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.)?