5 years and counting. What might that refer to? Could it be the Iraq war? It could also be the amount of time since R Kelly was supposed to go to trial for the alleged rape of a minor. It might be the amount of time that Michael Vick will be facing for his crimes.
Now hear is the tough question. Of those 3, which is the most prevalent in the media when discussing African Americans? The correct answer is OJ Simpson of course. But the second answer would be Michael Vick.
Whether it’s about how much time he will serve or if he will be allowed to re-enter football, it’s the main topic of discussion. I can’t imagine what might be worse.
Well that’s not true. The major news media could be focusing even more on the every move and comment made by OJ Simpson. Given that he has consistently given the major news media, actually tabloid fodder by definition yet covered as if it were major news, more than enough to discuss over the years. Still it’s a waste of time and space.
But where is the news on R Kelly? Why is there no seeming concern about his actions? There is a self-proclaimed pedophile being kicked out of Seattle and California (now living in Oregon at last report) yet an accused pedophile continues to go through his daily routine without a whisper of news on his case. Something is very wrong with that.
It’s similar to the news on Mr. Wesley Snipes. Huge announcements by the government on his indictment, while he is in a foreign country and cannot respond. Big media coverage, framed to look like a spontaneous move by law enforcement though it was an agreed upon surrender to law agents, and multiple legally neutral but implicitly accusatory statements were made then nothing. No word on his claims the charges are false. No word on his fight against, what I see as, trumped up charges. Nothing on the nature of the charges that sound as incredulous as the manner in which they were applied.
But when it comes to the war, the only commentary is what Senator Obama feels about how quickly we should end the war, and that we shouldn’t be there in the first place. Let me note something.
We shouldn’t have been in Iraq for the reasons we went there for. I was not convinced by the claims of WMD’s. There was no question that Saddam was a bad man, doing horrendous things to his people. There is no question that as far back as during the Presidency of Clinton, America was actively taking military action against that nation. Given that, it doesn’t matter.
Anger over why we started the war will not end it. Displeasure with President Bush will not alleviate the repercussions of the war. Pointing the finger of blame may make some feel better at night, but it does not factually improve anything and creates a means for some to gain political clout on the cheap by pandering to this emotional response. Why the war started has less to do with anything besides a stumping point for politicians.
Continued in part 2...
No comments:
Post a Comment