House of Eratosthenes

I’ll do my best to make this objective and unbiased, to you. I can’t word it in a way that would seem objective and unbiased to those who are alive today. In our current times, we wouldn’t know objective and unbiased if it bit us square in the ass.

We have these things we have learned, which are subject to visceral disagreement and great controversy. We have other things we have learned, which are not subject to any substantive disagreement whatsoever. If you take the things that are not subject to any disagreement, and pursue them with logic and common sense, you arrive at conclusions which…well, don’t ask me to explain it. Just watch this.

Saddam Hussein used to have weapons of mass destruction. He used to. This is not subject to dispute in any way, at least, not from those who are informed about the situation; it is an established fact. As of 2003, it would seem, he no longer had them. Conclusion? He physically got rid of them somehow, between 1991 and 2003. That last sentence, if I say it out loud in a mixed environment, in a public setting, I am branded a right-wing zealot and a Bush apologist. What does a “moderate” person have to say about it? Honestly, I’m still trying to figure that one out. Based on what I can discern from actually living in the year 2006, it seems a “moderate” person isn’t even supposed to be thinking about what became of the weapons.

We aren’t talking about pop-guns here. I really can’t think of a more important question to try to answer…and I don’t know of anyone who can…

Here’s another one. As of a month ago, the head of the CIA says we have killed or captured 5,000 Al Qaeda terrorists (h/t: Politechnical Inst.). If someone, somewhere, thinks he has been lying about this, I’ve yet to see or hear of that case being made. Nor do I hear anything of the liberal plan to somehow disable 1,000-or-more Al Qaeda operatives per year, on average, as they seek to gain control of our government. Right before an election, I can’t think of a more important question to ask; neither can anybody else, to the best I’m aware; yet for a reporter to ask a Democrat candidate, “what are your plans to kill or capture terrorists?” is an unthinkable prospect, and surely such a reporter would be branded as a right-wing hack. In short, we all “agree” this question is pretty important, but we won’t tolerate anyone actually seeking an answer to it. The people I am repeatedly told are “moderate” and “unbiased,” simply won’t permit it.

I have more. Like…”everybody agrees” that the popularity of the United States within the world community, is on a steep downturn. When I say everybody agrees, what I mean is that people disagree about what is to be inferred from this, not about the premise itself. The consensus is that we are held in lower regard by other countries, compared to the way we were seen before. It is not uncommon to have debates about our policies in which some of us call our current President a liar, and insinuate some pretty awful things about him…he misrepresented intelligence to get us into a war, he’s stirring up a “climate of fear” to solidify his power base, etc. Freedom of speech extends to saying such things, in Yahoo Chat, in bulletin boards, and other places where the international community can easily see the dissention in place within our borders. Not even the slightest social taboo discourages this airing of dirty laundry for all the world to see, as was the case in times past. Conclusion: Perhaps other countries have a lower regard for us not because of our policies, but because we’ve been so incredibly candid about how divided we are, and how little we care for each other. That would seem to be worthy of acceptance by some reasonable minds, or at the very least some serious exploration — at LEAST that — but again, if I say it out loud in a public place I’m a you-know-what.

I have yet one more, and it has to do with supporting the troops while opposing the mission in which those troops are engaged. I am told, fairly often, that this is intellectually possible and is even widely, and sincerely, practiced. I have formed the habit of questioning this thusly: Does such support extend to all the troops? Even the troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, voluntarily, choosing to sign up specifically for the mission at hand, because of a personal belief in it? Troops who consistently vote Republican? I’m not sure of the answer to that question, because the next thing that happens is a bobbing of the Adam’s apple followed by a quick change of subject. Naturally, I only ask such a question in a private setting, because…well, you know the rest.

I suppose it’s only natural that inspecting current events with some genuine curiosity, something beyond simply mouthing the most widely-accepted platitudes, is always going to be a touchy subject. And I have great confidence you are able to inspect what has happened, in these times, with the same latitude and real freedom that I can use to inspect — let us say for sake of argument — World War I.

Lessons to be learned from this? Well, it’s clear to me that freedom of speech is pretty worthless without a freedom to think for yourself, and a freedom to think for yourself can’t be exercised in any meaningful way without a freedom to communicate your ideas in a wide variety of environments. During elections, in between elections, in public but isolated areas, in places where real decisions are made. Directed toward audiences of like-minded individuals, and directed toward others more inclined to challenge your ideas. Perhaps that’s why the First Amendment covers the right of the people peaceably to assemble as well as the much-ballyhooed “freedom of speech.”

Another lesson to be learned from this is that, apparently, one of the best ways to safeguard this right to peaceably assemble — to take your ideas someplace where they’ll flourish, and actually have an effect on things, regardless of merit — is to constantly, constantly, constantly bitch and moan about having the freedom-of-speech taken away, whether or not that is really the case.

It makes no sense, none whatsoever, to say “I am opposed to any and all operations to fight terrorism, but don’t you dare say that I’m not committed to fighting terrorism.” Or to say “everybody agrees Saddam Hussein was a dangerous, bad guy, but he wasn’t really so bad, and he was not dangerous.” Or to blame one’s own country for all the evil that takes place in the world, pontificating about our own guilt endlessly, and then intone with righteous indignation “but don’t question my patriotism.” None of those things make any sense. And yet the people who indulge in such neck-breaking contradictions, are about to win a major election. Because of an eleventh-hour sex scandal, with fingerprints of behind-the-scenes manipulation ALL over it.

What will they actually DO once they’re in? Only you know, grandchildren. The only thing anyone will tell me, is something about investigations and impeachment hearings. What about this thing everybody’s supposed to be worried about…the terrorists? My “moderates” tell me that, by simply asking the question, I am contributing to the Climate of Fear.

It would appear there is a great deal more to “freedom of speech” than the ability to say something without fear of criminal prosecution. We all have that ability, or at least most of it. But that much larger protection, the freedom of speech…the freedom to conduct a real dialog in which ideas are exchanged — where questions are asked, with a genuine expectation that something valuable will be learned — that’s a wholly different thing. And I’m afraid that’s been lost. Entirely reasonable inquiries can be made, and the next thing that happens is not a reckoning of the most plausible answer, or a pondering of the unworkability of coming up with a plausible answer, but instead, the branding of the person who asked the question as a “kook.” Nobody really expects it to go any differently anymore.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File XXVIITuesday, October 10th, 2006

Memo For File XXVII
Tuesday, October 10th, 2006