And now for something completely different.

 Fajititas!

I'm a big fan of tasty, cheap food.

So, when I came across this concept, it was like a revelation. I did find parts of this in other peoples recipes, but not the overarching conceptualization...

So, here we go.

 The basics: 

Fajita shells.

Fiesta blend cheese 

Re-fried beans

Spanish Rice

optional: Olive oil.

That is all you really need, but if you want to get fancy...

A Meat. (Diced Chicken, Beef, Shrimp, Bison., whatever) half a cup or more.

2 tablespoon Lime Juice

1 tsp Salt

Frozen Pepper & Onion blend

3 Tablespoons Cooking oil of your choice. I use Beef Tallow, butter or olive oil.

put the meat and pepper blend in skillet at low heat until everything is thawed; put at medium and stir frequently until the onions are translucent.

add the salt and lime juice and stir well for one minute, then remove from heat.

The next obvious step: TRY IT. if its too crispy/chewy, cook a bit longer.

It should look something like that.

OK, now the tricky part.

construction.

Lay out a shell. put a tablespoon of re-fried beans, a tablespoon of Rice, and a big pinch of Cheese blend.

Roll it up.

By the way the plate is clean, its just wet on the bottom.

if you want a wrap? eat it. otherwise...

375 degrees F for 20 minutes. will be crispy. if you want really crispy, get a paper towel, put olive oil on it, and lightly coat the outside of the wrap, and make it 400 degrees.

OPTIONS

Remember the meat and pepper stuff?

replace EITHER the beans or the Rice or both with your peppers and meat, do everything else the same.

Every version of this is just ridiculously tasty.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled weirdness.

Doom part 1

 Not the game, Doom the outlook.

It's going to take amazing luck and abnormal levels of sanity to avoid cataclysmic outcomes. No, not in  weeks; it starts on June 9th, 2024.

our first Doom Point on the 9th is economic, and is covered in depth by Carnegie EIP here. It's really difficult to summarize, but...

The US is a global economic power for several reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is because US Dollars have been the de-facto means of global finance; various countries cash reserves have been held in US Dollars, exchanges between nations have been made in USD. A major reason for this stems from a deal made with Saudi Arabia in 1951 that all purchases of their oil had to be made with USD. oh, and the USD used to actually have some *tangible* value, up until President Nixon.

Our only peer in economic value, Communist China started up their OWN global unit of exchange, BRICS. and they have been persuading countries to use BRICS bucks instead of USD, for global finance. and on June 9th, Saudi Arabia is expected to stop requiring USD for Oil purchases. Russia is helping to push BRICS.

The impacts: loss of global influence, and Inflation. not your normal, everyday inflation; severe long term inflation; combined with monetary stupidity? hyperinflation (a loaf of bread for $50 or more, that sort of inflation).

Monetary stupidity? that would be something like, say, a country deciding to print up a few Trillion extra dollars. No one with even a basic grasp of economics couldn't see this causing inflation. in case you weren't aware, the ultimate value of a currency is found by taking the Total Value of a country and dividing that by the amount of its currency that is in circulation. That is it. if you double the circulating currency, you halve its value.

Got that? ok, now check out this. Interesting timing.... ARAMCO (which basically IS the Saudi oil industry) is offering 1.54 billion shares for sale this week. If hypothetically, you had a BIG pile of USD laying around and used it to buy some of these shares, when the USD inflates you'd be perfectly fine and even profitable, financially. 

I'm going to make a prediction. I predict that in a year if you examined the stock portfolios of nearly everyone involved in printing and spending those TRILLIONS of USD since 2020, you'll find huge amounts of ARAMCO stock or other assets whose value is tied to the value of ARAMCO stock.

I said Nearly everyone, yes. the handles on some of these people isn't totally financial. Sometimes it's Sex, or Drugs, or Power, or inevitably, blackmail. And I've got a Theory about how almost all of this...chaos, stupidity & self-destruction started and escalated to the present day Doom scenario. Note I said theory; I only have evidence for about 3/5ths of the events.

Unfortunately, I have to divert from the financial narrative and hop over to "Disinformation" in part 2

Human Nature

 Basic Politics

1. 
   

This is what is called a “Normal Curve”.

Most people are a little surprised when they find out that almost anything and everything can be represented on a normal curve, but then they realize its pretty much how reality works. There are exceptions to every rule, including this one. Using my past experience and looking at the curve, I would say it’s very likely that the exception probably occur 2.3% to 4.6% of the time.

With the “Politics” curve I slapped together, nearly everyone who looks at it will say “Yes, that's about right”. About 68.2% probably. About 27.2% will say “I don’t think so, but, eh, close enough” and 4.6% will probably say “That's wrong”.

There is another sort-of rule that goes along with it, and I call that similarity of thought.

Let’s take a basic political topic, like “Women's Rights”, “Gun Control”, “taxation”. In order to make this a little easier to digest, I’m going to call it “Generic Topic”. At the center you have the vast majority of your people, 68.2% who don’t think the topic is all that important. The 34.2% that are left of center are generally supportive. The 34.2% that are right of center are generally non-supportive.

Going left, you have the next grouping, the 13.6% who know Generic Topic is very important, and possibly the most important political topic. This is the group where you would normally find the loud voices, the campaigners, the petition takers, the ones with the picket signs.

Going right, you have the 13.6% who know that Generic Topic is bad and possibly dangerous. Once again, you’ll find loud voices against General Topic, people protesting against it, etc.

and Then… The fringe. The 2 groups of 2.3% that most problems come from. On the left, you have the faithful, the super fans of General Topic. It’s the greatest thing and they’ll do whatever it takes to support it. it’s for the greater good!

On the Right, the ones who can see that General Topic is their enemy. It MUST be stopped, whatever it takes! it’s for the greater good!

This kinda makes sense, right? You see where it’s coming from? Well, here comes the hard part.

I’ll try to find a safe topic. I am sure I’ll fail, but I will try.

I’m going to try “vaping”.

So, from left to right, you have “Vaping is inherently evil, people who do it or support it are my personal enemies, it must be stopped”. A member of this group might sneak into a Vape juice production facility and pour Vitamin E oil into the vats, so that the people can more easily see how bad it is! I’ll call this Vape---.

Next, “Vaping is obviously bad, I don’t like it, I’m going to do what I can to make it go away”. A member of this group would write letters to their representatives, post a lot of negative information on Social Media, start petitions to have it illegalized or at least banned from the places they go. If they see someone vaping anywhere near them, they’ll let them know how much they don’t like it. This is Vape--.

Now, the middle. The 34.2% who don’t actually care, really, but they generally don’t like it. They would probably sign a petition against vaping, if they have the time. But not if they are a smoker or are in a relationship with one. They might have tried it, and not liked it. Vape-

and on the right, The 34.2% who don’t actually care, really, but they generally like it. They would sign a petition to support vaping, if they have the time. Have probably tried it, or thought about it. Vape+

then, the 13.6% who know how great it is. Not only is it fun, it saves lives! A member of this group would write letters to their representatives, post a lot of positive information on Social Media, start petitions to have Bans revoked. They give vape gifts on holidays. Vape++

And then… When someone gets around to forming the Vaping religion, they will join. Vaping is love, Vaping is life. If they find out the home address of the main senator leading the legislation against vaping, he’d better hope he has good security… Vape+++.

OK. now the apparently difficult part.

Take any of these groups, it doesn’t matter which, and they will have empathy only for the adjacent groups. The farther away from their group a group is, the less they will understand it.

Vape--. “well, I can see where the guys in Vape--- are coming from, though they are a little extreme. And the guys in Vape-, well, OK, I think they just haven’t really thought about it as much as I have”.

“The guys in Vape+? They are obviously idiots. Vape++ is just crazy, or there is something else going on there, no one could actually believe that bullshit. Vape+++? That’s a myth, isn’t it?”

Lets try Vape+. “The Vape++ group? Yes, I can mostly see their point of view, I just don’t have the time and money to devote to it. Besides, I heard one of them giving Vape- a hard time, and, what? They don’t like Vaping, they can like or dislike what they want. Vape+++? Those guys are nuts, but I don’t really believe what I’ve read about how “dangerous” they are. I think they must have different juice than any I tried, there almost as bad as the fruitcakes in Vape--”.”Vape-- Fine, you don’t like Vaping, don’t Vape! Don't try to make ME stop Vaping just because you don’t like it!, thank god they are all weak-lunged pathetic morons”. “Vape--- well, I cant really believe anyone would think that way, but if its true, they need professional help, or possibly extermination”.

And it works for pretty much ANY topic! But people have a problem with it.

What THEY think is normal or very near-normal, regardless of where they fit on a topic. If you are Gun Control-, you’ll be able to empathize with Gun Control-- and Gun Control+, you won’t really be able to agree with Gun Control---, really, really be unable to find common ground with Gun Control++, and find Gun Control+++ dangerously insane.

If you are Abortion++, you’ll be able to understand Abortion +++ and Abortion+ point of view, though you don’t share it. The Abortion- people just don’t get it, they are defective in some way, the Abortion – are nearly totally wrong, and must have other, secret reasons they are so screwed up. Abortion --- are pure, blatant terrorists.

So. why did I write this? it’s a self-diagnosis tool, partially. On any given topic, the higher the percentage of the population you can understand the point of view is, the less + or – marks you have on that topic. If you really, truly dislike something, look around. Look around in places you don’t normally go. Do other people dislike it less than you do, and you can’t find many, or maybe any people who dislike it more? You might be an extremist. I’m not saying you are WRONG, by the way. Just that you appear to have an extreme point of view, and maybe you need to think about that, and why you think that way.

It’s also a very long winded way to get the next little bit across in a way that can be understood.

If 34.2%, +/- 10% of the overall population voted for a candidate for political office, they are not crazy, Or defective, Or Evil, to have done so. They might be WRONG, but they aren’t sub-human, even if you disagree with them. Sorry.

But, as I said, it’s almost impossible for individuals who have extreme points of view to realize that they do. And the other little problem, which is that there are Evil, Crazy, basically defective human beings out there.

The final question: How do you tell the difference between someone who is genuinely Evil, or Crazy, or basically defective from someone who holds a non-adjacent point of view?

Let me know when you figure it out. The only thing I can think to do is to assume they aren’t Evil, until proven (and NOT in the court of public opinion or social media, real actual proof) Guilty.

Skyrim Politics. yes, really.

 

 Hammerfell...invaded by Thalmor, and the Empire withdrew and left them to their fate...which was to fight the Thalmor to a standstill and sign the Second Treaty of Stros M'kai, after which "the Aldmeri Dominion completely withdrew from Hammerfell". 

As "the empire" should better be called "The Third Empire" or the Mede Empire, and was only saved at the battle of the Red Ring by the Nord legions under General Jonna, it's pretty obvious that the gods favor Hammerfell & Skyrim, which 2 are OBVIOUSLY going to, at the very least, sign a defensive pact; they might even allow the Mede empire to participate. 

Trade would follow.

It's pretty obvious that the rebellion / Civil War in Skyrim is NOT the principal conflict in Tamriel at the time we first see it at the beginning of TES V:Skyrim; it's a "Police Action". The Stormcloaks are a Militia, and the entirety of the Imperial forces don't make up a full Legion. if it did become a high intensity conflict, the Thalmor don't have a military presence in Skyrim, they have diplomatic and "police" presence. They are also widely despised, if they didn't voluntarily withdraw they would have the lifetime of a snowflake in July; aside from their spy network they have NO "ground support". 

 

 This completely leaves out the Dragonborn The Dragon of the North, reborn. the 2nd coming of Tiber Septim. and as the Blades make clear, from their point of view the rightful emperor. So. Skyrim, Hammerfell, Free Elsewyrr, and probably large parts of High Rock are going to take a look at the guy who rides dragons, can shout, endorsed by High Hrothgar, acknowledged by the surviving Blades, who is allegedly the reincarnation of Tiber Septim...if there is a new Mede, he'll become King of Cyrodil and the Elder Council will have a Imperial Crown on The Dragonborns head as fast as possible; might as well make a new "Amulet of Kings", because he IS "The Dragonfire".

 

The "Nord Legions" (plural) under General Jonna were instrumental in the battle of the Red Ring. Where are they? as some say, we only see Militia in Skyrim. 

There are indications that, much like the Roman Empire, they send Legions raised in one province to serve in a different province. 

And we see other people claiming that the "true strength of the Empire" is deployed to keep the Thalmor from getting any funny ideas.  As I see it,  the Nord Legions as being kept where they can act as a deterrent on the border with Elsewyre/Valenwood, or stationed in High Rock, or Morrowind; the same reason a "real legion" doesn't settle the Skyrim Rebellion? Because if they move in a "Real" imperial Legion, The Nord Legions will go to defend their homeland. By making it mainly a small police action, the Empire are purposefully keeping the peace. Tullius being prepared to execute Ulfric was a very brash move, in those circumstances; Skyrim has been done dirty by the Imperials at every flipping turn. 

 

"oh, you saved our asses at the Red Ring, fight in the name of the founder of the empire, and worship Talos? and when we make a separate deal for you to kick bandits out of Markarth, we go back on it? and when your leader lawfully challenges and defeats our puppet in traditional combat, we TRY AND EXECUTE HIM? oh, and sorry about your sister & kid brother back home being killed for worshiping your principal god, by the thalmor we gave police powers to while you are off saving our asses".

 

Unless, of course, the "Nord Legions" were destroyed in the battle of the Red Ring or sometime since then; there is an equal amount of evidence that the imperial legions no longer exist...none that says either way.

note that Hammerfell was in a stalemate situation , THEN the Imperial forces withdrew for their surprise attack in Cyrodil; it may have been a secondary front, but it apparently took a good 1/3 of the Empires TOTAL strength to reach parity with the Thalmor in Hammerfell.

 

Oh, and about Ulfric. can you STOP calling him a racist? "Nords" are, yes, a Race of Men; it's Also a Political & Cultural Label. He's not yelling the equivalent of  "Skyrim for the Whites", He's yelling "Skyrim belongs to the citizens of Skyrim", and NOT to the Thalmor, or The Empire based in Cyrodil.

Skyrim is predominantly populated by Nord race humans...but look at his Capital. when Dunmer refugees from the Eruption of Red Mountain appeared, Nords were displaced from the Gray Quarter to give the Dunmer a place to settle; In the aftermath of the Argonian slave result and it's attempt to kill all the Dunmer appeared, he kept the Argonians outside the walls, providing the Dunmer with security...But, still allowed the Argonians a place OUTSIDE the walls; The Jarl of Windhelm did not have to give shelter to the Dunmer, and he didn't have to allow the Argonians to make a community on the Docks.

There is even a HIGH ELF merchant in the market of Windhelm, with a pretty nice house; sure, she might be a Thalmor spy, or a Arms dealer supplying the Stormcloaks...but aside from 2 very obvious redneck dickheads, she is treated quite like any other citizen.

There are humans in the USA today, who when discussing "open Borders", have a tendency to label anyone opposed to open borders as a "Racist"; There are those who label anyone who lets religion shape their life, is an "IDIOT Racist".

First off, screw them.

secondly, though, in Skyrim, The Gods & Aedra & Daedra are REAL. They EXIST. The Thalmor ban of Talos Worship has real-world measurable impact on the fortunes of Skyrim & The Empire. It's MUCH more serious than most seem to realize, as the Gods actively shelter and protect nations and peoples. Akatosh protected the world from Daedra Invasions, while Talos, among other things, sends Avatars down to repair problems now & Then. For instance, Alduin returns from a time loop, so Talos & Akatosh send an Avatar to deal with it (the Dragonborn).

Why would Talos bother, if the people of Skyrim collectively said "Screw Talos", like the Thalmor wanted?

Lets solve the energy crisis.

 Gasoline is expensive right now. I expect it to get slightly cheaper between now and the next election, then zoom upwards again, at least briefly.

If you are like most Americans, the talking heads on TV pushing electric cars are flipping idiots. They are expensive. VERY expensive. And if we had the money to buy an electric car, the price of gasoline wouldn't be hurting us that bad, anyway.

So, what are the alternatives? There are a few.

You could get a used hybrid; at first glance, the cost of a used Prius isn't that bad; they go for about the same as a "normal" car of the same age. 

But the problem here is twofold. First, older cars start requiring more and more service and repair -usually- and Hybrids are fairly complex; you can't take it over to your brother-in-law who fixes cars in his spare time for most of the possible problems it might have. The BIG problem, though, is that batteries wear out; after 7 years of use, most electric cars require at least a partial battery replacement.

Guess what the cost is to put a new battery pack into a 8 year old Prius? Around $3000, but as much as $5000. If you are a Nissan CVT driver, that won't sound too crazy, but it kinda is.

You could go Old-Skool weird, and go with a Propane or Woodfuel car. And that is possible, but it's a true PITA in a lot of ways, and in my opinion should be restricted to hobbyists or Post-Apocalyptic scenarios, only.

I would say "Hydrogen", but the Toyota Mirai is new, costs $50,000 so the same problem as a new electric, really. Plus, you can only fuel it in California.

oh, wait. there IS an Alternative!

The image I'm trying to show you is for a 2004 Mazda RX-8 RE. A variant of my favorite Rotary Rocket, the RE is a Limited Production vehicle that ran on Gasoline OR Hydrogen, based on a switch in the drivers compartment.

Unlike modern Hydrogen vehicles, it burned Hydrogen instead of using a Fuel Cell; this worked because Rotary Engines are damn near perfect Hydrogen burners, the switch just changed which fuel tank was being used, and the vehicle ECM. In 2007, Mazda shipped 30 of these off to a Norwegian research facility for use as fleet vehicles.

In H burning mode, The car ran off it's 110 liter, 2.4kg hydrogen tank; it only had 107HP in H mode, which is OK as long as you have that Gasoline switch to flip it back into Rocket Mode.

Here is the interesting part: There was a engine change in 2006, but the 2004-2005 RX-8 you see rolling down the road? it has the Hydrogen burning engine. it's the same. All you would need to make it burn H is the H injector (easy, simple), the Switch and the ECM (going to have to talk Mazda into releasing it, I think). oh, and the H tank.

But wait! where will you get Hydrogen???

well, for $1600 you can get a home Hydrogen generator that use Lye reduction process from fuelcellstore.com, which would make enough to fill up your tank in about 3 hours, for about $6. You would need to compress it to higher density, but that's neither hard nor expensive.

So...can you twist a wrench? looking for yet another way to illustrate the superiority of Rotary Engines? Your Sister just got a all electric car and you want to make her shut up about the environment?

for less than $10,000 (depending on the cost of getting that ECM, which honestly might be a snap or cheap, I don't know), you could have a True Sports Car that is so green you can drink the crystal clear water which is it's only exhaust product in H mode (disclaimer: don't drink it, it's going to have crap from the gas usage, also), that you fill up with stuff you can literally make yourself + electricity...which ALSO has a switch to put it in RWD drift monster mode.

update: I used this post to autogenerate a video, see it at

https://ai.invideo.io/watch/NGqAc5DQE8c

Trust the Science.

 Have you thought about how...stupid that phrase is? "Trust the Scientist" is ok, but "Trust the Science" isn't. Science doesn't require trust.

As someone with a lot of eclectic education, and even wider experience in primarily technology oriented fields, I don't have to trust science; we're on a first name basis, and I pretty much know how it works. While my primary expertise would be in Electronics, Computer Science, Physics, Geography, Weapons Systems, High freguency Physics, High frequency communications, CAD, VR... if you look at my mix of College Credits from classes and those awarded for experience at least, But As I'm not an Idiot, OR an Insect (RAH!, RAH!, RAH!), I can <gasp> usually work my way through topics that involve fields of science I don't specialize in! 

Disclaimer: I have no college level credits that involve "English Grammar". I used to Hate Grammar Nazis; I've grown and now just laugh at them with Loathing.

 When I first started to deconstruct what was behind most gun control arguments it blew my mind how superstitious they (generally) are.  In their worldview Guns are inherently BAD. And it's not like a tool in any way, because they are designed and built only to kill. If you are around one, apparently it will infect you with death cravings.

BTW, ask a pro gun-control liberal what the point of a standing army is; it's funny. you get, maybe 40% of the time "Armies are a waste of money, they are evil and not all that good at it, like guns they are designed to kill, and are very inefficient at it.", a little less often, you'll get "to stop bad people from making us do bad things, and make bad people stop doing bad things" which I have to admit is close.

The word deterrent is simply not in the Liberal Dictionary.

 The "logical" arguments they quote are invariably based on either badly manipulated data, or are outright lies; see: current CDC statement about causes of death in children and compare that to Department of Justice (you know, real & official) statistics. This is because the leadership of the CDC is mainly made up of members of the Liberal Cult. Most liberal FACTS on gun control are easily proven lies, I'm absolutely serious. One big talking point from 4 or 5 years ago was how guns in a household were more likely to kill family members than be used in a defensive manner; it took a very, very long time to dig the "science" on that one up, it was a Massachusetts study of ONLY families with individuals convicted of violent crime. Really. I've yet to come across a statistic or study that isn't taken way, way out of context or deliberately misconstrued,. from pro-gun control liberals. 

disclaimer: pro-gun liberals don't appear to do this, or the opposite; I'd half way expect it, but, no. Kinda sane, except for the ones who think all conservatives have Klan hoods in their closets.

 it's a Cult. 

The majority of the things they scream about loudest are things they have been told they should be screaming about. <proselytizing>.

They have FAITH in what their leaders tell them. Unquestioning belief.

If you dare to question their articles of FAITH, you are BAD.

If you aren't a member of their FAITH, you are sub-human.

If you resist conversion, you are BAD.

If you actually do examine the data, and come to a different conclusion, you are a Heretic. 

Guns are inherently bad.

When their leaders make a mistake, they didn't; or:

When their leaders make a mistake, it's because of BAD PEOPLE, or:

When their leaders make a mistake, they don't acknowledge it & try not to even think about it. 

When their enemies have a success, it REALLY means it's a trick, or,

An enemy success is a direct persecution of them; the enemy didn't actually "succeed", the Liberals just had a setback.

If one of their core leaders has mountains of evidence that they have lied, stolen, murdered, sex crimes, bribery, sold out, whatever? it's Not True, it's attacks from the enemy, or regardless, it's "no big deal".

It's for the greater good. They know better. The Ends Justify the Means.

As a Old, non-liberal ( but with a few liberal points of view, with a Traditional Midwestern Christian upbringing, I've got experience of Cultists; I already covered the science. Liberals are mainly anti-science Cultists with one primary problem; they simply do not realize it.

Co-vid. when it came up, I read scientific papers as they became available, including the ones that were almost immediately suppressed for political reasons. With my background and a tiny bit of research, I mostly understand those papers. If you take a Random sampling of 100 Liberals and 100 individuals who share my creed and say whatever they are they aren't liberals (based on me having done JUST THIS over the last 2 years), you will find almost twice as many non-liberals who have made some effort to try and understand the biochemistry and mechanics of what was going on with Covid, as opposed to "trusting the science" which, as I mentioned, is Having Faith in their religious leaders for most liberals.

Most conservatives, btw, do the same thing, but very, very few are doing it blindly. Yes, you have the "Trust Trump" conservatives that have FAITH in Trump, but most have decided to believe what their leaders have told them, because the religion & faith slot in their lives is usually already got something in it (mostly Christianity, if you missed the context). A lot of them distrust "scientists" because, well, they are almost always wrong. 

The problem in this, is that it's almost NEVER what the actual scientist says that is wrong; its the interpretation of what a scientist has said as mangled by the media or a politician that is the LIE.

lets, see, highlights: We don't appear to be in a Ice Age. If you live in the Maldive Islands, have you been swimming for the last 4 years? Did the last of the arctic ice melt in 2013 like Gore said?

Honestly, scientists (well, maybe one or 2 crackpots or jokers) didn't say this shit. politicians did. Scientists said things on the line of "we don't fully understand the data, and some of our datasets are not fully trusted, but based on our current model, in the worst case scenarios, the arctic could be Ice Free by 2013" 

(I've read the damn studies, ok? anyone who doesn't "believe" in Climate Change is just a fucking Moron; anyone who is certain we understand how the climate works and exactly what impact mankind has had on that climate is ALMOST as big of a fucking moron.)

As a thought Experiment, take any liberal talking point and replace "Science" with "Religion". 

How Cable TV killed America.

I made a off-hand comment on a message board, that I thought Cable TV hastened the Fall of the American Empire; That before it took over, The Majority of Americans were forced to view programming that they did not already agree with.

To which someone replied "Imagine if the only news was CNN, because that was what it was like."

That's the thing, it wasn't one message. Cable viewers did not exceed broadcast viewers until 1989. Broadcast networks tried to have something for all their potential viewers, though each had their "niche". a Example: "Threes Company" it was designed to appeal to young, hip viewers, but nearly everyone, from nearly all mindsets, watched it. It probably did more to remove the stigma from homosexuality (even though it was more of a running joke in the program thamn anything else) than any other...ANYTHING.

 Racists were exposed to programming where non-whites were treated and acted like normal human beings. pre-internet, serious journalists mainly went to print media, but in the pre-1989 era, you had 3.5 networks actually competing for viewers, the "equal time" laws for politics was actually a thing, and mega-corporations didn't outright control them; actual NEWS and differing opinions were even encouraged, at times.

 post 1989, if you didn't want to watch a show that featured a Race you hated, you did not have to, because choices that catered to your racism were beginning to exist. a religious conservative in the bible belt who wanted entertainment, didn't have to be exposed to new or different mindviews to be entertained. I was born in the early 60's, I saw this happening. 

My first time in college? outside of institutionally hard core schools (Yale, BYU,etc) professors stuck to mainstream views, with subtle shading from their bias; my last time, around 2010, Professors stuck to their Bias, with subtle shading towards mainstream views. 

If your entertainment, your News, all your primary available Media is designed to watchable by Centrists without offending the views of anyone but possibly Extremists, it reinforces the Centrist Mindset, "This is how normal people think and talk". If your College Professor taught a politicized message, unless you were already heavily leaning towards the same bias, it was...wrong. It encouraged them to actually teach the subject at hand, instead of their bias.

<sigh> but, it was unavoidable. We can only go forward, we can't go backwards. What we could do, however, is bring back the "equal time" system; if you give politician A 5 minutes to say what they want, you HAVE TO give politician B, C, D, etc 5 minutes.

Political Debates should NEVER be controlled by one bias, EVER.

It is too late for us, but future generations, if you still have electricity and can see this? don't let corporations contribute to politicians, because thats called "buying". If your "Main Stream Media" becomes dominated by a single political bias...don't let it. do whatever you have to do to prevent it. You'll have already found out what was behind the "disarming of US Citizens" by now. Sorry. I should have fought harder, everyone should have.

Good Luck, Grandkids. You are going to need it.

P.S. about that boating accident....