It's both, Panda. Out of respect for the families and to reign in the sensationalized agenda driven liberal media, which dominate the airwaves. If a Liberal PM did the same, I’d support it -- 100%. War is hell. If you’ve been reading the papers lately, it's obvious many editorial writers can’t handle it.
And lest you forget, "the media" and "the public" are not synonymous.
And lest you forget, "the media" and "the public" are not synonymous.
Christian said:
but in iraq, those motherfuckers never deserved even 1 young american to give up his or her life for them, let alone 2,000+.
Two perspectives to this - first, this war and policy is probably the major reason there have been NO terrorist attacks on the US since 911 - any possible supporting governments know that they'd be quickly hit with a military action and they aren't willing to support any acts that could turn on them -= witrhoput support and infrastructure, the terorists can't easily commit any terrorist acts
Also, there are those of us who support the war - and that support comes from the troops serving over there as well as a percentage of the civil population - remember that the soldiers know what's really happening while you get your news from CNN and the NY times - not exactly subjective outlets. Many of the soldiers that served in Vietnam were conscripts who didn't want to be there - all of these soldiers are volunteers.
it's despicable that anyone would try to downplay the human cost of war.
It's also despicable that anyone would twist the facts to make each death seem like a senseless tragedy, rather than a soldier voluntarily placing himself in harms way for the good of the nation. Again, there are a few camps who are pro or con about the war - that some people would twist each death so the soldier is seen as a victim rather than a hero is truely despicable.
Panda, you have heard me repeat this theme over and over: the politicization of war is wrong and dangerous. Were it up to me, I'd remove national security from the democratic process all together: i.e. a committee with no vested interests, with the proper set of checks and balances, exclusively for the purpose of assessing and acting on threats. (I'd also rip up the constitution, severely curtailing government power in general, but that's another topic.) In the US, with a system like this in place, 3000+ souls wouldn't have perished on 9/11.
Anyway, the media in this country wants it both ways. They practice self-censorship over the cartoons ('multicultural'/'tolerant' agenda) yet are up in arms over not being able to broadcast the very emotional images of our young soldier's coffins being loaded onto an airplane (anti-war agenda).
I don't see what purpose it serves to sensationalize the fact war is hell, people die (sometimes innocent), buildings get knocked down (sometimes innocent), other than to increase the shrieking of "cut'n run."
Write a letter.
Anyway, the media in this country wants it both ways. They practice self-censorship over the cartoons ('multicultural'/'tolerant' agenda) yet are up in arms over not being able to broadcast the very emotional images of our young soldier's coffins being loaded onto an airplane (anti-war agenda).
I don't see what purpose it serves to sensationalize the fact war is hell, people die (sometimes innocent), buildings get knocked down (sometimes innocent), other than to increase the shrieking of "cut'n run."
Write a letter.
While I think the choice to self-censor over the cartoons was the wrong choice, there is a difference between self-censorship and government-imposed censorship. The media are effectively being told what they can and cannot report (photos of fallen soldiers' coffins does not undermine security strategy - further, newsreaders are free to read and interpret as they please) and you favour this because of bias as you perceive it.
You are, effectively, afraid of dissenting views in the media because it may affect the views of the public. That you would remove national security from the democratic process explains why you see nothing wrong with censoring war-related facts in the media. It also explains a LOT about the origins of your views, especially how you reconcile democracy with your Machiavellian views of war and the state.
You are, effectively, afraid of dissenting views in the media because it may affect the views of the public. That you would remove national security from the democratic process explains why you see nothing wrong with censoring war-related facts in the media. It also explains a LOT about the origins of your views, especially how you reconcile democracy with your Machiavellian views of war and the state.
Adding:
I have sent money to the Western Standard in support of their fight against that "hate speech" lawsuit they're facing. While I despise the Western Standard, I believe the right of the media to print whatever they want is more important than my wish to not encourage Conservatives. I suspect that if the media covered wars with the same degree of concupiscence that you experience, would you then consider the media a useful wing of the pro-war movement? And, further, why not right now forbid the media from talking about the war at all?
I have sent money to the Western Standard in support of their fight against that "hate speech" lawsuit they're facing. While I despise the Western Standard, I believe the right of the media to print whatever they want is more important than my wish to not encourage Conservatives. I suspect that if the media covered wars with the same degree of concupiscence that you experience, would you then consider the media a useful wing of the pro-war movement? And, further, why not right now forbid the media from talking about the war at all?
It's not exactly an original idea, Panda.
Removing national security from the democratic process makes perfect sense, from both sides -- i.e. defense contractors on one side, bare-breasted peace activists on the other. Take note: our police system (assessing and acting on domestic threats) for example, does not operate within a democratic system. Yes, our laws evolve and are debated within the democratic system, however once in play, the police are given strict rules of engagement to follow. So there isn't a media circus every time the cops are confronted with a threat (storm compound A or compound B). Dissenting views? How bout uninformed views. You, nor I, without being privy to classified info, have the ability to objectively assess threats. And even if it were available within the public domain, the best people able to make an informed judgment call are the professionals, which is exactly what happens within our local law enforcement -- at every level. If the police need to raid property or seize property, an independent judge signs off on the paperwork and they act. It’s totally, non-political.
If you thought about it, you'd see this is a much better system, giving our politicians LESS power, ensuring LESS corruption, rather than the opposite.
Removing national security from the democratic process makes perfect sense, from both sides -- i.e. defense contractors on one side, bare-breasted peace activists on the other. Take note: our police system (assessing and acting on domestic threats) for example, does not operate within a democratic system. Yes, our laws evolve and are debated within the democratic system, however once in play, the police are given strict rules of engagement to follow. So there isn't a media circus every time the cops are confronted with a threat (storm compound A or compound B). Dissenting views? How bout uninformed views. You, nor I, without being privy to classified info, have the ability to objectively assess threats. And even if it were available within the public domain, the best people able to make an informed judgment call are the professionals, which is exactly what happens within our local law enforcement -- at every level. If the police need to raid property or seize property, an independent judge signs off on the paperwork and they act. It’s totally, non-political.
If you thought about it, you'd see this is a much better system, giving our politicians LESS power, ensuring LESS corruption, rather than the opposite.
Joe Contrarian said:
I'm aware. Plenty of historical and present-day examples of authoritarian national security apparatus.
But the media is not barred from taking photographs of the coffins of fallen police officers.
When the military makes strategic decisions akin to obtaining a search warrant - or what have you - there is no referendum among the public. What you are saying, I think, is that you would remove politicians from war-related decisions, and instead, what, appoint security leaders who are not accountable to the public?
Do you not feel that We, The People, have the right to participate in the decisions of whether or not we should go to war, vis a vis our elected politicians? Or is this a case of the masses not having enough information to make a determination? And if so, then isn't barring the media from anything war-related effectively worsening the information deficit?
Father Asks for Flags to Fly at Half-Mast
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The father of one of the four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan last weekend wrote the Prime Minister two weeks ago.
Lincoln Dinning asked that all federal flags be flown at half-mast in the event of future combat deaths.
Dinning's son, Corporal Matt Dinning, died in a roadside explosion.
Opposition Leader Bill Graham says not lowering the flags shows disrespect for Canada's soldiers.
The Canadian Flag continues to fly atop the Peace Tower
The Conservatives say the move is a return to an 80-year-old military flag protocol.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The father of one of the four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan last weekend wrote the Prime Minister two weeks ago.
Lincoln Dinning asked that all federal flags be flown at half-mast in the event of future combat deaths.
Dinning's son, Corporal Matt Dinning, died in a roadside explosion.
Opposition Leader Bill Graham says not lowering the flags shows disrespect for Canada's soldiers.
The Canadian Flag continues to fly atop the Peace Tower
The Conservatives say the move is a return to an 80-year-old military flag protocol.
And O'Connor, who ordered the banning of media, claiming he is doing it out of respect for the families, concedes he never spoke to any of them.
To approve withholding this kind of information from the public is decidedly un-democratic. Certainly there's nothing libertarian about it. Considering how much Joe rants on about democracy being the 'most noble form of government' and that 'democracies don't war with one another' his disconnect in this case is downright authoritarian. His problem with the media showing images of domestic fallen soldiers is that it automatically inflames emotion among the citizenry, and diminishes war support. Bias has little to do with it. Just showing these images is bias in itself.
How about this, Joe? Try garnering support for the war using truthful public relations tactics. Muzzling the media is creating intentional disinformation.
How is democracy supposed to prevent war, Joe, if you would have We, The People purposefully uninformed and unconsulted?
To approve withholding this kind of information from the public is decidedly un-democratic. Certainly there's nothing libertarian about it. Considering how much Joe rants on about democracy being the 'most noble form of government' and that 'democracies don't war with one another' his disconnect in this case is downright authoritarian. His problem with the media showing images of domestic fallen soldiers is that it automatically inflames emotion among the citizenry, and diminishes war support. Bias has little to do with it. Just showing these images is bias in itself.
How about this, Joe? Try garnering support for the war using truthful public relations tactics. Muzzling the media is creating intentional disinformation.
How is democracy supposed to prevent war, Joe, if you would have We, The People purposefully uninformed and unconsulted?
My original reference to the structure of our own domestic law enforcement, rather than malignant dictatorships.xpanda said:
Fallen police officers are not politicized. Thus the reason I support censorship in this case, as under the current system, unfortunately, wars most definitely are. Remove national security from the democratic process altogether, and censorship is no longer necessary -- unless of course the families request their privacy.
No more, or less, than our current Police Chief -- right down the chain of command. Yes.
No. Frankly, I read too many irrational, stupid, opinions participating in these debates. (Editorials, letters to the editor, etc.) Worse, I have long observed, much of the “conventional wisdom” impacts the decision making of our leaders -- at our own peril. Thus, I'm willing to take my own voice off the table, (entrusting the judgment to professionals, under a set of strict objective protocols/rules of engagement) if it means eliminating those voices that give me the shivers. That’s the trade off. Aren’t many people up in arms over the so-called 'politicization' of intelligence in invading <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Iraq</st1lace></st1:country-region>? One would think my suggestion would solve their greatest concern. Moreover, isn't it quite probable a lack of popular support, for whatever reason(s), can hamstring a leader from taking action on a possible threat? (I could give you a few examples.) The answer is an unequivocal, yes. A threat, is a threat, is a threat. It does not bend to one set of political or philosophical beliefs. And it has no barring on what Joe Public thinks, or how popular or unpopular the Captain of our democratic ship. The current system has become a circus. Leaks here, he said/he said, there. Every statement, every move, every position, every suggestion, is 100% political from both sides, resulting in objectivity having completely gone out the window. How can any of this be a good thing? The only way I can think to remove this toxic element, is by depoliticizing national security and the assessment of threats.
This too. You wouldn't want a plumber soliciting medical advice. You wouldn't want a teacher telling our local police officers how to best apprehend criminals. So why are these international threats, politicized? Furthermore, after all the dust settles, does the current democratic process yield the most efficient and effective result when it comes to our national security? Hell, no!
Barring the media? I wouldn't bar the media -- no more than they are currently at the local law enforcement level. Though it's obvious, without the political element, the media wouldn't give a shit about foreign policy -- which frankly, is the worst possible indictment of our current media. It also reveals how broken the current system truly has become.
Depoliticizing national security would deal a huge blow to ‘statists’ advocates, as the net effect severely decentralizes and dilutes power. National security shouldn’t rest on the shoulders of a good Queen or bad a King. It should be systematic, objective, and efficient. Unfortunately, such reform will not take place, until disaster strikes, resulting in a massive loss of life and property.
As a final note, if I had my way, not only would many govt. depts. be eliminated altogether, the remaining sectors would become detached, sectioned off into various compartments, politically independent from another. They would still be democratic, although I maintain, the more decentralized the power structure, the less political it would need to be.
Over the years, thanks in large part to fascist do-gooders (that wiener McGuinty, for example) I've developed a serious disdain for government. Just look at all the damage this idiot has unleashed prodding around in our lives. Man, I HATE that guy!
Joe Contrarian said:
Right, because no matter where public opinion lies, you don't have to listen to it.
This is true of all levels and departments of government. As a copywriter, I know shit about how to run a hospital, yet health care is an element of my voting decision. Incidentally, so is policing when voting on a municipal and provincial level.
