I'll be monitoring this situation carefully.
President Obama recently appointed his Harvard contemporary (seriously, is Harvard but a mere rag now seeing the type of thinkers coming out of its ranks?) Cass Sunstein to help crackdown on bloggers who are "out of control." Read more about this here at Project World Awareness. It would be interesting to know if such a draconian measure extends outside the United States. Can they, if they deem it so, ask me to remove this post because of the image to the left of this paragraph?
Every single day, Orwell's 1984 becomes more and more a reality.
What's the difference between Black shirts, Brown shirts and this new breed of White shirts? They (and both parties in the U.S. have much to answer for regarding this) may not physically harm the people but their actions equally amount to a declaration of war on civil liberty.
Perhaps we can amend von Clausewitch's dictum 'War is politics by other means' to 'War on freedom is politics by other means.'
How grossly lamentable these actions by the President are - and Julius Grey the Montreal constitutional lawyer mentioned in an earlier post. I bring up him up because it's a reflection on how government and lawyers are increasingly willing to attack the press and bloggers.
Bloggers should not go down without a fight. Leaders increasingly do not reflect the aspirations and needs of the people. They reflect their own petty, arrogant and disconnected ideals.
If we're not careful and vigilant, we'll become dead spirits flowing dishonorably among the dead souls of leaders.
If we can't stand up for our right to speak, then what are we good for?
Dear Commentator,
ReplyDeleteThis merits further study. You have piqued my curiosity.
If the thought police really DO exist and they really DO have power, then, well, where is freedom if people are not free to believe lies? To be human is to be able to choose, no?
I think it can be seen in America right now that people are afraid of equality; I will not enlarge upon that here, but I think we saw this play out in how America dealt with the deaths of Michael Jackson and Steve McNair, and the behavior of professor Gates: there is a rather large and voluble subset in America that refuses to accept being treated equally. Similarly, there is a large and voluble subset that fears freedom in all its humanity, all its ugly humanity.
One would think the thought police would realize that life would be utterly dull if every conversation, essay and Google search ALWAYS yielded true and accurate information. Isn't half the fun of exploring the internet simply separating the wheat from the chaff? Isn't life supposed to be an adventure -- or nothing at all? If every turn is safe, if every cliff top is not a threat and every fire under control, where is the life in that sort of living?
Peace,
BG
After publishing "Summerhill" William Glasser was appalled at what people had made of it. He promptly wrote "Liberty, Not Licence". I believe what we are debating here is less freedom than accountability that goes or should go with it.
ReplyDeleteIf I authorize myself to spread lies and half truths in the name of freedom of expression I then abuse that freedom and should be made accountable for that abuse. If I blog, I have a responsibility to check the facts before ranting or doing anything else. If I choose to fantasize and write fiction I should post a notice accordingly so people know I'm not serious and mean no harm.
Big problem nowadays people want freedom but not accountability. However a thought police is not the way to go, they had it in Nazi Gernany, the Soviet Union and they have it in Iran, China and North Korea...ugly. I don't think O has that in mind.
Bill, interesting thoughts on equality. As for the watch police, we must guard against over reaction but whenever something like this comes up, it merits scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteAnd they DO exist from what I've heard. The question is: Can it come to a point where 34 websites/radio stations and so on get shut down a-la Chavez?
Which brings me to Paul's point. Absolutely, with freedom comes responsibility. I wished everyone thought of the 'universal principle' before they act but they don't always do. Does this mean I want the government to take over? Of course not. Who gets to determine such things?
On the other hand, I don't think O, as you quaintly describe him, is a big proponent of individual freedom. In his first 200 days and well before that, I think he's made clear he's a statist and nothing more. He's no Abraham Lincoln on that front.
Last, you said something that was interesting, CHECKING THE FACTS. I submit that bloggers as a whole (since they're not journalists nor do they want to be or they don't have editors) do a great job of managing opinion with facts. Sure, some are out of control but that's LIFE. A BLOG IS AN OPINION. NEVER FORGET THIS. It's nothing more or less.
Blogs have been instrumental in forcing mainstream media in reassessing the way it does things. In sports, blogs are often derided by pompous journalists, but the sad truth is journalists have often neglected to do their jobs.
O and his minions better start with mainstream media because as far as I'm concerned most of the indiscretions and misuse of facts start there. Bloggers merely call them out on it. They have no business making factual errors.
How about Hollywood movies claiming to be historically accurate? Would O go after Oliver Stone and Michael Moore? The damage they heap is far more serious than any blogger can inflict. Where does it end?
Lord, I read La Presse and The Gazette and usually am aghast at some of the editorials. Some of their columnists blatantly distort facts to fit an agenda. Between a journalist and blogger who is causing worse damage?
A blogger is merely a living, thinking person who happens to publish their thoughts. It's exposing private thoughts live. More brilliantly democratic than that we don't get. But like anything in life, you have to take the bad with the good. You can't have degrees of freedom. Either you have it or you don't.
O should basically back off on this issue.
Louise Beaudoin (that little wench) once proposed to monitor the internet. She was rightly chastised for her idea. I shudder at the thought of Quebec (who let's face it, are highly vulnerable to anti-democratic leanings) monitoring me.
The distinction you bring about between journalists and bloogers is quite pertinent and I agree on the potential dangerosity of abusive journalists.
ReplyDeleteI also read the Gazette and La Presse. Although seemingly published in the same city they often appear editorialy and in news coverage to exist in two different countries. I must admit to not reading editorials on a regular basis...and when I do I usually am disappointed.
As for Beaudoin, she is a sharp intellectual and highly educated but as biased as she is brilliant and educated even though she is a fast friend of Lisa Frulla who is not a sovereignist and has paid the political price for it.
It is indeed like living in two countries and I find myself sometimes agreeing on certain issues with both. Although the English side is more prepared to speak of civil liberties - which isn't saying much.
ReplyDeleteBeaudoin or Frulla. Whatever. Ted Bundy was super smart too. So was Karl Marx. The bottom line is the way they use their smarts lies in opposition to everything I believe in.
You can still smell and detect 19th century romanticism in their thinking. I hear them and it just doesn't jive.
I get my fill by reading anything from the founding fathers and some of the free-thinking intellectuals of the Enlightenment. Nothing in Quebec/Canada intellectualism comes close to it. Unless you can introduce me to some.
They say Obama is smart.
I'm not sure what "smart" means anymore!
Man if we were in february I'd say you have the winter blahs...
ReplyDeleteI always do listening to our leaders.
ReplyDelete