Like most people parked at microphones these days who have their devout followers/cultists, Amy is no exception.

They all have them. They all have their cultists, their devout followers who see them as special people and above reproach just because they’re on camera or on microphone. They’re seen as celebrities. And there are a lot of sheeple who are into celebrity worship. These people parked at microphones are elevated to a pedestal. I remember when I wrote a comment on a so-called “progressive” website about Rachel Maddow always wearing the same black shroud on her show — it never changed — I asked if she was homeless? I was slammed for that. Well, most homeless people always wear the same thing all the time (just like Rachel), so I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question. (Tongue in cheek). Rachel’s devout cultists (Democrats) rushed to her defence and said that, “I think she looks good. I think she looks very professional in all black. [But on every show? I asked.] Guys always wear the same suits and ties on shows.” Oh, so that justifies it then, huh? The part about guys always wearing the same thing is a lie. Well, one feels like asking Rachel: Tell me, what funeral did you just come from? You have that black shroud looking shirt/jacket on every show. It used to be that women did not want to be “caught dead” seen wearing the same thing twice. I take it that rule expired sometime ago. Even if that were true that guys wear the same suits and ties all the time (which they don’t), that makes it right? Of course the response from the Maddow cultists was rubbish and it’s also the “two wrongs make a right” thinking. A rather lame defence. Or, just because somebody else does it, makes it right. Quite illogical and immature thinking. And if Rachel were a Republican, these same people who rushed to her defence would be agreeing with me. But because Rachel is on their “team” (Democrat) they adamantly defended her. I can’t stand partisans, in part, because of their hypocrisies.

Amy has her devout cultists as well — and I heard from one of them earlier in 2022 — where she is seen as though she can do no wrong.  He defended her by using the “two wrongs make a right” way of thinking.  This article is my response to that email I received with that thinking in it. He was responding to my article about Amy at this link. I didn’t respond to him directly because one gets no where when writing to cultists. One hits a wall. And I’m not posting the person’s email, just my response to it. The reader should be able to figure out what he wrote to me by my response to it:

Using official language:

I expect “alternative” media to be different. It used to be. Regarding the corporate media and Amy saying, “Washington DC” (roll eyes), which is not the official name for the US nation’s capital, yes that’s all they do say, usually.  But “two wrongs don’t make a right,” which is what the guy who wrote me was implying in his defence of Amy.  Because others do it and are wrong, it’s fine for Amy to do it and be wrong. Where did one get that thinking? The official name of the US nation’s capital is the District of Columbia, not “Washington DC.” That’s the sheeple name, for people who don’t know any better and who probably couldn’t find their own state on a map. Unless they’re referring to the District of Columbia Appeals Court, something like that, then they usually use the official title for the City (District of Columbia) and the Court.  I’ve written about that. 

As I wrote in one article, if the media were to consistently say, The State of Washington (that’s from their copyright on their website:  © Copyright 2022 State of Washington), and the District of Columbia for the nation’s capital (the Federal District), there would be no confusion between the two.  They are the official name for both the State and the District, but the media refuse to use the official names. Either that, or they are ignorant of the official names.  That could be the case. Although the media organisations based in the District are well aware of the official name for their location being the District of Columbia.

As you can see above, the sign on the building does not say: “Government of Washington DC,” because, again, that’s not the official name for the US nation’s capital. There’s also a University in the District called the University of the District of Columbia. Fortunately, it’s not called the University of Washington DC. Here’s a brief quote about that: “The University of the District of Columbia is historic and modern, all at the same time. Public higher education in the District is rooted in the school …”

The guy who wrote me tried to educate me on the District and its formation. Sigh. (roll eyes) I used to live in the District, which is part of my interest in writing about DC.  It’s my home town City so I think most District residents know how the District was formed as the Federal District.  When I lived there and I think the same is true now, on the local television newscasts and the traffic reports, the on-air personnel say, “the District” or “DC” and “the traffic coming into the District, on the 14th Street Bridge…” for example.  The locals don’t say, “Washington DC.” They know better. In part, because there is no Washington in DC. They mean the same thing, so when one says, “Washington DC” one is being redundant. That’s like saying San Francisco, San Francisco. It’s not like Chicago IL as one example. Where Chicago is a city in Illinois. With the District, there is no Washington in DC. They are synonymous. So the city and state analogy (Chicago IL) does not apply to DC. I’m well aware of DC Mayor Bowser’s “campaign” of saying — to stupid people — “We are Washington DC.” I guess she felt she had no other option and she only started that “campaign” because many ignorant and stupid people mainly in the US (where else?!) don’t know what District of Columbia is or where it is. Some people think it’s in Canada. No, that’s British Columbia, idiots, not District of Columbia, you morons. So when District residents have gone to states — particularly southern states — on the East Coast of the US and are carded or have had to show identification, they have run into trouble. Some morons have asked District residents, “Is District of Columbia in the United States?” jesus fucking christ! The ignorance! Sigh. Well, stupid is in. Some idiots think the District resident is from the nation of Colombia. Ah no, that’s a different spelling. Attention to detail. Sigh. Our education system has failed in providing basic geography to many people. When I lived in the District, none of this was happening. So the District has had to change their driver’s licenses from saying District of Columbia (the official name) to saying “Washington DC” in order to cater to stupid people. Well, I refuse to cater to stupid. I prefer to educate. I will always use the official title on this site, and if some idiot doesn’t know what I’m talking about, that’s their fucking problem. Do we understand each other? I’ve had it up to here with these ignorant/stupid trash.

As for Representatives and Senators of the US Congress, yes some (many?) Representatives unfortunately refer to themselves as “CongressMAN.”  Yes, I’ve seen that on their websites.  Sigh.  That’s true.  (roll eyes).  In other words, House members don’t even use their own official title (Representative) half the time. How stupid is that? But, again, “two wrongs don’t make a right” for Amy to use sloppy language and refer to these people as “CongressMAN” or “Congresswoman” on her show when their official title is Representative.

As for Amy, I’m glad he likes her. But what he was doing was justifying her being like all the others — the mainstream corporates — and that’s not what I expect “alternative media” to be. Might he be on her staff? Or just a cultist viewer/listener? Her set looks very corporate and her show sounds corporate. It certainly doesn’t look “grass roots” which is where “alternative media” stems from. And DN is considered “alternative” media, and I expect an “alternative”/progressive broadcaster to be different and use official titles/names, rather than do what everybody else does — which is how the guy who wrote me was justifying what Amy does — and follow in lockstep and conform with the mainstream corporate media and the incorrect language they use.  How is that “alternative?”  It’s not. I know I’m repeating myself in this article, but there are a lot of thick people out there.

Amy has worked with Juan González for years and I think the only word from español that she’s learned from him the entire time is how to pronounce Univisión correctly.  Most other English language speakers completely mangle/ruin that.  They try to make it an English-language word (it’s not), rather than speaking it as it’s spoken authentically in español.  When it comes to the word Colombia, she pronounces that as if she’s saying the word Columbia as in District of Columbia.  It’s not the same word at all. It’s a different spelling.  As for her attire on the show, her mostly dark colours are really very bold, such as all-black is a very bold colour even though it blends into a dark blue set.  Despite what she’s wearing, being the host and Executive Producer, she is the “star” of DN like any other host elsewhere.  The news is not the “star” as he suggests.  The news is the content of the show. It’s what the “star” (Amy) is presenting. Then he somewhat smugly asked me if I had sent her suggestions for what to wear on her show. WTF? Amy is an adult and I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to send her any suggestions on what to wear on-air — she’d probably think I was some nut — not that she would pay any attention to me.  I assume she wears what she wants and that’s the end of that. I have written polite comments in DN’s comment section on occasion, all of which she ignored based on the incorrect language she continued to use on-air as the Executive Producer of her show.  She’s the head of her show.  She’s probably the best or one of the best out there when it comes to news, but as far as referring to some things by their official title, I found her to be annoying at times.  I had also wrongly assumed that an “alternative media” person would be versed in other international languages, or at least have the staff to look up proper pronunciations and pass them along to the host. In other words, be properly prepared, rather than “wing it.” I’ve learned that’s not true either. At least not these days. I would guess that the people in her audience who are fluent in español cringe — as I do — whenever she pronounces words from español. Well as I said earlier, the español language network, Univisión, is the only one she gets mostly correct. Close. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard her attempt to say Telemundo. It would be the second syllable she would likely mangle. (It’s “moon-doe”). But again, “two wrongs don’t make a right” no matter who else makes the same sloppy mistakes.  I didn’t mention others in the media — who do the same thing she does — because my article was about Amy and not about others or the corporate media.  But I’m glad he likes her. 

I heard Juan refer to, “Third World Countries” several times  Ugh.  jesus! That’s bad. Rather than developing nations.  “Third World Countries” is what the right-wing/far-right say.  It’s not what I expect to hear from a genuine progressive.  I looked him up and he’s considered a “progressive,” for what’s that’s worth these days. Not much. As I have written before, these days the far-right and the fake-progressives are using the same language, and the fake-progressives are defending that. People call themselves anything these days. It doesn’t have to have any basis in reality. “Third World Countries” is also not what I expect to hear on “alternative media.” Hearing a Latino (or is Juan Hispano?) using that language was appalling.  Juan should know better, but he is of that generation that grew up with that language. There’s only one planet that we all live on, so how can there be a Third World?

I somewhat appreciated the email I received from the Goodman cultist, but I was reminded of just how devout cultists are when it comes to the people they see and need as their messiah figures, their saviours or idols. They’re really no different than fundamentalist Christians in their blind faith and in their efforts to rush and defend their messiah figure(s).