Manas domas, mani raksti un mani projekti.

1. Kas te ir atrodams?

2. Kā es nokritu uz ledus, satraumēju kāju un

dažas pārdomas par to visu

3. Internets lauķiem. m/432351135

4. Luga par vēlētājiem m/433240259

5. Tehnoloģijas un IT. m/433872332

 6. 25 gadi brīvās Latvijas - panākumi un kļūdas. m/433814732

 7. Par imunitāti un reklāmu. m/433889401

 8. K m/433047008

9. T m/433655381












   Trump and twitter



Ko pasaulei atstās Trampa ievēlēšana?  negatiivisms




Jaunais prezidents jau saņēmis dažādus noraidījumus, uzsaukumus no norādes no Merilas Strīpas, dažādiem mūziķiem un aktieriem un veselas žurnālistu kopas, kas paziņojusi, ka mierā neliksies.

Vispims - būtu vēlams paskatīties pašas Holivudas antiutopijas, piemēram,

Wag the dog - Aste, kas luncina suni. Politiska komēdija par mediju ietekmi,

kā producē pseidonotikumus, kā veido to vai citu tautas attieksmi pret lietām.

Kā "mākslinieka producents"", kas to visu dara, De Niro ir vienkārši izcils. Taču Strīpas draugos arī viņš reālajā pasaulē ir pret Trampu. Nez kāda ir Dastina Hofmana attieksme, kurš šajā lieliskajā darbā tēlo naivuli režisoru?


 Stepfordas sievas -

Idiokrātija -

 Jā, ministra kungs - tas gan no angļiem


Jā, premjerministra kungs

Vienkārši lieliski mākslas darbi, kas ataino to, pret ko ir Tramps un

viņa vēlētāji.

Nav jau tā, ka Trampa uzvarai nebija iemesla. Vai tik ne liberāļiem tik ierastā viszinība, augstprātība, elitārisms un manipulācijas?

Te būtu nedaudz jāatceras, ko mēs saprotam ar jēdzieniem establišments, liberālisms un vispār - iepriekšējā vara, kurai tā netīk Tramps. Kāpēc vispār viņš startēja, guva atbalstu, uzvarēja un ko galu galā nepareizi izdarīja Klintone, liberāļi, tiem draudzīgie mediji un vispār, šie tik daudzie inteliģentie, gudrie, jaukie cilvēki, kur viņi kļūdījās? Vai varbūt iepriekšējā politika un tās sasniegumi daudzās sabiedriskās politikas, ekonomikas un valsts pārvaldes nozares nebija nemaz tik gudra, laba un saprotama.


































Watch and think about media role.

 I used Twitter's format to write an example of the negative role of the media, using the example of an episode of "House of cards" and note that it cannot be done. The location is not enough. Twitter's format is best suited to anonymous ranting or very short notices. That is exactly what it is - he did it, it is bad, we are smarter, he did it wrongly and it is purely rhetoric.

It is interesting to note that real media was the basis for the media's role in the "Ugly Tower" episode of the series "House of Cards". The story is not about Underwood's personality, but the media. 

President Underwood has a very tight work schedule. Meanwhile, a driving teenager writes text messages and crashes. 

Usually, after such an event, the main thought would be to express condolences to the relatives and to remind everyone that driving and texting are incompatible. Some statistics and some specialist advice would be the helpful and appropriate answer to this situation. 

But Underwood is a politician and the media needs to influence and belittle this man. 

A teenager wrote messages about an ugly tower built by a member of Underwood's party. She crashed and died. Who is responsible? 

Think of crooked political and media logic - we can blame the president! The driver wrote comments about an ugly tower, built by a politician! 

Underwood is a real politician, who's focused on getting votes, so he goes to the scene, asking for forgiveness and gives a speech in the church, resolves all political trouble, recovers lost political votes and returns home to deal with real problems. 

So - what does the media do here - panders to the lowest instincts, initiates a primitive discussion process and misleads the public about the cause and effect relationship. 

So, in such an environment, how can we qualitatively discuss serious problems, such as unemployment, improving qualifications and training for the jobless, health care, each voter's responsibility for something for which they should take responsibility? 

So, what about Twitter, media and Trump? Someone says something hideous about Trump, his relatives or his daughter's business and then wait for Trump's personal and sharp answer. If you are lucky, Trump defenders respond and then accuse Trump of a lack of governmental action, rudeness or ignorance. 

This game is very similar to bullying in school. 

What about Sweden? Are there some problems with immigrants? Yes, there are. Create fake news about an incident in Sweden, wait for Trump's reaction and then react as though there are no problems. Never. 

So, let's think about real media. Are they similar to those in House of cards? Sometimes, it could be said, yes. Sometimes there is real information and sometimes not.

At first we find some of the concepts. My  understanding of liberalism and liberals is probably a little different from the generally accepted. Liberalism in theory argues that people need all sorts of freedom both to do and to think and to judge others.However, the question as to what the environment that man has received the information and how he is able to constantly judge and whether he is able to resist the lies and manipulation are not discussed at all or very insufficient.

There are still two very important concepts that are closely linked to this. The first - to which extent people have to help, support and protect from the effects of the decision itself. This usually refers to children or people's right to do something and work in a well-regulated professions, such as working as a crane driver.

State may in its domestic laws restrict some sort of action, if it really does not trust its citizens' ability to sound judgments and subsequent actions causing harm to themselves and their families, State laws can be changed, if not trust its citizens and they can do something that the state will then have to be settled and paid a lot of money for these solutions. Quick loans which are taken during the day in the evening or even at night on their own bodies, which they were intended probably very different, perhaps they think revel and family savings to spend in casino.

 It's all written here in order to once again remind you that not everything is always allowed to, people themselves need to somehow control themselves and the abuse of impunity is detrimental to both the country and the people themselves.

In any case, a practical politician well understands both real this problem and what to talk to wives whose husbands used the quick credit to spend a family budget in casino  and what to talk to unscrupulous men who wants to have a good rest without money. Here lies the problem, both to please the voters, both nationally make a sound decision.

If friendly oriented media support politician, they supported him when he tells something one to  amusing celebrate husbands, will also be supported when he tells something quite different to rampant wives and will also be supported when it will hold a nationalistic speech as an opportunity to balance freedom with restrictions on freedom on behalf of the common good. If the media do not support politician, then the other way round - accused him of all - both restrictions on the freedom and the inability to legally restrict stupid behavior and inconsistencies.
It should be remembered that this example is primitive and usually all causal interaction is not so clearly visible.

The second concept ir very important - calling and binding names. Liberals presented themselves as a correct, fair, wise, noble, free from the influences and minded politicians and their media also claim to these names. His opponents liberal media usually called bad names for redneck, fools, racists, macho, regardless of whether or not any reason to.

This subtype of concept is to stick something lower to something higher, which already has a certain significance. You can, for example, called the Nazis all, you do not like, and in some way interfere with, for example, that the child makes the beds made, which he dislikes.

 A few more notes - awareness of specific issues. An example of bad driving and the child's unwillingness to present bed and mother's prosecution of the Nazis is very simple and  for ordinary consumer, they should be well understood, but how to explain complex issues, such as the world's energy problems and various types of hydrocarbon energy value, availability and environmental impact . How many people in the population differentiate potential energy and greenhouse effect for coal, natural gas and petroleum products? Are people able to understand, such as trade restrictions and an attempt to more use of its resources, not only in the economic and democratic problem, Less transport with large sea container vessels means less pollution from low-quality, sulfur-containing fuel and a smaller plant and animal disease distribution and alien pests invasive species in agriculture? Not only bad and good, differend shades of grey.
Here if medium forgot to say something - 1% very significant shine, you are now able to ensure that the common consumer made inappropriate conclusion. Something does not say anything at all and the result is over-reacting and bad understanding of whole topic and problem.

Easier, of course, it is to write about personalities, one imagines for good, others - as bad, incompetent, and the like. Flat-minded, good - evi l-minded audience categories is an ideal material with which to manipulate.

It is very important to understand that the liberal media are not discouraged not fool the audience and uses the lowest instincts to confuse and cause yourself desirable reactions.

Liberal media can not directly influence the times tables to adjust every time a consumer awareness wrong mathematics, although I also have it remotely similar example where the politically correct reasons, some numerical perception is to change.

