--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wrote: > --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ><snip> > > > >> we disagree on....the appropriateness of the > actions that were taken concerning "spin". > > >> At the same time, I hold no negative assessment > of Bush et. al. for spinning as I > >> see spinning a requirement to communicate with > and persuade the American > >> public. The emergent properties of this appears > >> contradictory. "Listen to > >> what I mean not what I say" "Listen to what I say > >> not what it sounds like I > >> mean". The key to the difference is in the use of > >> logic and recognizing > >> mistakes rather than recognizing spin.
> >As you said earlier, many people seem to be too > lazy, distracted or uncritical of what they hear and > read. > >I don't know how to correct that except by teaching > >critical thinking in school (I suppose some private > >schools do this). So one question is, should our > >government look upon its constituency as PT Barnum > >would, or as sheep to be led, or wolves who are > >content to follow-the-leaders but might turn upon > >them and tear them up if sufficiently angered? > > And my answer to this is that they should do what > they think is right, the > communication to the masses should follow whatever > paradigm they find to be most effective. But effective short-term or long-term? > >Transparency and accountability lessen the State's > >predatory abilities; both of these principles have > >been under attack by the current admin, IMO. > > Can you give examples of this? Holding people in jail without formal charges; running Patriot I through Congress without giving sufficient time for members to read it before voting; the proposed 'Domestic Security Enhancement Act' aka Patriot II, which was leaked to the press. These have all been discussed/cited on-list previously. While I think Ashcroft is the force behind these manuevers, Bush put him into his position of power, so what the Justice Dept. does reflects on Bush, for ill or good. Mind you, I am *not* saying that prior admins were shining examples of transparency or accountability either - look at Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, which resulted in an escalation of involvement in Vietnam; it was in best light a stupid misinterpretation, and at worst an outright lie. >:/ > >Which in > >turn has led to my distrust of their motives in > just about every arena. > > Would you always distrust any government? Yes, to one degree or another. 'Not only does power corrupt, but it attracts the corruptible,' to paraphrase Himself. >Is that not a sign of a healthy democracy? Freedom to express one's doubts, without fear of repression or unwarranted repercussions, certainly is. > >One of the dangers to 'the > >spinners' is that if *enough* people become aware > of excessive manipulative spin, they might revile and > >attack those who twist critical truth. Or > >disbelieve *anything* the spin-mongers say because >>of the prior perceived manipulation(s). This WashPost OpEd piece, provocatively titled, nevertheless gives examples of prior "spinning->lying" which got those Admins into trouble (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton). It also discusses the very "spin" we are disagreeing on, re: WMD, and wonders why (non-militarily critical) truth isn't used instead. Of course, it too "spins" by comparing the current situation, which is *far* from clear, to the *known* lies of the above presidents. Yet that rather proves my point about government spin/lying -> public/media mistrust and disbelief! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57402-2003Jun13.html "...Of course, weapons of mass destruction may yet be uncovered in Iraq. But in Poland last month, President Bush startled observers by saying on Polish TV: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories . . . . And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." "Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances. But by artfully joining the "manufacturing devices or banned weapons" in one sentence, his comments nicely fuzzed up what he meant by saying, "We found them."... "...Official lies erode the public's confidence in its leaders and inspire conspiracy theories. Public trust between the government and the electorate is the bedrock of a democracy that ultimately rests on the informed consent of the governed. Ethics professor Sissela Bok has written of "the presumption against lying" that forms the basis of trust, without which "institutions collapse." Official lying destroys that bond. "There is an alternative to government lying. It is to tell the truth. Or, if need be, to remain silent." > We can only hope that *enough * people become aware, > but I also hope that > with that awareness comes some maturity so that > attacks are unnecessary. > > Do you think that Wofowitz(sp?) et.al. admissions > about the amount of �spin� > that wend into the WMD thing increase or decrease > the level of awareness? It *should* increase awareness, although many people I know (me included <grimace>) are quite worried about their job situation, and I must admit that when you're living month-to-month, it tends to override concerns that are 'farther away.' :P Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
