a-view-from-the-cheap-seats

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

The Erosion of Journalistic Integrity: From Truth-Seeking to Agenda-Pushing

Journalism was once regarded as the Fourth Estate—a vital pillar of democracy tasked with holding power to account, uncovering truth, and informing the public without fear or favor. The founding principles of journalism were rooted in objectivity, fairness, and an unwavering commitment to the public good. Yet today, what passes for "news" has devolved into a grotesque parody of its original purpose.

Modern journalism is dominated by partisan hacks, corporate interests, and political operatives masquerading as reporters. The media no longer serves the people; it serves power. Whether through deliberate omission, selective outrage, or outright propaganda, the press has betrayed its sacred duty. This is not an accident—it is the result of systemic corruption, ideological capture, and the abandonment of journalistic integrity.

This article examines the original purpose of journalism, the rise of political bias, and how the media has become little more than a weaponized arm of the political establishment.

I. The Original Purpose of Journalism

1. The Fourth Estate: A Check on Power

The concept of the press as a watchdog dates back to the Enlightenment. Philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine argued that an informed citizenry was essential to preventing tyranny. In the early American republic, newspapers—though often partisan—played a crucial role in exposing corruption and fostering debate.

The ideal of journalistic integrity emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the rise of "objective journalism." Pioneers like Walter Lippmann argued that reporters should adhere to facts, verify information, and remain independent of political factions. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics enshrined principles such as:

Seek truth and report it

Minimize harm

Act independently

Be accountable and transparent

For much of the 20th century, journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Woodward & Bernstein, and Ida B. Wells embodied this tradition—exposing lies, confronting injustice, and speaking truth to power.

2. Journalism as a Public Service, Not a Political Weapon

The press was never meant to be a mouthpiece for the state or a political party. Its role was to challenge authority, not amplify its narratives. Investigative journalism thrived when reporters were willing to defy government spin, corporate influence, and popular opinion in pursuit of truth.

But over time, this mission was corrupted.

II. The Corruption of Modern Journalism

1. The Rise of Political Bias and Partisan Journalism

The shift from objective reporting to activist journalism did not happen overnight. Key factors include:

A. The 24-Hour News Cycle and Sensationalism

With the advent of cable news (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) and later digital media, the demand for constant content turned news into entertainment. Ratings-driven journalism prioritized outrage over facts, leading to hyper-partisan coverage designed to provoke rather than inform.

B. The Merging of Media and Political Elites

Many journalists now come from the same elite institutions as politicians, creating an incestuous relationship between the press and power. The revolving door between media, government, and corporate PR (e.g., CNN’s Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary Clinton, former MSNBC host Phil Griffin coordinating with the Obama White House) has destroyed trust.

C. The Weaponization of "Fake News"

Instead of self-correcting errors, major outlets now double down on false narratives when they align with their political biases:

The Russia Collusion Hoax (2016-2019) – Years of baseless claims pushed by mainstream media, later debunked by the Mueller Report.

Hunter Biden’s Laptop Suppression (2020) – Twitter, Facebook, and outlets like The New York Times censored the story, falsely labeling it "Russian disinformation."

COVID-19 Propaganda – Outlets like The Washington Post smeared lab-leak theory proponents as "conspiracy theorists," only to later admit it was plausible.

2. The Death of Investigative Journalism

True investigative reporting—exposing both political parties—has been replaced by partisan hit jobs. Consider:

The Lack of Scrutiny on Democratic Scandals: The media ignored the Biden family’s foreign business dealings for years.

The Protection of Republican Elites: Fox News downplayed Trump’s controversies while amplifying culture-war distractions.

The Silence on Bipartisan Corruption: Corporate media rarely challenges the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, or Wall Street’s influence on both parties.

3. The Role of Big Tech in Censorship

Social media platforms, working in tandem with legacy media, now decide what the public is allowed to know. Examples:

Shadow-banning dissenting voices

Algorithmically boosting establishment narratives

Collaborating with government to suppress "misinformation" (i.e., viewpoints they dislike)

This is not journalism—it is information control.

III. The Consequences of a Broken Media

1. Public Distrust at Record Highs

Gallup polls show only 32% of Americans trust the media—a historic low. This distrust is well-earned:

When the press lies by omission (ignoring scandals that hurt their preferred party)

When they manufacture outrage (breathlessly covering some controversies while downplaying others)

When they stifle dissent (labeling alternative viewpoints as "dangerous")

2. The Erosion of Democracy

A democracy cannot function without an informed electorate. When the media manipulates rather than informs, citizens make decisions based on propaganda, not truth.

3. The Normalization of Double Standards

If a Republican does it, it’s a scandal; if a Democrat does it, it’s a "nothingburger."

If an outsider challenges the system, they’re "dangerous"; if an insider commits corruption, it’s "just politics."

This hypocrisy has turned journalism into partisan activism.

IV. Can Journalism Be Saved?

1. Returning to First Principles

The only way to restore trust is to:

Reject partisan loyalty – Hold all power accountable, regardless of party.

Embrace intellectual humility – Admit mistakes and correct them.

Focus on facts over narratives – Stop filtering news through ideological lenses.

2. Supporting Independent Journalism

Alternative media (independent journalists, substacks, decentralized platforms) are filling the void left by corporate press. Citizens must seek out diverse sources and reject spoon-fed narratives.

3. Demanding Accountability

Boycott dishonest outlets

Call out bias when seen

Reward integrity over sensationalism

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Soul of Journalism

The press was never meant to be the propaganda arm of the political elite. Its purpose was truth—no matter how inconvenient.

Today’s media has failed. But the solution lies not in despair, but in demanding better. The public must reject manipulative narratives, support real investigative journalism, and remember: A free press should afflict the comfortable, not comfort the powerful.

Until then, what we have is not journalism—it is state-sanctioned storytelling, designed to keep the people in the dark. And in darkness, democracy dies.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Tom Homan: A Bulldog for Border Security—Congratulations and a Call to Push Harder

March 05, 2025

America stands at a crossroads. For too long, our nation has been a punching bag for those who scoff at our laws, exploit our generosity, and undermine our sovereignty. Illegal immigration isn’t just a policy debate—it’s a gaping wound that bleeds resources, threatens security, and mocks the rule of law. Enter Tom Homan, a man who has taken the reins of this fight with the kind of grit and resolve that’s been sorely missing in Washington. Today, I’m here to say: Congratulations, Tom. You’ve done a hell of a job so far identifying and deporting illegal aliens in the United States. But the work’s not done—not by a long shot. It’s time to double down, take the gloves off, and send a message that no one—no one—gets to defy our immigration laws without consequences.

A Job Well Done—So Far

Let’s start with the praise where it’s due. Tom Homan, the former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a relentless warrior for border security, has stepped up in a way few others have dared. Under his watch and influence, ICE has begun to claw back some semblance of order from the chaos of unchecked illegal immigration. The numbers don’t lie: deportations are ticking up, enforcement operations are hitting their stride, and the message is starting to sink in—America isn’t a free-for-all anymore. Homan’s leadership has been a breath of fresh air in a system that’s too often choked by bureaucracy, cowardice, and political correctness.

What sets Homan apart isn’t just the results—it’s the way he’s gone about it. He’s not here to play nice or kiss the ring of the establishment. He’s a straight shooter, a man who calls it like he sees it, and damn the torpedoes. When he’s faced the mainstream media—those sanctimonious talking heads who’d rather coddle lawbreakers than defend American citizens—he’s been tough as nails. No apologies, no backpedaling, no mealy-mouthed platitudes. He’s told them the truth: illegal aliens have no right to be here, and it’s his job to send them packing. That kind of directness is rare in a world where spineless politicians trip over themselves to avoid offending anyone. Homan doesn’t care about your feelings—he cares about the law. And for that, he deserves every ounce of respect we can muster.

His non-apologetic style isn’t just refreshing—it’s a weapon. It cuts through the noise of the open-borders lobby, the bleeding-heart activists, and the corporate interests who profit off cheap, illegal labor. Homan’s made it clear: this isn’t about optics or popularity contests. It’s about protecting the American people, upholding our sovereignty, and restoring faith in a system that’s been trampled for decades. Congratulations, Tom, for reminding us what backbone looks like in a time of spinelessness.

The Enemy Within: Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors

But let’s not kid ourselves—the job’s only half done. While Homan’s been out there fighting the good fight, he’s got a pack of wolves nipping at his heels: the blue city mayors and blue state governors who’ve turned their jurisdictions into sanctuaries for lawbreakers. These so-called leaders—people like Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, New York’s Eric Adams, and California’s Gavin Newsom—have the gall to stand in front of cameras and declare they’ll shield illegal aliens from ICE. They’ve thumbed their noses at federal authority, rolled out the red carpet for people who have no legal right to be here, and dared the rest of us to do something about it. Well, Tom, it’s time to take that dare.

These officials aren’t just misguided—they’re complicit. By refusing to cooperate with ICE, they’re not only obstructing justice; they’re actively aiding and abetting the violation of federal immigration laws. That’s not a difference of opinion—that’s a crime. And it’s high time we started treating it like one. Homan needs to make examples of these people. No more sternly worded letters or polite requests for compliance. It’s time to haul these mayors and governors into court, slap them with federal charges, and let them explain to a judge why they think they’re above the law. If they want to play hardball, let’s show them what a real fastball looks like.

Imagine the message it would send: a blue city mayor in handcuffs, perp-walked in front of the cameras they love so much, charged with harboring fugitives or obstructing federal officers. Picture Gavin Newsom squirming as he’s forced to account for California’s sanctuary state policies in a federal courtroom. These people have spent years grandstanding, virtue-signaling, and undermining our immigration system. They’ve bet on the fact that no one would have the guts to call their bluff. Tom Homan’s the man to prove them wrong. Start with one—pick the loudest, most defiant offender—and let the dominoes fall. The rest will either fall in line or face the same fate.

ICE Leakers: Traitors in Our Midst

And then there’s the rot inside the house. It’s not just external enemies Homan has to contend with—it’s the turncoats within ICE itself. Reports have trickled out over the years of agency employees leaking operational details to illegal alien communities, tipping them off about raids, and sabotaging enforcement efforts from the inside. These aren’t whistleblowers exposing corruption—they’re traitors helping lawbreakers evade justice. Every leaked plan, every whispered warning, puts American lives at risk and makes Homan’s job harder. This isn’t incompetence—it’s betrayal, and it’s time to root it out with an iron fist.

To those ICE employees playing this game: you’re on notice. Your days of hiding behind anonymity and bleeding-heart excuses are over. If you’re caught leaking sensitive information to illegals or their enablers, you won’t just lose your job—you’ll lose your freedom. Homan needs to launch a full-scale internal investigation, identify these moles, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. No slaps on the wrist, no quiet resignations. Arrest them, charge them with aiding and abetting, and let them rot in a cell next to the criminals they’ve been protecting. Anything less is a slap in the face to every ICE agent who risks their life to uphold the law.

This isn’t about revenge—it’s about deterrence. When one leaker gets dragged out of the shadows and into a courtroom, the rest will think twice before picking up the phone to tip off their buddies in the shadows. Homan’s got the authority, the mandate, and the moral clarity to make this happen. It’s time to clean house and send a message: if you work for ICE, you work for America—not the other side.

Arrest, Prosecute, Deport: No More Half-Measures

The broader fight demands the same ruthlessness. For too long, we’ve let illegal aliens and their enablers operate with impunity. The sob stories, the protests, the sanctimonious lectures from the left—they’ve all been a smokescreen to delay the inevitable. No more. It’s time to arrest and deport every single illegal alien we can find, no exceptions, no excuses. And it’s time to go after anyone—anyone—who tries to harbor or help them evade law enforcement.

The law is clear: entering this country illegally is a crime. Staying here illegally is a crime. Helping someone do either is a crime. We don’t negotiate with criminals—we punish them. Homan’s already shown he’s got the stomach for the deportation side of this equation, and he’s doing a damn fine job. But the net needs to widen. Start targeting the employers who hire illegals under the table, the landlords who rent to them knowing full well they’re breaking the law, the activists who shuttle them from safe house to safe house. These people aren’t humanitarians—they’re accomplices, and they need to face the music.

Federal law—8 U.S.C. § 1324—makes it a felony to knowingly harbor or conceal an illegal alien from detection. It’s not a suggestion; it’s a statute with teeth. Homan should unleash ICE and the DOJ to enforce it with prejudice. Round up the ringleaders of these sanctuary networks, charge them, and lock them up. Let the bleeding hearts scream all they want—the law doesn’t bend for tears. Every arrest sends a signal: if you help illegal aliens dodge justice, you’re next. And once they’re convicted, deport the illegals they were hiding. No delays, no appeals, no sanctuary-city loopholes. Out they go.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

This isn’t just about immigration—it’s about survival. Every illegal alien who slips through the cracks is a drain on our schools, our hospitals, our welfare system. Every criminal alien who stays is a potential threat to our families. Every enabler who gets away with it emboldens the next wave. We’re not talking about a few harmless dreamers here—we’re talking about millions of people who’ve already proven they don’t respect our laws. Homan gets that. He’s seen the cartels, the trafficking, the drugs, the violence that pour across an unsecured border. He knows what’s at stake, and he’s not afraid to say it.

The mainstream media can clutch their pearls all they want. The blue-state elites can cry “inhumane” until they’re blue in the face. The leakers can scurry back to their holes. None of it changes the facts: America is a nation of laws, and those laws mean nothing if we don’t enforce them. Tom Homan’s the man for the job—tough, direct, unapologetic, and unrelenting. He’s already done more than most would dare, and for that, he’s earned our gratitude and admiration.

But the fight’s not over. Tom, keep pushing. Make examples of those mayors and governors who think they can defy you. Root out the leakers sabotaging your mission. Arrest and prosecute every last person who harbors or helps an illegal alien. Show the country—and the world—that America’s done playing games. You’ve got the will, the skill, and the support of millions who are sick of watching our nation get walked all over. Congratulations on a fine job so far. Now finish it.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

The Rot of Democracy: How Corporate Cash Corrupts Our Politics

Democracy is dying, and it’s a slow, pitiful death. Not with bombs or barricades, but with the quiet, insidious drip of corporate money flooding the veins of our political system. The United States, once a fragile experiment in self-governance, has become a hollowed-out shell, a puppet show where corporations pull the strings and elected officials dance for their paychecks. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s a documented reality, one that leaves me drowning in despair, clutching at the fading hope that we might one day reclaim what’s been stolen. Corporations infuse billions into campaigns, lobbying, and shadowy influence peddling, all to twist legislation into shapes that fatten their bottom lines while the rest of us choke on the fallout. The despair is suffocating, the disappointment a weight that presses down until it’s hard to breathe. But as we peel back the layers of this betrayal, something else emerges—anger, raw and unyielding, a resentment that demands we stop mourning and start fighting.

The scale of it is staggering, a grotesque monument to greed. In the 2020 election cycle, political spending hit $14.4 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets). That’s not grassroots donations from schoolteachers or factory workers—that’s corporate cash, funneled through Super PACs, dark money pools, and loopholes carved out by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision (558 U.S. 310). That ruling, with its perverse logic that money is speech and corporations are people, unleashed a deluge of influence-buying that drowns out the average citizen. A seminal study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page found that economic elites and organized interest groups—corporate lobbyists chief among them—shape U.S. policy with a grip so tight that the preferences of ordinary people barely register (Gilens and Page 577). The numbers don’t lie: we’re not just sidelined; we’re erased. It’s a gut punch, a realization that the system isn’t broken—it’s built this way, and the despair seeps into your bones.

Consider the fossil fuel industry, a juggernaut of corruption that’s practically a caricature of itself. Between 2000 and 2016, oil and gas companies spent over $1.4 billion lobbying Congress, per Oil Change International (Oil Change International). What did they buy? Tax breaks worth billions, like the $10.5 billion in subsidies they pocketed in 2015 alone, while the planet chokes on their emissions. They bought the gutting of the Clean Air Act, the rollback of Obama-era methane regulations, and a Congress so paralyzed on climate action that we’re sleepwalking into an inferno. Take the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017—fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil lobbied hard, and the bill delivered, slashing corporate taxes and preserving deductions for drilling costs (Tax Policy Center). Meanwhile, wildfires rage, hurricanes intensify, and communities like Paradise, California—where 85 died in the 2018 Camp Fire—pay the price. I think of Mary, a nurse I met in a Red Cross shelter after that fire, her hands trembling as she described losing her home, her voice breaking as she asked, “Why didn’t they do more?” The answer is simple: because Chevron wrote the rules. It’s disheartening, a betrayal so deep it feels personal.

The pharmaceutical industry offers another layer of this rotting onion, and the stench is unbearable. The opioid crisis, which has killed over 500,000 Americans since 1999 according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), wasn’t an accident—it was a corporate coup. Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, spent millions lobbying for lax regulations and pushing aggressive marketing, all while Congress looked the other way (Van Zee 221). Between 2006 and 2015, drug companies dropped $2.3 billion on lobbying, per OpenSecrets, securing policies that crippled the DEA’s ability to crack down on pill mills. The result? Families shattered, like the one I met in rural Ohio—Jane, a mother whose son overdosed at 22, her eyes hollow as she whispered, “They knew what they were selling.” She’s right: Purdue’s execs knew, and they paid lawmakers to keep quiet. The despair is overwhelming when you realize this isn’t negligence—it’s profiteering dressed up as policy.

But it’s not just oil and drugs. The financial sector’s fingerprints are all over the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law meant to rein in Wall Street after the 2008 crash. Banks like Goldman Sachs spent $103 million lobbying from 2010 to 2018, and by 2018, they’d chipped away key protections—rolling back stress tests and capital requirements (Americans for Financial Reform). The resentment starts to simmer here, because we remember the foreclosures, the lost jobs, the bailouts we funded while they toasted their bonuses. Tech giants like Amazon and Google join the fray, dodging antitrust scrutiny with $81 million in lobbying over the same period, ensuring they can monopolize markets while small businesses wither (OpenSecrets). And don’t forget agribusiness—Monsanto (now Bayer) spent $132 million from 2000 to 2018, securing lax pesticide rules that leave farmworkers sick and our food laced with glyphosate (EWG). Every industry has its hand in the till, and we’re left with the bill.

The despair deepens with every example, but it’s shifting now, isn’t it? The weight of disappointment is giving way to something fiercer—anger, a slow burn that’s turning into a blaze. How dare they? How dare these corporations treat our democracy like a vending machine, dropping in cash and pulling out laws that serve their greed while we drown in debt, disease, and despair? How dare lawmakers—our so-called representatives—sell us out, then have the gall to shake our hands and call it service? Look at telecoms and net neutrality: Verizon and AT&T spent $51 million lobbying to kill it in 2017, and the FCC obliged, handing them a blank check to throttle our internet (Public Citizen). Or take healthcare—insurance giants like UnitedHealth dropped $60 million in 2020 alone to keep Medicare for All off the table, leaving millions uninsured while their profits hit $15 billion (OpenSecrets). The audacity of it, the shamelessness, ignites a resentment that’s hard to contain.

This isn’t abstract—it’s personal. I think of Carlos, a factory worker in Michigan, laid off when his plant closed because tax breaks let corporations offshore jobs. He told me, “I voted for them, and they screwed me anyway.” Or Sarah, a single mom in Texas, rationing insulin because Big Pharma’s lobbying keeps prices sky-high—she cried as she said, “I don’t know how to tell my kid I can’t afford to live.” These aren’t just stories; they’re indictments. And the anger swells when you realize it’s not incompetence—it’s intent. They know the cost, and they don’t care, because their balance sheets don’t bleed.

Enough. This isn’t just disappointing—it’s enraging. The gall of these corporate overlords, buying our government like it’s a clearance sale, should set your blood boiling. They don’t get to own our laws, our future, our lives. They don’t get to rig the system and leave us scrambling for crumbs while they feast. The resentment festers into a fury that demands action—not polite pleas, but a reckoning. We deserve a democracy that answers to us, not their profit margins, and we should be screaming it from every rooftop, marching on every Capitol, until the walls of their gilded towers tremble. Because if we don’t—if we let this rot fester—they’ll keep buying our world out from under us, and we’ll have nothing left but the ashes of what could’ve been. Rise up, damn it, before it’s too late.

Works Cited

Americans for Financial Reform. “Wall Street Money in Washington.” AFR, 2019, ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wall-Street-Money-in-Washington-2018.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Understanding the Epidemic.” CDC, 17 Dec. 2021, www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html.

EWG. “Monsanto’s Lobbying and Political Contributions.” Environmental Working Group, 2018, www.ewg.org/research/monsanto-money/.

Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, no. 3, Sept. 2014, pp. 564-581, doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.

Oil Change International. “Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview.” Oil Change International, 2017, priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/.

OpenSecrets. “2020 Election to Cost $14 Billion, Blowing Away Spending Records.” Center for Responsive Politics, 28 Oct. 2020, www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/.

Public Citizen. “Net Neutrality: The Cost of Killing It.” Public Citizen, 2018, www.citizen.org/article/net-neutrality-the-cost-of-killing-it/.

Tax Policy Center. “Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System.” Tax Policy Center, 2018, www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-major-provisions-2017-tax-law.

Van Zee, Art. “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, no. 2, Feb. 2009, pp. 221-227, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.131714.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Upholding Parental Rights: Combating the Encroachment of Public Schools on Family Autonomy

Introduction: The Bedrock of Parental Rights Parental rights form the cornerstone of family autonomy, enshrined in both tradition and law. Historically, parents have held the primary responsibility for their children's upbringing, education, and moral guidance. Yet, an alarming trend is emerging: public schools are increasingly overstepping their role as educators, sidelining academic excellence in favor of social engineering, and marginalizing parents who dare to dissent. This blog post examines the systemic erosion of parental authority, the diversion from scholastic priorities, and the tactics used to silence families. We urge vigilance, advocacy, and action to reclaim these fundamental rights.

I. The Erosion of Academic Excellence American schools are faltering in their core mission. Recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals that only 37% of high school seniors are proficient in reading, and a mere 24% in math. Internationally, the U.S. ranks 38th in math and 24th in science on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Dr. Thomas Sowell, economist and author of The Decline of American Education, argues, “Schools have shifted focus from rigorous academics to experimental social programs, leaving students unprepared for global competition.” Districts now allocate substantial time to non-academic initiatives, such as social-emotional learning (SEL), often at the expense of core subjects. A 2022 Fordham Institute study found that 60% of teachers feel pressured to prioritize “equity training” over foundational skills.

II. Social Agendas Over Scholastic Achievement Schools increasingly serve as battlegrounds for ideological debates. Critical Race Theory (CRT), gender ideology, and politically charged curricula dominate classroom discussions. For instance, California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum mandates lessons on “systems of oppression,” while Massachusetts’ Healthy Youth Act prioritizes gender identity education over parental input.

Dr. Leonard Sax, psychologist and author of The Collapse of Parenting, warns, “When schools prioritize activism over algebra, children lose the tools to think critically.” A 2023 National Parents Union survey found that 68% of parents believe schools overemphasize social issues, with 54% reporting declines in their child’s academic performance.

III. Silencing Parental Voices School boards, once community partners, now often dismiss parental concerns. During the 2021 Loudoun County, Virginia, meetings, parents opposing gender policies were labeled “domestic terrorists” and arrested. Similar incidents occurred in Texas and Florida, where microphones were cut and dissenters removed.

“Parental input is not a disruption—it’s a democratic right,” asserts Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty. Yet, policies like Minnesota’s “Restorative Practices” discourage dissent by requiring pre-approved speech at meetings, stifling open dialogue.

IV. The Hidden Agenda Behind Classroom Phone Bans While schools cite “reducing distractions” to justify phone bans, critics argue the true motive is to prevent students from documenting classroom content. In 2023, a Florida student’s recording exposed a teacher discussing gender fluidity without parental consent. Shortly after, the state mandated phone bans.

Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, notes, “Transparency protects students and parents. Suppressing recordings risks enabling unchecked indoctrination.”

V. Schools as Surrogate Guardians Districts increasingly bypass parents in sensitive decisions. For example, California’s AB 1261 allows minors as young as 12 to receive mental health services without parental notice. In New Jersey, Policy 5756 permits schools to withhold a child’s gender transition from parents, citing “safety.”

Such policies defy legal precedent. In Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed parents’ constitutional rights to direct their children’s upbringing. “Schools are usurping this role, operating in loco parentis without accountability,” warns attorney Mary McAlister of the Parental Rights Foundation.

VI. Weaponizing State Power Against Families Parents who challenge school policies face alarming retaliation. Nicole Solas, a Rhode Island mother, was reported to CPS after questioning CRT materials. In Michigan, the Department of Education labeled parental objections “extremist,” triggering investigations.

“Using CPS to intimidate parents is abusive and unconstitutional,” says Gianna Keller, family law attorney. A 2022 Heritage Foundation report documented 147 cases of schools weaponizing child services against dissenting families.

VII. Call to Action: Reclaiming Parental Rights The time for passive concern is over. Here’s how to act:

Contact Elected Officials: Demand legislation safeguarding parental rights. Use USA.gov to find representatives.

Attend School Board Meetings: Document interactions and hold leaders accountable.

Join Advocacy Groups: Organizations like ParentalRights.org and Moms for Liberty offer resources and legal support.

Support Academic Transparency Laws: Push for curricula transparency and opt-out policies.

Conclusion: Restoring the Parent-School Partnership Education must empower—not undermine—families. By exposing overreach, demanding transparency, and uniting communities, we can restore schools to their rightful role: partners in nurturing capable, free-thinking citizens. As Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, reminds us, “Children thrive when parents lead. No institution can replace a family’s love.”

Act now. Your voice is their future.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

"Liberalism: The DSM-6 Diagnosis We Didn’t See Coming – How Modern Progressivism Mirrors Mental Disorders (And Why Your Aunt Karen Needs Therapy)"

Introduction: A Match Made in the Therapist’s Office

In the grand tradition of armchair psychology, let’s dive into a provocative comparison: modern liberalism and scientific mental disorders. Before you clutch your pearls or cancel me on Twitter, hear me out. This isn’t about demonizing anyone (well, maybe a little). It’s about exploring the uncanny parallels between the tenets of modern liberalism and behaviors classified as mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Is liberalism a mental disorder? Well, let’s just say if it were, it would have its own chapter in the DSM-6. Grab your popcorn, your essential oils, and your safe space blanket—this is going to be a wild ride.

1. Cognitive Dissonance: The Art of Holding Two Contradictory Beliefs

Liberalism: Modern liberalism often champions inclusivity and tolerance while simultaneously engaging in cancel culture, deplatforming, and ideological purges. For example, liberals advocate for free speech but often silence dissenting opinions that don’t align with their worldview.

Mental Disorder: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon where individuals experience mental discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs or values. While not a disorder itself, it’s a hallmark of many conditions, including schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to preach tolerance while practicing intolerance mirrors the cognitive dissonance seen in these disorders. It’s like saying, “I love everyone equally,” while unfriending your cousin on Facebook for voting Republican.

Source: Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

2. Histrionic Personality Disorder: The Need for Constant Attention

Liberalism: Modern liberalism thrives on performative activism and virtue signaling. From hashtag activism to viral TikTok challenges, liberals often prioritize appearances over substantive action.

Mental Disorder: Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) is characterized by excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. Individuals with HPD often feel uncomfortable when they are not the center of attention.

Comparison: The liberal obsession with social media clout and public displays of wokeness bears a striking resemblance to HPD. It’s not enough to quietly support a cause; it must be broadcasted to the world with a carefully curated Instagram post.

Source: American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

3. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: The World Revolves Around Me

Liberalism: The modern liberal often exhibits a sense of moral superiority, believing their views are not just correct but inherently virtuous. This can manifest in condescension toward those who hold different opinions, often labeled as “bigots” or “deplorables.”

Mental Disorder: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention, and a lack of empathy for others.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to moralize and dismiss opposing viewpoints aligns with the narcissistic belief that one’s own perspective is the only valid one. It’s the psychological equivalent of saying, “I’m not just right; I’m righteous.”

Source: Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons.

4. Anxiety Disorders: The Sky Is Always Falling

Liberalism: Modern liberals often exhibit a pervasive sense of doom, whether it’s about climate change, systemic racism, or the latest social injustice. While these issues are real, the liberal response often borders on catastrophizing.

Mental Disorder: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is characterized by excessive, uncontrollable worry about everyday things. Individuals with GAD often anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about health, money, or societal issues.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to frame every issue as an existential crisis mirrors the hyper-vigilance seen in GAD. It’s like living in a constant state of “The world is ending, and it’s all your fault.”

Source: Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and Its Disorders: The Nature and Treatment of Anxiety and Panic. Guilford Press.

5. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: The Need for Control

Liberalism: Modern liberalism often seeks to regulate behavior, language, and even thoughts through political correctness, safe spaces, and microaggression call-outs. The goal is to create a utopian society where no one ever feels uncomfortable.

Mental Disorder: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is characterized by intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors (compulsions) aimed at reducing anxiety or preventing perceived harm.

Comparison: The liberal obsession with controlling language and behavior to prevent discomfort parallels the compulsive rituals seen in OCD. It’s the societal equivalent of washing your hands 50 times a day to avoid germs.

Source: Abramowitz, J. S. (2006). Understanding and Treating Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Cognitive Behavioral Approach. Routledge.

6. Delusional Disorder: Reality Is What I Say It Is

Liberalism: Modern liberalism often redefines reality to fit its narrative. For example, the assertion that biological sex is a social construct or that words can be literal violence.

Mental Disorder: Delusional Disorder involves holding fixed, false beliefs that are resistant to reason or contradictory evidence. These delusions can range from grandiose to persecutory.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to reject objective reality in favor of subjective experience mirrors the delusional thinking seen in this disorder. It’s like insisting that 2 + 2 = 5 because it feels more inclusive.

Source: Munro, A. (1999). Delusional Disorder: Paranoia and Related Illnesses. Cambridge University Press.

7. Borderline Personality Disorder: Emotional Volatility

Liberalism: Modern liberalism is often marked by emotional intensity and rapid shifts in focus. One moment, the cause célèbre is climate change; the next, it’s gender-neutral pronouns.

Mental Disorder: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterized by emotional instability, impulsive behavior, and intense, unstable relationships.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to jump from one cause to another with emotional fervor mirrors the instability seen in BPD. It’s like having a new best friend every week, but with social justice.

Source: Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. Guilford Press.

8. Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Contrarianism as a Lifestyle

Liberalism: Modern liberalism often defines itself in opposition to traditional values, authority, and institutions. This contrarianism can manifest as reflexive opposition to anything deemed “conservative” or “establishment.”

Mental Disorder: Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is characterized by a pattern of angry, irritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, or vindictiveness toward authority figures.

Comparison: The liberal tendency to oppose for the sake of opposing mirrors the defiant behavior seen in ODD. It’s like a toddler screaming, “No!” to everything, but with a college degree.

Source: American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

Conclusion: Should Liberalism Be Added to the DSM-6?

While this comparison is meant to be humorous and provocative, it raises serious questions about the psychological underpinnings of modern liberalism. Is liberalism a mental disorder? Probably not—but it’s hard to ignore the parallels.

Perhaps the real issue is that modern liberalism, like any ideology taken to extremes, can become pathological. When empathy turns into enabling, when tolerance becomes intolerance, and when activism becomes performative, it’s worth asking: Are we helping society, or are we just feeding our own need for validation?

In the end, whether you’re a liberal, a conservative, or somewhere in between, we could all benefit from a little self-reflection—and maybe a therapy session or two. After all, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Sources:

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons.

Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and Its Disorders: The Nature and Treatment of Anxiety and Panic. Guilford Press.

Abramowitz, J. S. (2006). Understanding and Treating Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Cognitive Behavioral Approach. Routledge.

Munro, A. (1999). Delusional Disorder: Paranoia and Related Illnesses. Cambridge University Press.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. Guilford Press.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

The Cloward-Piven Strategy: An Overview

The Cloward-Piven Strategy is a political theory developed in the 1960s by sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. This strategy proposes creating chaos within the welfare system to overwhelm it, thereby forcing the government to take action that fundamentally transforms society12.

Historical Context

Origins: Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. They outlined their strategy in a May 1966 article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” published in the liberal magazine The Nation3.

Objective: Their focus was on forcing the Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in 1966, to take federal action to help the poor. They believed that full enrollment of eligible individuals for welfare benefits would create bureaucratic and fiscal disruptions, leading to a federal solution to poverty3.

Ultimate Goal: Cloward and Piven aimed to establish a guaranteed annual income, even though this ideal clashed with the prevailing notion of individual social and economic mobility3.

Implementation and Impact

Overloading the System: Cloward and Piven sought to create a crisis by informing the poor of their welfare rights and encouraging them to apply for benefits. By overburdening an already strained bureaucracy, they hoped to collapse the existing welfare system3.

Focus on Democrats: They pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic coalition. While conservative Republicans criticized public welfare, deeper conflicts would arise within the Democratic Party. Whites from working-class ethnic groups and the middle class would be pitted against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups would grapple with supporting the movement3.

Cloward-Piven and the Southern Border

Immigration Connection: The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been invoked in discussions about the current chaos at the southern border. Unfettered immigration, combined with overwhelming demands on the welfare system, could contribute to societal instability.

Overloading Resources: The influx of migrants, coupled with the strain on border facilities, legal processes, and social services, mirrors the strategy’s intent to overload government systems.

Economic and Social Impact: The southern border crisis has implications for national debt, resource allocation, and political tensions. While not a direct application of Cloward-Piven, the parallels are evident.

Conclusion

In summary, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, originally designed to address poverty, has found new relevance in discussions about immigration and the southern border. Whether intentional or not, the strain on resources and the resulting chaos align with the strategy’s core principles. As policymakers grapple with solutions, understanding historical context and unintended consequences is crucial.

Sources:

Cloward, R., & Piven, F. (1966). “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” The Nation.

Reisch, M., & Andrews, J. (2001). “The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States.” Social Service Review, 75(4), 575-594.

“What is the Cloward-Piven Strategy? How it’s playing a role on America today.” The Hammer Drops1.

“Sovietization, Migration and Destabilization.” Catholic Insight2.

“BREAKING: Cloward-Piven On The Southern Border.” iHeart4.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

The Failures of Socialism in the Modern World: Lessons from History

In the ever-evolving landscape of global politics and economics, socialism has remained a contentious topic. Advocates argue that it promises equality and justice, while detractors point to its historical failures and potential pitfalls. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, it is crucial to examine the failures of socialism objectively, drawing from historical examples and contemporary insights. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of socialism's shortcomings in the modern era, offering a balanced perspective on its limitations.

The Promise of Socialism

Before delving into the failures of socialism, it is essential to acknowledge its initial appeal and the ideals it aspires to achieve. Socialism, at its core, seeks to address societal inequalities and promote economic fairness. It envisions a world where wealth is more equitably distributed, and the welfare of the community takes precedence over individual gain.

Socialist principles, when implemented effectively, can bring about positive change. Systems that provide universal healthcare, access to education, and affordable housing can enhance the quality of life for citizens. However, the critical question remains: can socialism deliver on these promises in the modern world?

Economic Inefficiency and Resource Allocation

One of the fundamental criticisms of socialism in the modern world relates to its economic inefficiency and difficulties in resource allocation. In a centrally planned economy, where the state controls the means of production, there is often a lack of incentives for individuals and businesses to maximize productivity and innovation.

The Soviet Union: A Case Study

The collapse of the Soviet Union serves as a stark example of the economic failures of socialism. The centralized planning and state ownership of industries led to inefficiencies, corruption, and a lack of consumer choice. The Soviet economy struggled to keep pace with the dynamic global market, resulting in a decline in living standards for its citizens.

According to economist Paul R. Gregory, author of "The Political Economy of Stalinism," the Soviet economy suffered from misallocation of resources due to the absence of market-driven price signals. This led to overproduction of certain goods and shortages of others, illustrating the inherent challenges of central planning.

Contemporary Examples: Venezuela and Cuba

The modern world provides us with additional cautionary tales. Venezuela, once one of the wealthiest nations in South America, has experienced a catastrophic economic collapse due to socialist policies. The nationalization of industries, currency controls, and excessive government spending have led to hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis.

Similarly, Cuba, despite its education and healthcare achievements, has grappled with economic stagnation and a lack of individual freedoms under its socialist regime. The state's control over economic activities has hindered innovation and hindered the nation's ability to compete on the global stage.

Incentive and Innovation Challenges

Another significant challenge socialism faces in the modern world is the issue of incentives and innovation. Capitalism, with its profit-driven motives, has historically proven to be a robust driver of technological advancement and economic growth. Socialism, on the other hand, can struggle to provide the necessary incentives for individuals and businesses to innovate and excel.

Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses

Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship and the growth of small businesses, fostering a competitive environment that drives innovation. In contrast, socialist systems may discourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship due to high taxes and regulatory burdens.

The lack of competition in socialist economies can lead to complacency and a dearth of new ideas. This has been evident in countries like North Korea, where state control stifles individual initiative and innovation.

Market Signals and Consumer Choice

In a market-driven capitalist system, consumers' choices and preferences guide resource allocation. Companies compete to meet consumer demands, leading to a diverse array of products and services. Socialist economies often struggle to replicate this level of diversity and efficiency.

The failure of socialist regimes to provide consumers with choices and access to a wide range of goods is evident in the long lines and rationing that have plagued countries like the Soviet Union and Cuba. These experiences highlight the limitations of central planning in meeting diverse consumer needs.

Erosion of Individual Liberties

Another aspect of socialism's failures in the modern world is the erosion of individual liberties. While socialism seeks to address economic inequalities, it can sometimes come at the cost of personal freedoms.

State Control and Censorship

In socialist states, a strong central government often exerts control over various aspects of citizens' lives, including freedom of speech and the media. This centralized authority can lead to censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices.

China, with its one-party socialist system, exemplifies this trend. The Chinese Communist Party tightly controls the media and internet, limiting access to information and stifling political opposition. While China has achieved remarkable economic growth, it has done so at the expense of individual liberties.

Dependency on the State

Socialist welfare programs, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently create a dependency on the state. When the government provides for all basic needs, citizens may become less inclined to take personal responsibility for their well-being and economic advancement.

This dependency can lead to a lack of motivation to work and contribute to society. The welfare state can also place a heavy burden on taxpayers, potentially discouraging economic growth.

Corruption and Inequality

Ironically, socialism's promise of reducing inequality can sometimes result in the opposite effect. Centralized control of resources can lead to corruption and cronyism, where those with political connections benefit disproportionately.

Cronyism and Corruption

In socialist systems, where the state controls key industries and resources, individuals and businesses with political connections often receive preferential treatment. This can create a system of crony capitalism, where a select few benefit while the majority of citizens remain disadvantaged.

The case of Russia's oligarchs, who amassed vast wealth and power after the fall of the Soviet Union, illustrates how socialism can inadvertently lead to extreme wealth concentration and inequality.

Inequality in Access to Resources

While socialism aims to reduce economic inequality, it can sometimes result in a different form of inequality: inequality in access to resources. In planned economies, those with connections or in positions of power may have better access to scarce goods and services, while the average citizen faces shortages and limited choices.

Environmental Concerns

The modern world is increasingly aware of the need for sustainable development and environmental stewardship. However, socialist systems have their own set of challenges in addressing these concerns.

Tragedy of the Commons

In some socialist economies, the collective ownership of resources can lead to a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. When no one owns a resource, individuals may overexploit it, leading to environmental degradation.

For example, the Soviet Union faced severe environmental problems, including pollution and overuse of natural resources, due to a lack of private ownership and individual responsibility.

Lack of Innovation in Green Technologies

While capitalism has shown an ability to drive innovation in green technologies and sustainable practices, socialist systems may struggle to incentivize such innovations. The profit motive in capitalism can lead to investment in environmentally friendly technologies, while socialist economies may prioritize other goals.

The failures of socialism in the modern world cannot be ignored. While the ideology may hold noble intentions of reducing inequality and promoting economic fairness, practical implementations have often fallen short. Economic inefficiency, lack of innovation, erosion of individual liberties, corruption, and environmental concerns are among the challenges socialism faces in today's complex global landscape.

It is essential to approach the discussion of socialism with a nuanced perspective

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Indifference: The New Normal?

Indifference is a growing problem in our society. We are becoming increasingly desensitized to the suffering of others, and we are more likely to turn a blind eye to problems that don't directly affect us.

There are many factors that contribute to this indifference. One is the constant bombardment of negative news and information. We are constantly exposed to stories of war, poverty, and violence, and it can be easy to become numb to it all.

Another factor is the rise of social media. Social media platforms can be great for connecting with others, but they can also be a breeding ground for indifference. It's easy to scroll past a post about a homeless person or a natural disaster without feeling anything.

Finally, our own personal circumstances can also contribute to indifference. If we are struggling to make ends meet or if we are dealing with our own problems, it can be difficult to care about the problems of others.

The indifference towards others has a number of negative consequences. It can lead to increased isolation and loneliness, as people become less connected to their communities. It can also lead to a decrease in empathy and compassion, as people become more focused on their own needs.

In the most extreme cases, indifference can lead to violence and discrimination. When people don't care about the suffering of others, they are more likely to turn a blind eye to injustice or even to participate in it.

There are a number of things that can be done to address the problem of indifference. One is to increase awareness of the issue. We need to talk about indifference and its consequences so that people can understand the problem and how it affects them.

Another is to promote empathy and compassion. We need to teach children and adults the importance of caring about others and helping those in need.

Finally, we need to create a more just and equitable society. When people feel like they are part of a community and that their voices matter, they are more likely to care about the well-being of others.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

I learned something new today & thought that I would share it, as I am almost certain that it will be something new to you too. I came across a tweet on Twitter that referred to Brandolini's Law. You might be asking yourself, what is Brandolini’s Law? It is also referred to as the bullshit asymmetry principle. It is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit. “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” So know that we have identified it we can discuss it.

The Democrat Party must be very well versed in Brandolini’s Law. They take every opportunity to throw bullshit at everything & everyone that stands in their way of retaking the White House this election. They know that if they just throw out a ton of bullshit stories that it will take a ton of time & effort to dig through the sheer volume of them & dispell them. Their hope is that the magnitude in which they dump these stories that the target(s) wn’t be able to effective dispell them all, and that just one story will gain the traction that they need to absorb all of the traget’s time in an attempt to dispell the lies. They have been deploying this strategy against President Trump from Day 1 of his announcement to run for President and they have have continued it through the 4 years of his presidency so far. They have covered President Trump in a heap of bullshit hoping that something would stick & that he wouldn’t be able to get it off of him & that would be the thing that brings down his presidency & boots him out of office. For all of their shit slinging, he is still standing upright & is still in the White House. But that doesn’t keep them from continuing to try to bring him down. The liberal media is a complacent partner in the shit slinging, and they even participate to distribute the shit far an wide in hopes to overload and befuddle that American voter. Their hope is that they can overload the people with so much shit that they don’t have any idea what is the truth and what is lie. Some assume that everything is the truth, while others believe that everything is a lie. Their hope is that those that believe everything is the truth outnumber those that believe everything is a lie, that is how they regain their power. Brandolini’s Law is alive and well in Washington, DC and beyond the beltway.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Football...As Fall begins to set across the Midwest thoughts turn to that fan favorite, high school & college football season. This year, the pandemic has thrown a wrench into the typical season for most teams across America. Some teams have decided to forego the season & others are going to attempt to move forward with some semblance of a season, while they try to mitigate the risks to their players, coaching staffs, and fan base.

For those schools where the season has been canceled the players & students have decided to storm state capitals across the nation in an attempt to force the decision makers to let them play despite the raging Pandemic that is gripping the country. Parents are griping that their kids can’t play ball because it may prevent them from getting that college scholarship and their shot at the NFL and all of that money. Colleges are attempting to justify the need for a season, not for the players but rather for the revenue that football generates for their colleges. So colleges care more about the money than they do for the health & welfare of their players & the fans. They would rather gather large numbers of people together in stadiums across the country & risk outbreak, then to forego the revenue for a season. As an example, a university close to my home is in one of the worst cities in the US for the Corona virus outbreaks, but in the college’s infinite wisdom they have decided that they are going to have their season. They are going to have 25,000 fans in the stands for these games, until the public outcry forced them to change their decision to no fans. Unfortunately this doesn’t change the fact that fans are still going to gather in the parking lots, in the bars, etc to engage in watching these games. But what do the health experts know, they don’t know that COVID can’t spread at football games.

At the high school level, players & especially parents have forgotten that sports are an EXTRA CURRICULAR activity that come after the education that the schools are supposed to provide. The schools don’t have to provide them & they also don’t have to let them play. We have totally lost prospective on what is important today. Football has become more important than empathy for our Fellow man. Football has become more important than the health & well-being of people. Football has become more important than doing what is necessary to stop this nasty virus from continuing to spread. But I forgot, COVID doesn’t go to football games. People can’t catch COVID while at a football game. COVID won’t attack people while they are on the field playing without masks or social distancing. COVID won’t infect players who in turn will take it home to their parents, to their grandparents, and infect them. I forgot football is immune. Everyone should just go stand in the middle of a football field where they will be immune from COVID.

It is just ridiculous & irresponsible to push that football players should be able to continue to play football during a Pandemic. That football players should be able to continue to gather, that fans can be allowed to attend. Our priorities are screwed up America! We can live our lives without football for a season. We will survive without football for a season. We won’t survive this pandemic if people continue to believe that they are the part of some special group that is immune.

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Anyone else have the feeling that time is not passing while we are locked in this pandemic? We can all visual see the change of time occurring around us. But yet it feels like absolutely no time has passed and we are all loving the same moment over and over again. The present keeps stretching but never flips to the next moment in time. Are we for ever stuck in this moment in time? Will the present moment ever become the past? Are we simply doomed to live and die in this endless present?

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

"The Great Pause"

What a great title for what we have been through recently, a great pause in our nation. A pause in our economy. A pause in working in office buildings. A pause to eating at restaurants and drinking in bars. A pause in gatherings like concerts and sporting events. A great pause to life as "normal".

Life going forward will continue to be filled with other pauses. Pauses to recognize all those that work the front lines to help us fight this scourge called Covid-19. Pauses to mourn the loss of life of those that have succumbed to the ravages of Covid-19. There will be pauses as hotspots of infection rear up from time to time. There will be pauses as each of us consider what is true and what to trust and just how concerned that we should be. And there will be pauses as we are directly impacted by the affects of what has been dubbed a global pandemic.

As we come out of the Great Pause, and all of the various pause to come, one pause that we need to make sure that we undertake, is a pause to consider just how lucky we are right now to be healthy and to be able to spend time and reconnect with family. It is time to pause and think about all of the people that we have lost contact with and how we might reconnect with them, and see how they are fairing through this situation. May we pause and take inventory of our lives to this point, identify the things that we would like to change and use the time we have been given to start those changes. And the biggest pause of them all, may we pause and consider how important it is to connect to other human beings. Be the friend to others that you wish you had in your life.

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Today we had a unique experience, drive thru fair food. A local vendor that typically sets up at the state fair, set up in a random parking lot near the fairgrounds. It was as contactless as possible. We drove into the parking lot, gave our order, while staying in the car. They taped our order to our windshield and we drove to each stand to get our food. It was pretty slick. We were in and out in no more than 10 minutes. It was hot and fresh, it was really good. It is fortunate that we stumbled upon this as it is looking more and more likely that our state fair won't happen this year. So this was our chance to get ahold of the fair food that we like.

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Everyone wants to make this pandemic a Red v. Blue, Republican v. Democrat fight. When in reality it is a life v. death fight. It is a fight for the future of mankind as we know it. The government wants you to believe that to be a good American that you must go out to restaurants and stores and spend money without any concern for your health or the health of others. That there is an acceptable number of deaths to keep the economy going. There people going so far as to say that deaths are inevitable, so don't let that ruin people's fun. They would prefer if people get infected to go quietly die in the corner please. It is shameful that our society has devolved into such a selfish society. A society where if it doesn't directly impact me, then we don't care. Just makes one wonder what would happen if we were facing a truly Apocalyptic scenario.

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

So we are on Week #7 'lockdown' to flatten the 'curve'. But now states are opening things up & getting people back together, despite not having a vaccine, not having a treatment to possible save the lives of the people that get it. But that's okay guess people can gather at their local watering hole, eat at their favorite restaurants, and even get their locks cut. Life as normal, right? These are the same people that refuse to wear masks & social distance. They scream at people that believe that this is too soon, "Stay Home!" My question is, at what point did our society decide that freedom means 'f' other people, their feelings & their needs? It is shameful.

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

My 10yr old: [talking to himself] "I wonder what Jenny's number is?"

Me: [without missing a beat] "867-5309"

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020

[a-view-from-the-cheap-seats]

Even criminals are lazy...

So I get an email from an individual from Japan telling me that my Uncle Alfonso Walker is being detained by the government and needs me to send money to get him released.   Sorry Mr. extortionist but I am pretty sure that none of my dad's brothers are named Alfonso.   In the future you may want to do a little more research about your mark.   I hate nothing more than lazy extortionist.   I blame it on the educational system and parenting...

© A View from the Cheap Seats 2020