tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post1131151933136829089..comments2023-10-08T05:00:23.559-04:00Comments on Clarissa's Blog: More on AssangeClarissahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-90766646896880350142010-12-23T23:52:11.012-05:002010-12-23T23:52:11.012-05:00http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010_12_19_...http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010_12_19_archive.html#2499223292846763770Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-34408027119253158682010-12-22T17:21:42.837-05:002010-12-22T17:21:42.837-05:00"I would love to hear an actual argument agai..."I would love to hear an actual argument against what I'm saying."<br /><br />Perhaps. But from my vantage engaging you on this topic seems about as constructive as discussing social welfare with a card-carrying Republican. You make very ideological arguments and generalize wildly, and I have yet to notice any systematic engagement with critical lenses. In your reviews of Zizek, for example, it was clear that you have a very poor grasp of hermeneutics. Or, when you rant about communism, for instance, you seem completely incapable of separating your experience of 'failure' with what Badiou might refer to as 'the Communist Hypothesis'. Or, when you rant about your experience as an academic - ignoring the non-transferrablity of your experience. Or, when you wax polemic about your 'pedagogy' - irregardless of the fact that by your own admission you have next to no training in pedagogic and curricular theory, no familiarity with Western pedagogic lenses, and no grasp of the mechanics of critical epistemologies. <br /><br />You are clearly an intelligent woman. You clearly have viewpoints to share. But many of those viewpoints are dreadfully under-theorized and not worth deconstructing. More productive matters call for my attention.<br /><br />Insofar as this post in particular, the entire basis argumentation is discursive without actually acknowledging the role of discourse. More concretely, you question whether Assange is a 'rapist' but avoid what that actually entails. Indeed, if Assange is a 'rapist' the concept ceases to have meaning. <br /><br />The woman who Assange ‘raped’ while sleeping? The one who woke up with Assange rubbing on something or another in a bid for sex, and tacitly agreed? Or the other woman, who Assange ‘held down’ and ‘ripped the necklace off of’? The one who held a party for Assange a few days later, let Assange stay in her house afterwords, and maintained a friendly relationship with Assange until the police pressed charges?<br /><br />Really, saying this is “rape” is insulting to actual victims of rape.<br /><br />That's a matter that can be contested - and fruitfully. But, given the rhetorical style employed in previous posts, I'm unconvinced you have much to add to the discussion.<br /><br />*That's* why I said "I won't suffer foolishness like this on my feed". It isn't because I'm an avid supporter of Assange or Wikileaks and it isn't because I'm a misogynist. It's because the 'rape' charges are blatantly politically-motivated. It's because I recognize Assange and Wikileaks as soldiers in a war against empire (see, e.g., Democracy Now!). And it's because I recognize people who say things like "There is another childish school of thinking that maintains that people have the right to know governmental secrets because those secrets affect the citizens' lives" are batting for the power elite. For all these reasons and more, when someone such as yourself publicly aligns themselves with empire, I walk away.<br /><br />In contrast with your enthusiasm for despotism, I'd agree with Thomas Jefferson: "Information is the currency of democracy."<br /><br />By aligning yourself against transparency in government you undercut your 'progressive' politics and make a hypocrite of yourself.<br /><br />By ignoring the context of the leaks and arguing on the basis of 'state secrets' you make yourself a tool of empire.<br /><br />Now why, as a critical pedagog and advocate for the sub-altern, would I want to invest time on a blog which served the interests of empire? Here I find resonance with Foucault: "People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what they do does."Khephrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00667887201214868716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-35005424515487506262010-12-10T15:19:12.599-05:002010-12-10T15:19:12.599-05:00So, you disagree with progressives going to bat fo...So, you disagree with progressives going to bat for Assange because the Republicans rolled Obama again? I'm not sure how that's justified. It's not like progressives can't do more than one thing at a time, and regardless, it's the Senate filibuster (and Obama's less-than-mediocre negotiation skill) that's allowing the Republicans to be so intransigent unless they get their cookies.<br /><br />I guess my reaction to your comment comes down to one question: What makes you think progressives aren't noticing the tax deal as much, or nearly as much, as they otherwise would if WikiLeaks wasn't an issue? If it's because the reaction is more subdued than you'd expect, much of that could be attributed to the fact that some progressives are going to look at the numbers and calculate that the deal isn't actually that bad. Even Paul Krugman acknowledges the deal makes sense mathematically, and that it's the math weighed against the policy implications down the road becomes more troublesome. It's the kind of thing not every progressive will come down on negatively, no matter what distractions may or may not be in play.DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-55290037287995116762010-12-10T14:51:57.802-05:002010-12-10T14:51:57.802-05:00You seem to be looking only at the implications of...You seem to be looking only at the implications of Wikileaks on internal American policies. Of course there aren't many, so you can safely assume that it is all one big government-sponsored PR stint intended to divert the attention of American public from really important issues like budget deficit, continued tax-cuts for the wealthy, etc, etc.<br /><br />But isn't it a bit America-centered view? American allies around the world are facing some unpleasant issues because of those leaks. Some people are pretty angry... I am not sure the US are willing to sacrifice so much of its international image and so many of their friends just to divert attention of its own public from some internal issues...<br />Actually, if they do - it is not bad for the world either - because the US influence will decrease.Vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-22662983236843244272010-12-10T11:46:29.994-05:002010-12-10T11:46:29.994-05:00I admire your idealism, my friend. Where, oh where...I admire your idealism, my friend. Where, oh where did my own idealism go only to be substituted by a tired cynicism of major proportions? :-) :-)Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-8864127122223717532010-12-10T11:01:30.923-05:002010-12-10T11:01:30.923-05:00I think that as long as there is competition (eith...I think that as long as there is competition (either between political parties within one country, or between different countries) the politicians will feel the need to have secrets. However, it still has to be recognized that transparent government is the ideal to aspire to. And that if a citizen discovers that his government has been up to something ranging from unethical to downright criminal, it is his duty of a citizen to blow a whistle.<br /><br />Also, since I am not an American, I do not have a dilemma here. The US policies (and the policies of any other country) have to be more transparent AND the US has to meddle less in the affairs of other countries. And as long as some American secrets pertain to the politics of my country (which are unfortunately even not pro-American, but pro-republican) I feel quite entitled to know those secrets. Truth be told - I seriously considered making a donation to Wikileaks...<br /><br />I do have an impression that Assange is a bit fame-hungry. So what? It may not reflect perfect psychological health, but it is good for his cause. Fame is useful as insurance policy. It is more difficult to "disappear" somebody who has fame...Vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-90662949667357857632010-12-10T10:31:19.014-05:002010-12-10T10:31:19.014-05:00DJ: I'm glad you agree that this particular se...DJ: I'm glad you agree that this particular set of revelations doesn't "reveal" anything.<br /><br />Now, let's see what's happening. Our administration has caved completely to the Republicans and is preparing yet another major takeover of the country by the ultra-rich. Now we will hand over to them the Social Security, gut the sad remnants of the middle class so that Blankfein can buy yet another yacht, and finally destroy education. Yippee. <br /><br />In the meanwhile, the public that has been getting all antsy is given this delicious story where a brave freedom-fighter is being chased all over the world by the CIA agents. Then, he is accused of rape by two women. Who later turn out to be radical feminists. Or not. Who later turn out to be CIA agents. Or not. Who later are said to have worked undercover in Cuba. Or not. These two women are appropriately Swedish because a good spy story cannot do without some blondes in it. The brave freedom fighter a.k.a. the James Bond of the New Millenium has made some revelations, which are not really revealing anything, just the stuff everybody has know forever. Still, everybody is riveted to this story, while the new Congress is robbing us blind. And when this whole drama finally blows over, we will wake up to the reality where we aree all poorer, more overworked, and have less to hope for. <br /><br />That's how I see this story. That's why I believe that engaging in the "save brave Assange!" show is detrimental to the progressive movement in this country.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-30561847566579862952010-12-09T21:57:03.642-05:002010-12-09T21:57:03.642-05:00Oh crap. I kept sending because the browser error...Oh crap. I kept sending because the browser errored and said the URL was too long. Feel free to delete the last three comments. And this one.DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-63429353664875615072010-12-09T21:28:34.822-05:002010-12-09T21:28:34.822-05:00(1/2)
