Dr. Laura was talking today about how this tragic act of violence at Virginia Tech is nothing compared with the violence that people endure on a daily basis in the middle east and elsewhere. That is absolutely true. On the whole, we Americans are generally free from horrific acts of barbarism and violence. When I heard about this cowardly act this afternoon, I called my wife to tell her to turn on the news. She had already been watching the ongoing coverage as reporters were scrambling to gather information. (Albeit – the more horrific the better – but, hey, drama sells)
Doesn’t that say something special about this place we call the United States of America? Horrific violence is not the norm, in fact, it’s the exception. I’ve never been shot at, nearly blown up by a car bomb, nor had crazy people try to hi-jack my airplane and crash it into a building. I am so thankful to be living in a place where people are outraged and shocked by such gross examples of pure evil. Thank goodness that we live in a place where most people like following the law and are generally concerned about the welfare of their neighbors. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones today.
While I was listening to the press conference with the President and the campus police chief, something almost elusive crept into my mind and really started to bother me. The President and Police Chief were answering questions from the media and the kinds of questions and responses seemed terribly inappropriate.
The first thing that got my attention was the criminalization of this event. There was nothing criminal about it. All criminal behavior can be summed up by people breaking the law for personal gain. This evil man did not murder these 32 people for some sort of personal gain. He was terrorizing the school to satisfy something else; like revenge or hate. We’ll probably never know for sure but his acts were not those of a criminal but those of a terrorist. He was no different than a suicide bomber. I wonder why, no one in the mainstream media made this obvious connection? Most likely, the media does not want us to be sympathizing with innocent Iraqi’s or middle easterners for that matter when troop withdrawal is a major political issue right now.
Then the media interrogation took a new form. It was like a pool of hungry crocodiles lurking in the water, eying a lone wildebeest. What was the ethnicity of the shooter? What kind of weapons did he have? There have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun, can you confirm that? What did the crime scene look like? Were the students shot randomly or execution style? These questions are not word for word but the gist of the questions have stuck with me all day. Don’t these questions seem outrageous to you? These questions reveal a lot more about the character of the reporters than they might have realized.
A tragedy had just occurred. Innocent blood had been spilt. But, they were not as concerned about the innocent blood as they were about the ramifications this incident has on their social agendas. First off, the ethnicity of the shooter has a great deal of bearing on the liberal mind. If the shooter is from a minority ethnic group, the portrayal of the shooter will be much more sympathetic to his “misguided” actions. His acts must be out of some sort of desperation because he belongs to a group of Americans who are continually disparaged by the mainstream. The more of a minority that the shooters happens to be, the more sympathetic the media will be to his plight. However, if the shooter turned out to be a white guy, then yeah, let the pit bulls loose. This shows real liberal racism. What that shooter did was wrong regardless of race and if he happened to be white then I would expect the same punishment.
“What kind of weapons did he use and there have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun,” illustrates a different liberal agenda. This is the issue of gun control. I told my wife that every time a crime such as this occurs, the anti-gunners start salivating. This is good stuff, the kind of stuff that can get people riled up enough to give away their freedoms. Does it matter what kind of weapons he used? Had he bludgeoned 32 people to death, would it get the same kind of coverage? Just this evening, one news agency suggested that the shooter allegedly used a 9mm, which could hold 19 rounds. I laughed at that because most hi capacity magazines for a 9mm can only hold 15. 19 round magazines are specialty purchases and they are definitely not the norm nor generally easy to come across. They then went on to explain that these magazines would have been banned under the Brady Bill but since it didn’t get renewed, this happened. Had the shooter had 10, 10 round magazines he would have been able to shoot 100 people just as easily if he only had 7, 15 round magazines. The building was locked and he, therefore, wasn’t under any kind of pressure from law enforcement. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, he would have been able to easily kill the same number of people. Even if he had a revolver, he would have been able to do kill just as many people. This is just another example of media misrepresentation to sway ignorant public opinion. The Brady Bill would not have reduced the casualty list one bit. This man was bent on hurting as many people as he could and magazine capacity would not have slowed him down in carrying out his evil plan.
Then they moved onto the grotesqueries of the carnage. Their motivation to do this is obviously rooted in selling airtime. The more gruesome picture that they can paint for us, the more entertaining it will be for the people watching the ongoing coverage. I still can’t believe that one reporter wanted to know if this was an execution style of shooting like occurred earlier in the Amish community. An execution style of murder brings to mind pictures of Nazi death camps. It really conjures up some horrific thoughts and they eagerly wanted to know if this happened. The authorities kept repeating that they could not answer those kinds of questions. Obviously, if they revealed too much, it might taint their investigation. Regardless, the media was desperate to know the gory details and asked this question in a variety of ways, hoping to get the scoop for which they were looking. Very little was asked about the families or where families could meet up with their children. The President brought that up and gave a number where parents could call to get information about the status of their kids.
What does this tell me? It tells me that the people America trust to give them the facts are clearly motivated by ideologies that generally override the truth. If they were interested in the truth, they would have been asking entirely different sorts of questions. If they were interested in the innocent blood that had been spilt, they would have been asking different sorts of questions. The information that they gleaned to uncover, was whether or not this incident would forward their political and financial agendas. I read once that a reporter said that Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source for news because he is in the entertainment business. It seems that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are also in the entertainment business. Does that mean that they aren't credible? (How dare I?)
What should have been asked was what can American’s do to help? Where can cards of condolences be sent? Is there a relief fund to help with any medical expenses that will be incurred by those recovering from their wounds? Does the University need any help with counseling services or other trauma treatments? These questions were quickly glossed over with little or no sincerity. This is because, their most pressing questions really told us who these media people really are. When real tragedy strikes, they swoop in like BUZZARDS, hungry for ratings and delighted when it promotes their political agendas. They are a people who COULD CARE LESS about the real tragedy of the day!
Doesn’t that say something special about this place we call the United States of America? Horrific violence is not the norm, in fact, it’s the exception. I’ve never been shot at, nearly blown up by a car bomb, nor had crazy people try to hi-jack my airplane and crash it into a building. I am so thankful to be living in a place where people are outraged and shocked by such gross examples of pure evil. Thank goodness that we live in a place where most people like following the law and are generally concerned about the welfare of their neighbors. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones today.
While I was listening to the press conference with the President and the campus police chief, something almost elusive crept into my mind and really started to bother me. The President and Police Chief were answering questions from the media and the kinds of questions and responses seemed terribly inappropriate.
The first thing that got my attention was the criminalization of this event. There was nothing criminal about it. All criminal behavior can be summed up by people breaking the law for personal gain. This evil man did not murder these 32 people for some sort of personal gain. He was terrorizing the school to satisfy something else; like revenge or hate. We’ll probably never know for sure but his acts were not those of a criminal but those of a terrorist. He was no different than a suicide bomber. I wonder why, no one in the mainstream media made this obvious connection? Most likely, the media does not want us to be sympathizing with innocent Iraqi’s or middle easterners for that matter when troop withdrawal is a major political issue right now.
Then the media interrogation took a new form. It was like a pool of hungry crocodiles lurking in the water, eying a lone wildebeest. What was the ethnicity of the shooter? What kind of weapons did he have? There have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun, can you confirm that? What did the crime scene look like? Were the students shot randomly or execution style? These questions are not word for word but the gist of the questions have stuck with me all day. Don’t these questions seem outrageous to you? These questions reveal a lot more about the character of the reporters than they might have realized.
A tragedy had just occurred. Innocent blood had been spilt. But, they were not as concerned about the innocent blood as they were about the ramifications this incident has on their social agendas. First off, the ethnicity of the shooter has a great deal of bearing on the liberal mind. If the shooter is from a minority ethnic group, the portrayal of the shooter will be much more sympathetic to his “misguided” actions. His acts must be out of some sort of desperation because he belongs to a group of Americans who are continually disparaged by the mainstream. The more of a minority that the shooters happens to be, the more sympathetic the media will be to his plight. However, if the shooter turned out to be a white guy, then yeah, let the pit bulls loose. This shows real liberal racism. What that shooter did was wrong regardless of race and if he happened to be white then I would expect the same punishment.
“What kind of weapons did he use and there have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun,” illustrates a different liberal agenda. This is the issue of gun control. I told my wife that every time a crime such as this occurs, the anti-gunners start salivating. This is good stuff, the kind of stuff that can get people riled up enough to give away their freedoms. Does it matter what kind of weapons he used? Had he bludgeoned 32 people to death, would it get the same kind of coverage? Just this evening, one news agency suggested that the shooter allegedly used a 9mm, which could hold 19 rounds. I laughed at that because most hi capacity magazines for a 9mm can only hold 15. 19 round magazines are specialty purchases and they are definitely not the norm nor generally easy to come across. They then went on to explain that these magazines would have been banned under the Brady Bill but since it didn’t get renewed, this happened. Had the shooter had 10, 10 round magazines he would have been able to shoot 100 people just as easily if he only had 7, 15 round magazines. The building was locked and he, therefore, wasn’t under any kind of pressure from law enforcement. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, he would have been able to easily kill the same number of people. Even if he had a revolver, he would have been able to do kill just as many people. This is just another example of media misrepresentation to sway ignorant public opinion. The Brady Bill would not have reduced the casualty list one bit. This man was bent on hurting as many people as he could and magazine capacity would not have slowed him down in carrying out his evil plan.
Then they moved onto the grotesqueries of the carnage. Their motivation to do this is obviously rooted in selling airtime. The more gruesome picture that they can paint for us, the more entertaining it will be for the people watching the ongoing coverage. I still can’t believe that one reporter wanted to know if this was an execution style of shooting like occurred earlier in the Amish community. An execution style of murder brings to mind pictures of Nazi death camps. It really conjures up some horrific thoughts and they eagerly wanted to know if this happened. The authorities kept repeating that they could not answer those kinds of questions. Obviously, if they revealed too much, it might taint their investigation. Regardless, the media was desperate to know the gory details and asked this question in a variety of ways, hoping to get the scoop for which they were looking. Very little was asked about the families or where families could meet up with their children. The President brought that up and gave a number where parents could call to get information about the status of their kids.
What does this tell me? It tells me that the people America trust to give them the facts are clearly motivated by ideologies that generally override the truth. If they were interested in the truth, they would have been asking entirely different sorts of questions. If they were interested in the innocent blood that had been spilt, they would have been asking different sorts of questions. The information that they gleaned to uncover, was whether or not this incident would forward their political and financial agendas. I read once that a reporter said that Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source for news because he is in the entertainment business. It seems that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are also in the entertainment business. Does that mean that they aren't credible? (How dare I?)
What should have been asked was what can American’s do to help? Where can cards of condolences be sent? Is there a relief fund to help with any medical expenses that will be incurred by those recovering from their wounds? Does the University need any help with counseling services or other trauma treatments? These questions were quickly glossed over with little or no sincerity. This is because, their most pressing questions really told us who these media people really are. When real tragedy strikes, they swoop in like BUZZARDS, hungry for ratings and delighted when it promotes their political agendas. They are a people who COULD CARE LESS about the real tragedy of the day!
By the way, I've been looking all over the web for any details about how assistance or funds might be given to aid in this tragedy. Sadly, there is nothing that I can find. If anybody finds anything like this, please forward it to me and I'll post it on this blog. In the meantime, pray for all that is involved in this terrible mess. Check out Michelle Malkin's blog. She has some interesting details about today's tragedy. You can link to it on my sidebar.
-Dave Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment