|
|
|
Home
View Inventory
"Do You Buy?"
About/FAQ
Show Schedule
Links
|
11-18-2015 "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -FDR I think the cliche I hate the most is: "It is what it is." This line slips easily from people's mouths while a hard truth stays put. Usually, it is designed to disguise one of two realities.... Either "Yes, your situation sucks. But it is beyond your control, so deal with it. Ummmm, but don't deal with it in front of me; go somewhere else so I don't have to wallow in the puddle of your crappy life." Or, "This is my decision. I know you hate it. Too f'n bad." But don't let the repetition fool you into breezing over my opening quote. FDR's statement was made during a different time in American history - a time when people looked to our leaders for strength and direction. Roosevelt delivered that line at his first presidential inauguration (of FOUR...Baller!!), on March 4, 1933, when the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression. Though economic, FDR's words were meant to prevent the 'depression' from transforming into something psychological for our nation. People needed to maintain cool heads (not withdraw all their money from banks, for example) if society was to recover. In a sense, what he was prescribing is the following circular, but true, logic: "The best way to prevent a panic attack is to not panic." When you get it, you get it. Get it? It works on both a personal and societal level. Fast forward to today. When I think about the functions of government which garner the most debate, they can all be crammed into two major, major categories: 1) allocation of resources and 2) managing the Freedom-Security Spectrum. The first of those deals with everything from taxes to spending to placing our sons and daughters in foreign lands. Important things, but not the scope of this piece. What concerns me, especially at this moment, is how the public's thinking on the latter is manipulated. There is noise from the government, from the news media, and from our friends and co-workers. We need to learn how to tune that out and think for ourselves. (Except for my words. You can trust me, right?) 
We are less than a week out from the Paris terror attacks, and the media has us buzzing about whether such things can happen in the US. I think some amount of concern is warranted. But with fear, the spectrum shifts toward security and away from freedom. Be conscious of this, because the effects can be far-reaching in both time and depth. A history lesson, as briefly as I can put it: Government: After 9/11, Bush (W) got the Patriot Act passed. By a 98-1 vote. Talk about support for security in a time of great fear. It was (mostly) renewed in 2005/2006 under Bush and again in 2011 under Obama. Each time with some revisions. Largely, I'm talking about domestic data collection and the infringement upon the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. There is plenty that has been written on the topic, and I'll let you Google to your heart's content. I provided the general link for a base knowledge, which most people don't have unless they're a criminal, lawyer (redundant, I know), or member of law enforcement. Also, for fun, you can scroll to Section VII and see what "sneak-and-peak warrants" [sic?] are with regard to the Patriot Act. Another quick jumping off point: If you want to learn about the big NSA data collection facility in Utah, what an "exobyte" of data is, and how "controls that limited unintentional collection of data pertaining to U.S. citizens were removed, prompting concerns by him and others that the actions were illegal and unconstitutional," just click. If you think I grew up reading Orwell, you're right. Say what you will about these folks, but due to exposure by Edward Snowden and Rand Paul, an especially 'infring-y' part of the Patriot Act contained in Section 215 was killed off (hopefully, if you trust the government) just this year. ...14 years after it was passed. That's a long time. To put it in perspective, back in 2001 the New England Patriots were still basking in their first Super Bowl victory. Media: I'm having a little trouble with this video. It won't load through Firefox, and only proceeds slowly through IE, no doubt to my lack of programming abilities. But I'll summarize this 4-minute discussion that the drones on Fox and Friends (Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade) had with former CIA Op, conservative talking head, and the youngest person I'd be inclined to call a "curmudgeon," Mike Baker, on November 18th. They talk about what I assume is this article from the NY Daily News. Below is a mix of quotes and paraphrasing. The Deuce: How is it possible you can be on terror watchlist (in US) and buy a gun? Baker: Databases have been a problem for a long time. Terror watchlists are overreaching, according to the ACLU. You have a lot of people on the watchlists who don’t necessarily belong. Ted Kennedy being one of the more famous examples. If your roommate's cousin's uncle is suspected of having terrorist ties, you may end up on there, on the terrorist watchlist. EH: Terrorists hide their plans by going dark. Explain. MB: Part of it is the beating of the drum that, “We're worried about our privacy; we've gotta stop the surveillance.” ... When that happens, it's more difficult to follow terrorists. ... Terrorists now using encryption. ... As we have become fatigued from the war on terror, as the pendulum is swinging back toward civil liberties and privacy, the threats have been increasing. That's not a happy marriage. That's not a happy set of circumstances. This is all kinds of ridiculous to me. First, since when does Fox trust the government? Yet they trust it with all our personal data? Second, Fox promotes the Constitution at every turn...except, I guess, when it doesn't fit their narrative. And that narrative is fear. In talking to Mike Baker, they do not bother to defend the 4th Amendment. They want you to be afraid of terrorism, the government, bird flus, peanut allergies, market crashes (Buy Gold!), Obama taking your guns, the PC police and their war on Christmas and Christianity... It's a never-ending list. Why? Because it has to be. If you're running a 24-hour news network, you constantly need to be selling ads. So you need a base of viewers who believe you're looking out for their interests. Fox worries about the 1st Amendment religious freedoms when they believe Christianity is under attack. Do they stand up for Islam or atheists? (Jeb and Fox contributor Laura Ingraham say here they want to give a Christianity test for any Syrian refugees.) When mass shootings happen in the United States, gun control advocates mobilize and Fox mobilizes against them with the whole "don't politicize a tragedy" campaign. Yawn. By now, I'm tired of the exchange of talking points. Fox has their full-throttle defense of the 2nd Amendment and while CNN (and Piers Morgan on Twitter) get all sanctimonious about too many guns in the wrong hands. What I would like to know is if Fox claims to be the level-headed sector of the media that doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction to events, why are they, in the wake of terror attacks overseas, pushing for more domestic surveillance. The other hypocrisy I see in these narratives is the admission (by Baker) that ordinary methods of communication are not being used by terrorists. This is all over the media, actually. Reports are that terrorists are using encryption, video games, and apps where messages only have a short lifespan. So with roving e-mail, phone, and internet data collection, who really gets compromised? ...law-abiding citizens. Does this sound familiar? I've heeeeaaaarrrrd that gun control only removes guns from the hands of law-abiding citizen and leaves them in the hands of criminals. Why doesn't the same thinking apply for data collection? Especially when the terror watchlist is admittedly overreaching. To do: We just observed Veteran's Day. When you think about the things America has fought for, there are very few times when the lives of our citizens have been in jeopardy. 9/11 and Pearl Harbor from outside forces and the Civil War from within. Those are the biggies. In general, our troops sacrifice for our allies, our interests, and our ideals. I believe in freedoms. Speech, religion, gun ownership within reason (I'd be nervous if my neighbor had a tank or a nuke), marrying another consenting adult, etc. I don't like anyone who tries to scare me into giving up my freedom. Fear is often a ploy, and can be an effective one. Be alert to when someone is using it against you. It's one of the few times I'll ever say this about the frogs, but embrace their stubborn, somewhat callous, reaction. Charlie Hebdo published the following cover after the Paris attacks: 
This translates to: "They have weapons. Fuck them. We have champagne." For us... Fuck the fearmongers. We have freedom. Have fun! -T |
Inside My Brain