If you're in Canada, that might help ex...(1/2)<br /><br />If you're in Canada, that might help explain my surprise at some of what you're saying.<br /><br />The end of your post is where the crux of this lies, and I'm sort of surprised no one mentioned it directly.<br /><br />"There are so many honest, hard-working journalists who risk their lives in order to bring us information every day."<br /><br />I assume you're referring to journalists over in war zones. After all, journalists residing in the comfort of Western society don't have much to worry about. But that's led to journalism being the main problem in the U.S.<br /><br />Long ago, Watergate broke because of leaks to a media outlet that exposed the corruption of the Nixon administration. That's the epitome of journalism, following leads related to poor governmental behavior and exposing it for the public, so that they can more appropriately judge their duly elected officials. It's why freedom of the press was so instrumental to the start of America, and continues to be vital in any free country on the planet.<br /><br />The spine of the American press is degrading rapidly, however. Not only are top reporters and editorialists very cozy with the Washington elite, but once the Bush administration started threatening lawsuits against the nosy New York Times and potentially other outlets, what investigative journalism remained came more or less crashing to a halt. Even if they want to chase certain leads, now the media has to decide whether or not interests powerful enough to ruin them by forcing them to pay for a legal defense are going to be made angry. That gives control of the narrative in almost every major media outlet to the most powerful people in the country. Even reporters or hosts who are commonly critical of the government on factual grounds (think Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) can only work with the facts they're able to get their hands on.DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-8705850453615921672010-12-09T21:27:26.324-05:002010-12-09T21:27:26.324-05:00If you're in Canada, that might help explain m...If you're in Canada, that might help explain my surprise at some of what you're saying.<br /><br />The end of your post is where the crux of this lies, and I'm sort of surprised no one mentioned it directly.<br /><br />"There are so many honest, hard-working journalists who risk their lives in order to bring us information every day."<br /><br />I assume you're referring to journalists over in war zones. After all, journalists residing in the comfort of Western society don't have much to worry about. But that's led to journalism being the main problem in the U.S.<br /><br />Long ago, Watergate broke because of leaks to a media outlet that exposed the corruption of the Nixon administration. That's the epitome of journalism, following leads related to poor governmental behavior and exposing it for the public, so that they can more appropriately judge their duly elected officials. It's why freedom of the press was so instrumental to the start of America, and continues to be vital in any free country on the planet.<br /><br />The spine of the American press is degrading rapidly, however. Not only are top reporters and editorialists very cozy with the Washington elite, but once the Bush administration started threatening lawsuits against the nosy New York Times and potentially other outlets, what investigative journalism remained came more or less crashing to a halt. Even if they want to chase certain leads, now the media has to decide whether or not interests powerful enough to ruin them by forcing them to pay for a legal defense are going to be made angry. That gives control of the narrative in almost every major media outlet to the most powerful people in the country. Even reporters or hosts who are commonly critical of the government on factual grounds (think Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) can only work with the facts they're able to get their hands on.<br /><br />WikiLeaks sidesteps this. They don't do so gracefully, although as Greenwald likes to note, they're not releasing the cables at more than a trickle. But they can't- every communication between a leaker and the destination of the leaks puts said leaker in danger. Even in the mid-70s, Deep Throat had to set up face-to-face meetings with the Watergate reporters (I don't know if they all were, but some, definitely). How impossible would back-and-forth between a leaker and WikiLeaks be, given only electronic communication, until the full story of some corruption was complete?<br /><br />I can't speak to Assange's precise aims. But the role WikiLeaks is playing now only exists because there's no longer a sense that anyone in possession of what they feel are critical-but-secret documents can take them to the mainstream media and be treated seriously. Really, who has a reputation at this point for being big enough that people will have to listen to him, and will also shoot down the biggest targets he can, besides Matt Taibbi? There would have to be a thousand of him to sift through a major leak like this and find actual stories to report, if there are any.<br /><br />Basically, we no longer have a press corps functional enough to handle this type of leak in a manner that will see anything come of it. WikiLeaks has, in the past, exposed serious corruption in other countries (Kenya comes to mind) and done much good. So even though this set of cables might expose secrets that don't help anyone (although it's good to know about others, like the bombings in Yemen), under the circumstances, I think we're much better off with WikiLeaks than without. Because, honestly, the alternative is nothing.DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-5980250508831752362010-12-09T17:34:31.693-05:002010-12-09T17:34:31.693-05:00That's what I keep hearing from my closest fri...That's what I keep hearing from my closest friends. Thanks for confirming that it is worth watching. I will watch it during this winter break and post a review. Or two reviews. :-)Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-39197727051624618342010-12-09T17:32:32.262-05:002010-12-09T17:32:32.262-05:00Stringer Bell is a character in The Wire. It is th...Stringer Bell is a character in The Wire. It is the greatest drama in television history and no, I'm not exaggerating. It'll take you a few episodes to get into but your patience will be handsomely rewarded.