[Peace-discuss] AOTA 2/24

[E. W. Johnson]

Another Dr. Johnson noted that Argument is useless against those who 
minds are already firmly made up.   Chomsky notes that there are better 
audiences,  presumably among those whom are still teachable.

I have noted particularly among University authorities that they know 
the truth well enough, but they choose to ignore the truth or pervert it 
because it's correct and direct application is "inconvenient".

I don't think it is a total waste of time trying to speak truth to those 
in authority.  Even they have "moments of lucidity" and might choose to 
do the right thing on a whim or maybe just at random.




However it is
On 02/25/2015 10:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
> AWAREists--
>
> I thought yesterday's AWARE ON THE AIR went well & was well-anchored by Ron - altho' I wondered why he was defending Obama against attacks in the letters column of the News-Gazette, instead of correcting those attacks. As Chomsky says, Obama is conducting "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - and we're defending him against Republicans, rather than talking about his "terror Tuesdays," which most people don't know about (and he's not being forced to do, by the CIA, Pentagon, etc.)?
>
> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate" [Chomsky].
>
> Both Ron and I are appalled at how far both parties a have moved to the right in the last 40 years, but that's no reason to fall into the WWF-style contest between two parties that are both neoliberal and neoconservative. Our job is to make our chosen audience AWARE of a larger spectrum of opinion - and of the crimes being committed by our government in our name.
>
> With that in mind, I appreciate Karen's lighting a Lenten candle for Chomsky - altho' I was surprised to hear Chomsky praised for 'speaking truth to power' (perhaps I misheard). Chomsky wrote 20 years ago,
>
> "So, my Quaker friends and colleagues in disrupting illegitimate authority adopt the slogan: 'Speak truth to power.' I strongly disagree. The audience is entirely wrong, and the effort hardly more than a form of self-indulgence. It is a waste of time and a pointless pursuit to speak truth to Henry Kissinger, or the CEO of General Motors, or others who exercise power in coercive institutions -- truths that they already know well enough, for the most part.
> Again, a qualification is in order. Insofar as such people dissociate themselves from their institutional setting and become human beings, moral agents, then they join everyone else. But in their institutional roles, as people who wield power, they are hardly worth addressing, any more than the worst tyrants and criminals, who are also human beings, however terrible their actions.
> To speak truth to power is not a particularly honorable vocation. One should seek out an audience that matters -- and furthermore (another important qualification), it should not be seen as an audience, but as a community of common concern in which one hopes to participate constructively. We should not be speaking /to, but with. That is second nature to any good teacher, and should be to any writer and intellectual as well.
> Perhaps this is enough to suggest that even the question of choice of audience is not entirely trivial."
>
> It seems to me that that's what we trying to do, in speaking to those people who write letters to the News-Gazette, altho' Ron is surely correct in pointing out the significance of the 'political class' (in Gaetano Mosca's term). That notion might be worthwhile discussing in itself in an upcoming program.
>
> It was good to see Michael added to the panel, and Ron's attempts to get at what was going on in Germany seem to me quite worthwhile, given German government actions in re Ukraine (and Greece). The exchange below between Karen & Michael would be good to take up in future. (Other Oscar winners don't really have to be mentioned, but...)
>
> Coraggio, CGE
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Bay, Michael via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>> I do not the remember either the film or Snowden himself respresent Snowden as a high level NSA official. He worked as an infrastructure analyst and as Karen stated, had superior access to the NSA database.
>>
>> I doubt that Snowden's publications have resulted in damage to the United States security. Conversely, the NSA has damaged the freedom of a number of citizens both from the US and foreign countries. The fact, that PRISM with secret court approval allows to collect metadata of any American citizen and that the same information can be acquired of any foreigner even without court approval is an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
>>
>> The widely claimed justification of "self defense against terrorism" is refutable. There does not exist evidence for any single terror attack that has been prevented as a result of the widespread spying. On the contrary, the NSA has used its superior knowledge to spy on non-terrorist peaceful organizations. There exists evidence that the NSA also spies on anti-war and peace activists as well as anarchists.
>>
>> The extent of espionage has become so overwhelming that the US government forces providers of encrypted e-mail services to shut down if they do not agree to share their data. In August 2013, Lavabit and Silent Circle closed as a result of US governmental pressure. The owner of Lavabit service declared that he had preferred to terminate his 10-year-old business, rather than to violate the rights of his 400,000 users. He recommended against trusting private data to any company with physical ties to the US. Silent circle founder Phil Zimmermann expressed “If privacy becomes unlawful, then only outlaws maintain privacy.”
>>
>> Regardless of whether Snowden tells the truth or not, what he published needed to be published and helped in disclosing severe espionage by the NSA on the Americans and foreigners, terrorists and peace activists. The question is, how much security do we need to protect our freedom and at which point is freedom sacrificed to achieve an unnecessary degree of security?
>>
>>
>> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:30 PM
>> To: Roger Helbig; Robert Naiman; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] links: Poitras' Citizenfour wins Oscar for best documentary
>>
>> Roger, I haven't seen the film, but I do remember from interviews with Snowden when he first made headlines, not those on the corporate owned media, but with DemocracyNow, and Snowden never claimed to be a high level NSA official. He worked for Booz Allen, a government contractor, along with many others. One of the points he made was that he wasn't "high level" and yet he had access to all the information that he did, and found this very disturbing.
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss