Reflecting on Concerts

Man, I really love concerts. I mean, I reallly, really love them. Most of my family and friends know I like going to concerts, but only a few friends share my love of live music. I've been seriously deprived while living in Germany, and now that I'm gearing up to move home it has really hit me that I've been missing out on doing something I really love.

But, all that's going to change in June!

Pearl Jam announced tour dates for 2008 and they're stopping DC on June 22nd! I just happen to be arriving in DC for work on June 21st! So, I had some luck and scored some tickets from Ticketmaster (no link for them -- their surcharges are ridiculous) I'll be rockin' out with Eddie & the boys the night before my work training course.

This will be the first real concert I've been to since moving to Germany. I'm not counting a Meatloaf concert I saw here -- that was a combination of being a good husband and being desperate for live music. But, I've been lucky to have notched quite a few memorable shows in my belt so far:

The highlight is obvious: Phish. New Year's Eve 1999. Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation. Nothing can top 3 days of camping with your best friends, 2 days of music, and a 7-1/2 hour midnight-to-dawn set to ring in the new year!

But, I'd be remiss if I didn't also count the 3-day Hampton Reunion run in 2003. Fresh off their hiatus, Phish still had a little rust to shake off at these shows. But well worth it.

And my first Pearl Jam show, of course! Man, I paid $160 for that ticket. At the time, Pearl Jam was boycotting TicketMaster and I was worried it might be the last time I
could see them live.

Finally, getting to see Pearl Jam in a small(ish) venue in '98 at the D.A.R. Constitution Hall at the Voter's For Choice benefit concert is one of the highlights.

The neat thing about shows is they serve as a snapshot in time. To me, music has a temporal quality -- play the right songs in the right setting and it's like a my mind gives a wink and a nod to my conciousness, saying "Don't worry, I'll be right back." Then I get this feeling of being sucked back in time and the feelings and emotions of that time period wash over me for a couple seconds. Combine that with the friends you saw the show with and you've got a nicely packaged representation of your life.

So, to all those that spent these moments with me, thanks for coming along.

Do you value your privacy?

Well, do you? The founding fathers of our country did. That's why the fourth of first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (collectively known as the Bill of Rights) addressed this very subject. The fourth amendment states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, you may have already heard about the Justice Department memo recently declassified declaring military interrogators weren't bound by federal laws that prohibited assault, maiming, and other crimes. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, there is a footnote in that memo that states,

... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.

Oh, that's nice. "Oh, by the way, we decided to take away one of your rights granted by the Constitution. Just thought you should know."

So the big question to be answered is, does the administration consider the warrantless wiretapping program a domestic military operation? And what else is considered a domestic military operation?

The fourth amendment is the constitutional right that underpins the requirement for warrants before eavesdropping on private communications of citizens. Based on this legal footnote, which refers to a full memo (not yet released) documenting this decision, a warrant isn't required for domestic surveillance if it's done as part of a military operation. So, what is the distinction between domestic surveillance and military domestic surveillance?

The last time I checked, we weren't at war with anyone in the United States. We're really not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, we're at war a rogue band of outlaws - Al Quaeda - in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, we're also at war with a concept - terrorism.

Is the surveillance we did prior the the war much different than the surveillance we're doing now? Prior to the war, didn't we eavesdrop on the communication between someone in the U.S. and a suspected enemy outside the U.S.? Prior to the war, we got a warrant to do that. It didn't take very long to do so and it was only denied a few times since the 70s.

So, basically the Justice Department concluded that when surveillance is done during wartime, the fourth amendment of the Constitution no longer applies. According to an AP report, the Administration no longer holds that view. Well, that's fortunate but when the country is in a war that could conceivably never end -- our choices are an enemy that can't surrender and a concept -- it's scary that our "Justice" Department ever came to that conclusion.

In one undisclosed memo, the possibility of permanent, warrantless, total surveillance of electronic communications within the U.S. became real. Don't think it's possible? It may have already happened, or is continuing to happen. Think about that next time you pick up the phone, send and e-mail, chat over instant message, place a Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) call using Vonage or Skype, or just browse the internet.

4 April 1984