Gov. Jay Nixon

At this point Antonio French had been arrested and Gov. Nixon finally made a tepid statement.

John Oliver on Cable Company Fuckery

Here is FCC.GOV/comments for your call-to-action convenience.

I put together a very short slide presentation.

This is the fifth post in the Reading Women Writers series.

I finished Meg Wolitzer’s The Interestings weeks ago, yet I found it difficult to write about until now for a couple of reasons. First, it is a very recent novel, and I don’t want to spoil it with an in-depth writing. Second, I had an unexpected reaction to it. It is well-written, the characters are developed, it feels real. These qualities make it an excellent book. Both bildungsroman and social commentary, there is an underlying darkness that at times bleeds to the surface. Being 30 in America today, the novel struck me in a way I did not expect it would when I began reading.

In the summer of 1974, 15-year-old Julie Jacobson was sent to the Spirit-of-the-Woods camp in New York, a place where precocious, artistic teens spent their vacations. Here she joins a group of campers, self-named The Interestings, who for the most part become life-long friends, and is in a sense reborn as “Jules.” The novel follows Jules and the rest of The Interestings into adulthood in the 21st century.

In the novel, as is the case most often in real life, growing up means the loss of possibilities. The idealistic aphorism about one door opening as another closes is an overstatement. At 30, nearly everyone has a fraction of the possibilities for their lives that they did at 15, or even 20. Once you reach your teenage years, each coming year brings more doors to a close. They may be doors that you never would have considered, but they are closed nonetheless.

The other aspect of growing up portrayed in the novel is relegation. For many, becoming an adult means relegating yourself to a life that isn’t close to what you imagined or hoped it would be. This is especially painful for those, who like The Interestings, were celebrated in their youth for being talented or brilliant. It is the burden of having potential and the expectations that are associated with it. One can become a slave to those expectations, and this can make even a comfortable life seem an abject failure.

This feeling, that for all but a few life will never seem as good as it was in your youth, is extremely potent at the milestone age of 30. It is an age where one feels like one foot is still planted in youth and the other in the adult world of unrealized potential and relegation. One is close enough to see the closed doors of past possibilities all too clearly.

Wolitzer also looks at friendship and love, envy, mental illness, sexual assault, AIDS, identity and belonging, and exploitation. Her characters react to the challenges of their lives and the changing world believably, facing things that many readers will have faced in their own lives. To me it seems that The Interestings is one of those novels, like Catcher in the Rye, that elicits a different reaction depending on the age and station of life of the reader.

The hottest news item of the last 24 hours is the leak of a memo revealing a top secret NSA program called PRISM that allegedly gave the National Security Agency direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Skype, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, AOL, YouTube, and PalTalk. This comes a day after the same Guardian reporter, Glenn Greenwald, broke the story of a secret court order that “requires Verizon on an ‘ongoing, daily basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.”

Domestic surveillance has been on the rise ever since the Patriot Act was passed in reaction to 9/11, but why is this the case when the incumbent President, as a candidate in 2007, claimed to be opposed to the tracking of those who were not suspected of a crime:

This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

During Obama’s administration he has signed extensions of both the Patriot Act and FISA. In the last 24 hours we have seen how these extensions are playing out. Since these acts may well legalize these surveillance actions and that technically the FISA court approves government requests, the Obama administration believes that it isn’t breaking any promises. However, the FISA court does not appear to be an instrument of restraint in the least (emphasis mine):

The Fisa court is in the habit of granting wide approval to the government. In 2012, the government requested its imprimatur for surveillance 1,856 times, an increase of 5% over its 2011 petitions. The court approved every request in both years.

There are two main reasons I believe contribute to the continuance and expansion of domestic surveillance under Obama’s administration. First, that there is an inertia to this kind of government power and it is extremely rare for an administration to give up powers it was already granted. Second, that the hyperpartisan political climate turns any act of terrorism into a political scandal. In this article I want to focus on this second reason.

Immediately following the attacks on 9/11/2001, Americans from all political ideologies came together and supported the Bush administration. President Bush’s approval ratings skyrocketed. In the face of attack, American’s united.

During Obama’s administration, every ‘terror’ attack has been immediately politicized. There were 13 attacks on US consulates and embassies post-9/11 while Bush was in office. They were not heavily politicized at the time. The attack in Benghazi during Obama’s administration, in contrast, has become “nothing but a politicized smear campaign.”

Conservatives reacted to the bombing at the Boston Marathon by suggesting Obama is a secret Muslim, calling for his impeachment, and directly blaming him for the attacks. Whenever an attack that can be labeled as ‘terrorism’ occurs, conservatives politicize it in an attempt to create a scandal hoping to score political points or to put Obama on the defensive to draw him away from other policy priorities.

This environment makes the administration more willing to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of security. A culture of fear combined with a culture of blame turns national security into political strategy. A free and open democratic society will always have security vulnerabilities. While it’s not exactly zero-sum (a pure security vs. privacy or security vs. freedom dichotomy is false), there are trade-offs. The odds of being killed in a terror attack are 1 in 20 million (in comparison, a natural-born US citizen is twice as likely to become US President in their lifetime than die in a terror attack). The political consequences of a potential attack, no matter how limited, are driving the administration to sacrifice a number of our country’s best principles for security from something that results in far fewer deaths than people imagine.

« Previous Entries  Next Page »
Battle for the Net

Subscribe via RSS       Subscribe by email

Creative Commons License

Member of The Internet Defense League