<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
This is a very important point, but the conclusion is not hopeful:<br>
<br>
"<span style="white-space: pre;">We should always look at censorship
as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech
in that jurisdiction.</span>"<br>
<br>
But the Chinese are worried, and the Obama administration is not.
They've managed to get us thinking that Sarah Palin is the threat.
Good liberals in America have learnt that they must rally to their
betters in government (Republicans and Democrats) who will hold off
the unwashed - Sarah Palinites and Ron Paulists - who are about to
overwhelm the basically good-hearted PLU who are running the
American government...<br>
<br>
The capitulation of American liberalism is so complete - the index
is the purported fear of "racism" - that we have not even taken
aboard Jefferson's hard-headed and obvious observation of the better
part of two centuries ago:<br>
<br>
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all
powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who
identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them,
cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not
the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country
these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to
think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them,
therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and
Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or
by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and
pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is
the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to
Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73 <br>
<br>
Republicans and Democrats (and academics) make up the "aristocrats"
today. But the large majority of our fellow citizens - excoriated as
"tea partiers" - are Jefferson's "democrats" (not of course our
Democrats). <br>
<br>
On 12/3/10 5:07 PM, Rohn Koester wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Compare this to Assange's
comment in an online chat published by the<br>
> Guardian today:<br>
> <br>
> "The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships
through a web<br>
> of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on.
In such<br>
> an environment it is easy for speech to be 'free' because a
change in<br>
> political will rarely leads to any change in these basic
instruments.<br>
> Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on
power, is,<br>
> like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is<br>
> pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and
power is<br>
> scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an
economic<br>
> signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that<br>
> jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a
great hope,<br>
> speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade."<br>
> <br>
> [via the IOZ blog, original:<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks</a>]<br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
>> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:58:26 -0600 From:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a> <br>
>> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">peace-discuss@anti-war.net</a> Subject: [Peace-discuss]<br>
>> Double-think in the ideological institutions<br>
>> <br>
>> The Wikileaks documents expose the contempt for democracy
in the US<br>
>> government.<br>
>> <br>
>> The theme continues in the commentary:<br>
>> <br>
>> today the NYT runs an op-ed from an emeritus professor of
history<br>
>> at the University of Illinois, who writes "...diplomatic<br>
>> correspondence and negotiations ... ought to be released
only after<br>
>> passions have settled and scholars [like - guess who?]
can examine<br>
>> the records in fuller context." Then comes the killer:<br>
>> <br>
>> "Especially in a democracy [sic - otherwise the unwashed
get to<br>
>> comment, instead of just dying], the goal of negotiations
should be<br>
>> to secretly reach an agreement..."<br>
>> <br>
>> You can't make this stuff up - unless you're George
Orwell.<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________
Peace-discuss<br>
>> mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a> <br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
mailing<br>
> list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a></span><br>
</body>
</html>