The admins have an adjunct mini-treehouse where we converse regarding admin stuff. The conversations there may parallel the conversations in the Treehouse.
The day before yesterday we had some great Treehouse conversations regarding Snowden, and there was a difference of opinion (oh, come on! don’t pretend you didn’t notice!) that was never resolved.
We are determined and persistent if nothing else, so we continued that conversation among ourselves this morning. It brought some clarity and closure on one particular aspect of the thing, so we bring it here for your thoughts.
—————————————-
Menagerie said:
Sharon, up thread you made a comment to stella about whether there were any honest people left in the government and if so, why haven’t they done anything in the last five or ten years. I would guess there might be a few and some of them have been stifled, intimidated, and fired like that inspector who was investigating some California politician crony of Obama’s. I think his name was Gerald something. He screamed out and long and fought but the media didn’t give him a voice to reach the people.
So here are two points I want to make. Suppose I really need my job and I have no wiggle room financially. Am I going to risk it first when I know I can expect no light from the press to shine on my revelations, exclamations, or work? No support from comrade, Congress, anyone? And second, and much worse, who but so few as to be all but unreachable among the citizens care? Will I risk all for these sheeple who by their indifference have brought us here? We blame the politicians and justly, but it is much more the fault of the American people themselves. What about the vast majority of them makes me want to risk my children’s next meal?
Morally a just decision? Probably not but one I can sympathize with even though I have in the past been the big mouth at a company who won’t shut up about things wrong. I have had bad working conditions and delayed promotions because I couldn’t be a cog. But I was safe, cushioned by the security DH provided.
…and then Stella said: So true, Menagerie. I have stayed at my job for so many years because I didn’t ever have that cushion. Not that I work for a bad company even, but when you are the only breadwinner and have others depending on you, that is your first priority. That may not be the brave thing to do, but it is the prudent one and I understand it perfectly.
Fortunately, I have never been faced with a law-breaker that might be ignored in order to protect my job. I would like to think that I would do the right thing, but I totally understand the man or woman who thinks of their own well-being first. Especially if they have tried it before and been ignored or punished, or have seen someone else punished, and nobody else noticed, or if they did notice, nobody cared enough to help. There is great pressure on our elected representatives to conform. The freshmen among them, although they may have the best of intentions, are punished for swimming against the stream, punished and silenced as much as can be by the powerful, and by the press.
Our opponents understand human nature very well, don’t they?
All of that aside, I still am very wary of Ed Snowden. For one thing, he has been lavished with attention, beloved almost. There is an oddness about it; like a cup with a crack in it, it doesn’t ring true. I am also watching who is supporting him, and who is against him — I mean those in the public eye, not the average guy on the street. There are a lot of people I respect, even conservative journalists, who call him a traitor.
…and then Sharon said: Yes, I absolutely understand all of that and have empathy for those situations. But that also reaffirms that there is really no reason to count on those few good people to be able to do anything about the devastating corruption and over-reach of government.
It also affirms why individuals don’t feel safe becoming a genuine whistle-blower, which ytz mentioned a few weeks back, I think — that the whistle-blower program cannot be trusted by those within government. It can be, at best, a career dead-end — where they are stifled, now surrounded by those who paid to stifle them at a very professional level, while pretending to assist them.
I absolutely understand that. When I made the observations I did, I was responding to the suggestion (if I understood it correctly) that we ought not be so hard on “the government” and ought to be more trusting because, after all, there are still lots of good people in government. Yes, there are. And they are pretty helpless to do much about turning the ship. My refusal to assume that I should trust government should have been stated differently so that it was not a blanket indictment of every individual in government, but an awareness that government machinery is so designed to prevent the few good people from stopping those who are not.
And back to Snowden, if we assume he was a good person (which I don’t) I still don’t see how we can assume that he “should have been able to” safely address the thing in a different way. Look what has happened to the poor suckers who survived Benghazi. Apparently, they have “trusted” their contacts (or feel trapped or are trapped?). They have not gone rogue or shined a light or yelled publicly. If they had, would they be treated with the same suspicion that is generally addressed at Snowden? (actually with far less reason for such suspicion). If he had tried to “report wrongdoing within the system” would he have been Benghazi’d? ….Shanghaied off to who knows where? Taken into “witness protection”? Shut down? Family threatened into silence? It appears the government has indeed set up the perfect storm.
…and Stella said: Sharon, you saw my answer to Menagerie. If I gave you the impression that I think we shouldn’t be “so hard on the government” I need to clarify and reframe the point I was trying to make.
This is what I think. As far as I know, none of the whistle blowers has been murdered. Have they been treated badly? Yes. As long as we have a government, no matter what we think about it, it is important to follow the law. Most whistle-blowers do that. Ed Snowden didn’t even try. It is a very BAD idea to give him a pass because “he didn’t feel able” to follow the law. I can’t admire someone like that.
