Obama's war against the First Amendment and Free Press

[realitybites]

That's the difficult bit as you're not dealing with a simple issue of Nationalism. My option would be to just treat terrorists as you would any other criminal - imo about the only time Thatcher got things right was when she refused to give in to calls of Irish Nationalists to be called political prisoners. As soon as you meet their violence with your own or remove the rights that you would afford other prisoners you just enter into a never ending cycle. I don't see how you can stop people believing that the West is evil if that's what they want to think, all you can do is minimise the impact they have on you and minimize the number of people that want to join their ranks without amending our ways to suit theirs - so we keep up with surveillance and all the things we already do but when somebody is arrested then they are charged and tried rather than interned and we don't give the other side martyrs or kill innocent civilians.

Sounds like you have thought this problem through. I like how you offer a practical solution. I honestly don't have any of my own. I have not spent enough time thinking about it. The news is depressing and often makes people paranoid and angry. So I don't watch it. I watch Charlie Rose every day online. And read the headlines to keep abreast. But I try not to get sucked into all the hysteria.

So many people become news junkies. They thrive on the drama. Sometimes I wonder if I am not being a good citizen by not being one as well. But to me it is about self-preservation.

I remember when I was a younger adult... how many stories about rape were in the news. And all the talk shows had women on who had been raped... telling their stories. And crime preventionists were offering safety tips. I swear I became convinced I would become another statistic. All that information was actually hurting rather than helping me. I don't feel any fear now. I realize those stories/statistics made mountains out of molehills. I still see the risk as being there, of course. But I see it realistically, not as an inflated balloon following me wherever I roam.

How do we strike a balance between information overload and staying adequately informed? It is a tough thing to do, imo.

Theo is a classic news junkie. He thrives on watching all the news channels, listening to the pundits argue, and reading online political/legal blogs. But I wonder, is it making his life better? Is he a happier, healthier person for doing so? Or is his news/commentary consumption acting like a drug... helping him escape from feeling and doing other things?

I think Theo is a good person. I have known him since 2004. But sometimes he actually acts like a drone--here, himself. He drops his bombs then quickly exits the scene. And doesn't care about the aftermath. A bit ironic, I think.

Anyhow, I don't have any answers. Only questions.

 

[the_kaz]

Yes, they may become angry and disillusioned with the US government. But are they going to all of a sudden become terrorists and suicide bombers? Hell no. Because they still love and embrace American culture and ideals. They don't hate America. They hate American policies. They are smart enough to realize that freedom sometimes has a price. And America stands for freedom.

Indeed, when I chat to various Middle Easterners, whether my own family and friends in Syria, or people elsewhere, I find that there's always a clear-cut distinction between "hating America" and "hating American foreign policy". An American traveler in the Middle East would likely find themselves the object of much interest and admiration. I'm really glad to see that you haven't fallen for the typical Western attitude of thinking that all Arabs hate you. They hate your country's foreign policy, and so (especially so) do their terrorists.

However, I don't quite agree where you say that "They are smart enough to realize that freedom sometimes has a price. And America stands for freedom." Firstly, the death of your family and the destruction of your livelihood wouldn't be considered a fair price for "freedom" in most people's eyes. Secondly, this idea that "America stands for freedom" is a purely American-centric opinion, and one which is heavily disputed in Europe and Asia, let alone in the Middle East, which feels the brunt of America's so-called "freedom" on a regular basis. Take a look at Iraq, which was, until quite recently, the Arab world's most secular country, one with very good women's rights records, and excellent educational standards. After the American military intervention in the name of "freedom", which most Arabs found to be unjustified (like most Europeans did too), the quality of life has plummeted and freedoms of women, followers of non-Muslim religions, and many others in their society, sunk with it. Are Middle Easterners supposed to look at this and think that the perpetrators of this catastrophe stood for freedom? Of course not. They, quite rightly, see America as having stood for their own self-interests. The ironic thing is that many Iraqis actually supported the American military campaign during the first Gulf War, until that turned sour. America lost the battle for the heart and soul of Iraq because of their own short-sightedness, but that needn't have been so. Which leads me to...

Honestly, I think the War on Terror is the most ill thought out, self defeating plan that the West has ever come up with.

Although I agree that a war against an arbitrary concept like "terrorism" is a daft idea, and an inherently unwinnable one at that, I believe that there were legitimate grounds for the war in Afghanistan. However, the way in which the war was waged was anything but legitimate. This is a war that most of the world supported, including Iran and Syria (until George Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" debacle, that is). Even many Afghans supported it initially, but now the American imposed government is largely considered to be just as bad as it was under the Taliban. What did people loose their families and homes for as a result of "friendly fire"?

Here is a quote from William Blum, a brilliant political commentator (though if you aren't a fan of Noam Chomsky, you won't be a fan of his). Osama bin Laden, himself, quoted from this passage in trying to give us an understanding of why he was doing what he was doing (and then Blum was attacked by the mainstream media for giving us this insight):

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize--very publicly and very sincerely--to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but--oddly enough--a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

 

[the_kaz]

Sounds like you have thought this problem through. I like how you offer a practical solution. I honestly don't have any of my own. I have not spent enough time thinking about it. The news is depressing and often makes people paranoid and angry. So I don't watch it. I watch Charlie Rose every day online. And read the headlines to keep abreast. But I try not to get sucked into all the hysteria.

So many people become news junkies. They thrive on the drama. Sometimes I wonder if I am not being a good citizen by not being one as well. But to me it is about self-preservation.

I remember when I was a younger adult... how many stories about rape were in the news. And all the talk shows had women on who had been raped... telling their stories. And crime preventionists were offering safety tips. I swear I became convinced I would become another statistic. All that information was actually hurting rather than helping me. I don't feel any fear now. I realize those stories/statistics made mountains out of molehills. I still see the risk as being there, of course. But I see it realistically, not as an inflated balloon following me wherever I roam.

How do we strike a balance between information overload and staying adequately informed? It is a tough thing to do, imo.

Theo is a classic news junkie. He thrives on watching all the news channels, listening to the pundits argue, and reading online political/legal blogs. But I wonder, is it making his life better? Is he a happier, healthier person for doing so? Or is his news/commentary consumption acting like a drug... helping him escape from feeling and doing other things?

I think Theo is a good person. I have known him since 2004. But sometimes he actually acts like a drone--here, himself. He drops his bombs then quickly exits the scene. And doesn't care about the aftermath. A bit ironic, I think.

Anyhow, I don't have any answers. Only questions.

I am, unfortunately, one of the "news junkies" you refer to. Not being one doesn't make you any less of a "good citizen", and being too obsessed, like I am, only leads to bitterness. I think being informed is important in life but, as you say, there needs to be a balance. Something that both the left-wing and the right-wing agree on is the fact that the mainstream media is horribly contrived, and doesn't tell us the whole truth. The funny thing is that the right-wing tends to believe that it's a "socialist" and family values destroying left-wing agenda, while the left believes it's a right-wing pro-zionist/pro-corporation agenda. I think this is proof, if any were needed, that the reality transcends "left" and "right" politics. In my opinion, although Democrats and Republicans, and Labour and Conservatives, are different from one another in a number of (mostly superficial) respects, they're fundamentally the same, and the mainstream news media plays into this ploy. Even if you disagree with that, you can probably agree with those right-wing and left-wing commentators who say that the mainstream media doesn't reflect what's really going on, and we have to look elsewhere. I think that there's a lot of good to be had from the mainstream news media, but it's crucial that we don't allow it to inform our opinions, otherwise we'll be completely ignorant. And it's better to not be informed at all than to be informed purely by Fox News and the BBC.

 

[Rowntree]

Agree about Afghanistan, the regime there was appalling and not many will be sad to see it taken on and you make excellent points everywhere else.

 

[realitybites]

I am, unfortunately, one of the "news junkies" you refer to. Not being one doesn't make you any less of a "good citizen", and being too obsessed, like I am, only leads to bitterness. I think being informed is important in life but, as you say, there needs to be a balance. Something that both the left-wing and the right-wing agree on is the fact that the mainstream media is horribly contrived, and doesn't tell us the whole truth. The funny thing is that the right-wing tends to believe that it's a "socialist" and family values destroying left-wing agenda, while the left believes it's a right-wing pro-zionist/pro-corporation agenda.

Agree.

I think this is proof, if any were needed, that the reality transcends "left" and "right" politics. In my opinion, although Democrats and Republicans, and Labour and Conservatives, are different from one another in a number of (mostly superficial) respects, they're fundamentally the same, and the mainstream news media plays into this ploy. Even if you disagree with that, you can probably agree with those right-wing and left-wing commentators who say that the mainstream media doesn't reflect what's really going on, and we have to look elsewhere. I think that there's a lot of good to be had from the mainstream news media, but it's crucial that we don't allow it to inform our opinions, otherwise we'll be completely ignorant. And it's better to not be informed at all than to be informed purely by Fox News and the BBC.

Well stated.

I am an independent voter... and consider myself to be a left-leaning moderate. Fox News and MSNBC are so biased it's ridiculous... and the BBC as well. Ah, but people like to be spoon-fed a consistent ideology that they can adhere to like a religion. It gives them direction, a sense of purpose. If we taught critical thinking early on more folks would avoid this simplistic approach. But critical thinking skills are the enemy of indoctrination.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree about Afghanistan, the regime there was appalling and not many will be sad to see it taken on and you make excellent points everywhere else.

 

[realitybites]

Indeed, when I chat to various Middle Easterners, whether my own family and friends in Syria, or people elsewhere, I find that there's always a clear-cut distinction between "hating America" and "hating American foreign policy". An American traveler in the Middle East would likely find themselves the object of much interest and admiration. I'm really glad to see that you haven't fallen for the typical Western attitude of thinking that all Arabs hate you. They hate your country's foreign policy, and so (especially so) do their terrorists.

However, I don't quite agree where you say that "They are smart enough to realize that freedom sometimes has a price. And America stands for freedom." Firstly, the death of your family and the destruction of your livelihood wouldn't be considered a fair price for "freedom" in most people's eyes. Secondly, this idea that "America stands for freedom" is a purely American-centric opinion, and one which is heavily disputed in Europe and Asia, let alone in the Middle East, which feels the brunt of America's so-called "freedom" on a regular basis.

I mean the freedoms espoused and guaranteed in our Constitution. What other nation grants so may civil liberties to her citizens? And we are moving forward... slowly... granting marriage rights to gays... and Colorado just became the first state in the world to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Our Constitution is a living document that is flexible and can and does change with the times. This Constitution and the values it holds is a great role model for other countries to adopt and embrace.

Democracy and human rights are a good thing. Many in the Middle East agree. And they too want these kind of freedoms for themselves and their current and future children. People all over the world risk their lives to be free from repressive regimes, dictators, and theocratic governments. Is America imposing its values on unwilling participants? Perhaps, at times. But the world WILL be a better place for it. Should it do so by force? By bombing private residences? Killing innocent lives? This is a sad price for change. Bloodshed. It is a causality of all conflicts which lead to change, unfortunately. I know it is easy for me to say these things as my home and family were not destroyed in the process. And I feel sad for those losses, I do.

I guess some might consider me to be an imperialist. I prefer the term, interventionist. I don't want America to occupy any countries, or take land or resources from any other nations. But I am not opposed to exporting ideals and values. Some ways of doing things ARE better than others. Live and let live is bullshit when it comes to laws, beliefs, doctrines, and customs that violate human rights such as Sharia Law, stoning, hanging homosexuals, gender apartheid, female genital mutilation... I could go on, and on...

Take a look at Iraq, which was, until quite recently, the Arab world's most secular country, one with very good women's rights records, and excellent educational standards. After the American military intervention in the name of "freedom", which most Arabs found to be unjustified (like most Europeans did too), the quality of life has plummeted and freedoms of women, followers of non-Muslim religions, and many others in their society, sunk with it. Are Middle Easterners supposed to look at this and think that the perpetrators of this catastrophe stood for freedom? Of course not. They, quite rightly, see America as having stood for their own self-interests. The ironic thing is that many Iraqis actually supported the American military campaign during the first Gulf War, until that turned sour. America lost the battle for the heart and soul of Iraq because of their own short-sightedness, but that needn't have been so. Which leads me to...

Yes, Iraq is a mess... perhaps more so now than before. However, Saddam Hussein is no great loss to the world's people. The war WAS a great cost... monetary and otherwise. A drone would have been a better option, imo.

Although I agree that a war against an arbitrary concept like "terrorism" is a daft idea, and an inherently unwinnable one at that, I believe that there were legitimate grounds for the war in Afghanistan. However, the way in which the war was waged was anything but legitimate. This is a war that most of the world supported, including Iran and Syria (until George Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" debacle, that is). Even many Afghans supported it initially, but now the American imposed government is largely considered to be just as bad as it was under the Taliban. What did people loose their families and homes for as a result of "friendly fire"?

Here is a quote from William Blum, a brilliant political commentator (though if you aren't a fan of Noam Chomsky, you won't be a fan of his). Osama bin Laden, himself, quoted from this passage in trying to give us an understanding of why he was doing what he was doing (and then Blum was attacked by the mainstream media for giving us this insight):

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize--very publicly and very sincerely--to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but--oddly enough--a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

I don't agree with that. Here is another perspective.