This morning I received this criticism from certain party who will remain nameless:
Huh???
One of our widest divides is between me and Cindi Scoppe on privacy. She is always concerned about protecting it; my own attitude can be represented, with only slight exaggeration, as "privacy, schmeivacy."
Where did you come up with THAT gross, wild overstatement of my position?
Do I care about privacy? Yes. About as much as the typical American. (You, sir, are atypical.) Am I "always concerned about protecting it" — ie, the OPPOSITE of you? Absolutely not. I would come up with examples, but frankly I don’t think about it often enough to have a ready supply of examples to give you.
One of our widest divides? I can only assume you are engaging in outrageous hyperbole for the sake of making a blog post work.
You see how touchy these privacy freaks can be?
Next thing you know, she’ll say I violated her privacy by posting this. Just watch.
Related Posts
If I were Cindy, I wouldn’t be afraid to embrace the position of “always [being] concerned about protecting” privacy.
I don’t know if I agree with Cindy that your views on surveillance, etc., are “atypical.” Not for the average American, I’m afraid to say. But for someone in the journalism business, I think maybe they are a tad surprising.
It just depends on perspective. I just feel that you, like most Americans, assume a kind of “indestructibility” to the foundations of American government and liberty. I tend to take the VERY long view, which says that all governments and societies fall apart eventually. On the other hand, one doesn’t need to have a very long view…just a memory that goes back 35-45 years…to recall how an American government actually used its powers to intervene against the freedom of the press and the freedoms of individuals to disagree with their government.
I won’t go into the whole argument again here…my view on it is pretty much summed up by my comment (the 6th one down) on the previous post of yours to which you linked above.
You go, Cindy!