As obvious as ABC.

[No Elephants]

In one of my prior posts, I referred to ABC as pro-right or at least predictably critical of the President.

Came across this page this morning, while searching for Romney's height:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/caveman-politics-point-mitt-romney-presidential-winner-study/story?id=14755562#.UG7Hja6ByX0



Look at the two sets of pictures on this page of Romney and Obama side by side.

One set has Romney, dressed in red, white and blue, wearing a jacket and tie, standing against a bright red, white and blue background, looking piously and patrioticallyheavenward, with his hand over his heart, while Obama is in rolled up shirtsleeves, standing against an all dark background, looking as though he is about to spit and maybe itching for a brawl. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, the President's face has been darkened.

The second set of photos shows Romney, against a background of the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution, interestingly), looking alert, bright eyed and busy tailed, and as though he is giving a thumbs up sign, while the President is again against an all dark background, looking down and seeming as though he is trying to swallow back some bitter acid reflux that he just spit up in his mouth.

And, since the second set of photos accompanies a story about the Presidential debates, the difference in backgrounds is impossible to explain as innocent happenstance.

And this friends, is but one example of how media tries to manipulate us.

The funny thing is that rank and file Republicans still seem to think the media is not only left of center, but "liberal." Talk about oblivious.

BTW, the media first got the "liberal" label for covering events in the civil rights era, such as Bull Connor turning firehoses on African Americans.

[No Elephants]

1. P.S. In the story on the debate, it says that some of the most googled

items during the debate were "Dodd Frank" and "Simpson Bowles." Neither the debaters nor the moderator apparently explained either of those terms sufficiently for the audience.

Friends, if a majority of people out there don't know Simpson Bowles, we are definitely in deep doo.

[Enthusiast]

2. A majority of the people don't know shit.

Mostly people today have no sense of where they are historically or spatially. Think about it.

This serves the Romney side big time.

[No Elephants]

3. Not sure what you mean about no sense of where they are historically or spatially.

Hope that doesn't mean that I don't know shit, but I was taught never to be ashamed of admitting when I don't know somethin

[Enthusiast]

4. The American people

don't understand that their mid to late 20th Century high standard of living and relative economic equality was a historical aberration. The chair has been removed from under us but most don't see that yet. Stiglitz pointed out the changes that took place under Reagan and continue today.

The spatial thing would just take too much of my very limited energy.

No Elephants I see you as especially perceptive and knowledgeable.

[No Elephants]

5. Thank you. Coming from you, that is quite a compliment.

No false modesty, but my knowledge is spotty at best. I am totally clueless about so many things. But, I stick to posting what I know, if you know what I mean.

Sadly, yes, to the aberration.

We could make things much better, but it would take more energy and commitment and creativity than anyone seems willing to devote (including fake energy Romney).

But we can't make things the way they were from Eisenhower through Johnson. For only one thing of many, many, we have already wasted so much of the planet's resources.

By Carter's time, we were already getting into trouble, and then came Reagan, Clinton and two branches of the Bush crime family. Not to mention exponential growth of lobbyists after 1980.

Thank you for enlightening me. I really appreciate it.