The major problem, as I see it -- is conflicting "visions" as in: Pursuing the American Dream vs. Facing Up to Realities.
American Major Media, which is lib, continues to foster the idea that the so-called "American Dream" is intact, and that Repubs are simply foisting a war on the world in order to get re-elected. The major media, does not provide connections which would clearly rebut this view of "normalcy" -- instead, they do "disconnected" news reporting. Bombings in Israel are not put anywhere near the stories about 911 investigations, or latest local terrorist attempts in America and Europe. It's the visual equivalent of newsprint only printing pertinent aspects of headline stories on, say, page B-22, small para. So, there's a percentage of Americans who either wishfully think all this hoopla about being murdered simply will not happen to them; but rather it happens to other people -- over there; or there's Americans who see the connections, despite "editorial attempts" at disconnection -- and all labelled "conspiracists" by same media disconnecting these events for digest by American citzenry. It's a displacement/placement issue.
Elections in America, are the classic means, far more reliable than polling data -- as to where or how this connection/disconnection really falls, or is perceived. Right now, polling data is being used in attempts to determine how disconnected or connected are Americans from the realities of what is going on in re terrorists, and/or how clear they are. President Bush must be re-elected, IMHO. If, when his admin is, directives such as you propose can be more readily accomplished. Why? The Admin are representatives of the majority VOICE of the people. And, US leaders need to know exactly how to "use" their offices in accord with the will of THE PEOPLE of the United States. And this, IMHO, is why the directives such as you suggest, are not being openly implemented. Currently.
An asidem? The Democrat Strategy in re winning election. Clearly, they are going off their rockers (whoopi, Mel Watts, NAACP). What fascinates me? They are against the US as a military power; but instead by their very actions and words, propose themselves as the militants (military) wrangling "for" America. They propose that "war" be ended via civil means. That we can just talk our rapists/terrorists out of hurting us. But they themselves are most uncivil. Another "conflict" in the vision thing. It's got to be confusing, a very confusing matter to those who get their news from the mainstream, partisan media. How can a "peace by talks" person be supporting representatives of a party who are constantly uttering the rhetoric of uncivil violence?
A fascinating disconnect, IMHO.
So true. When I was in NYC, the big Reuters billboard in Times Square ran a story about the US military attacking some village or whatever, with the typical momma crying in the camera scene. This is the top story. On the same day that the most recent American was beheaded, the guy from New Jersey (apologies; forgot his name at the moment).
The major problem, as I see it -- is conflicting "visions" as in: Pursuing the American Dream vs. Facing Up to Realities.
Again, so true! The Lib Left want to live life under the premise that they will never have to make a personally inconvenient decision. Islamic terrorism? Couldn't possibly be due to the wretched perversion we export in the name of Hollywood. NooOoo. It must be that George W. Bush! AIDS epidemic? Couldn't possibly be due to the 'anything goes' bedroom morality we possess, it must be that George W. Bush!
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to have a more pragmatic view on things. Personal responsibility, disdain for welfare, interest in facing down our enemies, foreign and domestic.