To the defense of Trump

Now that the clock ticks on and we gradually eke toward the US election mid-terms, it is becoming more and more clear that the media is having less and less interest in doing its job of reporting facts. Frankly, it appears that their modus operandi has gone from being self-appointed bastions of truth and cornerstones of democracy into “Get Trump”.

This is where we, as citizens, need to be astute in what we consume, and recognise the media’s operations. Like any decent investigator, we must always ask ourselves, “Is our source of information reliable, and do they have an interest in selling us a skewed version of events?”

Because, in all likelihood, they have an interest. If it hasn’t been obvious so far, then I fear people haven’t been paying attention. Look at any news story that features Trump versus another person, and the photo of Trump’s target is one showing a face of stoicism, whereas Trumps face is contorted into some stupid way to make it look like he’s trying to shit out a tree stump.

If the media were truly interested in impartial reporting, they wouldn’t need to stoop to such tactics, and they would trust that the reader could formulate their own solutions.

But that’s a big fat nope, and now we have media doing all they can to smear Trump in the hope that the midterm elections will rout Republicans from the House and Senate so that impeachment proceedings can commence.

Because that’s the end game. Impeachment and removal from office.

So, why does that bother me? Despite all my recent postings here, I am not a Trump supporter.

I have long held a belief that politics had been polluted by ultra-wealthy and well-connected types who knew how to say the right things in order to get in. They were hyper-polished but ultimately milquetoast individuals who said nothing committal and spoke in roundabouts and fog. They weren’t motivated by actual serving of the people, but rather by their legacy.

They wanted to rule, and to rule for as long as they could. To stay in power, they just needed to say the right things and avoid the bad things – not necessarily do what is right.

I felt that politics needed a good flush out. It needed someone willing to do what they felt was right, and not what was popular by polls. For all the flaws of Trump – and there are many – I can honestly say with some certainty that he’s doing what he thinks is right and not what is popular. He does what he thinks will take the US where he wants it to go, and not what he thinks will get him reelected.

And regardless of whether you think he’s wrong (and he can be very wrong), you cannot fault him for not following through.

I don’t want politicians motivated by reelection. I want them motivated by doing what they think is right – yes, even if i disagree with them.

Because I prefer someone doing something because it’s their idea, not because they think their idea will get them what they want.

And because in Trump I see this person, and because I see a malicious monolith of entrenched power (in the media and established politicians) seemingly conspiring to have Trump thrown out on the most specious of reasons, it feels like a fight between two parties; the ultra powerful and wealthy individuals of an ultra upper class who believe they were born to rule versus, well, the people.

So, I don’t defend Trump because I like him. I defend him because he won the election and because those forces that are trying to remove him shouldn’t be so powerful in the first place. Politicians serve the people. The people spoke. The politicians should listen and try again next election instead of trying to throw out the peoples’ choice.

Advertisements

Issues as ammo

The world has eyes on the US, and in particular there has been much talk of the issue of the separation of children from their parents as a result of illegal immigration.

The photos of distraught children are harrowing and distressing for anyone, let alone when it is whipped up by a melodramatic media – of whom I have been continually critical on this blog.

Of course, a President who was elected for his seemingly tough stance on illegal immigration is now facing a media backlash for the very stance he promised to take – even though he’s executing the law as per the 2016 9th Circuit Court ruling of not detaining children.

But it must be said with the sincerest of Fuck You’s to the likes of Chuck Schumer who, instead of working with Republicans to actually change the legislation, would prefer everything occur as an Executive Order from the President.

This is not a sign of someone who wants a problem fixed, but of someone who wants to use people as political hay.

Why would he want an Executive Order when he can actually change the law to fix the problem? Because the problem with doing things with “a flick of a pen” is that those actions can be undone with the same simplicity. Whereas changing via law can only be undone via changing the law.

Schumer cares not for children separated from their parents beyond how he can use them to pressure Trump. It’s just a game for him. There are actual people suffering as a result of legislation, and he would prefer to get headlines over working with the other side of the aisle to get a result.

Fuck off. People are not to be used in this manner. They are not your leverage so you can forward your own celebrity and agenda.

Further media biases

There appears to be a major culture war occurring around us, and the sounds of battle are in the screeches of modems and the splashes of virtual ink. The sounds of war have become so incessant now, that it is impossible to ignore it. News cycles ring out each day, notifying the masses of the actual and perceived slights being experienced by people online.

The Roseanne Barr shitfest most recently being an example of a battle raging for seemingly ages, with the result being Barr’s loss of employment, dashing of future career, and a complete and utter wipe out of her previous career. Apparently her entire series has been pulled, including the seasons of yesteryear.

While Bill Cosby’s show remains oddly and readily available, despite his recent conviction.

Eric Schneiderman was recently to have found to be sexually assaulting his partners, oftentimes calling them his slaves, and hitting them. Despite this case being a prime example of the kind of racism and sexism the media would willingly decry and hold as an example of the ugly society we currently inhabit, this case seems to have yielded very little coverage in comparison.

Why?

Eric Schneiderman is a Democrat. His behaviour could definitely hurt the image of the party, and it would seem that the media seems complicit in limiting the fallout. Oh, they’ll cover the story, sure. But they won’t return to that well for more water to carry.

The media seem keen to portray themselves as this bastion of truth that is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy, yet when their allegiances are on naked display, this claim is hokum. The infuriating part about this, however, is their plausible deniability on these matters. They can point to maybe one or two stories and then claim that they covered the Schneiderman case, and then shrug and rationalise away why they run Roseanne Barr stories day-after-day.

Perhaps if they were just upfront about their biases, I could perhaps stomach the churn. But it’s the pretention of balance that really irks me. Yes, I feel the same about Fox as I do CNN – stop with the veneer of impartiality when your preferences are clear. Perhaps then I can feel like we can recover some semblance of civil public discourse.

This isn’t “Whataboutism”, or whatever baked-up term the culture-savvy seem keen to throw out as attacks on arguments against their dim world views. I am not defending one because another is worse. I am pointing out the media’s actions on one, and their inactions on the other while claiming to play some pivotal role in society.

Remember; Roseanne had her career scrubbed from today and from history over a single (albeit terrible) tweet. Schneiderman resigned, but his offences seem to have been buried in the news cycle quickly and efficiently. It was there, but no one will ever speak of it again.

While these kinds of things occur, and the media continue to flap their junk in the wind while calling it news, they will continue to discard audiences, losing the trust of populations.

And regular people will see their claims of being “important to free democracy” and laugh their asses off.

Orbiting the drain

Further to yesterday’s post, in where I highlight the bellowing dumpster fire that is, and forever will be, Roseanne Barr’s poorly-thought-out tweet, I have begun to notice that somehow, prominent people have seen fit to point score – like the Activist Journalists they so desire to be.

Will ampersand Grace star Debra Messing was seen making the following observation:

I am not one to usually cast stones when it comes to acting chops, because I get the feeling these days that whether someone’s acting is “good” is often associated with whether the judger of the acting actually likes the actor. However, if I could use this tweet as a gauge of the kind of ACTING that Messing performs, then I don’t think much of her ability.

Tears? Of relief? That someone who made a single, albeit racist, tweet got shown the door? Because that person shows inklings of wrongthink? Get a grip.

But its the middle part that really raises an eyebrow. “Trump’s orbit”.

What exactly does this mean? Well, from what I can tell, Messing is trying to draw a correlation that it’s a certain kind of individual that is attracted to Trump. This is divisive rhetoric to say the least, and it’s the kind of thinking that needs to go die in a well. It’s the extremist view that suggests that if you don’t one-hundred percent condemn anything associated with Trump, that you’re a racist. An irredeemable human.

Did these people not learn how they got Trump? This is how they got Trump. And this is how they’ll continue to get┬ámore Trump. When one side is willing to throw horrible labels at opponents, as well as people who are undecided on the fence, then they shouldn’t act surprised when fence sitters shrug and say “Well, I might as well side with the other guy then, if I’m such a bad person for asking questions”.

Did they learn nothing from Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” speech?

Speaking of Hillary Clinton, shall we do a quick analysis of the kinds of people in her orbit?

Because let’s be consistent here. If we are to judge people upon the company they keep, or of those who are drawn to them, we should apply the same standard, right? Let’s do a quick look.

Hillary Clinton with former KKK member Robert Byrd. Sure, he stopped being a member, but when has time passing been a redeemer of people?

And of course, the kicker, the man whose lechery kicked off the Me Too movement; Harvey Weinstein, long-time supporter and donor for Hillary Clinton.

What I write here is not to defend nor condemn anyone, but rather highlight how stupid it is to try and shame people for being in “an orbit” of someone. People are not their groups, and cannot be condemned for the bad actions of the company they might have kept.