The Questions That Don't Get Asked

The mainstream news media is pissing me off.

I'm sick and tired of useless softball interviews with political and business figures that accept vague, disingenuous answers and fail aggressively to point out and follow up on obvious evasions and outright lies. 

The fourth estate is proud of its claim to hold the powerful to account, but it does no such thing any more, to the extent it ever did. There are hard questions that need to be asked and honest, direct answers that need to be wrested from those who would rather not give them. The media is allowing them to get away with it.

Here's my partial list of questions the news media ought to be pursuing with all vigor as we enter what may well be the most important election in generations:

1. To anyone - particularly an elected official - who claims that the 2020 election was stolen:

a. What is your evidence? Specific evidence, not rumor and innuendo.

b. Who provided it to you? Cui bono?

c. What have you done to confirm the truth and accuracy of that evidence? 

d. Why have you not brought this evidence to be tried in a court of law that requires proof and testimony under oath? 

e. If you are an ordinary voter who is accusing your local election officials of misdeeds, what training in your state's election law and procedures have you completed that qualify you to identify problems?

2. To any politician who will not commit to respecting the results of the upcoming election:

a. What specific evidence makes you think that the upcoming election (or any future election) will not be fair? Again, what specific evidence do you have, as opposed to vague allegations designed to sow distrust if you lose?

b. See questions 1b, 1c, and 1d above. You have a responsibility to ensure that we can have confidence in our free and fair elections ... if you have evidence that this is not the case, you have a legal and moral obligation to make that evidence public. If you don't, just sit down, shut up, and let the adults lead.

c. What evidence will you accept as proof that the election was fair? "we'll lose only if they cheat" or "we'll see" is not evidence. I ABSOLUTELY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY NO NEWS REPORTER HAS YET ASKED THIS OF ANY POLITICAL FIGURE OR THEIR SUPPORTERS.

 

 

3. To corporate executives in general:

a. Why are consumer prices so high, given that your profits allow you to engage in large-scale stock buybacks and huge executive salaries? 

 

 

b. What is the ratio of your salary and benefits to that of your average non-executive employee? While acknowledging that you have more responsibilities than your average non-executive employee, do you believe that ratio is fair?

 

c. Does your lowest-paid employee earn a combination of salary and benefits that will cover the cost of food and housing each month for their family?  Why not?

 

d. Can an employee earning the median salary you offer afford to purchase your products? 

4. For food industry executives:

a. Why do increases in food prices exceed the rate of inflation?

b. How do you explain "shrinkflation" - the practice of charging a higher price for a smaller quantity of your product? 

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Those who would lead us owe us straightforward answers to difficult questions. It's high time the media actually started doing their jobs and demanding them.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Murder in the Digital Age

* Update: I wrote this post several days ago. Yesterday, this story appeared on CNN: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars after First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle ... 

One of the stock scenes from old murder mysteries comes when the suspects are all assembled in the library of the old manor house. While a storm rages outside, the detective talks his way through the crime and the clues and - at just the right moment - he whirls about and stabs an accusing finger at the murderer, announcing in his sternest voice that "The butler did it!"

Well, perhaps it wasn't the butler. Maybe it was the maid. Or the gardener. Or the ne'er-do-well son. You get the idea, though.

But the traditional unmasking of the criminal may be very different in the not-to-distant future, when we learn to our horror that the evil villain is not human, or even a trained animal (as in The Hound of the Baskervilles or Murder in the Rue Morgue) ... but a machine.

The idea of murder by machine is not new - Jefferey Deaver's novel The Steel Kiss has the murderer using his computer hacking skills to turn common products into murder weapons. But what if there's no human involved at all?

This is the point of a fascinating article I read the other day titled, When an AI Finally Kills Someone, Who Will Be Responsible?.

If a driverless car runs down and kills a pedestrian, who is at fault?* If a complex power distribution grid managed by an artificial intelligence (AI) program suddenly shuts down power to a hospital and patients die, who is responsible? Is it the programmer? The builder of the AI system itself? The builder of the car or the designer of the hospital systems? Can the AI system itself be held criminally liable for its actions? If so, how would it defend itself? How could it be punished? Here's a quote from the article:

"If an AI system can be criminally liable, what defense might it use? ... Could a program that is malfunctioning claim a defense similar to the human defense of insanity? Could an AI infected by an electronic virus claim defenses similar to coercion or intoxication?"

This is not an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin philosophical discussion, because the need to consider these things is now upon us. As we've already seen with the advent of e-mail, cell phones, and similar things, our laws governing privacy and the criminal use of communication devices are woefully out of date.

As if you didn't have enough to worry about in the Age of Trump.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Who Does a Representative Government Actually Represent?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump loudly insisted he would "drain the swamp." In this, the second year of his administration, he has not only failed to drain the swamp, but made it even deeper and more ... swampy ... and his failure has raised serious questions about how we deal with a lot of issues in our government. Packing the administration with cabinet secretaries who are known opponents of the organizations they now head is one example. Nepotism - the employment of family members in positions of trust and authority - is another. But one of the most critical issues, in my opinion, is one of the least recognized - who does our government represent?

We are taught that we live in a representative democracy in which we elect a president to guide the nation in accordance with the will of the citizens and be our face to the world, and we elect our lawmakers to represent our interests in the crafting of the laws under which we live. But who do the president and those lawmakers actually represent?

It's abundantly clear that Donald Trump does not believe he is the president of all Americans ... only those who show up at his rallies and cheer wildly at everything he says, no matter how inane. He has been in office more than a year, but has not made the least effort to reach out and understand the concerns of people who don't wear red "Make America Great Again" hats and chant mindless bumper sticker slogans like "lock her up!", "drain the swamp," and "build the wall!"

And who do our senators and representatives represent? If your answer is "you and I," then you may want to take another puff on that joint. Our elected officials represent those whose financial support put them into power and keeps them there. If you think that you, with a family budget that doesn't allow for six-figure campaign donations, will get the same attention to your issues as a constituent who can contribute millions, you need to think again.

The Supreme Court has equated campaign donations with politically protected speech* and corporations with individuals**, which means that your freedom of speech - exercised by writing letters and sending e-mails to your representatives and attending their "constituent listening sessions***" - can be legally buried under the enormous financial weight given to the wealthy and to big business by virtue of their free speech exercised by the writing of checks and the hidden machinations of Super PACs and various tax-exempt support structures.

Therefore never send to know for whom the elected official votes, he almost certainly votes not for thee^†.

Have a good day. Keep an eye on your elected reprehensives ... they don't listen to you unless you're a major campaign contributor, but you still need to watch them closely, if only to protect yourself against what's coming.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Buckley v Valeo (424 U.S. 1, January 30, 1976).

** Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310, January 21, 2010).

*** Often chaired by members of their staffs because they are too busy or scared to attend.

† With apologies to John Donne.

Rethinking the Second Amendment

Mass murder by gunfire is not unknown in other countries, but it is immeasurably more prevalent here in the United States. There are many reasons why these massacres occur here with such numbing regularity, including "mental illness" (the go-to excuse), lack of parental guidance and oversight of their children's activity, the decline of empathy, and the desensitization to violence of generations of people who have grown up with explicitly violent television shows, movies, and video games. These factors all contribute to the why. It's the how that is so difficult to address. No matter how you explain it away, it's an undeniable fact that the use of a powerful weapon equipped with quickly-replaceable, large capacity magazines makes it possible for a single person to kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time ... which is, in fact, what the original ancestors (the German Sturmgewehr, the US Army's M-16, and the Russian AK-47) of today's civilian-marketed military-style semiautomatic rifles were designed to do.

I feel passionately about this issue, and I've written about it, both here and on Facebook, many times (25 on this blog alone), with no particular result other than to feel better about venting my spleen. I've grown tired of being lectured by my conservative and right libertarian friends on what they see as my faulty understanding of law and the Constitution, since the Second Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously enshrines the right of everyone to keep and bear arms, end of discussion, go sit down until you have something worthwhile to say.

Well, I like to think that I do have something worthwhile to add to the debate. Therefore, Dear Readers, in full recognition of the likely futility of the effort, I am presenting my proposal for amending the Second Amendment. Before you stop reading because you've already decided I'm a clueless bleeding heart liberal who can't possibly have anything worthwhile to say, why not read my suggestion and the discussion that follows it, and then leave a thoughtful and well-reasoned comment ... remembering that the Constitution, in addition to guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, also contains a mechanism by which it can be amended*.

This is the text of the Second Amendment as it appears in the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here's my proposed revision:

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Section 1. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to possess and maintain arms while serving as members of a legally-constituted state militia, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by state and local authorities, shall not be infringed.

"Section 2. The right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to possess and maintain firearms for use in hunting, sports, or personal protection, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by state and local authorities, shall not be infringed.

"Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Here's my thinking:

It's pretty clear to me, reading the relevant sections of the Federalist Papers, that the Founders envisioned establishing state-level militias to do two things: minimize the size and power of a standing federal army**, and provide states an armed citizen force*** to protect them against the power of a tyrannical**** national government (see Federalist 46). Having been subjected to oppression by a king's army, the Founders were understandably suspicious of national governments with a monopoly on coercive force. Their solution was to empower the individual states to establish "well-regulated militias" as a counterweight to federal power. Of course, there might be some problems involved in the establishment of "well-regulated militias;" these were summarized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29. And I think it's important to clearly specify that the "militias" envisioned by the amendment must be "legally-constituted" state-level formations in order to keep every angry person with an axe to grind from dressing up in camouflage, stockpiling guns, and creating his own private army in some remote wilderness.

But it is the private ownership of firearms, not the formation of militias, that is the major focus of the gun debate in this country. There are numerous points of view on the necessity and desirability of such ownership, and I won't rehash them here, other than to make what seem to me to be some pertinent points:

- There is a great difference between the opinions and concerns of people living in rural areas, where hunting is a traditional and cherished pastime and guns are respected for their deadly power, and those living in urban areas, where street crime by armed criminals is a concern.

- The term "arms" used in the wording of the Second Amendment is imprecise and, thus, subject to wide interpretation^†. "Arms" in the 18th century were single shot muskets and the like. We will never know how the Founders would have viewed the private ownership of semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines, bump stocks, and silencers/suppressors, but I suspect they might have been a bit more careful with their wording.

I suggest that the differences of opinion between urban and rural populations could be addressed at least in part by making the ownership of firearms a guaranteed right under the Constitution at the national level, but subject to regulation at the state and local level in response to legitimate local concerns. After all, if the Jackbooted Government Thugs™of the ATF and the FBI are a concern, perhaps the delegation of their authority over firearms to the state or local level^†† - closer to the concerns and wishes of the local populations - could make reasonable restrictions more palatable.

I have changed the current wording "keep and bear arms" to "possess and maintain arms." This is an attempt to rein in the national-level, one-size-fits-all argument about whether or not "keep and bear arms" allows citizens to openly carry firearms in public. My personal opinion is that both "open carry" and unlimited "concealed carry" are staggeringly bad ideas in 21st century America, but if it's to be allowed, it should be a decision made at the local, rather than the national, level, and then only after robust public debate^†††.

I have also changed "the people" to "citizens and lawful residents of the United States." This firmly establishes the right to own firearms as a privilege of citizenship or legal residency, and provides a Constitutional basis for denying access to firearms to illegal immigrants. This does not, of course, prevent illegal immigrants from illegally obtaining and using firearms, but it strengthens the case for imprisoning or deporting illegal immigrants who commit other crimes using firearms.

By most estimates, there are now more guns in private hands in the United States than there are people to wield them. No power on earth is ever going to forcibly pry all those guns (and all the high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, and silencers/suppressors already in circulation) out of their owners' cold, dead hands, so let's agree to stop obsessing about what will never happen and concentrate on not making the problem worse than it already is.

Let's face it: we will never change the Second Amendment as long as there is no appetite in Congress to stand up to the small but very powerful, vocal, and wealthy gun lobby, but it's one of my safer fantasies. And who knows? - in combination with a national willingness to adequately address the treatment of mental health problems, a sudden blossoming of the willingness of parents to actually raise their children to be responsible adults, and more restraint on the gratuitous (if exciting) violence on TV, movies, and video games, it might help us be as safe as most of the rest of the developed world.

The train of rational discussion and simple human compassion relating to this issue sailed long ago ... in the words of a person who commented on one of my Facebook posts, "It's absolutely unfortunate that kids are killed with guns." As long as such an attitude can be held, we're unlikely to make much headway in the debate.

So now you've heard my recommendation ... have at it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* That would be Article V. And don't forget that we've already revoked one Amendment - the 18th (Prohibition), repealed by the 21st.

** That didn't work out as well as they might have thought, did it?

*** I would suggest that the "militia" equates to the National Guard formations of the individual states. And by the way, a "militia" in the time of the Revolutionary War consisted of ordinary citizens who answered the summons to action and brought their own weapons with them from home. Nowadays, National Guard units have their own arsenals - members of National Guard units do not bring their personal weapons when called up for service. This suggests that membership in a "militia" is probably no longer a useful rationale for owning a weapon. Just a thought.

**** "Tyrannical' is in the mind of the beholder. The fact that you philosophically or politically disagree with a particular law does not make it "tyrannical." 

† The interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is a cottage industry in itself. Writing in the majority opinion in the case District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention in clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.'" Sadly, the full and detailed meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is not clear (despite those who demand to know "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"), and has been subject to interpretation since the founding of the republic.

