The Newsfeed is a scourge on independent thought

Well said, Chris Harrison. You got it dead right here - everything you said throughout this 14 minute interview was absolutely spot-on!

No need to apologize. No need to walk-back on anything said in this interview.

Going to an antebellum party does not make someone racist. Heck, hosting an antebellum party does not MAKE someone racist. A person is either racist or not racist regardless of the party. As such, a racist person might go to (or host) such a party, but it’s not the act of attending/hosting that makes them racist. An antebellum party is not a KKK party/meeting. Guests at an antebellum party are not gathered in the pursuit of a racist agenda (as would be the case at a Klan meet). The party is merely leveraging a theme, and playing on imagery of glamour, finery and opulence.

Stop for a moment to think about attending an antebellum party with a colored friend. Thinking in this way presents an effective way to illustrate that, in decent society, modern-day antebellum parties became popular for no other reason than that they provide an underlying theme which appeals to most people’s sense of fantasy - i.e. glamorous occasions, with oodles of finery and an air of opulence that’s akin to the Prince Charming & Cinderella ball from the world of fairy tales.

No need to add anything else to what’s already written/said by the BLACK actor who’s quoted in the article...

“Kotto, 75, added that he finds it “ridiculous” when people say all roles should be open to black actors.“

For anyone who’s ever dabbled in that rather flawed argument for “Gender Salary Equality” ... here’s the real-life example that highlights PERFECTLY why it’s wrong to simply pay 2 people the same just because today’s overly PC society is trying to insist that it’s sexist/racist/”any-other-ist” to do otherwise.

The truth of the matter is highlighted so perfectly in this article. Employers & employees need to be able to negotiate based on everything they bring to the table (and experience-in-the-job is just part of that negotiation).

If one candidate has more experience in a roll, that should not necessarily result in a salary that’s higher than someone. Regardless of your gender, race, etc., as a candidate for a new job or a promotion you need to think of your experience as one of the chips you’ll play when it comes time to negotiate your compensation.

As such, you also need to understand (and should accept that) your skill at the negotiation table is going to play a big part in whether you get paid more than, as much as, or less than anyone else who’s ever been considered for a similar role at the same organization.

Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), the rhetoric of Gender Pay Equality (or inequality) is actually a two-sided coin. In the overly PC echo-chamber that we seem to be living nowadays, most folks only seem to have jumped on the headline-grabbing argument that salary-practices are globally unfair to women, colored folks, other minorities, etc. However, consider the following for a moment, and understand the very beneficial flip-side to this coin...

...if you’re one of the final 2 candidates for a given position and you’re made a lower offer than a white male (for example) to fulfill the same role, even though you have the same or more experience; who do you think is the more attractive candidate? Who do you think the hiring manager (responsible not only for bringing in the right expertise, but also for managing departmental budgets) will prefer to welcome aboard? This is just another business decision, and the economics is simple: if they can get the same/more experience for a lower price... CONGRATULATIONS, you got the job (by undercutting the white male candidate who priced himself out of the market). Now stop your complaining about wanting all men, women, colors, etc. to be extended equal offers. Instead, take a few minutes to realize that your willingness to negotiate on price (rather than just trying to negotiate on experience) has scored you a job, while the other candidate is still unemployed or without a promotion.

Surely people can see what’s wrong this (can’t they?)!

While there should be absolutely nothing wrong with “Proudly showing customers” that a business is Black-owned, what do we all think might happen if other businesses thought to show just as much pride about being White-owned?

Let’s ask that question from a different point-of-view (by way of an hypothetical scenario)...

...Imagine if we were to create a fake screenshot to make it look like Amazon (for example) had added this new Attribute for “White-owned” business on their Google Business Profile. Then image that we post the fake screenshot to social media, with all the usual fanfare of disgust and shame. There would global uproar as people lash out at Amazon for apparently be racist and/or out-of-touch. Not to mention the undoubted outcry of “#DeleteAmazon”!

