Happy Labor Day holiday weekend! "Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country."
America has turned into an anti-labor endeavor of the part of the rich and powerful. We need to consider and reflect on that today, and all that we can do to continue turning that around. A country is not built upon its wealthy and powerful, but upon the engine of its existence...the people.
Some argue Unions, labor concerns, and government caring about its citizens is socialism. Pure socialism is dysfunctional just as pure capitalism is but hybrids work. Like in America, when it's allowed by those in power who tend to fight it tooth and nail. Who tend to call entitlements such things as social security, Medicare, and healthcare for all. While actual entitlements THEY want, for big business, as unquestionably necessary and not to be discussed but simply given, no matter what. Even against all reason and the damage, it does to our government, our citizens and our trust in our leaders, mostly Republicans as the belonging to the party of big business and apparently citizen discare and abuse..
Irish Central argues: Labor Day is an 'Irish holiday,' as the Irish created the union movement
OK. Enjoy...
In 2016 I retired from a career in IT, sold my house of 16 years where my kids grew up most of their lives in and moved to another nearby town of Bremerton. Ironically a town I'd avoided all my life after being put in jail for the afternoon one fine early summer day when I was in 12th grade and visiting my girlfriend who lived in Bremerton and went to Olympic College (yeah, back then in high school, few believed a 12th grader in Tacoma, had a girlfriend in college, in another town, nearby or not...though my close friends did knowing I wouldn't lie).
I was just sitting there waiting for her to stop by for lunch, at a friend's house, with her best girlfriend and ex-boyfriend (older than me and her) who introduced us. when I was 17. I was innocent of anything that day, and they let me go. I've detailed this story elsewhere. In being the only town I was ever tossed into a jail cell in, and because back then Bremerton sucked (it's really nice now) and kind of a rough Navy town, I never wanted to return here after we split up. Until I moved here in 2016 and both myself and my two adult kids found it a pretty nice community ... now.
I was shooting for, as I still am, for a career change, not actual retirement. Like many, my retirement funds aren't what they need to be. But I had enough of a cushion to allow me this attempt into a creative career in writing and filmmaking. A luxury I didn't have while my kids were being raised. As I just noted to a friend who said he was impressed with what I'm doing as he wouldn't try it at this stage in his life...I had really had it with working in IT and it was quit or retire. So I retired and decided I had the ability to go for it. I'm making the best of it so far. In the end, I'll either fail and look stupid, bor succeeded and appear smart and courageous. Time, very soon, will tell.
That meant I needed to change my lifestyle, cut my overhead, and lose some amenities and luxuries. One of those being news and entertainment access. I dropped my DirecTV satellite which I'd had for years and had never wanted Comcast because everyone I knew who had it, complained about it and I'd had no complaints with DirecTV. Besides, for years they refused to run a line out to the community I lived in, which was in the woods. Not far off, only a mile out of town, but if you wanted "cable" you needed a non-cable cable. Or pay for the cable to be strung? Really Comcast?
Once I got moved to Bremerton (from Suquamish, where Chief "Seattle" is buried), I signed up with Comcast. I wanted faster internet speeds and had tired, to be honest, of atmospheric conditions screwing up my viewing times.
One of my favorite shows and one I missed the most, was/is Rachel Maddow. Also Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Which I still can't get.
One of the things I like about Rachel is her cheerful attitude, her understanding of what the hell is going on and her ability to deliver complex issues today through a historical perspective. Essentially educating her viewers.
Something I don'/t see on Fox News, or much of anywhere else. It's what I've liked about some PBS news shows. A deeper, more academic perspective. So I'm going to use her show as a vehicle to exemplify what I'm talking about in this blog for this week.
Let me take this brief aside as I've gotten hammered by various conservatives I know about being in a liberal bubble (while it really is them in a far more corrupted conservative bubble), saying I only watch MSNBC (I don't, only Rachel on there), Or only CNN (I don't, not at all, unless I'm at an airport maybe).
I actually have always gotten my news worldwide, since college, ever since the 60s as a kid watching PBS. I found it fascinating there were other ways of delivering the news, fewer articles and deeper perspectives. Back then I did watch Walter Cronkite, and so on. Those were good days when news was a "loss leader", not for profit, or for entertainment, but real journalism.
I watched broadcast news shows for years and then I did like CNN for a while, in its beginning. But in the past years since college, I've leaned on a wider perspective. How do other nations view us? How accurate is our news? What are they missing? What are they too focused on? And since the last Iraq war, how much are they too closely aligned with our government.
Informed consideration, not political belief.
I do my best to receive and assimilate actuality in reality. I don't see that effort much on the conservative side.
I get my news now from all over. I see someone post something, I research it (if it's interesting) before I share it (mostly). I research down two or three levels while most do one level if even that. I review news from all over the world. I rarely watch American news, not MSM, or faux news as is on Fox News entertainment "news" shows. I review other information from intelligence sources available to citizens. Janes, FBI, even CIA, sources, raw journalists' comments in areas of concern, and so on.
I watch news shows from Japan, Canada, UK, Al Jezeera, and other countries. I do NOT watch Russia Today (or their disingenuous obfuscating moniker, RT), Sputnik or read Pravda (the misnamed Russian State News agency which disingenuously means, "Truth").
So yes, I'm well informed, with a background, education, and history involved in professional levels research, world history, civics, and covert intelligence research. I am, therefore, far better informed than most American citizens. There are obviously others far more informed. But for a citizen, I think I do pretty well to stay level headed and rational with actual facts and information.
Before retiring I had MSNBC and so I had The Rachel Maddow Show (TRMS). When I moved/retired, I cut my paid channels down to basic and lost her show. I missed Rachel. But two years, no Rachel.
Then I moved a mile away into a far smaller home, with a much more reasonable monthly rent (yes, dumped having a mortgage and just rent now...I hope to buy another house, but I want to pay it off, with no mortgage as I do now when I buy cars).
I moved as I said, and moved my Comcast cable. A friend, an actor I had used on my audiobooks and now in my filmmaking, mentions Rachel at times, as he has her show at home, and sometimes good-naturedly teases me about my not having her. I got to wanting to figure out how to get Rachel's show back.
I discovered on my LG smart TV something I'd known about but never much bothered with, "Live TV", streaming TV off the internet. MSNBC is in there. So I started messing with it and discovered, Rachel's show was on it!
I started watching streaming TV and discovered some interesting things. Like, the network doesn't much care about the quality of their shows on streaming. It's a bizarre world of broken segments, ads you HAVE to watch (can't scan past or skip as with a DVR), and weird juxtapositions of shows, internally speaking.
I'll say upfront, even though I'm a high-level computer and internet savvy one time professional, I haven't researched this issue and don't know much about the format or issues of networks presenting their shows on the internet. I'm just relating it as a consumer and a viewer. So I'm happy to hear knowledgable explanations for my following complaints.
I couldn't figure out at first what the hell was going on with Rachel's show. And then, they took it off streaming on Live TV. I lost her show again. But, what I realized was, they were running the segments of her show...backwards! It was starting with the last segment of the show first, then go backward until at the end you had the beginning. WTF I mean, really? But before I lost access to her show on streaming, they seemed to be changing it around to be more in proper order. OK, progress. But again, what the hell? I even posted on their website asking, what the hell people?
Anyway, she was gone again. Until...Amazon Prime day. I have a Kindle Fire HD 7" and on Prime day I got a 10" Kindle. I'd also heard about Amazon Fire TV Stick. Cheap, so I got one. And discovered that I could now again access MSNBC and other things. And I had back, Rachel's show!
So I started watching again, though I have to wait until the day after to see the previous day's show. . It seemed the show was better handled on this format which is apparently streaming, but different, more ordered and not just seemingly (to me) so randomly presented. There's a menu system for each show offered.
However...
Again there are the ads I cannot skip as I can automatically now, on my Tivo Bolt DVR. Something I'd been looking forward to for decades. Still, the attention to detail on these shows is frustrating at times. At times, at the end of a segment, they cut it off before the end of the segment.
When the adverts are over, you see that cut off ending, then the brand logo, then the next segment. The commercials, ones you have to watch, or mute as I do as they are so annoying (I mean, animals selling big pharma products? bizarre) and the same commercials again and again, saturation advertising for the dumbest among us. So annoying.
My point? IF they know, and they do know, that we are forced (no ad-skipping capabilities) to watch their adverts, then they are making money off these ads. To be sure. So at least they could do some due diligence regarding the quality of their presentations of their shows.
IF the argument is there's only one tech putting these shows online and they are overworked or something, they're still making money! Give us the quality we're actually "paying" for in watching adverts. We're not just your poor unwashed, we're your customers, your ad viewers, so give us the paid for attention we deserve!
Enough with this sketchy quality nonsense on streaming!
Also, monitor and keep the audio synced up with the video? Just a basic tenet of production, right?
It's time that streaming is given as much attention as cable, paid cable or broadcast TV.
It's time. It's passed time.
You're all professional organizations.
Act like it. Be professional.
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Monday, September 2, 2019
Monday, July 28, 2014
TUNN - The Useful News Network - News That Gets Things Done
This is an adjunct blog to today's earlier blog (USCNN).
Our news networks have been sucking, long and hard for some time now. Worst offender in the realm of Journalism? Fox News. Others? MSNBC. Worst News Network overall? Probably, CNN. Which is so sad considering what they initially achieved in their birth and creation of the twenty-four hour news cycle.
Sadder still, currently one of the best journalistic networks in the classical sense, is a foreign held news network (based in Qatar), Al Jezeera. What does that say about our home grown, bloated, biased news networks?
Some of the issues?
Instant media. The need to fill a twenty-four hour news cycle, even when there is nothing really going on in that period. Also, the belief by networks that people are only attracted to certain types of news, and the whore-mongering race to present those news pieces, regardless of what America needs to be hearing about. Advertisers. Advertisers who might pull their support if the wrong news is presented. Also, an overwhelming deluge by some networks of their corporate opinion. OpEds, over editorializing. Companies pushing agendas to make a buck at all costs with considerations of journalism taking a back seat, especially with politically partisan ones.
We need useful news.
We need a news network that isn't beholding to anyone. Who can do pure journalism. We need news that gives us what we need and not what they want, what their owners want, what a political party wants, what religious organizations want, what extremist conservatives or, liberals want.
We the American people are being held hostage by these groups, and it needs to stop. We need to start using our minds, to be intelligent, and to be a knowledgeable, even if in many cases not an educated citizenry. We need to be educated, even if only by our news networks.
This new network could be one where, between "hard news" segments, they could have alternative shows like the Jon Stewarts and The Daily Show type shows. Humor is a great way to get people to absorb news that is hard to hear, or accept. Stewart is an obvious liberal in his orientation. Perhaps a humorous liberal show followed up by a conservative show; but I'd suggest going another way.
Still, these types of shows show us the foibles in our ways, much in the way that the original Star Trek TV show, exhibited to us through science fiction, through aliens ("Those stupid aliens, who are nothing like us!"). They showed us things we needed to look at but couldn't, unless we saw it through the filter of it being others, outside of who we are.
We still need to see this kind of news, to deal with it, to ruminate on it with enough information so as to make useful, informed decisions. And we can't currently do that with the type of news we are receiving. The American people need news. Real news. News presented in a way that is useful. And news that we need to hear and not just want to hear.
In short, we need a news network that is giving us what we need to hear, and yes what we find interesting, but most of all not just editorialized and opinionated but real information with possible solutions; or at least a path to finding those solutions; ways to think about how to achieve solutions. Those are the key elements.
We need to know what to do about some of these intense issues so that when we talk to others about them, debate them, even argue about them, we have some meat, some fuel to use in order to achieve some kind of consensus.
We need news media that helps us to find the right answers and not just the answers for us, or for our group, our preferred political system. We need to put down the crazies, the extremists, the right wing fools, the left wing absurdities.
We need a news Network with programs that reports the news, even news we don't care about, until it is reported properly, and that offers the best case for fixing those issues; solutions as supported by the educated, the knowledgeable, even the public; and then updated over time in revisiting that news as better solutions and information make themselves known. Canvassing discussion groups, listening to the public, combing available information and actual journalistic endeavors.
The American people need to be informed. We need to be informed properly so that we support what our government does, so that they do what is needed, so that the American voice to our government not only supports what is done, or to be done, but can even offer solutions upward to our head of State and not only and always, downward from our head of State. It would need checks and balances but that can be figured out.
We need a new kind of news: a New News Network, a new kind of, "Triple N" that covers our nation's needs. Remember what John F Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Many people take that to mean, leave your homes, go out and volunteer, join the military, enter public service. But no, not only. It can be as simple as knowing what is happening all around you. Knowing the correct information, having an informed decision, speaking out what is true and necessary and others having if not the same understanding, at least an educated, intelligent understanding of the issues. Because in that, we can have productive debates. And in a productive debate, you can arrive at what is the best answer.
You have to have accurate information for a good debate and you have to have information on the things most important at that time in the world, as well as future considerations and their possible repercussions.
As I mentioned at the beginning, I just wrote a blog on this today titled, USCNN, that talks about this kind of thing, in part.
We need this new network to serve up to us the major and important news pieces. We need them to offer up to us perhaps the top three best solutions to the situation as it stands using (and over the next days and weeks), using all available resources, government, foreign governments, Vox Populi (the Voice of the People) via the internet and other news networks, using everything to continue to offer us the best solutions, possible solutions and not just that network's opinions, biases and hidden agendas.
Much as in the ancient Roman belief that a nation state should be run by the people, it takes an educated citizenry to properly support that best case type of a Republic.
In theory, we are a great nation.
To truly be a great nation and to continue being one will require us to pay more attention to what is going on; but first, we need to be sure that we are being supported in order for us to support our people, our government and thus, our position in the world and their perception of just what and who we really are.
Our news networks have been sucking, long and hard for some time now. Worst offender in the realm of Journalism? Fox News. Others? MSNBC. Worst News Network overall? Probably, CNN. Which is so sad considering what they initially achieved in their birth and creation of the twenty-four hour news cycle.
Sadder still, currently one of the best journalistic networks in the classical sense, is a foreign held news network (based in Qatar), Al Jezeera. What does that say about our home grown, bloated, biased news networks?
Some of the issues?
Instant media. The need to fill a twenty-four hour news cycle, even when there is nothing really going on in that period. Also, the belief by networks that people are only attracted to certain types of news, and the whore-mongering race to present those news pieces, regardless of what America needs to be hearing about. Advertisers. Advertisers who might pull their support if the wrong news is presented. Also, an overwhelming deluge by some networks of their corporate opinion. OpEds, over editorializing. Companies pushing agendas to make a buck at all costs with considerations of journalism taking a back seat, especially with politically partisan ones.
We need useful news.
We need a news network that isn't beholding to anyone. Who can do pure journalism. We need news that gives us what we need and not what they want, what their owners want, what a political party wants, what religious organizations want, what extremist conservatives or, liberals want.
We the American people are being held hostage by these groups, and it needs to stop. We need to start using our minds, to be intelligent, and to be a knowledgeable, even if in many cases not an educated citizenry. We need to be educated, even if only by our news networks.
This new network could be one where, between "hard news" segments, they could have alternative shows like the Jon Stewarts and The Daily Show type shows. Humor is a great way to get people to absorb news that is hard to hear, or accept. Stewart is an obvious liberal in his orientation. Perhaps a humorous liberal show followed up by a conservative show; but I'd suggest going another way.
Still, these types of shows show us the foibles in our ways, much in the way that the original Star Trek TV show, exhibited to us through science fiction, through aliens ("Those stupid aliens, who are nothing like us!"). They showed us things we needed to look at but couldn't, unless we saw it through the filter of it being others, outside of who we are.
We still need to see this kind of news, to deal with it, to ruminate on it with enough information so as to make useful, informed decisions. And we can't currently do that with the type of news we are receiving. The American people need news. Real news. News presented in a way that is useful. And news that we need to hear and not just want to hear.
In short, we need a news network that is giving us what we need to hear, and yes what we find interesting, but most of all not just editorialized and opinionated but real information with possible solutions; or at least a path to finding those solutions; ways to think about how to achieve solutions. Those are the key elements.
We need to know what to do about some of these intense issues so that when we talk to others about them, debate them, even argue about them, we have some meat, some fuel to use in order to achieve some kind of consensus.
We need news media that helps us to find the right answers and not just the answers for us, or for our group, our preferred political system. We need to put down the crazies, the extremists, the right wing fools, the left wing absurdities.
We need a news Network with programs that reports the news, even news we don't care about, until it is reported properly, and that offers the best case for fixing those issues; solutions as supported by the educated, the knowledgeable, even the public; and then updated over time in revisiting that news as better solutions and information make themselves known. Canvassing discussion groups, listening to the public, combing available information and actual journalistic endeavors.
The American people need to be informed. We need to be informed properly so that we support what our government does, so that they do what is needed, so that the American voice to our government not only supports what is done, or to be done, but can even offer solutions upward to our head of State and not only and always, downward from our head of State. It would need checks and balances but that can be figured out.
We need a new kind of news: a New News Network, a new kind of, "Triple N" that covers our nation's needs. Remember what John F Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Many people take that to mean, leave your homes, go out and volunteer, join the military, enter public service. But no, not only. It can be as simple as knowing what is happening all around you. Knowing the correct information, having an informed decision, speaking out what is true and necessary and others having if not the same understanding, at least an educated, intelligent understanding of the issues. Because in that, we can have productive debates. And in a productive debate, you can arrive at what is the best answer.
You have to have accurate information for a good debate and you have to have information on the things most important at that time in the world, as well as future considerations and their possible repercussions.
As I mentioned at the beginning, I just wrote a blog on this today titled, USCNN, that talks about this kind of thing, in part.
We need this new network to serve up to us the major and important news pieces. We need them to offer up to us perhaps the top three best solutions to the situation as it stands using (and over the next days and weeks), using all available resources, government, foreign governments, Vox Populi (the Voice of the People) via the internet and other news networks, using everything to continue to offer us the best solutions, possible solutions and not just that network's opinions, biases and hidden agendas.
Much as in the ancient Roman belief that a nation state should be run by the people, it takes an educated citizenry to properly support that best case type of a Republic.
In theory, we are a great nation.
To truly be a great nation and to continue being one will require us to pay more attention to what is going on; but first, we need to be sure that we are being supported in order for us to support our people, our government and thus, our position in the world and their perception of just what and who we really are.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Security State? Edward Snowden's Burn Notice Interview with MSNBC
I do not know enough (and neither do you) of Edward Snowden's background to feel 100% on this but from my understanding of covert ops, and of many of the things he was talking about in last Friday's MSNBC interview with him, I saw nothing that felt patently incorrect.
However, I'm going to more or less blow off concerns about him because his situation has distracted us from reality and what is actually important. There will be more of his type down the road, that is now the nature of the beast that is modern intel acquisition. We'd better get our act together. If nothing else Snowden has pointed out some major issues, including not just what our intelligence people are doing but also a vast orientation in our government toward cheaper and quantifiable, being better than more expensive and qualitative (traditional spycraft) intel.
Get past how you may think he looks like a snotty twerp who turned on his pledge to secrecy, our government and America. Get past that. Listen to what he says, objectively. Then realize that you probably don't know enough to judge him merely by his perceived actions, his demeanor and situation. Look beyond that because much of what he is saying overall, is important to us as civilian citizens of the United States of America.
Snowden knows that when he left and took those docs, when he spoke to journalists. He contacted Glenn Greewald of The Guardian (see his book on this, No Place To Hide - Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"), via a rather cryptic email requesting him to install encryption software for his email. But Greenwald blew him off because so many times this kind of thing turns out to be nothing. Considering he is one of the busiest journalists in the world, he gets a lot of that type of thing.
Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in Germany. She wasn't sure about all this either so she contacted, but she had encryption so Snowden went forward with her. But she wasn't so sure about this shady character either, so she contacted journalist Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. She met him at a Greenwhich Village restaurant in New York City. When they got there, they moved to elsewhere. Better safe than sorry.
Poitras asked Gellman to vet Snowden and he agreed. Snowden called Gellman, "Brass Banner" and himself, "Verax" which means "Truth Teller" in Latin. In the end, Snowden requested a meet in Hong Kong. but Gellman decided against going after Snowden said their lives may be in danger from American covert agencies. So odd as life can be sometimes, Gellman suggested Greenwald instead who took over for him and flew to Hong Kong with Poitras to meet Snowden.
In doing all this, Snowden burned himself, his career, and he will never work in intelligence again. Perhaps he can find a teaching job somewhere. I just hope it's for an American school and not a foreign one, especially not for one of our enemies (and I use that term lightly and include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China, among others). Let's not force him into that, because we are now forcing him into a Zugzwang set of moves and if we're not, we're surely trying ("We" being our government who speaks for us).
That being said, do you know what "burn notices" are in the intelligence field? Wikipedia: "A burn notice is an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or more reasons, often fabrication. This is essentially a directive for the recipient to disregard or "burn" all information derived from that individual or group."
At times "burning" someone includes discrediting them, or worse, as in the TV show mentioned below. Sometimes, far worse, which are few and far between. Consider that for a moment, then reflect on our government saying what Snowden claims as proof, is non-existent, that he is a "low level analyst". Is he? He claims not and we may never know for sure.
There was recently a TV show called, "Burn Notice" that ran for seven seasons. At first it was quite good, even the "Farm", the CIA training facility used episodes to show to it's trainees. Later and especially in its last season, it had gone downhill pretty badly. They probably should have ended at season five.
But that was entertainment. This, is reality.
They keep saying Snowden should return to "face the music" (for more on this type of thing see Daniel Ellsberg's comments, "Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial"), a rather stupid thing to even ask and a shallow and obvious attempt to obfuscate and further denigrate him. If he did the wrong thing, considering his gone already, let him go, who cares, we don't need him.
If he did the right thing, then the government is going to want to persecute him, hide him, and lock him away, though they may be forced to parade him around a bit, I'm pretty sure they will pull national security issues and scurry him away with all possible aplomb. They fear to an almost paranoid degree, being found out that what he says may be true. They fear for their future plans, on the track that they have been on now for over a decade, all of which have their roots back in the 80s.
I couldn't help but think that in the interview, Snowden could have been me at twenty-nine saying very similar things, or my son if he had gone into this kind of work. But would we have had the wherewithal to speak out and do what Snowden did? Considering his family background (his grandfather was at the FBI, his father a veteran), it adds at least some veracity to his words.
Snowden claimed in 2004 he joined the US Army under the 18X special forces recruitment program where he admittedly washed out when he broke both his legs. He also said he was in foreign countries working undercover. I don't see why that would be such a hard thing to believe. After all it's not claiming to be a superspy or anything, just a guy undercover. Cops do that. Big deal.
He said may things I agreed 100% with. The government, and his own statements regarding his bone fides, in those not matching up, is really not so surprising. You have to consider the field he is in regardless of what level he was at. This would be par for the course and he knows it and we should, too. I don't have (in some ways) any issue in believing him against our government and I tend to err on the side of the government, whenever I can. Typically, business as usual is the order of the day, so, that's kind of a double edged sword in a situation like this.
Believe it or not, the government is actually pretty good about being stand up on issues like freedom of information and being honest about things; individuals and administrations, notwithstanding (Dick Cheney and Bush Jr. and that administration for instance). Typically they are surprisingly honest about things; when pushed. Until, you step into issues of covert ops and then they feel an absolute interest in honesty; but also absolutely no need to be honest, no compunction whatsoever to alter things in order to support their contentions, against all others.
At this point, until I see a crack in his mirror, I tend to believe much of what he's saying. On the other hand, if he was trained as a spy as he claims, this could all, as he indicated, be exercising a part of his training to deceive.
See, this is how the covert ops paradigm works. It's basic trade (spy) craft and it will drive some people crazy who are unfamiliar with it. It makes civilians feel distrustful almost instantly; but this is a shadow world where you have to "see" what's going on only by seeing what lies match with what, what truths with what verified intel; or by what is simply not there. As in "seeing" a black hole, only because of what is missing around it in the sky. It's a fascinating area and it gets easier as you delve deeper into it.
To those who would say his answers were shallow and thin, you have to consider that is simply the nature of his situation. He is walking a thin line with broken glass glued to it. He has to be circumspect. He also doesn't, so he says, want to spill the beans on too much as that wasn't his purpose in all this, but rather to let us know what's going on. Many of the arguments against him simply aren't supported by either his situation or his actions.
This area is a world of misinformation and disinformation, distraction and misdirection. Even at times when the government is being completely honest with us, it can be lying to us; and it knows it. That's how it works. I can tell you an absolute truth, and yet, in my delivery, you will believe the opposite.
The government claims his submitted complaints to those above him do not exist. It is almost impossible now a days to thoroughly hide a "paper trail" like that as it's digitized, stored, backed up, possibly with redundant backups, and so on.
An independent analysis and pulling of emails, backups and so on would very likely eventually come up with something; if not just someone else stepping up and speaking up on his behalf. Though I wouldn't hold my breath over that one, as it would most likely take someone who has retired, or left the community and in no fear of losing their retirement or severance, if not simply concerns about repercussions.
The fact of the matter is that many of his words fit. But do they fit too perfectly? Or are they simply purely accurate and the government is being disingenuous. Ask yourself, much as he was saying, does what he says fit (it does). Has our government been doing questionable things, and for a length of time; hiding their activities beyond what they should be (they have)? Is it easier now to trust our government who have been doing questionable things for how long? Or a guy who has done some good and little harm from what we can gather, just as he claims; a guy who has shared with us stuff we really, seriously, need to know?
The journalist he turned his documents over to claims his next release of information will blow the previous ones out of the water. So time will tell. But as Snowden claimed, he only took what he thought was needed and reasonable and passed those along with the stipulation of doing no grievous harm in releasing future information. That is now out of his hands. As for his not taking this into Russia with him, his argument there holds water Of course he could be lying, he could have a bank account with money from Putin. He could be making deals with extraterrestrials, too. He could be doing anything. But we need to deal with what we can see and extrapolate and what he said, simply makes sense. He was safer not bringing all that with him. Question is, what did he do?
His comments about our becoming a Security State were 100% on the mark.
Who do we know has lied to us more at this point? Snowden? Or our government? Okay, the trouble with that train of thought is, no matter how much Snowden is lying to us, there is simply no way he can surpass how much our Government has been lying to us, and that, is a matter of record. But you get my point, yes?
Sometimes what seems to be, simply is. Sometimes Occams Razor fits and points to the truth right off, and through the entire situation. The problem now is that the government will continue over the top, if they have already been, to make him look bad.
The question is, will they go smooth and slick, or outright discredit him? They will either do nothing, do something, or do a lot of something. It's very possible that who he really is will be pointed out shortly by the government, merely in how bad they make him look. That is, if they pile a lot of crap on him, will it be obvious to the public that it's a "snow job"? Yes, of course, I had to say it. Okay, maybe I didn't, but that is how the government works, you see? Trigger words, offhanded comments of defamation, and so on. You can be distracted by the comment through the words used. Pay attention.
Of course, this also has a lot to do with how incompetent the government will be in response. For years now they have been amazingly incompetent in intelligence matters though they do seem to be getting better, but because of and at the expense of, national confidence and constitutional freedoms. Over the years they've lost most of their experts in this field. SIGINT has trumped HUMINT now for decades and I do disagree with Snowden in that one thing, in a way.
He said that they get far better intel through SIGINT now than HUMINT. Well that actually may be, but it's sad. Because HUMINT is far superior in specifics, in nuances. Much like it's better to use a born national to translate foreign intel, than a foreign born and educated translator. We have failed on these things since the 80s in thinking that SIGINT was the cheaper, better way to go.
Acquiring the communications of Americans has been going on for a long time now. These infractions to our national freedom began walking that fine line, even before 9/11. There was "ThinThread" which encrypted American's private communications, seemed to work well. But then after 9/11, they followed a new program. They would remove the encryption, by Executive Order.
There was a siphoning off from the communications pipe traversing the Pacific Ocean that brings in overseas calls to southern California. A certain No Such Agency entered a certain TelCo building and set up a secret room taping into and piping those calls, splitting them to another building of theirs, located elsewhere, where they could store and access all those calls, including American's calls. Some of the TelCo employees not in the know, noticed something odd in that building, figuring out what was happening. Though I'd assume most of you never heard about that.
We need to keep close scrutiny on these things. Even to the point of being a wee bit paranoid at times, because sometimes they are out to get you and sometimes, it's not the enemy. I think people in our government who have applied these measures, had the best of intentions. Maybe that isn't an excuse. But even if it is, there comes a time when it isn't. See, there is a statute of limitations after an attack, in fear and appropriate responses to the point of a new status quo. It has to be limited. Because as we learn and time passes, what used to be undoable, can become doable.
If we don't force ourselves to find that, what does that say about who we will, or have, become?
Isn't that important too, considering who we are in the world and history as Ameicans?
HUMINT requires time and humans in weird places making calls that aren't quantifiable and we do like quantification now. Qualitative intel requires clever thought and we've dumbed ourselves down because of promoting and replacing experienced field operatives to be in charge with bureaucrats. Not to mention how many times in recent decades we've been asleep at the wheel because we simply did not have local field operatives previously embedded on the scene with working relationship with local nationals.
Like in going against the Chinese years ago. We simply looked different and had a harder time fitting into Chinese maters. This was true as well as the Middle East, which is also very tribal and closed off. In Iraq years ago we pulled our case officers because we thought we could use Saddam Hussein instead. That turned out well, right?
We've made some inroads now in both though, as we finally realized that Chinese Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (both as well as foreign nationals) can do a better job than the good old white boys. But we mistakenly continue to think that "push button" intel is better. True, it has its place and it is incredibly valuable. But there is nothing like personnel on the streets to ferret out what's going on, which has other valuable uses beyond purely gathering intel. There is something to be said for having relationships and winning hearts and minds.
Intelligence is a grey and shadowy area that requires a lot of on the spot judgment calls, trusting operatives in the field and the micro-mangers back in the offices not micro-managing and actually knowing something; like trade craft. Replacing those old school professionals with others, using orgs like the CIA for Military ops and the Military for Intel Ops, has really skewed things.
We live in a new world today and in a field where nothing is as it seems, much of what can be seen is hidden in a vast array of data we have to filter and get to the proper agencies. When sometimes, the same can be done in a conversation in the space of a few minutes. If you have the right relationships already in place, with the right people, by the right people.
Whether we like it or not the only way to get a handle on this is through people like Snowden. What's interesting is that we're not seeing so many defectors anymore, we're seeing people standing up for our country and and opening the books they are sworn to protect; opening them to, US.
The question is, why? The further question is, are we going to play whack-a-mole with those who are trying to help us, against our own people; our servants who see themselves in some cases, as our masters? Even if, only to "serve" as they see fit, while we lose more and more of what our country once was?
Why is this even happening? Why are our Intel agencies so into acquiring everything they can, even if it's wrong? I think they probably have the best of intentions. Consider that they found out about the 9/11 attack on a small TV, from CNN. They rightly never want that to happen again. But that shouldn't give them carte blanche on all communications, everywhere, now. Should it? Let me answer that for you in case you make the wrong decision there.
No!
Here's the bottom line.
Snowden is now misdirection for us, pure and simple. The important question is, how easy do we want to make our Intelligence community's job? It's all a balance between pure freedom and pure security state. How cheaply do we want them doing it? Because that's really what all this boils down to. Intel isn't easy, or cheap, it's expensive, it takes brains, it takes trained individuals and it's messy. No one wants to allow that anymore.
No one wants to consider risk, better to take freedoms and decrease risk to as close to zero as possible. Yes, I'd like zero risk, but not at the expensive of the country I grew up in, disappearing and being only a faint phantom of what it once ways. I don't want us to turn into another America of 1950s paranoia.
Should we return to despising Germans, or Japanese, or to despise anyone who praises Allah or Mohammed? Anyone who isn't us and disagrees with us? Even if, they try to attack us? Because killing all out enemies isn't the answer. Turning them into our friends is.
We've gotten cheap and lazy and we've been on this course since at least the Berlin wall going down. Europe has thought that we've been lazy and deluding ourselves for decades about terrorism, mostly because we thought the Atlantic Ocean and our "big island" mentality was our saving grace. Well, it's finally happened to us. Now it's our turn to join the older kids in the pool. And it's... scary.
We woke up and it scared us. We retaliated after 9/11 in Iraq in a knee jerk response. America was hurt and pissed off and the Bush administration finally had their reason to invade another country, for oil, but not openly. They took that and ran with it, pushing our fears to the top, taking what they could, making their jobs as easy as they could possibly be, at whatever cost to the nation; to the citizenry. And now it's time to pull back.
We need to buck it up and start being Americans again. Remember John Wayne? That tough guy demeanor has a lot of bad baggage with it, like hiding emotions when you should share, being sexist and ignoring some important things at times. But it's a film hero. Let's skip over the John Wayne anti-communist film, "Big Jim McClain" (1952), for instance.
Still, "big Duke" had some good things about his demeanor. Like being kick ass, not being cheap or afraid of every little thing. And not relying always on the easiest things possible, at the expense of American's lives. And holding Americans in high esteem, and our Republic. Now if only Republicans would realize that too, right? But, I digress....
If we want to allow ELINT, Electronic Intel, to be the tip of our national sword, fine. But we need some limits for Reason's sake and Americans need to be the wall maintaining what our nation stands for Yes, the bad guys may be hiding amongst us, but hey, guess what? What does that start real quick to sound like, again. The Red Menace, right? "A commie behind every bush"? (pun not intended)
Let's face it, there isn't a terrorist behind every rock and cranny. Yes, they are out there. But let's maintain an even strain here, kids. Let's at least try to be the "right stuff". Let's stand up for ourselves and start pushing back.
Snowden, regardless of what he's done or how you think about him, has started the ball rolling. Are you going to let it slide back down now to where it was to start with?
We need to stop trading security for freedom. That is really, the final consideration.
However, I'm going to more or less blow off concerns about him because his situation has distracted us from reality and what is actually important. There will be more of his type down the road, that is now the nature of the beast that is modern intel acquisition. We'd better get our act together. If nothing else Snowden has pointed out some major issues, including not just what our intelligence people are doing but also a vast orientation in our government toward cheaper and quantifiable, being better than more expensive and qualitative (traditional spycraft) intel.
