The Russian title is a pun about newspapers in the Soviet era. There were two national papers: Izvestiya, which roughly translates as "News," was the official newspaper of the Soviet government; Pravda, which means "Truth," was the official news outlet of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
The pun says, "There is no 'Izvestiya' in 'Pravda,' and no 'Pravda' in 'Izvestiya'." That is, "There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news," and speaking it in the wrong company could get you tossed in jail.
That is why the framers of the Constitution insisted on free speech and a free press.
As
Americans we have the right not only to say what we think, but also to publish it. If the government takes a position we do not agree with,
we are free to speak and publish protests against it.
American journalism has been something of a rough-and-tumble enterprise almost from the beginning, but it has always been imbued with a kind of nobility, especially when reporting the news. Such was the case through the era of radio and the first few decades of television.
Sadly, it has not been the case since the mid-1980s when Rupert Murdoch began infecting American news media. Through the 1980s and '90s, entertainment gained primacy, which led to news programs that had more in common with entertainment than with traditional news reporting.
We have now reached a pass where it can be said of much American news reporting, "There is neither truth nor news in the news."
I am not going to comment on any network or station or channel, or make any recommendations based on my own opinions. What I have to offer, for those of you who might be interested, are a few links that might help navigate the sea of un-news and disinformation.
A Wikipedia article on the history of false news and how to detect it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news#Detecting_fake_news_online
The transcript library of Rev.com, where you can find verbatim transcripts of almost everything newsworthy:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts
For purposes of comparing and contrasting, here's the official White House transcript site:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/
Another site for identifying falsehoods in the news:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/
There are many more such sites and I urge you to find some you like so you can do your own fact checking. I trust those above--well, except the White House, of course.
--- Diogenes, 5/2/20
Fox News is a brand name, not a descriptor of content.
U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people
02 May 2020
01 May 2020
Freedom to Think, Part 2
Yesterday I wrote about the most important freedom we have: the freedom to think, because all the types of expression enumerated in the First Amendment spring from thought. I also urged you all to exercise those First Amendment rights frequently.
I like to believe that everyone who receives these posts is an active advocate and practitioner of First Amendment rights, but I am aware of the chronic lack of interest in action, not to say apathy, that infects many Americans.
I recently mentioned the "Know-nothing" party and their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their political affiliation. Here in 2020 America we say "I don't want to get involved," or "One person never makes a difference," or "No politician ever looks at letters," or "Nothing I can do can matter."
Wrong on all counts. If you are a United States citizen you are automatically involved because the laws and rules of the nation apply to you. Changes made by politicians can affect nearly everything in your life, and you have the right to speak for or against those changes. Not exercising your rights is tantamount to not having them. If you do nothing else, vote.
One person can make a big difference. I always recall the Chinese proverb quoted by JFK: "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." To paraphrase, "A world-changing movement must begin with a single person." You don't have to act alone. Find an organization, locally or online, that suits your political and/or social interests and join it.
It is probably true that you won't get a personal response from letters to politicians; the best you can hope for is a form letter sent by an intern. That's not to say your action was wasted. Letters are counted and sorted by subject, and numbers count. If your representative sees a huge influx of letters on one issue, you can bet that it's going to get to a higher rung on her agenda.
Finally, the nihilist excuse: "Nothing matters." Horsefeathers. Every person matters, and every action has an impact. Where do you think you would be today if the framers of the Constitution had thought that way?
As an independent blogger with limited resources and a short reach I've asked myself more than once if researching material and sitting in front of my computer for hours is worth the effort, when maybe only a dozen people might read it. And I always come back to the same answer: Yes. We can't know where our words go. We can't know they won't make a difference to someone with influence. Above all, we must have hope and faith, and belief in our cause.
If you decide to write a letter, don't worry about your abilities, or about grammar and spelling. Do the best you can to get your point across in clear language. Don't wander off the subject. Keep it short and to the point, even if it's just one typed line. Remember the numbers game: every piece of mail helps.
Above all, regardless of how you feel about the person you are writing, be respectful. Think that you are writing to the office, not the person. Government offices in the United States are always due respect, no matter what a schlump the incumbent might be; and never, never, never, use profanity or foul language.
Finally, do not write in anger. It will go nowhere. I ask you to trust my personal experience in this. If you write an angry, inflammatory letter, save it and go away from it until you cool down. Passion can be communicated in civil language and be more effective for it.
Happy May Day.
--- Diogenes, 5/1/20
I like to believe that everyone who receives these posts is an active advocate and practitioner of First Amendment rights, but I am aware of the chronic lack of interest in action, not to say apathy, that infects many Americans.
I recently mentioned the "Know-nothing" party and their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their political affiliation. Here in 2020 America we say "I don't want to get involved," or "One person never makes a difference," or "No politician ever looks at letters," or "Nothing I can do can matter."
Wrong on all counts. If you are a United States citizen you are automatically involved because the laws and rules of the nation apply to you. Changes made by politicians can affect nearly everything in your life, and you have the right to speak for or against those changes. Not exercising your rights is tantamount to not having them. If you do nothing else, vote.
One person can make a big difference. I always recall the Chinese proverb quoted by JFK: "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." To paraphrase, "A world-changing movement must begin with a single person." You don't have to act alone. Find an organization, locally or online, that suits your political and/or social interests and join it.
It is probably true that you won't get a personal response from letters to politicians; the best you can hope for is a form letter sent by an intern. That's not to say your action was wasted. Letters are counted and sorted by subject, and numbers count. If your representative sees a huge influx of letters on one issue, you can bet that it's going to get to a higher rung on her agenda.
Finally, the nihilist excuse: "Nothing matters." Horsefeathers. Every person matters, and every action has an impact. Where do you think you would be today if the framers of the Constitution had thought that way?
As an independent blogger with limited resources and a short reach I've asked myself more than once if researching material and sitting in front of my computer for hours is worth the effort, when maybe only a dozen people might read it. And I always come back to the same answer: Yes. We can't know where our words go. We can't know they won't make a difference to someone with influence. Above all, we must have hope and faith, and belief in our cause.
If you decide to write a letter, don't worry about your abilities, or about grammar and spelling. Do the best you can to get your point across in clear language. Don't wander off the subject. Keep it short and to the point, even if it's just one typed line. Remember the numbers game: every piece of mail helps.
Above all, regardless of how you feel about the person you are writing, be respectful. Think that you are writing to the office, not the person. Government offices in the United States are always due respect, no matter what a schlump the incumbent might be; and never, never, never, use profanity or foul language.
Finally, do not write in anger. It will go nowhere. I ask you to trust my personal experience in this. If you write an angry, inflammatory letter, save it and go away from it until you cool down. Passion can be communicated in civil language and be more effective for it.
Happy May Day.
--- Diogenes, 5/1/20
30 April 2020
Freedom To Think, Part 1
The freedoms guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment are usually referred to as freedoms of expression: to worship as we choose, praising whichever deity we revere; to speak freely on any subject, and to publish our words and ideas without fear of censorship or reprisal; to gather peaceably together whenever and wherever we wish for any reason; and to approach representatives of the government freely when we have a complaint.
We take these freedoms for granted; and why not? They have been the foundation of our society all our lives, and for all the lives of our American ancestors for generations.
Using his own country as an example, Winston Churchill succinctly described the difference between democratic and totalitarian governments: “In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In [Nazi] Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted."
The rhetorical question "It's not illegal to think, is it?" pops up frequently in crime shows, usually when a person is feeling undue pressure from police. In point of fact, in some regimes it is technically forbidden to have ideas the rulers perceive as a threat.
As far as the public knows, police and other investigative agencies haven't developed mind-reading techniques. But profiling, close watching, and electronic surveillance are the next best thing. In totalitarian societies those techniques are routinely applied to everyone. A few innocent unusual acts, an "inflammatory" word uttered, a chance meeting with a stranger, and a citizen of North Korea, Syria, or Uzbekistan might find themselves arrested on suspicion of being an enemy of the state; and suspicion is sometimes all it takes to make a person disappear.
