newprotest.org: INDEPENDENCE DAY

INDEPENDENCE DAY

June 30, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
In a few days, Americans across the nation will begin setting off simulated bombs and rockets in a thumb-your-nose-at-the-world celebration, all the while saluting a crimson-streaked flag that's supposed to represent freedom.

Oh, the Orwellian absurdity. We're celebrating our independence while we are occupying Iraq.

It's interesting, really. Historically speaking, the independence of America came at the hands of freedom fighters who raised guns against what they felt was oppressive political economic policies. People were apparently rallied into believing that political and economic freedom was worth the price of their own lives, and the lives of the men against whom they fought. Such a mindset must have come easily for a group that felt they had nothing to lose...

I wonder if today's America would have looked at the original 13 colonies and called them terrorists. They were, after all, rogue nations.
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for INDEPENDENCE DAY


Mark Glesne said:
Occupying? Every Iraqi I've spoken with disagrees with you.
June 30, 2006


Kristen said:
Sadly it was five years ago. I was doing the math in my head yesterday. (Between my sophomore and junior year of college, methinks.) Has it been that long since we had an earnest conversation? Sad!

Well, I still don't like war and have a hard time finding anything noble in the Revolutionary War, though as I said before, the founding fathers did have some good ideas. That said, I am pleased to be living in such a wonderful country, warts and all. I think (I hope) it is alright for me to "celebrate" based on the gratefulness for my country while not condoning its every behavior.

I'm curious though, what part you agreed with me on?

June 30, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
Mark - are you asserting that the Iraqis with whom you have spoken represent the majority of the sentiment among the Iraqi population? I could make the same statement to the contrary, asserting that every Iraqi individual that my military friends encountered have demonstrated their disdain for the American presence, and have stated that they would prefer to have Saddam back in favor of the American soldiers. That seems to be the prevailing sentiment *today,* as opposed to during the initial fall of Saddam, when the people were quite happy to see the dictator removed.

In any event, "every Iraqi I've spoken with" could equal two. Or five. Or a dozen. I don't think that you're providing any sort of statistical evidence to support your position.

June 30, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
Kristen - yeah, it's been that long. Crazy, huh? We used to have great talks all the time. You and your husband should swing by some time and have dinner with me and my wife. :)

As for the part with which I agree... I think you presented your lack of appreciation for nationalism. The idea that patriotism is somehow tied to nationalism today makes me sick. Patriotism is pride for what America is supposed to represent, which is rather timeless. It's good. Nationalism is pride in anything America happens to be doing, regardless of whether or not the rights of individuals are being squashed in the name of "security."

June 30, 2006


Kristen said:
Ah. Cool.
June 30, 2006


Luke said:
C'mon J, Mark has a point. Don't get all hoity toity on him. He'd in Iraq and has considerable first-hand knowledge of what's actually going on, as opposed to what the media reports. I would listen to his comments more than statistics. Stats are biased just like opinions. It doesn't take much to skew a stat in your opinion's favor. By and large military soldiers come back with boatloads of experience that trumps anything some idiot reporter in a hotel room has to say.
June 30, 2006


Mark Glesne said:
Thanks Luke! You'll be happy to know I have returned safely from the combat zone. Had a hell of a time helping, training, living with, and fighting along side the Iraqis.

Cynic, as long as you keep seeing this war through the eyes the media has given you, I doubt there is much room for your opinion to mature.

June 30, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
First of all, you're introducing fallacy into the argument. My point wasn't that my information was the final word; it was that "every Iraqi I've spoken with" isn't the final word either. If a soldier were to come back and report that the Iraqi's are sick of us being there, folks on republican side of the aisle would stomp all over the report, saying that his statements weren't credible, and that his statements hardly represent the whole, and blah blah blah, just like I said about Mark's report. You can't play both sides of the argument. If a single soldier comes in and says that the Iraqis feel like the US has occupied their land, what then? The whole statement about "boatloads of experience" means nothing, because neither soldier's account has any validity.

And that's what I was saying.

And who's getting hoity toity by calling reporters "idiots?"


June 30, 2006


Luke said:
I was referring to reporters who do their 'investigation' from the hotel. I've listened to many soldiers who have stated that reporters pick certain locales to focus on but neglect all the areas where the good is happening. Most of which report live from Iraq in a hotel room, not from ground zero where the action actually happens. The day the Iraqis got the opportunity to vote it wasn't even frontpage news for most mainstream media outlets. That's a huge development but they consistently turn away stories that don't give negative impressions of the war. A recent story I listened to stated that on ABC over 70% of the stories that had to do with the Iraq war were negative, while only 8% had any positive twist. That's way beyond typical "news according to viewing audience" expectations.

Those are idiot reporters, and they're in a majority. That's my opinion.

July 01, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
I think I should open up a new post on journalism, since that's where the posts seem to be going.

In any event, reporters *should* always be liberal. And by liberal, I mean it in its truest sense of the word -- they should call out leadership on bullshit as much as possible, regardless of party affiliation. Like I said before - a liberal is simply one who values individual rights and stands up against authoritative abuse, whether goverment, corporate, or religious. And that's what a reporter should do... otherwise they're not really reporters; they're public-relations agents working for the large organization. FOX news is a great example of a republican public relations unit:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

So... you're always going to get spin, and you're always going to get it on both sides, whether in reporting or in PR.

As a side note, different issues push reporters to different sides; a reporter might be liberal on one issue and conservative on another. Big business (conservative/republican friendly) is ALWAYS going to be favorably viewed by large media outlets, because of the built-in conflict of interest. If Nike is sponsoring my news outlet, I'm not going to write negative reports regarding Nike, because I'd lose funding, and that's just not good business. All major news outlets are tied up that way, so you're always going to get a conservative spin on *those* kinds of stories. Or you're going to get silence. And people who are strongly opposed to large corporate abuses are going to accurately accuse the media of having a conservative/republican bias.

So... it goes both ways. But a blanket statement saying that the media is liberal or the media is conservative is a simplistic way of looking at things. It's generally broken down by the type of issue being covered, with the exception of some of the more extremely political media outlets, like FOX news and like ABC.

July 02, 2006


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 265714 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (23.20.53.150) will be logged.