†† The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution (Article VI) places the authority of the federal government above the laws of the individual states; this is why any attempt to modify it must clearly specify what limits the states are allowed to set on their own. We see the problem of federal-vs-state powers in attempts at the state level to legalize the cultivation and use of marijuana ... while the states may desire to legalize happygrass, it is still a prohibited substance under federal law.

††† I think it's also worth pointing out that "robust public debate" at the local level means just that - at the local level. We have seen in our politics the distorting effects of national special-interest organizations (of both parties and varied political agendas) pouring money into debates at the state and local level in order to overwhelm opposition.

Why I Hate Yogurt

Well, I actually don't hate yogurt ... what I hate is shopping for yogurt.

Last Sunday I decided to make a recipe which required plain, whole-milk yogurt as an ingredient.

At my local store I discovered that - although there are acres of shelf space filled with yogurt - there's almost no such thing as plain, whole-milk yogurt.

There's non-fat, low-fat, 0%, 2%, and 4% yogurt.

There's yogurt with vanilla, blueberry, strawberry, peach, guava, and every combination thereof.

There's yogurt made from cow, sheep, and goat milk.

There's yogurt derived from almonds, soy milk, coconut milk, and other stuff.

There's Greek, Icelandic, and Australian yogurt.

There's drinkable yogurt (Kefir).

All flavored yogurts may be purchased in single-serving cups or in small packages of a pint or so, but if you want plain, old, whole-milk yogurt, it comes only in single-servings (very difficult to find), quarts, or 55-gallon drums.

I just needed a couple of spoonfuls of plain, whole-milk yogurt ... is that too much to ask?

Evidently, it is. And it's not good for my blood pressure, either, which is another issue entirely.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Of Infrastructure, Stadiums, and Megachurches

It's no secret that our national infrastructure - roads, bridges, railroads, and so on - is not in the shape it should be. There are lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is that it's politically glamorous and sexy to cut the ribbon on something shiny and new, but politically suicidal to advocate for the spending that will keep it in good repair. For example, in the Washington, DC, metro area, where I live, the Metrorail system is in terrible condition, largely because none of the local governments wants to spend the money it will take to properly maintain it, and nobody wants to support a tax that will provide the necessary revenue. Across the country, we've seen bridges collapse, roads crumble, and municipal water systems poison their citizens, all because of a lack of political will on the part of leaders and a refusal to accept the tax burden on the part of citizens.

As we've seen, the tremendous disaster that came to Houston with Hurricane Harvey was made worse by a number of factors, including overdevelopment, bad spending priorities (including graft and corruption), inadequate safety precautions for petroleum and chemical plants in an area known to be at risk, and poor stormwater management planning.

So, riddle me this, Batman: what happens when the impact of a natural disaster is compounded by the miserable state of the local infrastructure that's affected? Hint - it's a lot worse.

Realizing that we're probably never going to do enough to make real estate developers* pay enough attention to climate change to mitigate the impact of natural events, what can we do to help the victims of such catastrophes when they occur?

I wondered about this because we use school gymnasiums, stadiums, armories, churches**, and other large-capacity spaces as shelters when persons are displaced by natural disasters. Here's my question: because facilities like these are frequently used as shelters, should they be required to incorporate features that would allow them to better serve in that capacity when needed?

I'm not an architect or public zoning expert, and you could put everything I know about large-scale disaster mitigation planning into your navel and still have room for a herd of elephants and a brass band. But it seems to me that if your metropolitan area is in an area subject to flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, zombies, wildfires, or other natural disasters, it makes sense for your building codes to take into account not just those immediate threats, but the needs of the community during the response to them. For instance, if a sports team owner demands a new multi-million dollar stadium for his team in a disaster-prone area, why not require that owner to incorporate features that would allow the stadium quickly to be reconfigured as a shelter ... perhaps pre-positioning a certain number of cots and blankets, stockpiling military-style combat meals, designing concession stands to allow rapid reconfiguration to basic large-capacity kitchens, and providing areas with the space, connectivity, and layout to facilitate large-scale first aid and medical triage (including extra loading areas for ambulances)?

I don't know how much of this already exists in the relevant building codes in various areas, but my suspicion is ... not much. Developers are reluctant to spend money planning for threats that may or may not happen, politicians are reluctant to irritate potential donors, and Americans hate being told what to do, even when it makes profoundly good sense in the long term.

To paraphrase Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, you may not believe in climate change, but climate change believes in you. And it would be a really good idea to start taking action on improving our infrastructure to cope with it, whether we believe it or not.

Agnes and I are heading off to visit our grandchildren in Ohio, and will be gone for a few days. I have already written and scheduled the posts for Friday (The Right-Cheek Ass Clown for September), Cartoon Saturday, and Poetry Sunday; other than that, this blog will be taking a break until we return next week. If all goes well and I'm not too exhausted, the next regular post will appear next Tuesday or thereabouts. Don't go away ... I will be back. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Or government ... remember that ten days before Harvey slammed into Houston, Trump reversed Obama-era building guidelines to address climate change issues. Politically, it must have looked like a great idea until the real world made it look stupid and shortsighted. The administration seems to have since quietly changed its mind.

** Except for Joel Osteen's megachurch, which he opened up as a shelter only when shamed into it. And the much-maligned Muslims have opened the doors of their mosques to provide shelter to their neighbors of all faiths.

"Civil Rights" vs "Religious Liberty"

There's a serious issue today that revolves around the accommodation of both religious beliefs and civil rights, and it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. Here's an example ...

A full-page advertisement* appeared on page A7 of the Washington Post on Sunday, October 16th. It was titled "DECLARATION of DEPENDENCE UPON GOD and HIS HOLY BIBLE" (capitalization in the original), and began with these words,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Since our Creator gave us these rights, we declare that no government has the right to take them away. Among these rights is the right to exercise our Christian beliefs as put forth in God's Holy Bible."

It goes on to specifically oppose abortion**, "... same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and all other forms of sexual perversion prohibited by Holy Scripture," and closes with this ringing statement:

"Therefore we, the undersigned - not only as Christians but also believing we have the constitutional right as Americans to follow these time honored Christian beliefs - commit to conducting our churches ministries, businesses, and personal lives in accordance with our Christian faith and chose to obey God rather than man."

Translation: those who profess strong, specifically Christian, religious beliefs need not obey the law***.

Here's the dilemma ... citizens of the United States are guaranteed "freedom of religion." But how does unrestricted "freedom of religion" square with community life in a pluralistic society?

My problem with the major monotheistic religions is that they are by nature intolerant of other beliefs. For example, if you are a Christian, you believe absolutely in the literal truth of the Bible, and that unless a person accepts Jesus Christ as his/her lord and savior, that person cannot be saved and is denied entry into heaven. If you are a Muslim, you believe absolutely in the literal truth of the Quran, and that every other form of religious belief is wrong. Neither of these is an especially good recipe for loving your neighbor as yourself^†.

