Questioning My Beliefs

Questioning My Beliefs—Just a wordy blog about:
Media, TDS, Ideas, Feminism Lies, and Today's Negativism Queen

I usually prefer to talk/write about ideas rather than people. Others have apparently successful careers doing just the opposite. 

People come and go in the changing spotlight of generations. But sometimes, people make great examples to illustrate ideas.

Ideas can lubricate the friction between cultures or generations and if used earnestly can ameliorate and keep eruptions of violence isolated.

But, if ideas can't be openly discussed, if honesty is not a shared behavior, if sanity remains unidentifiable, regress will continue to ensue rather than progress.

A couple of weeks ago in another social media post, I substituted the letters “dowds” in place of the letters “bobs” in the expression written almost 50 years ago by then White House speechwriter William Safire. The words were later spoken by Vice President Spiro Agnew, at the California Republican state convention on September 11, 1970 and have been oft repeated—because the hammering can't be located let alone stopped.

Agnew used the words, “nattering nabobs of negativism,” referring to the recalcitrant media decades ago before it morphed into today's fake media. The alliteration likely made it stick.

My purpose, my attempt at being playful with words was twofold. First, I wanted to insinuate that it is because feminists are disinclined to take responsibility, that feminism itself is a failed “movement.” Feminists are only interested in more “rights” (only for women) and in taking human rights away from men, families, and defenseless children. Second, I wanted to identify a fake-news media personality as a perfect icon of that failure.

Maureen Dowd of the NYTs almost got the headline right in her May 25 spleen, "Crazy Is as Crazy Does." Therein she harangues critical the U.S. President, fantasizes about her life in the midst of successful world-improving artists, describes with an unlikely clairvoyance what other humans are thinking, gives those she describes as journalists a pass on responsibility, speaks highly of total politician failures, and more. You get the picture.

The Rag's comments page is closed at 1911 comments; all of the rag's picks of comments were negative to the President—people with identifiable TDS. The Dissenter comments describe the article in short little comment bites, more bluntly than I have here! There were only a half dozen Dissenter comments, maybe because sane people don't choose to roll around in shit or spend valuable time in that way. I'm questioning my sanity for spending my time, thus.

"I'm Crazy," if truth be told would have been a more accurate title to her opinion piece—a highly-compensated effort to befuddle children and leftists. Now having read the article, my assessment continues to be that Dowd is just another wacko, wordy libtard. 

I do not recommend reading, but nonetheless have provided a link below this text.

I can't imagine any time in the near future when I would pay the silicon (or tree) media. Why would I pay for lies and misinformation when those are freely available.

I love to read, but choose to not read from known purveyors of falsehoods or opaquely burka'ed invective.

The info I find on GAB or Minds is usually more accurate and is often enough pleasingly lyrical or otherwise usefully concise and astute. And, it is easy to mute or otherwise turn off the falsity-posters, the nattering naDowds of negativity. I have $upported Minds (and GAB) as I have been able for reasons such as these. 

I usually don't read opinion pieces for the same reason that I now rarely read fiction. But I'm also well aware of the fallibility of my memory. And, some people do change. So, every few years, I'll revisit an author I deem crazy or detrimental, just to see if my perception is still justified. 

For me, I no longer wonder that such facility to string words together in a beautiful or effective way can be so wasted on forming ideas so wrong, pushing agendas so damaging to the future. 

Unlike Dowd, I've raised children, now young adults, about whose life and future I still care deeply. I regularly see that it is difficult enough for them, having to swim against such a torrent of confusing callousness—the world of Dowd-like diatribes. 

In fewer than 600 words, she achieves the perfect dose of name-dropping and virtue signaling. I imagine her regular readers—her dazzled girls, allow her words like soft raindrops to quench their self-centered belief systems to buoy themselves up, making more plush the imaginary hallowed ferns upon which they lounge. 

But as her more random or skeptical readers have likely become accustomed, her diatribe is merely another in an endless line of TDS rants of the sort that papers in conformity every supermarket checkout line, the teleprompter scripts of legacy media outlets, or tomorrow's face of the Drudge Report. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi.html