It's not exactly thought control, but when every person in a country is automatically under suspicion of subversion and only a misstep away from arrest, it might as well be. All expression except that in praise of the government is throttled, and eventually no one but extreme revolutionaries dares to think anything else.
There are individuals in this country, many of them in power at the state or federal level, who would prefer to see such a condition in the United States. Happily for us, that would be very difficult to achieve.
But not impossible. Edmund Burke* wrote that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Rights are like muscles. If not exercised, they atrophy. We the people of the United States owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and our descendants to exercise our rights, letting the present administration know our extreme displeasure with it.
Let your voice be heard. It's the most powerful weapon you have. Speak truth to wannabe tyrants in blogs, tweets, letters to editors and to your senators and representatives. Use any medium available to voice your resistance to encroaching tyranny, because you have the right to think, to speak, and to protest.
Please check in tomorrow for some thoughts on the process of protest.
--- Diogenes, 4/30/20
*The statement is attributed to Burke, with some uncertainty.
We take these freedoms for granted; and why not? They have been the foundation of our society all our lives, and for all the lives of our American ancestors for generations.
Using his own country as an example, Winston Churchill succinctly described the difference between democratic and totalitarian governments: “In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In [Nazi] Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted."
The rhetorical question "It's not illegal to think, is it?" pops up frequently in crime shows, usually when a person is feeling undue pressure from police. In point of fact, in some regimes it is technically forbidden to have ideas the rulers perceive as a threat.
As far as the public knows, police and other investigative agencies haven't developed mind-reading techniques. But profiling, close watching, and electronic surveillance are the next best thing. In totalitarian societies those techniques are routinely applied to everyone. A few innocent unusual acts, an "inflammatory" word uttered, a chance meeting with a stranger, and a citizen of North Korea, Syria, or Uzbekistan might find themselves arrested on suspicion of being an enemy of the state; and suspicion is sometimes all it takes to make a person disappear.
It's not exactly thought control, but when every person in a country is automatically under suspicion of subversion and only a misstep away from arrest, it might as well be. All expression except that in praise of the government is throttled, and eventually no one but extreme revolutionaries dares to think anything else.
There are individuals in this country, many of them in power at the state or federal level, who would prefer to see such a condition in the United States. Happily for us, that would be very difficult to achieve.
But not impossible. Edmund Burke* wrote that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Rights are like muscles. If not exercised, they atrophy. We the people of the United States owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and our descendants to exercise our rights, letting the present administration know our extreme displeasure with it.
Let your voice be heard. It's the most powerful weapon you have. Speak truth to wannabe tyrants in blogs, tweets, letters to editors and to your senators and representatives. Use any medium available to voice your resistance to encroaching tyranny, because you have the right to think, to speak, and to protest.
Please check in tomorrow for some thoughts on the process of protest.
--- Diogenes, 4/30/20
*The statement is attributed to Burke, with some uncertainty.
28 April 2020
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See
The proverb in the title continues, "The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore
what they already know." The biblical saying first appears in English in 1546, in "The Proverbs of John Heywood."
In the early 1860s a political movement called the Know-nothings emerged in the United States. Their philosophy was in fact not one of ignorance. The name stemmed from their desire to keep the party more or less secret; when a member was asked anything about it he would respond "I know nothing."
The phrase, however, resounds in a tendency in this country to value ignorance.
I have lately been contemplating a pair of epigrams that encapsulate our ambivalence toward learning. On one hand we say "Knowledge is power," but on the other, "Ignorance is bliss." The dichotomy is difficult, if not impossible to reconcile.
Don't we all seek power in some form? We are a competitive species; we seek to overcome others in school by getting better grades; in sports by scoring more points; in business by making more money or having a more prestigious office location. Each of those requires knowledge and understanding, whether of an academic discipline, a playbook or a corporate strategy.
But don't we all also seek bliss? We scrimp and save for Fantasyland vacations, we spend thousands on computer gaming and virtual reality systems and dream of winning the lottery, all to the end of shedding stress, relieving ourselves of work related concerns and trying, as The Beatles sang, to "turn off your mind, relax and float down stream."
Such scenarios, however, do not in themselves imply ignorance. Indeed, we have to work to earn money to get a little bliss, and working implies knowledge of something.
Who, then, can achieve bliss through ignorance? Let's define ignorance. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it is "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness." Blissfulness results from not having to worry; if one knows nothing, one has nothing to worry about.
If bliss is the absence of worry and stress it follows that there is also absence of thought, as worry and stress are byproducts of thought. Having no thoughts implies the inability to think, which I doubt sounds blissful to most of us.
Still, there are some among us who are able to achieve a bliss-like state not through absence of thought but through wholesale denial of reality. They believe that problems will go away if they don't think about them; they deny their existence then deny the denial; they flout rules that they don't like; they operate outside normative behavior, and they answer to no one.
They are Heywood's "most deluded people . . . who choose to ignore what they already know."
And they are in charge of this country.
--- Diogenes, 4/28/20
In the early 1860s a political movement called the Know-nothings emerged in the United States. Their philosophy was in fact not one of ignorance. The name stemmed from their desire to keep the party more or less secret; when a member was asked anything about it he would respond "I know nothing."
The phrase, however, resounds in a tendency in this country to value ignorance.
I have lately been contemplating a pair of epigrams that encapsulate our ambivalence toward learning. On one hand we say "Knowledge is power," but on the other, "Ignorance is bliss." The dichotomy is difficult, if not impossible to reconcile.
Don't we all seek power in some form? We are a competitive species; we seek to overcome others in school by getting better grades; in sports by scoring more points; in business by making more money or having a more prestigious office location. Each of those requires knowledge and understanding, whether of an academic discipline, a playbook or a corporate strategy.
But don't we all also seek bliss? We scrimp and save for Fantasyland vacations, we spend thousands on computer gaming and virtual reality systems and dream of winning the lottery, all to the end of shedding stress, relieving ourselves of work related concerns and trying, as The Beatles sang, to "turn off your mind, relax and float down stream."
Such scenarios, however, do not in themselves imply ignorance. Indeed, we have to work to earn money to get a little bliss, and working implies knowledge of something.
Who, then, can achieve bliss through ignorance? Let's define ignorance. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it is "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness." Blissfulness results from not having to worry; if one knows nothing, one has nothing to worry about.
If bliss is the absence of worry and stress it follows that there is also absence of thought, as worry and stress are byproducts of thought. Having no thoughts implies the inability to think, which I doubt sounds blissful to most of us.
Still, there are some among us who are able to achieve a bliss-like state not through absence of thought but through wholesale denial of reality. They believe that problems will go away if they don't think about them; they deny their existence then deny the denial; they flout rules that they don't like; they operate outside normative behavior, and they answer to no one.
They are Heywood's "most deluded people . . . who choose to ignore what they already know."
And they are in charge of this country.
--- Diogenes, 4/28/20
26 April 2020
Donald John Trump: an overview and the last Trumpcentric post for a while.
Ethnicity: German/Scottish/American; Trump's grandparents were German immigrants. His mother immigrated from Scotland.
Education: High school: New York Military Academy; B.S., Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.
Profession: Real estate developer.
Marital status: Married, twice divorced.
Current Occupation: President of the United States of America.
Consider the facts, starting with the fact that he is only a third-generation American, a newcomer. Yet he led the "birther" challenge against Barack Obama. This might suggest more than a bit of hypocrisy if it weren't such common knowledge that the attack was racially motivated.
Given his family's short tenure in the United States and his mixed blood, one wonders why Trump is so rabidly xenophobic. Foreign-born though they were, Trump's ancestors appear to have been exclusively white. His phobia of Mexicans and dislike of Orientals suggest a deep-seated problem with persons of color.
The New York Military Academy uniform was the only one Trump ever wore. Presidents without military experience are no longer rare, but this one never served his country in any way prior to running for its highest office.
A bachelor's degree in economics is the extent of Trump's education. Yet he routinely challenges medical doctors and other highly trained professional experts.
A boor and a bully, Trump has routinely paraded facts of his failed marriages and sexual conquests through the press, victimizing his wives and partners and soiling himself with the filth of his ego and libido.
He must be brought down and cast out.
---Diogenes, 4/26/20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)