Truth and Love

I Corinthians 13 : 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part , 10 but when completeness comes , what is in part disappears .
12 ( b ) Now I know in part ; then I shall know fully , even as I am fully known .
13 And now these three remain : faith , hope and love .
But the greatest of these is love .
We certainly must acknowledge the truth that ever since sola Scriptura , Christian understanding has gone forth in a thousand directions , every one of which can point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The point isn ’ t the Scripture , it is the interpretation .
Using sola Scriptura , there are those who can remove the divine from Jesus .
They have the verses – interpreted their way – to prove it .
What am I getting at , and what does this have to do with the passage in Corinthians ?
I am not sure , but indulge me while I work through this .
I have often used the phrase “ men of good will.
” It takes men of good will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , differences of interpretation .
King James , His Bible , ... Laurence M. Vance Best Price : null Buy New $ 19.95 I am reading a book written by Laurence Vance : King James , His Bible and its Translators .
Separate from my point , I must say that Vance has done a remarkable bit of scholarship .
But to my point , in reading the book and the work of the translators , I can not help but be struck by the idea that those working on the translation were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Luther ran into a Church that was led by men of good will ?
Or John Wycliffe or Jan Hus ?
My point isn ’ t to rail against the Catholic Church – after all , since the Reformation it hasn ’ t split into a thousand pieces .
My point also isn ’ t to rail against the Protestants .
My point is to focus on this idea of men of good will .
The more I learn , the more I learn what I don ’ t know .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been developed over centuries by men infinitely more knowledgeable than I am ?
Shall I rely on my own wisdom , or the wisdom of the ages ?
Compared to that , my wisdom is but a drop in the ocean .
Tradition is a valuable thing , except when it isn ’ t .
Regarding Christianity , it is quite true that Jesus broke with a lot of tradition .
We Christians certainly deem this necessary .
Luther also broke with tradition .
I think there is little doubt that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition needed change .
So , how is one to consider when to keep tradition , slowly modify it , or make a significant break ?
It seems to me that before one advocates change – minor or major – one should first be able to speak to why the tradition is what it is , what it is based on , how and why it came to be accepted in the larger population .
In other words , be able to articulate the wisdom of the ages .
Once one can speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is qualified to advocate for change .
Certainly , Jesus qualifies as such .
Luther did as well .
Now , it doesn ’ t mean that such a person is correct ( Jesus absolutely was ; Luther was so to a greater or lesser part ) .
This comes back to the men of good will thing .
I have come across various versions of the following : truth can only be found through love .
I have struggled with what , exactly , this meant .
I think I am beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less darkly .
What have I meant by men of good will ?
Perhaps it is nothing more than men motivated by love .
It is only through such motivation that differences can be overcome and truth can be found .
Go back to the excerpt from Corinthians .
Paul writes of one with less-than-full knowledge : knowing only in part ; completeness has not yet come .
Completeness comes when he is fully known – and this comes through the greatest of these : love .
Full knowledge comes through love .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisdom , Courage , Temperance , Justice .
Through these virtues , man works toward his telos .
All four virtues require knowledge of truth .
Truth can only be found through love as demonstrated by men of good will .
The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Inspired by a true story….
—————————————–
I Corinthians 13: 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 12(b) Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
—————————————–
Sola Scriptura: Interpretationes Infinitum
We certainly must acknowledge the truth that ever since sola Scriptura, Christian understanding has gone forth in a thousand directions, every one of which can point to countless verses to make their point. The point isn’t the Scripture, it is the interpretation. Using sola Scriptura, there are those who can remove the divine from Jesus. They have the verses – interpreted their way – to prove it.
What am I getting at, and what does this have to do with the passage in Corinthians? I am not sure, but indulge me while I work through this. I have often used the phrase “men of good will.” It takes men of good will to properly work through differences of understanding, differences of interpretation. King James, His Bible,... Laurence M. Vance Buy New $19.95 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)
I am reading a book written by Laurence Vance: King James, His Bible and its Translators. Separate from my point, I must say that Vance has done a remarkable bit of scholarship. But to my point, in reading the book and the work of the translators, I cannot help but be struck by the idea that those working on the translation were men of good will.
