Reply #59: Peaceistheonly way, some points for discussion: [View All]

[Cookie wookie]

You said that you: "view your life and Doug's with the camera lense of Greg Palast" and his report on Mexico.

When I've looked at previous work by Palast, I've found that he did not have the kind of rigorous objectivity that would be required if one were to rely ONLY on his work or his word when making a critical analysis of an issue, or in this case, judging the character of a person. I find Michael Moore’s work to be similar. They both work as investigative journalists in a sense, but their work doesn’t pretend to be objective. They have a mission and a perspective that their research supports (or vice versa).

These aren’t academic publications, nor are they intended to be. That doesn’t mean works of this kind don’t convey factual information, aren’t valuable, or aren’t an entertaining read in support of one’s political worldview.

And certainly you have every right to draw conclusions about Choicepoint, and by association the Curlings, from the information you find in Palast’s work. But there is a danger if any of us believe, as you seem to indicate here, that one individual’s perspective is 100% reliable.

Thomas Jefferson and the early framers of our Constitution codified the need for a democracy to have a populace who were exposed to the entire spectrum of opinion so that they could freely make reasoned judgments. Because one opinion or perspective does not wisdom make. We are all fallible, have our personal peccadillo's, our blind spots, our prejudices.

The basis of democracy is the rule of law, which itself is founded on the discovery of the truth by using facts established from objectively examining sources connected to all sides of the argument.

Without that law, what we have is mob rule, the law of the jungle, a pig’s head on a stick.

Let’s take one example of the problems we run into if we start to rely too much on basing our decision making on the opinion of one person:

“ ‘It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s NOT a question of good or bad . When your decisions could effect the financial fate of a company, are they investing in you? Is there a quid pro quo?’ Palast said,” in the recent APN article posted to DU by LandShark.
(http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html)

Palast goes on to say “Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either.”

You use that term “dirty money” in description of donations from Mrs Curling.

Of course we now hear from Mrs Curling that Blackbox Voting also took contributions her, which means that, using Palast’s argument and the conflation of the Curlings with Choicepoint that it infers, Mr. Palast would have to also conclude that Bev Harris of BBV is guilty of taking “dirty money” from Choicepoint.

Remember, this is the Bev Harris/BBV that brought us all the Harri Hursti tests that resulted in a great leap forward in advancing the goals of all election integrity activists.

But since you indicate that Mr. Palast’s word is all you need to make your judgment of Choicepoint -- and vis a vis the Curlings – and your post indicates you subscribe to his view of guilt by association, then you would have to agree with the headlines, “BBV.org Takes Dirty Money From Choicepoint Prez’s Wife,” “Choicepoint Invests in BBV.org”, and finally, “BBV.org Guilty of Conflict of Interest RE: Choicepoint and Voting Issue.”

If looked at from this perspective, hopefully not just you but all involved in this issue will see there is something out of kilter with the logic being used to form opinions of the Curlings and their Democratic activism (and their right to be activists).

Guilt by association is another problem the founders of this country sought to eliminate when they wrote the Constitution. If any of us donate money to a political candidate or cause in the manner legally prescribed by law, by Mr. Palast’s standards (again from the quotes above), that means we are all immediately suspect of seeking quid pro quo or that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the transaction.

For in a democracy and under the rule of law, either we have a standard that is applied to everyone or no one. This is essential for our freedom, so that we will not be persecuted, arrested, or otherwise have our freedom infringed upon because of the judgment, prejudices, or personal opinions of others.

There are no special exceptions to the rule, unless you are the Bush Supreme Court. If we do not live by the standards set forth in our Constitution in our social dealings with our fellow men and women, we are venturing into treacherous waters. Certainly we might question whether we are living up to the kind of Democratic standards we politically espouse for others and are trying to uphold by our activism.

Our thinking and our actions must be the living embodiment of the principles of our democracy. The words on the pages of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless unless they are carried into the world in our human dealings, in our social interactions, and in our hearts.