Thursday, July 6, 2017

A Deconstruction Of The Phrase "Russia Attempts To Hack Our Democracy"

I read this phrase recently—probably for the thousandth time—but the sheer idiocy of it finally struck home. The phrase is this: “Russian attempts to hack our democracy.” It has been bothering me for a while now, but sometimes it takes a while for inanity to cross the Rubicon. Roll it upon your tongue for a moment: “Russia attempts to hack our democracy”. Taste it if you can, see if you can find any depth or substance in this cotton candy assertion. To anyone with a sophisticated palate, the unusual pairings are rather jarring.

Let’s break it down, if we are capable of such an effort. Like a McDonald’s cheeseburger, it can appear quite acceptable to one who doesn’t much think about what one is consuming. But let us be connoisseurs of message for a moment, let us think about what it is we are digesting. Let us study the relatively simple phrase in its component parts, explore what the symbols mean to us.

Russian. The word is replete with associations. It has always been synonymous with the Soviet Union in the minds of anyone older than thirty and younger than a hundred and ten. The U.S. had always been the home team and the U.S.S.R. was (for anyone outside New York) the Yankees. They were the Ivan Drago to our beloved Rocky. They are the destroyers of freedom. They are, pure and simple, THE ENEMY! They are and always will be Mordor, the evil empire, the land to the east that is by its very existence a threat to all free peoples. One wonders why God or Tolkien saw fit to create such an abomination. We would all be better off if cartographers simply omitted it from any future maps.

Russian hack. What does this mean? Is hack the right word? Did Russia use sophisticated computer technology to change voting? Was it more damaging than the purging of blacks from voting by voter ID laws or sup-par equipment and limited access in lower-class neighborhoods? If it was not, why is the media ignoring such issues in favor of Russian hacking? Don’t they want what’s best for us?

Is it more relevant to our lives as Americans than the billions of dollars poured into our elections from special interest groups that determine the policies that their bought candidates do not write but rather copy into law? Is it more relevant to our elections than the fact that every single major political aspirant must genuflect before AIPAC, Israel’s lobbying group?

What do they mean by hacking? What does the word “hack” mean? What exactly does Russia stand accused of? For God’s sake, how can we prevent it from happening again if we don’t know what “it” is? I guess the lesson is that our secret intelligence agencies will take care of it and that we only need trust them. But it makes me wonder: how can we trust them to take care of the problem when they weren’t able to prevent it in the first place? And it makes me wonder why they even bothered to bring it up at all if they are giving us no actionable information. “The Russians hacked our election. We want you to know that, want you to know we are on it, and that what is most important is that you trust us unaccountable agents of security agencies.” Doesn’t spy stuff go on all the time without the need to reveal such shenanigans to the public? Why then did they feel the need to share this one?

It’s frustrating to place all the responsibility in the hands of the intelligence agencies. I as a United States citizen want to do something to help secure our democracy, something more than wearing a pussy hat and Russia-bating (sic) in groups that appear larger on CNN than they do in person. I feel like someone trying to fight terrorism with plastic sheeting and duct tape. It doesn’t make sense to me.

If we have a problem with our elections being hackable, shouldn’t we be taking concrete actions to ensure that it is more difficult for it to happen next election? Why in God’s name aren’t our elected officials scrambling to pass laws that require paper ballots that are hand-counted rather than using hackable computers? Questioning Trump’s involvement can wait until we’ve taken control of our systems back from the Russians. Why are we doing nothing, don’t we care?

If our elections are hackable, shouldn’t we have been concerned about this before now? If Russia was able to hack our elections, might not other powerful agents do the same? Perhaps even one or two of our intelligence agencies might think it a good idea to do such a thing. If they did, who would alert the media to the hacking? If, say, the CIA decided to hack our elections, would anybody know? If right now the media is doing no actual journalism on the validity of Russian hacking claims other than passing along information from intelligence agencies, how could we ever expect our media to ferret out the information if such an action took place? If our elections were to be hacked by intelligence agencies or other nefarious domestic groups, wouldn’t we want Russia to release the facts to us?

Which once again makes me return to asking what is meant by hacking. Does it mean releasing accurate and truthful information gathered through unsecured e-mail servers? Does it mean revealing inconvenient truths about what is really going on in our country, the way Radio Free Europe once provided a counter narrative to the citizens of the Soviet Bloc?

I worry about the very vagueness of the expression “Russian Attempts To Hack Our Democracy”. It is a statement written with an unsharpened pencil and it is hard to read. And vagary is the tool used by those who would like to get you to believe in something without explicitly saying anything. It is the way Iago talked to Othello about Desdemona, feigning concern for a friend while sowing unfounded suspicions designed to destroy him.

But perhaps it is the use of the word “democracy” that confounds most of all. The word just seems to have an air of purity to it, doesn’t it? Democracy is one of those core values, a sacrosanct institution whose virtue needs protecting from debauched men looking to stain its innocence. Accusing someone of hacking democracy contains within it associations of raping a virgin: our minds rebel at the very thought of it, our reason goes out the window and we become brutes willing to do anything to protect our women folk. Democracy is an archetypal principle at once vague and yet all-encompassing. It embodies all that is good, and it is enshrined within our most holy of temples: to imagine a foreign power penetrating so deeply into our holiest of holies demands that we defend it at all costs or lose our very identity as a people.

Would that we had such an institution. Democracy—at least that which we now call democracy—is not a vestal virgin but a seasoned prostitute. Russia has no need to hack, spy, or subvert. The U.S. government is quite simply up for sale to the highest bidder, and she has no biases whether she sleeps with a local or a foreigner. It is all about the money.

And as far as hookers go, the U.S. government is not especially high priced. Russia has enough money to buy a few well-positioned congresspersons should it so desire. Granted Saudi Arabia is a wealthy John, but it has the U.S. doing things that would make most harlots blush. After all, a prostitute only sells what is hers to give, while a politician makes his money giving away that which does not belong to him. Even children are not safe from such business deals.

Israel too has been frequenting the Capital Hill whorehouse for decades, tossing bills on the pillow for the permission to have its way with Palestinians of all ages. United Arab Emirates plopped down $14.2 million in 2013 and apparently liked the treatment it received, namely a $2 billion weapons sale. And for a mere $2.5 mil they got former Attorney General John Ashcroft to work for them, though whether he will be required to wear high heels and garter is not mentioned in this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/qatar-hires-former-u-s-attorney-general-john-ashcroft/

Foreign countries are making serious investments to shape U.S. opinions all the time. Here is a list of contributions to think tanks the New York Times compiled: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-government-contributions-to-nine-think-tanks.html

Why then would Russia risk war with the most powerful military in the world when it could simply buy what they wanted like everyone else? Why get the John after you to break your legs when for a modest fee you could have your kinkiest fantasies satisfied? Why “hack” when one could “contribute”? Doesn’t that sound so much better?

This was my quick dissection of the message. Notice that I make no mention of the messengers. That is a subject I’ve mentioned in other posts, notably here: http://jamesrozoffsolutionist.blogspot.com/2017/04/syria-russia-and-what-i-can-say-with_25.html


No comments:

Post a Comment