http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/14/media/trump-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-theories-obama/index.html
"The worlds already fu*%ed, I'm just adding to it."
k.r.
Its politics, and in politics there is no other way to elaborate that doesn't include talking about other people, and other points of views, that isn't in some ways confrontational. But does it have to be so negative?
I'm talking from the perspective of a recovering addict here, which began when I admitted I had a problem.
I had a deficit of information, and as it turns out, much of that information I did have amounted to something much less than the whole. In fact this was the problem -- listening to talk radio in an effort to gather more information.
A problem in listening to talk radio, and something I didn't have so much of during the 1990's -- visiting the web, is that it uses up time with very little profitable material in return, if I'm going to the same sites and shows everyday.
It turns out I did know a lot, about a lot, but I knew less about a lot than I thought I had. From the old saw that Donald Rumsfeld wrote on, I knew some known's, but I didn't even know what I didn't know. I had some really great arguments, but I didn't even know how paper thin they were, because I didn't spend my time wisely. I spent it in one place, or as the case may be, I spent a lot of time in talk radio land, driving around in my car.
But when it finally dawned on me, I wasn't too happy about it. Maybe Google was what finally facilitated my break, it is easy to verify information on the web, after all. Of course, the trick is to be not afraid of where the truth will take you. That's the hard part.
I can't tell you how many bullshit stories I revealed to myself as I kept one ear occasionally on talk radio over the years, but there are many. Many stories and rants, perspectives and conspiracies put forth from a host that were not only false, but maliciously so.
Its a racket, its a habit, its an addiction. I turn on Sean Hannity in the car and he is saying the same things he said 15 years ago. Rush Limbaugh the same, and its always and forever geared to some conspiracy to account for the news headline of the day, and all the while condemning the press for how it presents the news.
I'm really not too passionate about rescuing tortured souls from the grips of right wing talk radio, but I am adding my story for the record. I think it might inform though too, and if it does it has been well worth the time here.
Is it probable that the vast world of the free press has a more cohesive conspiracy going than the tiny world of American right wing media outlets? I don't think so.
In the end, its all about the numbers -- probabilities. Is it probable that someone is right 99% of the time? I certainly listened to some of these guys long enough to know what is tongue in cheek, and what isn't, and if veracity were any worthwhile measurement, I'm still wasting too much time listening to them.
"The worlds already fu*%ed, I'm just adding to it."
k.r.
Its politics, and in politics there is no other way to elaborate that doesn't include talking about other people, and other points of views, that isn't in some ways confrontational. But does it have to be so negative?
I'm talking from the perspective of a recovering addict here, which began when I admitted I had a problem.
I had a deficit of information, and as it turns out, much of that information I did have amounted to something much less than the whole. In fact this was the problem -- listening to talk radio in an effort to gather more information.
A problem in listening to talk radio, and something I didn't have so much of during the 1990's -- visiting the web, is that it uses up time with very little profitable material in return, if I'm going to the same sites and shows everyday.
It turns out I did know a lot, about a lot, but I knew less about a lot than I thought I had. From the old saw that Donald Rumsfeld wrote on, I knew some known's, but I didn't even know what I didn't know. I had some really great arguments, but I didn't even know how paper thin they were, because I didn't spend my time wisely. I spent it in one place, or as the case may be, I spent a lot of time in talk radio land, driving around in my car.
But when it finally dawned on me, I wasn't too happy about it. Maybe Google was what finally facilitated my break, it is easy to verify information on the web, after all. Of course, the trick is to be not afraid of where the truth will take you. That's the hard part.
I can't tell you how many bullshit stories I revealed to myself as I kept one ear occasionally on talk radio over the years, but there are many. Many stories and rants, perspectives and conspiracies put forth from a host that were not only false, but maliciously so.
Its a racket, its a habit, its an addiction. I turn on Sean Hannity in the car and he is saying the same things he said 15 years ago. Rush Limbaugh the same, and its always and forever geared to some conspiracy to account for the news headline of the day, and all the while condemning the press for how it presents the news.
I'm really not too passionate about rescuing tortured souls from the grips of right wing talk radio, but I am adding my story for the record. I think it might inform though too, and if it does it has been well worth the time here.
Is it probable that the vast world of the free press has a more cohesive conspiracy going than the tiny world of American right wing media outlets? I don't think so.
In the end, its all about the numbers -- probabilities. Is it probable that someone is right 99% of the time? I certainly listened to some of these guys long enough to know what is tongue in cheek, and what isn't, and if veracity were any worthwhile measurement, I'm still wasting too much time listening to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment