I have avoided posting on this particular thread, mostly because I've seen how easily poeple have been agitated over the responses, and quiet frankly I've been sitting on the fence about the issue, not leaning one particular way over the other (despite wha Pima may have voted for me. Talk about CINC-House!
). But after careful consideration, I just want to add my 0.000376 cents (about what my retirement account is worth these days.
) about the reaction to several of the posts on here, and some of the view points (and KP, I promise to try not to use the "y" word! I personally like to substitute "personal pronoun in the second person", or "PPITSP" for short!
)
First off, I always felt that internet forum conversations run a risk of getting people worked up over what is said, because part of the equation of standard human interaction is missing: being able to hear and imply HOW the person is saying it. Let's face it, "PPITSP" can't type out inflection in "PPITSPP" ("personal pronoun in the second person posessive") posts. (and I'll stop with the silly humor on that particular topic before people get insulted at my poor attempts at lightening up the situation. Again, INFLECTION adds to communication). On a forum, people tend to see what they want to see about a person's post, based on their general feeling on that particular person. ("Look what you said here! How dare you", "That's not how I MEANT it! You're taking my posts the wrong way!" and on and on and on...) Personal recommendation: read the post. Read it again. THINK about what they said,and how you will respond basing your conversation as if the person was right in front of you. Write your response. Re-read what you are responding to AGAIN. Re-read YOUR response again. And if you feel comfortable with what your saying, hit the "submit reply" button. And I'll be the first to admit that emotions have sometimes gotten the better of me and I've ignored my own advice. Sigh....
Now, as to Pima's "Psuedo military" comment. A good example of this. Not meant in dis-respect on her part, but I IMMEDIATELY told her that it was a VERY POOR choice of words on her part, and could (and should) be taken as insulting. (Brave on my part. I mean I have to live with her!
I saw my "honey-do" list growing as we talked, and my time in the dog-house growing to the point that I would wear out my welcome on the part of the family pets). But I did get her to see my point. And she admitted her mistake on here with a sincere apology (something many on here have refused to do in similar situations). We consider the situation closed--we hope the rest of you can as well, no matter if you understand what she was trying to say, or you don't.
Now, on to the OP: Good points by all involved, and I think ChristCorp summed it up nicely for one side of the fence, and Luigi did the same for the other. And both posts did that without getting overly "agitated". I'm still sitting on the fence, however. I worry that the use of the image of caskets rolling off the back of a C-17 at Dover will be use for an "agenda", which I find abhorrent and distasteful. I also worry that a Government using mass media to control their own agenda and unafraid of it's populace can ride that slippery slope to areas we'd rather not go down. Personally, I would like to see comprimise: if a family is there at Dover to meet their loved one for the first time returning from that "last full measure of devotion", they deserve the right to handle that emotional situation and begin the grieving in private. If they allow cameras to be there and the deceased SPECIFIED they would allow this in some method beforehand, that is perfectly acceptable to me. No family there, film away! (but I WILL be watching how you use the footage, and if it's done distastefully, I won't be watching you any more, or buying products from the companies who advertise on you.)
For me, I kinda specified I wanted a parade on the scale of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day one, complete with the cheerleaders from every NFL team (with their uniforms done in black and with black pom-poms, to keep with the dignified attitude of the situation), to meet me at the end of the C-17 ramp. But that's just me.
I'm not so sure Pima would have gone along with the New Orleans style funeral procession however...
But there is one area being posted here that I'm still having trouble with. The arguement that this all comes to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. I get VERY uncomfortable with the arguement used by the same folks who find it perfectly acceptable, and within their constitutional rights, to loudly protest military funerals all in the name of their perverted distortion of religion. Do have HAVE the right? Certainly, and I've spent my adult life defending that right. Does it MAKE it right? Well, I'll let you all decide on that one...
So, to end this manifesto. I have to say you need to take one of the Against Media count, and add a new category: "Depends"....
And I'm spent....