Being Spoon Fed by the Media?
Friday, June 09, 2006 | Original Musings by
Jen
originally posted on myspace.com on June 9, 2006
Ok, this is two blogs in one, though related.
The first part is disappointment that a story I feel is VERY important to the current war and the future of our military that is not being discussed. Secondly, is it not being discussed because of political power & the American public being spoon fed by those in control?
Or is this story simply not as important as I think it is?
The story I'm referring to is that the Pentagon has decided to take the Geneva Detainee rules from the military field manuals, because in a post-9/11 world, things must be done differently (so they say). Here is a partial quote and a link to the article:
Click Here to read whole story
I heard this on a short blurb on a local station, but have no seen it discussed AT ALL on CNN, or FOX, or on talk radio (that I have listened to). Shouldn't this be debated more fiercely than the gay marriage amendment? I mean, we established that convention after ww2 and the atrocities that were experienced then. (here is a little background on the Geneva Convention if interested : Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It's interesting)
This story has much bigger ramifications than the current war. How can the US decide it no longer has to play by international rules? We then become the outlaws and see ourselves above the law.
Interestingly, the government is able to convince Americans that this is in our best interest. How do they do that? Through use of political power and the media.
There are two main sources of political power (in my opinion). 1: mass opinion. 2: money.
Money can buy soldiers. Opinion can buy unity. Opinion, not money, should be the first and main tool at all times!
Today the media is controlled by the tempters, who gain money by means of what the mass likes to hear most. There is no simpler a goal, then the control of the media. One message can be copied and sent to millions of men, while millions of soldiers would be needed to oppress millions of men. Using the military to control the people is what the stupid leader does, as it is both costly and inefficient. Mobilization of opinion is hard to start, and hard to stop; it picks up momentum. An idea can become a religion, and religion people will die for and blindly defend.
The media of today is reminiscent to me of "newspeak" and "doublespeak" from Orwell's book 1984. In todays media those methods are being used with Americans. Here are a few examples:
1) When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror.
2) When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating.
3) When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. But, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.
Fifty-two years ago, Orwell wrote an essay titled "Politics and the English Language." Today, his words remain as relevant as ever: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."
Labels:
1984,
government,
liberties,
news,
patriot act,
politics,
state of fear,
terrorism,
war
|
0
comments
Waiting in Line....
You know, we wait in line a lot. There comes a time though where it is a necessary evil.... the post office, the DMV, waiting at the only coffee shop in the convention center, last minute Christmas shopping, etc. One thing I have noticed though is how much you can bond with those people for those 20-90 minutes of your life. Whenever there is "that person" up front, we all look at each other, suppress a laugh or giggle, and roll our eyes at their expense. We keep each other company and make the wait (almost) bearable. What I realized though is "that person" can take on many forms....
How about the asshole? The guy who thinks his time is so much more valuable than the rest of us? He talks too loud, complains too much, and is rude to the person at the desk. He usually walks off muttering, "can you believe this place????". My favorite is when they complain LOUDLY on their cell phone about the wait, yeah, that's helping morale.
Then you have the BO guy. Yeah, the guy who obviously hasn't showered in awhile and is oblivious to his own stench.
I realize my daughter is an angel and would never do this, but there is always a crying baby as well. There are two types people who stare at the crying baby, the "awe, honey, what's wrong with her?" group and the "OMG, give the kid some nyquil.". I know this because I came within 1/2 sec of telling a lady on a plane once that I had nyquil in my bag if she needed it for her kid. (I'm somewhat embaraased by that moment now, despite being 8 years ago).
Then is my favorite, and most annoying... the couple that insists on making out. Not just a little love peck here and there, but manages to go beyond the, "shouldn't you guys get a motel" comment.
So, considering that the average American spends two to three years of his or her life waiting in line, there is a lot to be annoyed about in line.
Thank goodness for the Ipod and my love of people-watching.
WWGRD?
WWGRD: What Would Gay Republicans Do?
It seems that many in the republican congress are hell-bent on legislatively taking away the peoples humanity. This week starts the 3 day debate on the proposed constitutional amendment to make marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman.
It would be better if the Republican Party treats homosexuals as respectable citizens instead of pariahs. This is writing discrimination into the constitution and taking away states rights.
As far as I know this would mark the first time a constitutional amendment has been used to discriminate against a segment of the American population. We didn't even have amendments banning inter-racial marriage (though it still illegal, though not enforced, in some states). Amendments most often have been used to spread the benefits of liberty to a larger segment of the population. A couple of examples are the admendments to abolish slavery and allowing women to vote. At the time, those were controversial issues in the same and divisive manner that gay marriage is today.
Even VP Dick Cheney said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone." I wonder why Mary Cheney is not speaking out during the time?
Luckily, it has zero chance of passing by the required 67-vote majority. In 2004, the amendment garnered only 48 Senate votes. It is estimated that this year, only about 52 votes will vote in support.
Personally, I'm undecided about this issue for several reasons, but I am 100% against any kind of constitutional amendment. In fact, if anything, I'm for allowing gay marriage, simply because I do not like laws that restrict peoples rights. In short, lets follow the lead of Massachusetts and leave it up to the states.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Post-Tri Hug
You did it Mommy!
Me!
Hood To Coast Relay 2007
