H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 53,949
Number of posts: 53,949
- 2016 (33)
- 2015 (143)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
In the past week, I’ve put up a couple of O.P.s, that focused on the potential for our federal government to totally disconnect with the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, the citizens of the United States should recognize and reject the tendency of individuals in the government to bend, or go against, the Constitution. We should not allow that document to become a parched piece of ancient history, hidden in the vault of some museum.
Today on both CNN and MSNBC, I’ve watched -- and listened to -- reports that included Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s highly offensive position on black university students. It was as if Scalia took offense to Donald Trump’s setting the bar low, as far as being the worst horse’s ass in America today, and Scalia sought to reclaim that title. However, it is worse than that: this provides evidence of exactly how a majority of the 1% view this nation’s people. Rather than “competition,” this is the coordinated agenda of the worst enemies of America.
In 2004, former Nixon White House theorist Kevin Phillips published, “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush” (Penguin). On pages 107-108, Phillips addressed some of the connections between Scalia and the Bush family. This included a quote from the 5-justice majority decision on December 11, 2000, that put Bush-Cheney in office: “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for President of the United States ….”
Scalia takes pride in believing he is the Master of Original Intent. In a sick sort of way, he is: in large part, the original Constitution provided for a republic, to benefit the “enlightened few” -- with that club being restricted to wealthy, educated white men. It wasn’t until the early 1800s, that the nation became a constitutional democracy -- with some structures of a republic firmly in place. A person need study no more than about how common citizens began to vote for Senators, to get a historical grasp of the tensions between groups of wealthy, educated white men. Or, simply consider the Bill of Rights.
Individuals, organizations, states, and even the US government attempted to deny various groups of citizens their constitutional rights, ever since that powerful Bill of Rights was enacted. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled against groups and individual citizens, far too often. On the other hand, the Court has been consistent in upholding the rights of wealthy, educated, “straight” white men over the centuries. In recent times, they’ve even upheld the “rights” of corporations.
Scalia provides a unique window into which we can see the cold, less-than-human heart of the 1%. Few quotes grant us access to their actual beliefs than the following, from Kevin Phillips’ book:
“Part of Scalia’s objection to democracy, amplified a year later, was that it got in the way of a return to an eighteenth-century interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Speaking at the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, he opined that as written, the Constitution reflected natural or divinely inspired law that the state was an instrument of God. ‘That consensus has been upset,’ he said, ‘by the emergence of democracy.’ He added that ‘the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible’.”
It would be easy to think that Scalia merely represents the extreme right-wing of one political party; yet, his position is supposed to be nonpartisan. Rather, he is one of the most powerful people in American society, where he believes his noble obligation is to channel the divinity of the 1%. And that, as the most recent comments on affirmative action confirm, includes a “resolution to combat ….as effectively as possible” efforts by the 99% to be active, equal members of society.
No one argues that “affirmative action” in 2015 is a flawless approach to righting historic wrongs. Yet, no one has proposed a more effective and fair approach, Of all the problems facing public education, affirmative action is hardly among the most pressing. When more young black men are being caught up in the criminal justice system, than being enrolled in college, it should be clear that affirmative action still has a significant role in today’s social reality.
Just as with the “Founding Fathers” -- a relatively small group, which contained diverse thinking -- there is a wide range in the thinking among the “leaders” in our federal government today. And, in many ways, these are important. There are, for example, significant differences between Bernard Sanders and Rafael Edward Cruz, even though both of them are members of the same small, elite political organization. It would be foolish to hold that “they are all the same.”
Yet, at the same time, both Sanders and Cruz are part of the same system, the US Senate -- just as both are running to be president, the highest position within the larger system of the federal government. And, despite the very real differences in character between Sanders and Cruz, that system is primarily geared towards increasing the advantages -- economically, socially, and politically -- of the 1%. And a significant tactic for doing so is to divide the public into smaller groups that compete with one another.
Back in 1970, Vine Deloria, Jr., published “We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf (Dell). Deloria predicted that the 1% would attempt to create a modern version of feudalism -- with rule by a corporate elite -- by dividing the public, and pitting groups against each other. He knew that so long as these groups mistakenly saw other groups as their competition, and thus enemy, that the future of America would be a feudal state.
