passport breaches

it shouldn't be news to you anymore that the three candidates in the '08 presidential election have had their passport files illegally accessed. however, i think that it is worth discussing the media-ted response to the event itself. this msnbc article, like so many other poorly-orchestrated communications, works so hard for little return. the actual information is that the files of all three candidates were looked at by state department employees. this is illegal, as anyone's private information belongs only to its individual owner. the information that is communicated in this article is 7% the aforementioned fact. the other, oh 90% or so, is attempting to get your hackles up-- your favorite candidate was violated! s/he could be compromised by this setback! or, what if those state department buffoons are illegally accessing my information RIGHT NOW?

relax, jimbo. this is an absurdity. the files were breached, it happened. there should be no "fallout", no emotional media response other than to note that this is illegal, and we shouldn't stand for illegal actions within the administrations of our federal government. that's it-- that's all there is to say. the candidates themselves seemed appropriately offended that perhaps their personal data had been compromised (that is to say, viewed by someone else.) i might be upset if someone pulled my records unnecessarily to examine them for (personal?) gain.

it just seems silly to promulgate conspiracy theories based on this. obama visited a muslim country? ok, good! he should go see how the rest of the world operates before he endeavors to become our leader to parlay with that world. mccain went overseas? okay, wasn't he in a war? it's also plain to me (especially in light of the recent spitzer catastrophe), that public figures are PUBLIC FIGURES. yes, they should expect a decent amount of privacy, the same guaranteed to any other american. however, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the voting public, the selfsame public they endeavor to represent, should have the access to knowledge about the candidates. i don't need to know the minutia of my candidate's life choices, but i do think that as a public figure, one would expect to reveal more details of one's life for public scrutiny. it's part of the gauntlet of representation that accompanies public office.

the spitzer ordeal was especially painful to me because it seems that we live in an increasingly transparent world, where hiding information requires a considerable amount of skill and discipline. i would hope that my elected representatives would spend their time engaging in activities promote the public good, and not re-structuring their finances to hide illegal activities. obviously, spitzer is an extreme case. but i feel like it defines something more concrete that we should insist on in our elected officials. glastnost! perestroika! yes yes, we neeeeeeeeeeeeeed to know what they're doing! yes, i'm not trying to fool anyone: i'm going to judge them, and their ability to fulfill their duty. it is that level of responsibility that we should demand from our public servants, and we should be holding them to that level of intense scrutiny. i believe that is something that comes with public office, and if you shy away from the critical public eye (assuming there is one...) well, perhaps you don't deserve the position.