Speech is Action

A lot of people I know often say "Well, I don't like what government is doing, but what can I do about it?"

My recent answer has been: talk about it. Talk about it a lot.

A natural response to that is: "What good will that do? Talk isn't enough."

I'm not sure about that. I think that talk may be enough. At least if there is enough talk. Of course talking constantly takes a lot of effort. Which may be evidence that talking really is taking action.

On the societal level, the discourse is largely dominated by those voices that are heard the loudest: the mass media. The mass media and the government, despite common claims to the contrary, are working together very often. And their voice is contrary to the voice of the people in many places and times.

I am thinking specifically of the coverage of the recent NDAA 2012 that was passed in early December by both houses of the U.S. Congress, with its inclusion of a provision that allows for indefinite detention without trial of those suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorists. But the point is more general, too: there are many points on which the media is basically a shill for government policies worth opposing.

How do we oppose these loud voices in the media? We have to talk. And talk more. And talk some more. This takes effort. Personally, I know that I don't talk as much as I could. But if each of us were to talk about important issues often, then there is potential for the discourse to shift.

The voices of the real people need to be heard, not the voices of the media. And this takes effort.

If we are opposed to the NDAA of 2012--and who is in favor of indefinite detention without trial? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)--then we each need to raise our individual voice to combat the silence that pervades the mainstream media. Each of us needs to work at the conversation that is necessary to have a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people."

If all of us were talking with each other, then the discourse need not be dominated by the mass media. But this would require everybody talking. A true grassroots movement.

And this is what is needed, if we wish to oppose policies that allow the government to lock people up without trial.

Do you believe that the government should be able to lock people up indefinitely without trial? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, then I'd love for you to take action--take action by talking about it. A lot.

Yes, I know that this can be annoying. I know that people don't want to hear the constant discussion of things unpleasant. But isn't it important to sometimes talk about things unpleasant? If a friend was an alcoholic in denial, wouldn't it still be good to talk about the thing that they don't want to talk about? This is no different: we need to talk about this for our own good, even if it is unpleasant.

If every single person who is opposed to indefinite detention without trial were to call the White House, and their Senators and their Representative, that would change policy. Every single person--they couldn't deny that. Even though they can deny the thousands who do call, because those thousands are a small number compared to the millions of voters who aren't talking about the problems with the NDAA, and who will let it pass--along with their civil liberties--without noticing or acting.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the U.S. woke up and said: "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial (a principle codified in the 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution)"? Wouldn't it be great if everyone woke up and said: "I don't believe in torture (a principle codified in the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.)?

Talk, talk, talk.

What actions can we take to lead to massive political change in the face of a system that is rapidly dismantling the basic rights that were codified in the U.S. Constitution?

Talk is one of the most powerful tools that we have. Talk is not "just talk." It may be true that talk is cheap, as people often say, but talk is also powerful: when we say that the pen is mightier than the sword, we are not really talking about the pen itself, so much as we are talking about the power of words. Words have great power. We have to put them into action.

One of the big problems that the world faces is that the conversations of the world are dominated by the voices of the major corporations that own the big mass media outlets. These media are not telling a story that is designed to help people--or at least not the vast majority of people.

No one person has the voice alone to change the debate and to shift focus onto stories that really matter, or to shift the tone of the stories being told. But if we all are telling the real stories, then, maybe, we could change the debate.

Once upon a time--not so long ago--the U.S. made a claim to having a good human rights record, and if history didn't bear that out, at least there was a legal code that could support that claim. And that legal code was a support for moving towards a nation with greater liberty and justice for all.

Then we got the George W. Bush administration, and we got laws justifying warrant-less wiretapping, and memos justifying the use of torture, and now we've got the NDAA of 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of anyone the military wants.

These are not things that any U.S. citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution should accept. The Constitution, flawed though it is, is a foundation for government that is worthy of respect. It sets forth rights that are worth defending.

The elected officials of the nation swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are not doing a good job, and now is the time to talk about that.

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, right-wing, left-wing: who wants the government to be able to lock people up with no trial? Is that a free nation? Each of us can act to defend the constitution just by talking about it. Of course we have to talk about it a lot to spread the word, but it shouldn't be a polarizing conversation. Political conversation is often difficult because of conflicting opinions. But this should be one political conversation with almost no disagreement:
"Should we preserve the right to a speedy, public trial, as guaranteed in the Constitution?"

Now is the time and the action that we each can take is to talk. Each of us talking alone is not that big a deal, but like the old ad said: "If you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc...."

If everyone talked about how cool the 6th amendment of the Constitution is (the right to a public, speedy trial), our combined voices would be loud enough to drown out the corporate media that would love the right to throw anyone they want into jail.

Talk may be cheap, but it's also powerful. If everyone does it, it's loud. Wouldn't it be great if everyone stood up against the continued erosion of our legal rights?

Common Ground for the Tea Party and the Occupy movement

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by both houses of congress represents on on-going erosion of the very principles on which the U.S. prides itself.

The act allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, which is a clear violation of the constitution's 6th amendment.

Now the Tea Party typically mocks the Occupy movement, but here, it seems to me, the two groups should find some common ground.

The Tea Party has been very vocal in defense of the 2nd Amendment; Tea Party demonstrations are known for the open display of firearms.

The Tea Party is known to call for less government. Surely laws that allow the government to hold people without trial are not a movement in the direction of less government.

Wouldn't it be great if all the people of the United States were to see that preserving the U.S. Constitution is better than allowing the government to slide into totalitarianism?