.. and vice-a-versa.
All the news that's fit to slant
I feel the need to begin at the end on this one.(emphasis mine)Now let's praise the AP. On an equally bright summer's morning in Australia a few days ago, I open the Sydney Morning Herald. It tells me, on page 6, that the news agency, using the Freedom of Information Act, has forced U.S. authorities to turn over 5,000 pages of transcripts of hearings at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. One of them records the trial of since-released British prisoner Feroz Abbasi, in which Abbasi vainly pleads with his judge, a U.S. air force colonel, to reveal the evidence against him, something he says he has a right to hear under international law.
And here is what the U.S. colonel replied: "Mr. Abbasi, your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words international law. We are not concerned about international law."
Alas, those words -- which symbolize the very end of the American dream -- are buried in the story.
This is why I love - am absolutely thrilled - to have the Internet and publically available tools like Blogger.
I don't claim to be an authoritative source for anything but my own life and the experiences thereof. I'm intelligent and have found that writing about things that interest me brings others here to read what I might kick out this time. That's a blast, and I sometimes even feel as if I can really make some kind of difference by posting my thoughts on issues that I feel and think are important to my species at large.
Anything posted on this blog, if not for obvious entertainment purposes only, is subject to questioning and further research. As I've said before, keep your grains of salt handy. I'm ready to rant!
Fact checking via Google or Wikipedia or even, occasionally, going to my local Library and picking through old issues of the NY Times or such, is what I do when I come across something I think substantial or incredibly interesting. I wonder as to it's veracity. That's one of the primary tenets of the scientific method.
Got an idea? Test it. Someone else profers an idea? How'd their tests operate? What points hold up? What points fail? What do our peers think of this and how have they come to their conclusions?
In the linked story, the author tenders a hypothesis about the veracity of the news coming out of "officials" in the US government based upon their designation by the Corporation Owned Media outlets who are reporting such.
How many of you remember reading about the words of that Air Force Colonel when Abassi - worthless little rat-bastard terrorist that he obviously is* - suggested his accusers were being, hhmmm, less than competent in their application of and adherence to International Law?
I refuse to accept that, if the NYT, WaPo, WSJ or my personal fav the SPI, haven't mentioned it, it must not have happened. While each of them are still reliable sources of information once a story is On the Table, and any of them make break a story of which no one else has any inkling, any of them alone are simply indicators that more reading, researchin' and personal analysis needs to be done.
As there are currently still, as of this writing, Checks and Balances proscribed in the United States Constitution, there is also a need for each individual within a Free and Libertine Society to take full responsibility for the information upon which we choose to act and form our opinions.
So enjoy your life. Have a blast and don't let the problems of the world getchya down. But when you start asserting that you know what's right, how the world really is, what is Truth, you had better be able to back it up with more than a simple; I read in the Times that government "officials" have said so. So it must be true.
Happy Humpday all...
* I've NO idea what kind of person he is, nor do I care for the sake of the principle involved here. Even in such a tribunal as was being held for his alleged offense, Rules of Conduct must be respected. They are as much to ensure that convictions are solid as they are to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly punished.