Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Afghan Murders and Media (ABC and Yahoo) Incompetence/Efil

Is it relevant whehter a murder "suspect" is also a thief? The LAW--remember, my previous life was as a Texas lawyer for more than 30 years--says that it is totally IRRELEVANT. It is what is known as a "collateral issue": deflecting from the main issue of guilt or innocence or murder in a way likely to PREJUDICE a jury with "character" information. This can be done with things like adultery, as well as theft. You might remember "The Fugitive", and the "one-armed man". That was a REAL Supreme Court caseabotut the EVIL tendency of the media to conduct a TRIAL (in th emedia--now a torutine EVIL of our evil media) of the accused based on irrelevant/prejudicial allegations (such as, by the way, the allegations about Herman Cain and women). The Supreme Court case was supposedly a "landmark" case (involving, I believe, Dr. Sam Sheppard, although that name may not be quite right) on the prejudicial effect of media pretrial publicity. If only our EVIL media had "learnewd" any lesson, but they did not. They are now worse hthan ever, and on a national level (not just local, as was mainly true of Dr. Richard Kimble--oops! I mean Dr. Sheppard). Here is today's truly disgraceful "featured" headline from ABC/Yahoo "News":

"Afghan Murder Suspect Bales 'Took My Life Savings' Says Retiree"

So what? You heard me, you EVIL people at ABC and Yahoo: SO WHAT? We are supposed to worry about whether a murder suspect" took someone's life savings? Does that have ANYTHING to do with the Afgan murders? Not a chance. The suggestin that it does is an eVIL suggestion that impokies that people should be DISTRACTAED by irrelevancies like this in making decisions. What if "Bales" CONTESTS whether he stole anyone's "life savings"? Are we supposed to be DISTRACTED by this COLLATERAL ISSUE that has NO affect on whether Bales is tuilty of murder? This is TERRIBLE stuff-EVIL stuff. And it is typical of the way the media "reports" crime, including in situatins where it matters more.

Is Bales a mere "suspect"? Of course not. That is a media CONCEIT, even as they routinely CONVICT ppeople of MURDER (in the media) in situations where the facts truly are CONTESTED. We KNOW who the SHOOTER is here. The only "question" is LEGAL resojnsibility for "murder".

Notice that I did NOT say that the only "question" here is "why?" The MEDIA "question" of "why?" is a DISHONEST "question" which suposedly justifies some sort of media frenzy to put every aspect of a muder "superct's" life under "scrutiny". Hogwash. We almost NEVER can figure out "why". I have previously, in this blog, given my favorite example: Charles Whitman, the "Texas Tower", former United States Marine murderer who took rifles up on top of the tower on the campus of the Unitverisity of Texas at Austin and strated shooting peop.e Kinky Friedman: "There was a rumor of a tumor." Yes, our deisgraceful' journalists' put out rumors that this "all-American" boy was caused to go "off the beam" by a tumor in his head. FALSE. The search for "why" led, as usual, NOWHERE. I read a later book on the killings that came up with my favorite "explanation" of all time: "Whitman was a MEAN SOB." That, by the way, is the ONLY appropriate forum for looking at this kind of thing: an after-the-fact examination in someting like a BOOK. This "speculation" as a "case" is happening is EVIL stuff.

As this blog has had occasion to note, the media 'coverage" of these Afghan killings has been truly DISGRACEFUL--lathough not quite as disgraceful as the coverage of thigns like the "burning" of Korans or the "urnination" on enemy combatants that our snipers have just killed. Look at this recent headline:

"Americans willing to give Afghan killer some slack"

What EVIL person would do a POLL on the opinion of Americans on the Afghan killings? And some of you have th enerve to DOUBT me when I say these peope WORSHIP polls. What if it were not a "poll", but mere speculation by the writer based on "interviews"? Well, that would be WORSE (or maybe only just as bad, as these comparisons get meaningless when the EVIL is this bad). Who cares whether the "American people" are willing to give "slack" to the Afghan kiler? The American peole surely realize what this blog has told lyou: Soldiers CRACK in WAR. That does not mean that we EXCUSE it. But ALL soldiers do not "crack". And looking for WHY one soldier "cracks" and another (with the same background) does not is a USELESS, often evil, exercise--especially as the events are happening rather than in a book after the heat of the moment has dissipated (with a chance to fully investigate the FULL FACTS, ratther than put out these disgraceful heaadlines.

Still doubt me? I keep tellling youy: NEVER do that. Look at this example of another recent headline from our incomopetent, evil media:

"Afghan killer saw best friend lose leg a few days before" (headline from memory of a week or so ago, and not exact, but the gist is correct)

Loook at this one. Do soldiers seee their firiends and fellow soldiers get blown up, shot, killed and maimed in WAR? Of course they do. See above. That is surely why "Americans" might be willing to give a little "slack". But do MOST soldiers lose it this way? Of course not. This is another one of those articles with NO PURPOSE.--especaily as a headline. Why one man cracks and another does not is the subject for BOOKS (which, even thing, rarely have rel "answers"). The media should worry more about FACTS. Sure, if the killer SAYS "why" he thnks he did it, report that FACT. But this endless, evil , pop-psychology blather merely highlights just how incopetent our media is. They are certainly no better than they ever were. My own conclusin is that they are WORSE than they ever were.

Message to you "journalists" out there: Does it bother you that I hold you in total CONTEMPT? It should, because those POLLS you WORSHIP indicate that I am not alone. I pride myuself on not being with the crowd. On this one, I hink I am with the crowd. As I have said repeatedly, honest whores (hard as they may be to find) are in a much more honorable porfession. It remains an INSULT to whores to call "lournalists" (male and female) "hwores", making it necessary for me to apologize to real whores every time I do it.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: