Posted on

Informative & Persuasive

Last week my granddaughter, P.K., and I were discussing writing. She is a freshman in high school and was relating to me what she was being taught. “There are two basic types of writing,” she said. “Informative and persuasive. ‘Informative’ states the facts, while ‘persuasive’ expresses an opinion, and they are separate.” Right on, I thought, and then I wondered when that dictum for students of writing changed.

For example, last week, I read an article on the front page of The Sacramento Bee. I would assume that if an article was on the front page of a newspaper, that article would be ‘informative’. Since I was visiting in the area, I had no preconceived notion if the Sacramento Bee was basically liberal or conservative, pro-Trump or anti-Trump. The title of this news article was “US will put asylum-seekers in tent cities.”

Was this going to be an informative news story or a persuasive opinion piece disguised as a news story? In the first sentence the writer of the article described President Trump’s television address as being “filled with tough election-season rhetoric.” Okay, well at least the writer, Franco Ordoñez, was not attempting to fool anybody into thinking that he was pro President Trump.

In the next sentence he spoke about the caravan of “migrants from Central America, including women, children, and the elderly, as well as men.” Whoa, big fella! In all the pictures that I have seen of this migrant caravan, the vast majority were men, young men. In a recent article from the Washington Examiner it was estimated that three quarters of the caravan were young men – with families and unaccompanied children making up only about 20-30%. Even the New York Times in an article about a week ago stated that “adult men traveling without children are the single largest contingent,” and Fox News has reported that 80% of the migrant caravan are men under 35 years old.
In the next paragraph señor Ordoñez continues his subtle editorializing by putting only certain of Mr. Trump’s words in quotes. Apparently he has a problem with “invasion” of migrants, troops that are assigned to “harden” the border, considering a rock thrown by a migrant as a “firearm,” and “endemic abuse” of the asylum system.  Here it appeared to me that the writer was again wandering from “informative” to “persuasive,” as I doubt that the author ever learned that using selective quotation marks in a news story was a part of “informative.”
Finally Mr. Ordoñez abandons any supposition that he is merely writing an informative news story when he refers to a recent ad as a “racially divisive political ad.” Admittedly I have not seen this ad, and I am pretty certain that the vast majority of the readers of The Sacramento Bee have not seen this ad either . . . but if your news is only from The Bee, you are probably convinced that the ad is truly “racially divisive,” even though that is merely the opinion of Franco Ordoñez, whoever he is!
Now let’s be clear. My comments are my opinion, meant to be hopefully “persuasive”. I am not pretending that what I write could masquerade as factual “informative” news. However, “opinion slanted news” masquerading as real front page news is not the same, and to my way of thinking the piece by señor Ordoñez is just another example of ”persuasive” pretending to be “informative!”
One final question: Does opinionated news pretending to be factual news fit into the category of “fake news?”
Posted on

The P.C. Police

I heard a story last week that boggled my mind. As I share it with you as best as I can remember, consider its potential ramifications.

In a racially divergent kindergarten class in a California city a little boy left his classroom without the permission of the Art teacher. The regular teacher was busy in another part of the school while the Art teacher and an aid were in charge of the classroom. After about 15 minutes they discovered the five year old boy in the boy’s bathroom, screaming, but he would not come out. He continued screaming for an additional 30-45 minutes. He still would not come out until finally his mother, who had been called at home, went into the bathroom and escorted him out. When I asked why the regular teacher, the Art teacher, or the aid did not go into the bathroom, I was told that these females were not allowed to go into the boy’s bathroom . . . unless there was an emergency! If my five year old son or grandson were screaming in the bathroom, I would expect someone to go in and get him out. The sex of the school employee-rescuer would make no difference. This would seem like common sense to me. Who in the world would think that getting the five year old boy out of the bathroom and back to his classroom was not the right thing to do? Apparently the “political correctness police!” And who make up the self-appointed p.c. police?

According to Yascha Mounk, writing for The Atlantic on 10/10/18, the p.c. police are not comprised predominately of either a certain age or a certain race, as neither predict those who show support for political correctness. So what, if anything predicts support for political correctness?

Consider the following groups and their opinion of political correctness:

Income: <$50K – 83% dislike; >$100K – 70% are skeptical about it

Education: Never attended college – 87% think that p.c. has grown to be a problem; Those with a postgraduate degree – 66% think it has grown to be a problem

Politics: Conservative – 97% believe that p.c. is a problem; traditional liberals – 61% believe similarly; however with progressive activists – only 30% see it as a problem.

According to polling samples, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated, and . . . white. I would bet the farm that there are no progressive activists whose children attend this California city multicultural grade school, but it doesn’t matter as  according to them, they know best!

I will go out on a limb, and say that this same group of “we know what is best for the rest of you” has been instrumental in the banning of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in thousands of public schools across America. This despite the fact that it is one of the most revered classics of American literature. Recall that Ernest Hemingway once said, “All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn.”

Are the p.c. police everywhere? “Almost, but not quite.” For instance on the other side we have Hillsdale College, where the p.c. police have little, if any, say and certainly no jurisdiction. At Hillsdale College they are working to safeguard the legacy of this treasured classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, along with the legacy of the man, Mark Twain, who is thought by many as America’s greatest author.

If we don’t watch out, pretty soon the p.c.police will be telling the rest of us which statues are acceptable to them and which ones will be to be covered, moved, or destroyed. Oops . . . they are already doing that!

If we don’t watch out, pretty soon the p.c. police will be trying to change the names of holidays! Oops . . . they are already doing that as Columbus Day is “Indigenous People’s Day” in more liberal areas.

I wonder what it would take to have Hillsdale College take over the administration of California’s city schools?

Posted on

Trying

The President and the First Lady came to Pittsburgh on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2018 to show respect for those effected by the horrific massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue last weekend. The President was trying.

The presidential visit began with a motorcade into the city and a visit to the Tree of Life synagogue, where Mr. Trump placed stones and white roses from the White House in commemoration of those killed in Saturday’s attack by a gunman full of anti-Semitic rage shouting that Jews must die. The President was trying.

At the synagogue, Trump was accompanied by the first lady, Melania Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. They were greeted by Rabbi Jeffrey Myers, the spiritual leader of the Tree of Life congregation, and Trump lit candles in a vestibule for each of the 11 shooting victims. The President was trying.

Later, Trump visited the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, spending about an hour at the hospital, meeting privately with four officers who were injured responding to the shooting, along with members of their families.
The President was trying.
An open letter to the president signed by more than 40 “members of the Pittsburgh Jewish Community” welcomed the president and expressed “gratitude to you and your administration for your unwavering support of Israel.” However, as the President moved around Pittsburgh, a largely Democratic city, the signs of discord were apparent, and of course a protest was planned for later in the afternoon. A protest against what?, one might ask. Was it a protest against a president who is unabashedly the most pro-Israel president in the last thirty years? Was it a protest because the President made this extra effort to come to Pittsburgh – not to condone violence, but to show sympathy for the victims. What exactly were the protesters trying to prove?
Clearly, not everyone in Pittsburgh was opposed to the visit. Even some of those who do not like Trump at all said he had no good choice, facing criticism if he came and criticism if he did not. Obviously he knew that those on the left would be critical, no matter what he did, but he was trying.
Locally there was an inter-faith vigil at Temple Adat Shalom. It was attended by over 400 people of different faiths. What a wonderful idea. The organizers were really trying. However the host, Rabbi David Castiglione of Temple Adat Shalom in his opening remarks immediately took out after President Trump. And this obviously anti-Trump rhetoric at a “never again” religious gathering was meant to accomplish what? What exactly was the rabbi trying to prove?
At this point to me these liberal responses are becoming quite trying!
Posted on

”I Didn’t Know That!”

Here in California many of the local newspapers seem to have a penchant for not reporting pro-Trump news, as to them, I guess, most pro-Trump news is apparently not newsworthy.

