Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Removing the Police from Society

What a big event the media had planned for the one thousandth casualty in (was it just in Iraq or was it the whole “War on Terror” that was being tallied) wasn’t it?

Whichever, it was blown way out of proportion, much like just about every little or large thing that happens around the current administration by the current media, especially in the ‘politicking season’ as it were. I just want to know why

Note, these are things unlike what may have plagued Bill Clinton; after all, his were self-inflicted! (Well, insofar as the Bill Clinton analogy goes, it seems that Kerry never had a platform to start with, just ran on his ‘use ta was’ ‘inner-child,’ and, having nothing current to run ON, he has resorted to a position of fomenting hatred for the Commander-in-Chief.

I listened to that, from the usual media, as if it meant that the war was too tough and it was time to pull out. No way, Americans aren’t that easily mislead, are they?

I mean, what if we looked at all the murdered police and civilians in this country due to crime? How should we look at that? If too many police are killed on the streets, should we just remove the police in order to protect them; or should we enlist a lot more police in order to stop the problem?

The President engaged our enemies shortly after 9/11 and re-engaged them again in Iraq. This is all, unquestionably (if you discount politics) a large part of “The War on Terror” and, as such, has been a great strategical victory for the US of A.

But over 1000 of our people have died there, what about that?

Should we pull out because of that number; or should we quicken our resolve and send in more troops? Would we rather fight these murdering, baby torturing, random, and multiple killers, here or in the Middle East? Why not in Iraq? We get to kill multiple birds by being there.

It seems like Rummy’s strategy there is working real well, doesn’t it? Of course the tactics of the Pentagon is not public (thank God) but I see what I see on the battlefield, don’t you? We have our Armies entrenched and the Jihadists just keep coming and coming and we just kill them and kill them, right there in Iraq. Hell, if we keep this up long enough we will exhaust all the primary (or mobile) global terrorists.

Meanwhile life goes on as usual here. So far there are no suicide-murderers on our busses, in our Malls, or in our day-to-day lives; so far, so good. Our troops are keeping them busy.

The problem, as far as I can tell, is how the story is presented; and whether the whole story is, in fact, being told at all. Is the story being told all the time; or, is it suppressed some of the time in order to promote a cause or a candidate?

What if most of the media moguls had formed a news cartel? What would we learn about candidates (or issues) then except just the side of an issue (or a candidate) that the news moguls wanted to present to us?

I want an unbiased source of news to show me graphs and charts and side-by-side comparisons of whatever issue is under discussion. I liked it when I saw how a ‘knock-off’ AK-47 was compared with another AK-47 to show what the difference was between the “banned” guns and those allowed. The weapons looked the same except that the one with a bayonet stud and flash suppressor was one of the banned ones.

Of course if that ad were available to the general public we would all know how worthless our Congressmen really are. We would also know that, effectively, there was no difference between the ‘banned weapons’ and the rest of them.

Oh, BTW, when did it become “known” that the second amendment was about hunting? I understood, after reading the Federalist Papers, that the reason for the Second Amendment was the “final vote” of the people to insure that we were the government!

No comments: