I've always thought of home as a place where you're supposed to be comfortable. At the end of the day, when the world has been kicking you around and you want nothing more than to collapse and veg, home is ready to oblige, with a comfy armchair and a fridge full of beer. Or whiskey and coke, if that's your preference. It's not the sort of place where people verbally assault you and your opinions.

Specifically, last night my brother and I got into a hell of a fight. About what? Politics, of course. Civil rights and liberties, specifically. And it's not even so much that we disagree. It's just that he cares, and I don't. I don't know what it is that makes the difference... Maybe it's because I'm busier than he is, so at the end of the day (or the beginning, or the middle, for that matter), I just can't muster up the effort to be upset about people's bags being searched on New York subways.

Andy read a news article on his laptop while sitting on the couch at about 9:45 pm last night, and immediately yelled. I mean, I'm used to people making random outbursts while reading the internet. Jeff used to perch on the edge of his chair and surf Slashdot all day, where he would randomly either exclaim "Fuck me!" or start cackling maniacally. But I've never heard anyone literally yell at their laptop over a news story. So, in a manner that was probably just asking to pick a fight, I yelled back at him, asking what he was yelling about. I had a smile on my face, but I think he was too upset to notice. So it went downhill from there, with Andy telling me my political opinions were ill-founded, that people like me were the reason the country was going to Hell in a handbasket, and my favorite: "Why don't we just invite the British back in?!?!" I, of course, responded in kind, calling him a hypocrite, self-righteous, and an armchair politician. So it wound up with me being upset about being attacked in my own home, where I would like to just feel comfortable, and him ready to disown me for being a moderate.

So, I went to bed. But, blood-pressure still high, I couldn't sleep. So instead I decided to go read the article that had him so fired up. For anyone who isn't in the loop, the article in question can be found at http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/09/D8IOKGDO0.html. Basically, in the logical progression from airport bag searches, New York has started searching people in the subways. Andy's immediate reaction is, "There goes the Bill of Rights!" because this is obviously a violation of the constitutionally-protected right against unlawful search and seizure by the government. Conversely, he defended airport security measures (which also make him angry, but not this much) by insisting that they were originally instituted by private companies, and only later taken over by the government. Hence why I called him a hypocrite. But that's beside the point. The point is, after reading it, I still wasn't upset. I just couldn't get offended by it, I guess because it's so much like what I'm used to enduring at the airport; which, while excessive, is generally accepted.

So, I went back to the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com), from whence I had found Andy's post, and started reading the other stories on the site. I couldn't sleep, so I might as well become better-informed, right? Well, I came across another story (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091942.html?part=rss&tag=6091942&subj=news), and the funniest thing happened. It pissed me off. And I realized something. I'm selfish. The constitution has no expressed right to privacy, but it does specifically prohibit search and seizure without appropriately issued warrants. And yet I got angry over the government's efforts to invade my not-explicitly-stated-but-generally-accept right to privacy on the internet, but not other people getting searched going on the subway. Why? Because the one affects me, and the other doesn't. Now, I also got offended by the FBI's push to further digital wiretaps, and to foist the responsibility for making it happen off on network equipment manufacturers. That strikes me as being just wrong. But the invasion of privacy is what really got me.

So, I got thinking even more, and I realized that I'm not really selfish. I'm just not altruistic. I'm not a crusader for others. I'll work (and fight, if need be) for my own benefit, and for that of my friends and family... But I don't go out and feed and clothe the hungry and homeless. I don't do Habitat for Humanity. I don't volunteer at soup kitchens. I don't clean up highways, or fix up public property. I'll gladly buy dinner or gas for a friend who needs it, or stay up late in the night helping people study. And if my brother started a political movement or letter-writing campaign or decided to run for office, I'd help him. Even if, say, he decided to campaign against bag searches and illegal invasions of privacy in New York, I'd gladly chip in. But it would have nothing to do with helping New Yorkers, or even because upholding the Constitution against attacks by the government is the right thing to do. Rather, I'd be helping because it's my brother doing it. Sure, the fact that it's the right thing to do would help, but I wouldn't feel good about doing it, just like I don't feel bad about not doing it right now. But I'd feel good about helping my brother do something he believes in.

So, are my political opinions ill-founded? I don't think so. Am I selfish? I don't think so. I just don't feel that civic responsibility until I actually feel the government encroaching. And I haven't quite figured out how, exactly, but as much as he pisses me off, and as much as it makes me angry to admit it, Andy's probably right. I'm just not sure if I'm wrong.