Monday, June 26, 2017

Dropping Death Charges

stilton’s place, stilton, political, humor, conservative, cartoons, jokes, hope n’ change, hillary, healthcare, death party

The good news on Friday was that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was moved out of intensive care following his attempted assassination by a rabid Democrat who had been whipped into a frenzy by hateful hyperbolic anti-Republican rhetoric.

The bad news is that on the very same day, Hillary Clinton sent sociopaths a fresh call to arms by tweeting "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this (healthcare) bill, they're the death party."

At least when Trump tweets, there's sort of an endearing lunacy at work. But with Hillary, it's nothing but pure spite and malice intended to mislead, divide, distort, and inspire hate - and possibly political hate crimes.

We'd say more, but don't want to waste our breath over the pronouncements of an embittered, washed up political failure. Especially not when we can waste our breath over the pronouncements of someone who's at least still in the game...

stilton’s place, stilton, political, humor, conservative, cartoons, jokes, hope n’ change, kellyanne conway, election, russian, hacking, obama, semantics

Kellyanne Conway did no one any favors when, speaking on a Sunday (fake) news show, she said "It's the Obama administration that was responsible for doing absolutely nothing from August to January with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into our election. They did absolutely nothing. They're responsible for this."

But responsible for this what? This Presidency? This specious yet undying news story? We don't know and, frankly my dear Scarlett, we don't give a damn.

More than anything else, the whole Russian brouhaha strikes us as the semantic equivalent of a natural disaster, because words are being used interchangeably and incorrectly to obscure the truth rather than reveal it. Is "intelligence gathering" the same as "meddling?" Are both the same as "hacking?" And are all these terms synonyms for "collusion?" You'd certainly think so according to the random word choices of the media.

Is a "phishing" email to a Democrat official, or the leaking of embarrassing internal emails, the same as "hacking" an entire election? Neither the media, nor apparently the Trump administration, now see any difference.

Which is why we're largely giving up on the slapdash word-of-the-day practitioners of "journalism" in general and this idiotic story in particular.

35 comments:

Pete (Detroit) said...

Seth Rich >> Death party... NICE!
I REALLY want Ted Cruz to get up and ask 'how many will lose insurance when ACA exchanges totally collapse next year? How many (30 MILLION) have already lost insurance because they've been priced out of the market? We're trying to SAVE people's insurance options, you jello headed idiots!'

Of course, he won't
And if he did, no one would listen.
>Sigh<

REM1875 said...

...and anonymous sources have confirmed that it really might have almost happened this way, possibly .......maybe.....almost....probably said ...at secret unknown meetings..... in undisclosed places ....kinda sure.... we think.... unknown highly placed government officials stated.....who asked not to be named......Russia......Trump plus Putin.....cover-up.....Democrat Senator/congressperson asked/ said......most likely.....

This is news? The best our current urinalist can report???

Fred Ciampi said...

Just my 2 cents' worth; Not only does today's journalism lack character, morals, and truth, but the buggers can't even spell correctly nor do they know anything about grammar and punctuation. So there!

Geoff King said...

I have lost my appetite for political news of any sort. Although I do check the daily news from several sources, it is mainly to see who blew up or beheaded who on the world stage.
Local news, such as the record heat wave we in AZ just endured and the resulting extreme fire danger we now face interests me far more as I am directly impacted by it.

Fish Out of Water said...

And the democrats have been and will continue to be the Plantation Party

Tracy Evans said...

I no longer watch the news. I get pretty much everything worth knowing via email alerts. And I sure has hell don't need to hear any 'analysis' - that's what cartoons are for.

But as for the DNC - their entire primary was a scam - there's a class action suit going on now. In 2016 it seems they ran a ghost against Price. How many people wasted their hard earned votes on that fraud.

And are DNC finger prints all over that urine soaked dossier on Trump?

Seth Rich was another Vince Foster - I believe that both of them got to see the inner workings and didn't like what they saw and became a liability.

American Cowboy said...

@Fred Ciampi - Eggsackly rite.

Walter L Stafford said...

Fish has acquired the target...fire!

Pete (Detroit) said...

REM1875 - you hang out at WeaselZippers too?
https://www.weaselzippers.us/

Karen-n-Bill said...

800 LB Gorilla in the 'Russia' drama is: Which candidate would the Russians have bent any effort to assist into office? Methinks the one with a proven record of corruption and influence peddling would have been their natural choice, but seems everyone overlooks this detail.

John the Econ said...

I still believe that the smart play by the GOP would have been to let ObamaCare run its course. I still don't have any meaningful details on the new GOP plan, so it's no possible for me to offer any meaningful insight beyond that I can't see how it will work any better than ObamaCare did; a complex mix of rules and regs that in the long run will not slow to current state of decline until everyone cries "uncle" and submits to "single payer", which is what I believe Trump will run on in 2020 as part of a plan to destroy what will be left of the Democratic party.

Kellyanne Conway: Still not certain I get her. Blonde bimbo or evil genius? Only time will tell. All I do know is that she sucks the oxygen out of a news cycle, which give Trump the opportunity to do real Presidenting. Or at least, I hope so.

Speaking of:

In victory for Trump, Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban

It seems that the Supreme Court believes that "the phone and pen" applies to Trump just as much as it did for Obama.

Let's see how the "journalists" square that circle today.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete (Detroit)- Amen! It seems like nobody is talking about the fact that millions HAVE lost insurance under Obamacare, and millions more WILL lose it as the exchanges collapse and remaining policy choices become unaffordable. The Left is willfully blind to all of this because they'd rather feel proud of themselves for their "compassion" today rather than showing the genuine compassion of making the programs sustainable.

@REM1875- Nicely put. I'm sick of the weasel wording. However I still consider the Wall Street Journal to be a pretty solid source of information.

@Fred Ciampi- I'm not exactly a grammar Nazi, but I remember when it was unbelievably rare to find a typo or grammatical error in print. Now, it's not unusual to find multiple errors in a single story. It undermines credibility.

@Fish Out of Water- I've said as much many times. They are the party that wants to keep black Americans on a plantation, and I hope to live long enough to see those people "free at last."

@Tracy Evans- I'm with you. Democratic voters should be storming the DNC with torches and pitchforks (rhetorically speaking, of course) over how their votes were stolen and manipulated. But nooOOooo, they're all busy looking at the "shiny object" of Russian election hacking.

And obviously I don't know what really happened to Seth Rich, but my gut tells me that his "random" murder - for no apparent reason - doesn't pass the smell test.

@Karen-n-Bill- I've made that point more than once. Hillary was already known to make sleazy, Russia-friendly deals as long as money changed hands. And with her screwy home server setup, there's a good bet that Russian intelligence had a buttload of blackmail material ready to use to manipulate her.

If Russia really wanted to tilt the election results, they would have done it for Hillary. Fortunately, they didn't think they needed to.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- In theory the smart play would have been letting Obamacare collapse, but the reality is that the massive interim suffering would be blamed on the party in power. The only way to avoid single-payer is to do a repeal and replace with truly sweeping changes. But I don't see the political will among our elected representatives to make it happen. Making single-payer inevitable.

Regarding Conway, I think she's pretty sharp - but this was a real blunder. It's easy to fall into the trap of using the phraseology of the Left, but it's a dangerous mistake. NO ONE in Trump's camp should refer to "hacking the election" until there's been at least some shred of evidence that such ever happened.

And on the Supreme Court decision, it's a big win for Trump...not to mention a big win for basing judicial decisions on what is actually written in a law or executive order rather than interpreting the case through the prism of campaign rhetoric and guesses about what was in the President's mind.

Case in point: Obama flat out declared that the individual mandate was not a tax. But John Roberts ignored that when declaring that the mandate was a tax, which was the only way to make this blatantly illegal money grab appear to be legal.

John the Econ said...

@Pete (Detroit), the Progressive narrative over the weekend was clearly "how many millions of people were going to die" because of the GOP bill.

This certainly was not a concern to them when our veterans waiting for care were put on waiting lists that were then immediately tossed in the wastebasket.

But as you say, they won't care. They really don't. It's all just a means to an end for them.

Meanwhile, Democrats in California have shelved their "single payer" health plan, indefinitely.

How many Californians are going to die because Democrats (who totally control state government and could pass this at any time) will not pass this bill? Where is the outrage?

Of course, we know why: It would more than double the existing state budget, and ultimately shove other state funding priorities to the back seat. And since states can't just print money like the feds can, there's absolutely no consensus as to how to pay for this in a state where citizens already pay some of the highest income, sales, energy and other taxes in the country.

I guess it's not "free" after all.

Colby Muenster said...

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest Hillary's wardrobe of pantsuits! (Hats off the Johnny Carson). Does she fancy herself as being still relevant? Her and Maxine Waters must have both flunked Mr. Spock's Logic 101 class.

Concerning Kellyanne Conway, Trump doesn't really need anybody on his staff sticking their feet their mouths, does he? He has that particular talent down to a science, all by his lonesome. Ms. Conway is apparently really good at getting people elected, but a politician she is not.

She said, "...with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into our election." Change that to, "...with the knowledge that Russia was ATTEMPTING to hack into our election," and it takes on a whole new meaning.

@John the Econ,
I'm sort of shocked there are still living, breathing people in California that give a rip about the budget. They typically operate under the notion that negative $500 bazillion "ain't that much worse than negative $250 bazillion."

Colby Muenster said...

Just heard on the radio some liberal reaction to the SCOTUS decision on Trump's travel ban. "The court will be striking it down when they review it in a few months!!" I got a good laugh out of that one! The ban lasts 90-120 days. Let's see... how many days are there in a month? Hmmm....

Rod said...

Just received an e-mail memo from our (R) U.S. Representative that Blue Cross, Blue Shield is dropping out of the nationalized system which leaves several more counties in our state with "zero" providers under the Affordable Healthcare Act; the others left before this. Fortunately WE don't have to rely on that means for healthcare coverage insurance; but many do. I don't think this will make it into national news.

Meanwhile even WITH supposedly good insurance obtained by other means; it's very clear our healthcare system has been damaged a lot. It's just not the same.

In their place I thought perhaps in self-interest (on which they are very keen) the likes of Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton (notice joyfully there are no titles associated with them now, would consider keeping their mouths shut & maintain a lower profile. With all the lies, deception, failures, treason, damage & death they have caused... I doubt they'll ever be as personally safe as they used to be.

Joseph ET said...

A few of months ago I spent a couple of hours on Google trying to find the licensing authority for Journalists. I found NONE! As far as I can tell a college degree in journalism is not necessarily required.
There is The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics But it’s hard to see if anyone is enforcing it. It appears the most just ignore it. Maybe that’s part of the problem?
It’s time to set-up a licensing board with enforceable code of ethics much like the health care and legal professionals have.

James Daily said...

Did not Milton Friedman say there was no such thing as a free lunch? Yet, squirm and collude and lie trying to give free care to the 320M in the USA. Or am I wrong and they just want to give free care to democrat voters? There is no good solution to cheap healthcare. Even when free, the person using the free will be out funds. Then did any of these congress persons take economics?

GenEarly said...

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/7-secrets-world-revealed-syrian-war.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=df97933f36-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-df97933f36-388154969

Will We ever SEE the world as it Is or just have to content with what we are fed?

Rod said...

@Joseph ET: Absolutely correct! As a long-time, now retired licensed professional in another field which is entrusted with the welfare of others; I know what is required to have such a career and know there are consequences of failing that trust and obligation. I agree with you & have been thinking this for long time.

It's possible too, we just need the will of our dear leaders-in-charge. They do it for so many other occupations; check out the categories of professional licensure in your states of interest and the many requirements for that license, usually with yearly renewal. Pull this type of "journalist" crap in many other top fields one would soon be out of a job, career and maybe imprisoned. There are also public comment periods for renewal of FCC broadcast licenses.

John the Econ said...

@Colby Muenster, California can cook the books a bit in the game they play of not adequately funding pensions, but unlike the Federal government, they can't simply print money to make all their schemes work. For an example of how that can go wildly wrong, look to Illinois which is currently outdoing California in a race down the fiscal toilet.

@Joseph ET, when all of America's leading journalism schools are dominated by far leftists along with most of major media, do you really want these same people empowered with deciding just who qualifies as a bonafide journalist? I'd rather have the free market sort that out.

@James Daily, as @Stilton from direct experience will verify, one of the objectives of ObamaCare other than destroying what was left of private insurance and care, was to transfer wealth from the self-employed middle class (people making over $50k who demographically vote Republican) to those who make less to nothing, who demographically vote for Democrats. They understand economics better than you suspect.

John the Econ said...

On "licensing journalists", there is no doubt that the people responsible here would have been "licensed journalists" had such licensing existed, just like Dan Rather:

Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.

"The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source..."

Biff Wellington said...

off topic, but is that picture doctored, or does she always look like the CryptKeeper's wife?

Velveeta Processed Cheese Food said...

I have to be somewhat the devil's advocate here in re: licensing of journalists. First (amendmentwise):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Licensing would seem to me to abridge the freedom of the press.

Second,as J the E said above, who would do the licensing, and and what basis?

Actually, degrees in journalism are a relatively new thing. In the not so old days, people entered the profession through what amounted to an apprentice system. They started as copy boys, moved up to cubs, wrote routine obits, covered routine beats like the police blotter, and if they passed muster eventually got to do real stories.

I graduated from what was then a pretty-well-rated j-school in 1978, which was run as much as possible on the apprentice/trade-school model. None of the professors were "academics." They were all old war horses from the business. Style and grammar were paramount. At any stage, an error whatsoever was punished by making the miscreant write and turn in an obit on a living public figure. I did about two total before I figured out it was much easier to get it right the first time. My beginning news writing professor did a public evaluation of each student at mid term. He then proceeded to fire the last two guys, telling them they would never make it. After they picked their jaws up off the table, they collected their stuff and left, never to be seen again. I doubt that was strictly university policy even then, but he did it anyway. Incidentally, I never heard one word of political indoctrination during the whole course of study. In fact, anyone turning in anything with even a hint of opinion was smartly slapped down.

My old j-school is a "college" now, with academic professors. A nephew of mine started out there and eventually became a journalism professor himself, without having actually covered any news. So things have changed. If I were running a newspaper today, I wouldn't hire a j-school grad. I would hire graduates in engineering, the sciences, and so on. It would be easier to teach those people to write than teach a modern j-school grad to think.

Finally, if there are any mistakes in the above, I blame it on having to type in this box. That really messes me up.

S. B. Sweeney said...

Trump is Ok. Never mind your shots at him. He is the Good Guys!

Rod said...

@ Velvetta Cheese: Interesting post. Thank you. John the Econ too. It's a tricky topic. So what are some solutions to organized lies and biased politics posing as "journalism" and acting as an agent of one partisan? Is THAT where the militia is supposed to come in? I hope not.

Velveeta Processed Cheese Food said...

@Rod. After posting my first comment, I realized I'd forgotten another major point regarding licensing. If licenses were required, would that extend to the bloggers of the new media (think Stilton)? How about James O'Keefe and Project Veritas? I doubt very much that the entrenched licensing bureaucracy, once corrupted, would give them a pass.

Regarding solutions, one thing I was told in j-school was that in the marketplace of ideas, the truth will win out. That seems more plausible now in the age of the new media, but the new media has a lot of growing up to do. There are a lot of blogs offering "commentary" on and fact checking of MSM news, but so far, very few are doing original reporting, which involves developing informed, credible sources who will speak on the record, and when something happens, calling them up, asking them questions, and writing down the answers. Or in the case of investigative journalism, going guerrilla when necessary. Project Veritas is an exception to this. When they get the goods, even the MSM has to notice. Witness the demise of ACORN.

John the Econ said...

@Rod asks "So what are some solutions to organized lies and biased politics posing as "journalism" and acting as an agent of one partisan?"

I'm not sure there is any single "solution" to the supply end. The market supplies what people are willing to buy, which at this time is mostly crap. I think the solution has to come from the "demand" end. I think much of this problem is the result of a failed public educational establishment.

It's amazing how many people I know who's main source of news is "The Daily Show", John Oliver, or similar "infotainment". You know it's their sole source of information because they can't discuss any issue outside of the Progressive parameters that these sources dish out.

Rod said...

And I realize it's not so much about initially obtaining Professional Registration or Licensure; well yes it is. For Professional Engineers for example: Accredited courses of study or degrees, time in service "In-training", demonstrate a full verifiable history of employment and work; ability in responsible charge, a variety of also licensed professional references, in most cases passing a significant 8 hr. written test, a review of job history, and then ongoing accountability since one's actions are subject to complaint and being reviewed by a board, with consequences for non-compliance. Plus annual dues, etc. BUT THEN it's also about keeping it if one is not following the law and codes of conduct.

So some very small percentage of so called journalists are occasionally asked to resign. So what? They probably go to work somewhere else the next week. I'm talking about real licensure and real consequences. A law-breaking professional engineer would not be able to do that as a PE. If they had an engineering company that too might have license suspended.

But I'm open to learning how free market can stop media bullshit. Let's do it. I'm not talking about limiting free speech, but more about verify factual news vs. opinion & propaganda. Much like difference of broker or agent vs. fiduciary.
Then we can make informed choices where we get our news... ie free market; but we'd also have boards with some power of real consequences protecting our interests.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Every time I hear that "millions will die," I think to myself that the first ones to go will be the GOP members who find themselves the target of pumped-up whackjobs who believe themselves to be Nazi-hunters.

On California's failure to enact "single payer," I got a genuine laugh out of the things their plan didn't account for: "financing, cost controls, or delivery of care." But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

@Colby Muenster- Kellyanne shouldn't have even said Russia was "attempting" to hack into our election, because unless I've missed a bulletin somewhere, there's no evidence of it. Mischief, intelligence gathering, and sniffing around? Sure. Attempting to sway the election itself via cybercrime? Still just a Leftist fantasy.

Regarding the SCOTUS decision, I'm delighted and relieved. Bonus: the Left is horrified!

@Rod- But, but, Blue Cross can't quit Obamacare! Millions will die!

@Joseph ET- I'm flat out against the "licensing" of journalists because I don't want any governmental body deciding who is or isn't a journalist. However, I wouldn't mind there being some form of accreditation to distinguish those with true journalistic training from others. Not to limit employment, just as an extra bit of consumer information - like whether you're watching an actual meteorologist on your local weather broadcast, or just someone photogenic standing in front of a weather map.

@James Daily- The Left is blind to the economics. I just read an article on HuffPo about a kid who has lots of expensive operations (which I'm glad he got) on his Obamacare insurance, but might not have access to if a revised plan creates lifetime payment caps. The article asks "can you look into his eyes and tell him after all of his hard fighting (and over a million dollars in insurance-paid bills) that he's not worth spending more on?"

Well, I feel for the little guy - but shouldn't that question be equally true of EVERYone? And if everyone should get healthcare services of a million dollars or more, who the hell is going to pay for it?! Payment caps aren't about cruelty, they're about maintaining a service which will work for as many people as possible.

@GenEarly- An interesting piece, but I'm not sure how much I believe. But that's true of pretty much everything I read these days.

@Rod- Again, I'm not in favor of journalists requiring a license. I like the idea, mind you, but it doesn't pass my rule about "what would this be like in the worst case scenario?"

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Agreed across the board.

@Biff Wellington- The picture of Hillary was NOT doctored in any way. Scary, huh?

@Velveeta Processed Cheese Food- Great points, and I really enjoyed the background about your experience in journalism and journalism school. Genuinely fascinating stuff. And I didn't find any typos in your post, so no punitive obits are necessary (grin).

@S. B. Sweeney- I'm what you would call a Trump supporter at this point, rather than a Trump enthusiast. I like a lot of what he's doing and say so. But I also have problems with other things - especially his tweets. How the hell is the cause of Obamacare replacement advanced when Trump tweets that the proposed GOP legislation is "mean," and then follows up with more tweets because he's annoyed that Obama called the proposed legislation mean and people don't realize that he said it first? Sorry, but that unhelpful egotism and I'm going to call it like I see it. At least I said it was endearing lunacy.

@Rod- I don't really think I want journalistic direction to be given at gunpoint (from either side). You're right that this is a tough question.

@Velveeta Processed Cheese Food- Whether or not people like myself would need a journalism license gets to the heart of the problem. I am not a journalist - but I share (rather than report) the news, and add personal commentary and perspective which I hope has merit even apart from the jokes. I feel like I should have the same rights as actual journalists, and should also hew to true journalistic standards (although that's a low bar these days).

As far as "the truth will win out," I'm not confident of that these days. For the truth to win, it needs to A) reach most of the people and B) have credibility in the minds of those people. With the superabundance of media sources these days, reaching most of the people is hard - the truth is a needle in a haystack. But even more seriously, people are now so skeptical and cynical than they may not believe the truth even if it's presented to them. And I have no idea how to correct that.

@John the Econ- I agree that the change needs to occur on the "demand" end. People have got to start seeking the truth instead of confirmation bias for what they already believe. Sadly, what people really are demanding are "news" shows that entertain rather than inform.

@Rod- As I said, I'm not against some form of accreditation for the purpose of helping consumers select their news sources. It's a slippery slope, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should avoid trying.

Velveeta Processed Cheese Food said...

@Stilton I found two mistakes in my first post. Journalists don't have any special rights to access or anything else that the average citizen doesn't have. Whether the high mucky mucks will talk to them is another matter.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Velveeta Processed Cheese Foods- I misstated the case (oops, now *I* have to write obits!) when I referred to journalists' rights as if they had more or different ones than the rest of us do. Rather, I was referring to the fact that journalists usually enjoy greater protection from the courts than bloggers when it comes to nuisance lawsuits based on satire, parody and commentary.

Bill Walker said...

Am I the only one who realizes that this whole healthcare debacle is aimed totally at the wrong aspect of healthcare? These politicians are only considering insurance costs with zero consideration on controlling healthcare costs. Until care costs come down premium costs will never fall. Few mention allowing cross state border purchasing of plans which could allow for competition but no one looks at what really drives the huge cost increases of healthcare. The number one driver on costs are lawyers influence on every aspect of healthcare and most industries. From malpractice insurance costs for doctors, hospitals , vendors and medical appliance manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies along with the regulations these lawyers have imposed over the decades, the lawyers, like parasites, are driving the extreme costs of healthcare. Allowing billions of dollars of frivolous lawsuits, multimillion dollar awards every time someone has a bad reaction to something. No wonder it costs hundreds to all into your doctor's office or thousands per day at a hospital.
Real tort reform is the only way people will again have any hope of being able to attain affordable healthcare or coverage.
Why is this being ignored? Could it be because almost all of our politicians have law degrees and they would never consider doing anything that would effect their power and incomes??