The Shirky Principle, Revisited

Being a retired guy with plenty of time on my hands, I've been working on transferring the handwritten record of my 5,128 blog posts (currently occupying four spiral-bound notebooks) into a searchable Excel spreadsheet to help me more easily find specific posts. It's been a worthwhile exercise, if for no other reason than I've been reminded of all the fascinating things I've learned and written about over the years*. 

One of those fascinating topics comes from back in 2016: The Shirky Principle: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” 

My post on the Shirky Principle was pretty prescient, given Congress's ongoing and self-inflicted border-crisis wound.

That there's an immigration crisis at our southern border is beyond doubt ... people are fleeing north in record numbers in search of a better life. The United States has always been seen as a land of relative safety and opportunity by people fleeing poor economic and political conditions in their home countries, and the current situation in much of the world is such that the US of A looks better than ever. In all the screaming and handwringing over the situation, though, we tend to lose sight of the fact that there is not a single American citizen (other than indigenous Native Americans) who is not descended from an immigrant to these shores, whether legal or illegal. Nobody wants to admit that, but it's true.

The cause of the crisis, though, really doesn't have anything to do with numbers or motivations, but with our outdated and totally inadequate laws and policies governing immigration and citizenship. You may recall, if you paid attention during your civics classes, that Congress is responsible for drafting laws ... which brings me back to the The Shirky Principle.

We have totally inadequate immigration laws and policies because they present a politically useful weapon, and neither party is willing to disarm. Last week, Republican members of Congress took a theatrically useless "fact-finding" trip to the southern border, where they were able to gain valuable Faux News airtime to berate the Biden Administration for not doing enough to hermetically seal the border. 

Congressional Republicans demand that the President take the actions they want by executive order ... which, of course, allows them to avoid getting their fingerprints on them, and blame Mr Biden if the situation doesn't immediately and magically improve. They insist that their proposed legislation (HR-2) is the only solution to the crisis, is absolutely not negotiable, and must be implemented exactly as written**. 

Texas GOP Representative Troy Nehls said the quite part out loud when he recently said, 

“Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating ... I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man’s dismal approval ratings. I’m not going to do it. Why would I?”

Mr Nehls added that "[Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer has had HR 2 on his desk since July. And he did nothing with it." 

My way or the highway seems like an odd way to secure support for important legislation.

Granted, the Democrats had their chances to reform the immigration mess when they were in power, but at least they had the grace not to be so angrily blatant about it.

When the solution is less important than the ability to use the problem to score political points, we see the Shirky Principle in action.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Well, fascinating to me, anyhow.

** Making it the legislative equivalent of the Bible or the Koran.

Simplifying the Government

Say what you will about Der Furor (and I have), his reelection in 2024, although it would be an utter catastrophe for the nation and the world by almost any measure, could have one potentially positive result - the most radical simplification of the structure and function of the federal government since 1789.

Conservatives and Libertarians constantly rail about the size and power of the federal government, and it is, indeed, a huge and sprawling organization, as shown in this chart (click to embiggen):

For all his faults (and they are many, legendary, and well-documented), Der Furor's gaseous bloviations offer a vision of a streamlined federal government. Pictured below is a diagram of the updated government led by a resurgent Furor ...

Well, it certainly is a simplified structure, far more satisfying to those who seek a leader who offers simple answers to complicated questions. It would not, however, save any money, because history clearly shows that Der Furor has no problem using the powers of the presidency to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies. This is what's known as an oligarchy, the best current example of which is Russia under Tsar Vladimir I ... a system openly supported by today's GOP.

Have a good day. Think hard about what a government under a malignant and vindictive narcissist would look like and how you'd fare under it before you cast your vote next November*.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Voting rights not guaranteed in GOP-dominated states.

What the Democrats Need to Do, Part 3: Play the Long Game

In the last two posts, I've tried to lay out a plan for how the Democratic Party can regain its momentum and move forward in the face of the relentless opposition of the GOP and the traditional ignorance and disinterest of the American voter. Today, the third and (for the moment) last element of my plan ...

Play the long game.

Republicans have invested years of effort in shaping the political environment at the local and state levels. They have steadily concentrated on winning the political offices that shape life and thought at the level where people actually live ... the local officials, the mayors, the governors, the school boards, the overseers of elections, etc, etc. They have done this by studying and understanding the people at the local level, playing on their needs, wants, and fears (real or imagined). 

Republicans have ruthlessly gerrymandered congressional districts to ensure that they will win elections without the inconvenience of having to win the popular vote. To be fair, Democrats have done their share of political gerrymandering, but they have never been as scientific and totally focused about it as Republicans. The chances of undoing Republican gerrymandering now underway are slim without passage of national voting rights legislation ... this ought to be the Democratic priority, arguably even more important than the Build Back Better program. Without it, Democrats will be locked out of elections they legitimately win by popular vote for a generation or more.

