Cases in point. According to the Media, "thousands of Jewish Settlers and Radicals took to the streets of Hebron..." Gee, when did Israeli's become "activists" when traveling to Hebron, a City with Jewish ties since Abraham purchased it from the local populace thousands of years ago? By claiming Israeli "activists settlers" came and disrupted the lives of the majority of Arabs living there, the Media conveniently forgets to mention two teenage Israeli's where shot by (a) Arab sniper(s). When the IDF went to find the snipers, the Media portrayed them as "thugs" attempting to further ruin the lives of "innocent Palestinians." In the United States, would Americans demand the police ignore stabbings and shootings because the perpetrators are "misunderstood?" Of course not. When the Media begins to accurately portray Arabs hell-bent on killing Jews, (when hell freezes over) and Arabs stabbing Jews is beyond (as the Media claims) "allegations," then and only then will we have true expectations for peace (see https://www.facebook.com/kikarashabat/videos/1089737411050687/). Until then, those picking up guns, knives, swords and rocket launchers will remain in denial (and according to the Media. Moreover, it is difficult to believe Palestinians could have lost "occupied territory" that never belonged to them. In 1948 when Israel was formally recognized by the World, the "occupied territory" they claim as their own was possessed by Jordan and Egypt. The Jews are not "crusaders" whose goal was to destroy Islam. Israel is not the impediment to peace. If you think I am wrong, please wake up and realize more Arabs have slaughtered Arabs in Israel's 67 years of formal existence. Reality sucks, but nevertheless, remains reality.
On the local front, I heard two folks proclaim as fact different themes that are also incorrect. One mentioned that Hillary Clinton will never be the Democratic Party's nominee because she is going to be indicted for releasing classified emails. So convinced was the speaker of this remark, he went on to say the FBI has already determined that Clinton will be indicted and sent to jail. Except, the FBI has disclosed nothing of the sort as their investigation remains pending. When I asked the speaker of the remark to inform me where I could find this information so I can report it in my weekly blog, they could only claim they heard it "in the news." But what news? We have all begun to read "Breaking Stories" in the Media that this or that "may" happen, but nothing factual about what has happened. It is purely speculation designed to direct the reader to a conclusion, not based on fact. This has been my point all along. The Media no longer is interested in informing the public about real news, they simply want to "excite" their audience into jumping to conclusions so they can retain their readers, listeners and viewership by tossing out a steady diet of partisan candy. Selective perception and reinforcement is the only thing that drives advertising numbers via audience share. The Media and partisan politicians know this best. They have collectively gotten quite good at misleading the public into doing the real thinking for them. After all, who needs an electorate that can think for itself? Politicians certainly don't want US to be able to think, that's for sure. They simply want us to follow.
Which leads me to another fallacy being spoken. A friend working in real estate was asked about the condition of the real estate market. When he began to describe the market, he hit all of the indicators that made sense...until he said the markets are "flimsy" because the economic recovery is a "Jobless Recovery" and therefore is susceptible to collapse. Except in our region (Southwest Florida), the market here is driven by a combination of baby boomers tiring of Northern winters and heading towards retirement. But where does the notion arise that the recovery has been without the creation of jobs? The Wall Street Journal just posted the jobs recovery on their cover page (See WSJ Saturday/Sunday, November 7, 2015 Edition). According to the Journal, "U.S. Employers, added jobs in October at the quickest pace this year, while boosting wages at the fastest rate since 2009..." "The unemployment rate fell to 5%." "Average hourly earnings of private-sector workers rose at a 2.5% annual pace in October. That marked the best year-over-year performance since July 2009." But some have been led to believe from partisan pundits that the jobs picture is skewed because so many have given up hope for finding employment. That's all fine and good and I get it. But I heard the exact same language being said by Liberals during Ronald Reagan's presidency and it was the Conservatives that blew back with statistical proof that employment was improving. But, being the Crank that I am, I remember the 1980's because I was paying attention, while apparently, many others were not (or weren't alive yet). So what gives when it comes to unemployment? It depends upon one's political perspective. The old "glass is have empty vs. half full" is certainly at play here. But as The Wall Street Journal even recognizes, 5% unemployment is solid economic news. The GOP's response? "We could have made it better and deeper!" But at 5%, how much better could they have made it? Even the GOP Nominee Mitt Romney promised in 2008 that unemployment would drop to 6% by the end of his first four years in office. Recognize he did not qualify his promise that unemployment for those who gave up looking would impact his claim (See: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/romney-unemployment-six-percent-/1#.Vj95pK6rTBI). So if America has not had a recovery of any real jobs, where exactly have all those new jobs been? I often enjoy speaking to groups and asking them to reflect on their personal economic well-being. I am frequently reminded that things are very bad in America...except when it comes to their own personal situations. Somehow, folks complain a lot when in reality, a majority of what they complain about has no relationship to their own lives. To what can we attribute this phenomena? I'm putting my chips on the Media.
And now we have the hoopla about the "others" running for president on the GOP side. I feel sorry for anyone that puts together a serious run for political office, let alone a national one like the presidency. The endless modern campaign has become a game of "attack, trick, attack, trick and expose"; except this process makes it difficult for any decent people to run in the first place. And attacking our government seems to be the golden ticket with some candidates. It's always the government's fault. It's inefficient, sloppy and wasteful. Yet, these same folks complain when private businesses fail without appreciating that most fail because they are undercapitalized, inefficient, sloppy and wasteful. Instead of following the doomsday prognosticators, wouldn't it be nice to follow those that promote the good in all of us instead of the evil in some of us? Wouldn't it be nice to hear a candidate that rarely (if ever) resorts to attacks against fellow candidates and never lies and panders to partisans for their support? Wouldn't it be nice for political leaders to tell the people the truth instead of what they perceive we want to hear? Isn't it time we have leaders that lead instead of follow the paths of least resistance to lead a government they believe in rather than falsely assert it needs to be destroyed? I know, I'm dreaming. But wouldn't it be a fantastic dream if it could someday come true?
As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote; "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." When will Americans wake up and realize its high time we start dealing with real issues instead of the rhetoric from the political parties and their supporting Media? Have a great week!