I only follow a few blogs; most of them anonymously because I don't want someone going through my profile and attempting to peg me as something based on what I read. (That reminds me to check to see if my local library is cataloging all of my selected materials and then forwarding to the Dept of Homeland Security.) Some of those blogs are political - and all of them are very one-sided in their point of view. That is fine since no one should be taking what is written in blogs as an unbiased account of journalistic excellence. However, on more than one occasion, I have attempted to make comments on those same blogs to point out specific disagreements with stated arguments and the comments never make it past the review process. It seems that, if the comments do not agree with the author's stated points, then the authors will simply not allow them to be posted. Which simply perpetuates the narrow-minded views that increasingly crowd out the more nuanced (and often better informed) views that might help contribute to improve society overall. For the record, any comments made to this blog will not go through a review process but will be posted as they are submitted. The only time I might choose to make a revision/deletion is in the case of obvious trolling or flaming - and even then it would have to be pretty egregious. But simple disagreement with one of my posts does not merit removing someone else's opinion(s). However, this obviously is not the case with others (typically in the political realm) who do not wish to hear dissenting opinions. Too bad as the result is often just continued ignorance.
Switching gears, I have just finished reading Adam Robinson's Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist. As you can see, a wonderfully large picture of America's Public Enemy #1 (behind Saddam Hussein - oh, wait, never mind, he's already been dealt with) is displayed prominently on the front cover of the book. What I have found interesting is that some people, upon seeing the book, have been genuinely interested in both the book and my reasons for reading it (and that is because I happen to like history and the social sciences, not to mention I'd like to better understand how things have happened to this point). Others have given me looks that range from "Are you studying how to be a terrorist" to "I don't want to talk with someone who likes that guy on the cover of your book" to "WTF?!". Usually, I have to deliberately provoke discussions with people to learn and sometimes to help them see alternative points of view. Maybe I should just carry around that book all the time...
Come to think of it, the Department of Homeland Security sounds an awful lot like Orwellian double-speak. Since when did the US become the "homeland". Not to make light of the terrorist threat but I think they feel more threatened by our ideas and the freedom to live as we wish (for the most part - that is certainly not an absolute). To keep the "homeland" secure would require converting people to our way of thinking, not creating new barriers to keep them out and thereby reinforcing their misperceptions. I think I need to go back and do some research into exactly how "homeland security" works and what parameters they work within (or without, as the case may be). I'm betting that my beloved freedoms are not nearly what I think they were before 9/11/01. Of course, as I've noted here before, "freedom" is a relative term. But I won't go there again tonight...
No comments:
Post a Comment