However, if those same groups learned some basic lessons in organization -- the same one that many of the Founding Fathers learned from the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy -- and recognized that the 1% were their competition (and their common enemy), that would promote a higher level of democracy, and social justice. And 45 years later, that remains true. Indeed, it is even more important that we recognize this reality today, than in 1970.
Posted by H2O Man | Sat Dec 12, 2015, 09:58 AM (10 replies)
“There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves. -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance. Tyranny may always enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.”
-- Walt Whitman
In 1973, former Kennedy White House historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published one of the most important books of the past century: “The Imperial Presidency.” It was at the time that many people believed this nation was at the beginning of a constitutional crisis, involving President Nixon, both Houses of Congress, and the US Supreme court. Schlesinger provided readers with the frequent attempts by the executive branch of the federal government to grab additional powers, with claims of “national security” during times of war.
A significant part of this book focuses on impeachment. This, of course, was Schlesinger’s advocating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. The above Whitman quote, which Schlesinger used to close the book, is an accurate indicator of his views regarding the struggle with Nixon. When some of the Congressional Committees that studied presidential abuses of power made their reports (partially) public in the post-Nixon 1970s, thinking people were able to combine that information with Schlesinger’s book, and recognize the very real threats posed to our constitutional democracy.
In the years that followed Nixon’s resigning in utter disgrace, there have been two US Presidents who should have been impeached: Reagan, for Iran-Contra; and Bush, for the purposeful lies that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. Obviously, the impeachment of President Clinton was politically-motivated nonsense. When there is a high-profile, showcased nonsense, it suggests other things are quietly being accomplished.
For a brief but accurate description of the events that were “hidden” from public view -- or, at least what happened while the public was watching and debating President Clinton’s trial -- one should read Thomas F. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein’s, “The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America” (Oxford; 2006). The authors document how a group of politicians, led by Newt Gingrich, purposely “broke” the legislative branch of the federal government. It would be difficult to claim, with a straight face, that Congress has been repaired, or healed, in the time since the book was published.
The US Supreme Court, while on occasion returning surprising decisions, has proven to be a reliable advocate for corporations and for executive powers relating to “national security.” In 2001, Vincent Bugliosi published his classic, “The Betrayal of America,” which documented the US Supreme Court’s theft of the 2000 presidential election. As the author notes, their decision was not based upon the Constitution, or constitutional law. Instead, it was an authoritarian clamp-down on democracy. Their decision, Bugliosi proves beyond any doubt, was 100% rooted in four of the (in)Justices’ political and economic (re: corporate) interests.
Fast-forward to 2015. Early in the republican primary contest, it becomes evident that their party was experiencing a grass roots’ discontent with career politicians. This includes a rejection of the republican machine’s preferred candidate, Jeb Bush. But it goes much deeper than that: for a period of time, the three most popular candidate -- Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina -- are political outsiders …..at least to the extent that none of the three had ever held elected office.
Two of the three would implode, when the republican voters came to recognize them as unfit for office. Carly Fiorina was exposed as a liar, something forgivable; however, when she refused to admit that her horror story about abortion was false, her numbers did a nosedive. Carson proved to be beyond a lying creep; his delusional “religious” belief system offended even his republican audience.
The third candidate, Donald Trump, has been on a campaign of lies, insults, racism, narcissism, nativism, sexism, and hatred. Despite previous predictions from most political journalists, being exposed as an ass-clown has not damaged Trump’s campaign, in any meaningful way. Often, it’s just the opposite: the republican grass roots rewards his most vulgar behaviors.
In the past few days, while discussing Trump’s most recent proposal to refuse to allow people of the Islamic faith entry -- or re-entry -- into the United States, a growing number of people have recognized that Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional. It surely is serving to make the rest of the civilized world question what the United States has become. It definitely puts Americans abroad at higher risk, including the military. Some have pointed out that Trump may be violating the law in making such statements.
What is less apparent, in my opinion, is that regardless of the undeniable fact that Donald Trump has abandoned any respect for the Constitution, if he were to be elected President, those Constitutional restraints upon Executive power do not guarantee that his behavior would be harnessed by the House, Senate, and/or US Supreme Court. If it were as simple as a president going mad in office, those restraints might be enough to protect our society. The US survived the very real challenges that Nixon presented. But those of us old enough to remember know that it was a struggle.
The dynamics in our country have changed significantly since then. No serious person could argue that Congress or the Supreme Court are as functional today as they were when Schlesinger wrote that book. It would be realistic to think that the Constitution plays a significant, much less healthy, role in America today.
It seems safe to say that not only are the Americans who support Donald Trump the most angry, potentially violent, pro-authoritarianism of the population -- but internationally, the only people who want Trump to be elected are of the ilk of ISIS. Thus, it seems increasingly likely that individuals and groups within the pro-Trump movement will look for -- if not initiate -- the types of incidents that will increase the levels of the toxins of rage, paranoia, and violence in a way that they believe will increase Trump’s chances for victory.
This, of course, would be the environment needed for Trump -- or even a Ted Cruz -- to do further, severe damage to this country. This is not to suggest that this is definitely going to happen, or even the single most likely outcome of the 2016 presidential election. I’m not recommending that we begin a mental measuring for curtains in the FEMA camps. And I haven’t seen any black helicopters around my house ….or any drones, though I guess they aren’t highly visible.
But history teaches us that nations can be vulnerable, under certain circumstances. The Whitman quote provides a valuable insight into part of those circumstances. Indeed, it would require that Good People believe themselves to be helpless to stop the machine, and hopeless about the future. It would require another portion of the population to hold the same feelings of hopelessness, but to look to a “leader” to “save” them. And a bunch of spineless cowards, compromised by their own unethical behaviors, to over-populate the House and Senate, plus an authoritarian majority on the Supreme Court.
Look around you today …..watch the news, listen to the radio, read the internet …..and think about the current environment in America today. What do you see?
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Dec 9, 2015, 09:04 PM (47 replies)
Today I saw a post on Face Book that made me happy. A teacher from a local state university made some powerful points about the dangers posed by Donald Trump and his followers. Most of the comments in response were positive, but not surprisingly, a couple attempted to excuse Trump’s followers.
I’ve known this fellow since he was a teenager. He taught at the school my daughters attended, giving me the opportunity to get to know him as an adult. It’s funny: while I was a school board member, I played a role in moving his career forward, when he went from our school, to the university.
He was friends with my nephews as a high school student. So he was among those outraged when one of my nephews was seriously injured when a racist hate gang savagely assaulted him. I was honored to learn that, as a social studies teacher, he taught about that ugly chapter of local history -- including my role.
That hate crime would be a major influence on this young man’s thinking. And now, as Donald Trump spews his hatred, and tens of thousands of Americans are uniting with that campaign of rage. He understands the danger that this poses.
One of the Trumpite apologists stated that, even if Trump is elected, the Constitution would prevent him from accomplishing his proposed goals. In doing so, he was either purposely or accidentally missing the point. Burying one’s head in the sand is not a good strategy. I was pleased to see others confront him on his errors in thinking.
Posted by H2O Man | Tue Dec 8, 2015, 09:09 PM (4 replies)
In the past week, I have been focused on the issue of how the media engages in perception management. If one were to believe the news -- specifically from yesterday afternoon until this morning -- it would seem that the United States is losing the war with ISIS, because of the weakness of President Obama. Last night on MSNBC, even Chris Matthews acted as if President Obama had somehow let the nation down, by not announcing that a million troops were being sent to Iraq, and martial law declared in the United States.
Perhaps the only sane voice heard on MSNBC and CNN has been that of Malcolm Nance. I noted that another forum member had an OP about Mr. Nance two days ago; shortly before it “sank,” another forum member questioned who Nance is? It is difficult to imagine how the public could have informed opinions on American policy on ISIS, without an awareness of Malcolm Nance and his beliefs on the topic.
If the media’s intention was to inform the public -- to provide rational, factual information that appealed to the public’s intellectual potential -- Mr. Nance would be provided with a bit longer than 40 seconds to speak. But instead, the general public is far more familiar with what Donald Trump says about President Obama betraying the nation, than Mr. Nance’s saying that President Obama is approaching the issue in the best way possible.
The result is that much of the public believes that sending ground troops to Iraq and/or Syria would lessen the chances of domestic “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. A growing number of republicans actually are convinced that Donald Trump could make the United States “safer” than has President Obama. And even those Democrats who are unfamiliar with Malcolm Nance know who Donald Trump is. Thus, even they tend to discuss ISIS et al in the context of the definitions provided by the media and Donald Trump.
I’m not in full agreement with President Obama. I do not favor an emphasis on military action to “defeat” ISIS. By definition, this is not a “problem” that the military can solve by killing “bad guys.” But I believe his approach is sane, while the republican-media approach is insane. It is troubling to see the nation being swayed by the drum-beats for war.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:06 AM (18 replies)
President Obama will address the nation tonight at 8 pm/est. This rare Oval Office address will focus on the threat of terrorism, and the US policy towards ISIS. I find myself thinking that it is a shame this President did not make more use of this uniquely powerful setting to speak to the nation during his years in office. President Obama is, in my opinion, at the same level as was President John F. Kennedy, in terms of his ability to communicate with the public -- with the pair being the most gifted in my lifetime.
I do think that the issues involving ISIS are important. I fear that the next president will likely get our country involved in yet another phase of the never-ending “war on terrorism.” And I do not deny that the brutal action that stained our society last week could easily become more common. Indeed, if a republican is elected, that will be the reality of life in the United States.
Yet, if one takes an objective look -- one that requires ignoring the rants on television news -- a woman in our country is at far greater risk of being murdered by a right-wing, white, christian terrorist in or near a Planned Parenthood, than being killed by ISIS. A young black man has a greater chance of being murdered by a police officer on the streets of America, than of being killed by ISIS. While I wish that President Obama could speak openly and honestly about the reality of terrorism in the United States, I understand that there is near zero chance that he will.
This is a strange and dangerous time in our nation’s history. While I do not agree with everything that is said on DU about current events and politics on this forum, I do enjoy reading the variety of opinions expressed here. I look forward to discussing people’s impressions of President Obama’s address tonight.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:14 PM (10 replies)
“Do you know we are ruled by TV?”
-- James Morrison; An American Prayer
Yesterday, I posted one of the long, dry essays that I enjoy writing, but that I did not anticipate would become a DU:GD best-seller. It was on the sociology of terrorism. Perhaps the final two paragraphs best summed up the message: in them I suggested that the media presents the “news” in a manner that is intended to limit the manner the audience interprets it.
I suggested that, for example, the fields of psychology and sociology provide different options for understanding current events, and that we benefit from applying some of these. The mere fact that so many corporations, and their congressional lap dogs, attack “science” when it comes to issues involving climate change, would seem to imply that science offers insights that those in power do not want you or I exposed to.
On CNN’s “Smerconish” on Saturday, it was reported that in the 1990’s -- in the period that Newt Gingrich & Co. were purposely breaking Congress -- the federal government cut all funding of studies on the psychology of gun violence. Thus, every so often, the media does contribute some information that should be important to national discussions. I’m not suggesting the media is all bad, or involved in a conspiracy, but rather that it is largely a product of corporations, and that corporate interests are not exactly the same as the general public’s.
This includes not only what news is reported, and what is ignored -- it also includes the media’s analysis of the news. Today’s television “news” has far more analysis being offered than back in the days when there were simply three networks, offering a half-hour per evening. It involves the influence that politicians often exercise in determining what will be reported, and how it will be presented. It is what decisions that the owners of a given media determine will translate into the largest financial gains.
Thus, my questions: Why do you think that Congress cut federal funding for studies of the psychology of gun violence? How might this impact the manner in which the media reports on the gun violence being covered in the news in recent weeks?
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:52 AM (2 replies)
Daniel Jacobs scored an impressive first-round TKO victory over Peter “Kid Chocolate” Quillin last night. The bout, which was Jacobs’ third defense of his WBA middleweight title, featured two of the top four fighters in the division (the others being Golovkin and Canelo Alvarez). As both Jacobs and Quillin -- the only US fighters in the middleweight top ten -- are from Brooklyn, it was also for “neighborhood bragging rights.”
Quillin, who entered the ring undefeated, and who had previously held the WBO title, was considered the bigger puncher of the two. Although Jacob’s record had more KO victories, he was viewed as the better boxer. Thus, what took place last night was “proof” that anything can happen when two good fighters enter the ring.
Older, long-time residents of DU’s sports forum will recall that I have thought very highly of Daniel Jacobs since his amateur days. I had the opportunity to become acquainted with him back when he was an amateur, and have maintained a casual friendship with him since then. I was happy to see him win in such explosive fashion last night, and anticipate that he will help to unify the title in 2016.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:41 AM (0 replies)
The other day, on an OP/discussion of current events, I used the phrase “sociology of terrorism.” I was fully confident that dozens of friends here would respond, if only to address their interests in, or concerns about, that phrase. Or, at very least, that one or two of my beast fiends, who had graduated from a university pre-2000, would throw down, saying that the field of sociology had shown remarkable little interest in “terrorism.” That would have at least allowed me to respond, “Oh, true, up until President George W. Bush failed to protect this nation on 9/11. But since then, it has really opened up. Might I suggest that you learn what you’re talking about, before you attempt to engage me in a debate?”
But it didn’t happen. Oh, well. Life is at times harsh.
Historians and psychologists have long studied individual cases of violence; these conflicts include such things as fights, duels, and domestic violence. Likewise, historians and sociologists have long studied group violence; these conflicts include riots, battles, feuds, and warfare. More, psychologists have studied the personality structures of individuals who engage in “terrorism,” as have police, intelligence, and military strategists. But, to a surprisingly large degree, sociologists had ignored the dynamics of terrorism upon a society, until after 9/11.
Part of this may have resulted from the lack of an agreed-upon definition of the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism.” We see this general confusion fairly often in recent times, especially when the news media reports upon a white, christian male in the United States, who engages in an act or acts of gross violence against a specific group of people. Even without a university degree in sociology, most rational people understand that the fellow who recently went on a rampage at a Planned Parenthood office was indeed a terrorist -- despite the media’s attempts to deflect from that reality, by focusing upon possible mental illness.
In order to combat a threat -- such as terrorism -- a population must know what it is, and what it is not. Again, rational people can grasp that the Ku Klux Klan, dressed in white, hooded uniforms, was a terrorist organization. Yet they tend to have great difficulty in understanding that another organization, dressed in blue uniforms, often acts as a terrorist outfit, when entering a non-white residential area. But terrorism is a tactic, and quite often the tactic that is deemed “illegal” for one group to employ, is declared lawful when another group engages in it.
If one subscribes to the delusional definitions of Fox News, “terrorists” are currently limited to: (1) those people of the Middle East who oppose US policy; and (2) immigrants from Mexico. This type of error in perception helps to highlight another common cause of confusion that even intelligent people -- who never watch Fox News -- have frequently experienced. One man’s terrorist is often another man’s freedom fighter. A good example of an individual case would be that of Nelson Mandela -- and the young Mandela, who would be incarcerated, rather than the gentle, grandfatherly figure he would become. A couple of examples of groups would be the militia of the Thirteen Colonies back in 1776, and the Irish Republican Army in the early 1900s.
We also see attempts by the media to divide “terrorists” into two distinct sub-groups: domestic and international. While these descriptions do have some value -- when used properly -- too often the public is at risk of failure to see the connections, both direct and indirect, between our nation and the rest of the world. To put them into a correct context, it is important to consider the findings of various, post-9/11 studies. To consider: what the terrorist(s) hope to achieve; how the community of victims views the terrorist(s); and community responses
“Terrorism” is the systematic use of power, intimidation, and violence to achieve a goal. In our current cultural setting, terrorism has traditionally been associated with “politics”; in the past two decades, it has become increasingly “religious”; and in reality, there has almost always been political, religious, and economic dynamics associated with terrorism.