At the national level, Congressional Republicans have focused relentlessly on filling judicial positions with conservative judges vetted and approved by such conservative think tanks as the Federalist Society. The most flagrant examples of this are, of course, the appointments to the Supreme Court of Neil Gorsuch (after inventing the "tradition" that appointments cannot be made in an election year to block President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland) and Amy Coney Barrett (after ignoring that "tradition" to push through her nomination just a week before the 2020 election), but equal attention has been paid to staffing circuit and appeals courts with reliably conservative jurists. 

Republicans are playing the long game, planning now for a future in which their white, nominally Christian base will be the minority in a rapidly-changing America.

Democrats must play the long game, too.

They must invest in the local door-knocking and connections with everyday Americans to spread their message face-to-face, without the misinformation and misdirection that's the stock in trade of the GOP. They need to clearly explain their policies and how those policies will benefit not just Main Street, but the most distant and outlying RFD or Star Route, where the most conservative Americans live.

They must clearly explain why government policies that benefit everyone aren't "socialism." 

They must clearly explain things like the difference between common-sense gun safety laws and the conservative scream that "they're coming to take your guns." After all, there have been seven Democratic presidents since the death of FDR in 1945, and not a single gun has ever been "taken" or "confiscated." 

They must understand the visceral appeal of simple GOP messaging and know how to counter it. "Critical Race Theory!," "Replacement Theory!," "Gun Control!," "Activist Judges!," "Lower Taxes!," "Protect Our Heritage!," "Support Local Education!," "Freedom!" ... these are all simple, direct concepts that require no thought, but need an equally simple and direct Democratic response. 

Playing the long game is hard. It requires extensive planning, understanding of local conditions, and a deep understanding of the needs and wants of Americans where they live. Democrats must understand that not every voter is interested in lofty goals and aspirations that don't directly affect them unless they can be presented in clear, unambiguously personal terms.

In summary, these are the first three steps that will help the Democrats regain the support of American voters: 

(1) Define your own programs; don't let the Republicans do it for (or to) you.

(2) Don't focus on gigantic, complicated programs that scare voters ... go for smaller individual initiatives that are easy to explain and defend to voters with the attention span of a two-year-old and the critical thinking skills of a religious fanatic. 

(3) Play the long game. The GOP does.

I have more ideas, but I need more time to flesh them out. In the meantime, what are your ideas? What should the Democrats be doing to improve their image and their electoral performance? Leave a comment to share your thoughts.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

What Democrats Need to Do, Part 2: Smaller Bites

Yesterday, I suggested that the most important thing Democrats need to do as they work to regain momentum is to seize control of their own narrative and push back against relentless Republican misdirection, distortion, and outright falsehoods. Today, Part 2 of my three-part series of posts on what the Democratic party must do to move forward in the face of the political equivalent of total war ...

The next step in rebuilding Democratic momentum is to realize that the average American, left to his or her own devices, lives within a relatively narrow range between “liberal” and “conservative.”* Most people are amenable to change, but not too much and not too fast, and this is where I think the Democrats have gone off the rails with their current agenda**. 

Virtually everything in the President's Build Back Better program is popular with a majority of Americans, but when it’s all put together in one gigantic package, it scares people who would otherwise be happy with incremental change ... trying to do one gigantic FDR-style package in the absence of a visible threat along the lines of the Great Depression is frightening and allows the right to raise the terrifying specter of “socialism,” which they do not understand, but which serves as a useful  boogeyman. Having one gigantic package with a vast price tag that is beyond the comprehension of voters whose annual income seldom exceeds $60K allows Republicans to harp about the cost rather than acknowledge the benefits. 

When we combine this with yesterday's discussion of aggressive messaging, it's easy to see how the Democrats routinely shoot themselves in their fiscal feet. Defending an enormous and complex program to a population used to sound bites and bumper stickers and unused to critical thinking and analysis is virtually impossible. How much easier would it have been to break the enormous Build Back Better program into smaller, easier-to-understand segments that would resonate with middle America and more easily gain bipartisan support? As a clear example, working families would cheer the provision of paid family leave, but when it's just one small part of a gigantic package, it gets lost in the political noise.

It's understandable that Democrats want to press their advantage while they have it, knowing that American voters have limited attention spans and short memories. But with such slim majorities in Congress, the dragging weight of such faux-Democrats as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, and a Republican opposition in thrall to Der Furor and totally united to mindlessly block their agenda, the Democrats must live in the political world that exists ... not the one they think exists. There's no such thing as a "mandate" without an enormous electoral victory ... which they don't have.

The obvious answer is to work in phases. Decide the relative importance of the things you want to do, prioritize them, and move forward. Build support by clearly explaining how each one positively affects the lives of average Americans. Build momentum ... each small victory will make the next one easier.

In summary, these are the first two steps that will help the Democrats regain the support of American voters: 

(1) Define your own programs; don't let the Republicans do it for (or to) you.

(2) Don't focus on gigantic, complicated programs that scare voters ... go for smaller individual initiatives that are easy to explain and defend to voters with the attention span of a two-year-old and the critical thinking skills of a religious fanatic. 

An old saying says there is only one way to eat an elephant: a bite at a time. Let's eat that elephant.

There's another thing the Democrats need to do***, and I'll discuss that in tomorrow's post.

More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Democratic strategist Paul Begala recently commented that most Republicans are "theoretical conservatives but operational liberals" ... they spout the conservative rhetoric, but tend to support liberal policies and programs that benefit their daily lives. I think that's spot-on.

** And where the Republicans, given the opportunity, will overreach in exactly the same way.

*** If you have ideas on others, leave a comment. We're all in this together.

What the Democrats Need to Do, Part 1: Better Messaging

This is the first of a three-part (at the moment) series of posts on how the Democrats can recover from their recent beatdown. I think each of these parts is obvious, but I welcome your comments and additions if you think I'm off base. If you like what you read, make sure to pass it on to your fellow citizens who vote (or could be convinced to vote) Democratic. Here we go ...

My feelings about the smoking wreckage left after last Tuesday’s election were summed up by a tweet from my friend Birgitta:

“So what we’ve been doing isn’t working. The fact is there are more liberal and progressive people in America than conservatives. What do we need to do to empower ourselves and make ourselves heard? I’m honestly asking. Let’s create a plan and get to work.”

I answered her with this tweet of my own:

“The first order of business will be to get serious about messaging, and stop letting the right set the terms of the debate. Let them react to our positive messaging, rather than us just hunkering down and taking fire from the crazies.”

I definitely think that’s the first, most important order of business for the Democratic party. The GOP has no defined policies other than tax cuts for the rich and the elimination of regulations on big business, neither of which can be demonstrated to help average Americans. Beyond that, the entire GOP platform consists of hammering on divisive culture warfare issues and distorting Democratic initiatives and positions on issues to spin up a conservative base animated by unfocused rage. They are absolute champions of the distortion, misdirection, and outright falsehood, all of which the Democrats never manage effectively to challenge, despite having detailed policies, programs, and ideas that are demonstrably in the interest of the average American. The answer is obvious: 

(1) Get your own message out first, before the Republicans do it for you. Clearly and positively explain the basic details and advantages of your programs and policies at every opportunity. 

(2) Present your message in language that speaks to your audience ... and always remember that your audience is not hard-core progressives and academics with PhDs in arcane subjects, but people who need to be convinced that you are right - don't preach to the choir. Don't use the wonky language of policy geeks or ivory-tower academics ... speak in language the person on his (or her) way to work at 4AM, buying a coffee at the 7-11 in the most rural small town, will understand. 

(3) Don't use statistics unless you can relate them directly to the day-to-day lives of average Americans. Don't be the guy who uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost ... for support rather than illumination. Never bog down in discussions of enormous numbers that are beyond most people's comprehension ... if a statistic can't be made directly meaningful to your audience, don't use it.

(4) Never let a distorted GOP accusation go without a response ... always push back with accurate information. However, don't get bogged down in useless exchanges of sound bites. Clearly explain why they're wrong, and move on ... after all, the first info that's out is the info people will remember, so you're fighting an uphill battle already ... you just want to have the truth out there for those willing to hear it. Don't let the Republicans dominate with volume rather than facts.

My wife, who is from Germany, notes that most Americans are uncomfortable with detailed argument, analysis, and debate. They are not used to critical, analytical thinking. They want simple, satisfying answers, even if those answers are demonstrably wrong ... when the wrong answer is more comforting, most Americans will scoop it up in the proverbial New York minute. What this means is that it’s generally useless to appeal to Republicans with data and analysis that proves them wrong, because they won't pay attention long enough to understand it, even if they don’t simply dismiss it out of hand as “fake news.” Nevertheless, the Democrats owe it to the American people to get their message out.

That's step one, but it's far from all that needs to be done. Part 2 of my plan to regain Democratic momentum is coming tomorrow ... more thoughts then.

Have a good day.

Bilbo

Artificial Intelligence?

One of the classic themes of science fiction is that of machines turning on their human creators - the ultimate expression of the Law of Unintended Consequences*. The franchise almost everyone knows is "The Terminator," which was based on D.F. Jones' 1976 novel "Colossus," which in turn was derived from a terrifying 1967 story by Harlan Ellison called "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream." You could go even farther back, to a 1944 short story by Theodore Sturgeon titled Killdozer!.

This leads me to the discussion of an interesting, if disconcerting article by Steven Overly in yesterday's Washington Post: The Great Artificial Intelligence Gamble That Paid Off. It tells the story of a recent experiment conducted by Carnegie Mellon University to develop an artificial intelligence program that could play poker and beat human players - a similar effort to the one that developed "Deep Blue," the IBM computer that was able to beat reigning chess world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997. The poker program was able to defeat four professional players in one-on-one competition, winning more than $1.7 million.