You want your government to have the power to war, without having to worry about bleeding hearts upset over dead Canadians. You aren't offended that war is politicised (you have supported your fair share of war politics yourself) but that, for the average citizen, war is a tough sell. Why bother with all that bothersome 'splaining and stuff, eh?
Truly Machiavellian. Have you read his stuff, Joe? I really think you would like him.
It's also despicable that anyone would twist the facts to make each death seem like a senseless tragedy, rather than a soldier voluntarily placing himself in harms way for the good of the nation. Again, there are a few camps who are pro or con about the war - that some people would twist each death so the soldier is seen as a victim rather than a hero is truely despicable
it is a senseless tragedy that has not done one bit of good. at this point like vietnam. why don't you go join up for the cause.
it is a senseless tragedy that has not done one bit of good. at this point like vietnam. why don't you go join up for the cause.
No, you've mischaracterized my statement. You should the read the famous book, the Art of War by Sun Zu, and you'll understand why, explaining that war is a necessary evil to the Code Pink members of our society is a serious pain-in-the-ass, putting us all in danger.
Anyway, Harper is my kinda leader. Libertarian at heart, with unwavering principle and focus when it comes to our national interests. I would have done the same.
Anyway, Harper is my kinda leader. Libertarian at heart, with unwavering principle and focus when it comes to our national interests. I would have done the same.
Yes, and look where that got us? We have a socialized medicine program crumbling into pieces! Why? The people want it!
And yet, that's nothing.
In the global war against Islamofascism, our enemy can not militarily defeat us on the battlefield. It knows this. We know this. Our Achilles heel in the current war against islamofascism is the fact our enemy isn't democratic, while we are. Not only can they wear us out by waiting us out (in effect, allowing us to beat ourselves) they can, and do, use our democratic system against us. When that happens, our leaders need to mitigate these effects anyway they can. The roadside bomb that killed those four soldiers wasn't designed to defeat Canada tactically on the battlefield. It was for the sole purpose of creating the uproar that it already here back home. The enemy is patient. he has said so on manhy occasions. The enemy knows, the more it can accentuate the horrors of war, the nature of our democratic system will simply cause us to cut'n run. This should give you some idea of the nature of our enemy, and how ruthless and despicable he truly is.
A democratic leader can only give so many speeches, pep talks, etc. Eventually, the people will have had enough. Pray to God that never happens, because if it does, the voices who facilitated it will wake up in horror, when the enemy has moved the battlefield into their own communities and lives. And if terror becomes a part of our everyday lives, such as it was during the 90s, climaxing on 911, we'll have lost this war (along with our freedoms) -- forever.
I don't want that to happen. Harper doesn't want it to happen. Bush is doing everything in his power for it not to happen. I just wish the bleeding hearts we read in our newspapers, and watch on our TVs, would get a fucking clue.
Joe Contrarian....
I have to tell you how much I agree with you on how dangerous it is to have an under-informed public making national security decisions for the U.S. In a democratic society such as ours, we elect LEADERS who's job it is to provide leadership, not blow with every political breeze that comes along and support whatever the mob wants on a given day. I always laugh at these worthless polls (usually done by the media so they can have a story) on what the public feels we should do on matters of national security. If they polled these same people and asked them to name the Vice-President of the U.S. or our Secretaries of State and Defense, far less than 50% would answer correctly. There is a difference between democracy and mobocracy. The mob isn't privy to all the neccessary information, as you pointed out, and the vast majority wouldn't know what to do with it if they got it.
I have to tell you how much I agree with you on how dangerous it is to have an under-informed public making national security decisions for the U.S. In a democratic society such as ours, we elect LEADERS who's job it is to provide leadership, not blow with every political breeze that comes along and support whatever the mob wants on a given day. I always laugh at these worthless polls (usually done by the media so they can have a story) on what the public feels we should do on matters of national security. If they polled these same people and asked them to name the Vice-President of the U.S. or our Secretaries of State and Defense, far less than 50% would answer correctly. There is a difference between democracy and mobocracy. The mob isn't privy to all the neccessary information, as you pointed out, and the vast majority wouldn't know what to do with it if they got it.
