The Dangerous War on Media

FAKE_NEWS

The war on the media is stronger then ever. If you haven’t heard the term “fake news” you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple of years. Yet it’s still gaining traction every day and the results are dangerous.

First let’s clear a few things up, every journalist has a bias. You see journalists are human, just like you and me, and if you think you can write a political story without any bias you are only fooling yourself. Bias is a human condition, and as such will always be present in the work created by humans.

Second, most journalists that write for national media outlets in the United States have a liberal leaning. This doesn’t make the stories that they cover “fake news”, but it does mean that most national news stories will have a liberal bias. But it doesn’t change the fact that the facts presented in their stories are just that, facts. You see you can disagree with facts all you want, but a fact will remain a fact.

Facts are something that President Trump has convinced himself, and many of his supporters, changes depending on the bias of the story. Yes, a biased story might mean that there is more to the story that isn’t being presented but it doesn’t make it “fake news”, and the facts presented remain relevant.

News today isn’t any more or less biased then it’s been in the past, the difference is that people used to know how to pull the facts out of the story that they were hearing and form their own opinions. They used to get the story from more then one source to make sure they got the whole picture.

Americans today have lost that ability.

And as such Americans are gullible to attacks labeling legitimate media sources as “fake”. You see once you start labeling a news source as fake you have no way of distinguishing reality from fiction. Certain politicians would have you believe that all news sources are fake. Once they convince you of that the only person you feel like you can trust for your information is them. And if they are your news source they can convince you of anything they want to. And at that point you are following the most biased source of all, the politician.

Chemical Warfare: The “Red Line”

Missile Strike.jpgThe coalition strikes in Syria has been subject to a lot of scrutiny and speculation on what is going to happen next. Realistically though, not much is going to change. The fact that the United States didn’t act alone all but assures that.

There isn’t much worry about what Syria is going to do in response, mainly because there isn’t much they CAN do in response. They are going to rely on other countries that support them, like China or Russia, to respond for them, with the only country that might even think about doing something being Russia.

And while the recent strikes are sure to raise tensions, especially between the United States and Russia, I don’t foresee anything else happening, in part because tensions with Russia were so high in the world to begin with.

Russia doesn’t want to get involved in World War III more than any other country in the world, and they know any direct action against United States troops will lead to just that. And by not acting alone, the world has shown that they stand behind the United States against Syria and Russia when it comes to chemical warfare.  

What this latest strike has shown, and will continue to show, is that the United States and President Donald Trump are serious about cracking down on chemical attacks throughout the world. It shows that if chemical weapons are used that the United States will respond. It’s a welcome change in policy from the Obama administration who had set a “red line” on chemical warfare only to back down when the illicit weapons were used.

Quickly, efficiently, and lethally responding to chemical warfare isn’t a partisan issue. If you don’t think that chemical attacks should be retaliated against with lethal and overwhelming force, then you are a part of the problem. Because as the saying goes, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Trump’s Transgender Policy: The Rational Solution

transgender

The White House has passed a new policy “banning” transgenders from serving in the United States military, “except under a few limited circumstances”. Without getting into the controversial and often bigoted debate about whether transgenderism is a “disease” or “mental condition” let’s break down the new policy.

If you take an objective look at it, what it does is prevent individuals from transitioning genders while they are in the military. Which falls under policies currently in place for military members already.

Don’t believe me? Military members are kicked out if they are not deployable for 12 consecutive months. How long does it take to transition? Best case scenario is two years. For those two years they are nondeployable. So, under current policies they should be kicked out.

As far as it being a full “ban” on transgendered individuals, it’s not. When you look at the exceptions made all they do is ensure that individuals can’t transition after they join. Let’s break down the “limited circumstances” that the White House has outlined.

The first exception laid out by the White House policy is that individuals who have been “stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological sex prior to accession” may join. In layman’s terms, if an individual fully transitioned 3 years ago they can join the military.

While an argument can be made on whether this is necessary, it is hardly the only thing that can require a mandatory waiting time. For instance, anyone who has gotten LASIK or PRK must wait 12 months before they are eligible to join.

Now 36 months is overkill to ensure that no unexpected health issues arise from the transition process, but so is 12 months for eye surgery. That’s just how the military does things. Should the mandatory waiting time probably be less? Yes, and it might change after the courts get a hold of it.

The second exception is for those individuals that “do not require a change of gender”. Now this reeks of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but once you get over the guttural response to the wording, you can understand why this is a necessary provision. If an individual wants to join the military and is willing to forego the medical process of transitioning they should be able to do so. In an idealistic world this wouldn’t be necessary, but in an idealistic world we wouldn’t need a military.

The final exception is for those transgender individuals that are already in the military. They can stay in. This is the right thing to do. You don’t tell people they can do something, then kick them out for doing it.

So, while media sources go nuts on this new policy, President Trump is right when he says it’s what senior military leaders want. They are tired of having a force that isn’t fully deployable. And transitioning members only add to that number.

Omnibus 2018: An example of Republican Hypocrisy

 

Trump signs bill
Photo Credit

 

2,232 pages. The largest funding increase in United States history. Less then 24 hours for Congress to read it before voting. Everything the Republican party has stood against for the last 10 years. It’s hard to imagine voters in 2016 imagined this when they gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. It’s also hard to imagine that this November voters are going to be forgiving.

I am a fiscal conservative. But it seems to me that the Republican party is no longer the fiscally conservative party. After years of President Obama and the Democratic party lowering the national deficit, I had high hopes that the Republican party would come in and finish what Obama started. I was dead wrong.

The deficit is back over a trillion dollars, and the debt is over 21 trillion. President Trump has stated that this will be the last time he signs a bill like this.  I believe him. Why? Because the Republican party is going to lose control of the House, and likely the Senate in November, and Democrats aren’t going to make the same mistakes the GOP just made.

You see if Trump was presented with another massive spending bill he would sign it. But he won’t be presented with one. Democrats won’t give him that chance and come 2020 Trump won’t be sitting in the White House. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying a Republican won’t, but I don’t see any path for another 4 years of Trump.

The number one priority for our country right now isn’t to build up our military, our even to create a path to citizenship for DREAMers, although both are noble goals. The number one priority should be getting our massive debt under control. If not, it will cripple our military, our economy, and our country. Why can’t the Republican party see this?

Is it as simple as Democrats state, and Republicans will say anything to get elected? Or is there something else that I’m missing?

Can Trump just fire DeVos already?

 

354px-Betsy_DeVos_by_Gage_Skidmore
Photo by: Gage Skidmore

It’s beyond time to fire Betsy DeVos. Her latest comments on 60 minutes just highlight what most in tuned individuals have been saying about her since the start, she doesn’t know what the hell she is doing. But don’t take my word for it, lets look at some shining examples of her ineptitude since being nominated.

Shining example number one, she made it harder to prosecute sexual assault on school campuses. In a country where only 31 percent of rapes are reported, and only 0.7 percent result in felony convictions, is it really the time to bring about additional protection for rapists? The guise of protecting those falsely accused falls flat when you consider that of all rape accusations, just under six percent are false.

This just doesn’t make any sense. And what does DeVos have to say when asked if the number of people raped and the number of people falsely accused are the same? “I don’t know”. Well DeVos, all of the United States, myself included does, why don’t you?

Example number two, she thinks grizzly bears are attacking students in Wyoming schools. Well not attacked, but that’s only because all the teachers have guns in Wyoming right? If not, those bears would be chomping at the bit.

Moving on to example number three, she didn’t know that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was a federal law. You know the act that requires public schools in all 50 states to provide education to students with disabilities? Not that it’s important for the Secretary of Education to know these things…

One last example of her incompetence, she has never “intentionally” visited an underperforming school… yet she wants to slash their funding. Yes, it’s important to know what the best schools are doing, but unless you know what underperforming schools are doing you have nothing to compare it to. You have no idea what makes the best school the best. So how can you propose legislation and work on changes without knowing what makes the best schools the best?

The good news for the United States, even Donald Trump seems to be distancing himself from DeVos, hopefully a sign that he’s about to tell his Secretary of Education his two most iconic words “you’re fired”.

 

Secure the Border – Without a Wall

WallPresident Donald Trump’s proposed border wall could end up costing taxpayers 70 billion dollars to build and an additional 150 million dollars a year to maintain. While securing the border is a common sense goal, building a wall is an archaic an ineffective way to do it.

The President should be seeking 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Instead of investing 70 billion dollars on a wall it could be invested in personnel, sensors, drones, and other technological equipment to more effectively secure the border.  

Start by simply spreading the initial funds out over 50 years. That’s 1.4 billion dollars a year. Then you can add in the 150 million dollars that it would cost to maintain the wall. That gives you a little over 1.5 billion dollars a year to devote to border security for the next 50 years.

When you look at the fact that border patrol agents make, on average, 77,000 dollars a year, that means with just the funds for the wall you could hire 20,130 more border patrol agents for the next 50 years. Or you could hire 10,000 more border patrol agents and use the rest of the money to invest in technological solutions to securing the border.

Pair this legislation with a bill for DREAMERS so both sides get a political win while solving two issues that this nation is currently facing. This is a plan where both sides win while giving something up.

So, while the GOP feels like they are losing by giving up on the wall, they get much needed funding to secure the border that they wouldn’t be getting otherwise. And in exchange for this border funding Democrats get to present a permanent fix for DREAMERS allowing them to become full fledged citizens.

Trump gets to secure the border and Democrats’ get to help out DREAMERS, what’s not to like?

Arming Teachers–Have we already forgotten Salcido?

Just a few weeks ago conservatives and liberals alike were infuriated by the comments of Gregory Salcido. His derogatory and appalling comments towards the military community rightfully drew the ire of millions.

Gregory_Salcido

That wasn’t even his first infraction. He had threated to kill a student. He had physically assaulted a student. And now under the proposal of the Trump administration, most Republicans, and the NRA he would be allowed to carry a gun into the classroom.

The Trump administration is trying to sell this proposal as a way for teachers to keep their students safe. But what happens if the teacher is the person that the student needs to be kept safe from? We no longer live in a society where teachers are always the good guys.

One only needs to look at the viral video of cops doing the wrong thing to see what can happen when you give weapons to the “good guys”.

Teachers should be individuals that society can count on to do the right thing. So should cops. But the sad truth is that’s not the world we live in. And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that arming teachers will do almost nothing to prevent the bad guys with guns from coming into the school.

We don’t need to take guns from legal gun owners. So, while the NRA is trying to scare gun owners into feeling that Democrats are after their guns, for the most part that just isn’t the case.

What we need is common sense gun laws. Universal background checks that close the loopholes gun shows and private sellers use to circumvent the current system is desperately overdue. This means registering guns so we can make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Trump’s Saccone Comments–Just more Hypocrisy

PAD18

If you haven’t heard there is a special election happening in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, and while it’s no surprise that President Donald Trump is supporting Republican candidate Rick Saccone over Democratic candidate Conor Lamb, what is surprising is the rhetoric that he is using to do so.

While he lauds Saccone for “loving vets” he simultaneously blasts Lamb as “Lamb the sham”. The irony? Lamb is one of those vets Trump supposedly “loves”. More ironic? The fact that Trump is trying to champion gun rights after proposing the unconstitutional action of raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21. Something his own party and the NRA vehemently disagree with.

Having the president support you should be a boon for your chances win the election. But with how hypocritical and unliked Trump is, it currently does the opposite. Trump is for Republicans what Nancy Pelosi is to Democrats. But Lamb had the common sense to distance himself from Pelosi, while Saccone was foolish enough to cozy up to Trump.

While Trump argues that Lamb will just follow the Democratic party line (although he’s publicly bucked the party line on multiple issues), paradoxically what he wants out of Saccone is for him to follow the Republican party line on every issue. And elected officials that don’t think for themselves and simply follow party lines is exactly what is wrong with Washington.

Now does that mean Lamb beats Saccone? Unlikely considering how conservative the district is. But even having to have the conversation doesn’t bode well for Republicans.

C’mon America you’re better than this

Pic1

The political world has finally come full circle. Our entertainers are trying to run our country while our politicians try to entertain us. Why is it that Donald Trump is in the White House and Hillary Clinton is in the Grammys?

I’d argue that the reason is one and the same. Clinton being in the Grammys is indicative of the reason why Donald Trump was elected to be president in the first place. The overwhelming pettiness of the Clinton skit highlights the personality traits that led to her failure to beat the most unqualified presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

Think about it, a tenured Senator and previous Secretary of State was unable to defeat the host of The Apprentice in a presidential election because of the public disgust over her actions that revealed the true nature of her personality.

The media calls her skit “trolling” and by definition it is, but the real story is how fast and how far Clinton has fallen. Just over a year ago she was the most powerful female figure in US politics, now she’s just a comedic skit. And looking back that’s all she really ever was.

Now hopefully the trend of politicians in entertainment and entertainers in politics isn’t one that continues. Imagine the Republican primaries Bill Belichick vs. Trump, and on the Democratic side Oprah Winfrey vs. Snoop Dog. And don’t worry Marco Rubio and Nancy Pelosi will be hosting the Oscars marking the first time that Republicans and Democrats have actually worked together to accomplish something since 2008!

Common sense has left our country to the point where everything in that paragraph is both absurd and completely possible (except for Republicans and Democrats working together on anything of course!).

C’mon America you’re better than this.