Salutus
28-08-2005, 22:23
You probably clicked the link figuring this was an America-bashing thread, so I’ll tell you right off that my intent in writing this was not to hate on America. I live in America and love the freedoms and opportunities available to me here. There is nowhere else I would rather live. That being said, as of late I have developed a bit of a disliking for both our media and several of the people running this country.
Let’s compare two articles on the same subject: oil. I recently read an article in previously-believable Time Magazine entitled “Why Gas Won’t Get Cheaper.” I highly encourage everyone to read it, because unless you are so conservative as to be certifiable, you’ll probably get a good laugh out of it. Go to http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1056298,00.html and subscribe to read the article. (If this doesn’t work, go to www.time.com, go to archive, and search the May 9, 2005 article by title). Basically, the article explains to the ignorant, gas-guzzling masses that gas is expensive because we have used up the ‘easy-access’ oil. In short, Time magazine - a major news syndicate - claims we’ve consumed most of the world’s pure crude and that there’s plenty of oil left, but this will be more expensive to drill and purify/refine. Here’s the beginning;
“You don't have to be a commodities trader to worry about West Texas crude. Most of us know the price of gasoline to the penny, and it's starting to really pinch. President Bush made the rising price of oil a focus of his prime-time news conference last week. But as Bush has acknowledged, lowering the price of oil isn't that easy. " You can't wave a magic wand," he said. Oil, unlike other products and services that are manufactured and sold, obeys the laws of geology, not just supply and demand. " You don't make more oil," says Sam Shelton, director of the Strategic Energy Initiative at Georgia Tech…”
How nice of them to clarify. I thought oil came from K-mart. Anyway, it goes on. Conveniently, the author seems to have completely forgotten how conflict leads to tension, and fails to acknowledge the impact the Middle East conflict might have on oil prices.
Now let’s take a look at a clipping from a Chicago newspaper, The Daily Herald. In a few sentences, this summarizes exactly what a Time writer spent several pages trying to avoid.
“The $3 mark: Gas sticker shock just keeps on coming” …Why does it cost so much? Among the reasons: Refining capacity is down, world tensions are high-epecially in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuala- and America’s huge demand for oil has been joined by China and India.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And even if you don’t think it’s true, at least it’s slightly more believable than the time article. I might add that the same magazine held another article about the Pope which featured a large caption reminding us that “God has the power to give life as well as take it.” I thought the media was supposed to be objective? This blatant, in-your-face born-again Christian fundamentalist propaganda isn’t objective by ANY stretch of the imagination. These articles just go to show that the Media people have their own agenda, all the while hiding behind ‘freedom of the press.’
This morning’s Herald also had an article I couldn’t resist clipping.
“Protesters on both sides descend on Crawford”
“Several thousand people descended on President Bush’s adopted hometown Saturday, most in a cross-country caravan for a pro-Bush rally and others to support and anti-war demonstration led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.
Bush supporters gathered for an event marking the culmination of the “You don’t speak for me, Cindy!” tour, which started last week in California. The crowd of about 1500 chanted, “Cindy, go home!” (let’s keep in mind that this woman’s 24-year-old son died in Iraq)
…At the pro-Bush rally several miles away, there were some heated moments when two members of Protest Warrior, a group that frequently holds counter protests to anti-war rallies, walked in with a sign that read “Say No to War – Unless a Democrat is President.” Many Bush supporters only saw the top of the sign and believed the men were war protesters, so they began shouting and chasing the pair out. One man tore up their signs. When Will Marean of Minneapolis kept repeating that he was on the Bush side and tried to explain Protest Warrior’s mission, one Bush supporter shook his hand and apologized. (good to see Bush has such high-caliber individuals on his side)
Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif. Started camping out off the road leading to Bush’s ranch on Aug. 6, soon after the president’s Texas vacation began. She vowed to remain unless he talked to her about the war with Iraq that claimed the life of her son Casey and more that 1870 other U.S. soldiers…
Bush has said he appreciates Sheehan’s right to protest and understands her anguish but will not change his schedule to meet with her.”
