BILL-ONLY INTELLECTUALS WILL LIKE THIS, PLEASE COMMENT

“National Conversation.”  Frequently  we hear, “We need to have a national conversation about…..” The reader can fill in the blanks as to what the subject is.  Usually, it will be about a new national tragedy, such as the latest mass murder (done with readily available weapons); it will be about a shocking disclosure—at least to concerned media and some of the public—such as  NSA snooping;  and it will be about some political, social, or economic injustice that is really just a part of the very being of American society, but has come to media attention because of  a particularly bizarre/sensational incidence of rape, child molestation, police violence, innocents on death row, racism, denial of the effects of climate change.

Of course there will never be a “national conversation” about subjects that are taboo to the corporate media.   The emergence of a national police state will not be confronted. The inability of a (even highly regulated) fee market system to provide for the economic needs of the people is not going to be part of a “conversation.”   Noam Chomsky will never be part of the “national conversation” on TV because he would seize, by the throat, the viewers watching the shadows of illusion cast on that media’s cave walls, (see Plato) by its corporate masters, and bring them kicking and screaming into the blinding sun of reality outside the media cave. 

The reality of the American Empire, so expensive to maintain, that, like a parasite on the body of the host American Republic, it sucks up the resources need to repair crumbling infrastructure, truly fight hunger, poverty, disease, illiteracy and otherwise provide for the common good and promote the general welfare isn’t going to chatted about on Good Morning America.

A national conversation.  "Well, we’ll probably have a bit of one for a while on mental health, shooters, and shooting sprees, after the  mass murder in the D.C. shipyard," I thought.  But no.  With the government shutdown and other matters before that,  in terms of coverage by the media, the D.C. shipyard massacre never happened.  

Most of the TV coverage was devoted to an hour by hour description of the shootings.  However, to my surprise, some of the "conversation" in the media was actually stubstantive.  Some pundits, on national TV, pointed out that it’s easier in America to access guns than mental health services.  Others suggested that obvious crazies, who may even be a danger to themselves and others, are not reported by mental health providers to law enforcement; and, even if they are, that information will not be shared with other agencies. Some TV observers lamented that the mental health system in the U.S. is underfunded, fragmented.  A very few brave souls said that private health insurers push back on paying bills for treatment of severe mental illness and even suicidal patients.  

Others said  “Gee this is just so complex. We can’t decide on what to do with potential killers until we know all of the factors.”   They went  on to frame the issue in terms of privacy rights versus rights of the public to be safe from dangerous people.   The significant aspects of the shootings badly needed to be continually examined, their ramifications explored.  America is the most murderous "civilized" society on earth for God's sake.

By the way, it turned out that the gunman had  paranoid schizophrenia.  The only place where that was discussed was on the PBS News Hour, and its implications and significance for law enforcement, mental health providers  and public policy was very brief.

But the  crucial, sorely needed “national conversation” on the D.C. slaughter is dead.  News cycles suck up issues, spit them out, and quickly go on to the next one.  Whatever happened to Edward Snowden?  OK, his latest revelations do make news.  But where’s the “national conversation” about the role of whistleblowers in American society?  Never happened, never will.  The "conversational" issue was framed by media and the President in terms of “freedom” versus “security?”  Lousy frame (the issue is how do we stop a tyrannical government from trampling on our constitutional rights?)  but, however limited it was, the “conversation" needed to be continued  Of course, it will be revived and just as limited when the next massacre soon occurs

Travon Martin?  Who's he?  "Stand Your Ground" still a problem.  I don't know.  Innocent people still be murdered in state executions?  Haven't heard. 
I remember Bangladesh clothing factory fire killing 400 people, but I guess they've got that one solved, huh?  What do you call those young people who were brought over the border as kids but aren't citizens now?  Dreamers, is that it?  They still around?  They pass an immigration bill yet?  Who was Tyler Clementi anyway?  Oh yeah, killed himself!  I remember when bullying was still a big deal.

The whole concept of a “national conversation,” within the framework of the lack of in-depth coverage of issues in the media, the 24 hour news cycle’s insatiable need for new “news,” and spitting out the “old,”its obsession with celebrity, the tendency to sensationalize everything, and that it usual originates with politicians saying "let's have a national conversation," to dodge to avoid taking a stand on anything,  means that the term is, to use the bards expression,  full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.