We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The paparazzi are restless There are times when the newsies reach depths which even I find difficult to fathom. There has been an ongoing debate with the DOD by the lowest of the breed about access to Dover Air Force Base where our war dead make their first stop on home soil.
The DOD says it is being sensitive to the needs of the families; that most do not want the return of their loved ones turned into a ratings carnival for the Evening News.
Personally, if I were a family member and a loved one of mine were being returned, I would expect quiet and dignity. If the DOD ever changes the policy in favour of the paparazzi, family members should consider applying their weapon of choice against the nearest, most expensive cameras.
Kicking a cameraman in the balls could be equally educational to the receiver, even if she doesn’t have them.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Oh, yeah! Let’s shoot the messengers. Pesky “Free Press”…
If a close relative of yours is killed in action, I see no reason why you cannot personally choose to make a political circus of their death, assuming of course, they have not left a will stating their personal preference.
On the other hand, if you feel that your family loss is something private, personal and deserving of respect, then you should enforce your wishes.
As Robert Hienlein said: “An armed society is a polite society.”
dale,
living, as you do, in an armed society, i’m surprised you find so much to recommend it.
I don’t really see how one intrudes on particular families’ grief with pictures of row upon row upon row of anonymous flag-draped aluminum tubes. The publicity ban was never about protecting grieving families; it was about protecting the PR image of the war and keeping up morale.
Frankly, it is the duty of the press to break through PR and expose morale — good or bad — to truth — good or bad. No families are harmed by these photos, nor could they be: They are anonymous and sterile. The only ones harmed by the photos are the national morale mavens who regard the very thoughts of the electorate as state property and the ever-present threat of thought-treason.
–G
Grant-
What the hell do you know about what is going on inside the mind of a family member whose loved one is coming back to Dover. Unless it has happened to you (if it has then spout on) you don’t know so don’t act like you do. Stop acting like the Grand Wizard who knows all and sees all.
Thne way I see it, that these pictures are ‘shocking’ suggests a dose of real reality TV is needed in some parts. Did anyone really think Iraq was going to be a picnic? The volunteer military is being called on to do what it is paid to do and its members have my great admiration for electing to shoulder that responsibility. Those who die fighting a monstrous enemy are worthy of our deepest respect… but the risk of coming home is a flag drapped coffin does come with the job and anyone who is shocked by the fact that fighting the bad guys involves some of the good guys also getting killed should probably stop watching Hollywood movies. Sobering certainly, but shocking? Not really.
The feminists on the left are all in favour of covering up what happens to female PoWs (I wonder why Greg Lynch Snr was gagged by the DoD last year, just before the US Army trotted out it’s cover-up report into the 507th ambush?), so I would suggest they keep their mouths shut on this issue.
If we are to see the cost of war, we should see EVERYTHING! We should see what happened to those US civilians in Fallujah, let’s see what happened to G.I. Jessica and her dead colleagues.
Yes, let’s see ALL of it, not just what the cherry-picking media likes, let’s see everything!
The U.S. press shuffles like zombies behind an anti-war parade that’s 40 years dead. They can say what they will about “free press”, etc., etc., but the only reason they want to show pictures of coffins returning is to poison sentiment against the War on Terror. Nice try, but it won’t work this time…different war…different motives…different enemy…different threat…Pat Tillman.
Famlilies, of course, can do whatever they like about the funeral. Once their dead family member’s body has been turned over to them, they can invite Geraldo if they so choose. It’s indicative of something that few if any family members have chosen to do so.
But I think it’s also true that the press isn’t interested in funerals. These show honor being paid to the dead, rather than the face of the eternal victim. And they only show one person at a time. They want to be able to pan across rows of coffins with a fisheye lens, because the image is politically useful to them. And they certainly don’t want the families to be able to prevent this use.
This is the same American media that were so solidly behind the Administration’s War On Terror just a few weeks ago? Or some sort of independent chap using the Freedom of Information act to publish official photographs on the internet?
I heard the latter. I would have though such action deserved libertarian support in principle.
As to the “morality”, I think Grant and Perry have struck the correct note…