Another Look Behind the Dead Cats and Fecal Floods

In yesterday's post, I offered an example of an action Der Furor's administration is quietly taking while you are distracted by the dead cats he keeps throwing on tables and the floods of ... feces ... he and his henchmen are pouring down on our heads. Today, I have another example.

It began when I told my daughter that I was thinking of going into DC to take part in the demonstrations against the lawless and unconstitutional actions of President Musk and his noisy Vice President, the Orange Airhorn. She thought it was the right thing to do, but advised that I closely read one of Der Furor's blizzard of royal pronouncements executive orders - number 14189, dated January 29th, 2025, and titled Celebrating America's 250th Birthday.

Who could object to celebrating America's 250th birthday, right? Well ...

Section 4 of this executive order reinstates Der Furor's executive order number 13933, dated June 20, 2020, which was revoked by President Biden in May, 2021. EO 13933 is titled "Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence," and Section 2(b) of that order reads as follows:

(b) It is the policy of the United States to prosecute to the fullest extent permitted under Federal law, and as appropriate, any person or any entity that participates in efforts to incite violence or other illegal activity in connection with the riots and acts of vandalism described in section 1 of this order. Numerous Federal laws, including section 2101 of title 18, United States Code, prohibit the violence that has typified the past few weeks in some cities. Other statutes punish those who participate in or assist the agitators who have coordinated these lawless acts. Such laws include section 371 of title 18, United States Code, which criminalizes certain conspiracies to violate Federal law, section 2 of title 18, United States Code, which punishes those who aid or abet the commission of Federal crimes, and section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, which prohibits as material support to terrorism efforts to support a defined set of Federal crimes. Those who have joined in recent violent acts around the United States will be held accountable.

First of all, one might legitimately ask why Der Furor, in the last days of his prior reign, did not "prosecute to the fullest extent permitted under Federal law" the members of the mob that "destroy(ed), damage(d), vandalize(d), or desecrate(d) a monument, memorial, or statue within the United States or otherwise vandalize(d) government property* (i.e., the United States Capitol) ... and, in fact, pardoned them for their crimes**. That's a rhetorical question, of course - obviously, there are tiers of law and accountability that privilege Der Furor's supporters over everyone else ... despite their outraged howls that the government has been "weaponized" against them.

But the specific concern my daughter had about my participation in demonstrations is based on the very broad and unspecific nature of what constitutes criminal behavior under this executive order. What is a "lawless act?" Does participating in an otherwise legal expression of my first amendment right peaceably to assemble constitute "participat(ing) in or assist(ing) the agitators who have coordinated ... lawless acts" or "supporting a defined set of Federal crimes?" I'm reminded of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's classic reference to “the elastic evidentiary bar used by [Der Furor's] administration.” 

Inquiring, worried minds want to know before exercising their rights.

Keep paying attention to the man behind the curtain and be careful how you protest. Your country and your rights are being stolen while your eyes just see dead cats as you tread ... water ... to stay afloat on the rivers of feces.

More worried thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Executive Order 13933, June 20, 2020, Section 2(a).

** Proclamation 10887, January 29, 2025, "Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."

 

 

Dead Cats, Fecal Floods, and a Real-World Example of What's Going On

In my daily early morning conversation with my daughter the other day, she used an expression I hadn't heard before - "throwing a dead cat on the table." It turns out that this refers to something called the Dead Cat Strategy, or deadcatting, defined as

"the political strategy of deliberately making a shocking announcement to divert media attention away from problems or failures in other areas."

This is, of course, a subset of the strategy professional political cat-thrower Steve Bannon called "flooding the zone with shit" (overwhelming opponents with outrageous and malodorous hogwash to keep them distracted and unable to focus on any one issue).

The zone nowadays is full of ... feces ... and all the tables are covered with dead cats. This is the modus operandi of the present administration: keep your opposition off balance by coming up with something newer and more insane every day. How do you triage the crazy when it's coming at you so fast there's no time to address one item of buffoonery before the next hundred hit you?

