Can you say media hypocrisy? (Page 2): Military families get overlooked all of the time. As a Navy Brat, I knew more what ship what Dad was on vs who Dad was in my early years, during...

David Lyon

Military families get overlooked all of the time. As a Navy Brat, I knew more what ship what Dad was on vs who Dad was in my early years, during Vietnam. At that time, WestPacs were 11 months long.

As a Navy retiree, I saw deployments shorten, and families still struggling with a parent being gone.

The media does not pay attention I believe largely because for over 40 years, the military has been voluntary. Granted, Homecomings get good reviews but not the issues of the separation, low pay and constant moves that makes raising kids in the military a challenge most people will never know.

That being said, media goes with what will bring in ratings. Think back at the week Micheal Jackson died. How much news did you hear outside the Pop world that week?

G. Crook Loc: Linden, TX

DaveO wrote:

I didn't realize that we had that many parents in combat zones. Probably because that statistic is erroneous by several hundred thousand.

Note that “combat zones” was not referenced nor was one specific branch of the military referenced. We do have five military branches which have members stationed all over the world, many of whom are on “unaccompanied “ tours (no families) and many of those families have more than one child. Erroneous by “several hundred thousand”? Probably not.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Tex-s wrote:

How DARE you muddy the propaganda waters with logic or, **gasp**, facts?

Yep.

Forget facts...just spew emotions.

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

wk**lham wrote:

How is the last category illegal? Show me a single example, here or anywhere in the world that children are allowed to go to jail with their parent.

First of all, you don't send people to jail who are not yet charged with anything, especially if they are legally seeking asylum. Second, you don't arbitrarily turn them away when they are seeking asylum, forcing them to attempt to cross the border illegally, making them break the law. (The government has been regularly doing this. It is well documented.) Third, if they are caught entering illegally, that is a misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket. They don't need to be in jail. They can be immediately deported with the families intact. And fourth, in these 2000 cases, the government was both delinquent in their duty to keep accurate records of who was where and was illegally using the threat of never reuniting families as a deterrent to all forms of immigration. This has illegal written all over it. If you can't see that, you aren't reading.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

David Lyon wrote:

Military families get overlooked all of the time. ... (show quote)

Yes, and that's a shame too. I have great respect for young men and women who enlist to serve our country at great sacrifice. My hat is off to them.

My dad was career navy but we were lucky; though he was gone a LOT, we didn't move while I was growing up.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Burtzy wrote:

First of all, you don't send people to jail who are not yet charged with anything, especially if they are legally seeking asylum.

That's because they aren't.

Quote:

Second, you don't arbitrarily turn them away when they are seeking asylum, forcing them to attempt to cross the border illegally, making them break the law.

Nobody forced them to do anything. They broke the law.

Quote:

(The government has been regularly doing this. It is well documented.)

No they haven't and no it isn't.

Quote:

Third, if they are caught entering illegally, that is a misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket. They don't need to be in jail.

That's too bad...that should be a much stiffer penalty and yes...they need to be in jail as all criminals should be.

Quote:

They can be immediately deported with the families intact.

That's part of the reason that we are in this mess...the lax consequences for criminally entering our country. I certainly hope that wall is tall and strong and it goes up soon!

Quote:

And fourth, in these 2000 cases, the government was both delinquent in their duty to keep accurate records of who was where and was illegally using the threat of never reuniting families as a deterrent to all forms of immigration. This has illegal written all over it. If you can't see that, you aren't reading.

Bull crap. More propoganda.

Quit whining. They are criminals...they should be in jail and we need to keep them out.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rpavich wrote:

....
They are criminals...they should be in jail and we need to keep them out.

What part of illegal entry do people not understand? Try going into another country illegally and see what happens.

Tex-s

DaveO wrote:

The famous "what about Obama" defense.

Actually, not, if you read past the first line. I'm still waiting for the MEDIA defense of waiting 4+ years for this to be an issue and for the DEMOCRATS' lack of action in 2008-2010 if immigration reform is an actual agenda item.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

G. Crook wrote:

Note that “combat zones” was not referenced nor was one specific branch of the military referenced. We do have five military branches which have members stationed all over the world, many of whom are on “unaccompanied “ tours (no families) and many of those families have more than one child. Erroneous by “several hundred thousand”? Probably not.

Note that I responded to a number of 765,000 children not knowing if a parent would return, the implication being the parents were in harms way. My response was simply stating that the vast majority were not serving in combat zones. A little research will bear out my statement. I am not demeaning anybodies service, but calling the number given as grossly not factual. I served for over 23 years, so please don't go there.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Tex-s wrote:

Actually, not, if you read past the first line. I'm still waiting for the MEDIA defense of waiting 4+ years for this to be an issue and for the DEMOCRATS' lack of action in 2008-2010 if immigration reform is an actual agenda item.

You can't cherry pick a statement. Well, then again, some do it all the time.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Longshadow wrote:

If this is the wrong place "General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)", what is?

The Attic is the place for controversial topics, especially politically charged ones.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda wrote:

The Attic is the place for controversial topics, especially politically charged ones.

Maybe that's where it might wind up, but initially this category is fine, general chit-chat for non-photography.
Maybe they should change the category name to non-photography::non-controversial.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Nancysc wrote:

And this has what to do with photography?

Carefully read the section title - it says "General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)" - there are free on line dictionaries if you need to look any of those words up.

N4646W

Longshadow wrote:

What part of illegal entry do people not understand? Try going into another country illegally and see what happens.

hj Loc: Florida

Pay attention.... you are in "The Attic" section of UHH which is intended for political and other controversial topics.

Nancysc wrote:

And this has what to do with photography?