Thursday, June 01, 2006

Ravings of an Elephant #3

As I pondered today about my views on Canada, I realized that I haven’t posted anything in some time. Rather then let the belief circulate that I had dogmatized even further to my conservative leanings, I thought I should give an update post haste.

While driving today, I perused the AM stations for an interesting listen, and came across the Sean Hannity show. I am normally a fan of his, so I stopped to listen, and became especially excited when I found that they were about to have a discussion with Oliver North about the recent allegations concerning a possible civilian massacre by Marines in Iraq. The other guest was a spokes man for a human rights group and former Pentagon information specialist, whose name eludes me.

Mr. North and Hannity were of the opinion that since we don’t have all the facts yet, the media should not discuss the incident, as it would just give the terrorists more anger and incentive, and divide the people (while possible tainting our view of Marines who may very well be innocent, and are so until proven guilty). Of course, the conversation was more in dept, and their reasons more fleshed out, but time prevents me from going into further detail.

I consider myself conservative. If asked, I believe the other members of the society (that know me) would agree. But, to this comment by a conservative icon I could not give my support.

Certainly, journalistic restraint should be used in order to provide a moral, moderate, objective coverage of information. But, it is or societies ability to look our problems in the eye that gives us strength. The result of this openness will either

A) Show the world that our solders are doing what’s right, and that we have such faith in them that we will allow their actions to be examined. Or:

B) Show that we are willing to speak out before mistakes become atrocities.

As a people and nation, we should be seekers of truth. If we don’t discuss things, then the truth can be all too easily substituted for that which is easier to watch, happier to put into history books. While I personally do not feel that the Marines did anything wrong, we have a duty to talk about it for the sake of those who died. If we don’t who will? We also have a duty to talk about it for the Marines sake, if they are innocent; we owe it to them who fight for us to show the world that they are honorable.

Attention merits attention. Our attention to it brings the attention of those who can determine what happened. Then can the truth be known and healing begun.


Anonymous said...

Poor grammar and incorrect spelling is often the sign of a feeble vocabulary, capricious commentary, and a political outlook that is retarded by one’s own ignorant association with the party responsible for the imminent defeat of the Constitution.
Vote Ralph Nader!!!!!

Lauren Bingham said...

Grammar aside, I agree that we should use our disgression in waiting for details before forming opinion. However, I think Hannity is borrowing (not adopting) that same belief because it's convenient for him. He doesn't want to believe that the troops that he so fervently supports, the troops that embody everything valiant in America, the troops that have become our real life superheroes are capable of mortal atrocities. Especially because this would mean one more disaster in Iraq that makes the general public wonder, "Was this all really worth it?"

As far as Hannity is concerned, waiting for the facts is totally irrelevant. He is rarely hesitant, if not eager, to smear fact-free rumors of Al Gore, Senator Clinton, etc. all over his show. It's convenient, it proves his point and most importantly it boost ratings.

I have been proud of the way the "left-wing media" has handled the situation, erring on the side of the troops, sympithizing with what they must be dealing with. But, above how this affects history, or the Marines who went through this, we MUST discuss this to prevent it from happening to more Marines and to more Iraqi people.

Blake Roberts said...

I apologize for my poor skills in grammer and spelling. I freely admit that my ability to spell has been damaged by spell checker. The same may be said of my grammer. However, as the english language is an ever changing thing, I don't feel that it is a viable litmus test for the value of the point being made. An issue should be judged by what it is, not how it is presented, otherwise no one would believe the Book of Mormon (which is filed with far worse grammer then you will ever find in what I write, yet remains the most correct book).

You state that my views are "retarded by one’s own ignorant association with the party responsible for the imminent defeat of the Constitution". What party is that? Do you meant the party whose blog I am contributing to, or the party I am registered with? Do tell.

Frankly sir, you are a coward. You hide behind the cloak of being anonymous, fire insults at both my intellect and charecter, and for what? I do not mind being corrected when I am wrong, if my spelling is incorrect, or grammer improper, then fine. But, to say that my opinion is somehow less, and my thinking clouded, becuase of poor typing skills and an ambiguous referance to my party (of which I have no idea what you are talking about, Democrat or Republican) shows how devoid your own political ideals are of true and honest insight. If all you can do is tear down the other ideas, that convinces no one that your own are any better.

If you ever want to be treated as an adult, it helps if you act like one.

Thanks for the comment!

Binkyboy said...

Wow, using a religious text as a poor justification for laziness and slovenliness. If I were your professor, I would have flunked you in any subject you are currently taking. That kind of pathetic excuse is typical of a Conservative, and the further whining about an "anonymous" poster is just as lazy and pathetic.

What also disgusts me is your idea of a "conservative icon". A man that illegally sold arms and conspired to cover it up is an icon? Don't you think you can do better?

Also, do you believe in the right of the government to choose for the press what to publish? Do you think that the government should be a check but not a balance on the press at any time, fake war or no fake war?

Blake Roberts said...

Mr. binkyboy,

I am in no way trying to use a religous text as an excuse for my poor spelling and grammer. I do use it as an example of how presentation isn't a reliable judge of content. I count myself lucky that you are not my professor (I don't like to be flunked).

As for who the conservative icon is, I meant Sean Hannity. I also intended it to be taken from a democrat perspective, as he is fairly well known (not basing anything on his personal or professional merits). I apologize for not being more clear.

I do not understand your question about the governemtn being a check but not a balance on the press, if you would please help me understand it better, I would be happy to answer.

As for my belief of what right the government has to regulate the press, that is a hard to answer question. I do believe the governemntt should regulate media in cases of vulgarity. I do believe in regulation to protect individuals (or groups) from slander, and from threats of illegal offensive violence. Beyond that I admit to not having all the answers.

As for the war, regardless of one's stance on it, it is anything but fake. Too many are dead or wounded to cheapen it by calling it such.

What I don't understand, is why you seem to have a grudge against me. You seem to be angry about my english writing skills, if that is correct you should seek anger managment help. Further, you call me "lazy" and "pathetic". I don't know why you feel that the best argument in this situation is a personal insult, I trust though that you felt it was your best option.

Tell me sir, you write a blog about being a democrat in Idaho. While I admit to not being a democrat, I do not feel that I have written any posts on this blog that in anyway runs against the democratic party's ideals. I have asked repeatedly that the true democrats inform me if they felt that my posts were out of line, or usurping of thier blog. They have not done so as of yet. So, I do not understand why you are so hostile towards me. Is it becuase I consider myself a conservative (not a neo-conservative mind you)? Do you find my spelling that offensive? Do you want me to be liberal or consrvative in my writing (not that I will do it, but just so I understand where you are coming from)?

Feel free to write back, I welcome any constructive critisism (but not insults).

Binkyboy said...

Laziness because you so quickly dove for the easiest exit: a religious text. It is hubris and it is disgusting. Your entire post was made useless because you couldn't use a spell checker, and when it was pointed out to you, you made an excuse. I have no respect for those that choose the easiest path.

Second, as a conservative you have helped usher in one of the darkest ages that the US has encountered. From the mistakes of Katrina to the mistake of an illegal invasion, you are getting what you voted for. Conservatives are unabashed about defending their choice, they are unapologetic about creating a genocidal civil war in a country they couldn't have even found on a map.

As for regulating the press through government, don't you believe in the freedom of choice to create the limitations on the press? Don't like cuss words, whatever they may be at that moment of history, then don't tune into that channel, encourage others to not tune into it. Block it from your own private home, whatever. Any regulation on the press is against the Constitution and anyone that claims that it is their moral duty to protect others from the press might as well be labelled as fascists.

The people are the check of the press, not the government. That is what was intended, but not happening. Threats from Conservatives to members of the press, releasing the identities of their family members, their domiciles along with poorly concealed threats, that is what is making up the Conservative blogosphere, and not only neo-cons are doing it.

As well, your comments and posts are so dripping with condescension that I don't believe you deserve the respect that a debate would bring.

Blake Roberts said...

Mr. binkyboy,

You have made a couple of errors in your generalization of me. First, I did not vote for the current administration, so your second paragraph doesn't apply to me (although I find your opinion about the Iraq war being genocidal to be absurd). I do not consider the current administration to be conservative. So, don't bother trying to bash them around me.

Second, I make no excuse for my poor spelling (nor have I ever). If you are really so elitist as to think that poor spelling makes someones opinion "useless", then I wonder why you took so much time to repsond. If my post was useless, why bother responding?

You said that government has no place regualting the press, and that enforcing moral standards is fascist. I make no apology for my opinion on the matter. I do not think it should be legal to have nudity on a billboard. I do not believe the "F" word should be allowed to be heard on public airwaves. I do believe that if a newspaper is inciting it's readers to commit violence agaisnt a group or individual, the government has a right to restrict or otherwise punish them (as the law permits). Call me what you will, I stand by it.

As for "Threats from Conservatives to members of the press, releasing the identities of their family members", who reports that? The press does. So, I am not sure how that could be a threat; if it were the press would just not report it, and it would be over.

That's fine if you don't think I deserve the respect of a debate. If you respond, then it shows otherwise. In the meanwhile, I hope that one day you can judge people for who they are, not by the stereotypes that you have built so much anger around.