On Speaking Out

It has been long established that the citizens of a democracy not only have the right to speak out strongly, especially on issues that matter, but have the responsibility to do so or suffer the loss of freedom and democracy. If anyone on the planet does not like it, they can cease to think or stop listening. That is a reasonable response. In fact, W Bush is never allowed in my ear, thanks to the Mute button.

In any case, all forms of censorship are wrong. If your nephews are not allowed to hear your views, they will never achieve intelligent decisions. Even censorship against porno is wrong. If the entire society is controlled by censorship then everyone remains intellectually immature. No one is allowed to learn from mistakes or experience and ethical responsibility is thrown out with the bathwater.

One of the indications of the political dyspepsia in this country is the censorship of Chomsky. I do not think it likely you will see him on the News Hour any time soon. Arundhati Roy does not seem to arouse as much ire as Chomsky, but she is forgiven for being foreign, a woman and having spent less time as a burr under the fascist saddle.

The most obvious lessons about corporate culture are learned most transparently overseas, where it was painfully clear that any profit oriented corporation will do anything, ethical or not, humane or not, when left unregulated. Corporate behavior overseas in the 60's and 70's was a preview of how an unregulated free market would behave in a global environment. The supra-nationals found it so much to their liking that they had We Willy Clinton institutionalize it via GAT, NAFTA etc.

Although our economic and foreign policy behavior overseas is essential imperialistic and predatory, the average Joe, including the American Average Joe is still a nice guy when left unmolested. The unfortunate fact is that nice people are not in charge, and their vote is irrelevant, since they are also apathetic, ignorant, easily manipulated, spoiled and not too bright.

"When one of us is hurting, all of us are hurting... and ... None of us is free until all of us are free." is exactly right and the basis of all ethical, including Christian, behavior. It also applies to overpopulation; we have no right to promote the birth of more children, or deny the right of women to abortion, so long as a single child is starving any place on the planet. It is ethically indefensible and a moral shame to every overfed American voter.

The only chance for the betterment of the human condition, or even human survival is commonly focused bright minds. But my optimism is based on a serious distinction between human activism and happy accidents.

There is no reasonable basis to believe that human beings are capable of analyzing reality, taking action and effecting the betterment of their own condition. The reason for entertaining a glimmer of optimism is strictly based on either happy accidents in a complex system, or of some teleology such as the Anthropic principle. The scary point is that humans are not really in charge of their own well being, but remain programmed automatons and subject to the whims of outside circumstances.

There was never any talk of "human rights" in the early years of the 20th Century, whereas by the 90s, "human rights" was often discussed and acted upon.

True, but if human history is geometrically escalating, is there really time for this to have any meaningful effect? And, is this merely a reflection of enhanced communication, and still not politically significant enough to be effective? The totality of human misery seems to in the ascendant, so either it has not had time to make any difference, or it never will. In either case, there is little choice for enlightened humans but to make every possible effort to relieve human suffering, and hope for that happy accident.

But multinational corporatism is taking firm root, so the prospects of taking back the power are looking bleak. describes the real culprit and the probable prognosis. There is no real chance for humane treatment of humans by humans so long as human political and economic structures are governed by the rapaciousness of free market systems and their government employees.

It seems like a very good idea, but just before may be too late. The nucleus of like minded people may have some chance of contributing to the good side of the Force, even of the Democratic party, but for sure we can be Dissenters Anonymous and keep one another from going insane, which is what most of the world wants to believe and what most of the world wants us to believe.

The analysis of Woodward was painful to watch let alone to read about. Basically it boiled down to Viacom takes care of Viacom, Woodward whitewashes Bush for sleazy and selfish reasons, Bush is a moron, and Prince Bandar has put the fix in on the elections.

It is a good example of how an intelligent person can use the news. Since there were no surprises and since the media news is no news, it can still be revealing by an intelligent reading between the lines.

Michael Andrews, 2004