The News Is What's Newsworthy

 

 Once again I was made aware of a current event and dove into a provided article in order to learn the facts about it. I’m not sure what the source was, I think it was something like The Daily Beast or Buzz Feed or the Cranky Turtle, or something like that. I miss the days when news agencies didn’t try to have hipster sounding names and stuck to names like The Post, The Tribune, or The Reporter. At least then you knew they were owned by establishment types, whereas now you’re led to believe they are led by hip young counter-culture types.

 The news of the day was that Disney fired Gina Carano for making controversial remarks on social media. I clicked on the link to read the actual article to find out what she said. I don’t think people are actually expected to do this, I think they are supposed to take their cues from headlines and have their opinions provided to them rather than making up their own minds. Nevertheless, the purveyors of news feel like they have to give the appearance of actual reporting by including an article to go along with the headline. It’s a time-waster for suckers like me who hope to find actual substance in it.

 It turns out that the headline these days is the frosting on a sponge cake. Made from an actual sponge. There is not actual “there” there, anymore, not in mainstream media. My experience with corporate journalism articles since Trump became president has been this: Enticing headline which makes me want to know more, followed by paragraphs that reassert the headline without giving actual evidence for the assertion, peppered with links that don’t provide the actual evidence I’m looking for, often ending in an admission that the actual assertions might not be true. Look at any Russiagate article you’ve shared with others with a critical eye and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

 Before going any further, I would like to point out that I am not and have never been a Republican or a conservative. I have always considered myself to be firmly on the left, which is why I’ve always been sensitive regarding the idea that people’s livelihoods can be ruined because of the way they exercise their freedom of speech. I always thought this was a liberal idea. After all, Joe McCarthy was a Republican who smeared and ruined the lives of many a leftist. But it is also worth noting that it was during a Democratic administration that the silencing of Paul Robeson took place. It was under a Democratic administration that Eartha Kitt’s career was derailed after she spoke out against the Vietnam War in front of Ladybird Johnston.

 Here is one article on the firing of Gina Carano that serves as a template for what is wrong with journalism in general. Please keep in mind the title says Here’s Why Gina Carano Was Fired From ‘The Mandalorian’, the key word being “Why”.

 According to the article, “she reshared a post that seemed to suggest having a differing political view in 2021 was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust”. A statement from Lucasfilm states “Her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”

 That’s a big stretch there. Taken on faith that Carano’s intent was to suggest having a differing political view was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust, it does not equate to “denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities” In fact, it implies that Carano is identifying with the Jews, not denigrating them. Nor is the post intended to equate Republicans with Jews so much as it is to equate the current political climate with something capable of becoming comparable to Nazi Germany. Her crime is one of hyperbole and a demonstration of Godwin’s Law, but I do not see it as a denigration of people based on their cultural and religious identities.

 The comparison of one’s political opponents to Nazis is overused, but there is some value to it. You don’t want to wait until eugenics is in full swing to start comparing people to Nazis. It’s the kind of thing you want to nip in the bud, so in my opinion, it is safer to compare bad behavior to Nazism than it is to worry about hurting people’s sensibilities.

 Besides, it’s not like Democrats have not been engaging in the exact same behavior for four years. Type in an image search for “Trumpler” and see what you come up with (Let me know how many pages of images you find).

 So is that the trespass she is accused of? Comparing the current political climate to Nazi Germany? I guess the way to prove her wrong would be to incite a mob on social media to demand she be fired from her job, right?

 There’s more, though, than just that one tweet, I get it. There was a string of unpopular things she shared on social media, this was merely the final straw. Apparently, she shared memes that “made fun of the mask mandate in California, compared former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial to Groundhog Day, and claimed Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

 In terms of spreading the belief that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself, few people believe the official story. I know exactly one person who implied he did. Virtually everybody knows there’s more to the story than we are being told, and many just shorthand the assertion that the media is lying by saying “Epstein didn’t kill himself.” Do I personally think he did? How would I know, the cameras that were supposed to be watching him didn’t work. But everybody knows that it’s fishy as hell. Even the media people whose job it is to silence discussion on Jeffrey Epstein know it, even if they can’t say it.

 As for her comparing Trump’s second impeachment to Groundhog Day, is this seriously a reason for getting someone fired? Seriously?

 Lastly is the issue of her making fun of California’s mask mandate. On this issue I personally disagree with her. At least I think I do, I’m not personally familiar with California’s mask mandate. And I’m not sure what exactly she said, though I suspect it would be nothing I would try to get someone fired for. Let us delve further into the article and get to the specifics.

 Except there are no further tweets or other social media shares to be found in the article. Let me correct myself, there are no further tweets found in the article by Gina Carana. Instead the article shares angry tweets by anonymous tweeters calling for Carana to be fired. Within one is the assertion that she has expressed transphobic sentiments. But the article does not go on to share any evidence to back up the claim of an anonymous person on Twitter. Let me be clear: this article includes the assertion of an anonymous person on Twitter, and then does absolutely nothing to say if that assertion is true or false.

 And this passes for journalism. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were paid to report on the reason why someone in the public eye lost her job for voicing her political opinions, I would do the work and provide the actual social media posts she made, rather than the angry tweets of anonymous people.

 I was introduced to this story by someone sharing another article. It was an article that told me how I should perceive the situation without providing me with the evidence I needed to make up my own mind. I responded to the social media post by saying I could not find the actual statements she made or shared. Someone else commented that I should follow the links in the article. That person had assumed that actual paid journalists would provide such information. But I had long ago discovered differently. There were links, yes, but nothing to anything that provided any evidence. Not unlike the Russiagate article I linked to above, which had no links even insinuating ANYTHING about any Russians. The article in question was shared with me by an intelligent person hoping to persuade me that Russian collusion was fact. An article that mentions Russia nowhere but in the headline.

 Journalism in our era is not there to provide you with information, it is there to provide you with opinion. But if you take exception to anything provided by establishment media, you are accused of not accepting the facts or reality. And arguing your case will never amount to anything.

 They’ve got this down to a science. They have propaganda and manipulation of the masses down to a science. In the nearly one hundred years since the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, began using psychological principles for marketing and propaganda purposes, think tanks and government entities have learned a lot. You have to be aware of how this stuff works if you don’t want to fall prey to it. Read everything critically, with the knowledge that there is always someone trying to manipulate your feelings and how you view reality.

 Again, I am not and have never been a member of the Republican Party. I am not writing what I am writing to defend them or Gina Carano or any particular position. I am writing this in the attempt to hold Democrats and the (alleged) left media to a standard that rises above FOX News or Alex Jones. Right now, I often wonder if they’re even capable of rising to the same sad standard.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

In Defense Of Slavery

(I have taken many of the arguments I am currently hearing and imagining them being employed by someone a couple of hundred years ago)

I’m sick of people saying slavery as a way of organizing an economy is bad. Have there been abuses? Sure. Is the system perfect? No. But we must remember that the United States of America was built on slavery. Our very culture of freedom and opportunity would not today exist if it were not for an economy based in slavery. No, it is not perfect. And yes, there are ways it can be improved. Nevertheless, slavery is the greatest economic system that has ever existed.

 Before you consider throwing out the economic foundation that our country was founded on in favor of some foreign system, take a long hard look at what the alternatives are. Take a look at the Native American tribes in the west who do not have an agrarian economy based on ownership of other people. Everywhere their tribes are failing, their way of life disintegrating. Instead of intelligent employment of slaves to produce what they need, they rely on buffalo for food, clothing and housing. And what is the result? A rapidly shrinking supply of buffalo. When will they admit their system does not work?

 Regard, also, our neighbors to the south. Why, it has been scarce two score years since Mexico has done away with slavery, and in that short amount of time, their ability to govern their own affairs has been so lacking that the United States was forced to take control of the territories of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, clear proof that an economy based on slavery is superior to the alternative. In Central and in South America, too, once-thriving industries have suffered as the result of a transition to a non-slave economy. Their mining of precious minerals has plummeted, their rubber plantations a mere shadow of what they once were.

 What many regard as cruelty and injustice in a slave-holding economy is actually part of a self-regulating system. For example, many people are disinclined through experience with other forms of economies to climb underground to dig for emeralds. These individuals, lacking in personal ambition, must be induced to be productive members of a society. Likewise, there are many who are unwilling to do the work of picking cotton, ironing people’s linens, and slopping out the barn. It is the unfortunate burden of those better capable of understanding how the world operates to ensure others do their part.

 Of course, the tools employed to ensure compliance in a system based on slavery can seem harsh to those unfamiliar with the system. But it has been demonstrated time and again that the whipping and enslavement of workers has dramatically decreased the need for prisons. In many cases, sparing the rod is not ultimately the most compassionate treatment.

 And while the slave seems at first glimpse to be a tool and not a treasured member of society, nothing could be further from the truth. The slave is the most highly valued resource of the slave owner. The owner of a plantation is quite aware, believe you me, that all the wealth he has acquired could not be achieved without the labor of his slaves. That is why he will do everything possible to be certain his slaves are kept at peak operating efficiency.

 For example, slave owners have an economic stake in keeping their slaves well-fed. It hardly requires explaining that the better nourished a slave is, the more productive he will be and the richer his owner will be in return. Moreover, a sick slave is an unproductive slave, which is why a smart slave owner will make sure the slave who is sick, or injured due to corrective whipping, will receive adequate health care. Why, one could hardly imagine a worker taking as much interest in his own health as the man who owns him.

 Now, I won’t pretend that there aren’t flaws and imperfections in the slavery system. But most of these flaws result not from the practice of slavery but due to government interference in a pure slavery system. Well-meaning but ignorant do-gooders are always trying to improve upon the slavery economy, but in the end they only do more harm than good. The system works best when it is allowed to work as it was intended. Outside interference will only make things worse.

 Lastly, there is the racial component to slavery. On this subject, I must wholeheartedly agree with the critics of slavery. For too long, the racial identity of slave owners has been overwhelmingly white while slaves have been disproportionately persons of color. This needs to change, and we must do whatever it takes to make sure people of color have access to the ownership of slaves of whatever color, gender, or orientation. But it would be a foolish mistake if we were to, in the process of integrating the ownership of slaves, harm the very institution that has allowed so many slaveholders and slaves alike to experience a wealth other nations (the Cree Nation, the Navajos, and the Cherokee, just to name a few) can only dream of. 

We do not need to abolish the slave economy, we just need to ensure that it is allowed to work as it was intended and without bias as regards to race, gender, or sexual bias.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.