Image via WikipediaThe above link takes you to the website for Voice of America. Their charter states the wish to protect the integrity of the information presented by establishing certain principles that would guide its operation. I cannot speak to how successful they have been, but I would be surprised if this source has not been compromised by the Edward Bernays of our time. In fact, since it is funded by our State Department, I am pretty certain it is not what it used to be. In the article below we hear that thanks to VOA programming: "millions of viewers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa will witness adventures of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian." VOA broadcasts 1500 hours of news, information, educational and cultural programming every week to hundreds of millions of listeners and viewers. I wonder where Paris, Britney, and Kim fit in?
While listening to the caller I thought of a source I've been using for information about what is going on in this country. It is a called New Zeal and comes to us from New Zealand. It has so far proven to be a reliable source of information that we do NOT get from any source within our country. I then understood why the caller to the program was scared.
Who controls the flow of information? -OR- Who is controlling the message?
If you have not become familiar with Cass Sunstein now would be a good time. More importantly it would be beneficial for you to read about his controversial paper (regarding the definition and suggested actions to take in regard to "conspiracy theories") and download a copy of the full paper at salon dot com's website. Cass is head of our country's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. (Read the name of that agency again and think about the power that the head of this agency has.) In this capacity he oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs among other duties. In other words, he basically oversees the development of policies and regulations that arise from legislation that has been signed into law. He is also basically answers to no one and oversight of his actions is non-existent. He gets to decide where and how we will get our "quality information" and just exactly what privacy we are entitled to. This is the same man who said recently:
"Some conservative legal thinkers like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas think the Constitution means what it originally meant."
For the record, I think that the Constitution DOES mean what it originally meant. D'OH! Guess that makes me like Homer Simpson...or, I guess Marge. I don't know, is she as stupid as Homer? Yeah, he thinks we need him as a "choice architect" so that we don't keep doing stupid things. He and the other elites will decide what's best for us all by manipulating us. His book Nudge should prove to be interesting reading.
And speaking of control of information.....
"Net Neutrality" and the "Fairness Doctrine" sound great until you fully understand the intent of such policies and regulations. Of course, MediaMatters has a different take on net neutrality. They say that fears about what the FCC would do with "net neutrality" are just, well, I guess you'd call them conspiracy theories. D'OH! Call Cass and the IRS! (FYI: One of his suggestions is to "tax" people who spread information about what HE deems a conspiracy theory.)
Why do I care about this? Why might you need to care about this?
Because you need information to make good decisions. I don't think you are too stupid to find out what the facts are and then form an opinion that helps you make sound decisions. Let's discuss a few issues you need information on:
Let's start with your assumed "right to privacy." Warrantless wiretaps were considered abhorrent during the debate on the Patriot Act. On the campaign trail, Senator Obama promised to reverse the many abuses of power of George W. Bush. It seems that now that he is president, Obama has no intention of reversing these abuses of power. On the contrary he seems to be extending the scope of the government's invasion of its citizens privacy.
Our emails may in the future be read and tracked without warrants.
We have no expectation of privacy when it comes to our location. The government can place a GPS tracking device on your car without a warrant. Monitoring, say, drug traffickers might be considered a good thing. But, if there is evidence that they are drug traffickers, why not get a warrant? Where is the accountability that would keep this power from being abused?
Mobile X-ray Units hit the streets in.....America!
Drone aircraft may be coming to the skies of....America!
All of these powers exercised by our government on our behalf can be presented as "good" for us. Being protected from terrorist attacks, drug dealers, and helping stem the flow of people entering this country illegally ARE good things. However, I leave you with two thoughts from The Road to Serfdom:
"We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may also prevent its use for desirable purposes" (page 235)
In order to make sound decisions regarding just how much we want to limit the power given to our leaders we need the free flow of information and HONEST debate.
In conclusion, Hayak also states:
"It is tempting to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power, all would be well. That view requires only emotion and self-praise--easy to come by and satisfying as well. To understand why it is that 'good' men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty." (page 260)
Rational thought?! Guess that means there is no hope for us to ever effectively use our rational faculties. Homer and Marge probably don't even know what "subordinating" means.
No comments:
Post a Comment