TRUMPCARE – Fake News

Trumpcare

TRUMPCARE - Fake News!

By Thomas Wise

In recent weeks the press has decided to dub the House Republican "healthcare" bill, which purportedly repeals Obamacare, "Trumpcare." Nothing could be further from reality.  President Donald Trump did not WRITE the House bill, and (as of this writing) he has not SIGNED any such bill into law.  The House bill is entirely the brainchild (or godson, if you will) of Paul Ryan, and should rightly be called "Ryancare" or, in its Latin name, Piecus Crappus.

The fact that President Trump has rallied for this bill, or appeared to rally for it, is moot. If the bill never passes, it cannot get signed, and therefore can't be called Trumpcare. To compare, "Romneycare" was both a concept from, and signed by, Mitt Romney. "Hillarycare" was a project written by, or at least with significant input from, Hillary Clinton, even if it was never signed into law. Moreover, good old Obamacare, while not from the "mind" of Obama per se, WAS in fact signed by Obama.

So why does the dishonest and self-aggrandizing press print such obvious fake news as calling the Ryan bill "Trumpcare" when that is so easily rebutted?  Basically, the press knows humans are lazy, prone to believe repeated memes (even if false), and are largely without access to truer facts than the media supplies. Simply, they call it Trumpcare because you BELIEVE it. If you did not buy it, they would change the name quickly to suit the absorption rate.

Why is this important? In the grand scheme of things, it is not. However, in the context of the dissolution of our society, it is another "brick in the wall." Our inability or reluctance to ferret out the truth, and to demand it, will be the death of us. Whether the press is trying to convince us that ISIS is not Islamic, or that Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong (or pick your favorite peeve), it is evidence that journos think they rule us. This would not be so important except that our leaders appear much of the time to be weak-willed puppets. Thus, it is left to the press to lead.

Is this true? Are we so desirous of leadership that we will choose between inept politicians and sneaky journalists? I'm sorry to say, yes.

Think about it - Congress has a terrible approval rating, yet they continue to be reelected. According to Gallup (journos, nevertheless), public approval of Congress stood at 19% in January 2017 and 24% in March 2017.

 

This means between 3-in-4 and 4-in-5 people thinks Congress is terrible. Even so, 95% of Congressmen are reelected year after year. Since the year 2000, Representatives have been reelected on average about 94% of the time (in 2010, the reelection rate was 85%). For Senators, the reelection rate has been on average (over the same time period) about 85%.

You can squawk all day about them dirty rotten politicians, but the fact is (unless term limits are ever ratified to the Constitution) you will probably be putting up with that same idiot next term.

President Donald Trump (and many others) have asserted that the media has an even lower approval rating than Congress. Is this true? Politifact did a study on this assertion and found it to be "mostly false" (SOURCE). 

What a surprise, the media defending itself while at the same time hitting President Trump, while at the same time trying to appear unbiased and humble! What a joke.

The press has a habit of misidentifying, or perhaps it would be better to say RE-identifying, such political footballs.  Why? Simply, the press is not on your side. When I say "your side," I mean both the Left and the Right. The press is for ITSELF, and no other. They only cheer on "freedom of the press" if it means they get to produce the news and you get to consume it. It is for them to label and inform (or misinform) and for you to believe. This is what the press as a whole believes, and how they act.  Period.

Is this a new phenomenon? No, not really. The press has basically always believed itself to be the ultimate power on Earth, making kings and shaping kingdoms. In the Bible, the serpent falsely reported to Eve that God was lying, that the fruit would not cause her to die. Why? To undermine the true power. Unfortunately for Adam and Eve, fake news cost them (and us) dearly.

Even those journos (media types) who fashion themselves as real watchdogs are apt to view themselves as the true power, overcoming the "evil press" with "true facts." I am not saying there aren't good eggs out there (I can name a dozen off the bat), only that, in the end, we rely on THEM for truth without actually witnessing the events they describe. Even those media types who purport to watchdog the media have this ego trip, thinking they alone shape public opinion. Perhaps I exaggerate by reporting on such reporting, but in essence, this is factual.

This article is hardly exhaustive, but you get the point: the media is dishonest, and we know it, but we do nothing about it. Just as we keep reelecting people we supposedly can't stand, we keep watching the news we supposedly think is fake.  As long as we watch fake news, they will produce fake news. For this reason, the media feels no obligation to refrain from calling Ryancare "Trumpcare."

Doing so serves an immediate purpose, which is to undermine President Trump, who is at odds with the media’s world-shaping mindset. It also serves another immediate purpose, to saddle President Trump with a healthcare bill that is no less than "Obamacare light" (to use a media meme). It also serves an agenda, to retain Obamacare in the public sphere, which serves to retain Obamacare itself. Why? It makes no difference if Obamacare is a failure, the media must never admit that failure. That admission would negate eight years of sycophantic fawning and shed a little light on media lying and hypocrisy. This makes no never mind for the older consumer but, the younger consumer, already seeking news from alternate sources, would be more motivated to steer clear of fake news. THIS is the TRUE goal of media: to continue shaping their world in their image without losing young viewership to truer forms of media. Thus, the attacks by fake news on Breitbart, Infowars, Fox, and outlets that at least TRY to give a less putrefied version of the news.

Fake News! - The media controls the media. They do not. YOU control the media when you hold them accountable. Exercise your right to know as many factual things as possible so you can stitch together a truthful narrative for yourself, and not lazily depend on media bias and self-interest.

Is The Fake News Real- Rockville and Landon Edition

Rockville

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.

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

Gender

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.

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