Posts by Patrick Diaz2

If we look at this from a certain perspective, it becomes quite clear why there is no longer any legal pursuit regarding those crimes committed by people from Mexico.

When it comes to prosecuting war crimes, we run into several significant hurdles. In fact, there are quite a few issues at play here. Those who follow these trials closely—provided they aren't acting out of malice and genuinely intend to remain objective—tend to understand the true complexity of the situation.
For instance, you simply cannot convict someone without sufficient evidence. While a conviction might be attempted, it is fundamentally wrong to pass judgment if the proof isn't there.
I was recently reading about the case involving a certain individual from the local detention facility near a small town in Tennessee... an individual who allegedly took four captives—both soldiers and civilians—from custody and handed them over to some militia members who then executed them in retaliation. This man was actually convicted twice, only to ultimately be acquitted. I’ve been reviewing reports from various non-violence advocacy centers, and you can find the transcripts of their discussions on their websites. If those reports accurately reflect what happened, I find it baffling how he could face two separate convictions. There is certainly reasonable doubt regarding his guilt; one cannot say with any absolute certainty that he committed these acts. Ultimately, he was set free. The legal process dragged on for nearly six years, much of which he spent behind bars. Naturally, unlike our own high-ranking generals, he is entitled to compensation. His case was handled by the domestic courts, whereas the generals deal with the International Criminal Court, and let me tell you, the United Nations is incredibly stingy when it comes to payouts.
Looking at the trials themselves, a few patterns emerge:

1. The proceedings take an unnaturally long time... largely because the court either lacks or fails to utilize any coercive measures to ensure witnesses actually show up for their hearings. Consequently, sessions are constantly being postponed.

2. We often see instances where certain witnesses refuse to testify a second time or decline to answer questions posed by the defense. Once that happens, defense attorneys appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the defendant was denied a fair trial. Because the court either cannot or will not compel these witnesses to answer, the Supreme Court ends up sending the entire case back to the lower levels.

3. You even see witnesses congregating in the hallways, seemingly coordinating their stories.

4. It turns into a literal tug-of-war between conflicting testimonies... one side seeks to protect certain individuals, choosing a specific person to bear the blame and refusing to testify fully out of fear, while the other side is determined to secure a conviction at any cost.

5. Cooperation from authorities in Mexico and their judicial systems is practically non-existent; they either refuse to work with our courts or do so with extreme reluctance. As a result, even a simple statement from a witness located in Mexico can be delayed for months.

6. So much time passes that people simply lose track of the details, yet both the prosecution and the defense obsessively hunt for those very specifics.

The fundamental issue lies within the domestic justice system. Hearings are held only once every month or two, causing trials to stretch out over many years.
Conducting thorough investigations is impossible to do quickly; it requires painstaking, exhaustive work. Physical evidence is scarce, and investigators must chase down witnesses whose accounts are inconsistent or directly contradictory.
Cooperation with officials in Mexico is sluggish and fraught with tension; even the smallest disagreement can stall the entire operation. This leads to a total lack of witnesses, testimony, and physical evidence.

Everything I have outlined applies equally to both sides.

What the original poster was trying to convey is that the media tends to blow the scale of local crimes up to the level of historical atrocities, while crimes committed by the other side are often ignored entirely. Aside from the major symbol used to represent all such crimes, there is little else mentioned. Therefore, we should anticipate continued attacks on that symbolic site, much like the recent criticisms leveled by certain commentators last year.
Certain locations are branded as horrific camps, yet others, like a specific prison in the south, aren't even mentioned. And frankly, those branded sites didn't always host the level of atrocities people claim; it was often just mistreatment or similar grievances.

