Media: How Dishonesty Distorts Political Discourse

When political socialites hear quotes from the media, we jump into action.  We all know who the political socialites are; they are people like me, who scour the internet seeking information and engaging in political arguments at every turn.  We rely on the 24 hour news cycle for a constant feed to our addiction.  If we see information we agree or disagree with, we Tweet, Digg, Stumble, Facebook, Post, Repost, Forward, Google +, Reddit, Pin It, Press it, Tumble and more it.

The problem is, what if the media who reports this information is inaccurate, or worse yet, dishonest about the information they are reporting?  If the media cannot serve as the filter, then whom can we rely upon? Ourselves and nothing more.  When quotes are taken out of context, it warps political dialogue and accomplishes little other than angering the opposition or firing up your base. Apparently, political socialites have a base as well; they are the followers, Tweeps, Likers, you get the picture.  Before we spread the fire, understand what we are spreading.  There are simple things we can do to improve the flow of information and opinions:

Liberal Persuasion 101

After writing numerous pieces, one discovers that facts do not sway Liberal minds.  Even a bulletproof case will not change their minds.  It is frustrating to many Conservatives, who are factually based reasoners, in general.  The reason we cannot change Liberal minds through facts?  Liberals rely on emotion more than fact to arrive at decisions.

Let's face it, there is something very different between Liberals and Conservatives.  Many people struggle to comprehend the differences.  Just like anything these days, there are studies.  Of course, most of the politics revolve around psychology.  The excerpt, below, best summarized arguing with the Liberal mentality.

You don’t tell your opponent what to think or what’s best. You help them discover for themselves what feels right and best and most advantageous to them. Their ultimate decision is based on self-interest. That’s emotional. I want this. This is good for me and my side. (Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making)

State of the Onion, I Mean Union

This traditional speech, 

given by every President since George Washington, is filled with drama.  Or, at least, people act like it.  One side stands and claps and hollers, while the other sits stoical in opposition to the proposals of the President.  During the past decade, there is little difference between the parties in practice. But, the State of the Union is the place to be seen and sometimes heard.

This year promises to be much like recent years; full of yelling "you lied," and threats and blame spoken in every passage.  Maybe, if we are lucky, someone will throw a shoe!

The outward appearance of outrage will mostly be feigned.  However, legitimate looks of disgust can and will be found in the audience.   Ah, if only the looks from real Americans were transmitted from homes across America!  Shoes will be thrown, surely "you lied" or worse will be yelled, and the looks would be quite interesting.

Great People of America, Lend Me Your Pickles!

Political discourse has eroded into name calling, labeling, and just plain animosity.  Many find this trend disturbing and seek clean conversation with "the other side." There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but we are better than this!  We have a rule, like many families, in our home to prevent foul language and name calling.  And, trust me, it works!  So, let's just try it in political discourse.

Is there any better way to get an argument calmed down than humor?  Yes, this is childish, but so is calling someone Libtard or Republitard.  Instead, insert your favorite snack.  In my house, we insert pickle as the substitute.  There is nothing better than yelling at your son, for poor behavior, and throwing in pickle at the end.  Let me demonstrate from experience, "Will, stop hitting your sister; you are acting like such a pickle!"  And, this causes three reactions.

Discrimination: Over Used and Abused

We see it all the time, calls of discrimination.  Certain groups, organizations and classes especially use this word excessively.  Discrimination is used so excessively that it has lost its' true meaning.  In political circles and discussion, discrimination is used as leverage in discussion, especially against those on the Right.  Discrimination affects everyone in their daily lives; it is not one class, race, religion, or sex that is affected.

Discrimination, as defined by Merriam-Webster is:

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

In reality, everyone is treated unfairly or differently in some way in our country.  There are 314 million individuals, all different, who are discriminated against in their own way.

First and foremost, it must be understood that we are a nation of discriminatory laws.  Each law we have enacted, discriminates against some person in our country.  Laws are made to protect us from each other, however, in doing so create a maze of discrimination.

For example, tax laws are complex and affect everyone differently.  Based on socioeconomic status, we are taxed at different rates, with varying deductions, credits, and so forth.  In general, if you are deemed high income, you pay a larger percentage than those with low incomes. Is this not discrimination against high income earners?  After all, they are being singled out for their income.  Sure, the argument can be made about the fairness of this practice.  But, who decides what fair is?  This is up to people's interpretation and personal discriminatory belief systems.

Laws have been enacted to discourage discrimination based upon race over the years.  These laws cause more discrimination through, again, judgement of what is discrimination.  These laws, much more needed in the past, created a safety net that protected individuals in the workplace.  Over time, these laws now protect minorities from poor performance at work. Companies have become so scared of lawsuits, based on discrimination laws, they can hardly release a minority for job performance.  A protected race could claim discrimination, based on their race, rather than performance. Is it not discriminatory to hold others to higher standards because they are not of a specific race?  That being said, there is no doubt that racism (a form of discrimination) does exist.  But, even this is debatable as to whom are racists.  As I discussed in Is Racism Only a White Phenomenon?, racism exists across all races.

One of the founding principles of our nation was, and still is, freedom of religion. Discrimination, based on religion, is also protected under the law.  As a nation of many religions, our system of laws cannot help but discriminate against people for their religious beliefs.  One of the most prominent questions surrounding the ACA is a conflict between sexism and religious freedom.  The conflict arises out of the requirement that all plans must provide birth control for women, however, this conflicts with the Catholic belief system which opposes birth control.  This conflict will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court in the future.

While the left seeks to resolve discrimination through law; the right seeks to resolve to discrimination through knowledge and understanding.  The right understands that, no matter the amount of laws enacted, discrimination will be inherited through those laws.  It is because of this, we do not support law as a way to resolve discrimination; it only adds to the discrimination that is already at issue.  It is interpreted, by the left, that the right does not care about discrimination, which couldn't be further from the truth.  The law, in our eyes, should look at everyone regardless of their traits or beliefs on an equal level.  No one should be treated better or worse based upon the laws of the land.

Cries of discrimination are commonplace now, lessening true discrimination for lesser and sometimes, pointless discrimination suits being filed.  It is this over use and abuse of the word that has made discrimination as convoluted as our tax law.

Political discourse has dumbed itself down to the point where people are randomly called all sorts of -ists without recourse or reason.  If you oppose Obama's policies, you are deemed a racist.  Oppose gay marriage, you are called homophobic; believe women should pass the same test to become a firefighter as men, you are sexist.  The list goes on and on.  And, because of this, it is hard to take anyone serious when these accusations are thrown out.

At some point, or numerous times, everyone is discriminated against.  It may be a person, the law, or accusation without cause.  The overuse and abuse have lost the meaning of true discrimination.  Instead, we are stuck with an unending list of supposed discrimination. Discrimination is real, it affects everyone, and it will continue until we move away from legislating it and teaching respect for one another.