Sunday, April 30, 2017

Conative words

   Conative words can be joined to bring about a desired result.
   At the University of California Berkley known as the bastion of “free speech” rallies are around the word “fascist” for a “protest” that destroys the very process of the Constitution’s First Amendment that guarantees the conative joined words “free speech.”
   Angry students enrolled at this once “bastion” of “free speech” refused to allow the “fascists” to give their “speech.”
   So far 2 speakers invited by the University’s Conservative Group were the victims of a “protest” against “fascists.”

   However, the so-called “plague” that besieged Salem in 1692 was also accusatory.
   The Salem 1692 trials were fueled with conative words “devil” and “witch” and produced a desired result by plying the word “witch” to bring about the public trial.
   In the day of Salem 1692, according to Stacy Schiff author of The Witches Salem 1692 “plain-speaking John Procter would discover, to pry open a padlocked mind” during an era of enlightened learning and the pioneering inoculation against smallpox, but they were believers in the occult.

What’s different today?

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Words creative and populist disunion

   The disunion of words like “creative” and “populist” is a peculiar 21st century phenomenon, however insofar as joining these words to a theme, it has come to the fore in 2017.
    I know this as I peruse my stash of The New York Times 2015 “Book Review” before the 2016 election of Trump.
   Yet I am astonished at what The New York Tines April 16, 2017 “Book Review” chooses to theme now becomes fulsomely aimed toward a “political” agenda with the opposing BOOKENDS claim of examining the “harmful” aspect of arts linking “elitism” or “populism.”
   And I am further confused when one BOOKEND writer Adam Kirsch uses a first paragraph to opinionate about the age of Trump.
   Mr. Kirsch nails down the political with the words “deepening” and “abyss” in spite of the word “elitism” as signifies a snob, and “populism” to describe the common, but to employ another word: “deepening” furthermore Mr. Kirsch adds a word intensify: “abyss”  for the political aim of the derogatory: a bottomless pit?

   As well The New York Tines April 16, 2017 “Book Review”  BOOKEND opposing writer, Liesl Schillinger links the word “taste” with the disunion word “ideology,” but concludes with the notion: “artists must be granted the freedom” a political summed up “ideology” when she uses the “elitism” and “populism” in the same paragraph as “attack” and “unworthy.”
   The word “ideology” is about belief to Ms. Schillinger as is The New York Times theme: 2017 mindset politics.

I am saddened that the once fine erudite The New York Tines is willing to destroy even its lauded “Book Review” toward a determined political intent, for this assertive and destructive trash POTUS 45 theme, that has taken over the entire newspaper.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

An insouciant Palimpsest

Are we in the midst of insouciant Palimpsest journalism worse than any previous time?

   When journalists turned the focus on the Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt fighting as a lead to war the reporting of news was the insouciant *yellow journalism."
   Teddy Roosevelt’s Cuban adventure was an era when journalists espoused the most fulsome of palimpsest meanderings and no longer aimed to report the news.
   In this 21st century once again we have a cadre of journalists happy to enhance and twist the news by essentially emphasizing certain details for a particular point of view.  
   The resulting full circle becomes in 2017 another casual twist of meaning when a "journalist" is claiming to report news and also has a "political" agenda.
  This is a nation who elected a populist with an “America First” agenda yet the nation's major print newspapers and the 3 major TV media have journalists who are reporting a Palimpsest bicoastal.
   Some now call the "third arm" of government, the “journalist.”

   Yet whenever journalism is used to make a story, rather than report news, it is against the original intent of what they say makes them the "protector" of democracy.
   The reason why journalists are protected by the constitution is to report truth to fiction.
   What kind of journalist takes on the "enemy" of their version of democracy? 
   Does the public want an insouciant Palimpsest journalism which solely defines a USA bicoastal political persuasion?