Did you know that the president’s unavoidably busy vacation schedule includes biking with Lance Armstrong? The article also features a timeless picture of Bush supporters that I will now describe to you. Front and center is a typical looking man wearing a patriotic T-shirt. To his left is another typical looking middle-aged man holding a sign that says, “Traitors not welcome in Texas.” To his right is an elderly man wearing (why not?) a cowboy hat and holding a sign displaying the debatable doctrine that “Bush is right, you are wrong.” I repeat: this woman’s son recently died in Iraq.
And what do you know, we’ve reached the issue of the Iraq war. Time and again, intense debates have brought us full circle to the question of, “Why did we go?” You might ask, (and would certainly be justified) “What business does a country whose top industries include eating and falsifying intelligence have in a country whose top industries include making weapons of mass destruction (not really)?” Here’s my theory, and take it how you will: oil. Think about it; tensions in the Middle East were high enough after Afghanistan, and oil prices got jacked up. Here’s some pros and cons of the argument;
Con: Well, this sucks, the Afghanis are mad at us, tensions are high, now OPEC’s increased oil prices. Gee, it would suck if this got to the point where we had to seize oil by force, but it’s always a possibility.
Pro: Hey, what if we had a ton of U.S. troops stationed near oil, if only just to make our presence felt? Better yet, let’s prop up a democracy in a part of the world we’d like to see a government more friendly to ours! And why not? We forced our way into Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Panama…
Con: How do we justify this? Nobody wants to hear their son died for oil.
Pro: Well…. Saddam’s an asshole… let’s just say we’re finishing what we didn’t in the first Gulf War by kicking him out. We’ll just falsify some of this intelligence and be on our way!
Well, NSers, what do you think? What’s the deal with the media? Why did the U.S. go to Iraq? I know there are holes in my argument, as with many arguments. I’m interested in hearing what others have to say, as long as it doesn’t degenerate into flaming and personal attacks. Yes, I respect your right to believe what you will, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, just as you don’t have to agree with me.
Let’s compare two articles on the same subject: oil. I recently read an article in previously-believable Time Magazine entitled “Why Gas Won’t Get Cheaper.” I highly encourage everyone to read it, because unless you are so conservative as to be certifiable, you’ll probably get a good laugh out of it. Go to http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1056298,00.html and subscribe to read the article. (If this doesn’t work, go to www.time.com, go to archive, and search the May 9, 2005 article by title). Basically, the article explains to the ignorant, gas-guzzling masses that gas is expensive because we have used up the ‘easy-access’ oil. In short, Time magazine - a major news syndicate - claims we’ve consumed most of the world’s pure crude and that there’s plenty of oil left, but this will be more expensive to drill and purify/refine. Here’s the beginning;
“You don't have to be a commodities trader to worry about West Texas crude. Most of us know the price of gasoline to the penny, and it's starting to really pinch. President Bush made the rising price of oil a focus of his prime-time news conference last week. But as Bush has acknowledged, lowering the price of oil isn't that easy. " You can't wave a magic wand," he said. Oil, unlike other products and services that are manufactured and sold, obeys the laws of geology, not just supply and demand. " You don't make more oil," says Sam Shelton, director of the Strategic Energy Initiative at Georgia Tech…”
How nice of them to clarify. I thought oil came from K-mart. Anyway, it goes on. Conveniently, the author seems to have completely forgotten how conflict leads to tension, and fails to acknowledge the impact the Middle East conflict might have on oil prices.
Now let’s take a look at a clipping from a Chicago newspaper, The Daily Herald. In a few sentences, this summarizes exactly what a Time writer spent several pages trying to avoid.
“The $3 mark: Gas sticker shock just keeps on coming” …Why does it cost so much? Among the reasons: Refining capacity is down, world tensions are high-epecially in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuala- and America’s huge demand for oil has been joined by China and India.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And even if you don’t think it’s true, at least it’s slightly more believable than the time article. I might add that the same magazine held another article about the Pope which featured a large caption reminding us that “God has the power to give life as well as take it.” I thought the media was supposed to be objective? This blatant, in-your-face born-again Christian fundamentalist propaganda isn’t objective by ANY stretch of the imagination. These articles just go to show that the Media people have their own agenda, all the while hiding behind ‘freedom of the press.’
This morning’s Herald also had an article I couldn’t resist clipping.
“Protesters on both sides descend on Crawford”
“Several thousand people descended on President Bush’s adopted hometown Saturday, most in a cross-country caravan for a pro-Bush rally and others to support and anti-war demonstration led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.
Bush supporters gathered for an event marking the culmination of the “You don’t speak for me, Cindy!” tour, which started last week in California. The crowd of about 1500 chanted, “Cindy, go home!” (let’s keep in mind that this woman’s 24-year-old son died in Iraq)
…At the pro-Bush rally several miles away, there were some heated moments when two members of Protest Warrior, a group that frequently holds counter protests to anti-war rallies, walked in with a sign that read “Say No to War – Unless a Democrat is President.” Many Bush supporters only saw the top of the sign and believed the men were war protesters, so they began shouting and chasing the pair out. One man tore up their signs. When Will Marean of Minneapolis kept repeating that he was on the Bush side and tried to explain Protest Warrior’s mission, one Bush supporter shook his hand and apologized. (good to see Bush has such high-caliber individuals on his side)
Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif. Started camping out off the road leading to Bush’s ranch on Aug. 6, soon after the president’s Texas vacation began. She vowed to remain unless he talked to her about the war with Iraq that claimed the life of her son Casey and more that 1870 other U.S. soldiers…
Bush has said he appreciates Sheehan’s right to protest and understands her anguish but will not change his schedule to meet with her.”
Did you know that the president’s unavoidably busy vacation schedule includes biking with Lance Armstrong? The article also features a timeless picture of Bush supporters that I will now describe to you. Front and center is a typical looking man wearing a patriotic T-shirt. To his left is another typical looking middle-aged man holding a sign that says, “Traitors not welcome in Texas.” To his right is an elderly man wearing (why not?) a cowboy hat and holding a sign displaying the debatable doctrine that “Bush is right, you are wrong.” I repeat: this woman’s son recently died in Iraq.
And what do you know, we’ve reached the issue of the Iraq war. Time and again, intense debates have brought us full circle to the question of, “Why did we go?” You might ask, (and would certainly be justified) “What business does a country whose top industries include eating and falsifying intelligence have in a country whose top industries include making weapons of mass destruction (not really)?” Here’s my theory, and take it how you will: oil. Think about it; tensions in the Middle East were high enough after Afghanistan, and oil prices got jacked up. Here’s some pros and cons of the argument;
Con: Well, this sucks, the Afghanis are mad at us, tensions are high, now OPEC’s increased oil prices. Gee, it would suck if this got to the point where we had to seize oil by force, but it’s always a possibility.
Pro: Hey, what if we had a ton of U.S. troops stationed near oil, if only just to make our presence felt? Better yet, let’s prop up a democracy in a part of the world we’d like to see a government more friendly to ours! And why not? We forced our way into Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Panama…
Con: How do we justify this? Nobody wants to hear their son died for oil.
Pro: Well…. Saddam’s an asshole… let’s just say we’re finishing what we didn’t in the first Gulf War by kicking him out. We’ll just falsify some of this intelligence and be on our way!
Well, NSers, what do you think? What’s the deal with the media? Why did the U.S. go to Iraq? I know there are holes in my argument, as with many arguments. I’m interested in hearing what others have to say, as long as it doesn’t degenerate into flaming and personal attacks. Yes, I respect your right to believe what you will, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, just as you don’t have to agree with me.