Will Western civilization survive television news?

When I point out our obligation to present a united front to enemies of America, to withhold aid and comfort from them, to support our troops and our President in time of war, I hear different versions of “You don’t get it” along with claims to freedom of speech and even an obligation to oppose a president when we disagree.

I’ll tell you what I do get.

I get it that along with freedom comes the responsibility to carefully choose how we exercise those freedoms. We should oppose our President in times of war and thereby encourage the enemy only if we believe he is immoral or evil, like a modern-day Hitler. I do not.

I get it that America no longer has the stomach and endurance to do serious, difficult things over an extended period of time. We have the military strength, but not the public stamina for a prolonged conflict because we are too divided, too selfishly determined to focus the fight among ourselves.

I get it that the vast majority of Americans are disconnected from the war because they have no personal stake in such dirty and dangerous work that surely must be someone else’s job. We have lost the perspective gained from military service: less than 8 percent of us under age 65 have ever served.

I get it that many Americans don’t even know or care that we are at war, too involved in American Idol and Reality TV, too focused on the price of gasoline and building their 401k balance to worry about far-fetched threats to our country.

I get it that far too many Americans have become addicted to the spiked Kool-Aid called TV news, a medium tailored to agenda-driven reports that paint our President as the enemy.

Reading a newspaper requires thought while TV news conveys feelings; an hour of video can be trimmed down to 90 seconds that best delivers the desired spin, capturing surprised looks following ambush questions, enhanced by time and priority given the report, camera angles, reporter commentary, program teasers and even the parting smirk of the anchor.

It is almost a comic tragedy to watch slanted reporting emphasizing the negative, de-emphasizing anything positive about the President and the war as only TV news can do it, cleverly delivering moods to the masses, eventually followed by straight-faced reporting that the President’s poll numbers are down. Whaddaya know?

I get it that many point the finger of blame to complain we are not being asked to sacrifice, while those same people never consider making the small sacrifice of supporting their president in a military conflict even though they don’t like him, even though they disagree with his methods.

I get it that many of you have a long list of complaints about the war, WMD, suspicions about the motivation for invading Iraq, imperfect planning, etc. But elections have consequences, and the presidential election of 2004 was very much a referendum on these issues. When you lose the election, you are supposed to accept the result and work for your beliefs in the next election. Maybe you don’t get it.

I get it that we sometimes behave like naive children, expecting our wars to be antiseptic, perfectly forecasted and choreographed with no setbacks or surprises or casualties, the actions and reactions of the populace and the enemy turning out exactly as predicted. We insist that battles and enemy interrogations be conducted in strict accord with rules we cite from the comfort and safety of our living rooms with teacup balanced on our knee, and we worry over world opinion about putting hoods over our prisoners’ heads while our enemy saws off the heads of their prisoners. The real world is untidy.

I get it that the curse of TV news has brought us about 50 million presumptive Presidents and Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State, unwilling to delegate the role to those elected or appointed, spouting a daily diatribe of should-be-policy and second-guessing as if they know better than the official.

What breathtaking arrogance! Maybe we were better off in the days when those who presumed to have all the answers were driving cabs and delivering their wisdom in English.

I get it that America, led by the TV news Pied Piper, has a voracious appetite for instant gratification. Forgetting that the President told those unable to figure it out for themselves from the get-go this war would be a long and difficult struggle, many join TV news in disapproval of operations with uncertainty lasting more than a couple of news cycles.

I get it that we have become a nation of self-indulgent crybabies, spoiled brats, like fat kids demanding more candy, living under a bubble of protection and plenty and suffering from the delusion we are entitled to our way of life, oblivious to the fact our civilization is actually fragile and can be brought down around our ears if we don’t wake up to defend it.

I’ll tell you something else I get. Politics is supposed to end at the water’s edge, and end when war begins. But Democrats seem to have thrown national security over the side in their commitment to just one goal – defeating George Bush and taking control again in Washington.

They even seem eager to help our enemy by opposing every tool the President tries to use in the war – interrogation techniques they naively call torture, the Patriot Act, wiretaps to listen to suspect phone calls to foil plots, and so on.

If only they fought our real enemy with as much vigor as they fight our own President.

So to those who hasten to remind me of their freedom of speech I would acknowledge that freedom and pose this question: if your choice was to (1) exercise your freedom by publicly opposing our President, knowing our enemy is listening and counting on your opposition, or (2) voluntarily sacrifice that freedom to speak out in order to stand by our troops and withhold comfort to the enemy, which would you do?

Never mind. You have already made your answer quite clear. I get it.

When will Western Imperialism cease?

Submitted by Imhotep on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 9:44am.

I'm no least committed to America's defense then you are. However, when our government uses deception to justify a war for personal reasons, We, the people must denounce such actions. Remember, our's is a government by the people, not by the desires of the president and the misguided Congress. Many Americans seem to have forgotten about the Constitution; a foundation document to democracy which the present Administration is willing to destroy.

Every nation, including America, has a right to self-governance. We, America, can't go around the world dictating to other nations, and demanding them to become Americanized. That is arrogance plain and simple. Any American that doesn't support 'freedom of speech' and the Constitution even in times of war is dangerous to have in a position of leadership.

login to post comments

Imperialism or moral leadership

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 9:55am.

Pop Quiz

Was it dictating to other nations when the US fought N. Korea and China in 1951?

Was it Imperialism to keep Russian missles out of Cuba?

Was it dictating to other nations when Clinton interviened in Bosnia and Hati?

The US has alway had foreign policies, backed some nations and opposed others.

As long as Iran, Al Queda, N. Korea and any other nation wishes us ill and plots to destroy or attack us we will need to defend ourselves.

login to post comments

Western Culture Shouldn't Be A Monopoly In The World

Submitted by Imhotep on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 11:47am.

Previous American wars were in defense of Western Culture; agreed.

The difference is we didn't attempt to dictate the type of government Korea, Russia etc., should establish, unlike Iraq today.

True American spirit believes in diversity. Get with the program and stop trying to make America out of a militaristic State.

login to post comments

Starting A War Isn't Morality By Any Stretch Of The Imagination

Submitted by Imhotep on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 11:09am.

I'm not against national defense! But, i do take exception with telling another country how to govern itself; even if they are the enemy. The politicians have cleverly confused the two which deceives the people.

login to post comments

One more time, with feeling

Submitted by bowser on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:17am.

Does anyone hear an echo in here? Garlock got half a page to state his case the first time, then when a few people dare to disagree, he gets another half page to rant some more. I’m no psychiatrist, but Garlock seems to have a personal as well as philosophical problem with dissenting views, and Cal is his enabler.

Another thing also seems clear. For all his verbal chest thumping about love of country, Garlock really doesn’t much care for America. In fact, based on his latest screed one can only conclude that he hates it.

login to post comments

I get it!

Submitted by ole sarge on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:59am.

Local or network news has not been a staple in our home for more than 20 years. Somehow I manage to stay informed, without the teasers, the distorted graphics and the general negativity that is the norm of television news.

Newspapers and magazines can provide an in depth look at events. Radio provides immediacy and the internet is a combination of all the above.

We established a government that was removed from the “excesses of democracy.” I am afraid that the electronic media is forcing the worst of these excesses upon us while hiding behind the First Amendment.

Thank you for a well considered and up front opinion.

login to post comments