In a political context, the “terrorists” may be a group attempting to gain, or maintain, political power. The group could be a marginalized minority, or even the party in power. Religious terrorism is often closely related to political and economic terrorism, and is definitely as brutal and inhumane. It, too, seeks the power to murderer human beings, and intimidate the surviving community. And this includes attempting to have access to, and control of, local resources.
Their opposition seeks to neutralize and then defeat the terrorists. In doing so, they must also attempt to grab more power. This frequently involves resorting to violent reactions to the terrorists.
This still leaves the majority of the population, what we might refer to as the general public. In times of violent confrontations between the two other groups, the behavior of the general public is to seek safety. While such attempts can take numerous routes, what appears to be a very common feature is to accept symbols of security, over taking serious steps to confront the violence, and increase public safety. There are, of course, various theories regarding why symbols of security become so highly valued. Yet, in terms of “outcome,” the reality is that in the United States today, citizens frequently behave as a herd of animals.
Symbols represent a short-cut to fully thinking, and understanding, a concept. Constitutional rights are reduced to good in theory, but far too risky to exercise. A candidate’s flag pin can be confused for patriotism. Symbolic speech -- including “dog whistles” -- appeals to the group fears and anxieties.
Thus, we see that within a given society, “terrorism” has very different functions for various sub-groups. The sum total of these comprise what is known as its structural functionalism. Older forum members likely recognize this as being closely related to the theories of Emile Durkheim, regarding the impact of breaking of cultural rules. It takes on a more significant implication in today’s society, in the context of Durkheim’s famous “disorganized dust of individuals.”
A second theory that assists in understanding the “war on terrorism” -- and the radical Islamic war on the West -- is known as “Conflict Theory.” No matter if we are thinking of the most recent terrorist attack, or last week’s events at Planned Parenthood, certain core dynamics apply. There are numerous individuals and groups who feel justified in using gross violence, including the targeting of people who are not involved in the specific “cause” in any way. Again, we see the confusing of symbols (including symbolic actions) as more significant than actual human life. Indeed, even the tactic takes on more importance than anything and everything else.
By no coincidence, the third general theory on “terrorism” is known as “Symbolic Interactionism.” This involves the assumption that the general public will understand the message as the person or persons intend it. For a glaring example of the dangers of such shallow, concrete thinking, one might consider the Bush administration’s belief that “we will be viewed as liberators” when the US invaded Iraq. That assumption, that everyone everywhere defined their lives and goals in the exclusive world-view of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, proved inaccurate, to say the least.
This raises a closely-related conflict: the republic right demands that President Obama use the term “radical Islamic terrorist.” Words, of course, are symbols, and frequently useful in human communications. The last US president, George W. Bush, had a habit of using provocative language. When he was confronted by republicans who told Bush his comments were appreciated in much of the world, W responded that the people from his hometown understood what he was saying. Thank goodness, at very least, that this president isn’t the mere shell of a man that Bush is.
Being able to watch and/or read “the news” is to be able to interpret it in a systematic way. In my opinion, far too many citizens are prone to interpreting the news in the structures created by that media. That is more than a failure to exercise rights and responsibilities associated with being an informed citizen -- it is dangerous.
I think that during our discussions of current events, it’s good for the DU community to take time to view these events in ways. Fields like psychology and sociology tend to present better ways to interpret the news, than does the media. While most of my writings are long, boring, and dry, I hope this OP provides some food for thought.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:34 PM (4 replies)
Quite a few community members here are old enough to remember films from the Vietnam War on the evening news. It became a part of American culture: middle class families watching the war while they shared supper. It helped people to really understand the horrors of the war that young men were being sent to fight. And, regardless of if one supported or opposed the war, the media coverage was important.
This evening, as is becoming disturbingly common, I sat down to my evening meal, and watched the coverage of today’s explosive gun violence. As I type these words, a talking head on television is saying this incident was not “terrorism.” This eliminates any confidence one might have in this expert’s opinion -- unless one suspects this was merely a family picnic that went wrong at its end.
In the mid- to late 1960s and early ‘70s, the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War helped to spark a conversation on American policy. This included, of course, discussions about the specific weapons being used. But the larger discussion took a more nationalistic versus holistic view of that war, and to both Vietnam and the United States.
In most, though not all, of the incidents -- ranging from police and the public, to attacks such as the recent one at a Planned Parenthood -- involve a specific type of weapons. Since DU:GD does not allow debates about “gun control,” I sincerely request that anyone who responds to this OP avoid that specific topic. Trust that others recognize it as a valid topic for other settings; more, that most people interested in such discussions, already has some firm beliefs already.
What would be interesting to discuss is the level of violence in the United States. While statistics indicate that the rates of violent crime have been dropping, certain types of violent outbursts appear to becoming all too common. School shootings did not seem as frequent, back in the days of the Vietnam War playing out on the evening news.
Certainly, one major difference is the combination of all-day news channels, along with the internet. It’s not just that one can find information about the current outbreak of violence, but it actually seems harder to shut that information out. The major news sources have on-site reporting, and often shallow analysis of the violence. There is also meaningful information available, though one usually needs to look hard to find it.
The internet offers everything from serious analysis of violence both domestically and globally, to some absolute nonsense. One of the best things about DU, in my opinion, is the ability of insightful and informed people to have those serious, interesting conversations on issues such as this.
This is on my mind today, for a few reasons. Obviously, the evening news is covering today’s incident. Another is that I spent much of today, hanging out with my cousin. You may recall that an off-duty cop shot my cousin and his son in October of 2014. My cousin, seriously wounded, held his son in his arms, as the young man bled to death.
Today was particularly had for my cousin. It wasn’t that today’s date was significant. It was just that the utter horror of losing his son this way was really hitting him today. (The shit-head’s trial is supposed to start next month.)
Violence of this type takes a huge toll on a family, a community, and a society. There are many, many causes of violence …..indeed, the United States has had, overall, a fairly violent history. I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on this topic.
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Dec 2, 2015, 07:16 PM (24 replies)
Top-Secret external documents from the Rick Santorum presidential campaign indicate the former Pennsylvania Senator is preparing to engage in a last-ditch effort to cement his “last place” status. An uninformed source has assured WaterManNews.com that the republican candidate “has expressed great concern” that other republican candidates “are sounding more insanely out of touch with reality” than he is. The source hinted than Santorum may file a baseless writ with the US Supreme Court, demanding recognition as “the most delusional of all” candidates in the republican primary.
In preparation for the court case, Santorum advocated that medical providers at Planned Parenthood offices should be packing iron (Hard Ball; MSNBC; 12-1-15). Had Donald Trump made the same claim, there would be a tidal wave in media attention, and a rise in Trump’s poll numbers. The Santorum campaign claims this is evidence of a vast, left-wing media conspiracy to deny their candidate the contempt he has worked so hard to earn.
“Senator Santorum has been saying things that should result in ‘late-night’ comics having a field day,” an unnamed campaign aide noted. “For example, my husband has recently claimed that the terrorist attacks in Paris are 100% President Obama’s fault. Ricky has said, in a single speech, that when elected president, he will increase the bombing of ISIS; that President Obama is not bombing ISIS enough; that President Obama literally does not want to defeat ISIS, and thus hesitates to bomb them; and then, that bombing ISIS is the wrong tactic, and that as president, he would not pursue a bombing campaign. This was in front of a huge audience of almost a dozen people, yet the media ignores it.”
The campaign declined to confirm or deny rumors that they are seeking to hire the late Arthur Clokey to serve as Santorum’s top media advisor. Rumors continue to swirl that Santorum is preparing to offer Jeb Bush the vice presidential spot on a third-party ticket in 2016. “Ricky has always self-identified as the ‘Gumby’ of American politics,” said Mrs. Santorum. “Jeb Bush is the most obvious ‘Pokey.’ The two of them are discussing the option of creating the Gumby-Pokey Party, to appeal to all Americans who would prefer to live in a past that never existed. The campaign’s theme song will be ’The Hokey-Pokey,’ which holds the promise of turning this nation around.”
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Dec 2, 2015, 09:14 AM (0 replies)