Friday, June 22, 2018

In Defense of Time Magazine

So the Trumpistas are going nuts over this cover:

Including this from head Trumpista Sarah Sanders:
But what the hell does this cover have to do with the 2,300 kids that were actually taken from their parents?

The Trumpistas are getting upset over a cover but we are not allowed to consider the upset of thousands of kids separated from their parents?

You see, the child crying was "only" crying because, according to the photographer who took the picture, ICE agents ordered the mother to put the child down and then patted the mother down for a full 2 minutes.

Wouldn't Trumpistas be blasting such a picture far and wide if it was a TSA agent doing it?

Further, magazine covers are pretty much artwork. President Trump was not actually standing over the girl. The cover was designed to convey an impression of what was really going on: Traumatized kids being taken from their parents because of Trump's orders.

TIME didn't have any other pictures to work with because Trump goons won't allow pictures to be taken of the kids being separated. And further, the goons lied to the parents saying the kids were only being taken for a bath.

But I can't emphasize how often creative photos are made to present a real theme. It's been done that way across all media for a very long time. It's legitimate if the theme being conveyed is accurate rather than necessarily the specifics of the artwork. Indeed, there is even an iconic basketball card featuring the legendary Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach smoking a cigar in front of the Celtics bench where if you look close enough you realize a football crowd is in the background and not a basketball crowd. Figure that one out. Artwork conveying the crowds Auerbach worked in front of.

Let's get back on focus to where it should be 2,300 kids seperated from thier parents.


(Note: I hasten to add that TIME writers, like Trumpisats, don't get this concept. Apparently, they claimed the kid was being separated from her mother, But I have never ranked TIME writers above Trumpistas anyway.)


  1. Yeah I can’t believe that Time didn’t even bother to arrange a photo shoot with the president and one of the actual children that his underlings kidnapped.

  2. Robert is using the adjective I invented! Should I charge him a license fee?


  3. ─── "Dems should join POTUS and fix our broken immigration system." ───

    When Trumpistas say that they want the "broken" immigration system fixed, don't take them seriously. They don't want it fixed, which should mean for a normal human being that the government would allow Market demand to determine the number and influx of immigrants. Instead what they mean with "fixed" is what a dog owner means when he wants to "fix" a dog.

    The system is broken in the sense that the laws that govern the process are overly complicated, with too many things left to the discretion of border patrol agents or bureaucrats. Instead of a system where you ask for A and pay X to get A, the system requires you to fill different forms, provide information that, in most cases, shouldn't be the government's business anyway, and then pay a fee that is non-refundable whether you're given A or not. In other words, the government steals your money.

    1. "The system is broken in the sense that the laws that govern the process are overly complicated, with too many things left to the discretion of border patrol agents or bureaucrats."

      That's not broken at all. It's intentional. Americans like systems like that.

      For instance, you're on an interstate signed with a 55mph speed limit. Pretty much everyone else around you is doing at least 70mph. You could do 70mph or 55mph or anything else but regardless of your choice a cop may pull you over for speeding or for impeding traffic or just being suspiciously obedient. You may or may not be fined (or worse).

      Selective enforcement is the system where if anyone points out the underlying tyranny of it he becomes a 'paranoid kook'. People who get selected and complain are told they shouldn't have broken the law.

      Now someone new gets elected and installs speed cameras to universally zero-tolerance enforce that 55mph speed limit. Suddenly most everyone is angry.

      Now tell people that the speed limit should be set to the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic. (fix it properly) A bunch of people get angry saying if you raised the speed limit to 75mph there would be blood on the highway because people would go 95mph. They demand the speed limit be 55mph and the automated enforcement removed. Just have the cops select the problem people.

      So the selectivity isn't a bug, it's a feature and it's a feature throughout the entire society, both with and without government. It's the way people like it and want it.

  4. "Further, magazine covers are pretty much artwork. "

    So it was okay when the media did their artistic work with images of and regarding Ron Paul to portray a point they wanted to make? How they choose to portray libertarians? Accuracy of artwork is the eye of the beholder so that qualifier really doesn't mean much.

  5. Time has admitted the cover is a hoax, like some of us needed that admission. How does it feel to be played like a pawn shop fiddle? Open borders is in the banking elite's interest. Are libertarians so naive about political reality that they are this easily dragooned into the service of the very ones they claim to oppose?

    You are doing the bidding of Soros and his Open Borders Society. Do you actually think globalism is a plus for individual freedom? Is Time,Inc. a voice for the individual or the collective? What about the MSM? Whose side do you think they are on? Regardless of your personal animosity toward Trump, should you be giving support to the very forces that constitute the Hive?

    How is a cause of individual freedom, which you give so much lip service to, really advanced by supporting the latest hoax perpetrated by the forces of collectivism? Are you an example of controlled opposition?

    How do you justify claiming to be proponents of a private property society when the private property of individuals along the border is violated by trespassers without the owners permission? When the owners demand lawful protection from this invasion you instantly side with the trespassers and berate the real victims. I just wonder if this is not just another fraud in a world of fraud.

    1. OMG it was a hoax?!? You mean to say that Trump didn’t acually have a one-on-one meeting with one of his child victims in a completely red room?!?

    2. You well know that the "victim" was never separated from the mother, as is implied by the cover and you in your reply, Evan. Now you are just playing a game of perpetrating a bald faced lie. Further, the policy is NOT Trump's, it has been the law and the policy for the last 3 administrations. Maybe your moral high horse wasn't saddled in time for those?

      You know this, too. Either you are a knowing propaganda peddler or a useful idiot. Or maybe the truth is unimportant in your agenda.

      There are plenty of problems with Trump without descending into a stupid clown show organized by the Left.

    3. @a ware

      You are taking this way too seriously. It’s a magazine cover. Of course it’s going to be an artistic dramatization. This is like complaining that Mad is lying about the true size of Alfred E Neuman’s ears. Who cares if they used another immigrant girl or a stock photo or a child model or whoever? The identity of the individual figure in the image is irrelevant.

      And regarding Trump’s “plenty of problems” I’d say his immigration policy is at the top of the list save for arguably his trade policy, so I’m happy whenever anyone points out how stupid and evil it is.

      And you’re wrong that it’s not his policy: he implemented zero-tolerance, thereby banning the exercise of common sense. (Btw, it’s been 18 months. Can you tell me when exactly we’ll be allowed to hold him responsible for the policies he’s enforcing? Thanks.)

    4. a ware:

      "How do you justify claiming to be proponents of a private property society when the private property of individuals along the border is violated by trespassers without the owners permission? When the owners demand lawful protection from this invasion you instantly side with the trespassers and berate the real victims."

      If anyone is trespassing on private property, then the owner has the right to exclude them, including through force, and I'm fairly certain most commenters like me, who are against state-controlled borders, would agree with this statement.

      But if that is happening, surely that's a very minor part of the immigration debate? I see most of the news, and comments on this blog, as being about immigrants entering the broader US, taking jobs, destroying the culture, receiving welfare, etc.

      And if it is the case that the state is interfering with private-property owners' ability to exclude trespassers, then why on earth would you want to depend on the state more generally?

    5. Napster, It most certainly is happening. How is it different if a property owner hires a private army to expel invaders? No due process, no appeal and any amount of violence to do so without any restriction?

      Evan, no you are wrong. Trump has not signed any new immigration law. The law he is enforcing has been on the books for quite some time. You are still playing games. Mad is satire while Time is as official State propaganda as it gets, and you know it. But since this suits your agenda you "anti-Staters" now think it is no big deal. How can anyone opposed to Leviathan ever support anything from big media?

      Don't you even know that you are being manipulated? The manipulators are not even your allies, they are the very ones who support what you claim to oppose. While I don't like Trump I will never join the Trump haters because they are a mongrel group of degenerates responsible for most of liberty destroying policies, both official and unofficial, that are inflicted on us today. Or do you believe SJWs and their speech codes are a step toward liberty? Or their quotas? What about their assigning of collective guilt?

      You are being played by people much more clever and cynical than you understand.

    6. a ware:

      I'm not sure if you're a libertarian, but there is a very big difference between state actions and a private-property owner's actions on his own property. The state can only raise funds through using force (taxation), and cannot legitimately own property, and thus any time the state exists and stops people from entering any land, it is illegitimate. But the essence of private property is that the owner is fully entitled to repel or forcibly remove those coming onto his property without his permission, and it is equally legitimate to hire another private party to do so. Also, the essence of private ownership is that a trespasser is not entitled to due process or appeal; a private owner is entirely allowed to discriminate as he pleases (e.g., no redheads, no visitors on Tuesdays, etc.).

      As to the amount of violence a private-property owner may use, it depends on one's theory of libertarianism. Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe Robert Wenzel's conception of the PPS is that the owner may use any amount of violence he sees fit. My conception is a little different: I would prefer a society based on something like the NAP, which I believe would probably incorporate some notion of "reasonable force," but in truth any standard would likely develop through local community custom.

    7. Libertarians don’t require and manipulation in order to oppose the state of its leaders. That’s great if you want to support what you view as the lesser of two evils, but I’m going to go ahead and keep on opposing evil.

  6. We know you are happy to post dishonest propaganda to push your agenda forward. That's been pretty much 100% of your posts this week on this blog.