Suppression by expression

It is possible to suppress ideas by talking over them. If you tell the lie often enough, not only is the lie believed but the truth is forgotten. This is rarely recognized as censorship, but the result is the same. Magazines routinely “tailor” covers for their audience, in doing so they can bring a story to light, or hide an unpopular story.


After the recent shooting on a Navy base in Washington, DC, the CNN anchor said she had never heard of a shooting at a military base. Faced with the overwhelming public response that only four years ago an Army doctor killed the same number of people and injured thirty more, CNN is now saying she had meant “in Washington”. In her defense, President Obama has declared the Ft. Hood shootings “Workplace violence”, even though the shooter insisted all the way through his trial and sentencing that he had done it to prevent those soldiers from going to Afghanistan where they would fight Al-Qaeda. Because it was workplace violence, the victims do not receive benefits for injuries suffered at the hands of the enemy, or receive purple hearts, and the story that there is no terrorism in America can stay intact. Yet for some reason we still need to intercept all domestic communications.

There are several issues with the Navy yard shooting, and while I will center my thoughts on that event, I will bounce around (as I always do) to related subjects.

As with any tragedy, the news media went into overdrive. Honestly folks, if you ever run into Wolf Blitzer, let him ask you a question and respond with “What the F*** does that have to do with anything?”. I get the impression that he is usually mining for misinformation. My favorite Wolf question from this event was “There are reports that the shooter was wearing a black shirt and black pants. Can you tell me what that indicates?” How about “he doesn’t have any white pets?”

The immediate speculation was that the shooter had an AR-15. This would be speculation by people who were in other states, as an AR-15 looks nothing like the Remington 870 shotgun (the weapon Joe Biden said should be in every home) the shooter actually used. Nonetheless, this tragedy will be used to promote gun control, specifically banning “assault rifles”.

The shooter was identified as a Muslim, when in fact he was a Buddhist. He was identified as a terrorist targeting whites, when in fact he was mentally ill and chose his targets at random, killing at least three blacks and an Oriental. Nonetheless, once started the rumor will continue, with conspiracy theorists linking to the early reports rather than the later corrections.

For some reason, anti gun groups have been clamoring that the incident disproves a statement made frequently by the NRA, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. I guess they don’t think the police are “good guys”. What this all does prove is the facts just don’t matter to these people.

Diane Feinstein has made the tactic of swearing to falsehoods her career. Among her more fantastic claims is “PTSD is a symptom of the Iraq war”, followed with “all veterans have PTSD”, therefore “all veterans should be denied gun permits”. Where to start? The story fits her narrative because if PTSD is a symptom of the Iraq war, then PTSD is Bush’s fault. Not only is this a statement of incredible ignorance and denial (PTSD has been seen since people started throwing rocks at each other, we called it “Battle fatigue”and “Shell shock”), it also excuses her own PTSD, suffered when she witnessed the shooting of George Moscone. If she has PTSD, and it is evidence to deny a gun permit, she would have to stop carrying that Glock 19 she has a permit for (and would like to ban citizens from owning).  But only veterans have PTSD, not only that, all veterans have PTSD. Oh the horrors those supply clerks in Kansas have seen…

Manipulating the media only works when you control all of the media, so Senator Feinstein would like the government to define who is and is not a journalist. If you are not a journalist, the first amendment doesn’t apply to you. Let me flesh that out. The right to free speech means that you may speak your opinion with impunity. The entire concept of a “shield law” is that some people are allowed impunity and others are not. Senator Feinstein would like to limit the people who it applies to even further than it is already limited.

I don’t mind so much that journalism has been reduced to coverage of who’s on “Dancing with the stars”. I am concerned by the prospect of no other information being available.


2 comments on “Suppression by expression

  1. So well written. And, of course, you are spot-on.


  2. Alice Sanders says:

    If you will also notice, and not taking the writing as a whole, that what applies to ordinary citizens does not apply to the public servants of the people. They are in an elite club all their own, and no matter how many off-the-wall statements Diane Feinstien makes, she still keeps getting elected, or does she?


What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s