McConnell's comment about voting and a "Dem power grab." Never mind that it's the pot calling the kettle black, but it seems that the "new," so to speak, way of doing things is to come up with these little phrases that get repeated all over the media and get people all riled up.

It's like back in the old days, when advertisers would come up with little jingles that they wanted to stick in people's minds. It worked then, and it still works. Difference being that the jingles weren't picked up by "TV pundits," because there weren't any.

Projection, deflection, distraction, misdirection, call it what you want. And we keep falling for it.

Just saw this on CNN:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing an amendment to a Middle East policy bill that would acknowledge "al Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home," a move seen as a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump's push to withdraw US troops from Syria.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/mitch-mcconnell-us-troops-syria-afghanistan/index.html

It's Twilight Zone time, folks!

This post is not about religion -- just about the proposal.

Granted the proposal would make the classes optional, but a few things jumped out at me.

One, the concept of separation of church and state. Wouldn't those classes begin to cross the line?

Two, the Bible is a Chistian text and there are a number of versions of it. Agreeing on a version would be interesting to say the least.

Three, the classes would supposedly study the Bible for its historical influence, not as a religious text. That would call for very specialized, and very objective, teachers.

Four (along with two), this would ignore the historical influence of other religious texts.

Five, given all the above (and in this contentious period), would those classes result in chaos?

Six, and going back to one, is this the start of establishing a "state religion?"

Seven, would six violate the freedom of religion concept?

I know what my thoughts on the above are. What are yours?

Sorry if this was already posted, but WOW!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/28/maybe-i-didnt-return-her-phone-call-trump-ridicules-ann-coulter-slams-fox-news-fallout-over-wall/?utm_term=.648df3349d44

And then someone else on Fox called him out for criticizing their reporters.

Is he starting to lose Fox News?

This latest tweet about Comey et al not getting arrested seems to follow a pattern. The tweet brings up old stuff, old news, that people were upset about, as if to re-ignite the anger. All the stuff on Benghazi, the stuff on Hillary, still comes up.

It's like turning a conversation or a call-out around to distract from the subject and avoid "fault:"

"You forgot to call and tell me you weren't coming."

"Yeah, well, last year you forgot to put the dishes away twice."

Some people seem to have a knack for doing this, and others seem to have a knack for falling for it.

but today I'm going to gloat. Big time. Schadenfreude doesn't even cover it.

Anyone care to join me?

I can't handle TV news any more, between the pace and the commercials. So I check several outlets online a few times a day to get different takes on stories and try to separate the reporting from the spins and commentaries. Just curious how many of you do that too.

They're such a breath of fresh air in between the bullshit coming out of the T administration.

We hear about the wall all the time, but not so much about problems with people and drugs entering illegally. Congress is trying to pass some bills, but the overall commentary --everywhere -- is about the wall.

The wall isn't an end in itself (okay, okay, it is to some people). It's a means to an end: a solution to a problem. So why do we (as in people in the US and the media) keep focusing on this one solution instead of on the problem? Is it just easier to talk about? I'm just fascinated by how easily some discussions get sidetracked.

I don't think I've ever just posted a link to something else, but I think this piece in HuffPost is right on the nose. She asks whether Fox News is just "elaborate, postmodern performance art."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ocasio-cortez-hannity-fox-news_us_5c493f3de4b06ba6d3ba2c6f

Some people can't seem to be able to tell the difference between reported news and commentary, and this guy ain't helping.

I miss Kronkite.