Oh, Faith, I don't trust the Right any more than I trust the Left. (Christians, I believe, should form a "third group", goading both Right and Left back to Scripture.) I'm simply noticing that the party that generally fails to support the military is now "supportive" when it's convenient. (And they certainly have no corner on the market when it comes to politics of convenience.) When I was eligible for military service, it was the last place you wanted to be - because Democrats had gutted military spending again. After that, military service was again unattractive because you were highly likely to be killed merely to defend economic interests of the wealthy. So I missed out on serving my country altogether, merely by listening to the opinions of others - on both sides of the political divide. The point, though, is that the media on both Right and Left deliver biased messages. Victor Hansen shows this simply in terms of the numbers of US service persons killed in Iraq as reported by the Left. (I remember Walter Cronkite doing something similar for Vietnam.) The Right might have us disregard the deaths as much as possible, by simply not publishing much about them. (Where are the ongoing tallies of Iraqis killed both before and after the end of Saddam's reign?) There are three kinds of lies.

Lee, You're right, the media hype surrounding the Jena Six reflects the same problem. It's disappointing that after reading several media pieces about that situation I feel like raising my hand and asking "can anyone tell me what's really going on?" I still don't have a clue. But in regards to the War in Iraq, I think we need to be careful pointing fingers at the Left. I believe that would the shoe be on the other foot (meaning Dems had been in complete power and made the same choices re: War in Iraq) it would be the Republicans crying foul. Nothing is really done for the good of the country as much as it's done for the good of the party. So it's no wonder one of the parties is always whining. The media just happens to receive more funding by the Left. But anyway, I digress...

Thank God I live in Oregon. ;-) It's interesting to read various accounts of the Jena Six, wherein each article is clearly spun towards the author's biases. (Did six youths gang up on one? Was it such a mild beating that the attempted murder charge is clearly absurd? And on and on.) When I was in college we could read two newspapers - one from the college town, which slanted far to the left; another from a nearby town, which was firmly on the right. It was highly educational to read two accounts of the same event. ("Police wade into peaceful protesters, cause injuries!" versus "Protesters attempt to shut down Main Street, harass businesses!") Today, my favorite part of the newspaper is the Op-Ed page, where there's no attempt to hide behind a facade of objectivity. I wonder what it would be like to read a section in, say, USA Today, titled "Vital Statistics", showing the number - and percentages - of the statistics Victor Hansen cites, for each state. In addition, it could include both service personnel and civilians around the world. It would certainly provide context for the coverage of Iraq. Along these lines, I'm fascinated that the Left has such a sudden interest in the well-being of military personnel. We've come a long way from the 1960s when Vietnam protesters in the USA would spit on returning veterans. (On the other hand, I recall left-wingers chanting at a DEMOCRAT (!!) president "Hey, hey, LBJ - how many kids did you kill today?" So maybe troop losses have just been a political football for the Left all along.) And the final curious point is that the life of one of our American soldiers is apparently so much more valuable than the life of an Iraqi - from the people who make so much of their support for the equality of others when it comes to health care, education, opportunities, etc.

"Reader Nearly Dies Laughing"