As freelancers and bloggers, we know the importance of a title, or a headline. It has to grab the reader, for there are thousands and thousands of blogs and OpEds out there, and if we don’t grab the reader with the title, the content of our writing won’t likely matter. It is the same for the mainstream media … the headline is the bait and it has to be interesting. What headlines grabbed your attention yesterday enough to make you read the attached article? Here are three that grabbed me …
The headline in The Guardian piqued my curiosity:
Reality bites: Trump’s fear of sharks leads to surge in charity donations
I did not pay much attention recently to the details of the report that Trump had paid $130,000 to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, for I have become immune to his debauchery. So I was not aware that Ms. Daniels had told the world that Trump is deathly afraid of sharks. Well, even if I had known that, it wouldn’t have likely set my meter ticking, for most of us would just as soon avoid an encounter with a shark. Apparently Trump himself had confirmed Ms. Daniels’ allegation back in 2013 when he tweeted …
“Sorry folks, I’m just not a fan of sharks – and don’t worry, they will be around long after we are gone.” – 9:26 AM – Jul 4, 2013
Ms. Daniels said that Trump used to spend time watching television shows about sharks and that “He is obsessed with sharks …Terrified of sharks.” He reportedly commented, “I donate to all these charities and I would never donate to any charity that helps sharks. I hope all the sharks die.” It turns out that after the interview with Ms. Daniels was published in a gossip rag, In Touch magazine, people started sending donations in Trump’s name to Atlantic White Shark Conservancy.
For some reason, I am finding this hysterically funny. Whatever it takes to get people helping the environment and the critters that live in it, I guess. Hey! I wonder … if I could annoy Trump badly enough for him to say he hated me and wished me dead, do you think people would start sending me money?
And then another headline, this one in The Intellectualist, came onto the trusty radar and made me literally choke on my soup …
72% Of Republicans Believe Trump Is A Good Role Model For Children
Say WHAT??? Sure, if you want your children to grow up to be profane, ignorant, bigoted, narcissistic, megalomaniacs. But what is behind this story? Are republicans really so ignorant?
“According to a recent Quinnipiac poll , a whopping 72 percent of Republicans think President Donald Trump is a good role model for children. By comparison, 67 percent of all Americans say he is not.”
Wait just a minute … TIME OUT! 73% plus 67% … tick, tap, tickety-tappity … I come up with 140%! Weren’t we taught in school something about there only being 100%? I’m only a CPA, so my math skills aren’t very good, but still …
A visit to Quinnipiac’s site clarified matters. While 72%-73% of republicans believe he is a good role model, overall, when you consider all Americans, only about 1/3 feel he is a good role model. Even that amazes me, though. Frankly, I would not let him near my dog, let alone my child or grandchild.
Some interesting tidbits from the survey …
- 63% of Americans say Trump does not provide the U.S. with moral leadership. (Why only 63% Where are the other 37% … drugged, sleeping, or left the country in disgust?)
- As expected, the majority of Republicans disagree: 80% say he does provide moral leadership. (Yes, but look who we’re talking about here … the ones who believe a pedophile belongs in the Senate, and a sexual molestor belongs in the White House!)
- 27% of Americans say they are proud to have Trump as president, but 53% are downright embarrassed. (27% are proud to be white, figure everyone who isn’t white needs to be deported, and still believe in the institution of slavery. But where are the other 20%??? Still sleeping?)
And lastly, there was this one, also from The Intellectualist …
Missouri Lawmaker Seeks To Ban Marriages That Don’t Occur In Church
“State Rep. T.J. Berry put forth House Bill 1434 to put religions entirely in control of defining “marriage” and conducting those ceremonies. If you decide to get married without being a church member, you would be considered part of a “domestic union….
[Berry said] he was “tired” of the argument about the definition of the word marriage. He wanted the issue “put to rest from a government standpoint.”
I am not concerned that Berry’s bill will pass, for even in the highly unlikely event that it did, I see it working its way quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court where, in spite of Gorsuch, it would be struck down, for it is blatantly un-Constitutional. But what does concern me is that my blood pressure is now through the roof, my stomach is churning, heart rate three times the norm, and I am growling deep in my throat much like a rabid dog.
I am going to bed now. Good-night, my friends.