Questions I Would Ask the MSM

In my mind, the MSM is the biggest threat to freedom and our Republic.  Nevermind the two major political parties.  The MSM is the mouthpiece of the Left and has its own agenda that it will further under the guise of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.  Try as it might to argue that it's impartial and objective, the vast majority of Americans understand that that's not true.

To that end, I've often wondered what it would be like to have members of the MSM forced to answer questions under oath, under penalty of perjury, with jail sentences awarded to those who perjure themselves.  Add to that a real judge who could force the witness MSM members to answer questions and not dodge them, as they are wont to do, and televise it during prime time.  I do believe that such a spectacle would be the highest rate television program of all time.

So here are some questions that I would like posed in my hypothetical, knowing full well that I'll never live to see the day that a member of the MSM will testify, honestly, and answer these questions:

--  Given the obvious proof of your partisanship, how can you still call yourselves journalists?

--  Do you see any parallels with what you do and what Josef Goebbels did?

--  Do you think you should return any and all awards received for the Russia collusion hoax story?

--  Do you agree with Lester Holt's statement that both sides of an issue no longer need to be aired?  Explain.

--  Is there an incestuous relationship between the MSM and the Democratic Party?

--  Can you explain how virtually every major network -- CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC -- uses the same phrase when attacking or defending against conservatives?

--  Do you believe that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer?  Explain your reasoning.

--  Did Nicholas Sandman act in a racist manner or was there a rush to judgment?

--  Why did you help bury the Hunter Biden laptop story?

--  Explain what CRT is and why it is useful?

--  Do you believe Edward R. Murrow would be happy with what he sees in journalism today?

--  Is it the role of the press to shape public discourse and determine who our leaders are?  Explain.

--  Are half-truths and full omissions now acceptable in reporting?

--  Should journalists be liable for lying or misreporting stories to the public?

(c) 2023 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Reward Programs

Reward programs are great things conceptually.  Patrons are rewarded for being loyal with bonuses, whether they be free products, discounts on purchases or cash.  The trouble with reward programs, however, is the wide gulf in quality between the programs.  

There are a number of factors that go into making a good rewards program.  The nature of the reward, the difficulty in qualifying for the reward, the ease of redeeming the reward and the consistency of the program.  The first three are self-evident.  The last is harder to define but easier to describe.

I belong to several reward programs.  I love the idea of getting stuff for free.  I blame Columbia House records.  Back in the day, one could order one album and get twelve free.  Before that, even, the Military Book Club was ridiculous:  Buy four books for a penny, pay shipping and handling and have no obligation to buy anything further.  I abused this horribly.  After every order I would cancel my membership only to receive the same offer from MBC a couple of months later.  I probably got about forty-eight hardbound books for nothing more than shipping and handling of each four-book order; shipping and handling then being no more than $12.95.  So for $155.40, I bought books that ranged from $25 to $40; I estimate that I bought roughly $1,000.00 for $155.40.  It took Military Book Club a while to catch on.

The sad thing about it was Book of the Month Club had the same program.  Yes, I abused that one, too.

Nowadays it seems that every retailer has some version of a rewards program.  Some are better than others.  A few are downright horrible.

In my experience, this is what I've found:

Speedway:  I like this program because I get points for every purchase.  In the age of Man of Dementia, I can get .25-.50 off a gallon of case, which is very helpful.  And all I need is my password, which I've made easy to remember.

Panera:  Another easy to use program, all I have to give them is my phone number.  The downside with Panera is that their rewards are miserly.  I may get a free muffin or scone after eight visits.  

Kroger:  Another valuable rewards program when it comes to buying gas.  Kroger has surveys that earn fifty points every week.  For every one hundred points I earn I get ten cents off a gallon.  All I have to do is buy something -- anything -- and then do the survey at the end of the week and I get at least twenty cents off a gallon each month. My purchases count dollar for dollar, and gift cards count two or four times the point, depending on the season.  During the summer, weekend purchase earn double the points.  Every bit helps in the age of Man of Dementia.

Arbys:  I get a free sandwich on my birthday.  Otherwise, it's worthless.

McDonalds:  This one's relatively new.  With each purchase I earn points, but the points expire after a certain time.  The free items I can purchase are niggardly; it takes a ton of points to earn a small ice cream cone, for example.  To earn anything of significance would mean I'd have to eat myself into a diabetic coma over a month of purchases first.  Then, points expire after a certain time...but I'm never sure when they're going to expire.

Chilis:  Who knows how this program works?  I give them my phone number every time, but so far the only thing I've been able earn is free chips and salsa.

Outback Steakhouse:  By far the worst of the programs.  There is no rhyme or reason as to how, or when, I can earn rewards, what the rewards are or if there's even a program.  Considering how expensive Outback has gotten, it's all irrelevant now.

(c) 2023  The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Big Tech and the First Amendment

There were some Congressional hearings this week of interest to the nation.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many people paid attention.

The House Oversight Committee brought four former Twitter employees in to explain themselves and the way they censored people.  There were two topics of particular interest:  Covid-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story.  In each case, these four people made decisions not based on their elevated expertise, but on craven political considerations.  They banned conservatives and newspapers over the Biden laptop, they banned Stanford- and Harvard-trained doctors over the Covid-19 matters...and they did it with the complicity of the FBI.

Democrats on the committee repeatedly claimed that the committee was wasting its time, that it should instead be doing work the improve the country.  I'm sure Republicans made similar claims during the Watergate hearings.  

That Democrats are doing everything they can to deflect because they realize that, finally, the laptop has been verified as authentic and that the money trail will lead back to Man of Dementia.  They are scared to death that the support they have in the country will disappear despite the co-opted MSM.  They fear power slipping from their grip.  And they would be right to worry were it not for a MSM that has totally lost its way.  I've said it many times:  The fourth estate has turned into a fifth column.

Once the Republicans retook the House, I hoped that they would not turn revenge into a series of endless committees as payback for the insanity that was the last Congress.  I made exceptions for two things:  The laptop story and the FBI, and big tech and the First Amendment.  Representative Jim Jordan is a bulldog, and I admire the way he's grilling these four.  

Alas, I'm not sure that any of this will bear fruit.  With the majority of the MSM wedded to the Left, there's little chance of fair and accurate reporting that will make its way to the electorate.  That means that there will still be voters who believe the pablum the Left is serving them, despite facts to the contrary.

It is doubtful that anyone will hail what he has done, but Elon Musk has done the country a huge favor by releasing the Twitter Files.  Matt Taibi, Bari Weiss and others have done yeoman's work sifting through the evidence to present an unbiased report of just what Twitter under these four traitors was doing.

It will never happen, but I'd like to see these four have their heads shaved in public as was done to collaborators with the Nazis in countries like the Netherlands, France and Italy.  They could be branded with a scarlet T and left to their devices in the general public.  I don't want them shot because then they'd be martyred.  

We're only in the first stages of this national travesty.  

(c) 2023 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Years Too Late and Many Dollars Short

At my advanced age, I've seen a lot of progress, both societally as well as with inventions.  Granted, I haven't seen nearly as much progress as my Mother did, considering that she was born in 1931.  But I have seen my share of progress.

Lately, I've been thinking about all the things that have come to pass since the time when I got too old to do anything about them.  I've missed out on some fun.

For example, the sport of paintball.  I used to run around the neighborhood with a fake Daniel Boone flintlock playing war.  Putting aside the anachronism, I would envision killing nazis or Japs with my rifle, hiding behind bushes or trees and shooting it out with the bad guys.  The concept of paintball just didn't exist.   The closest thing we had was the game Capture the Flag...but that didn't involve shooting anyone.

Flavored potato chips didn't exist.  Sure, there might have been barbecue-flavored chips, but not sour cream and chive, mezquite, jalapeno, cheddar, dill or whatever other flavor tickled your palate.  Now, there's a surfeit of flavors available to anyone.  And don't even mention Pringles.

When we were younger, when one got a soft drink, we had to make it last.  There was no such thing as free refills.  Nowadays, free refills are the norm.  Thank you, Taco Bell, the company that made this happen.  Fortunately, I was able to partake from this for a few years before I learned how bad soft drinks were for you.  But I still benefit from free refills of iced tea -- unsweet iced tea.  Not that dreck that is mistakenly called sweet tea.

I love to travel.  I'm pretty good at navigating, and (most) foreign cultures intrigue me.  Why, o' why, didn't The Amazing Race exist when I was still young enough to do it?  Sure, I could do it now, but I'd lose to anyone able to run in a final sprint.  I was never fleet of foot, but at least I could pick 'em up and put 'em down.  I can barely hobble now.  I've seen places on that show that I'd never see otherwise; I wonder what it would have been like to see them in person -- and on the show's dime.

Other things like cycling were around when I was younger, but I knew next to nothing about them.  Until I lived in Spain and watched Greg LeMond get screwed over by Bernard Hinault in the Tour de France, I had no conception of competitive cycling.  I don't know that I would have made a good cyclist, given my girth, but I would have enjoyed trying the sport.

Likewise, the Navy SEALs are now a very prominent, special forces group.  They are, arguably, the most dangerous special forces unit in the world.  Growing up, I knew nothing about them.  As with cycling, I knew nothing about them growing up, but I might have tried to join them.  I may not have been qualified enough to make it, but I might well have tried.

There are so many other things that have come to be that would have been nice to have when I was young enough to enjoy them.  But now I'm depressed...

(c) 2023 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Tony Timpa, Edward Bronstein and George Floyd

 On August 10, 2016, Tony Timpa was killed by Dallas police.  Mr. Timpa was white.

On March 31, 2020, Edward Bronstein was killed by California Highway Patrol officers.  Mr. Bronstein was white.

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police.  Mr. Floyd was black.

Only one of these murders made national headlines.

The murder of George Floyd sparked nationwide protests, riots and a movement to defund the police.

The murders of Tony Timpa and Edward Bronstein barely made national news.

Today, I was listening to a podcast when I first learned of the murders of Mr. Timpa and Mr. Bronstein.  I was gobsmacked.  Where was the outrage in the MSM for these heinous murders?  I'd like to think I'm fairly well informed, but I'd never heard these men's names, much less what happened to them.

I'm livid.  Not that two white men were murdered, but that two men were murdered in by police, -- one of them -- Mr. Bronstein -- in a fashion eerily similar to the method employed to kill Mr. Floyd.  Yet nary a word was mentioned in the MSM.  No panels were conducted on police brutality, no calls for defunding the police were made, no riots ensued.  No politicians took to the floors of the House or Senate to descry the obvious violations of the decedents' civil rights.  Man of Dementia said nothing.  It's as if these deaths didn't occur.

This week, that proto-racist Caryn Elaine Johnson on The View suggested that perhaps the killings of black men, such as Tyre Nichols, wouldn't happen so much if white people were killed like black people were being killed by the police.  Interestingly, tenured Professor Roland Fryer of Harvard published a paper with his findings that blacks were not more likely to be shot by police than whites.  Professor Fryer is a genius.  For his troubles, the woke mob invoked #MeToo attacks on him, other professors criticized his methodology and Harvard ultimately suspended him for two years, then closed his lab and forbade him from hiring assistants.  He can only teach graduate courses.  A documentary has been produced that posits that the allegations against Professor Fryer are merely a sham to allow Harvard to smear him and his study, thereby discrediting both.  

All three deaths were the result of police conduct that was criminal and actionable.  Three men lost their lives unnecessarily.  But given that two of the three were white, it can't be that the deaths were result of white supremacy or racist behavior.  

I have long argued that, as with any profession, there is good and bad.  The police are no different.  There's an Internal Affairs division for a reason.  Even within the legal profession there is good and bad.  I know this firsthand:  At one of my last jobs, the person who was hired to replace me after I left the firm was later charged with and found guilty of being a peeping Tom.  Not once, but twice, the second time while wearing an ankle monitor.  Ironically, perhaps, this attorney is black.

When it comes to police malfeasance, I submit that this is Barney Fife Syndrome.  Those familiar with the Andy Griffith Show will remember the feckless deputy who thought he was big and bad because he carried a badge and a guy.  There are, I submit, cops that have that mindset in this country.  Sure, sadly there are racists in our society; I'm convinced a judge before whom I appear now and then is a racist.  He, too, is black.  So I'm not suggesting that racism is dead and gone in this country.  I know it exists.  But given its status as a lightning rod, I suggest that we look first at other reasons for the misbehavior.  Finding that a cop has an inferiority complex, a God complex or a need to overcome how he was treated in high school is not nearly as divisive as branding the cops are racist.

Politically, I'm a Marxist:  I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.  The Democrats and the Republicans are more partisan than we've ever seen them, but to a degree, that's natural.  Political parties are necessarily partisan.

But the MSM that claims to front power with the truth, is the real enemy.  Its selective story telling, its editorial ways, its condescension to the very public it claims to serve, is the bigger problem.  The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.  

(c) 2023 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles 

PD:  If Mr. Timpa and Mr. Bronstein are googled, videos similar to the one shown ad nauseum about Mr. Floyd's murder can be found.

Conversation as Intervention

With the rise of BLM and the #MeToo movements, there has been a constant theme across the Left when it comes to addressing concerns raised by people not within those movements:  Let's Have a Conversation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The people who claim to want to have a conversation only want the chance to hector, humiliate and lecture people who do not bend the knee.

How do I know this?  Well, because I've tried to have conversations with people, both online and in person.  What usually happens is that I'm told I need to educate myself.  Considering that I read upwards of forty books a year -- none of them in the James Patterson or Maeve Binchy categories -- and that I listen to podcasts involving people who are on both sides of an issue, I'd like to think I'm educated beyond what most people are.  Admittedly, I don't know everything about every issue, and I'm painfully uninformed when it comes to statistics -- as some say, statistics can mean whatever a speaker wants them to mean -- but I'm relatively conversant about most hot-button issues.  My rhetorical style doesn't lean on too much sarcasm or snark, I don't revile my opponent and I don't insult people, generally, although if someone starts a fight, I'll finish it.

During the Obama administration, I got into it with a couple of black guys about Trump, and how racist he is.  Perfect he ain't, but I don't think he's particularly racist.  I was harangued about my support of Trump -- it was more of a defense, but OK...-- and told I had drunk Kool Aid.  The conversation took the inevitable turn into systemic racism, and Michael Brown was brought up.  To them, it was clear the cop was a dyed-in-the-wool racist and was only looking to gun down the first black guy who provoked him.  But when I brought up Eric Holder's DOJ autopsy which, on pages 88 and 89, stated that Brown was rushing at the cop when he was shot...the discussion abruptly ended.  See, they didn't want to have a conversation:  They wanted to hector me until I apologized for being white.

In my time, I've been around plenty of horses' asses of the male variety.  I know of one guy who, in high school, slept with a fellow student on her birthday and then broke up with her immediately after.  So I'm quite prepared to defend a woman who makes a credible accusation of rape or sexual harassment.  But I've also known that some women, for whatever reason, will make claims that are unsupported by the facts simply to impugn a guy.  Take the Brian Banks case, the Duke lacrosse cases and the UVA frat case for starters.  And those are just the most visible cases.

Gun control always brings out zealots.  Despite never having touched a firearm, much less fired one, gun control advocates will point to the need to get rid of all semi-automatic assault rifles, asking rhetorically why weapons of war are needed by anyone.  When the difference between automatic and semi-automatic is finally explained to them, and when statistics about murders by cars and knives are raised, the discussion ends, because it's not a conversation that was sought, but an intervention.  When the person who is the subject of the intervention is resistant, the conversation abruptly ends.  That the intervenors might be proven wrong, or that they may admit that their point of view needs correction, is not a possibility.  Only the complete and utter capitulation of the interlocutor is acceptable, and once it becomes evident that that's not going to happen, the conversation ends.

So spare me the entreaties to converse.  No matter what LeBron James says, I don't need education.  I'm not omniscient like those who want to convert me.  But I am analytical, I am well read and I'm no fool.

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott, I'm not about to change my beliefs as one would change his coat with the weather.

(c) 2022 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

The Twitter Files: This Millenium's Watergate

 When I first heard about Twitter, I asked someone what it was about.  After I heard what people were tweeting, I decided no one needed to hear what I had for lunch.  Obviously, I underestimated the importance of the medium, but I am nevertheless very happy I never opened an account.

Over the last six years, there's been a firestorm over Twitter, who can be on Twitter, what can be said on Twitter, and how Twitter censored certain viewpoints.  Generally speaking, I suppose I don't understand what all the fuss is about.  But upon further inspection, something very invidious took place.

Earlier this year, Tesla owner Elon Musk bought Twitter.  We can only guess at his motives, but thank goodness he did.  Upon taking over, Mr. Musk opened up the files of his new company and allowed two independent -- and it should be pointed out, left-leaning -- journalists, Matt Taibi and Bari Weiss, to report on what they discovered.  What's been reported not only has rocked the nation, but it's also confirmed what many have suspected for a long time:  Twitter censored viewpoints with which it disagreed, shadow banned some people, and did other things to tweets that made them unavailable to viewers.  What people didn't suspect, however, was that not only was it members of Twitter that were engaged in the censorship but that these Twitter employees were working in tandem with the FBI and the Biden presidential campaign.

It goes without saying that as a private company, Twitter was well within its rights to publish whatever it wanted, as well as censor whatever it wanted.  Where the line was crossed, however, was when it was getting direction from the FBI, a unit of the federal government.  It's also questionable whether the Biden campaign's involvement crossed constitutional lines (if the Biden campaign received federal funds, I contend, it was thereby a quasi-governmental unit bound by the Constitution in the same way a university received federal funding is).  So while Twitter would otherwise have the right to do with its platform whatever it liked (withing constitutional reason, of course), once the FBI and the Biden campaign got involved, the equation was queered.

Why this is at all relevant is that two topics had a direct impact on the 2020 election.  First, the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco -- was the laptop the product of Russian operatives or real, were the emails contained therein Russian disinformation, was Man of Dementia involved in influence peddling -- had a crucial bearing on the election.  From certain reports, as much as 17% of Biden voters would not have voted for him had they been told the truth of the laptop story.  Depending on where those voters lived, that could have changed the outcome of the vote and therefore the results of the Electoral College.  

The other story that was suppressed was the origins of Covid.  Debate raged as to not only the origins of the virus, but also whether the vaccines and the masks were effective.  How did this impact the 2020 election?  Not having all the perspectives out on the table allowed certain states, such as Pennsylvania, to alter the voting rules to favor the Democrats over the Republicans.  It's a little like allowing the home team to move the goalposts when the other team has the ball to make it much harder for it to score.

Now that Republicans have taken back the House, I earnestly hope they don't go tit-for-tat with investigations to pay back the Democrats.  I do, however, hope they launch investigations into Hunter Biden and the FBI.  If Republicans regain both the presidency and the Senate while holding onto the House in 2024, they need to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold social media companies accountable for such invidious, undemocratic behavior.

(c) 2022 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles