Yes, we had a brutal winter, but TV coverage was overkill. And there was the raging controversy about the color of a dress - white and gold or dark blue and black. Lots of air time was used on that one. And I can't stand to hear about how so-and-so at some red carpet event "rocked that dress." Reminds me of the comment most commonly used by strangers when seeing a young girl with her mom at a park: "Oh, she's so cute!" Well, got to start somewhere so this kid will be focused on rocking a dress within a few short years.
And of course there's the over-emphasis on famous chefs who give demos of their favorite recipes. These famous and well-paid TV "journalists"/personalities can't stop fawning and ladling praise. But we never hear about Iran's nuclear option (to use a very bad term): Any time their government wants to, they can invoke Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - as had North Korea - and legally (according to that treaty which we also signed) build a nuclear arsenal.
Article X
Article X allows any nation to withdraw from the treaty and acquire nuclear weapons if its government feels its national security is threatened. And Article X allows for any nation to act unilaterally - that is, not having to obtain permission from the UN.
Nope, you'll never hear about Article X on the morning news because Charlie Rose and others are too busy yucking it up. And bombarding us mercilessly with endless coverage of weather-related damage. Not to mention photos submitted by viewers.
Senate Filibuster
You'll also never hear claims that the Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional. The U word seems to be anathema and will never be uttered, not even in passing. Talking heads routinely say, "And it will take 60 votes in the Senate to pass this measure." That claim is wrong, wrong, wrong as I explain at this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html
The Second Amendment's demise
Whenever the US Constitution's Second Amendment is mentioned, usually after some horrific shooting, this question is never asked:
Why didn't the Amendment simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" That's ironclad. But instead we were given this, with the added text I highlight in yellow:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The point? If it should ever come to pass that "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of a free state, then the entire Second Amendment becomes null and void. Since "being necessary" was the foundation of the amendment, if "being necessary" is no longer the case, then those yellowed words become a kill-mechanism which voids the entire amendment. In other words? The Founding Fathers would have served their purpose far more effectively by simply having the amendment read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As for the yellowed text:
We have never had a "well regulated militia" on a broad national basis, the National Guard units being the exception. And the Guard units alone aren't necessary to our security, since our regular armed forces are more than equal to the task.
As for the ideal of an armed citizenry as a potential counter balance against the threat of our central government assuming dictatorial powers, there's no way such a force could resist the full onslaught of federal troops.
So much for the Second Amendment but...you'll never hear Charlie Rose talk about any of this.
ISIS
I'd also love to hear on the news: "You've seen endless images of Toyota trucks used by ISIS bearing mounted machine guns. Our investigators, after interviewing US authorities, have traced the VIN of some of these battle-damaged and abandoned vehicles. And they were purchased by ____ and sold by ____."
How free do you feel now?
Make no mistake: The news in this country as portrayed on TV is very tightly controlled. In that sense, we live in a totalitarian society where access to real news and alternate, non-government approved news is tightly controlled. For all of our highly-touted freedom, we might as well be living in North Korea. Yes, we are more affluent but if that changes - a very real possibility - then what will we have left to brag about?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment