March 09, 2005
A Crisis of Trust
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |What is trust to you? What is it based on? For me, there are different levels of trust. Everyday trust that the folks around you will follow normal rules of behavior. Trust that when someone tells me something that it is accurate and true. Then there are the deeper levels of trust. Trust that what you see is real. Trust that those who are supposed to have your best interests at heart do. We place different levels of trust in different aspects of our lives - from the trust of intimates to the trust in social institutions. Deep levels of trust, for me, are built through experience. When trust is shaken or broken, rebuilding that is difficult. I think my experience is common, and I believe that it applies to nations as well as to individuals. I believe that many problems may be being aggravated by a loss of trust.
I look at the situation between Israel and Palestine for example. Once again, the two nations are attempting a peaceful resolution to generations of conflict and death. There is not a lot of trust to go around between Israel and Palestine. It will be a difficult thing to build. Even a child could figure out that trust will be difficult. So why, in the midst of supposedly trying to build peace is Israel covertly funding settler outposts in the West Bank? And not just one or two outposts, but 105 of them?
This process is not just a violation of Israel's own laws, and international agreements.
The Israeli government is funding and building Jewish settlement outposts across the West Bank in violation of its own laws and international mandates, according to a government-sanctioned report scheduled to be released Wednesday."...
"... "the violation of the law has become institutional and institutionalized" in some government agencies, according to the newspaper account. "There is blatant violation of the law by certain state authorities, public authorities, regional councils in [the West Bank] and the settlers." Washington Post, 3/09/05
In other words, the violation of the law has become the standard procedure. Is it any surprise then that Palestinians fear Israeli land grabs? Particularly when the Israeli government flatly lies it is doing just that? How do you build trust in such a situation? The simple answer? You don't.
Israel, unfortunately, is not alone in lies and deceptions. The United States is certainly leading the way. I heard at least 100 times leading up to the US invasion of Iraq "How can you believe someone who has lied and concealed so many times?" in reference to disbelieving Hussein's claims he did not have weapons of mass destruction. So how can the people of the United States or the world believe anything that the U.S. says or does, when truth is an expendable commodity in the quest for "Christian" empire?
Pentagon Sued for Records on Propaganda, Psy-Ops,and "Perception Management" Targeting U.S. Civilians
These are just a few examples, there is site after site containing hundreds of lies that have been told by the current regime.
After a point, some people stop trusting. After a certain amount of trust violation, one distrusts first. I certainly find myself in that situation. My trust in the government of the United States has never been particularly high. There have been too many concealed activities, too many "spun" situations, too much corruption, for me to not take everything with a grain of salt. However, never in my relatively short life have I gotten to the point where I distrusted absolutely everything that an administration says or does.
If someone, some organization, or some government consistently betrays trust, regaining it takes more than denial, apology, or sincerity. It demands a visible change of action. One has to prove they are trust worthy. That requires time, but it also sometimes requires extraordinary measures on the part of the one who broke the trust. One must see a demonstrable and substantive change to even give the trust breaker a chance. And the trust breaker must not slip up. In other words, in the course of building trust there must not be another breach of trust. That breach does not just become one more little thing, it magnifies the pattern of trust violation.
This is the situation that Israel is in, and it is the situation that the U.S. is in both domestically and internationally. What is particularly alarming is the hubris with which this happens. There seems to be a total disconnect. With the Bush administration we have all the arguments that the President does not support torture and there is no policy on torture. Meanwhile, every document and action shows that is obviously a lie - including ongoing official support for the CIA's use of torture and "extraordinary rendition" to send "suspects" where they can be "legally" tortured. It almost seems as if each action taken by the United States is calculated to offend and affront - to shove in the world's face that "we got big guns" and your input is worthless. We will not work cooperatively with others, and we will change the world to fit our "vision." Certainly that is the signal that is being sent with the nomination of Bolton to the UN, and the talk about getting rid of Annan and El Baradei.
Apparently those in power in the United States do not feel it is worth the effort to build trust, or to work cooperatively with others. Likewise, Israel apparently feels there are no consequences to its covert action in contraversion of its own laws. In both cases, some "greater objective" supersedes both the rule of law and the lives of the population.
I believe that many in the U.S. believe we live under a rule of law, when it is increasingly clear that we are living under the rule of the thug. We see demonstrated before our eyes a scenario where law, even basic morality, is cast aside in favor of some publicly unspecified "greater goal." We see that loyalty is rewarded over results, and those who are "loyal" are not only protected from the consequences of their actions, but given more power or promotions. Meanwhile, there is a total disregard of the costs to people, nations, or the Constitution under which we live.
