reply to post by howie0
What am I missing?
Since when am I responsible for paying a private company employee to ensure the safety of a private sector civilian?
Recently, while watching Bill Maher's show "Real Time", the subject of Blackwater came up. Tucker Carlson was on the panel and suggested that
without Blackwater mercenaries, the New York Times Bureau would go unprotected, as well as other news agencies reporting on the situation in Iraq.
Yeah…so…what's his point? I agree… it is imperative to protect news reporters in war zones.. But at whose expense? The taxpayers??? I think
not…Last I checked, the New York Times wasn't a part of our form of government. Our government stands on principles such as freedom of the press
and freedom of religion but it should not be paying for their protection. They are protected, in principle, under the constitution…Their existence,
however, should be protected by their employer.
We live in a capitalistic society. Simple supply and demand economics are the foundation of our financial, religious and political freedoms. So, if
the New York Times wants to report on the war, outside of military operations in which they would be protected by soldiers funded by taxpayers, then
let them pay their own way. Let the New York Times decide if it's a good business decision. If , in order to pay for their reporter's protection,
the New York Times has to raise the price of its paper, then raise prices. If their customers care about what they are reporting they will pay the
going rate. If not, then I guess the New York Times should do a better job at finding out what their consumers want.
Now, I know what you are going to say. If we don't protect our private journalists, the government would go unchecked in its reporting of volatile
war situations and events. Again, yeah, so what? If the people of this country REALLY care about what's going on, then they will be willing to make a
conscious decision that involves a high financial price for unprejudiced truth, rather than the filtered, biased, relayed news, received through
journalists protected by their government mandated tax dollars, at a cost of 50 cents - $1.50 per newspaper. If the media outlets had to protect their
own employees it would be financially rewarding for the media to report the "real truth", rather than what their protector want's them to report
The constitution of the United States does not guarantee different views or different reporting, it guarantees the possibility of different views or
reporting. The economic laws of capitalism will determine the outcome. By protecting the journalists with taxpayers money, we ensure ourselves of a
product with prejudice. Ever wonder why the press is so protective of the administration? "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", comes to mind. In
this instance, the "hand" refers to the government. If the government is protecting the journalists so that they can do their job, why would the
journalist or the editor of the newspaper in question report truly unbiased, unflattering images of the situation? They wouldn't. Instead, we
routinely get watered down images of the truth.
This brings me to an ironic conclusion. The capitalistic approach to separation of government and free press, that I mentioned earlier, created this
problem. Capitalism is our vice, but we, the consumers, are to blame. Our thirst for a better society, our thirst for a better life, our thirst for
spiritual enlightenment has been quenched by success. We are spoiled little brats, getting fat, living off the success and wealth of our ancestors.
In our eyes, we reached the pinnacle of the civilization poll. In our eyes, we are #1. The only thing we forgot is that it is an opinion poll. There
are many ways to live this life, there are many ways to make a society prosper, and there are many ways to reach enlightenment. The great philosopher
Socrates once said, "an unevaluated life is not worth living.", yet we Americans represent a country whose choices of intellectual consumption,
spirituality, and foreign policy reflects the moral compass of teenager who already knows everything, and whose unhappy having to live by the rules of
the elders from which they came. We as consumers hold the skeleton key to the door of a morality. We vote constantly throughout our day. Take the time
to evaluate your vices. Take the time to realize that with every decision you make, of every day of your life, you are casting your vote on what kind
of world you want to live in.
The world we live in was here long before us, and it will remain here long after we are gone. There is nothing wrong with admitting one's mortality,
but there is everything wrong with failing to protect the immortality of human life as WE know it.
[edit: spaced paragraphs]
[edit on 24-1-2008 by 12m8keall2c]