Newspaper Monopoly of What Can be Photographed 08 04 2011

Newspaper Monopoly of What Can be Photographed 08 04 2011

It should not be legal for a newspaper to take pictures and publish them, of the same object or scene, that an individual person can not take and publish of.  Why?  This rule would assume that Newspapers are more responsible than your average person but this is not true.  Newspapers today are not responsible for delivery the best and most truthful story.  Today’s Newspapers are only responsible for growing the bottom line of the business.  This is unrealistic.  Why?  Because a newspaper will always have about the same subscriber base, so there is a limit how fast it can grow and if it can grow earnings per share at all.  So what happens when a Newspaper is faced with this unrealistic goal??? It is very simple- we get unrealistic news.  Unrealistic news is just a euphemism for written lies.  And what happens when the public is fed unrealistic news?  The public becomes unrealistic.  What does unrealistic mean? Separate from reality in this case.  So whose advantage is it that the public has become unrealistic or broken from reality?  In reality it is no one’s benefit.  Shareholders may temporarily benefit and managers might be able to justify higher salaries.  But these two groups are also part of the public that reads the paper and as such they suffer from this unreality.

What happens next?  Someone objects to the unreality.  In this case it was a foreign country.  What happens then?  Homeland security arises and our rights are taken away. 

Do we really benefit from Homeland Security? No.  Why not?  Because we should not have allowed ourselves to get in the position where it was needed in the first place.  And to come full circle- why was it needed?  Because of the unreality created by media companies and corporate America.

Occupation Force:
Leon Panetta said to day, “It is my primary job to support the troops.”  As Secretary of Defense responsible for our military he did not say it is my job to guide the troops.  What does it imply that he did not say this more stronger statement.  Many things.

1.      That he would not be responsible enough to guide the troops that he has responsibility for.

And more importantly.

2.      It implies that the troops are more of an Occupation Force than an Army.

Does anyone remember History Classes where they told you about British Forces Occupying India or British, French or Spanish forces occupying America before the revolution?  What was the first thing you asked yourself when you learned of occupation forces in history? “Why the hell are they there!”  And “What the hell are they doing there.”  It was almost as if you knew the answer already when you heard about these Forces occupying the early history of our country.  “They did not belong here!”  And  “We want to quickly read to that part in our history books where they get their ass kicked out!”  Who thinks any citizens of those foreign countries believe the same exact thing.  Would you be a good patriot to your own country if  you did not resent an occupation force?

If you think that I am making bold out unrealistic statements in this article it is likely because you have only been paying attention to unrealistic news chortled at you by Americans who are paid because they have the looks and persona to convince.  To be more close to the point here, Putin a leader of a foreign country just said the same thing I did.  I will paraphrase what I heard from the uninvited guests in my home that I heard speaking on the television set “America is living beyond its means and this is negatively affecting the world economy.”

American Citizens if you have no problem with us having an Occupying Force in another country what would you say if world powers grouped together to occupy the United States.

The Right to Keep and Bare Arms.  Every single American should be responsible enough to safely have a gun in their home.  If every American did we would not likely have unrealistic ideas regarding our world economy.  Maybe those who sought power in our country that were irresponsible would have thinned themselves out a long time ago.  More importantly if every American owned a gun as it is their right by the second amendment, what would we really need an Army for?  You wouldn’t.  If you had an occupying force come to the United States every American could get out their gun and stand on their front steps and shoot them dead.  There would be no quest for resources at unfair terms to the people of other countries and we would be forced to be more dependent and self reliable- just like those who founded our country.

Okay, so we might need an Army to protect rulers of other countries that gained power and committed genocide.  Or we could just choose to say to the whole world, let’s not do business with that country that has a leader that has taken the starting initiatives of this nature- ie torture.  Wait a minute- that is the United States of America- and is that not the point that the terrorists are making when they boycott oil trade with the United States.

Just my thoughts, don’t give me a Planet of the Apes chemical lobotomy as political censorship for standing up for the rights America was founded on.

What is America if it is not the integrity it was founded on?  I’ll give you a hint, our dollar is worth very little without the integrity the country was founded on, that made us so special.

Back to what cannot be photographed.

We are not allowed to photograph oil tankers?  Why not?  Go look at one, they are rusting and leaching into our ground water and no one wants to put up new ones to replace them.  As a matter of fact my personal rule is that when something needs repair it is the opportune time to upgrade that item as you repair it.  We are lucky if repairs are made at all in this country!

If you trust that pretty face on television to form your opinion, you’ve got a screw loose.

Thomas Paul Murphy

Copyright 2011 Thomas Paul Murphy

Originally Published on 08 04 2011 at:  www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com