Hello Randall >Keith, > >You said: "We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. >Please go and read it. You are complicit. What are you doing about >it? You're obliged to >be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, >and if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other >people >or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is >if you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not >complicit because you're just a helpless slave." > >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they >will need to be a person who: > >1) Is capable of being aware of EVERYTHING that the government does >domestically and internationally. To do this, you will need to >posess God-like omniscience >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience) since you will need to be >aware of all actions performed by every single one of the MILLIONS >of people that are connected with the US Federal government alone -- >currently almost 2 million employees if you ignore the Military and >the Postal Service. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) How >many more work for the various State and Local governments. How >many people work for quasi-governmental institutions that have an >effect on how the government operates? You quoted at least one ><http://www.pipa.org/>. > >2) Is able to influence ALL of those MILLIONS of people, or possess >the knowledge to choose which of the MILLIONS of people you will >need to influence to force all the remaining people that you cannot >influence (time, distance, numbers of people to speak with, >whatever) to do what you wish them to do. > >3) Possess the knowledge of the correct thing to do, and how to >communicate this to all of the people that you will need to >influence to make what you want to happen occur in the manner that >you desire. > >--- or --- > >Is it ok for someone to just complain about the actions of the >government to avoid being labeled complicit, or do they have to >actually DO something? > >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, >how effective does their action have to be? > >How closely related to the government in question can someone be, >and avoid responsibility for that government's actions? Are other >countries that benefit from the actions of your government >responsible for the actions of your government? If so, are the >people of those other countries then also responsible for your >governments actions?? > >What if you don't want to give the government money, but they take >it under the threat of death or imprisonment? > >So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? How effective >have your actions been? What will you do in the future to become >more effective? When do you become blameless? Are you aware of how >every single dollar is spent by our government?
Whose is bigger eh? :-) What am I doing. For what's most visible, how about Journey to Forever? Or running the Biofuel list and helping to keep it well fed over the last six years with the kind of information you specify, often against strong opposition by people who would much rather have it left comfortably buried out of sight where the forces we're discussing had put it, and put them too in a state of heedless and uncaring ignorance, consent, and indeed complicity. That information includes about the best set of tools I've seen for doing all the things you specify, including investigation, spin detection, source checking, counter-spin and counter-propaganda, and the kind of activism required if you're interested in a sustainable future. There's been much discussion here on activism, and on "What can I do?" That's all there too, with solutions offered. And I provide this resource. That's just for now, some things. If you go back through my history you'll find an unbroken record of opposing the forces we're discussing, in many ways and across a broad range of issues, and in many countries, mainly but not only as a campaigning journalist. It's something I've never stopped since I started it long ago in white racist South Africa, where life tended to be short and have ugly endings for people who felt they ought to take a hand in deciding what they were going to be complicit in. You can find some of the details of all this at our website, and elsewhere. I'm not planning on stopping. Have my actions been effective? Yes, they have. They are being now. There are very many people, VERY many, who could give you their own versions of that story. Together it all covers everything you specify and much besides. Today these people work both separately and together, sharing resources across a wide range of issues, the whole range perhaps, via the Internet, the great leveller. Are their actions proving effective? You could ask the WTO that question for instance, or Monsanto, or ExxonMobil, or George Bush getting furious because his ratings are plunging and he can't find anybody to nuke for it. It's a heartless view to ask people who work for change what effect they're having. It's the accumulative effect that creates change, and when change happens it's impossible to say quite who or what "caused" it. "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito." -- the Dalai Lama. You point out the disadvantages now facing someone in a country that for 30 years and more has been increasingly supine in all aspects of the vigilance required of a population over their government and business interests. Not to say it was exactly perfect before that, but for 30 years and more your media have been abandoning the flock they're supposed to be guarding and joining the wolves, and now they're owned and run and controlled by a very small number of wolves, in straightforward collusion with an effectively cloaked government-corporate sector that has gone far beyond the pale of responsible citizenship. Now you point at this and other such results of heedless inaction as obstacles to taking action. But aren't you just an accessory, along with everyone else who let it all just slip through your fingers? The law says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Civil society might say that ignorance of things you should know is no excuse. One good reason for that is that none of these things has been truly hidden. The information has always been there for anyone who wanted to know. That it wasn't in the NYT or on FoxNews doesn't mean it wasn't available. In fact it's quite surprising how much has been plainly recorded in the NYT and the other mainstream newspapers that people say they had no way of knowing. There surely is no way of knowing something if you don't want to know it. The opinion manufacturing industry doesn't really hide things as much as render them uninteresting, the eye slides away, the ear goes deaf, the attention wanders. It works very well. But not on everybody. Not everybody is deaf to the truth, not everybody swallows the lies. Why's that? How do some people - many people - manage to stay awake and alert and undeceived? That has a bearing on complicity, don't you think? Now there are many people who genuinely believe that if it's not on FoxNews it never happened, it doesn't exist. The influence and sheer lack of quality and responsibility of FoxNews is not something that could occur in a vigilant society. Nevertheless, everything that isn't on FoxNews does exist and is there to be found, if only you look. >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and >>if they are they think they're immune." It's the PROBLEM Randall, not the excuse! >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, >how effective does their action have to be? If they do their best, then the question isn't very relevant. Unless you claim that individuals are helpless and opposition to power is doomed to failure. In fact lots of little half-heard voices whisper that in your ear all the time, and in everyone else's ear too. Or rather they don't have to whisper that now, not for a long time, they only have to reinforce it. Yet now everyone is talking of an awakening, and there's no doubt that it's true. Especially since about eight months ago. How do you think that happened? It could not have happened had there not been *enough* committed people doing their best to make a difference and achieving worthwhile results since long before, always keeping the light burning, no matter how often it sputtered. Enough for the rest not to have any shred of an excuse. People point to social apathy as a problem too, and instead of trying to get to the root of it they claim it's basic human nature, so what's the point of trying to do anything about it. If you're a "believer" in social apathy, do you think people were as apathetic 50 years ago as they are now? A hundred years ago? They weren't. They were a lot more skilful too. So what changed? Nothing is really hidden, not even the reason that so many people don't ask the questions they should. So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? What aren't you complicit in? You don't have to answer Randall. This is not how either of these issues of torture and nuking Iran arose here. The talk of blame and accountability and responsibility and complicity started when people began protesting that it's not *their* fault, it's no use blaming *them*. But there's rather more to both civic and personal responsibility than avoiding blame. But look at the way you put it, in your second paragraph: >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they >will need to be a person who: You say it a couple of times. Is that the holy grail, do you think, to avoid responsibility? I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you imply that the bad actions are okay as long as you can't be held personally responsible for them. That's just how you (pl) got to where you are, with all the problems you describe. Do you really think that? If not what do you think? Best Keith >--Randall >Charlotte, NC > > >___________________________________________________________________________ > ><< Heisenberg may have slept here >> > >"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening >my xe." --Abraham Lincoln > >___________________________________________________________________________ > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> >Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:20 AM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > > >>Hello Mike >> >>Why're you so doubtful about it? Sure, it's always good to check, but >>it's well in line with what usually happens, as people are saying. >> >>For instance (from the list archives): >> >>http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263 >>War on Iraq: The World According to a Bush Voter >>October 21, 2004 >>"A new survey reveals that Bush supporters choose to keep faith in >>their leader rather than face reality... >>"But here is the truly astonishing part: as many or more Bush >>supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago. >>In other words, more people believe the claims today -- after the >>publication of a series of well-publicized official government >>reports that debunked both notions." >> >>That poll was conducted by University of Maryland's Program on >>International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks. Here's >>the poll report itself: >>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealiti >>es%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf >> >>Then there's this: >> >>>Results of previous PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll [May 04]: >>> >>>- A 57% majority believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in >>>carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support" >>>to al-Qaeda >>>- 82% either said that "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing >>>substantial support to al Qaeda" or "experts are evenly divided on >>>the question" >>>- 45% believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found >>>- 60% believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of >>>mass destruction or a major program for developing them >>>- 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them or that experts are >>>divided on the question >>>- estimates of the number of US troop fatalities in Iraq varied widely >>>- 59% were unaware that the majority of world public opinion is >>>opposed to the US war with Iraq >>>- asked how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has, the median estimate >>>was 200 (the actual number is 6,000) >>> >>>These beliefs are closely correlated with intentions to vote for Bush. >> >>So what's new? >> >>Look at the escalation in the Iran case: >> >>>Iran has not violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), >>>does not have a nuclear weapons program, and poses no threat to its >>>neighbors or the United States. Never the less, the spurious >>>accusations in the media have precipitated a dramatic shift in >>>public opinion. For more than a decade only 6% of the American >>>people considered Iran the "greatest danger" to the United States. >>>Now (according to a recent Pew Poll) that number has jumped to 27%. >>>Also, the survey showed that "nearly half (47%) said they favored >>>military action, preferably along with European allies, to halt >>>Iran's nuclear program." -- Jim Lobe, "Polls: anti-Iran Propaganda >>>Working", February 10, 2006 >>http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8526 >> >>Compare with the current Newsmax poll, it makes a curve. >> >>Worse than that, Lobe's piece three months ago said "the polls do not >>show eagerness to take military action now or unilaterally. The >>public appears to prefer an effort to settle the crisis >>diplomatically, preferably through the United Nations." >> >>Now they do, and sod the UN. >> >>The Newsmax poll and what it says and who's spinning it if anyone is >>irrelevant. The fact is that the US and Israel are creeping up on >>nuking Iran, and dragging public opinion along behind, as usual. >>Check it out for yourself. >> >>People are commenting on short term memory loss. It's not short term >>memory loss, it's manufactured memory loss. >> >>Robert said "I think this illustrates how effective the propaganda >>machine in the >>US has become." Absolutely. >> >>"The United States is not only number one in military power but also >>in the effectiveness of its propaganda system." -- Edward S. Herman >> >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and >>if they are they think they're immune." >> >>>Hi Fritz and everyone...polls...hmmm...can anyone tell me more about >>>"NewsMax"? >> >>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=NewsMax&fulltext=Search >>Search results - SourceWatch >>NewsMax.com >> >>Not to be trusted, but in this case it's irrelevant. Tear your eyes >>away from what's disturbing you about NewsMax, and do some work on >>the Internet, and in the Biofuel list archives, on the mounting US >>fear and loathing campaign against Iran. >> >>How come your reply doesn't even mention the word "Iran" in your >>haste to defend... to defend what, exactly? >> >>>Who owns and controls this website? Fritz, have you asked anyone at >>>NewsMax how this poll was conducted? What are the demographics of >>>this poll? I see on their homepage as of today, Sunday, May 7, just >>>after 7pm Central (USA), where they site a poll WITH HEADLINES that >>>says Fox is the most trusted news source in the U.S., but the story >>>says we're talking about 11% of the public making it this "popular." >>>Hey, if only roughly One in Ten Americans are fatheads, we're not >>>doin' too bad. I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of >>>these 11% make up the largest percentage of the "voters" who >>>answered the NewsMax poll, which would make that "77%" actually an >>>incredibly small percentage of the U.S. population. Sorry you >>>blame the "ordinary" U.S. citizen for however our government acts. >> >>We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. Please go and read >>it. You are complicit. What are you doing about it? You're obliged to >>be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, and >>if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other people >>or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is if >>you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not complicit >>because you're just a helpless slave. >> >>>What's the deal in your country? Is your government walking in >>>lockstep with the will of the overwhelming majority of the >>>"ordinary" citizens? What is "ordinary" anyway???? I'll leave it >>>at that for now. >> >>Sorry, you'll have to respond, those are the rules here. >> >>Keith Addison >>Journey to Forever >>KYOTO Pref., Japan >>http://journeytoforever.org/ >>Biofuel list owner >> >> >> >>>Mike >>> >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>> >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fritz Friesinger >>>To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:09 PM >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran >>> >>>Hakan, >>>indeed dejea vu, >>>once the propagandamachine works as fine as it does in the US,all >>>out war is'nt far away! >>>The whole polemic about the communist threat BS, it was and is >>>always the migthy US who uses Nukes to intimidate the rest of the >>>world! >>>I dispise them for it and can not help to blame the ordinary US >>>Citicen.As a German i felt long time the blame for the wrong doeings >>>of the Nazis even i was born in 48! >>>eh bien and so on... >>>Get better Hakan,there is no time to loose >>>Fritz >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hakan Falk >>>To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:23 PM >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran >>> >>> >>>Fritz, >>> >>>Have a strong feeling of dejavu and this time I will save the info in >>>a special place. Pre Iraq, I saw similar figures and also some >>>support on this list. Today it is overwhelming negative numbers in >>>support for the Iraq war and approval ratings for the president. >>>Maybe I should frame this, for future use. >>> >>>Talk about a violent population, 77% in support of military action >>>and killing Iranians. In two years we will have 65% in denial and >>>against the US engagement in Iran. It will be an even bigger mess >>>than Iraq, with attacks all over the world. >>> >>>Hakan >>> >>> >>> >>>At 20:07 07/05/2006, you wrote: >>> >just received >>> > >>> >Fritz >>> > >>> >Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran >>> > >>> >An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are >>> >overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military >>> >action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. >>> > >>> >Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more >>> >than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons >>> >program are not working. >>> > >>> >A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a >>> >greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. >>> > >>> >NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and >>> >share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. >>> > >>> >Here are the poll questions and results: >>> > >>> >1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons >>> >program are working? >>> >Working: 7 percent >>> >Not Working: 93 percent >>> > >>> >2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's >>> >nuclear weapons program? >>> >Yes: 11 percent >>> >No: 89 percent >>> > >>> >3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein >>> >did before the Iraq War? >>> >Yes: 88 percent >>> >No: 12 percent >>> > >>> >4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop >>> >their program? >>> >Yes: 77 percent >>> >No: 23 percent >>> > >>> >5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? >>> >U.S.: 45 percent >>> >Israel: 35 percent >>> >Neither: 20 percent _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