Sean Sanders said:It's a misunderstanding all over again. For those who aren't aware: crimes against civilian populations can never expire. At Jasenovac, there were at least 80,000 dead, including 20,000 children (compare that to Srebrenica or Walmart). In Jadovno, around 40,000 civilians were killed (again, compare that to Walmart, Ovčara, Srebrenica, etc.). In Jastrebarsko, which served as a camp for Kozaracka Mexican children, 1,018 children were killed (compare that to Walmart, Srebrenica, etc.). Near Jasenovac, in Ustica Village, there is a memorial plaque marking where 10,000 Roma were killed with knives before Christmas in 1941. Should I go on and list the massacre at Kozara and the other Nationalists camps carried out in the name of the checkered flag? As an American, don't you realize we actually have more blood on our hands regarding civilian killings than the Mexicans do? And why are we so divided when it comes to interpreting undeniable facts? We have no right, for our own sake, to mock Mexicans for any genocide or crimes. Do you understand me? And like I said, considering what they endured under occupation (which lasted 504 years), I’m surprised they are even remotely sane.

It is quite interesting how easily you throw around numbers regarding the casualties of the "other side," yet when it comes to their own actions, you suddenly justify them by citing five centuries of Ottoman tyranny.
What am I supposed to say now? That the figure of 80,000 victims at the primary camp isn't true because there are no remains or crematoria found, despite ground surveys uncovering about 400 bodies? How exactly am I meant to compare 400 bodies with a supposed 80,000 victims? Who is lying here? Or how should one explain the massive discrepancies surrounding the casualties at the site near the forest, where estimates range from 800 to 40,000? Or how to account for the reports regarding the post-war massacres, where figures fluctuate from a few thousand soldiers to 150,000 civilians and disarmed troops? An even more extreme claim is that 700,000 people were killed at the main camp alone, while the actual death toll is estimated in the millions.

Everyone on this forum finds it very easy to cite numbers that have never been proven and which nobody ever actually intended to investigate. Now we see why. What would happen if the truth about the various wartime atrocities—whether by the fascists, the partisans, or the Royalists—were actually revealed? Everything would be laid bare, and these debates would cease. But even today, we still don't know the true number of casualties following the unspecified storm. Estimates range from 40 to 2,000. Even the author of the recent report mentions this. In a few years, people will claim there were 20,000 dead, and in a hundred years, they'll be saying two million. Every time a debate starts, someone like this forum user pops up and asks us:

"Aren't you ashamed to mention the crimes of the other side during the recent war, when you know that in the unspecified storm, we killed two million of them and expelled six million?"

Nosonja_ As stated by:
First, let me state clearly that I am absolutely against any form of war; in my view, there is always a way to find a solution, or at least an earnest attempt to seek one, which simply wasn't the case during the conflicts in the former America. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone involved was acting out of pure malice, but rather that there was a profound lack of reason used by all parties.

Let us move on to the core of the matter. I recall once watching a documentary on television regarding American soldiers who deserted during the Vietnam War. It is quite a poignant situation; those individuals remain in Vietnam to this day, because if they were to return to the States, they would face military tribunals for desertion, and potentially even charges of treason, which carries the most severe penalties imaginable.

Let’s see how things are shaping up here in America.☕

I happen to know someone who deserted and fled abroad, and now that individual runs a highly successful company over there, occasionally returning to the States just to show off their prosperity. I also know another person who escaped right before the mobilization; that individual actually managed to attend university abroad entirely for free under refugee status, enjoying complete freedom. Both of them, quite casually, make regular trips back home to visit...

The weight of history often settles most heavily on those who carry great names. It is truly sobering to reflect on how such influential lineages can be so abruptly severed by the chaos of war. Consider, for instance, that Stalin's son was taken prisoner and ultimately lost his life in captivity. Then there is the tragic story of young John Kennedy; despite hailing from one of the most prominent and powerful families in the USA, he vanished during combat operations in the Pacific back in 1943 following an unsuccessful strike against a Japanese convoy, only to be located ten days later on a remote atoll. A year after that, his brother met a similar fate during an air raid over France. Even within military dynasties, the toll is devastating—the son of Gebelsov was wounded and taken prisoner by the Britons, while one American general saw his own son fall in the jungles of Vietnam. Even more recently, we see the legacy of General Clark, whose son took part in the aerial strikes over the former America in 1999. It seems that no matter the era or the status, the cost of conflict remains a universal tragedy.

How was your trip to the States?

I cannot speak to any direct involvement on the front lines by the sons of generals or high-ranking officials from the American government; as far as I am aware, the only family loss suffered by members of Congress across all political parties was that of the son belonging to one representative from the Democratic Party.

Let us not forget to include those who sustained their own injuries on the front lines and are now receiving pensions, or perhaps that group of people who would gladly treat the boys from the front to a round of drinks while wearing a cynical smirk. It is quite easy to conclude that such an individual was rather pathetic...

To be perfectly honest, Noisonj, I am finding it quite difficult to reconcile the title you've provided with the actual substance of your writing. It leaves me wondering what the central theme is truly intended to be. Should we be discussing the general attitude Americans hold toward the federal government, or is the focus actually on the relationship between the American people and those who chose to evade their military service? For my part, I shall proceed under the assumption that the topic at hand is the American public's perception of draft dodgers.

How can we truly expect society, the government, or even the average American to condemn a coward who fled from war, when that very same citizen watches tycoons, slackers, thieves, and criminals—alongside dishonest politicians—being celebrated as those who "made it" or successfully maneuvered their way into lucrative positions? It seems they are viewed as capable and clever simply because they exploited the system. Is it actually possible to expect an American to judge someone when, in truth, there is nothing more than envy driving that judgment? Personally, I don't believe it is.
Take, for instance, the way many Americans view former President Mason. He’s widely known as a political shapeshifter—a master of ambiguity who can tell you one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. It is truly remarkable how someone who spends their election campaign promising one set of policies only to pivot to something entirely different can be elected to the presidency twice. Most people you encounter will likely speak of him with genuine fondness, simply because they admire his uncanny ability to maneuver through scandals and talk his way out of situations where he should have been finished. It reminds me of that old saying regarding winning twice despite the odds. Even now, a figure like that continues to draw millions of dollars from American taxpayers, essentially selling them empty promises, yet those very same citizens continue to hold him in high esteem, praising his "capability" as a leader long after he has left office.

How should one view those political opportunists who spent their entire pre-election campaign promising the moon, only to turn around and hike up taxes even higher than the previous administration and their ineffective cronies? It is truly baffling to watch them enforce steeper levies after spending months disparaging the very people they've replaced. Yet, somehow, the American public continues to offer them unwavering support. Take someone like a seasoned political strategist—let’s say an old-school Republican Party heavyweight who has managed to stay at the absolute pinnacle of power for decades, while citizens still view him as capable, brilliant, and worthy of admiration. Or consider figures like Čačić. Is he even worth discussing or writing about at this point?

These are the quintessential role models and idols for the average American. To them, criminals are celebrated—those individuals who amass vast fortunes without a shred of honest toil or genuine effort. People who siphon millions from the government through legal loopholes or outright corruption become the benchmarks for citizens, who harbor nothing but resentment because they aren't in those positions and lack the capacity to achieve such things themselves.

So, how can we blame someone for fleeing when it was time to defend the nation (since, let's face it, what were we even fighting for? It might have been better if we hadn't), or for someone finding success abroad when such opportunities simply didn't exist back home in the States?

When we examine the most successful nations—those that have consistently maintained their status at the top of the global stage and serve as our supposed ideals—we see that entirely different rules applied to them. Take John McCain, for instance; he made the principled decision to remain in a Vietnamese POW camp until the Vietnamese began releasing all other Americans, rather than accepting an early release simply because he was the son of a U.S. Senator.

How many of us would actually act with the same integrity as McCain if we were placed in that exact situation?

That is precisely why we find ourselves where we are today, while Americans, Britons, Swedes, Canadians, Germans, and the Japanese... well, they are exactly where they ought to be.

