Politics | Page 11 | www.brendonwilson.com

September 1, 2004April 15, 2012 by Brendon J. Wilson

Blah vs. Blah

It’s hard to ignore the plethora of coverage of the run-up to the presidential election, no matter how hard I try. But amidst the coverage of bloggers at the DNC, bloggers at the RNC, Michael Moore being dissed at both events, and the Swift Vet controversy, something is missing from the coverage. What could it be? Hmmm…oh, that’s right – actual examination of the issues!

Here’s something that I’ve noticed: no one seems to have done any serious analysis of either the Democratic platform or the Republican platform. That seems a little weird – or it would, if you hadn’t looked at the contents of either platform and already concluded that to the average person, they’re virtually identical.

A cursory review of the table of contents reveals the common themes (noted in Democrat-speak v. Republican-speak): Defeating Terrorism v. Winning The War on Terror, Strong Healthy Families v. Protecting Our Families, A Strong American Community v. Strengthening Our Communities.

Whoopee! Tell me something I don’t know! Then again, what else would you expect? It’s not like any politician stands up and says, “Hey everybody! I’ve been giving it a lot of thought, and I’ve decided I’m for less funding for education and healthcare!”

And therein lies the problem – everyone’s for everything before the election. Hell, just look at the size of these platforms – forty-one pages for the Democratic platform, and ninety-four pages for the Republican platform. It’s ironic that the Republicans, always pointing fingers at the “ivory tower” Democrats, have to spend twice as many pages on explaining their positions.

Who has the time to read this crap? The Republican paper is flowery, dense, soppy prose that reads like someone caught between a post-near-death-episode rediscovery of God and an overdose on Prozac. And while shorter, the Democratic platform doesn’t seem to be able to get to its point any more directly either. These things should fit into a page of bullet points, or five pages of printed text total – if the average voter can’t read a party’s platform in less than half an hour, then the platform is a failure.

But then, isn’t that the point?

If you could actually consume and ponder the entirety of either party’s stances, you might actually be informed. But voting isn’t about being informed anymore – the issues are complex, and the machinery of government obscure and untrustworthy in the average voter’s eyes. The proceeding devolve to name-calling and muck-raking, reducing the voter’s decision to which candidate is less despicable/or has better hair. In short, it becomes the same variety of popularity contest most people are more likely to associate with high-school elections.

Then again, what do I care? It’s not like I can vote in this country. Nothing to do but sit back, and listen to well-informed strip-club waitresses hold court on the political shenigans at the RNC.

August 5, 2004April 30, 2012 by Brendon J. Wilson

Freedom & Privacy

My buddy Kevin was lamenting having to give his ID to get into LinuxWorld in San Francisco this week. Yes, the response from the LinuxWorld security was absurd (“it’s for security reasons”), but it’s interesting to note Kevin’s failure to grasp a key point: he didn’t have to go to LinuxWorld. Nobody was forcing him to reveal his identity – as long as LinuxWorld was up front with its requirements for entry (or offered a refund if Kevin refused to provide his ID) I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with what LinuxWorld did.

At the risk of infringing Bruce Schneier: privacy is a trade-off. It’s a free country – companies have a right to dictate the conditions under which they’re willing to sell to a consumer, and consumers have the right to decide whether or not they feel like accepting those terms. If you don’t like the terms, then there’s a simple solution: don’t buy the company’s product or service. It’s not like LinuxWorld security held Kevin down and went through his wallet – he could have just walked away.

It’s relatively easy to protect your privacy, as long as you’re willing to accept the inconvenience, cost, and lost opportunities. Don’t like companies tracking your purchasing habits? Fine – say good-bye to easy access to credit via credit cards, say good-bye to discount cards that “save” you money (the “save” is in quotes because the prices are usually inflated to encourage participation in discount schemes). Don’t want your movements to be traceable? Fine – get rid of your cell phone. Now, I’ll admit it’s effectively impossible to stand up to every company, all of the time, especially if you want to get anything done in life. But no one’s holding a gun to your head.

I think people overestimate the value of their freedom and privacy – they’ll scream bloody murder against laws that allow the government to collate data it already has on citizens, but sign away the same information in a heartbeat to save 10% on their groceries. It also appears people misunderstand the freedoms to which they think they’re entitled. Sure, you have a right to assemble – but only peacefully, without blocking free passage, and on public land. Sure, you have the right to free speech – but not to make threats, or spread libel. You can’t protest in the mall – it’s private property. And if you and a couple hundred friends are going to protest at the Democratic National Convention, don’t be surprised if the police put you in “free speech” cage. Those are the rules – any ideas of your own on the subject are merely creative works of fiction.

For those areas where you have a choice between preserving your privacy and buying into another product or service, it’s up to you to stick to your guns. If enough people had the courage to vote with their dollars, maybe companies would get the message. Until then, be prepared to present your “papers” along with your cash.