Alpine Summit

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Left and "Free Speech"

Dadmanly writes up a good analysis of this leftist at "Seeing the Forest" who's scared because his worldview is losing in the (now) balanced marketplace of ideas. The discussion was touched off by a blackfive post about journalists and the military. Says Blackfive:

At some point, you have to pick sides. Not choosing a side is choosing not to be on our side.


Update 2: For some reason some lefty bloggers are taking the choosing sides statement to mean choosing parties. It's not about choosing parties - it's about the American media supporting the soldier and the war effort. It's not about the media towing the line for Rumsfeld - it's about the media telling the truth about the war and not taking their queues from terrorists. It's not about being Right or Left - it's about making sure the soldiers come home to a grateful nation. It's not about Cindy Sheehan - it's about Casey Sheehan. We have thousands of war heroes. Can you name twenty? Ten? Five?

I've been fed up with the MSM for some time now. Even stories involving rebuilding (the few there are) of Iraq are either prefixed or suffixed by: "...this, as the death toll for American troops reaches..." It makes me sick and Blackfive makes a great point. The leftists though, are more concerned with criticizing America and are decidedly anti-American and anti-troops. Their only hope to not be called out as such is to "muddy the water" with wishy-washy relativism and trying to force a little grey into a decidedly black-and-white issue. Dadmanly's thoughts on the media are similar to mine, and only because I've read several milblogger's sites over the past several months.

It has everything to do with willful ignorance and misreporting of facts on the ground, "ground truth" as we say. We are here, and see what is to be seen every day. Many less reputable (and certainly less honorable) members of the press peddle falsehoods, actively promulgate propaganda from sworn enemies of the United States, hire Terrorist accomplices masquerading as "freelancers," and otherwise seek to turn every news report into a childish exercise of "how can we use this to make Bush look bad?"

Either left leaning commentators like Johnson are too biased to see that for what is is, or they think we (and a majority of your fellow Americans) are too stupid to see it.

If the press will publish bad news, at least just stick to facts. Avoid subjectivity and judgment. Present context. Maintain perspective. Recognize agendas. Don't be a patsy, any fool can tell when something's staged. If some positive news can be included, that would be nice too.

If it weren't for MILBLOGGERS, there'd be no positive voices out there at all. And yet as few as we are, you suggest we should be silenced, and portray us as those who would deny anyone the right to dissent or vocalize their opinion.

What's interesting is that this lefty assumes a republican bias in the military. I guess that's why it's always such an event when someone who actually was in the military (because, as during the vietnam war, many posed as veterans when they had in-fact never left the country in their life), and speaks out against things in which they participated, are at such a premium among the left. I've often wondered if liberals go into the military and become conservative, or if it's primarily just conservatives to begin with who care about this country enough to consider a military career?

Blackfive also has a great link to Mudville Gazette on "comparing some good reporting with those of the staged terrorist stories from the AP."

The problem I think liberals have is that the military disproves their worldview and have for a number of years now; but thanks to the Internet, members of the military are able to show how their worldview is wrong and now want that silenced. Unfortunately for the left, stating facts and perceptions is not against the UCMJ. Actually, it's part of many--if not all--of the jobs in the military to some degree. Leftists are all for free speech--as long as it doesn't conflict with their viewpoints and their worldview... otherwise it's "dangerous." Indeed.