I just wanted to pop on here and give everyone a real quick run down on things coming up in the near future for The Unspoken Ethic as well as an update on future endeavors.
On the list of upcoming topics, I will FINALLY be discussing THE WALL…And no I am not referring to the classic Pink Floyd album, I mean the border wall that has been proposed and is currently being funded for the Southern American border and why I don’t particularly agree with it, while offering a little fantasy alternative idea. I also have lined up a more singular look at the political meanderings of Hollywood elite a I examine one in particular Chris Evans. Beyond that we will be taking a step back from news sources for a bit and start focusing a little on just the basic behavior patterns we see not only out and about, but also a study in online behavior patterns as well.
Okay now for the FUN PART. As you know The Unspoken Ethic is not only about confronting popular view points, it is also about covering things from an uncommon perspective, a sometimes controversial perspective, or simply a new perspective from what you are seeing and hearing from everyone else, or at least a majority out here in the internet world. In the interest of this, if you post a Tweet regarding a news story or behaviors you spot that you find interesting and have your own take on it hash tag it #MyUnspokenEthic and I will save it. Periodically I will post YOUR Unspoken Ethics here on the blog and for the ones that I find really interesting, you may even get your own blog post centered around it.
Now for….what seems to still be a little ways off. I am STILL trying to work out creating video content for this site and for my Youtube channel. Hopefully I am not far off from getting a break that will allow me to start implementing some of my more ambitious plans. I will keep you posted as things develop.
Now first off, if you read Part 1, you’ll notice that in Avi’s video he stated that the interview had actually been filmed, a few months prior to being aired. I did not mention this because I saw no time stamp on the footage from the hidden camera. I say this now to point out that I have no intention of confirming or denying any element by which I can find no real point of reference. That went for his claim that the interview was filmed months prior to, but that will also include what some may try to argue against Avi. This argument is strictly based on what we see in the evidence presented. For instance he has a connection to far right activist Tommy Robins, Facebook had stated that he had urged violence in a post he was warned about as a reason for him getting banned. He denied making such claims, and try as I may to even find some manner of screenshot of the exact post Facebook was referring to in there statement, I could not find any. As such, the notion that Avi is hypocritical in his statement of being against violence through his connection to Tommy Robins is a point that I have yet to find evidence of.
What Avi is most guilty of is a tactic known as fear mongering. He cites the violence of the Muslim religion and the growing numbers of Muslims migrating into Australia. Yet here is a little known fact. There have been 5 terrorist attacks in Australia since 2016 and this term is used loosely as the leading to 3 deaths committed by people who had been inspired by the Islamic state. Another fact and this may surprise you, is that there has only been a single terrorist act committed in New Zealand since 2016 and that was the shooting at the ChristChurch Mosque last month. These numbers come from Esri Story Maps focusing on terrorist attacks.
Indeed for a religion that accounts for 1.8 billion people the world over The majority of the 35,244 fatalities caused by Muslim inspired attacks since 2016 have been against other Muslims and tend to be centralized in the Middle East and Africa. A case can be made for Europe however that number has had a steady decrease over the last 3 years.
Over all the number seems to be going down in general. But for one who claims a willingness to debate and change his arguments if proven wrong. This video displays the very opposite behavior. In fact you might argue that he makes the same type of blanket statements, that many of us argue over the mainstream media making and with the same lack of intent to take much of anything said to the contrary seriously. You can even see his mannerisms and actions in this interview as being of the same type of antagonistic vein as his hidden camera video revealed Jim Jefferies to be.
So here is my argument to BOTH. I don’t know what either of these guys do, but it ISN’T Journalism. It’s undisciplined, unruly, and when it isn’t emotional based leaving doubt as to it’s integrity, it’s cold and calculated, but both operate with the same goal in mind. Not to inform, but to affirm our biases. They are both guilty, of caring less about giving the truth than they are about trying to manipulate how people take it in.
Here we are again dear readers, back in the trenches of the murky world of tactics and the ideology used by the media, both mainstream and independent alike. Today, in honor of this being Wrestlemania weekend and because I’m a geek like that, we have our own triple threat main event lined up for you. We’re going to be covering a situation that is a few weeks old at this point, yet is ongoing. I’m talking about the viral video filmed by way of a hidden camera that made it’s rounds on Youtube that revealed how falsified the aired product of Comedy Central’s “The Jim Jefferies Show” can be.
As stated this will be a 2 part piece with the first part focusing on the initial event that exposed the rather underhanded tactics of the mainstream media show on Comedy Central. I DO feel that this is an important thing to make known as far and wide as possible. That said I spent the weeks following looking into Avi Yemini’s own channel and kept an eye out to see just how he would use his new found, widespread attention. Needless to say I found similarities in the tactics he used, and while they are more overt than chopping up an interview in editing and choosing in order to create a narrative, they are just as manipulative. Part 2 will see me focusing on that end of the situation.
So without further adieu let the opening bell ring.
On Friday March 15th a mosque in New Zealand became the target of a terrorist shooting attack that left a reported 50 people dead and another 50 people injured. As with many such occurrences news of the tragedy spread like wild fire over both mainstream and social media, with some independent media sources in the form of blogs like this and Youtube channels covering the spectacle and many of the arbitrary occurrences that happened in it’s wake…..Whose heard of the Eggboy encounter?
Our story picks up 5 days later when Comedy Central aired an episode of “The Jim Jefferies Show” to deliver it’s own take on the atmosphere surrounding the tragedy and what led to it. Within hours of the segment being uploaded to Youtube, Avi Yemini, the person who was interviewed in that segment uploaded his own response to it in the form of a clip of the interview in progress, taken from a hidden camera. As you will see this clip not only showed that in the process of being edited for television, answers to questions were taken out of context and placed as the answers to other questions, it also showed the host Jim Jefferies in an effort to evoke a reaction or simply to make someone he viewed as a racist to feel more comfortable and let their guard down make some rather disturbing comments and gestures of his own towards people of the Muslim faith. Below are the links to both the original aired segment and the hidden camera exposure video for you to make your own judgement on.
Now you have been given the means to view both and form your own opinion of the state of the mainstream media in modern times. I on the other hand will be holding my view on the entirety of the situation in reserve until after part 2 of this series where I fully intend to let both sides have it from the view point of The Unspoken Ethic. However just focusing on the Mainstream media in this segment I will say this: In the weeks since this event when another high profile news story unveiled the end result of the Mueller Investigation into the U.S. President and those individuals surrounding him in connection to collusion with Russians to effect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…I witnessed a professional journalist cry on air as they had had to report the findings. When someone has that much emotion invested in the story told rather than the objective process of journalism, it paints a picture, one that to me says they did not get the results they were hoping for. When the primary source of informing the people becomes about what someone wants the people to hear, rather than telling them the facts as they stand, that source loses it’s integrity and the trust of the people when the outcome proves very different than expected. We have seen what results from this in the form of double digit drops in overall viewership percentage after the story broke for CNN, and a dip for MSNBC ratings as well. Below is a direct link to Part 2 of this series.
Media Tactics, The Unspoken Ethic v Mainstream Media v Independent Media Part 2: Avi Yemini
The state of Georgia became the most recent battleground between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice supporters on the topic of abortion with the HB481 bill passed by state legislature and expected to soon be signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp. For those who are unaware of what HB481 is, It is part of Georgia’s Living Infants Fairness and Equality ACT and you may know it by a different name The Heartbeat Bill. I will be going over just what it is and what it does here in this post as well as the contention surrounding it from many considered to be Hollywood Elite.
First let’s take a look at the basics of the bill and how it defines Personhood.
The bill will amend state law to define “Natural Person” to mean any human being including unborn children.
The bill will include embryos and fetuses in state population based determinations.
The bill will amend the state tax code to redefine “dependent” to allow a fetus at any stage of development to qualify as a dependent minor.
The next part is where the real issue lies with Pro-Choice supporters. It is the Heartbeat Abortion Ban. This section covers the both the ban and the exceptions that the law intends to provide for.
Except in cases of medical emergency, no abortion may be performed or attempted to be performed unless the physician performing the procedure has first made a determination of the presence of a human heartbeat.
The bill will prohibit abortion when a fetus has been determined to have a heartbeat unless the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile, or except when the abortion is:
necessary to avert the death of the pregnant person or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant person;
necessary to preserve the life of the fetus; or
because of a pregnancy at 20 weeks or earlier is the result from rape or incest (and such offense was reported to law enforcement).
The bill will require any abortion performed after the first trimester to be performed in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the state Department of Community Health.
Any person who performs an abortion would need to be a licensed physician.
The bill will require all physician, hospital, or other health-care facility records to be made available to local law enforcement agencies.
The bill will require a physician to inform the pregnant patient of the presence of a fetal heartbeat at the time the abortion would be performed.
Informational materials provided by the state would need to include the following additional statement:
“By six weeks’ gestation, the unborn child has a human heartbeat.”
The bill will amend requirements for abortion reports to require physicians to include information on the determination of the presence of a fetal heartbeat.
In every case of the homicide of a child, current state law allows there to be some party entitled to recover the full value of the life of the child. The bill would extend this to apply to the homicide of a “child carried in the womb,” at the point at which a heartbeat is detected.
I promised a fight with the title of this piece didn’t I? I promised to cover a big duke-a-roo between the state of Georgia and Hollywood, didn’t I? Very well, now that I have gone over what the bill entails, let us now turn our attention to the opponent and what a list of 50 well known Hollywood actors signed off on in an open letter and petition sent on March 28th to the Georgia House Speaker David Ralston and Governor Brian Kemp.
You now see what the bill consists of and you see the opposing viewpoint. Now let’s get into the editorial part of this article as I attempt to suss out what the average person can make of this debacle. It is true that many such bills have been shut down in court as unconstitutional in accordance to the verdict of Roe v Wade in 1973. 46 years ago. I myself have been on both sides of the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice debate as I remember a time that some of the more vocal Pro-Lifer’s were of the mind that every sperm produced by a man deserved a name. This is of course an exaggeration, but I assure you not by much. They were certainly of a sort that would have never allowed for the type of exceptions that I see presented in HB481, which was a huge part of my own reason for siding with the Pro-Choice argument.
Let’s consider the Pro-Choice argument in this particular case. Besides the obvious argument against constitutional rights, the letter states that the time frame is far too short and by the time many women know they are pregnant the choice is already taken from them. Once upon a time, I might have found this a reasonable point, however with advancements in both contraceptive methods, including a next day pill and the development of more sensitive pregnancy tests capable of detecting the HCG hormone in a little over a week, I would personally argue that any responsible person who is sexually active has the tools to prevent that time window of 6 weeks to pass them by. In light of this I would say the only reasonable argument would be the scheduling for such a procedure in the facilities required by the bill.
The letter goes on to talk about forced hidden procedures done at great risk to the woman. Seeing as how I saw nothing of this requirement in the bill itself, I can only deduce that the signee’s of the open letter were referring to DIY at home methods of abortion….To which I say again; The bill does provide for exceptions to the 6 week time frame. Given that any pregnancy outside of many of these conditions would have to be planned, accidental, or immaculate, being a responsible person provides the best protection. Again only the possibility of a woman’s inability to schedule the procedure within the time frame given is really a justification for this point’s reasoning and only that depending on the facilities available in a given area since same day surgical centers are listed as viable recognized options.
So what is my take away from this? The bill. The fact that 50 Hollywood stars signed off on a letter that threatened a boycott of an entire state and the urging of production companies to follow suit. There was a time when, as a person who sided with Pro-Choice, I would have been content with what HB481 provides for. As far as Anti-Abortion bills go, I really see nothing unreasonable about it given all of the advancements in prenatal healthcare in the last 46 years. So the only elephant that is left in the room is whether or not it is unconstitutional…..The “What a woman does with her body.” argument. I agree, to a point……a 6 week point. You see human beings in most all cases, but a few extremely rare defect scenarios, only have one heart beat, because they only have one heart. When a second heart beat is detected…..It really isn’t JUST the woman’s body anymore……is it? When you consider that this argument essentially can be seen as the woman having the right to treat an unborn child, a second life form with it’s own heart beat, as though it were an article of personal PROPERTY to be kept or discarded at will…..I ask you, the reader, how constitutional is regarding a human life as if it were PROPERTY?