Something on my Mind: Consistently Inconsistent (2)

I'm sure we would all agree that the ISIS is an out-of-control killing machine. Any civilized society on planet earth is horrified and terrified at the ongoing sadism that ISIS conducts on a daily basis.

But I would add that I am also stupified at the serious inconsistency of the modern press (here I go again) on this side of the Atlantic. They rarely, if ever, report the same sort of of sadism that is taking place here in North America, likewise on a daily basis.

Assaults, coldblooded killings, rapes, swarmings, kidnappings, thefts, abortions, and abuse—and that's just a slow news day in Chicago. Okay, slight exaggeration, but you get my point.

Last week I used the term “selective consistency” and it fits here again. Selective consistency is the selective practice of consistently choosing certain angles of the news, while ignoring others. There's a bias in there, so the listener (or viewer or reader) just gets part of the news story.

Let's consider briefly what is consistently reported over there, but consistently downplayed back here:

1. There is regular footage of ISIS destroying venerated icons, statues, and artifacts, in their attempt to destroy and wipe out the past. That's bad, but aren't we doing that over here, too? I would need many columns to discuss the revisionism in our history books where the record of our past is being destroyed and wiped out regularly. Yet there's nary a word in the mainstream media. Why the inconsistency?

2. We are appalled at the gross, perverted way ISIS treats women, but what about here? When did you seethe last graphic exposure of how we as a culture treat our women? I'm thinking well beyond the sex trade; I suggest any form of the real abuse of women should be consistently reported.

Despite the feigned hue and cry coming from the left--and feminism, in particular-- women are clearly worse off today than ever before. Shouldn't our media “friends” make that a public issue? We need to be aware of genuine injustices, with the challenge to do something about it.

3. Thanks to social media (though not me; I can't handle it), we are well aware of the mass executions, the patented brutality, and the torture and maiming, that ISIS carries out. I would challenge the media and its groupies to rise to their responsibility and consistently report the same sort of news stateside.

Should there be accurate and balanced broadcasting (here I go again) of the butchering of babies? What about the anarchy in the cities of armed black men attacking police? Speaking of police, why is there so limited reporting when they are killed on the job? What about the masses of black young people when they riot in malls? And where's the story when a young white couple is swarmed and beaten? ISIL is despicable, but we have issues here that warrant equal time and space on broadcasts.

4. We're outraged and sickened by what ISIS does, but our own history as global citizens is nothing to brag about. In some cases, there were more people killed in one day over here than whatever ISIS has done over there in its total existence.

ISIS is just a very convenient (and deadly) whipping boy for the slanted and inconsistent media that spellbinds us all. They are evil and their misdeeds should be exposed, no question. It's bad over there, but its very bad over here. It's just reported differently. We need a consistent news source that reports fairly and squarely.

So the news on ISIS is another great example of selective inconsistency. But ultimately, the challenge is for you to rise above that. Recognize the weakness in the style and perspective of the media. You need to have discerning ears and eyes.

Don't believe everything you hear and read. Check it out yourself. Examine all the evidence. Don't fall for the slick drama and smooth voices. The truth is out there, to be sure, somewhere between a desert rogue in Iraq and an unemployed punk in St. Louis.

Selective inconsistency falls somewhere between never-been-this-bad and all-is-just-wonderful. In fact, today's column is a life lesson for all to apply those principles to all news, everywhere.

And speaking of this column, go ahead and ask some hard questions about it: Is it balanced? Is fair? Is it true? And I would even add a fourth question: Is is consistent?

I do not pretend to be a news source, though I am a bit of an information source. And while you may not always agree with me, at least I'm not selective in my inconsistency.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: There is a Difference

Wordsmiths like me feast on wordplay, nuance, and innuendo—whatever those words mean. This can lead to puns, quips, and double entendre—whatever those last two words mean.

Okay, I actually do know what they mean, or else I wouldn't use them. Words are first and foremost tools that we construct and communicate with. They can also be toys that we play with, and I may be one of the biggest kids in the the playroom.

The Good Book speaks of a word “fitly spoken”--and that could come in the form of a timely word, a right word, a sensitive word; and it could come as a phone call or card sent, or even a casual conversation. I can attest to being a beneficiary of many words “fitly spoken.”

There are words that are misused (not “abused,” which is stronger) and this can lead to confusion. For instance, do you know the difference in the following words: fewer and less?...further and farther?... imply and infer?...sensuous and sensual?

Do you care? I hope so. We all have our specialities, those motivations that drive us, excite us, touch us. Mine happens to be words in the present English language. Etymology (layman's definition: the study of the origin and make-up of words) is a real passion of mine.

So it is with some resignation (“hesitation” may be softer) that I add another pair of words to the list two paragraphs just north of this sentence: activist and anarchist.

You may know the difference, but I don't think the popular media certainly does. They often describe certain people as “activists,” when, in fact, they are “anarchists.” On the surface, they appear to be the same; beneath the surface, where we should all be looking, there is a colossal difference

Simply stated, there is a place for the one, but there is no place in a civilized society for the other.

People who feel strongly about a matter, and want to express those feelings, are activists. They peacefully put principles into deeds, words into action. They have some conviction about this issue or that law, so they get out and protest—lawfully and legally. They may write letters, walk around with signs, or march along with other activists. They are assertive yet peaceful demonstrators. They stay within the civil laws of the land and no one gets hurt, no property gets damaged.

I suggest we need more of that, not less.

I see myself as a bit of an activist, this column being an expression of things I feel strongly about. I don't rant or rave too loudly, I trust; nor do I harm, hinder, or hate. You may not agree with my particular worldview (and I may not agree with yours), so we agree to disagree. That's the mark of a civilized society.

Anarchists are, well, different. They take everything that characterizes an activist to a new level (better: a lower level). They demand and destroy, sometimes to the point of death. They are not successful unless they are lawless, not satisfied unless they are out of control.

They are more consumed with process than principle, more determined to damage than to compromise.

Activists are armed with placards; anarchists, with Molotov cocktails and guns. Activists stay within the lines of a democratic protests; anarchists cross those same lines with impunity.

So my growing concern with what appears to be, and is identified as, activism, is the naive interpretation of said actions. These are nothing less than the out-of-control antics of lawless rogue anarchists. Their motives may have some justification, but their methods never do.

Those professional rioters in Ferguson come to mind: looting, violence, and mayhem have been the order of the night. To take a stand is one thing; to attack, steal, and vandalize is another. Trumpeting the “black lives matters” cause by assaulting whites fails miserably. You might say it is irony in blood.

Of course, black lives matter, we all agree on that. But so do white, Chinese, Hungarian-speaking, and left-handed people's lives. But as a white person, I don't need to make my point by smashing everything in my way.

Another example is environmentalism. I am big on the environment. As a family, we take our property stewardship seriously. But I draw the line when it comes to attacking the lumber or oil industry by spiking this or vandalizing that. There are more mature and reasonable ways to make one's point.

Here in Alberta, for example, so-called activists have had a heyday. The fracking outrage, pipeline opposition, and “dirty oil” smear campaign are the trademarks of anarchists, not activists. Attacking oil wells is the work of anarchists, not activists.

The list is endless with G8 Summit protests, the Occupy movement, even Idle No More, though a little dated, to be sure. Maybe there was a little legitimacy in their protest(s), but they went too far. Like any sport, they need to play within the lines; any crossing the line is out of bounds.

There, I just gave my activist rant and no windows were smashed.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Consistently Inconsistent (1)

It is very difficult to be consistent in everything. There's usually some character flaw or two where our walk doesn't match our talk.

Personally, I'm not as witty or even as nice at home as I come across in this column. I'm not sad about it, just honest about it. And honesty is a great policy: There is no sense in pretending to be something—or worse, having others assume the same—when we're not.

But it's the intentional double standard, the two-faced inconsistency, that's the rock in my runners (or for you cowboys, burr in my saddle). It's the moral outrage over here, but a “who cares?” over there.

So it is with a touch of confusion, but mostly anger, that I consider the consistent inconsistency of mainstream media these days, plus the people who support their viewpoint. Two seriously intentionally inconsistent events come to mind. We'll deal with one this week, the other next week.

The first case is Cecil the lion. He is not to be confused with Cecile the Lyin' (she of Planned Parenthood notoriety). On the one hand, much of the media, and its groupies, are up in arms over the killing of a lion in Africa a few weeks ago. I won't get down and dirty as to whether everything was above board in his death. That is not the thrust of today's comment.

All I know for sure is that there's a practice called “big game hunting.” You may have heard of it. In fact, you may know some hunters in your world of friends—or maybe you hunt yourself. Animals are hunted and killed legally (and illegally, to be sure) every day in Africa—and in, say, northern British Columbia, even in parts of Alberta. It's done by big game hunters from Europe and America, as well as by locals like your next door neighbour.

It's legal, necessary, and some say fun—though I myself would not find it fun. I know nothing of shooting an animal; I consider myself lucky if I swat a fly occasionally. “Big game hunter,” for me, would be “small pest flickerer.”

I'm sure as a result there will be some tightening up of rules and procedures. But the point is, it happens all the time, and, for the most part, there's no outrage. Lions and other wild beasts are to be hunted and killed. So long as it's humane, I have little problem with it.

In our “Cecil” story an American dentist stepped in, dropped Cecil, and all you-know-what broke loose. I know it's not quite that simple—let's all be reasonable—but in a nutshell, that's what happened.

Now his practice has been shut down (temporarily), his life has been threatened, and he has gone into hiding. The outrage and outcry from this everyday occurrence has been fascinating to see—with a touch of nausea. Within days, there were lawsuits, protests, and a general brouhaha over the killing of a lion.

Hit the pause button here for a moment. In another part of the world, there is a war on against defenceless victims. Not one killing, but thousands...indeed, millions; not an animal, but humans; not for sport, but for selfishness, greed and convenience. Yet there has been hardly a whimper about it.

We are now being exposed to the horrors of harvesting human body parts, of negotiating the sale of said body parts of living creatures. Those are rascals in China—right? North Korea—right? ISIS—right?

No, my friends, they are right here in the enlightened West, just to the south of us. Planned Parenthood has been exposed as both a killer of babies and now a negotiator of their body parts.

But where are the lawsuits, protests, and general brouhaha over the murder of innocent babies? Surely they are more innocent than Cecil? Are those same people trying to shut Planned Parenthood down? Are there threats against them?

Where are daily broadcasts and clips of this travesty? Where is the media on this one?

That inconsistency is appalling: There are now at least seven documented videos of the negotiations for human body parts (a truly illegal act), and there's hardly a word in the mainstream media. I have never seen clips of any of the barbaric acts against human babies on the news. Why don't they show them?

One lone lion gets killed and there is outrage. Thousands (in fact, millions) of human babies are killed, and there's hardly a whisper. I am sickened by both the deaths of human babies and the silence that accompanies it. Not sure which is worse.

I repeat: It is very difficult to be consistent in everything. We all make mistakes as we try to be consistent, no problem. But selective inconsistency is not an oversight—it's an ethical evil.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com