The development of the poker-winning program was a significant milestone in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) because it showed that a computer can make decisions based on limited information and accumulated experience, the same way that humans do. It proved that AI could succeed in one-on-one competitions, although it was less effective when dealing with multiple players. As Mr Overly points out in his article, poker is a zero-sum game that operates within a well-defined set of rules and hierarchies of outcome, whereas decisions made in the real world “... often require compromise**, and whether one outcome is more or less desirable than another may depend entirely on the player’s perspective***.”

So, Dear Readers, what does this infer for our future relationship with machines? I, for one, am not ready for a machine that's smarter and makes better decisions than I do ... although most electric shoe buffers already fit into that category. Nor do I think I'm ready to hop into a self-driving car that relies on GPS and AI decision making on the rules of the road. While the future imagined by Theodore Sturgeon, D.F. Jones, Harlan Ellison, and the Terminator films may be overly dystopian, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. I think we need to be very careful about the way we integrate the use of AI in our decision making.

But then again, how bad can it be? We do a poor enough job relying on real intelligence, as evidenced by the outcome of the 2016 election.

Have a good day. Be more intelligent than your refrigerator. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The law applies equally as well to politics as to science fiction, as Trump supporters are slowly finding out. 

** Although real people aren't very good at compromise any more, anyhow.

*** This is also true, as we observe the radical differences in how "the people" view the actions of the Trump administration based on their political and economic perspectives.

What's in a Name?

The United States Air Force recently announced the name of the new long-range stealth bomber now in development. The B-21 will be known as the "Raider," in honor of the Doolittle Raiders who flew the first bombing mission to Japan in World War II.

There is a long tradition of giving fearsome, intimidating names to weapons of war. World War II Germany fielded the "Tiger" and "King Tiger" tanks, and American warplanes have borne names like "Flying Fortress," "Superfortress," "Avenger," "Lightning," "Thunderbolt," and "Warthog." A weapon should make our enemies quake in their hobnailed boots - naming a warplane after a flower wouldn't have the same effect.

In seeking a name for the new bomber, the Air Force held a competition in which airmen were encouraged to submit proposed monikers. About 2,100 "original" names were submitted, and the list of finalists from which the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff made their selection was:

Boomerang
Ghost
Horizon
LeMay
Liberator II
Mitchell II
Night Fury
Phoenix
Raider
Shadow Fortress
Stingray
Valkyrie
Victory
Wraith
Zeus II

However, the full list of submissions* included some ... interesting ... recommendations. Here are a few of them:

Lurking Sasquatch
Nukey McMeltface
Chuck Norris
Hammer Time
1,000 Schools
Insert Sponsor
Congressman
Bomble Bee
Cost Overrun
D.E.A.T.H. (Deterring Enemies Around The Hemisphere)
Hole in the Sky to Throw Money Into
Mecca Wrecka**
Primordial Atlas
Sequester Bomber

You can read the entire list here.

The cascade of tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, and politically incorrect submissions was expected, based on the experience of the British government when it sought names for its new polar exploration ship by means of an Internet competition. The winner was "Boaty McBoatface," although the government decided to ignore that result and name the vessel after Sir David Attenborough. One of the ship's remotely-operated submersibles, however, was named "Boaty" in a nod to the competition results.

The lesson: be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* More than 4,000 were received, many of them duplicates, which is why I mentioned the 2,100 "original" submissions above.

** The ultimate in political incorrectness.

The Shirky Principle

I read an interesting article by Miss Cellania on Mental Floss the other day: 10 Rules, Laws, and Theorems You Should Know. All of the ten are interesting, but one stood out for me: The Shirkey Principle, which is:

“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”

According to The Shirky Principle, organizations tend to become so vested in solutions to their problems that they can inadvertently perpetuate those problems.

Hmmm ...

Even the name of the principle works in this context, because Congress lately tends to shirk its responsibilities ... and when it does occasionally yawn, stretch, scratch it's collective armpit, and decide to do something, it's something important and meaningful, like naming a post office or designating National Kumquat Day.

But perhaps that's better, at least until the adults take over again.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Seven Days in May, Revisited

Some of you may remember the 1962 novel by Fletcher Knebel titled Seven Days in May, or the 1964 film version starring Gregory Peck and Burt Lancaster. It dealt with a plot within the American military to overthrow a president who had negotiated a disarmament treaty that left military leaders fearing a possible nuclear attack to which they would be unable to respond.

Sound familiar?

With all the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" with Iran, one has to wonder if there is any chance that the life of the nuclear deal with Iran might imitate the art of the novel. I have to say that from my vantage point as a lowly worker in the Pentagon, there is concern over the JCPOA, but no discussion of a reaction as unthinkable as a military coup to overthrow the President.