Get past how you may think he looks like a snotty twerp who turned on his pledge to secrecy, our government and America. Get past that. Listen to what he says, objectively. Then realize that you probably don't know enough to judge him merely by his perceived actions, his demeanor and situation. Look beyond that because much of what he is saying overall, is important to us as civilian citizens of the United States of America.
Snowden knows that when he left and took those docs, when he spoke to journalists. He contacted Glenn Greewald of The Guardian (see his book on this, No Place To Hide - Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"), via a rather cryptic email requesting him to install encryption software for his email. But Greenwald blew him off because so many times this kind of thing turns out to be nothing. Considering he is one of the busiest journalists in the world, he gets a lot of that type of thing.
Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in Germany. She wasn't sure about all this either so she contacted, but she had encryption so Snowden went forward with her. But she wasn't so sure about this shady character either, so she contacted journalist Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. She met him at a Greenwhich Village restaurant in New York City. When they got there, they moved to elsewhere. Better safe than sorry.
Poitras asked Gellman to vet Snowden and he agreed. Snowden called Gellman, "Brass Banner" and himself, "Verax" which means "Truth Teller" in Latin. In the end, Snowden requested a meet in Hong Kong. but Gellman decided against going after Snowden said their lives may be in danger from American covert agencies. So odd as life can be sometimes, Gellman suggested Greenwald instead who took over for him and flew to Hong Kong with Poitras to meet Snowden.
In doing all this, Snowden burned himself, his career, and he will never work in intelligence again. Perhaps he can find a teaching job somewhere. I just hope it's for an American school and not a foreign one, especially not for one of our enemies (and I use that term lightly and include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China, among others). Let's not force him into that, because we are now forcing him into a Zugzwang set of moves and if we're not, we're surely trying ("We" being our government who speaks for us).
That being said, do you know what "burn notices" are in the intelligence field? Wikipedia: "A burn notice is an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or more reasons, often fabrication. This is essentially a directive for the recipient to disregard or "burn" all information derived from that individual or group."
At times "burning" someone includes discrediting them, or worse, as in the TV show mentioned below. Sometimes, far worse, which are few and far between. Consider that for a moment, then reflect on our government saying what Snowden claims as proof, is non-existent, that he is a "low level analyst". Is he? He claims not and we may never know for sure.
There was recently a TV show called, "Burn Notice" that ran for seven seasons. At first it was quite good, even the "Farm", the CIA training facility used episodes to show to it's trainees. Later and especially in its last season, it had gone downhill pretty badly. They probably should have ended at season five.
But that was entertainment. This, is reality.
They keep saying Snowden should return to "face the music" (for more on this type of thing see Daniel Ellsberg's comments, "Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial"), a rather stupid thing to even ask and a shallow and obvious attempt to obfuscate and further denigrate him. If he did the wrong thing, considering his gone already, let him go, who cares, we don't need him.
If he did the right thing, then the government is going to want to persecute him, hide him, and lock him away, though they may be forced to parade him around a bit, I'm pretty sure they will pull national security issues and scurry him away with all possible aplomb. They fear to an almost paranoid degree, being found out that what he says may be true. They fear for their future plans, on the track that they have been on now for over a decade, all of which have their roots back in the 80s.
I couldn't help but think that in the interview, Snowden could have been me at twenty-nine saying very similar things, or my son if he had gone into this kind of work. But would we have had the wherewithal to speak out and do what Snowden did? Considering his family background (his grandfather was at the FBI, his father a veteran), it adds at least some veracity to his words.
Snowden claimed in 2004 he joined the US Army under the 18X special forces recruitment program where he admittedly washed out when he broke both his legs. He also said he was in foreign countries working undercover. I don't see why that would be such a hard thing to believe. After all it's not claiming to be a superspy or anything, just a guy undercover. Cops do that. Big deal.
He said may things I agreed 100% with. The government, and his own statements regarding his bone fides, in those not matching up, is really not so surprising. You have to consider the field he is in regardless of what level he was at. This would be par for the course and he knows it and we should, too. I don't have (in some ways) any issue in believing him against our government and I tend to err on the side of the government, whenever I can. Typically, business as usual is the order of the day, so, that's kind of a double edged sword in a situation like this.
Believe it or not, the government is actually pretty good about being stand up on issues like freedom of information and being honest about things; individuals and administrations, notwithstanding (Dick Cheney and Bush Jr. and that administration for instance). Typically they are surprisingly honest about things; when pushed. Until, you step into issues of covert ops and then they feel an absolute interest in honesty; but also absolutely no need to be honest, no compunction whatsoever to alter things in order to support their contentions, against all others.
At this point, until I see a crack in his mirror, I tend to believe much of what he's saying. On the other hand, if he was trained as a spy as he claims, this could all, as he indicated, be exercising a part of his training to deceive.
See, this is how the covert ops paradigm works. It's basic trade (spy) craft and it will drive some people crazy who are unfamiliar with it. It makes civilians feel distrustful almost instantly; but this is a shadow world where you have to "see" what's going on only by seeing what lies match with what, what truths with what verified intel; or by what is simply not there. As in "seeing" a black hole, only because of what is missing around it in the sky. It's a fascinating area and it gets easier as you delve deeper into it.
To those who would say his answers were shallow and thin, you have to consider that is simply the nature of his situation. He is walking a thin line with broken glass glued to it. He has to be circumspect. He also doesn't, so he says, want to spill the beans on too much as that wasn't his purpose in all this, but rather to let us know what's going on. Many of the arguments against him simply aren't supported by either his situation or his actions.
This area is a world of misinformation and disinformation, distraction and misdirection. Even at times when the government is being completely honest with us, it can be lying to us; and it knows it. That's how it works. I can tell you an absolute truth, and yet, in my delivery, you will believe the opposite.
The government claims his submitted complaints to those above him do not exist. It is almost impossible now a days to thoroughly hide a "paper trail" like that as it's digitized, stored, backed up, possibly with redundant backups, and so on.
An independent analysis and pulling of emails, backups and so on would very likely eventually come up with something; if not just someone else stepping up and speaking up on his behalf. Though I wouldn't hold my breath over that one, as it would most likely take someone who has retired, or left the community and in no fear of losing their retirement or severance, if not simply concerns about repercussions.
The fact of the matter is that many of his words fit. But do they fit too perfectly? Or are they simply purely accurate and the government is being disingenuous. Ask yourself, much as he was saying, does what he says fit (it does). Has our government been doing questionable things, and for a length of time; hiding their activities beyond what they should be (they have)? Is it easier now to trust our government who have been doing questionable things for how long? Or a guy who has done some good and little harm from what we can gather, just as he claims; a guy who has shared with us stuff we really, seriously, need to know?
The journalist he turned his documents over to claims his next release of information will blow the previous ones out of the water. So time will tell. But as Snowden claimed, he only took what he thought was needed and reasonable and passed those along with the stipulation of doing no grievous harm in releasing future information. That is now out of his hands. As for his not taking this into Russia with him, his argument there holds water Of course he could be lying, he could have a bank account with money from Putin. He could be making deals with extraterrestrials, too. He could be doing anything. But we need to deal with what we can see and extrapolate and what he said, simply makes sense. He was safer not bringing all that with him. Question is, what did he do?
His comments about our becoming a Security State were 100% on the mark.
Who do we know has lied to us more at this point? Snowden? Or our government? Okay, the trouble with that train of thought is, no matter how much Snowden is lying to us, there is simply no way he can surpass how much our Government has been lying to us, and that, is a matter of record. But you get my point, yes?
Sometimes what seems to be, simply is. Sometimes Occams Razor fits and points to the truth right off, and through the entire situation. The problem now is that the government will continue over the top, if they have already been, to make him look bad.
The question is, will they go smooth and slick, or outright discredit him? They will either do nothing, do something, or do a lot of something. It's very possible that who he really is will be pointed out shortly by the government, merely in how bad they make him look. That is, if they pile a lot of crap on him, will it be obvious to the public that it's a "snow job"? Yes, of course, I had to say it. Okay, maybe I didn't, but that is how the government works, you see? Trigger words, offhanded comments of defamation, and so on. You can be distracted by the comment through the words used. Pay attention.
Of course, this also has a lot to do with how incompetent the government will be in response. For years now they have been amazingly incompetent in intelligence matters though they do seem to be getting better, but because of and at the expense of, national confidence and constitutional freedoms. Over the years they've lost most of their experts in this field. SIGINT has trumped HUMINT now for decades and I do disagree with Snowden in that one thing, in a way.
He said that they get far better intel through SIGINT now than HUMINT. Well that actually may be, but it's sad. Because HUMINT is far superior in specifics, in nuances. Much like it's better to use a born national to translate foreign intel, than a foreign born and educated translator. We have failed on these things since the 80s in thinking that SIGINT was the cheaper, better way to go.
Acquiring the communications of Americans has been going on for a long time now. These infractions to our national freedom began walking that fine line, even before 9/11. There was "ThinThread" which encrypted American's private communications, seemed to work well. But then after 9/11, they followed a new program. They would remove the encryption, by Executive Order.
There was a siphoning off from the communications pipe traversing the Pacific Ocean that brings in overseas calls to southern California. A certain No Such Agency entered a certain TelCo building and set up a secret room taping into and piping those calls, splitting them to another building of theirs, located elsewhere, where they could store and access all those calls, including American's calls. Some of the TelCo employees not in the know, noticed something odd in that building, figuring out what was happening. Though I'd assume most of you never heard about that.
We need to keep close scrutiny on these things. Even to the point of being a wee bit paranoid at times, because sometimes they are out to get you and sometimes, it's not the enemy. I think people in our government who have applied these measures, had the best of intentions. Maybe that isn't an excuse. But even if it is, there comes a time when it isn't. See, there is a statute of limitations after an attack, in fear and appropriate responses to the point of a new status quo. It has to be limited. Because as we learn and time passes, what used to be undoable, can become doable.
If we don't force ourselves to find that, what does that say about who we will, or have, become?
Isn't that important too, considering who we are in the world and history as Ameicans?
HUMINT requires time and humans in weird places making calls that aren't quantifiable and we do like quantification now. Qualitative intel requires clever thought and we've dumbed ourselves down because of promoting and replacing experienced field operatives to be in charge with bureaucrats. Not to mention how many times in recent decades we've been asleep at the wheel because we simply did not have local field operatives previously embedded on the scene with working relationship with local nationals.
Like in going against the Chinese years ago. We simply looked different and had a harder time fitting into Chinese maters. This was true as well as the Middle East, which is also very tribal and closed off. In Iraq years ago we pulled our case officers because we thought we could use Saddam Hussein instead. That turned out well, right?
We've made some inroads now in both though, as we finally realized that Chinese Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (both as well as foreign nationals) can do a better job than the good old white boys. But we mistakenly continue to think that "push button" intel is better. True, it has its place and it is incredibly valuable. But there is nothing like personnel on the streets to ferret out what's going on, which has other valuable uses beyond purely gathering intel. There is something to be said for having relationships and winning hearts and minds.
Intelligence is a grey and shadowy area that requires a lot of on the spot judgment calls, trusting operatives in the field and the micro-mangers back in the offices not micro-managing and actually knowing something; like trade craft. Replacing those old school professionals with others, using orgs like the CIA for Military ops and the Military for Intel Ops, has really skewed things.
We live in a new world today and in a field where nothing is as it seems, much of what can be seen is hidden in a vast array of data we have to filter and get to the proper agencies. When sometimes, the same can be done in a conversation in the space of a few minutes. If you have the right relationships already in place, with the right people, by the right people.
Whether we like it or not the only way to get a handle on this is through people like Snowden. What's interesting is that we're not seeing so many defectors anymore, we're seeing people standing up for our country and and opening the books they are sworn to protect; opening them to, US.
The question is, why? The further question is, are we going to play whack-a-mole with those who are trying to help us, against our own people; our servants who see themselves in some cases, as our masters? Even if, only to "serve" as they see fit, while we lose more and more of what our country once was?
Why is this even happening? Why are our Intel agencies so into acquiring everything they can, even if it's wrong? I think they probably have the best of intentions. Consider that they found out about the 9/11 attack on a small TV, from CNN. They rightly never want that to happen again. But that shouldn't give them carte blanche on all communications, everywhere, now. Should it? Let me answer that for you in case you make the wrong decision there.
No!
Here's the bottom line.
Snowden is now misdirection for us, pure and simple. The important question is, how easy do we want to make our Intelligence community's job? It's all a balance between pure freedom and pure security state. How cheaply do we want them doing it? Because that's really what all this boils down to. Intel isn't easy, or cheap, it's expensive, it takes brains, it takes trained individuals and it's messy. No one wants to allow that anymore.
No one wants to consider risk, better to take freedoms and decrease risk to as close to zero as possible. Yes, I'd like zero risk, but not at the expensive of the country I grew up in, disappearing and being only a faint phantom of what it once ways. I don't want us to turn into another America of 1950s paranoia.
Should we return to despising Germans, or Japanese, or to despise anyone who praises Allah or Mohammed? Anyone who isn't us and disagrees with us? Even if, they try to attack us? Because killing all out enemies isn't the answer. Turning them into our friends is.
We've gotten cheap and lazy and we've been on this course since at least the Berlin wall going down. Europe has thought that we've been lazy and deluding ourselves for decades about terrorism, mostly because we thought the Atlantic Ocean and our "big island" mentality was our saving grace. Well, it's finally happened to us. Now it's our turn to join the older kids in the pool. And it's... scary.
We woke up and it scared us. We retaliated after 9/11 in Iraq in a knee jerk response. America was hurt and pissed off and the Bush administration finally had their reason to invade another country, for oil, but not openly. They took that and ran with it, pushing our fears to the top, taking what they could, making their jobs as easy as they could possibly be, at whatever cost to the nation; to the citizenry. And now it's time to pull back.