This time, look at some real discussion that took place on women's rights to decide on their own ova. The very discussion begins, leaving the men's and women's equality legislation. The main idea - men, here, you can donate  sperm, but the women had some kind of limitations and it is illegal, growing deprivation and inadequate to the spirit of the 21st century. Any statement made by opponents began with the fact that a woman is fundamentally very significantly different from the man, not listening to on, was immediately attacked by the legal arguments put forward as the main emphasis on women's rights.

 I can imagine that quite a large proportion of people do not perceive what then there's so wrong, see the following egg donation issue from a legal point of view. The so-called equality advocates simply do not perceive men and women donation difference.  It is in this phase of development usually manipulative luing media, hiding behind masks rights defenders, generally accuse opponents of sexism and women's rights limitations.

 I assume that those who did not quite get why this issue is not only a legal approach is already tired of waiting, so will reveal the secret - women and men are different biologically and man donating sperm practically repeated biological process, but the woman being artificially stimulated with drugs and this means to her body some load, and can have consequences. So true legal attitude would be that the woman before the procedure be informed as to the risks and only then she can decide what to do or not to do. It is important to make informed choices and it is important that this information is widely available. Then the woman is free from the illusion that the matter will donate their ovum or not - need only legal framework. 

I think that everyone is clear that the Twitter format anything can not explain and twitter audience is not accustomed to this kind of explanations how exactly runs the liberal media. In this particular case, the difference has been informed choice or uninformed choice.

 This must be understood that women in the legal consciousness and awareness very significantly different. Liberal version of it has been the notion that a woman has won equal rights with man, and if a man can donate sperm, the woman can donate eggs and there is no reason to view these issues separately, it just offends women and unfashionable, and it is way of thinking of company with low legal consciousness.
Truly well-informed society woman knows and understands that these processes both sexes differ quite substantially and woman are not in conflict with the laws of nature and does not lead to protest and the desire to challenge them. She well understood that she as a woman donating eggs is at some risk and make an informed choice.

Exactly how the liberal media despised the laws of nature and cursed opponents I will not mention yet, maybe later in this article shall also be completed and for some time will not be completed. The important thing is that there is a visible another trend - to attack the laws of nature, the natural sciences, if you look at other examples, liberals generally do not like any constant, stable system with its laws, can be quite easy to imagine that the judge in the courtroom, which an expert will tell something what about Newton's laws, which are based on an event, get an answer, that here no such laws do not work, we look here legally at  everything. One can also understand why - stable, specific, systematic thinking system and laws that can not interpret that as you will, actually interferes lie.

 People who usually read a lot shorter texts, the question arises - why so long introduction, so long explanations and where is story about Trump and twitter. Twitter attack reports are short, emotional, and all sorts of liberal media tries to make Tramps justified or explain their attitude towards all sorts of nonsense. Smarter discussions are few and these long explanations outlines the basic principles of exactly how the liberal media lie, manipulate and tells not the whole truth. Suffice it to 1% of the information concealment, or turn upside down and the effect is achieved!

 ourbodiesourselves.or g/2013/07/egg-donation-seems-easy-but-questions-and-health-risks-remain/ m/blog/barack-obama-southside-chicago-project/ m/article/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer-byron-york

Trump need his own asbestos removal project. In these addresses are described very positive example of Barack Obama. Afroamerican saves afroamericans from asbestos dust. A lot of positivism, a good start to the new Obama.

Is there a theoretical possibility, as president Trump could beat Obama.? What the politically correct and nice liberals would make a mistake. How to find all errors in the politically correct society? m/article/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

 One in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and half of them do not know it, young men, and especially young black men, are least likely to know if they are infected with HIV, we can't allow HIV to continue its devastating toll among young black men."

Researchers  studied 8,153 men in 21 U.S. cities, taking part in the 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System,  they found that 19 percent of gay men are infected with HIV.

The study found that 28 percent of gay black men infected with HIV, compared with 18 percent of Hispanic men and 16 percent of white men.

Black men in the study were also least likely to be aware of their infection, with 59 percent unaware of their infection compared with 46 percent of Hispanic men and 26 percent of white men.

The severity of the impact of HIV in the gay community is nothing new. What has been missing is an appropriate response by our government, at the federal, state and local levels, and the gay community itself," he said in a statement."

