5 Simple Ways to Fix Vox-Dot-Com Headlines to Make Them Truthful and Relevant

It occurred to my while perusing the Vox-Dot-Com Twitter feed, after I had stopped laughing hysterically, that they may not be creating their farcical lie-infested headlines on purpose.  It could be, however unlikely, that they simply just don’t know any better.  So, for their benefit, I propose a comprehensive 5 step guide for purging the lies and mistruths from every single Vox headline.  They won’t listen, of course, but fixing their headlines can be a fun game that all of us can play, once the methods are understood.

Fix One: Simple Inversion. Though the levels of convoluted anti-cognition, hypocrisy, double standard and dissonance may run deep in most Vox work, in some cases, it’s just a matter of inverting the statement to make it true.  Say their headline says “New Study Finds That Sky Is Not Really Blue.”  Invert it thusly: “New Study Confirms Sky Is Blue; Get Used To It.”  Voila!  Here’s another:

At first blush, this looks like a “How To” kind of headline, but it actually makes an implicit statement – a statement that’s so hilariously false that if you look at the reader comments, they contain nothing but 100% mocking jocularity about how Vox has spectacularly failed in this endeavor.  Apparently, they’re not ashamed enough of that fact, because they seem to be bragging here about being able to debunk false beliefs without having it blow up in their faces.  The true headline, simply inverted, would read: “Here at Vox.com, we try to debunk true beliefs, and boy does it blow up in our faces!”  Here’s one more:

True version: “How African Americans victimize each other and the criminal justice system.”  Easy!

A Dumb Bunny Know Nothing

There’s an old adage asserting that even a blind pig can find a truffle once in a while—the point being that every so often someone says something absolutely spot on.

Writer, actor, economist and lawyer Ben Stein got it right in his documentary Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed and he gets it right again in his American Spectator piece, A Know Nothing.

What else besides the Constitution does Mr. Obama not know?

Here, in outline form, is why the pronouncements from President Barack Obama, warning the Supreme Court to not overturn Obamacare are so chilling:

1. The President supposedly went to Harvard Law School, graduated from same, was Law Review President of the Harvard Law Review at Harvard Law School. Then he supposedly taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Those are powerful law schools. Yet he obviously knows little of how the Constitution works if he thinks it would be rare or startling for the Supreme Court to overrule a law passed by Congress.

2. If he does not know how the government works under the Constitution, he should not be President.

3. If he does not know how the Constitution works even in its broadest strokes, what else does he not know?

4. Is he really so arrogant that he thinks he can lecture and threaten the Court? This is his second attempt to bully and demean the Court. Is this from arrogance or from foolishness and arrogance? In either case, it is not good.

Stein opines that he, Obama, apparently thinks that it's his job to leave Western Europeans and Americans stripped of missile defense. He apparently thinks it's his job to unilaterally disarm America. That shows a yawning chasm in what he knows and what he does not know.

Another subject Mr. Obama thinks he knows about and doesn't is the oil companies. He hates them. Why does Mr. Obama hate them? Because of a juvenile, City College of New York circa 1937 leftist view of the whole world. Sad. Disturbing. That is a highly anti-American worldview.