Is The Fake News Real- Rockville and Landon Edition


Is The Fake News Real? Rockville and London Edition

By Spencer Harris

Is The Fake News Real? Rockville and London News(Written in ironic pentameter)

Why is there seemingly more and more fake news stories being circulated to the public? One reason is the exponentially increasing number of sources. There are thousands upon thousands of websites, magazines, newspapers and news channels that produce information every minute of every day. Here at Taylored Thoughts, we take pride in writing real stories about fake news (Some of us under our pseudonyms) to enrich the minds of our readers. This is not to say that 100% of the population blindly follows what is fed to them by the media. Whatever that number is, let's say 30%, it is then multiplied by word of mouth or social media or through other various channels. It would be fair to estimate that any story could be accepted by 45% of the people out there waiting to consume it. The premise that controlling the content of the media means controlling the masses is common sense logic. Though there are exceptions and some room for argument, most news outlets in America are in step with the policies and ideology of the Democratic Party. This prioritizes and drives the stories they cover as well as the stories they ignore.

Two recent and tragic events within as many weeks clearly put this into perspective. Unfortunately, the lack of a source of information on one side necessitates some speculation. However, using historical media practices, it becomes easy to fill in the pattern. The most recent event was a terror attack in London. A radicalized, London-born Muslim named Khalid Masood (born Adrian Russell Elms) used an automobile to drive across Westminster Bridge ultimately arriving at the north side of Parliament. Along the way, he ran over and stabbed several people leaving five people dead including one officer and himself.

The other incident involved the brutal rape of a 14-year-old freshman girl in Rockville, Maryland by two illegal immigrants – one an 18-year-old Guatemalan, the other, a 17-year-old El Salvadorian (called “dreamers” because it sounds so noble I suppose). Both were, curiously enough, also freshmen at the same high school. This gruesome act happened in the school’s bathroom on March 16th at 9 A.M.

Both instances are horrific in nature. One happened on this side of the globe and was national in scope. The other occurred in a country that is a reflection of our own but has been ensnared in the globalization concept of an open Europe. I suppose if you had to weigh it without diminishing the importance of another, a terrorist attack would garner more attention. When I went searching for additional details of the story, I found exactly what I expected to find. The terror attack was downplayed to a lesser degree while the story was breaking. As I was following the London attack, one thing hit me: the London police said they were (and I am paraphrasing here) treating it as a terror incident until they had information proving otherwise. CNN's website referred to it as a “London Incident.” When researching the Rockville story, I unexpectedly found that national news reports for CBS, NBC, and ABC along with cable’s CNN and MSNBC gave a combined total of ZERO coverage time to the Rockville rape. A story this tragic and potentially impactful was ignored by some of the biggest names in the information industry. In one of their prouder moments, CNN did manage to squeeze in a hard-hitting report about how President Trump was "afraid of stairs" - a man who has built some of the tallest buildings in the world and who frequently deboards airforce one by walking down a mobile stairway.

If you have paid attention at all to the news cycle, you know this lack of coverage happens, and you also know why. The left in America continues to bend over backward to find new reasons why America and the intolerant western culture are to blame for the outrage of certain Islamic terrorists. There is a moral imperative on our part to put our safety aside while making sure any incident involving radical Islamic terror does not necessarily mean ALL Muslims are bad people. No shit. Any rational person will generally give people the benefit of the doubt before condemning them. It is the same rationale that tells me the left, in general, is fraudulent when they say things like “cops kill black people,” “we should all pay more taxes” or “Republicans hate immigrants.”

This brings me to why the network news affiliates were lacking in their coverage of the Rockville rape story. The Democrats use the media much the same way they use immigrants and the impoverished inner cities to spread their marketing. The media is the awkward debate student, and the Democrats are the starting quarterback. As such, the media will do anything their friends on the left need or want. It is difficult to say that the Democratic Party is directly controlling the media programming, but many network executives have political ties through marriage or direct relation.

Currently, illegal immigration is a political goldmine for the left. They portray the president and his policy of (brace yourself) upholding the law as somehow inhumane. I would argue that enforcing the law could have prevented the Rockville student’s rape, or Kate Steinle’s death and is, therefore, the most humane path to take. Apprehending criminal immigrants who are here illegally was one of the promises the President made during his campaign, and he is holding true to it. The left hates this policy and continues to drive a narrative of resistance. I have asked, researched, got ridiculously high in an effort to alter my thought processes and still have not figured out why. They will say, “We are a nation of immigrants”(not applicable to Elizabeth Warren). Again, I know this, but they make no designation between illegal and legal immigrants. There is also no line between immigrants – who are people – and immigration – which is a policy. I see no compassion for this plight of injustice once the cameras turn off and the lights go out. Every one of those legislators has a fence around their houses and locks on their doors. However, they continue to foster and encourage local and state governments to defy federal law thus creating anarchy. Uber-liberal politicians like New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio further cultivate fear by telling families that ICE agents will come to schools and churches to apprehend illegal immigrants. They use public resources to “educate” them on how to handle ICE agents as far as asking for a warrant, not talking without an attorney, etc. "We must not separate families," they say. Tell that to the Steinle's.

Fortunately, this tactic looks to be failing as evidenced by the amount of red that was on the electoral map in November. However, they continue to push false narratives and redirect information to fit their message. Unfortunately, without an email, office memo or phone call recording (shout out to Wikileaks and the CIA), there can be no direct evidence to show this, so it will have to remain a theory. It sounds a little wild until you see how many stories about the supposedly Russians rigging the elections that CNN runs daily. I am convinced it is on a loop. As a news organization that runs on integrity, why would you continue to run periodic reports on something with no proof for months? Compare that to zero coverage on a story that should make everyone sick with concern. While you are in a thinking mood, ask yourself who would benefit the most from pushing fake stories while giving not a single second to something like the rape of a child. What is more important to us as a nation? CNN should be out of business. The fake news is out there without a doubt, and it is not exclusive to pushing inaccuracies. The information determined by them to be unfit to broadcast can be just as telling as something inaccurate. Sifting through the garbage to try and find something of use is definitely a full-time job, but hopefully, your new-found logic proves it to be a vital one.

BREAKING NEWS: Maddow is a Moron


BREAKING NEWS: Maddow is a Moron

By Spencer Harris and Rose Taylor

Well, that was underwhelming. After a massive build-up about President Trump's Tax return unveiling, one thing was finally proven: President Donald J. Trump is a very wealthy man who paid the legally required amount of taxes. He even filed them correctly which is more than I can say for myself. So thank you, Rachel Maddow, for showing the country once again that the left will run like hell without thinking to try and put forth the slightest possibility that the President might have done something wrong at some point in his life.

The night began with a tweet from Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, claiming they had President Trumps tax returns (seriously).

Social media buzzed with the anticipation of what, exactly, this tweet meant. The left immediately assumed their narrative that President Trump unlawfully evaded paying his taxes would be vindicated. The right assumed that no one in the IRS would lack the mental capacity to realize that leaking President Trump's taxes (which is illegal) would be a terrible idea.

The first question I had was how these 'tax returns' came into the possession of such a hard hitting news platform? Things like Donald Trump’s 15-year-old tax return do not just show up out of the blue. It was reported that they were put in an investigative reporter’s mailbox. This "reporter"  turned out to be David K. Johnston-a Trump biographer. I am sure it was put there by the Russians – right after they gave Jack those beanstalk beans.

When I was a kid, I remember a huge build up to a Geraldo Rivera special. Rivera was going to open Al Capone’s vault on the air. He did. It was empty. That empty vault was so much better than this. At least that could have been categorized as a current event. The tax returns in question by Maddow turned out to be from 2005. First the stern warning of the highly anticipated Stella blizzard that turned out to be a dud and now this?  Hell of a great job on the news today mainstream media.

Although the focus of Maddow's report was supposed to be the newly obtained copies of President Trump's taxes, she spent 20 minutes reciting a monolog of leftist conspiracies. Her 'breaking news' turned out to be not so 'breaking.' In addition, she was outflanked by none other than the President. The White House released a statement confirming the tax return with correct numbers an hour prior to her show airing. What followed was a world-class display of journalistic desperation – and it had to be. The left has been pushing the “Trump does not pay taxes” and the “Russian” narrative since election day. They had to get something out there to (dare I hope) put some closure to it all - especially with the new narrative that the Russians were involved in President Trump's tax return for that year.

Trying desperately to conflate him with some kind of scandal, Maddow mentioned that then citizen Donald Trump bought a $40 million house in a down market and subsequently sold it for $100 million. Maddow referred to the buyer as a (dramatic pause with equally dramatic music) “Russian oligarch” that was somehow tied to a Russian bank which was, in turn, somehow associated with Wilbur Ross – the current Secretary of Commerce. Time after time there were insinuations of possible ties to Russia or something equally nefarious without offering a shred of proof and simultaneously being ominous. For good measure, she even threw in a reminder that some U.S. Attorneys were recently fired. How that relates I have no idea.

The media behaves like some sort of journalistic masochist. They keep coming back to take a beating over and over by sticking their speculative necks out only to get them chopped off while they proceed to run around like tonight’s chicken dinner. A New York Times reporter went so far as to ask someone to commit a felony by soliciting the President’s tax returns. Can anything be more desperate? These people are actually willing to violate the law just to try to make someone look bad – and might not accomplish that at all. The media is supposed to be on the side of the people, to be the watchdog for those who cannot keep a watchful eye.

Maddow's report devolved quickly into a petition being circulated and signed requesting the release of full tax returns along with pictures of chicken balloons sporting a Trump haircut. The highlight of the evening came when Maddow announced she had three whole pages of the $150 million tax return and waived them around like a winning lotto ticket. Having lost the ability to claim that President Trump evaded paying taxes, she speculated whether or not he paid enough in taxes. In the span of about an hour, the left went from “he paid zero taxes” to “he paid $38 million in taxes” to “should he have paid more?” They failed to mention that the percent of taxes that he paid was relatively high. Tucker Carlson highlighted on his show that President Trump paid more in taxes than Barak Obama or Bernie Sanders- and this was over ten years ago! Conservatives on Twitter were having a bit of fun with this new knowledge - Thank you, Rachel!


Without fail, she also touched on the question of his charitable donations. Did he donate enough? Ok then.
It appears we were all deceived once again at the thought of the news providing news. It felt much like your first sexual experience. You talk about it for six weeks, it happens, and the actual experience is not nearly what you thought it would be. We still have no proof that the Russians did anything other than what they normally do concerning the US elections and FAR less than Obama did in the Israeli elections in 2015. I am sure an Emmy nomination next year for “fearless reporting” is in the cards for Ms. Maddow. The only suspense that remains is waiting to see what memes will come of this and what the SNL skit will be this weekend.

The next theory: Donald Trump let this get out to make the mainstream media look even more incompetent. I was not aware, until now, the mainstream media could possibly look more incompetent. Maddow single handily destroyed a leftist talking point all the while believing she had stumbled upon a breaking news story. All of America was left wondering what the hell had just happened. By the way Rachel, Trump killed Kennedy and Elvis is still alive.

Oh, and in case you missed it, here are a few hilarious tweets highlighting the sheer ineptness of poor Rachel Maddow's attempt at investigative journalism. Bless her heart.

I Was a Teenage Democrat

Teenage Democrat

I Was a Teenage Democrat

By Spencer Harris

Before I became politically conscious, I was the same bright-eyed optimist determined to drown in my naiveté as many of you were at the same age. It was November of 1992 with George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. Perot was considered a fringe conservative with some good ideas and dump trucks full of money. George Bush was shooting for his second term and the fourth consecutive Republican presidential term following Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton was the former Governor of Arkansas. He was younger, less “Washington” and all over MTV.

Clinton's campaign had some strangely familiar slogans. “America is in trouble,” “The forgotten middle class,” “A new American health care plan,” “Put America to work” and “Improved education.” If that does not sound familiar, then you have not been paying attention the past two years. He was the people’s candidate while incumbent President Bush was all about Washington.

It was a no-brainer. Your parents were Republicans, and no one wanted to be like his or her parents right? Clinton was younger, playing the sax on Arsenio, smoked dope, had an earring once and was a complete womanizer. If you did not like William Jefferson Clinton, there was something wrong with you. Clinton took a narrow victory, and we were all vindicated. I am sure that I would not have considered myself a Democrat if I knew what that meant. I can say without a doubt I was certainly leaning that way.

Now, I am the "old parent", and since then I have voted straight ticket Republican in every election. I would not dream of voting Democrat today no matter the level of government. I philosophically and morally disagree with practically every position of the left. Looking back at it, though, it was not such a bad thing. The Democrats seemed to be more for the common man, the little guy, Middle American and not for big business and old, rich white guys.

During this most recent election, something hit me. I never realized how many people I knew were hard-core Democrats. I was aware of their left leanings, but I attributed it to certain things. For example, I have friends who are minorities. I have friends who are gay. I also had friends who left high school and went to college in the north or California and had adopted that geographical belief system. You know how someone feels ideologically just from having everyday discussions with them, but I have always considered them a friend first and a political adversary (for lack of a better term) second.

This election changed things. You saw people saying downright nasty things to people they had known their entire lives. I have to admit, you may have occasionally seen it from me. If someone asks me what I think, I will tell you and any offenses are a casualty of political conversation. For me, worrying about being polite in some conversations can skew the message off point and cause me to say things that are not conveyed as intended. Needless to say, the side effect of that can be a little offensive. People would email me outside of conversations I would have on social media asking what had happened to that person and what made them so intolerant.

It forced me to start to wonder how the Democratic party had changed so drastically from then to now. Democrats, in general, used to be for all the things I considered relatable. They have since morphed into militant new age liberals that are as intolerant as they are difficult to talk to. Everything is hyperbole, everyone is some sort of “ist, ” and anything bad in the world is because of America. All of this happened in a little over 20 years – a relatively short period of political time. There have been just over two presidents since Bill Clinton, and I thank God each day that one of them was not another Clinton. It has gone from disagreement and discourse to the obstruction and attempted dismantling of anything that is from the other side. You no longer have to be opposed to an idea or wait to even see what that idea might be. So what drove this change? Have we become so intolerant and divisive that we no longer hope to interact in a civil way?

Luckily for the soon to be throngs of my adoring fans, I have a theory. Before I get into all of this, if I say something that offends or irritates anyone, I absolutely do not apologize. These happen to be things I agree with and have deducted from careful observation. Republicans tend to focus on issues like the economy (good for all), national security (good for all), lower taxes (good for all) smaller and less intrusive government (good for all-see vault7). Inversely, look at Democrats. Free college (group focused), LBGTQ rights (group focused), abortion rights (group focused), global warming (group focused). There were even several democrats who publicly stated that global warming was a bigger threat than ISIS.

America is the most culturally and socially diverse country in history. We are different and there is no denying it. The Democrats use these differences and conflate them with bigotry to drive a wedge between groups of society. For example, I am against illegal immigration which is a policy and not immigrants who are people. People who are against gay marriage are labeled anti-gay. If you support law enforcement, you are racist. All of this is used to gin up fear and anxiety in an effort to divide and conquer. In the end, they get elected, ignore those groups and do it all again in four years. If you still aren’t convinced that Democrats will attack anything and anyone who has a differing opinion, try going undercover as a conservative for a month and watch your social media turn into a hate-filled chat room and probably be asked to cut your own tongue out with a rusty butter knife. You will be treated as a puppy kicker who has zero empathy for anyone not of your same race and gender. Fortunately, I grew out of that phase of my life. I don’t have to live with the constant pressure of having to shame people into enlightenment.

Hillary Clinton thought she could just Clinton her way into the presidency based on her husband’s success. That success was based on things like welfare reform, balanced budgets, and controlled immigration. Today’s Democrat party is nothing like she remembered. She was far too right of Barack Obama in 2012 and lost the primary. She could not sell the fact that she was as far left as Bernie or Warren in 2016. As a result, her party wavered in their support and stayed home. Donald Trump won the presidency on many of the same tenants her husband won on in 1992 - including being on TV as much as possible. Both parties are changing. The Republicans are becoming more centrist and populist while the Democrats are becoming more and more radical. The good things in society – success, law & order, responsibility, etc. – are now seen as character flaws or tools of oppression. They use clever marketing schemes to advance their agendas while simultaneously guilting the “main stream” into submission. Illegal immigrants are “dreamers”, gun control becomes “gun responsibility”, welfare becomes “entitlements”.

Calling it whatever you want will not change the fact that the Democratic Party is lost. It has become the party of the few and not the many. They need to realize that America is not some pit of evil sitting in the middle of the western hemisphere. America is a great place. No country is more generous, more prosperous, more successful, more pioneering, or more innovative. I’m not sure how they lost sight of that. Maybe it wasn’t enough for them or maybe the party has been hijacked. Either way, the Democratic Party is spiraling down at an alarming pace and becoming more socialist with every cause. The party has come a LONG way in 25 years, but it has gone down a progressive path that focuses on the individual and not the country. Luckily for me, I grew up and chose a different path.

The Democratic party needs a wake-up call. They are losing supporters left and right. The farther left they go, the more moderates jump ship to the Republicans. They are too blinded by their own narratives to see the imminent destruction of their party. Will they wake up and make changes? Or, contrarily, will they choose to continue down this disastrous path and wake up post-election 2018 and once again wonder why they lost "bigly"? I guess we have to wait and see. As a Republican, I hope they remain blissfully clueless. For now, watching them spiral out of control is providing better entertainment than late night TV.

Why Do We Need A Day Without a Woman

A day without a woman

Why Do We Need A Day Without a Woman? A Guys Persepctive

By Spencer Harris

As a guy with enough humble opinions to last six lifetimes, I was not incredibly surprised by the announcement of the whole 'A Day Without a Woman' thing. Sure, it seems impressive to get that many people that don’t work or who are in college to take a “personal day” to let America know that being a woman is an accomplishment to behold. It made me think; is it really? I know I am going to get ripped for this because I am a guy and can’t possibly know why this is an important day for a woman. Just speaking biologically, I have a 50/50 shot right? In fact, if you have ever seen Jurassic Park, you know that all humans start out as inherently female, but receive an extra hormone at the proper stage of development and thus become males. So in a sense, you beat the odds when you become a male – until you start dealing with females, I suppose.

As a certified representative of the male species, I feel I can speak for most of the guys out there. I do not consider myself that unique or so over-the-top intellectually that I cannot relate to, or speak for, the general male population- so here it goes. I actually went into this march  with an open mind. I am not one to do copious amounts of research and barf up stats to prove a point. I believe what I believe and you probably believe differently than me. As far as I am concerned, that is good enough. I rely more on personal experience than anything else. This is why I do not go in for couple’s therapy or any other sort of counseling. I do not believe anyone can read a book and solve my problems – the very problems they never heard until 5 minutes prior.

When I was in school, every girl I knew was, overall, a better student than me. They were smarter, more detailed and on the road to success. They did not complain when they got the worst jobs on research projects or had to pull the D student along in a group presentation or whatever. In short, almost ALL of them were ahead of me at graduation. Perhaps this is why I never bought into the “equal right” grievance. Sure, that happened in the 50’s and 60’s, but by Mary Tyler Moore, that was coming to an end- Then I tuned into yesterday’s event.

As you may or may not know, I was in DC for the original women’s march on January 21st. Everyone I talked to (a small sample of about 20) was upset or oppressed, but NONE of them could tell me why. Fast forward to yesterday, and it was déjà vu. This group of gals looked exactly like the group of students from Georgetown and George Washington Universities from late January. On top of that, the stories of schools closing since all of the teachers felt the need to project their lack of appreciation really soured this whole mess. We all know teachers, real teachers not administrators, barely live above the poverty line. It is disgusting. Now your dashing literary guide here reveres teachers above almost all others. The teachers I know do it because they want to make a difference – perhaps this was their motivation to attend the march. Sadly, they were overshadowed by the mundane, mindless chanters of what is becoming the mainstream left. Let’s start at the top. The organizer of this march was, get this, a freaking convicted terrorist who lied about her criminal past in order to gain her U.S. citizenship in 2004. She was convicted of immigration fraud in 2014. If you read her website, she sounds more like a national hero than a criminal. So immediately I thought- this is not pro-woman, but more anti-American. I know, I am jaded and unfair. Then you get this burst of genius:



So who births the other half? This ludicrous statement not only lacks common sense but does nothing to advance the grievances that plague today's modern woman. “Oh Spencer, that is the fringe left,” you say? Fine. I concede that point as narrow.

HuffPo Cate Blanchett

Here is another example from well-known actress Cate Blanchett. Generally you would not say something like this if you want to be taken seriously. 

WHAT?!?!? Now I would have to argue that if this were true, then no one would believe in abortion of any kind. Let me give you some perspective. For a guy, if your moral compass is in your penis, it actually means you have no moral compass. This may represent the intelligence and attitudes of a part, half, or the majority of the left. Who knows? The problem is that in the absence of knowledge you will plug in anything for its substitute. This is a daunting problem today and one that sabotages both sides of any argument. When you have a gathering like this, and all you hear are mindless chants and thick-headed statements, it reduces the attention paid to what may be a real problem (see the daily accusations of racism). Admittedly, I was blowing this off by the time they reached 1602 Pennsylvania Ave.

I have always thought if you were a strong woman, you did not have to tell anyone. It just came across in your aura and people knew. It transcends politics and ideology. Andrea Tantaros is a strong woman. Laura Ingraham is a strong woman. Megyn Kelly is a strong woman. Hillary Clinton projects strength, but I do not consider her a strong woman. She blames others too much for her pitfalls. You have to think about the strong women in your life. My mother is a strong woman. She left her family in Australia when she was 20 and came to America with nothing after marrying my father. My wife (who reads this and whose husband wants to buy a ’67 Camaro) is a strong woman. She puts up with me. My boss is a strong woman (see wife comment). My teachers were strong women. Most of the women I served with in the Army were stronger than most of the men I served with, and yes, my editor is a strong ass-kicking woman. Get this: strong women attract strong men and vice versa. That couple is now twice as strong, so they have strong kids and on and on. They did not need a march or a bullhorn to let people know they are strong. You just know. The strongest women around went to work yesterday to provide for their families or to keep people safe or just because that was what they thought they should do. I like to believe they are stronger because of us. Who else will open jars, smash spiders, change a light bulb, remove dead animals, bury family pets, etc.? They most likely would, but it makes us feel needed when we do those things. I did not have to watch a demonstration to know that women should be appreciated. That is up to me to do. I respect women - if for nothing else than putting up with men. The marches and demonstrations only erode that.


Now is he your President

Joint Session

So... Now is he your President?

By Spencer Harris

Can the country ever become united again? If you watch the news, you have to consider it unlikely. Tonight is President Trump’s (still sounds funny) first address to a joint session of Congress, and the country could not be more divided. Every group needs an identity to push their message whether it be LGBTQSDTC (or whatever it is now) or the Tea Party. Forging that identity requires distinguishing yourself in ways that bring your fight to the front lines to make that message the most effective. Take into account each party’s honored invitees; the difference could not be greater in contrast. The president invited, among others, Jamiel Shaw, Sr., the father of a high school football star whose son was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant in 2008. In comparison, Democrats invited several people who were essentially stuck at the airport. One of these changes our lives forever and the lives of others who will never know what they missed. The other is a problem I have gone through but is being amped up by political fervor. We have to become more focused if we are going to become the great nation we all want to be. I am not exactly sure what the direction or tone of tonight’s speech will be. The next step is to wait until the president enters Statuary Hall and proceeds into the Congress.

I am a people watcher. Anyone who has known me for any amount of time will back that up. Did anyone else see Congressman Ryan pop a Life Saver in his mouth prior to the beginning of the speech? I enjoy the pomp that goes into any presidential event. Before anything starts you can see whose side people are on and a weird twinkle in the eye of the party in power. As the president is announced and enters, the division becomes more apparent. In a show of solidarity, Congressional female Democrats tried to show a united front by wearing all white as a shout out to Queen Democrat Hillary. They didn't realize the entire internet would liken it to a Klan gathering - this was historically ironic, to say the least (If you are lost, please see the spiritually moving article “Today’s Fake News Becomes Tomorrow’s Fake History” by Spencer Harris). The applause is about 60% enthusiastic and 40% polite. You have to wonder how nervous he is. In a way, this is the first real push towards his re-election unfiltered by news or surrounded by pageantry. The first thing I notice is that his jacket is buttoned – a welcomed reversal of his inaugural address. He seems rather at ease. He approaches the podium and acknowledges the Vice President (who could be Race Bannon’s doppelganger) and the Speaker of the House, hands them a copy of the speech and is ready to begin.

After the applause dies and starts and dies again, with Melania looking so Melania, he begins. He starts off playing the hits – a recognition of Black History Month and condemnation of a recent shooting in Kansas City and other recent violent acts. There are many references to liberty and justice and of America being a torch that will light up the world. The speech is one of the dreams of a great America which has become a nightmare. He builds slowly, describing a sovereign country that has felt a need for change but has lost its way. The speech shapes up with a certain duality that aptly describes the current vibe of the country and how it is being once again returned to the people that fostered it for almost 241 years. He throws in a placating “Make America Great Again, House” and the crowd erupts – more than half of them anyway. The lack of applause is understandable. A little over 12 hours earlier the President was blaming the previous administration for information leaks and saying that one of the senior Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi, is “incompetent.” It would be hard for me to argue with their lack of enthusiasm.

His plan is bold yet grand. It is difficult to imagine how vast our visions are for the same America where we all live. He continues with his achievements since he has taken office. It is hard to believe he has only been in office for just over a month. He is not the orator that President Obama was – far from it. However, he connects in a common sense way that is easy to understand, yet far from simple. His next comment addresses his goal to build the wall and his plan to create an office called V.O.I.C.E. (Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement). In short, the program blocks any resources used to advocate for undocumented immigrants' rights and instead earmarks them to help the victims of immigrant crimes and their families. Makes sense right? This yields the most split reaction of the night – half the room stands and applauds; the other half sits and boos. The first rah-rah moment comes next. He does not pause. He does not wince. He leans in and says quite simply, “We are also taking strong measure to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.” It has been a while since the President said those words in such a forum. It felt good. He then confirms our alliance with Israel. At this point, Democrats are looking around wondering what is happening. His tone remains calm but deliberate. He articulates with a bleak honesty the current state of our economy but tempers it with successes and a promise to turn it all around.

The president continues to push for immigration reform, the repeal of ACA (Obamacare if you do not know), and a focus on infrastructure. He also gets in a sly dig by mentioning that the current governor of Kentucky states that Obamacare is unsustainable in his state – pretty shrewd considering the Democratic rebuttal is to be given by, get ready, the former governor of Kentucky.

It was good to see role models such as Denisha Merriweather recognized for their positive achievements and not their victim status. The president continued by imploring people to work together and showing a genuine support for law enforcement. Then comes what is commonly being referred to as the defining moment of the speech. The widow of Ryan Owens, Carryn Owens, was recognized as a tribute to the ultimate sacrifice of her husband’s life. If you did not tear up during that applause, it is very likely you do not have an ounce of empathy. In the end, he even threw in a “God Bless the United States.”

By the end of the speech, he seemed to look at the Democratic side of the room with an urge to have both parties work together – not for a better legacy for him, but for a better America. He offered a message that the status quo does not have to remain the status quo. Things like poverty will never be eliminated, but the cycle can be broken if the opportunity is there. There was (dare I say) a renewed optimism that has been seemingly lacking in recent memory. He asked the people to believe in America – to believe in themselves. Republicans and Democrats can work together- of course, they can. However, for some unknown reason, they refuse to. Common sense tells you they can work together, but when you try, it is difficult to name something about which they agree. They will say they agree in public. However, it is easier to be politically expedient at the moment.

The speech itself could be the beginning of a discussion at least. However, as soon as it was complete, Democrats scattered like the roaches when you turned the light on in your college apartment. There was not a handshake or a congratulatory nod to be found. Republicans said it was more than expected. It is hard to say if that was a result of low expectations, but they generally saw it as rather optimistic. Of course, you can dissent, but I do believe an honest person who claimed to want to work together would give it the benefit of the doubt.

The bottom line is that it was just a speech - just words. If you believe the President, the ultimate direction of America is up to the citizens of the country. We will determine the course and the future successes of our country. The next chapter is unwritten, but the feeling of the future, to me, has a tremendously positive direction for everyone. Love him or hate him, President Trump is breaking the mold and going in bold new directions. He is going to make mistakes. In four or eight years he will be a footnote in history and the people will remain. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Todays Fake News Becomes Tomorrows Fake History

Fake History

Today's Fake News, Becomes Tomorrows Fake History

By Spencer Harris

Fake news is something that is on everyone's radar right now. The term is certainly en vogue. You hear it being applied to policy, opinions, and something that used to be immune to interpretation – fact. Depending on your perspective, you may consider fake news to be something completely different than the guy in the next cubicle. You can look at the current climate of reporting and call it partisan or lazy, but when you look at it from a historical angle, you begin to see something that could be significantly more impactful for future generations.

Here is the main problem: today’s fake news becomes tomorrow’s fake history. We used to call it revisionist history. However, that was more of a historical recount from a personal sense rather than a teachable one. By definition, history is fact and should be beyond revision. However, if you follow logic (if you do not have any, use mine– looking your way libs), it will tell you the same faculty and writers indoctrinating kids and distorting the current information flow will record current history. This means all the history books written going forward will reflect the views of today’s liberal contributors and “scholars.” These are the same people who are currently standing in front of a projection screen screaming “die” while shooting at the President on inauguration day. It is also the same educators who produce the youth of America who have no clue about the current state of the world. Couple that with what seems to be an increasingly less educated and more indoctrinated student body and you end up with a nation of fools. We have all seen them impress the hell out of their parents on TV or YouTube, etc. by stating that The United States won their independence from France. Take for example an October 2016 article The College Fix by Kate Hardiman from the University of Notre Dame. The article centers around an 11-year study conducted by an assistant professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh named Duke Pesta. His findings were as follows:

The professor concludes that “the next generation is on the verge of accepting today’s political opinions as historical fact.” Why wouldn’t they? These people are supposed to be educators and kids already think they know every damn thing known to man - just ask them. The problem is that today’s students, in general of course, absorb information instead of researching and obtaining that information for themselves. Without this research, our historical knowledge never changes since it is based on what was read from a single source.

Take for example something called the “Big Switch.” This is something many people are aware of but rarely articulate. The switch refers to how the Democrat and Republican parties “changed sides” on their views of race relations.  Let us take a look at some background information. I will start in 1864 with Lincoln and go forward. Lincoln was the first president of what was known as the “Radical Republican” party. This term came about because they not only wanted to free slaves but give them citizenship and the right to vote. We all know Lincoln’s background. We will start legislatively with the 13th Amendment. This Amendment made slavery illegal. It passed the Congress with 100% support on the Republican side and about 23% of the Democratic side – a detail you rarely hear. So as of April 1864, we have a Republican president in the white house that has just abolished slavery and is within a year of ending the worst conflict in American history.  On April 14th, 1865, the president was assassinated at the Ford Theater. His Vice-President Andrew Johnson, a pro-slavery Democrat, took over with a Republican house and senate. Johnson and the Southern Democrats mounted a campaign to push back on every piece of Republican civil rights legislation for about the next 90 years. July 1868 saw the passage of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment gave all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizenship. It passed with a staggering 94% Republican support and 0% Democratic. Next came the 15th Amendment in February 1870. This Amendment passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support. Regardless of what you think about who supports what today, it is at least worth recognizing how one sided the support was for this legislation that was beneficial for the nation as a whole. When you put it in context, it was monumental for the time. There were severe backlash and fierce opposition by the Democrats for this legislation. It is no coincidence the KKK was founded in 1866 and by 1870, it extended across the south. The Klan operated as the enforcing arm of the Southern Democrat party with the goal of terrorizing former slaves into not voting. This way the southern state’s legislatures could remain and pass laws designed to keep them in power.

Fast forward to the 1950’s. This is when the next real block of Civil Rights legislation begins. It started with President Eisenhower (yep, another Republican) integrating the U.S. Military and pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through congress. Now, here is where things get crazy. One of his chief political opponents of the civil rights legislation prior to 1957 was then Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson. Yes, the same Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Up until the 1957 act, Johnson had voted the straight southern Democrat segregationist’s line.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a hundred years after the abolition of slavery, and the Republicans were still in the majority of the support. In the House, 80% of Republicans supported it, in the Senate, 82%. At this point, you still had the southern racists Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Conner & Robert Byrd (the former Klansman that Hillary Clinton - another Southern Democrat - called a “friend and mentor”) as influential figures in Southern politics. After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democrats went from blatant bigotry to a more subversive strategy. There is an alarming number of people today who truly believe that Republicans are the party of racism because they have always been told that. This claim is simply an unsubstantiated myth. If the Republican Party was truly any more racist than the Democratic Party, how would the percentages of party votes on every major Civil Rights legislation over 100 years be explained? The fact is they do not have to because unless you have researched this, you will not find those numbers. You do not hear about them in the media or the PBS documentaries on TV. It is a classic example of something that becomes real because you hear it over and over and there is no one there to refute it.

This example is clearly an instance where history and fact are not in alignment. Though the actual truth has not been altered, the narrative has. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Recently, the president of the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson, came under fire for quoting Jefferson in an email. Of course, the students and faculty were “deeply offended.” The professor of politics signed a letter stating that the very mention of Jefferson could “undo progress” of the administrators. He was only one of the chief writers of the Declaration of Independence - one of the greatest documents in history. Did I mention that he wrote it in 17 days? He also set forth the proclamation that all men are created equal. This single statement was the bedrock of all those civil rights legislations. He attended the Second Continental Congress, The Boston Tea Party, he was the Governor of Virginia, a Secretary of State & the 3rd President of the United States. He even died on July 4th. If it had to do with America, Thomas Jefferson was there. However, the man owned slaves. No one condones that, but erasing his significance in history or acting like evoking his name is somehow immoral is beyond comprehension.

This kind of re-writing of history has continued throughout my lifetime. You cannot change things by omitting them from the record. Since I live in the south, I see this every year. A civil war hero’s name or statue gets removed from a school, or a park for something deemed more palatable or for just air. I think sometimes people forget that, as far as a country goes, we are young. Yet, We have achieved more in that short 241 years (hope my math is correct) than anyone could have imagined. However, not all of it was immune to the morality of time and hindsight. I am no historian, but I can name many atrocities in the historical context of national growth and development. Many happened before my father’s grandfather was born. Many are happening today, but opinions born of shame are not going to change the facts. The facts are there for use to learn from and hopefully change. If those facts are whitewashed in an effort to make us look more compassionate or evolved, we repeat the mistakes that caused all of this chaos in the first place. When opinions are presented in lieu of facts, it is not known to someone hearing this for the first time, and they repeat that as fact and our society as a whole becomes a little less educated.

To Pee or Not to Pee


To Pee or Not to Pee?

By Spencer Harrie

I started writing for this blog because I was energized by the recent election like so many of you. I was frustrated with trying to express points and have decent, intelligent conversations within the constructs of 140 characters. How can you? You get snippy thoughts that are often incomplete. Your passion fades while your discussion devolves into an argument and then into a pissing match worthy of a middle school hallway. It goes from a multi-pointed conversation, to defending a single point, to insults and dismissing the person altogether. The goal here for me is to open that up again, so I am not forced to resign to the fact that people, in general, are morons. A very wise man once said. “Imagine how dumb the average person is…..half the people are dumber than that.” I used to think that was just a clever quip, but then came social media. There is an ocean of topics for people to latch on to and yell snappy chants with pre-made protester signs. If you are a bastard instigator like me (a title I earned and wear proudly), you can set people off so easily.
From what I have seen so far, the current president has no interest in any agenda outside of making America great again. Now that means different things to different people, but to me, it means a more robust economy, the end of lawlessness, and most importantly the rejuvenation of a stout middle class. I am irritated by the wealthy. I also abhor poverty and the anchor it is to the poor, but those are separate concerns. The middle class drives the economy. They have the most numbers. They consume the most goods. They donate the most money which in turn helps the less fortunate. This teaches character and empathy - both admirable traits. A robust middle class is the backbone of a strong country. When their morale is high, the country's morale follows. President Trump's philosophy is to shrink government and unleash the power of America. Anyone who believes in themselves and has a pioneering spirit should be doing cartwheels over this concept.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Although I sound pretty smart here, it happens to be the 10th Amendment. Outside of the 2nd, it is my favorite amendment and is clearly defined in its scope and purpose. In short, if the Constitution does not give the government the explicit power to preside, that power falls upon the state. Its purpose is to limit the power of a central government over the individual states – kind of a no taxation without representation concept.
The latest hot button issue is President Trump's reversal on President Obama's bathroom directive. The prior paragraph ends this discussion from a practical perspective. I have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a few times. There is nothing I can remember in there about who pees where. Yet, everyone is walking around baffled. The law essentially said that the government would block federal funds to schools if they did not provide additional facilities for kids who identify as transgender. "YAY!" shouted the left. "If they do not follow the law, take their money!" Somehow the same logic does not apply to the left in regards to sanctuary cities. I do not know - priorities. “Let’s protect trans kids!” they shouted. I am not sure what the grave danger is. I do not recall anyone getting murdered over this. Perhaps I am just an insensitive dope as Zac Petkanas thinks. Who knows? It is actually an odd position for me. As a decent person raised by exceptional parents (yes, my mom reads this), I do have empathy for them. However, I am not 100% sure that the fight is fully theirs and not their parents. There is a faction who cares about their own agenda and will use anything and anyone to try and get that agenda pushed through.
In true left fashion, they have put this in the broad category of “Civil Rights.” So how is this a Civil Right? The right to equality in public places? The bathroom is a pretty private place. Full disclosure here: I have a few gay friends and have been to several birthday parties and weddings, etc. If you have not been, go. There was no pretentious douchery rampant in the air. It is not like you were hit on every time you turned around. They had more drinks than just appletinis and cosmopolitans. The one thing they did not have- Separate bathrooms for straights or post-ops or drag queens or whatever; If you had to pee you pee. It did not matter where. The best part was no one cared, and there were plenty of straight people there just having a good time. I know it is different when you consider the public as a whole. After all, there were no children at that bar.
President Trump rescinded the executive order President Obama put into place. That is all. The decision now falls to the individual state legislatures which are where it should be in the first place. If California or New York wants 25 separate bathrooms, they can pass a law and it is done. If Texas wants to keep the status quo, then so be it. Transgender people have been around as long the United States. I am pretty sure somewhere a bathroom has been used, and life went on. According to the Williams Institute, transgender people make up 0.58% of the total population. California has the most (218,000) while Hawaii has the most per capita (0.78%). If these states pass transgender bathroom laws and North Dakota does not (1,650 total), well that is ok, and again life will go on. The fact is the Constitution has nothing regarding this subject unless of course, you count the 10th Amendment. The solution is there. So solve the “issue” and quit bitching already.
Unfortunately, this is just another topic for us to disagree. I get the weight of the plight and the importance it holds to what statistically is a few people. If the discussion needs to be had – I mean really needs to be had then, by all means, let's have it. I would hope that clear-minded, rational adults could come to a respectful decision that not only helps those who need it but is also not punitive to those it does not affect. By the way, did you know the North Koreans are using VX nerve gas and that 474 people were arrested in a multi-day sting operation focused on human trafficking in California? Perhaps there are bigger issues to combat.

How Child Proof Caps Ruined America

How Child-Proof Caps Ruined America: One Man's Struggle to Find an Answer

By Spencer Harris

Hey, Conservatives!!!! Looking for a Scapegoat? Blame Dr. Henri J. Breault.

Dr. Henri J. Breault. Never heard of him have you? You aren’t alone. This isn’t Jonas Salk, Marie Curie, Alexander Fleming or Isaac Newton. These are well-known, very influential people who have changed the very course of human history. All were top minds in their respective fields found in any high school textbook subject to the most obscure detail that may or may not have been on a final exam. Salk cured polio. Curie advanced physics and destroyed barriers in her time. Fleming discovered penicillin. Newton did damn near everything in his day, the guy invented calculus. Those four are undisputed titans of their field, but Dr. Breault has influenced the current day much more.

Dr. Breault received his medical degree from the University of Western Ontario in 1936. He practiced medicine for over 40 years. He is in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame for his contributions to the sciences. Sadly, he died in 1983. It was his work in the mid-1970s that has indirectly influenced people around the globe. His focus of expertise was pharmacology with a particular interest in pediatrics and the accidental poisoning of children. No doubt this is a noble pursuit. As a general rule, we all admire such pursuits for there is no nobility in being superior to your fellow man, but being superior to your former self (my apologies to Hemmingway). For all of his great accomplishments, Dr. Breault had one significant development that would change the path of humanity and, indeed, the direction of the western world. In 1967, Dr. Breault helped design something known as the “palm and turn” which we know today as the child proof cap.

At the time, and of course in general, this seemed like a sensible precaution that any parent – including myself – would see as a godsend. However, there are unintended consequences for every action no matter how good the intentions are. We have all felt the sting of this consequence in every area of our lives. Most of you have never taken the time to put the pieces together. Also, it is with sincere hope that the lot of you don’t sit around and think about moronic things like this. Hopefully, most of you are working hard to make your lives better.

Think about this. Before 1970, everyone doing the ridiculous, life-threatening things you watch on the internet, would be weeded out by the natural selection (see Darwinism) by drinking something under the sink after they were told not to by their parents. These people would have died and not been around to make the rest of us shake our head in amazement. Now fast forward to today. Those 6-year-olds would not have grown up and met someone as intellectually bereft as them and made babies. These babies would not have followed in their parents’ footsteps and drank a gallon of bleach thereby saving the family unspeakable grief. However, those caps were in place and those parents were spared that grief only to have it manifest itself in the form of kids skipping school for their “cause” they can tell you zero about. You may hear them repeat things their parents have said or what they have read on their preferred social site or favorite late-night TV program. Now that’s a generality and there are actually informed, intelligent protesters out there who believe deeply in what they are for or against as it were. However, and I saw this first-hand during the January 21st women’s march in DC, a vast majority of them were doing their canned chants and yelling about losing their rights and then going back to their dorms at Georgetown - which I found ironic. Just over a week ago, the world saw violent protesters injure people and destroy property without an ounce of empathy in an effort to squelch someone from saying something they don’t happen to agree with. Nothing truly gets people on board like smashing a Starbucks or blasting a woman with pepper spray who was simply standing there not agreeing with them *gasp*. I have yet to figure out why every guy in the country didn’t drive there and beat the hell out of that sorry toad. Maybe that’s one of those gender role things that have come under scrutiny.

It saddens me that the people who cherish America the most are the ones that come here from other countries. My mother got her citizenship about ten years ago. It was a very proud moment for her, and I was humbled to share it with her. I can tell you there is nothing more enlightening than realizing you can’t fully appreciate the truly great things America offers if you live here your entire life. The good news is it’s not your fault. It’s just a fact that you don’t know anything different.

In the past year, I have seen the language grow more vicious while the intellectual efforts of those who choose to engage grow more inept. I will never achieve the heights of the greats mentioned above, but I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. I went to a decent mid-range college and have above average common sense. I can outsmart my children on a regular basis, and so far, the decisions I have made regarding my life have turned out ok. Most of this I learned from my parents who had far less. The single thing I always did without fail was to stay out from under the sink.

Maybe one day this profound thought piece will automatically populate in a Google search. Perhaps it can become a cliché that would substitute for more hateful language. Maybe even if you think it to yourself when you see something you consider borderline insane, you may laugh a little and find a way to drop the hostility and power through a difference or two with a verbal sparring partner. Try it once, try it now….."damn child-proof caps ruined everything." Sure, it sounds ridiculous right now, but the next time you see someone try to rob a gun store with a knife or see the tag that says, “made in China” on your American Flag, or pretty much anything involving youtube, rednecks, and fire. You may just shrug it off and go to a happy place. Trust me….it’s warm there with great margaritas.

Follow me on Twitter

Fake News- Extra, Extra Read All About It!

Fake News- Extra, Extra Read All About It

By Spencer Harris

Fake News. We've all heard the term, but what is it exactly? How do you identify it? Most importantly, why do so many people from all walks of life and every background continue to use it as a basis of their arguments and beliefs? The name itself is a contradiction. The news was, at one time, defined as the reporting of facts. More recently, however, it has become a sensationalized version of any event told from the perspective of the journalist. It's a common practice to use questionable sources and reach dramatic conclusions. It's told more from the sales perspective of "know your audience" and with less drive to inform your audience. The result is essentially the media equivalent of a hot dog – no one knows what's really in it (and you don't dare ask), you just consume it and go.

Ninety percent of what I think, write, feel or express comes from the right. It would be fair, though intellectually lazy, to say that whatever comes from CNN would be seen by me as fake. We aren't talking global warming, the Kennedy assassination, Roswell or random Bigfoot sightings. These are accepted based on what you already believe. Fake News is about news items being presented by reputable agencies or reporters strictly to misinform certain sects of people or the public at large. And while these fantastic works are mainly shoveled by the left, there are plenty of examples submitted by the right. There are many reasons these stories are pushed and have become ironically mainstream. Any story can go from ordinary to fantastic by throwing in a few hyperboles. News is a business, and a business needs money to survive. An excellent headline alone can bring in extra cash while any errors or misstatements can be retracted later.

An example is Dan Rather's 2004 report about George W. Bush's military service. What makes this story so ludicrous is the source. This was CBS News. This was Dan Rather – one of the most respected reporters of the time on a news show spin off of 60 Minutes called 60 Minutes II (named by the geniuses at CBS obviously). Now, in their defense, the name of the show had to be changed later to 60 Minutes Wednesday because it confused the audience that the same show was on two different nights. In short, CBS used an ill-advised source to provide, shall we say, ill-advised documents to run with a blatantly false story meant to aid then Senator John Kerry in the defeat of President Bush's second term. The document, written in Word font was said to be from a 1970s typewriter. These documents supposedly showed how President Bush failed to complete duty requirements upon enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. So they, of course, called it "Rathergate." (note: I really HATE adding "gate" to the end of something to indicate a delicious scandal – it's overdone) In this case, Dan Rather and CBS wanted to help defeat Bush so badly that they were duped by something I may not be able to pull against my rather computer savvy 9-year-old.

From the right, I give you, "Pizzagate" (as I slice my wrist). Here, the right takes the email language from senior members of the Clinton campaign, makes up a few hieroglyphs, and voila! – A DC-based, speakeasy, human-trafficking, pedophile hangout and, of course, Satanic rituals (complete with pizza!) was born. The volume and detail of the tweets regarding what each word meant, detail of meeting plans, etc. was tough to sift through. It started with alleged links to emails on now disgraced Anthony Weiner's laptop released by Wikileaks. Several sunlight-starved Lord of the Rings fans put together a rather elaborate story and spread it around the dark corners of the internets. It slowly worked its way into the light by way of rumor and sites like Reddit. Most people love dealing in rumors. It gives them an opportunity to make the story their own by plugging in details that fit their beliefs. Facts can be so cold and solid. While a few details may be changed to enhance a story, it essentially remains the same. In the end, common sense took over, and this was completely debunked…..thank God. Still, I could contact people on twitter today and tell them it was untrue and get severe drawback. I'm instantly uninformed and naïve, etc. It seems this disinformation lives in every corner of our lives.

Print publications I can almost understand. They have been circling the drain for years now. They are pressured to sell more copies and boost sales. The common sense thing would be to print interesting stories or employ better writers. However, the easy thing to do is to print headlines dripping with sensationalism (see the National Enquirer). They have become driven to get the story first instead of getting the story right. Take for example the article "A Rape on Campus" published by Rolling Stone in November 2014. In the article, a student called "Jackie" laid claim that several fraternity members raped her as part of some pledge initiation ritual. Although this type of thing is probable, the mere fact that it was published as factual goes beyond the label of "fake news." It did focus more light on catfishing and cast more doubt on a far more scarring crime. The fake news took the focus off of the original intent of the article and shined it elsewhere. While it's true that things like catfishing are a problem, you would be hard-pressed to find any sane person who held these incidents in the same light.  The Rolling Stone article capitalized on the fact that people focus on exactly and only the details they want to hear.

To look at social media – and we all do – you see that most people are fake and living in an artificial world. It makes sense their news would be fake as well. Everyone on social media looks happy and issue free while taking skinny, duck-face pictures of themselves – sometimes in the messiest of bathrooms, but that's for another time. It has always been this way even before social media. For example, people would go into debt to drive cars that made them look more successful while living in hell's outhouse.

The inevitable is this: the continued one-ups-manship of today's media will continue to feed this dragon. The ultimate demise will be ours as we become less informed and more polarized. As a result, we will debate less, tweet more and eventually lose a vital skill – respectful dialogue. Dialogue, in fact, turns out to be essential as there is only one person of the over six billion on this earth that agrees with everything you do. You're reading this to them now.

Follow me on Twitter