I know I'm not the first person the write about this, but I might just be the most pissed off. Yesterday, it was announced that the Atlanta Braves were going to leave Turner Field and start playing in a new publicly financed stadium starting in 2017.
Turner Field opened in 1997.
I have plenty of T-shirts older than Turner Field.
I have at least a few pairs of socks older than Turner Field.
Hell, I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I bet I even have some underwear older than Turner Field.
Turner Field was a perfectly good stadium. I don't really blame the Braves for taking the public financing ( $300 million ) to build a new ballpark, but I'm disgusted by the politicians in Cobb County Georgia who decided that spending $300 million to help billionaires build a stadium would be a good use of public money. Cobb County is a Republican stronghold ( Cobb County gave a higher percentage of their votes to Romney than the rest of Georgia ), and during these times when Republicans are trying to cut food stamps, it is disheartening to know that almost half the country supports a political party that promotes this kind of corporate welfare.
Now, Cobb County is a relatively affluent suburban county of almost 700,000 people. Perhaps $300 million for a stadium is a luxury they can afford. Perhaps they are awash in cash and and have no other productive way to spend all their money.
Perhaps not.
As you can see from the link above, the Cobb County school system is experiencing budgets cuts and is laying off teachers.
Let me repeat that again: Cobb County decided to spend $300 million dollars on a baseball stadium while they lay off teachers. Of course they're laying off teachers. If there's one thing every Republican politician knows ( I'm looking at you Chris Christie! ), it's that there isn't a budget problem that can't be solved by giving more money to rich people while laying off greedy teachers.
As bad as this looks, it's worse than it looks.
The reason the Braves ( and every other professional sports team ) want a new stadium can be summed up in two words: Luxury Boxes
The Braves want to build a stadium with plenty of luxury boxes. They want to charge ridiculously high prices to use these boxes, prices that no sane person would pay, unless ...
- the "person" is a corporation ( "Corporations are people, my friend." ).
- the "person" can write off the cost of the luxury box as a business expense.
So, not only is corporate welfare being used to finance this stadium, the stadium itself will be a corporate welfare machine that will use public money ( in the form of tax breaks ) to subsidize the price of tickets for the wealthy.
All of this is nothing new, but this Braves stadium deal is more egregious than most, and it's getting a lot more attention than these stories usually do. Part of me hopes that this will be somewhat of an emperor-has-no-clothes momenr for the publicly-financed stadium movement. I'm hoping that some people will finally realize that it is not a good idea to re-elect the politicians who make these kind of deals.
Of course, I'm probably giving voters too much credit, but if we can find some politicians who can make effective arguments against corporate welfare, perhaps we can make some progress as a society.
Anyway, I not even sure what to say anymore. The only thing in my head right now is ...
Warren 2016!
Seriously, Warren 2016!
Rich
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
October Pet Peeves
A few randoms thoughts this Halloween ....
I love "The Walking Dead", but something about it bothered me recently. I came to the realization that very few people wear glasses in the world of "The Walking Dead". When I say "very few", I don't mean very few relative to the real world, I mean very few relative to the world of the Zombie Apocalypse. In the real world, the percentage of people who wear glasses is much lower than the percentage of people with impaired vision, because lots of people wear contacts lenses. However, in the world of the Zombie Apocalypse, contacts lenses would be hard to come by. Most people who wear contacts lenses have at most a year's supply of disposable lenses in their home. So, even if you had the wherewithal to gather up all your contacts lenses and cleaning fluid as you fled from the zombies, your supply wouldn't last much longer than year. Eventually, you would have to switch to your glasses, assuming you had a pair and were lucky enough to survive the Apocalypse without this happening.
"The Walking Dead" is in its 4th season, and judging by the number of glasses you see, it's doesn't seem like the contact lens wearers have switch to their glasses. How have these supplies of contacts lasted more than 3 years? How come we don't find people staggering around half-blind because their contacts ran out and they don't have a pair of glasses handy? Do all the people in the Zombie Apocalypse have 20/20 vision? What's up with that?
Dead people getting up and walking around, however?
I'm down with that.
My other October pet peeve is a baseball pet peeve that I was reminded of during game 3 of the World Series ( see my tweets from October 27th ).
I was planning to write more, but work just called me and it's 10:10 on the last day of the month. I'm going to need to post this now to get my October post up in time.
Rich
I love "The Walking Dead", but something about it bothered me recently. I came to the realization that very few people wear glasses in the world of "The Walking Dead". When I say "very few", I don't mean very few relative to the real world, I mean very few relative to the world of the Zombie Apocalypse. In the real world, the percentage of people who wear glasses is much lower than the percentage of people with impaired vision, because lots of people wear contacts lenses. However, in the world of the Zombie Apocalypse, contacts lenses would be hard to come by. Most people who wear contacts lenses have at most a year's supply of disposable lenses in their home. So, even if you had the wherewithal to gather up all your contacts lenses and cleaning fluid as you fled from the zombies, your supply wouldn't last much longer than year. Eventually, you would have to switch to your glasses, assuming you had a pair and were lucky enough to survive the Apocalypse without this happening.
"The Walking Dead" is in its 4th season, and judging by the number of glasses you see, it's doesn't seem like the contact lens wearers have switch to their glasses. How have these supplies of contacts lasted more than 3 years? How come we don't find people staggering around half-blind because their contacts ran out and they don't have a pair of glasses handy? Do all the people in the Zombie Apocalypse have 20/20 vision? What's up with that?
Dead people getting up and walking around, however?
I'm down with that.
My other October pet peeve is a baseball pet peeve that I was reminded of during game 3 of the World Series ( see my tweets from October 27th ).
I was planning to write more, but work just called me and it's 10:10 on the last day of the month. I'm going to need to post this now to get my October post up in time.
Rich
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Time for Barry to Step Up
The 2 greatest accomplishments of Barack Obama's presidency:
1) He's not John McCain.
2) He's not Mitt Romney.
Seriously, as a Liberal I've been tremendously disappointed by his presidency. He's great at getting elected ( In all seriousness, I'm very grateful that Obama's a great politician. Just imagine if another Alito and Scalia had been appointed to the Supreme Court rather than Sotamayor and Kagan. ), but he's been a terrible advocate for Liberal principals over the last 5 years, and perhaps an even worse de-facto leader of the Democratic party ( The best example of this was the run-up to the 2010 mid-terms, when he refused to use the bully pulpit to help out Democrats in Congress. He should have made the argument that Republicans in Congress were standing in the way of his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 ( Actually, it was more than just a plan, it was a 2008 campaign promise. ). He should have pointed out that the Bush tax cuts could expire for everyone unless Republicans in Congress voted for his plan. His should have made it clear to all voters that Republican's in Congress were willing to let all American's tax rates go up for sake of protecting tax cuts for the richest Americans. This would not have been a hard argument to make. All he would have needed do is execute a few of the simplest plays in the populist Democrat's playbook. However, he was unwilling to make that argument. In my opinion, he wasn't willing to spend any of his political capital prior to the 2012 election cycle. He hung his fellow Democrats out to dry. Not only that, but I really believe that .... well maybe it's not right for me to say what I want to say. Maybe I shouldn't commit the most common sin that political bloggers make. Maybe I shouldn't accuse a politician of having less that noble intentions without any evidence to back up my claim. Oh hell, what I worrying about? There's no such thing as a noble politician. I've written this before, but it bears repeating: There's a word for a politician who has integrity and always tells the truth, and that word is "loser". I don't think a politician with integrity could ever make it as far as the White House, so I'm just going to accuse Obama of what I want to accuse his of, even if I don't have any evidence. And hey, if that makes me a crappy political blogger, well I don't think I've ever claimed to be anything other than a crappy political blogger ( I'm not even sure if I am a political blogger. Hell, I've blogged about boots. ). Anyway, in an attempt to bring this huge tangent to a close, let me just say that I think President Obama wanted the Democrats to lose control of Congress in 2010. Obama's many things, but he's certainly not stupid, and he must have known that running against a polarizing Republican House of Representatives would have worked to his benefit ( as it certainly did ) in 2012. ).
I can kinda forgive him for the way he governed during his first term, because he did have to worry about getting re-elected, and being a liberal Democrat probably isn't the best way to win a national election in the USA these days ( and I do give him big props for coming out in favor of Gay Marriage before the election. Then again, he didn't come out in favor of of Gay Marriage until his Vice President forced the issue by coming out in favor of Gay Marriage first. ). However, now that he never has to worry about getting elected again, I'd really like to see him step up and show some balls.
Specifically, I'm talking about his battle with Republicans in Congress over the budget and Obamacare. Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut the government down ( by refusing to fund it ) unless Obama ( and least a few Democrats in the Senate ( BTW, glad to know you have the President's back Joe Manchin! ) ) agree to accept a budget that de-funds Obamacare.
Look, I've never been a huge fan of Obamacare. I was disappointed when Democrats ( Who controlled the Oval Office, the House of Representatives, and the Senate ( with a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin ) at the time ) couldn't manage to pass a single-payer system or even a system that included a public option. However, what they did manage to pass ( The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare ) is better than nothing, and it is the law of the land. Republicans keep trying to make the point the Americans don't want Obamacare, but the results of the 2012 elections say otherwise. Mitt Romney made it clear that he would repeal Obamacare his "first day in office" ( impossible unless the Republican's won a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate ( also basically impossible for the 2012 election cycle ), but few American understood that ), so any American voter paying attention knew that Obamacare wouldn't be repealed unless Obama was defeated in 2012. If Americans thought that repealing Obamacare was an important priority, Obama would have been defeated resoundingly in the 2012. Considering that Obama won the 2012 election relatively easily, I think it's clear that most Americans would rather see Obamacare enacted than have the government shut down.
With all that in mind, there's no reason for Obama to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare. He shouldn't give an inch. If the governments gets shut down because the Republicans refuse to fund Obamacare, Republicans will get the blame. Even if the public pins some of the blame on President Obama, why should be care? He going to be President for the next 3 years no matter what happens, and he never has to worry about being elected again. Some pundits have suggested that Obama should compromise with Republicans to protect his legacy. Some have suggested that Obama will not want to known as the President who let government shut down and the economy fall into another deep recession as a result. I hope that's not the case, because if he gives in this time, the only word that will ever be used to express Obama's legacy is "pussy" ( No offense to any real female genitalia out there, which are certainly a lot tougher than President Obama. ).
Rich
1) He's not John McCain.
2) He's not Mitt Romney.
Seriously, as a Liberal I've been tremendously disappointed by his presidency. He's great at getting elected ( In all seriousness, I'm very grateful that Obama's a great politician. Just imagine if another Alito and Scalia had been appointed to the Supreme Court rather than Sotamayor and Kagan. ), but he's been a terrible advocate for Liberal principals over the last 5 years, and perhaps an even worse de-facto leader of the Democratic party ( The best example of this was the run-up to the 2010 mid-terms, when he refused to use the bully pulpit to help out Democrats in Congress. He should have made the argument that Republicans in Congress were standing in the way of his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 ( Actually, it was more than just a plan, it was a 2008 campaign promise. ). He should have pointed out that the Bush tax cuts could expire for everyone unless Republicans in Congress voted for his plan. His should have made it clear to all voters that Republican's in Congress were willing to let all American's tax rates go up for sake of protecting tax cuts for the richest Americans. This would not have been a hard argument to make. All he would have needed do is execute a few of the simplest plays in the populist Democrat's playbook. However, he was unwilling to make that argument. In my opinion, he wasn't willing to spend any of his political capital prior to the 2012 election cycle. He hung his fellow Democrats out to dry. Not only that, but I really believe that .... well maybe it's not right for me to say what I want to say. Maybe I shouldn't commit the most common sin that political bloggers make. Maybe I shouldn't accuse a politician of having less that noble intentions without any evidence to back up my claim. Oh hell, what I worrying about? There's no such thing as a noble politician. I've written this before, but it bears repeating: There's a word for a politician who has integrity and always tells the truth, and that word is "loser". I don't think a politician with integrity could ever make it as far as the White House, so I'm just going to accuse Obama of what I want to accuse his of, even if I don't have any evidence. And hey, if that makes me a crappy political blogger, well I don't think I've ever claimed to be anything other than a crappy political blogger ( I'm not even sure if I am a political blogger. Hell, I've blogged about boots. ). Anyway, in an attempt to bring this huge tangent to a close, let me just say that I think President Obama wanted the Democrats to lose control of Congress in 2010. Obama's many things, but he's certainly not stupid, and he must have known that running against a polarizing Republican House of Representatives would have worked to his benefit ( as it certainly did ) in 2012. ).
I can kinda forgive him for the way he governed during his first term, because he did have to worry about getting re-elected, and being a liberal Democrat probably isn't the best way to win a national election in the USA these days ( and I do give him big props for coming out in favor of Gay Marriage before the election. Then again, he didn't come out in favor of of Gay Marriage until his Vice President forced the issue by coming out in favor of Gay Marriage first. ). However, now that he never has to worry about getting elected again, I'd really like to see him step up and show some balls.
Specifically, I'm talking about his battle with Republicans in Congress over the budget and Obamacare. Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut the government down ( by refusing to fund it ) unless Obama ( and least a few Democrats in the Senate ( BTW, glad to know you have the President's back Joe Manchin! ) ) agree to accept a budget that de-funds Obamacare.
Look, I've never been a huge fan of Obamacare. I was disappointed when Democrats ( Who controlled the Oval Office, the House of Representatives, and the Senate ( with a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin ) at the time ) couldn't manage to pass a single-payer system or even a system that included a public option. However, what they did manage to pass ( The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare ) is better than nothing, and it is the law of the land. Republicans keep trying to make the point the Americans don't want Obamacare, but the results of the 2012 elections say otherwise. Mitt Romney made it clear that he would repeal Obamacare his "first day in office" ( impossible unless the Republican's won a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate ( also basically impossible for the 2012 election cycle ), but few American understood that ), so any American voter paying attention knew that Obamacare wouldn't be repealed unless Obama was defeated in 2012. If Americans thought that repealing Obamacare was an important priority, Obama would have been defeated resoundingly in the 2012. Considering that Obama won the 2012 election relatively easily, I think it's clear that most Americans would rather see Obamacare enacted than have the government shut down.
With all that in mind, there's no reason for Obama to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare. He shouldn't give an inch. If the governments gets shut down because the Republicans refuse to fund Obamacare, Republicans will get the blame. Even if the public pins some of the blame on President Obama, why should be care? He going to be President for the next 3 years no matter what happens, and he never has to worry about being elected again. Some pundits have suggested that Obama should compromise with Republicans to protect his legacy. Some have suggested that Obama will not want to known as the President who let government shut down and the economy fall into another deep recession as a result. I hope that's not the case, because if he gives in this time, the only word that will ever be used to express Obama's legacy is "pussy" ( No offense to any real female genitalia out there, which are certainly a lot tougher than President Obama. ).
Rich
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Oh Crap!
I was having a great week until about an hour ago.
- On vacation to visit with Ruth's relatives in California
- Arrived Tuesday afternoon at a beautiful rented house at Lassen Volcanic National Park.
- Seriously, beautiful house. Can't believe how nice it is. I've only been here a few hours, but I think I might like this house better than my own house. Can't believe how nice it is considering how little we paid to rent it ( So glad we decided against renting the cabin without electricity. ).
- I wonder if we have Wi-Fi?
- Yes, We have WiFi!
- Let's check that been going on with the Mets!
- Oh Crap!
I guess there will be no more Harvey Days this year ( and probably next year ).
OK, that's all I've got. I know this is kinda a cheap way to fulfill my "at least one blog post a month" requirement, but I don't feel much like writing right now. I was actually planning to write a baseball blog this week entitled "My Favorite Years", detailing my favorite years as a Mets fan ( Up until about an hour ago, this might have been the most fun I've ever had watching a non-contending Mets team. Oh well, we'll always have Paris ( "Paris" = beating Yankees 4 out of 4 games in 2013 ) ), but that's not gonna happen now.
