Posterity and permanence deviate: Postered in the mind is discussion surrounding facts that remain as a memory of something-or-other to do with actuality. Some discussion is revised, but fictionalized supposition does more than linger. Headlines are screamers. Their appearance is not the result of mere casual editorial decisions.
A) Postulating an Islamic background to multiple street homicide throws all shades & degrees of motivation into the same soupy substance slurped for the war whose motivation habitually stays unquestioned while the widest-generalized image persists of who the war is said to be waged against. The background says all it needs to, whether true or not, and acts as bug light to belligerents on both sides of the dubiously declared cause.
B) As to the coverage of civilian casualties in the counter terror with terror war, recently it has been both marginal, i.e. not to be found if you're not inclined to look for it, and massive, i.e. suddenly popping up here and there if you are. The nice news for the wonks in the former group who didn't have much taste for the subject because of its dissonance triggering, or because they just never cared, is that the reports invariably highlight (indeed, appear to be framed in) the idea that the phenomenon is massive & new, i.e. the fault of the new President.
Virtually every article cites "concerns" that safeguards have been reduced. The Gatekeepian, says there's "more flexibility ordering strikes" and priNtn t'fYT media, touts "once-strict rules of engagement", though neither provide proof that the rules have been changed. Of course the military denies it. Whether or not they have, the overarching takeaway — what will be remembered no matter how much the text is altered — is that "we don't target civilians", i.e. the method, not the manufacture of war is the problem.
C) It's entirely plausible to a set of GOP lawmakers that the repeal & replacement of the ACA would not have been well received. This in spite of their constituencies' & those of their colleagues west of the aisle having gotten bilked & swindled through the collusion of the industries of insurance, medicine, and investment banking with the administration of their sworn nemesis — a collusion they were too bitter and stupid to partake of- & take bi-partial credit for, a collusion that features as its own proof that the law is nicknamed after a leader who had to strongarm it down the throats of his own party. That should sound more familiar than it does.
If you think that for many Republicans the Speaker's bill "didn't go far enough", consider that its not getting voted on is indication that its predecessor went plenty far enough, thank you very much. What will be remembered from this fiasco is, well, one, that is was a fiasco. But that the party in control couldn't do what the last party in control had gotten done. For many Democrats this will underline the notion of victory, even though they never really won anything. Then or now.
No matter how much is revealed in the revisions of history, the screamers will, quietly, have the final say. For they have the power over collective memory, in spite of the individual capacity to look shit up.
A) Postulating an Islamic background to multiple street homicide throws all shades & degrees of motivation into the same soupy substance slurped for the war whose motivation habitually stays unquestioned while the widest-generalized image persists of who the war is said to be waged against. The background says all it needs to, whether true or not, and acts as bug light to belligerents on both sides of the dubiously declared cause.
B) As to the coverage of civilian casualties in the counter terror with terror war, recently it has been both marginal, i.e. not to be found if you're not inclined to look for it, and massive, i.e. suddenly popping up here and there if you are. The nice news for the wonks in the former group who didn't have much taste for the subject because of its dissonance triggering, or because they just never cared, is that the reports invariably highlight (indeed, appear to be framed in) the idea that the phenomenon is massive & new, i.e. the fault of the new President.
Virtually every article cites "concerns" that safeguards have been reduced. The Gatekeepian, says there's "more flexibility ordering strikes" and priNtn t'fYT media, touts "once-strict rules of engagement", though neither provide proof that the rules have been changed. Of course the military denies it. Whether or not they have, the overarching takeaway — what will be remembered no matter how much the text is altered — is that "we don't target civilians", i.e. the method, not the manufacture of war is the problem.
C) It's entirely plausible to a set of GOP lawmakers that the repeal & replacement of the ACA would not have been well received. This in spite of their constituencies' & those of their colleagues west of the aisle having gotten bilked & swindled through the collusion of the industries of insurance, medicine, and investment banking with the administration of their sworn nemesis — a collusion they were too bitter and stupid to partake of- & take bi-partial credit for, a collusion that features as its own proof that the law is nicknamed after a leader who had to strongarm it down the throats of his own party. That should sound more familiar than it does.
If you think that for many Republicans the Speaker's bill "didn't go far enough", consider that its not getting voted on is indication that its predecessor went plenty far enough, thank you very much. What will be remembered from this fiasco is, well, one, that is was a fiasco. But that the party in control couldn't do what the last party in control had gotten done. For many Democrats this will underline the notion of victory, even though they never really won anything. Then or now.
No matter how much is revealed in the revisions of history, the screamers will, quietly, have the final say. For they have the power over collective memory, in spite of the individual capacity to look shit up.