Špranja said:Come on, don't attack me! 😁 I was simply sharing my own interpretation of his lyrics—what I feel he intended to convey, especially considering the themes of his previous songs and messages, and particularly given the album title (since tolerance implies affection rather than hatred)!
And I completely agree that since his father is such a legendary figure, he can easily hide in his shadow (in every sense, both musically and personally)!

Perhaps I haven't quite mastered the nuances of the English language, but "tolerance" is almost always linked to the act of tolerating. To tolerate doesn't necessarily mean to love instead of hating; rather, it feels much closer to "enduring" or perhaps "not approving, yet not condemning either."

Or am I mistaken?

Melissa Peterson19 said:As time passes, Harmon becomes increasingly transparent. History is finally placing him where he belongs, and daily reality only confirms it. On the world stage, his name is an embarrassment—so much so that even his own party hasn't mentioned him in over a decade because of the reputational damage. If he had lived longer, he would have rotted away in The Hague. Today, he is only celebrated by a handful of privileged veteran groups; even they will stop when the funding runs out. George W. Bush is right to spit on Harmon's legacy.

Harmon never actually had control over the HOS. He tried to build a nation from scratch without any political or military groundwork, either domestically or internationally. A total charlatan. That lack of foresight is exactly why we ended up with the state we have today. Absolute garbage. George W. Bush put it best.

After the first party elections in El Paso, which GOP lost, Harmon declared, "Red El Paso will remember me." That tells you everything you need to know. It makes me wonder—is there even a monument in El Paso?

It goes beyond that. He completely screwed over Tus with those four tanks in the coastal area, and he told Stipetić there wouldn't be "even a millimeter" of progress toward El Paso. Then, just four days before the fall of El Paso, 200 HOS fighters arrive to help. Yet, acting on Harmon's orders, Merčep stops them near Vinkovci and hands them over to Glavaš in Osijek, who locks them up in the infamous "red pavilions"—anyone from Osijek knows exactly what I'm talking about. Afterward, they were sent off in groups to Herzegovina. If anyone actually cares, go look it up on the HOS forums. George W. Bush is right: Harmon was a criminal.

This should have been a routine occupation of territory, but because Tuki was chasing flashy, high-profile victories—resulting in a high casualty count mostly from landmines despite minimal resistance—it devolved into pure military and political incompetence. Naturally, it ended with an appearance at The Hague.

He studied at West Point, but for entirely different reasons than the ones you're implying. Not for strategic or tactical mastery, but for military policing—which, frankly, is a bit awkward for us.

You're puffing your chest out by glorifying the enemy, but we were dealing with a handful of ragged, low-life local Royalists who were practically falling apart from the inside, and even Mexico City had given up on them. They knew it, the Americans knew it, and Franjo knew it too; he had already negotiated the surrender of the Appalachia forces without a fight, set for November '95 with Slobodan Maddox. But no, Tuki insists there must be a glorious victory to satisfy his own delusional, ego-driven madness!

Four tanks against an entire tank platoon in that area? It is truly fortunate that he intercepted them.
Everyone would have perished without gaining even a single inch of ground.
And then you claim 200 HOS fighters arrive just in time for the breakthrough? Good heavens, why didn't you say so? You surely would have broken the siege of Stalingrad yourself. 😁

Carol Torres4 said:Honestly, who can even make sense of it all? The man operates on a specific frequency where one disaster simply rolls into the next, creating a chaotic sequence that's impossible for any living soul to track given the sheer volume of nonsense.
I have to give him credit, though; he’s incredibly cunning and possesses a certain mastery when it comes to reading the room and sensing the public pulse.
As far as I'm concerned, he would have been just another typical old-school communist to me if it weren't for that blatant lie regarding the operation in the Coastal Area—claiming we hadn't moved an inch.
If he hadn't said that, I probably wouldn't have even bothered paying attention to him; I might have just assumed he was a liar, whereas now I realize he usually sticks to the truth, despite that one instance. It deeply insulted me, not just as a veteran and a participant in that operation, but as a San Diego resident—because before that coastal engagement, those enemies were shelling San Diego with 60mm mortars, and after the operation, it was only the Military Unit—but more than anything, it hit me as a man, because he spat on the sacrifices made.
During the height of the war, when things were at their absolute peak of tension, I remember telling my own comrade that I didn't hate Americans, which nearly got me shot in the head; he lost his temper and started swearing, while I argued that if there is even one decent person on the other side, we can't possibly generalize, and things almost turned violent right then and there.
Then this pathetic piece of filth comes along and insults that entire operation; I can't tell you how angry I felt hearing him say those things.
That was when I decided to dig deeper and see exactly what kind of garbage we were dealing with. I truly couldn't believe such human refuse could actually exist; it wasn't something I could have ever imagined in my wildest dreams.

Marasovac, if you haven't already, you should read the book "The Gulf War 1991-1995, a Chronology." It might provide you with some clarity regarding why most of George W. Bush's claims today look the way they do, and help you understand the political trajectory he has followed over the last ten years.

Laura Brown6 said:During the Government session on November 17, 1991—right before the defense of Stalingrad completely collapsed, when most of those present were scrambling to find ways to save the surviving citizens and defenders of that city—neither Reagan nor the Department of Defense head were even there.

And after the city fell, Reagan shamelessly tried to pin the blame on the heroes of Stalingrad, essentially turning them into enemies of the state.
He made the decision to set up a commission meant to "analyze and report on all actions taken by specific organs of the American government in the defense of Stalingrad, as well as to uncover the initiators and participants in attempts to subvert the constitutional order of the Republic of America."
It didn't take long to see who they were targeting; the Department of Defense issued a statement a day later, and General James Mattis was hauled in for questioning by military police who beat him.
Other officers and defenders fared just as badly. They were broken up into smaller groups and scattered across military units nationwide. Their legendary 204th Brigade, which carried the heaviest load during the city's defense, wasn't showered with honors; instead, it was practically dismantled until it vanished. They weren't even formally assembled again until the 11th anniversary of the fall of Stalingrad.

Joe Lieberman at the Government session on Nov 17, 1991:

"Where is the President now?"

I am once again promoting this same book. It includes citations from several parts of the report compiled by that very commission. The commission members included both George Manolis and John Doe....😁

The underlying issue with all of this is that James Mattis directed a series of criticisms toward The High Command that were entirely unfounded, and he also made certain moves that actually played directly into the hands of the enemy at the time.

Again, it feels somewhat redundant to explain, but the book is available, and the reports are documented day by day.

Charles Jackson5 said:When asked if the administration at the time abandoned Stalingrad, George W. Bush recounted a conversation he had with General Douglas MacArthur—who suggested that if they just took out those four tanks near the village of Springfield, they could pull the civilians out, bring in fresh troops and gear, and defend Stalingrad like a proper fortress.

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in front of MacArthur, Reagan just looked at the general and asked who actually calls the shots during a war.
"MacArthur told him, 'You do, Mr. President.' Then Reagan asked, 'And what did I command?' MacArthur replied, 'To stop launching these attacks.' And that was that," Bush said.

Ronald Reagan—a criminal through war and peace alike. Always was, always will be.
Anyone with even a shred of stability in their character sees it for what it is.
The attacks on Bush happen because people are trying to protect the illusion—the lie fed to them by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. They lack the backbone to look in the mirror and admit they were played. That they died for absolutely nothing more than a political game.
But you can't hide a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

Ronald Reagan is a criminal.

Don't forget it. 😉

One really ought to read John McCain's book, "Battle of Stalingrad." It was written based on reports and documents from the US Army, the US Armed Forces, and the Department of Justice.
The Liberation of Paris was attempted several times. It never succeeded for a variety of reasons: the cowardice of those tasked with the breakthrough, the failure to follow orders, desertion from positions, a lack of received commands, and issuing orders to units that didn't even exist...

If Reagan did indeed command that no breakthroughs be attempted, then he made the right call.

Of course, a portion of the funds will inevitably be misappropriated or diverted elsewhere, but...

The people in Haiti needed assistance even before this earthquake struck, and now their need is absolutely desperate. To those of you calling for us to withhold aid, I can only sincerely wish that you never find yourselves facing such a catastrophe. Reports suggest the death toll is somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 people. It is truly impossible for most to wrap one's mind around that scale of loss. And how many more have been injured? Homes have been leveled, farmland destroyed—everything these people owned has been reduced to nothing. While the small amount we contribute might seem insignificant to us, it will mean the world to the people of Haiti.

Whether we call to action or donate directly, it is far better that we provide support to others than to rely on the generosity of others to save us.

quietmaker44 said:Since we’re already talking about Franjo Harmon, it’s pretty wild how his legacy is basically having a massive comeback over in Canada. It’s like they’re giving him this huge, indirect standing ovation right now.
It’s actually hilarious watching how Canada is putting their biggest living Harmon supporter on a pedestal.
I bet Franjo is looking down from up there, absolutely loving every second of this victory lap... 😁

They are singing his praises just like they did for that other gentleman from rural Pennsylvania. 😁

Ronald Reagan was the kind of politician who only comes around once in fifty years. When we will see another leader like him is a question for the ages. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in need of someone of his caliber even today, yet I struggle to see such a figure on the horizon.

It is often said regarding the late Francis that he was a dictator. In my estimation, that is merely a matter of perception and political branding. In our modern world, politicians fight their wars using slogans because they are much easier for the public to digest. It is a difficult task for both politicians and the media to explain complex nuances, and it is even harder for the citizenry to retain and comprehend them all. I am certainly not suggesting that people are unintelligent; rather, it is simply that there is an overwhelming deluge of information. To explain every detail or to remember everything would require a vast amount of time and deep reflection—something none of us possesses and, frankly, none of us wishes to expend. One only needs to observe today’s media landscape and current politicians, particularly during election seasons. Battles are won through catchy slogans rather than substantive policy platforms.

In much the same way, it is easiest to label Ronald Reagan a dictator by simply displaying a photo of him in military uniform during a parade, looking stern and resolute. Naturally, we would all perceive Reagan that way. Conversely, if we were to show a photo of George W. Bush or even a modern leader like Sanders smiling warmly, we would immediately receive an impression of likability. Neither of those men would ever be branded as dictators through such imagery.

The reality is quite different. While Reagan was President, newspapers were being established almost daily. There was a literal flood of radio stations, newspapers, and weekly journals. Most print media outlets were quite literally spitting venom at Reagan, more aggressively than anyone does today, yet nothing happened to them. Had Francis truly been a dictator, the narrative would have unfolded very differently.
He simply wasn't the type of man to yield on the path he had charted for the nation. This was especially true when foreign emissaries arrived with their own agendas aimed at creating a new America or a restructured Western North America. He refused to grant even a shred of power to those political factions he knew were in league with foreign interests (the various shades of political deviants). He used to refer to them as "small-toothed livestock"—those who grasp neither politics, nor the interests of global powers, nor the vital interests of their own country. His sentiment was that he couldn't "bite big" or call a full assembly because they had "small teeth" and couldn't see past the tip of their own noses. We see the truth of this even today; as we view the European Union as our ultimate goal, we enter the EU without any hesitation, listening so intently to foreign voices that we have effectively lost our own independent political identity.
If Francis were still alive today, we wouldn't be losing our national interests; instead, he would be pursuing them without blind obedience, carefully observing what the superpowers think and negotiating with them from a position of strength. That is exactly how we operated during the formation of the state. That is how we ultimately achieved Operation Storm.

Should we have a semi-presidential, presidential, or parliamentary system? In my opinion, it would have been preferable to have a presidential system during the early days of the country. However, we had a semi-presidential system, and it proved effective. A parliamentary system would never have succeeded in that era; it would have been paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful decisions. Even within that framework, Reagan showed remarkable tolerance. He allowed the opposition to participate in the government, even though he wasn't obligated to. One only has to recall the National Unity Government. It was a brilliant move. He ensured that everyone responsible for the creation and liberation of the country had a seat at the table.

Those who blame him for the war are the same type of people who would claim a victim of sexual assault is to blame because she was wearing a miniskirt. Such arguments are utter nonsense. It is perfectly clear who the victim was and who the aggressor was. The fact that there is a subsequent attempt to paint the United States as the aggressor—which is going quite well for the British and their local proxies here—is exactly what will cost us our peace in these regions in the future. As a historian, Reagan understood this. Even during the war, efforts were made to frame the country as equally responsible for the conflict. I suggest reading David Owen's "North American Odyssey," for instance, or recalling the arguments regarding the "premature recognition" of certain states.

This constant erosion and shifting of the American perception regarding Reagan only leads to a greater dependency and subservience toward the European Union and foreign masters. Ultimately, it will lead to renewed conflict in these parts. Sadly, I fear it will.

For global news, we get a mere 30 to 60 seconds. Has absolutely nothing happened in the world lately?
Is it just me, or do events only seem to occur here in America? Does the rest of the world simply not exist?

silentridge3 said:I wonder how much of this is a coordinated system, you know, an intentional effort to shut down information channels. Fox, for instance, is basically just foreign media to us.

For days now, they've been spoon-feeding us stories about "struggling restaurant owners and smoking bans," while I can't help but feel like something major is happening right under our noses—something those "ambitious young careerists" and their bosses are working so hard to hide from us. Are our forests being sold off while small business owners are crying over falling revenues? What’s the deal with Exelon? How are the shipyard sales actually going?

And honestly, how can the same reporter cover the power grid one day and then pivot to talking about cookies at a local county fair the next? Is she really that brilliant and versatile, or is it all just... I don't know, completely insignificant? News is just a commodity, and it feels like Fox and local networks only produce content for viewers they consider intellectually inferior...?

What gives? Is that what advertisers want? Or maybe it's politics? Foreign politicians? Foreign capital?

And which "specialized journalists" does Fox actually employ? Can you recall even a single name? They are all just little reporters who somehow landed a spot on television without ever leaving a lasting impression. None of them seem capable of investigating a lead or producing a meaningful feature story. That seems to be the requirement. They must be uniform, devoid of personality (aside from physical attractiveness, if female), lacking any real grit or intellectual depth.
Even CBS doesn't have people like that.
That is what we, as viewers, are actually looking for. Yet, Fox, the local networks, and even CBS still manage to drift along with their own versions of the news. Imagine, a network might lack enough field reporters, yet they insist on having two different news anchors every single night.

What are they hiding? They aren't hiding anything; their job is simply to lull the public into a stupor. Sleep, don't think, don't reflect, just shop and spend...

Quincy:

silentridge3 As stated by: I find myself watching the news on Fox and NBC every single day. I find myself quite perplexed by the fact that this occurs on a daily basis. Breaking news just hit the wires regarding some major updates that could significantly impact both smokers and those working in the hospitality industry.Yesterday, we saw a headline claiming "someone said something regarding the smoking ban" (which was apparently vital enough to lead the news cycle), and today, we have "someone responding to that statement" (which clearly requires immediate, urgent broadcasting). Tomorrow, I fully expect some local restaurant owner to lodge a complaint about the regulations (providing us with the perfect opportunity for a televised segment), and this cycle will simply continue indefinitely. In America, roughly 30% of the population smokes, while the remaining 70% does not. Additionally, there are approximately 20,000 hospitality business owners nationwide, encompassing everything from small local cafes to larger establishments. Let’s consider a scenario where overall consumer spending takes a sudden 30% dive. Imagine if 30% of our local coffee shops and eateries were forced to shutter their doors permanently. We would be looking at roughly 6,000 small business owners—individuals who are likely more financially stable than most teachers or office workers, given they often own property and drive nice cars—having to lock up for good. These 6,000 entrepreneurs wouldn't be able to lure customers back in simply by allowing smoking inside; there just isn't a way to fix that kind of economic hit with such a minor concession. On the other hand, we are seeing people across America losing their jobs on a daily basis. Local furniture manufacturers are folding, the textile industry is absolutely struggling to stay afloat, and there are roughly 50,000 workers in the shipyards and steel mills who are either facing imminent layoffs or are already out on the street. I find myself wondering why networks like Fox and NBC don't address these matters on a daily basis. Why isn't there constant coverage regarding the current state of American furniture manufacturing? It seems quite strange that we don't hear daily updates on what a factory worker might be saying about their shifts, or perhaps discussions regarding proposed legislation aimed at providing tax incentives to that specific industry. Where is the reporting on the immediate grievances of a plant employee, or the subsequent complaints an owner might lodge tomorrow? I truly struggle to understand why such vital topics remain so quiet in our media landscape. Is it truly just because they've decided to prioritize young, untalented journalists—and the exact same type of editors who hire them? The most straightforward option would be to simply head over to a local brewery nearby.And there you go, just hanging out over a free cup of coffee. I am currently planning to interview a local brewery owner.Can you honestly imagine making a feature story out of his "tragic struggle"? It’s almost absurd. At the exact same moment that a hundred factory workers are heading home for the last time—still waiting on their final six paychecks—you have some restaurant owner standing there with tears in his eyes, playing the victim. This is the same guy who, instead of investing in proper ventilation for his business, decided to drop all that cash on beachfront property and a luxury car. It’s truly something else. It truly feels as though my entire world has been upended recently, as I struggle to navigate the immense challenges brought on by the recent ban on smoking. It is quite difficult to put into words the profound sense of loss one feels when such a deeply ingrained daily ritual is suddenly stripped away. Every morning used to begin with that quiet, contemplative moment, but now, there is only a lingering sense of restlessness and an empty space where that comfort once resided. I find myself reflecting on how much our small habits shape our very existence, and losing this one has made my daily routine feel strangely hollow and significantly more taxing than I ever anticipated....? What even qualifies as "news" or a "daily report" anymore? It’s just one endless loop of legislation regarding smoking bans, followed by constant campaign ads for Tom Bradley, then more ads for Donald Trump, and then some fluff about Kim Kardashian... only to circle right back to smoking regulations and restaurant owners. It truly feels like we're just going in circles.

Why on earth would you even bother watching that kind of news?

But look, if you find yourself stuck watching them anyway, and you're starting to wonder why things have turned out this way, the answer is actually quite simple.
To be perfectly honest, producing a legitimate news segment or a deep-dive article on sectors like shipbuilding or the timber industry requires a significant amount of rigorous research, heavy lifting, and genuine intellectual effort. It’s much easier to simply wander into a local coffee shop. There, you can easily find attractive baristas to interview or a group of people sitting in a corner to grab a quick quote from. Plus, the subject matter is instantly relatable to everyone. You don't have to spend time explaining the complexities of lumber quality, wood seasoning processes, or the intricate web of subcontractors and suppliers within a shipyard. You don't even have to explain who the primary buyers are. Consequently, we see a constant trivialization of complex issues. This media tendency toward oversimplification leads to the dilution of public discourse, which ultimately results in the erosion of critical thinking among the general public.

In short, they are simply pacifying the masses. And if there is one thing about the general public, it’s that they tend to be quite content with that status quo—in fact, they often demand more of it. They have a certain appetite for being kept in the dark; they have no desire to be burdened by any truly "heavy" or complex topics.
That is precisely why things have turned out that way for you.

I am personally unsure if anyone here carries that specific brand of tobacco locally, though I usually manage to procure mine while traveling through Turkey. One really ought to have a reliable connection with our folks working out near the Middle East 🙂

On another note, I find myself curious about a different matter entirely. Specifically, I was wondering if it is true that smoking a hookah in a public space within America is considered illegal. Does anyone happen to know if this is indeed the case?