A Plague On Both Your Houses

The Death of Privacy

Science fiction with a smile | Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Heather Havrilesky may be writing in this article about a show on the Science Fiction Channel, but her opening paragraphs speak to the idea that privacy is dead, a current cultural phenomenon (accepted as gospel) that is, I believe, really really bad.

“Mystery is a dying art. Holding on to your secrets during the digital revolution feels as antiquated and prudish as holding on to your virginity during the sexual revolution.

Not only is trying to keep your personal life private nearly impossible, but the whole concept of being a "private person" is patently outdated. What does it even mean? Not mentioning your tubal ligation on your Facebook page? Not tweeting about your disintegrating marriage?

Nothing is confidential anymore; those who'd like to pretend otherwise are greeted with suspicion and raised hackles. In an age when "community building" seems indelibly linked to casting your secrets into an unfathomable digital void, self-censorship can strike people as downright unneighborly. Information wants to be free, and no doubt about it, it's prepared to break your kneecaps and make a run for it if necessary.”

First, the obvious flaw with the analogy (and its not a bad one) as an argument in favor of giving up your privacy is that there are many people who either died of AIDS or live with HIV who wish they had remained virgins during the sexual revolution.  There are probably a whole slew of others who wish they had (or had not) participated in the sexual revolution for a variety of reasons.  Merely having a trend is not a reason to conform to it.  Following lemmings off a cliff, no matter how many there are is not a recipe for success or survival.

Second, isn’t privacy to be valued?  Does the Big Brother of the social networking universe need to know everything?  Should everyone know everything?  Does this breed responsibility or just fear?  The problem with the cacophony of the Internet is that people might not speak for fear that what they say might not be popular.  They might not do for fear that what they do might not be favored by the loudest and most vocal.  Yet it is those who speak up, who do not fear to say the emporer has no clothes, who insist the earth is round and it revolves around the sun who may be drowned out by the masses and the lack of privacy.

As history would have it, those who berated and despised privacy, those who argued that your private thoughts and actions should be exposed (possibly to ridicule), those who live by the phrase “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear,” are not exactly those whom I would characterize as the “good guys.”  Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, the Inquisition, Senator Joseph McCarthy, to name a few of the rogues gallery. 

The mob does not like privacy.  Lemmings do not like privacy.  For now, I will try to keep what I have and fight for people’s rights to have theirs. 

 

Why do I find myself agreeing with Orrin Hatch and Ann Coulter?

I nearly fainted the other day while watching Ann Coulter on Larry King (Joy Behar subbing in).  I found myself actually agreeing with Coulter.  I think she is one of the most despicable human beings on the planet.  She is intellectually dishonest.  She is mean.  Nothing matters to her but herself, her agenda, and generating money and publicity for herself and her agenda.  Reason and evidence mean nothing to her.  Kindness, decency, integrity and humanity are not words in her vocabulary, or things about which she cares.  When I say I find her despicable, I don’t mean that in a good way.  I would never purchase one of her novels, not because I think they are bad, but because, like not spending money in South Africa during apartheid, I wouldn’t want to put a dime in her pocket.  So the fact that I found myself agreeing with her made me nauseous.

I do not find Orrin Hatch despicable.  I mostly don’t agree with him but I have no doubt he is a good and decent person.  There are people I respect who are friendly with him and politically close to him.

I agree with both of them because I too feel this “empathy” idea for judges is wrong.  A judge should be independent and aloof.  Would you want someone who is empathetic with the victims of crime to decide 4^th amendment issues? Not if you were the criminal and not if you believe the 4^th amendment must protect everyone from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Would you want someone empathetic to the plight or background of the criminal if you were advocating the death penalty in a case? No.  Would you want a judge empathetic with the victims plight in the same case? Not if you were the criminal or a person advocating against the death penalty.  Empathy is very much a double edged sword and has no place in judicial determination.  Justice is blind.  The law is blind and has to do with the law not justice.  If the legislature has failed to correctly draft a statute a judge can not substitute his/her judgment on any side, wherever their empathy lies.

Think of this.  A 21 year old man savagely rapes and murders an 18 month old baby.  He is tried and convicted and sentenced to death.  Where would you have the judges empathy lie?  With the baby and his family?  How about with the man who himself was a victim of repeated sexual abuse as a child?  How about with the fact that the man was black, grew up in a terrible environment and was never given the chance to gain any sense of morality, when it comes to abuse?  Should empathy dictate whether the punishment fits the crime?  As tragic as this case was (it is a real case), should not the punishment fit the crime not the criminal?  Can society be seen to be empathetic to a child molester and murderer?  Empathy does have its place.  But the judiciary is not where it belongs.

Tags: Law, Politics, Republicans, Ann+Coulter, Orrin+Hatch, Obama, Judges, Supreme+Court

Change We Can Believe In

Obama has choices.  He can choose to ignore the pressure from the left, from the Old Line of the Democratic party, and choose change or he can be a Democrat first and for bi-partisanship, creativity and the nation second.  He would be a fool to choose the latter.  From a pure strategic standpoint (forget the merits) doing what the base of the democratic party wants initially (later will be different) is the absolute wrong move.  He should resist and be seen to prevail to solidify his power and leadership.  The perfect place to do this is Bob Gates.  He is widely respected.  He is part of the existing administration.  He is not a registered Republican.  He is a professional.  He makes sense and would owe Obama.  The democratic left doesn’t like him.  That is a plus, not a minus.  He represents change, not straightforward change (that is easy).  He represents a change from the old way of thinking along partisan lines to a new way of thinking practically and creatively what is best for the country.  I also think Richardson and Somers represent no-change run-of-the-mill uncreative ideas for cabinet posts.  RFK (environment), Powell (education?) and the New York Fed President (treasury) represent more out of the box, interesting, change picks.  Caroline Kennedy is also an interesting idea for the UN.

 

Tags: politics, obama, transition, administration, democrats

Ben Smith's Blog: Reacting to Rahm - Politico.com

Reacting to Rahm

The Republican message is that he's a hyper-partisan pick.

"Barack Obama's first decision as President-elect undermines his promise to 'heal the divides.' Rahm Emanuel is a partisan insider who played a lead role in breaking Washington," said RNC spokesman Alex Conant, and John Boehner called the choice "ironic."

But it's a little more subtle than that. Emanuel likes to win, but he doesn't hail from the left of his party, and he's been successful in part by working with Republicans.

Lindsey Graham puts out a statement stepping on the GOP message:

This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama.

"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff.

"I worked closely with him during the presidential debate negotiations which were completed in record time. When we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward. I consider Rahm to be a friend and colleague. He's tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well.

"Rahm understands the challenges facing our nation and will, consistent with the agenda set by President-elect Obama, work to find common ground where it exists. I look forward to working with him in his new position and will continue to do everything I can to help find a pathway forward on the difficult problems facing our nation."

Ben Smith's Blog: Reacting to Rahm - Politico.com.

 

This got me thinking about the election and what it means.  The rift that is forming in the Republican party, and the disappointment that may come from left wing democrats (although its too early for that), tells a lot about the politics of division that has ruled political discourse for the last decade at least.

Extremists beware.  Vitriol is no longer in vogue.  Inability and unwillingness to compromise are passe. Its time for everyone to realize that the center is going to have its day.  Obama has realized upon the desires of the middle for inspiration, intelligence and hope.  The politics of the extremes rely upon and thrive only upon the apathy of the middle.  Those who believe in moderation and compromise must be apathetic for the extreme right or left to rule and even to be powerful in their own party.  This was the meaning of Obama’s victory and the failure of McCain’s strategy.  The old rules dictate that the electorate is apathetic in the middle and active at the extremes.  Obama gained a majority and a landslide electoral college by capturing and revitalizing the middle.  Lindsay Graham and probably John McCain realize this.  The conservatism and combativeness of Boehner and Conant will probably not prosper in this environment.

Tags: politics, transition, republicans, democrats, congress, white+house, obama

Palin and Her Followers Frighten Me

The same people who make fun of those who treat Obama like a rock star who can do no wrong treat Sarah Palin in exactly the same manner.  She walks on water.  Nothing she says or does is bad. 

The reaction to her violation of Alaska’s ethics laws is a case in point.  Had Bill Clinton violated and ethics law no matter how obscure or parsed words about it there would be impeachment proceedings.  Ooops, he did and there were.  Yet the reaction of the same people who supported impeachment of Clinton say about Palin and her husband “I would have done the same,” or “She didn’t do anything,” or some other excuse.  And what does Palin do? According to MSNBC:

“After the results of the investigation were released, Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, was asked by a reporter if she abused her power as governor. She replied, "No, and if you read the report you'll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You gotta read the report, sir.”

Uh, Governor, technically what you say is true, but if somebody really reads the report as you suggest they will find “Finding Number One” on page 8 which says “I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” I think that says that you abused your power, if I read correctly.

This kind of parsing of words is disingenuous in the extreme.  It is also either arrogant or stupid to suggest someone read the report knowing they will find Finding Number One.  It is hard to believe that John McCain can be trusted with anything if he is suggesting that we should trust Sarah Palin. 

Someone who abuses her power by using it to further her personal ends in the context of her sister’s nasty divorce, and sees nothing wrong with it, frightens me.  Its like the Mafia, don’t cross a family member, your livelihood and your reputation could be in danger.  But then, this is what frightened me about the Bush/Cheney Texas Mafia, so I guess I’m just a weenie.

Tags: Politics, Palin, McCain, ethics, Alaska, Obama, campaign

What Palin did is Serious

Her transgression may sound trivial and Palin’s denials certainly parse words, but abuse of power is never trivial.

She says that the report did not show that she violated the ethics rules by firing the Public Safety Commissioner.  That is true.  She goes on to say that she looks forward to working with the Personnel Board.  What she fails to say is why she has to work with the board.  She doesn’t tell you that because if she did she would have to admit that the report finds that she violated Alaskan law.  Specifically the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Her supporters will no doubt attempt to trivialize this.  It is abuse of power and it is serious.  Why? Because she and others used her power as Governor and her position as Governor for a personal vendetta (whether Wooten deserved it is truly irrelevant).  What if she were VP and used the power she has to have the IRS audit Wooten or have the Secret Service or FBI investigate him. Would we condone that?  I hope not because that is a very dangerous precedent to set.  That is corruption. Condoning that condones other personal abuses for personal gain.  Maybe she gets mad at somebody and sicks the IRS on them.  Maybe all of a sudden she doesn’t like how Tina Fey portrays her so she has the IRS Audit her every year and the FBI investigates her and she has someone trump up accusations against her.  Can you say Joe McCarthy? 

We might change the “sir” to “madam” and apply Welch’s famous quote  -"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" – to Palin.

Tags: Palin, Ethics, Politics, campaign, McCarthy

What Palin Did

I can’t figure out why the mainstream media, at least so far, can’t figure out what the report issued by the legislative investigation into “troopergate” actually finds.  Page 8 of the report is very clear:

1. She violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.  Presumably she did so because she used her office to benefit a personal interest (getting her ex brother-in-law fired)
2. Firing the Commissioner of Public Safety was proper and lawful.
3. Wooten (the brother-in-law) got his proper workers compensation benefits.
4. The Attorney General’s office failed to comply with requests for Palin e-mails.

If you’ve seen the interviews, Wooten seems to have a screw loose and may well have deserved to be fired.  That is irrelevant.

The real issue here is a failure to recognize the separation of the Governor’s office from her personal problems.  She continues to fail to recognize that it was wrong to use her office (or to allow her husband to) for personal purposes.  This is not a gray area, not really open to debate. Cronyism and corruption are exactly what she is supposed to be fighting, and it is this kind of behavior and the failure to recognize that it is wrong that leads to such cronysim and corruption. 

Tags: politics, Palin, corruption, investigation, campaign

Divisiveness, Blogging and the Campaign

Our political discourse has become too self righteous and hypocritical.  What is good for the goose is not for the gander.  We are judgemental.  We don’t think. 

Now, let me be clear, we Americans are not notorious for our intellectual discourse and thoughtfulness.  It’s not our nature or our style.  We are blunt.  We are straightforward.  But in an age of instant knowledge, instant publication and a balooning discourse, it behooves us to understand that with our rights of free publication and speech come with responsibilities.  We are utterly failing to even acknowledge, let alone fulfill these responsibilities.  We do so at our peril because those who exercise their rights unfettered by responsibility will have those rights taken from them in reaction to such profligacy.

We as Americans have a long and rich history of bitter political battles going back all the way to Adams and Jefferson.  Even by today’s standards some of the language in that race was outrageous. 

Adams’ supporters ripped Jefferson, calling him … “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father… raised wholly on hoe-cake made of coarse-ground Southern corn, bacon and hominy, with an occasional change of frecassed bullfrog.”

[Jefferson’s election] critics warned, would bring "dwellings in flames, hoary hairs bathed in blood, female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike and halberd."

 

Thus it is hard to say that any of the recent rhetoric about terrorism, untword associations, or evil intent is new.  Playing on the fears and frustrations of the populace is not new.  In an age when we have immediate and instant access to those words and they reach millions of people electronically and in print; when they are published and broadcast on the air waves, on the internet, on cell phones and in e-mails; in an age where there is no time to digest, refute or repudiate them before the next barrage and in an age where the ease with which the internet and the blogosphere can be stirred to a maelstrom in about five seconds, we really ought to be careful.  Just as it is not right to shout fire in a crowed theater, it is not right to shout terrorist to a crowd on the internet, on TV or anywhere else.  It is manipulative and dangerous.  It divides us.

I don’t know who in this campaign has been more divisive or manipulative and I don’t care.  It divides us.  It makes us less.  It demeans our writing and our speech. It demeans our campaigns.  It demeans us as humans.  Today we can not only revel in the enormous freedoms and access we have to put in our two cents, we need to step back, look at our responsibilities to those around us and try act in a manner that gives credit to the intelligent, decent, tolerant and understanding people that we aspire to be.  We have great opportunities for unity, understanding, compromise and progress.  There are those who will stand in the way of that progress and that opportunity.  You can not combat them if you emulate their behavior.

Tags: politics, blogging, discourse, division, freedom, responsiblity, campaign

The McCain - Palin Campaign Has Crossed Over to Evil

No longer can we simply dismiss the McCain campaign as “rallying the base” or “politics as usual.”  The times have changed. For the worse.  Every responsible politician, and particularly John McCain, needs to step back and say “Am I encouraging a mob?”  We are in the worst economic times perhaps in 70 years.  People are angry and in pain.  They are losing their jobs, their homes and their savings.  They are looking for people to blame.  They still fear for their safety. They are looking for ways to release their frustrations. 

John McCain and Sarah Palin, instead  of “Country First,” take the “get elected first” approach.  They associate their opposition with terrorism here and abroad.  They associate him with being “different.”  “Do you really know who he is?” the ask.  They are encouraging and exploiting the fear, the anger, the frustration and it is getting worse. 

What they are doing is evil.  That’s right – evil.  Not just wrong.  Not just bad.  Not just politics. Exploiting otherwise decent people and using their fears, pain and frustration to unleash them on others with different names or different skin colors or different religious beliefs is evil.  That’s not what American politicians do.  That’s what Adolf Hitler did.  And he did it when people were afraid and angry and losing their jobs and their life savings.

Tags: McCain, Palin, campaign, politics, Hitler

The Palins' un-American activities | Salon - Where is the outrage?

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. "She's Alaskan to the bone ... she sounds just like Joe Vogler."

So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?

Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."

This quote is from "Coming Into the Country," by John McPhee, who traipsed around Alaska's remote gold mining country with Vogler for his 1991 book. The violent-tempered secessionist vowed to McPhee that if any federal official tried to stop him from polluting Alaska's rivers with his earth-moving equipment, he would "run over him with a Cat and turn mosquitoes loose on him while he dies."

Vogler wasn't just a blowhard either. He put his secessionist ideas into action, working to build AIP membership to 20,000 -- an impressive figure by Alaska standards -- and to elect party member Walter Hickel as governor in 1990.
Vogler's greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska's freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue. That's right ... Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran….

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Where's the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama's fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.

The Palins' un-American activities | Salon.

How come we haven’t heard more about this?  How come the Obama campaign doesn’t put this out everywhere?  This is much worse than a guy who was generated by the Viet Nam war and turned himself in to the FBI.  These are people who are still out there and whom Palin, far from disavowing (as Obama has with Ayers), has openly praised and who’s party her husband joined.  You want to talk about big lies, John?  Talk about this.

Tags: Palin, Obama, McCain, terrorism, Ayers, Vogler, politics