I've been concerned about this for a long time, and a while back saw this superb article in the Atlantic Monthly: Even the Government’s Smartest Lawyers Can’t Figure Out Religious Liberty. It's not too long, and is well worth your time to read, particularly if you believe your constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion is threatened by laws intended to protect those of whom you disapprove on religious grounds.

In case you don't want to read the whole thing, the main point is this: it is all but impossible in our constitutional republic to both guarantee complete freedom of religious expression and protect the civil rights of minorities - particularly those who are frowned upon by one religion or another. The problem will never be resolved by law - only by the good will of men and women willing to pull their heads out of their rigidly religious backsides.

In case you were wondering why I have chosen not to follow any particular system of religious belief, now you know.

Have a good day. Practice the Golden Rule ... you may find you like it.

Come back tomorrow for the unveiling of our Right-Cheek Ass Clown for December. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Paid for by Andrew Wommack Ministries.

** "...unless it is a direct threat to the life of the mother."

*** I'm not sure how this squares with Jesus' admonition in Matthew 22:21 to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," commonly interpreted to remind believers that they also have an obligation to respect temporal authority. In any case, what the Constitution actually says about "freedom of religion" (in the first words of the First Amendment) is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seems pretty clear to me.

† As Jesus is reported to have mentioned in Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39 as "the second great commandment."

Term Limits

Among the many remedies often suggested to help solve the problem of inept and unresponsive government is the imposition of term limits for members of Congress - restrictions on the number of consecutive years or terms of office an individual can serve before being forced to retire. Many people strongly favor amending the Constitution to provide for term limits ... a 2013 Gallup Poll showed that an astounding 75% of Americans favored them. Those who favor such limits point to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, which limits the presidency to two terms, and ask why such limits should not apply to lawmakers as well.

I've gotten into any number of online arguments on this topic because I don't believe term limits - for the presidency or for Congress - ought to be part of the Constitution.

The aforementioned poll showed that 75% of Americans favor term limits for both houses of Congress ... but those same Americans keep reelecting the same people to more terms. The average voter seems to believe that term limits in principle are a good thing, but should apply only to all those other crooked, useless politicians and not to the hard-working, principled statesmen who represent their own district or state.

I look at proposals for term limits the same way I look at proposals for a balanced budget amendment ... not a bad idea in theory, but not something that belongs in the Constitution. We all know that laws mean whatever lawyers say they mean - for example, the Second Amendment* established the foundation for state militias as a defense against federal encroachment on the rights of the sovereign states, but it's been lawyered over the years into granting citizens the right to own deadly weapons for any reason. As much as "strict constructionists" may wish it differently, the Constitution means exactly what Congress and the courts interpret it to mean.

If you're serious about wanting term limits, do your civic duty and vote out the people you're displeased with ... don't foist your responsibility off on the Constitution.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* What it says is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first four words have been both ignored and litigated out of existence.

Constitutional Heresy

Let us begin, Dear Readers, with these stirring words from the preamble to the Republican Platform 2016 -

"We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant."

With all due respect to those who view the Constitution as Muslims view the Quran - that it is absolutely true and perfect in every detail - I think you're wrong.

I'm getting ready to lay out the heretical case for updating the Constitution, so if you are one of those people whose heads explode at the very thought of tinkering with The Most Perfect Document Ever Devised By Man*, you may want to read something else. But if you are willing to consider some alternatives to the belief that the Founders delivered the Constitution like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, read on.

First of all, consider this: if the Constitution were not written to allow some flexibility and adaptiveness to changing times, why did the Founders make provisions for its amendment (Article V)? The amendment process was made cumbersome and difficult to discourage frivolous changes (such as amendments to outlaw flag-burning or to define marriage according to religious dictates), but it nevertheless reflects the Founders' understanding that the United States would grow, develop, and change over time, and that the Constitution would need to be able to evolve with it.

Now, consider the issue of "states' rights." Leaving aside for a moment the politically and racially-charged interpretations of the term, let's look back at the document the Constitution replaced: the Articles of Confederation. Here's what Article II says -

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This is echoed in somewhat watered-down tone in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This reflects the delicate balance the Founders struck between the Federalists, who believed a strong central government was necessary to hold the country together, and the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to centralize power at the state and local level. The Federalists won the day, more or less, because the experience of trying to mold thirteen squabbling, quasi-independent states into a single nation required establishment of a government that could force them into some semblance of united action at the national level. We see the end result of the Anti-Federalist influence today, in the form of 50 states with a patchwork of uncoordinated and often conflicting laws and regulations that frequently inhibit interstate commerce and sow confusion in national decision making ... consider the wide variety of state laws governing elections as one example. Should we rethink the division of power between the federal government and the states? It's worth discussing.

And while we're at it, how are powers reserved "to the people?" Individual states have governments that can assume powers, but how do "the people" take on and execute powers of government?** And who are "the people," anyhow? Citizens? White citizens? Christians? It depends on who you ask, and the Constitution doesn't seem to be too clear on it.

Of particular interest in an election year, the Constitution does not allow for the direct popular election of the President, but rather by the electors of each state (Article II, Section 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment). This arrangement was created by the Founders because they didn't completely trust in the wisdom of "the people," and wanted to ensure that the nation was not governed by a tyranny of the majority. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 that

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." ***

Is this still a valid concern? Should the Constitution be revised or amended to provide for direct popular election? I don't know, but the question comes up every four years, and is probably worth debating.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech ... but are campaign contributions "speech?" It also says Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but is limiting the rights of one person because of the religious beliefs of another allowable under the Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." What is an unreasonable search in an era of signals intelligence, GPS tracking, warrantless wiretaps, data mining, and imaging drones?

As long as we're making hamburger out of sacred cows, how about rethinking the Second Amendment? The amendment as written is confusing in one part (what does "a well-regulated militia being necessary" mean, anyhow?) and perfectly clear in another ("shall not be abridged"), and the courts that conservatives hate so much have come down fairly consistently on the most generous^† interpretation of the language. Political and social pressures combine to make any discussion of limiting gun rights all but impossible, but there is precedent for amending amendments - consider that the Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition as part of the supreme law of the land (the Constitution), but the Twenty-First Amendment repealed it just 13 years later ... recognition that Prohibition might not have been a good idea after all. One of my more conservative friends recently commented on Facebook that the way to approach "gun control" would be to propose a Constitutional amendment and work through the amendment process to see if it could get enough support to be adopted. This is, of course, the right way to do it ... but in the America of 2016, where there are more guns than people, Congress has gone so far as to specifically forbid even the study of gun violence as a public health issue, and the gun lobby views any discussion in apocalyptic terms, it's not likely to get off the ground. You might as well get used to kevlar as a fashion accessory and active shooter drills as part of the education of our children.

I think it's time to recognize that it's 2016, not 1789, and call a new Constitutional Convention to update our founding document. Unfortunately, the times are such that it would probably be impossible to gather a group of well-informed, thoughtful citizens willing to calmly discuss issues of such critical importance ...

But compared to some of my other fantasies^††, I think it's worth a try.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Well, except for those parts about slavery that were in the original.

** Yes, yes, I know ... by voting to elect the government that exercises the power on their behalf. But that's not quite what the Tenth Amendment says, is it?

*** I wonder what he would make of Donald Trump.

† From the gun advocates' perspective, anyway.

†† Trust me, you don't want to know.

Mathwash

One of my favorite websites is "WordSpy," which highlights new words and expressions. We linguists are funny that way. A few days ago, the word of the day was mathwash, a verb meaning "to use mathematics, logic, or a similar rational argument to make something inherently subjective appear to be objective."

I think this is a case of a wonderful word arriving at just the right moment in time. As we wade deeper into the morass of the general election season, the candidates will marshall vast armies of statistics and economic data in an attempt to prove (a) that they are right and (b) that the other side is a bunch of useless ratbastards unfit to govern a grade school student council. This data will seldom be presented in context and will be used less as a tool for understanding than as a bludgeon with which to beat the opposition. Or, as Scottish literary critic Andrew Lang once said of a politician of whom he disapproved, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for illumination."

I am a firm believer in data, but I like to know its pedigree before I believe in it. When I read an article or see a post or hear a speech loaded with statistics and other figures, I always try to figure out the source ... and if that source is a highly partisan one, I tend to do a little more digging before I accept the information at face value. It's all too easy to fall into the trap of believing that all information is created equal.

Have a good day. Be wary of being mathwashed during this season ... you don't want your life story to be titled "Gullible's Travels."

See you tomorrow. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

Bilbo's Government Reorganization, Part 1: Homeland Security

You will recall, Dear Readers, that last week I started a discussion about reducing the size of the federal government. This is one area where I am in fundamental, although not total, agreement with most conservatives and libertarians, although we approach it from differing perspectives.

I believe, as do my conservative and libertarian friends, that government should be as small as practical, that its activities should be limited to those which are essential at each level (national, state, and local), and that it should be as unobtrusive as possible in the life of the average citizen. The problem, as I wrote before, is that we have an enormous government today because we’ve asked for it … not in so many words, but we have decided as a nation that there are services and protections we want and expect our government to provide, and our government has grown a gigantic bureaucracy to provide them.

And so today we have a national government that spans three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial), fifteen cabinet departments, some 57 “Independent Establishments and Government Corporations,” and any number of other dogs and cats* that exist both on and off the books. Beneath that, each state has its own government with all its own departments and agencies, and below that, each county (or parish, yes, Angel) and city or town has its own mechanism of government. The total number of people employed by government structures at all levels in this country is probably larger than the population of many other countries.

So how do we put this beast on a diet?

In my earlier post, I suggested reducing the number of national-level cabinet departments from 15 to seven, but – in true political candidate fashion - did not provide any details. Today, I’d like to start spelling out what I’d do if I were king**. I’ll start with a look at the low-hanging fruit of the cabinet, the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS.

DHS was established in the wake of the hysteria that followed the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, in order to address a perceived lack of coordination among the various agencies which shared responsibility for various aspects of our national defense. Instead of strengthening the lines of management and coordination and clearly designating an existing agency*** as the responsible lead for defense of the homeland, Congress reacted in time-honored bureaucratic fashion by adding another layer of management to an already convoluted structure. Here is the organizational chart for DHS as it exists today:

Now consider these points, most of which are common to all government agencies:

1. The establishment of DHS required the creation of a whole new management layer … essentially, everything in the top three rows of the chart. Not a single one of these organizational elements actually contributes directly to your security … each one simply provides managerial oversight and direction to those that do. Every single agency of the government has a General Counsel, a Legislative Affairs office to deal with Congress, a Public Affairs office to issue calming words during periods of disaster and scandal, and a Policy office to churn out directions to the people actually doing the work.

2. DHS, and every government agency, has a Secretary, a Deputy (or Under) Secretary, and any number of Principal/Deputy/Assistant Secretaries, each of whom has a staff of aides, executive assistants, regular assistants, secretaries, liaisons to other agencies, etc, etc. While someone clearly needs to be in charge, and to have a supporting staff to – if nothing else – respond to inane questions from Congress, all those staffs consist of people who need salaries, office space and supplies, computers, and all the accouterments of a modern office. This means a great deal of money is being spent simply on defending the boss and the budget … not on defending the homeland.

I propose to eliminate the DHS and reassign its duties and functions as shown in the annotated DHS organization chart below (click it to embiggen it):

As you can see, I would completely eliminate the management layers of the organization, and reassign the actual “doers” to one of the seven new cabinet offices^†. Most would fold into the Department of Defense, some to the Department of Justice, and others to the Departments of National Infrastructure or Citizen Services. The Bureau of US Customs and Border Protection would be divided between the Treasury Department (Customs) and the Defense Department (Border Protection).

Now, I don't know if this is practical or not, but it seems logical and rational to me. It's easy to pick on DHS because of the way it was kludged together in the heat of passion and the absence of thought and study. In the coming days and weeks, I'll look at the rest of the cabinet departments and let you know what I'd do with them.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* No offense intended to our canine and feline friends.

** Besides hiring a deep bench of headsmen to help me roll heads.

*** I thought that was why we had a Department of Defense, after all.

^† The Departments of State, The Treasury, Justice, Labor & Commerce, Defense, National Infrastructure, and Citizen Services.

More About Government Reorganization: Start at the Beginning

Yesterday in this space, I offered an initial look at my proposal for reorganizing the federal government. I'll be giving you more details on it in the coming weeks, but I think I may have gotten ahead of myself. Let me go back a step and show you what I ought to have shown you before I wrote yesterday's post.

How many of you, Dear Readers, know what your federal government looks like? I don't mean in terms of neoclassical marble buildings or the well-PhotoShopped color photos of senior officials that grace agency websites, but in the form of a organizational chart? Here it is - click it to big it; if you still can't read it, you can find it online here:

Now envision each of those blocks on the chart expanded into its own chart. As an example, here's the organization chart of the Department of Homeland Security:

Now envision each of those blocks under Homeland Security as a large group of people with its own organization chart and budget. Go down another five or six levels (at least) and you'll eventually come to a single person sitting at a desk, being paid a wage and benefits.

That's a lot of people, who need a lot of money and a lot of real estate and office supplies. Many of them are hard-working, well-meaning people doing important things for the American people. Others are not. How do we separate the vital civil servant wheat from the political hack chaff?

Yes, Dear Readers, your government is too big*. Making it smaller and better will be very difficult, but not impossible. Starting next week, I'll go into more detail on the reorganization plan I proposed yesterday. I welcome your ideas and comments, as long as they're constructive. There's no shortage of people who are good at bitching and complaining ... what we need are thoughtful people with ideas who are willing to work with others to make things better.

Let's start the discussion.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow to end the work week with another edition of Great Moments in Editing. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Want to see just how big it is? Start here.

Bilbo's Suggestions for Government Reorganization

Yesterday I talked about the hue and cry over the size of government, and the lack of specific proposals for what to actually reduce. Well, except for those put forward by Ted Cruz, with which I disagree for the most part. Here are the first of my own ideas:

Today there are 15 Cabinet Departments:

Agriculture;
Commerce;
Defense;
Education;
Energy;
Health and Human Services;
Homeland Security;
Housing and Urban Development;
Interior;
Justice;
Labor;
State;
Transportation;
Treasury; and,
Veterans’ Affairs

I propose to reduce that number to seven:

State;
Treasury (incorporating parts of Homeland Security);
Justice (incorporating parts of Homeland Security);
Labor and Commerce;
Defense (incorporating parts of Homeland Security);
National Infrastructure (consolidating and incorporating parts of Agriculture, Energy, HUD, Interior, and Transportation); and,
Citizens’ Services (consolidating and incorporating parts of Education, Health, and Veterans’ Affairs)

This does not, of course, address the large number of independent establishments and government corporations, many of which I would either eliminate outright or fold into one of the cabinet departments.

I'm a little short on time this morning, so I don't have enough time to elaborate on these ideas. However, over the next week or two, I'll look at each of my proposed new cabinet offices, explain what I'd eliminate and why, and how the reorganized government might function better.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

More Questions for Tonight's GOP "Debate"

This evening we will be treated (if I can abuse the word) to the second "debate" featuring the GOP presidential wannabes.  As with all such "debates," the emphasis will be on pandering to the base, scoring points and getting good sound bites as opposed to providing substantive discussion of the many serious issues facing the nation. That's just how it is ... nobody wants to spell out anything specific that he or she can later be held accountable for, and so they just play the trust-me card and count on our short attention spans to keep us from realizing we've been played.

Before the last GOP "debate" I wrote a blog post titled "Questions You Probably Won't Hear in the GOP 'Debate'", expressing the topics about which I was concerned and I hoped against all hope and experience that the shouting heads would actually discuss. Needless to say, they didn't.

In preparation for tonight's "debate" I reiterate the same ten questions, and would also like to call your attention to these other ones, culled from a CNN online article by Julian Zelizer titled "Six Questions for the Republican Debate," along with my commentary ... they're worth your time to read and think about, even though there's not a chance in hell of any of them actually being discussed in a worthwhile fashion:

1. Will You Liberalize Immigration Policy or Follow (the) Nativist Path? America is a nation that was built by immigrants, and so demonizing immigrants (both legal and illegal) doesn't make much sense. That said, as we see in Europe, no nation should be expected to take in the hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of refugees demanding aid on their own terms* and bringing their own economic, political, and religious problems with them. What's your plan? In detail, please.

2. How Will You Make (the) Middle Class More Secure? See my earlier questions #1 (I know you despise Obamacare and want to repeal it immediately, but what is your specific plan to provide affordable health care in its place?), #2 (Do you believe the current tax code is fair to all Americans? Would you consider changes to the tax code which close loopholes or raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy in order to even out the average tax burden? If so, give some concrete examples of loopholes you would close or taxes you would raise), #6 (What are your specific ideas for making American education affordable and reducing levels of student debt?), and #9 (The national minimum wage today is $7.25/hour, which is well below the poverty line for a full-time worker with a family of four. Do you support an increase in the minimum wage? Why or why not?). As Mr Zelizer writes,

"Many of their stances -- going after unions[what does that mean?] or opposing the minimum wage -- would actually reduce the number of middle-class wage earning positions ... Platitudes that the free market will simply do better under their leadership are not enough. Each candidate should be required to put forth one specific measure that they would push for as president that would have a positive impact on middle class family budgets."

3. Can Republicans Govern? Given that the GOP is internally ungovernable between its "moderate" and "extreme" wings, has resorted to blackmail once by shutting down the government in an attempt to get its way, and is threatening to do the same thing again, why should we believe that you can govern the nation like responsible adults? Yes, we know you hate Democrats passionately, but - unfortunately for you - we have two political parties, the other one has significant support among the American people, and champions policies and philosophies different from your own. What's your plan for working out your differences with them, and for bringing order to your own party? Hint: the correct answer does not include any words blaming Democrats for all the problems ... the question is about you.

4. How Will You Repair the Political Process? This is similar to questions #7 (Do you think "big money" has too much influence in our politics? If not, why? If so, what will you propose to do to limit its influence?) and #8: (What, specifically, will you do to restore faith in our elected government?) in my earlier post, and is closely related to the previous question about whether you can actually govern. The approval ratings of Congress in most polls are in the single digits ... what - specifically - will you do to regain Americans' trust in government. Hint: a good start would be to quit blaming "big government" for everything that's wrong in the world.

5. What's (the) Alternative to the Iran Deal? Everyone on the Republican side is heaping abuse on the administration for coming to this nuclear deal with Iran. But what are the alternatives they suggest? Some believe that because sanctions were working, we should have stuck to the status quo ... but I think that quo was losing its status as our allies drifted away from support of sanctions. To the extent that anyone in the GOP has an alternative to the agreement, it is centered on bombing the Iranians back to the Stone Age. I think this is stupid. So what are the alternatives you propose, and what makes you think your plan will work?

6. How Will You Balance Counterterrorism and Civil Liberties? I asked pretty much the same thing with question #3 in my earlier post: "How will you fight violent extremism while staying true to core American beliefs and freedoms?"

All of these are good questions. Good luck with getting good answers. Oh, and in response to the inevitable question from my more conservative friends, I have a separate list of questions for the Democratic candidates when they have their debate. For the moment, it's up to the GOP wannabes to convince me that they have actual proposals based on real thought and analysis, and can govern in a two-party system like grown-ups.

Have a good day. Expect better from those who would be your president. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Some refugees arriving in Europe and the US are refusing the free meals offered at shelters if they think there's pork in them.

Pro-Life or Pro-Birth?

Warning: this is a high-level touch-the-third-rail post. If you are not ready for rational and compassionate thought and discussion, go away and come back tomorrow for the naming of our Right-Cheek Ass Clown for July.

There are two topics it is said that one should never discuss in polite company: religion and politics. That’s very true these days, as the discussion of either topic quickly becomes lacking in politeness, not to mention compassion, empathy, and common sense. On the political side, there is no rational discussion of serious issues, because everyone’s opinions have been formulated in their own partisan echo chambers - there’s clearly no point in listening to a liberal (if you’re a conservative) or a conservative (if you’re a liberal), because nothing the other loser has to say is worth listening to.

The problem is the same with religion, except that it’s even more of an all-or-nothing exchange – when you absolutely believe that God (the one you worship, who is clearly the right one) is guiding you, there’s no room at all for consideration of any other point of view … those other people are obviously not only wrong, but forever damned.

Politics and religion meet in the ultimate third-rail topic that can never be discussed – the topic of abortion.

Now, before I go on, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do not support abortion in almost all cases. I have three children of whom I am very proud, and six grandchildren I love with all my heart, and I can’t imagine a circumstance in which the thought of abortion would ever have entered my mind.

Sadly, though, we have reduced the discussion of this topic to the level of a clash of rights: the “right to choose” versus the “right to life.” The most consequential and important of issues is reduced to an argument between those supporting a woman’s right to control her body and those supporting an unborn child’s right to exist. I believe both sides are right and both are wrong.

The most wonderful summary of the fundamental issue came not long ago in a comment by Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, who said,

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Sister Joan has hit on the fundamental hypocrisy of the conservative “pro-life” movement. There is a dichotomy between wanting every child to be born, but espousing political and economic philosophies that deny the programs that would help feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for, or that oppose the measures that might reduce the number of abortions sought - such as sex education for children of an appropriate age, availability of counseling and birth control measures, and so on. It also extends to an insistence on prioritizing the life of the unborn child over that of the mother, and an unwillingness on the part of many "pro-life" advocates to adopt the children carried to term by mothers who do not want them.

Abortion is a horrible thing, and we must reduce the number of abortions sought each year. But don't call yourself "pro-life" when what you are is, in Sister Joan's elegant summation, "pro-birth." You can't be "pro-life" while opposing everything that might make the child's life safe, happy, and healthy.

Have a good day. Love your children. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Questions You Probably Won't Hear in the GOP "Debate"

Tonight is the first of the "debates" among the GOP presidential candidates. I put the word "debates" in quotes because this will not, of course, be a debate at all ... it will simply be a group of professional politicians ignoring the moderator's questions in favor of sending their personal messages and casting cheap shots at their opponents. Facts will be few, far between, and - if cited at all - will probably be presented grossly out of context. In any case, since the "debate" is among hardcore conservative candidates and is being sponsored by Faux News, the chances of the participants being asked any serious questions or pressed for real answers and supporting evidence is vanishingly small.

From the If I Were King* Department, here are the questions I would ask if I were moderating this "debate":

1. I know you despise Obamacare and want to repeal it immediately, but what is your specific plan to provide affordable health care in its place?

2. Do you believe the current tax code is fair to all Americans? Would you consider changes to the tax code which close loopholes or raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy in order to even out the average tax burden? If so, give some concrete examples of loopholes you would close or taxes you would raise.

3. How will you fight violent extremism while staying true to core American beliefs and freedoms?

4. A follow-up question: how do you propose to fight violent activity on the part of American political and religious extremists here at home?

5. Gun violence is a serious problem in the United States. What specific measures do you propose to reduce gun violence without infringing on rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

6. What are your specific ideas for making American education affordable and reducing levels of student debt?

7. Many Americans believe that there is too much influence in our political system of huge money donations from corporations and the wealthy. Do you think "big money" has too much influence in our politics? If not, why? If so, what will you propose to do to limit its influence? Would you support requiring that all donations for any organization active in the political campaign season be released to the public? Would you agree to call on your super PACs and associated 501(c)(4)s to release their lists of donors and the size of their donations?

8. There has been a lot of angry, arguably irresponsible rhetoric from the right, blaming the government as a whole (or individual appointees) for everything that's perceived to be wrong in the country. Polling data shows that Congress has approval ratings in the single to low-double digits, and mistrust of public figures is high, stoked by the angry language of talk radio. What, specifically, will you do to restore faith in our elected government?

9. The national minimum wage today is $7.25/hour, which is well below the poverty line for a full-time worker with a family of four. Do you support an increase in the minimum wage? Why or why not?

10. America's infrastructure - highways, bridges, power grid, water supply, etc - is aging and increasingly in disrepair. Would you support major programs to rebuild our critical infrastructure? If so, how do you propose to fund it?

Okay, Dear Readers, those are my ten questions. What are yours? Of course, I don't expect to get any answers ... and I certainly don't plan on watching tonight's clown show. I'd rather watch something more useful and educational on television ... like Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And you should be glad I'm not.

Why Doesn't the Government Do Something?

When six Service members were murdered in Chattanooga, Tennessee last week by a young Muslim man inflamed by radical Islamist teachings, the usual outpouring of anger took place across the country. Along with the usual calls for revenge was another call that one often hears at trying times like this:

"Why doesn't the government do something?"

 It's a good question without a satisfying answer.

The government doesn't "do something" for a lot of reasons. Here are a few:

1. Can you imagine Congress doing anything worthwhile, quickly?

2. Can you imagine Congress doing anything for which the President might get credit?

3. Many of the things that could be done involve intrusions into our privacy, which we absolutely hate unless it's done by big business or social media ... in which case it's okay.

4. Many of the things that could be done require limiting the freedoms we enjoy and demand as Americans. Think about possible limitations on your First (speech, press, assembly, and religion) and Second Amendment (heat-packing) rights and decide if it's what you want.

As historian Will Durant once said, “One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say.”

The last time the government did something in the heat of passion, we got the Patriot Act ... and we all know how well that worked out.

Have a good day. Always count to ten before doing anything stupid. And if you work for the government, count to a thousand. At least five times.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

With Justice for Some

If you’ve been following the events in Baltimore over the last few weeks, you know that things are still tense. There has been a tremendous groundswell of calls demanding justice for Freddie Gray, the black man whose death while in police custody touched off an orgy of violence, looting, and arson.

The death of anyone, of any color, is a tragedy, and if that death was caused intentionally, or by ineptitude or malfeasance on the part of the police, those responsible need to be brought to justice.

But what seems to me to be lost in this whole thing is that Freddie Gray isn’t the only person who deserves justice.

Who is demanding justice for the police officers who were injured by rioters?

Who is demanding justice for the merchants whose stores were looted and burned?

Who is demanding justice for the persons whose cars were torched?

And who is looking out for justice for the six Baltimore police officers who have been charged in Mr Gray’s death?

It appears that what many people in Baltimore want is not justice, but vengeance. The six police officers who have been charged in Mr Gray's death will not, and cannot get a fair trial. They have already been tried, convicted, and sentenced in the media and the court of public opinion. It’s pretty clear from listening to the superheated rhetoric coming from Baltimore that if any of them are acquitted or perceived to receive an insufficiently severe punishment, the riots will start again and will likely be worse.

This is not justice. This is extortion by mob rule. It is irresponsible rhetoric spouted by ignorant people and political grandstanders uninterested in justice ... only in individual aggrandizement and the pursuit of personal agendas.

Justice has left the building.

Have a good day. Consider this definition of justice: "the use of power as appointed by law, honor or standards to support fair treatment and due reward*."

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* http://www.yourdictionary.com/justice

The New Civil Service Exam

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the ease of digitally submitting applications for government employment has led to a virtual tsunami of resumes and cover letters that make it very difficult for managers to identify and hire the best persons for government service*. As one way of fixing the situation, many government agencies are reinstating the Civil Service Examination, which was done away with more than 30 years ago over concerns about fairness and discrimination. According to the article, the updated test, which is administered online, evaluates job applicants' reasoning  and problem-solving skills by "us(ing) animated avatars and videos to simulate challenges" they might face on the job.

Now that's all well and good, and I applaud the government for trying to come up with a good way of identifying and hiring top people. Too bad the test doesn't apply to people running for Congress or the Presidency ... it might help weed out some of the losers that are coming out of the pre-2016 woodwork.

As it happens, I have some ideas on the sorts of questions that ought to be on a civil service exam**.

Because religious conflict is a serious problem in today's world, job applicants should be required to demonstrate knowledge of religious issues. Here's a sample question:

You are a public defender, assigned to defend Adam and Eve against the charge of eating the forbidden fruit. Explain your philosophical strategy to a Hassidic Rabbi, a Sunni Imam, a Buddhist monk, and an Ayatollah, and answer their arguments, using quotations from the Bhagavad Gita, the writings of Martin Luther, and the Book of Mormon to make your points. The response will be scored by an Anglican bishop.

A civil servant should have a firm grasp of economics as well. Here is a possible question to evaluate an applicant's knowledge of economic theory:

Develop a realistic plan for balancing the federal budget, including a detailed strategy for refinancing the national debt. Assuming that at least one of the major political parties will vehemently object to your approach, explain how you will convince them to lend their support. Your numbers need not balance or make sense.

Many civil servants must deal with lawyers representing businesses, special interest groups, and individual aggrieved citizens; therefore, a good aptitude test should evaluate this skill. Here is a possible question:

In Part 2 of Shakespeare's "Henry VI," Jack Cade, the leader of the Populist revolt, proposes that the first order of business following a successful coup d'etat should be to "kill all the lawyers." In light of the present populist mood in the United States, assess the utility and any potential impact of such a policy today.

Although persons applying to the State Department must take the Foreign Service Examination, it is important for persons in other federal departments and agencies to understand the intricacies of foreign affairs. Here is a possible question to evaluate candidates' understanding of foreign issues:

It has recently been suggested that only a foreign war can restore America's lost national consensus. Propose the ideal opponent(s) for the US in such a war, and how the conflict might be engineered so that US would seem not to be the aggressor in the situation.

Those are all good questions, but I think that in the end, the new Civil Service Exam will end up reflecting the philosophy of the party in power.  If the GOP were in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress***, and able to agree among themselves on a coherent program, I suspect that their version of the exam would look something like this :

Thank you for your interest in serving in the wasteful, bloated, and overreaching United States Government. Please indicate by circling "yes" or "no" whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1. The Constitution consists of the Second Amendment and some other stuff about government.
YES  NO

2. The Founders clearly stated that the United States would be a 100% Christian nation, and that all other false religions are causes of terrorism.
YES  NO

3. "Climate Change" has absolutely no scientific basis, and people who believe in it are un-American and probably terrorists.
YES  NO

4. The United States is the most exceptional nation ever founded, is a shining example for the rest of the world, is incapable of doing anything wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is a terrorist.
YES  NO

5. Taxes are bad under all circumstances, and could be completely eliminated if the government stopped wasteful spending on useless things like welfare, education, food safety, and environmental protection.
YES  NO

6. Those who disagree with the correct answers to questions 1 through 4 above are terrorists who hate America.
YES  NO

Thank you for taking the Civil Service Examination. If you answered "NO" to any of the questions above, please turn in your answer sheet, leave, and go to Canada or someplace else where your godless socialist ways will be appreciated.

So ...

Those are my thoughts on the Civil Service Exam. What questions would you ask? Inquiring minds want to know, so leave a comment.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Although why anyone would want to enter government service today - particularly if they are applying for a position requiring a Senate confirmation circus - is beyond me.

** You probably figured that out already, didn't you?

*** AAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

#letmelibrarianthatforyou

I ran across a fascinating article by Hanna Kozlowska last week - Here’s What People Did Before They Could Google Things. It describes the discovery by the New York Public Library staff of a box of notecards with questions the librarians received from library patrons, either in person or over the phone, in the decades of the 1940s to the 1980s ... before the age of Google. Some of them are amazing, and give one a whole new respect for the research talents of underappreciated librarians.

In the decades ... if not centuries before the advent of the personal computer and the internet, it was the librarian who was the person to whom we turned as a source of information. She (and it usually was a she, wasn't it?) listened to our questions and steered us in the direction of what we needed to know. Libraries held tens of thousands of books arranged according to the impenetrable (to me, anyway) Dewey Decimal System, and it was the librarian who helped make sense of it all. And the librarians of the New York Public Library, using the hashtag #letmelibrarianthatforyou, are sharing on Instagram some of the more interesting questions from that box they found. Here's one ...

A few others, according to the article, included:

"... when you meet a fellow and you know he's worth twenty-seven million dollars because that's what the told me, twenty-seven million, and you know his nationality, how do you find out his name?"

- “My daddy owns the second oldest lighthouse in the country, where can I sell it?”

- “I would like to know the physical characteristics of Adolf Hitler. I think I’ve found him—he walks heavier on one foot and everything.”

- "What is the lifespan of an eyelash?"

- "How many neurotic people are there in the US?"*

I remember that when I got my master's degree in 1990, one of the required courses was an introduction to research methods ... teaching us how to find arcane information buried in the depths of the library. We learned where to go to answer questions like "what was the per capita production of beer in Ireland in 1968?," "what is the process by which laws are drafted and enacted in Botswana?," and "how many goats are raised each year in Afghanistan?" It was a frustrating, yet fun course that introduced us to a range of information sources we might not otherwise have known. Today, of course, you can Google that information and have your answers in seconds ... but you often don't know the provenance of that information, or you get so many hits that you can't figure out which to use.

Thus, the value of the librarian. As one of the librarians at the NYPL said in the article, “We have taken a role of bridging the gap between technology and information.” Google can provide vast amounts of information, but a librarian can help separate the informational wheat from the chaff of spam and narrow that glut of information down to the specific and accurate answers you need.

Librarians. They may not be your usual idea of superheroes ...

... but they've always been heroes to me.

Have a good day. If you don't know how, ask a librarian.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I think whatever the number is, it will go up astronomically as the GOP presses its hardcore conservative agenda in the new Congress, and as the presidential election approaches.