Here is a link to the article that spurred this thought process. I was completely wrong in how I thought. I assumed that if you believed in something it was okay to believe it. You wouldn't be driven out of town for believing something. Especially if you are surrounded by self-proclaimed apolitical techno nerds. I will say again. I was wrong on so many levels.
I believed that if someone claimed to have no political affiliation, then they either believed whatever was convenient to their needs or simply hadn't found a political movement that they closely identified with at the time. Wrong.
I believed that a community that prides itself on openness and liberal thinking could be open to diverse ideas from all comers. Wrong
I believed that just because the mainstream media proclaimed an idea didn't mean we should believe it. Wrong again.
You see, the anti-political technorati are in-fact quite political. According to the mouthpieces for this group, they believe everything is okay as long as they think it is okay and "evil" if they think it is so. There are no two sides to the story. There is only their side. If you disagree the openness gets slammed in your face. The only opinion is the one that the high holy techno leaders of today state are correct.
The technorati view San Franciso as a modern day Garden of Eden where all things tech are possible. They believe they are on the forefront of testing a new world order that will soon be ushered into the rest of the world. What these insular minds fail to realize is that many in the rest of the world view San Fran as a modern-day representation of Sodom and Gamora. The technorati hold the exact belief that they accuse the US government of having towards the rest of the world. We are right and you are wrong.
Amazing how these liberal ideals break down when confronted with the hypocrisy of their statements.
Double standard time here again. Recently a cloud storage system, Dropbox, added Condeleza Rice to its board. She served as the National Security Advisor for President George W. Bush during his first term and as Secretary of State during his second term. This is what has the internet up in arms.
Miss Rice is tarred with the same blame game as her boss about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. She is associated with the Patriot Act because she was part of the administration when this law was passed. Simply put, she is identified in the public as having only existed during President Bush's time in office. She is given no credit for her accomplishments before or after.
The internet has taken to openly calling for Dropbox to remove her from the board. The internet attack has also encouraged others to stop using Dropbox altogether and choose another service. Certainly the internet minority is encouraged by the recent ouster of Brendan Eich from the Mozilla Foundation.
What those technorati fail to recognize, is that by their own logic everyone in the US is responsible for the NSA spying on the rest of the world since we are citizens of the US. Miss Rice didn't craft, create or vote to enact the Patriot Act. She may have had an opinion. She may even have agreed with the principle. She has been vilified on the internet for having been around when this law was enacted. Forget that their beloved Obama administration has renewed it twice (February 27, 2010 and May 26, 2011). This same administration has expanded the use of the FISA court and used drones to target civilians throughout the world. The things they rail against Rice for doing they still use for their own purposes.
What the techno elite and liberals in general fail to realize is that more government involvement in our lives (even a little bit) can quickly be expanded and used for deleterious effects. In the wake of 9/11, there were very few dissenting voices against protection at all costs. I was one of those voices, but I was cast out into the wilderness. Federalizing the TSA didn't make us safer. It gave the appearance of safety. That isn't to say that the TSA hasn't disrupted some levels of terrorist activity. Is simply means that by giving a minimum wage security guard a fancy new uniform, toys and a pension does not make that same individual any better at the job they were originally hired to do.
We all run the risk of shaping our beliefs based upon the company we keep. We assume (incorrectly) that because we think it and our friends think it, then it must be the same thing that others believe, as well. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. We should never assume anything. Trust but verify should be the watchword of political action. Just because a "rational, moral, law-abiding" person wouldn't do or think something doesn't mean someone else will not have an equal and opposite opinion.
The English people in the 1770's couldn't believe anyone would want to leave the British Empire. The French of the 1790's believed that the only way to change things was to kill anyone who disagreed. Even in our own country during the 1950's, McCarthyism ran rampant throughout the land. Just don't presume that you have the only answer or the only position. True openness comes through empathizing with the other party. You can agree to disagree at the end of the day. Ultimately we will all be judged for our actions, not by history which is fluid and subject to the power of the day, but by the true legacy we leave behind.