Here’s another example of society’s need to hate. It highlights our sound-bite social media culture, in which folks like cast themselves as being so virtuous & perfect ... while casting damning judgement on everyone else via meme or sound-bite such as to promote whatever toxic propaganda they choose to sling.

As ever, mainstream media seems just as happy to help perpetuate.

In this latest example (”The Great Lysol/Conronavirus Debate”) what the media--both social & mainstream--decide to broadcast are excepts from a press briefing that show the President of the United States talking about flushing the human body with disinfectant as an hypothetical approach destroying coronavirus. Taken as a sound-bite it sounds absolutely ludicrous. Needless to say, taken without any further context, this short comment is gold to any publication that makes its money by serving audiences of people who wish for a change in President. Similarly, the same sound-bite is a dream come true for social media haters who get-off on the virtual accolades that are awarded so freely & moronically within their eco-chamber.

However, wait a minute. Just step back from the eco-chamber for a moment and try to have an independent, unbiased and respectful thought for one moment. It would appear that the sound-bite comment being broadcast within the confines of what the publisher wishes his audience to see is actually part of some contemporaneous conversation that the President was having with William N. Bryan (a man whose role with the Department of Homeland Security is, "Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (DHS)”).

To those with even the slightest of open/unbiased mind, knowing about the broader context of this interaction which was going on with Mr Bryan (in real time, there on the stage at the press briefing), one can see so clearly this was not a suggestion for individuals to start injecting themselves with Lysol (as the social media trolls have since decreed). Rather, it was an off-the-cuff expression of support for those in scientific fields who dare to think outside of the box and who work on radically different (and sometimes seemingly absurd) approaches to problems that are proving too difficult for the normal solutions.

However, because so many media outlets only wish to air the excepts of these briefings that serve their own ends (i.e. the excepts that will be blindly lapped up by web-trolls and haters), they simply neglect to provide the world with the full context that might allow everyone the chance to form a more open-minded and respectful conclusion about what was really meant.

Here’s another one ... another non-story!

People make mistakes and sometimes the folks in charge simply aren’t up to date with all the crazes & trends that are popular with the kids.

Is it funny? Yes. Is it something worthy of international outrage and cries of racism? Absolutely not. Folks need to stop being so sensationalist and making mountains out of molehills (especially where the molehill doesn’t even really exist).

Yet another example of people looking to manufacture feelings of victimization where no such sentiment ever existed.

Wake up snowflake! Can you honestly believe that George Bush Senior sexually assaulted young women while in his NINETIES?!?!?

 Here we go again. Soap-box sound-bites from thoughtless band wagon-ees whose comments and allegations simply make them appear as though they have no idea what suffering or abuse really looks like. Oh, and the icing on the cake is clearly the #MeToo hashtag – a veritable snowflake on the top, just for good measure.

 I am, of course, referring to former US President George Bush Senior’s SECOND apology to “anyone he has offended” after a SECOND allegation of sexual assault emerged. Actually, at the risk of being misunderstood, my ire is not directed at the former president but, rather, at those he was apologizing to (i.e. anyone he has offended).

 This is utterly ridiculous. Can anybody seriously be offended by these actions? The man is in his 90’s, happily married and in a wheelchair. Furthermore, his wife was present at the time.

 Let’s get this on the record right now. George Bush Snr is not out to molest anyone. He’s simply an elderly gentleman, from a far more sensible era who sought to make light of a situation that he no-doubt knew both sides felt awkward being in.

 After all, as a nonagenarian with failing physical attributes who is being wheeled out to pose for photos with actresses & models in their 30’s (making him almost three-times their age), he knows only too well that they have nothing in common and that these girls more than likely have no interest in being there – save for the fact that their agents told them that it would be great PR. Heck he probably even asks himself whether some of these girls even know who he is.

 That said, and with ailing health, he continues to fulfill his duty, smiling for the camera, remaining in the public eye and helping these ingrates to further their careers by ensuring them more column-inches in the glossy magazines when their pics hit editors’ desks and they’re seen gracing the arm of a former president at gala events.

 As for the so-called groping – these selfish little princesses need to climb down off their pedestals and see it for what it truly is. A COMPLIMENT at best, and a harmless-and-innocent ice-breaker from a far less hyper-sensitive era at worst.

 In fact, in the Grolnick incident at least, it seems as though this overly sensitive snowflake had the perfect opportunity to take her cue from her elders. Grolnick said that people in the room "laughed politely and out of discomfort." Precisely, Grolnick. That’s what one does when the grandparents in the group try (and invariably fail) to blend in with the trend-setters of 2-or-3 generations their youth. One is supposed to laugh politely and then, while everyone is feeling a level of discomfort, the tactful thing to do is to steer the conversation along a different course while allowing the elderly to keep what dignity they still cling to intact.

 Meanwhile, any reprimand should be left to close family or friends … something along the lines what the former first lady Barbara Bush was paraphrased as saying is perfect, 'He's going to get himself put into jail!' – right message, delivered by the right person, at the right time, in the right manner. Enough said, Babs, well done!

Another great example of people missing the point. This article has certainly been getting its fair share of exposure in the “World of the Dumb” aka the Newsfeed...and, unfortunately, once again it seems to be the same lemmings following each other to decry how this story shines an apparently inescapable spotlight on the injustices of a bigoted police force who endlessly discriminate against people of color.

Once again, I’m here to call out this ignorant and short-sighted hype. Oh how easy it must be for these folks to scroll mindlessly through their newsfeed, spot a headline & picture with all the hallmarks of a new outrageous injustice, then note the “expert” peer-review (by way of emoticons and 1-liner soundbites in the Comments section) by their similarly short-sighted friends, before giving a cursory skim through the content themselves. All in a matter of a few seconds, they have added their own denouncement and expression of disbelief for the world to see. Now they can relax, having “done their part to expose injustice, while letting everyone know that they won’t stand by and let this stuff go unaccounted for.”

Well, congratulations. If this describes your thoughts and actions upon seeing this article in your newsfeed, then you’re a bonafide member of the moronic and that comment you posted for the world to see was not just absent of thought, it was flat-out irresponsible.

Truth be told, the article itself is a valuable one to read. It is indeed packed with important lessons and the title, “Lifesaving advice…” is spot on. This article absolutely imparts lifesaving advice. There’s no real need to call out the color of the woman who imparts the advice, but a little bit of sensationalism doesn’t seem too unreasonable. After all, it’s important to get folks to pay attention, so we’ll let it slide that the author decided to play a race-card to catch people’s eye.

So what’s the real lesson from this article? What are the responsible and well considered conclusions that should be drawn (in the absence of a bandwagon to jump on, in the world of “Love me, Like my Newsfeed”)?

It’s simple really. This isn’t about race. It doesn’t matter what color the storyteller is. What really underpins the incidents in this article is the fact that the Police carry guns and criminals are devious & violent.

The storyteller writes, “I don’t think I should move” and “being mindful not to raise my voice” when describing how she first responds to the policeman pointing the gun at her. BRAVO! These are the first indispensable tips in the storyteller’s lifesaving advice column. To put it another way, Step #1 when confronted by a Police Officer: be polite and courteous. Do not make rash movements and do not shout or get angry. Honestly, this should be the default behavior regardless of whether the officer is holding a gun. However, especially if there is a gun pointing at you, now is not the time for taking the moral high ground. Now is not the time for being self-righteous. Now is not the time to go on a crusade against injustice or to be telling the officer how to do his job. Nor is it the time to shouting about your rights. Now IS the time to keep a cool head and to capitulate.

There are 3 known things to keep in mind at this point (assuming, as in the article, you’ve done nothing wrong):

1.   The officer does not want to shoot you

2.   Everything will get cleared up and sorted out (even though it may not be done in the most pleasant or speedy fashion)

3.   The officer is nervous and doesn’t want to get assaulted or shot (and criminals have been know to carry guns and to shoot at the Police)

It’s this last point that holds the key to why the Police Officer behaves the way he does.

Let’s face it, criminals are devious and this comes at the expense of the rest of society. Unfortunately, because the criminal will not simply give himself up and accept defeat in such a situation, the Police Officer has little choice but to doubt everybody. In this article, the woman was innocent and she was telling the truth about owning the car and having the proper legal documentation. However, it is by no way inconceivable that a criminal intent on stealing the car would not spin an identical tale if caught in the act. In fact, the Police Officer has probably heard all manner of such tall stories from criminals as they turn to their fast-talk in efforts to wriggle out of being busted. That being case, the officer has no choice but to proceed with extreme care and treat every word from the innocent mouth as though it could easily be a lie.

Think of it this way, if you came home and found that your car had been stolen and that the Police had been there, spoken with the thief, but let him drive off because he was too trusting, you’d string the copper up for incompetence. However, at the same time, woe betide the Police Officer who treats a misunderstanding with too much suspicion. In this regard, the Police Officer really is in a no-win situation.

Is this a Trump vs Barack issue, or 1st Black vs 44th White issue?

This is latest “story” doing the rounds that’s getting my goat. IMHO, this is yet another example of lazy media. People trying to spin stories that they know will play into popular emotion and, therefore, generate clicks from both sides of a divided audience. However, in reality, is there really a story here?

It’s obvious where the lure of this trending topic lies. And yet, even though the bait is clear for all to see, I am observing everyone in my social media feeds falling right into the trap.

Republicans are denouncing Dems by suggesting that all the Trump supporters are at work, doing real jobs, and so obviously can’t be there, while Dems are understandably quick to site this as evidence of some mass unpopularity and the related doom-times that must surely be ahead over the coming 4 years.

But, as usual, I see something completely different. To me, there’s no story here. This is more irresponsible “crowd riling” and, surely, anyone with half a brain (who takes a few mins to think about causality) will realise that it’s only to be expected that Barack Obama’s 2009 attendance might well outstrip that for Trump in 2017. It’s not a matter of popularity or unrest. It’s a matter of history.

People show up for monumental events. With all due respect, whether you're Rep or Dem, seeing a white guy inaugurated as President of the US is not really a monumental event. It basically happens every 4 years. If you miss it this time, you can pretty much be sure you'll have another chance next time.

With that in mind, I looked at the stats for Clinton's first time around - he got only 800K attendees...which was less than half the numbers seen in the rather impressive images being bandied around social media in today’s “Obama vs. Trump” pics. Apparently, Barack had 1.8m folks show up in 2009, a cool one million more than Bill Clinton...in spite of the fact that both Bill & Barack were similarly popular among the Dems at the time. The difference, of course, is that only one of those occasions afforded folks the opportunity to say, "I was there in person to see the first black guy inaugurated as POTUS." 

In short, seeing a coloured chap getting the job was a big deal, and there's only ever 1 chance to see that happen for the first time. If you wanted to be able to say, "I witnessed black history being made. I was there in person," you had to show up in 2009. Period. People would have known that at the time, so people showed up. Simple. It was undoubtedly going to be a huge draw, including for parents and schools wanting to take masses of kids. The same kind of draw seems unlikely if 2009 had yielded the 44th consecutive white bloke to get the job. In support of that statement, the numbers seem to suggest that attendance for Barack in 2013 was down massively...by almost half. Some 800K fewer people showed up to see him in 2013 than 2009. I’m sure there were other reasons that contributed, but one big fact was almost certainly because 2013 was the 2nd black inauguration, not the first. To be fair, this was still far FAR better than Clinton's 2nd term (a mere 250K), or Bush's 2nd term (only 400K).

Spoiler alert: the answer is a resounding, “NO!”

The latest example of our societal downward spiral into ridiculous PC came in this article published by the BBC. It would appear that we continue to slip into our nanny state, where anything and everything has something that someone wants to highlight as being offensive. It’s almost as though these people go deliberately out of their way to hunt out something—anything—to hang out for public shaming; claiming a pseudo moral high ground by trying to call attention to something that’s not actually there. Then, by making such a fuss of virtue, they leave the everyday observer thinking, “Blimey, I never gave 2 thoughts to that…I’d better keep my mouth shut, lest everyone else things I’m sexist/racist/bigoted/tarred with whatever brush.”

Without further ado, here’s the latest, fresh from the Rio Olympics:

-          Quote BBC: When US gymnast Simone Biles gave a storming performance on the uneven bars, an NBC commentator complimented her by saying: "I think she might even go higher than the men."

o   This is not a sexist comment. It’s a solid compliment. Traditionally, throughout the documented history of men’s and women’s sports, measured on equal scales, the men have almost always outperformed the women. Therefore, to highlight that this gymnast was outperforming the men was in fact the highest form of praise.

-          Quote BBC: American swimmer Katie Ledecky was praised as being the "female Michael Phelps"

o   Not sexist. This is another huge compliment. Michael Phelps is the most prolific swimmer of all times. As such, and regardless of sex, he is the benchmark for all swimmers to aspire to. Therefore, to be described as a female Michael Phelps is akin to being described as on a par with the most prolific swimmer of all times. There is nobody better than Michael Phelps and so, as a female Phelps, there is also nobody better than you (with, perhaps, the exception of Phelps himself – which seems like a fair caveat). In what twisted world is this not the highest form of praise? The only way that particular compliment could have been any higher would have been to say that she was better than Michael Phelps. Such a statement would obviously be ludicrous at this point in history and would, therefore, remove any value as a compliment.

-          Quote BBC: After Hungarian swimmer Katinka Hosszu won gold in the 400m individual medley with a new world record, a commentator referred to Hosszu’s partner, who is also her trainer, saying: "This is the man responsible."

o   Correct. This is nothing new. Athletes across all sports commonly refer to their coaches and trainers in this way. How many times have we heard a post-victory interview with the players when someone pipes up, “I/we owe it all to the Coach. It was their master strategy/training that got me/us through. I/we’d be nowhere without them.” The truth is that these athletes who compete and win at the highest levels do so on the finest margins, and they can rarely accomplish that alone. Yes, the natural talent is their own, and the effort, concentration, focus and hard work can only be borne by them. However, it takes an experienced coach to fine-tune the engine in order to get the very maximum performance that’s necessary to edge out the 2nd place athletes by the finest of margins.

-          Quote BBC: Corey Cogdell-Unrein, the bronze medal winner in trap shooting was referenced as the "Wife of a Bears' [American Football] linesman."

o   Not sexist. It’s a true statement. Nothing more than a general interest piece of commentary – given that much of this particular commentator’s audience were likely to be familiar with the NFL. Commentators at live events are often relied on to fill otherwise dead air with random facts, gossip, statistics, etc. This was merely an example of such throw-away tidbits. Such a comment adds an element of pseudo familiarity to an athlete who, despite her success in her field, is not likely to have been much heard of by the majority of the audience before these Olympics. Meanwhile, if they know and can relate to something in the athlete’s personal life, it builds an affinity and make their accomplishment even more meaningful. That said, the next time her husband plays in a televised Chicago Bears game, it’s not unreasonable to think that a savvy NFL commentator might make the reciprocal reference and point out to viewers that he is married to Corey Cogdell-Unrein, and remind us of how great it was to watch her become America’s bronze medal Olympian in the trap shoot in Rio over the summer. FTR, such a comment will not be sexist either.

All sides of any debate have their clueless sheep

Addendum to “Brexit and the EU”

This video has its genuine LoL moments. However, it serves a valuable lesson to all (regardless of stance on Brexit).

Intolerance and ignorance can generally be found among the supporters of all sides of a debate. That’s important to be conscious of for a number of reasons. Think about what this means for an otherwise impartial observer who might have been previously removed the situation. Such an individual is left at the mercy of mainstream media when starting to form his/her opinion.

Human nature finds us wanting to form opinions and to take sides. So, for those removed from the situation, opinions are often based on portrayals in the media.

During the Brexit debate, newsfeeds blew up with content singularly focused on apparent hatred and bigotry among the Leave supporters. This was to the exclusion of most other sentiment-based coverage.

When we analyse why this might have been so, it’s really not overly surprising (as discussed at greater length in the blog post titled, “Sensationalism vs. Journalism. Being Played for Suckers in this Dumbed-down Digital Era”).

People crafting these articles know what action they want their targets to take (they want the click) and they know with algorithmic certainty how to get it. Clicks make money – both for the journalist (in terms of performance metrics for measuring & proving their success) and for the websites that host the stories (in terms of driving up the cost of adwords clicks or other such digital revenue-generating tools). Therefore, rather than engaging it true journalistic endeavors to investigate & report on all facets (which requires real investment, but which does not play well to our 3-second attention-spans while scrolling through Newsfeed), they favour any attention-grabbing headlines and video footage...because that drives the “curiosity click” as well as the “outrage click” (and, in turn, drives social sharing).

However, as this video demonstrates, it’s rare that one side be so alone in its role as the villain, while the other sits similarly alone atop the moral high ground. That may be how it works in fantasy novels and Disney movies but, in reality, all sides will generally have their share of both.

Therefore, s/he who follows along like a clueless sheep that saw something shiny and attention-grabbing in a cellphone newsfeed, will surely be led to slaughter.

Think for yourself before raising a protest or lending a voice in support of something you’ve spent no real time concluding an opinion on.

Better to remain an impartial observer, removed from the situation, rather than to conclude so definitively one way or another based on a few snappy headlines served up via social media. Remember, the newsfeed is a scourge on independent thought...leaving us at the mercy of mainstream media (which is motivated by digital clicks, as opposed to the compelling, thought-out content of the true journalists of yesteryear).

Now then, on to the somewhat partisan funnies from this particular video. Click the play button and watch out for the following lines:

“The best thing about the EU is the NHS -- the BRITISH National Health Service.”

“Brexit means that the government will no longer pay for [her to] travel to France.”

"Virtue signalling and whinging on Facebook ISN'T THE SAME AS VOTING."

“Stop denouncing old people like you know more than them...This is the generation that fought and died for your freedom to vote in the first place.”

...and, of course, the classic,

Sensationalism vs. Journalism. Being Played for Suckers in this Dumbed-down Digital Era

Addendum to "Hypersensitivity gone mad. All Stars of David are 6-pointed, but not all 6-pointed stars are Stars of David”

This link from @cnbc is just one of many examples sharing the story about Donald Trump’s Star of David tweet. The “news” is featured across many mainstream news websites ...and yet, is it really news worthy?

Short answer: It’s NOT NEWS, it’s click-bait.

Anyone who thinks that this would have made the front page of a broadsheet back in a pre-digital, dumb-down, day is kidding themselves. Why not? Ans: Because front pages sell newspapers and there’s more important actual news to report on for any newspaper with integrity. Therefore, because space available on the front page is limited, editors would not entertain headlines with no following story-to-note.

So would it have made the inside pages? Doubt it. Why? Because it’s not news, it’s sensationalism...and there’s no need for sensationalism on the internal pages (because there’s plenty of real news to fill the space).

Does that make the content of this particular Trump tweet right or wrong? Who cares? The point is it’s NOT NEWS (or, perhaps more accurately stated, it’s not news-worthy).

Next Qu. What makes it so appealing to the so-called journalists and news websites of today? Ans: The fact that clicks make money – both for the journalist (in terms of their performance metrics for measuring & proving their success) and for the websites that host the stories (in terms of driving up the cost of adwords clicks or other such digital revenue-generating tools).

This blog post isn’t about whether or not Donald Trump is or isn’t one thing or another. There is no partisan statement here and this isn’t designed to be a judgement, defense or criticism of The Donald. Rather, it’s a judgement and criticism of today’s lazy media that exploits so successfully the compulsion in western society to constantly review their cellphones. This kind of sensationalist headline takes advantage of everyone (and makes fools of us all along the way).

The people crafting these articles know what action they want their targets to take (they want the click) and they know with algorithmic certainty how to get it. So, rather than running real-world articles that require real investment and which provide real value and real education, but which don’t play well to our 3-second attention-spans while scrolling through Newsfeed, they come up with this kind of attention-grabbing headline...absent of content. It’s guaranteed not only to get millions of clicks from both the pro- and anti- side of the political subject, but it will also pull in a significant portion of the “political don’t-cares” by playing a wild card (in this case, religion and antisemitism).

And so, a headline that would never have seen paper in the days of print media goes viral in minutes, while having no actual substance and having required no journalistic talent. Everyone who shared this "story" (regardless of their bent) did exactly what was predicted of them--played for SUCKERS! In the meantime, the rest of the world’s real suffering goes unreported and we western morons go back to our Newsfeed, constantly looking, scrolling, desperate to find something else that stands out.

Hypersensitivity gone mad. All Stars of David are 6-pointed, but not all 6-pointed stars are Stars of David

If we’ve not arrived there yet, this article from @huffingtonpost suggests that we’re getting all too close to a world (or more accurately, an America) where people can’t say anything without there being someone with too much time on their hands who will scrutinize every last detail while looking for any little thing that they might be able to hold up as being an affront to something…anything.

Love him or hate him (or, just perhaps, not at all interested or bothered by him), do we really (HONESTLY) believe that this tweet from Donald Trump was designed to be anti-Semitic? Heck, the article itself points out that a) Clinton is not Jewish and b) Trump has Jewish family members (including his daughter, who converted to Judaism). These are hardly the best examples on which to build a case to show anti-Semitic intent.

Over-and-above those excellent points for the defense, since when did the Jews have exclusivity on using images of a star? The star is an extremely common pictorial among advertisers, marketers, teachers, notice-board-users, shop assistants, etc., etc., looking to call attention to a key part of a broader message that might be being displayed.

Thinking back to last week’s copyright case against Led Zepplin where the judge agreed with Zepplin’s key argument that the descending chromatic scale heard in the opening chords of Stairway To Heaven is exceedingly common in popular music and isn’t subject to copyright protection; perhaps we can say the same about a 6-pointed star.

While all Stars of David are 6-pointed, not all 6-pointed stars are Stars of David. Indeed, while a pictorial representation of a star pretty much needs a minimum of 5 points, there really is no maximum (although, at some point, it will start to resemble a circle more than a star). So, by extension, this means that a star can have 6 points and not necessarily have anything to do with the Jews.

Take a look for yourself. Other than having 6 points, does Trump’s star really look anything like a typical Star of David? Firstly, the colour is off. Most commonly we might be more likely to associate blue or gold with the Jewish 6-pointer. Furthermore, the Jewish icon might more accurately be described as two interlocking equilateral triangles, whereas Trumps budget-looking attention-grabber is nothing more than a red, Post-it note-looking, innocent star with six points.

End of story. Although, to be honest, there should never have been a “Start of story.”

This is political correctness gone absolutely insane. The most respectful interpretation of Trump’s 6-pointed star is that whoever put the graphic together selected a template, made the words fit and never even thought that some poor snowflake might decide to try and make a big deal out the number of points (...and, to be honest, this seems infinitely more likely than some kind of covert Jewish denigration of non-Jewish Hillary Clinton by a guy with a Jewish daughter & son-in-law).

IMHO, here’s why it’s time to leave the European Union...

The EU as it is today is inefficient and the folks at the helm have little accountability. It is not possible, for example, for citizens to vote them out of office. Of course, given the complexities of what the EU attempts to do, it would be impractical to give citizens this power, as no one would ever last long enough to get anything completed. However, I’m sure you see the conflict here – unelected officials that can’t be voted out, mandating policies that are required in order sustain the evolution of a united Europe. The ideal is a noble one, but it asks all the individuals involved to give up an awful lot.

Personally, I feel that the EU served an extremely valid purpose when it was conceived. It delivered some great results that would not have been possible without the bureaucracy that was created (and, in that regard, the costs were justifiable and worth paying). However, partly because of the EU, the world is now a very different place and there are new models that can be more efficient (and that will have different costs).

I’ve always been a believer in long-run economics. To me, the approach of constantly trying to patch existing systems in order to minimize unrest in the short-term so often ends up being inefficient. You try it for a while and you assess effectiveness vs. cost. If it works, great. But if it becomes clear that you’re only putting more-and-more band aids on the problem, then it’s more efficient to pivot or start over.

There comes a time in every product lifecycle when a new start-up all of sudden becomes a major disruptor. At that point, businesses that fail or refuse to recognize the paradigm shift will fail. Furthermore, they will usually fail slowly and painfully as they continue to patch their existing products in vain hope that they can make a difference (think Blockbuster vs. Neflix; Oracle vs. Salesforce; anyone vs. Amazon).

There have been a number of disruptors to international trade since the UK joined this trade block in the 1970s (the internet, bulk container shipping, the development of the Indian economy, the rise of the Chinese economy and its entry into the WTO, to name but a few) and so it may well be time for some EU countries to start considering new approaches to foreign trade.

Here’s a meme that generated traction in Facebook-world, garnering the usual array of mindless sharing, with the overwhelming motivation of many (undoubtedly) being under-pinned by the “need” to score social media brownie points through virtue-signalling. After all, given the seemingly cut-and-dry nature of the conversation being portrayed within the speech bubbles, who on earth could ever possibly argue against a meme that denounces rape? Even the most mindless of newsfeed sheep should easily be able jump on this bandwagon, signal their clearly moralistic virtues, then sit back and bask in the glow of social validation as the Likes and re-shares roll in.

However, this demonstrates one of many problems with our sad demise into a culture of social sound-bites via the ever dumbed down and always oh-so politically correct world of “Like Me Facebook.”

Let’s, for a moment, cast our minds back to a more stimulating time when we were forced to actually engage our brains and enter into conversations and debate. A time when, although not necessarily ground-breakingly intellectual, we actually talked things through and picked apart a topic so as to get to it from all angles. One side of a table would deliver points & counter-points in support of a view-point, while the other side of the table would debate for the opposing mindset.

By contrast, what we have today are millions of brain-dead individuals scrolling through reams of sensationalist sound bites (designed to be nothing short of click-bait) in a newsfeed, looking for an eye-catching meme from someone they recognize, then clicking a catchy thumbs-up icon. All this takes place within their 3-second attention span, preferably before the traffic light they are stopped at changes to green and they get honked at for not paying attention to the road.

Context matters…and context is lost in Newsfeed. Clarity of personal opinion is no guarantee of being understood by others.

This particular meme, when shared the way it was (i.e. without the content and facts of the original story which inspired it) exhibits a complete lack of context. This is what makes it so abysmal.

“What did she expect to happen?”

Whilst it’s probably a certainty that “she” (whoever “she” -- or indeed “he” -- may be) didn’t expect rape, what gets overlooked in social sound-bite world is the far less extreme, and far more likely scenario that plays out in general all over the world when young people leave home for the first time and start to enjoy the freedoms and experiences of carefree adulthood in a drinking culture…and that is...

...“THEY got drunk, THEY got flirty, THEY went home together, THEY said to each other, ‘Honestly, I don’t normally do this kind of thing’.”

However, unless one of them actually said NO, then really they only have themselves to blame for consuming excess of a substance that lowers inhibitions and impairs judgement.

What seemed like a good idea after several drinks is so often realized to be a terrible idea in the cold light of sobriety. However, just as the man can’t turn around the next day and say, “Sorry, I heard her say no, but I was drunk and I thought that she’d actually be OK with once we got things rolling,” the girl equally can’t turn around the next morning and cry rape simply because her sober-self would never have said yes…not if her drunk self never said no.