Liars and Journalists

When a (so-called) profession makes claims to be impartial, factual, and able to argue both sides but repeatedly demonstrates a concentrated and childish lack of awareness, displays adolescent and outright bias, makes utterly non-factual assertions, repeats falsehoods and bogus claims as “facts” – data that is demonstrably and scientifically un-true – why on earth should anybody continue to believe them in any other aspect of their claims?
I’m talking about Journalists who claim the coveted status of “Everyman” but represent only a small body of people and who are especially lacking experience and knowledge about guns, gun-owners, and gun ownership – and who are proud to be non gun-owners based on their complete stupidity about even the smallest things that even a gun-aware child would know.
Why should we believe them in ANY public-policy debate, when they refuse to debate but insist on epistemic-closure?
What they hell do they bring to the table about the Climate, or even weather, where they repeatedly display a cavalier attitude towards facts about even the simplest thing like rainfall – will it rain or not?
Why should we believe them whatsoever about Economics, especially when they display such policy-bias and Kenyseian-contempt as Paul Krugman does?
Why should we believe them at all about Energy – like gas? Not to mention Religion, about which they seem to know completely NOTHING (except don’t piss-off the Muslims, or they will attack you savagely)…?
Why should anybody believe or trust them on the issue of Race and Civil Rights, especially when they viciously characterize a Secretary of State as a “House Slave” and an “Aunt Jemima”-??
Why should we continue to even believe they know the actual words that continuously fall from their bitter lips and swollen mouths? If they are suffering from an attack of verbal diarrhea and incoherence you should stay away, you might get some on you!
The hell with them. As HL Mencken said: How does so much false news get into the papers? Because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental, and credulous fellows.


About NotClauswitz

The semi-sprawling adventures of a culturally hegemonic former flat-lander and anti-idiotarian individualist, fleeing the toxic cultural smug emitted by self-satisfied lotus-eating low-land Tesla-driving floppy-hat wearing lizadroid-Leftbat Califorganic eco-tofuistas ~

One thought on “Liars and Journalists

  1. They may be stupid, sentimental and credulous, but they are also committed, heart and soul, to every left-wing position. But especially gun control (i.e., disarming law-abiding citizens).
    Sorry to hijack your blog, but this needs to be shared….
    Have you read any of the big newspaper editorials that have come out this last week? If you haven’t, I’ll summarize a few for you: “We have to do *something* about all this gun violence! We have to get rid of all these automatic (sic) weapons! The Gun Lobby has pushed our legislators around for too long!” (Note the strategic use of the word “lobby,” as in Big Oil, Big Tobacco, et al.) “The NRA should be ashamed! Investors need to send a message by divesting of arms manufacturers!”
    Then, after they get everybody’s bile up, they play the *reasonable* card by saying: “Even the Second Amendment has ‘regulated’ as its third word.”
    So, the media is trying to re-shape the narrative. It’s nothing entirely new, but they have a better chance of pulling an information coup now, than they’ve ever had before.
    So if you hear some of these arguments, here are some possible responses.
    1) After that enigmatic preamble, the rest of the Second Amendment very clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That doesn’t sound like “regulated” the way *you* are using it.
    2) In fact, when it was written, “well regulated” meant something more like “finely tuned.” (In those days, a clock was called “well regulated” if it kept accurate time.)
    3) For anybody who is honest about American history, there can be no question about the Founder’s original intent. After all, the revolution began — “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” was fired — precisely because British troops had marched out to confiscate a local militia’s stash of weapons.
    4) Furthermore, our original Federal government had about one-millionth of one percent of the regulatory power our current government exercises, so to think they would have set gun regulation as a Constitutional priority is illogical. To think they would have done so in a hostile, frontier environment is ludicrous.
    5) And one last thing. The media have been repeating themselves about the numerous mass shootings lately. Well, the one at the mall in Oregon, just a few days before the Newtown disaster, was stopped by a brave young man with a concealed carry permit. He didn’t even have to fire — once he drew a bead on the potential mass-murderer, the jerk turned his gun on himself.
    How many more people would have been killed in Oregon if a law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen hadn’t been there?

Comments are closed.