Fueled by Lies, the Left Slices and Dices Opponents’ Words

By some studies, the typical person utters 15,000 words per day: Women a bit more, apparently, and men a bit less. By that standard, President Trump probably speaks around 30,000 words on any given day. So, in one year he's uttering nearly 11 million words – a lot of fodder for Leftists to slice and dice and take out of context. It is not difficult to extract key phrases with which to create negative sound bites or to write defamatory newspaper and magazine articles.

Certain parties on the Left, among them CNN and MSNBC, monitor right-wing talk shows, news outlets, radio shows, and podcasts, as well as anything said by Trump and his administration. They pounce on any word or phrase that they can use against Trump or, for that matter, anyone on the Right.

Quiz question #1: If the policies and programs that the Left offers or proposes are valid or effective, would they need to pounce 24/7 on the mere words of their opponents? Would they need to slice and dice and make havoc with whatever they can? If the truth were on their side, would they need to engage in this kind of behavior? Those on the Right, seeking to expose the folly of those on the Left, only need to stick to the truth of what the Left actually does and espouses policy-wise. The truth works.

In essence, the Left’s very existence is built on lies. It is a lie that the government can control everything, effectively dispense funds, and equitably redistribute them. It is a lie that the government can ensure everyone to be on completely equal footing. It is foolish to believe that a one-world government, to which the globalists aspire, can ‘take care’ of all citizens. It is nonsense to contend that the populace can effectively be overseen by self-anointed, elitist, world-class rulers.

Further, it is folly to believe that anyone should stay in power for longer than, say, a couple of decades. In the U.S. we've witnessed what happens when senators are in power for 30, 36, 42 years, and so on. Congressional representatives who are re-elected 10 or 12 times, invariably become reliant on slicing and dicing to stay in power

President Trump is susceptible to slicing and dicing because he is a personable guy, who talks a lot, and likes many people. On occasion, he pontificates, rambles, or thinks out loud. It is as if he shares his stream-of-consciousness with others. Knowing this, the Left vigilantly and viciously seeks to fashion articles, features, or exposés based on what they can glean from President Trump’s many, many utterances.

One could argue that President Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. He should be less off-the-cuff and less shoot-from-the-hip. He ought to pontificate less. Agreed. Still, how do you reverse a lifelong communication pattern? Most people can't do it. In fact, it takes an exceedingly skilled communications expert or linguist to even attempt such a conversion.

The beauty of Trump’s message delivery is that listeners are clear about what he feels and reasonably clear in what he's thinking. In other words, he doesn't hide things. Even if his articulation is not all it could be, people are appreciative of his raw honesty. His supporters find comfort in that.

Tight-lipped presidents, such as Barack Obama, who stick to the script, are harder for others to slice and dice. Obama is a conniver. So is Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and Depends-customer Nadler. They are well aware of phrases that they need to finesse to avoid having bad headlines the next day.

You rarely know exactly what the connivers are thinking or intending but, in many instances, they stay out of trouble, whereas Donald Trump does not.

Quiz question #2: Who would you rather have as a leader? Someone whose words and thoughts sometimes slosh all over the place but in whom you always know where he stands? Or, someone who deals in language subterfuge so you are never sure about anything the person says?

Like the arts doesn’t have enough funding already.
___________________________________________

Arts funding rarely goes to individual artists. Instead, it is a convenient vehicle to award patronage to donor groups.

Money to museums pays for upper class venues and the celebrations held there. It facilitates the building of grandiose structures with extreme needs of space, lighting and climate control, which is another avenue of payback for patronage. It provides a place for owners of investment art to park their acquisitions while garnering tax and reputations benefits. It provides jobs to those with few real-world skills and provides a venue for genteel community service.

Money to arts centers rewards property owners and does double duty as cultural enhancement of a neighborhood. It also gathers people in a specific spot where they can be managed.

Money to festivals is double-counted as improving the local business climate. Meanwhile artists are charged for jury processes in order to enter and the public is often charged an entry fee, as well.

Money to competitions pays jurors, who are usually academics or collectors, rather than working artists. Also, an examination of competitions in visual, performing and literary arts will reveal themes that are veiled propaganda highlighting leftist interests. It is recruitment dressed up as awards to talent. What rewards exist will be skewed by political interests.

“1% For Art” is a stealth tax on builders and property investors and a bone to competing artists.

The governmental portion of arts funding is, in reality, quite small and is quietly fought over between those who run and manage corporate art enterprises (museums, art centers,festivals, competitions) and individual working artists. This is legal and allowed for in the arts funding grant contracts. $50M will be awarded to a museum, while individual working artists, who must also compete for the privilege, are awarded small 4-to-5-figure stipends or even cheaper support in kind, such as limited-time residency in a retreat atmosphere.

The costs of administering arts programs comes out of the total allotment granted. The cost of applying for grant money is about 30% of the amount awarded and goes to professional administrators and grant writers. Board members who vote on the distributions are community-nominated volunteers, mostly wives & children of politicians and donors. Board appointments are the result of lobbying efforts.

I suppose the corporate and academic world have already staked out their skimming operations in STEM. Government has an interest, too, and the innovators can also turn to private venture capital. This doesn’t leave a lot of room for using STEM monies to benefit grifters. Thus, STEM is not viewed as deserving of governmental grants.

STEM workers are seen as already privileged by virtue of the high salaries and patent profits offered in real life. Artists need side jobs to support their work. Redistribution from STEM to art is seen as providing a bone to a supposed underprivileged constituency of the left.

The issue is never the issue. The issue is always how can the parasitic left benefit most.

Revolutions cost money. Money provides control.

Divisions between artistic and scientific creators is a bonus.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.