You know it's getting late when...

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

Last night on (as I recall) the CBS evening news, I heard a comment by a 
reporter that further reinforces my opinion that "they just don't get it."  
The reporter was talking about terrorism versus the amount of "security" 
applied, and he was pointing out that Americans  know the bombing had 
occurred in Saudi Arabia "despite the fact that political opposition there 
is practically illegal."   (fairly close quote)

Huh?  "despite the fact that political opposition there is practically 
illegal"?    "Despite"?  Suggesting, apparently, that the more oppressive 
the rule, the LESS likely violent opposition is expected to be?

I suggest a rewording:  "the bombing in Saudi Arabia occurred BECAUSE OF the 
fact that political opposition there is practically illegal."

Ostensibly, one of the reasons for having a free and fair political system 
is so people will not be inclined to throw bombs and plot violent 
revolution.  Grandly ignoring this, that reporter seems to take the 
diametrically opposite tack:  A totalitarian government can best avoid 
bombings and violence.

Where do these people learn their political theory?

One frequent line among reporters is that terrorism used to always be 
something that occurred elsewhere, not in America.  Yet another thing that 
"never" seemed to happen is when nominally patriotic, even conservative 
people talk of throwing out the government due to oppression.  (Such an 
activity is thought of as primarily the function of the young, usually the 
liberal, as in the civil rights and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960's.)

I wonder when it will occur to these reporters that there may actually be a 
connection there somewhere!

If anyone out there still doubts that the time for my "Assassination 
Politics" idea will never come, I claim that it's later than you think.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com