<br /><br />StringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-73356466458085160262010-12-09T17:27:27.259-05:002010-12-09T17:27:27.259-05:00Google says Stringer Bell is an actor. Are you rec...Google says Stringer Bell is an actor. Are you recommending that I watch The Wire? I've been planning to for a while, especially since I'm a huge Baltimore lover.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-15042269140732836772010-12-09T17:17:44.284-05:002010-12-09T17:17:44.284-05:00Yeah, this was nice. It's the first time I'...Yeah, this was nice. It's the first time I've ever commented on a blog and I gotta say it does take quite a bit of energy to maintain a written conversation like this (while frantically refreshing the page to see if someone's responded). Don't know how you do it on a regular basis but kudos to your effort!<br /><br />Stringer Bell<br /><br />(p.s. Google my name if you want a recommendation for holiday viewing. You'll be glad you did.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-51838238279797570692010-12-09T17:03:55.672-05:002010-12-09T17:03:55.672-05:00I haven't updated that page for a while, but n...I haven't updated that page for a while, but now you mention it, I think I should add this one there. Thanks for being here!! This has been very refreshing.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-2094410010268005732010-12-09T17:01:29.777-05:002010-12-09T17:01:29.777-05:00So does this blogpost go into your 'hall of fa...So does this blogpost go into your 'hall of fame' controversy section? It's funny if it ends up there because that's how I discovered your blog - from tracking back your comments at a feminist blog (which became the basis of your 'Why I Rarely Visit Feminist Websites' post).<br /><br />StringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-12851614983412079052010-12-09T16:51:17.426-05:002010-12-09T16:51:17.426-05:00"We're talking about information that can..."We're talking about information that can perhaps be used in a court of law to prosecute people in government who committed crimes. Let me give you an example. We all 'know' that Wall Street is crooked beyond belief but what good is this 'knowledge'? Now if the SEC obtains concrete and specifc information gathered from the office computer of a shady hedge fund manager, then it has something to work with: information that can bring him/her to justice."<br /><br />- I'm glad to encounter such optimistic people who are firm believers in the US democracy. Seriously. I, for one, think that neither Goldman Sachs nor the governmental agencies who perpetrated the above-listed crimes have anything whatsoever to fear from justice.<br /><br />I also think (and I know I will be branded as a conspiracy theorist for that) that this entire Assange debacle is very useful to the US government at this point. While this James-Bondian drama goes on, people forget about rising unemployment, the tax legislation that is being pushed through Congress as we speak, and other things that will impact our lives right now. Of course, tax legislation is a lot less fun that the adventures of a fearless freedom fighter persecuted by radical feminists who are revealed to be CIA agents in disguise. And we do get a huge pay-off here: massive "revelations" about things we already know. Yay for democracy.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-77214315990756668222010-12-09T16:35:47.757-05:002010-12-09T16:35:47.757-05:00I think I answered all your questions. My position...I think I answered all your questions. My position echoes that of Richard's - that it is impossible to have total transparency in government dealings, but at the same time there should be some mechanism to prevent governments from covering up crimes. I also agree with your point that imperialism is incompatible with democracy. I hope I have made myself clear.<br /><br />"So before Wikileaks people didn't know there were massive and horrendous civilian casualties in the countries the US invades? People didn't hear about Canadian soldiers killed by mistake?" <br /><br />We're talking about information that can perhaps be used in a court of law to prosecute people in government who committed crimes. Let me give you an example. We all 'know' that Wall Street is crooked beyond belief but what good is this 'knowledge'? Now if the SEC obtains concrete and specifc information gathered from the office computer of a shady hedge fund manager, then it has something to work with: information that can bring him/her to justice.<br /><br />It is not Wikileaks job to prosecute criminals. It can only shed light upon various lies and coverups that governments and corporations engage in. What we as a society do with this information is going to be an indication of our values and commitment to the rule of law.<br /><br />StringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-53912810985111154232010-12-09T16:21:42.591-05:002010-12-09T16:21:42.591-05:00Sorry, I responded before seeing the last comment....Sorry, I responded before seeing the last comment.<br /><br />Can you tell me which of these revelations that you list were news to you? You can just give numbers from your own list.<br /><br />All of the things you list are horrible. But the entire world knows that the US has been doing this and much, much worse forever. So? What has that knowledge changed exactly? That's what the American messianic mission costs evrybody. Is anybody ready to abandon said messianic mission? Will the US be ready to abandon it after a trillion more of such - and worse - revelations?Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-42063974036374955522010-12-09T16:16:29.925-05:002010-12-09T16:16:29.925-05:00I followed your link, Stringer, and I find it as m...I followed your link, Stringer, and I find it as mind-boggling as sarcozona's. So before Wikileaks people didn't know there were massive and horrendous civilian casualties in the countries the US invades? People didn't hear about Canadian soldiers killed by mistake? I don't know about you, but we in Canada have known this for a long time. <br /><br />I would like to hear a specific answer to this specific question: how is it possible to know that the US is waging several wars right now and not realize that this involves numerous deaths, rapes, mutilations, and endless suffering? <br /><br />Was it really such a recent revelation for you? Really? If I get a direct answer to these questions, then we can take this argument firther.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-74103010110397895032010-12-09T16:16:19.390-05:002010-12-09T16:16:19.390-05:00Clarissa,
To get more information about what wiki...Clarissa,<br /><br />To get more information about what wikileaks has done and its implications, you should really go to Glen Greenwald's blog that I linked to earlier.<br /><br />A sample: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman<br /><br />If there's Nothing New in these documents, can Jonathan Capehart (or any other "journalist" claiming this) please point to where The Washington Post previously reported on these facts, all revealed by the WikiLeaks disclosures: <br /><br /> (1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;<br /><br /> (2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;<br /><br /> (3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me"); <br /><br /> (4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation"; <br /><br /> (5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;<br /><br /> (6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;<br /><br /> (7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;<br /><br /> (8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,<br /><br /> (9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961. <br /><br />The text above has a lot of embedded links that I can't copy here so if you want sources for these assertions you may have to visit the blog.<br /><br />StringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-26784128653775909592010-12-09T16:11:37.221-05:002010-12-09T16:11:37.221-05:00So can you help me avoid all these mischaracteriza...So can you help me avoid all these mischaracterizations by answering my questions? You say that I don't understand your position. You are right, I don't. Simply because I have no idea what it is and you are refusing to tell me.<br /><br />Now I've started to think that you have reasons to keep your opinions so "top secret." :-) (That ws a joke.)Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-77131550983415587282010-12-09T16:05:53.586-05:002010-12-09T16:05:53.586-05:00Jesus, Clarissa, who is demanding complete transpa...Jesus, Clarissa, who is demanding complete transparency? Why have you been so fixated on this strawman?<br /><br />What wikileaks has done and why people are 'excited' about it:<br /><br />http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/<br /><br />"Maybe the Americans should choose whether they want a more transparent government or whether it matters more to them to be world's #1 superpower. I do not believe you can have both. Do you?"<br /><br />Now that's a different discussion from what you started with your blogpost where you:<br /><br />a) Mischaracterized Assange's motivation for doing what he did (he lusts for money).<br /><br />b) Mischaracterized how his organization operated (by hacking).<br /><br />c) Mischaracterized the position of wikileaks supporters (naive idiots who demand full and complete disclosure of all government secrets).<br /><br />Basically you gave your opinion about this affair without even knowing its rudimentary details. But hey, it's the internet and this is your blog so do whatcha wanna. :)<br /><br />StringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-43602114122900033332010-12-09T16:02:02.193-05:002010-12-09T16:02:02.193-05:00Thank you, Richard! If a group of people agrees wi...Thank you, Richard! If a group of people agrees with each other on everything all the time, then that's really scary. It means that some or all of them have stopped thinking for themselves.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-52676311621671867142010-12-09T15:59:34.383-05:002010-12-09T15:59:34.383-05:00It seems to me that our debate over government tra...It seems to me that our debate over government transparency proves that competing points of view, if handled with courtesy and rationality, can lead to a ground truth namely that imperialism is really incompatible with democracy. My guess is that it is this sort of give and take that keeps your classes lively and interesting.Richardnoreply@blogger.com