Military deaths in Iraq exceed 9/11 tollLet's put this into perspective, shall we?
AP - 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
NEW YORK - In a span of a few hours, 2,973 people were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In a span of 45 months, the number of American troops killed in Iraq exceeded that grim toll as the war continues.
[...]
Let's say the media reported on California stats with the same gusto they reported stats for Iraq:
Day 1 Headlines: 15 MURDERS OVER THE WEEKENDAnd don't give me that liberal bullshit about Bush and his illegal war. The war ain't illegal, Bush wasn't coerced, and the troops aren't over there against their will.
Day 2 Headlines: 360 ASSAULTS YESTERDAY IN CALIFORNIA; 6 MORE MURDERS
Day 3 Headlines: OVER 16,000 VIOLENT ASSAULTS AND ROBBERIES IN NOVEMBER; NO END IN SIGHT
Day 4 Headlines: RAPES REPORTED IN CALIFORNIA FOR OCTOBER UPDATED TO OVER 800
Day 5 Headlines: ANOTHER $600 MILLION SPENT LAST MONTH TO HOUSE CALIFORNIA CRIMINALS
Day 6 Headlines: FOR 30th MONTH IN A ROW, OVER 330 CALIFORNIANS KILLED ON HIGHWAYS
Day 7 Special Report: CALIFORNIA HAS HIGHER INMATE POPULATION THAN GERMANY, FRANCE, THE NETHERLANDS, AND SINGAPORE COMBINED.
The media would have you believe that though.
Hat tip to Roger Schlong.
20 comments:
bnmpw to you too!
Sorry, it wants pnwmmks now.
Make that vepnrej <-- like the sound you'd make throwing up tofu.
Nope, musta got that one wrong. Let's try zbtyqpy.
I think that throwing in the California stats is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the real issue, which is that we are out there for no reason at all other than for people like the president and vice president and their friends to get rish. The point they were trying to make is that we were sold the idea of Iraq at a moment of vulnerability because of 9/11. And the fact that there is so much crime in the US also still points at the fact that Bush is not taking care of business at home and just out playing war outside of the US.
But that is just my take on it.
-N
Anon,
Aahh. The fun of verify.
Better luck next time.
Natalia,
I disagree. With several things.
Yes, the stats may be a red herring, but I'm talking about the media here. They are way too eager to to point fingers at Iraq and blame the Bush administration for any death over there. But the truth is that if it were as bad as the media made it out to be, the military wouldn't have exceeded enlistment and re-enlistment goals for the last couple years. And the never report on anything good that is happening over there. Only things that will make the sheeple of the U.S. and their allies want to get rid of the current administration.
But it ain't Bush who isn't taking care of things at home. It's local law enforcement. All the way from the courts who make too many plea bargain deals, to overly scrutinized cops who can't do their job, to sue-happy and greedy lawyers who have formed this overly litigious society, to pampering parents who hire overly litigious lawyers instead of taking responsibility for their or their children's own actions. And we'll just throw the ACLU in there too for thinking criminals and prisoners have more rights than average Joe citizens.
You can't possibly believe Bush is the ultimate power behind deciding who should be going to jail or who should be getting deported for fucking up locally. If you do, you've been played by liberals and the media yourself.
I think Bush is the leader of the country. And the worst the world has seen in the US so far. As the leader he has oversight over everything, including law enforcement. Maybe if he spent less time worried about how married gay people might destroy the morals of the country, he should worry about lack of employment options, lack of insurance, lack of education, low salaries, high prices. All of which, by the way. cntribut to the high crime.
I am not played by the media. I teach media studies at a university and write about media on journals. I am well aware of the framing theory, the gatekeeping theory, and so on an so forth.
However, the media has nothing to do with how bad a president Bush Jr. is and what a mess our country is in at the moment. And I just have my priorities straight.
-N
Natalia,
You must not have a very good memory of Carter and Clinton to say Bush is the worst. But nevertheless, no. The media has nothing to do with how good or bad anyone is. But riddle me this: Why is it that the slanted media only chooses to report negativity? Whether it be about Bush, the war, the mess the country is in or the people killed, the roads closed from the two-car fatality on highway _____?
The obvious answer is they need the shock factor to sell stories. But EVERY news broadcast I watch from local to national has all the morbid reality stuff first, with a quick feel good story at the end, half a step ahead of the rolling credits.
Likewise, they never report on how many people can now live without the fear of Saddam's rape squads, torture chambers, city-wide gassings, ...
Like I have said on numerous other posts and comments, Bush - or any president for that matter - isn't the sole person in charge of the country. And not every elected official in the country answers to him. They answer to us. We elect them. They may try to point a finger of blame at the administration but look at what happened in New Orleans. Bush and FEMA offered up services but the dumb-ass mayor turned them down. Yet the federal government ended up being blamed for the tragedy and the subsequent deaths.
No, it is only because of being aware of any president before Bush that I say he is the worst we've seen.
Of course he is not the sole person. However he has been elected...oops nevermind...he wasn't, was he?
The media has always been sensational. It is not the media's fault either. The media caters to the public. Having moved here from another country and having spent a good amount of time abroad, I am not surprised about the state of our media. You know how they say that a country has the government it deserves? Similarly countries seem to have the media they deserve. People in America are vastly stupid. And what they want is to be shocked and entertained. There is plenty of media out there with less sensational coverage. But Americans are too lazy to try to seek it.
Actually, I once worked for a news station in NYC. One of my initiatives was to have a Happy News segment. It didn't survive for longer than a month. People were not interested.
You will not be the first or the last to misdirect attention and blame to the media
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
-N
Mudge: thank you for saying what I say everyday. Support our President and our troops and we become a stronger country. The liberals want to disassemble this great country and I won't stand for it.
Scotts-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one too. This used to be a great country and the lack of dissent because now dissent is taken as lack of patriotism is what has done this country in.
I just hope for all our sakes that people soon realize that. I certainly teach my students that questioning is the only way to keep democracy alive.
Peace. And I mean that. :)
-N
Used to be a great country? We will definitely agree to disagree on that one.
But anyone who feels there is a better country to live in is free to leave at any time - unlike citizens of some other countries who can't leave, or don't have the opportunity to dissent. Or choose their government (Gee. They can do that now in Iraq, right?).
You know, a little time spent studying history would really help liberals understand.
Bush lied, people died? Nope. It's *way* more complicated than four word catch-phrase. You need to look back to the cold war and understand what was happening and who was doing what. Read up on the Iraq-Iran war and you'll see why we once supported Saddam. Read up on what Saddam did to his own people once the cold war was over and he no longer answered to the U.S. and you'll understand he's a soulless bastard who kills his own people if given the chance.
He used nerve gas to kill Kurds in his own country. How can anyone say he doesn't have WMDs and he's not a threat?
Is the war about oil? Indirectly yes, since oil is the major export of that entire region. More to the point we can get rid of an evil bastard and at the same time get a new friend on the middle-east. This helps stabilize the region and promotes commerce.
I have heard that whole...love it or leave it too many times. It's just another example of being too narrow-minded and quixotic to see that dissent is more American than dogmatism.
And Mark... it's not a liberal vs conservative thing. And I never said that getting rid of Saddam was a bad thing. Read thoroughly before you try to argue with me about points we agree on. You sound like my college students :)
And as I said to both, it's a question of agreeing to disagree. One always hopes one can have a civil discussion about these things but I find that increasingly hard in this country.
Sad. But I am done with this discussion. I have a dissertation to write.
Thanks for the thoughts to all.
-N
Mark,
It's easier to echo the bullshit spewed from other libs than to actually research or - Xenu forbid - study a bit of history with an open mind. Especially, when you're main focus is pleasing your superiors.
Natalia,
It's not a love it or leave it thing. It's a "If you would rather live somewhere you think is better, then what the fuck are you waiting for?" thing, sort of like when there were so many people fixing to pack up and leave the U.S. when Bush got elected, but instead stayed behind and bitched. It's a "pay attention to the facts that there are a ton of rights and freedoms in the U.S. that people are simply not afforded in other countries" thing. You have the right to dissent and bitch about Bush not because people bitched about the government, but because of those so-called 'patriots' who got off their ass and fought for freedoms people were perfectly willing to go without back when His Majesty was running things.
Anyway, the last 'civil discussion' I had with an educator proved to be as fruitless as this one. They finally threw their hands up in disgust because I was - unlike their students sucking up for a grade - unteachable as to the ways of liberalism. I was too narrow minded to see that their beliefs were the only logical and sensible way of seeing things.
So yes, I will consider the 'discussion' closed. I have real world work to do.
I agree with you and I'm sick of people who live in our great country and can only nay-say about everything. The media most definitely has an agenda. Remember Dan Rather? I read milblogs to find out what's going on. I know how much the media doesn't say about the good things the troops are doing.
The only thing I will say to that is that I am not throwing my hands in the air because you don't agree with me. I don't know what kind of educators you know but in my class, unlike in your blog, dissent is welcome and my students earn their grade supporting their viewpoints, not agreeing with me.
And as far as the "real world" jab, apart from being a college professor, I am a businesswoman who owns a quarter of a company and also earns money as a freelance writer. If you were trying to imply that my work as a scholar is not as important as your real world work, that's not gonna fly.
But I wish you the best in your endeavors. Cause I am not a curmudgeon. :)
-N
I'm gonna open it for my comment. :)
I hate to sound as if I was "attacking" anyone. I just feel that the liberals today are not the democrats of yesterday (much like Republicans) this country is being torn apart by narrowmindedness on BOTH sides of the fence. However, on the Republican side, we aren't whackjobs.
All one intelligent person need do is listen to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean or John Kerry for 2 seconds to know that their platform is NOT what is best for the American public. That taxing the rich to give to the poor will NOT work in this society and only furthers the poor's POORNESS. Keeping the poor DOWN while verbally rallying beside them is cruel and stoopid beyond my imagination.
Whew! That felt kinda good.
Again, I am not attacking Nat. I am voicing my opinion, because, I can!
Hmmm. "...unlike in your blog, dissent is welcome...".
I think I'll change my profile...
How freaking pompous and arrogant. She lost me in her second paragraph when this "open minded person" stated that Bush wasn't elected, even though every single outlet and agency that recounted and investigated the issue found no evidence of voter fraud. Only the kook-fringe still believe that his election was "stolen". But then again, she is a college prof. - I'm sure us "vastly stupid Americans" don't share her intellect and superiority.
pooke,
Exactly. Seems most college profs are that way.
Like the old saying goes:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach college.
And those who are assholes, post :)
I am sick and tired of the blue-blooded, snot and tear machine that has become of this elitist, intellegencia that really has no clue what it means to live in a free, democratic society without hiding behind some warped curtain of academia with tenure and pensions and no real world experience aside from the podium.
Get a job in the world, it might change your view.
It must be nice to be a college professor... shit all you have to do is espouse your opinions based on the shit you've been fed by your previous professors. Never have to hold a job. Nice.
Fluffernutters.
Dave rules.
-pooke-
Ah, shucks. ;)
That sounds like a job I could do! Stand there and spout.
Post a Comment