Trump attorney versus Newperson Zak

The CBSN 'interview' an unusual one?  Well this is an unusual post following it in that I really could not be bothered sitting through Newperson Zak's c**p any further. One Australian ‘news’ service wrote:

In an unusual interview, the lawyer lashed out at CBS reporter Lana Zak before throwing his microphone away.

Now I bring a piece on that interview emailed to me by a lady using the moniker Toodles, lives in Alabama and she’s quite down to earth as you'd imagine.  She illustrates the gulf between the two sides.  One is off in some bizarre talking head land, handed down from above and unrelated to any sort of truth, not even attempting truth ... vs someone who is just a human, even if a lawyer, with all the combined nobility and foibles which define us as human.

  

Here is Toodles’s piece:

The CBSN interview is one of the most horrific things I have seen. It really puts society under a magnifying glass.  

By that I mean the way people are on entirely different planes.  Either by willingly choosing or just because of stupidity, there are opposing sides such that Newperson and a reasonably rational, logical lawyer simply cannot meet in the middle. 

Not all lawyers are rational nor logical but he was. 

Those two individuals in that 'interview', which is not an interview at all, represent where we are now in this eon of time.  Here, even I use the term 'on different planes' and it is an example from an old  false god religion ... but applies as the Newperson and those she represents  are false and have no idea, nor do they care to know anything beyond where they sit, floating through time and space till they are no longer. I speak of her and those of her kind of course.  

If you look and listen to her, a person with any kind of logic, any kind of thinking and discernment, cannot deny that her words, her phrasing, her tone and the timbre of her voice, the unmelodic, strange, rhythmic structure of her speech is either learned or is being controlled in some way(s) or fashion by IT for the lack of a proper name of the controller(s). 

They  could superimpose another face on top of hers and it would not matter, it would alter nothing. The same supersilliouness (sic) would emerge from the faces directed at those folk who validly, and who with proof, disagree with this Newkind. 

For the Trump attorney (or anyone like him) to continue to discuss a thing is like a real person carrying on a conversation with a blob of dog poop he just stepped in. 

He must have realised at some point ... 'Well, Hells Bells, what am I doing talking to this poopifiied knickenpoop? Why am I even attempting to  discuss this stupid farce of an impeachment trial, which is in and of itself is a stinkin' huge globby blob to high heaven piece of horse manure - why am I even discussing this with Newperson Zak?'  

So he leaves. Has had enough. Knows it is HOPELESS.  

Cuddles taught me early on when I had an issue with a person we know and had been trying to explain my point of view and it didn't take, not one bit of it ... he taught me to do as the Trump lawyer did.  To catch yourself and cease from becoming further entangled and then stepping in more of it.  

Coming back to Newperson Zak’s not even well orchestrated phrases, used by all of the talking heads now - they come from a SOURCE in which people in education and I am sure other avenues of influencing humanity, are trained and trained and trained in, in extended learning classes they must attend yearly in order to remain certified. 

I had to take those courses ... so many hours each year. Cuddles, instead of learning things relevant to his job, was given all kinds of classes, given videos to watch on line, costing $ too, and he was just shocked that one in particular consisted of women discussing how to deal with the stress of being lawyers,  offering suggestions and demonstrating ways to help with that.  

It was like reading a Women's Magazine about female woes concerning what she was born to do!!! The World is Mad and Insane. We are locked up with loonies!!!

All right, let's talk journalism today, which is what the above essentially does. When referring to Newperson Zak above, the obvious implication is that New is bad and Old is good and it may once have been.  More likely - much of it was at least half-rational in the MSM or at least semi-acceptable but now it is just 'poop'.

On the other hand, Newpunditry of our kind here and in blogs all over, elsewhere online too, is what we're going to make it - and I for one would rather read an incisive and to the point piece by a non 'trained' journo [see the reference in Toodles's comment on modern training courses] than any amount of loo roll from the supposed Pulitzer seeking, talking and writing heads.

A glance at Julia's, Churchmouse's and Grandpa's pieces at OoL and this is at least we're things are at now.  The Newspeak MSM is simply wasting our time.