What is frightening is that many in the U.S. are apparently not able to see through the thin veil of deceit. Perhaps at base is the horror of losing trust in the basic premises under which we live our lives. The trust that those in power will act in the best interests of the people and the country. The trust that our laws are sound and that basic principles will not be violated. These are the "givens" that many people operate with. Losing the security of those "givens" creates major disruption in personal and collective lives. It becomes easier to believe the "comfortable lie."
This is what happened to much of the German population under Hitler. It is what happened to much of the U.S. population during the "McCarthy era" and the decades of the "Red Scare." Surely, the state will only use its power for eliminating/controlling the "bad guys." Good citizens have nothing to hide, and are automatically excluded from the violation of law and decency. On the other hand, the population has everything to fear from the "enemy." and the only safety lies in the wise and vigilant decisions of our "leaders."
I believe that the United States and the world are in the throes of a crisis of trust. People are responding to that crisis in three basic ways - ignore it, deny it, expose it. Those who choose to ignore what's going on make no effort to watch what is happening in the world. They ignore the situation in Iraq, the rising threat of World War III, the collapse of the environment, and the elimination of civil liberties. They tend to mouth whatever the justifications are that they hear in the sides of their lives. Then there are the deniers. These are the ones - who for whatever reason - have embraced the lies. They invest tremendous energy in supporting the actions and policies of those in power. There are no facts that are valid exposures of what is going on. Every voice that tries to expose what is going on is part of some "political agenda" or "conspiracy theory" and ultimately a threat to the United States. They generally believe that such voices should be silenced so that they don't "contaminate" others. Then you have those who attempt to speak out. Voices in the wilderness that are targeted by those in power, supported by the deniers, and with the tacit complicity of those who choose to ignore what is going on.
Perhaps this analysis is overly simplistic, but I have a gut sense that all are responding to the same crisis of trust. The mechanisms of response are mirrored in many aspects of society. The drive among various parts of the society to "escape reality." These groups run from the "Raves" to the partiers, to those who become ensnared by the fabricated reality of "reality TV." If that doesn't work, you can always take anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication. If you want to totally change your focus then get some Viagra or Cialis or some other "sexual performance enhancer" that will only cause you a problem if your erection lasts for more than four hours. (Notice all of these "enhancement" drugs are aimed at men - women are once more the passive receptacles of male sexual interest. Of course in the commercials the women are all depicted smiling contentedly).
I am not sure that a crisis of trust can endure indefinitely - at least not on the broader level. I could be wrong in that, but it seems that there would be an ongoing deterioration as the waves of cause and effect lap outward. Could we be (largely) passively led to our destruction? I fear that might be possible. The image comes to mind of Temple Grandin - the woman who is credited with making slaughter house more humane. Her solution to calm the fears of the cattle, was to curve the chutes through which the cattle pass on their way to death. The curve must be just right, so they can always see a little way ahead, but are virtually blind behind. The Bush administration spin machine seems to have taken that to heart. Herd the folks along the chute waving security, democracy, and prosperity in front of them and rewriting history behind them. But the "prompters" are there on the sides of the chutes - sometimes distracting but always moving the crowd along - to our ultimate destruction.
Posted by rowan at March 9, 2005 05:33 PM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |I never trust people who make blanket statements that X is unconstitutional and Y is illegal without citing a law or case or some evidence. Especially with the constitution, where there are so many theories of intepretation, it is ludicrous to simply say X is unconstitutional and leave it at that. Fact is that you and your analysis cannot be trusted, and that's been shown time and time again. I called you out on the privacy issue before, and it is noteworthy that you fell silent, unable to support your position. Why? Because you start with what you FEEL is wrong in the world, declare it illegal and unconstitutional, and then, when tested, scramble to find backing for your claim. The right approach is the opposite one: look at the law, find out what it says, and then look at the facts and see if they fall within or outside the law. Because you are an advocate and an activist who constantly cries wolf about X being unconstitutional and Y being illegal, your credibility is near zero, and, frankly, you can't be trusted. If you want to gain the trust of the American people, instead of creating websites about the "lies" of others, start by cleaning up your own act.
Karl, I don't respond to you most of the time because it is pointless. You consistently deride anything that is published on this site. You apparently see that as your JOB. I also have discussed the issues various times in other articles and do not feel like rewriting everything I have ever written because of your "critique." When I do provide you with evidence you respond with something like "even a broken watch is right twice a day." Or you ask for documentation (say of the illegality of the invasion of Iraq) which I go to the trouble to provide, and you simply "disappear." "Going silent" is another way of saying I don't feel like dealing with your spurious attacks.
Give me a break. The infringement and erosion of Constitutional rights and civil liberties have been written about extensively by others who have much more of a grounding in law and the Constitution than I. I have cited those before in other posts. But I will give you two examples from the Amendments to the Constitution
Article I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Abridgment - "Free Speech" zones
Article IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Abridgement - "Magic Lantern" and various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that allow "sneak and peak" surveillance.
