Big Brother is Your Mamma
remember back in high school (or even earlier) when the inevitable response to any untoward question was, "Your mamma!"?
aah, the good ole days, when things were simple (although at the time we thought we had the market cornered on complexity) and no analysis was needed because song lyrics and bumperstickers seemed to capture our deepest thoughts. many people, it seems, are still stuck in that mentality. if it can be captured in a soundbite or printed on a t-shirt, it must be the God-Given Truth.
so it is that i recently had to confront one of my own knee-jerk reactions. my position seemed so sound, so intellectual, so Truthy- but then i thought it through.
why are we afraid of big brother?
i must confess at this point to doing a long and fruitful internship with the ACLU. my friends were all equally pompous intellectuals, and we railed against those "reactionary conservatives" who wanted to control, not only my uterus, but also my First Amendment right to free assembly. who was the government to wire tap my phone, or know what my party identification was for voting (like they couldn't have guessed that- duh!), or see what books i checked out in the libray, or even to know what race i was every time i filled out a government form (to increase your blogblond knowledge base, i always left that blank, or checked 'other'. yeah, government, i'm part of the HUMAN race- don't see that on your corrupt forms- how do you like that?!? oh man...)
but, like i said, i recently had to revisit all of that, and to rethink my fomerly entenched position.
don't know if you've noticed (i certainly didn't at the time), but there are some bad people in the world. really bad people. and, now that i have children, i kind of would like the government to keep any eye on them...
even up until a few weeks ago, i was so against the government being in my business. it seemed so... well, prudent, to protect my privacy. but then i had a blogblond epiphany: i don't do anything i need privacy about.
do i really care if the government taps my phones? other than the idea of my tax dollars paying for the government to hear what's on sale at walmart, or my new chicken recipe, or which of my kids has stomach flu, what's the difference if they listen to my phone calls? is the fact that i'm making soup a national security issue? if the government knows that i am a registered republican, can they use that infomation to blackmail me into divulging classified secrets? if the president himself, for some sick and twisted reason, wants to know my race, i guess i am okay with that, since any person who sees me on the street can posess that same information. and just in case the fbi is still monitering my blog, the mein kampf i checked out of the library was for a history class i was teaching at the time. really.
so, i know all of you socially aware people out there are quaking in your boots over the idea of the government intruding into your private life, but i guess i want to know- what the heck are you doing that you wouldn't want anyone to know about? if big brother knows that i bought an amy tan novel on ebay and that means they can also know about the yemenite guy who just bought three sniper rifles, i am good with that. if big brother wants my kids to take off their shoes at the airport so that the terrorist has one less place to hide his box cutter, i say go for it. if big brother listens on my phone and finds out how i make lasagna, but that also allows them to listen to someone else and know that some evil people are planting a bomb in our local school, then i must say that i am perfectly willing to forego my sacred privacy for a higher pupose. if you are reading this and saying, yeah- but then what? what civil liberties will we lose next? congratulations- you have just had an irrational knee-jerk reaction.
and if you say, but i am a law-abiding citizen, so why does the government need my private information? why is the blogblond turning into a fascist? then i say to you:
your mamma!
aah, the good ole days, when things were simple (although at the time we thought we had the market cornered on complexity) and no analysis was needed because song lyrics and bumperstickers seemed to capture our deepest thoughts. many people, it seems, are still stuck in that mentality. if it can be captured in a soundbite or printed on a t-shirt, it must be the God-Given Truth.
so it is that i recently had to confront one of my own knee-jerk reactions. my position seemed so sound, so intellectual, so Truthy- but then i thought it through.
why are we afraid of big brother?
i must confess at this point to doing a long and fruitful internship with the ACLU. my friends were all equally pompous intellectuals, and we railed against those "reactionary conservatives" who wanted to control, not only my uterus, but also my First Amendment right to free assembly. who was the government to wire tap my phone, or know what my party identification was for voting (like they couldn't have guessed that- duh!), or see what books i checked out in the libray, or even to know what race i was every time i filled out a government form (to increase your blogblond knowledge base, i always left that blank, or checked 'other'. yeah, government, i'm part of the HUMAN race- don't see that on your corrupt forms- how do you like that?!? oh man...)
but, like i said, i recently had to revisit all of that, and to rethink my fomerly entenched position.
don't know if you've noticed (i certainly didn't at the time), but there are some bad people in the world. really bad people. and, now that i have children, i kind of would like the government to keep any eye on them...
even up until a few weeks ago, i was so against the government being in my business. it seemed so... well, prudent, to protect my privacy. but then i had a blogblond epiphany: i don't do anything i need privacy about.
do i really care if the government taps my phones? other than the idea of my tax dollars paying for the government to hear what's on sale at walmart, or my new chicken recipe, or which of my kids has stomach flu, what's the difference if they listen to my phone calls? is the fact that i'm making soup a national security issue? if the government knows that i am a registered republican, can they use that infomation to blackmail me into divulging classified secrets? if the president himself, for some sick and twisted reason, wants to know my race, i guess i am okay with that, since any person who sees me on the street can posess that same information. and just in case the fbi is still monitering my blog, the mein kampf i checked out of the library was for a history class i was teaching at the time. really.
so, i know all of you socially aware people out there are quaking in your boots over the idea of the government intruding into your private life, but i guess i want to know- what the heck are you doing that you wouldn't want anyone to know about? if big brother knows that i bought an amy tan novel on ebay and that means they can also know about the yemenite guy who just bought three sniper rifles, i am good with that. if big brother wants my kids to take off their shoes at the airport so that the terrorist has one less place to hide his box cutter, i say go for it. if big brother listens on my phone and finds out how i make lasagna, but that also allows them to listen to someone else and know that some evil people are planting a bomb in our local school, then i must say that i am perfectly willing to forego my sacred privacy for a higher pupose. if you are reading this and saying, yeah- but then what? what civil liberties will we lose next? congratulations- you have just had an irrational knee-jerk reaction.
and if you say, but i am a law-abiding citizen, so why does the government need my private information? why is the blogblond turning into a fascist? then i say to you:
your mamma!
13 Comments:
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:08:00 AM, Anonymous said…
What a great post - You make some really good points. As long as big brother doesn't go into my credit cards and play with my credit ratings, as long as it is limited to "surveilance" to catch the evil doers, I don't have a problem with it.
You should write a column.
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:18:00 AM, Anonymous said…
Once the media and most of the US citizens show their ignorance for the Constitution and the law. What the President did was not only lawful, it is expressed in the constitution. Granting the executive branch the power to protect and make decisions like this. Our Founders were smart enough to know that a body the size of Congress could not make decisions like this in a timely manner. The act in 1978 only states what the President must seek judicial approval for. Terrorism is not one of them. So, now I get off my soap box and state one more thing. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the constitution. Done.
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:34:00 AM, BlogBlond said…
anon #1- thanks!
anon #2- better not let the pro-abortion crowd hear you say there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution! sadly, you will never be confirmed as a supreme court justice...on that note, i never understood why the case law finds an implied right to privacy vis-a vie the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments, etc- why not just find it implied in the 9th, which seems almost custom designed for that sort of argument? then you can go back to meeting records and discuss "original intent" hmmmmm- maybe d or another lawyer out there will throw some light our way. elster, are you still out there?
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:58:00 PM, Sarah said…
Good lord, BB. Just when I think you're brilliant, you prove me wrong. You're really, really freakin' brilliant.
I think it's you and Soulmate who shouldn't be allowed to be on a Trivial Pursuit team together...
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:08:00 PM, BlogBlond said…
wow anysara- i've never been really really freakin' anything before! i am humbled by your praise (and by your friendship!!!). soulmate is a lucky guy! :)
At Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:51:00 PM, Josh said…
Well said. I've wondered what we are keeping at bay with all of our privacy laws. I can't find any problem with the wiretaps of boring people. Since all the pro-privacy people seemed to be concerned about the government misusing this information to tighten its power, I say define as comfortably as you need what the government can A) pry into, and B) what they can do with this information they pry.
I'm not worried about who'll watch the watchers. That's what elections are for.
At Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:20:00 PM, Anonymous said…
Frankly this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
BB, it seems your argument comes down to this: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then I don't have anything to worry about."
Is this close?
This is a fair philosophy for going through everyday life, but utterly insane when applying it to the distribution of government power.
Giving the government the power to spy, secretly, on it's own citizens is just asking for trouble. This is giving too much power to the government which will and probably alread has been abused. It's a slippery slope argument to be sure, but history and our understanding of humans and society tells us that after a time the govenment will not be satisfied hunting only terrorists with this surveillance power. Sooner, rather than later, "enemies of the state" will have a much broader definition. Then where will we be?
I think it's wishful thinking and naieve to believe this kind of power can be checked by elections as Josh would have us believe. After all, alot can happen in between elections. Laws can change. I'm sure with all there nifty powers we are granting the governmet, some resourceful, albeit unscrupulous politicians will definitely be able to find a way to keep their grasp on all they power we've bestowed on them.
To those who think that there is no right to privacy; Wow, that's a new take on the 4th amendment. If you think that just because the word "privacy" is not stated in the constitution that the right therefore does not exist, then you've got another thing coming. The concept of protected privacy exists in the 4th amendment.
Then again, the constitution doesn't explicitly say that individual private citizens can own their own firearms. So I guess we can start taking away everyone firearms now and arresting those wackos who refuse to hand them over. Hey! Maybe this literalist interpretation of the constitution isn't such a bad thing after all!
Frankly I find people who are willing to put up with this kind of government intrusion to be somewhat nauseating. These abstact principles that we are talking about: freedom, privacy, etc. are the things that make our nation and others like it truly great and unique in all of human history. The idea that some of you people would throw it all away to save your own skins is shocking, to say the least.
If it's true that you want your government to provide you with complete safety and security then I suggest you move yourself and your family to somewhere else, say China. I've been there. It's nice. Absolutely no crime. No terrorism. And the food's great. Then again, people who disagree with the government there tend to disappear, never to return. But hey! That's the price you gotta pay for safety and security.
At Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:08:00 PM, BlogBlond said…
ooooooooh, anonymous- is this really the dumbest thing you've ever heard? i guess you don't listen to progressive talk radio or NPR...
Your analysis of my position is mostly correct. people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. (thank you dr. phil)but i would go a bit farther and say that if someone IS doing something wrong, a MINOR intrusion into my activities is a small price to pay for security.
if you are half the conspiracy theorist you seem to be, then you must realize that if the corrupt government, with its extensive network of frighteningly evil power and total lack of regard for human rights, decided to "spy" on its own citizens A)they would (and probably are!) already be doing so, and B) the posturing and media grabbing touchy-feely leftists (who want to protect only the guilty, in the name of false compassion)would probably be powerless to do anything to stop them. do you honestly believe that a government already headed down your "slippery slope" of human rights abuses would care if their activities were or were not legally sanctioned?
you say that josh's position is naive, yet you seem to back yourself into an intellectual corner. either the government is corrupt, or it is not. if it is corrupt and unrestrained by the electoral process, then YOU would be naive to think that limiting the power of government to spy on its people will do one iota of good. if, on the other hand, you believe that our government is not inherently corrupt, and their "nifty powers" have indeed been granted to them by the electorate, then what are you worried about? what we the people give, we the people can take away.
and btw, the 4th Amendment is not the only place where an implied right to privacy is found. it underscores most of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and in fact the entire idea of a Constitution that limits the government's powers over its citizenry. without some nod to privacy there would be no right to exercise (or be free from state established) religion, freely assemble, join a militia (that pesky 2nd Amendment that you seem to hate so much), not quarter soldiers in your (private) home, not incriminate yourself, etc etc etc. it is obvious that the framers had a certain degree of respect for the concept of an individual's privacy. it is also clear, though, that the idea of privacy was always subservient to the public good. ever heard of a pillory? public executions in colonial times? ever read the scarlet letter? private misdeeds become public business when they endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the rest of us.
frankly, i find your lack of intellectual integrity and consistency somewhat nauseating. abstract principles don't do a heck of a lot of good against maniacs who are willing to blow themselves up in order to destroy our "truly great and unique" society. the idea that you would trust the integrity of terrorists over saving the lives of innocent people is even more shocking to me than my post was to you. allowing the government to exercise its proper authority to protect its citizenry is hardly thowing away american ideals. i would argue, in fact, that is is more in line with protecting the civil liberties of all to keep those who want to destroy us from accomplishing their goals. please remember that in muslim theocracies there are no constitutional protections for any of "us people".
as far as your last paragraph, i must admit that i actually had given you credit for being a civil libertarian- until you so indelicately suggested that i not exercise my constitutionally protected right to free speech, and my moral imperative to stand up for what i belive is right and try to engender a government that reflects my values. perhaps you spent a bit too much time in china, if you now beleive that if i disagree with your position i should leave the county. don't you think this place is big enough (and tough enough) for the both of us?
and, for the record, personal attacks are the the most intellectually bankrupt form of argument, so perhaps you want to start your next post with something other than, "frankly, this is the dumbest thing i've ever heard"...
just a suggestion...
At Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:07:00 PM, Anonymous said…
I'll start from the top and work my way down.....
The entire problem with secret surveillance is that there is no way we can possibly keep these intrusions minor. There are no checks on the system. There would be little if any accountability. To think that this power of omniscience we are letting the government get away with will not be abused is, as I previously stated hopelessly naieve. Once this power is abused, the fact that it is entirely secret leaves us no recourse to correct it. This is the crux of the problem.
As for saying that a government is corrupt or it is not is rather black/white don't you think? As long as we place human beings in positions of power there will be corrupt politicians and corrupt governments. It's a matter of degree to me. What keeps this corruption in check is an open government that is open to review by the governed. Secret surveillance escapes this review and is therefore dangerously corruptable.
I happend to agree with your points about privacy in various amendments in the constitution. It's just that the 4th is always what comes to mind first. My play with the second amentment was to demonstrate to absurdity of a literal reading of the constitution that was the basis for an argument from one of your other commentators.
You find me lacking in intellectual integrity? You should know. It was not I who abandoned my beliefs in a free and open government as soon as I felt threatened. I've spoken with alot of people who demonstrate the courage of their convictions. You, ma'am, aren't one of them.
The thing is in exercising secret surveillance, the government is NOT exercising it's proper authority. It has also not demonstrated that it needs this power to effectively combat terrorism. This is another debate though.
I fail to see how muslim theocracies fit into this topic? Are you saying the terrorist want to establish a muslim theocracy here??
As for relocating to China. I was not suggesting that you should not be allowed to caterwaul from the rooftops your precious opinions. Nor was I suggesting that you should leave this country forthwith. Far from it. This country is a better place with you in it. I was merely stating that if safety and security for your familily is what you truly desire above all else, then China is a really attractive place. No kidding. There's a price to be paid though for all that extra safety and security. Understand that.
Lastly, There was no personal attack in my previous post, nor was one intended. I didn't say you were dumb. I said your opinion was dumb. If you can't see the difference, then I suggest you acquire a thicker hide before you continue on in the blogosphere, as I'm one of the nicer people you'll meet in your journey.
Cheers.
At Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:49:00 PM, Anonymous said…
Fine, suppose that YOU have no secrets to hide, but there are people who do, and some secrets are legitimate. For example, suppose you are a democrat and you wish to win the next elections. You have the right to keep your tactics secret. If Mr Bush has his way, he can get away with tapping your phone line. You can argue that a decent man like Mr Bush will do no such thing, but in fact another president, the late Richard Nixon, has tried to do just that.
At Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:00:00 PM, BlogBlond said…
"You find me lacking in intellectual integrity? You should know. It was not I who abandoned my beliefs in a free and open government as soon as I felt threatened. I've spoken with alot of people who demonstrate the courage of their convictions. You, ma'am, aren't one of them."
i'm just wondering- do you know me? do you know anything about me, or how much courage i have in my convictions? do you know if i feel personally threatened, or if i ever believed in the first place that the government should be free and open? i am wondering about your omniscience, considering that i am just another random person in cyberspace who you don't know any more about than you do about the government.
so i just have to ask: have you been tapping my phone?
At Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:53:00 PM, BlogBlond said…
okay, serioulsy, anon. i really am not getting the crux of your problem. what are you afraid the government will DO with this information that they are secretly gathering? in my thinking, any scenario you can dream up will take us to the conclusion that the gov't could already be doing that if it wanted to. do you honestly believe our gov't does not already lock up cetain "enemies of the State"? and do you believe that if tomorrow the gov't wanted to persecute say, mormons, that anyone would rally to the mormons' defense and stop them? you have only to look at pre-holocaust germany to see what a "civilized" society will tolerate from its government without blinking an eye. i am a fatalist in my belief that if the gov't was out to get me, i'd be got- with or without surveillence.
as far as coruption being a black/white issue, yeah, i think it is. it's like being a little pegnant or a little dead. you either are or you aren't.
and do you think the fact that we have not had another major terorist attack since 9/11 is not a clear sign that the gov't does need its curent powers to combat terrorism? (also a clear example of the gov't NOT abusing its powers, even immediately following 9/11 when they pretty much could have declared martial law and people would have tolerated it...)
yes, the terrorists would like to establish a muslim theocracy here. and everywhere else. they haven't exactly been secretive about that...
as far as my opinion being dumb, i don't need a thicker hide because i control the delete button on this blog. in the interest of intellectual honesty, though, i'm glad to see that you responded to my comments.
as far as china, i actually lived in israel, where they are all about security (and they don't eat dogs). israel is a democracy, so i think that safety and security can coexist perfectly well in an open democratic country. the difference between the US and israel is that they are not hog-tied by political correctness (at least not to the same degree as america) so they can actually treat terrorists like terrorists, which allows the non-terrorists to go on about their lives. only when people are relatively safe can they exercise any measure of true freedom. freedom is worthless as an ideal if people are so likely to be attacked that they are afraid to leave their homes to exercise it.
i think most people would find it less intrusive to have their phones tapped by the gov't than to be blown up or beheaded by the terrorists. that's all i'm saying...
At Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:27:00 AM, Anonymous said…
"There was no personal attack in my previous post, nor was one intended"
This is what you claim, and the following is what you said previously:
"Frankly I find people who are willing to put up with this kind of government intrusion to be somewhat nauseating"
May not be classified as a personal attack but not nice none the less. We are defined not only by what we say but also by how we say it.
Post a Comment
<< Home