Expectations of Privacy

Donald Kerr is confused. As deputy director of national intelligence, Kerr testified before Congress as it considers the "new and improved" Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act that it amended last year so as to allow the government to eavesdrop on communications inside the United States without a court order, as long as one end of the communication is believed to be outside the U.S. Lawsuits have been filed against large telecommunications companies alleging that the government is actually copying every call, e-mail and Internet site access that goes through some telecom centers. Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration, and people like Mr. Kerr, want a bill that gives the telecom companies immunity from such lawsuits, so that the overreaching of this government in its misguided attempts to "protect us" go unscrutinized.

At an October intelligence conference in Texas, Mr. Kerr said he finds it "odd" that people are concerned about government eavesdropping when they are willing to allow "a green-card holder at [an Internet service provider] who may or may not have been an illegal entrant" to handle their data. He also pointed out that millions of people participate in social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook, and allow information about themselves to be published in those fora.

Leaving aside the irrelevant misdirection regarding immigration status contained in the above quote, it is obvious that Mr. Kerr is in need of some quick lessons in the difference between choosing to release information, and having all one's conversations copied into a central database. Further, he may want to brush up on the difference between private entities and the government.

What Mr. Kerr may have forgotten in the course of his civil service, is that the government wields enormous power over the lives of its citizens, a power even the largest and most well-organized corporations could only dream of having (yet). This particular government, furthermore, has shown it has no qualms at all about utilizing that power against anyone it deems a threat, regardless of Constitutional limits or international law. There is also, again, the issue of choice. In case Kerr is unfamiliar with the process, he should know that neither Myspace, nor Facebook, or any other social networking site requires anyone to publish their information. A choice to do so should not, in any way, lead us to the conclusion that that person, let alone all of society, has completely given up his privacy rights.

What I find odd is that Mr. Kerr seems unaware of these distinctions. The mere fact that a member of the government, a deputy director of intelligence no less, can make such statements with a straight face shows how far we have allowed this administration to go in shaping public discourse and obfuscating the most basic issues of civil liberty. Congress must not cave in to these types of tactics and grant further power to a government that is, and has been for some time, beyond the pale of basic decency in its dealings with those that disagree with it, both abroad and here at home.

The American people would do well to remember the quote usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither."

Why We Fight

The term "Culture Wars" in its present connotation was probably coined by James David Hunter in his book of the same name. Hunter used it to describe a polarization of American political discourse into two camps: one with an impulse towards "progressivism" and the other with an impulse towards "Orthodoxy."

While Hunter used these terms in very specific ways, "Culture War" has taken on a broader meaning, and has been used by Patrick Buchanan and Charlton Heston in speeches meant to rally people to their particular causes. The idea now seems to encompass the entire struggle between "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" (as modernly defined,) for the very "soul of America."

More particularly, it is the struggle between those that believe a certain set of specific moral and ethical codes, derived from the somewhat vague "Judeo-Christian" tradition should be paramount in all decisions informing government and society, and those that believe society is better served by keeping religious beliefs in the private realm and holding fast to the Enlightenment ideals which were the basis of much of the founding of the United States over 230 years ago.

The last paragraph likely indicates to the reader where I personally stand on the issue, and I will be up front about the fact that I belong to the latter camp.

As examples of what prompted me to begin this blog, I give you the following selections from some groups which threaten the ideas and values which have made the U.S. stand apart for two centuries:

"The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the
foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of
society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human
life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God
is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian
worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society. "

These folks want to make sure that your family "institution" is agreeable to their particular religious view.

"The American Family Association represents and stands for traditional
family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media
– including pornography – on our society. AFA believes that the
entertainment industry, through its various products, has played a major role in
the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a
society and its families strong and healthy. For example, over the last 25 years
we have seen the entertainment industry "normalize" and glorify premarital sex.
During that time we have suffered a dramatic increase in teen pregnancies,
sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and abortion as a means of birth
control. We believe in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. We also believe in commending those
companies which act responsibly regarding programs they support."

These people are under the impression that alleged increases in teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortion are the media's fault. Apparently, the "institution" of family is not strong enough to withstand assault from the likes of Britney Spears.

"Concerned Women for America: The mission of CWA is to protect and
promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then
education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the
decline in moral values in our nation."

These ladies are concerned that there are not enough "Biblical values" influencing our society. I wonder whether they support enslavement of defeated populations, human sacrifice, and the stoning of adulterous women and "rebellious" children.

And finally, straight from the horse's mouth:

“We need common sense judges who understand that our rights are derived
from
God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the
bench.” --President George W. Bush

Assuming Mr. President is speaking of the biblical god, I suppose that means we derive the right to have our cities destroy by fire and sulphur, and be turned into pillars of salt if we displease this god. I am eager to see Mr. Bush's appointees enforce such edicts.

The exaggerations in the above comments are meant to point out that picking which religious tenets to follow and which to reject is fraught with peril for a civilized society. It seems much better to lean on the philosophy of human rights and responsibilities in governing a modern nation.

This is why I oppose these groups and their ilk, and the attempts to subvert the U.S. Constitution to serve there own supernatural agendas.