Article V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The sweeps following 9/11 that rounded up almost 3000 individuals - including US citizens. Just one case in point Brandon Mayfield. This actually violated both the fourth and fifth Amendments.
I would counter that you are the ideologue. I still have no idea why you bother to visit and comment on a site that you feel is so worthless and despicable. It would seem that someone with your image of yourself could certainly contribute much more significantly to those sites that are "worth" your participation.
p.s. Here is the link to the Constitution of the United States and the Mayfield article is from FOX News which I specially selected just for you.
Posted by: rowan at March 10, 2005 07:17 PMRowan,
The first mistake you make is in assuming that the 1st Amendment is absolute. It is not. In fact, even where implicated, it doesn't always get strict scrutiny. Obscenity, for example, enjoys no constitutional protection. The broadcasting arena only gets intermediate scrutiny, which is why the FCC is able to regulate speech all the time.
Even if we give it strict scrutiny, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be struck down. There will be a whole analysis as to whether there is a compelling state interest and whether the restriction is necessary to further that interest and so on. There is no way that you can simply say "free speech zones" are unconstitutional without addressing the context in which they exist.
Third, it is odd that you would bring up free speech zones, the most famous example of leftisim run amuck in the universities. I, like all right thinking people, vehemently oppose them in universities. Perhaps you have something else in mind.
Fourth, "congress" shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It says nothing about whether a university may do so, especially since universities don't make laws. Granted, the 14th amendment is thought to incorporate the 1st amendment against the states, and some will say that universities are just arms of the state, but all of that requires analysis and argument and there is more than one way to view it. It is patently absurd to just say "that's unconstitutional" when anyone who has anything to do with the law knows there are many ways to look at the issue. What you are doing has nothing to do witht he law and everything to do with advancing a political agenda. For you, the law is just a tool to be used in your political propaganda. You aren't actually interested in what the constitution says or was intended to mean.
Regarding the land issue in Israel, the matter of legitimate ownership over some land has never been fully resolved. When it comes to titles and deeds, the Israelis have the upper hand. Whether or not 'international law' has ever really examined the abundance of existing paperwork remains to be seen. Proclamations of international law don't carry much weight from the perspective of internal affairs of a sovereign nation. International Law has not been able to impact the lethal mix of Land and religion, which historically is the basis for many wars. I do note that the many UN resolutions condemning Israel and seeking sanctions against that tiny nation have always had the unanimous support of the many Arab/Islamic nations of the world. That is an odd, mathematical fact don't you think? The odds of simple probability would suggest that on least an occasion or two, one nation would either abstain or vote against such resolutions. Despite that and the fact that up until the USSR fell apart, Israel's Arab/Islamic enemies were supported and armed by a superpower equal to the US, Israel endured and in fact has thrived. Simple probability would suggest otherwise.
Regarding the coercion of information alluded to, that is another constant in human affairs, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is on the increase. Simple awareness of its existence does not equate in itself an increase in the use of torture.
Posted by: goesh at March 11, 2005 04:55 AMThe "free speech zones" to which I am referring are the ones implmented by the Bush administration to place "protesters" in confined areas surrounded by police far from where Bush or those campaigning for him would be. They were also utilized at the WTO meeting in Florida, and at both Republican and Democrat National Conventions.
If by "free speech zones" on college capmuses, you are referring to academic freedom, then yea I support it. If you are referring to forum areas on some campuses where students may freely post their views on bulletin boards then I am not sure what the problem is.
Yes this is a political forum. Yes I have an agenda though not necessarily a political one in the usual sense of the word.
You are right that free speech is not totally protected, but the boundaries around that speech are very broad.
I don't think you have any basis to speak about how I feel about the Constitution nor what it means.
Posted by: rowan at March 11, 2005 06:28 AMIt is difficult for me to contribute to the comments listed above. The trivialization of the issues confuse and anger me. Why is it that people who do not agree with what is presented on this site just do not participate? Underhanded insults and this kind of trivialization obviously has not changed the points of view of those of us who agree with the authors presented here.
I also have no patience with "firestarters."
As for the topic of trust... Here is one of those things I have never done very well, though I do try. There is no one source that I trust wholeheartedly, with the exception of my God, the Creator.
Deception seems to lie at every corner. With this truth, one would trust their own distrust.
I used to be one who believed in the 'givens' of this nation, but my eyes have been opened to what I really see happening.
I just bought strawberries and plums on sale this morning. I thought, "Strawberries and plums in March? I remember picking strawberries in June; plums later in the summer." Yet people are still so blind as to brush it off with the prospect of a long, hot summer. Human activity has absolutely nothing to do with climatic changes and the impending drought. We are raised with this presumption of our own superiority and self importance. The earth is ours to consume and destroy. But, is it really? Or should we not just consider ourselves one species of billions that is the only species with an awareness of our own existence?