In any case, I'm going to post this to facebook/Twitter, and then put down my laptop and enjoy my family and the beautiful natural wonders here.
Rich
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
We Are All Anthony Weiner
I am Anthony Weiner. You are Anthony Weiner. We are all Anthony Weiner.
Sure, most of us aren't sticking our smartphones down our pants on a daily basis, but we all have a propensity for going online to show off the things that make us proud.
I'm mostly talking about the parents out there ( We all flood facebook with the latest cute pictures of our kids and stories/videos of their latest accomplishments - I'm as guilty as anyone of this, and I certainly don't intend to stop. ), but people without kids can be just as bad ( "Look at my cute pet!", "Let me tell you about the cool thing I just did!", "Look at the new thing I just got!", "Let me show you photos of the great vacation I just took!". ). We maybe "bad" is the wrong word. I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong. It's just that we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that "sharing" in the social media sense is some kind of benevolent act akin to "sharing" in the traditional sense. We might like to think ourselves as humble, but social media has really lowered the bar when it comes to what is considered "humble" behavior. Social media has created a world in which we can humblebrag.
Now, I know some of you parents out there might be saying "How can you equate the the photos I send of my precious child to the photos Anthony Weiner sends of his penis?". Well, I wouldn't necessarily equate those two things, but they are both examples of people showing off things they are proud of.
Because let's face it, if there's one thing we know, it's that Anthony Weiner is proud of his penis. And hey, if you've taken the time to look at the penis photos he's sent, you can kinda understand why. That thing is huge. It's so big I bet there are stablehands all over New York who talk about how their horses are "hung like a Weiner". Hell, if I was hung like that, I'd probably walk around all day with my pants off.
OK, well maybe not. It's certainly not good for any guy to link his feeling of self-worth to his penis size, but Anthony Weiner is clearly one of those guys. Perhaps it was because he was teased about his last name as a kids, perhaps it's because he was picked on for being relatively small in stature, but somewhere along the line, I think his penis became his pride and joy, and now he thinks he's too sexy for his pants.
I didn't mean for this post to be a defense of Anthony Weiner ( He's an egomaniac with extremely poor judgement who shouldn't be put in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone a city of 8 million people. ), but I just wanted to point out that we are not as different from Anthony Weiner as we'd like to believe. Different enough that we ( hopefully ) don't have pictures of our private parts floating around the internet, but not so different that we don't something post things online that others don't care to see.
Rich
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Harvey Day
Every 5 days, Mets fans celebrate "Harvey Day". It's the day when the Mets go from a moribund 4th place squad to a baseball team that everyone loves to watch. It's the day the Mets young ace Matt Harvey takes his turn in the rotation.
On Sunday, July 21st, we finally got out to a Mets game on "Harvey Day". It was actually the first Mets game we've been to in 3 years. It was great to finally get the taste of this out of my mouth.
By a stoke a luck, the Mets had won every game I'd every taken the boys to in previous years. The Mets won the first game I ever took Michael to, and then the next 4 I took Michael and Peter too. I wanted to keep their streak alive, so I wasn't going to leave anything to chance. If we were going to watch the Mets play in person this year, it was going to be on "Harvey Day".
Harvey and the Mets didn't disappoint. Harvey hit 99 mph on the gun routinely, struck out 10, walked none, and gave up no runs and 3 hits in 7 innings of work. The Mets actually gave Harvey some run support for a change ( unlike yesterday ( 7/26/13 ) when Harvey gave up zero earned runs over 8 innings, but took a no-decision ( in a game the Mets ultimately lost ) because the Mets scored only 1 run and made an error which ruined Harvey's shutout attempt ( Stupid Mets! Last night's loss might just make me grumpy all weekend.) ), hitting 3 home runs in a 5-0 win. So all went well in Flushing that day, and a fun time was had by all. What follows is a photo essay documenting our day at the ballpark.
The boys hanging out before the game.
In the Jackie Robinson Concourse. The quote behind them reads "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
With my Aunt Barbara ( my Mom's sister ) before the game. My Aunt Barbara ( along with my Great Aunt Ginny ) took me to a bunch of Mets games at Shea Stadium during my childhood.
On the Shea Bridge.
The boys watching batting practice.
Family shot with Mr. and Mrs. Met! I couldn't find a shot where we were all facing the same camera ( there were a lot of cameras ).
Before the game started we had lunch at Shake Shack ( Tied for the best ballpark food I've ever had with the Primanti Brothers sandwiches I had at PNC Park. ) and ...
... the boys had some fun at "Kiddie Field". See the highlights below ...
In our seats before the game.
The view from our seats right before the start of the game.
Ruth wasn't too interested in watching the game, so she spent most of the time walking around the stadium and getting treats with the boys after they became bored ( Michael lasted 4 innings, which was enough to see the Mets score all 5 of their runs. Harvey also gave up his first hit in the 4th inning. Considering Harvey's already taken 3 no-hitters into the 7th inning this year, I wasn't going to let Michael leave his seat until Harvey gave up a hit. ). While she was walking around the stadium, she did manage to do some pretty kick-ass sports photography of Matt Harvey dealing.
Of course, a bunch of Mets sports photos wouldn't be complete without at least one shot of 7-time All-Star David Wright.
While my Aunt and I watched the Mets finish off the Phillies, it was ice cream time for the boys.
It's not every day you see a jelly bean Mr. Met.
Ruth took this shot in the Mets Hall of Fame. I'll have to drop by to see this plaque the next time I'm at Citi Field, because this plaque has some sentimental value to me. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's, my brother and I would go to about 20 Mets games a year at Shea Stadium. We would each head to the park straight from work and would meet at this plaque before the game. When they tore Shea down after the 2008 season, I wondered if I'd ever see this plaque again.
Thanks for coming!
Oh, one more bonus was that "Harvey Day", also happened to be "Dwight Gooden Bobble-head Day". This seemed entirely appropriate, considering that Harvey is the best Mets pitcher since Gooden ( However, as great as Harvey is ( and he may be the best pitcher in baseball ), he wasn't half the pitcher Dwight Gooden was in 1985. Dwight may have smoked a mountain of crack, but he's still my favorite ballplayer of all time. ).
Rich
On Sunday, July 21st, we finally got out to a Mets game on "Harvey Day". It was actually the first Mets game we've been to in 3 years. It was great to finally get the taste of this out of my mouth.
By a stoke a luck, the Mets had won every game I'd every taken the boys to in previous years. The Mets won the first game I ever took Michael to, and then the next 4 I took Michael and Peter too. I wanted to keep their streak alive, so I wasn't going to leave anything to chance. If we were going to watch the Mets play in person this year, it was going to be on "Harvey Day".
Harvey and the Mets didn't disappoint. Harvey hit 99 mph on the gun routinely, struck out 10, walked none, and gave up no runs and 3 hits in 7 innings of work. The Mets actually gave Harvey some run support for a change ( unlike yesterday ( 7/26/13 ) when Harvey gave up zero earned runs over 8 innings, but took a no-decision ( in a game the Mets ultimately lost ) because the Mets scored only 1 run and made an error which ruined Harvey's shutout attempt ( Stupid Mets! Last night's loss might just make me grumpy all weekend.) ), hitting 3 home runs in a 5-0 win. So all went well in Flushing that day, and a fun time was had by all. What follows is a photo essay documenting our day at the ballpark.
Ruth wasn't too interested in watching the game, so she spent most of the time walking around the stadium and getting treats with the boys after they became bored ( Michael lasted 4 innings, which was enough to see the Mets score all 5 of their runs. Harvey also gave up his first hit in the 4th inning. Considering Harvey's already taken 3 no-hitters into the 7th inning this year, I wasn't going to let Michael leave his seat until Harvey gave up a hit. ). While she was walking around the stadium, she did manage to do some pretty kick-ass sports photography of Matt Harvey dealing.
Of course, a bunch of Mets sports photos wouldn't be complete without at least one shot of 7-time All-Star David Wright.
Rich
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Edward the Snowden
Edward the Snowden, was a coder in-the-know,
With his glasses square, and a stubbled face,
and a whistle that he'd blow.
Edward the Snowden, did work for the NSA.
Did for a while, 'til he stole some files,
and he had to run away.
There must have been some secrets in those files that he found,
For when they placed it on the web,
people's jaws dropped to the ground.
Edward the Snowden, was as smug as he could be,
And we heard him say, that the NSA,
liked to spy on you and me.
Edward the Snowden, had to hurry on his way,
So he waved goodbye, said "I gotta fly,
to stay out of Guantanamo Bay."
My wife and I tend to agree with each other for the most part when it comes to politics, but we have different opinions regarding the Edward Snowden case. Just be be clear, neither of us believes that he is a traitor or that he has compromised the security of the United States in any way ( After all, any terrorists smart enough to carry out successful plots would be careful enough to work under the assumption that United States could be listening in on any of their phone calls. These guys are not discussing terrorists plots on their iPhones. OK, well maybe that's not 100% true ( After all, the head of the CIA thought he could keep an extra-marital affair secret via gmail. ). There will always be small-time guys with small-time plots that don't even care that they might be caught ( being caught and killed would make them a martyr in their own eyes ), but the USA doesn't have the resources to track all the small-time guys, and frankly it would be a poor allocation of resources to track all the potential small-time terrorists. For the amount of money that is spent on counter-terrorism you could save a lot more lives by allocating more police resources to inner-city neighborhoods plagued by gang violence. White suburban "security moms" overly concerned about the dangers of terrorism should try raising a family in inner-city Baltimore for a week ( Oh and BTW, when I say more "police resources" would help save more lives, I mean police resources allocated to protecting people, rather than police resources being used to arrest people for smoking weed. The amount of police and prison resources allocated towards drug possession crimes is ridiculous - but that's an issue for another blog post. ). The difference between my opinion and my wife's opinion is that I actually believe that Edward Snowden's actions have increased the security of the United States.
My wife doesn't have any problem with the NSA monitoring the phone calls of Americans. She, like many Americans, says that she has "nothing to hide". She's glad that the United States government can use this kind of surveillance to catch terrorists and criminals. I, on the other hand, feel that such surveillance is a threat to our democracy, and thus a threat to our long-term freedom and security.
Let me make one thing clear, as far as I am concerned, this isn't about privacy. I could give a rats' ass about privacy. If the government secretly installed a camera in our bedroom to watch my wife and I have "private time", my attitude would be "Fine, if that's what gets you off, enjoy the show!". I don't really care if the government finds out my secret information ( Have fun being bored-to-death Mr. Governement Agent! ), but I do care if the government can get compromising information about people who are frankly more important than me.
For example, consider a journalist who might be in midst of uncovering damning evidence of government corruption, evidence that might force a President to resign, or change the outcome of an election. Let's say this journalist happens to a guy who is cheating on his wife. Let's say he's made hundreds of phone calls to his mistress. If the US government has access to the history of phones calls this journalist made ( which Snowden's revelations shows that they would ), they could use this information to blackmail the journalist into burying his story about the government corruption. In an example like this one ( or case where a political opponent was involved in marital infidelity ) phone-call information collected by the NSA could be used to keep a corrupt administration in power. In my opinion, a corrupt federal government is a bigger threat to our freedom and security than any terrorist.
If you want a real-world example, consider that case of Martin Luther King Jr. and the FBI. It's a widely-held belief these days that MLK cheated on his wife ( If don't believe this, take a look the "Allegations of adultery" section of this link. I think it is pretty damning that one of his closest allies ( Ralph Abernathy ) wrote that MLK had a "weakness for women" and "all understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage. It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation". ). The FBI knew this, tapped MLK's phones in order to get evidence of this, and tried to used this evidence to destroy him.
Just imagine if the FBI had had more tools their disposal to use against MLK. Just imagine if they could have discredited him while he was alive or driven him out of the fight for Civil Rights. Just imagine how different the world might be today. Would we be more "safe"?
Rich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)