RoR: Forum

At 9:00pm tonight, I deliberately flipped between 2 channels: Fox News Channel and MSNBC. I did this for 20 minutes.

On Fox was "On the Record, w/Greta Van Susteren" and the lead story was a reasonable story about something important to the future of Americans -- the Supreme Court hearings on ObamaCare. However, on MSNBC, on "The Last Word, w/Lawrence O)'Donnell", there was a different lead story, and it went on for 20 minutes (until the first commercial). In fact, the second round of commercials are finishing up as I am writing this (40 minutes into the program) and -- wouldn't you know it? -- they are still on the same story. [Oops, now it is the third round of commercials, still on the same story.] What is this story?:

It is a telling, and a retelling -- and a retelling after that -- of a single one of the several thousands of murders (40 murders a day) that take place in this country every year.

I remember when 9-11 happened. All you could see on the news was a rerun of the airplane crashing into the building. I did not go to work that day. All I did was sit glued to the television set watching the rerun of the video of the airplane crashing into the building. They must have showed it, over and over, dozens and dozens and dozens of times. It reminds me precisely of what is on TV right now. Apparently, there is video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station after shooting Trayvon. Lawrence O'Donnell has been running, and rerunning -- and rerunning -- this video for 45 minutes now (it is now 9:45pm).

This is what I meant when I said that the Left is ruthless in arguing for something. An argument can be made that this is the same thing done on 9-11, therefore implicating conservatives -- but this argument is easily rebutted because GW Bush was not really a conservative (i.e., his being a conservative was a lie).

Ed

p.s., 50 minutes now, and still playing reruns of the police station video.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/28, 7:55pm)

Post 1

Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 2:03pm

After Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC came the Ed Schultz show, and you are never going to guess which video clip they led off with -- and kept rolling, and re-rolling, and re-rolling ...

It came time to turn the television off. This reminds me too much of that lost day on 9-11.

Ed

Post 2

Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 6:01pm

I consider the repeated replaying of the 9-11 tragedy much more excusable due to its magnitude and historical weight than the Zimmerman incident.

Post 3

Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 9:00pm

Luke,

I don't want to give the impression that they are equal things, but I fear that the motivation behind the ad nauseum repetitiveness was pretty much the same motivation:

Look. Look at this terrible thing. Look at it. We are going to do something about it. It may end up restricting your liberty as a citizen of the United States, but just look at this thing. Look at how terrible it is. We must do something drastic about this. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Prepare to be negatively affected by us, in service to the "greater good" we are seeking.

Post 4

Thursday, March 29, 2012 - 9:16pm

I was at the gym today and, while resting between sets, I turned to watch one of the many t.v.s on the wall. I don't remember the channel or the news station, but the news program kept airing Zimmerman arriving at the police station. It repeated this scene over and over and over and over.

I was annoyed after the third replay of that scene. It's difficult to imagine someone actually sitting through that news story.
(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 3/29, 9:18pm)

Post 5

Friday, March 30, 2012 - 9:00am

This may all build to a summer of race riots. I've been encountering angry, hostile looks from young black males that I'm thinking are related to the coverage of the Trayvon Martin killing.

Post 6

Friday, March 30, 2012 - 10:29am

"Never waste a crisis." Obama can use the riots as a justification for martial law, suspension of elections, and gun confiscation. Any takers?

Post 7

Friday, March 30, 2012 - 12:37pm

On a lighter note, I continue to be impressed with the lack of racism in Texas (at least in Houston).

It's like people are color-blind down here. It's really cool. The other day, I had car trouble. Not just one, but 2 different people came to my aid within 5 minutes! You will never see that happen in socialist Minnesota (where I lived for 43 years) -- at least not in the city or suburbs. Anyway, I got help from a white guy and then a black gal pulled over and got out of her car to offer me a flare so that I wouldn't be hit by traffic. These are just people, just everyday people who recognize the importance of human life, and who recognize the Trader Principle. It's like all the "Lies of the Left" have failed to cross the border of Texas.

Anyway, I can tell that I am gushing and I don't want to paint a picture too pretty or too perfect -- but there is a palpable difference in kindness between Texas and Minnesota.

Ed

Post 8

Friday, March 30, 2012 - 1:02pm

Steve,

Zimmerman was Hispanic, not white. I wonder how many people are aware of that. Also, suppose the roles were reversed -- that Zimmerman were the victim and Martin the alleged villain. Would there be this kind of public hand wringing, with the president weighing in and all? I doubt it.

Also, the murder rate among young black men is very high, and well over 90% of the victims are themselves black. Is there any moral indignation, any handwringing, any outcry by black leaders and our beloved president about that? Of course not.

Post 9

Sunday, April 1, 2012 - 10:57pm

As time goes on, I begin to see the merits of complete government control over the economy and, as a consequence, over every living human being. Lets face it, the general populace is probably too ignorant, too greedy, too self-centered to manage their own lives AND work to the interest of the whole nation. They just aren't up to the task. Therefore, we'll need the right officials. Officials who are cultured, intelligent, and, above all, compassionate. They will be able, and worthy, of leading the U.S. to its fullest potential. But, of course, there will be individuals who dissent, these people are the most selfish of all. They value a few dollars of their income more than the lives of the poor! These greedy people have enough money to live, what more do they need? Others need to eat too, y'know.

Furthermore, these greedy people have signed a social contract, they are obligated to serve others in need. Taxes, after all, is the price of civilization. Additionally, all of us ought to play our part in making this nation even better. We need to give everyone a fair shot at success since nature has endowed some people with superior abilities. It isn't fair to the less-fortunate; our humanity requires that we equally, and fairly, distribute what nature has unequally given us. Wealth redistribution will be a good start. Those with superior abilities will give to those limited by nature. In the end, I think, this will lead to harmony among individuals and prosperity among nations. Also, happy april fools day everyone.

Post 10

Monday, April 2, 2012 - 8:02am

Good one, Kyle.

You got me!

:-)

Ed

Post 11

Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 11:09am

Look. Look at this terrible thing. Look at it. We are going to do something about it. It may end up restricting your liberty as a citizen of the United States, but just look at this thing. Look at how terrible it is. We must do something drastic about this. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Prepare to be negatively affected by us, in service to the "greater good" we are seeking.

This line of thinking was recently characterized by the actions of John Boehner, talking about intended restrictions placed on abortions made for certain personal reasons (i.e., gender selection). Boehner said many (or most?) people would find it repulsive to abort a fetus because of its gender, so he is going to go ahead and back a proposed law to make it illegal for everyone (based on the ill-defined sentiments of many people). A law for everyone, based on how some people "feel."

This fits right in with the theme of my essay.

Ed

Post 12

Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 5:44pm

Here is a major lie of the Right.

The problem is that many so-called conservatives aren't really conservatives in the conventional sense - they are more like political soldiers for Christ. They hide themselves within groups of constitutional conservatives, fiscal conservatives, small-government conservatives, etc. These people are a kind of political parasite - they get voted in by Tea Party people, opponents of the left, people who want more freedom, etc., but they have no intention of representing those views because they are on a holy jihad to attack gays, or stop abortion, or make prayer part of the public life everywhere.

Post 13

Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 9:50pm

I'm 99% sure that the current "gender selection abortion" flap is mainly a way to hit back at team Obama over the whole "war on women" theme they've been playing. Democrats will, of course, fight the bill, and then Republicans can say, "See! You said we hate women, but you are against a law that prevents people from selectively killing their daughters in hopes of getting a son next time!" This whole bill is only a political stunt. After all, how could you ever prove the crime? When the pregnant female decides to get an abortion after having learned from the first sonogram that she's carrying a daughter, she can always just say that she is killing her for some other reason. The woman's motivation would always be impossible to prove.

Post 14

Friday, June 1, 2012 - 4:32am

Steve:

"political soldiers for Christ"

Excellent characterization.

Progressives of multiple flavors in both parties.

It totally doesn't matter if it is primarily politicos dipping into religion, or primarily religionists dipping into politics, both acts eat freedom as soon as they are mixed.

That is not to say that politicians should not have deep religious beliefs, only that those beliefs can't be mixed into the advocacy of public policy, precisely because in this political context we recognize that our freedom is dependent on a plurality of religious beliefs strictly kept -out- of public policy.

Our first amendment is barely functioning with respect to separation of state and ... churches of all kinds.

regards,
Fred

Post 15

Friday, June 1, 2012 - 7:18pm

This bill to ban some abortions based on the personal motives of pregnant women is the Right's version of Hate Crime legislation. Hate crime legislation is absurd for a couple of reasons, one of them being that it makes law enforcement and/or agents of the judicial system out to be mind readers. The absurd reasoning goes like this:

I can tell what it is that the criminal was thinking at the time of the crime, therefore, I will go an extra mile with his/her punishment. The punishment doesn't have to "fit the crime" anymore, we can successfully make the punishment "fit the criminal."

This proposed legislation is one of the most embarassing acts of the political right in this country in my lifetime. The other being Dan Quayle. [rimshot]

:-)

Ed

Post 16

Friday, June 1, 2012 - 8:41pm

That's such a stupid thing. The religious right is all upset about using abortion to choose gender, and getting all red in the face yelling about how that makes us like China!

But isn't China the country that uses the law to tell people they must abort if they already have one child? So the religious right wants us to pass laws that tell people what they can or can't do in terms of giving birth.

To me it is all the same. Who owns the woman's body - her or the government?

And why shouldn't people have a child of the gender they want? Why is it so holy and special to allow chance to decide that?

It is just too obvious to point out that any group that takes mysticism, and blind acceptance of scriptures, as more important than reason are bound to get themselves into really stupid places. I just want to figure out how to stop them from trying to force their stupidity onto the rest of us.

Post 17

Saturday, June 2, 2012 - 8:07am