POLITICS: Thoughts on Edward Snowden
It's Friday night, which is great. The children are sleeping, and I am going to stick on some Philip Glass, dig up a bowl of leftover potato salad, and return here at 9.45 to chat about something light to close out the week. Specifically, Edward Snowden. Seriously. So I will be back here in 20 minutes. I will probably provide a very short rant, and if you judge silently without engaging, then that's fine, although I will be sad, and quietly leave. Thank you.
____
Two things. First of all, as of tonight, Edward Snowden has officially been offered asylum by Venezuela. Second of all, I am going to chat briefly about Ed for a few moments tonight, so you might want to adjust your News Feed settings accordingly if that is disagreeable to you. And if you have have something to say, say it. I will probably not argue a whole lot, because I am tired. This is really one of the most mindblowing stories of the last decade and worth chatting about. Especially in public. If nobody else has anything to say, then I will quietly go away and you can continue watching television. And being watched by the eyes in the sky. I will copy-and-paste everything to my desktop later to make sure there's an archive, just in case the NSA has taken the evening off.
____
Regarding Ed, 01. When there is a significant difference between two sides, both claiming to be right, then there are a few baseline questions that every critical-thinking person should start off asking: 1. What is the agenda of each party involved? Who has what to gain? 2. Who DIRECTLY answers the questions asked of them? (and the inverse: who sidesteps any direct question, reframing the question in favorable terms that they can answer)? ____
Regarding Ed, 02. I know that many people have their hot-button issues they feel strongly about and have difficulty recognizing how that particular issue is not a bigger deal to everyone else. So maybe it's my turn...but I don't understand how this not a big deal to everyone who's ever made a phone call, sent an email, or engaged in any kind of digital communication. Perhaps there's a certain amount of resignation about it; a certain expectation that this is merely confirmation of something we all suspected and therefore shouldn't be surprised. But how can we not be surprised - and outraged - at the institutional flaunting of basic protections given to citizens (that's us) by the highest laws in the land? ____
Regarding Ed, 03. "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end." - Ed ____ Who directs the Edward Snowden film? And who plays Edward? ____
Regarding Ed, 04. Good versus Evil is such a primitive and powerful concept. That's why television is a great distraction because there's a ready-made variety of heroes and villains in situations with easily-understandable ethics. The good guy does this; the bad guy does that, the conflict is clearcut and we know where the moral chasm is. And then there's situations like this. I understand the need for an intelligence community. I understand that not everything can be transparent. I understand that the freedom we have is frequently contingent on protections happening behind-the-scenes. I am supportive of law enforcement, the intelligence and counter- intelligence communities. But I am not willing to trade my rights as a citizen in exchange. There is a protocol that has been determined by the highest courts in the land and that has been agreed to and vetted by those responsible for our nation's security. And those are the parameters we have agreed to as a country. Not this. ____
Regarding Ed, 05: How to Frame the Story. First, the shift will be to focus on the person. Not the actual broken laws that were unearthed, the person who broke the law in unearthing them. Second, the shift will be to marginalize him as a person. Facts filled with evidence proving minuscule points of difference that "prove" that because some assertions were inaccurate, it can be extrapolated that he is therefore lying about many things. Third, the shift will be to gently find those character flaws that will make him a less digestible public folk hero. Digging up past acquaintances and people close to him to provide anecdotal evidence about his unreliability. Probably something in there about mental and/or emotional instability. Fourth, these will all help to slowly create the portrait of a traitor - possibly even in quasi-sympathetic terms, depending on what personalty flaws can be found to dig into. But it will not happen overnight. It will be a slow process. That is why this has to stay a story. This is not a story that should disappear next week, or next month. Because he is not the story, fascinating though he is. He is not the story. His story is gonna make a REALLY good film someday, but right now... ...the story is not about what he DID. The story should be about WHAT he exposed. ____
Regarding Ed, 06. Also, I have been very curious what Ed has been doing to relax. He's gotta have something for distraction. John le Carre novels? Sound of Music on iPad? Sesame Street reruns?
