I read this book called Little Brother. I had heard about on a couple blogs I frequent and their praise, coupled with the fact that it was one of a handful of english books available here, had me intrigued. To say the least I was blown away. This book is fun, way fun. If you have ever had any interest in tinkering with things, computers, or the internet, you might want to pick this book up. I seriously geeked out. Everytime I sat down to read I had my computer there with me and every couple of pages I ended up googleing something with the thought of 'you can do that?' running through my head.
Sadly the book doesn't exactly deliver on the narrative front. It eventually runs out of steam and drags itself up to a climax that is a whimper compared to the solid first act. Part of the reason is that the author makes the decision to preach to the reader in what I can only assume is the hope that they will accept his point of view without the processing the argument that he is delivering. He repeatedly 'Bush bashes' (Bush isn't a character in the novel, I'm just using that to summerize his overall contempt with the Department of Homeland Securities policies) and I found myself thinking, 'I can't agree with this.' I am not a staunch liberal detractor that thinks he tried to burn our country to ground, nor am I a hard core Bush supporter, but I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt. He's the President. He knows more about this country than you and I will ever know.
But I've gotten off topic. Freedom is...to tell the truth I'm not exactly sure what it is. To each person it may mean something different, but when it comes to political freedom and individual rights I have to draw a line right down the middle. I don't think that everything in the Patriot Act was justifiable, but I do feel that the Goverment has some amount of athority to tighten security in certain key areas. "Certain key areas" being the operative words. One example from the book is a reference to a court case in the early 90's. The case was Bernstein vs. The United States. In it, the Government argued that the computer code written by Daniel Bernstein for his doctoral thesis on applied mathmatics was illegal because they couldn't crack it. The brightest minds working for the NSA couldn't crack it so obviously this was dangerous right? Well you might be suprised to learn that you have at one time or another used Daniel's encription. If you've bought anything online using your credit card or paypal you've used it. If you've managed your bank account online you've used it. It keeps your information from falling into hands that you'd rather it not fall into. What the government didn't approve of ultimately bettered the lives of the American people, it made them safer. But there are numerous times when a particular device or loophole the government didn't approve of has killed thousands of people. It's hard to draw this line, and it is never a straight one, but it is important to think about. To have an opinion.
In the end I think the best view point to have is to actively seek dialogue on the subject. Everyone is going to think something different than their neighbor and I believe that only by confronting the opposition head on can you justifiably rest in your beliefs.
Great post Josh. I agree. Often God moves me out of my comfort zone to have me work through what I believe, what is true. I always come out with more conviction and confidence in Him.
ReplyDelete