1 In thousands of little ways...Insidious, biased, deceitful, distorted and unfair information is fed to the public by the news media, unflagged or corrected by editors, presented as legitimate punditry and journalism either intentionally to warp public opinion for leftward political gain, or out of pure incompetence, depending on how much one accepts Hanlon’s Razor. The little ones, like the tiny repetitive concussions that over time give NFL players brain disease, may be more insidious than the whoppers.
Here is a typical example. Progressive op-ed writer David Leonhardt concludes his column about how Amazon is a dastardly monopoly endangering his beloved book stores by writing,
“Once the country emerges from the Trump presidency, I hope we will have a government that takes monopolies seriously.”
It takes magnificent gall to lay the power of Amazon at Trump’s doorstep. The internet giant built its virtual monopoly to its current power on Obama’s watch, with a Justice Department that looked the other way. Why? I wonder if it had anything to do with the massive co0ntributions Amazon magnate Jeff Bezos sent the Democrats’ way, or the fact that his newspaper, The Washington Post, was a reliable cheer-leader for Obama through is entire administration. Never mind: Leonhardt’s editors allow him to mislead readers into believing that Amazon is being allowed to do its worst because of Donald Trump.
Oh…did you notice the conflict of interest disclaimer pointing out the Post-Bezos-Amazon connection for those readers who might want to know that the Times’ rival for national newspaper primacy is owned by Amazon’s CEO? Neither did I. Maybe when the Times emerges from its fake news and blatant partisanship stage, it will start taking ethics seriously.
2. Today’s Fox News incompetence note. I literally stopped on Fox News for 45 seconds this morning, and heard a lovely, buxom, Fox blonde clone report this story by saying, “the boy was brain dead for two months, then woke up.” [The original typo had “bot” instead of boy. A good time was had by all]
No, you idiot. He was not brain dead at all, because when you are brain dead, you’re dead, and you don’t wake up. Doctors may have thought he was brain dead. He may have seemed to be brain dead. But he wasn’t brain dead.
Fake news, and stupid news.
3. The logic of Hollywood anti-gun zealots in a horror movie. A decent horror move could be made about the San Jose Mystery House, where Winchester rifle heir Sarah Winchester built a maze of rooms and stairways to keep her personal demons at bay. “Winchester” isn’t it, because its mission was to bludgeon audiences for two hours with perhaps the silliest anti-gun message ever devised. You see, rumors persisted while Sarah was alive that she was building rooms for all the ghosts of victims of her father-in-law Oliver Winchester’s repeating rifle to reside. Thus workmen claimed the site was haunted. “Inspired by real events,” as the film says (the “real events” being the sensational tabloid tales), “Winchester” posits that the ghost of a Confederate soldier whose two brothers were killed in the Civil War has returned to get revenge. Sarah is racked with guilt, because, she says, the Rebel muskets were no match for the North’s repeating rifles, and “they never gave them a chance.”
Yup, those are the rules in war, all right: always give the soldiers trying to kill you a chance. Later, all the angry victims of the evil Winchester come out to glare: Native American, children, suicides, slaves.
Along the way, Sarah tells us how guns are just “instruments of death” but never clarifies why she insists on owning 51% of a gun company.
Helen Miren plays Sarah Winchester, and I rented the film because I’d pay to watch her play canasta. After seeing the embarrassment, I decided that Mirren had to be an anti-gun activist, and sure enough, I found this standard issue “think of the children!” column she wrote in 2006.
If Mirren really thinks her lame-brained dud of a horror movie advances the cause of the anti-gun crusade among Americans with two neurons to rub together—and why else would she make it?—she is yet another amazing example of how unintelligent people can give intelligent acting performances. Someone with more patience than I also needs to try to explain to her that Brits claiming that Americans were unfair to shoot Confederate soldiers rapidly deplete their credibility.
Here’s the Mystery House today:
4. How has “In God We Trust” lasted this long anyway? In Minnesota, a bill that would allow the ancient national motto “In God We Trust” to be displayed in Minnesota schools has been challenged by Democrats. Good.. After all, the bill is unconstitutional.
“I’m wondering if Sen. Hall would feel the same if students walked in and instead of the word ‘God’ the word ‘Allah’ — which is the word for God in the Muslim religion — welcomes students to their schools,” Senator Marty Dibble said. “The money in my wallet has to say ‘In God We Trust.’ I think that’s offensive.”
“Offensive” is a poor choice of words—I bet Fox News was going bonkers over that—-but there is no coherent argument to be made that including references to God on official documents undermines the separation of government and religion.