The applause is universal for the success of every kid’s favorite superheroes. My three-year-old grandson is Captain America, and he knows all the other characters personally. That an audience of adults should celebrate his and the other kids’ acceptance of hyperviolent role models is not an occasion for applause but for shame. On the other hand it’s vindication for war-mongers.
By the way, if you had any doubts about the utility and rightness of war, let the embedded mass media put them to rest. Our estimable mainstream news sources tells us that Iran’s expected capitulation in talks with the US and its allies is directly attributable to threats of armed force by those powers and their lethal proxy Israel. Coupled in this case with harsh economic sanctions, the threat of war (empty, unless the warriors have shown themselves willing to attack) must now be reckoned a legitimate foreign policy tactic. If not for the great powers’ predisposition to violence, our media tell us, Iran would never have agreed to allow UN inspectors into its nuclear facilities.
The mass media don’t disclose what facts they rely on to calculate the motives of the Iranian nation. Media prognostications are almost never accompanied by facts, since the object of neojournalism is to tell you what you should think about events and not what actually happened. When we assess motives in our courts of law, we rely on evidence, but in neojournalism, evidence is unnecessary.
The gaps in reporting shouldn’t keep us news-consumers from guessing what basis there might be for assessing Iran’s motives. We might acknowledge Iran’s declared intention to limit its nuclear program to the generation of electricity. If its assertions are true, inspections will disclose no hostile intent. Reports in the embedded mass media don’t even hint that Iran’s motives might include a desire to dispel suspicion.
Our media don’t tell us who will conduct the inspections, but if the teams include no US or Israeli spies, that could be another motivating factor for Iran. Also, there’s an election coming in the USA. With all public systems in a state of catastrophic failure, the current occupants could well be turned out of office. Maybe the mullahs would rather deal with known adversaries than whatever thugs might emerge victorious from the November contests.
You might notice that the media don’t express an opinion whether threats of war are moral, ethical or legal. In fact, threatening armed force is forbidden by the charter of the United Nations. But we’re pragmatists now, and laws shouldn’t apply when they stand in the way of a righteous nation’s righteous objectives. That’s taken for granted by neojournalists, hyperpragmatists all, and they assume we will follow their lead.