I admire people who are able to do what is right when it is hard. I am reminded of the JFK speech about the NASA push to get to the moon: “We choose to go…not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
We should not excuse — even admire — people who break the law because they are unwilling to pay the consequences. There were ways to get the information out there. Distribute it to a number of people, then go in secret to someone in Congress who has a security clearance, and let them know that if they don’t do something about it, the data will be released to the public. That is, if the data is even legitimate, or his evaluation of it is legitimate.
The day before yesterday we had some great Treehouse conversations regarding Snowden, and there was a difference of opinion (oh, come on! don’t pretend you didn’t notice!) that was never resolved.
We are determined and persistent if nothing else, so we continued that conversation among ourselves this morning. It brought some clarity and closure on one particular aspect of the thing, so we bring it here for your thoughts.
—————————————-
Menagerie said:
Sharon, up thread you made a comment to stella about whether there were any honest people left in the government and if so, why haven’t they done anything in the last five or ten years. I would guess there might be a few and some of them have been stifled, intimidated, and fired like that inspector who was investigating some California politician crony of Obama’s. I think his name was Gerald something. He screamed out and long and fought but the media didn’t give him a voice to reach the people.
So here are two points I want to make. Suppose I really need my job and I have no wiggle
room financially. Am I going to risk it first when I know I can expect no light from the press to shine on my revelations, exclamations, or work? No support from comrade, Congress, anyone? And second, and much worse, who but so few as to be all but unreachable among the citizens care? Will I risk all for these sheeple who by their indifference have brought us here? We blame the politicians and justly, but it is much more the fault of the American people themselves. What about the vast majority of them makes me want to risk my children’s next meal?
Morally a just decision? Probably not but one I can sympathize with even though I have in the past been the big mouth at a company who won’t shut up about things wrong. I have had bad working conditions and delayed promotions because I couldn’t be a cog. But I was safe, cushioned by the security DH provided.
Fortunately, I have never been faced with a law-breaker that might be ignored in order to protect my job. I would like to think that I would do the right thing, but I totally understand the man or woman who thinks of their own well-being first. Especially if they have tried it before and been ignored or punished, or have seen someone else punished, and nobody else noticed, or if they did notice, nobody cared enough to help. There is great pressure on our elected representatives to conform. The freshmen among them, although they may have the best of intentions, are punished for swimming against the stream, punished and silenced as much as can be by the powerful, and by the press.
Our opponents understand human nature very well, don’t they?
All of that aside, I still am very wary of Ed Snowden. For one thing, he has been lavished with attention, beloved almost. There is an oddness about it; like a cup with a crack in it, it doesn’t ring true. I am also watching who is supporting him, and who is against him — I mean those in the public eye, not the average guy on the street. There are a lot of people I respect, even conservative journalists, who call him a traitor.
It also affirms why individuals don’t feel safe becoming a genuine whistle-blower, which ytz mentioned a few weeks back, I think — that the whistle-blower program cannot be trusted by those within government. It can be, at best, a career dead-end — where they are stifled, now surrounded by those who paid to stifle them at a very professional level, while pretending to assist them.
I absolutely understand that. When I made the observations I did, I was responding to the suggestion (if I understood it correctly) that we ought not be so hard on “the government” and ought to be more trusting because, after all, there are still lots of good people in government. Yes, there are. And they are pretty helpless to do much about turning the ship. My refusal to assume that I should trust government should have been stated differently so that it was not a blanket indictment of every individual in government, but an awareness that government machinery is so designed to prevent the few good people from stopping those who are not.
And back to Snowden, if we assume he was a good person (which I don’t) I still don’t see how we can assume that he “should have been able to” safely address the thing in a different way. Look what has happened to the poor suckers who survived Benghazi. Apparently, they have “trusted” their contacts (or feel trapped or are trapped?). They have not gone rogue or shined a light or yelled publicly. If they had, would they be treated with the same suspicion that is generally addressed at Snowden? (actually with far less reason for such suspicion). If he had tried to “report wrongdoing within the system” would he have been Benghazi’d? ….Shanghaied off to who knows where? Taken into “witness protection”? Shut down? Family threatened into silence? It appears the government has indeed set up the perfect storm.
…and Stella said: Sharon, you saw my answer to Menagerie. If I gave you the impression that I think we shouldn’t be “so hard on the government” I need to clarify and reframe the point I was trying to make.
This is what I think. As far as I know, none of the whistle blowers has been murdered. Have they been treated badly? Yes. As long as we have a government, no matter what we think about it, it is important to follow the law. Most whistle-blowers do that. Ed Snowden didn’t even try. It is a very BAD idea to give him a pass because “he didn’t feel able” to follow the law. I can’t admire someone like that.
I admire people who are able to do what is right when it is hard. I am reminded of the
JFK speech about the NASA push to get to the moon: “We choose to go…not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
We should not excuse — even admire — people who break the law because they are unwilling to pay the consequences. There were ways to get the information out there. Distribute it to a number of people, then go in secret to someone in Congress who has a security clearance, and let them know that if they don’t do something about it, the data will be released to the public. That is, if the data is even legitimate, or his evaluation of it is legitimate.