Several women stepped forward this week to say that Donald Trump
made unacceptable sexual advances towards them 10 to 40 years ago. This
was part of an elaborate setup involving Clinton campaign staffer
Anderson Cooper and women who were willing to make up any story to harm
the Trump campaign.
Right before the second presidential
debate, a recording was released of Trump talking into a hot mic with
Access Hollywood host Billy Bush. Bush was encouraging him with a lot of
sex talk, and Trump was going right along. It was certainly not
presidential, but it was private, locker-room talk that Trump was goaded
into making. As far as the Reprehensibility Meter goes, it certainly
didn’t rise to the level of the many rapes and assaults that I believe
Bill Clinton has committed, with Hillary Clinton serving as an accessory
after the fact.
When Clinton campaign representative Anderson
Cooper kicked off the second debate with a question about sexual
assault and kissing, I immediately suspected that it was already
arranged for someone to step forward and make some type of claim against
Trump. I was correct. What surprised me was how weak all of the claims
were. Let’s examine just one of them, with more to come.
Natasha Stoynoff is a reporter for People magazine who wrote a story
about story about Donald and Melania Trump’s first wedding anniversary
in 2005. Describing the alleged assault at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate,
she said, “We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door
behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against
the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.” (It would be helpful
if Stoynoff had specified exactly which room this supposedly occurred
in, as several of the rooms have glass walls; of course, that may be why
she was intentionally vague).
Are we really to believe that a
reporter for a national publication wouldn’t find this worthy of some
type of mention in 2005? I simply can’t. I once was involved in sending a
reporter to do a nice little story on Jerry Lee Lewis’ birthday party.
During an interview, an inebriated Lewis chose to playfully point a
pistol as our reporter a couple of times, which he found not amusing at
all, and that became the most important part of the story. So instead of
a nice, happy story on Jerry Lee’s birthday there was a story about how
Jerry Lee is still running around drunk and unhinged these days. That’s
what reporters do, and that’s what Natasha Stoynoff would have done if
Trump had actually forced a kiss of this type on her. Even if she comes
up with some lame excuse for not reporting the incident, it certainly
was newsworthy a year ago, at the start of the presidential campaign.
Why the silence until Anderson Cooper laid the trap?
The fact
that People magazine would go along with this shows that the media, for
the most part, are no longer journalistic enterprises, but rather public
relations outfits for the American left and the global elite. Like any
good P.R. firm, they will share bad news about their product when forced
to do so, but their job is one of promotion, not reporting.
In the end there is no way for us to know whether some of these claims
are true or not. In some cases there are factual inaccuracies that prove
them impossible. But in other cases, such as the claim of Stoynoff, we
have to just decide whether or not they are true based on their
plausibility. For her claim to be true, she would have to be a really
terrible reporter who chose to remain silent when her claim might have
hurt Trump during the Republican primaries, but who suddenly felt the
need to come forward when it was just a two-person race. Under these
circumstances, I do not believe her.
The American media simply cannot be trusted, as batch after batch of
hacked DNC emails show collusion with various members of the Fourth
Estate and the Clinton campaign. After the second presidential debate,
NBC did a "Fact Check" on Donald Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton had
"acid washed" her email server. With a graphic that said "NOPE," NBC
corrected the record: "Clinton's team used an app called BleachBit; she
did not use a corrosive chemical." This is not a joke. It's like saying,
NOPE, she didn't murder the man with a double-barrelled shotgun; it was
a single-barrelled shotgun. (For the record, sometimes "acid wash" is
used as a generic term for permanently wiping a server, although dipping
a server in acid will certainly do the trick, and is sometimes done).
Perhaps someday we will again be able to turn on the television or pick
up a newspaper and get truthful news coverage, but for now the Media,
like the Clintons, exist only to serve the interests of the global
elitists.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Friday, October 14, 2016
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Shepard Smith says we have nothing to fear from Ebola virus, and that scares me a lot
I grew up with Shepard Smith, although he's a few years younger than me. His father grew up with my father and is a good friend. I don't think I've seen Shepard since we were at Ole Miss together, but I've enjoyed the chance to observe his great success at Fox News over the years.
Shepard was somewhat far to the left during his Ole Miss days and he's liberal today, which is fine. Without liberals we can't have conservatives, can we? So it doesn't surprise me that Shepard decided to serve as a shill for the Obama administration with a rant against media "hysteria" over Ebola.
Feel free to listen to Shepard's rant. He's got some blatant factual errors, which I picked up right away. For example, he said the nurse did not show symptoms when she few from Cleveland to Dallas. This is just simply false. She had a fever of 99.5 and was instructed to fly on a commercial airliner by the CDC anyway. She almost certainly was not highly contagious at this point, but she was potentially contagious -- or at least the general consensus is that she was. So Shepard is just passing out false information, and I'm not sure why, since it is so clearly wrong.
I suspect that Ebola probably isn't very contagious until the victim reaches the vomiting, diarrhea, and heavy sweating stage, at which point it becomes contagious beyond belief. With that said, I see no need for the government to encourage unnecessary risks, which it is currently doing. Ebola is considered contagious at the onset of symptoms.
Here is the one fact I know for certain about the Ebola virus: Nothing is certain. And should we get to know anything for certain we won't know it for long, because the virus is constantly mutating. For that reason an abundance of caution is in order.
I would argue that a certain amount of hysteria is both warranted and good. I think a fair definition of "hysteria" is an exaggerated fear or excitement. When it comes to Ebola, I think it is better that our society be too afraid than not afraid enough.
Shepard says we have nothing to fear from Ebola. Nothing. This scares me almost much as Ebola does.
Shepard says it's all politics. You know, when somebody like me, who is about as right-wing and conservative as one can get, starts screaming about the need to send massive amounts of medical aid to Africa, perhaps people ought to take notice. It's not politics. One recent article points out that liberals seem to be refusing to adopt sensible policies to fight Ebola simply because conservatives support them. Now that's politics.
I'm not afraid that somehow I will catch Ebola because some nurse took a Frontier airline flight when she shouldn't have, even though the very long incubation period of this virus makes it especially dangerous. That's not the fear, and Shepard is right to say we shouldn't worry about this particular issue.
The CDC has shown an extreme level of incompetence in battling the Ebola virus here in the United States. It failed to send a team of experts to Dallas for several days after Thomas Duncan was admitted. Apparently 78 health care workers were potentially exposed to the Ebola virus and two have now contracted the disease. The CDC told one of these nurses with Ebola to fly on a commercial jet after developing a fever. This level of incompetence is cause for some level of hysteria.
Democrats dedicated to open borders insist on allowing people from countries with massive, uncontrolled Ebola outbreaks into the country without proper screening. The virus has up to a 21-day incubation period, but any infected person from West Africa who doesn't have a fever is permitted to enter the country, where they may then develop symptoms and infect others, as Thomas Duncan did. When the Obama administration essentially invites people infected with the Ebola virus to come spread it amongst the general population it is cause for some level of hysteria.
Americans seem unwilling to establish or obey any safety guidelines concerning the Ebola virus. The second Dallas nurse violated CDC protocol by flying to Cleveland within 21 days of possible exposure to the Ebola virus. She wasn't supposed to fly; she did it anyway. NBC's chief medical correspondent Nancy Snyderman agreed to a voluntary 21-day quarantine after a member of her camera crew contracted Ebola. She broke the curfew in order to buy fast food. When Americans who are most knowledgeable about the need to follow safety precautions refuse to do so, how can we expect ordinary citizens to use good judgment. Yes, I'm afraid.
There are two bits of good news concerning the Ebola virus in West Africa. First, a mathematical model which has been highly accurate in predicting the number of Ebola cases suggests the virus will begin to burn itself out in December. Of course, plenty will die before then, and I confess I have more hope than faith in the model. Second, the West has finally realized that the crisis in West Africa potentially threatens the entire world, and has been committing resources to stopping it (it doesn't help for Shepard to claim we have nothing to fear).
Shepard says we have absolute nothing to fear from Ebola. Let me ask a question. We know that one of the 78 health care workers exposed to Ebola decided to breach protocol and take a plane to Cleveland -- and then was told by the CDC to fly back with a fever. There are 76 more exposed people. Is it not reasonable to fear some of the others may have breached protocol in a similar fashion?
The CDC is considering placing the remaining 76 health care workers on the TSA no-fly list. These people are free to travel by car, but not by bus or plane. I presume that all of these 76 people are on paid leave.
Does anyone consider it possible -- just possible -- that one of these 76 people might have family down in Mexico or even Central America that they've already decided drive down and see? After all, they've got a paid vacation, why not visit the family? Are poverty-stricken areas of Mexico and Central America well equipped to deal with an Ebola outbreak? Is this possibility not a cause for at least some fear?
Most potential disasters will not happen. We can ignore or pay minimal attention to the Ebola virus and the chances are that it will burn itself out. When Herculean efforts are used to avert a crisis, no one knows if they are effective or not; if nothing bad happens perhaps the disaster never would have happened anyway. And so people like me are viewed as fear-mongerers or crackpots.
I only offer my view as an alternative to Shepard's. He says Americans should have no fear of Ebola. I say we should all be very afraid. He says we shouldn't be hysterical. I say until the government demonstrates some level of competence in battling the disease, and adopts of policies to prevent new foreign cases from being introduced into the general population a certain amount of hysteria is in order.
Do not remain calm. All is not well.
UPDATE, 10/17/2014: One of the remaining 76 exposed workers did indeed go to Central America, ON A CRUISE SHIP! She is reportedly asymptomatic and has voluntarily quarantined herself in her stateroom, but the insanity of her being on a cruise ship in the first place in mind-boggling. The nation of Belize would not allow her to come ashore to be flown back to the United States.
I am very confident that my children, who are in ninth and tenth grade, could do a far better job of managing the Ebola crisis than is currently being done by the Obama administration.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Ron Paul is the Invisible Man
Jon Stewart tells it like it is when it comes to the media and Ron Paul. Michelle Bachman barely edges him out in the Iowa Straw poll and the media declares it a three-candidate race between Bachman, Perry and Romney.
Paul is apparently the only candidate from either party who is in favor of peace. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for some strange reason and then started a war that is going to fester for decades. All the Republicans want war. Paul supports peace.
The man may or may not have what it takes to win the nomination, but to simply ignore him while continuing to mention candidates like Jon Huntsman is an outrage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