For instance, What do the following places have in common?

Erie, Pa
Johnson City, Tn
Topeka, Kansas
Rochester, Minnesota
Council Bluffs, la
Southern Mississippi
All of these places held rallies in early October – Donald Trump rallies.
“What, I didn’t know that!”
All of these rallies were packed, and in most, if not all, there is a near full overflow space outside for those without tickets. But these were just the rallies that President Trump held in the early part of the month. Later in the month there was a weekend rally in Elko, Nevada which drew 8500. Meanwhile Joe Biden held a rally in Las Vegas that drew only about 500 supporters, and prior to that Barack Obama held a rally in Las Vegas at UNLV’s Thomas and Mack Arena. BO’s rally drew about 2000 Democratic supporters. I did read about that in my local paper. However, what I did not read was that this arena holds 18,000! (Yes, you read that right . . . only 2000 in an 18,000 seat arena!)
“I didn’t know that!”
The largest recent Trump rally occurred on 10/22/18 at the Toyota Center in Houston, Tex. This rally was not initially scheduled for this venue, but was moved to the 18,000 seat arena because of the huge demand for tickets. Apparently about 100,000 had initially requested tickets! (Yes, you read that right . . . 100,000!!)
“I didn’t know that!”
In the middle of last week the President also held a rally at Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, Wi. I could not find out how many attended this rally, but I do know that people began lining up for the Wednesday evening rally at 1p.m. . . . on Tuesday! On 10/27 there was another rally in Murphysboro, Il. The line to get into this rally stretched over one mile (see You Tube video). Thousands of people attended! Oh yeah, BTW, there were 75 Democratic protesters. (Yes, you read that right . . . 75!)
“I didn’t know any of that!”
Are these rallies effective? The purpose is obviously to excite the base and get them to vote. Not only will most of those attending these rallies vote, but there is also a significant “force multiplier,” including friends, relatives, and coworkers who will get fired up as they talk to a rally attendee.  Recall that Donald Trump, the candidate, held 323 rallies in 40 states during the 2016 campaign, and something worked then!
In the upcoming weeks before the midterm elections, President Trump will be holding rallies in eight states, including two in Florida, and another one in Montana. (Yes, you read that right . . . eight!)
“I didn’t know that.”
I am quite confident that the local newspapers will not consider any of these upcoming rallies to be “newsworthy.” So later when you do not read that Trump held a large rally in XXX,  you won’t be able to say, “I didn’t know that,” but rather “ I didn’t read about that!”
Posted on

Should a Description be Accurate or Vague?

Last month a mother of a student at a local elementary school notified the principal of the school about a situation that had alarmed her. She told the principal that a man had stared at her daughter while in Starbucks and and then had followed her. Of course at this point the principal, a woman, had to make some assumptions and then had to decide what to do about the situation.

It seems reasonable for the principal to assume that both the mother and the daughter were concerned about the situation or else it would have not been brought to her attention. Is it possible that both the daughter and her mother exaggerated the entire incident way out of proportion? Yes, certainly that is possible, and a reasonable person has to assume that if either this mother or her daughter had a past history of blatant exaggeration or a history of fabrication that the principal would have been justified in discounting the story. However since the story did not end there, one can assume that this was not the case.
So at this point, the principal had a choice to make. In my view there were only three possible options for her.
Option 1: She could do nothing. The likelihood that this incident could be a precursor to a tragic encounter for this same student or for another female student is small, but not zero. Yes, small, but real, and if the principal had remained silent, and something did occur in the near future, then all hell would break loose. Certainly, I would not want to be in the principal’s shoes, either legally or morally. If someone passes on a reasonable concern to someone in authority, I feel that it is the responsibility of that person in authority to act. To me, doing nothing is not a reasonable option.
Option 2: Communicate the facts in this situation to the parents of the other children at the school. There are many ways that this potential concern could be communicated, but in this day and age, e-mail would seem to be the easiest and most logical way to notify the other parents, so that they in turn could discuss add reenforce with their children how to react in certain situations.(“Don’t talk to strangers. Always walk home with a friend. etc.”) If my daughter or my granddaughter were attending this elementary school, this is the option that I would hope that the principal would take.
Option 3: Notify the police. This is always an option although to the best of my knowledge, staring at someone is not a crime . . . yet! Perhaps the principal or the mother involved did notify the police, but we do not know if either occurred.
Now let’s assume that the principal did choose  ‘Option 2’. How detailed should her description of the possible “starer and follower” be. Should it be as detailed a description as the daughter gave the mother, or should it be purposely vague? For example should the description be “a male wearing a hooded sweatshirt,” or should it be a detailed description like is seen in the newspapers every day? A vague description might be helpful to the parents as a lead in to a general discussion of things the children should be aware of, but does nothing to actually alert anybody about a potential real danger.
Of course, when the principal gave a detailed description of the “starer and follower  (“an African-American male, about 6’1” – 6’2,” about 30 years old, dressed in all black with a hooded sweatshirt”), she was chastised by the NAACP and a black community leader. I found this particularly interesting as I read the description of a bank robber in the local newspaper today. He was described as “being a black man in his twenties about six feet tall and wearing sweats.” To me these two descriptions sound amazingly similar.
  1. I am waiting for a complaint from the NAACP about this newspaper description, but I have been advised not to hold my breath!
Posted on

Do Ya Want Some Mo, Joe?

Last Saturday night my wife and I went to a play. We were there early and before the doors opened, I was outside talking to Joe, an amicable guy even though his politics are on the left. He politely asked if I had had a good day, and when I answered “yes, very much so,” he inquired as to what I had done that day. I told him that I had taken a long nap and had done some writing for my second book. One thing led to another and after I told him the format and the genesis of the first book, he queried as to how he could purchase it.

I responded to him, “It’s title is The Quirky Contrarian by Daniel R. Collins, and you can buy it on Amazon. However, Joe, I must warn you that there are some parts of this book that you may not like or agree with, namely my many letters to the editor”
(For me it’s not worth the small change, that I receive for each copy sold, to piss someone off.)
His response made me feel like a hockey player who has just made a clean check, and is suddenly faced with an angry opponent who has taken off his gloves and dropped his stick, “Oh, are you one of those looney-tunes that back that wacko president in Washington?”
A choice:
Either drop my gloves and my stick and come out swinging.
Or, quietly skate away and avoid the confrontation.
“Oh, it looks like they’ve opened the doors and we can go inside. See ya later, Joe.”
The play was only so-so, but I did not care. For the next hour and a half, in my mind  I went going through what I could have said to Joe, considering that I had both the height and the weight on my side and would have easily won the hockey skirmish.
 
“Joe, without getting emotional, let’s just look at the facts. President Trump has merely done those things that he promised when he was campaigning. 

He has nominated two conservative Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate has confirmed 29 federal appellate judges . . . more than any other recent president.

He withdrew from the Paris Accords and from Obama’s Clean Power Plan, while he has approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and opened the  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration – all just as he had promised.

He withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership, and has renegotiated NAFTA.

He has rolled back regulations resulting in $8.1 billion in regulatory savings in his first year, and $9.8 billion so far this year. The economy is booming and he passed the tax cuts that he said were necessary. Unemployment is at a record low.”

When I finally took a breath, Joe was skating off the ice and back on the bench!

“Do ya want some mo, Joe?”

BTW: No additional book sales . . . yet!

Posted on

Half-a-Brain

Well last week it happened! Anyone with half-a-brain anticipated that it would happen and it did. Actually the only question was, “How big would the increase be?”

Again not a big surprise as similar scenarios occur all the time with alcohol. For example in Naples, Florida there is a group of bars clustered fairly close together in a small mall like area. On the weekend for the young set this is the happening place, and the alcohol flows freely till 2a.m. The police are very cognizant that the vast majority of the young clientele will be exiting the funnel shaped area on the one main road that leads to the highway, and so they patrol that road from 12:30 a.m. until 2:30 a.m. Anyone with half-a-brain knows what’s going to happen, yet the young drivers are surprised every weekend when they are pulled over. Likewise if the police did not patrol this area, with many lubricated drivers behind the wheel between 12:30 and 2:30 a.m., those with half-a-brain would anticipate an increase in auto accidents on that road.

Like I said, last week it happened . . . The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that traffic accidents are rising in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. After retail sales of cannabis began, the frequency of collision insurance claims in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada rose about six percent higher than in nearby states where marijuana is still illegal.  Similarly in a separate study, IIHS saw a five percent increase in the rate of crashes reported to the police in Colorado, Oregon and Washington compared to neighboring states that haven’t legalized the drug. Was this anticipated? For anyone with half-a-brain the answer is “Yes, certainly, this result was anticipated.”
Recreational marijuana has been legalized in many other states including California, Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Will anybody be surprised when there is a reported increase in auto accidents in these states? Will the other states that are considering referendums or legislation to legalize cannabis pay any attention to what is happening on the roadways in states where it is already legal? . . . Extremely unlikely!
As David Harley, president of the Insurance Institute, said, “With marijuana impairment we are just now starting to understand what we don’t know.” Anyone with half-a-brain might respond to that statement by saying, “Why are we legalizing something before we actually comprehensively know it’s effects?”  The answer, unfortunately, is that the majority of the voters and a lot of the state legislators rarely use half of their brains!
Posted on

Nostalgia

The other day I was minding my own business, driving down the freeway with my windows open, enjoying the warm Santa Ana winds. I was listening to Sirius Radio, which provides a nice respite from talk radio with no commercials. One of my favorite stations is “50s on 5,” which obviously plays only music from the 1950s, and is able to quench my thirst for nostalgia.

Sirius was playing one of my favorites from the late 50s, “Susie Darlin’” by Robin Luke. Ahh, “nostalgia” . . . what a wonderful thing! The good old songs of the 50s enable me to recall the “good old days.” As I drove along humming the songs of the late 50s, I began to think of the “good old Democratic Party” of the late 1950s. Back then the Democrats were in the process of transitioning from Adlai Stevenson II, who was the Democrat’s presidential candidate in both 1952 and 1956 to a fresh young candidate from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Next on Sirius came “Wake Up Little Susie” by the Everly Brothers. Ahh, nostalgia!
The Democrats back then were a far cry from the Democrats of today. Remember JFK’s “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” I do not think that the word, “negotiate” is in the present day Democrat’s vocabulary!
The nostalgia continued with Sirius’ “Runaround Sue” by Del Shannon. The Democratic Party of JFK was patriotic. Recall JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you… ask what you can do for your country.” Does this sound anything like the Democrats of today? Absolutely not. In fact the JFK-Democrats appear to be more like the Republicans of today than today’s Democrats.
Next on the 50s on 5 was “Waterloo” by Stonewall Jackson. Ahh nostalgia!
But here the lyrics did not remind me of the good old Democratic Party, but rather the chorus seemed to portend their possible future.
“Waterloo Waterloo
Where will you meet your Waterloo?
Every puppy has his day
Everybody has to pay
Everybody has to meet his Waterloo”
Will their recent shenanigans in the Kavanaugh Senate hearings lead to the ultimate Waterloo of the Democratic Party as we now know it?
Only time will tell if the Democrats will soon be singing a “Broken Hearted Melody” like Sarah Vaughn did in 1959.
As I pulled off the freeway, I  hoped that in the near future the American people might say “I’ve Had It” and by serendipity 50s on 5 played that same song by the Bell Notes!
Ahh . . . nostalgia!
Posted on

Bee Quiet

A friend of mine, Buzz, is an apiculturist, and not only is he an apiculturist, but he is also a conservative. Is this unusual? Is this combination common or a rarity? Of course, in order to answer this question, one must first know what an apiculturist is . . . and even then, since there are relatively few apiculturists, it would be difficult to know statistically if this association is common or uncommon.

Anyway, the other day Buzz told me about a dream that he had had the night before. He related how refreshed and alive he was when he awoke the following morning. “It was the opposite of a nightmare, and when I woke up, I wished that I could have that same dream every night!”
He continued that the background to this dream was based on a study that was done during the solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017. (I had no idea what study he was talking about, as I hardly remembered the eclipse.) Apparently this study looked at audio recordings of bumblebees, honeybees, and other types of bees as they visited flowers along the path of total eclipse. The researchers found that while the insects were happily buzzing throughout the day and during the partial phases of the eclipse, the bees went quiet the instance that the total eclipse occurred in their area. The bee’s buzz is the result of the insect flapping its wing muscles, and so when the bees are flying, they are buzzing. No one is sure exactly why the bees stopped buzzing, but some think that it may be related to how the bees interpreted the drop in light.
At this point my friend, the apiculturist, then relayed the actual content of his dream, in which it was possible to simulate an eclipse indoors. However, as if this wasn’t far enough out there on the sci-fi spectrum, the more amazing part was that the Democrats in the U.S Senate behaved like the bees did during the 2017 eclipse.
In other words the Senate Democrats became quiet in response to this faux eclipse . . . quiet almost on demand!
He finished his story by saying, “Can you imagine what a wonderful world it
would be, if with the flick of a switch, simulating an eclipse, you could get Senator Schumer, Senator Warren, Senator Booker, Senator Kamala Harris, etc. to stop flapping their mouths. How much more efficiently would the Senate then run?”
He and I both realized that the likelihood of this happening in the near future was zero, but wondered if perhaps a grant could be given to The National Society of Apiculturists so that they could work on a project like this.
“Imagine,” said Buzz, “What a wonderful world . . . this could bee.”
BTW: An apiculturist is a bee-keeper.
Posted on

Goody, Goody

Last week the Trump administration announced it was nominating three attorneys to the 9th Circuit, the largest and busiest federal appeals court in the country. When I mentioned this to my friend, Patti, she said that Trump’s action on the 9th Circuit kinda reminded her of a song that had been recorded by her favorite, Frank Sinatra, and in addition had been sung by Frankie Lymon a few times on the Ed Sullivan Show.

As she then sang a few bars, I could envision the lyrics being directed to the two Senators from California:

So you met someone who
Set you back on your heels
Goody goody!

White House officials had been negotiating with California Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris (both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee), earlier in the year about filling these and other federal court vacancies. However, Senate aides confirmed that the dialogue had collapsed this past summer. I then recalled that the chaos in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was started by Senator Feinstein, as Patti continued to sing:

So you met someone and                                                                                                    Now you know how it feels.                                                                                                                            Goody, goody!

President Trump’s nominees for the appeals court — litigators Daniel Collins and Kenneth Lee and Assistant United States Attorney Patrick Bumatay — are all based in Southern California, are prominent members of the conservative Federalist Society, and have worked for Republican administrations. None of the three were approved by Feinstein or Harris via a process known as a “blue slip.” Recall that Senator Harris was extremely obnoxious and insulting toward Judge Kavanaugh during the recent Senate hearings. Patti sang on:

So you lie awake
Just singing the blues all night
Goody goody!

Feinstein whined, “Last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested.” Patti concluded:

And I hope you’re satisfied
You rascal you!

Another issue for Democrats was the age of Trump’s nominees, as these judgeships are lifetime appointments. Bumatay, Collins and Lee are all in their 40s and 50s – which means they could potentially remain on the 9th Circuit Court for decades. Democrats would have preferred older nominees. Patti and I then sang a duet:

Hurray and hallelujah!
You had it coming to ya

Personally, as I thought about what President Trump did . . .  plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with conservatives, while brushing aside Democratic resistance, I sang the last verse:

Goody goody for him
Goody goody for me

And added:

Goody, goody for the U.S.A.!