What if Martin Luther ran into a Church that was led by men of good will? Or John Wycliffe or Jan Hus?
My point isn’t to rail against the Catholic Church – after all, since the Reformation it hasn’t split into a thousand pieces. My point also isn’t to rail against the Protestants. My point is to focus on this idea of men of good will.
—————————————–
The more I learn, the more I learn what I don’t know. How am I qualified to judge matters that have been developed over centuries by men infinitely more knowledgeable than I am? Shall I rely on my own wisdom, or the wisdom of the ages? Compared to that, my wisdom is but a drop in the ocean.
—————————————–
Tradition is a valuable thing, except when it isn’t. Regarding Christianity, it is quite true that Jesus broke with a lot of tradition. We Christians certainly deem this necessary. Luther also broke with tradition. I think there is little doubt that much of what he noted in the Church tradition needed change.
So, how is one to consider when to keep tradition, slowly modify it, or make a significant break? It seems to me that before one advocates change – minor or major – one should first be able to speak to why the tradition is what it is, what it is based on, how and why it came to be accepted in the larger population. In other words, be able to articulate the wisdom of the ages.
Once one can speak knowledgably to these points, then one is qualified to advocate for change. Certainly, Jesus qualifies as such. Luther did as well.
Now, it doesn’t mean that such a person is correct (Jesus absolutely was; Luther was so to a greater or lesser part). This comes back to the men of good will thing.
—————————————–
I have come across various versions of the following: truth can only be found through love. I have struggled with what, exactly, this meant. I think I am beginning to see through the glass a little less darkly.
What have I meant by men of good will? Perhaps it is nothing more than men motivated by love. It is only through such motivation that differences can be overcome and truth can be found.
Go back to the excerpt from Corinthians. Paul writes of one with less-than-full knowledge: knowing only in part; completeness has not yet come. Completeness comes when he is fully known – and this comes through the greatest of these: love. Full knowledge comes through love.
Conclusion
The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence or Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, Justice. Through these virtues, man works toward his telos. All four virtues require knowledge of truth. Truth can only be found through love as demonstrated by men of good will.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Best of Bionic Mosquito


lewrockwell--2020-03-12--Homeless People Can Shoot up in the Bathrooms, But Customers Can No Longer Bring Personal Cups to St

Homeless People Can Shoot up in the Bathrooms, But Customers Can No Longer Bring Personal Cups to Starbucks Because of Coronavirus

A popular “ green ” trend at the Starbucks coffee chain is coming to an end because of the Wuhan coronavirus ( CoVid-19 ) crisis .
According to reports , Starbucks customers are no longer allowed to bring in their own personal coffee cups to use for consuming their favorite brews because potential coronavirus germs could lurk and spread to others .
“ We are pausing the use of personal cups and ‘ for here ’ ware in our stores , ” announced company executive vice president Rossann Williams , adding that the chain will still honor its 10-cent discount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reusable cups .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Best Price : null Buy New $ 25.00 As of 2018 , about 1.3 percent of Starbucks customers in the United States , Canada , Europe , the Middle East , and Africa brought in their own reusable cups to take advantage of the policy , which makes its grossly overpriced burnt coffee a tad bit less expensive .
The stated purpose of the ban is to ensure the “ health and well-being ” of all Starbucks customers , even though these same customers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other vagrants who use Starbucks stores as shelter and drug-injection sites .
Starbucks says that it ’ s “ optimistic this will be a temporary situation ” regarding reusable cups , and that eventually customers will once again be able to bring in their questionably sanitized mugs for more “ green ” caffeine fixes .
Listen here as Mike Adams , the Health Ranger , asks the question , will the upcoming presidential election be canceled due to the Wuhan coronavirus ( CoVid-19 ) ?