Of course, there's talk of just such a thing in our overheated media. Consider this article by Millie Dent in The Financial Times: A Military Coup in the US? A Surprising Number of Americans Might Support One.

According to Ms Dent's article, which is based on the results of a survey by YouGov, 29% of those who responded said they can imagine a situation in which they would support the military taking control of the federal government ... extrapolated to the population of the country, that means more than 70 million American adults would rather see a general or admiral run the country than the President.

I don't know about you, but I find this both shocking and completely predictable.

Surveys have long shown that the armed services consistently earn a far greater level of trust and respectability among Americans than their fractious and inept Congress. Nevertheless, the idea that a significant portion of Americans would consider a military coup rather than the ballot box to address their political and social concerns is frightening. This chart from the article summarizes the survey results by political party ... while predictable, they are still very scary:

A lot of Americans don't like President Obama, whether because he's black or liberal or a Democrat or Hawaiian* or whatever. I get that. However, the level of hysterical invective being thrown at the administration by herds of screaming talking heads in the media and the irresponsible grandstanding by members of Congress who ought to know better has led to a situation in which more than a quarter of Americans - and nearly half of all Republicans - might consider military rather than civilian rule.

And that's beyond scary.

Have a good day. Think about the implications of the political slogans you blindly chant at rallies and share on Facebook ... and consider how they'll sound when you get what you wish for: a "supreme leader" rather than an elected president.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* One of the best arguments for spending more money on education is that a lot of people (yes, Mr Trump, I'm talking to you) apparently can't read enough English to understand a birth certificate.

Hot Enough for You?

It snowed again last night here in NoVa, and while it's not nearly as cold as it is in garden spots like Minnesota and upstate New York, it's plenty cold and snowy enough to make life miserable. One measure of the bitterly cold temperatures is my electric bill that arrived yesterday, and looks like the place Dominion Power picked to store all its extra digits.

I know I shouldn't be complaining about the cold, because in another six months or so I know I'll be complaining about the miserable damp heat of high summer, but it's my blog and I'll piss and moan if I want to. And I want to.

But I can also use this space to be proactive and think about warmer subjects ... like hot sauce.

I found this fascinating chart the other day ...

Yes, Dear Readers, sales in America of hot sauces of all kinds have skyrocketed since the beginning of the current century, while sales of more traditional sauces have remained relatively stable. The accompanying article attributes this meteoric rise to two things: the burgeoning immigrant population, particularly of Asians and Latinos, who tend to enjoy spicier foods; and the skyrocketing popularity of hot wings, of which we consume some 25 billion each year. For more hot topics, you can go back and review my blog post from last month in which I discussed the world's record-holding hot pepper.

So hoist your bottle of Frank's Red Hot Sauce, Tabasco, Cholula, Sriracha, or your hot sauce of choice and raise a toast to all things hot. You'll be begging for colder temperatures soon enough.

Have a good day. Bring in the brass monkey. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Big Brother is Watching, Listening, and Storing. And He Doesn't Always Work for the Big, Bad GovernmentTM

On June 6th, 1949, George Orwell's classic novel 1984 was published. Orwell established the date of the title by reversing the last two digits of the year he wrote the book - 1948. He died in 1950 without knowing that he set his story of a society based on universal government monitoring and surveillance and control about 29 years too early. The leader of the government was the almost mythical figure of "Big Brother," and citizens were always reminded that "Big Brother Is Watching" ...

This past week, with the revelation that the National Security Agency* is working with communications and internet service providers to vacuum up the billions of telephone calls, e-mails, tweets, and other electronic communications that fly across the country every day, there are outraged cries from Congress and the public about the arrival - 29 years late - of the total surveillance culture described by George Orwell.

As you might suspect, I have a few ideas about that.

We Americans have a long history of distrust of government, going all the way back to the time of the Revolution. The Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the Constitution - grant all of us a wide range of rights and freedoms not granted in many other countries**, including a right we believe we have, but that isn't actually guaranteed under the Constitution ... the right to privacy.

That's right.

You have no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy. What most people think of when they think of a right to privacy are the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment:

"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."

You are guaranteed protection against unreasonable searches, which is not quite the same thing as being guaranteed privacy. And although there are many legal safeguards, invisible to most of us, that are intended to prevent abuse of the government's ability to compromise our privacy and protect us from unreasonable searches, the fact remains that we live today in a surveillance society ... and not all of that surveillance is carried out by the government and executed under legal controls intended to prevent (or at least, minimize) abuse.

