Taiwan: A Country in Limbo

 

Is Taiwan Close to Being Subdued?

What’s the state of affairs around Taiwan’s defense? Beijing makes aggressive moves, drills and war games, just outside of their air defense zone regularly. It could be a bluff to try and draw out some response from Taipei. If they shot down a plane, the CCP could use it as a pretext to start a war. China considers Taiwan a “breakaway province” anyway, so it’d more like a police crackdown to them.

Officially the US still has a treaty with Taiwan, for whatever that’s worth. Nowhere in the treaty does it commit the US to come to their aid if Beijing sends troops and starts dropping bombs. The language of the agreement is vague in that State Department way of agreeing but not committing.

No one wants to get in a hot war over Taiwan. We’ve had enough of fighting other battles for a while. We can’t get into another one.  

Besides, the US isn’t in a strong position vis a vis China. They manufacture most of our consumer goods, electronics and clothing. War would be much costlier than in the 80s. Back then the Chinese were still trying to feed large swaths of their rural population. Russia was surely a greater threat. But now, China is the world’s factory. We’d suddenly see what it was like to start manufacturing for ourselves again. But starting up domestic industries out of desperation would be tough. Good for America long term, yes. But painful in the short term.

 If you think the start and stop of industries during Covid was bad wait until we get into a hot war with China. It would be like throwing a moving yacht into reverse. The whiplash alone will cause the most wreckage.

How would Beijing actually inflict their will on Taiwan? I’ve read some reports that say a blockade makes the most sense. Beijing could set up a perimeter at strategic ports around the island and start telling foreign commercial ships to turn around. That is unless their country of origin (say the United Kingdom) agrees to cut off all ties to the Taiwanese government. A blockade is closest to how China has operated so far. Seeking to isolate the country, CCP officials put pressure on other countries for either “recognizing” Taiwan or having diplomatic relations with them. Before China joined the WTO (World Trade Organization) and gained some legitimacy few thought war was even possible. This was 2001.

But the mainland isn’t a poor third world country anymore, even if large parts of it are rural farmland. They’ve basically told the rest of the world they own the South China sea. An absurdly large territory that encircles a vast number of other countries Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei and Singapore. But in politics and global domination, the big and bold make the decisions. I read a fair amount of opinions that think an invasion is unlikely. Mostly because it’s really hard to win a war and impose your will. Even the United States got out of Afghanistan after 20 years without accomplishing a whole lot. Ditto for Iraq.

After we deposed Saddam, we felt the sting of a counter insurgency. That took another few years to get control of, and a troop surge, followed by another troop surge. It’s easy to look back and be critical about the overall mission, but the simple fact remains, war is complicated. Another aspect of the Chinese PLA (People Liberation Army) is the lack of actual combat they’ve had. In order to be good at fighting and subduing populations you need experience. The Chinese haven’t had any real wars to speak of. That doesn’t bode well for success in a foreign endeavor, even one with a significantly smaller population. Military manuals and schools of thought are built on the framework of previous excursions. You need to have combat in order to teach it, at least if you’re invading another country that’s usually the case.

Of course this doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. But it does mean it won’t be as easy as they hope. Anyway, China doesn’t want to blow up Taiwan. They want to capture their industries and steal their intellectual property. Taiwan has some of the largest semiconductor and telecom industries in the world. The wealth of the country is the real prize. As a side issue, the United States has sadly lost a lot of clout as a defender of liberal democracies. I realize this probably sounds a little naïve, maybe World War II was the last time we were thought of like that. But if America still is a force for good around the world it means other countries need to believe it too.

Our strength and position (militarily, economically) is significantly weaker than it was 20 years ago. China knows this. It’s why they’re acting belligerent toward Taiwan. I’m not sure we could do much other than pressure them diplomatically. Maybe that’s the best choice for now.  

 

 

Nikki Haley's Insignificant Campaign Platform: Budgeting

Middle Class Americans Won't Go for This: Nikki Haley's Big Gamble On Budgeting

Is Nikki Haley actually going to make cutting the deficit a cornerstone of her campaign? What year is this I forget? It’s a useless platform for a Republican party that’s moved on.

Paul Ryan tried this trick in 2012 and failed miserably. It’s the donor class’s favorite issue for their shills. After Romney/Ryan’s failed presidential effort, a lot of America started to figure out how the GOP game is played. Run on issues that are easily dispensed with once you get elected. Don’t embarrass the donors with icky lower class concerns like the border, abortion and crime. You can always give half measures to the pro-life rubes. Tell them you believe life is precious and all that, but don’t support any real measures that restrict abortion. Don’t attend the big national marches or be seen taking pictures with leading abolitionists.

All of this amounts to advice from their highly paid consultants.

The federal budget will never be meaningfully cut without a major crisis. Too many sectors, institutions, non-profits, contractors and ne'er-do-wells rely on it. It’s why it’s the perfect issue to run on for unserious politicians. It’s similar to the Free Tibet movement we saw in colleges in the late nineties and early 2000s. Actors like Richard Gere and Brad Pitt used to protest the CCP’s brutal crackdown of the Dali Lama. China hadn’t penetrated Hollywood then. Actors and directors (Martin Scorsese) could bloviate about the atrocities committed by Beijing with little consequence. Suddenly China became powerful and put an end to the weasel words, we don’t hear much about it anymore.

The point is to sound serious without having to prove it.

Free Tibet was a niche movement that could never make a difference. Reigning in the budget is hardly a niche idea, but like Free Tibet, designed to be a talking point and nothing else. We only get real change through a collapse in the dollar. Niki Haley’s just the latest example of a presidential candidate who doesn’t understand the mood of the country. She was a good governor, but a little too institutional. She is proudly American, supported immigration laws and represented us well at the U.N under Trump. I’ve always thought she explained how her immigrant parents became Americans, a beautiful story.

But we don’t live in the age of budget battles. We don’t live in that country anymore. Our thuggish government is forcing Christianity out of the public square and making everyone accept sexual deviance as a sacrament. Biden’s press secretary Katherine-Jean-Pierre talked of the difficulties ‘trans’ kids face. This, just a few weeks after the shooting of the kids and staff at a Christian school, by a confused trans woman. The administration is letting us know they think of Christians as the enemy.

It's not that we don’t have a budget issue, but we’ve had a spending problem for so many years that’ it’s almost part of doing business. Also, talking about accounting in an age of anarchy is just tone deaf. It’s like letting flash mobs steal product from the store but making sure the cash drawer balances at the end of the day. The cash drawer needs to balance, but the problem staring us in the face is lawlessness, and why thieves are suddenly emboldened to carry armfuls out the door. They don’t fear reciprocity. They don’t fear it from the police, the shopkeeper or the other patrons. They don’t fear the District Attorneys in the cities will charge them with a crime.

It's not even really Niki Haley’s fault. We’ve heard that politics is downstream of culture. That means when the representatives start considering legislation for anything, the culture (attitudes, practices) are already established among the citizens. There is little room to push back against an entrenched mood. Conservatives miss this. They ignore the local and state issues close to home until they’re overwhelmed by them. When it’s finally before a national audience they want ‘tough’ talking representatives to hold back the tide by voting NO. But it’s a much tougher ask at the federal level. Marijuana legalization will likely track the same way. Recreational marijuana is legal in 21 states today, that doesn’t include the medical variety which is legal in 18. How likely is going to be to stop it at the national level?

I do wonder how far we are from elections at the national level even mattering anymore. This is cynical I know. But something like 65-70% of Republican voters believe the election was stolen in 2020. I’ve said so too in this blog. But if that many citizens (voters) believe that their choices won’t matter in a tight race, how long can they keep going through the motions? Niki Haley isn’t up to the challenge because her campaign issues are a throw back to a time when we still trusted (sort of) our officials.

The existential crisis we face is rooted in immorality. The issues the country faces, sexual confusion, crime, drug abuse and abortion all point to a lack of the fear of the Lord. That won’t be a platform anytime soon. But it’s time to work on our local communities again. If elections still matter, push out the local communists at every level. 

Nikki Haley will remain a force in South Carolina, but it won’t extent to the national level.