A popular “green” trend at the Starbucks coffee chain is coming to an end because of the Wuhan coronavirus (CoVid-19) crisis.
According to reports, Starbucks customers are no longer allowed to bring in their own personal coffee cups to use for consuming their favorite brews because potential coronavirus germs could lurk and spread to others.
“We are pausing the use of personal cups and ‘for here’ ware in our stores,” announced company executive vice president Rossann Williams, adding that the chain will still honor its 10-cent discount policy for customers who show up with reusable cups.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 11:14 UTC - Details) As of 2018, about 1.3 percent of Starbucks customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa brought in their own reusable cups to take advantage of the policy, which makes its grossly overpriced burnt coffee a tad bit less expensive.
The stated purpose of the ban is to ensure the “health and well-being” of all Starbucks customers, even though these same customers are still being exposed to homeless people and other vagrants who use Starbucks stores as shelter and drug-injection sites.
Starbucks says that it’s “optimistic this will be a temporary situation” regarding reusable cups, and that eventually customers will once again be able to bring in their questionably sanitized mugs for more “green” caffeine fixes.
Listen here as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, asks the question, will the upcoming presidential election be canceled due to the Wuhan coronavirus (CoVid-19)?
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-03-12--How Woke Illiberalism Is Killing the Academy

From its founding in 1890 , the University of Chicago has occupied a singular place among American universities .
Lacking the ancient lineages and social cachet of the Ivy League schools ( Chicago welcomed women and Jews at a time when Harvard , et al , excluded the former and imposed strict quotas on the latter ) , Chicago , which is consistently ranked among the world ’ s top 10 universities , has always been known for its fierce intellectualism .
‘ I think the one place where I have been that is most like ancient Athens ’ , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ is the University of Chicago ’ .
Indeed , whereas the Ivy League universities , Stanford and their ilk , admitted – and continue to admit – their undergraduates based on such qualities as athletic ability , family connections , and that vague attribute known as ‘ leadership ’ , students came to Chicago because they prized what it still venerates as ‘ the life of the mind ’ .
( Chicago ’ s students score on average higher on the SAT – a national standardised test that assesses academic aptitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yale , Princeton , and Stanford ) .
Given its devotion to rigorous inquiry – to the belief that ‘ education should not be intended to make people comfortable ; it is meant to make them think ’ , as its former president Hanna Holborn Gray declared – Chicago has been from its inception the most stalwart bastion of free expression in American higher education .
Refusing to bow to political and popular pressure , Chicago ’ s trustees and administration have insisted , from the ‘ Red Scare ’ of the 1920s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically tumultuous 1960s , that its faculty be unfettered to explore the most heterodox ideas and that its students be free to debate any topic and to invite the most unpopular speakers – including , in 1932 , William Z Foster , the presidential candidate and future general secretary of the Communist Party USA , and , in 1963 , George Lincoln Rockwell , the founder and leader of the American Nazi Party .
In 2015 , discerning that free speech was under assault in American universities , Chicago reaffirmed its ‘ commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate and deliberation among all members of the university ’ s community ’ .
The subsequent statement of policy – the so-called Chicago Principles – is at once stirring and precise ; it has been rightly praised as a full-throated ( and much needed ) defence of campus free expression .
In addition to publishing the Chicago Principles , the University has repeatedly and unequivocally promulgated its commitment to free speech on its website and in statements by its president , provost , and deans .
Against the Left : A Ro ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Alas , however , although the University of Chicago is a unique institution of higher education , it nonetheless inhabits the ecosystem of higher education .
So while its administration and most of its faculty and students remain devoted to what is characterised in the Chicago Principles as ‘ the spirit and promise of the University of Chicago ’ , a woke illiberalism is subverting that spirit and promise from within .
In January 2018 , Steve Bannon , the former director of Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Trump ’ s White House , accepted the invitation of Luigi Zingales , a University of Chicago professor , to debate at the university .
In explaining why he invited Bannon , Zingales quite sensibly explained , ‘ Whether you like his [ Bannon ’ s ] views or not , he seems to have understood something about America that I ’ m curious to learn more about ’ .
But – surprisingly , given their university ’ s long-held commitment to free expression ; unsurprisingly , given the climate within academe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faculty members mounted a vociferous campaign demanding that the invitation to Bannon be rescinded .
Opposing their university ’ s policies and principles on free expression and displaying an ignorance of its history of upholding them , a group of professors issued a statement , which took the form of a demand letter to Chicago ’ s president and provost , calling for Bannon to be de-platformed .
The professors proclaimed that ‘ the defence of freedom of expression can not be taken to mean ’ that views that the professors deem abhorrent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sic ] and opportunity to be aired on a university campus ’ .
Although Chicago didn ’ t heed the protesters ’ demands , two years later Bannon has yet to speak at the university for reasons that can not be discerned – so it ’ s unclear what part , if any , the student and faculty appeals to withdraw Bannon ’ s invitation have played in his non-appearance .

From its founding in 1890, the University of Chicago has occupied a singular place among American universities. Lacking the ancient lineages and social cachet of the Ivy League schools (Chicago welcomed women and Jews at a time when Harvard, et al, excluded the former and imposed strict quotas on the latter), Chicago, which is consistently ranked among the world’s top 10 universities, has always been known for its fierce intellectualism. ‘I think the one place where I have been that is most like ancient Athens’, the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once declared, ‘is the University of Chicago’. Indeed, whereas the Ivy League universities, Stanford and their ilk, admitted – and continue to admit – their undergraduates based on such qualities as athletic ability, family connections, and that vague attribute known as ‘leadership’, students came to Chicago because they prized what it still venerates as ‘the life of the mind’. (Chicago’s students score on average higher on the SAT – a national standardised test that assesses academic aptitude – than do those at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford).
Given its devotion to rigorous inquiry – to the belief that ‘education should not be intended to make people comfortable; it is meant to make them think’, as its former president Hanna Holborn Gray declared – Chicago has been from its inception the most stalwart bastion of free expression in American higher education. Refusing to bow to political and popular pressure, Chicago’s trustees and administration have insisted, from the ‘Red Scare’ of the 1920s, through the McCarthy era and the politically tumultuous 1960s, that its faculty be unfettered to explore the most heterodox ideas and that its students be free to debate any topic and to invite the most unpopular speakers – including, in 1932, William Z Foster, the presidential candidate and future general secretary of the Communist Party USA, and, in 1963, George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder and leader of the American Nazi Party. In 2015, discerning that free speech was under assault in American universities, Chicago reaffirmed its ‘commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the university’s community’. The subsequent statement of policy – the so-called Chicago Principles – is at once stirring and precise; it has been rightly praised as a full-throated (and much needed) defence of campus free expression. In addition to publishing the Chicago Principles, the University has repeatedly and unequivocally promulgated its commitment to free speech on its website and in statements by its president, provost, and deans. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
Alas, however, although the University of Chicago is a unique institution of higher education, it nonetheless inhabits the ecosystem of higher education. So while its administration and most of its faculty and students remain devoted to what is characterised in the Chicago Principles as ‘the spirit and promise of the University of Chicago’, a woke illiberalism is subverting that spirit and promise from within. In January 2018, Steve Bannon, the former director of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the former chief strategist in Trump’s White House, accepted the invitation of Luigi Zingales, a University of Chicago professor, to debate at the university. In explaining why he invited Bannon, Zingales quite sensibly explained, ‘Whether you like his [Bannon’s] views or not, he seems to have understood something about America that I’m curious to learn more about’. But – surprisingly, given their university’s long-held commitment to free expression; unsurprisingly, given the climate within academe – a minority of Chicago students and faculty members mounted a vociferous campaign demanding that the invitation to Bannon be rescinded. Opposing their university’s policies and principles on free expression and displaying an ignorance of its history of upholding them, a group of professors issued a statement, which took the form of a demand letter to Chicago’s president and provost, calling for Bannon to be de-platformed. The professors proclaimed that ‘the defence of freedom of expression cannot be taken to mean’ that views that the professors deem abhorrent ‘must be afforded the rights [sic] and opportunity to be aired on a university campus’. Although Chicago didn’t heed the protesters’ demands, two years later Bannon has yet to speak at the university for reasons that cannot be discerned – so it’s unclear what part, if any, the student and faculty appeals to withdraw Bannon’s invitation have played in his non-appearance.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-03-12--Michael Bloomberg’s Failed Ad Blitz Reminds Us That Advertisers Don’t Force People To Do Anything

Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the Democratic Party ’ s primary this week , but not before he spent more than $ 500 on political advertisements .
According to Bloomberg ( the news service , not the man ) , Through Friday [ Feb 21 ] , he ’ s spent $ 505.8 million on broadcast , cable , radio and digital ads , according to Advertising Analytics .
That ’ s an average of $ 5.5 million a day since he officially became a candidate .
It ’ s also $ 190 million more than all of his active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founder Tom Steyer , have spent on political ads .
This all netted Michael Bloomberg a whopping twenty-seven delegates .
That ’ s more than $ 18 million per delegate .
This means Bloomberg didn ’ t even succeed in becoming a spoiler or a kingmaker at the Democratic convention this summer .
In short , the failed Bloomberg ad blitz serves as a helpful reminder that advertising doesn ’ t actually make people do anything .
Ads on YouTube and TV—even when they are released in a veritable torrent as Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convince people to vote for someone .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 We saw a similar issue during the 2016 election , when Hillary Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1 .
Indeed , among so-called outside groups ( such as super PACs ) , “ Pro-Clinton ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads 3 to 1—a mind-numbing 383,512 ads for Clinton compared to 125,617 supporting Trump.
” This isn ’ t to say that having $ 500 million lying around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be that if Elizabeth Warren had had that sort of advertising budget , she might have been able to compete better with Bernie .
But the fact remains that if an advertisement asks a person to take some sort of action—whether it ’ s buying Acme zit cream or voting for Michael Bloomberg , that action has to be something that the person targeted by the ad is open to doing .
That is , the person being asked to buy or vote must have been already “ conditioned ” / ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” educated ” in such a way that the advertisement ’ s request for action seems like a good thing .
Often , ads simply stand no chance of succeeding because they ’ re not addressing what the target audience is inclined to desire .
It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy .
The consumer is , according to this legend , simply defenseless against “ high-pressure ” advertising .
If this were true , success or failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of advertising only .
However , nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candle makers hold the field against the electric bulb , the horse drivers against the motorcars , the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen .
Examples of this phenomenon abound .
In recent years , for example , we ’ ve seen articles on how so-called Millennials are uninterested in buying what the funeral industry is selling .
That is , expensive coffins and funerals are highly profitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under fifty are interested in buying .
They want less-profitable cremations .
So , the funeral industry has had to change the way it does business .
But this raises a question : why should the funeral industry change anything ?
Why not just run a bunch of advertisements telling people to buy $ 20,000 coffins ?
Then surely everyone will buy them , right ?
But that ’ s obviously not how it works .
And then there ’ s the story of the American waterbed industry .
Many people over forty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s when all the cool kids had waterbeds .
But then they fell out of favor and waterbed stores collapsed in a heap of irrelevance during the 1990s .
But why did the waterbed merchants allow that to happen ?
Why didn ’ t they just run a bunch of advertisements telling people to buy waterbeds ?
People do what advertisers tell them to do , right ?
After all , we ’ re told that “ Russian hackers ” with some targeted online ads — many of which were little more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election and somehow turned Hillary voters into Trump voters .
The next time a modern-day McCarthyite insists that the 2016 election was stolen by Russian memes , let ’ s keep in mind that with $ 500 million , Bloomberg couldn ’ t manage to convince more than a few voters to vote for him instead of for Joe Biden , who apparently thinks he ’ s running for the US Senate .
So , let ’ s just chalk up the failed Bloomberg campaign to yet another case of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t convince people to buy a product—or vote for a candidate—they don ’ t like , don ’ t want , and generally regard as useless .
The Best of Ryan McMaken

Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the Democratic Party’s primary this week, but not before he spent more than $500 on political advertisements. According to Bloomberg (the news service, not the man),
Through Friday [Feb 21], he’s spent $505.8 million on broadcast, cable, radio and digital ads, according to Advertising Analytics. That’s an average of $5.5 million a day since he officially became a candidate. It’s also $190 million more than all of his active Democratic rivals combined, including billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, have spent on political ads.
This all netted Michael Bloomberg a whopping twenty-seven delegates. That’s more than $18 million per delegate. This means Bloomberg didn’t even succeed in becoming a spoiler or a kingmaker at the Democratic convention this summer.
In short, the failed Bloomberg ad blitz serves as a helpful reminder that advertising doesn’t actually make people do anything. Ads on YouTube and TV—even when they are released in a veritable torrent as Bloomberg’s ads were—are not enough in themselves to convince people to vote for someone. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
We saw a similar issue during the 2016 election, when Hillary Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. Indeed, among so-called outside groups (such as super PACs), “Pro-Clinton ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads 3 to 1—a mind-numbing 383,512 ads for Clinton compared to 125,617 supporting Trump.”
This isn’t to say that having $500 million lying around for advertising makes no difference. It may be that if Elizabeth Warren had had that sort of advertising budget, she might have been able to compete better with Bernie.
But the fact remains that if an advertisement asks a person to take some sort of action—whether it’s buying Acme zit cream or voting for Michael Bloomberg, that action has to be something that the person targeted by the ad is open to doing. That is, the person being asked to buy or vote must have been already “conditioned”/”brainwashed”/”socialized”/”educated” in such a way that the advertisement’s request for action seems like a good thing.
Often, ads simply stand no chance of succeeding because they’re not addressing what the target audience is inclined to desire.
Ludwig von Mises realized this long ago and noted,
It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against “high-pressure” advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only. However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candle makers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horse drivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen.
Examples of this phenomenon abound. In recent years, for example, we’ve seen articles on how so-called Millennials are uninterested in buying what the funeral industry is selling. That is, expensive coffins and funerals are highly profitable for funeral homes, but fewer people under fifty are interested in buying. They want less-profitable cremations. So, the funeral industry has had to change the way it does business. But this raises a question: why should the funeral industry change anything? Why not just run a bunch of advertisements telling people to buy $20,000 coffins? Then surely everyone will buy them, right?
But that’s obviously not how it works.
And then there’s the story of the American waterbed industry. Many people over forty may still remember the time in the 1980s when all the cool kids had waterbeds. But then they fell out of favor and waterbed stores collapsed in a heap of irrelevance during the 1990s. But why did the waterbed merchants allow that to happen? Why didn’t they just run a bunch of advertisements telling people to buy waterbeds?
People do what advertisers tell them to do, right?
After all, we’re told that “Russian hackers” with some targeted online ads — many of which were little more than low-budget unsophisticated memes — “swayed” the 2016 election and somehow turned Hillary voters into Trump voters.
The next time a modern-day McCarthyite insists that the 2016 election was stolen by Russian memes, let’s keep in mind that with $500 million, Bloomberg couldn’t manage to convince more than a few voters to vote for him instead of for Joe Biden, who apparently thinks he’s running for the US Senate.
So, let’s just chalk up the failed Bloomberg campaign to yet another case of how all the ads in the world won’t convince people to buy a product—or vote for a candidate—they don’t like, don’t want, and generally regard as useless.
The Best of Ryan McMaken