“What are you going to replace it with?”

 

Democrats won the first round of repeal-and-replace Obamacare by asking that question. Most Republicans took the bait and believed they needed to actually replace the abysmal failure, instead of just asking a simple question back: “Why do we need to replace an abysmal failure of a law? We should only need to strike it from the record.”

“29-or-so members” of the House Freedom Caucus, as the Wall Street Journal opines, did not fall for it. They wanted a repeal-only bill, with specifics of what would replace it to come.

 

 

 

Good point

Props to the Today show for, at least, interviewing the editor of Breitbart News and giving him some exposure.

Of course, in the introduction they do their best to marginalize and discredit Breitbart, with the slanted reporting that has caused mainstream media to lose its credibility with folks whose brainwashing hasn’t taken:

Critics call the site white nationalist, xenophobic and homophobic.”

Notice how they throw the taint of these awful accusations on the site, without actually making the claims themselves — just referring to generic ‘critics’. So, they can get off the hook if anyone holds them accountable. We didn’t say that, we just reported that critics have made these claims. 

Of course, good reporting would entail analyzing those critics’ claims to see if there was any basis for those claims and let viewers decide for themselves. But, we aren’t dealing with good reporting.

Anyway, now to the good point.

During the interview with the Breitbart’s editor, they brought up Trump’s tweet about Obama wiretapping him and how there’s no evidence. Breitbart’s editor pointed out that the claims that there was Russian interference in the elections, made by the Obama administration, also has not been substantiated by evidence, but the media doesn’t seem as concerned about the evidence in that case vs. Trump’s claims. Hmmm…

Drop out rate isn’t a convincing reason

Sites/movements like Changing The Game Project and I Love to Watch You Play have good messages for parents and coaches involved in youth sports.

They started their movements because of the toxic atmosphere they experienced at youth games.

But, there’s a claim that both of these projects that I don’t buy. In this Changing the Game article,  founder John O. Sullivan provides a good example of it:

As I have stated here many times, 70% of children are dropping out of organized sports by the age of 13. Whenever I mention this sad statistic, people come out of the wood work saying that it’s only the kids who aren’t good enough to play that quit. They say it’s an age where school, jobs and other interests take precedence. These things are true and contribute to a part of the dropout rate, but they are not the entire picture.

Why is a 70% drop out rate by age 13 a “sad statistic?” Is that any different than times when youth sports wasn’t as toxic? My guess is no.

 

At some point, people have to get on with their lives and age 13 is probably about the time they realize they have better ways to spend their time.

By all means, make youth sports less toxic. But, the reason shouldn’t be to reduce the drop out rate.

A good enough reason is that it’s youth sports.

 

 

Republican ‘Repeal & Replace’

Lots of folks seem to have plenty to disagree with. One thing we should remember. At least the Republicans shared the plan with the public before passing it.

I don’t believe we had the same luxury with Obamacare itself.

The Oscars

In the moments I passed the TV while the Oscars were on, it just looked like the Top 1% giving awards to the Top 1%.

Did you know that the value of gifts they receive in their Oscar swag bags alone is enough to place them in the Top 4% of income earners?

 

 

A better response than,”go f— yourself”

In this segment, reporting on Milo Yiannapoulos’s appearance on Bill Maher’s show, the headline is that Larry Wilmore tells Yiannapoulos to “go f— yourself.”

Wilmore said that after Milo successfully pisses a panel of guests off by calling them stupid and telling Maher he should get higher IQ guests on his show.

If you watch the video, you see that Larry elicits a strong crowd response when he does this, which is sad.

 

What would a better response from Larry have been? How about, “Milo, maybe I am stupid. Could you explain to why you think that so we can all know?”

Why isn’t this a common response in such situations? Because that would mean Larry would be open to hearing something that might change his mind. Which he’s not. Nor are all the folks who cheered on Larry’s 7th grade-level response.

The media is not virtuous

In this “sparring” with CNN, a CNN reporter asks the President “are you concerned that you’re undermining people’s in faith in the 1st amendment, the freedom of the press, the press in this country when you call stories you don’t like fake news.”

 

Leading with “1st amendment” and “freedom of the press” are red herring fallacies meant to disguise and equate the reporter’s key whiny gripe — “undermining people’s faith in…the press” —  with threats to two noble institutions of modern society, hoping to piggyback his key gripe on those.

The media should accept responsibility for people’s weakened faith in it.

The CNN reporter wishes people to see the media as a virtuous institution they trust to report facts and act as a watchdog and check for those in power.

But, media isn’t virtuous. It’s a business that makes money by generating ratings so it can sell ads. They package stories with biases and framing that pleases their target audience to keep them coming back.

They report facts most of the time, but often those facts are misleading and non-pertinent. The reporting of Trump’s answer to a debate question just before the election provides a great example.

He said he’d have to “wait-and-see” about whether he’d accept the election results.

The media turned a molehill into a mountain and reported that Trump doesn’t respect the country’s long-standing tradition of peaceful transition of power, and even hinted that Trump may try to incite violence if he loses (though he never hinted at that).

But, there were two key problems with this.

Anyone with a memory longer than 16-years remembers the “hanging chad” debacle of the 2000 election, when Democrats didn’t accept the election result without a court battle, and many to this day still do not accept the results of that election.

Second, the tables were turned in just two weeks when Clinton lost and many on the left, even those who overreacted to Trump’s answer, flipped their lids. Suddenly, it was fine — even noble — to question those results even though two weeks prior it wasn’t.

 

The way the CNN reporter framed the question is also good example of why people are and should be losing faith in the media.

The question was meant to paint the media (excluding Fox, of course) as a victim and the President as it’s oppressor. It’s also self-serving.

It showed that the media isn’t yet close to the self-reflection needed to gain people’s faith.  Like a child, they point fingers and try to avoid blame for the problems they’ve caused.