Every time you scan your "preferred customer" card at the local supermarket, every time you place an order online, every time you make a cell phone call to a business, every time you cross a busy street or sit in a public place, you are allowing yourself to be scanned, recorded, imaged***, bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated. The telephone number and other personal data you write down on the warranty registration for your new appliance is sold, resold, packaged, analyzed, and parsed by dozens of individuals and data mining companies who are not restricted by the Fourth Amendment. The jerky video of you jaywalking across the street because you were too lazy to walk down to the crosswalk is maintained in a database somewhere, where someday a face-recognition program may decide that you look like a person wanted for some other, more heinous crime. The other day a friend of mine posted this on his Facebook page:

"Yesterday I did a post congratulating someone for earning her Master of Divinity. Today an ad popped up offering me Master of Divinity programs. Coincidence? I think not."

No, it isn't a coincidence. Big Brother is, indeed, watching. And he doesn't always work for the Big, Bad Government^TM.

There are a great many questions - both legitimate and asinine - being asked about what the NSA is doing. These are accompanied by the predictable howls of outrage from the left and the right for someone's head on a plate****. Nevertheless, it was not an out-of-control intelligence community that started all this ... it was Congress, in its speedy passage and routine renewal of the Patriot Act and other well-intentioned (yet, in hindsight, perhaps Constitutionally questionable) legislation, that established the foundation for all the actions that are now being questioned and villified. You can read the whole story here (and you should).

The next time Americans are killed in a terrorist attack (and it will happen, this being that kind of world), representatives of the intelligence and national security communities will be sitting in front of the cameras being thundered at by irate members of Congress for not predicting the attack and doing something in advance to prevent it. For all their faults and often questionable provisions, the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are some of those things we've chosen to do. Let us not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

And if you can't have a right to privacy, why not just settle for the right to be left alone ...

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Because of its penchant for extreme secrecy, often jocularly known as "No Such Agency."

** Try exercising your freedom of worship in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or your right to bear arms almost anywhere else in the world, and you'll see what I mean.

*** One day, on a whim, I decided to count the number of surveillance cameras that were taking my picture between the time I left my house and the time I arrived at my office in the Pentagon. I stopped counting at 25.

**** Prefereably the President's, from the GOP perspective ... which conveniently forgets that the Patriot Act was enacted under a Republican president, and still has plenty of members of Congress of both parties supporting the routine extension of some of its more controversial provisions.

Where Should Congress Do Its Work?

A proposal has been made for a "virtual Congress" in which Senators and Reprehensives would, essentially, telecommute from their home districts, coming together in person only for key votes and to berate hapless witnesses at useless hearings. Is this a good idea?

Whether good or not, it isn't a completely new idea. New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce first floated the idea of a virtual Congress in November 2010, arguing that a Congress operating from the local level is better for citizens, because it would put elected representatives closer to constituents and separate them from the teeming swarms of lobbyists and attorneys infesting the marbled halls of Washington. He also suggested that a Congress meeting virtually would save taxpayers money by minimizing travel costs, and would protect Congress as a group from terrorist threats by spreading its members across the country.

Some of the arguments are persuasive. The technology of relatively secure video communication is well-established and used in many businesses and branches of government to help keep down travel costs, and there's much to be said for keeping public servants close to those they serve and away from the temptations of the Big City. Members of Congress spend a lot of time traveling back and forth to Washington from their home districts, reducing the amount of time they're available to actually do the work of governing*.

On the other hand, having members of Congress spread across the country promotes insularity and prevents them from interacting directly with each other, building personal relationships and learning to see each other as real people rather than political caricatures. I believe it would also impede their ability to view problems and issues in a national, rather than a purely local context. But the worst problem, in my opinion, would come from House members spending most of their time in thoroughly-gerrymandered echo chambers, in which they hear only the opinions of those who are most likely to agree on a narrow set of views and values, without exposure to competing opinions.

What do you think? Should Members of Congress be allowed to telecommute from their home districts, assembling only when Constitutionally required or absolutely necessary? Can they do a better job operating locally, or should they maintain the current system of coming together in Washington to shout focus group-approved slogans past each other and participate in bogus committees three or four days a week? I vote no, but would like to know what everyone else thinks.

Because we've got to do something to get our government working again.

Have a good day. See you back here for Cartoon Saturday.

Bilbo

* Not that you'd notice from the amount and quality of governance actually performed.

The End of the World As We Know It

Yes, Dear Readers, it's been a long eighteen months or so of endless debates, mind-numbing statistics, distortions (and outright lies), quotes taken out of context, accusations of horrifying levels of voter fraud, vast amounts of money wasted on air time (most of it just hot air), leaflets, roadside signs, robo calls, and all the other physical and moral detritus of a political campaign.

Now it's up to us.

I'll be going to the polls on the way to work to vote in the most depressing and disheartening election since I cast my first vote for president in 1972 (I voted for Richard Nixon). The Republican Party has driven me away and the Democrats have nothing to offer. The election offers a stark choice between two fundamentally different views not only of the nation's problems, but of reality itself. Rabid partisans of both sides predict a horrifying apocalypse if the other guy is elected, which doesn't bode well for their ability to work together after the electoral dust settles ...

REM has the right idea ...

And President Franklin Roosevelt summed up the current campaign very well ... in 1936 ...

It's going to be tough to vote, but you've got to do it.

Good luck.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Decision on "Obamacare"

This morning at 10 o'clock the Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better (if somewhat crudely) known by its detractors as "Obamacare." What will the decision mean to you and I and other Real People?

There has been so much hyperbole, misinformation, distortion, and outright falsehood generated about the law that it's almost impossible for a person who is not a lawyer or an insurance executive to understand what the real issues are and what the implications of the Supreme Court decision - whatever it is - are. How should we assess the impact of the decision?

The Washington Post has published an interactive graphic that helps to cut through the steaming piles of reeking BS that have been heaped on the discussion by all sides. To use it, you answer a few simple questions which result in a thumbnail assessment of what the Supreme Court decision will mean for you under each of the three possible scenarios: the law is struck down (declared unconstitutional); the law is upheld; or only the "individual mandate" is struck down. Check it out. For a longer analysis of some of the questions about the issue, read this article from The Daily Beast.

At one time - not so long ago - you went to the family doctor when you got sick, and the family doctor made you well again. It would be nice if those days could return, but I'm not holding my breath.  Today, your best bet is not to get sick ... and if you do get sick, to die quickly enough to minimize the expense and paperwork.

Two things are sure ... whatever happens, the drama surrounding the political football that is your health care will continue, and we bloggers will never run out of material about which to rant.

Have a good day. Stay healthy*.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Of course, if you stay healthy, you will undermine the fiscal stability of the health care industry ... so it's economically patriotic to get sick, right?

Shopping for Men

Gifts are always a problem.

We give them for birthdays, anniversaries, engagements, weddings, and a host of other reasons, but giving a gift is never a simple thing. We worry about what the recipient will or won't like. We worry about what gifts other people are likely to give so that we don't give a duplicate gift or - worse - give a gift that looks inadequate by comparison. We worry about how much to spend ... a gift too expensive makes us look gauche, while one too inexpensive makes us look, well, cheap. Most ladies have drawers full of expensive, uncomfortable, or downright embarrassing lingerie purchased for them by men who have ignored the inverse relationship between price and amount of material used in construction ... lingerie worn once, if at all. Most men have racks of ties they would only wear if a hangman was tying the knot.

In short, gift-giving can be a pain in the neck*.

Ladies, though, have it easy when buying gifts for men - just follow these simple rules and you can't go wrong ...

Rule #1: When in doubt, give him a cordless drill. It doesn't matter if he already has one. I have a friend who owns 17 and he has yet to complain. A man can never have too many cordless drills. No one knows why.

Rule #2: If you cannot afford a cordless drill, buy him anything with the word ratchet or socket in it. Men love saying those two words. "Hey George, can I borrow your ratchet?" "OK. By the way, are you through with my 3/8-inch socket yet?" Again, no one knows why.

Rule #3: Buy him anything for his car. Price doesn't matter - a 99-cent ice scraper, a small bottle of deicer or something to hang from his rear view mirror will be received as well as a set of custom-tooled alloy wheels. Men love gifts for their cars. No one knows why.

Rule #4: Do not buy men socks, ties, or bathrobes. If God had wanted men to wear bathrobes, he wouldn't have invented underwear.

Rule #5: You can buy men new remote controls to replace the ones they have worn out. Always buy a remote that is bigger and has more buttons than the one you are replacing. A backlit digital display is also a plus. Even better is a fancy touch-screen model. It'll keep him busy and keep his mind off sex for hours at a time, especially if you buy a new 596-inch plasma flat-panel TV to go with it.

Rule #6: Do not buy a man fancy liqueurs. If you do, they will sit in a cupboard for 23 years. Real men drink whiskey, beer, or simple cocktails like martinis.

Rule #7: Do not buy a man after shave. He is unlikely ever to be open the package, much less use it. Men prefer the ... um ... earthy smell.

Rule #8: Label makers. These are almost as good a gift as cordless drills. Be sure to buy ones that have as many buttons and assorted controls as possible. Within days there will be labels on everything in the house. Socks. Shorts. Cups. Saucers. Pets. Door. Lock. Sink. Children. You get the idea. No one knows why.

Rule #9: Never buy a man anything that says "some assembly required" on the box. It will ruin his Special Day and he will always have parts left over. Of course, if assembly requires use of a cordless drill or label maker, that's different.

Rule #10: Men enjoy danger. That's why they don't like to cook, but love to  barbecue. Get him a monster barbecue with a 100-pound propane tank and tell him the gas line leaks. "Oh the thrill! The challenge! Who wants a hamburger?"

Rule #11: Tickets to any sporting event are generally a can't-miss gift. However, he will not appreciate tickets to "A Retrospective of 19th Century Quilts." Everyone knows why.

Rule #12: Men love chainsaws. Never, ever, buy a chainsaw for a man you love. If you don't know why - please refer to Rule #8 and what happens when he gets a label maker.

Rule #13: It's hard to beat a really good wheelbarrow or an aluminum extension ladder. Never buy a real man a step ladder. It must be an extension ladder. No one knows why.

Rule #14: Rope. Men love rope. It takes us back to our cowboy origins, or at least the Boy Scouts. Nothing says love like a hundred feet of 3/8" manila rope. No one knows why.

Don't thank me ... it's all part of my ongoing effort to help you cope with the stresses of daily life.

It's Friday, and the weekend beckons. We'll talk about weekend plans tomorrow, after Cartoon Saturday ... be here.

Have a good day. More cartoonish thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* My birthday is in November. E-mail me for a suggested gift list.

Making the Right Choice

A shaggy dog story for a Friday...

One day a corrupt Congressman was crossing K Street in Washington after meeting with his favorite lobbyist, when he was hit by a car and killed instantly.

His soul eventually arrived at the Pearly Gates. He was welcomed by St. Peter, who told him, "Before you settle in, it seems we have a little administrative problem. We don't get many Congressmen here, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the Congressman.

"Well, I'd like to," said St Peter, but I have orders from The Boss. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"But I've already made up my mind - I want to be in Heaven," said the Congressman.

"I'm sorry," St Peter replied, "but I have my guidance." And with that, St. Peter escorted the Congressman to an elevator that took him down to Hell.

After a long ride, the doors opened and the Congressman found himself in the middle of a lush green golf course under a clear blue sky. In the distance was a clubhouse, and standing in front of it were all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. The men were dressed in tuxedos and smoking expensive cigars, and the women were dressed in the finest gowns and glittering with jewels. They all ran happily to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they’d had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and dined on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne, finishing off the evening with dancing to a superb five-piece band. The Devil proved to be a charming host who expertly worked the crowd as he poured drinks and told jokes and stories of politics through the ages.

The Congressman was having such a good time that before he realized it, it was time to leave. Everyone gave him a hearty farewell and waved as the elevator carried him slowly back up to the Pearly Gates, where St. Peter told him, "Now it's time to visit Heaven."

For the next 24 hours the Congressman joined a group of contented souls floating from cloud to cloud, playing harps and softly singing hymns. He had a pleasant time and, before he realized it, the 24 hours had gone by and St. Peter had returned.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven," he said. "Now it's time to choose your home for eternity."

The Congressman thought for a minute, then answered: "Well, I never thought I'd say this ... I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I really think I'd rather be in Hell."

"Well, it's your choice," St. Peter said, and he escorted the Congressman back to the elevator.

Once again the elevator went back down to Hell, but this time the doors opened onto a hot, barren wasteland covered with putrid, reeking garbage. All the Congressman's friends were still there, but now they were dressed in rags and moaning while they picked up the trash and put it in plastic bags while more trash rained constantly down on them from above and screaming demons poked them with pitchforks.

The Congressman was horrified, but the Devil put a friendly arm around his shoulders, smiled, and said, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today, you voted!"

Less than a week until the elections. Choose wisely.

Have a good day. Tomorrow, we'll have a special Halloween edition of Cartoon Saturday. Be here.

Bilbo

As If You Needed Something Else to Worry About...

Earthquakes, mudslides, out-of-control Toyotas, hurricanes, drug gangs, tornadoes, gun nuts, rap "music," extreme left-wing Democrats, murderously fanatical Islamists, environmental pollution, grand opera ... it's all enough to make you want to go back to bed and pull the covers over your head. How could things get worse?

How about invading space aliens? Not cute, gentle ETs ...

But really nasty ones ...

Yes, there are illegal aliens and there are illegal aliens. Some you can legislate against (not that anyone will pay attention to the law), and some you have to just scream and run from ...

You may wish to read this cheerfully optimistic article on CNN online: Should We Fear Space Aliens?

The answer is a resounding maybe.

It's entirely possible that aliens who stumble upon us could be friendly, benign, and willing to help us reach a higher level of technological and social evolution.

It's also possible that they might be afraid of our propensity for violence and intolerance, and unleash a can o' cosmic whoop-ass on us like we'd use Raid on a nest of cockroaches.

Should we look for life elsewhere in the vastness of the universe? Sure. I'm convinced it's out there, and it would be wonderful to know that we're not alone in the endless void. Should we advertise our presence by beaming signals out randomly? Uh, probably not. No sense in letting potentially hostile life forms know that we're capable of things like street gangs, "reality" TV shows, and cage fighting. I'm not ready to be the catch of the day at some tentacled alien's corner diner.

Give me good old earthbound illegal aliens any day. They may be scofflaws, an economic drain, and a general pain in the neck, but at least they don't eat you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo