Subscribe to this feed.
Sunday Sermons
I thought I would point out a few interesting blog links for this Sunday. These tend to be sermons; but, like sermons, some truths might be found amidst the advocacy.
Gentlemen Don’t Read Each Other’s Mail. Warriors Do.
Dan at tdaxp makes an important distinction between spurious and excessive monitoring of Americans’ activity and spying that serves Americans:
George Bush is right to spy on terrorists. The American people will rally behind any leader who fights terrorists.The distinction is important. The NSA wiretaps are ostensibly intended to safeguard national security, whereas the DOJ’s attempt to subpoena Google search records is meant to safeguard a prejudicial system of morality. One is a military/NSA effort, the other is internal policing; Americans will rally against our enemies while resisting a government which should be our friend rather than our Big Brother.
But the Justice Department is wrong to try to spy on the search records American civilians.
But we want a Big Brother, don’t we? This is a conclusion implied by Dan (even if he does not realize the conclusion.) In the same way that a youngster in elementary school might appreciate Big Brother’s help in fighting off a bully, Americans can appreciate a governmental protection against terrorists. When Big Brother begins spying on our sexual activity, however, we object: It’s my life, leave me alone!
GWB has not solicited the help of average Americans. We should continue to shop and travel while our soldiers protect us. We should vote for tax breaks to enable us to shop more and travel more while the federal government pays for our soldiers’ activities with IOU’s to other governments and future generations of Americans. We should rest easy at night knowing that the federal government is spying on the enemies among us — even if it is hard to sleep knowing that enemies are among us or that the federal government has compiled a long list of our Internet activities: Sleep well, my fellow Americans; we’ll handle the rest!
Dan appears to be arguing for a Nanny State.
Yet, of course, we do want our federal government to protect us, and sifting through communications to that end is hardly objectionable. We merely want to have confidence that snooping on activities within our borders is for our good rather than for the good of a handful of theocrats. The theocrats, however, believe they spy on us for our own good, since pornography is an affront to God. This is the problem with the NSA warrantless wiretaps: The secretive nature implies a superiority of judgment for the President against the ability of the average American (or FISA judge, or legislator) to judge. The very same enabler of the theocratic right enables the president. Such a conclusion may escape notice when so many Americans already assume that the federal government is privy to information which is never disseminated; thus, GWB may have some hope of avoiding impeachment over the issue.
Fake News Posts for Pro-Mil Bloggers
In keeping with the idea of a “Nanny State,” Patricia Kushlis of WhirledView takes a look at the bedtime stories told by nannies:
Just wave the stars and stripes, salute, and use the prepared text conveniently e-mailed you from Hass M S &L the U.S. Army-contracted Michigan PR firm otherwise known for selling automobiles. No not, “cars, colas and countries.” This firm’s contracted to hawk wars and fake news along with Detroit’s finest.Hush-a-bye, don’t you cry; Grandma’s got some big teeth, the better to eat you with… It is common to tell children stories to soothe their fears or to frighten them into compliance. If Little Red Riding Hood had met The Boy Who Cried Wolf on her way to see Grandmother, how would the story have played out?No questions asked. No price tags attached. No need to think. These carefully chosen pro-mil bloggers have it made even easier. Now they won’t have to write the posts themselves – or even apply fingers to computer keys. Cutting and pasting the Pentagon’s prepackaged messages will do just fine. Oh, but please, no attribution either.
A better question would be, Why are the same propagandistic enterprises which are used for Iraqi media being used domestically by the Pentagon? I had a visitor yesterday who read an old post on Phatic Communion in which I discussed a Harry Situation:
So enamored are Western citizens of the transmission of ideas for the purpose of swaying public opinion—for the ballot or for the bottom line—that many are blind to the realities that lie before them.I look forward to the day when reality is elevated above illusion. (Even truthful illusion is illusion; the telling of it is an effort to blind the poor little children to the reality of the situation, or to persuade them to see only one edge of that reality.)
[Incidentally, talk about domestic spying: What are visitor logs for websites, if not domestic spying carried out by common Americans?]
Dreaming of Nazi Germany: Redux
The above series of links merely points out the possibility that America — and, the world in general — may not quite be over WWII. I could as easily link to stories on China’s problem with Japan’s revisionism. In fact, I no doubt could find thousands of links to support the theory that the world has not yet assimilated the lessons of WWII.
The first link above is a short item on Dean’s World, in which Dave Price** ponders Senator Kerry’s step into the blogosphere:
His first post is something about being outraged that Bush hasn’t caught Osama, and goes on about “outsourcing” at Tora Bora. OK, arguable point, but moot now, and thus he seems a lot angrier at Bush than Osama. No opinion given on the very current and relevant question of whether wiretapping Al Qaeda calls to America might help get their top guy…This reminds me of the news that ex-Governor of New Jersey, James E. McGreevey, has begun blogging, and also of Mark Safranski’s prognostication that the blogosphere will become the nexus of political power sometime in the future:
The blogosphere does not empower the average person, it empowers the above average person who previously would - by chance, occupation or geography - have been excluded from having any significant input into the larger culture.This may be a saving grace in America and the world, when the common reaction to WWII is subject to Godwin’s Law, as noted by Dave Price who has counted the number of times “Hitler” occurs in comments to Kerry’s blog post. Kerry and McGreevey perhaps “have been excluded from having any significant input into the larger culture” and so have turned to blogging — perhaps another saving grace, since, as Mark pointed out elsewhere in his post, “Most [blogs] are admittedly, mind-numbing dreck…”
Godwin’s Law is addressed in the second link above, here on Phatic Communion, where the invocation of that law by Dan of tdaxp, to combat my mention of Hitler and Nazism, is criticized — an inapt invocation, in my opinion, as explained in that entry. That entry critiques “Spengler” of Asia Times Online, who believes that Iran’s current president is a fitting reincarnation of Hitler. “Spengler” uses the comparison to present a favorable estimation of Ahmedinejad. But can we blame the pseudonymous commentator when GWB has introduced the new “Axis of Evil” into contemporary discussions? The last two links above represent an extension* of GWB’s trope by Alan Sullivan of Fresh Bilge, who believes that Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and Iran’s President Nut may represent a rebirth of the AXIS.
The link above on “Nazi” ties these links together with the idea of a Nanny State that will protect us: it is a link back to the commentary on tdaxp, in which Dan warns that Hitler’s use of American telecommunications, during WWII, should be a warning that modern-day Americans might use telecommunications to connect with Islamofascist terrorists. Here, the invocation of Nazi Germany is to serve a warning that present-day America should not overlook the benefit of wiretapping: warrantless or no, such wiretapping is not unwarranted, since Nazi Germany should serve as probable cause.
But Senator Kerry and tdaxp-Dan would disagree on who is our modern Hitler. Did Hitler engage in warrantless searches? Nevermind; that is beating the dead horse, even as we try to resurrect the horse for further beating. (As if, of course, we never beat that horse sufficiently before.)
——-
*note: originally incorrectly stated as “extenuation”; I blame my tight schedule.
**correction: originally incorrectly attributed to Dean Esmay.
Comments
The is the sort of conflation of security and policy that cost Max Cleland, et al, their jobs. But much worse.
The most essential purpose of the State is to provide security.
To argue that a State which provides security is a Nanny State is insane. It is counter-constructive. It not just adds nothing to the conversation -- it takes away from it, by confusing and perverting meaning.
The phrase "Nanny State" typically refers to widespread State provision of social welfare services. There's a different phrase for governmental protection against the law of nature.
This serious misunderstanding of the primary purpose of government eclipses any other thoughts I may have on this post.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | January 22, 2006 7:13 PM
Well, there is the sentence following that:
Yet, of course, we do want our federal government to protect us, and sifting through communications to that end is hardly objectionable.
I know the common use for the term "Nanny State." But, really Dan, what's the difference between a nanny who's hired to watch over children and a state which is employed to watch over the populace? I think the difference must be one of degree, since a nanny is presumably responsible for overseeing a larger portion of a child's activity than a state is for overseeing a populace's activity. Yet, GWB certainly seems to want to oversee our activity to make sure we aren't plotting to kill our neighbors; and, just as the nanny insists that her demands should not be questioned by the child, GWB's admin. appears to believe their wiretapping should have no oversight by those whom they are (in theory) trying to protect.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | January 23, 2006 1:21 AM
BTW Dan, one thing about your comment troubles me and may in fact point at the difference you and I have on this topic. I do not consider "the State" as being an entity separate from the people.
If we choose to speak of the State as a separate entity, we are really speaking of an elite class of legislators and executives and justices which is somehow separate from the electorate; speaking of a separate class, we can say that individual Americans not of that class need never protect themselves because "the State" will do that for them. Besides setting up an elite class -- with all the exclusive power and exclusive privilege that entails -- such a conceptualization of "the State" would obviate the power of an electorate to determine the shape and role of government.
We could look at it differently, of course, and say that our government is of, by, and for the people. In this case, to say that the primary role of government is to protect the populace is to say that government is an instrument by which the people protect themselves -- and that that is the primary use of the instrument. Problematically, an electorate which is given only slivers of information -- an electorate not privy to what is actually occurring around them in their society -- is dis-enabled to protect itself. The disabling of the electorate would represent a fundamental weakness which an enemy could exploit.
The disabling of the electorate via the dispensation of very vague "protection" is not much different than the typical disabling attributed to "Nanny State" policies. Do you trust Senator Kennedy to take a substantially larger portion of your paycheck in order to pay for an expansion of social services -- simply on faith that he will use that money for the greater benefit of all? Why, Dan, should I trust GWB to "protect the people" on faith? I am not saying that our president has no real desire to protect the public, but only that I should be allowed to judge whether he is expending energy and resources in the most beneficial manner: That is my duty as a citizen, at least the duty I have given myself.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | January 23, 2006 4:13 AM
Curtis,
Your posts are bewildering. I believe I see where you are coming from, but you are sacrificing too much to score political points.
I've tried to write this comment two times, but unless you systematize your writing it is very difficult to have a serious conversation.
You write:
Leaving aside your confusiong of anti-terror and anti-crime espionage, you seem to say that security from external threats is essentially a "nanny function."
That belief -- medievalism -- does have serious adherents. But I don't think you believe that -- it seems more likekly it is fun for you to throw out words which conflate security with welfare.
Too bad.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | January 23, 2006 5:03 PM
Unfortunately, my time has been cut short today, so I cannot respond with as much clarity and detail as I would like. Perhaps tomorrow or very late tonight I will have the time; I would also like to combine thoughts on this issue with your recent post on liberal education. But it will certainly take focus to do that!
In the short time I have, let me say that I am not trying to "score political points." Let others do that thing, if they wish. No, I am talking about a blueprint for the future. I actually resent the implication that a focus on the, er, "networking" of networks is spurious: you have mentioned process previously, and I am questioning the process. Not scoring political points.
You have a tendency, Dan, which I have noticed in debates with some Objectivists, to throw out arguments with a quick ideology-based dismissal. We could look at these issues without incorporating LEVIATHANS and MEDIEVALISM and, well, let's just say without always looking backward, even looking backward at the vulgar (i.e. "common") concept of the Nanny State. Protectionism is to be supported if national security is protected -- But not in economics!!!, eh?
But that last bit is a rant, and I have nearly run out of time.
Let us suppose something upon which we can agree: wiretapping can be very good, perhaps essential, for protecting American citizens from terrorists. Now, let us ask about the manner of that wiretapping. Where has GWB shown or even suggested or even broadly implied that his method and manner were the only available options? There is where we need to look.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | January 23, 2006 6:59 PM
Indeed, and there's an interesting & honest debate there, one that would not require perverting the language.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | January 24, 2006 8:45 AM