Tag Archives: media

A candidate with a good record this election year

Gary Johnson—June 20, 2012
He comes in peace. (Image source: Wikipedia/Flickr)

I’m sure there will be people questioning my sanity in considering Gary Johnson for President in this election cycle… but you can’t deny the unfavorable numbers for the other two in the polls— “the two most unpopular nominees in the history of polling.”

Crappy candidates have produced low turn for decades, and some people say it doesn’t matter much who gets into office.  The bureaucrats behind the scenes don’t switch parties.  True, but that doesn’t mean we stay at home, does it?  As responsible citizens we must do what is right— to believe in better, to educate ourselves and fight for better, even if we lose the battle.  ’Cause otherwise, we deserve less for our less.

I’ll show you my cards in saying I’m not terribly enthusiastic about Johnson; he’s said some things that sound stuck in 2006.  (Invading Iraq was a bad idea; we get it.)  He wasn’t the strongest candidate in the 2012 Presidential election— a distant third place, at 0.99%.

This election year, he has improved.  And out of the leading four in national polls (with Jill Stein polling fourth), I have to say Johnson/Weld is the best choice.  How?  First, the two governors have proven themselves. …Just the fact that they were governors, while Clinton and Trump have zero governing experience at the helm, in an election cycle where substance is severely lacking… it’s more than enough to have a good look.

Bill Weld. (Image source: Tina Fineberg/The Boston Globe)

William F. Weld, running for VP on the Johnson/Weld ticket, was so popular as governor of Massachusetts (1991-1997) that he got 71% of the vote in his second term reelection.  In an article by The Boston Globe (in which RNC people laughed him off), “Weld began his career working for the House impeachment committee investigating President Richard Nixon and later served as US attorney for Massachusetts in the 1980s.”  Someone that makes you think of John Kerry— but not beholden to party, and much better in overall character, some even speak more favorably of Weld than Johnson. …Okay, so Weld’s a bit pink in skin tone… but he has a nice record.

Gary Earl Johnson, running for President, also hit the two-term limit, and made a surplus in New Mexico by vetoing excess spending.  His admirable qualities won’t fit in one page, but I can briefly say that he’s gone the distance.  At 63 years of age, he has not only climbed Mt. Everest, but all of the Seven Summits in the world… His athletic climbs were not without frostbite, breaking a leg and losing an inch and a half in an unrelated accident, but you just know he’s determined.  You can get a glimpse of how athletic he is on the Wikipedia page: “an avid triathlete who bikes extensively. … During his [time] in office, he competed in several triathlons, marathons and bike races.”  (He’s known to swim too.)

The two former Republicans have proven themselves capable, and are on the ballot in all fifty states.  But it shows you how rigged the FEC-and-media two-party system is that Johnson/Weld might not even appear at the debates because they haven’t, so far, polled at least 15% on average as required by the Federal Elections Committee.  Before the Republican convention, they averaged 13%.

(Correction: as of mid-September, they didn’t yet have Rhode Island; they now are the only third-party candidate to be on the ballot in all 50 states.)

While some settle with the rules, I’ll rightfully dissent.

Just as there’s nothing Constitutional about the FCC fining broadcasters for indecency, there is nothing Constitutional about the FEC penalizing media for including other candidates in debates.  Rigged is a strong word, but it is.  You couldn’t even print a buried endorsement in a book without potentially being fined by the FEC until the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment issue in the Citizens United case, a case misunderstood by many.  The FEC is composed of Democrats and Republicans.  And 15% mathematically means less than seven options and usually only two voices heard across party lines.

The news media?  Their constituents aren’t so much members of the audience but shares in ratings, respect with the establishment, and respect in the media circle… otherwise known as the closed media circle.  It’s a business, after all.  Anchors are groomed on how well they can stick to a script, and the consequences of a given network’s favored candidate getting elected are regularly overlooked.

The public at large, indoctrinated for so long, is undoubtedly unsure about third party candidates.

On twitter (and why do I bother), someone called Johnson ‘insane’ (with some extra salty language) for agreeing with Trump on the grounds that the current administration promoted the existence of ISIS.  That’s just something I would have to call fact.  The Bush administration created a power vacuum in overthrowing Saddam Husein, and the Obama admin. destabilized the region even further by arming anti-Syrian militants and toppling Qaddafi in north Africa, creating another power vacuum.

When Trump doubled-down on his wording, saying Obama literally founded ISIS (because ‘founder of ISIS’ got so much applause), radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt offered better language.  And that’s where Donald soon revealed his secret.  The media won’t “talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?”  To an extent that’s true; the media put “what sells” on the cover, even if the controversy is baseless.  And so The Donald plays the media by provoking controversies, even out of nothing at all if his overplayed “Second Amendment people” comments says something.

(To be honest, when I first heard the “Second Amendment people” sound bite, I found the comment innocuous.  I had tuned in suddenly and wasn’t prepped by a narrative.  Thankfully, CNN’s all-day impression of conscience was interrupted by a man attempting to climb Trump Tower, with suction cups.)

And so little coverage goes to the candidates who aren’t controversial.  Even in a slow news week, the third party candidates are ignored or dismissed.  Or both.

‘But he won’t be elected’— the leading reason why Johnson/Weld may not win.  Not so much an actual reason, but unsubstantial political popularity— partly lines, misunderstandings and a whole lot of complacency.

Still, Johnson resonates when people hear what he’s about.

“Most Americans are libertarians.  They just don’t know it yet.”

The contrast between Johnson/Weld and the others is huge.

Gary Johnson is naturally pro-Constitution as it stands for individual liberty— what it really means to be libertarian.  He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal; he naturally supports the rights of everyone, is against meddling in foreign lands, and supports authentic capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism).  And unlike many Libertarians (with a capital L), his positions are so reasonable that they outshine the positions of his competition.  His record shows: he may well reduce the federal deficit, in a time we desperately need to get the national debt under control.  The same cannot be said about Clinton or Trump, who are partial about the American public, already weak and irresponsible on matters of national security and foreign policy, and carry major bills in their camp promises.

(Update: Johnson is still a politician.  Yes, with flaws in his record like anyone else, and supporters that may overlook things such as federal spending in New Mexico while he was in office.  It’s a bit of wishful thinking that he’ll fix the deficit.  I was mistaken, and the above paragraph has been corrected.)

“They have people over there, like Maggie Haberman and others, they don't — they don't write good.” (Image source: twitter/Getty)
“They have people over there, like Maggie Haberman and others, they don’t— they don’t write good.”—Donald Trump on the New York Times. (Image source: twitter/CNNMoney/Getty)

Donald Trump has lowered the standards for a politician.  Ostentatious “like you wouldn’t believe” and what the Republicans warned about in Barack Obama, supporters have been put in a position of having to constantly forgive him, and, with fear of Clinton getting elected due to a “spoiler,” generated bigger double-standards.  One Trump supporter called Gary Johnson foul-mouthed for calling Trump a “pussy,” twice.  …Compared to Trump, who has made dick joke(s) and publicly cursed on the campaign trail a number of times, saying he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS.”  Instead of proving himself as a candidate, Trump has picked at the flaws of others like a bully and made fun of Chris Christie’s weight for reality TV humor.

Gary withdrew his word usage… unlike Donald, who never apologizes.  The list goes on for what the Rs have to answer for, but I know— Trump supporters don’t care all that much so long as he speaks his mind with apparent transparency.

…Notice that I said apparent transparency.  How offensive the guy is is not the bigger problem.  Trump isn’t transparent.  And the red flags in his behavior are glaring.  He meets the criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and, in the attempt at a biography, shown himself incapable of talking about his childhood without lying— always self-aggrandizing because of a deep-seated insecurity, indicating that he does not believe he can succeed without manipulating people.  Establishment or not, he is a politician— of the worst kind.

In July, Tony Schwartz, ghostwriter of The Art of the Deal, rung the alarm bells, telling The New Yorker that he feels “deep remorse” in writing The Art.  Schwartz said he had financial difficulties, and probably wouldn’t have written it otherwise.  He had to sell Trump in a non-negative light— and what an exceptionally difficult task that was.  The reality is: Trump is not a successful business man; he has mismanaged business to the point of bankruptcy, having survived by parachuting millions out to himself, shifting much of the risk onto investors, coming out the other end because of the myth of Trump.  There is no chance that he will disclose his taxes because the unvarnished picture is… not so great.

Trump may be able to use his non-establishment charisma to rally the public enough to get the nomination in the Republican party among a list of exhausted choices, but one of his biggest flaws may likely cost him the election, if not drop out: He can’t be bothered.  Biases and inaccuracies aside, articles that seriously look into the character of Trump revealed that he has a surprisingly low attention span, and can’t be bothered to be improve his knowledge on the issues, apart from television and “internet” news.  One of his children even said that Donald hasn’t read a book in thirty years.  Even George W. Bush— who was ridiculed for ‘lack of intellect’— reads.  Currently, Trump is losing double digits to Clinton in swing states, and the number of swing states has grown, partly because… he can’t be bothered.

No, I want to debate.  I want to debate.

That isn’t to say Hillary Clinton is (much) better.  Clinton is status quo at best, not to mention mismanagement on steroids when it comes to matters of foreign policy.  (As far as I can tell.)

“There is no one worse than Hillary Clinton… except Donald Trump.”— Penn Jillette, who has endorsed Johnson for President.

Unlike President Obama, Clinton is extremely reserved and hides from the press.  (Another form of can’t be bothered? 😉 )  She has bent the truth pathologically, and gave inaccurate info to the FBI during the email scandal in which she took email storage into her own hands as Secretary of State.  She stated that director James Comey said she was “truthful.”  (Four Pinochios.)  Telling tall tales for entertainment is one thing (excusable), but lying to the families of those who died in the Benghazi attacks while telling her daughter the truth?  Sincerity is the last thing we can expect from her… so how much transparency would she ever actually offer as President?

The appearance of Time Kaine was refreshing.  Plus, he speaks Spanish. (Image source: ABC News/Andrew Harnik for the Associated Press)

A new email leak, and “pay for play” hit the headlines… The Clintons made money in speaking engagements, where it is alleged that they change positions based on who pays them.  Of course, getting paid to speak alone isn’t wrong or bad.  But $2 billion is a bit much for a family-name Foundation that began only 15 years ago.

Sure, Clinton represents the average worker, with no hypocrisy or conflict of interest… if you ignore campaign and Foundation donors that include Arab Sheiks, African mining magnates and Wall Street firms… and acting on “urgent suggestions” from George Soros, a hedge fund billionaire who’s made money off of the collapse of several economies and someone’s she’s connected to via the Secretary of State project… Nah, she points fingers and alienates voters like everybody else.

Bernie Sanders sure rubbed off on her leading up to the Democratic convention that she’s promising lots of new freebies the federal budget can’t afford… not without raising taxes, of course.  Lots of good ideas.

Out-of-control debt spending: the other norm of norms in this day of age.

That isn’t to say the Republican nominee would be better in spending, with large tax cut proposals without budget cuts.  Either way, the national debt will hit $20 trillion by next year.

Could the picture get even more nightmarish?  (Why, yes.  Yes it can.)

Politicians tend to betray not just the people, but the soldiers on the ground— something George Washington experienced firsthand.  So you’d better at least try to have a candidate who cares enough to be honest and loyal when it counts the most.

In short, I don’t trust Clinton or Trump.

Gary Johnson has a good record.  He isn’t a noise maker, and he isn’t controlled by special interests.  There isn’t much more to say about him because his negatives are few.  He is known to be the same person on and off the stage… There is real, positive reason to vote his way.

Of course, I know voting antagonistically won’t affect change.  I mean, if every one is voting for the “other” of only two, don’t the numbers even out?

“I’m supporting Clinton because she’s not Trump.”
“I’m supporting Trump because he’s not Clinton.”

Vote for what and whom you can believe in. …And prepare for the possible outcomes.

Image source: twitter.

Feel free to voice your opinion here.

Of Fear and Trust

Note: This is going to be a controversial post… not that my writing ever draws any attention.

‘We have a problem,’ I read one day, on social media.  ‘The dehumanizing.’ …But the detail of the text was misinformed, as too often generalized posts on twitter are.

It was the first Thursday of the month, the day the Reynolds video went viral.  A video that, as slow and horrific as it was, saddened me.  Philando Castile, 32, was fatally wounded in a traffic stop, and “Diamond” Reynolds, Castile’s girlfriend, live-streamed the aftermath the previous day.  It was emotional.  News outlets warned viewers before showing the video as it included Reynolds briefly conversing with a child in the back, and Castile’s shirt soaking in blood, the man fading away.  (He was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center, but to the viewer it may appear that he died in the car.)

The recording of the Facebook video was at first taken down, but restored early Thursday.  “GRAPHIC CONTENT” trended on twitter.  (Warning: there are unrelated tweets on the GRAPHIC CONTENT timeline that are seriously graphic.)

I was surprised that the officers allowed Reynolds to cover what she did, considering there have been other, less violent scenes where officers demanded bystanders stop recording, and laws enacted in some states that prohibit recording police at the scene at all.  That seemed unusual to me about the video.

It was obvious that the driver showed no indication of harming the officer.  In Minnesota, a state that allows open-carry (with a license), Reynolds informed the police officer that Castile was carrying a permitted firearm… So the early picture that developed was: a law-abiding man reaching for his wallet, shot multiple times.

“He worked an honest job five days a week,” his mother, Valerie, told CNN Thursday.  He worked as a cafeteria supervisor.

It’s sad news like this that promotes the more valid point of #BlackLivesMatter, that black Americans have the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness like any other citizen, with more than enough proof that show many police are implicitly trained with a bias that black men are seen and treated as a threat first… Tim Scott, a GOP Senator, had to prove his identity despite wearing a pin that immediately identified himself as a Senator.

Still, there are other parts of the equation that reveal a certain ignorance in this country.  Between the sweat and the news that morning (it was relatively hot in Maine the day prior), I was reminded of California Gov. Brown signing gun bills with retroactive effects, and the comments in social media that show how disconnected we all are, in some way or another.

I was reminded the fact that many of the fears people have are exaggerated.  The officer who shot Castile, who is of Chinese descent (according to Reynolds), was likely terrified.  The probability of anything happening if he hadn’t fired was low; it was after Castile’s death that he was put on paid administrative leave, as standard procedure.

If it wasn’t for the fear, Castile would probably still be alive.  And, supposedly, if his gun rights were respected, he would still be alive.  The same with Alton Sterling, another victim that week.  There is a real problem here.

…But the picture is never as simple as we’re told to believe.

First, Thursday made me see, in terms of race, how skewered gun control is.  The demographics are split, according to a CNN poll.  (The poll also indicates that three out of ten don’t understand law.)  But public perceptions have contributed to saddening articles like “White & Black, A History of Gun Control for Black People.”  (The article also adds more reason to not to trust the NRA, an organization once known for training freed black men in post-Civil War America to defend themselves against pro-slavery remnants like the Klan.)  So, not only did the Clinton administration promote conservative policies that contributed to the twenty-five-fold increase of prison admissions for black Americans for drug offenses between 1983 and 2000, but there’s a whole history of policies promoted with, in mind, the very fear of black men baring arms.  (Apologies if the last link doesn’t work— I’ve been getting an “encoding compression” error trying to load the page I was able to read a while back.)

It was in my further reading that I caught one way of reducing gun violence, one that has actually shown to work.

In the 1990s, there was a program called “Ceasefire,” which targets to help young people, in breaking up feudal violence.  Shown to have an effect on reducing gun violence in inner-cities, in two years Ceasefire apparently reduced the average youth homicide rates by 63%.  That isn’t to say this program is a one-size-fits-all solution, but there’s something remarkable when there’s a community that works, the crime rates are effectively low and the police better know the actual problem areas.

The Rev. Jeff Brown, one of the ministers who worked on the project, remembers people were outside more, barbecuing in the park. At Halloween, kids were able to trick-or-treat on the streets again.

So why don’t we hear about this program today?  Because the conversation is drowned out by the noise and demands of lobbyists and national politics in the media circle, particularly massacres in suburban areas, which represent less than 1% of the gun homicide stats overall.  “The national groups that spend the most money and do the most advocacy related to gun violence have concentrated almost exclusively on passing stricter gun control laws.”  Liberals and conservatives alike tend to oversimplify what Ceasefire addresses as “urban,” effectively reducing what the program targets as “a minority problem.”  Inner-city violence is higher in the stats, so… deliberately do nothing?  The media are no better, with the breakdown of the black family narrative in the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post sticking its own coverage into the category “Black Voices”… Black Voices written by white progressives.  And so these programs, which tend to actually help, have trouble in getting the necessary funding from Congress to get off the ground.

“Such initiatives … fit into no political camp and thus have few powerful champions.”  Focused deterrence— what academics call Ceasefire and similar approaches— “challenges the orthodoxy on both sides. It makes everybody uncomfortable.”  Boston’s own effort fell apart in 2000 (according to research), and feudal crime crept up again.

…Skip to recent years, where news coverage has become noticeably lacking.

It wasn’t until the following Saturday this July, hours after a cold army reservist retaliated to “the news” in Dallas, that I looked at alternative news sources in the Castile case.  I was missing a big part of the picture.

There were details in the Reynolds video that didn’t add up.  It wasn’t some ordinary traffic stop, as alleged.  (A ‘busted taillight’ added to the emotional outrage.)  A store was robbed approximately four blocks from the traffic stop, and Castile, to a degree, resembled the suspect.  Store camera footage and the police audio for the stop made that clear, and in such cases, an approaching officer may not state the actual reason for pulling a someone over to avoid escalating potential violence should the person be the suspect.  The officer clearly saw himself in danger.  But once a story snowballs, it’s hard to roll back.

The press appeared to take Reynolds at her every word.  And, surprise, the two adults in the car are very flawed people.  Reynolds lied about details on her Facebook page (which isn’t all that uncommon), and photos of a few years back revealed a different Castile giving the finger multiple times and flashing Crip gang signs, among other behaviors.  (Member or not, there’s no way you can flash gang signs without getting into trouble.) …I know you don’t want to tarnish the victim, but… there’s “a man turning his life around,” and then there’s scrubbing a person’s character clean.

Yes, we all have our flaws; believing otherwise is delusional. …And the illusions of the press are exposed every so often with hoaxes.

So we do have a problem: a narrative problem.  A dishonesty problem that has promoted fears on all sides, and has exhausted police departments with protests, not to mention Molotov cocktails.
Continue reading Of Fear and Trust

Apathetic Culture?

So it is claimed that a great many of Americans are apathetic, even ignorant.  I’ve stated that before (off the air, mostly), and now… uh, Bill O’Reilly is.

Now, it’s picking and choosing, to look at one segment, one poll, thinking the sampling makes some kind of accurate reflection of the whole.

While it is true that many in this country are apathetic, you can find many that aren’t.  You can find studies that suggest the exact opposite of other studies.  You can misread, and the subjects being polled can answer poorly.  Have you ever taken one of these polls that get splashed in the news?

There is no thorough testing, and education isn’t what it used to be.  It took Alfred Charles Kinsey to do a better job on a sex poll by making sure the participants weren’t lying, not to mention over 10,000 samples for better representation.

And surprise, surprise: it’s a CBS poll.  With less than 1,100 in sampling.  …What do you expect?

Breaking News: We Have… No Real News

Too much of the time, it’s a reflection of the mainstream media.  The media are apathetic, ultimately.  They get paid, and… they get paid.  …Mainstream only in the sense of availability…

Recently, they put all the focus on one missing plane, where just about all of the reporting was speculation.  An obsession, a ratings game.  It’s difficult to say that they had any respect for anything.  (Besides ‘a word from our sponsor.’)

What I’ve learned from the MH370 example, an utmost requirement in journalism that everyone, not just journalists, should have: respect for the truth.  I saw almost none of that.  They don’t care.  CBS doesn’t care much of what their audience thinks, and so they attracted apathetic people.

53% think the President shows quality of strength, in regards to the U.S.’s position around the world.  Despite being weak with Putin… Yep, that sounds right for a CBS poll.

But… my claim of apathy in the media— that’s just a theory. … A theory that makes a lot of sense.  A hell of a lot more sense than a plane gone missing because of a black hole.  I mean, seriously?  A black hole would affect the entire planet, to say the least!

(But I know, in dealing with any corrupted society, such as the closed-circle press, my first mistake is… using logic.)

Defining the terms

apathy (n.): lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.

But there’s always appeal!  It’s shown with that goddamned story where no one knows anything, and somehow all of the responsibility came down to the Malaysian government?  “I didn’t know the airlines industry in that country was nationalized.”  Nah, that was the blame, the ‘direction to point the finger’ for the moment.

So much appeal in entertainment, and an emotional investment in the latest, greatest (dumbest) thing.  That kind of thing is most certainly not the definition of apathy.  These are, again, habits of the media, with junkies listening intently.  Like a form of addiction, you may shut out the rest of the world.

Media-prescribed ignorance.  In a box.  A TV box, a tablet, a phone.  One word: manipulation.

It’s not accurate enough to say, take what you hear with a grain of salt.  It makes all the difference, what I had realized.  When it comes to all information, like a journalist you must have respect for the truth.  Knowing the reality takes more than enough information, and it requires taking the time to make sense of things without obsessing over it.

These days, though, at times inundated with information… being overwhelmed can also be confused with that word, apathy.  Being overwhelmed is always the thing to look for when people are less responsive.  Especially when the environment, artificial or not, says the wrong things, provides and covers the wrong things… speculates.

Bringing it home

The other thing— putting labels on people.  It’s not right to pass judgment on others.  Why?  There’s emphasis on the word ‘pass’ with that expression.  In other words, when you pass judgment… are you accurate?  Are you following something that may be instead a stereotype?  Passing judgment means making an assumption.  And that is not right.

For example, and forgive me for doing this: my mother has the nerve to again speak ill of my capacities regarding emotional intelligence.  The whole, I lack empathy routine.  This coming from a person who’s shown to not to be able to recognize my emotions, and instead respond to the grunts I make in amusement.  She fails to respond appropriately to my emotions.

And to follow up, I’m just telling you what the school told me.  Yeah, having it both ways, at one point blaming the school for all her problems, then using what they said, of my naïve former self, against me.

The more you hear, the less responsible she sounds.

…Oh, I get it.  I get why the label is on me.  Because of something else.  I don’t respond the same way.  I don’t do the popular thing, and react as if I’m watching a tearjerker, where, you know, a tear is jerked.  What a jerk!  And how shallow, that I should react as if the fictional character on the screen isn’t fictional!

And I’m still stuck living with this person, with no money, can’t do jack about jack on helping someone next door, let alone “starvin’ Marvin” in some other country.  (No offense; I usually don’t go for something “starvin’ Marvin,” but this is a blog.)  But it doesn’t matter that, under these worse-becoming-worse conditions that I haven’t become a criminal, and still have some kind of code of ethics and principles.  The facts don’t matter coming from me.

Aw, Damn it.  Damn it all to hell.

Let’s get this straight: a) if you can’t actually affect the problem, even by a little, especially by facial expressions (I try not to be superficial)… b) if you don’t agree on how to deal with the problem (I’m an independent thinker); and, c) — and this is the kicker — I have no business in their affairs!  (If, if, if.)  I know it doesn’t work saying it myself, but… I am not apathetic.

Just because I don’t believe what I read doesn’t mean I’m not informed.  (And always, with the USA Today, my mother.)

Just because I don’t go out of my way to act as if I care about anything and everything, like a hippie, or something… it doesn’t mean I don’t care.

And since when does my placing the relationship between actress Paltrow and the singer of Coldplay, that they broke up— how does placing that matter all that much, in terms of life in general?  …And then I heard that Vanity Fair may have affected their relationship.  The media, again.

I could go on, etc.… … …Or should I go further to show that I care?  Just how, tell me, how the hell can I win this argument!?  …Or can I?  Of course I can’t win!  As with the trash, and take too many politicians to spare (please, take them), it’s a one-way street where they can profess and advertise how much they care, and basically lie about people like me, no matter how poorly they treat others!

So I know, to some degree from experience, that being labeled… it’s unfair.  The people that issue labels are often hypocrites.  And sometimes, as with the mainstream media… they are the %*$!ing source of the problem.

Another Brief in Media Headaches

El grito (the scream) by Mauricio García Vega

Yeah, before, at the core, I’ve said and explained, the why and the how, life isn’t cruel.  That you have, in reality, to get involved with something at some point in existence, for “bad” experiences to happen.  It makes up what we see as cause and effect.

And, dare I say, Buddha didn’t believe in Karma.  He believed in cause and effect.

Well, politics is one of those things you get sucked into.  You become partly responsible for how things “move”… and fail… on that larger scale.  There are many a crowd-pleaser.

“So long as you say the ‘right’ things, you can do whatever you want.”

That’s what they say.  And here’s an example of this fraud I’m talking about.  I am bound to offend someone here.  Like, many of the readers here.
Continue reading Another Brief in Media Headaches

One of Two, One of None

Yeah, so this blog won’t be deleted; the tally was a tie: I voted Nay, and TBF voted Yea.  Sonofa—

Yeah, so I’m starting another sentence with, “Yeah, so.”
So I can’t call myself real.  Not with the mess I’ve left.
So I’ll instead leave you with something I’m more used to talking about for the past three years.  And then it’s back to poetry ’n’ sh…  trying to make up for my mistakes.

And I’m writing this with extreme muscle/nerve pain on the left side of my neck, unable to move my head to the left or backward.  This comes after a small nosebleed, extreme prejudice against an Italian bread loaf (and like the video game characters, exploded all over the kitchen) and three hours seleep yesterday.
That’s what I get for being me, a person of ‘irritation’ and of ‘no value.’
Not being real, this pain shouldn’t be real, right?  Let your freak flag fly… you freak.

Yeah, so I think the Non-Disclosure Policy just exploded too.  Surviving is Cristian’s dying hard drive.

Continue reading One of Two, One of None

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday: on-ON-off

Someone’s birthday—didn’t know

Shirt changed, short-changed, destination change, arrival.
Stupid paper, entertainment all—no wonder the 60% public distrust of the media.
That courtesy of a door held open? No, and not a word spoken, but a dirty look.
Hit the stairs, seven floors, and recent memory of all run many times at once in rage.
The common break, to wait your turn, to sit and scan, memorize…Emmy® winners.
This time bowels may need to be held, standing up—damn GMO white corn chips.
Continue reading Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday: on-ON-off