Subscribe Email Updates
Home  /  Featured  /  Trump as Bob Ross
payday loans - daymoney Resources and Information.

Trump as Bob Ross

February 26th, 2017
Trump as Bob Ross

We remain on sabbatical, of sorts. Our respite from more active national commentary in the wake of this national party’s General Election artifices is well-earned.  Even so, on occasion we will comment upon matters of intrigue and entitlement, as the spirit moves us.

By “artifices,” we refer to carefully staged Gomer Pyle onomatopoeia, scripted to express theatrical surprise…as if.

Try as it might, the same old script overdubbed by canned laughter just doesn’t garner much audience share for the producers of the national party.  Little wonder.  After watching the show a few times, if it is anything, it is predictable.

Special effects change little.  The exclusively featured podcasts in 2016 from the chief seats of the party’s entitled apparatchiks have given way to webinars, equivalently featured on the national website by the same people in 2017.  The 2020 candidate fix is already in.  Skip the next three years, tune back in, and you’ll be in the same place.

No wonder many exercise the option of flipping the channel. A Bob Ross episode is preferable to the excruciatingly lilted dialog of the national party.

What elicits these particular comments are the use of propaganda techniques—or “perspectives” in more genteel terms.  The techniques are curiosities worth observing.  They are instructional, more or less like that Bob Ross canvas.

You know the general theme of Bob’s paintings going in; but not necessarily the specific colors and shapes.  And, you also know that at some point a tree is going to plop dab somewhere in that painting.

That’s also what makes the current Trump phenomenon so interesting.  He’s that tree.

Now, we do realize Bob Ross is dismissed by more egalitarian artists among  Haight-Ashbury haunts. But let’s give him his due.  His perspective paintings did end up looking like landscapes…trees and all.  So in defense of our programming choice, to condemn the tree before Bob’s finished with it is…presumptive.

Point in case:  the current brouhaha over the Trump White House “banning” media coverage (or rather, the customarily entitled media)…is just such a presumption. Their abstract (we prefer Ross’ landscapes—he at least had a clue), reduces to the “major” media arguing that they too are entitled to chief seats.

These days, so many posteriors are trying to wedge themselves into entitled pews that, as a matter of public safety, the architectural load bearing capacity of the foundation should be revisited.

In any case, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, the BBC, Politico, The Huffington Post and BuzzFeed News did not get invitations.  Their bums didn’t fit in the reserved seats.  In sympathy with the bums that didn’t get “entitled” seating, the Associated Press, Time magazine and the Washington Post declined their own invitations.

That said, several less-than-friendly outlets—namely ABC and CBS—did attend; as did The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Breitbart News, One America News Network, The Washington Times and Fox News.  We struggle to identify a “ban”.

We hold that the “major” media hegemony has long denied an opportunity to many other deserving journals and outlets. Multinational corporate media has elbowed rural American perspectives to the back rows.  It is high time to open media coverage, and distribute it to citizens across small town America.

Logically speaking, no justification for claims that an entitlement exists to an exclusive seat in the press corps by The New York Times over, for example, Lewiston Morning Tribune, Idaho Statesman, The Idaho Press-Journal or Fisher Communications.

Perhaps the New York Times claims long standing (albeit outlived) privilege, and thus has a prestige still meriting consideration.  But clearly that claim does not apply to BuzzFeed News—after all, who are they?  Ditto Huffington Post.  Self important all…and none at all.

Back to that tree growing in the middle of the Bob Ross landscape.  If this be “banning” by Mr. Trump, then make the most of it.

We are against insider “entitlements” of any kind; we condemn them even within our own national party (as evidenced above).  Make no mistake, “entitlement” is precisely what the so-called “major” media is so outraged by now—now that it is they who have been assigned to the back rows in which they heretofore expected every small town paper to sit.

We submit that it is time for Mid-America to set the trends again.  We’ve had enough of mega-media doing so, pushing selfishness and an indecent promotion of every perversion known to mankind.

CP-Idaho finds no compelling or ethical reason whatsoever as to why the Trump White House should not continue to rotate small town America reporters into the seats formerly occupied by the monopolistic “major” press that oppressively squatted upon them without patent for three or four generations.

It is time to break that media monopoly…and incentivize our small town reporters.  Besides, evidence indicates they could hardly do worse.

Bottom line, the Left complains anew about a speck of sawdust.  Meanwhile, Bob Ross had quite an eye for trees.  His choice for barbers was notwithstanding; but then again, neither is Trump’s.

Comments are closed.