Some People Make It Too Easy

The Guardians

The Guardians (Photo credit: oefe)

Yesterday, the Guardian reported that the National Security Agency has been requiring Verizon to turn over certain information about its customers’ phone calls. The paper said the Obama administration got the ok from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court in April to demand that the telecom provide on an “ongoing, daily basis” all “‘session identifying information’, such as ‘originating and terminating number’, the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and ‘comprehensive communication routing information.’”

The Guardian wrote that the collection of such “metadata” does not require a warrant under US law, and that the order does not allow the government to listen to the actual conversations (because, you know, that would be going too far).

As far as I know this hasn’t been confirmed, but it’s probably true.

What irritated me even more this morning was the reaction I heard from an NPR listener, who took the “if you don’t have anything to hide, then it shouldn’t bother you” position.

Oh, well, when you put it that way….

No. That doesn’t make it ok. We have to stop thinking like that.

It’s un-American. In our Bill of Rights, Amendment 4 says

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What would the reaction be from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or someone else who risked everything to create this country: Disgust? Despair? Gape-mouthed shock that Americans would be ok with any government–Democratic or Republican–that holds itself above the Constitution? (after we explained “telephone” and “cell phone” to them, of course)

Could this kind of thinking lead anywhere good?

Three surveillance cameras on the corner of a ...

Three surveillance cameras on the corner of a building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Using the same argument, the police should be able to come into any home without probable cause. ”Oh no, don’t mind us. Don’t let us interrupt your dinner. We’ll be out of your hair in a few hours.” And the people living there shouldn’t mind as long as they’re keeping out of trouble.

According to this mentality, those who object to warrantless searches must be people with something to hide. Not people who actually expect the government to obey the law. Yes, of course the government is run by imperfect, flawed humans, but being cynical about what we expect from those humans doesn’t get us anywhere.

P.S.

Just think about this: The people doing the domestic spying aren’t necessarily the kind of “straight arrows” one might expect to be working at the NSA. I used to know someone who worked there and still downloaded pirated movies at home. As if he couldn’t afford to pay for them. Those responsible for protecting national security should have more integrity than that.

Among the people carrying out this or other surveillance could be the same kind of government employees and public servants who have been caught cavorting with prostitutes while on duty, spending taxpayer money on private parties and dance instruction videos, or providing classified information to foreign governments.

Is that the kind of citizen you want spying on you?

Fear and Loathing in the Gun Control Debate

On my “About” page, I ask these questions: “What do people expect from their leaders? Do they trust them and accept their authority? Do the people feel protected from threats?”

When I wrote that, months ago, I was thinking about threats like terrorist attacks or cyber attacks.

If you’ve read about the American gun-control debate lately, it’s hard not to notice the fear of another kind of threat.

Among those who oppose further restrictions or more thorough background checks there is a group that considers the government itself to be the threat. And they believe they must have firearms to protect themselves from the government.

This isn’t a new development. For a long time, gun rights advocates have pointed to American history as proof of how important it is for people to have—or be able to have—weapons.  They say our freedom was won from our former British rulers at the end of a gun. That’s hard to argue with, but we’ll never know if the colonists could have managed to win their freedom some other way–eventually.

Emanuel Leutze's depiction of Washington's att...

Emanuel Leutze’s depiction of Washington’s attack on the Hessians at Trenton on December 25, 1776 (photo credit: Wikipedia)

Former Augusta, Georgia City Council Member Grady Abrams puts this very well in an Augusta Chronicle opinion piece from earlier this year. Abrams acknowledges the difficulty of the guns problem, given that “the horses are out of the barn.” He also emphasizes this fear I’m talking about.

He says these gun-control opponents who view the government as a threat are not indifferent to the suffering caused by gun violence, but they fear something else more:

I DON’T BELIEVE at all that this group is callous about the shooting tragedies that have occurred recently, especially the killing of innocent children in Connecticut. To them, though, it is a matter of priority – what scares them most. Is it a person walking into a theater with an assault weapon and killing a bunch of people; a deranged individual going into a school and killing teachers and children; or a man shooting individuals from a campus tower in Texas?”

Although all of these events do shake the beliefs of this group of people, their overriding reason for fighting control, which very few want to discuss, is the hate some of them have for their government. It is not the enemy from without that they fear most. It is the enemy from within.”

Such a strongly felt need for the right to bear arms stems from the Declaration of Independence—the part where it reads people are obligated to abolish any government that becomes abusive or despotic:

THIS IS THE reason, I believe, that some will fight tooth and nail to keep their arms – assault weapons and all. It is not about hunting. Even a fool knows this. It is not about protecting homes from burglaries. It is not so much about protecting loved ones from violence. It is all about one day having to fight their government.”

Good example of what I'm talking about. From website http://forums.officer.com/t183729/

Good example of what I’m talking about. From website http://forums.officer.com/t183729/

It’s this attitude that stays on my mind.

Under what circumstances do members of this group imagine such a fight beginning?

How do they believe it would actually end?

Do they think it would benefit the common good, the economy, the country they presumably love enough to die for?

I’m not against gun ownership, but the last thing this country needs is more bad-asses with guns.

Wouldn’t it be better—and more patriotic—to take political action and try to solve the problems that bother them so deeply? Couldn’t they try to make the government look more like the one they wish they had? Easier said than done, but better than living in fear of it, no?

Do-It-Yourself Civilization

After almost two years of civil war, some Syrians have taken the law into their own hands—in a good way.

The city of Aleppo has been ruined by the civi...

The city of Aleppo has been ruined by the civil war. (Photo credit: FreedomHouse)

According to CNN, a “self-appointed council of judges, lawyers and clerics” in rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo formed the United Courts Council last fall, in “a desperate strategy…aimed at preventing Syria from descending further into chaos.”

One former government judge told journalists, “We came to work to stop people like the Free Syrian Army or others from taking advantage of the weak and to maintain law and order inside liberated areas.”

CNN said the values the rebel court is trying to uphold come from the Arab League’s unified criminal code, which is based on sharia. The court issues official documents, settles disputes, and even runs a makeshift jail, and council members have plans to set up similar courts in other parts of the country.

It’s impressive that local residents consider the “rebel court” at least somewhat legitimate, too. That must be because the alternative is anarchy.

In Leviathan, that’s what Thomas Hobbes called the state of nature, or “the war of all against all,” when there is no higher power to rule over a people. “Higher power” brings problems of its own, but it’s got to be better than a Lord of the Flies kind of existence. Hobbes could see this after his experience with the English civil wars.

We’re not likely to see civil war in the US, but if a prepper nightmare came true here, what would we do? (Feel free to leave a comment.)

28 Days Later: The Aftermath

28 Days Later: The Aftermath (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I imagine there would be a period when at least some people reverted to a state of nature, applying the brute-force method to get what they needed to survive. Some opponents of gun-control say they need to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, but we should also ask ourselves if we want our neighbors to have guns in the event they go feral.

In such a crisis, others would prefer to continue living by their (political, social, religious) values and would probably form small-scale makeshift governments based on the Constitution or a religious text.

I hope never to experience this, but the Syrian story is an impressive example of how people can maintain some aspects of civilized life when their government can’t, or won’t, do it for them.

The Mysterious Russian Soul

I wanted to share a great article from the Moskovsky Komsomolets website about aspects of the Russian national self-image—the idea of the “mysterious Russian soul” and certain qualities that are considered uniquely Russian.

Tsarevich Dimitry, by M. Nesterov,1899. in public domain

Tsarevich Dimitry, by Mikhail Nesterov, 1899. In public domain

In the past I’ve read other work by the author, Georgi Yans, but this time I wondered about his name. Is it a cheeky pseudonym? (“Georgians”?)

Whatever the case, he comes across as a frustrated lover of Russia, and I thought his ideas might be interesting for my readers who are curious about Russian culture but don’t know the language.

Yans said a conversation with a disgruntled acquaintance made him think about what Russians typically believe about themselves and their country: That they are a special nation with their own special path. That they have an enigmatic soul and are distinguished by their patience, compassion, love, and capacity for self-sacrifice (according to writers like Dostoevsky). Continue reading

Ride the Chimp in the Direction It’s Going

Chimp in Thought

Chimp in Thought (Photo credit: Jim Epler)

Human nature, aggression, and violence have become the subject of an interesting conversation between animal behavior expert Marc Bekoff and primatologist Jane Goodall and her two co-authors.

After the school shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., Bekoff said on HuffPost that most “humans are really much nicer than we ever give them credit for.” It’s the 0.01 percent who kill and destroy that make the news, and the same misconception applies to animals. The “misleading sensationalist media” often portray animals as more violent than they are, “regardless of mounting scientific evidence that nonhumans are predominantly cooperative, peaceful and fair, and on occasion display social justice.” In his opinion, studying other animals could help us “harness our own innate goodness to make the world a better place for all beings.” Continue reading

Newsroom and “Star-spangled Awesomeness”

This post is bound to offend some, but that would be a bad reason not to write it. So, for the record, let me start by saying that I love America and am grateful I was born here and live here.

I was discussing politics and society with someone at work, who said “hey, you should watch the opening scene from HBO’s Newsroom.” It’s been out for a long while, apparently, but I don’t have cable. I looked it up on YouTube and then had to watch it several more times. Hopefully this show will be available on Netflix.

Jeff Daniels in Newsroom. Photo courtesy of syracuse,com

Jeff Daniels in Newsroom. Photo courtesy of syracuse.com

In case you haven’t watched the scene, here’s a brief description: A moderator sits on a stage in what appears to be a university auditorium with three other people: a liberal, a conservative, and a news anchor (sounds like the setup for a joke….). A young woman in the audience asks all three speakers to state briefly why they think America is the greatest country in the world. Continue reading

Does this joke make me look fat?

Did you hear that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was voted the sexiest man alive for 2012? In the words of one contest judge, “this Pyongyang-bred heartthrob is every woman’s dream come true,” with his “devastatingly handsome, round face … impeccable fashion sense, chic short hairstyle, and … famous smile.” The Chinese Communist Party’s official paper took the story from The Onion and ran with it, not realizing it was satire.

Cartoon by Heng in NYT Nov 30, 2012

Cartoon by Heng in NYT Nov 30, 2012

It’s unlikely that North Koreans could ever get away with something like this. (Back to that whole “freedom of expression” thing I’ve been writing about.) I love that we can make fun of our own leaders in the U.S. I love it even more when they’re willing to make fun of themselves. Continue reading

Emotional Bubble Wrap and the Freedom of Speech, Part II

Extended International Dance Mix

My last post was about the US, but this issue of feelings vs. freedom of expression comes up in other countries too. It’s been making the news in Russia for months. At the end of September, the Duma began considering a bill that would alter existing law by criminalizing acts that offend “religious faith and feelings of citizens,” as well as acts against religious objects and places where religious ceremonies are conducted. The draft bill called for penalties of up to five years imprisonment and fines of up to 300,000 rubles (about 9700 USD). It is still under consideration but very likely to become law, considering the legislature’s recent work limiting other freedoms.

pussy riot livejournal

Photo from pussy-riot.livejournal.com

One part of the context for this was Pussy Riot’s “punk prayer” in Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral in February. Continue reading

Emotional Bubble Wrap and the Freedom of Speech, Part I

I’m all for the freedom of speech. People should have the right to say whatever [choose your adjective] thing they want. We should, but in the interest of civilization we’ve set boundaries against things like hate speech, which the American Bar Association defines as communication that “offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” So we don’t have the right to use “fighting words,” which are “without social value” and could be expected to provoke the listener, but the First Amendment does give us the freedom to say things that are offensive and hateful or that the listener may disagree with. If someone wants to explain the difference, I’d be grateful.Hear-No, See-No, Speak-No Evil Monkeys

It’s not threats or insults that concern me here. There’s no excuse for those. It’s the offending part of the definition that prompted me to write this, because in the news I’ve been coming across examples of censorship or self-censorship that come from fear of offending a group. Continue reading

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories make so much sense to the people who believe them, while “non-believers” are left shaking their heads… This week Slate featured a blog post from Quora.com about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. In answer to the question “what do 9/11 truthers believe?” Mark Rogowsky said truthers claim that the WTC towers fell because of an elaborate government bomb plot, not because of the planes that flew into them or the resulting fire. According to Rogowsky, such people argue that the collapse was caused by tons of explosives that government agents set up in each tower in the days or weeks before the attack, without anyone noticing. The plane hijackings, also supposedly arranged by the government, were to distract people from what was really going on. Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: