Tag Archives: hannity

The Blue Path Forward

Image result for mueller trump

I have a psychological problem when it comes to sports. I’m such an irrational fan of my favorite teams I cannot stand to watch them on live TV. I get angry at player mistakes, infuriated by referees’ missed calls, and generally so wound up I cannot watch the event for risk of either smashing my TV to bits or suffering an embolism.

So I created a homeopathic treatment for my emotional disorder: I tape the game, check the score on the web after the contest is over, and either enjoy the victory I know is coming or delete the recording before I watch one second of futility.Image result for tony romo grips helmet

Though I know it’s got to be a deep-rooted psychological imbalance, it’s at least easy to rationalize: If you knew a movie was going to have a bad ending before you bought the ticket, would you still go see it? Similarly: If you knew the flick had a good ending, would you watch it? I know the thrill of watching sports is akin to the adrenaline charge of gambling; the dopamine rush is in the unexpected. But I figure life is uncertain enough. Best to hew to that which you know makes you happy.

I’d offer a similar proposal to Democrats, who, in the wake of the Mueller report, are acting like  they just lost the Super Bowl on a blown call. There’s screaming, cursing, crying of injustice. Already, Dems are threatening to subpoena Mueller — a man whose qualities the left raised to the rafters the past two years — to bring him in for questioning under oath. They are demanding to inspect the entire 300-page report themselves. Nancy Pelosi called the GOP “scaredy cats” for its refusal to release the findings, perhaps a fair criticism.Image result for pelosi calls gop scaredy cats

But it’s a useless approach, and a peculiar one. What would the Dems do with the report anyway? In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a branch of the Justice Department, ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted; it’s either impeachment or bust. So we knew that Mueller wasn’t going to be walking Trump out in cuffs. And we knew impeachment wasn’t going to result: That requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. You couldn’t get two-thirds of the Senate to agree sand is dry.

The left’s problem is this: They fail to see the similarity between Trumpism and religion. For years, we’ve heard that this is the piece of evidence that will turn the tide: the Access Hollywood tape; the Stormy Daniels affair; the failed overhaul of Obamacare; the Mueller investigation.

But let’s face the undeniable: Nothing will change a Trumpian mind, just as nothing will turn a believer into a doubter. Faith in Trump is like faith in an afterlife; they have no evidence to support their belief system, but gosh is makes them feel good.Image result for trump and god

Given that, perhaps Dems should try a new approach: acceptance. Better yet, relief.

Fox and the GOP have been gloating since the report’s release, and they have that right. But they were always going to handle the report that way, rejecting news they didn’t like, embracing news they did. As the president has (rightfully) boasted, he could commit murder without consequence. Faith is a bitch; just ask the women of Salem.

Instead, when they’re surrounded by media, why don’t Nancy and Chuck try this tack: Say you’re relieved by the findings. You’re happy with the half dozen convictions and 19 indictments brought about by the investigation. After all, isn’t that actually true? Would you really have wanted to hear, from any top cop investigating any federal officials, from either party, that they are pawns of an enemy state? Does our partisanship infect that deeply?Image result for trump russian spy funny

It’s a tough pill to swallow, to be sure. It’s hard to see righteous, loudmouth fat asses brag. But that’s what we elected and, thus, what we’ve got coming. Remember: Trump’s election was America’ diagnosis of metastatic political cancer. Some vomiting and hair loss is inevitable. And it still may kill us.

But acceptance of foolish faith doesn’t mean you have to abandon sniping. Far from it. If anything, the report allows for some delicious sarcasm from the left, though we’re lousy at that. Imagine if Pelosi were to say the following: “First of all, we’d like to thank Bob Mueller. It was a thankless task, and he was the model of professionalism. Second, we’re actually relieved that Mr. Mueller decided the president of the United States is not a Russian spy. We know the guy is bad, but that would have been tough to deal with, him being a spy and all. Now let’s to fixing things we know he screwed up, like healthcare and tax inequity.” Trump and Hannity would lose their unwrinkled gray minds. And for god’s sake, somebody officially thank Mueller. He served the military, saw battle, and was rewarded with two years of Trump work? He probably envies John McCain at this point.

Or Dems could be even snippier with a single retort: “O.J. was acquitted, too.”

The point is, act like you’ve got a goddamn job to do, which you do. Ultimately, we’re going to have to concede that Trump is that immovable societal object. The answer is not to create an unstoppable force, but an indifferent one.

I better wrap this up. I have several games to delete.

 

 

When the Media Really Is Fake

 

What happened last night in Vegas is unspeakable. So of course Sean Hannity spoke.

“This is no time to politicize the tragedy,” he belched on Fox.

What insanity this? He then went on a rant against the “liberal media,” who would surely try to make this a political hot potato.

Do you not already smell that potato, Sean? You just popped it in the oven.

What’s far worse, however, is the logic the state’s news service used in ducking the issue that rains on us like Irma’s hellfire. By that logic, when would it be a good time to bring up any issue you’d care not suffer? There were 11,680 gun violence death in 2016, Justice Dept. says. That’s 30 grieving families a day, Sean. Okay to discuss when they’re in mourning?

Heck, why politicize Puerto Rico when all of those Americans are without water and electricity? Why talk about police-related shootings when at least two families’ lives have shattered?

Now is exactly the time to talk politics. This week’s column was supposed to be about the brilliant Ken Burns series The Vietnam War. We will save that fawning for later.

But it is interesting the series arrived days before the massacre. Through 10 episodes, we learned how to measure human losses on the military scale. Should they have waited longer to say something? After all, 58,000 American families were grieving, right Sean?

Movements — and the laws that follow — are smelted in the fury at injustice.

How else to describe this? When one man can  kill 59 (so far) and injure another 525?

That’s not even a shooting. It’s a military incursion. So please, Sean, unless you have something politically constructive to say — in any direction — amidst this insanity, do shut the fuck up.

 

 

We the Press People

 

Enough.

Enough with the attempts to define news.  Enough with the mock outrage over a lack of objectivity. Enough with pretending that “social” media is somehow different from its “mainstream” sibling.

It isn’t. Make no mistake: They are siblings, if not identical twins.

That we in the ancient media of print and television ever tolerated the term “social media” is something of a grim miracle. It’s hard to imagine other professions that would tolerate such a mangling of the terminology of its trade. Or that the public would so wholeheartedly embrace the mauling.

How many businesses or people, for instance, would hazard a flight on a plane steered by a “social pilot?” How many would reserve gurney time for an appendectomy by a “social surgeon?”

Yet, like running a hotel or driving a taxi, being a journalist has become the province of amateurs. Thanks to blogs and free vomit buckets like Facebook and Twitter, the idea of being published hinges less on linguistic dexterity than determinism.

Yet so many in the media claim to be outside its Ivy League walls, forbidden entry by out of step gatekeepers. And we’re not just talking conspiracy slackwits like Sean Hannity or Alex Jones.

Really smart people — like, Noam Chomsky-, Sam Harris-, Neil deGrasse Tyson-, Richard Dawkins-smart — make similarly ridiculous claims.

Take Harris, a neuroscience author of staggering eloquence. In his podcast, website and books, he is quick to lament that “the mainstream media refuses or is unable to see” most issues that underpin our society, from religion to economics to politics. The schism, Harris contends, was a leading contributor to the victory of the Trump administration.

Yet in the same talk or web posting, he will wonder aloud how his podcast became so popular, his Twitter account so swamped with activity.

It’s because you’re in the mainstream media, Sam.

Just do the math. While podcast numbers are not officially tallied (like Nielsen ratings for TV, and yes, that’s a hint), Harris has been publicly flabbergasted by a podcast following of 400,000 that exceeds all of his book sales — combined. He has 888,000 Twitter followers.

The Washington Post has a circulation of 740,000. While not an apples-to-apples comparison, If Harris’ Twitter fanbase alone were a newspaper, it would be the fifth largest in the nation

He’s hardly alone in the confusion. There isn’t an outlet in America that doesn’t distinguish between “mainstream” and “social” media.

But what is the real difference? The largest newspaper in America is the Wall Street Journal, with a circulation north of 2.4 million. (It’s also owned by Rupert Murdoch, in case critics of a liberal media forgot).

Compare that to Facebook, which functions like any other news outlet, with curated headlines and all-flavored news and feature stories. A recent Pew Research study found that 68% of Americans have accounts on Facebook.

That’s a circulation of 218 million.

The same applies to myriad “social” media sites: Instagram would have a circulation of 89.9 million; Pinterest, 83.5 million; Twitter, 67.4 million.

Even the term in a misnomer. If something qualifies as social media, by definition it is also renting property in MainstreamVille. How do we even claim separation, particularly when the largest news outlet in the United States decided a presidential election? How does it remain spared of fake news claims?

The truth is, media is like pizza. You get what you ordered, or you go out of business. Does anyone honestly lay claim to the notion that “mainstream” media refuses to report real news because it would rather report on Kim Kardashian’s ass? That it wants to secretly slip the public pap, like giving a fussy baby a spoonful of Gerber’s by making an airplane noise?

So let’s ratchet down the vitriol, Mr. Harris, Dawkins, Tyson et al. You’re criticizing a club to which you belong.