"He who defends everything, defends nothing."
Frederick The Great
In Orwell’s, unpublished preface to Animal Farm he asked, how is it that in free England
the outcomes in the media are not all that different to what I’m satirizing in this account of a totalitarian monster? He mentioned two reasons. One reason the outcomes are similar is that the press is owned by wealthy men
who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed, so you get self-censorship. The second reason is just a good education. If you’re properly educated at the elite schools, you internalize the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say. That’s the effect of a "proper education." This doesn’t mean just schools, but the whole system. The higher the education you receive, the more internalized the values are, and this leads to voluntary censorship.
If as the Admiral suggests this is about making the country less likely to suffer attack, how about tracking the most likely localities, methods, and scenarios that a terrorist could use to do the most damage to the USA and concentrating our resources at those junctures. Seems logical to me….
But it’s not happening is it?
I repeat, we track vessels by ID already, this thread has gone off on the "protecting the citizen from his own folly" tack. This dialogue, like the national twenty-four news cycle dialogue it mirrors belies the twisted logic of the national debate. We here in the US balance personal responsibility with relatively harsh criminal sanctions for those who break the rules. That is the price
for your folly. Gun ownership
easy, crime committed with a weapon, harsh.
I was in Basel Switzerland two years summers ago, it was oppressively hot, I noticed a lot of people were floating down the Rhine with little dry bags for flotation (and to keep their clothes dry), it looked delightful. I noted the fast moving barge traffic, the four or five knot
current, the bridge abutments and thought, that looks dangerous, someone could easily get swept under one of those suckers, in the US you wouldn’t be allowed to that….too dangerous! Sure enough that afternoon a Swiss rescue
helicopter was swooping around a bridge abutment, looking for some unfortunate. I found the sport shop that rented the dry bags and spent the next day floating down the Rhine, hopping on a streetcar to take me back upriver and repeating the folly perhaps a dozen times.
Was I being irresponsible? If I got in a jam and had to be rescued (or worse) would it be my responsibility if the helicopter crew that came to my aid had an accident
? If I were killed would I be guilty of giving my mother a heart attach on hearing of my untimely demise? At what point does my decision making become criminal and not merely folly? At what point does the "state" protect me from myself? If it were a more reasoned debate in the USA we’d be putting the "state" to work providing health care
for all…..that’s the twisted logic that causes me to shake my head
in disbelief…. We have here in the US a voluntary subordination, not just of the media, but of the articulate intellectual community generally.
Yep there are going to be times when people die before their time, it is fate, it is statistical, but to use that argument to protect those from themselves gives me a headache