We need to buck it up and start being Americans again. Remember John Wayne? That tough guy demeanor has a lot of bad baggage with it, like hiding emotions when you should share, being sexist and ignoring some important things at times. But it's a film hero. Let's skip over the John Wayne anti-communist film, "Big Jim McClain" (1952), for instance.
Still, "big Duke" had some good things about his demeanor. Like being kick ass, not being cheap or afraid of every little thing. And not relying always on the easiest things possible, at the expense of American's lives. And holding Americans in high esteem, and our Republic. Now if only Republicans would realize that too, right? But, I digress....
If we want to allow ELINT, Electronic Intel, to be the tip of our national sword, fine. But we need some limits for Reason's sake and Americans need to be the wall maintaining what our nation stands for Yes, the bad guys may be hiding amongst us, but hey, guess what? What does that start real quick to sound like, again. The Red Menace, right? "A commie behind every bush"? (pun not intended)
Let's face it, there isn't a terrorist behind every rock and cranny. Yes, they are out there. But let's maintain an even strain here, kids. Let's at least try to be the "right stuff". Let's stand up for ourselves and start pushing back.
Snowden, regardless of what he's done or how you think about him, has started the ball rolling. Are you going to let it slide back down now to where it was to start with?
We need to stop trading security for freedom. That is really, the final consideration.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Playing telephone in Life with the world and one another
I wish you all a very pleasant and reflective Memorial Day holiday. It's good and well on this day to solemnly consider for a time the sacrifices made by those who stood against those powers who sought to put an end to our country and as well for the mistakes we as a country have made and therefore lost our forces to battles that perhaps we should never have been involved in. That latter is the more solemn consideration, for sure.
We all make mistakes from time to time. But on a National level, the mistakes need to be as few and far between as can be made possible. Because it affects so many and so much through time and perception. Perception of others toward the United States. Perception of ourselves toward who we have become. And the perception of who we have become at this time in History by those who shall follow us and reflect back on our deeds and actions. And motivations. And Humanity. How we are perceived by others is far more important than we tend to give it weight. The weight of importance, of reactions, and of delayed reactions.
Perception is a difficult thing at times to deal with. It can be overwhelming at both a national, world stage level, as well as in a more intimate, interpersonal level.
Have you ever played, "Telephone" at a party? Basically, it's where you tell someone a secret and it's passed down the line, everyone trying to remain as true and accurate as possible to the original statement. Then, from the last person in line, you hear what they say they were told and compare it to what was originally said and sent down the line.
Typically in comparing the two ends, you get two very different statements.
Well, consider this. When you're in a romantic relationship, you are actually playing "telephone", with your mate. There are far less involved, it is only the two of you. But some of the communications you receive from one another are not just from words, but actions, looks, and other people's comments. Indirect actions, even. But the concept is the same. You start with your thought, and by the time it reaches your partner's conception of what you are communicating, something about it has almost always changed in the process.
Last year I was watching Kofi Annan, once head of the United Nations, on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. He was talking about how hard it was when he was head of the UN, to try and explain between the leaders of the US and Iran how, what one Iranian leader had said to its farmers in the countryside of Iran, shouldn't be incorrectly interpreted by the American leaders in Washington DC, from considering directly what was said. Sometimes, what was said in the countryside was merely an attempt for the leader of Iran to explain to an uneducated farmer, topics such as Nuclear power.
For that explanation to then be understood by the leaders in America well, it simply doesn't translate well; or in fact, at all. Kofi Annan said that he had so much trouble in pointing out that, that what was said to an Iranian farmer shouldn't be listened to or reacted to by the leaders of the US.
It was like playing "telephone" between two world leaders. That is one side of it.
The other side is considering communication simply from one entity to another. That's talking at the country sized level. Now drop it down to individual sized level. Every person on earth has a different understanding or filter of the world, from every other individual.
Certainly, we all have a somewhat general understanding or we could never communicate at all. Still, that being said, we really don't all FULLY understand exactly what any other person is saying. On an international stage, this is very disconcerting.
Now, apply that concept into the tiny confines of a romantic relationship. Tiny confines from an outsider's perspective perhaps, but from an insider's perspective it can become an overburdened, intolerably huge affair. How do we ever truly communicate? How can we truly know the other person? Or, other nation for that matter.
Kind of scary when you think about it. Right?
We all make mistakes from time to time. But on a National level, the mistakes need to be as few and far between as can be made possible. Because it affects so many and so much through time and perception. Perception of others toward the United States. Perception of ourselves toward who we have become. And the perception of who we have become at this time in History by those who shall follow us and reflect back on our deeds and actions. And motivations. And Humanity. How we are perceived by others is far more important than we tend to give it weight. The weight of importance, of reactions, and of delayed reactions.
Perception is a difficult thing at times to deal with. It can be overwhelming at both a national, world stage level, as well as in a more intimate, interpersonal level.
Have you ever played, "Telephone" at a party? Basically, it's where you tell someone a secret and it's passed down the line, everyone trying to remain as true and accurate as possible to the original statement. Then, from the last person in line, you hear what they say they were told and compare it to what was originally said and sent down the line.
Typically in comparing the two ends, you get two very different statements.
Well, consider this. When you're in a romantic relationship, you are actually playing "telephone", with your mate. There are far less involved, it is only the two of you. But some of the communications you receive from one another are not just from words, but actions, looks, and other people's comments. Indirect actions, even. But the concept is the same. You start with your thought, and by the time it reaches your partner's conception of what you are communicating, something about it has almost always changed in the process.
Last year I was watching Kofi Annan, once head of the United Nations, on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. He was talking about how hard it was when he was head of the UN, to try and explain between the leaders of the US and Iran how, what one Iranian leader had said to its farmers in the countryside of Iran, shouldn't be incorrectly interpreted by the American leaders in Washington DC, from considering directly what was said. Sometimes, what was said in the countryside was merely an attempt for the leader of Iran to explain to an uneducated farmer, topics such as Nuclear power.
For that explanation to then be understood by the leaders in America well, it simply doesn't translate well; or in fact, at all. Kofi Annan said that he had so much trouble in pointing out that, that what was said to an Iranian farmer shouldn't be listened to or reacted to by the leaders of the US.
It was like playing "telephone" between two world leaders. That is one side of it.
The other side is considering communication simply from one entity to another. That's talking at the country sized level. Now drop it down to individual sized level. Every person on earth has a different understanding or filter of the world, from every other individual.
Certainly, we all have a somewhat general understanding or we could never communicate at all. Still, that being said, we really don't all FULLY understand exactly what any other person is saying. On an international stage, this is very disconcerting.
Now, apply that concept into the tiny confines of a romantic relationship. Tiny confines from an outsider's perspective perhaps, but from an insider's perspective it can become an overburdened, intolerably huge affair. How do we ever truly communicate? How can we truly know the other person? Or, other nation for that matter.
Kind of scary when you think about it. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)