“assess” not “access”.
“highest corporate tax rate” not “top”.
“media are” not “media is” (”media” is plural, correct in other places.
On the eve of the inauguration, I think it is important to access where we are. The media is bending over backwards to present the economy as typical and Obama as a regular but gifted presidential leader.
I think the word you're looking for is "assess" and the media is bending over "backward", not the plural, backwards.
I'll keep reading and followup later. Hope this helps!
And very long essays come across as rants (not that yours is). So sometimes less is more!
Just my two cents.
We are in the final stages of a Marxist takeover. The wave of human emotion, the zeitgeist if you will, is unstoppable until it runs its inevitably disastrous course and that certainly won’t happen in our lifetime. Our once successful republic has atrophied as they all do. The later inhabitants weren’t alive to appreciate the freedoms that were fought for. We are fat and happy without a clue as to the value of the freedoms we happily give up in the name of societal fairness. It is human nature. Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
We have never lost ‘workers’ like we have now. —> We have never lost ‘workers’ like we have LOST now.
In your list, universally replace the work “like” with “as”, it reads better, IMHO
The word “Secondly” is illogical as there is no “Firstly” - remove it.
I have great difficulty with the term, “the media.” While it is true that fictional movies and TV shows do tend to come from a socialist perspective, there is IMHO no conceivable way of retaining “the freedom of speech, or of the press” while in any way censoring nonfiction. So the only thing of which you might have a legitimate complaint is nonfiction - and in nonfiction books we have at the very least a level playing field.So what you are actually complaining about is topical nonfiction - journalism. And if you are unable to stand on your hind legs and call out your opponent by name as being your opponent, you need not wonder why it is that you are losing the argument.
To the response that, “journalism” consists of many different and competitive journalists, there is an answer which is IMHO entirely defensible - wire service journalism functions as a single entity. As Adam Smith famously wrote in 1776,
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.”. . . and what group of “people of the same trade” meet together as much as journalists do??? The Associated Press newswire is a continual virtual meeting of all the major “competitors” in journalism - a “meeting" which has been going on continuously since the middle of the Nineteenth Century. If there is any case that any nominal competitors coordinate their actions for their own benefit, certainly that case must exist for members of the Associated Press.
But do journalists actually have motives which are distinct from the public good and the national interest? Isn’t journalism objective? Quite simply, the interest of the journalist is to promote itself and to interest the public. To that end, journalism cries “Wolf!” whether or not an actual wolf is in view. If there is no actual wolf in sight, journalists will latch onto the thinest rationale for labeling the most unoffending sheep - or, even more titillating, shepherd - as a wolf in disguise.Why do journalists align themselves with Democrats? The question is wrongly put. The real question is, “Why wouldn’t a political party align itself with journalism?” And why wouldn’t journalists reward members of that party with positive labels such as “moderate,” “progressive,” or “liberal?"