Reporting from the front: Again.

Here is a follow up for you on my last post. Today the US has learned that after the first two British tomahawk missles hit Qadaffi's compound that Libyan officials invited a group of CNN and Rueters reporters to the compound to view the damage done by the missles. In effect they used them as human shields, British Tornado fighters had to call off the follow up attack on the compound after learning the reporters were there. Again I ask you, what the hell are civilian reporters doing in a battle zone? What the hell is their purpose for being there?

Only good news for reporters today is that the four New York Times reporters captured last week were in fact released today by Libya.

Reporting from the front?

A thought has come to me after watching the world news of the last few months. I understand the need for news, I even understand the need for news overseas during turmoil and war. What I don't understand is why we can't get that news from a military source who is there during the fighting for the military rather than sending in civilian reporters and crew. The military does have, after all, reporters and camera men serving in every branch of the military. In almost every war that has happened in recent times, reporters and their support crews are captured, detained and tortured, detained and slaughtered or in some cases detained during the conflict and eventually released, not to mention the civilian reporters who give away our own troop positions and movements claiming freedom of the press grants them the right to say anything they want. There's a special place in hell for this last group of reporters and I personally feel any reporter who gives away their own troops movements should be arrested and tried for treason.

Reporters really chap my ***

I really am interested in what is going on in Japan right now.  After all, I spent two years of my life stationed aboard the USS Midway in Yokosuka. I'm reading the news every couple hours to try and keep up with the situation there, but every reporter in the world seems to work into their story that the death toll could go as high as 10,000.  Doesn't matter what the story is about, they always refer to the predicted death toll. I read a story while ago that not only mentioned the death toll but did so in each of its five paragraghs. Reporters seem to think they have to beat us over the head with certain facts or we'll forget them.  What makes them think that every piece they write has to contain some mention of how many are likely to die is beyond me.

I don't claim to be a writer; what I can tell you is this: when the information doesn't relate to the story, I don't see any purpose to working it in. The latest story I was reading was on the situation with the Fukushima Nuclear plant.  Wouldn't you know, the second paragraph goes right into the predicted death toll from the tsunami and earth quake. Umm look, I wasn't reading the article to be reminded yet again how many people may have died, I was reading the article to find out how the efforts to cool the plant down were going and how much radiation was being leaked into the atmosphere!

Let's hit the Links!?!

Lets go play golf. Why not, President Bush played 24 rounds of golf in his first 2 years and 10 months as president before finally giving the game up saying he didn't feel it sent the right message for him to play golf while our parents/children/siblings/family were dying in a war over seas.
 Obama played 24 rounds of golf in his first nine months in office, in fact he has now been in office two years two months and 16 days and he has now played sixty one rounds of golf. Now I love playing golf as much as the next golf fan and last year I got to play more in one year than I ever have before, approximately four rounds. I don't begrudge anyone a little time on the golf course but come on, you are the president of the United States, you have responsibilities. We are right now in crisis mode in much of the world, and you are out playing golf. I'm sorry, I'm not being fair, you did play eighteen holes of golf on Saturday but I forgot to mention what else you did on Saturday. Saturday was also the day you sat down and video taped your picks for the NCAA basketball tournaments for ESPN. I keep forgetting how well rounded and talented our illustrious leader is, he has been called the Messiah which must mean his mad community organizational skills are doubly effective.

Whats wrong with this picture?

Ok, Wisconsin is in an uproar. Why? The labor unions are all hot and bothered because the Republican party took the horse by the reins and decided to vote on collective bargaining with or without the democrats. Well,  it seems to me the people should be revolting against the democrats, after all, the democratic party are the ones who fled the state in an attempt to keep Republicans from curtailing union labor bargaining rights. The democratic party are the ones who decided not to do their jobs. Obama said that while he understands state governments' need to make cuts, the Wisconsin proposal seems like "an assault on unions." Well, we knew he would take the side of the unions, after all he is all for the unions and the government running everyone's life. 
  I'm sorry but it seems to me that the anger the labor unions have should be directed at the democratic party since they are the ones who let them down. They say during elections that, "If you don't vote you have no right to complain about the outcome." Well it seems to me the labor unions have no right to complain, their chosen party didn't stick around to barter or vote on their behalf. If it were me, I would dock the pay of the senators who fled the state for every day they failed to perform their job, after all if I decided  not to show up at work I wouldn't get paid. This would also save the state money. I would also let the democrats know that if they failed to do their jobs again they would be the ones recalled. In my opinion, if they had stayed in the state, a compromise might have been reached.