This is a good example of viral marketing, where even a poorly-constructed message can induce some to pass it along uncritically. Why distribute such non-content? Probably solves some underlying emotional need, which I’ll avoid speculating on here.
Anyway, here’s the text, with gloss:
“revoking aid to desperately poor women and children” No specifics cited; suspect this is a reference to Iraqi sanctions; oil-for-food program generates fat balances for UN budget and Hussein wastes vast wealth, yet his people starve and he blames others.
“provoking wars to increase profits for oil companies” Easy to assert, hard to substantiate. The other principles for democraticizing the dictatorship suffice. (fwiw, I personally believe the anti-nuclear movement was bankrolled by the Seven Sisters, but that’s a separate discussion.)
“denying benefits to disabled veterans” Again, no specifics cited, suspect they’re referring to giving tax money to those who live off the vagrancy of others, rather than into general defense against additional attacks.
“criminalizing public dissent” Frequently cited, yet counter to evidence (David Bonior still holds office, citizenry still pays police & cleanup bills for street protests, eg). Compare the actual represssion of dissent at San Francisco State University, for instance.
“secret tribunals” When an aggressive military hides among the citizenry, military tribunals morph in response.
“shooting first” I don’t want to see another attack like WTC. The Iraqi payments to bus-bombers create attacks which must stop.
But reason does not apply where emotional drivers rule.
Just a brief comment. I will try to get into the details as I see them some other time:
Its hard to look at these statements and your response without feeling that we both are looking at the whole thing from two very different viewpoints. And I also suspect that it is hard to be objective for either one of us.
As for passing it along uncritically: Since I passed it along, I guess it is obvious that I agree with the majority of the statements being made, not to mention the underlying message.
One of the things that scares me is how many of the “facts” around the Iraq/Middel East/Terrorist agenda is presented in “independent” news organisations such as CNN International. CNN International has in many ways become the “American Cable News Network”, and news from the channel has to be viewed in that context. In my opinion it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days. That is troubleing to a human being beliving in democracy, freedom of speech and the independent press.
John Dowdell
“Since I passed it along, I guess it is obvious that I agree with the majority of the statements being made, not to mention the underlying message.”
What’s that?
“it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days.”
The message is that people need to be awake and aware about what is going on in the United States, and that they need to voice their opinions when they see wrong being done.
When I stated “it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days.”, what I mean is that the US press in general have been far less critical to what has been going on than I think is healthy. Luckely it seems like CNN and some other media actually are starting to look into the human rights violations that the post-9/11 america has been exposed to.
You will find more information about the situation if you take a look at the Amnesty International USA website: http://www.amnestyusa.org/
jd
“The message is that people need to be awake and aware…”
The implication here seems to be that people who don’t agree with you are either asleep, stupid, or perhaps evil.
If they *really* woke up, perhaps they’d see something different from what you’re currently imagining.
“the US press in general have been far less critical to what has been going on than I think is healthy”
I think most people would agree that any particular news source is insufficient, although they may differ in the ways in which it does not suffice. That’s why reading a cross-section of viewpoints is good.
But once you have a cross-section, you need to compare them to each other — see which viewpoints are internally inconsistent, see which news sources consistently avoid or obscure certain observations.
That’s exactly why questions work, and that’s exactly why slogans and ad-hominems like that SWF don’t.
“The implication here seems to be that people who don’t agree with you are either asleep, stupid, or perhaps evil.”
I don’t think so. I think its a human feature to be more focused on yourself rather than others, and that most people do exactly that. It is just so much easier to live life without butting in when your own are not the ones affected by what is going on.
I think this passage by one of the second world war victims says it all:
“First they arrested the Communists — but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists — and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me — and there was no one left to do anything about it.”
– Rev Martin Niemoller (Nazi Prison Survivor)
IMHO being “awake” is something everyone has to work on to be able to keep sharp, updated and voice their opinions about what is going on in their society.
Regarding the US Press: I have to admit that lately I have actually seen indications that the press is turning from being actively pro-american, to questioning the politics of post 9/11. It is good that they are starting to focus on the human rights violations that has been going on since 9/11.
Especially worrisome is the weakening of civil liberties to fight terrorism. It should be possible to fight terrorism without becoming a police state.
Included in the news that worries me, that is coming out of the US, is the news about the US starting to detain people based on their nationality:
The headline reads: U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogation.
The story touches on obvious human rights violations, and claims that the US now have some 3000 people have been detained without charge or access to lawyers.
T K Carles
Question: TryN to hook up w/ interrupt freedom organization that uses the internet as a viable social instrument against big business/other tyrants. Plz advise. Thx.
This is a good example of viral marketing, where even a poorly-constructed message can induce some to pass it along uncritically. Why distribute such non-content? Probably solves some underlying emotional need, which I’ll avoid speculating on here.
Anyway, here’s the text, with gloss:
“revoking aid to desperately poor women and children” No specifics cited; suspect this is a reference to Iraqi sanctions; oil-for-food program generates fat balances for UN budget and Hussein wastes vast wealth, yet his people starve and he blames others.
“provoking wars to increase profits for oil companies” Easy to assert, hard to substantiate. The other principles for democraticizing the dictatorship suffice. (fwiw, I personally believe the anti-nuclear movement was bankrolled by the Seven Sisters, but that’s a separate discussion.)
“denying benefits to disabled veterans” Again, no specifics cited, suspect they’re referring to giving tax money to those who live off the vagrancy of others, rather than into general defense against additional attacks.
“criminalizing public dissent” Frequently cited, yet counter to evidence (David Bonior still holds office, citizenry still pays police & cleanup bills for street protests, eg). Compare the actual represssion of dissent at San Francisco State University, for instance.
“secret tribunals” When an aggressive military hides among the citizenry, military tribunals morph in response.
“shooting first” I don’t want to see another attack like WTC. The Iraqi payments to bus-bombers create attacks which must stop.
But reason does not apply where emotional drivers rule.
Just a brief comment. I will try to get into the details as I see them some other time:
Its hard to look at these statements and your response without feeling that we both are looking at the whole thing from two very different viewpoints. And I also suspect that it is hard to be objective for either one of us.
As for passing it along uncritically: Since I passed it along, I guess it is obvious that I agree with the majority of the statements being made, not to mention the underlying message.
One of the things that scares me is how many of the “facts” around the Iraq/Middel East/Terrorist agenda is presented in “independent” news organisations such as CNN International. CNN International has in many ways become the “American Cable News Network”, and news from the channel has to be viewed in that context. In my opinion it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days. That is troubleing to a human being beliving in democracy, freedom of speech and the independent press.
“Since I passed it along, I guess it is obvious that I agree with the majority of the statements being made, not to mention the underlying message.”
What’s that?
“it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days.”
!?!?!
The message is that people need to be awake and aware about what is going on in the United States, and that they need to voice their opinions when they see wrong being done.
When I stated “it is hard to find unbiazed and balanced news based on the conflict coming out of America these days.”, what I mean is that the US press in general have been far less critical to what has been going on than I think is healthy. Luckely it seems like CNN and some other media actually are starting to look into the human rights violations that the post-9/11 america has been exposed to.
You will find more information about the situation if you take a look at the Amnesty International USA website: http://www.amnestyusa.org/
“The message is that people need to be awake and aware…”
The implication here seems to be that people who don’t agree with you are either asleep, stupid, or perhaps evil.
If they *really* woke up, perhaps they’d see something different from what you’re currently imagining.
“the US press in general have been far less critical to what has been going on than I think is healthy”
I think most people would agree that any particular news source is insufficient, although they may differ in the ways in which it does not suffice. That’s why reading a cross-section of viewpoints is good.
But once you have a cross-section, you need to compare them to each other — see which viewpoints are internally inconsistent, see which news sources consistently avoid or obscure certain observations.
That’s exactly why questions work, and that’s exactly why slogans and ad-hominems like that SWF don’t.
All imho, natch. ;-)
“The implication here seems to be that people who don’t agree with you are either asleep, stupid, or perhaps evil.”
I don’t think so. I think its a human feature to be more focused on yourself rather than others, and that most people do exactly that. It is just so much easier to live life without butting in when your own are not the ones affected by what is going on.
I think this passage by one of the second world war victims says it all:
“First they arrested the Communists — but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists — and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me — and there was no one left to do anything about it.”
– Rev Martin Niemoller (Nazi Prison Survivor)
IMHO being “awake” is something everyone has to work on to be able to keep sharp, updated and voice their opinions about what is going on in their society.
Regarding the US Press: I have to admit that lately I have actually seen indications that the press is turning from being actively pro-american, to questioning the politics of post 9/11. It is good that they are starting to focus on the human rights violations that has been going on since 9/11.
Especially worrisome is the weakening of civil liberties to fight terrorism. It should be possible to fight terrorism without becoming a police state.
Included in the news that worries me, that is coming out of the US, is the news about the US starting to detain people based on their nationality:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2589317.stm
More related news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37943-2002Dec25.html
The headline reads: U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogation.
The story touches on obvious human rights violations, and claims that the US now have some 3000 people have been detained without charge or access to lawyers.
Question: TryN to hook up w/ interrupt freedom organization that uses the internet as a viable social instrument against big business/other tyrants. Plz advise. Thx.