Privacy in the 21st century

[eyeball]

Okay.

I love my government too.

[bleeding heart]

Michael Hardner

As a lefty, there are certain institutions that you do trust, though.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with trusting them. But the trust should be provisional, and subject to diminishment if warranted. All institutions of power and influence require continual institutional analysis.

I have no problem with the idea that 9/11 has needed intensive investigation; only that the Truthers have not seemed to go about the investigation or analysis in a sober and robust manner. The method is not to take it for granted that Cheney masterminded it, with the help of Israeli agents or whatever, and then go about cramming facts into this analytical hole.

Rather, the proper investigative measure is to NOT assume we are being told the broad truth....but NOT to assume otherwise, either, as often the "Official Truth" is in fact more or less accurate. (As in 9/11 itself.)

That is, I have no problem whatsoever with someone saying "I'm not convinced that the government is telling us the truth, and am going to find out." This is not only reasonable...it's part of the bedrock of democratic principle (which is based in one vector on reflexive mistrust of Power and Authority).

However, the Truthers, the Kennedy conspiracists, the Bilderberg theorists....as far as I can tell, these folks are not performing a methodology of doubt....but of certainty.

Yes, and the public outrage is not palpable....so why would there be a need to cover anything up, really?

Yes, an interesting question. It breaks down like this (and we can make of it what we will):

The American public very well might have been outraged if Ford and Kissinger had said, "We are have greenlighted the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia; even though East Timor has done nothing to us, or to Indonesia, and has even asked for our advice on its new Constitution, which is to be modeled after the Western style....

.....Further, Indonesia is a pseudo-fascist state, and so theoretically a natural enemy. But we want the alliance, and there are exploitable natural resources, after all....which has raised the interest of other allies, who are also on board.

Further, we will materially aid them in their invasion, which is projected to kill a lot of civilians, for no demonstrable national security reasons on our part.".

This is unthinkable....though literally accurate in every point.

However, if, years later, the exact same information comes to light--which it has done (though activists were making the same allegations for decades, mind)....yes, you're right, general apathy.

However, most of it is due flatly to ignorance, isn't it? I'm not being sanctimonious, as I'm ignorant of many important things myself, this one being a rare exception. But I think it telling that, in several discussions, the "greenlighting the invasion" bit is derided as "conspiracy theory" (or, oddly, "Western self-hatred")...until I link them to the declassified document, which is more than usually clear on this point, actually. Crystal clear, including the plan to deceive the American public about it.

At which case the discussion invariably ends, abruptly.

So there's more than apathy going on, I think; if I can be blunt, I believe there are Doctrinal "Truths" about Western behavior that are not to be contradicted--factually or through mere opinion--in polite company. (Or maybe folks simply hate being proven wrong, understandably.)

On the other hand, I think these things very well may have long-term effects, at least potentially. The broadly-held Western convention of women as intellectually and emotionally sovereign beings is an idea that's been around for a long time; hell, I'm 46, and I personally remember "debates" about whether women actually had the mental fortitude to be professionals, never mind politicos. And that's the early 1970's.

A view still held, yes, but deemed reactionary, and usually held only by a minority of relatively hardcore religious fundamentalists (most of whom have also abandoned it, not incidentally).

So there are few huge moments of public awareness leading to quick change....but it is the awareness which can lead to change over the longer term.

Edited December 18, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with trusting them. But the trust should be provisional, and subject to diminishment if warranted. All institutions of power and influence require continual institutional analysis.

Housekeeping point - can you do me a favour ? If you quote me from pages and pages back, use the 'Quote' button so that your response includes a link back to my post. I had to go back 8 pages, one by one to find my response here.

Trust should be provisional, I agree. That is just how human beings work. At some point, if the powers of surveillance are abused then trust will be completely lost.

So there are few huge moments of public awareness leading to quick change....but it is the awareness which can lead to change over the longer term.

Yes, maybe it goes something like "deeply held falsehoods will eventually fall, and then they will fall hard". After they fall, people are amazed that they were ever held at all, and retroactively apply the new societal values to their heroes of the past. For example, They will paint Lincoln as thinking African Americans were equal to whites when he didn't feel that way at all.

The whole exercise makes me wonder what social progress is: is it just the unravelling of inequalities that were put on us over millennia through the development of various technologies ? That's what a McLuhanite would say.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The American public very well might have been outraged if Ford and Kissinger had said, "We are have greenlighted the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia; even though East Timor has done nothing to us, or to Indonesia, and has even asked for our advice on its new Constitution, which is to be modeled after the Western style....

No...wishful thinking at best. The American public really wouldn't have given a damn either way. Didn't seem to bother the Australian or Canadian public either. Suharto was seen as an ally who was fighting potential "commies" (i.e. Falintil).

[bleeding heart]

Michael Hardner

If you quote me from pages and pages back, use the 'Quote' button so that your response includes a link back to my post.

Oh, believe me, I will if I can things in order re my computer. As it stands, I can't even cut-and-paste...I have to type every remark to which I'm responding.

They will paint Lincoln as thinking African Americans were equal to whites when he didn't feel that way at all.

Point taken, but it sounds like you're rather cynically "making the perfect the enemy of the good."

Besides, the primary reason people believe this about Lincoln is precisely because of the effects of the "doctrinal truths" that I mention: for example, hero worship of political figures, which is a weakness that each person would do well to fight, in the way other ugly and violent impulses are repressed by civilized people.

[bleeding heart]

bush_cheney2004

Suharto was seen as an ally who was fighting potential "commies."

"Seen," just so, as commissars are not only willing to believe in distortions....they love them.

I can feel some measure of compassion for such frightened little people, but unfortunately there's not much to do except to shrug them off.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Seen," just so, as commissars are not only willing to believe in distortions....they love them.

I can feel some measure of compassion for such frightened little people, but unfortunately there's not much to do except to shrug them off.

And that's exactly what the "American public" did about Suharto and East Timor. Don't assume it would have been the cause célèbre that is so near and dear to you even if better understood at the time. Sometimes "greenlighting" means just not giving a damn.

[bleeding heart]

Like I said: *shrug.*