Strangely missing from the coverage is how many people showed up. This is about as close as they could get to a rough guesstimate:
More than 15,000 people registered online to participate in the walk. Pentagon officials could not say how many showed up in 80-degree weather to complete the 1.7 miles, though it was clear that there were several thousand people.
So an absolutely perfect, beautiful day, and the majority of the registrants didn't even bother to show? Hmmm. So what exactly was allowed or disallowed at this free and spontaneous expression of patriotic values?
War protesters were in short supply. When two did appear along Mr. Rumsfeld's path, one carrying a sign saying, "Bush is a Liar," an aide accompanying Mr. Rumsfeld, Allison Barber, encouraged walkers to begin chanting "U.S.A." The chant was short-lived.
Earlier in the day, several protesters appeared to run into trouble with the large police presence at the Pentagon and along the route. One man who registered for the walk was detained by a Pentagon police officer after he slipped a black hood over his head and produced a sign that read, "Freedom?"
The man was removed from the Pentagon registration area, handcuffed and taken away in a police car. It was not clear whether he was charged or simply detained and the police did not respond to messages requesting more information.
Ann Grossman, 56, from Silver Spring, Md., also carried a homemade sign, which read "Honor Our Troops, Respect Their Lives," that was confiscated by police at the Pentagon. Ms. Grossman registered to participate in the walk, saying she did so to voice her opposition to the Iraq war, and she was allowed to participate without the sign.
Yes, that does sound like a horrible, mendacious sentiment to put on a sign. This is not some baiting, nasty "Bushitler" nonsense. I think we need to start asking these people straight up just why they're so afraid of such a simple, even-handed idea that people on either side of the war should be able to agree on.
3 comments:
"I think we need to start asking these people straight up just why they're so afraid of such a simple, even-handed idea..."
So Heywood, doesn't this almost contradict the point you were feebly attempting to make in the post above--the one about the media finally waking up and holding the bastards accountable, and shit? "We" need to start asking? How 'bout the fucking media? When are "they" gonna start asking what they've always been supposed to ask: tough, relevant questions? Why do we need people who just "report" on shit happening? Hell, we might as well install high-definition cameras in all public squares, and everyone will be able to tune in and watch what's happening wherever they damn please. God knows we're doing this already, only it's mostly exploited Russian girl we're watching on the internet. i'm asking again, what need do we have for a lobotomized media that only sees fit to blandly "report", without asking what needs to be asked--questions such as:
[1] Why are American citizen "detained" when they tell the Evil Ogre to go Cheney himself?
[2] What is this bullshit about "freedom", and what the hell's got to do with Salafist terrorists (who, by the way, are largely still at large)?
[3] How can you keep on blathering about "freedom" when you've used 9/11 as an excuse for a massive curtailment of freedoms?
[4] What is this bogus connection between "spreadin' democracy" in the benighted Middle East and the supposed inevitable disappearance of tur'rism? if anything, a democratic Middle East will just give Islamic fundamentalists more freedom of action for their evil plans. Anyone who's not a hopeless retard knows that Western European democracies had to battle their own brand of domestic terrorism in the '70s and the '80s.
[5] While we're at it, when are we gonna start subjecting 'Merikin policies in the ME to some sobering criticism, and try to hold petty tyrants like Mubarak and the House of Saud accountable? Assuming you can trust Bush to be sincere for a second (a far-fetched assumption at best), there's still a deep contradiction in his whole blueprint for dealing with the Middle East: on one had, he wants to be the idealistic Wilsonian who brings freedom to the opressed Muslims; on the other, he keeps making dirty deals with vile thugs in the region for the sake of help in the "war on tur'rism". Now, when the hell is the MSM gonna start questioning THAT?
Liberal media, my ass. They're all just a bunch of dimwitted, pussy-ass motherfuckers who are only too glad to acquiesce in the fascist status quo. In the meanwhile, they keep brainwashing a hapless population with irrelevant claptrap.
--Marius
Craig:
We're on a need-to-know basis at this point. What were once our basic essential rights required to maintain a free and stable representative democracy are now privileged information.
Marius:
Have you thought about switching to decaf?
But seriously, I never cease to be mildly amazed/alarmed at how many, if not most, of my friends and acquaintances are incredibly ignorant about basic history and geography. It's not even worth the bother most of the time, trying to discuss current events and such. They know pop culture; that's about it.
And I do mean "ignorant" as opposed to merely "stupid" -- they're not dumb, they just don't take the time to acquaint themselves of the facts. It simply doesn't interest them. They know just enough to get the rest of us in trouble when they go to the voting booth. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
But the fact is that the media, above all, are capitalists. They are giving the majority of the people what they want. The only way they will give us what we need is if we demand it to the extent that it becomes worthwhile for them.
Of course, since the vertically-integrated megacorps that own the media are also at least vaguely in cahoots with the people who pull Bush's strings, it's going to be very difficult to make it cost-effective for them. Telling us the truth would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Nothing to see here; enjoy yer freedom march and yer plastic dog tags. That's always the easiest way to handle the onlookers. If we don't demand more intellectual and journamalistic rigor from the media, why the hell would they want to work harder for less money, at cross purposes to the political interests of their owners?
Post a Comment