Do Americans 'do irony'? Where does irony cross the line into hypocrisy?
I ask because we are being told that President Obama is to talk to President Xi Jinping of China and to give him and his regime a hard time about human rights in China and also take him to task on cyber security.
President Xi might be forgiven if he throws off the shackles of diplomatic language and tells Obama to sort his own house out, first.
Through the leaking of a Powerpoint presentation, we now know that there has been wholesale monitoring of the internet, telephone calls and who knows what else in the communications field, through a programme called PRISM. All of this is done in the name of national security.
Obama said, yesterday, "you can't have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience". How is that comment sitting today, with those liberal media that fawned all over Obama when he burst on the scene (and still do fawn)? How protected will your 'confidential sources' feel, knowing that the 'Pres' can track them down?
Obama went on to say "We're going to have to make some choices." Of course, because all of this surveillance was happening in secret, nobody was presented with any kind of choice to make. When you don't trust the people, why should they trust you, Mr President? Perhaps though, when Obama said 'we're going to have to make some choices' the 'we' wasn't the people but the security apparatus?
There will be all sorts of talk about it only being those with 'something to hide' that have anything to fear - we'll see. Hoover's FBI were famous for collecting all sorts of stuff on people and not being afraid to use it. Of course, J Edgar had a special kind of view of what constituted 'national security', but who is to say that Obama or others of his ilk, might not use the PRISM data to target 'their enemies'? Given what has happened at the IRS, it isn't as if they don't have any 'form' in this area!
Americans love to quote their constitution and the rights that flow from it. First and foremost of these is the First Amendment that Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government - how's that 'protection and freedom' sitting with the liberal media, today? Secure?
I suppose that the foregoing will actually fall into the PRISM orbit and so then will all who read this - scary isn't it?
I ask because we are being told that President Obama is to talk to President Xi Jinping of China and to give him and his regime a hard time about human rights in China and also take him to task on cyber security.
President Xi might be forgiven if he throws off the shackles of diplomatic language and tells Obama to sort his own house out, first.
Through the leaking of a Powerpoint presentation, we now know that there has been wholesale monitoring of the internet, telephone calls and who knows what else in the communications field, through a programme called PRISM. All of this is done in the name of national security.
Obama said, yesterday, "you can't have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience". How is that comment sitting today, with those liberal media that fawned all over Obama when he burst on the scene (and still do fawn)? How protected will your 'confidential sources' feel, knowing that the 'Pres' can track them down?
Obama went on to say "We're going to have to make some choices." Of course, because all of this surveillance was happening in secret, nobody was presented with any kind of choice to make. When you don't trust the people, why should they trust you, Mr President? Perhaps though, when Obama said 'we're going to have to make some choices' the 'we' wasn't the people but the security apparatus?
There will be all sorts of talk about it only being those with 'something to hide' that have anything to fear - we'll see. Hoover's FBI were famous for collecting all sorts of stuff on people and not being afraid to use it. Of course, J Edgar had a special kind of view of what constituted 'national security', but who is to say that Obama or others of his ilk, might not use the PRISM data to target 'their enemies'? Given what has happened at the IRS, it isn't as if they don't have any 'form' in this area!
Americans love to quote their constitution and the rights that flow from it. First and foremost of these is the First Amendment that Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government - how's that 'protection and freedom' sitting with the liberal media, today? Secure?
I suppose that the foregoing will actually fall into the PRISM orbit and so then will all who read this - scary isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment