Sunday, April 27, 2014

US vs Cliven Bundy: How Yellow Journalism mutes Common Sense for ratings

We live in a knee-jerk reaction society that causes more division and strife among the masses that we lose sight of what was the original cause of action.

Over the past 15 or so days, I've been watching & listening to many poli-talkers along with ordinary people concerning Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his 20 year plus battle concerning grazing rights on federal land and what great theater it has been so far.

So enjoyable to watch a section of media gloss over facts and push an agenda driven mantra during an election cycle while others mock them. Yes, every media outlet wants a piece of Cliven Bundy, just a small morsel to help in their ratings.

However, we as viewers & readers have to admit to our addiction to the “Yellow Journalism” that has placed us in a hallucinated state over the past 120+ years. We are forced fed what we're told to be "truth" yet it's an abbreviated narrative truth.

In case you've forgotten, Yellow Journalism is defined as “journalism that distorts, exaggerates the news to create sensationalism to attract readers,” which pretty much sums about the vast majority of what we hear every day in our media. Notice I stated "vast majority" and did not point fingers to either Right or Left, but grouped together.

Along with our “Yellow Journalism” ways, we have to thank Social Media and the ever ending memes that help pass along falsehoods on issues. Yes I know I mock Social Media and stil use it fully for its intended purposes to pass along family news, connect with friends and pass news articles that I find enjoyable that leaves my intentions suspect to others.

OK enough dribble, let’s put fact to blog and rant when appropriate.

Mr. Bundy claims ancestral rights to the land his cattle graze upon, yet the lineage that he claims is skewed in that the maternal side of his family is of Mormon faith and polygamist marriages ran rampant. So even though his ancestors had moved to the Bunkerville, Nevada area in the 1880’s, it was not a homestead as the family moved back and forth between Nevada and Utah until land was eventually bought in 1948-1949.

And it wasn’t for another 5 years, in 1954, that the Bundy ranch took up cattle operations.

So the claim of 180 years of grazing cattle can be cut by less than half when taking into consideration the 1954 established operation year. Yet, it’s the timeframe between 1954 and 1993 that’s hazy, fuzzy, and blurred when it comes to grazing cattle.

For close to 39 years, the lands operated by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy ranch were all chummy with permits being paid on time and rule of law being followed. Now whether it’s to be blamed on the “Smokey Rainbow Hair Tortoise” or whatever environmental reasoning, but in 1993 the rules changed and the BLM had requested the Bundy’s to lower their cattle grazing to less then 150.

And this is when and how the 20 year fight began with laws being broken and court orders given that has Cliven Bundy in the news talking about who’s a better worker between Negros and Mexicans and how he doesn't believe the US Government exists.

Bundy refused to lower his cattle as requested/required, continued to illegally let them graze on federal land and by 1998 was taken to court (United States v. Bundy) where the ruling favored the US Gov/BLM. The court order gave Bundy up to 30 days to remove his cattle from federal land and as expected Bundy did not comply.

It must be addressed that during the 1993-2014 time period, the BLM did not impound any cattle owned by Bundy until just a few days ago, which they had the legal right to do.

As well everyone should know that other injunctions were judged against Bundy between 1999 and 2013 for his illegal actions from fines to destruction of public property and so on.

OK, did you get that, he was illegally using federal land and judgment passed against him that he blatantly ignored. Can anyone tell me what happens if you get caught using Federal or State land improperly? Yes, you get fined and possible jail time.

And here we are today, Poli-talkers bickering back and forth (Hannity and Stewart) to the amusement of many as well as politicians stepping up for Bundy and then away days later over the illegal actions of Bundy against the BLM.

But isn't funny how this BLM/Bundy issue is happening in 2014, an election cycle and better that it's also an election involving Nevada's Harry Reid, a man hated more by the Right then President Obama.

I am no Harry Reid supporter and believe he's one of the most arrogant members in Congress!

But it's coincidental that Harry Reid is up for re-election and the Right so desperately wants to gain seats in the Senate that creating some controversy helps (the House will easily stay in their hands).

Absolutely Senator Harry Reid is a fool and dumb enough to walk into the muck by addressing the protestors backing Bundy as "domestic terrorists." By responding he helped opposition create new campaign ads without no effort.

I gotta give props to Glenn Beck and his staff for their actions/stance on this situation.

When Beck left FOX News a few years ago too venture into his own Media soapbox, I called him the next "Ted Turner" and he's proven me correct ever since. It's the major reason why Beck has taken the calm/collective route concerning BLM/Bundy, that reason being that his actions/reactions will affect his company. He does not have Roger Ailes to protect him and hug sponsors/advertisers, he must personally face any backlash that affects the lives that he employs.

To quote Glenn Beck from his radio show on 4/24 "It is hard, because we believe the government is out of control, we believe the government is growing as an oppressor... But you have to know who you’re standing with.”

Too simplify that quote "Be responsible in your actions. Bundy and the BLM are in the wrong on this issue."

Absolutely the actions of the BLM actions of armed enforcement against Bundy is over reaching, but it's also over reaching to have armed protestors wanting to act against the government.

Fact is fact on this issue, however Media and their viewers/listening will take their "Yellow Journalism" by the scoopful and lessen the fat known as Common Sense to fulfill their cravings.

That's it, Slap the tap on a frosty cool one, pass the peanut bowl and hit the play button to watch the movie Idiocracy to realize where we're headed.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Return of the Great Gun Debate: Sally take your Prozac and hide your Glock

In between the many news reports of how "Obamacare signups caused Malaysian Flight 370 into a Wormhole" there was yet another senseless shooting at Fort Hood that could've been avoided but instead has caused another political kneejerk reaction.

Less then 12 hours after the 2nd tragic shooting at Fort Hood, Speaker John Boehner stated "there’s “no question” that mentally ill people should be prevented from buying guns." However the problem this time around, is the mentally ill Speaker Boehner speaks of happens to be a member of the US Military. Which actually sparks larger debate after the first Foot Hood shooting by Nidal Hasan about all members of the military should be carrying a pistol or rifle.

There are many positions one can hold while serving our nation and not all of those position require a person to carry a weapon. From administrative to medical staff to cooks, unless they are Steven Seagal in the movie "Under Siege," the need for a weapon for every service member is minimal.

Then again, shooting the vending machine for letting the Kit Kat hang is an actionable offense for anyone.

We really need to look at the words of Speaker Boehner's concerning mentally ill as they are extremely vague in detail and not limited to the discussion of the US Military only.

Now, to Speaker Boehner's thought, I do agree that yes guns should not be allowed to be owned by the mentally ill but honestly, who is going to re-define the term "mentally ill."

A simple definition of mentally ill is "that of unsound mind" and even that is too vague to give description as in today's world it doesn't take much to label someone "unsound." has 2 pages of best known labels for the term mentally ill: Anxiety disorders, Mood disorders, Psychotic disorders (come to think of it that's describes 1/2 my past girlfriends), Eating disorders, Impulse disorders, Adjustment disorders, Sexual disorders, Tic disorders, Dementia, Alzheimer's, and sleep disorder just too name a few.

So where would he begin in his new definition?

In the case of the current Fort Hood incident, Spc. Ivan Lopez was being treated for post traumatic stress disorder, yet also had a history of depression and anxiety. And again, everyone has become an overnight expert on PTSD saying that because he saw no combat while in Afghanistan there is no way he could have PTSD.

Um, yes he can by just seeing those returning from battle or hearing the constant explosions miles away, it doesn't take much and even the medical experts are discovering more reason as to how one can have PTSD symptoms.

Yes, after the shooting of 28 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School by Adam Lanza, everyone became an expert overnight of Autism and Asperger's that it disgusted me. Why? Simple, I am a father of an Asperger's child and everyday the spectrum and knowledge changes.

Again, I ask, where or how do we redefine the definition of mentally ill?

What if someone is prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug like Naproxen for joint, muscle and/or arthritis pain?

Sounds simple enough even though a side effect is mental/mood swings, could that person be defined as mentally ill?

OK, so we really can't redefine mentally ill unless we list specific illness, because if we went by prescriptions, well I'd say 70% of the country would be on a "watch list."

Got Anxiety Disorder? Well step right up as there are over 20+ prescription drugs too choose from to help.

The point being, for every disorder there at least 3 prescriptions to help ease the situation. If we do not redefine the term mentally ill then maybe suspend the 2nd Amendment right for those prescribed certain drugs.

Now if, for some cosmic planetary alignment, Congress would pass the notion of redefining an incredible demographic of American populace, what do to with all these newly acquired weapons?

Think about it for a moment, would Congress "grandfather" weapons for the newly diagnosed? "If you own a gun today and become medically diagnosed with erectile dysfunction and need to be prescribed Viagra which has mood disorder side effects, under this new law you can still keep your gun."

It's an honest question with a follow up notion that under a newly created mentally ill definition, how many would end up collecting SSI and other entitlements?

Fraudulent lawyers and doctors could see massive future riches with claim suits.

One could even further the gun debate and possible place a suspension on gun ownership to members of the Military returning from active combat until cleared for PTSD.

That idea could destroy any political career in a snap.

Well if we rewind back to January 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder was a few steps ahead of Speaker Boehner when he introduced a plan that would further and tighten the limits of gun sales to the mentally ill.

As reported in the USA Today, AG Holder stated "We are taking an important, common sense step to clarify the federal firearms regulations, which will strengthen our ability to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, this step will provide clear guidance on who is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law for reasons related to mental health, enabling America's brave law enforcement and public safety officials to better protect the American people and ensure the safety of our homes and communities.''

The plan actually expanded the definition to include "committed to a mental institution." The addition to the definition includes those that are involuntarily placed in outpatient and inpatient commitments to be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

To further clarify the federal redefinition by AG Holder, the addition also shall include "persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court."

So a new question now becomes "Who do you trust more on limiting mentally ill gun ownership; One who has produced a plan or One who spoke about a possible future plan?"

Unfortunately, that question will be lengthened by adding "Who do you trust more on limiting mentally ill gun ownership; A Democrat who has produced a plan or a Republican who spoke about a possible future plan?"

That's it, Slap the Tap, take a big gulp, pass the peanuts and wait for the next gun debate knee jerk reaction that will fall on deaf ears thanks to the political divide.