A Further War Entry

[bursar42]

I think I have to stop putting off posting in here and actually say something. I've been advised, however, that I'm making absolutely no sense today, so please kindly don't rip my head off.

First off, as a good little student, I must comment on the war. However, unlike others who actually have something worthwhile to say about the war itself, I shall continue to discuss little side-topics. Most popular of these side-topics is the news coverage of the war. I'm not going to complain that the news media is biased. Of course it is, and it has good reason to be. If they weren't pro-administration, they would go on the official shit-list Ari Fleisher (Sorry about the poor choice of link. It was the best I could do.) keeps so he can tell which journalists to selectively deprive of lifeblood. Or advance notice of briefings. Whichever he feels like. Further, the majority of the viewers are in favor of war. They don't want to be bombarded with anti-war messages any more than left-wing types want to have to wade through the Fox News Channel or The New York Post. Really, not many people are interested in being exposed to other viewpoints (today or any day) except for the people who really matter, who don't enjoy it but know that they have to if they want to be able to give the other side what for.

This brings us to the macabre spectacle so many Americans partake of practically hourly nowadays. I refer, of course, to "All War, All the Time" and so on. Unlike most, I don't fault the media for doing such things. It's a question of what is more important. Is it more important that we threw a war or that "U.S. And Russian Officials Reach Accord on Poultry Technical Trade Issues" (Today's top story on the USDA website)? I suggest that, in the over-all scheme of things, the former is far more important and should be treated as such by the media. Further, there is the simple fact that not everyone can watch their TVs at the same time. It makes sense, therefore, for at least one channel to be talking about the war at any given moment. Instead, I fault the public. Let's face it, nothing horrible is going to happen to you if you take a break from your daily Work-Eat-Catch up on War-Sleep cycle. You might be a few hours behind the most sleep-deprived insomniac out there, but it doesn't really matter. You're still performing your duty to remain an informed citizen, and you're still a few thousand miles away from the stray bullets. The only possible justification for continuous monitoring of news is if you are living in Baghdad. That way, you can know when to stay extra far away from the windows.

The next thing to deal with, I suppose, is ideologues. Particularly Mr. 99. Mr. 99 has the amazing ability to complain vociferously that certain persons (Well, really only me) are Un-American (his term, not mine) because they fail to agree with the President. He later amended this to say un-patriotic, which he defined as "Un-American" while still maintaining they were, in fact, not the same thing. Further hilarity was provided when he suggested I might enjoy living in a Soviet-style dictatorship because I seem to hate my freedoms so much. I had been discussing my views on the purposes of this war. I may or may not have mentioned the inherent evils of the USA PATRIOT Act (For those of you clicking the link, I advise you to pay especially close attention to the vagueness of Title VIII.) (PATRIOT 2 (Warning: 12MB file) promises to be even more interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.) I have yet to exactly figure out how exercising one's right, very timidly even, to express concern about government policy, indicates a desire to live under a Stalinist regime. I can't imagine how he might react if he actually met someone actively anti-war.

This brings me to the sort of debate found on TV news shows/magazines. Even the late, great Newshour has succumbed somewhat to the style of "debate" seen on Crossfire, etc. (Confession time: I was one of Hannity and Colmes's first viewers when it went on TV. Mr. Hannity is the cousin of my former best friend.) The rest of this paragraph would just be annoying, so instead, I'll leave it as an AOL! to quantumland's entry of April 3, 2003.

On somewhat sillier notes:

• I was verbally abused for referring to "Mr. Hussein." This after I consulted with the ever-authoritative NY Times Style-Guide and the J.H.S. newspaper adviser. He's not a convicted felon; he gets a title of respect.
• No one else seems to find it incongruous that every single ambassador accredited to the United States is an "ambassador extraordinary". Somehow, that strikes me as a bit odd.

I seem to be getting in the habit of ending these things with a list, don't I?

Comments

[roseandsigil.livejournal.com]

That was rather refreshing, Chipmunk. Do post more often. And I would assume that Ambassador Exraordinary is simply the title they get. Plenipotentary too, which is kind of cool.

[bursar42.livejournal.com]

Supposedly, it refers to authorization to negotiate treaties without consultation back home. Of course, with modern communications, you can be sure an ambassador is expected to clear his bathroom breaks with the foreign ministry of his home state.