Basic Principles

The 4th of July always brings forth ideas of what America’s about. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness: all suitable imprints of a quill crushing history into parchment. The intent of the writer, the heart’s blood of the scribe spoke of his yearning for self-determination and freedom from the yoke of tyranny. That yoke was secured by a government believing itself better knowing the needs of the “subjects” than they, themselves. It propelled a defiant documentation of hope in the Declaration of Independence.

---

We’re obsessed with information gathering. We have newspapers, newsmagazines and news programs, commentators, analysts and a slew of critical pundits. They create the borders of left and right allowing for the shadowing of all that comes between. The extremes of darkness and brilliance weaken as they approach the middle of the road. Strict reportage of observed fact is the hallmark of the true journalist. Ferreting out truth and discrediting the confusion and lies of discreditable policies and politicians is the task of a reporter. There’s a new element concerning reportage: the amateur journalist. He may call himself a blogger, a tweeter, a V-blogger. He or she takes what they believe they know and try to inform the world. They do it on the Internet. It takes the span of a heartbeat; oxygenating and energizing thought just as quickly. Some fear un-credentialed sources such as bloggers. Unchallengeable theories and agendas create real problems. Lies, innuendo and fabrication can be part and parcel of unscrupulous people working with the only things they have to get their point across. It’s the Press’ responsibility to assure and fact-check the writings of such people when they offer their diatribe. But when the theory is proven to be based in fact, it should be a jumping-off point for the bona-fide journalist to pursue the truth and place it before the people for their benefit and interpretation. Governments should have no say in the presentation or rejection of information transfer in society: not even in times of war. Surely, the transmission of war plans, defenses and troop concentrations should be protected from the enemies of the state. But the honest interchange and publication of support for any governments’ stand or dissent of that posture in a conflict is a constitutional right. I personally do not agree with people protesting against my troops while they’re in harm’s way. But the person protesting has the right to challenge the point of view of the government sending them into harm’s way. We’ve seen, in Tehran, Iran, how the Internet can be effectively SHUT-OFF by governments trying to prevent the truth of their actions and their assassins being witnessed as they happened. The only news and photos being broadcast were those smuggled out by Internet operatives seeking to have the world know the truth of the political upheaval in Iran. They showed the barbarity of people’s treatment as they were killed in the street by paramilitary forces sanctioned to commit murder in the name of madmen in power. The only ones to prosper from the Internet censorship is the government keeping the world ignorant of their infamy. Some people want a “New World Order” (whatever the heck that is. It seems to change definition as crackpots change seats of power). They want socialist/utopian economics where government rules and the people accept the rule as acceptable-not their own governance guiding that government. Obama used YouTube© as a viable information sharing and advertising platform during his campaign for office. Now there are people in his government seeking, to shut the internet down. They’re trying to do this through the magic of confusingly written, arcane and strangely worded laws proclaiming the need to “protect” America in times of war or “emergencies” only defined by Presidential Decree. They want to choose the time and place they’ll control communications and if determined by Presidential Decree to be necessary, shut the internet down. Obama loved the Internet when it worked for him but could feel threatened by it if the truth gets too far out into the public arena. Any President could feel that way. Don’t believe it can happen? Check out Tehran and Beijing. A lot of people think these are role models as governmental operations as they’re controlled by Allah and once by a guy named Chairman Mao. A country can only remain free as long as it’s free to speak its mind openly and critically of what the individual finds egregious in another person’s behavior, or the conduct of his government. Thanks for listening