This section is not comprehensive analysis of all the complexities of a persons life, but more the points most often brushed over (the counter-balances to the myth-making/propaganda). So these are not meant to be read in isolation, but as complimentary aspects on people (or issues about them) that are on the road that's less travelled.
Licensing is a protection racket: the government takes away your right to something, then leases it back to you for a fee. Fuck with that, and the mafia will kill you, the government will give you life in prison (with no possibility of parole). That just happened to Ross Ulbricht for creating Silk Road (eBay for the DarkNet).
Unions and Organized Labor, what are they, to me? I've been a manager, and in a Union. My wife has been in a couple of Unions and currently belongs to one. I'm definitely not one of those people that think Unions are either good nor bad; because they are both. So I'm both pro-union and anti-union.
I understand history, and understand the need for organized labor. And there is no doubt that when most Unions were formed there was way too little power on the side of the workers. So that side is definitely good.
I also understand power and politics; and Unions prove that while too much power in the hands of greedy self-serving corrupt management may not be good, too much power in the hands of a greedy self-serving corrupt labor monopoly is no better. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely; and this has been reflected in many scandals with Unions or the Management that Unions love to vilify. So like all things in life, Unions and organized labor is about balances.
📡If it bleeds, it leads, and these are the ambulance chasers, FakeNews outlets, faux journalists, with a couple of left over good guys, that call themselves the media today.
There's "facts" that people believe, but aren't. Worse are things that the Fact Checkers on the left have verified for people as true, that aren't true, or are completely biased or misleading. Those are things the herd followers believe because they got their dose of confirmation bias from their partisan sources, and so will argue to death using an appeal to authority fallacy, while anyone who cares about the truth can show how it is wrong.
Starting a section on MSNBC and their bias is like starting one on listing all the names in the Holocaust. This is a Sisyphusian task to try to create a comprehensive list -- so I won't do that. Heck, it'd be impossible to list all the failures of any on of their personalities alone (Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Mika, Maddow, and the other Hurricane Katrina's of journalistic ethics). So I'll just cherry pick, and offer a few nuggets, links to aggregate sources, greatest misses, and things that can point out the obvious to those capable of getting it.
Media Matters: the big lie -- it's a hit list for David Brock's political enemies, masquerading as a 501c.
They are violating the law by existing.
They threw a hit piece on Tucker Carlson over comments made on a Shock Jock radio show, that frankly, don't seem that bad... just stuff that would offend snowflakes (even with all the context stripped out). But it turns out their own comments are worse. https://www.dailywire.com/news/44602/leftist-who-initiated-boycott-tucker-past-comments-hank-berrien
Media Organizations : Bloomberg • Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence • CNN • ESPN • Fake Facts • Fox News • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence • Huffington Post • MSNBC • Media Matters • Media Organizations • NPR • Netflix • New York Times • New Yorker • Newsweek • PolitiFact • Politico • Rolling Stone • Skeptical Science • Snopes • The Atlantic • Time Magazine • USA Today • Vice • Washington Post • WikiLeaks • Wikipedia •
David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that.
Politico started when left-of-center John F. Harris, and the slightly less left-of-center Jim VandeHei (who left to found Axios in disgust, and penned a FU I'm outta here letter), got funding for a DC tabloid journalism (rumor mongering) on the DC set. Sort of what HuffingtonPost was to Hollywood, but only for DC, if HuffPo had even lower ethical and journalistic standards. The point isn't that I dislike Politico -- its looser quality controls allows for some people to get a voice that they wouldn't have elsewhere. So to me, it's like reddit or twitchy -- sure most articles are full of shit, but they allow both sides turds, and you can find some treasures in the sewage, if you are willing to wade long enough.
Rolling Stone is an American monthly magazine that was founding in the late 60's San Francisco, and focused on music and pop-culture. But like many in entertainment, they forgot their goal is to entertain, become full of themselves and try to be more "relevant" -- and since that's not their core competency, they usually screw it up. Which is a shame, because we need shallow tripe and escapism, without SJW's trying to take everything over and make it important. Especially when they have a history of being not very good at their core competency (covering the music scene).
Skeptical Science is a FakeScience site created by not-a-scientists John Cook. It seems like his name is missing an 'r' somewhere. He created his site not to inform people, but to misinform them. You can tell by things he does on it: like omitting facts that he finds inconvenient, or censoring famous Climate Scientists that he disagrees with. It's fine that he has an advocacy site -- it's wrong that he plays it off as a Science site. Science is always about facts and skepticism.
Time Magazine was once a respected publication, but like all things: liberals ruined it. Once they took over, they destroyed "journalism" and replaced it with propaganda. So while good articles occasionally get through their editorial bias, it's strictly by accident, and usually not touching anything vaguely political.
The CCC is what happens when community organizers run development planning: they "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline" by obstructing development and improvement of one of our countries great resources, saving it from humanity and the usefulness it might have to individuals or our country. Good for the locals who don't want to share. Bad for everyone who isn't already there. It's what tolerance looks like in California.
Pointing out that most of the clean-ups happened at the state level before we had an EPA, and many of the EPA failures may be true, but they will get you disinvited from many granola munchers parties in the People's Republic of Hollywood (or California). But heck, I care about the facts and how to really help the environment, more than watermelon agenda of using the environment as an excuse to create socialism. Not because I hate clean air or water, I think both are great. I just think that people need to understand that without a bureaucratic federal monstrosity, we'd still have state and local improvements (maybe more), with far less cost. Most companies don't clean up because of fear of the EPA, but fear of their customers or legal liability if they get caught.
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and later the "fairness doctrine", was created so FDR could bully any TV/Radio stations that did unfavorable pieces on the administration. It was also a way so that his son (who lived in the White House) could be paid rich consulting fees to get licenses fast-tracked, while those who didn't pay or the enemies could be blocked or slow-tracked.
FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. While I'm not against administration, if you look at what they do, and what it costs to do it, the rational and economic minded, understand that it could be done cheaper and better, if there was more accountability and less bureaucracy. It's not always how much you spend, but how well you spend it.
I have nothing against the NEA/NEH, except how it's funded.
So if you like it, fine -- contribute to it. Forcing others to contribute to it, is not what liberty looks like. So you can support Liberty or the politicization of the arts (Cultural Marxism), but not both.
Planners who failed at life decided that if Google/Facebook/etc. succeeded in spite of a horrendously distracted working environment, then everyone should suffer -- and Corporate America (especially Tech) started shifting to Open Office Floorplans; to the annoyance of tech workers everywhere. This was sold as "more collaborative", but there's no worker with a triple digit IQ that actually buys that, and there have been multiple studies that bear out the skepticism: workers get more quiet to keep from disturbing others (and hide away in meeting rooms or with headphones to create faux privacy). But the one-size-fits-all is attractive to the small-of-mind, paired up with the financial folks that could increase population density, without fixing facilities for parking, loading/unloading or eating. And the results have been productivity killing, increased employee friction, increased illness/sick-time, less face-to-face interaction, and more start working from home or as remote as can get away with. This will go down as proof that companies that ignore management fads operate much better than those that follow them.
Quark is a company that helped revolutionize Desktop publishing. But they should be a verb for how to fuck-up your business. They went from 95% market share in desktop publishing (thought the 1980's and 1990), to 25 percent within a few years after Adobe InDesign was released. And InDesign was released with fewer features, not to mention conversion costs. Why would 3 out of 4 customers pay money and time to convert? The answer is simple: they outsources their development to India, had some of the worst support in the industry, had the most annoying copy-protection (DRM / Digital Rights Management) that made it expensive/annoying to use/maintain/upgrade their programs -- and they basically pissed their customers off, that they would have paid more to get less, just to get out from under their thumb.
Every company has a right to decide who they support or not. But the problem is Google/YouTube PRETENDS to be an open platform (and community service). Yet, they're not doing what they advertise. If they openly admitted in their policies that they're a left-of-center advocacy site that will censor center/right positions at will, then at least that would be honest.
How to shoot yourself in the dick? Be a Sporting Goods store named Dick's, then alienate a large swath of your customer base and suppliers who are hunters and gun owners, by replacing the Constitution with your hypocritical corporate ethics. This move left a mark, in the short and long term. (To the tune of about $150M or 1.7% of annual revenue, in the first year alone... more to come).
Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that FactCheck.org was partisan and bias, but since their acquisition by Facebook, it seems that they won't have even the false front of being a "J-School", which are all partisan, it's just Zuckerberg's sock-puppet.
Intuit makes the bad choice to punish companies for selling products they don't like. It backfires. I worked for Intuit and used their products before -- but if I have a choice, I never ever will again. It is certainly in a private companies purview to choose their customers -- but there's a responsible or douchey way to do it. And it's also within the customers purview to choose the companies they do business with. So the lash gets the backlash.
Propagandaministerium of America. They exist to take things out of context, lie, distort, and feel that any means to their ends (of furthering the power of government over the people) is justified. At least based on their actions. If you can't look at anything they post, and find at least 10 things wrong with it, then you're not qualified to have a discussion.