Glen/Marcus
[email protected] wrote at 07/15/2013 01:34 PM:
In any case, the media fixation on this guy's judgement, training, loyalty
or whatever is moot at this point. He's a person, so he's flawed. This
all may have just been a royal screw-up on his part. So what?
The issue should be what was disclosed (even if misguided or accidental)
and how it relates to the constitution of the United States. It's fine to
dismiss him as weasel or a mole -- provided collective attention is given
to these questionable moves at the highest levels of our government.
I disagree. I think the circumstances surrounding his judgement, training,
loyalty, etc. is _primary_ at this point. I have this opinion because I already
"knew" the government was (or intended to) spy(ing) on my every behavior prior
to Snowden's actions. And, frankly, I don't much care. When my government
decides to put me in prison or kill me, it will find a way to do it. Such is
life.
I happen to have a hugely split personality, one of which completely
embraces this position. I find it of high survival for (or reduced
threat to) my ego(2) to think this way. The other personality is
completely offended by this idea. Yes, I "knew" the US Gov't was up to
these tricks and I didn't like it *before* Snowden released what he did,
and I have no more reason to like it now. To whatever extent I believe
that the US Gov't is of/by/for me and the rest of "we the people", this
offends the crap out of me.
What I do care about, however, is whether or not our government is of/by/for the
people or not. The fact that we need people like Snowden (and Manning and
Swartz) is an indicator that it's not. And the fact that we label all these
guys as traitors, terrorists, or criminals for doing the work of the "fourth
estate" is what's wrong. Snowden was encouraged to do what he did, in the way
he did it, by our system of laws and the way we enforce them. The same can be
said of lots of do-gooder law breakers (e.g. filming animal abuse at industrial
farms, medical marijuana growers, etc.). These people feel like they _cannot_
achieve anything from within the system. They feel like they must break the law
in the service of some higher justice. That's the problem.
That is the problem, but in your own words, "such is life"... I think
maybe there simply cannot be a government (collection of rules and
interpretations and policies for enforcing said rules) that fits the
criteria you imply. But both Ego(1) and Ego(2) tend to agree with the
sentiment of what you are saying here.
What Snowden revealed is trivial. The fact that he had to sacrifice his life to
reveal it is non-trivial.
Emind me which side of the argument you are on? Wait, as usual, you
have reframed the arguement so that you can not have to be on both sides
at the same time... I think this might be more healthy than my own
Ego(n) response.
I'll be disappointed if the conclusion is just fascism: "Do absolutely
anything to protect U.S. economic interests from harm."
Me too.
I'll be smug. But also disappointed.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
