Thoughts On The Media

Disclaimer: This is my opinion on the presentation of what we call “the news”….and is not intended as a slight on any disaster or tragedy.

 

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the MSM….I believe that they are doing more damage than informing.

The mainstream media (MSM) no longer presents the news instead it is a source for propaganda.

Let me explain.

Americans think they have an unlimited variety of entertainment and media options right at their fingertips. But it is all a lie. This illusion of choice was fabricated by the media elites. In the early 90s before the mainstream adoption of the Internet, the media landscape used to be simple and straightforward. Today, 6 media giants control a whopping 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to.

Objectivity in journalism is an illusion created by the elite class to give the appearance of balanced news. However, there is no such thing as unbiased news. Journalists who work for these six corporations answer to their owners and ultimately serve their agendas. For example, no logical thinking person will expect Washington Post to write a fair and objective story about its owner, especially a story that Jeff Bezos reportedly cheated on his wife. The point of all these is that the media outlets don’t necessarily serve the interest of the people they control, instead, they serve the interests of their owners.

Now you have the ammo to find the truth in the MSM  (that is a trick there is very little truth in the MSM).

All of this was made possible by Bill Clinton and his Telecommunications Act of 1996.

For those that doubt my assertion…then read the Act for yourself…..(that will not happen but it is there for those that care)….

Click to access tcom1996.pdf

Yes I know it is a long read…..and most will not attempt this but if you want to know what is what then step away from the game and learn something!

In my years to studying political philosophy I have looked at what is termed as “media hegemony”…..

Media hegemony is a perceived process by which certain values and ways of thought promulgated through the mass media become dominant in society. It is seen in particular as reinforcing the capitalist system. Media hegemony has been presented as influencing the way in which reporters in the media – themselves subject to prevailing values and norms – select news stories and put them across. (wikipedia)

Now that it is defined…..think about today…..the Covid coverage.

Do not get me wrong I know that this virus has devastated the nation and the world….we need to know the facts as they become available but on the same hand we do not need every horror story there is which is what the media is doing.

Yes people dying from the problems created by the illness and by the lack of response for a year is not acceptable….but again I do not need to know what happened in Rhode Island or NYC or Kansas….I do need the facts as they come out.

Then there are these endless worthless wars of intervention…..that just keep being fueled by the M-IC to protect their massive profits….and then there is the lack of actual information being reported by the MSM.

The truth is the national security apparatus does not want the people to know the facts about these wars.

An especially dangerous threat to liberty occurs when members of the press collude with government agencies instead of monitoring and exposing the abuses of those agencies. Unfortunately, collusion is an all-too-common pattern in press coverage of the national security state’s activities. The American people then receive official propaganda disguised as honest reporting and analysis.

The degree of collaboration frequently has reached stunning levels. During the early decades of the Cold War, some journalists even became outright CIA assets. Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s January 1977, 25,000-word article in Rolling Stone was an extraordinarily detailed account of cooperation between the CIA and members of the press, and it provided key insights into that relationship. In some cases, the “journalists” were actually full-time CIA employees masquerading as members of the Fourth Estate, but Bernstein also confirmed that some 400 bona fide American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the ClA during the previous 25 years. He noted that “journalists provided a full range of clandestine services – from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs.”

How the National Security State Manipulates the News Media

More on the lousy track record of the MSM in our endless wars…..

The US War Machine Doesn’t Want Us to Take War Personally

The powers that be learned their lesson from Vietnam……where journalists had access to the conflict and were allowed to report what they observed….that all changed and now we only get information that the Pentagon wants us to have and it is NEVER what is actually happening.

The news is no longer the news….it is hour after hour of editorializing….take the Chauvin trial as an example…..the “media” every minute of the thing….granted it is important but every minute holds no news and just a report as it was before Clinton would help better inform the public.

The corporate owned media serves NO purpose other than selling the policies that the owners find necessary.

The problems this country is dealing with today can be laid at the feet of corporations and their propaganda arm….the Mainstream Media……

The answer is to look at all ‘news’ with skepticism and do the work to find the “rest of the story”.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

To Revere The Constitution

There are a lot of BS spread by politicians about our Constitution….and now I have seen an article that gives five reason it should be revered…..I will add my thought after each reason….

The Constitution is an amazing document…..but I think that since it is full of 18th century thinking that no longer applies in the 21st then it is time to bring the document into the present…..

This article written by Michael Warren for realclearpublicaffairs.com and his five reason for this revere thinking are:  My thoughts will be in parentheses…..

1). A Written Constitution. Nearly all scholars agree that the Constitution was the first written document that established a major nation’s government. For thousands of years, mankind had been ruled by some combination of fear, force, custom, and tradition. Having a written document that laid out the powers of government and the duties of the representatives of “We the People” was a huge leap forward, both for the rule of law – that is, the idea that the law governs rather than the personal desires of those in power – and the argument that mankind has the capacity to participate in self-government.

(No where did us mere peasants ever participate beyond the vote…it has never been a self-government)

2). Approved by the People. Until 1788, as far as we know, no major country in the course of human history put its form of government up to a vote of the people. The people in each state voted to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where a new governing document was created through robust debate. Unless the ratifying convention of any respective state approved the Constitution, it would not be adopted, another amazing advancement. We literally created a new social compact for the country that was agreed to by the people of each state.

(Was it?)

3). Separation of Powers. Although England and ancient Rome had some pretense of separation of powers, it was muddled and often subverted. Until the Constitution, no major central government in world history firmly divided the three major functions of government into co-equal, separate branches. By dividing power between the legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court) branches, the Constitution protects liberty by making it difficult for one person or group from taking complete control of the federal government.

(Those days are long gone….the Senate works as an independent from parts of the government…and with the Trump president the separation no longer existed)

4). Checks and Balances. Hand in glove with separation of powers, by giving each branch the ability to check the other branches, the Constitution better protects liberty. It requires that the three branches act together to enact policy and ensure that it does not violate the Constitution’s text. For example, the president can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote. The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only Congress can fund it and declare war. Even if Congress passes legislation and the president signs it into law, if it violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court must set that law aside. The president nominates judges, but the Senate must approve nominees. Again, liberty is protected by limiting the power of any particular branch of government.

(And yet the Senate can stop any and all social reform that the majority disagrees with…even if it is wildly popular with the peasantry.)

5). Enumerated Powers. Most governments in human history presume that the government is all powerful, and then carves out certain restrictions where it cannot act. The Constitution does exactly the opposite. Unless the Constitution specifically enumerates – that is, lists – powers where the federal government has the authority to act, it cannot do so. By substantially limiting the reach of federal power, the doctrine of enumerated powers safeguards the people’s liberties.

(And then Trump was elected and all this ‘protection’ went down the toilet)

***Reminder—my thoughts are in parentheses***

If you would like to read the full article…..https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2021/03/16/top_five_reasons_why_the_constitution_should_be_revered_663616.html

Again I do not want to scrap our Constitution.

I just believe that it could use a massive update to make in represent the present situation.

And there is the problem…..it will take a Constitutional Convention….and that would open up a whole new can of worms…..in case you slept through your civics class….

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention or amendatory convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2021, the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a constitutional amendment.

(wikipedia)

The biggest problem is our system…..a system where there are many deliberative bodies that have to agree……the rub for the convention debate. Liberals are concerned that the conservatives could amend the Constitution to beat back the role of government. Conservatives aren’t sure they could keep liberal amendments off the table. No one knows just how a convention would work, how long it would last, what rules would guide debate and amendments, or what unexpected pieces might emerge.

Just how much of a cluster f*ck is this process?

Take the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972.

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

And as of 2021 it has NOT be ratified….after almost 50 years and we still do not have the ratification…even after extensions to the deadline for ratification.

One common argument against the Equal Rights Amendment is the fact that the U.S. already has the 14th Amendment, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A major argument against the ERA is that the ratification of the ERA would mean laws cannot be passed to protect men and women differently. The ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” implying all laws must affect men and women equally. That standard is present in legislation surrounding racial discrimination. An example is present in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital from 1923. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to guarantee women a minimum wage because earlier, the court had ruled that men could not be guaranteed a minimum wage. The court based its decision on the 19th Amendment.

Just an example of the BS that flies around any attempt to ratify an amendment or to change the Constitution in any way.

Revere? 

I think it is an amazing document…..amazing but does not mean that it is representative of the nation of today.

I now step off my soapbox…..and allow others to state their thoughts.

You may type now.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Thoughts On Unicameralism

I have written about my thoughts on our Congress….thoughts that will not be popular but nonetheless something needs to be considered because the the dysfunction in our legislative branch of government.

You can read my thoughts here…..https://lobotero.com/2019/04/24/against-bicameralism/

Our Senate is as worthless as teats on a boar….it is non-functioning at best.  Time for a change…..that is if you want this country finally start progressing to a better future.

There are so many things that need changing and most of them will take a Constitutional Convention……things like guns, the emoluments, voting rights, etc….so if we decide to have this debate then why not include the Congress and a way to make it better or at least functioning.

Since civics is not  priority in our educational system let me do it for you……what is the function of the legislative branch?

The House has several powers assigned exclusively to it, including the power to initiate revenue bills, impeach federal officials, and elect the President in the case of an electoral college tie.

The Senate has the sole power to confirm those of the President’s appointments that require consent, and to ratify treaties. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: The House must also approve appointments to the Vice Presidency as well as any treaty that involves foreign trade. The Senate also tries impeachment cases for federal officials referred to it by the House.

In order to pass legislation and send it to the President for his signature, both the House and the Senate must pass the same bill by majority vote. If the President vetoes a bill, they may override his veto by passing the bill again in each chamber with at least two-thirds of each body voting in favor.

That is a very simplistic look at the branch (if more info is needed my I suggest use the Google button)

Do not get me wrong I do understand the concept of “checks and balances”…..but what good is it when the system makes a dysfunction commonplace?

But in case your Civics is not what it use to be…..

The system of checks and balances in government was developed to ensure that no one branch of government would become too powerful. The framers of the U.S. Constitution built a system that divides power between the three branches of the U.S. government—legislative, executive and judicial—and includes various limits and controls on the powers of each branch.

Again very simplistic but for the sake of brevity will have to do or you could do what I advised earlier.

Now that all that explanation and historic stuff is out of the way…..

Since the Congress is useless maybe it is time to reconsider the make-up of said institution.  The Senate is where good bills go to die.

In my opinion Going to one house for legislation makes good sense…..

My idea is get rid of the senator post ….keep representatives….. they will be limited to 10 terms…..the two most senior reps from each state will be elevated to the post of senator, a post within the House.

The leader will be known as the Speaker For The Assembly and that post will be determined entire Congress…..majority of votes elevate the person to speaker a post that can be held for 6 years….then a new election will determine the next speaker.

I feel this could open up the chance for the country to move forward without all the BS that goes with the two houses.

AS it is today the most useless part of our government is the legislative branch is the Senate…that needs to be modified for the sake of the nation and its people.

I continue to believe that unicameralism is the only way this country can recover and move forward with progress.

More of my thoughts to come.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Be True To Your Convictions

I proud myself as to always voting for my principles/convictions.

That usually means that I do a deep search of candidates and as usual neither of the major parties offers me much in way of hope for this country….so I start looking elsewhere.

All that means that I have not voted for a winning presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter…..I vote my choice in primaries but they seldom make it past the convention and so I have been voting third party exclusively since 1976.

I usually get push back from my readers that say my vote for anyone not a major candidate is a wasted vote or a vote for the “other” guy.  To this I disagree for I refuse to vote against my principles.convictions

I recently read a post that tells me I should rethink my decision in voting…..

There is nothing wrong with strong opinions. They are healthy in a democracy – an apathetic electorate is an ineffective electorate.

But a curious fact about American society’s supercharged political culture is that even the most humble debates (think: Which fried chicken sandwiches are best?) turn a tweet into matters of conviction.

The result is that many of us come to see criticism as intolerable and disagreement with our opinions as a mark of moral inferiority.

That’s a problem not just because it can lead to incivility; it’s a problem because it can lead to dogmatism, and when it comes to matters like climate change or immigration, even violent fanaticism.

A conviction isn’t just a strongly held belief. I strongly believe that two and two make four, but that doesn’t rise to the level of a conviction.

Convictions are about what matters to us. Most importantly, they signify to others what kind of person – parent, friend, citizen – we take ourselves to be. They reflect our self-identity. It is this fact that makes a conviction feel so certain, so right.

https://theconversation.com/always-sticking-to-your-convictions-sounds-like-a-good-thing-but-it-isnt-122911

I strongly disagree with this author……I believe he/she is writing about the age of social media more than anything.

I will not compromise my principles for the sake of being a “nice guy”….my principles define me…they are who I am and I will not compromise that for anything or anyone….not even to pat myself on the back for voting for the “winner”.

I had rather be wrong on my voting decision than to compromise for the sake of expediency…or so that I can say I voted for the winner.

“lego ergo scribo”.

Remember That War On Christmas Meme?

Have you noticed that when Dems are in charge every year about Christmas we hear some psycho babble about the War on Christmas?

It is truly just Right wing bullshit!

But in reality there was a war on Christmas but it was not here in the US but rather in England many generations ago.

And yes this is a sneaky way to introduce some history to my readers.

The war occurred during the days of Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century……it seems that some wanted Christmas carols and such banned for the public……

When it comes to revolutionary protest songs, what springs to mind? Billie Holliday’s Strange Fruit? Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ In The Wind? Sam Cooke’s A Change is Gonna Come? I’m guessing the humble Christmas carol is probably low on your list of contenders, but in mid-17thCentury England, during the English Civil War, the singing of such things as The Holly and the Ivy would have landed you in serious trouble. Oliver Cromwell, the statesman responsible for leading the parliamentary army (and later Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland), was on a mission to cleanse the nation of its most decadent excesses. On the top of the list was Christmas and all its festive trappings.

Since the Middle Ages, Christmas had been celebrated in much the same way as today: 25 December was the high holy day on which the birth of Christ was commemorated, and it kicked off an extended period of merriment, lasting until Twelfth Night on 5 January. Churches held special services; businesses kept shorter hours; people decorated their homes with holly, ivy and mistletoe; acting troupes put on comedic stage plays (prefiguring the modern pantomime); taverns and taphouses were brimming with merrymakers; and families and friends came together to gorge themselves on special food and drink including turkey, mince pies, plum porridge and specially-brewed Christmas ale. And communal singing about the season was all the rage.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141219-when-christmas-carols-were-banned

A closer look at Cromwell’s government……

It is a common myth that Cromwell personally ‘banned’ Christmas during the mid seventeenth century. Instead, it was the broader Godly or parliamentary party, working through and within the elected parliament, which in the 1640s clamped down on the celebration of Christmas and other saints’ and holy days, a prohibition which remained in force on paper and more fitfully in practice until the Restoration of 1660. There is no sign that Cromwell personally played a particularly large or prominent role in formulating or advancing the various pieces of legislation and other documents which restricted the celebration of Christmas, though from what we know of his faith and beliefs it is likely that he was sympathetic towards and supported such measures, and as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658 he supported the enforcement of the existing measures.

https://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm

So you see the only war on Christmas has been many years ago and it was in the UK not Main Street USA

So can we please stop spreading bullshit in the name of Christmas….there is already more and enough in the media.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

“lego ergo scribo”

What Is It About The Middle East?

My area of interest is the Middle East…I was schooled in its history, culture and situation…..plus I worked in the region for many years and learned to love the customs and the people.

But over the years and the US foreign policy of the Middle East has come full circle…..

“We are opening a Pandora’s Box,” Dwight Eisenhower warned when he ordered the first U.S. combat mission in the region. Little did he know how right he would be.

In 1958, U.S. leaders stood at the threshold of an American era in the Middle East, conflicted about whether it was worth the trouble to usher in.

A year earlier, in the context of the emergent Cold War and fading British and French power in the region, Dwight Eisenhower had articulated and received congressional approval for what became known as the Eisenhower doctrine. The United States had for the first time staked out national interests in the Middle East—oil, U.S. bases and allies, Soviet containment—and declared that it was prepared to defend them with military force.

Sixty-two years before President Donald Trump dispatched a drone to Baghdad to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, this is how American combat missions in the post–World War II Middle East began.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/01/america-has-come-full-circle-middle-east/162655/

Our Middle East policies of today were born in World War 2 and Operation Torch……

In a radical rethinking of the origins of U.S. Middle East policy, Robert Satloff suggests that two key ideas guiding Washington’s actions in the region for the past three-quarters of a century were born in the bargain U.S. leaders made with Vichy French officers after Allied troops landed in North Africa during World War II.

This was Operation Torch, America’s first offensive operation in the European theater of war and, until Operation Overlord’s Normandy landings, the greatest amphibious attack in history. Today, it is all but forgotten. And yet, aside from rivaling Overlord in terms of its enormity, complexity, and peril, Torch was also vastly consequential, for it helped to determine the future course and ultimately successful conclusion of the war. If that weren’t significant enough, Torch also deserves to be remembered for the critical role it played in setting the terms of America’s long-term relationship with the rulers and peoples of the Middle East.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/operation-torch-and-the-birth-of-american-middle-east-policy-75-years-on

Even with a raging pandemic the Middle East is as dangerous as it ever was…..or will be…..

The Middle East is, arguably, in as dangerous a condition as it has been in its modern history. A single incident could spark an escalation, which – uncontrolled – could set off a chain reaction of violent confrontations, involving local, regional and extra-regional powers. Established mechanisms for bringing individual conflicts, such as the wars in Syria and Yemen, to a peaceful resolution are making only halting, if any, progress. When a crisis of this magnitude crests, but before it erupts into full-blown war, the attention it attracts can create new opportunities for preventive action. The notion of a collective and inclusive security dialogue that aims to diminish tensions has been around for many years, focused on the Gulf sub-region. The time to launch one is overdue. The first step is to produce concrete ideas and international support for such a dialogue, which can open new channels of communication. To maximise chances of success, the effort should start modestly, possibly initiated by smaller Gulf states with the active diplomatic backing of a group of European and other governments.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/212-middle-east-between-collective-security-and-collective-breakdown

The UN has called for an international ceasefire during the pandemic…..and yet NO major power has signed on….apparently using ordinance is more important than fighting the disease.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Are Americans So Angry?

It seems that if you tour other blogs and sites that we Americans are angry about everything…..why is that?

I blame social media that gives an audience to hateful words and thoughts….but that is just me…..

Back in 2014, Martin Gurri, an unknown global media analyst for the CIA, wrote a book called The Revolt of the Public. It was published by a small press with very little fanfare. In his book, Gurri argues that the digital revolution would, by transforming the information space, enable the public to participate more and more in politics. He also makes the case that this would create a perpetual impulse to revolt against the dominant institutions of society — government, media, the academy — and the elites who run them.

Gurri’s book reads like prophecy. If every American had read it, the country might look very different today. Gurri, now a private geopolitical analyst, is our guest on this week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast.

Some of the topics he talks about include:

    • The American public’s relentless desire to destroy the established order without any clue about what comes next
    • How the rising tsunami of information is tied directly to increasing levels of social and political turbulence
    • How the 20th century was comfortable with structure and why the 21st century is not
    • How Industrial Age democracy was not all that democratic

We have information at the touch of a finger….then we need to ask….do you trust what you read or hear?

Some of the reasons for this apparent disconnect are discussed in this week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast. They include:

    • How news has become simply a form of entertainment.
    • How time has become the biggest single factor in news consumption.
    • Why consumers think that reliable news takes too long to consume.
    • How some people get all their news only in 280-character bites.
    • How political news is consumed vs. every other kind of news.
    • How today’s news outlets exploit emotion to generate consumer demand — and profits.

Do You Trust What You’re Reading?

I have read several bloggers that ask the same question…..who do I trust when it comes to the news and information…..

All I can do is give my readers a couple to posts from the past…..

https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/who-controls-the-narrative/

https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/let-the-truth-be-known/

Makes me think of the old Ben Franklin cartoon….

"JOIN, or DIE." attributed to Benjamin Franklin was to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule

Without unity of the citizens we have NOTHING as a society…..

We need to replace the popular belief these days “Me The Person” with “We The People”….return to the days when this country was a united country,,,for united there is little we cannot do….but divided as we are today and we can watch the republic slowly die.

“lego ergo scribo”

This Impeachment Thing

We are in the middle of a gut wrenching process of trying to impeach the president of the United States…..that is all the the news echoes day after day……

I need to let my readers know how I feel about this process.

I have been writing about the process in my other blog, In Saner Thought, but I have not been straight forward with my opinion on this process.

First do I think the president should be impeached?  Yes I do!  Why?  Because I feel that he is gaming the system for his benefit and not that of the country.

After all that said….

I kinda hope he comes out of this okay.

Why would I wish that?

That sometime down the road a Democrat will take office and he can do whatever he likes to the system….insult politicians, investigate political opponents, force corruption with foreign countries, etc.

If Trump walks on this then it will come back a bite the GOP sycophants in the ass…a position that many of them may favor these days.

I want to hear the whining by the sycophants like Gaetz, Jordan and Meadows….their performances ought to be Emmy worthy….just listen to their words….they have nothing to say about the evidence they only bitch about the process.

We can blame the rise of the Tea Party as the start of this breakdown in civility and order……nope….we can blame Newt and his band of radicals in 1994  as the beginning….the hatred for one party for the other began in word and deed with Newt.

In rolling out his proposal for a progressive agenda, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has repeatedly referenced Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” On one level that makes sense, since the “Contract with America” is arguably the only example most people can think of where a national political platform of sorts did not come from a presidential campaign. It also played a significant—though sometimes poorly understood—role in altering the trajectory of American politics, and thus it makes sense to reference it when setting out to alter that trajectory again.

A lot of what people remember about the Contract just isn’t so, and a lot of what was so is forgotten. It was not a conservative document so much as it was a targeted GOP play for the support of Ross Perot voters (as described in the book “Three’s a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and the Republican Resurgence” by Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone), and despite its poll-driven nature (touted by Gingrich at the time), its late release indicated it was less a play for broad political support than it was for shaping elite political discourse after an election Republicans knew they would win. At its core, it was the very essence of political gamesmanship, even as it paraded itself as a populist attack on the establishment.

https://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/the_power_grab_that_destroyed_american_politics_how_newt_gingrich_created_our_modern_dysfunction/

Since those days it is hate for one party or the other and the people within those parties……

Our government is dysfunctional….and to blame it all on the Dems is disingenuous……Repubs have been equally to blame for this disunity…..and we can thank the Tea Pargty for making the sore of dysfunction spread like an all consuming rash on the skin of our nation.

Make no  mistake…it is HATRED for the other party…matters not the issues but rather the membership in one or the other.

It all began with the “Watergate Babies”….

For millions of Americans, from political analysts to readers confronting their morning newspapers, the dysfunction of today’s Congress is a disturbing mystery. The majority, which controls the agenda and schedule of the House, seems riven with division; the leadership seems bereft of methods or muscle for enforcing discipline; distrust pervades relations with Senate colleagues, and the relationship with the White House, controlled by the majority’s own party, is unpredictable and volatile. With the Republicans locked in seemingly intractable conflict with a minority focused on regaining power, the Congress has rarely been less productive or less well-regarded in the public’s perception.

It wasn’t always like this; in some ways, it was worse. For generations, the House was a secretive, hierarchical, tradition-bound institution that gave little regard or influence to newcomers. Power was concentrated so assiduously in the handful of committee chairs that even the elected leadership hesitated to challenge the old men with the gavel. From the dour Woodrow Wilson through the thundering Lyndon Johnson, the House lumbered along in its top-heavy, anachronistic style, incapable of competing with an executive branch that was increasingly agile and expansive, well-suited to modern mass communications, and aggregating power by virtue of its ability to act decisively.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/26/congress-broke-american-politics-218544

I admit that I have read and been called so many insulting names over the years that I went against my best interests and started using derogatory terms about others in the government.

I regret that I sank to that level of intolerance but I will refrain when the others also refrain.

I just want the Repubs to remember all this for of the Dems have any cajones at all they will use the GOP play book and play dirty for all common decency is gone from our political process.

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

I Thank The Right

I would like to take this first moment to apologize to my followers of GSFP for being a lazy toad and not posting more…..I shall try to be more diligent since I am an opinionated SOB this site should be loaded with my opinions and observations.

I would like to begin by say THANK YOU to the Right for doing what I tried to do oh so many years ago.

A little background might be helpful here….In my younger years I was a hard Leftist and worked tirelessly to try and carve out a piece of the American society to help promote a division that would assist in leftist ideas take hold in the electorate.

I and my comrades were not very successful.

Back in the 1950s Wisconsin Senator McCarthy warned the nation of what was being attempted by those “Damn Commies”…..but his warning went mostly ignored because this nation was a unified entity and no matter the game “Tailgunner Joe” played  the people saw it for what it was…..BS.

But that was in the days before the spread of social media the prime mover of FAKE NEWS……

All I can do is say Thank You again….for the people on social media did what I and others tried to do…..they have divided this country along “tribal” lines…..

Those divisions were always there but again the country was a unified entity and withstood the attempts to divide the country…..

Then along came the Newt and his gang of fire brands.  This started the country down the path of division and it has continued unabated since 1994.

And HERE WE ARE!

What I tried to do unsuccessfully the MSM has done and the Millennials are the voter that I tried to sculpt…..

AXIOS shows that my attempts have grown into the movement I  envisioned…..

Young Americans continue to lose faith in capitalism and embrace socialism, according to a new YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey of more than 2,000 Americans 16 years and older.

Why it matters: Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed democratic socialist, is one of the top presidential candidates in the 2020 Democratic field. His flagship health care proposal, Medicare for All, has driven the national conversation and moved the Democratic Party significantly to the left — even among candidates like Elizabeth Warren who consider themselves capitalists.

The big picture: 50% of millennials and 51% of Generation Z have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism — increases of 8 and 6 percentage points from last year. Meanwhile, the share of millennials who say they are “extremely likely” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a socialist doubled.

https://www.axios.com/millennials-vote-socialism-capitalism-decline-60c8a6aa-5353-45c4-9191-2de1808dc661.html

This observation from the state that gave the country Joe McCarthy….Wisconsin….on why the young are looking beyond the system we have now.

Bernie Sanders may be the public face of American socialism, but if you really want to understand its exploding popularity, you need to understand its pull among millennials. And not just newly-elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Poll after recent poll shows one out of three young Americans identify as either Socialist or Democratic Socialist. Fewer than half, 45 percent, view capitalism positively — a 12-point decline in the past two years. America’s youth seems to be making a speedy left turn, and at a pace that surprises even longtime members of the vanguard.

“It’s gone from being a subculture to a movement that has real relevance,” said Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder and editor of Jacobin magazine. “There’s a political ideology out there — not just Democratic Socialism — but a left-wing populist rhetoric that really does capture what people are feeling.”

https://www.wpr.org/why-millennials-are-giving-capitalism-and-turning-socialism

This is good to see….that all my hard work back in the day did not go unrewarded…..just sad that I will not be there for the final chapter of this drama.

Peace Out!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

Federalist Paper #29

I have waited for a long time to see if all these so-called scholars would hit upon something from the days of our founding as a country.

Now we have had another round of violence and the result is the usual reaction. The rash of shootings and the debate and opinion spewed on guns is running full tilt boogie….as usual lots of talk and no action…..the same talk that has been raging for decades….the same inaction…the same lip service.

I recently wrote a piece that I said would be my last word on guns….well no surprise….I LIED!

But before those gun nuts hiding in the ink of blogs let me assure you that this is just a reminder of what a Founding Father had to say about guns. Remember this is what a Founder wrote……a historic document…..Federalist Paper No. 29……not me!

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.” Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Please read it before going off half cocked.

But as usual Americans are too lazy to read the information they want the short version……https://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/study-guide/summary-essay-29

The Constitution does not guarantee the ownership of an assault weapon.

Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

8 years ago I wrote a post on why I thought the 2nd was added….. https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/

I have said many times that I am pro-gun…I have many weapons and still I believe that we need a more intelligent set of gun laws.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”