Twitter scheduled some maintenance for tonight, so I finally got some stuff done. One of those things was tackling some reading.
Hasan Diwan, who I've known for around a decade, and who, despite being a citizen of the UK probably watches U.S. politics with a more critical eye than I do, sent me to a great piece at Foreign Policy, a conversation between avowed anti-theist/pro-war pundit Christopher Hitchens and Hasan's M.P. George Galloway.
Now, where's the tech/policy connection? There is none, really, except that Hasan is one of the best coders I know and I met him because we were both Linux users during our high school years.
Anyway, I was fascinated by the interplay between Hitchens and Galloway, who are possibly two of the most interesting political minds out there.
Now, we do cover politics here in this space, but mostly in the context of tech policy, what the FCC is doing, or something else in the world where a government does something that affects the industry, or an industry does something that makes government act. Rarely do we hit on pure political black-and-white questions here.
Before I react to the Hitchens-Galloway article, I'll first put my opinion on my sleeve: I'm generally against the U.S. war/presence/occupation, whatever you want to call it based on your affiliations, in Iraq. Not because of any partisan feelings (I'm a registered Independent in Maryland, where I vote in the 8th Congressional District) but because as a logical thinker I have a hard time digesting the idea that our highly trained, defense-oriented all volunteer military (which includes some of my closest friends) is properly used by invading and occupying a land halfway across the world where we are definitely not wanted and a chunk of the citizenry is armed and organized . I just don't think that it's the right tool for the job. It's much easier to defend ourselves than to spend time somewhere else getting attacked by...everyone. While I have nothing but awe and respect for our men and women in uniform, I would rather them be drilling to protect me, and not pacifying somewhere else.
The next reason is simple. Read James Glanz's NYT piece from past week which describes a thought experiment where foreigners invade and occupy the South Side of Chicago. It's not easy.
Back to the article Hasan sent me to. What blows my mind is that despite my unease about being over there, reading these two men intelligently debate the war made me move closer to the middle. I can't say I'm totally against this stuff anymore.
U.S. Politics has become so black and white, left and right, R and D, red and blue, that there isn't a place for the middle. You are or you aren't, right?
I'm also a C-SPAN watcher. My favorite show? The British House of Commons' Question Time. I routinely note the complexity of the debates there with a feeling of amazement. Then, I watch the proceedings of our House of Representatives, and I wonder, where is the sophistication of debate in our Congress, which borrowed from the best ideas of the British system? Where are the ideas? Why do we not have thinkers like Hitchens and Galloway speaking on the floor of the House and Senate to the point where minds can be changed, or at least the ideas of one side are aired in a way that the other side can't help but think.
I like thinking. I wish I could do it more.
