Law enforcement and National Guard deployments have effectively restored order in urban areas, demonstrating a more proactive approach to managing civil unrest compared to previous strategies.
The success is making the Democrats methodology look bad, so the Democrats are doing all they can to bring it all to a stop.
Question: Why do they put erasers on pencils?
It’s true, though I must admit, I didn’t think of it. However, you will have to go far and wide to find a person more mistakes prone as I am. For the most part, the mistakes can be eradicated. As with the eraser, the error can be figuratively and easily rubbed out.
Life’s challenges aren’t always simple to overcome. Some wounds, both physical and emotional, leave lasting marks that we carry with us. Forgiveness might come, but the consequences of our actions or accidents can persist. My own journey with a severely damaged ankle serves as a testament to this reality. Despite an orthopedic surgeon’s meticulous hours of surgical intervention, the injury continues to haunt me. The persistent throbbing pain seems almost independent of the physical limb itself. When I sought a solution, the doctor’s stark response was chilling: surgical removal was an option, but the pain might well remain, a phantom reminder of past trauma. Some scars, it seems, transcend physical boundaries, etching themselves into our very existence.
Navigating life’s pivotal moments requires careful reflection, especially when facing choices with lasting consequences. Our decisions can echo through time, leaving indelible marks that no simple correction can erase. Like permanent ink on the canvas of our existence, some choices demand thoughtful consideration before we commit. Not all mistakes can be easily undone, and wisdom lies in pausing to truly understand the potential long-term impact of our actions.
In one respect, I have been fortunate. I have never directly taken part in the taking any human life. The thought that I might one day scares me. Yet one day, either by accident or in defense, it might happen. It might happen on the highway or in defense. As I contemplate such a remote possibility, I wonder how I might cope with it. This is especially true if it be an innocent child by accident.
Some people have no problem living with it. They take the lives of innocent unborn babies. Some doctors do this by the hundreds without hesitation and not an ounce of guilt.
Some women, in the name of freedom of choice, pay those doctors. I would say that they do it without a second thought. Their conscience becomes seared to a point they don’t care. How-some-ever, I suspect, sometimes, it might strike later in life. Disagree with me as you will, I have found God does have a way of calling things to our attention in ways and at times we least expect. And yes, it hurts more than the broken ankle. And it nags at you any time you’re awake.
Some mistakes leave permanent marks, etched into memory like scars that time cannot fade. The consequences of our actions linger, a constant reminder of choices made and paths taken. No amount of wishful thinking can erase the emotional weight we carry, a burden that becomes part of our very essence.
Entertainment stories often lack substantive journalistic value, resembling more of a curated collection of rumors and speculative narratives than genuine news reporting. These pieces seem designed to titillate rather than inform, blurring the lines between credible journalism and sensationalized gossip.
Meteorological discussions during serene, cloudless conditions often lack substance, transforming broadcast segments into mere conversational filler that fails to engage or inform viewers.
Sports is not news. Technically, what they put on TV is news and sports. In some cases more like sports and a little news.
They have programming dedicated to gossip on entertainment. They have programming dedicated to sports. Why can’t they have programs dedicated to actual news?
Wish I had a choice. No mountains in the Memphis area, and the best thing to do for a beach is to rent a room where they have a pool. Oh well, no sharks or avalanches.
Actually, that’s not entirely true. There are a few muddy lakes within driving distance. When the kids were young, we visited them a few times. It is the one thing I miss about California. We spent hours at the beach at a time. Nowadays, the beaches are so crowded that one can’t enjoy them much. Going up to Big Bear was fun, but fighting the traffic on the way back removes all the enjoyment.
If I want a large drink, why am I encouraged to order over twice the fries I want? Then, of course, I toss half the fries.
It is a mindset that is difficult, nearly impossible to overcome. I have tried many ways. I order them separately, with a small fry and large drink, and the response is, “Would you like the meal…?” I have even tried to tell them to charge me for the large combo and give me the small fries. Some agree and give me the huge fries instead. Then of course, half of them end up in the trash. I must admit, they are determined.
Tonight, I decided on a new strategy. I ordered one large meal, one sandwich, and a large drink. My logic was to share my fries with my wife. There would still be more than enough.
Not just once, not just twice, but the employee suggested the meal three times seemed indignant that I would actually want my food my way.
Communication often proves challenging, especially when nuanced preferences seem to conflict with standard procedures. Despite my repeated attempts to clarify my specific order—emphasizing that I want a large drink but not large fries—I encounter consistent misunderstandings. The service staff appears bewildered by my non-standard request, wearing expressions of confusion and handling my order with apparent reluctance. It feels as though my deviation from expected patterns disrupts their typical workflow, making what should be a simple transaction unexpectedly complicated.
From now on, I’ll confidently state my order with clarity and conviction. “I want large drinks and regular fries. This is straightforward, and I expect to be understood immediately.” If asked to repeat myself, I’ll simply walk away.
The subtle tremor against my sternum stirs me from slumber. Logically, the smartphone nestled in my breast pocket is the source of the disturbance. Yet, in the stillness of the night, I’m perplexed by the unexpected interruption, wondering who could be reaching out at this hour.
Groggily, I fumble for my phone, its screen a blurry mess of light and shadow. With heavy-lidded eyes, I swipe to answer the call, mumbling “Hello?” three times before a human voice briefly breaks through the static. Suddenly, the voice morphs into a robotic recording, draining away any hope of meaningful communication. Resigned, I disconnect the call and sink back into my pillow, sleep beckoning once more.
Unsolicited advertisements intrude on my personal space, flagrantly disregarding my privacy. Unlike traditional media where advertisers fund the platform, I bear the full cost of my communication device, yet receive no compensation for these unwelcome interruptions. The disparity is stark: television and radio ads are subsidized by marketing budgets, while my personal phone becomes an unpaid billboard for corporate messaging.
Frustrated by the constant barrage of unwanted calls, I long for a platform to reach millions and share a crucial message: ignore these intrusive telemarketing attempts. If consumers collectively refused to engage, these disruptive businesses would quickly disappear, allowing us all to reclaim our peace and quiet. By simply hanging up and refusing to participate, we could silence these persistent interruptions and restore tranquility to our daily lives. The one and only reason they continue to persist is that sometimes they succeed.
During the period from late October to early December, unsolicited marketing intensifies, particularly targeting seniors like myself who are Medicare-eligible. These advertisers seem to have access to demographic information, though their targeting isn’t always precise. In one instance, I received a call claiming to offer thousands of dollars from Tennessee, despite living in Mississippi. Such blatantly false claims reveal the desperation and disregard these marketers have for potential customers, using the pattern of lies in hopes of our business.
Some corporate sharks swim in boardrooms, armed with MBAs instead of machetes or guns, plotting to extract every last penny from our wallets with surgical precision and spreadsheet finesse. Their weapons? Slick marketing, fine print, and a smile that says, “Trust me, this is totally in your best interest.”
And… They use the phones we pay for to do it.
At first glance, this scenario appears improbable, even unthinkable. Yet, a careful examination of California’s historical trajectory over the past several decades reveals an underlying inevitability that cannot be easily dismissed.
In my early childhood, my family relocated to California, initially settling near San Jose before moving to Garden Grove, a modest city south of Los Angeles. At that time, the population was barely fifty thousand, and Garden Grove High School stood alone as the sole secondary educational institution. As I approached my high school years, the city’s growth became evident, with four high schools emerging. Today, Garden Grove has expanded to a vibrant community of 172 thousand residents, reflecting the dynamic transformation of this Southern California suburb.
During my teenage years, a popular sentiment circulated: families would visit California for a vacation and ultimately choose to make it their permanent home. This notion wasn’t merely a baseless rumor; I personally witnessed numerous acquaintances who, after experiencing the state’s allure, decided to relocate and embrace the California lifestyle.
Its reputation speaks volumes, rendering further explanation unnecessary. A brief encounter would swiftly illuminate the circumstances, and I’ve already delved into the underlying details previously.
However, lately, people have started going the other way, rapidly, to the point they lost a U.S. representative. There was no way I could have imagined that just 5 years ago. I should have. I left the Golden State over 40 years ago. Although there is much I miss there, I have never regretted leaving the crowds and later, the political climate.
As I consider all I’ve observed, I am starting to see many parallels between CA and the US. Right now people come here and then stay. If not for immigration laws, there would be far more here. And eventually, it too would become crowded. It would lose many of those things that draw people here. Conceivably, all those who decided stay, might decide to leave as have those from California.
I mean, who wants to live in a country that is run by tyrants who call themselves communist? I don’t think I will live to see it. However, I am beginning to think my sons will. I’m beginning to think my generation will be the first generation to leave a worse country than we received. And, by the way, a worse and more dangerous world.
During a brief moment of leisure, I idly flipped through television channels when a compelling speaker caught my attention. His articulate commentary was not only insightful but also delivered with an engaging style. Though I cannot recall the specific C-Span channel, the presenter’s words resonated with clarity and a certain captivating charm.
I lingered, captivated by the broadcaster’s passionate monologue, and soon discovered I wasn’t alone in my fascination. His radio presence grew exponentially, ultimately reaching over six hundred stations and broadcasting three hours daily. Rush Limbaugh’s profound impact on national discourse remains undeniable, a legacy so significant that his name resonates instantly, even after his passing. The immediate recognition in listeners’ minds speaks volumes about his enduring influence on American media and political conversation.
Now, the networks are full of programs similar, but still unlike the one and only Rush. I’m not going to name all the programs. It would take so long. Besides you already know them. Even if you’re an advocacy of Bush’s point of view, you can’t deny his affect on today’s society and the many broadcasters who follow his leadership. Oddly, one of his followers even successfully competes with Sunday Night Football.
Still, there are a few who have also left their mark with much shorter programs. Consider Paul Harvey. Years after he has left us, people will instantly recognize the two words he made famous: “Good day.”
The idea has sparked my imagination. Imagine hosting a concise, three-minute daily show that could potentially catapult me to unexpected fame, even at this stage of life. Despite not considering myself particularly articulate or possessing a naturally smooth radio voice. I figure all I need is just a three minute spot on TV each day.
Modern news broadcasts have devolved into a spectacle of fragmented attention, where substantive reporting is marginalized. Within a typical thirty-minute program, commercial interruptions consume a third of the airtime, while meteorological updates and sports coverage claim another third. The remaining sliver—a mere five minutes—is allocated to actual news content, leaving viewers with a superficial understanding of current events.
In just three minutes, my innovative news program would distill the day’s most critical information, delivering a concise, comprehensive update that keeps viewers perfectly informed without wasting their time. I mean, do we really need ten minutes to find out if we will need a coat or umbrella?
In the cacophony of modern media, I confront a stark reality: entertainment trumps information. While listening to the radio, I heard a news segment devoted to Cher’s appearance on Saturday Night Live—a trivial detail that seemingly captivates the masses. My aspiration for concise, meaningful news appears doomed. The public’s appetite craves celebrity gossip, rendering substantive reporting nearly irrelevant. The hunger for superficial entertainment overshadows my idea for three minutes of real news.
Rush understood that a successful news program requires more than just reporting facts. By infusing entertainment into his broadcasts, he transformed traditional news delivery and captivated audiences. This innovative approach likely contributed significantly to his remarkable professional achievements.
News must be entertaining. If not, it will fail.
The question: What is black & white and read all over.
Okay. It’s an old joke in reverse, sort of Jeopardy style.
it’s sort of a segway into my subject matter, newspapers and how drastically they have changed in just a short time.
Throughout my youth, newspapers never appealed to me. Reading was not my strong suit, and broadsheets were particularly challenging. The oversized pages seemed designed to frustrate readers like myself. Despite having long arms, I struggled to manage the unwieldy sheets. My typical approach involved spreading the newspaper on the floor and scanning for interesting articles. Inevitably, I would encounter the dreaded “continued on page…” instruction, only to discover that the remaining text could have easily been accommodated on the previous page. These layout choices only reinforced my disinterest in newspaper reading.
They couldn’t deceive me. I quickly understood their strategy. The goal was to divert my attention from the main content to the page filled with advertisements. The publication’s revenue primarily came from advertising, not the actual articles. Regardless of their tactics, it added to the irritation of the oversized pages.
My brother shared insights into the unique reading culture of New Yorkers during their subway commutes. He explained the skillful art of newspaper folding, a technique that allows passengers to navigate cramped spaces while reading without inconveniencing fellow travelers. By the time they arrived at their destination, most subway riders had thoroughly consumed the day’s news, making them remarkably well-informed about current events.
In the digital age, journalism has undergone a profound transformation. Traditional print newspapers have evolved, migrating from physical pages to vibrant online platforms. Readers now consume news through smartphones, tablets, and digital devices, maintaining their reading habits while in transit. Despite the technological shift, the fundamental human tendency to remain absorbed in personal digital worlds persists, with commuters still largely disconnected from their immediate surroundings.
There is, however, one major difference that I wish were the same. Back then, in that day, they printed the truth. The quality of delivery is a great deal better, while the quality of the reporting has suffered horribly.
The recent NBC advertising campaign has captured my attention, though I approach their claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. Advertising often presents a carefully curated narrative that may not entirely align with reality. Companies frequently highlight perceived strengths while strategically obscuring potential weaknesses. For example, a brand might emphasize reliability or customer choice, even when their actual practices fall short of these proclaimed ideals. This discrepancy between marketing messaging and genuine customer experience is a common strategy in the competitive world of corporate communication.
Recent NBC ads seem to be admitting their news division might not have been factually accurate and they promise to do better in the future in the ad. Of course, as the the old indium says, the proof is in the pudding. More precisely, will their record in the future be accurate or will they continue to provide one sided dribble?
The carefully constructed language of advertisements often raises suspicions about their authenticity, as they appear hesitant to confront the full truth of their historical context, instead choosing to obscure or downplay past realities with strategic phrasing.
Their willingness to venture independently speaks volumes about their potential. While I maintain a healthy skepticism and won’t blindly accept everything they present, I’m open to giving them a fair opportunity to demonstrate their credibility. My hope is that they will maintain transparency and provide a genuinely balanced perspective.
Their response will reveal their integrity. If they merely echo the prevailing narrative without critical examination, it will become clear that the advertisement is another deceptive attempt, further eroding any potential trust in them or their reporting.
bfrhodes99 