If you compare the numbers that describe something other than HIV-infected white man, hispanic and afroamerican, you can quite freely to dispose of them. This figure is higher, it will be less, here percent points to this trend, while these figures - a different trend. Otherwise, everything happens when you compare the numbers that describe something so politically correct mines full of as data for white, Hispanic and afroamericans infectied with the HIV virus.


 Overall global pattern Ugly tower example, a woman who the woman specific medical challenge be regarded as a legal achievements in the fight for women's rights and homosexual black gay sexually risky behavior, denial facts and statistics and Reuters researchers treating them as homophobic racists is the conclusion that here the average consumer inherent thinking limitations they stimulated an aggressive liberal politically correct propaganda, misrepresentation or concealment and denial that distort the perception of reality.



Vispārējais kopējais modelis Ugly tower piemērā, sievietei, kas sievietei specifisku medicīnisku izaicinājumu uzskata par tiesisku sasniegumu cīņā par sieviešu tiesibām un homosexual black gay seksuāli riskanta uzvedība, nerēķināšanās ar statistiku un Reuters pētnieku uzskatīšana par homofobiem rasistiem ir fsecinajums, ka šeit vidējam patērētajam piemītošie domāšanas ierobežojumi tie stimulēti ar agresīvu liberālu politkorektu propogandu, faktu sagrozīšanu vai noklusēšanu un noliegšanu, kas deformē īstenības uztveri.




















Šajās adresēs ir aprakstīts ļoti poziitīvs piemērs Barack Obama. Afroamerican glābj afroamerican no azbesta putekļiem. Daudz pozitīvisma, labs starts jaunajam Obamam.

Vai ir kaut teorētiska iespēja, kā prezidents Trump varētu parspēt Obama. Ko politkorekltā un jaukā Obamas valdība varētu kļūdīties. kā vispār atrast kļūdas politkorektai valdībai? m/article/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

Ja jūs salīdzināt skaitļus, kas raksturo kaut ko citu, nevis ar HIV inficētus baltos, spāņu izcelsmes un afroamerikaņus, jūs varat diezgan brīvi ar tiem  rikoties. Tas skaitlis ir lielāks, tas mazāks, te procenti norāda uz šādu tendenci, savukārt šie skaitļi - uz atšķirīgu tendenci. Citādi viss notiek, kad jūs salīdzināt skaitļus, kas raksturo kaut ko tik politkorektām mīnām pilnu, kā datus par balto, spaņu izcelsmes vai afroamerikaņus, kas ir inficēti ar HIV vīrusu. 




Cilvēkiem, kuri parasti lasa daudz īsākus tekstus varētu rasties jautājums - kāpēc tik garš ievads, tik gari skaidrojumi un kur palika Tramps un twitter. Trampam twiteer uzbrūk, ziņojumi ir īsi, emocionali un liberālie mediji visādi cenšas panākt, lai Tramps taisnotos vai skaidrotu savu attieksmi pret visādām muļķībam. Gudrākas  diskusijas ir maz un šie garie paskaidrojumi iezīmē pamatprincipus, kā tieši liberālie mediji melo, manipulē un stāsta ne visu patiesību. Pietiek 1% no informācijas noklusēt vai pagriezt otrādi un efekts tiek panākts!



 Kā tieši liberālie mediji noniecināja dabas likumus un apsaukāja oponentus pagaidām neminēšu, varbūt vēlāk, jo šis raksts tāpat tiek papildināts un vēl kādu laiku nebūs pabeigts. Svarīgi ir tas, ka te ir labi redzama vēl kāda tendence - uzbrukt dabas likumiem, dabaszinātnēm, ja paskatas citus piemērus, liberāļiem vispār nepatīk nekāda konstanta, stabila sistēma ar saviem likumiem, var diezgan viegli iedomāties, ka tiesnesis tiesas zālē, kuram eksperts stāstīs kaut ko par Ņūtona likumiem, kas ir pamatā notikumam, saņemtu atbildi, ka šeit nekādi tādi likumi nedarbojas, šeit jāskatās tiesiski un viss. Var arī saprast, kāpēc - stabila, konkrēta, sistēmiska domāšana un likumi, kurus nevar interpretēt, ka vien gribas, reāli traucē melot.


Šajā praktiskajā piemērā ir jāsaprot, ka sievietes tiesiskā apziņa un informētība ļoti būtiski atšķiras. Liberālajā variantā tā ir apziņa, ka sieviete ir izcīnījusi vienlīdzīgas tiesības ar vīrieti un, ja vīrietis var ziedot spermu, tad sieviete var ziedot olšūnas un nav nekādu iemeslu skatīt šos jautājumus atsevisķi, tas tikai aizvaino sieivetes un ir nemoderni un tā dara atpalicēji.

Patiesi labi informētā sabiedrībā sieviete zina un saprot, ka šie procesi abiem dzimumiem diezgan būtiski atsķiras un sievieti dabas likumi neaizvaino un neizraisa protestu un vēlmi tos apstrīdēt. Viņa labi saprot, ka viņai kā sievietei ziedojot olšūnas, ir zināms risks un izdara informēta cilvēka izvēli.


Domāju, ka visiem ir skaidrs, ka twitter formātā neko tādu paskaidrot nevar un twitter publika nemaz nav pieradusi pie šāda veida skaidrojumiem, kā tieši darbojas liberālie mediji. Šajā konkrētajā gadījumā atšķirība ir informēta izvēle vai neinformēta izvēle.

Pieļauju, ka tiem, kas isti neuztver, kāpēc tieši šim jautājumam nevar izmantot tikai tiesisku pieeju ir jau apnicis gaidīt, tāpēc atklāšu noslēpumu - sieviete no vīrieša atšķiras bioloģiski un vīrietis donējot spermu praktiski atkārto bioloģisku procesu, bet sieviete tiek mākslīgi stimulēta ar medikamentiem un viņas organismam tas nozīmē slodzi. un var būt sekas. Tāpēc patiesa tiesiska attieksme būtu tada, ka sieviete pirms procedūras obligāti jāinformē par riskiem un tikai tad viņa var izlemt, ko darīt vai nedarīt. Svarīga ir informēta izvēlē un svarīgi ir, ka šī informācija ir plaši pieejama. Tad sieviete ir brīva no maldiem, ka jautājuma izsķiršanai ziedot vai ne savas olšūnas - vajag tikai tiesisko regulējumu.


Tieši šajā attīstības posmā parasti manipulatīvi un melojoši mediji, slēpjoties aiz tiesību aizstāvju maskas, parasti apvaino oponentus seksismā un sieviešu tiesību ierobežojumos.


Es varu iedomāties, ka diezgan liela daļa cilveku nemaz neuztver to, kas tad tur ir tik nepareizs šādi skatīt olšūnu donācijas jautājumu no tiesiskā aspekta. Tā sauktās vienlīdzības aizstāvji vienkārši neuztver vīriešu un sieviešu donācijas atsķirību.




Šoreiz apskatīsim kādu reālu diskusiju, kas notika par sieviešu tiesībām lemt par savām  olšūnām. Pati diskusija sākas, izejot no vīriešu un sieviešu vienlīdzības tiesiskā regulējuma. Galvenā doma - vīrieši, lūk, var ziedot vai pārdot spermu, bet sievietēm esot kaut kādi ierobežojumi un tas esot nelikumīgi, beztiesiski un neatbilstoši 21. gadsimta garam. Jebkurš apgalvojums, ko oponenti sāka ar faktu, ka sieviete pašos pamatos ļoti būtikski atšķiras no vīrieša, nemaz neklausoties tālāk, tika uzreiz uzbrukts ar teiesiskiem argumentiem, kā galveno izceļot sieviešu tiesības.






Nav jau arī tā, ka liberālie mediji varētu tieši ietekmēt reizrēķinu tabulu, lai katru reizi pielāgotu patērētāja izpratni greizai matemātikai, lai gan man ir arī tam attālināti līdzīgs piemērs, kur politkorektu apsvērumu dēļ dažu skaitļu uztvere ir izmanīta.


Ļoti būtiski ir saprast, ka liberālie mediji nebūt nevairās muļķot publiku un izmanto zemākos instinktus, lai maldinātu un izraisītu sev vēlamas reakcijas.



 Vieglāk, protams, ir rakstīt par personībām, vienas iztēlojot par labām, citas - par sliktām, nekompetentām un tamlīdzīgi. Plakani domājoša, labā - ļaunā kategorijās domājoša publika ir ideāls materiāls ar ko manipulēt.


Vēl pāris piezīmes - informētība par specifiskiem jautājumiem. Manis minētie piemēŗi par slikto auto vadīsanu un bērna nevēlēšanos klāt gultu un mammas saukšana par nacisti ir ļoti vienkārši un parastam cilvekam tos vajadzētu labi saprast, bet kā skaidrot sarežģītākus jautājumus, piemeram, pasaules enerģētikas problēmas un dažādu ogļūdeņražu enerģētisko vērtību, pieejamību un ietekmi uz vidi. Cik cilvēku populācijā atšķir iespējamo siltumnīcas efektu oglēm, dabasgazei un naftas produktiem? Vai cilvēki spēj saprast, ka, piemeŗam tirdzneicības ierobežojumi un mēģinājums vairāk leitot savus resursus, nav tikai ekonomikas un demokrātijas problēma, Mazāk pārvadājumu ar lielajiem jūras konteineru kuģiem nozīmē mazāk piesārnojuma no nekvalitātīvas, sēru saturošas degvielas un mazāku augu un dzīvnieku slimibu izplatību un svešu kaitēkļu sugu invāziju lauksaimniecībā?

Šeit medijam, kas aizmirst pateikt kaut vai 1% ļoti būtisku infomāciju, parādās iespēja panākt, ka parastais cilvēks izdara neatbilstošu secinājumu. Kaut ko nepasaka, kaut ko pārspīlē un rezultāts ir.



Šī koncepta paveids ir pielīmēt kaut ko mazāku kaut kam lielākam, kam jau ir noteikta nozime. 

Savus oponentus liberālie mediji parasti apsaukā par redneck, muļķiem, rasistiem, mačo, neatkarīgi no tā, vai tam ir vai nav kāds pamats


Ja politiķi atbalsta draudzīgi orientēti mediji, tie atbalstīs viņu, kad tas stāstīs kaut ko vienu jautrajiem svinētājiem, atbalstīs arī tad, kad tas stāstīs pavisam ko citu niknajām sievām un atbalstīs arī tad, kad tas uzstāsies ar valstisku runu par iespēju sabalansēt brīvību ar brīvības ierobežojumiem kopēja labuma vārdā. Ja politiķi mediji neatbalsta, tad otrādi - viņam pārmetīs visu - gan brīvības ierobežojumus, gan nespēju likumiski ierobežot muļķīgu rīcību, gan nekonsekvenci.

Jāatceras, ka šis piemērs ir primitīvs un parasti visas cēloņu-seku mijiedarbības nav tik skaidri redzamas.

Paši sevi liberāļi prezentē kā korektus, taisnīgus, gudrus, cēlus, brīvus no ietekmēm un domājošus politiķus un mediji arī pretendē uz šiem nosaukumiem. 



 Tas, protams, ir tikai tāds izdomāts iespēju stāsts, kas būtu, ja būtu, bet te ie iespējas pārmest politkorektājiem medijiem un politiķiem, ka viņi nav spējuši komunicēt ar kopienu un panākt rezultātu tieši sava politkorektuma dēļ.





Liberals - omniscience, arrogance, elitism and manipulation,
There would be little to remember what we mean by concepts establishmentism. What was wrong done by liberals and those friendly media. Or maybe the previous policy and its achievements in public policy, economics and public administration sector was not so smart, good and understandable. m/article/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923 m/article/us-usa-elections-obama-s-idUSTRE68I03S20100923?mod=related&channelName=domesticNews


ASV speciālistus satrauc šie skaitļi, tiek pieminēta pat epidēmija, ārstēšanas un profilakses efektivitāte šādos apstākļos, riskantas uzvedības nozīme un sabiedrības un geju kopienas  sadarbības trūkums. Ja inficētie nezina, ka ir inficēti, tie nesaņem zāles, bieži maina partnerus, piekopj gadījuma sakarus un ir daudz lielāka iespējamība, ka inficē citus, sevišķi grupās ar biežu partneru maiņu un biseksuāļi  ir paaugstināta riska inficēšanās iespēja arī heteroseksuālajai sabiedrības daļai.

Latvijā emocionālas diskusijas par geju tiesībām, praida gājieniem, sabiedrības attieksmi, konflikti, skandāli un simtiem komentu portālos par šīm tēmām ir ierasta parādība. Mediji reizēm audzina sabiedrību būt tolerantiem, taču šī ziņa laikam nepelna atsevišķu sižetu, bet kā titru rindiņa dažas sekundes ir redzama ekrānā un viss un tas jau gan nav īsti pareizi. Ko tad īsti vajadzētu saprast vidējam Latvijas patērētājam? Laikam jau to, ka šāda inficēto koncentrācija šajā sabiedrības daļā ir tiešas sekas seksuāli riskantai uzvedibai, biežai partneru maiņai, cilvēku bezatbildibai pret savu un citu cilvēku veselību un arī to, ka geju attiecību legalizācija, iecietība, tolerance un politkorektums NERISINA cilvēku individuālas bezatbildības problēmu un apdraud visu sabiedrību. Pilsētā apmaldījies lauku puisis vai meitene ar daudz lielāku varbūtību var iegūt HIV infekciju, ja viņu partneri kaut kādā attiecību samezglojumu brīdī ir bijuši attiecībās ar biseksuālu nevis heteroseksuālu parteri, nekā paliekot savos laukos un daudzmaz noslēgtā vidē attīstot un kopjot savas attiecības, lai nu kādas tās būtu. Vai mediju vidē geju un biseksuāļu riskantas uzvedības skaitļos izmērāmie rezultāti tiks apspriesti, vai politkorekti aizmirsti? Vai skolās blakus iecietības, cilvēka tiesību un minoritāšu problēmu skaidrojumiem parādīsies pavisam vienkārša informācija - šajā grupā HIV inficēto ir vairāk, kā vidēji sabiedrībā un tā iemesls ir seksuāli riskanta uzvedība. Pamācoši ir tas, ka deklarētās geju, biseksuāļu un afroamerikāņu tiesības un šo grupu nediskriminācija šoreiz nav līdzējušas šīm pašām grupām uzlabot savas dzīves kvalitāti. Jūtoties brīvi un demokrātiski, bet ne pārāk domājot par saviem lēmumiem, šīs sabiedribas grupas ir sev kaitējušas, ja jau katrs piektais ir inficēts un vairāk kā puse afroamerikāņu to pat nezina.

US specialists are concerned about these figures, there is a reference to the epidemic, treatment, and prevention effectiveness in such circumstances, risk-taking behavior and role in society and the gay community the lack of cooperation. If the infected do not know that are infected, they do not receive medication, often changing partners practiced a casual touch and are much more likely to infect others, especially groups with frequent change of partners and bisexuals is a high risk of infection and the possibility of heterosexual society.
Latvian emotional debate about gay rights, pride marches, public attitudes, conflicts, scandals and comment on hundreds of sites on these subjects is a common phenomenon. The media sometimes bringing up the community to be tolerant, but this news probably deserve a separate story, but as a titre line a few seconds on the screen and everything and it already though is not really correct. What exactly should understand the average Latvian consumer? I guess the fact that such infected concentration in this sector of the public is a direct consequence of sexual risk-taking behavior, frequent partner change, human irresponsibility towards their own and other people's health and the fact that gay relationships legalization, tolerance, tolerance and political correctness does not address people's individual irresponsibility problem and threat to the whole of society.

The city lost in a rural guy or girl with a much higher probability may acquire HIV infection if their partners in any relationship knots at the time had a relationship with bisexual than heterosexual the stalls, than remain in the countryside and more or less enclosed environment by developing and nurturing their relationship to either one of them would be. Or media environment, gay and bisexual risky behavior quantify measurable results will be discussed, they're politically correct or forgotten? Or schools next tolerance, human rights and minority problems explanations appear quite simple information - this group of HIV-infected is more than the average in the society and it is due to sexually risky behavior. Instructive is the fact that the declared gay, bisexual and African-American rights and non-discrimination in this group at this time is not helped by those same groups to improve their quality of life. Feeling free and democratic, but not too thinking about the decisions of that group are themselves harmed, since one in five is infected and more than half of African Americans do not even know it.
US specialists are concerned about These figures, there is a reference to the epidemic, treatment, and prevention Effectiveness in Such Circumstances, Risk-taking Behavior and Role in Society and the gay community the Lack of Cooperation. If the infected do not know That are infected, They Do not Receive medication, Often changing partners practiced a casual touch and are much more Likely to Infect others, especially the groups with frequent change of partners and bisexual is a high risk of infection and the Possibility of heterosexual society.
Latvian emotional debate about gay rights, pride marches, public attitudes, conflicts, Scandals and comment on Hundreds of sites on These subjects is a common phenomenon. The media sometimes bringing up the community to be tolerant, but this news Probably deserve a Separate story, but as a titre line a FEW seconds on the screen and everything and especially Already though is not really correct. What Exactly Should Understand the Latvian average consumer? I guess the FACT That Such infected concentration in this sector of the public is a direct Consequence of sexual risk-taking Behavior, frequent partner change, human irresponsibility Towards Their own and other people's health and the FACT That gay relationships legalization, tolerance, tolerance and political correctness does not address people's individual irresponsibility problem and threat to the whole of society.

Minētajiem medijiem arī netika sniegti nekādi paskaidrojumi, kāpēc tie neiekļuva "izredzēto vidū", kuriem bija iespēja tikties ar Baltā nama preses sekretāru. Taču vien neilgi pirms tam savā uzrunā ASV prezidents Donalds Tramps kārtējo reizi uzbruka plašsaziņas līdzekļiem, kurus uzskata par negodīgu un "viltus ziņu" izplatītājiem. Medijiem, kas par Trampu nebaidās paust kritisku attieksmi, ASV prezidents nevilcinās piekarināt "viltus ziņu" birku.

Šona Spaisera rīkotajā preses pārstāvju sanāksmē neielaisto mediju vidū ir arī jau pieminētie CNN un The York Times, kas vairākkārt izpelnījušies īpaši asu kritiku no Donalda Trampa par publikācijām, kurās analizētas Trampa kampaņas darboņu saiknes ar Krievijas amatpersonām un izlūkdienestiem.

Pēc Trampa runas uz tikšanos ar Spaiseru uzaicināti tādi mediji galēji labējais medijs Briebart NewsReuters un The Washington Times.

Taujāts, kāpēc tik ietekmīgiem medijiem liegta iespēja piedalīties neformālajā sanāksmē, Spaisers to skaidroja ar lēmumu "paplašināt mediju loku". Spaisers arī izteicās, ka Baltais nams "agresīvi pretosies viltus naratīviem ziņās".

CNN bija vienīgais no pieciem lielākajiem ASV televīzijas ziņu telekanālu tīkliem, kas tika izslēgts no saraksta, kamēr ABC, NBC, CBS un Fox News drīkstēja piedalīties. Tikmēr, solidarizējoties ar kolēģiem, tādi lieli izdevumi kā USA Today, Time un ziņu aģentūra The Associated Press atteicās apmeklēt pasākumu, kaut šiem izdevumiem tas nebija liegts.

Vairākiem no šiem medijiem, tostarp BBC un The New York times šāds atteikums noteikts pirmo reizi.

"Šī ir nepieņemama rīcība no Trampa Baltā nama. Acīmredzot šis ir veids, kā viņi [Trampa administrācija] atriebjas, kad mediji ziņo viņiem netīkamus faktus. Mēs turpināsim to darīt jebkurā gadījumā," pausts CNN izplatītā paziņojumā.

"Nekas līdzīgs Baltajā namā līdz šim nav noticis," sašutumu pauda arī The New York Times. "Mēs asi nosodām un iebilstam pret mūsu laikraksta un citu ziņu mediju izslēgšanas. Mediju brīvība un plašsaziņas līdzekļu iespēja ziņot par valdībā notiekošo ir nācijas interesēs."

Jāatgādina, ka Tramps arī pagājušajā nedēļā preses konferencē piektdien sūkstījās par, viņaprāt, negodigiem medijiem, kuri "nu jau kļuvuši nekontrolējami".