Filters

To some extent everything is a bit of a game, even things that are decidedly very important.  People make it that way as at least some of them are always trying to gain an advantage, I'm not aware of any profession or endeavor which is not subject to some game playing.

Now politicians are probably the biggest game players of all since they spend much of their time figuring out what to do and how to position themselves.  Once in a while someone comes along and changes the rules, causing a mad scramble.

We saw this in the 2016 election cycle but it really started in 2010 when the tea party started to infiltrate the Republican party.  Of course there have always been factions within the parties but they seemed to be unwilling to even consider some of the accepted norms.

Now of course we see some of this in the Democratic party.  It is possible that the failure of people who supported Bernie Sanders contributed to the Democratic candidates loss.  It was a factor and it required every factor to get the outcome we did.

In the mid terms we have seen an influx of non-traditional representatives, some of whom are getting a lot of attention.  Part of this is because they either don't know the accepted rules or don't care about them.

This of course provides ammunition to the other side to point out any foibles or mistakes they make.

What's worse is that many of the traditional filters are simply gone.  In days past you often had more awareness of what you were saying or doing.

Of course now, with twitter, you can shoot off a comment in the privacy of your bedroom without any filters at all.

Every tweet is subject to analysis and in some cases fact checking and it is probably a good idea for many of the new players to find a filter who can provide feedback on proposed tweets.

Or not and let the games begin!

All Fluff

I guess one of the things we now have is the early morning inane tweets that the dontard issues.

I think he actually believes the stuff he sends out, but then again maybe he doesn't.

Today he seems to have decided arbitrarily to blame China for hacking e-mails, which were never actually hacked as far as anyone can tell.

Of course to think he would keep track of details is a little like believing he knows what he's doing.

Take North Korea where he was clearly used to score some PR for that dictator when they never intended to do anything but parade the orange haired buffoon on their propaganda.

If you simply give his ego a little stroking he is happy to let you use him to prop up your regime.

He isn't quite so amenable to working with allies who tried the wrong approach, treating him as a partner who you didn't have to coddle.

He wants coddling.

He probably needs it.

Most of his business ventures ended up fading and while he did make some money from his TV show, the rest of his ventures have mixed results.

More flash than cash.

The circumstances that have led him to occupy the presidency are certainly unique and maybe its more than a one time oddity.

I hope not, we need to pick leaders with some substance.

At least I think we do.

Twitter Opinions

I see a lot of articles and sometimes hear how people are reacting on Twitter.  Twitter has become apparently the arbiter of things even things like who is guilty of abuse and who should be shamed.

This is sort of like deciding that letters to the editor should be used to determine public policy.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't express opinions on Twitter or anywhere else, but I don't see any reason to give them more influence than they deserve.

I don't know how many people contribute to these posts and while some are clever or funny, I just don't know if they reflect overall opinions or sway any significantly.

Still its become sort of an instant feedback forum that is picked up on by various media as an indicator of public opinion.

Speaking of which, we now see people attacked and sometimes convicted for offenses that may or not be anything at all.

There was recently a tweet by Samuel L. Jackson that could be interpreted as a number of Trump supporters giving him oral sex.

This was attacked as homophobic, but is it?

The acts that go on between consenting adults is their own business.  They don't however have any type of monopoly on them.

If in fact you interpret that tweet to mean what some interpreted it, it would have in fact constituted an act of sexual harassment since they were effectively his employees required to perform that act to keep their jobs.

It has nothing to do with acts between consenting adults.

What if the implication was that they had to kiss his ass?

Would that be offensive to people?