There is simply no truth in journalism anymore. Bloggers have ruined web news I think. Let's keep things straight however, when I say bloggers like that, I don't mean you and I who freewrite our feelings to the world. I'm talking about the journalist bloggers. The ones who are not journalists, but report stories. They have flooded the web with half truths. Legitimate journalists race to get stories out but are beaten to the punch by the web journalists. Fact finding is a joke. Sources are not credible and the one thing that should always be factual - quoting - is the most butchered part of the story. Web journalism has also given every writer the right to opine along with report. Once again, a personal blog that's based on opinion is one thing; slanted reporting of the news is quite another.
Today I was reading a column by the loony, lefty, liberals about an opinion toward the "Radical Right-Wing Agenda." They were picking Ron "Ross Perot Ears" Paul. According the tree huggers, Ron Paul does not support civil rights. Not what he said. They claim he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights bill in 1964. Only PART of what he said.
Here's the story... he admitted he would not have voted for the 1964 civil rights bill - AS IT WAS WRITTEN. He did not agree with the parts for property owners. He never said he doesn't support civil rights, hippies. Don't choke on your granola, or do. Whatever. All of the details are left out because the left-wingnuts are not big fans of logic and/or sense. They want to scream and yell and find things to get fired up over without thinking it through and providing a sound, rational conclusion. There is no discussing things with them. I even tried to ping some of the nature lovers about the topic and they just responded with "he doesn't support civil rights." I said, "did you hear the whole story?" and got back "I heard enough, he's anti-civil rights." That's closed minded and ridiculous.
It was said to him, "Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill."
He responded, and here comes a quote, "Because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law."
See... he's for overruling Jim Crow, just as any sane person should be. Obviously, segregation is ridiculous and wrong. He's not arguing against that an iota. He had one problem with one part of the bill and wouldn't have voted for it under its exact verbiage. What a horrible man he is right? He wanted to make change to a bill, but all the flower-power nutballs hear is that this guy was for racism and segregation.
So what's this property stuff he disagreed with anyway? Private property owners should have the right to bar entry. And you know what? I agree. It's not a black/white thing. It's a person who is paying mortgage and insurance and everything else reserves the right to ban anyone inconsistent with his/her own views of the world. I have no problem with any particular race or religion. To each, their own right? However, should an owner of a Christian bookstore have the right to remove a Satanist form their store? Let's say the Satanist is open displaying his/her beliefs within the bookstore. I say yes. Who is paying those bills? The owner. And the owner should retain the right to do what's best for the business. End of story.
That doesn't mean an owner can say, "You're X race, get out." (where x is whatever race the owner doesn't like), but if an individual based on appearance, race, etc is detrimental to the PRIVATE business, then that's that.
I once fired a girl who worked for me in a video store. She was very.... natural. She didn't believe in the removal of hair from the female body. She would wear tank top shirts and skirts. She was also petite which meant there was a lot of reaching over her head to put movies back on the shelves. I was not a fan but I was also unaffected. I received several complaints from customers, some of whom were regulars and refused to return. I had a choice to make. She got fired for inappropriate/unprofessional appearance in the workplace. Did my customers overreact? I think so. However, they keep the lights on in the place with their money. She does not. I didn't own the place, but as a store manager I had to do what was right for the business. She was a good employee, did her job, was polite, etc. Politeness doesn't pay the bills, customers do. So, the customers won.
That's the point of all of this. I'm not a tremendous Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also not a fan of the media MISQUOTING to get a point across. Ron Paul had an opinion. The media told the world of it (in their own way that changed his entire opinion). I don't see how THAT is fair.