Naomi Wolf's The Bodies of Others: A Review

 

Naomi Wolf is the Resistance or: How to Make a Contrarian?

Naomi Wolf’s The Bodies of Others is the retelling of a human tragedy we’re still dealing with. For all the problems with a lockdown, the loss of freedom and the expansion of the technocracy, the worst of it was our lack of humanity towards each other. Covid transformed this traditionally liberal author to a cultural contrarian in a short time. Writers know how to research. She couldn’t get honest information from traditional sources about the case numbers. The logic for locking down and masking didn’t make sense. The vaccines and passports were unlike anything Americans were used to. She pushed against the media narratives and got shut out of social media, shunned by colleagues and snubbed by friends. Esteemed medical professionals like Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Peter McCullough told her a different story. They also paid a price.

Her conclusion? Covid was hyped and used to keep us apart, for money, control and spiritual darkness.

The mechanism was fear. Fear keeps people in their homes. It keeps them away from others and distrustful of others, disease spreaders you know? Fear makes people pliable and dependent on a program, an institution or a medical solution. Fear rallies people around heavy restrictions and creates an enemies list of those who aren’t on board. Those who resist are heretics. This automatic sorting, dirty from clean, caring from selfish is a kind of strategic totalitarianism. It’s an evil response that pits us against each other.  

A refreshing bit near the end tells of why she agreed to talk openly about God. An objective look at the crisis exposed a lot of trampling of individual liberty and by extension, wholesale power grabs by bureaucrats. Not only at the federal level did we see “officials” deciding on masks and “essential” businesses, but also at the lowest levels of city government. And why? Because big tech is positioned to succeed when human interaction is restricted. That’s true of technology in good times. Despite the advantages of Zoom meetings, next day delivery and electronic communications, big tech thrives when people stay apart.

You can’t make money when people go to the park or attend a play at the local high school.

A favorite passage from chapter 8 that sums up the whole book nicely. “This was waged by the lords and ladies of technology; they used technology – and leveraged the culture and civilization of technology – to wage asymmetrical combat against the whole of humanity itself and to strike out against human movement, speech, touch, ingenuity, bodies, religion, families, schooling, and especially culture.” (page 140)

There is another reason technology succeeded, money. A quick look at the profit margins of tech giants like Apple, Amazon and Microsoft all saw massive increases. This doesn’t even include the drug companies (Pfizer, Moderna) after their vaccine rollouts. It’s not a stretch to think they knew this was coming and maybe lobbied hard to keep everything shut down. When you realize personal interaction is contrary to a world of technological supremacy, the duplicity makes sense. This is Naomi’s point, brilliantly highlighted throughout her anecdotes and research. The result of big tech’s reach was a society that became cruel and rejected human interacting for longer than was necessary.

Like most books it’s always the personal stories that make the biggest impact. I loved her resistance (polite though it was) to the café that wouldn’t serve unvaccinated customers. Or her refusal in the subway to stand in a designated area. The police even wrote her a citation. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who chose to stay away from family and friends. Wolf talks of older men and women with sunken faces, resigned to their fate because of a disease. Why did so many put up with it? I can understand a few months, maybe, but years? There is just no excuse for that level of fear.

Resistance is the only weapon we have. It doesn’t have to be violent, but it should be without apology. When you lose the right to vote what else is there? Naomi Wolf doesn’t mention the 2020 election in her book but I can’t imagine a more apt demonstration of the loss of our basic rights. Millions of Americans cast votes that were overwhelmed with fraudulent ballots in key states. It’s called cheating. The authority to lock people in their homes, once established, would not be relinquished. Our national voting ceased to matter on a national scale after 2020. Covid was the excuse.

I’m surprised she missed this connection, but she’s on a path toward enlightenment (in a sense) so I won’t beat her up over this. If there is a criticism, it’s over the exaggerated way she contrasts pre Covid life in New York and London to post Covid life. In an early scene she describes multi-ethnic groups (all races and creeds) living in harmony, going to festivals together and working toward the common good. I rolled my eyes a bit here, does anyone believe these groups got along well before Covid? But it works well as a contrast to the destruction to come and looking back…probably felt like heaven.

I first became interested in this book because of an interview I watched on Mark Steyn’s channel. Before that, I read her heartfelt apology to conservatives over the January 6^th debacle. Tucker released some unseen footage that showed a different picture than the narrative we were sold. Big surprise, another lie from the Deep State. At this point though it’s taken on faith that we live in an era of big lies.

The worst thing we can do is surrender our humanity over a ‘crisis’. There will be another after all, whether imagined or real, that forces us to choose between obedience or independence. Hopefully we will have learned something the next time.

Abraham's Faith for The Impossible

 

Being Fully Persuaded in God's Plan: Romans 4:18-25

Abraham’s fully persuaded faith in God’s promise is something that took a lifetime. With faith comes a steadfastness that surpasses natural abilities and arbitrary time frames.  

“Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’” (verse 18)

What I notice, is that faith isn’t something that happens quickly. How do you get to a point of absolute trust in a plan that’s so far seemed impossible? The next few verses offer a closer look. “Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old.” (verse 19) You might think that as the years added up, his faith would become less strong. But his belief is sure, despite the lack of a discernable path forward. Abraham spent a lifetime filing up his faith reservoir by taking steps of obedience.  

But faith is not the opposite of doubt.

Experiencing Small Victories

 Both can exist within a person to varying degrees. Have you ever believed God for a financial breakthrough or healing from a headache? I was short on money one year but desperately wanted to go to Illinois for the Christmas break. My ride was all lined up, I rode with at least one of my brothers to share gas. But I didn’t have a lot to spend. It was going to be a tight vacation. I needed extra money, but I’d worked all the hours available. I couldn’t see a way to make any more before we left. I prayed about it. I don’t remember it being a particularly spiritual prayer, something along the lines of “help!”.

That year, everyone got a Christmas bonus. I was ecstatic, relieved, joyful and overwhelmed. I had been there 8 years at the time and we never got a bonus. Now I’ve been there 15 years and we’ve still not had another. It wasn’t a lot of money but it covered a couple of tanks of gas a few meals along the road. God was showing me that no prayer is too small. Here’s what’s important though. That small victory went into my faith reservoir. Whenever I think of God’s goodness I’m reminded of that unexpected blessing.

Now back to Abraham. Abraham didn’t serve the Lord until well into adulthood. His tribe worshipped idols and sacrificed children. God brought him out of that and moved him into a literal faith-based relationship the only way He could. We know about the angel stopping him from sacrificing his own son, Isaac. But how many small victories did Abraham put into his faith reservoir? At a hundred years old, he had become “fully persuaded” in the Heavenly Father’s promise. There is only one way that happens for anyone. We need to spend a lot of time stretching our faith for small and big things.

Abraham’s faith was connected to his righteousness. “…not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” (verse 23) Another way to say this is “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

Dealing with Doubt

We have a faith reservoir and a doubt reservoir. These are not mutually exclusive. If they were than we would put our trust in God’s previous miracles in our lives. My nick of time bonus money should have been all the faith I needed. If we didn’t also deal with doubt, the faith should have pushed out whatever lingering doubt remained. Why then did I not put my trust in God every time a financial need arose? I’d seen God’s blessing after all. The apostles asked Jesus to help with their unbelief when they couldn’t help a demon possessed man in Mark 9:24. That tells me that even with faith, doubt remains a stumbling block.

It doesn’t have to though. We can feed doubt the same way we feed faith. Through experiences, attitudes and practice we add to our internal tanks. These both shape our philosophy on life, they’re the energy behind it our approach to trouble. If Abraham’s life is any guide, time and patience in the presence of God add up to big time faith. Paul calls it “fully persuaded faith”. Abraham had doubts too. He said his wife, Sarah, was his sister to avoid trouble with the local ruler Abimelek.

Over his life though, the faith reservoir is being filled as God reveals more of Himself to Abraham. His doubt diminishes to the point of being non-existent. As a human he has the capacity for doubt, as well as fear, but his faith builds in trials. It should be encouraging that Christians today have the Holy Spirit as a guide and helper in all things. We have tools Abraham never had. We also have a record of what faithfulness looks like in the scriptures. Abraham had to figure this out with no faith road map.

Conclusion

Isaac was an answer to a promise from God that both parents had waited for, until there was no physical way to have kids. How did the increasing years waiting for the promise not increase doubt instead of building faith? Because of the obedient steps that Abraham followed, beginning with his trek out of Ur. Every step of faith (even the small ones) helped build fill his reservoir, until the time frame didn’t matter.

Our time frame with God is an arbitrary concept. I’m learning how to fill up the reservoir and ignore the time frame. God is faithful and I’m moving toward being fully persuaded.  

USGA Wants a More Competitive Game

 

Are New Golf Balls Necessary for the PGA?

I’m not much of a golfer but I happened to catch an interview with a couple of guys from the USGA (United States Golf Association) on golf ball rule changes. This is pretty wonky stuff but considering I work in the sporting goods world it piqued my interest. The main points are this: golfers are hitting the ball further than ever and risking the potential that the game will be less competitive with an (essentially) shortened playing field. Manufacturers of balls and clubs get more distance than ever with new technology. Not to mention, weight training for golfers and the ‘bigger, stronger, faster’ reality of modern sports.

Keeping the Future in Mind

Slight adjustments to the equipment keep the game competitive long term and prevent courses from having to build out longer playing fields. The first thing to note is this, it’s only intended for the pros and not the public course guys or amateurs. Even then, it’s not clear where and when the new (slower) ball could be used. The reps I saw on TV seemed to think the majors would use them. The Masters, the US Open and the Open Championship would likely introduce the new balls. Is this really necessary? A lot of it comes down to whether you believe professional golf would be better off in the next 20 years with a slower ball.

The logic is sound. If the bigger, stronger, faster trend continues, like it always has, the game is by definition less competitive. Only super long courses with hard, sloping greens will matter. Some of the players reacted sarcastically to the news. Justin Thomas went on an entertaining mini rant about the restrictions. I’d react that way too if I was a player. Don’t mess with my game man. But one thing he got wrong, other sports DO change the rules to make it more enjoyable for the fans, or more competitive for the players.

Other Sports Do the Same

In Basketball, the NBA famously introduced the 3 point line in 1979 to increase scoring and excitement. Before that (1954) the addition of a 24 second shot clock increased the pace of play. You can argue that these tweaks worked in reverse from what golf is trying to do. Instead of tamping down the level of play, the NBA increased it. But leagues make adjustments to the rules all the time. The idea that changing equipment to make it less “hot” is off limits, has never been true. At my store we sell a lot of baseballs and softballs for school teams. If you have a little league team you have to know which baseball is adopted by your particular organization.

Most leagues have a range of adopted baseballs that are very different from what college and pros use. Youth baseballs and softballs have softer centers, different seams and different leather. A major league baseball can’t have the same raised seams as a high school ball. A pitcher like Justin Verlander would put crazy break on a ball with raised seams. It makes sense to create a ball that’s tough to throw, but not so hard to throw that it favors the hitter. And it’s likely a standard that changes every few decades.

In 2012 the baseball bat standards changed for metal and composite, from a loose exit speed to a tight one. The new standard took the number of college home runs down 50% from 2011 to 2012. The manufacturers had to reduce the exit speed because it was a threat to pitchers. The bats had gotten so hot, pitchers couldn’t react quick enough when the ball was hit right back at them. The new standard was more for safety than performance and it’s still with us. Players hated the change then too, but eventually got used to it.

These governing bodies can be wrong about how a rule will affect the game going forward. But nearly every group introduces changes to game along the way.

Does the PGA even have to adopt the rules? It doesn’t look like it. Sam Burns was also asked his opinion on playing with a slower ball. He didn’t like it anymore than JT, but he also made an interesting point. He said that if 120 guys in a big tournament refuse to play with a new ball, what can they really do? I’m paraphrasing but I guess he’s right. This idea could be very unpopular at all levels. Then the USGA would have to scratch it. Especially with LIV golf entering the picture and taking some real talent away from the PGA, it’s unlikely they’ll want to risk loosing fans on a brand new scheme.

Golf is conservative in the traditional way, meaning loathe to change. I can hardly watch the pre and post Master’s tournament sentimental blather. It’s a long running tournament with a lot of tradition, get over it. It’s like eating a basket full of Cadbury Eggs, it’s glorious for10 minutes and then you get sick. Strangely enough, it was Augusta that eventually ditched the rule, forcing players to use club caddies. Tom Watson was one of the first to request a rule change, he wanted his own guy on the bag. The club relented. Even the most tradition bound institutions will change when necessary.

The question now, is it really necessary?

 

Strength and Stamina: Learning to Slow Down

 

Run Slow to Run Fast

The Tulsa winter is about to break into full spring. This year hasn’t seen a lot of cold days. January and February were mild, despite being the traditional cold months. We certainly had a few cold Saturdays and will likely have at least one more. It’s early March so the potential for a freeze is still quite high. This has been a rainy week, just like the previous two. Early, consistent rain is a sign of spring. Just ask any baseball player how many rain out games they had in April.

I don’t mind getting a little wet on a jog but I avoid thunderstorms and heavy wind. Most of my daily miles are treadmill miles.

Anytime I write these running blogs I try to focus on what is different since my last post. Sometimes it’s tough to come up with new, interesting details. I guess it a lot of ways it all feels kind of the same from season to season. Summer is always tough because it’s hot, winter is easier on the lungs but harder to get outside. It’s not an exact replication from one year to the next, but it does rhyme. The biggest difference for me is my increased strength and stamina. Those might be just 2 sides of the same coin, but for me it’s the most noticeable improvement.

As a group we ran a brutal hill run a few weeks ago. I think it was 12 miles. South Tulsa is known for its hilly neighborhoods. One of the route makers took us right through an awful maze of ups and downs. I couldn’t have made that distance without walking some part of it 2 years ago. The slopes were long and occasionally steep. I noticed seasoned runners stop to walk the steeper parts of the terrain. I never had to stop but I slowed up significantly. This difficult terrain took up most of the run. Fortunately, it was a perfect 35 degrees with an overcast sky.

Even with the perfect weather the route would have beat me up years ago. My legs hadn’t developed enough muscle and my lungs weren’t as capable. It’s nice to have a real picture of what progress looks like. I can tell I’m a stronger runner than I’ve ever been. But without a visual test it’s just theory. It’s why running hills in training is crucial.

Another technique I’m learning is to run slow. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this a few times. Slow pacing in training is critical for fast pacing in marathons. At least that’s the mantra the group preaches. There are two retail stores in the area that host training groups. Runner’s World, my group, tells you to find your race pace and practice running 60 seconds slower than your ideal. Slow builds strength and stamina. The other group (Fleet Feet) is a lot more regimented from what I hear. They run in large, dedicated groups and keep a tight formation for the run. They probably have a different philosophy on training.

 I can’t say what’s better but I’ve chosen my group. Runner’s World lets you develop with the help of run leaders and experienced racers. It’s less hand holding than what I’ve seen from Fleet Feet but it’s a smaller organization too. The basic science behind going slow to go fast is that burning fat, or aerobic exercise, is more efficient for long runs. Anaerobic exercise burns up the glycogen stored in your muscles at faster paces. You have less reserve of glycogen than fat. Training slower, or at less intensity, increases stamina for marathons and even ultras. This article gives a more thorough breakdown than my clumsy paraphrasing. 

The difficulty is actually making yourself run slow. If you aren’t used to an easy jogging pace it takes effort. Group running is perfect for this when you have someone to talk to for miles. I’ve met some great people like this. And on long days we all have the time.

 

 

Who Funds the Legacy Media?

 

Pushing Narratives: Legacy News Archetypes 

I’ve avoided writing a lot of news stories in the past 2 years. You’ll find plenty on my page, but fewer than before. The reason is simple. I don’t know what’s going on in the world and the events change daily. It’s easier to go around blissfully unaware of the surrounding chaos and focus on work and spiritual matters. I used to think people who didn’t follow the news were either too busy with life or just uninterested. I never considered that many didn’t want the trouble weighing heavily on their minds.

Most of the mainstream sources are pushing a narrative, reinforcing preexisting archetypes. Fear over peace, chemical over natural, death over life and sexual confusion over sexual purity.

I clicked past a news segment on PBS that profiled some transgender. I didn’t stick around to find out the details. the subtext was clear; this person is hero. Ten years ago no one was talking about transgender as a viable lifestyle. Today, this small minority of people are suddenly ubiquitous. Their opinions are highly sought after, demanded even. They appear out of nowhere hoisting signs and protesting this movie or that business. Countless news stories need a trans angle because apparently, it’s a hot topic. By why is it a hot topic? Because someone decided so. Someone influential (or a group of influentials) created this sermon and started preaching it.

As a regular guy I’m not privy to who the media takes its direction from. But once you start seeing the angles and story lines it’s tough to unsee it. Suddenly you can’t imagine why you didn’t see it before. It’s not bias exactly, it’s something closer to telling your employer’s version of events. At times it hovers just above the “technically” true line. Other times it’s true but not relevant. Occasionally it’s false, dangerously so.

The best way to frame it is to imagine what news from a strictly non-media company would sound like. I used to work for Target so I’ll pick on them. Target makes its money selling consumer goods and groceries. What’s important to Target is what gets on the channel. They’ll do stories on amazing TVs and other electronics, maybe a profile or two on the creator of some new tech only available in one brand of phone. Naturally you can find the phone at your nearest store.

There would be similar segments on grocery items. You could put together a piece on coffee from Brazil and sent a crew to interviewer the grower. I’m not talking about just dry commercials in between regular slots. I’m thinking more of a CBS soft feature segment. With enough funding you could tell interesting stories, even with the slant.

If Target was forced to do weather and traffic it would revolve around shopping hours. Is the weather going to keep me from getting to the store? Will it snow or sleet and can I get a bag of snow melt for the walkway?

Is Target giving us news? Absolutely. But it’s only important in so far as it revolves around our shopping. We wouldn’t blame Target for ignoring a story about a dam collapse in Sri Lanka or a parliamentary election in Australia. It’s not their purview. We know where Target’s money for news comes from. They have an interest in selling consumer goods and promoting their own products.

I think something close to this is how our legacy media works. They’ve become a channel of someone or something. Drug companies are one likely candidate. I watched a segment a few years ago that featured Chris Evert explaining how her sister’s death led Chris to get screened early for ovarian cancer. As sad as it was to hear the story, it worked seamlessly into the pro medicine/pro hospital push that CBS is known for. That was not an accident. I used to watch the Sunday morning show and I started noticing a bombardment of drug company ads. Drugs for erectile disfunction, heartburn, allergies, migraines, depression, anxiety, skin rashes and even restless legs. Restless leg syndrome affects a lot of people. Who knew?

I’m not against drugs, nor screenings, but after the heavy focus on hospitals and diseases it started to make sense. Drug companies represent a significant beneficiary of the information we’re being fed. Think about the archetype of the heroic, life saving screening device Chris Evert used. Fear of cancer was the enemy, medicine the savior. The commercials reinforce this too. It’s also interesting that none of the information was untrue, so far as I could tell. But it introduced in me, and certainly others, a fear of disease and a positive impression of screenings.  

But the news isn’t all about drugs, hospitals and death. There is an element of straight reporting and commentary that harks back to the traditional newsroom days. But my impression is subscribers alone won’t keep a media company afloat. The current model is dishonest. It pretends to give it to us straight, but donors affect the information more than we realizes. Our Target news company was a genuine product of specific corporate interest. How much of our legacy media is the same thing? I’d say most.

 Is the heavy focus on transgender surgery an extension of the heroic pharmacy/medicine archetype? Whether it’s that or a way to undermine traditional values, it’s a dangerous lie that’s hurting kids. When you normalize the crazy and the perverse, you’re pushing a lifestyle on the next generation. We need a media revolution in this country, out with the old media guard and their corrupt messaging.