Ask yourself: in this vast, all-encompassing fecal perfect storm, what's really important? What are "they" trying to hide? What's the real agenda? Here's a current, real-world example:

On January 13th, the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a proposed rule titled "Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations" for public comment, with the comment period to end on March 18th. In its pdf form, the proposed rule is 58 three-column pages of dense legalese in tiny print. On the very last page, §1306.46, titled "State Laws Applicable to Special Registration Prescriptions," says,

When issuing a special registration prescription, a special registrant must comply with the laws and regulations of:

(a) The state in which the special registrant is located during the telemedicine encounter resulting in the special registration prescription;

(b) The state in which the patient is located during the telemedicine encounter resulting in the special registration prescription; and

(c) Any state or states in which the special registrant maintains a DEA registration to dispense controlled substances or a medical license, to the extent that the law or regulation applies to telemedicine encounters between practitioners and patients located in the states described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

There are multiple layers of information and regulation to unpack here. What this means, once you reach the bottom of the rabbit hole of cascading and confusing definitions and translate the legalese into plain English, is that a doctor issuing a prescription online or via a telemedicine portal must comply not only with the laws of his or her state, but also those of the state where the patient is located. It is clearly intended to prevent women in red states where birth control or abortifacient drugs are illegal from obtaining them from doctors in states where their prescription is allowed.

Would you have known about this if my daughter hadn't pointed it out to me and I hadn't investigated it and pointed it out to you? 

What other rules are being quietly crafted by an administration that claims to hate rules crafted by "unelected bureaucrats" while your attention is being diverted by dead cats floating through the zone on tsunamis of shit?

It's hard to deal with dead cats and fecal floods, but we've got to do it. Don't let Der Furor and his minions get away with the gaslighting and sleight of hand they use to keep us distracted and helpless. Turn anger into action in the ways recommended by Mike in this important post. Do pay attention to the man behind the curtain ... 

... because he's counting on you not doing it. 

Have a good day. Move the dead cats out of the way, shovel the shit away, and keep an eye on the men behind the curtain who would rob you of your freedoms.

Bilbo

Leadership by Adjective

The Oxford English Dictionary defines leadership as "The action of leading a group of people or an organization; the state or position of being a leader." There are many different types and theories of leadership, among them Laissez-Faire, Autocratic, Leadership by Example, Participative, Transactional, Situational, and Transformational ... you can look up the details of all of them (and many others) on the Internet*. Nowadays, there's a new style of leadership, one that I call Leadership by Adjective, and its primary practitioner is Donald Trump.

When you lead by adjective, as Mr Trump does, you don't set the example and provide guidelines for your people to follow, you simply tell them how wonderful things are going to be. A leader by adjective is a winner, and the results of his leadership will be magnificent, huge, amazing, big-league**, tremendous, and terrific. On the other hand, his political opponents are losers and morons - they're stupid, weak, lightweight, low-energy, and out of control. Evidence is immaterial - what's important is that the adjectives are repeated frequently, loudly, and with total conviction.

Leadership by Adjective is wildly successful because it does not require the followers to think - only to believe. The boss absolutely knows what he's doing, because he says so, and things are going to be great!.

Personally, I think Leadership by Adjective is a despicable con job on a credulous electorate. I believe in six essential rules of leadership I tried to follow over a 23-year career as an Air Force officer:

Treat people as you would want to be treated (it's hard to beat The Golden Rule);

Praise in public, criticize in private (and never criticize on social media);

Listen carefully, and make decisions based on the best advice and information available (facts matter);

Don't ask anything of your people that you wouldn't do yourself;

Be fair; and,

Be loyal to your people*** if you want them to be loyal to you (you need to give it to get it).

How well did I perform as a leader? I like to think I did pretty well but, of course, I'm biased. In any case, though, I think I did a lot better - albeit on a smaller stage - than the current occupant of the White House, whose practice of Leadership by Adjective is widely approved ... and that's pretty depressing.

Have a good day. Forget the adjectives and adverbs ... stick to the verbs. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Here, for instance.

** Or "bigly," as it's usually pronounced.

*** And it helps when you're the president to remember that "your people" means all of the American people ... not just your screaming base.

UPDATE - Here are the latest standings in the Ass Clown of the Year balloting:

1st Place: The GOP Congressional Majority
2nd Place: Hillary Clinton
3rd Place: Donald Trump
4th Place: The Democratic Party
5th Place: Sarah Huckabee Sanders

You still have time to vote - balloting ends at 11:59 PM on December 31st. Let your voice be heard!

B.

Another Interesting New Expression

Yesterday I introduced you to the wonderful new word anecdoche, referring to "a conversation in which everyone is talking and no one is listening," and to my neologism anecdouche, referring to a person who takes part in an anecdoche. I love words.

Today I'd like to share another new word ... expression, actually, that I found in an article by George Dvorsky titled 20 Crucial Terms Every 21st Century Futurist Should Know:

Repressive Desublimation

The concept of repressive desublimation was first developed by political philosopher Herbert Marcuse, and described by author Annalee Newitz this way - 

"It refers to the kind of soft authoritarianism preferred by wealthy, consumer culture societies that want to repress political dissent. In such societies, pop culture encourages people to desublimate or express their desires, whether those are for sex, drugs or violent video games. At the same time, they’re discouraged from questioning corporate and government authorities. As a result, people feel as if they live in a free society even though they may be under constant surveillance and forced to work at mind-numbing jobs. Basically, consumerism and so-called liberal values distract people from social repression."

Wow.

Are we being repressively desublimated by living in a modern consumer society that discourages questioning corporate and government authorities? Hmmm ... I wonder if we prove the existence of repressive desublimation each time we unthinkingly give up our phone numbers or e-mail addresses when the checkout clerk at the store asks for them, or when we look at obvious government-sponsored vote fraud such as we saw last week in Arizona and still support egregiously stupid voter ID laws.

What do you think? You do still think, don't you?

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for more Great Moments in Editing ... less intellectually challenging, but more fun. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

Magical Plans

As we discussed in this space a week or so ago, the Supreme Court today is hearing the case of King v Burwell which, depending upon how the court decides, could fatally undercut the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) by disallowing the subsidies upon which millions of low and middle income Americans depend to afford their health care insurance. Given that health care in this country is ridiculously expensive for the reasons we’ve already discussed, it seems fairly Grinchy to pull the rug out from under people who are now enjoying health insurance, many for the first time ...

But help is at hand, apparently, should the Supreme Court decide the subsidies are illegal*!

In an OpEd article that appeared in The Washington Post on March 1^st, three Republican Congressmen - Orrin Hatch of Utah (Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee), Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (Chair of the Senate Finance Committee), and John Barrasso of Wyoming (Chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee) – announced that

“Republicans have a plan to protect Americans harmed by the administration’s actions**.”

This is wonderful news! Of course, it might have been even more wonderful had it been announced a few years ago, in place of endless, useless votes to defund all or part of the ACA, but hey! – they have a plan now!

But as you might suspect, Bilbo the Cynical Curmudgeon has a few questions and observations about this GOP plan as outlined in the OpEd article …

First, an observation: an OpEd article does not constitute a “plan.” It constitutes a pair of promises designed to give the impression that a plan exists. As we shall see, I’m not sure that’s true.

The GOP recognizes that if the Supreme Court decides against the subsidies, millions of people who now are getting health insurance for the first time will no longer be able to afford it, and will lose it. This would be undesirable from a PR perspective. Therefore, the first part of the “plan” is this:

“We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period.”

Riddle me this, Batman … what will be the source of funding for this financial assistance? The GOP advertises itself, after all, as the party of fiscal restraint, insisting that new spending be offset by cuts to other programs. One might reasonably ask, therefore, what other programs will be cut to provide this assistance, or what other source of funding has been identified. This is not spelled out in the article, and I suspect it has been glossed over in the hopes that no one asks about it ... especially not the extreme fiscal conservatives of the GOP who will adamantly oppose new spending***.

The second part of the “plan” is this:

“We will give states the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets offering more options and different choices ... We have had many discussions with our Senate and House Republican colleagues on this issue, and there is a great deal of consensus on how to proceed. Many of our colleagues have good ideas, and we look forward to working together.”

You will, I hope, forgive me if I question the existence of “consensus” or an ability to “work together” within the Republican party. The recent fiasco over funding the Department of Homeland Security is a direct result of the refusal of the most hardline conservative Republicans to work with their more moderate colleagues (although there is great effort being made to put the blame on the Democrats). But be that as it may, how will the GOP “plan” to increase options and choices work? What are the other options that are being considered? How will they differ from the options and choices now available? Inquiring minds want to know.

So I ask again ... what's the plan? And what makes Senators Hatch, Alexander, and Barrasso think that anyone other than the most die-hard conservatives will believe that their platitudes constitute a plan?

Sadly there's quite a bit of stupidity and gullibility in the American voting population ... perhaps just enough to carry the day. And then they can turn to the GOP and ask what the plan is.

Good luck getting a straight answer.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* For a very good analysis of the legal issue, read this New York Times OpEd by Nicholas Bagley: Hello, Justices? It's Reality Calling.

** I assume they are referring to the incalculable harm done to millions of Americans who are now able to obtain affordable health care insurance.

***  The obvious solution is that they will just print the money and blame the Democrats for making it necessary for them to do so.

Reading the Fine Print

I know I shouldn't just automatically accept the 7,000-line-super-fine-print user agreements that most of us just click through when we do things online ... but I usually do. And so do you, probably. But do we really know what's in that fine print?

Here's an interesting article about the things hidden in the fine print of agreements from a credit card giant - Capital One Says It Can Show Up At Cardholders' Homes, Workplaces. The newly-updated Capitol One credit card agreements specify (in 0.00000735-point type) that "we may contact you in any manner we choose" and that such contacts can include calls, emails, texts, faxes or a "personal visit," at "your home and at your place of employment."

And speaking of those calls, Capitol One tells you (very quietly) that, "We may modify or suppress caller ID and similar services and identify ourselves on these services in any manner we choose." That means that they can trick you into picking up the phone by pretending to be someone else, someone non-threatening. Nice, eh? And legal, too, apparently.

Do you remember the story from last year about the online retailer that sued a couple for making negative comments about the retailer on a rating website? Apparently, the fine print of the sales agreement they signed had a "non-disparagement clause" that prohibited them from saying anything bad about the company ... and they never read far enough down in the agreement to see it (if they read the agreement at all).

What are some of the other things that might be hiding in that fine print? It wouldn't surprise me to find things like this ...

"Don't make us angry. You wouldn't like us when we're angry."

"In the event of a dispute, you agree to arbitration. We reserve the right to select the method of arbitration, which is cage fighting to the death against a rabid, starving grizzly bear."

"Accounts more than thirty days in arrears will incur a penalty. The current penalty is forfeiture of your firstborn male child. In the event that no male child is available, you may be sold into slavery in the Middle Eastern nation of our choice."

Lots of people nowadays are spun up over what they think horrible Jack-Booted Government Thugs^TM are planning to do to them, but no one seems to worry about all the things that Big, Bad Business is already doing to them with absolute impunity, and usually with their consent, witting or not. Regardless of how you feel about your Government, there are legal and Constitutional limits on its authority, and plenty of people willing to sue The Government* at the drop of a hat over real or perceived transgressions of authority. But who protects us from all the things that businesses can do to us? Big Business contributes vast amounts of money - often anonymously - to political campaigns that allow them to pull the strings on lawmakers. If you don't think there's a Platinum-Plus level of legal privilege and entitlement that applies to those with deep pockets and not to you, you need to lay off the medical marijuana.

You may not get to write the fine print, but you need to read it**. It's not always the Big Bad Government that's out to screw you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Such as Rand Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union.

** Me, too.

Off to 3D Print with the Wizard!

One of the upcoming movies I'm looking forward to seeing is "Oz the Great and Powerful," which opens on March 8^th. It's the backstory of classic film "The Wizard of Oz," and tells the story of how the man who became the famous Wizard originally came to the land of Oz.

If you recall the story, you will remember that Dorothy was blown in her house from Kansas to Oz by a tornado, which dropped her house on the Wicked Witch of the East, incurring the wrath of the Wicked Witch of the West and leading Dorothy to seek the aid of the Wizard of Oz in returning home. Along the way, she picked up three traveling companions, each of which also wanted the assistance of the Wizard: the Scarecrow wanted a brain; the Tin Woodsman wanted a heart; and the Cowardly Lion wanted courage.

In the end, of course, they vanquished the Wicked Witch of the West, Dorothy went home to Kansas, and each of her companions got his wish. It's a perfect cautionary tale for modern-day ultraconservatives, as it tells the story of four mooching characters who went to the government in search of handouts rather than solving their own problems.

Well, of course, it's just an entertaining fairy tale, isn't it?

Not so fast there, amigo!

You may have seen this interesting news report a few days ago: 3D Printers Help Scientists Grow Prosthetic Ears. Yes, Dear Readers, it seems that the new technological marvel of the three-dimensional printer is being used experimentally to grow replacement body parts ... in this case, ears, which are notoriously difficult to create or repair because of their intricate design of flexible cartilage.

Considering that most of the press surrounding 3D printers has focused on their use in creating plastic gun parts, toys, and other frivolous things, the use of such printers for medical purposes provides a look into a marvelous future in which hospitals may be able to produce spare body parts at an enormous markup.

And they might also be able to help resolve our ongoing crisis of gridlock and lack of leadership in Congress!

Perhaps we could use 3D printers to create hearts and brains for Republicans and backbones and brains for Democrats. Hmmm ...

Of course, once the sequester goes through, there won't be any extra money for frivolous spending. Experience has shown that both parties have been carrying on quite well for years without hearts, brains, and backbones, so why should scarce dollars that might be better used to give tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy be used to fix a non-problem?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Oh, hell, pay no attention to Congress, either.

Have a good day. You already have a brain and a heart ... use them to look clearly at what your elected reprehensives are doing in your name. Then get angry and use the backbone when you next go to the polls.

More thoughts on Thursday.

Bilbo

Only Following Orders

Well, we're two days past Halloween, but there are still scary things out there: Donald Trump, Grover Norquist, Harry Reid, and the Republican and Democratic parties, among other things. Those "other things" include this interesting article from Yahoo News - Bone-Chilling Science: The Scariest Experiments Ever. There are ten such experiments listed, ranging from mind control to accidental black holes, but the scariest, in my humble opinion, is the one titled Deadly Nurses ... which deals with the effect of perceptions of authority on obedience and ethical judgment.

You may have seen a 1976 made-for-television movie titled The Tenth Level, starring William Shatner and based on work done by psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1966. Milgram was interested in the effect of perceptions of authority on obedience, and conducted a series of famous experiments which showed that people would do terrible things to each other as long as they were assured that permission had been granted by some authority figure.

Three years after Milgram's experiment, psychiatrist Charles Hofling wanted to see how obedience influenced decisions when people didn't know they were part of an experiment. In Hofling's experiment, an unknown doctor called nurses working the night shift at a hospital and asked them to administer twice the maximum dose of an unapproved drug to a patient. The nurses did not know that the "medicine" was actually a harmless sugar pill and the doctor was not real. The researchers clearly labeled the "drug," so the nurses knew not only that they were overdosing their patients, but that they were violating hospital regulations by taking instructions over the phone and giving an unapproved medicine.

The scary part: 21 out of 22 nurses complied with the directions of the unknown doctor.

The study clearly showed the degree to which the aura of authority - in this case, instructions from someone claiming to be a doctor - could cloud people's ethical and moral judgments, even when they should have known better.

A classic defense offered by many of the Nazi defendants at the Nuremberg Trials was that they were "only following orders." We sneer at such a weak defense today, and yet experiments such as those conducted by Milgram and Hofling demonstrate the terrifying degree to which ordinary people - who in their hearts know they are doing the wrong thing - will obey orders given by someone in authority, particularly when they are assured that they will not be held responsible for their actions.

This is worth thinking about in a time when people blindly follow hate-filled religious leaders who claim that God sanctions violence against nonbelievers, and charismatic politicians offer ludicrous and unworkable ... but simplistic and appealing ... solutions to complicated economic and social problems.

Election day is just a few days away. Choose wisely. People in authority don't always have your best interests at heart.

Have a good day. Be sure to vote. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Big Brother is Watching. And So Is Big Sister.

Did you ever have the feeling you're being watched? Perhaps it's because you are.

In the olden days, surveillance was low-tech. Somebody (the government, or a suspicious spouse, or whomever) hired a guy in a trench coat and slouch hat to follow you around and take pictures and make notes about what you did. But that's sooooo 20th century. Nowadays, anybody with the right equipment and a wee bit of know-how can follow you anywhere. Your cell phone broadcasts your location (and even if it's turned off, it can be turned back on without your knowledge). The GPS unit in your car stores a record of everyplace you've been. Checking into places via Facebook lets the entire world (or, at least, that portion of it you've allowed) know where you are and what you're doing. We spill our deepest (or shallowest) secrets in the pages of our blogs. Cameras take your picture when you get money from an ATM, check out at the grocery store, transact business at your bank, ride the Metro, enter a building, or run a red light.

And then we complain that our "right to privacy" is being compromised.

Actually, regardless of what you might think, the Constitution does not grant you a "right to privacy." The closest it comes is in the Fourth Amendment, which states

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

Of course, this applies only to the federal government, and only so far as the Supreme Court says it applies. The Founders, when they drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, probably didn't think about things like traffic and surveillance cameras, GPS, and cell phones. The Fourth Amendment doesn't do a thing for you if you are beset by vindictive ex-wives/husbands, stalkers, or other nefarious individuals. You're on your own.

Two interesting articles in today's Washington Post take up this theme. The first, by Jonathan Turley (Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University), asks how much privacy we can expect in the age of ubiquitous surveillance. The other, by David Cole (an instructor in constitutional law and criminal procedure at the Georgetown University Law Center) discusses the same issue with a bit more of a look into the history of the privacy debate, and suggests that a case now before the Supreme Court offers an opportunity to rein in the power of the government (at least) by deciding what the Fourth Amendment really means.

For better or worse, we live in a world in which ubiquitous surveillance is a fact of life. We have decided (or, better said, it has been decided on our behalf) that trading privacy for convenience and safety is a good deal. If you don't have anything to hide, why should you worry about who's watching?

Good question.

I like to think of myself as a decent, law-abiding citizen. Well, except for the occasional California stop at intersections ... and the overdue library books ... and the extra salt packs and napkins filched from the fast-food places ... and ... well, you get the idea. Each of us, no matter how virtuous, performs some minor pecadillo every day that might be innocent, but might also look pretty suspicious when taken out of context. Do we want all of that recorded, particularly when the technology exists to carefully edit and reshape the record to make things look like what they aren't? I don't think so. Does everyone and his brother need to know where I am and what I'm doing at every minute of the day? Nope.

Professor Turley points out that we've allowed all this to happen by the decisions we've made in favor of security and convenience. The case now before the Supreme Court, Jones v United States, asks the court to decide the limits of government use of modern technology (specifically, GPS tracking) for unwarned surveillance. Should you care if you're not a drug dealer, arms trafficker, or other vile miscreant? Probably yes. Because the same technology that allows you to be kept safe from these low-lifes can be used against you as well ... and not just by your government.

There's no squeezing the surveillance toothpaste back into the constitutional tube. Regardless of what the Supremes decide, the technology of surveillance is out there, for good or for ill. The best thing we can do is be aware of it, and remember that in the age of ubiquitous surveillance and cheap memory, nothing ever goes away ...

Have a good day. Behave yourself ... you never know who's watching.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Peek-a-Boo, I See You!!

When you're a grandfather, you re-learn all those games you played with your children, the same ones your parents played with you. It warms your heart to see how happy a small child can get when you play a silly game like peek-a-boo.

But other people are playing peek-a-boo with you, too (Kathy - note the alliteration!), and they're not really playing.

I spotted this article on the local NBC news website yesterday - More Surveillance Cams Coming to D.C. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"The (D.C. Homeland Security) agency is planning to add thousands of security cameras throughout the District. It also plans to centralize all the camera feeds from private businesses, Metro and the housing authority. The city already centralized feeds for more than 4,500 cameras operated by the District Department of Transportation and D.C. Public Schools. Those feeds are monitored 24 hours a day."

Yes, not only is Big Brother watching, but he's already watching from more than 4,500 places and is preparing to add thousands more.

Surveillance cameras are a fact of life in the modern world, where violent crime and terrorism are real dangers against which those who would protect us are seeking every possible weapon for their arsenals. But though the intent of keeping us safe may be laudable, it's disconcerting to think that every time you visit the bank, check out at the grocery store, enter a public building, drive down the street, or do just about anything else, you can pretty much guarantee that somebody has got it on video. It's even possible for a nefarious person to remotely activate the webcam on your computer and watch you at home. I'm afraid to scratch an itch any more.

One day not long ago I decided to try an experiment and count the number of surveillance cameras that documented my movements between my home and my office. I stopped counting at 28, most of which were in and around the Pentagon. Just between my office door and the men's room (a distance of about 150 feet or so) I counted at least three.

And did you know that you can actually access the near-real-time feed from many of those cameras? Many cities and popular tourist locations make it possible for you to view the images from their cameras.

So ...

You may as well smile and make sure your hair is combed and your shirt tucked in at all times. You never know who will be watching.

Have a good day. Smile for the camera.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Golden Rule, 2010

With apologies to those of you who may already have seen this article via my Facebook page, let me recommend that you take a few minutes to read America's Political Class Struggle, by Jeffrey D. Sachs. I'll wait while you do.

As skewerings of our dysfunctional and worthless political parties go, it doesn't get much more literate and on-target than this. I wish I could have written this quote:

The problem is America’s corrupted politics and loss of civic morality. One political party, the Republicans, stands for little except tax cuts, which they place above any other goal. The Democrats have a bit wider set of interests, including support for health care, education, training, and infrastructure. But, like the Republicans, the Democrats, too, are keen to shower tax cuts on their major campaign contributors, predominantly rich Americans ... The level of political corruption in America is staggering. Everything now is about money to run electoral campaigns, which have become incredibly expensive. The mid-term elections cost an estimated $4.5 billion, with most of the contributions coming from big corporations and rich contributors. These powerful forces, many of which operate anonymously under US law, are working relentlessly to defend those at the top of the income distribution ... (and) both parties are implicated. There is already talk that Obama will raise $1 billion or more for his re-election campaign. That sum will not come from the poor.

Welcome to the 2010 version of The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Just a little something for you to chew on intellectually as you get ready for the Republicans and the Democrats to compete for the purchase of the presidency in 2012.

You can - and should - go ahead and vote. But if your vote isn't backed by a whole lot of zeroes to the left of the decimal point on your campaign contribution, you might just as well write in my name for all the good it will do.

And no matter what the Tea Party zealots mindlessly shout, I don't think this is what the Founders had in mind.

Get angry about the sale of your government. Demand better from your elected reprehensives, but expect worse. Then you won't be disappointed.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Cloak of Invisibility, Bwa, ha, haaaaaaa!

In just about 10 hours, Agnes will be back from Germany, and tomorrow morning we'll be heading up to Pittsburgh for the annual Thanksgiving Family Reunion ... which means that today is going to be another one of those frantically-flailing days as I try to get everything ready. Fortunately, I'm a fairly competent housekeeper, so I won't have to do too much to get the house back in order (only had to order up one dumpster for the trash, dontcha know), but I still have shopping to do and I need to drive down to Manassas to take Nessa to the vet for boarding for the weekend. She doesn't know it yet, so please don't tell her.

But before all that, let's talk about something really interesting - it seems that Harry Potter may not be the only one with an invisibility cloak.

According to this article from CNN, a "space-time cloak" that could conceal events and actions is a theoretical, if not a currently practical, possibility. I don't profess to understand any of the science and mathematics behind the whole thing (being the guy who crashed on the academic rocks of calculus and advanced chemistry all those years ago), but it's still a pretty neat concept.

It seems that all you need is a metamaterial (briefly, an artificial material engineered to provide properties which may not exist in nature) that manipulates light rays as they enter a material so that some parts speed up and others slow down. The result is that the light (that is, the image of the object or event to be hidden) doesn't reach the observer until well after it has happened. That's the theory, anyhow.

Did you follow that?

Just think of the possibilities ... Congress could use such a cloak to conceal its ineptitude and intellectual and moral cowardice, and banks could toss one over all those piles of cash they aren't lending. I could drape one over the yard and make all those tons of unraked leaves disappear, or use it to conceal my car parked in a prime no-parking zone.

The possibilities are endless.

Of course, there's a catch. According to one of the scientists quoted in the article, because light travels at 100 million meters per second, cloaking it would require a roughly equivalent number of meters of metamaterial ... which is a lot. I doubt that I could run down to the local G Street Fabrics store with Agnes and pick up a hundred million meters of cloaking material to hide the leaves in the front yard. But if you're a politician looking to hide inconvenient truths from gullible voters, you could easily afford it, since the Supreme Court has provided you a convenient invisibility cloak to drape over all your sources of campaign contributions, which could then be diverted to purchasing your real invisibility cloak.

Wow! What a concept. I'm sure there's a Republican PAC working on it right now, with the Democrats close behind.

Just another thing for you to worry about as you contemplate the dim future of competent and ethical government. Sorry about that.

But now, it's time to move on to things that are more fun - like getting ready for the return of my Very Best Beloved, and the joy of seeing all five grandchildren and most of my siblings in one place for the weekend. Life is good.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo