Pharmaceutical advertising must be made illegal. Every time we see them running ads alarm bells should go off. Because whatever the venue whether TV, Internet, radio or print. Those millions in adverts are buying protection, propaganda and influence. Besides, how many watchers are rushing to grab a pen to write down some unpronounceable drug name to ask their doctor? Prescription drugs can only be purchased and distributed by licensed professionals. I doubt any are being influenced by ads. Logically those ads serve only one purpose and it isn’t to sell a product.
No government should have the power to force or constrain the speech of anyone, period. Granting the rulers any such power gets us right to where we are now, swimming in oceans of government and media bullshit.
Not only is it immoral, as it infringes on the fundamental natural right of freedom of speech, but in the US such infringements are illegal, as the First Amendment is quite clear that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Not, of course, that the USG cares one whit about, or has any sense of obligation to follow, any law whatsoever. After all, it has been seized by progressives, so one would expect nothing less.
And the fact that we largely now have a population of supine, gullible ignoramuses from a century of progressive government "education", also matters not.
The idea that my right to speak, either in an individual capacity or via my business, should be censored because morons might be misled by the message is thoroughly collectivist, which is why leftists of all stripes favor it.
The quality of information, like everything else in life, is up to the individual to determine.
I would like to see whether they'd still have the resources to run the quantity of ads they do if their regulatory capture and protections were ended outright. I suspect not if they suddenly became liable for the negative sides to their products, and to me, that's a better approach than restricting their ability to advertise.
Please don't be Team Ban Hammer. Avert your gaze. Even lodge your disagreement. But the minute Someone gets to decide via the I-know-Porn-when-I-see-it filter, bad ideas can be amplified, plausible alternatives are suppressed without sufficient consideration.
Back in the 70s the way to suppress bad actors was call them "porn". Today it is to label them "disinformation". Also useful terms: "denier", "anti-science" and of course "deplorables".
Remember Larry Flynn? He published a shameless soft-core porn mag that lacked the sophistication of Playboy. His naked female pictures were not porn until he started a column "Asshole of the month" which targeted (among others) elected officials, government appointees and even entire government agencies. Then he was charged with using the US mail to distribute "obscene materials" (under the "I know it when I see it" standard). The visual content of the magazine had not changed but the political content had. That's justice, right?
Rumors at the time were that Flynn paid his lawyers to lose the case. When Flynn went to jail, magazine sales soared.
So you support drag queens in elementary schools then. Your noble sounding screed is exactly the Soros bullshit that led to the chaos in cities. It’s all about letting people do whatever they want under the auspice of freedom until the homeless tents show up in your front yard and they’re defecating on your front porch. You sound like those idiots that decry term limits saying voting is a term limit. Look around fool. And stop trying to sucker the gullible by pretending freedom means no rules whatsoever. Antifa much?
So while I agree theoretically with your principles we must address the real life problem. The pharmaceutical companies own the media because they are the media’s biggest source of income and this makes the media beholden. The news media can no longer do their job because they cannot report anything that goes against their wishes. How does one the find more accurate reporting and news then? Had they not been allowed to advertise on TV then they wouldn’t have the censorship power they hold now. When drug companies censor news how is that free speech? I think you see what I’m saying.
Big Pharma owns the media because they enjoy oligopoly privileges granted by the government, which allows them to fleece the rest of us, a portion of which is used to pay media whores to convince boobus otherwise.
If there were a free market in pharma and everything else, none of this would occur.
In a free market, private entities engaging in censorship would be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis those that do not, because over time people would know who is trustworthy and who not.
Infringement, by government or at their behest, of natural rights is *always* a bad idea, and creates exactly the predicament we now face.
If advertising was speech, it would be limited to verifiable facts and be quite boring. An example are the disclaimers that accompany pharma ads on US tv. Once I read those, I wondered why anyone would buy their products. Sounds like few people read them.
Agree completely. It does mean readers need to be aware that their information has been shaped and by whom and for what motives. The so called philanthropists funding climate change reports have an agenda, and it’s not to keep you safe from bad weather.
Corporations are a State-created legal fiction. They don't "speak" (or pay taxes), but the people that own and run them do.
These people have the same right of free speech as any other individual or group, and just because they choose to exercise this right via a business entity does not justify infringement.
Like pretty much everything else the State does, incorporation is basically a scam, providing liability protection to the shareholders in return for the State's ability to justify double taxation and the imposition of its endless plethora of fees, assessments and other forms of theft.
Ads that claim things are true when they are not is false advertising. There are laws against this. This does not infringe free speech. There are libel laws too.
Yes, it does infringe free speech and there should be no such laws.
You either have the government deciding what is acceptable speech, or you have actual free speech. There is no in-between. This is why the founders used the words "shall make no law".
One would think that such language was clear.
This said, false advertising should be treated as a tort, like the common law tort of libel, the specifics of which are determined by the courts, not the legislature, which is, as above, unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Like all fundamental rights, free speech is not subject to the whims of the mob, er, I mean "democracy" as this is, as all thinking people know, the road to tyranny.
it used to be forbidden in Belgium long time ago, but then commercial senders got the right to advertise for them and the other channels followed. But if you hear the list if side effects, I wonder who still wants to take that crap.
Pharmaceutical ads at least feel compelled to disclose everything, even if it's Speed Talking.
Who amongst us has ever read the End-User License Agreement (EULA) when they install Instagram? You already said YES to every creepy thing they can do without a thought.
My favorite recently was one that had a long list of potential side-effects ending in "death". Then it said "if you experience any of these see your doctor immediately". Hm. So when you die, make sure you do not forget to tell your doctor you died. Seems only fair. A drug add that promotes an afterlife. Gotta love it!
I thought the same some thirty years ago when I read through all the side effects of a prescription my doc was trying on me. One of the side effects was "In rare cases, sudden death may occur." So I should call my doctor from the grave?
Reading the list of side effects when I've been prescribed something by a doctor (a rare occasion as I avoid those people like the plague) has almost always deterred me from filling the prescription. And, surprise, surprise--I have done just fine without the concoction. I remember going for a follow up x-ray for a badly sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture a number of years ago and causing consternation in the nurse when I responded to her question about whether the pain killers were effective by telling her I didn't know because I hadn't taken them after I looked at the side effects. I honestly didn't need them and I wonder how many other people who did take them probably didn't either.
hate instagram. tried it for a few weeks and quit. Same with pinterest. I had a quite large site but then they forbid jab injuries and censured my site. Immediately deleted the whole thing.
Don’t kid yourself. Not compelled. Legally required. So they make a joke out of it by making it as indistinguishable as possible. As far from an admission as they can get away with. We saw where their head is at over Covid vaccinations when they buried informed consent along with any culpability under the umbrella of the EUA.
Years ago, right after rx ads were made legal on tv, was in a meeting with an Empire Blue Cross exec. He said this will be the downfall of healthcare. Respected that comment then but had no idea of the impact we see today.
I was never a fan of the late Justice Earl Warren, but he said one thing that has resonated with me down through the years. He said allowing lawyers to advertise would be the downfall of a noble profession. I see all the back-to-back ambulance chaser ads on TV and have to concede that he was right.
Again I have to disagree. It is not the adds that are the downfall of the profession. It's the actions of the "professionals" placing those adds. And the judges who support (and make profitable) the ambulance chasing. And class action suits in which the harmed persons receive pennies and attorneys receive millions - a systemic incentive to exploit the suffering of others for personal wealth. Hm, kind of like AP and the drug companies...I'm seeing a pattern here.
He was wrong. Adds on TV didn't do it. Extreme arrogance and misplaced political loyalty, along with misapplied greed, more likely. Adds on TV did not do it. Their own near sightedness and bad polices have brought down healthcare. Politics. Corruption. Power is more important than patients. These are the values that brought down healthcare.
I disagree. Remove all limits on advertising. Let the drug companies compete with bit tobacco companies. While were there, remove marijuana from the controlled substance list and let big tobacco companies become big pot companies. Let them compete for prime time spots with booze commercials, with whatever. Let it be the free for all. Let people decide for themselves to look away. Advertising is losing it's effectiveness. That's why we need bought and paid for "news".
You worried what your kids see? It's not the commercials that will harm them. It's the doctors prescribing psychoactive drugs to kids from K on up to "help them fit in" - to alter their behavior to conform. Joe Camel can't compete with an MD with a prescription pad when it comes to getting kids addicted to dangerous substances.
All those drug adds won't do a thing without the masses of licensed MDs with a pen and a prescription pad. When was the last time you heard an MD tell you your overly-energetic 5 year old need more play time outside instead of Ritalin? When was the last time you heard an MD tell a patient over 50 "no, you don't need a statin drug to meet some arbitrary number based on a single data point"?
"When was the last time you heard an MD tell you your overly-energetic 5 year old need more play time outside instead of Ritalin?"
I don't think I've ever used it in this context but a doctor telling a 5 year old to spend more time playing outside offers insufficient opportunity for graft.
Actually, "telling a 5 year old to spend more time playing outside", while physiologically, psychologically, and medically sound, is probably illegal in most jurisdictions today.
You seem to be suggesting, (or hinting at), unstructured play! Not allowed! Verboten! Thou shalt not!
And yeah, there's no billing code for "sending the kids outside to play".
My Son was a bit of a problem child. The Vice Principal at his Elementary school would take him outside and let him run around the track a few times. Wonderful man....
My son was the star student until 4th grade, then a problem child. The difference was a change in school. The "experts" wanted to medicate him. I said no, firmly. We went to private school, but found much of the same pattern of defining different as a problem. Finally after he was essentially failing high school we got him into a program where he could work at his own pace. Removing the binders, he finished 2 years of high school curriculum in 4 months. He had a wonderful teacher - a real teacher and coach - who recognized the "problem" and gave him a challenge at his level instead of insisting he work to an "average". It became clear the "problem" was the system, inherently unable to handle real diversity. Everything about the conventional education system is geared to a statistical norm.
What we had was better for us - like homeschooling with help. We did hire a tutor to work with our son once a week, to help him organize his time mostly, set goals for the week, and such. We were very lucky that the teacher/counselor assigned our son was a truly special human being and the perfect fit for kid - he understood that the kid's poor performance was mostly boredom and frustration. Blessed really to have the support we had.
In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry spent 4.58 billion U.S. dollars on advertising on national TV in the United States, unsurprisingly representing a big shift in spending compared to the 2019 pre-covid market. In 2020 TV ad spending of the pharma industry accounted for 75 percent of the total ad spend.
Whoa. That's a lot of incentive. That accounts for the media support. Any figures on their spending to secure government support (speaking fees, book deals, etc)?
Many years ago I was in Italy and had a day off in Venice. I stopped for lunch. This was during the first California recall of a governor, the one that led to electing the Governator. Chatting with other patrons, when it was revealed I lived in California, everyone wanted to talk about the recall (at the time CA was the 5th largest economy in the world and very interesting to Europeans). We had other Americans, and many Europeans in the conversation. At one point the restaurant proprietor joined who's only question was why it took so long to toss out one corrupt governor. "I don't see the problem - you've got a corrupt bastard, you toss him out, you bring in the next corrupt bastard. In Italy we could have changed the entire government in less time!" - and at that moment he was probably right!
It was in the 1970's, when did it change? I don't honestly know but graduating from pharmacy school with a BS in Pharmacy in the mid 70's, prescription drug advertising was not legal
The USA and New Zealand, with a population of 5 million, are the only countries in the world that allow prescription medications to be advertised directly to consumers on television. And only since 1997 in the United States, when the FDA relaxed it's prohibition (talk about regulatory capture). If these medications need a doctors prescription why should that be pushed directly to the consumer who ostensibly doesn't have the knowledge to know whether they should take it or not. It's bad enough that doctors are propagandized and bribed to prescribe certain medications by pharmaceutical reps who who have minimal medical or pharmacological training.
When these prescription drug ads first came on television, and were required to list the side effects and potential dangers, Miami Herald humor columnist Dave Barry wrote, "These ads basically tell you two things: you need this medication; and this medication can kill you."
I'd like to see a study on the health effects of being bombarded 24/7 by sickness and death in the form of these advertisements. I know it bothers me--over the counter headache remedies were bad enough. But if you watch television they are unavoidable
I do use the DVR for most things even a live program which I often pause periodically so I'm in the buffer, but sometimes one is not quick enough to mute the audio or advance video to the news of murderers and mass shootings before being ambushed by pharmaceutical ads.
Has anyone noticed lately that on substack if you try to edit a comment. the comment disappears when you try to save in the edit, and you have to cancel, copy the comment which then returns, delete, and repost it to get the edited version posted?
My buddy who was all in on the Covid madness used Rueters as his nuetral source. I sent him proof that the CEO was on Pfizer’s board. Didn’t matter. “If we save just one life”. Dude, every bloody thing that you support is taking lives. Weirdest guy. A progtard Christian
There is a certain kind of person who finds in convenient to believe that everyone is just doing their best and any bad things are just inadvertent errors. It’s naive maybe or a defense against facing horrible realities.
Because to actually admit knowing would cause a crisis of conscience about your lifestyle and beliefs. Such as where exactly your 401K is invested, the economic implications of your "inexpensive" clothing, the ecological costs of your McMansion, what your school taxes are paying for (it ain’t curriculum- Philadelphia school district has 20 yr old science textbooks), why there are homeless, why there is poverty, why people go bankrupt from medical bills, and on and on and on. Easier and more comfortable to keep living in the status quo. Until it isn’t.
Have you ever shared a vaccine injured person’s story with your friend? Ernesto Ramirez lost his only child, 17 to the Pfizer shot. His grief and story is so heartbreaking and there are so many, many others. Perhaps if your friend saw the #realnotrare consequences it might help them see. Everyone wakes up differently. Also, did you see the stop world control report on Reuters, how they are printing materials to promote child sex? Show your friend that and see how neutral they still think they are.
He’s lost. VAERS data is “debunked” thanks to Rueters. Despite the fact that he can’t believe how many people are having strokes after “Covid”. And AFLDS is just the demon sperm lady. Nothing to aee here. He agrees that the media and government are insanely evil. Just not on Covid.
He doesn’t want to see. I find that type really frustrating because it’s intentional and that is such an insult to the people who have lost and suffered so much. I have a hard time forgiving that because it’s so disrespectful of the injured and I see their pain and struggles, their financial struggles and some even commit suicide. I see the intentional denial of the injured as complicit in their suffering. That is not how Christ would want us to act.
The "just one life" is a familiar falsehood to those of us who take an active role in personal safety. It's become familiar in "moderated free speech" debates, too. It is always a false premise - that whatever restriction on YOUR right will increase safety for others.
Your choice harms me. It's how you convince people who never ride motorcycles or bicycles to support helmet laws (YOU will have to pay for caring for those who choose not to wear a helmet when they don't die). If disarming those who do not commit crimes "saves one life" it's justified...despite being completely irrational (my gun does not harm you, unless you commit violence against myself, my family or anyone under my protection). It's intellectually dishonest. And very dangerous (way more dangerous than riding without a helmet or a day at the range).
Yeah "If it saves one life." Those people need a life audit. I wish we could do one. Show them how inadvertently parts of their lives are killing others...or at the very least...not trying to "save just one life." Like watching a football game...someone is dying of malnutrition in Uganda while you suck down a beer and eat some Cheetos.
With COVID the great thing about the claim is there is no way to do an audit. We have no control group. We can compare results in regions that did NOT go BSC on COVID but the problem, mathematically, is (a) that is a tiny sample set compared to the governments that did go BSC, and (b) there are many other variables that can be cited to reject any conclusion. So it's the perfect political statement - total and utterly non-accountable!
Well there is the issue. They can and will reject any result other than the narrative outcome. Out of the Amish community...very few died of Covid, or even with Covid. Kirsch says he dares anyone to find 5 Amish and name them who died of Covid. Thing is, the amish community isn't big on twitter for obvious reasons so its a silly ask for Kirsch to make. But I bet if we were in the Amish community, it would be difficult to name five people who died of/with Covid I also bet there aren't any Amish suffering from Long covid symptoms either. And the meme that "we don't have TV" is a big reasons why.
I have a friend from high school who said on his twitter feed that he has "long covid." This friend also has back and heart issues. He is probably taking some medications...I bet the source of Long covid might not be covid at all. Is "Long covid" going to be the "kleenex" of diseases?
However, we do have some receipts. We can, for instance, compare a place to itself before and after certain restrictions were employed. In terms of masks, we can see when mandates were enacted and the result in the population. Similarly we can compare the vaccinated to before they were vaccinated. With 75% of the US population having been vaccinated...we should be seeing a significant decrease in cases. But we aren't.
But you are correct about the perfect political statement. As coronaviruses mutate, they become more contagious and less lethal. So they can make the assertion that the "vaccine is more efficacious against severe disease."
The 25% of us unvaccinated are nothing to discount though. and I imagine many of us in addition to being unvaccinated also didn't mask. But the comparison should be comprehensive. not only those that died "with Covid" by vaccination status, but all excess deaths.
I was talking to someone on twitter yesterday. He mentioned that his kid was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes due to Long Covid. I asked him if his child had been vaccinated. He then said he was done with the discussion due to conspiracy theories. I said that he was the one who brought up Long Covid, so one conspiracy theory deserves another.
I found it very sad/telling that he didn't respond in shock and say "my child doesn't need an experimental vaccine."
Your twitter contact is good illustration of the point. When you asked the question did you suggest in the context that this might be the cause of the disease? Or did he jump to that conclusion because anyone who asks the question must be one of those anti-vaxers?
The vaccination of kids is a clear sign of non-science (and nonsense) overtaking reason. With near zero risk, there's no upside. Likewise the mask madness: the kind of masks most people are wearing, and the manner in which they're worn, offer zero protection to the wearer and significantly increase the risk of developing (non viral) respiratory infection. In both cases, if one's politics are taken out of consideration, it's obvious.
I did a search on "deep COVID". The definition is so broad that we can all claim to have it. Great community builder? It's not science. To test my assertion, ask someone so afflicted do define it. Most won't. The question will get a similar response as your twitter exchange - you must be a nut because you asked.
There is plenty of data to analyze, even with the overt suppression and covert perversion of data controlled by governments. One can legitimately challenge the validity of any data source. Even with that, patterns emerge despite attempts to suppress them. Some things, such as the dramatic increase in non-viral respiratory ailments, and overall rise in deaths from cancer, heart disease and other causes, emerge even from the "moderated" data. With the complete lack of reason surrounding COVID we could speculate many of these deaths were simply due to poor diagnosis and poorer care as everyone was focused on COVID. Impossible to measure, but plausible from direct observation. At least where I live, those who chose not to take the COVID shot did not receive the same standard of care as they would pre-2020 or if they submitted to the shots. This irrational, non-fact based fixation probably caused more deaths than the virus.
The reporting mandates make accurate reporting very unlikely. A good friend passed away in 2020 - alone because none of his friends and family were able to be with him due to government mandates. He'd fought a long and vigorous fight with cancer. We all knew it would eventually win, but for 20 years he beat it down. When it finally beat him, his SO had to deal get a death certificate and cause of death documentation for the lawyers. She was shocked to find cause of death, after 20 years of fighting cancer, was given as COVID.
No doctor would admit the real cause of death: he simply ran out of fight.
That's a slap in the face to say your friend who fought for 20 years against cancer died of Covid.
My dad had rheumatoid arthritis, and died from complications of that disease in 2007. To cheapen it (if he had died in 2021) by saying he died of Covid for political reasons would have been ridiculous. If he had died in a car accident, it would be understandable to put that as the cause of death, but to make everything Covid is disingenuous. And we all had "Covid fever" back in 2020. Any time we heard anyone was hospitalized or dead, the first question asked was "was it Covid?" I was very clear when I was hospitalized in 2021 that it was due to diabetic cellulitis, not Covid induced cellulitis...which probably now is one of the many symptoms of Long Covid. Since they are blaming the onset of Type 1 Diabetes on it in children, it stands to reason that they will also say it induces progression of any other disease. The funny thing is, so does any virus.
I think many of us know that Covid is a catalyst disease in that for those with a lot of health complications, that is ultimately what pushes them over the edge.
The Rhode Island Court Room video for a gunshot victim who died of covid, The Florida Death Certificates and how they were "mislabelled, and if we all demanded to see the Covid "cause of death" certificates and did rudimentary follow-up with families and friends, we would probably get a significant amount of different causes of death. The two people I knew who died with Covid had COPD and other pre-existing conditions. And now there is the new circulating news story that is (not surprisingly) showing that those that died on the ventilators didn't die of Covid at all, but from an unrelated cause of pneumonia.
Regarding the person I interacted with on Twitter, I never suggested the vaccine could be the cause to Type One Diabetes, but the irony was that he was perfectly willing to get onboard with Covid as the cause. The study I read through that showed that .16 post Covid positive children versus .08 who tested negative of Covid previously were diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. No mention was made if either of these cohorts had been vaccinated nor any of the environmental factors they were subjected to. My guess is those children who didn't test "Covid positive" probably were allowed to move around more and stay less isolated.
I did a similar read of Long Covid and you could blame any malady on it as the source. Someone snarky suggested sarcastically that a lot of the new ailments cropping up "didn't exist pre vaccine" because you know how antivaxxers are...trying to attribute everything to the vaccine, and so I had to jump in and also remind that "brain fog and fatigue did not exist pre-Covid."
It is true that fixation on Covid caused a lot of unintended consequences. Deferred treatments. Right now I imagine there are more than a few cancer patients who have no faith in our healthcare system, and who could blame them. It is disgusting to see the crap coming out of the Mayo Clinic because when I went down there to get my mom diagnosed with cancer back in 2002, the level of care and relentless way they went at her to discover what was wrong was impressive. But now with all this politicization, they too are compromised.
My favorite part about that whole debacle was the MSM piling on FOX for losing viewers to NEWSMAX after the '20 election, then later somehow saying that FOX was all-in on "election denial".
Same here and I include Jesse Watters. "The Five" and Jesse's show is about all I watch for national news. Greg's show is way after my bedtime these days.
Did you see the report about how Reuters is publishing and pushing sex on little children? I believe they have a eugenicist history as well. Stop world control is who put out the very scary report.
For most of my life, the AP was THE most-important "news" organization. This organization literally wrote the "stylebook" for proper journalism. Along with Reuters, they might as well be PRAVDA given how they "cover" news.
I recently went paragraph-by-paragraph parsing the AP's "straight news story" about RFK, Jr's presidential announcement.
As far as I'm concerned, the AP has to go. There's too many "journalists" you'd have to purge to save the organization. It's the same with the NY Times, Washington Post, Gannett, your state's largest newspaper, etc.
When I was in high school (1960s) I remember a Russian talking about how Izvestija and Pravda were propaganda, then he went on to make the case that the US news media were just the same and he brought the receipts. That was a major tap on the forehead with the sandal of Buddha for me. As is said: believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
I wrote complaints to our little, failing local daily. Not even a daily anymore...they only publish 4 days a week now. AP had become pure leftist propaganda. I guess costs figure into this somewhere. I used to work there years ago when it was thriving and would hate to see it fail but it looks it will become a weekly sometime in the future if it survives at all. I sometimes flatter myself that I could turn it around. Leave the national news to the nets and internet and go strictly local barring some cataclysmic event like WWIII. Bring back a society page and a good sports page. Then again, I am 81 years old and out of gas.
I used to own a weekly newspaper in my hometown. Your formula would work. Local. Local. Local ... and throw in a lot of good sports and some society news.
Not entirely dissimilar entities. One used brute force, the other propaganda. In the end the outcomes were the same: mindless servitude from the masses through endless conditioning and fear.
that nails it in two sentences. "Mindless servitude from the masses" - Check. "endless conditioning" - Check ... and "fear" - Check.
I might add this: No (or few) counter "leaders" to stand up to these people and organizations.
In retrospect, I do think when the "watchdog" press became completely captured, the Bad Guys won a huge battle. For now, Substack and a few excellent alternative media sites are trying to fight back as best they/we can.
Which begs the question, have we not learned anything in the past hundred years? The powermongers certainly have.
The Internet was supposed to be the great knowledge emancipator -- full access for the masses. Yet instead of availing themselves of such a rich trove of facts, history, analysis, and discussion they instead embrace highly curated (read: censored) puerile rubbish from the likes of Fakebook and TwitTok. Then insist how anything outside their bubble is simply "conspiracy theory" regardless of indisputable evidence to the contrary. It is a truly mind-numbing experience to attempt rational conversation with these people.
"I know what's truly going on in the word because I watch 'The View' every morning!"
I was especially amused by the last two sections, about Democrats being powerless due to Florida’s supermajority, and how Gov. DeSantis is ignoring his state while running around campaigning. Swap out Florida for California, and they could have told the *exact* same story... but of course they wouldn’t do that.
haven't had a TV in 20+ years. Watch what I like, not what others want me to watch. Only have to see it now and then at hair dresser or friend's house. And listen to muzak at Walmart and the likes when absolutely cannot avoid going there. An enrichment of life, not having to see or watch the garbage that is on. Last few times I had to listen to National Propaganda Radio all they had on was begging for money (when my computer broke down)
1986-2009 no TV in my house. No newspapers. Now, no TV again since last year. Do get Epoch Times paper but do not read it. Saving them for posterity! I watch some of its stories online and read its web articles.
AP has always been frustrating. Even local newspapers, when a reportable event happened in its coverage area, must use the AP story and are not allowed to change or update it.
our local paper comes only 4 times a week, if you are sure to be alive it is not worth taking because all it has are 1. obituaries (I look online if I am still alive) 2, articles from 50 and 85 years ago (when I was not in the country and not alive) 3. old news, usually several days 4. democrat propaganda. And it is quite expensive. A former friend keeps it for me, I use it in the garden as lasagna fertilizer
That just confirms my belief about newspaper since I've never gotten one. I occasionally will catch a story online. It is always as reported by the AP.
A former friend keeps it, hmm. Is that your former friends punishment?
she already did that when we were still very close friends. But the 3 years of different ideas about the jabs have made us go separate ways. Trying to hang on but very little left to say
The Covid Culprit has struck discord for so many with their friends and family - just a side benefit for the Feds. Agreeing to disagree becomes much harder when feds blame one for the illness or death of another.
I haven’t watched TV since analog tv went off American airwaves in 2009. Besides, my tv needed new vacuum tubes anyway (obsolescence joke) 😁 I go to relatives’ homes, and there’s the cable news on and NYT & time mag on the table. They even being on the formerly skeptical left are now authoritarian followers of the narrative. Our common ground has vanished. Current media are the daily “Antideprogramming regimen.” It’s difficult to even plant a seed in such soil
My problem with "Godzilla" is the anti-humanist rant at the end about nature and the folly of mankind. I prefer to think of mankind as a capable can-do race that may make mistakes, but then learns from them. The end of Godzilla encourages a state of mind which is the antithesis to that.
You have gotten "secondhand mass media," we all have. Unless you are vigilant with your emails, never venture out in public, you have been subject to it here and there. It's not hard to find or know the narrative.
I remember going to a Chilis after the lockowns. Glancing up at screens and seeing the BLM sporting events, and just feeling a general malaise. Everywhere you looked and smelled and tasted, nothing was normal. Our world was given a shot of "new coke" and when "classic" returned it never was the same. Because now the ingredients were different.
Restaurants ran at half occupancy. Sporting events had masked players and cardboard cutouts. The smell of a restaurant was not the smell of cooking, but sanitizer and bleach, and other scents of deep cleaning. The waitress who took your order was masked which made no sense.
Why is she masked and I am not?
What does this say about me? What does it say about her?
Sorry about the long-winded response to your comment.
Me too. Humans produce most of it. All for the benefits of cats, who alone can get high on it. I've tried for years to grow catnip without much success. I get little scraggly plants that live for a few months, flower even, and then die. My cats hardly benefit at all, unless they are the culprits who occasionally overturn the pots. Well all is not lost: at least one can make a cup of herbal tea with it.
some years ago I pointed out to my wife that any PBS show, on almost any nature/science related topic, was going to work "climate change" in somehow - no matter how unrelated or far-fetched. she didn't believe me... at first.
after a few weeks, she started calling it out each time it happened. after a year or so, she mostly stopped watching nature shows, now only watches their period dramas. (I don't point out the 'woke' alterations of history on those shows, since they're not always egregious, and I don't care.)
And the new "Tom Jones" on Masterpiece Theatre has a black woman playing Sophie Weston. I'll wait for a rerun of the movie with Susannah York and Albert Finney. I'm expecting Masterpiece Theater to produce an updated "Dr. Zhivago" soon with a black transgender playing Lara and lots of climate change warnings.
Netflix just ran a show about Cleopatra using a black actress as Cleopatra. Never mind that she was actually a Greek. It has deservedly bombed with rotten reviews.
I like some Masterpiece dramas, but I have abstained from this. This casting is preposterous but effective. I was at a book group several years ago where one person insisted that Heathcliff was black because he was described as dark by Bronte.
“When an affirmation has been sufficiently repeated and there is unanimity in this repetition—as has occurred in the case of certain famous financial undertakings rich enough to purchase every assistance—what is called a current of opinion is formed and the powerful mechanism of contagion intervenes. Ideas, sentiments, emotions, and beliefs possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes.”
—Gustave Le Bon, “The Psychology of Crowds”
Repetition is the favorite and most easily deployed weapon in the propagandists’ toolkit, thanks to our neurological vulnerability to the illusory-truth effect across all ages:
I read that it only takes 6 times for a person to hear a lie and start believing it as truth.
Commercials/ads are probably repeated around 6 times during a 30-minute show. Ads are probably also repeated 6 times in 5 minutes of scrolling through social media feeds.
For all those out there that still watch cable, listen to the radio or get your info from social media, you are doomed!
A personal story: I worked (in the US) doing per diem work for a local tv station for 15 years. I was in a technical position. When I left (essentially automated out of a job), I decided to stop watching local news. That quickly morphed into not watching cable news unless something I was particularly interested in was happening.
With the advent of streaming, that turned into watching no news on tv at all. I still read things online, randomly listen to talk radio and feel I'm actually more informed than those that watch tv news. Essentially, I have completely shut off the fear porn.
Highly recommend shutting all MSM off. ALL. OF. IT.
Yes and no. I gave up TV long ago too. I watch virtually no video including streaming. But here's the rub: I spend several hours a day on the net, reading news and opinion such as here at Substack. I can't claim I'm happier and healthier, because so much news is a downer. But I do beleive I'm much better informed than if I wached the talking heads.
I do the same as you do, and I think I'm a bit happier. LOL. A bit.
Generally, when you're online, you can choose what to read. You can't when you're watching tv news. So you get exposed to a lot more general doom, rather than specific doom of your own choosing. Or no doom if you don't want to know.
No doom is not an option if you're watching the news.
That's about all we do now. We still watch "The Five" and Jesse Watters. Maybe check a local station to see if the Braves won. All the rest is streaming Brit shows from Britbox and Acorn.
We watch reruns, MASH, and very little else. We have a stash of DVDs, books, crafts. While I love keeping up with current event, I know everyone is lying to me, so why bother. Sometimes I wish I could escape to the mountains, by a stream, with a garden to feed myself. Be self sufficient and off the grid. Alas no way possible given financial restraints.
hubbs and I watch Britbox, a few things on Hulu and we have Roku.
We automatically silence commercials. or we lower the volume and get up and do jumping jacks, run upstairs and scoop the litterboxes, unload the dryer etc etc
I agree, left cable years ago after trial window ended and very little regular TV programs are worth anything*, imho. My mom will prefix the nightly news with “0h so and so, she’s not too bad.” 😂 they know!
*I am kind of interested in the commercials if they reflect society at all? What drugs we should take, what self driving ev’s we should buy, what shows we should watch next.
Decades ago... and I mean decades ago (maybe mid 2000s) I was at my aunt and uncles house. At that juncture, I didn't realize that they were rabid democrats. My aunt asked me if I watched that women with the short hair on MSNBC. I frowned and replied something like "oh, the woman who looks like a man? That's Rachel Maddow."
As for commercials reflecting society... I think now that commercials are trying to reshape society, at least in the US. Notice how many mixed race/ not white people you see on tv. Then compare it to how many actual mixed race/ non whites you know and work with.
I see that roi doesn’t care. Okay. One of my aunts, however, believes , or says she does, that mixed race couples are now the norm. I don’t care whether they are or not. But, they are not and probably should not be represented as such. This aunt has 7 children, 15 grands and several great grands. Not one is mixed race. But, the TV shows and says.
I don’t care because maybe in some ways it blurs this perception of differences. My grandmother had more than a few great-grandchildren and a fair number are of mixed race.
I imagine overly stating mixed races could mean something. To me it’s not a bad thing. Who cares, they all need to talk to their doctor, if listening to the commercials.
It is time to stop pretending that there is such a thing as "objective" once we add the narrative language to it that is necessary for humans to make sense of it. A much more meaningful approach is full disclosure at every turn.
Disagree. Objectivity may be impossible but it is still an admirable goal. I think the news took a noticeable downturn when folks started to embrace the idea that hte news should not strive to be objective.
The issue I see is that, if it's not possible, then pretending it is happening leads to deep propaganda. I don't see a conflict between presenting your reporting as intending to be objective, while still disclosing funding.
A primary problem with humans is that they believe their programmed subjective world view represents empirical reality. The narrow range of experience that forms this world view is full of falsehoods and error from the limited input which formed what they accepted as truth.
Examining how cause and effect works in the real world without preconceived/programmed ideas is a way to get closer to objective reality beyond the projections of the conditioned mind.
Pointing out the lack of evidence and the manifold absurdities in the russiagate conspiracy theory is labeled "conspiracism", even though no conspiracy is alleged.
So, as old people now(in our 60’s) we’ve been looking at real estate in god’s waiting room (Florida), specifically Yankeetown. Yesterday, my husband informed me that Yankeetown is out because it floods frequently and will be under water by some date in the near future (I want to say 2035 - sometimes details bore me these days). I asked “do you think that’s the climate change bullshit or is it true?”. You just don’t know what to believe anymore.
Yet the elite keep buying waterfront properties! Al gore told me years ago that the Statue of Liberty would be underwater by 2000. He’s very wealthy now.
"I asked “do you think that’s the climate change bullshit or is it true?”
The way it's presented in the media is complete BS. The best empirical evidence we have of fossil fuel burnings effect is the greening of the planet attributed to those emissions. The climate always changes so they are fear mongering over something that is perfectly normal. Extreme variation is the norm for weather but has been weaponized as evidence of doom.
We have warmed 1C since the depths of the little ice age which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. The Holocene Thermal Optimum was 2C+ warmer than now for 4,000 years and gave rise to human civilizations world wide. We are being told that another 0.5C of warming needs to be avoided to prevent a catastrophe. Hard to imagine a more absurd narrative but the brainwashed believe humans are going to become extinct. Never mind that all species have survived much greater extremes than the wildest climate projections.
Isn't there a better place to resettle other than FLA?
Hubbs adn I are in NO VA and looking to move west. not sure, Winchester or perhaps Haymarket. I am leery about leaving Virginia. My daughters live here close by and .... yeah well, super expensive, but hubbs and I could just mooch of others hahah j/k we would do okay
We’re snowbirds, tired of the cold. Our kids are spread out in the US and they’d come to visit in FLA! If you’re talking west in the US, I lived in Utah for four years and it’s great place to visit. We’ve traveled to FLA for years and love the climate in winter. Actually, I’d relocate to the Caribbean, but health issues prevent us!
I was born in DC and llived most of my life (until early 40s) in NoVA. You couldn't pay me to move back there. I've been in FL for twenty years. It's not bad. You sound like the typical people, somewhat attached to the area. Everything is trade-off: yes it's the seat of power and lots of high-income jobs. But inevitably, that means high costs too. Are you retiring? Well then at least you have the freedom to move to cheaper area. But it's hard to let go of the social contacts, etc. isn't it?
We have to live here for a while longer I like this area for the doctors and brilliant people. .
Hubbs and I have a lot of time to think and plan. My dad is 99 and I believe he will live to at least to 102. I live 5 miles from his neighborhood and my siblings are happy and delighted that I do all of the care and attention. granted, my dad is loaded ($$$) and could live without me, but we are very close now. So, when we move, I just want to move someplace where they have good doctors and hospitals and intelligent people. I do not want to live in a blue state. Yes, Virginia is purple, it is sad. Democrats and liberals ruin everything
I have lived in a small North Georgia city all of my 81 years. It's still safe, or at least safer than most places. A huge, mostly very good hospital complex. If you tried to pitch a tent on public property or shat on the street, you would be in the local lock-up so fast it would make your head spin. The Appalachians are 30 minutes away and the beaches six or seven hours at most. They will bury me in the red clay I came from.
Yes we’re retired. Don’t care about high income jobs anymore. We’ve earned enough to not worry too much about high costs, but it would be nice if cost of living would go back to what it was, say, three years ago! We were looking at Yankeetown to be away from the craziness of the Southern part of FLA. We believe social contacts will come visit, if not, we’ll make new ones as well!
Does Yankeetown flood and will it be under water anytime soon? I’m 63 so 100 years from now doesn’t count!
This is good. Totally true, all the 'news services' are now obviously bought. Wasn't always the case, as far as I can tell, but today its the case. I now just don't take literally anything the MSM says at face value.
I’m not sure about the wasnt always the case part…
The nostalgia for the 'unbiased, trustworthy' Cronkite era drives me nuts. In the 18th-19th century, when barriers to setting up papers/pamphlets were low, everybody understood reporters were full of it, as the news sources were so varied, combative, and plastered with scurrilous accusations of politicians giving each other's wives the clap, etc. These days, in the era of twitter and substack and citizen journalism, everybody again understands reporters are full of it and lie constantly about everything. So let's say in 300+ years of journalism on this continent, a good 250+ was marked by widespread distrust of corrupt, lying reporters. But we are to believe there was a miraculous period of a few decades when these erstwhile propagandists reformed, repented, and reported the news without bias or deception? And this great reformation coincidentally happened *at the precise period* in American life when everyday Americans had no way of getting alternate viewpoints, because it was the big networks or bust? In other words: every time the press had checks and balances via competition, it was revealed as hilariously corrupt, yet, when for a few years there were no checks and balances, it just so happened that during this period, and this period alone, the press acted with honor and virtue? Pull the other one...
I read Twain's book "Roughing It" as a teen and liked it. I just re-read it several decades on, and was, literally, laughing out loud all the way through the book. Maybe life experience helped me really see where he was coming from.
He worked as a reporter in some mining town, and hist stories about the flagrant (and well-rewarded) lying and competition between papers are hilarious.
Agree 100%. I was telling people over 20 years ago that I'd almost rather have our original wild variety of flagrantly biased newspapers. Readers would know each outlet's agenda and what party they aligned with. They could read a variety of papers and 'read between the lines' to filter out the agendas and try to cipher out any actual facts from all sources. Or, they could stick with one, to feed their confirmation bias. With the uniform, so-called 'objective' media, you don't get the wild variety and challenges to opposing narratives. It all serves to reinforce confirmation bias, and the consumer isn't even aware of how that 'objective' narrative was created and enforced. So they don't even know it exists. That's the most effective form of propaganda.
This, I presume, why in "the old days" (and still, to a certain extent), every large (and most medium-sized) city had at least two "impartial" newspapers of distinct viewpoints? 😏
Yup. The 1970s was when it peaked the last time, and people got so sick of it they voted the Socialists out-out-out for the first time since before WW2.
Social Services (plural) were tasked with ensuring every kid got a healthy home-environment. Sadly, this morphed over time (from the 1910s when the first version of it was launched, and back then we had shanty-towns in our major cities) from meaning clothing, food, hygiene, going to school and not being an anti-social criminal to a very rigid mold of what was considered normal (1970s). In the 1980s, this led to a shake-up and a return to basics, after anumber of scandals brought to light by family-rights-activists, mainly from free churches (since we've had a State Church for centuries, we have a very stark divide between that thoroughly political monstrosity and the free churches).
I still rememer, despite being a kid then, how one high-up party minister answered a journalist asking how it felt- on live television! - when the election results came in and it was clear the Socialists (and their allies in the openly Moscow-run Communist Party) were out:
"It feels like a coup detat!"
As I may have mentioned sometime, to Socialists no matter what they call themselves, democracy means you get to vote and they get to form the governement.
I wouldn't really know. When I grew up in Montreal there was only one major newspaper after 1979, The Gazette. Since I have been in Ontario (moved in 2018) Ottawa seems to have only one also (Citizen). For the country, I am also not sure. For many years the Globe and Mail sold itself as Canada's national news paper, it was the only one, until the National Post came along, which in this case definitely positioned itself to the right. In Toronto today, thought, you are correct, the Sun is right, and the Star is very Left.
I agree. For all the flaws of the time there were still hard limits on media ownership and The Fairness Doctrine.
In that environment we actually saw real dissident movements in the 60s and 70s that “required” assassinations by the deep state in USA and abroad, and the Church Commission hearings that nearly scuttled a certain 3 letter agency that necessitated offloading some operations to the newly formed NGOs that plague to world to this day.
The opening salvo against dissent was Lewis Powell’s memo of 1971 where a quasi fascist deep state would regain control of the narrative by repealing the safeguards on media information such as they were.
Yes! There was no golden age. There was however, for a time, the effort to present the appearance of impartiality. Within the Overton window naturally, but at least there was an acknowledgment that there was more than one “correct” interpretation of events.
I hate being manipulated. I can’t stand watching world wildlife commercials. I turn them off. I turn off the St Judes commercials. Shane on these people. Sadly, they are successful.
We hadn’t watched commercial TV in 7 years (we’re off grid in a log cabin, we stream and read online). We stayed in a hotel (first time in 4 years) recently and flipped on the tube. Commercials were insulting. It seems anyone selling anything assumes the viewer is quite ignorant. We couldn’t believe how low advertising has sunk! Though it alway was bad imho. It used to entertain, remember Spuds MacKenzi?
It's brainwashing. We've all been subjected to it throughout Covid, and our youth have been subjected to it constantly, since Kindergarten, in everything they see and read, including their text books. For a cringe, read "The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing" by Joost A.M. Meerloo. Meerloo survived Nazi incarceration and interrogation in the Netherlands, and wrote this book in the 50s. It was published in 1960.
Well, even Shakespeare was a bought 'n paid for propagandist.
We, right here with Substack, are enjoying the greatest opportunity for discovering and sharing true facts and honest research ever. Imagine if we hadn't had our most recent Plague Era. Fraudulent wars hadn't been enough to make people wonder about reality vs. fiction and we've had fraudulent wars forever.
But what we've been going through for the past three years has changed a lot of people's basic assumptions profoundly. Sure, we got two sides screaming the same crap at and about each other.
But we got something else too. That growth of the genuine independent. Water and feed and nurture like our lives depend on it.
In a similar ven, someone wrote a "alternate history" ficiton short story that posited Emily Dickinson I think it was, on a journey through the then-Wild West*. Somehow she crosses paths with a frontiersman who had the unusual hobby of being a gifted writer of poetry. All his collected works are in a satchel which somehow Emily gets, and as they say, the rest is [alternate] history...
*From a quck browse of her Wiki, it doesn't appear she travelled much at all in her life, no further from her Mass. home than Washington DC or Philadelphia. Supporting the ficitonal tale, however, is the fact that very little of her work was published in her lifetime.
We used to joke "if you don't like the weather in [insert city], give it a day and it'll change. Someone figured out how to arbitrage changing weather for political political power. Brilliant!
They need people to be scared for it to work. Hence the pretense that bad weather is somehow unusual or getting worse. What I can’t believe is that they’d trust the bureaucrats in Washington to actually fix it rather than milk it.
Hubbs and I are alone. we can not discuss politics or any "issues" because they are too closed minded and stupid. They get angry when challenged. It breaks my heart but okay. Live a good life.
I'm not sure why this is, but the more I hear the propaganda, the less I believe it. For me, it's similar to ignoring the screaming mentally ill person on the street. High quantity of hysterical "reporting" = misinformation or disinformation. Easy peasy.
You are probably the exception that proves the rule. The big lie and all the other techniques of propaganda (or advertising, by another name) are age-old techniques. If they didn't work, they would not be so widely employed. I don't know the psychology behind it, but it IS all psychology: witness the herd instinct. That doesn't mean commonly held norms and beliefs are all bad, but they aren't universally good either. And history shows (at least for those who look) that there will always be evil people who try to mainpulate the herd for their own ends. Or, I admit, perhaps in rare cases, well-intentioned leaders who try to work for the common good.
I got my first taste of distrusting authority way back in early grade school. That particular day we were being tested on our ability to read and draw clocks. Simple stuff, and the first few questions went by just fine. 6 o’clock? Big hand 12, little hand 6. Easy Peazy!
The issue came when I was asked to draw 4:30. Because I understand how clocks work, I put the big hand on the 6 and the little hand halfway between 4 and 5.
BZZZZZZT
I was instructed that the proper way to draw 4:30 was to put the big hand on the 6 and the little hand directly on the 4.
For a second I thought she was joking. I even looked at the clock in our classroom: 12:15. And that little hand was definitely NOT right on the 12. “Holy shit, my teacher can’t even tell time!” I thought in second-grade language.
My daughter's teacher insisted that kilometers were longer than miles, and practically punished the one child in the class who continued to disagree. The next day, a curt and sullen acknowledgement that miles were longer (I guess at least one parent "reached out" with a correction), but no apology whatsoever.
"Now, this is a photo of the Milky Way, our galaxy, taken by a satellite from outside." (In swedish, it would be obvious she meant taken from outsidethe galaxy.)
She did not take well to a kid piping up that that was plainly impossible. No apology, no admitting being in error, just buner down and entrench.
I will never understand why some people can't just shrug and laugh it off with an "Ooops, silly me, good catch!"
It was my mother's contention that my being punished for reading Earle Stanley Gardner novels in class at age seven (second grade) made me into a lifelong cynic.
I'll have to think on that one. Was raised in a somewhat authoritarian household--couldn't verbally question anything parents said or that was considered "talking back" and subject to possible punishment. Maybe that was it, although neither parent engaged in lying but rather more like bossiness. As we kids got older, the parents loosened up considerably.
Reuters is right up there too... sponsored by.. Pfizer!😆 Great read!✊🏻
Pharmaceutical advertising must be made illegal. Every time we see them running ads alarm bells should go off. Because whatever the venue whether TV, Internet, radio or print. Those millions in adverts are buying protection, propaganda and influence. Besides, how many watchers are rushing to grab a pen to write down some unpronounceable drug name to ask their doctor? Prescription drugs can only be purchased and distributed by licensed professionals. I doubt any are being influenced by ads. Logically those ads serve only one purpose and it isn’t to sell a product.
RFKJr says he’ll get em off TV
Right. Good luck with that
Completely disagree.
No government should have the power to force or constrain the speech of anyone, period. Granting the rulers any such power gets us right to where we are now, swimming in oceans of government and media bullshit.
Not only is it immoral, as it infringes on the fundamental natural right of freedom of speech, but in the US such infringements are illegal, as the First Amendment is quite clear that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Not, of course, that the USG cares one whit about, or has any sense of obligation to follow, any law whatsoever. After all, it has been seized by progressives, so one would expect nothing less.
And the fact that we largely now have a population of supine, gullible ignoramuses from a century of progressive government "education", also matters not.
The idea that my right to speak, either in an individual capacity or via my business, should be censored because morons might be misled by the message is thoroughly collectivist, which is why leftists of all stripes favor it.
The quality of information, like everything else in life, is up to the individual to determine.
Caveat emptor.
I would like to see whether they'd still have the resources to run the quantity of ads they do if their regulatory capture and protections were ended outright. I suspect not if they suddenly became liable for the negative sides to their products, and to me, that's a better approach than restricting their ability to advertise.
Bingo.
"Caveat emptor."
Good Gravy, YES.
Please don't be Team Ban Hammer. Avert your gaze. Even lodge your disagreement. But the minute Someone gets to decide via the I-know-Porn-when-I-see-it filter, bad ideas can be amplified, plausible alternatives are suppressed without sufficient consideration.
See also The COVID.
Back in the 70s the way to suppress bad actors was call them "porn". Today it is to label them "disinformation". Also useful terms: "denier", "anti-science" and of course "deplorables".
Remember Larry Flynn? He published a shameless soft-core porn mag that lacked the sophistication of Playboy. His naked female pictures were not porn until he started a column "Asshole of the month" which targeted (among others) elected officials, government appointees and even entire government agencies. Then he was charged with using the US mail to distribute "obscene materials" (under the "I know it when I see it" standard). The visual content of the magazine had not changed but the political content had. That's justice, right?
Rumors at the time were that Flynn paid his lawyers to lose the case. When Flynn went to jail, magazine sales soared.
I didn't know any of that back in the late '70s when someone would steal a mag from their dad's stash.
I only read them for the pictures of the naked woman but I hear they had articles. *shrug*
So you support drag queens in elementary schools then. Your noble sounding screed is exactly the Soros bullshit that led to the chaos in cities. It’s all about letting people do whatever they want under the auspice of freedom until the homeless tents show up in your front yard and they’re defecating on your front porch. You sound like those idiots that decry term limits saying voting is a term limit. Look around fool. And stop trying to sucker the gullible by pretending freedom means no rules whatsoever. Antifa much?
Where, exactly, did I say I support drag in school or any of the other fantasy attributions you ascribe to me?
You smell like just another leftist, statist shill.
Piss off.
But is advertising really speech? Flyers aren’t according to Florida. I don’t see the difference.
(I agree with you for the record.)
Good question. I say yes.
If something is uttered, written, published or otherwise disseminated by a human being, it is speech.
So while I agree theoretically with your principles we must address the real life problem. The pharmaceutical companies own the media because they are the media’s biggest source of income and this makes the media beholden. The news media can no longer do their job because they cannot report anything that goes against their wishes. How does one the find more accurate reporting and news then? Had they not been allowed to advertise on TV then they wouldn’t have the censorship power they hold now. When drug companies censor news how is that free speech? I think you see what I’m saying.
Big Pharma owns the media because they enjoy oligopoly privileges granted by the government, which allows them to fleece the rest of us, a portion of which is used to pay media whores to convince boobus otherwise.
If there were a free market in pharma and everything else, none of this would occur.
In a free market, private entities engaging in censorship would be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis those that do not, because over time people would know who is trustworthy and who not.
Infringement, by government or at their behest, of natural rights is *always* a bad idea, and creates exactly the predicament we now face.
Soooooo... "Caveat emptor?"
I agree.
If advertising was speech, it would be limited to verifiable facts and be quite boring. An example are the disclaimers that accompany pharma ads on US tv. Once I read those, I wondered why anyone would buy their products. Sounds like few people read them.
Agree completely. It does mean readers need to be aware that their information has been shaped and by whom and for what motives. The so called philanthropists funding climate change reports have an agenda, and it’s not to keep you safe from bad weather.
Yes. Disclosure should be required too. It's not anti-free speech to require disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.
"Anyone" should not consider corporate speech, no matter what Citizen's United said.
Corporations are a State-created legal fiction. They don't "speak" (or pay taxes), but the people that own and run them do.
These people have the same right of free speech as any other individual or group, and just because they choose to exercise this right via a business entity does not justify infringement.
Like pretty much everything else the State does, incorporation is basically a scam, providing liability protection to the shareholders in return for the State's ability to justify double taxation and the imposition of its endless plethora of fees, assessments and other forms of theft.
Ads that claim things are true when they are not is false advertising. There are laws against this. This does not infringe free speech. There are libel laws too.
Yes, it does infringe free speech and there should be no such laws.
You either have the government deciding what is acceptable speech, or you have actual free speech. There is no in-between. This is why the founders used the words "shall make no law".
One would think that such language was clear.
This said, false advertising should be treated as a tort, like the common law tort of libel, the specifics of which are determined by the courts, not the legislature, which is, as above, unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Like all fundamental rights, free speech is not subject to the whims of the mob, er, I mean "democracy" as this is, as all thinking people know, the road to tyranny.
What if the other four dentists who chewed gum were shills for "Big Candy?"
it used to be forbidden in Belgium long time ago, but then commercial senders got the right to advertise for them and the other channels followed. But if you hear the list if side effects, I wonder who still wants to take that crap.
Pharmaceutical ads at least feel compelled to disclose everything, even if it's Speed Talking.
Who amongst us has ever read the End-User License Agreement (EULA) when they install Instagram? You already said YES to every creepy thing they can do without a thought.
My favorite recently was one that had a long list of potential side-effects ending in "death". Then it said "if you experience any of these see your doctor immediately". Hm. So when you die, make sure you do not forget to tell your doctor you died. Seems only fair. A drug add that promotes an afterlife. Gotta love it!
I thought the same some thirty years ago when I read through all the side effects of a prescription my doc was trying on me. One of the side effects was "In rare cases, sudden death may occur." So I should call my doctor from the grave?
Reading the list of side effects when I've been prescribed something by a doctor (a rare occasion as I avoid those people like the plague) has almost always deterred me from filling the prescription. And, surprise, surprise--I have done just fine without the concoction. I remember going for a follow up x-ray for a badly sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture a number of years ago and causing consternation in the nurse when I responded to her question about whether the pain killers were effective by telling her I didn't know because I hadn't taken them after I looked at the side effects. I honestly didn't need them and I wonder how many other people who did take them probably didn't either.
At least tell your local government your change in voting status.
This is like the humorous thing the KJ would announce from time to time to those of us who signed up for karaoke "Please tell me you left."
🤔
News Headline: Government and Pharmaceutical companies band together to fight death
Drug company official: "Dead people do not refill prescriptions"
Film at 11
hate instagram. tried it for a few weeks and quit. Same with pinterest. I had a quite large site but then they forbid jab injuries and censured my site. Immediately deleted the whole thing.
I never thought of using pinterest for vaccine related things. I use it for art reference.
Don’t kid yourself. Not compelled. Legally required. So they make a joke out of it by making it as indistinguishable as possible. As far from an admission as they can get away with. We saw where their head is at over Covid vaccinations when they buried informed consent along with any culpability under the umbrella of the EUA.
Informed consent now lives in the same underground space as rational risk/reward assessment.
I have read EULA, and no the EULA is not that little dongle that hangs in the back of your throat.
Yes, they do, speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Yes. Just like cigarettes. No ads allowed.
And lawyers.
Years ago, right after rx ads were made legal on tv, was in a meeting with an Empire Blue Cross exec. He said this will be the downfall of healthcare. Respected that comment then but had no idea of the impact we see today.
I was never a fan of the late Justice Earl Warren, but he said one thing that has resonated with me down through the years. He said allowing lawyers to advertise would be the downfall of a noble profession. I see all the back-to-back ambulance chaser ads on TV and have to concede that he was right.
Again I have to disagree. It is not the adds that are the downfall of the profession. It's the actions of the "professionals" placing those adds. And the judges who support (and make profitable) the ambulance chasing. And class action suits in which the harmed persons receive pennies and attorneys receive millions - a systemic incentive to exploit the suffering of others for personal wealth. Hm, kind of like AP and the drug companies...I'm seeing a pattern here.
He was wrong. Adds on TV didn't do it. Extreme arrogance and misplaced political loyalty, along with misapplied greed, more likely. Adds on TV did not do it. Their own near sightedness and bad polices have brought down healthcare. Politics. Corruption. Power is more important than patients. These are the values that brought down healthcare.
I disagree. Remove all limits on advertising. Let the drug companies compete with bit tobacco companies. While were there, remove marijuana from the controlled substance list and let big tobacco companies become big pot companies. Let them compete for prime time spots with booze commercials, with whatever. Let it be the free for all. Let people decide for themselves to look away. Advertising is losing it's effectiveness. That's why we need bought and paid for "news".
You worried what your kids see? It's not the commercials that will harm them. It's the doctors prescribing psychoactive drugs to kids from K on up to "help them fit in" - to alter their behavior to conform. Joe Camel can't compete with an MD with a prescription pad when it comes to getting kids addicted to dangerous substances.
All those drug adds won't do a thing without the masses of licensed MDs with a pen and a prescription pad. When was the last time you heard an MD tell you your overly-energetic 5 year old need more play time outside instead of Ritalin? When was the last time you heard an MD tell a patient over 50 "no, you don't need a statin drug to meet some arbitrary number based on a single data point"?
"When was the last time you heard an MD tell you your overly-energetic 5 year old need more play time outside instead of Ritalin?"
I don't think I've ever used it in this context but a doctor telling a 5 year old to spend more time playing outside offers insufficient opportunity for graft.
Actually, "telling a 5 year old to spend more time playing outside", while physiologically, psychologically, and medically sound, is probably illegal in most jurisdictions today.
You seem to be suggesting, (or hinting at), unstructured play! Not allowed! Verboten! Thou shalt not!
And yeah, there's no billing code for "sending the kids outside to play".
"there's no billing code"
And that's probably the real reason they don't suggest it.
The sad truth behind much of how the world works today.
You got me. I plead guilty to promoting healthy children.
My Son was a bit of a problem child. The Vice Principal at his Elementary school would take him outside and let him run around the track a few times. Wonderful man....
My son was the star student until 4th grade, then a problem child. The difference was a change in school. The "experts" wanted to medicate him. I said no, firmly. We went to private school, but found much of the same pattern of defining different as a problem. Finally after he was essentially failing high school we got him into a program where he could work at his own pace. Removing the binders, he finished 2 years of high school curriculum in 4 months. He had a wonderful teacher - a real teacher and coach - who recognized the "problem" and gave him a challenge at his level instead of insisting he work to an "average". It became clear the "problem" was the system, inherently unable to handle real diversity. Everything about the conventional education system is geared to a statistical norm.
I am proud to be father to an outlier.
Been there. Done that. Our solution was homeschooling. Similar results.
What we had was better for us - like homeschooling with help. We did hire a tutor to work with our son once a week, to help him organize his time mostly, set goals for the week, and such. We were very lucky that the teacher/counselor assigned our son was a truly special human being and the perfect fit for kid - he understood that the kid's poor performance was mostly boredom and frustration. Blessed really to have the support we had.
Instead............
https://www.brown-watch.com/brownwatch-news/2022/4/3/75-of-tv-advertising-is-from-big-pharma
In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry spent 4.58 billion U.S. dollars on advertising on national TV in the United States, unsurprisingly representing a big shift in spending compared to the 2019 pre-covid market. In 2020 TV ad spending of the pharma industry accounted for 75 percent of the total ad spend.
Whoa. That's a lot of incentive. That accounts for the media support. Any figures on their spending to secure government support (speaking fees, book deals, etc)?
I'm not sure we can count that high..........
Many years ago I was in Italy and had a day off in Venice. I stopped for lunch. This was during the first California recall of a governor, the one that led to electing the Governator. Chatting with other patrons, when it was revealed I lived in California, everyone wanted to talk about the recall (at the time CA was the 5th largest economy in the world and very interesting to Europeans). We had other Americans, and many Europeans in the conversation. At one point the restaurant proprietor joined who's only question was why it took so long to toss out one corrupt governor. "I don't see the problem - you've got a corrupt bastard, you toss him out, you bring in the next corrupt bastard. In Italy we could have changed the entire government in less time!" - and at that moment he was probably right!
It was in the 1970's, when did it change? I don't honestly know but graduating from pharmacy school with a BS in Pharmacy in the mid 70's, prescription drug advertising was not legal
In most countries, it is illegal to advertise prescription meds in non-specialist publications.
The USA and New Zealand, with a population of 5 million, are the only countries in the world that allow prescription medications to be advertised directly to consumers on television. And only since 1997 in the United States, when the FDA relaxed it's prohibition (talk about regulatory capture). If these medications need a doctors prescription why should that be pushed directly to the consumer who ostensibly doesn't have the knowledge to know whether they should take it or not. It's bad enough that doctors are propagandized and bribed to prescribe certain medications by pharmaceutical reps who who have minimal medical or pharmacological training.
When these prescription drug ads first came on television, and were required to list the side effects and potential dangers, Miami Herald humor columnist Dave Barry wrote, "These ads basically tell you two things: you need this medication; and this medication can kill you."
I'd like to see a study on the health effects of being bombarded 24/7 by sickness and death in the form of these advertisements. I know it bothers me--over the counter headache remedies were bad enough. But if you watch television they are unavoidable
I prescribe a DVR. Record the program and skip the adds. Relieves stress from drug adds in about an hour :-).
I do use the DVR for most things even a live program which I often pause periodically so I'm in the buffer, but sometimes one is not quick enough to mute the audio or advance video to the news of murderers and mass shootings before being ambushed by pharmaceutical ads.
Has anyone noticed lately that on substack if you try to edit a comment. the comment disappears when you try to save in the edit, and you have to cancel, copy the comment which then returns, delete, and repost it to get the edited version posted?
My buddy who was all in on the Covid madness used Rueters as his nuetral source. I sent him proof that the CEO was on Pfizer’s board. Didn’t matter. “If we save just one life”. Dude, every bloody thing that you support is taking lives. Weirdest guy. A progtard Christian
There is a certain kind of person who finds in convenient to believe that everyone is just doing their best and any bad things are just inadvertent errors. It’s naive maybe or a defense against facing horrible realities.
I think that most people can’t ever confront the despicable evil that has been thrust upon them during this fiasco. Better to pretend everything is ok
Because to actually admit knowing would cause a crisis of conscience about your lifestyle and beliefs. Such as where exactly your 401K is invested, the economic implications of your "inexpensive" clothing, the ecological costs of your McMansion, what your school taxes are paying for (it ain’t curriculum- Philadelphia school district has 20 yr old science textbooks), why there are homeless, why there is poverty, why people go bankrupt from medical bills, and on and on and on. Easier and more comfortable to keep living in the status quo. Until it isn’t.
Have you ever shared a vaccine injured person’s story with your friend? Ernesto Ramirez lost his only child, 17 to the Pfizer shot. His grief and story is so heartbreaking and there are so many, many others. Perhaps if your friend saw the #realnotrare consequences it might help them see. Everyone wakes up differently. Also, did you see the stop world control report on Reuters, how they are printing materials to promote child sex? Show your friend that and see how neutral they still think they are.
He’s lost. VAERS data is “debunked” thanks to Rueters. Despite the fact that he can’t believe how many people are having strokes after “Covid”. And AFLDS is just the demon sperm lady. Nothing to aee here. He agrees that the media and government are insanely evil. Just not on Covid.
He doesn’t want to see. I find that type really frustrating because it’s intentional and that is such an insult to the people who have lost and suffered so much. I have a hard time forgiving that because it’s so disrespectful of the injured and I see their pain and struggles, their financial struggles and some even commit suicide. I see the intentional denial of the injured as complicit in their suffering. That is not how Christ would want us to act.
The "just one life" is a familiar falsehood to those of us who take an active role in personal safety. It's become familiar in "moderated free speech" debates, too. It is always a false premise - that whatever restriction on YOUR right will increase safety for others.
Your choice harms me. It's how you convince people who never ride motorcycles or bicycles to support helmet laws (YOU will have to pay for caring for those who choose not to wear a helmet when they don't die). If disarming those who do not commit crimes "saves one life" it's justified...despite being completely irrational (my gun does not harm you, unless you commit violence against myself, my family or anyone under my protection). It's intellectually dishonest. And very dangerous (way more dangerous than riding without a helmet or a day at the range).
Yeah "If it saves one life." Those people need a life audit. I wish we could do one. Show them how inadvertently parts of their lives are killing others...or at the very least...not trying to "save just one life." Like watching a football game...someone is dying of malnutrition in Uganda while you suck down a beer and eat some Cheetos.
With COVID the great thing about the claim is there is no way to do an audit. We have no control group. We can compare results in regions that did NOT go BSC on COVID but the problem, mathematically, is (a) that is a tiny sample set compared to the governments that did go BSC, and (b) there are many other variables that can be cited to reject any conclusion. So it's the perfect political statement - total and utterly non-accountable!
Well there is the issue. They can and will reject any result other than the narrative outcome. Out of the Amish community...very few died of Covid, or even with Covid. Kirsch says he dares anyone to find 5 Amish and name them who died of Covid. Thing is, the amish community isn't big on twitter for obvious reasons so its a silly ask for Kirsch to make. But I bet if we were in the Amish community, it would be difficult to name five people who died of/with Covid I also bet there aren't any Amish suffering from Long covid symptoms either. And the meme that "we don't have TV" is a big reasons why.
I have a friend from high school who said on his twitter feed that he has "long covid." This friend also has back and heart issues. He is probably taking some medications...I bet the source of Long covid might not be covid at all. Is "Long covid" going to be the "kleenex" of diseases?
However, we do have some receipts. We can, for instance, compare a place to itself before and after certain restrictions were employed. In terms of masks, we can see when mandates were enacted and the result in the population. Similarly we can compare the vaccinated to before they were vaccinated. With 75% of the US population having been vaccinated...we should be seeing a significant decrease in cases. But we aren't.
But you are correct about the perfect political statement. As coronaviruses mutate, they become more contagious and less lethal. So they can make the assertion that the "vaccine is more efficacious against severe disease."
The 25% of us unvaccinated are nothing to discount though. and I imagine many of us in addition to being unvaccinated also didn't mask. But the comparison should be comprehensive. not only those that died "with Covid" by vaccination status, but all excess deaths.
I was talking to someone on twitter yesterday. He mentioned that his kid was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes due to Long Covid. I asked him if his child had been vaccinated. He then said he was done with the discussion due to conspiracy theories. I said that he was the one who brought up Long Covid, so one conspiracy theory deserves another.
I found it very sad/telling that he didn't respond in shock and say "my child doesn't need an experimental vaccine."
Your twitter contact is good illustration of the point. When you asked the question did you suggest in the context that this might be the cause of the disease? Or did he jump to that conclusion because anyone who asks the question must be one of those anti-vaxers?
The vaccination of kids is a clear sign of non-science (and nonsense) overtaking reason. With near zero risk, there's no upside. Likewise the mask madness: the kind of masks most people are wearing, and the manner in which they're worn, offer zero protection to the wearer and significantly increase the risk of developing (non viral) respiratory infection. In both cases, if one's politics are taken out of consideration, it's obvious.
I did a search on "deep COVID". The definition is so broad that we can all claim to have it. Great community builder? It's not science. To test my assertion, ask someone so afflicted do define it. Most won't. The question will get a similar response as your twitter exchange - you must be a nut because you asked.
There is plenty of data to analyze, even with the overt suppression and covert perversion of data controlled by governments. One can legitimately challenge the validity of any data source. Even with that, patterns emerge despite attempts to suppress them. Some things, such as the dramatic increase in non-viral respiratory ailments, and overall rise in deaths from cancer, heart disease and other causes, emerge even from the "moderated" data. With the complete lack of reason surrounding COVID we could speculate many of these deaths were simply due to poor diagnosis and poorer care as everyone was focused on COVID. Impossible to measure, but plausible from direct observation. At least where I live, those who chose not to take the COVID shot did not receive the same standard of care as they would pre-2020 or if they submitted to the shots. This irrational, non-fact based fixation probably caused more deaths than the virus.
The reporting mandates make accurate reporting very unlikely. A good friend passed away in 2020 - alone because none of his friends and family were able to be with him due to government mandates. He'd fought a long and vigorous fight with cancer. We all knew it would eventually win, but for 20 years he beat it down. When it finally beat him, his SO had to deal get a death certificate and cause of death documentation for the lawyers. She was shocked to find cause of death, after 20 years of fighting cancer, was given as COVID.
No doctor would admit the real cause of death: he simply ran out of fight.
That's a slap in the face to say your friend who fought for 20 years against cancer died of Covid.
My dad had rheumatoid arthritis, and died from complications of that disease in 2007. To cheapen it (if he had died in 2021) by saying he died of Covid for political reasons would have been ridiculous. If he had died in a car accident, it would be understandable to put that as the cause of death, but to make everything Covid is disingenuous. And we all had "Covid fever" back in 2020. Any time we heard anyone was hospitalized or dead, the first question asked was "was it Covid?" I was very clear when I was hospitalized in 2021 that it was due to diabetic cellulitis, not Covid induced cellulitis...which probably now is one of the many symptoms of Long Covid. Since they are blaming the onset of Type 1 Diabetes on it in children, it stands to reason that they will also say it induces progression of any other disease. The funny thing is, so does any virus.
I think many of us know that Covid is a catalyst disease in that for those with a lot of health complications, that is ultimately what pushes them over the edge.
The Rhode Island Court Room video for a gunshot victim who died of covid, The Florida Death Certificates and how they were "mislabelled, and if we all demanded to see the Covid "cause of death" certificates and did rudimentary follow-up with families and friends, we would probably get a significant amount of different causes of death. The two people I knew who died with Covid had COPD and other pre-existing conditions. And now there is the new circulating news story that is (not surprisingly) showing that those that died on the ventilators didn't die of Covid at all, but from an unrelated cause of pneumonia.
Regarding the person I interacted with on Twitter, I never suggested the vaccine could be the cause to Type One Diabetes, but the irony was that he was perfectly willing to get onboard with Covid as the cause. The study I read through that showed that .16 post Covid positive children versus .08 who tested negative of Covid previously were diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. No mention was made if either of these cohorts had been vaccinated nor any of the environmental factors they were subjected to. My guess is those children who didn't test "Covid positive" probably were allowed to move around more and stay less isolated.
I did a similar read of Long Covid and you could blame any malady on it as the source. Someone snarky suggested sarcastically that a lot of the new ailments cropping up "didn't exist pre vaccine" because you know how antivaxxers are...trying to attribute everything to the vaccine, and so I had to jump in and also remind that "brain fog and fatigue did not exist pre-Covid."
It is true that fixation on Covid caused a lot of unintended consequences. Deferred treatments. Right now I imagine there are more than a few cancer patients who have no faith in our healthcare system, and who could blame them. It is disgusting to see the crap coming out of the Mayo Clinic because when I went down there to get my mom diagnosed with cancer back in 2002, the level of care and relentless way they went at her to discover what was wrong was impressive. But now with all this politicization, they too are compromised.
I’m so sorry.
Go to wikispooks to learn about Deep State Reuters. It’s 100% spookhouse.
Fox has become Pravda-Light as well
I hope Gutfeld has something lined up.
He has a good product. He _is_ a good product, not unlike Tucker.
Fox has become the budlight of cable.
Just about everyone I know dumped them.
It was over in 20' when they call AZ before any other network.
My favorite part about that whole debacle was the MSM piling on FOX for losing viewers to NEWSMAX after the '20 election, then later somehow saying that FOX was all-in on "election denial".
I was never a Fox fan - I'm a Tucker and Gutfeld - but I was watching that night as well.
Frank Luntz - "conservative"
Same here and I include Jesse Watters. "The Five" and Jesse's show is about all I watch for national news. Greg's show is way after my bedtime these days.
Same
"budlight of cable"
TNN - Trans News Network?
I remember that as well. It was freakishly surreal.
Well they're getting beat by MSNBC during daytime programming now.
They decided to commit suicide. They deserve it imo
Did you see the report about how Reuters is publishing and pushing sex on little children? I believe they have a eugenicist history as well. Stop world control is who put out the very scary report.
It's the WHO, pushing Reuters! https://healtheducationresources.unesco.org/library/documents/standards-sexuality-education-europe-guidance-implementation
Be prepared to vomit.
Reuters is worse. They acquired Thomson. So they are right in the mix of perverting health messaging.
Have not watched, listen to or read any main stream media for three years. Have I missed anything? No, I didn’t think so.
For most of my life, the AP was THE most-important "news" organization. This organization literally wrote the "stylebook" for proper journalism. Along with Reuters, they might as well be PRAVDA given how they "cover" news.
I recently went paragraph-by-paragraph parsing the AP's "straight news story" about RFK, Jr's presidential announcement.
As far as I'm concerned, the AP has to go. There's too many "journalists" you'd have to purge to save the organization. It's the same with the NY Times, Washington Post, Gannett, your state's largest newspaper, etc.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/hatchet-job-on-rfk-jr-is-new-low
Soviet-russian proverb:
"No news in Izvestija; no truth in Pravda".
When I was in high school (1960s) I remember a Russian talking about how Izvestija and Pravda were propaganda, then he went on to make the case that the US news media were just the same and he brought the receipts. That was a major tap on the forehead with the sandal of Buddha for me. As is said: believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
It's good to hear from people who actually know what it was and is like to be truly misled for the purpose of oppression.
Plus I especially like the Sandal of Buddha visual.
Mrs. Pi is Latina. Turns out a sandal upside the head has the same effects in Spanish.
Damn! Now you're giving the missus ideas.
I thought I heard the reverse - Izvestia (News) had no pravda (truth), Pravda (Truth) had no izvestia (news).
Either way, not much truth or new in either one.
I think you're right - gah, talk about killing the joke.
Bad me. Must punish myself with home-made ale and some salted peanuts.
By the by, don't that conversation upthread about when people got rid of TV (20 years for me this year) read like some kind of revelatory meeting?
"Hello, my name is Peter Perriwinkle and this is my fourth month as TV-free!"
"Hello, Peter!" (chorus)
I can see it in my mind, like some old vaudeville-skit.
Whatever they said or wrote ... believe the opposite.
Visit Wikispooks. Reuters is a spookhouse! Now I’m curious about AP’s history.
I wrote complaints to our little, failing local daily. Not even a daily anymore...they only publish 4 days a week now. AP had become pure leftist propaganda. I guess costs figure into this somewhere. I used to work there years ago when it was thriving and would hate to see it fail but it looks it will become a weekly sometime in the future if it survives at all. I sometimes flatter myself that I could turn it around. Leave the national news to the nets and internet and go strictly local barring some cataclysmic event like WWIII. Bring back a society page and a good sports page. Then again, I am 81 years old and out of gas.
I used to own a weekly newspaper in my hometown. Your formula would work. Local. Local. Local ... and throw in a lot of good sports and some society news.
Check out the Traverse City Record Eagle. Still a daily physical (and online) newspaper with a fair amount of local reporting. It can be done!
People still want local news ... and to see their children's pictures in the paper or read about Junior going 3-for-4 in a Little League game.
There is simply no local reporting these days. Uneconomical I suppose. Had a glance at the dead tree edition today while out and yep, all AP bylines.
Not Gestapo, Pravda.
You are right. I was looking for the name of that news organization. Thanks for the good edit!
Not entirely dissimilar entities. One used brute force, the other propaganda. In the end the outcomes were the same: mindless servitude from the masses through endless conditioning and fear.
that nails it in two sentences. "Mindless servitude from the masses" - Check. "endless conditioning" - Check ... and "fear" - Check.
I might add this: No (or few) counter "leaders" to stand up to these people and organizations.
In retrospect, I do think when the "watchdog" press became completely captured, the Bad Guys won a huge battle. For now, Substack and a few excellent alternative media sites are trying to fight back as best they/we can.
Which begs the question, have we not learned anything in the past hundred years? The powermongers certainly have.
The Internet was supposed to be the great knowledge emancipator -- full access for the masses. Yet instead of availing themselves of such a rich trove of facts, history, analysis, and discussion they instead embrace highly curated (read: censored) puerile rubbish from the likes of Fakebook and TwitTok. Then insist how anything outside their bubble is simply "conspiracy theory" regardless of indisputable evidence to the contrary. It is a truly mind-numbing experience to attempt rational conversation with these people.
"I know what's truly going on in the word because I watch 'The View' every morning!"
You’ll love this AP story: https://apnews.com/article/florida-laws-change-politics-desantis-a23fd484a1fc4fee8acbfc2d2adb4297
I was especially amused by the last two sections, about Democrats being powerless due to Florida’s supermajority, and how Gov. DeSantis is ignoring his state while running around campaigning. Swap out Florida for California, and they could have told the *exact* same story... but of course they wouldn’t do that.
haven't had a TV in 20+ years. Watch what I like, not what others want me to watch. Only have to see it now and then at hair dresser or friend's house. And listen to muzak at Walmart and the likes when absolutely cannot avoid going there. An enrichment of life, not having to see or watch the garbage that is on. Last few times I had to listen to National Propaganda Radio all they had on was begging for money (when my computer broke down)
1986-2009 no TV in my house. No newspapers. Now, no TV again since last year. Do get Epoch Times paper but do not read it. Saving them for posterity! I watch some of its stories online and read its web articles.
AP has always been frustrating. Even local newspapers, when a reportable event happened in its coverage area, must use the AP story and are not allowed to change or update it.
our local paper comes only 4 times a week, if you are sure to be alive it is not worth taking because all it has are 1. obituaries (I look online if I am still alive) 2, articles from 50 and 85 years ago (when I was not in the country and not alive) 3. old news, usually several days 4. democrat propaganda. And it is quite expensive. A former friend keeps it for me, I use it in the garden as lasagna fertilizer
That just confirms my belief about newspaper since I've never gotten one. I occasionally will catch a story online. It is always as reported by the AP.
A former friend keeps it, hmm. Is that your former friends punishment?
she already did that when we were still very close friends. But the 3 years of different ideas about the jabs have made us go separate ways. Trying to hang on but very little left to say
The Covid Culprit has struck discord for so many with their friends and family - just a side benefit for the Feds. Agreeing to disagree becomes much harder when feds blame one for the illness or death of another.
I haven’t watched TV since analog tv went off American airwaves in 2009. Besides, my tv needed new vacuum tubes anyway (obsolescence joke) 😁 I go to relatives’ homes, and there’s the cable news on and NYT & time mag on the table. They even being on the formerly skeptical left are now authoritarian followers of the narrative. Our common ground has vanished. Current media are the daily “Antideprogramming regimen.” It’s difficult to even plant a seed in such soil
exactly. Only common ground nowadays is our animals, and what is on sale at the new store. Finished after 5 minutes.
You didn't miss anything. They basically played the equivalent of "Mad Max: Fury Road" on loop in 20 & 21.
So I've been killing two birds with one stone singing these lyrics to block out their fear mongering with c19 and GCC.
'All our times have come
Here, but now they’re gone
Seasons don’t fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain...
We can be like they are'...
When are people going to figure out we all shuffle off this mortal coil?
There's simply nothing to disambiguate: we all die. Enjoy our days under the sun is the best we can do.
There seems to be some confusion on this topic?
Just like Romeo and Juliet.
Another 40,000 coming every day.
I like "Burnin' For You" as well by Blue Oyster Cult
Both are great songs! Great driving songs! Windows down.
Oh yeah!
Godzilla's also a good romp but not enough Cowbell for my liking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s
My problem with "Godzilla" is the anti-humanist rant at the end about nature and the folly of mankind. I prefer to think of mankind as a capable can-do race that may make mistakes, but then learns from them. The end of Godzilla encourages a state of mind which is the antithesis to that.
Like... the BOC song? Or the Dinosarus Movie franchise?
I thought it was about the bomb.
I stopped in 2013. Thank goodness!
Ditto. I got rid of my TV in 2010 and haven't missed it a bit.
Got rid of mine in 1992.....more than 30 years ago.
Same here ,unless i watch an Orf compilation of crazy’s. i stay off the pipe✌️
4 years for me.
Me too
It's been over 20 years for me...and no, we haven't missed one darn thing.
You have gotten "secondhand mass media," we all have. Unless you are vigilant with your emails, never venture out in public, you have been subject to it here and there. It's not hard to find or know the narrative.
I remember going to a Chilis after the lockowns. Glancing up at screens and seeing the BLM sporting events, and just feeling a general malaise. Everywhere you looked and smelled and tasted, nothing was normal. Our world was given a shot of "new coke" and when "classic" returned it never was the same. Because now the ingredients were different.
Restaurants ran at half occupancy. Sporting events had masked players and cardboard cutouts. The smell of a restaurant was not the smell of cooking, but sanitizer and bleach, and other scents of deep cleaning. The waitress who took your order was masked which made no sense.
Why is she masked and I am not?
What does this say about me? What does it say about her?
Sorry about the long-winded response to your comment.
el gato malo is sponsored by catnip. this is the best comments section on substack. congrats on your honorable mention in the subversive seven, america's top class traitors! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-become-a-class-traitor
But can Big Catnip be trusted?? Call me skeptical 🤨
Our cats trust it.
That's not a ringing endorsement, that's a drug addled brain wanting more.
I grow my own. Is that even legal?
Your drugs or the cat's? 😉😊😋
Yes
"Hey, kit - wanna try some Nip?"
https://drawception.com/panel/drawing/Ca5mW6KNPo/cat-drug-dealers-dealing-cat-nip/
Could be.
Me too. Humans produce most of it. All for the benefits of cats, who alone can get high on it. I've tried for years to grow catnip without much success. I get little scraggly plants that live for a few months, flower even, and then die. My cats hardly benefit at all, unless they are the culprits who occasionally overturn the pots. Well all is not lost: at least one can make a cup of herbal tea with it.
This could lead to a new marketing slogan:
El Gato Malo: What's in *your* litterbox?
some years ago I pointed out to my wife that any PBS show, on almost any nature/science related topic, was going to work "climate change" in somehow - no matter how unrelated or far-fetched. she didn't believe me... at first.
after a few weeks, she started calling it out each time it happened. after a year or so, she mostly stopped watching nature shows, now only watches their period dramas. (I don't point out the 'woke' alterations of history on those shows, since they're not always egregious, and I don't care.)
And the new "Tom Jones" on Masterpiece Theatre has a black woman playing Sophie Weston. I'll wait for a rerun of the movie with Susannah York and Albert Finney. I'm expecting Masterpiece Theater to produce an updated "Dr. Zhivago" soon with a black transgender playing Lara and lots of climate change warnings.
Netflix just ran a show about Cleopatra using a black actress as Cleopatra. Never mind that she was actually a Greek. It has deservedly bombed with rotten reviews.
rotfl. And the "wolves" howling at the sleigh will be nude and unvaccinated dissidents, tattooed with old glory. Full on gulag phantasmagoria.
You'd think global warming would be welcome in Siberia.
I like some Masterpiece dramas, but I have abstained from this. This casting is preposterous but effective. I was at a book group several years ago where one person insisted that Heathcliff was black because he was described as dark by Bronte.
I watch nature docs on youtube and usually turn it off when they go into the climate change garbage can. There are plenty who don't.
Sounds like a very efficient drinking game... We used to do it with Bob Newhart. Every time someone said "Bob", we'd drink.
Best idea, so far! But at this rate we'd all be alcoholics in less than a week🤣
“When an affirmation has been sufficiently repeated and there is unanimity in this repetition—as has occurred in the case of certain famous financial undertakings rich enough to purchase every assistance—what is called a current of opinion is formed and the powerful mechanism of contagion intervenes. Ideas, sentiments, emotions, and beliefs possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes.”
—Gustave Le Bon, “The Psychology of Crowds”
Repetition is the favorite and most easily deployed weapon in the propagandists’ toolkit, thanks to our neurological vulnerability to the illusory-truth effect across all ages:
• “The Effect of Repetition on Truth Judgments Across Development” (https://psyarxiv.com/36mqc/)
• “Study shows that repeated statements are more often judged to be true, regardless of a person’s age or prior knowledge” (https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2020/10/06/study-shows-that-repeated-statements-are-more-often-judged-to-be-true-regardless-of-a-persons-age-or-prior-knowledge/)
Hence lockstep bobbling heads:
• https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/1596331604070174727
I read that it only takes 6 times for a person to hear a lie and start believing it as truth.
Commercials/ads are probably repeated around 6 times during a 30-minute show. Ads are probably also repeated 6 times in 5 minutes of scrolling through social media feeds.
For all those out there that still watch cable, listen to the radio or get your info from social media, you are doomed!
I suppose it works although I can't recall a single thing I ever bought because of a TV ad.
And I was taught that marketing messages need to be repeated 7 times for them to stick.
Of course, a lot of marketing messages ARE lies...
It's no wonder that Le Bon is no longer read in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
"certain famous financial undertakings rich enough to purchase every assistance" -- brought to you by Pfizer!
A personal story: I worked (in the US) doing per diem work for a local tv station for 15 years. I was in a technical position. When I left (essentially automated out of a job), I decided to stop watching local news. That quickly morphed into not watching cable news unless something I was particularly interested in was happening.
With the advent of streaming, that turned into watching no news on tv at all. I still read things online, randomly listen to talk radio and feel I'm actually more informed than those that watch tv news. Essentially, I have completely shut off the fear porn.
Highly recommend shutting all MSM off. ALL. OF. IT.
You'll be much happier and healthier.
Yes and no. I gave up TV long ago too. I watch virtually no video including streaming. But here's the rub: I spend several hours a day on the net, reading news and opinion such as here at Substack. I can't claim I'm happier and healthier, because so much news is a downer. But I do beleive I'm much better informed than if I wached the talking heads.
I do the same as you do, and I think I'm a bit happier. LOL. A bit.
Generally, when you're online, you can choose what to read. You can't when you're watching tv news. So you get exposed to a lot more general doom, rather than specific doom of your own choosing. Or no doom if you don't want to know.
No doom is not an option if you're watching the news.
That's about all we do now. We still watch "The Five" and Jesse Watters. Maybe check a local station to see if the Braves won. All the rest is streaming Brit shows from Britbox and Acorn.
We watch reruns, MASH, and very little else. We have a stash of DVDs, books, crafts. While I love keeping up with current event, I know everyone is lying to me, so why bother. Sometimes I wish I could escape to the mountains, by a stream, with a garden to feed myself. Be self sufficient and off the grid. Alas no way possible given financial restraints.
hubbs and I watch Britbox, a few things on Hulu and we have Roku.
We automatically silence commercials. or we lower the volume and get up and do jumping jacks, run upstairs and scoop the litterboxes, unload the dryer etc etc
I agree, left cable years ago after trial window ended and very little regular TV programs are worth anything*, imho. My mom will prefix the nightly news with “0h so and so, she’s not too bad.” 😂 they know!
*I am kind of interested in the commercials if they reflect society at all? What drugs we should take, what self driving ev’s we should buy, what shows we should watch next.
Decades ago... and I mean decades ago (maybe mid 2000s) I was at my aunt and uncles house. At that juncture, I didn't realize that they were rabid democrats. My aunt asked me if I watched that women with the short hair on MSNBC. I frowned and replied something like "oh, the woman who looks like a man? That's Rachel Maddow."
As for commercials reflecting society... I think now that commercials are trying to reshape society, at least in the US. Notice how many mixed race/ not white people you see on tv. Then compare it to how many actual mixed race/ non whites you know and work with.
I see that roi doesn’t care. Okay. One of my aunts, however, believes , or says she does, that mixed race couples are now the norm. I don’t care whether they are or not. But, they are not and probably should not be represented as such. This aunt has 7 children, 15 grands and several great grands. Not one is mixed race. But, the TV shows and says.
JuQu, You do bring up a good point. I agree it’s not the norm, they’re not just selling drugs, and climate change virtue signaling with ev’s…
I don’t care because maybe in some ways it blurs this perception of differences. My grandmother had more than a few great-grandchildren and a fair number are of mixed race.
I imagine overly stating mixed races could mean something. To me it’s not a bad thing. Who cares, they all need to talk to their doctor, if listening to the commercials.
It is time to stop pretending that there is such a thing as "objective" once we add the narrative language to it that is necessary for humans to make sense of it. A much more meaningful approach is full disclosure at every turn.
The NEW Dark Ages.
I agree. But there is such a thing as impartial. That’s when you acknowledge and report differing points of view.
Disagree. Objectivity may be impossible but it is still an admirable goal. I think the news took a noticeable downturn when folks started to embrace the idea that hte news should not strive to be objective.
The issue I see is that, if it's not possible, then pretending it is happening leads to deep propaganda. I don't see a conflict between presenting your reporting as intending to be objective, while still disclosing funding.
A primary problem with humans is that they believe their programmed subjective world view represents empirical reality. The narrow range of experience that forms this world view is full of falsehoods and error from the limited input which formed what they accepted as truth.
Examining how cause and effect works in the real world without preconceived/programmed ideas is a way to get closer to objective reality beyond the projections of the conditioned mind.
Pointing out the lack of evidence and the manifold absurdities in the russiagate conspiracy theory is labeled "conspiracism", even though no conspiracy is alleged.
"conspiracism" I like it! Now that we have a cleverly phrased diagnosis, is there a cure? And how does one avoid it - the cure I mean.
So, as old people now(in our 60’s) we’ve been looking at real estate in god’s waiting room (Florida), specifically Yankeetown. Yesterday, my husband informed me that Yankeetown is out because it floods frequently and will be under water by some date in the near future (I want to say 2035 - sometimes details bore me these days). I asked “do you think that’s the climate change bullshit or is it true?”. You just don’t know what to believe anymore.
Yet the elite keep buying waterfront properties! Al gore told me years ago that the Statue of Liberty would be underwater by 2000. He’s very wealthy now.
He's a very proficient grifter....
"I asked “do you think that’s the climate change bullshit or is it true?”
The way it's presented in the media is complete BS. The best empirical evidence we have of fossil fuel burnings effect is the greening of the planet attributed to those emissions. The climate always changes so they are fear mongering over something that is perfectly normal. Extreme variation is the norm for weather but has been weaponized as evidence of doom.
We have warmed 1C since the depths of the little ice age which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. The Holocene Thermal Optimum was 2C+ warmer than now for 4,000 years and gave rise to human civilizations world wide. We are being told that another 0.5C of warming needs to be avoided to prevent a catastrophe. Hard to imagine a more absurd narrative but the brainwashed believe humans are going to become extinct. Never mind that all species have survived much greater extremes than the wildest climate projections.
Isn't there a better place to resettle other than FLA?
Hubbs adn I are in NO VA and looking to move west. not sure, Winchester or perhaps Haymarket. I am leery about leaving Virginia. My daughters live here close by and .... yeah well, super expensive, but hubbs and I could just mooch of others hahah j/k we would do okay
We’re snowbirds, tired of the cold. Our kids are spread out in the US and they’d come to visit in FLA! If you’re talking west in the US, I lived in Utah for four years and it’s great place to visit. We’ve traveled to FLA for years and love the climate in winter. Actually, I’d relocate to the Caribbean, but health issues prevent us!
this is good to know. I would like to stay on the east coast and not near any
cities that have stupid people. Is there a place like that? haha
I was born in DC and llived most of my life (until early 40s) in NoVA. You couldn't pay me to move back there. I've been in FL for twenty years. It's not bad. You sound like the typical people, somewhat attached to the area. Everything is trade-off: yes it's the seat of power and lots of high-income jobs. But inevitably, that means high costs too. Are you retiring? Well then at least you have the freedom to move to cheaper area. But it's hard to let go of the social contacts, etc. isn't it?
We have to live here for a while longer I like this area for the doctors and brilliant people. .
Hubbs and I have a lot of time to think and plan. My dad is 99 and I believe he will live to at least to 102. I live 5 miles from his neighborhood and my siblings are happy and delighted that I do all of the care and attention. granted, my dad is loaded ($$$) and could live without me, but we are very close now. So, when we move, I just want to move someplace where they have good doctors and hospitals and intelligent people. I do not want to live in a blue state. Yes, Virginia is purple, it is sad. Democrats and liberals ruin everything
I have lived in a small North Georgia city all of my 81 years. It's still safe, or at least safer than most places. A huge, mostly very good hospital complex. If you tried to pitch a tent on public property or shat on the street, you would be in the local lock-up so fast it would make your head spin. The Appalachians are 30 minutes away and the beaches six or seven hours at most. They will bury me in the red clay I came from.
Yes we’re retired. Don’t care about high income jobs anymore. We’ve earned enough to not worry too much about high costs, but it would be nice if cost of living would go back to what it was, say, three years ago! We were looking at Yankeetown to be away from the craziness of the Southern part of FLA. We believe social contacts will come visit, if not, we’ll make new ones as well!
Does Yankeetown flood and will it be under water anytime soon? I’m 63 so 100 years from now doesn’t count!
This is good. Totally true, all the 'news services' are now obviously bought. Wasn't always the case, as far as I can tell, but today its the case. I now just don't take literally anything the MSM says at face value.
I’m not sure about the wasnt always the case part…
The nostalgia for the 'unbiased, trustworthy' Cronkite era drives me nuts. In the 18th-19th century, when barriers to setting up papers/pamphlets were low, everybody understood reporters were full of it, as the news sources were so varied, combative, and plastered with scurrilous accusations of politicians giving each other's wives the clap, etc. These days, in the era of twitter and substack and citizen journalism, everybody again understands reporters are full of it and lie constantly about everything. So let's say in 300+ years of journalism on this continent, a good 250+ was marked by widespread distrust of corrupt, lying reporters. But we are to believe there was a miraculous period of a few decades when these erstwhile propagandists reformed, repented, and reported the news without bias or deception? And this great reformation coincidentally happened *at the precise period* in American life when everyday Americans had no way of getting alternate viewpoints, because it was the big networks or bust? In other words: every time the press had checks and balances via competition, it was revealed as hilariously corrupt, yet, when for a few years there were no checks and balances, it just so happened that during this period, and this period alone, the press acted with honor and virtue? Pull the other one...
I read Twain's book "Roughing It" as a teen and liked it. I just re-read it several decades on, and was, literally, laughing out loud all the way through the book. Maybe life experience helped me really see where he was coming from.
He worked as a reporter in some mining town, and hist stories about the flagrant (and well-rewarded) lying and competition between papers are hilarious.
Evelyn Waugh did something similar with Scoop : )
Movie called Ace if I recall about a dirty reporter played by Kirk Douglas. Worth a watch
Agree 100%. I was telling people over 20 years ago that I'd almost rather have our original wild variety of flagrantly biased newspapers. Readers would know each outlet's agenda and what party they aligned with. They could read a variety of papers and 'read between the lines' to filter out the agendas and try to cipher out any actual facts from all sources. Or, they could stick with one, to feed their confirmation bias. With the uniform, so-called 'objective' media, you don't get the wild variety and challenges to opposing narratives. It all serves to reinforce confirmation bias, and the consumer isn't even aware of how that 'objective' narrative was created and enforced. So they don't even know it exists. That's the most effective form of propaganda.
Precisely. Well said.
Agree, the era of impartial news was maybe 50 years in length, starting post war, more or less.
This, I presume, why in "the old days" (and still, to a certain extent), every large (and most medium-sized) city had at least two "impartial" newspapers of distinct viewpoints? 😏
That's why Sweden had two channels on state-TV, back when state-TV was the only game in town, television-wise.
To ensure everyone knew the news reported were fair and unbiased, since there were two channels.
Not owning a TV/radio-receiver could mean you got a visit from Social Services if you had kids.
NOT owning a TV/radio-receiver brought you to the attention of the thought police?? Wow. Big Brother was alive and well in Sweden!
Yup. The 1970s was when it peaked the last time, and people got so sick of it they voted the Socialists out-out-out for the first time since before WW2.
Social Services (plural) were tasked with ensuring every kid got a healthy home-environment. Sadly, this morphed over time (from the 1910s when the first version of it was launched, and back then we had shanty-towns in our major cities) from meaning clothing, food, hygiene, going to school and not being an anti-social criminal to a very rigid mold of what was considered normal (1970s). In the 1980s, this led to a shake-up and a return to basics, after anumber of scandals brought to light by family-rights-activists, mainly from free churches (since we've had a State Church for centuries, we have a very stark divide between that thoroughly political monstrosity and the free churches).
I still rememer, despite being a kid then, how one high-up party minister answered a journalist asking how it felt- on live television! - when the election results came in and it was clear the Socialists (and their allies in the openly Moscow-run Communist Party) were out:
"It feels like a coup detat!"
As I may have mentioned sometime, to Socialists no matter what they call themselves, democracy means you get to vote and they get to form the governement.
Some had more. Competition is a great way to get different viewpoints
I wouldn't really know. When I grew up in Montreal there was only one major newspaper after 1979, The Gazette. Since I have been in Ontario (moved in 2018) Ottawa seems to have only one also (Citizen). For the country, I am also not sure. For many years the Globe and Mail sold itself as Canada's national news paper, it was the only one, until the National Post came along, which in this case definitely positioned itself to the right. In Toronto today, thought, you are correct, the Sun is right, and the Star is very Left.
There were some concrete differences during those 50 years. FCC regulations on "balanced" reporting, which wasn't perfect, but was probably good.
Regulation limiting how many media outlets any entity could own.
National associations such as the Investigative Reporters and Editors.
I agree. For all the flaws of the time there were still hard limits on media ownership and The Fairness Doctrine.
In that environment we actually saw real dissident movements in the 60s and 70s that “required” assassinations by the deep state in USA and abroad, and the Church Commission hearings that nearly scuttled a certain 3 letter agency that necessitated offloading some operations to the newly formed NGOs that plague to world to this day.
The opening salvo against dissent was Lewis Powell’s memo of 1971 where a quasi fascist deep state would regain control of the narrative by repealing the safeguards on media information such as they were.
Yes! There was no golden age. There was however, for a time, the effort to present the appearance of impartiality. Within the Overton window naturally, but at least there was an acknowledgment that there was more than one “correct” interpretation of events.
Also, I had the sense that independent news agencies were always maybe more impartial, but I could be wrong. Today it is ALL 100% complete bullshit.
I hate being manipulated. I can’t stand watching world wildlife commercials. I turn them off. I turn off the St Judes commercials. Shane on these people. Sadly, they are successful.
We hadn’t watched commercial TV in 7 years (we’re off grid in a log cabin, we stream and read online). We stayed in a hotel (first time in 4 years) recently and flipped on the tube. Commercials were insulting. It seems anyone selling anything assumes the viewer is quite ignorant. We couldn’t believe how low advertising has sunk! Though it alway was bad imho. It used to entertain, remember Spuds MacKenzi?
Send me $50 by Western Union and I will show you how to be free of manipulation by unscrupulous persons.
Uhh, what a deal. I might have to wait until Hell freezes over. ; )
It's brainwashing. We've all been subjected to it throughout Covid, and our youth have been subjected to it constantly, since Kindergarten, in everything they see and read, including their text books. For a cringe, read "The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing" by Joost A.M. Meerloo. Meerloo survived Nazi incarceration and interrogation in the Netherlands, and wrote this book in the 50s. It was published in 1960.
Well, even Shakespeare was a bought 'n paid for propagandist.
We, right here with Substack, are enjoying the greatest opportunity for discovering and sharing true facts and honest research ever. Imagine if we hadn't had our most recent Plague Era. Fraudulent wars hadn't been enough to make people wonder about reality vs. fiction and we've had fraudulent wars forever.
But what we've been going through for the past three years has changed a lot of people's basic assumptions profoundly. Sure, we got two sides screaming the same crap at and about each other.
But we got something else too. That growth of the genuine independent. Water and feed and nurture like our lives depend on it.
I’m independent. Have been for years. You’re correct about the last three years, I’ve shifted to conservative independent.
I hear that the plays of Shakespeare were actually written by Pocahontas who took them to England when she visited London.
In a similar ven, someone wrote a "alternate history" ficiton short story that posited Emily Dickinson I think it was, on a journey through the then-Wild West*. Somehow she crosses paths with a frontiersman who had the unusual hobby of being a gifted writer of poetry. All his collected works are in a satchel which somehow Emily gets, and as they say, the rest is [alternate] history...
*From a quck browse of her Wiki, it doesn't appear she travelled much at all in her life, no further from her Mass. home than Washington DC or Philadelphia. Supporting the ficitonal tale, however, is the fact that very little of her work was published in her lifetime.
You are missing out on this fine alternative franchise:
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Deluxe Heirloom Edition (Pride and Prej. and Zombies)
They were actually actually written by Brian.
Bahahaha. I love this. Our family jokes constantly on the true Shakespearean origins. Usually devolves into a drinking game lol.
"Water and feed and nurture like our lives depend on it".
I suspect they do lass. I suspect they do.
No longer is there global warming. It is now called climate change.
The global warming argument falls apart when it is colder than usual. Climate change covers it either way.
We used to joke "if you don't like the weather in [insert city], give it a day and it'll change. Someone figured out how to arbitrage changing weather for political political power. Brilliant!
My caddy in Scotland said it was thirty minutes there. He was right. We went through winter, summer, hail and rain in 18 holes.
They need people to be scared for it to work. Hence the pretense that bad weather is somehow unusual or getting worse. What I can’t believe is that they’d trust the bureaucrats in Washington to actually fix it rather than milk it.
the leftists will tell you, "well, all experts agree, the information is "widely known""
because they listen to every main stream news org and read every news item, it is all the same.
I am shocked and amazed that they do not see the outright fraud, the exact same talking points and absolutely no dissent!!
As a former leftist, I can assure you they go out of their way to avoid hearing, seeing, or reading anything that threatens their current beliefs.
I did the same until the truth was unavoidable, and like Saul on the road to Damascus, the scales fell from my eyes and I was no longer blind. 👍
I am so happy for you.
My entire family and extended are "liberals"
Hubbs and I are alone. we can not discuss politics or any "issues" because they are too closed minded and stupid. They get angry when challenged. It breaks my heart but okay. Live a good life.
Knowing the truth gives you peace, so you are blessed with that. 😉
I'm not sure why this is, but the more I hear the propaganda, the less I believe it. For me, it's similar to ignoring the screaming mentally ill person on the street. High quantity of hysterical "reporting" = misinformation or disinformation. Easy peasy.
You are probably the exception that proves the rule. The big lie and all the other techniques of propaganda (or advertising, by another name) are age-old techniques. If they didn't work, they would not be so widely employed. I don't know the psychology behind it, but it IS all psychology: witness the herd instinct. That doesn't mean commonly held norms and beliefs are all bad, but they aren't universally good either. And history shows (at least for those who look) that there will always be evil people who try to mainpulate the herd for their own ends. Or, I admit, perhaps in rare cases, well-intentioned leaders who try to work for the common good.
I dove into this subject a while back, and a lot of "us" had something happen when we were little that made us distrust authority:
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/why-are-you-like-this
I got my first taste of distrusting authority way back in early grade school. That particular day we were being tested on our ability to read and draw clocks. Simple stuff, and the first few questions went by just fine. 6 o’clock? Big hand 12, little hand 6. Easy Peazy!
The issue came when I was asked to draw 4:30. Because I understand how clocks work, I put the big hand on the 6 and the little hand halfway between 4 and 5.
BZZZZZZT
I was instructed that the proper way to draw 4:30 was to put the big hand on the 6 and the little hand directly on the 4.
For a second I thought she was joking. I even looked at the clock in our classroom: 12:15. And that little hand was definitely NOT right on the 12. “Holy shit, my teacher can’t even tell time!” I thought in second-grade language.
My daughter's teacher insisted that kilometers were longer than miles, and practically punished the one child in the class who continued to disagree. The next day, a curt and sullen acknowledgement that miles were longer (I guess at least one parent "reached out" with a correction), but no apology whatsoever.
Reminds me of one of my teachers.
"Now, this is a photo of the Milky Way, our galaxy, taken by a satellite from outside." (In swedish, it would be obvious she meant taken from outsidethe galaxy.)
She did not take well to a kid piping up that that was plainly impossible. No apology, no admitting being in error, just buner down and entrench.
I will never understand why some people can't just shrug and laugh it off with an "Ooops, silly me, good catch!"
That's EXACTLY the type of thing that changes a kid forever!
It was my mother's contention that my being punished for reading Earle Stanley Gardner novels in class at age seven (second grade) made me into a lifelong cynic.
I'll have to think on that one. Was raised in a somewhat authoritarian household--couldn't verbally question anything parents said or that was considered "talking back" and subject to possible punishment. Maybe that was it, although neither parent engaged in lying but rather more like bossiness. As we kids got older, the parents loosened up considerably.