In taking this thought to governmental influences...
We are taught the "good" of this nation from the very beginning of our educations, perhaps even before. We do not get the chance to look at the world with critical eyes until we attend a college with professors who have very open eyes. Even so, there are those who hold on to the ideas we were taught as children. One group of people is viewed as superior to all other groups of people. One government- one way of life- is viewed as superior to all other ways of life. This government could never do any wrong, right? Leaders have more education than the common citizen and so must know more than they do, right? Yet the 'superior' way of life is truly the most destructive. Not just environmentally, but to our physical/mental health. Look at the stats of suicides, antidepressants and stress related illness.
This 'good' way of life is now being thought about more critically by some. We are seeing the 'good' hurt other people in ways that most citizens could never imagine. We are counting death tolls on both sides of the fence in shock. The heartache is deminishing the trust in our government. Slowly, as there are still many whose internalization of the ideas we were taught as children remain at the forefront of their thought processes.
This internalization may be the biggest reason the majority can't see the forest for the trees so to speak. They simply cannot believe that this country could do any wrong. They blindly trust a government hailed as the best system in the world.
Shawna,
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. My trust is in short supply as well.
Goesh,
I also think it is also not coincidental that the US has vetoed every sanction against Israel brought forward in the the Security Council. The whole thing is a dirty business in my opinion. I fully support the right of all people to live in peace without predation and attack from others. I think it is important to remember that Israel was created out of hatred and self-selrving reasons. None of the Allies - the US in particular - wanted the Jews of Germany and Poland to come to their nations. Carving out another state served the dual purpose of creating a "homeland" for the Jews and placing someone beholden and connected to Aliied interests in a resource rich region. Genocide is genocide whether it involves the Jews the Palestianians, the Kurds, or anyone else.
With a nod to Bushrod's claim of my "political agenda," genocide is outright wrong - I don't care who is practicing it.
Posted by: rowan at March 11, 2005 12:37 PMRowan,
Okay, let's take those zones. Even those are not self evidently violations of the first amendment. First, they aren't the result of congress enacting laws. These aren't laws abridging speech, they are temporary restrictions on where people may assemble and speak. But I'll indulge you and just assume that the 1st is implicated. If so, what then? You still have to go through the strict scrutiny analysis. Does the government have a compelling interest? Not a few rational people would conclude that in an age of terrorism, security concerns are a compelling interest. Then you'd have to consider whether the restriction is narrowly tailored. Again, that would require a complex analysis. I think those are narrowly tailored. Certainly a very respectible argument could be made that these zones are perfectly constituional. I have no doubt arguments could be made both ways, but my point remains: there is nothing self evidently unconstitutional about it, and it would be nice if you regaled us with an actual argument instead of the usual assertions about unconstitutionality absent any support whatsoever.
Posted by: Bushrod the 3rd at March 11, 2005 05:18 PMWhen it is only those protesting agaisnt something that are so confined, and those rallying for are allowed close access, then it is definitely a free speech issue as far as I am concerned. To say that it is a "security" issue is patently absurb. Anyone who seriously wanted to do harm would pose as as supporter.
It seems clear - particularly given the screening of supporters into President Bush's presidential campaighn stops that it was more for scripting than security. It kept those with dissenting voices far away from the cameras.
Lest one think I believe this only to be an administration issue, I sent scathing letters to the DNC when they set up a "free speech zone" at the DNC - far from where the meetings were being held.
Here are two interesting discussions of the "zone" issue:
From the American Constitution Society: "Free-Speech Zones" Balancing First Amendment Rights with Government Interests
A synopsis of SC rulings: The Supreme Court on "Free Speech Zones"
Posted by: rowan at March 11, 2005 05:55 PMRowan, kudos for your patience and lack of response to pointed insults and circle-jerking logic. I truly miss being able to have the wonderful free-flow of ideas and shared enthusiasm for an alternative way that used to be the landscape of UTJ.
It seems like pure belligerance and a thirst for confrontation to continually disappear and return, only to pointedly attack the author of a site, again and again. It's simple dogmatism and fanatacism.
In the meantime, I am impressed by your breadth of knowledge and ability to forward an argument that most of us understand and embrace. I thought this was the appropriate moment to thank you for exposing the fallacies and inconsistencies that are the mainstay of, our current administration. I, for one, always keep reading and researching the highly sophisticated points you present on UTJ.
Posted by: Pamela at March 11, 2005 07:39 PMRowan,
I thank you for the links. I'm going to read them as soon as I get a chance. I am interested in hearing the arguments in favor of your position.
Posted by: Bushrod the 3rd at March 13, 2005 04:39 PMTo track this topic without leaving a comment enter your email address: