Cut taxes to create jobs. Whenever anyone tries to use Kennedy as an example of cutting taxes to create jobs, the other side is obliged to scream, "You're not Kennedy!" It must be specifically forgotten that his approval rating had dropped into the 30-40% range, hence the reason he went to Dallas to begin with.
Tax Breaks For The Rich: A convenient label to hang onto any legislation that favors business owners and other job creators.
Created or Saved Job: Cheap and easy claim. Totally unprovable. If you want brownie points, just say you've created XX number of jobs, and even better (though more vague), saved XX number of jobs. No one can disprove you or show any numbers to undermine the claim. How can they prove you didn't? Just say you did, and you look like a saint.
Independent: Slanted in the candidates favor.
Poll: We asked a bunch of people who agreed with us, and they said we're right.
How one chooses one's words is essential in flavoring the lie, after all. Now, we've got an election this Tuesday. Open your eyes already, and vote what you believe, not what they tell you to believe. Sort through the mud and get your answers. As a country, we have precious little time left in which to turn the tide. Make your vote count. Just vote.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Why, yes I am.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room.
I am not a Republican. They are a bunch of sell-outs and hypocrites.
I am not a Democrat. They seem to believe that government programs are the only fix for any problem.
I'm not a Libertarian. I don't fit into their little box of anarchy.
I'm definitely not a socialist or communist. Socialists haven't met a totalitarian government they don't like, and both socialism and communism murder individual effort through their confiscatory tax programs and punishments for those who choose to excel.
Only a fool votes a straight ticket. I know Dems with whom I agree more than their counterparts, and I throw my pitiful little one vote behind them to the best of my ability. I can safely call myself a non-aligned conservative. Hear me out one time, and I'll tell you why.
I believe in the power of the individual in a free market economic system that rewards those who work harder or create goods and services that meet a demand. Yes, Mr. President, those small business people did build that. They created their own opportunities, picked themselves up by the bootstraps in most cases, pushed harder than their peers, and did what it took to make their businesses or ventures successful.
I think most unions are the bane of a free economy through their favoritism based on seniority rather than performance, and their determination to create and foster conflict between labor and management. Line factory work isn't a career. It's a stepping stone to something better. Union interference creates a culture that rewards mediocrity.
I believe life begins at conception, and renaming something in court for the sake of insulating oneself from consequences of one's actions is a crime of the highest order. They call them "Fetal tissue masses." "Fetus" is Latin. In context, it means "Offspring" or "Brood." That seems like another word for "Child" to me. Taking that life, terminating a pregnancy, should not be a legal matter, but a medical one, established to prevent the imminent death of the mother. It's a serious matter, the taking of a life. It needs to be taken more seriously than an idle "choice" based on convenience or some arbitrary, inconsistent standard.
I believe that our government has become too overbearing and burdensome, and if our founding fathers saw what our federal level has become, they would declare another revolution. Over-regulation handcuffs fairness by applying the same standards to small business as large business. Our government taxes business at such a punitive rate, it forces companies to leave the country, and then punishes them for doing so. The federal government forced banks to make risky loans in the '90's that resulted in the Freddy Mac/Fannie Mae collapses, and then they blamed the banks for the collapse. Government attacked those who bought RV's, and when they stopped buying RV's, those who made RV's lost their jobs because nobody bought them anymore. Then the Government moaned and howled about the employment crisis they themselves created (anyone remember Elkhart, Indiana?).
I do remember Henry David Thoreau's famous quote: "That government is best which governs least."
Our own constitution lays out the responsibilities of government:
1.) Establish Justice (Provide a legal system for civil and criminal justice and police to enforce laws)
2.) Insure Domestic tranquility (keep the peace)
3.) Provide for the common defense (set up our military to protect us from outside invaders)
4.) Promote the general welfare (Create a fair and even playing field so anyone who wants to can better themselves).
5.) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Liberty means the freedom to choose our own destinies. Ben Franklin said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Does this mean no one should be responsible for those who cannot provide for themselves or have fallen on hard times? God forbid! But there's a big difference between a hand up and a handout. And our government seems to specialize in handouts, especially those with strings attached. There are hundreds of private organizations who could manage assistance programs a thousand times more efficiently that our government, but they are handcuffed by regulations to the point of strangulation.
I believe a person's relationship with their God is theirs, whether I agree with them or not. But when someone's religious beliefs include harming me or my family, or anyone within the borders of my country, I have the right and responsibility to defend my family and countrymen to my last breath or bullet if need be.
I believe a military organization needs to set its own rules on engagement. The job of the military is to kill people and break things. It's a hell of a job, but someone has to do it. We need to let the military be military, not handcuff them with rules of engagement that result in more of our boys and girls coming home in body bags. When the military is given a job, they need the freedom to do it.
You might not agree. That's fine. We can disagree and still be friends. That's what makes America the greatest nation on the planet. We still have a semblance of liberty left, and I for one do not intend to let it go the way of the dodo.
I am not a Republican. They are a bunch of sell-outs and hypocrites.
I am not a Democrat. They seem to believe that government programs are the only fix for any problem.
I'm not a Libertarian. I don't fit into their little box of anarchy.
I'm definitely not a socialist or communist. Socialists haven't met a totalitarian government they don't like, and both socialism and communism murder individual effort through their confiscatory tax programs and punishments for those who choose to excel.
Only a fool votes a straight ticket. I know Dems with whom I agree more than their counterparts, and I throw my pitiful little one vote behind them to the best of my ability. I can safely call myself a non-aligned conservative. Hear me out one time, and I'll tell you why.
I believe in the power of the individual in a free market economic system that rewards those who work harder or create goods and services that meet a demand. Yes, Mr. President, those small business people did build that. They created their own opportunities, picked themselves up by the bootstraps in most cases, pushed harder than their peers, and did what it took to make their businesses or ventures successful.
I think most unions are the bane of a free economy through their favoritism based on seniority rather than performance, and their determination to create and foster conflict between labor and management. Line factory work isn't a career. It's a stepping stone to something better. Union interference creates a culture that rewards mediocrity.
I believe life begins at conception, and renaming something in court for the sake of insulating oneself from consequences of one's actions is a crime of the highest order. They call them "Fetal tissue masses." "Fetus" is Latin. In context, it means "Offspring" or "Brood." That seems like another word for "Child" to me. Taking that life, terminating a pregnancy, should not be a legal matter, but a medical one, established to prevent the imminent death of the mother. It's a serious matter, the taking of a life. It needs to be taken more seriously than an idle "choice" based on convenience or some arbitrary, inconsistent standard.
I believe that our government has become too overbearing and burdensome, and if our founding fathers saw what our federal level has become, they would declare another revolution. Over-regulation handcuffs fairness by applying the same standards to small business as large business. Our government taxes business at such a punitive rate, it forces companies to leave the country, and then punishes them for doing so. The federal government forced banks to make risky loans in the '90's that resulted in the Freddy Mac/Fannie Mae collapses, and then they blamed the banks for the collapse. Government attacked those who bought RV's, and when they stopped buying RV's, those who made RV's lost their jobs because nobody bought them anymore. Then the Government moaned and howled about the employment crisis they themselves created (anyone remember Elkhart, Indiana?).
I do remember Henry David Thoreau's famous quote: "That government is best which governs least."
Our own constitution lays out the responsibilities of government:
1.) Establish Justice (Provide a legal system for civil and criminal justice and police to enforce laws)
2.) Insure Domestic tranquility (keep the peace)
3.) Provide for the common defense (set up our military to protect us from outside invaders)
4.) Promote the general welfare (Create a fair and even playing field so anyone who wants to can better themselves).
5.) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Liberty means the freedom to choose our own destinies. Ben Franklin said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Does this mean no one should be responsible for those who cannot provide for themselves or have fallen on hard times? God forbid! But there's a big difference between a hand up and a handout. And our government seems to specialize in handouts, especially those with strings attached. There are hundreds of private organizations who could manage assistance programs a thousand times more efficiently that our government, but they are handcuffed by regulations to the point of strangulation.
I believe a person's relationship with their God is theirs, whether I agree with them or not. But when someone's religious beliefs include harming me or my family, or anyone within the borders of my country, I have the right and responsibility to defend my family and countrymen to my last breath or bullet if need be.
I believe a military organization needs to set its own rules on engagement. The job of the military is to kill people and break things. It's a hell of a job, but someone has to do it. We need to let the military be military, not handcuff them with rules of engagement that result in more of our boys and girls coming home in body bags. When the military is given a job, they need the freedom to do it.
You might not agree. That's fine. We can disagree and still be friends. That's what makes America the greatest nation on the planet. We still have a semblance of liberty left, and I for one do not intend to let it go the way of the dodo.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Propaganda 101: A further discussion
Okay, we've briefly discussed the dirty tricks played on us by the
propaganda machine. That's especially important when one realizes a
critical election is just around the corner.
Hopefully, we've also seen the dirty tricks pulled by various media outlets over the years to steer their own agendas or candidates to successful positions.
On Gun Control (Big issue for both sides): How much of the propaganda machine allows stories about homeowners or business owners who successfully and properly used their weapons in defense of their lives or property? Seriously, ask yourself when the last story of such a type was broadcast, or printed. Oh, but that's not news, they say. The more sensational story is the man who lost his head and shot an unarmed boy (An unarmed man can still pose a threat to life. Just ask Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan). Hm. I thoiught the press was supposed to be unbiased and balanced.
Abortion: When was the last time you heard any positive coverage of a person who stood for the concept of like at conception? What news story can you point to where they weren't branded as "anti-choice" as opposed to "Pro-life?" (Remember those sticky "Anti" and "Pro" labels?)
Taxes: "Their Fair Share" seems to be the battle cry of a certain party. It's been taken up en masse by newspapers, television and radio outlets all over the country. Let's look at the truth behind that. Look at your 1040 form from last year. The last two years. The last three years. Look at Block 2, Federal Income Tax Withheld. Now, look at the amount of your refund. If the amount of your refund was equal to or greater than the amount of federal income tax withheld, guess how much income tax you paid? Quite a few of you would find out the government actually paid you, after your deductions and credits.
Even if Mitt Romney paid only 14% of his income in taxes (admitted by everyone on TV, mind you), and that still amounted to some several millions of dollars, how many of you can say you paid 14%? How many paid even One Million dollars?
The National TaxPayer's Union obtained this information from the IRS for 2009:
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
I apologize for not having more recent data. But rest assured, the current administration fought for higher rates for those top earners. What then is really "Their Fair Share?" Seems to me the higher earners are paying much more than a fair share. Who dictates who "has earned enough, and must now share their good fortune?"
Job Creation: Now, if I may ask: Who of you has ever been hired by a poor man? A poor man can create a job for him,self, if he applies his efforts and talents to make his life better for him and his family. For instance, taking a second job as a writer, or a weekend musician. Buying and selling on eBay. But I've never been hired by a poor man. And government can only create government jobs.
It seems to me our government has a lot of things screwed up, and they have been using their pawns in the media to drag us along by our noses, to create the emotional response that most favors transferring more and more of our liberty to the government. We expect them to house us, to feed us, to clothe us through their many assistance programs, all the while expecting "The rich" to pay for it all. Then, after "the rich" have been bled dry, we only are left with a country of poor people.
Is that what you really want?
I will be so bold as to make a prediction this year: If Barack Obama loses the election, there will be demands for recounts, just like the 2000 elections. Hanging chads and pregnant chads are no longer the issue. But there will be debates about who is too stupid to know how to draw a line between points of an arrow. There will demonstrations, and I predict there will be accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. Ultimately, there will be a lawsuit. For a new demon has crept from the filthy corners of Pandora's Box. And we are now powerless to prevent it being turned loose once more.
Now, all the questions I've asked above are honest questions. Answer them for yourself, and don't let your current stance on any issue blind you to facts. You don't have to agree with me. But if you do disagree, make a substantive and supported point, and please leave the hate speech at home. Comments posted by Anonymous or Unknown will be deleted without review. If you want to take me to task, do it like a human and stand up. If I'm wrong, facts will prove me so.
Hopefully, we've also seen the dirty tricks pulled by various media outlets over the years to steer their own agendas or candidates to successful positions.
On Gun Control (Big issue for both sides): How much of the propaganda machine allows stories about homeowners or business owners who successfully and properly used their weapons in defense of their lives or property? Seriously, ask yourself when the last story of such a type was broadcast, or printed. Oh, but that's not news, they say. The more sensational story is the man who lost his head and shot an unarmed boy (An unarmed man can still pose a threat to life. Just ask Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan). Hm. I thoiught the press was supposed to be unbiased and balanced.
Abortion: When was the last time you heard any positive coverage of a person who stood for the concept of like at conception? What news story can you point to where they weren't branded as "anti-choice" as opposed to "Pro-life?" (Remember those sticky "Anti" and "Pro" labels?)
Taxes: "Their Fair Share" seems to be the battle cry of a certain party. It's been taken up en masse by newspapers, television and radio outlets all over the country. Let's look at the truth behind that. Look at your 1040 form from last year. The last two years. The last three years. Look at Block 2, Federal Income Tax Withheld. Now, look at the amount of your refund. If the amount of your refund was equal to or greater than the amount of federal income tax withheld, guess how much income tax you paid? Quite a few of you would find out the government actually paid you, after your deductions and credits.
Even if Mitt Romney paid only 14% of his income in taxes (admitted by everyone on TV, mind you), and that still amounted to some several millions of dollars, how many of you can say you paid 14%? How many paid even One Million dollars?
The National TaxPayer's Union obtained this information from the IRS for 2009:
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Percentiles
Ranked by AGI
|
AGI
Threshold on Percentiles
|
Percentage
of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
|
Top
1%
|
$343,927
|
36.73
|
Top
5%
|
$154,643
|
58.66
|
Top
10%
|
$112,124
|
70.47
|
Top
25%
|
$66,193
|
87.30
|
Top
50%
|
$32,396
|
97.75
|
Bottom
50%
|
<$32,396
|
2.25
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service | ||
I apologize for not having more recent data. But rest assured, the current administration fought for higher rates for those top earners. What then is really "Their Fair Share?" Seems to me the higher earners are paying much more than a fair share. Who dictates who "has earned enough, and must now share their good fortune?"
Job Creation: Now, if I may ask: Who of you has ever been hired by a poor man? A poor man can create a job for him,self, if he applies his efforts and talents to make his life better for him and his family. For instance, taking a second job as a writer, or a weekend musician. Buying and selling on eBay. But I've never been hired by a poor man. And government can only create government jobs.
It seems to me our government has a lot of things screwed up, and they have been using their pawns in the media to drag us along by our noses, to create the emotional response that most favors transferring more and more of our liberty to the government. We expect them to house us, to feed us, to clothe us through their many assistance programs, all the while expecting "The rich" to pay for it all. Then, after "the rich" have been bled dry, we only are left with a country of poor people.
Is that what you really want?
I will be so bold as to make a prediction this year: If Barack Obama loses the election, there will be demands for recounts, just like the 2000 elections. Hanging chads and pregnant chads are no longer the issue. But there will be debates about who is too stupid to know how to draw a line between points of an arrow. There will demonstrations, and I predict there will be accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. Ultimately, there will be a lawsuit. For a new demon has crept from the filthy corners of Pandora's Box. And we are now powerless to prevent it being turned loose once more.
Now, all the questions I've asked above are honest questions. Answer them for yourself, and don't let your current stance on any issue blind you to facts. You don't have to agree with me. But if you do disagree, make a substantive and supported point, and please leave the hate speech at home. Comments posted by Anonymous or Unknown will be deleted without review. If you want to take me to task, do it like a human and stand up. If I'm wrong, facts will prove me so.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Sneak Peek: Tempus Fugitive
Wow.
Huge breath here. The NADIA Project is now complete. Okay, aside from beta reads and edits, anyway. Critical Mass is in the capable if demanding hands of mt line editor. Lies and Paine, my free novella, previews coming!) is out to mt betas right now, getting chewed thoroughly before I unleash it on my unsuspecting publisher.
But for all intents and purposes, it's done. Nadia, Jon, Bunny, Jenna, and all the special friends I've tortured and immiserated since 2007, are now tucked safely away in their fates.
And I'm having a case of Empty Nest Syndrome like you wouldn't believe. Oh, I do have projects lined up, fear not. As a matter of fact, I'm positing a preview of my new current work this week (We'll get to that in a bit). But I still have an empty place where the guys used to gather around Irving's table and have conversations about taking down The Pinnacle.
Getting started on the new project is half the fight. I already had a good start on it, but when Nadia sold, it came to a screeching halt while I finished that series. So now we're back to a hard sci-fi story called Tempus Fugitive. The title I took as a play on words, and I'll let the first chapter here speak for itself. Feel free to let me know what you think. I believe it will shift me into new territory quite nicely.
Let me introduce you to Simon Crocker:
Huge breath here. The NADIA Project is now complete. Okay, aside from beta reads and edits, anyway. Critical Mass is in the capable if demanding hands of mt line editor. Lies and Paine, my free novella, previews coming!) is out to mt betas right now, getting chewed thoroughly before I unleash it on my unsuspecting publisher.
But for all intents and purposes, it's done. Nadia, Jon, Bunny, Jenna, and all the special friends I've tortured and immiserated since 2007, are now tucked safely away in their fates.
And I'm having a case of Empty Nest Syndrome like you wouldn't believe. Oh, I do have projects lined up, fear not. As a matter of fact, I'm positing a preview of my new current work this week (We'll get to that in a bit). But I still have an empty place where the guys used to gather around Irving's table and have conversations about taking down The Pinnacle.
Let me introduce you to Simon Crocker:
Tempus Fugitive
Chapter One
Some people need
killing. I hear that's a valid legal defense in some states. And I say, the
best defense is a good offense.
Now, before you label
me a cold-blooded murderer, hear me out: Let's say you have a neighbor down the
street, a real piece of work. He threatens everybody's kids, breaks into your
houses and makes himself an all-around jerk. Then the kids start disappearing.
The police come out, but can't find any clues. No one seems willing to do
anything about it. But you know this guy is taking the kids from the
neighborhood. Comes a time, you need to weigh the cost of taking the bull by
the horns and saving your kids against the possible consequences to yourself.
You have to stop that bastard before another child loses their life to him.
I can already hear the
cries of objection, the calls for justice under the law and a court conviction.
And I'll tell you, the court isn't always the best arena for handling these
animals. Give a guy a slick enough lawyer, and he'll walk. The best a victim's
family can hope for is containment in some psychiatric facility where that same
family's tax dollars pay for three hots, a pot and a cot for the rest of this
man's long, easy life. If he doesn't escape. If he doesn't fool his doctors
into thinking he's healed and wangle himself an early-out. If he doesn't sit
tight, serve his time, get a release and start all over again in another
neighborhood. This is justice?
Now, let me throw
another wrinkle at you: What if you could look back through history and see
these unfixable animals? Pinpoint each one? What if you could go back and pop
Ted Bundy before he made his first kill? Albert Fish? Charles Manson? What if
you could go back and take care of it?
I can. Me, Simon
Crocker. I didn't invent the time machine; that was Doc Friezen's baby. I just
use it to put sick animals out of the world's misery.
Animals like Porter
Killian III.
You might not have
heard of Porter Killian III. If you have, you’re in the time stream where I
didn’t rail him. I remember him because I was outside the stream when I did him.
He was born to an
affluent East-Coast family who had more money than brains. If they'd used either
of the two brain cells that managed to filter down through that branchless
family tree, they would have drowned him at birth and had done with it. But
they raised him, taught him the finer points of a life of privilege, and bailed
him out every time he put his foot in it. So the concept of consequences never
occurred to him.
Not even when girls
started to disappear from his ivy-league school.
It was 1945. He was in
his junior year at Harvard when young Amanda Hibbert was found strangled and
raped in the bushes outside her dorm. She was his first kill, but not his first
rape. You've heard Amanda’s name, no matter what stream you’re in.
Seventeen girls
disappeared by the time he finished his prerequisites for Harvard Law School.
He was questioned three times, and arrested once. Each time, Porter Killian II
(not Junior) stepped up with money and lawyers to rescue his son. Those who
couldn't be bribed, were attacked in character and any other way to shame them
into submission. No one tangled with the Killians and survived with their
career, or their life, intact.
Porter Killian III
graduated, ran for U.S. Senate, and served six terms before he retired. During
his career, four Capitol staffers joined poor Amanda. He died a rich, twisted,
old man.
But that's not the
story you heard. Because I changed it.
I caught up with him
the summer he graduated high school, right after he'd raped Cindy Lawton in the
woods behind the football field. He looked right at me, and I saw him for the
beast he was. Then I pulverized his skull with a burst from a rail pistol at
close range.
Now, let's come back to
Amanda Hibbert, who did not die: She
funded six free clinics in the New York area, and five more in India. In
addition, it was under her leadership that Hanson Pharmaceuticals perfected three
new drugs that revolutionized treatment for epilepsy.
So why didn't I stop
Porter Killian III from raping Cindy Lawton? Because if I did, she never would
have opened the Lawton Centers, where rape victims of both genders and all ages
receive comfort, counseling, and healing.
You have to time these
things just right.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Propoganda 101: A willing Press
Hey, guys. Sorry about the lapse in posts. Life happens. I may take a week off once in a while, though, just to maintain my sanity. I'm sure you understand.
Anyway, in this election season, it's especially important to see how our press, including newspapers, television, radio and electronic press, really operate.
It has been said that a journalists' job is to chronicle the events of our time. In recent years, however, the [press has taken the role of a crusader more than a chronicler. When Chris Matthews gushed about having a thrill rush up his leg whenever anyone mentioned Barak Obama's name, it signaled the death of objective journalism in the United States.
But really, when you're already aware that you're not going to get the whole truth by FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, or anyone in particular (Don't even pretend to keep a straight face while you tell me how impartial NPR is), how do you know what IS the truth?
It's usually in what they DIDN'T say, more than what they did say.
Back in the '90's, the LA Times Book of Style banned the phrase "Pro-life." Here's why. The prefix terms "pro" and "Anti" have their own connotations. If someone is "Pro" anything, that puts their issue in a positive light right off the bat. If someone is "anti," they automatically attract a negative connotation.
So we don't have "Pro-choice" or "Pro-life" factions. Look at your newspaper, listen to the talking heads. You only get "Pro-choice" and "Anti-aborton" or "Anti-choice." That tells you right there what side of the issue they stand on. Journalism isn't supposed to be slanted. Somehow, our press is.
One of the all-time classic tactics is the smear campaign. Look what happens whenever someone mentions the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Wow, I saw that flinch you just made. Seriously. Joe McCarthy was a senator in the '50's who suggested that there were soviet agents in positions of power in the United States. Now, you're going to think of witch hunts and blackballed actors, and all kinds of horror stories about people going to jail or getting ruined because of Joe McCarthy. But think about this: Joseph McCarthey was a SENATOR. The House UnAmerican Activities Commission was supposedly his little gang of thugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to our constitution, a senator would have nothing to do with a House Committee. That should stink to someone. But the press assassinated his character so thoroughly, his name is a byword even sixty years later. And a Soviet document captured years later named names of Soviet agents who were in positions high in our government. What was done with them? Mostly nothing. But that's another issue.
Here's something else to think about. Last week we were talking about polls. Look at this link (okay, don't just look at it. Click on the darned thing!)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-nascar-poll-140401668--politics.html
What they are not telling you are what questions they asked the pollees or how the results were tabulated. Now, it's Zogby poll, which is supposed to be an indication of the integrity of the company. But the way it works is the company asks the questions they are hired to ask. It doesn't guarantee the pool will be impartial. It just guarantees the raw numbers will be accurate wiuthin a certain percentage.
Here's another one:
http://news.yahoo.com/voting-laws-may-disenfranchise-10-million-hispanic-u-015903517.html
According to this, Hispanic people will be put through extreme hardship if the have to prove they're US citizens at voting polls. It may even make them not want to vote.
Excuse me? That's like putting up a headline that says, "World Ends Tomorrow: Women And Minorities Hardest Hit!" Why should any race be treated differently at the voting booth, unless there is a desire to allow non-citizens to vote? If the issue is money for a state ID or driver's license, then why doesn't the article mention poor white people as well? We see what they are saying. What aren't these people saying? Is what they are really saying, buried in what they aren't saying?
Back to advertising, the most blatant propaganda: There are ten words considered to be the most influential. They are:
1. New
2. Guaranteed
3. Proven
4. Results
5. Safety
6. Save
7. You
8. Now
9. Easy
10. Free
The press have their own list of influential words. They include:
1. "Anti" Being against anything makes you the bad guy, automatically.
2. "Pro" Being for something makes you the good guy.
3. "Fringe" puts one on the outside. All someone has to do is say it. Look what they did with the Tea Party (who claim no affiliation to any party, and boast members bot Republican and Democrat, along with a strong representation of Libertarians)
4. "Disenfranchised." It's the favorable word for "fringe." It's supposed to evoke pity and sympathy.
Here's a link to look at for the tools the press loves to use to influence us:
http://theunjustmedia.com/Propaganda/Words%20Propaganda%20Power.htm
They think they have a ring in our noses, and when they pull on that ring, we're going to go. I say, start looking at the tools they use. When you see an attempt at influence rather than reporting, are you willing to question the report? Who's going to open up their eyes and see the agenda behind that talking head?
Anyway, in this election season, it's especially important to see how our press, including newspapers, television, radio and electronic press, really operate.
It has been said that a journalists' job is to chronicle the events of our time. In recent years, however, the [press has taken the role of a crusader more than a chronicler. When Chris Matthews gushed about having a thrill rush up his leg whenever anyone mentioned Barak Obama's name, it signaled the death of objective journalism in the United States.
But really, when you're already aware that you're not going to get the whole truth by FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, or anyone in particular (Don't even pretend to keep a straight face while you tell me how impartial NPR is), how do you know what IS the truth?
It's usually in what they DIDN'T say, more than what they did say.
Back in the '90's, the LA Times Book of Style banned the phrase "Pro-life." Here's why. The prefix terms "pro" and "Anti" have their own connotations. If someone is "Pro" anything, that puts their issue in a positive light right off the bat. If someone is "anti," they automatically attract a negative connotation.
So we don't have "Pro-choice" or "Pro-life" factions. Look at your newspaper, listen to the talking heads. You only get "Pro-choice" and "Anti-aborton" or "Anti-choice." That tells you right there what side of the issue they stand on. Journalism isn't supposed to be slanted. Somehow, our press is.
One of the all-time classic tactics is the smear campaign. Look what happens whenever someone mentions the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Wow, I saw that flinch you just made. Seriously. Joe McCarthy was a senator in the '50's who suggested that there were soviet agents in positions of power in the United States. Now, you're going to think of witch hunts and blackballed actors, and all kinds of horror stories about people going to jail or getting ruined because of Joe McCarthy. But think about this: Joseph McCarthey was a SENATOR. The House UnAmerican Activities Commission was supposedly his little gang of thugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to our constitution, a senator would have nothing to do with a House Committee. That should stink to someone. But the press assassinated his character so thoroughly, his name is a byword even sixty years later. And a Soviet document captured years later named names of Soviet agents who were in positions high in our government. What was done with them? Mostly nothing. But that's another issue.
Here's something else to think about. Last week we were talking about polls. Look at this link (okay, don't just look at it. Click on the darned thing!)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-nascar-poll-140401668--politics.html
What they are not telling you are what questions they asked the pollees or how the results were tabulated. Now, it's Zogby poll, which is supposed to be an indication of the integrity of the company. But the way it works is the company asks the questions they are hired to ask. It doesn't guarantee the pool will be impartial. It just guarantees the raw numbers will be accurate wiuthin a certain percentage.
Here's another one:
http://news.yahoo.com/voting-laws-may-disenfranchise-10-million-hispanic-u-015903517.html
According to this, Hispanic people will be put through extreme hardship if the have to prove they're US citizens at voting polls. It may even make them not want to vote.
Excuse me? That's like putting up a headline that says, "World Ends Tomorrow: Women And Minorities Hardest Hit!" Why should any race be treated differently at the voting booth, unless there is a desire to allow non-citizens to vote? If the issue is money for a state ID or driver's license, then why doesn't the article mention poor white people as well? We see what they are saying. What aren't these people saying? Is what they are really saying, buried in what they aren't saying?
Back to advertising, the most blatant propaganda: There are ten words considered to be the most influential. They are:
1. New
2. Guaranteed
3. Proven
4. Results
5. Safety
6. Save
7. You
8. Now
9. Easy
10. Free
The press have their own list of influential words. They include:
1. "Anti" Being against anything makes you the bad guy, automatically.
2. "Pro" Being for something makes you the good guy.
3. "Fringe" puts one on the outside. All someone has to do is say it. Look what they did with the Tea Party (who claim no affiliation to any party, and boast members bot Republican and Democrat, along with a strong representation of Libertarians)
4. "Disenfranchised." It's the favorable word for "fringe." It's supposed to evoke pity and sympathy.
Here's a link to look at for the tools the press loves to use to influence us:
http://theunjustmedia.com/Propaganda/Words%20Propaganda%20Power.htm
They think they have a ring in our noses, and when they pull on that ring, we're going to go. I say, start looking at the tools they use. When you see an attempt at influence rather than reporting, are you willing to question the report? Who's going to open up their eyes and see the agenda behind that talking head?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Propaganda 101: Overview
Hey! Did you know four out of five dentists recommend sugarless
gum for their patients who chew gum? How many of you have heard that one
before? It’s from a gum commercial.
Commercials are a form of propaganda. It’s using the media
in an effort to influence you, the viewer/listener/reader. They want you to buy
into the benefits of their product or service. No prob, it’s what they do. Just
keep that claim in mind about the dentists, and we’ll look into other areas
where we are vulnerable to propaganda.
A government uses propaganda as a tool to steer its culture
and control its people. If you didn’t before, you know now. Prime examples
include the Nazi propaganda machine in World War II. Adolf Hitler had an entire
country convinced they were super men, superior to every race on the planet,
and the Jewish people were the enemy of mankind. Look at this example:
So we see two purposes of propaganda: dehumanize the enemy, and draw popular support for your agenda.
Germany wasn't the only player in the propaganda war. Here are some examples from our side:
These are all very open examples. There is no doubt about what they are trying to do, and that is to bend public opinion in their favor, to coerce cooperation from the masses.
Surely, you say, you should be able to spot propaganda from a country mile and dismiss it, right? What if I suggested you were being subjected to propaganda on a more subliminal level, and not only letting it happen, but being bent by it? We can't always help it.
Let's look back at our dentists in the sugarless gum commercial above, and apply it in a slightly different way. "Four out of five dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum."
This seems to say that eighty percent of all dentists recommend this particular product to their patients. That isn't what this says at all, and here's how the numbers shake out:
First, let's take a look at how the question is phrased. "Do you recommend sugared gum or sugarless gum for for your patients?" Like there's another choice? Ever been in one of thos polls where none of the answers fits how you really think? That's deliberate. It's so they can juggle the numbers later to get the results they want.
Second, on our gum commercial, is the sample. Let's say the team polled five hundred dentists. four hundred and ninety of those dentists might have wanted to say it doesn't make a difference to them, but that's not an option on the poll. So they settled and said, yes, if their patient HAD to chew gum, sugarless would probably be the way to go. The other ten dentists just got disgusted with the pollster and hung up or chased them out of the office with a drill.
The final results are based on a sample of the poll results. So the pollsters take five samples, hand-picked, and leave in the result from one of the psycho-dentists. That makes four out of five dentists surveyed, doesn't it?
Commercials aren't the only place you see this kind of covert propaganda, either. The news media, political parties and others use these tactics and others to shape opinion and coerce public support for their agendas.
In future posts, we'll examine some of the ways the public swallows things they normally would lynch someone over. Next week, we'll look at the role of a willing press. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)