So one of my favorite movies is Sneakers. In it, Robert Redford plays Martin Bryce, the leader of a team of security testers. They try to break into banks' computer systems to test the firewalls and safety procedures. It's pointed out that it's a living, but not a very good one.
In Martin's past, he and a friend had hacked into one domain too many in a subversive attempt to do something (it's never really explained, but I've always thought it was a more stealthy Edward Snowden job, only back in the late 70s or whenever). Martin is able to escape because he went out for pizza, while his buddy was captured and went to prison. Martin spends the interim on the lam, setting up this business of sneaking into banks and testing security.
His friend gets out of prison and sets up a successful shell corporation to mask his ties to the mob. In his heart though, this friend has never given up on the fascination with the way the information is handled, packaged, and presented to the public. The line goes - it's all about the information. Here's the scene:
So, I thought about this in the context of yesterday's Supreme Court Decision.
This is very frightening to me, because we have long known that politicians are beholden to their contributors for funding. Super PACs, lobbyists, unions, and many organizations have access to a LOT of money. It's really unfathomable. Some of these are funded by sources outside of the US. Some of them are in direct opposition to one another, which makes for some interesting wrangling. But quietly, and with Supreme Court approval, we find that the money (now unlimited) is really what controls the game. Thus the amount of power that those of us who don't have as much money - which, let's be honest, is an incredibly small fraction of one percent - has been significantly reduced.
But, Bill! You object... What about freedom of speech? What about those who are legitimately represented by the Super PACs they subscribe to? What about unions? What about the "Save the Endangered Trees" lobby? Aren't they all good things? They represent real people, and their collective will is much more powerful than any one person...
Perhaps. But what I fear is the disenfranchisement of the one. I fear the plutocracy that appears to be forming in our society, no matter how benevolent. And I fear that the information we receive has been filtered and prepared for us in spoon-sized 30 second sound bites that provide no real information at all. Like living on marshmallows. I love marshmallows. But you can't live on them.
I'm worried that the world we live in is being carefully crafted for us by a very few rich folks. They give us our coliseum of games, our weekly rations of wheat and wine, and laud the successes of our society. And we like it. Because we don't have to think.
In Martin's past, he and a friend had hacked into one domain too many in a subversive attempt to do something (it's never really explained, but I've always thought it was a more stealthy Edward Snowden job, only back in the late 70s or whenever). Martin is able to escape because he went out for pizza, while his buddy was captured and went to prison. Martin spends the interim on the lam, setting up this business of sneaking into banks and testing security.
His friend gets out of prison and sets up a successful shell corporation to mask his ties to the mob. In his heart though, this friend has never given up on the fascination with the way the information is handled, packaged, and presented to the public. The line goes - it's all about the information. Here's the scene:
So, I thought about this in the context of yesterday's Supreme Court Decision.
This is very frightening to me, because we have long known that politicians are beholden to their contributors for funding. Super PACs, lobbyists, unions, and many organizations have access to a LOT of money. It's really unfathomable. Some of these are funded by sources outside of the US. Some of them are in direct opposition to one another, which makes for some interesting wrangling. But quietly, and with Supreme Court approval, we find that the money (now unlimited) is really what controls the game. Thus the amount of power that those of us who don't have as much money - which, let's be honest, is an incredibly small fraction of one percent - has been significantly reduced.
But, Bill! You object... What about freedom of speech? What about those who are legitimately represented by the Super PACs they subscribe to? What about unions? What about the "Save the Endangered Trees" lobby? Aren't they all good things? They represent real people, and their collective will is much more powerful than any one person...
Perhaps. But what I fear is the disenfranchisement of the one. I fear the plutocracy that appears to be forming in our society, no matter how benevolent. And I fear that the information we receive has been filtered and prepared for us in spoon-sized 30 second sound bites that provide no real information at all. Like living on marshmallows. I love marshmallows. But you can't live on them.
I'm worried that the world we live in is being carefully crafted for us by a very few rich folks. They give us our coliseum of games, our weekly rations of wheat and wine, and laud the successes of our society. And we like it. Because we don't have to think.
Comments