Talismanic Incantations, Updated

Just shy of eight years ago, in July of 2017, I wrote a post called "Talismanic Incantations." The theme of the post was that there are certain words and phrases that, when used in legal and political discussions, were the equivalent of the magic words we used to believe in when we were children. The title of the post came from a marvelous line in the 9th Circuit Court's decision in the case "State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson," which struck down Der Furor's proposed ban on travel to the US from six majority Muslim nations:

"National Security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power under §1182(f)."

Sadly, National Security has, in fact, become a talismanic incantation, as it invokes protection and deflects accountability for government agencies which exceed their lawful authority on the most tenuous of grounds. And it led me to suggest a number of talismanic incantations useful to justify all manner of otherwise objectionable actions, among them:

Freedom - the quintessential American incantation, generally combined with the type of freedom desired;

 

Religious Freedom - invoked only when one's own religion is inconvenienced;

 

Choice - applies only to the option desired by the person delivering the incantation; its use does not imply that others should enjoy the same equality of choice;

 

Fake News - casts doubt on spells invoked by others with which one does not agree;

 

Keep and Bear Arms - invokes the mystical power of guns, but must be accompanied by the frenzied waving of a firearm;

 

Job-Killing - counters economic spells one cannot counter with statistics or logic;

 

Government Overreach - counters spells which invoke powers not aligned with one's political philosophy;

 

Obstructionist - damages an opponent's image by characterizing them as unable to cast spells of their own, able only to interfere with spells cast by others; and,

 

Racist and Sexist - employed when no other spell works, they have no particular power other than to cast aspersions on spells cast by one's opponents.

 That was in 2017. In 2025, several new talismanic incantations have entered the language:

National Emergency - this is probably the most powerful incantation after National Security, because its use allows the invocation of all sorts of other incantations of legally and constitutionally questionable authority;

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse - a very powerful incantation which invokes the ability, without the need for specific evidence, to make large sections of government vanish; 

 

Anti-Semitic - similar to the previous list's Racist and Sexist, equates criticism of the government of Israel to hatred of the Jewish people as a whole, thereby deflecting legitimate criticism of legally and morally questionable actions*; 

 

Open Borders - shifts blame for Congress's failure for decades to legislatively address the full range of immigration reform issues to illegal immigrants**; and,

 

DEI - a catchall incantation useful for stifling debate in situations where no other incantation works. 

A DOGE employee demonstrates the proper invocation

of the "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" incantation.

There are also a few talismanic incantations that ordinary citizens can use without special training, among them:

Vote - an incantation, either written or verbal, which can, when cast in sufficient numbers, make undesirable officeholders disappear; 

Call - a verbal incantation used to impart knowledge of one's concerns to an elected official or a member of their staff and inform them of the likelihood of losing one's support if those concerns are ignored; 

Write - an incantation delivered in written form to impart knowledge of one's concerns to an elected official and, like Call, inform them of the likelihood of losing one's support if those concerns are ignored; and, 

Demonstrate - an incantation usually delivered by groups of individuals to remind elected officials of their duty or to call their attention to some undesirable condition.

The last four cost little and help to make your voice heard. And you don't need a magic wand ... only a telephone and writing materials.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* I know I'll take heat for this one from those who will claim (wrongly) that I am equating the actions of Israel to those of Hamas. Both sides claim the absolute right of vengeance for the misdeeds of the other. All I can do is remind them of the old adage that taking an eye for an eye only leaves everyone blind.

** Useful scapegoats who, after all, can't vote.

Will American Soldiers Follow Illegal Orders?

In the era of Der Furor, we find ourselves asking a lot of uncomfortable questions nobody ever thought would need to be asked, and the answers aren't very comforting.

We know now, courtesy of a severely compromised Supreme Court, that it is all but impossible for a President to be held legally liable for anything that might be construed to be within his Constitutionally-granted authority: 

" Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."*

In earlier times, when our presidents were generally judicious and more or less morally upright, we seldom worried about what they might do with the awesome powers they held. Today, not so much.

The same holds true for their appointees and Congressional supporters. 

During the confirmation hearings for the execrable Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense, Mr Hegseth was reminded that in June of 2020, Der Furor had directed former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs during demonstrations in Washington, and that Mr Esper had refused to comply with the order. Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono asked Hegseth directly: “Would you carry out such an order from President Trump?”

Hegseth dodged and weaved and, in the end, would not say "no."

So, would American soldiers serving under such a Defense Secretary follow orders to shoot fellow Americans in the legs?

I have no doubt that, in today's fractured and morally ambiguous political climate, serving under a proudly authoritarian president and a compliant Secretary of Defense, some would. It's well known that the US Armed Forces have a significant number of members espousing extreme far-right ideologies, and it doesn't take much to imagine their reaction if ordered to shoot "radical leftists who hate America" and "libtards" by a President who has already wanted to do it and a Secretary of Defense willing to pass on the order without question.

In the war crimes trials that followed World War II, many Nazi soldiers and government functionaries tried to excuse their barbaric behavior by maintaining that they were simply doing their duty, following the orders of their military or political superiors. "I was only following orders" is the stereotyped plea of those seeking to avoid personal responsibility by blaming their superiors**, and it doesn't usually work, although it can sometimes argue for a lesser punishment for people further down the totem pole.

I don't know about you, but I would hesitate to trust that many soldiers in today's Army wouldn't shoot me if ordered to do so, and that has to be one of the most terrible legacies of Der Furor and his sadistic and twisted MAGA ideology.

Have a good day, and be careful when you exercise your First Amendment right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowadays, the only grievances that matter are those of Der Furor and his besotted followers.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo 

* Trump v United States, 23-939, July 1, 2024

** The "Superior Orders" defense argues that a person, whether civilian, military or police, should not be considered guilty of committing crimes if ordered to do so by a superior officer or official. It's also known as the "Nuremberg Defense."

Of MICE and Men

Those of you who have been with me for a while know that I spent my entire career working in the world of military intelligence, on active duty in the Air Force and later, after my military retirement, as a government contractor supporting Air Force programs ... a total of more than 40 years dealing with secret stuff. I think this gives me a certain amount of authority to talk about the related topics of (1) the need to protect government secrets, (2) how we protect those secrets, and (3) the attitude of some people toward the protection of those secrets.

The immediate impetus for me to write this post was the arrest of a young Air National Guard Airman for his cavalier sharing of classified material he downloaded from secure networks in the course of his job as an IT specialist. Here's a guy who, like many thousands of other clearance-holders, was investigated and adjudicated before being granted access to classified material. Unlike most of those others, he chose to ignore the security guidelines in place and recklessly share extraordinarily sensitive material. Why did he do that?

People who make a living catching those who leak classified material will tell you that there are four reasons most people engage in espionage: for money, for ideology, because they've been compromised (blackmailed), or as an ego trip - hence the acronym MICE. But in the case of the young airman now sitting in jail, none of these really seem to apply. His motivation appears to have been a muddled mixture of a need to show off to his online friends, mixed with a confused desire to show "the people" what is really happening in the world. He apparently believed that the vast experience he'd amassed as a 21-year-old Airman First Class gave him the expertise and the authority to expose information that could (and likely will) cost lives.

So, IMHO, he's both ignorant and traitorous, and he deserves to be in jail ... as does a certain former president who was also (and continues to be) blithely cavalier with sensitive material. Guess which one is in jail? Hint ... it's not the one who can hire reinforced battalions of lawyers and convince ignorant laymen that he's being unfairly picked on.

But the question in my mind is this: how was it that this 21-year-old Airman was able to access such extraordinarily sensitive information? In short, because of two things: networks and the traditional tension between the need to protect information and the need to make it easily available to those who need it (who have a need to know).

When I entered the world of military intelligence in 1973, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, everything was on paper. It was stored in big, heavy safes which were kept in locked rooms which were often alarmed. If the contents were really sensitive, the safe would have two combination locks, and no single person was allowed to have both combinations. The most sensitive documents had unique control numbers and had to be signed in and out, and the records of their storage and access were audited at regular intervals. Most copy machines in secure areas needed a special key (which had to be signed for) to be operated, and had counters that recorded the number of copies made. Yes, things got leaked back then in the stone age, but it was a lot more cumbersome and dangerous to do so.

By the mid-80s or so, word processors started to become widespread, followed by standalone PCs, which begat networks and digital storage and transfer. This had both advantages and disadvantages. It reduced the amount of loose paper that needed to be stored in expensive, bulky safes and controlled with cumbersome handling measures, but it also introduced security vulnerabilities in storage and transfer. The IT specialists who set up, managed, and maintained the networks had to be authorized for access to the highest level of material on their networks - not because they had a need to know, but because the nature of their work gave them the opportunity to see everything that was there. This is what made the IT Airman in Massachusetts so dangerous.

Let's talk about the whole need to know issue. Need to know is supposedly one of the criteria for access to classified information ... it's not enough to be approved for access to information classified at a certain level - there must be an operational reason for you to have that access - a need to know. Some programs are considered so sensitive that the rule for access becomes "Must Know" - you cannot do your job unless you have access to that information. There's also another school of thought that says increased access to various sources and types of classified information leads to better analysis and improved decision-making ... this is the "Need to Share" camp. 

So, what does all this mean?

Classification is expensive and cumbersome. Safes rated to store paper files and removable electronic media are big (take up space), heavy (require buildings that can support their weight*), and very expensive. Networks become more expensive as the amount of digital protection increases, and increasing levels of protection often require multiple sets of equipment, independent connections, and separate access methods ... and wireless connectivity is dangerous in itself, being subject to interception en route. 

In my last job before retirement, I had three separate computers on my desk which allowed me to access four different networks at increasing levels of sensitivity. And the offices in which I worked, located in the already-heavily-defended Pentagon, were secured by combination locks and multiple alarms and access control policies and systems.

So, yeah, all this security is cumbersome and very, very expensive. Is it necessary? In some cases, certainly. In other cases, maybe. In still other cases, probably not. Who decides? Who makes the rules about what needs to be protected at what level, for how long, and from whom? Who watches the watchers? 

This is the hand-wringing discussion we have every time there's a major compromise of our intelligence and security. I don't profess to have the right answer ... I have suggestions that might help**, but it's no longer my problem. The people we pay to be security officers will have to figure it out. We will always have information that needs to be protected, we will always have people who want access to it that they shouldn't have, and no security system is perfect. As my dad used to say, locking all the doors and windows keeps the honest people out.

If you happen to be a person with access to sensitive information, remember that you don't get a vote on who you can share it with. Things are classified at a particular level for a particular reason. If you disagree, you can try to work it out with the person who originally classified it, or look for official channels through which you can appeal the classification.

The Internet ain't one of them. 

Have a good day. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Many years ago, my unit's offices were in rickety old two-story World War II-era open-bay wooden barracks (they've long since been torn down). The four-drawer safes on the upper floor (and there were a lot of them) had to be placed next to wooden support beams, otherwise they'd have a better-than-even chance of crashing down onto the heads of those of us on the ground floor. You can bet that we were attuned to every noise those buildings made.

** Starting with figuring out how to prevent IT people from accessing network content while doing network maintenance. Don't ask me how.

The Bill of Responsibilities

Those of you who have been reading this blog for any length of time know that I take a dim view of those who loudly and irresponsibly trumpet about their rights, but shy away from any discussion of their responsibilities. This is particularly true of those who prioritize the Second Amendment over the lives of children, and the Fifth Amendment above law and civic responsibility.

I am on the waiting list at my local library for a new book by veteran diplomat and policy-maker Richard Haass titled The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens, which appears to say the same thing I've been saying for many years. The book won't be published until later in January, so I don't know yet what his suggested "ten habits" are, but I thought I might dedicate this penultimate post of 2022 to the responsibilities of American citizenship that I think are important, especially at this moment in our history:

1. Recognize that you are part of a larger community, and that other people have rights, too. We Americans have a history of prioritizing the rights of the individual over those of the larger community. Insistence on unrestricted personal rights at the expense of the rights and safety of the community can lead to ... well ... what we see every time there's a mass murder by gunfire or some despicable hate crime.

2. Accept that "freedom" does not mean the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequences. I wrote about this back in October in my post titled "The Cognitive Dissonance of Freedom." When you believe that your perceived "freedom" grants you the "license" to break the law or deny freedoms to others, you are a real problem that you're inflicting on the rest of us.

3. Understand that not everyone shares your political opinions. Politics at its best is supposed to be the art of debate and compromise for the common good. It's hard to compromise between people who believe their political opponents are the second coming of Adolf Hitler and those who believe their opponents are whiny, baby-eating libtards. There's a rational political middle out there somewhere that people of good need to rediscover.

4. Understand that belonging to a particular political party does not make you automatically a good or a bad person, but that how you exercise and apply your political beliefs does. Not every Republican is a mindless proto-fascist and not every Democrat is a wild-eyed tax-and-spend liberal. Those that are ... and those who ignore or enable them ... make things a lot harder for those trying to be reasonable and rational within their respective political belief systems. 

5. Accept that there are religious beliefs other than your own, and that their practitioners hold them as deeply as you profess to hold yours. Contrary to what many on the religious right seem to think, the Founders did not intend their new nation to be a theocracy ruled by rigidly intolerant Christians. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ... it does not say that the United States is an exclusively Christian nation, or that you are free to impose your beliefs - whatever they are - on others. When your religion tells you to do one thing or act in a particular way, and your neighbor's tells him the opposite, who is right? Who decides? And whose rights are violated if one is prioritized over the other?

6. Recognize also that there are people who have no religious beliefs, and yet manage to be decent people and responsible citizens. Although I was raised in a traditionally religious home, it's been a long time since I've felt any attraction to any organized, ritualized religion ... and yet I try to be a good and caring human, and think those who know me well would probably consider me such ... most of the time, anyhow. 

7. Vote, and accept the outcome even when your preferred candidate loses. The whole ridiculous and dangerous idea that an election you lose is by definition corrupt or stolen undermines the very foundations of representative democracy. If you lose, blame your ideas for being less attractive than those of the other candidate and figure out what you need to adjust in your platform ... don't blame the other side for cheating. It just makes you look like a whiny, spoiled child.

8. Accept that the law applies equally to everyone, rich and poor. This is the American ideal, expressed in the majestic words "Equal Justice Under Law" chiseled over the entrance to the Supreme Court. Of course, as with so many other things in our country, the reality is quite different. If you're rich and can afford world-class lawyers and accountants (and, when needed, raw muscle) to get you off the hook, or buy off elected officials to craft laws in your favor, you come to believe that laws apply to little people, not to you. Just ask Der Furor.

So ...

Mr Haass has ten obligations of good citizenship. I have eight thoughts on the differences between rights and responsibilities. I think we'd be better off as a nation if the Founders had discussed the responsibilities of citizens and not just their rights, but here we are. We need to decide what it means to be a good citizen and what responsibilities come with the rights we enjoy.

Good luck with that.

Have a good day, and be sure to come back on Friday, when we present the final Ass Clown award for the year - the On-Crack Ass Clown for December. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

P.S.  For those of you keeping track, the Ass Clown of the Year standings show the top three vote-getters going into the home stretch as:

Greg Abbott in first place with 1000 votes;

Elon Musk in second place with 531 votes; and,

Kevin McCarthy in third place with 425 votes.

Others with votes piling up, but not yet in the top three, include Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Donald Trump, Jr., and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Newly-elected New York GOP Representative George "Everybody Embellishes Their Resume" Santos entered the contest yesterday, netting a meager ten votes.

Don't forget to cast your votes before 11:59 PM on Saturday. Rules and a list of the awardees so far can be found here. Let your voice be heard - vote now! And again later. 

B.

"Fifth"

If the average American doesn't know anything else about the Constitution, he (or she) knows two things: (1) the Second Amendment grants the unrestricted right to pack iron anytime, anywhere, for any reason; and, (2) the Fifth Amendment protects one from being compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence.

Of the two, belief in the sacred nature of the Second Amendment is generally more highly prized and vigorously defended, but for many Americans, it's the Fifth Amendment that is more useful. Here's what the Fifth Amendment actually says (emphasis added): 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment, in particular the highlighted clause, has entered the common vernacular through the expression "taking the Fifth," in which a witness invokes their Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

It seems to me, based on observing the actions of Der Furor and many individuals in his orbit, that this fundamental right of American citizens - while quite useful - is not properly respected for what it is: a vital personal right not guaranteed to most people in most countries. Indeed, invocation of the Fifth Amendment has become little more than a truncated Pavlovian reaction to unpleasant questions one might otherwise be compelled under oath to answer. Consider the video testimony of lawyer John Eastman and retired general Michael Flynn played during the January 6th Committee hearings ... when asked questions they did not wish to answer, each man simply said, "Fifth" or "The Fifth." Occasionally, they became positively loquacious by saying "Same Answer."

On the other hand, blowhard political troublemaker Roger Stone was a bit more voluble, repeatedly saying, "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer your question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment." This is perhaps the only time the adverb "respectfully" might ever be applied to Roger Stone's behavior. 

No less a well-read and educated Constitutional scholar than Der Furor himself used to scoff at the exercise of the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, saying on one occasion,

“So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

Of course, now that the law is finally catching up with many of the actions he's gotten away with in the past, his attitude has changed. Now, he says 

“I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’ ... Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice.”

During a deposition in August, Der Furor followed the lead of Messrs Eastman and Flynn by invoking the Fifth Amendment at the outset, then answering all subsequent questions with "same answer."

Now, in the great scheme of things, this may seem like a minor point to you, but it's a big one to me. While the exercise of a person's rights under the Fifth Amendment is perfectly legal and guaranteed by our Constitution, choosing to exercise it by simply saying "fifth" or "the fifth" or "same answer" in bored tones is the verbal equivalent of flipping the bird to the court. Roger Stone, whatever his failings (and they are many), at least pretended to pay proper acknowledgement to a fundamental right. 

Of course, the way things are going, taking the right fifth isn't necessarily a bad thing ...

Have a good day. Respect the freedoms you enjoy ... all of them.

More thoughts later.

Bilbo

The Debate We'll Never Have

I wrote about the language of murder in this space a few days ago. Since the mass murder that took place in Virginia Beach last week, we have deployed the usual thoughts and prayers, built the usual makeshift memorials, and wrung our collective hands in anguish. And, of course, done nothing that will substantively address the problem of mass murder by firearms in this country.

I exchanged comments on the Facebook page of Senator Mark Warner with people who deployed the usual arguments that arise after each mass murder. Here is a distillation of my comments, for what they're worth* ...

We will never cure the plague of mass murder by firearms in this county. "The right to keep and bear arms" was written into the Constitution and baked into the national DNA to address the original need of a small, largely rural nation with many enemies and a suspicion of strong central government to maintain a "well-regulated militia" for both external defense and for protection of the citizens against a future government** that might choose to deny the rights for which the Revolution was fought. Over the years, the courts have morphed the interpretation of this right from a right to keep guns for membership in a formal militia or as a safeguard against government tyranny*** to the unquestioned right to maintain what are essentially weapons of war for defense of house and home. In the overheated arguments on this topic, the right to unlimited ownership of deadly weapons (as guaranteed by the Constitution and interpreted by the courts) is equated to the right to worship (or not), speak freely, allow scrutiny of the government by a free press, and vote for our own representatives.

Those who strongly support the Second Amendment often accuse their opponents of being people who "don't believe in rights, liberties, or decentralized power" - a contention that is, in my opinion, foolish. All Americans believe (loudly and strongly) in their rights; the problem is that one of those rights poses an actual, immediate physical danger, but we have never found the wisdom to figure out how to balance my neighbor's right to own a personal arsenal with my right to be able to go to work, shop, enter a club, go to church, or send my children to school without worrying about the danger posed by that arsenal in the hands of someone incapable of handling it. The bottom line is that we as a people have a strong sense of rights divorced from a sense of responsibility for the exercise thereof.

Let us be honest with each other. People have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but Cain didn't have the ability to kill Abel and dozens of other people around him in a matter of seconds. Murder will always be with us ... but is it wrong to try to limit the ability of murderers to slay large numbers of people in short periods of time?

Apparently so.

Another argument made after each mass murder is that nothing could have prevented it. This is, again in my opinion, utterly ridiculous. It implies that mass murder is an act of God that is beyond anyone's ability to prevent ... like a tornado, hurricane, or tsunami. The implication is, nothing could have prevented this, therefore there is nothing we can or should do. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but we recognize needs for limits on its exercise - the classic example being that it's illegal to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or incite a crowd to riot. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but many people believe their freedom of religion is abridged when they have to acknowledge the rights of people who observe religions other than their own. Freedom of assembly is also guaranteed by the First Amendment, but it's already limited in the original text ... because the guaranteed right is to assemble peaceably ... not to create howling mobs bent on destruction.

My point is that we shouldn't consider any right to be absolute. While we cherish individual liberty, we must recognize that we are individuals who are part of a larger community with diverse interests and worries. We can, if we are willing to do so in good faith, find compromises that will save lives.

Unfortunately, good faith and common sense have long since departed our national discourse.

Have a good day. Keep your head down.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Not much.

** Here's how one ardent Second Amendment supporter interpreted the right to bear arms in his response to my comment on Senator Warner's page: "... it’s not the guns that we love it’s what the guns prevent which is what we love, our guns prevent our government from becoming Venezuela, North Korea, Germany prior to WW2, former Soviet Russia, every single Muslim country. We love our guns because our guns ensure our government won’t cross a certain line against its people. That is the only reason our founding fathers created the second amendment. Without guns there is nothing to stop our government from becoming a communist, tyrannical, oppressor if it’s [sic] people." Note: the example of "Germany prior to WW2" is often cited by gun rights advocates, but the truth is - as you might suspect - a bit more nuanced. A good summary of the development of gun control laws in Germany, with extensive footnotes, can be found in this article in the Library of Congress Law Library. You can find copies of many of the original German laws online ... if you read German and can deal with the old Fraktur lettering style, they're very informative.

*** And who defines what constitutes "tyranny?" There are a lot of people out there wearing camouflage and running in the woods who think "tyranny" means having to pay grazing fees for the use of federal land, or paying taxes, or having to show any sort of ID, or ... the list is endless.

Should Everybody Vote?

This is going to be a little long and rambling, so bear with me. It's one of those topics I know will be loved and hated in equal measure.

GOP lawmakers in many states have made unfortunate names for themselves and their party by imposing onerous limitations on persons likely to vote for the other party ... not in so many words, but under the guise of "ensuring the sanctity of the ballot box" or "protecting against rampant* voter fraud." These efforts continue at the national level, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell** recently scoffed at a draft bill to make Election Day a national holiday, calling it "the "Democratic Politician Protection Act" and describing it as a "power grab" that changed "the rules of Americans politics for the exclusive benefit of the Democratic Party." That bill would have, in addition to making Election Day a national holiday and thus enabling millions of working people to more easily vote, also called for presidential candidates to release their tax returns, added a matching system for small donations, required super PACs to disclose donors who give more than $10,000, and prohibited voter purging. I find it difficult to see this as a "power grab," but then I'm not anxious to turn the clock back 150 years, either.

There are legitimate issues with the mechanics of voting, but beyond that we have a general problem with the acceptance of civic responsibilities. For instance, I'm not sure that making Election Day a national holiday would solve the problem of low voter turnout, partly because such a holiday would likely not be enforceable (look at how many retail and service businesses continue to operate normally on national holidays), and partly because many people don't vote because they've been turned off by the unseemly mud-slinging circus that our elections have become. There's also the problem that many otherwise well-qualified candidates are unwilling to subject themselves and their families to the gutter tactics of modern political campaigns, leaving the field open to those who are less-qualified or who seek power for its own sake.

Yes, there are a great many problems with our voting system, even without considering the impact of the anachronistic Electoral College***.

But I think a very large part of the problem also lies with the voting public itself.

In 2016, enough citizens voted for a supremely unqualified con man to allow him to lose the popular vote but win the election in the Electoral College and go on to lead one of the most chaotic, disruptive, and divisive administrations in our history. How did this happen?

One can make the argument that previous administrations were out of touch with the needs and interests of many Americans and that those people, anxious for a change to an administration that would listen to them and fix their problems, turned to a candidate who told them what they wanted to hear.

But why did those people make that choice? Why did they believe that a bombastic, secretive, self-described billionaire whose homes are decorated with gold, who had never held a blue-collar job of any type, who had never served in the military, whose business record reflects a string of bankruptcies, lawsuits, and the shameless stiffing of creditors, who was several times divorced and had been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women ... why did voters believe that this person, whose only qualification was supreme self-confidence and the ability to whip audiences to a frenzy with pithy bumper-sticker slogans, deserved to be the President of the United States?

At the risk of bringing the wrath of the Internet down upon my head, I have to ask: should everyone be allowed to vote? Should there be requirements other than citizenship and a minimum age that apply to the right to vote? While I agree in principle that every citizen of the republic should have a voice in the election of his (or her) representatives, I also believe it's incumbent upon each citizen to understand the structure and function of their government, comprehend the issues at play in the election, and be able to realistically evaluate the qualifications and competence of candidates for office. It appears to me - based on the results of the last election and the quality of many comments posted on the Internet - that many of our citizens cannot do any of these. For many reasons, the voting public has been dumbed down to the point where it can be swayed by the airy, uninformed promises of an endlessly bloviating con artist^†.

Although I realize that it will never happen because it flies in the face of our evolved political traditions, and that the very suggestion will enrage many at all points on the political spectrum (but mostly on the far ends), I believe that in order to register to vote a person must:

1. Be a citizen of the United States (duh...);

2. Be 18 years of age on election day (see the 26th Amendment); and,

3. Complete a course of instruction in basic civics and government, either as a routine part of a high-school-level education or, if necessary, as a mandatory requirement for voter registration. This course would cover the Constitution, the structure and function of the national government and that of the individual's state of residence, the rights and privileges of citizenship, and the economics of government (who pays for what, and how).

It would also be nice to be able to impose a requirement that each registered voter subscribe to multiple news sources representing varying points of view, but that's a bridge waaaay too far and I don't know how it could be enforced in the present media environment.

Should everyone vote? Can we impose reasonable requirements that do not unduly limit our most basic civic responsibility? Whether you agree with me or not, I care what you think. Leave a comment.

Have a good day. Vote, but do it carefully.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Yet continually unproven.

** A five-time Ass Clown awardee and winner of the 2018 Ass Clown of the Year Award.

*** While there are those who argue that the Electoral College is an essential protector of our form of representative government, I am not one of them.

† Like many other populations, like Germany under Hitler, Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro, Iran under the Mullahs)

Cleanup Needed on Aisle 1

There's been a huge surge recently in the recognition of the problem of sexual harassment, with many prominent persons (mostly men) in the worlds of politics*, business, and entertainment forced out of their jobs or prominent positions because of their sexual misdeeds. It's led to a lot of soul-searching in some quarters, and much discussion of what can be done to help end the problem.

There was an interesting piece in the Washington Post this past Sunday titled "The One Best Idea for Ending Sexual Harassment," in which a number of prominent people** offered their best ideas. All were good, and I could see most of them actually taking hold, but one of them appealed to the linguist in me: Kishia Clemencia, a captain in the Washington DC Fire and EMS Department, suggested Let's clean up the language. She wrote it this way:

"In our agency, you have to lead by example. Discipline is important. When those in positions of authority are crude in conversation, it fosters an environment that makes it easy for misconduct to happen. Vulgarity in language, even if inappropriate touching never happens, trickles down throughout the organization. If people in a position to lead and make decisions constantly curse and joke about sex while playing down complaints about harassment, it sends the message that harassment is not a problem — and that everyone else should feel the same way. Loose conversation promotes a negative culture throughout the chain of command. It’s hard to change people’s morals or values individually, but the agency can set the precedent that that kind of language is not acceptable — from the top down."

We all know the old schoolyard taunt that sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me ... but they will. The use of crude sexual language, particularly by those in positions of authority, sends the message that this is okay, it's normal, get used to it.

Unfortunately, we have gotten used to it. And the most egregious offender is getting a free pass.

Have a good day, and watch your language. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Apparently applicable to Democrats only ... the GOP denies it has a problem, and it clearly doesn't - because it stridently denies it has a problem.

** Who have not been accused of anything so far.

Talismanic Incantations

One of the concepts with which most of us are acquainted in the age of Game of Thrones and Harry Potter is that of the magic spell, a set of words imbued with mystical powers. A good example from the Harry Potter realm is the "Stunning Spell," which renders its target temporarily unconscious ... it is cast by pointing a wand at the victim and shouting stupefy!*.

Other magical incantations are familiar to all of us from books, movies, and cartoons ... terms like abracadabra**, hocus pocus***, and shazam.

I thought about magic spells and incantations the other day when I read the text of the 9th Circuit Court's decision in the case "State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson," which struck down the Trump administration's proposed ban on travel to the US from six majority Muslim nations. The decision contained this memorable line:

National Security is not a "talismanic incantation" that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power under §1182(f)^†.

Upon reading that line, it occurred to me that much of our political and social discourse today consists of shouting talismanic incantations at each other as if their deployment will magically cause our opponents to come to their senses and recognize the unarguable superiority of our viewpoint. Here's a partial list of the magic spells and incantations most frequently invoked in America today:

National Security! Contrary to the 9th Circuit Court's opinion, this is a very powerful incantation often used to justify actions that would otherwise be considered unwise, illegal, or downright un-American.

Freedom! This is the quintessential American magic word, and is similar in meaning to the longer incantation Don't Tread on Me!. Note: it must not be used in conjunction with other, lesser used and nearly archaic magical expressions which might dilute its power, such as Responsibility and Empathy.

Choice! This is a shorter, quicker-to-employ version of the traditional American incantation Don't Tell Me What to Do!. Note: it applies only to the choice option desired by the person delivering the incantation; its use does not imply that others should enjoy the same equality of choice.

Fake News! This incantation is used to cast doubt on spells the wizard does not like.

Religious Freedom! Note: this incantation may be used in the United States only by American Christian wizards; its use is forbidden to adherents of all other religions. Conversely, when used in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it implies only the freedom to practice Islam.

Keep and Bear Arms! Note: this incantation works only when accompanied by the frenzied waving of a firearm; a traditional magic wand is not effective.

Job-Killing! This incantation is used to counter economic spells the magician does not support and cannot fight in any other way (i.e., with statistics or logic).

Government Overreach! Similar in general intent to Job-Killing!, this incantation is used to counter other spells which invoke government powers the magician does not like because they are not to his advantage. It is often invoked in combination with Freedom! and Choice! to increase its perceived power.

Obstructionist! This spell is used to damage the image of an opponent by characterizing him as a wizard unable to cast spells of his own, able only to interfere with spells cast by others.

Racist! and Sexist! These are often employed when no other spell works. They have no particular value other than to deflect attention away from spells other wizards may try to cast.

Those are just a few of the modern American talismanic incantations I can think of ... which other ones do you recognize? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. And as my mother would have reminded us, please, thank you, and excuse me are very good magic words at any time.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I was under the mistaken impression that this was a spell that made the victim stupid, and had been maliciously directed at Congress. My bad.

** It appears in the Harry Potter stories as one of the three "unforgivable curses" - "avada kedavra," the "killing curse."

*** "Hocus Pocus" is linguistically interesting, being apparently derived from the Latin words "hoc est corpus" ("this is the body (of Christ)" in a parody of the rite of transubstantiation in the Christian mass).

† This is the applicable text of that paragraph of the law: "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Memorial Day, 2017

Today is Memorial Day, the traditional beginning of summer, the day the swimming pools open and everyone flocks to the beaches and the amusement parks to celebrate life in America. It is also the day on which we honor those who died in the service of the nation, often in lonely and frightening places far from home and family.

That's what today is really about. Enjoy yourself, but take a minute to remember those who gave their lives to make it possible for you to enjoy today's barbecues and swimming pools. The freedom you take for granted today wasn't purchased by noisy posers strutting into the local Starbucks with loaded assault rifles and nine-millimeter pistols on their hips, or by traitors who think they're heroes for exposing the nation's most sensitive secrets ... it was purchased by the men and women who now rest in long, quiet rows and wonder why they gave up their lives for all this.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Should Voting Be Mandatory?

There was a minor stir last week when President Obama suggested that one way to help minimize the influence of big money donors on our electoral process would be to make voting mandatory, as it is in at least 26 other countries, among them Australia and Belgium.

Should voting be mandatory? I don't think so.

For one thing, there are those on the far right who would refuse to vote just on principle, because they object to laws requiring them to do anything.

For another, I was always taught (and firmly believe) that voting is a civic duty - one of the foundations of our democratic society that allows us to choose our leaders, rather than submitting to rule by a family* represented by the reigning king or emperor.

And from a practical standpoint, how would you administer such a law? Who would be responsible for tracking down and arresting those who didn't vote? What would be an appropriate penalty - a fine, jail time, community service, or - what we might call the Saudi Arabian approach - chopping off the finger that should have been used to push the "vote" button on a machine, or the hand that should have wielded a pencil to place an X in the right block?

On the plus side, it might require rabid partisans at both ends of the political spectrum to finally agree on a fair and workable system for voters to identify themselves at the polls, minimizing the ludicrous spectacle of "poll watchers" practicing gotcha politics ... scrutinizing every voter in the hopes of maximizing their party's advantage while undermining the other party.

We live at a time and in a country where our most important civic duties are less important that what we demand as our rights. How many of those who - for example - demand totally unrestricted gun ownership because they feel threatened by the government nevertheless ignore their responsibility to vote for those who represent them in that government? And how many people who actually do vote cast their votes on the basis of a single issue or belief (no gay marriage, no abortions, no restrictions on gun ownership, get rid of unions/support unions, etc), without looking at the larger responsibilities of government or the interests of other citizens?

No, we don't need mandatory voting. We need citizens who are responsible enough to fulfill their duty to the country, rather than sitting at home on election day and then bitching about how awful the government is that they didn't bother to help elect.

Have a good day. Remember that your responsibilities are every bit as important as your rights ... if not more so.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Such as the Bush, Clinton, Adams, Roosevelt, or Rockefeller families, no?

Some Thoughts on TV Shows and Civil Rights

Outside my study window, snow is falling heavily (as it has been since last night at about 8:00). It looks like we've got somewhere around 6 to 8 inches of snow now, and in a few hours, it's supposed to change to freezing rain and sleet before changing back into snow later in the afternoon. A snowplow just came down the street and pushed everything into our driveways before heading back up the hill and laughing.

Next year, I will NOT forget to pay the Spring Bill.

But let's forget the snow for a while and talk about other things, like what we learn from television shows.

You might recall from my answer to Angel's question in the last "Ask Bilbo" post that I don't watch a great deal of TV, although there are a few shows that I enjoy, among them NCIS and Bones. Agnes, for her part, likes Criminal Minds and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, which are too dark and violent for me.

I like NCIS and Bones largely because of their ensemble casts of quirky characters who somehow work well together. On NCIS, I'm in lust with Abby, the goth forensic scientist who seems to combine brilliant and bizarre in just the right measure. On Bones, I like the character of Dr Temperence Brennan (the titular "Bones") who is both tremendously intelligent and completely and hysterically devoid of people skills, which makes for some great dialog.

But although I enjoy those shows, and some other police-type programs, I find that they trouble me ... mostly because of the cavalier attitude they portray toward our civil and constitutional rights.

Consider some of the standard scenes that appear in almost every episode of the modern police procedural:

- The authorities routinely employ a few keystrokes on their computers to troll through the "financials" of persons of interest, thumbing through bank account statements and other financial data without the least mention of bothersome things like search warrants.

- When a "person of interest" is identified, police officers or special agents* are gruffly directed to "bring 'em in" for an interview/interrogation - again, without discussion of warrants. These scenes frequently end up with the individual so brought in being shouted at and accused of the crime ... which almost invariably proves to have been committed by someone else (this scene is a feature of almost every episode of Bones, with Special Agent Seely Booth doing the shouting and threatening).

- People are routinely tracked by GPS location of their cell phones, or by reviewing footage from traffic cameras and other surveillance devices.

- Individuals in custody are frequently manhandled, sometimes brutally, by the authorities who have arrested them.

Now, don't get me wrong ... I have no problem with our law enforcement agencies doing what they need to do to bring down criminals and terrorists and other such evildoers, as long as it's within the limits of the law they are sworn to uphold. But the depiction of law enforcement agencies in popular entertainment blithely ignoring the civil liberties of individuals creates a poor image of those we trust to protect us. Worse, it gives a skewed impression of the abilities and powers they can bring to bear against the average citizen, feeding the worst paranoid fantasies of the tinfoil hat-wearing fringe and causing a backlash against police and intelligence-gathering capabilities that are legal when properly employed.

So ...

Enjoy your favorite TV shows, but remember the skewed vision of police powers and civil rights they present. The law enforcement and intelligence communities need certain powers and capabilities to do their jobs ... but we need to recognize the rights and freedoms we have a right to expect. The dividing line is often hard to discern in the era of high technology and information presented out of context, wildly distorted, or in pursuit of private agendas.

Remember Bilbo's First Law**.

Have a good day. Stay warm and dry. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Did you ever wonder why everyone in these shows is a "special" agent? When does an ordinary, garden-variety "agent" graduate to becoming a "special" agent? Discuss.

** Never let anyone else do your thinking for you.

Bilbo's Immigration Reform Plan, Revisited

It seems that Congress has awakened, stretched, yawned, and decided that it's politically advantageous to take up immigration reform again. This will, of course, end up with the usual result: Republicans will refuse anything that involves a "path to citizenship" and no punishment for illegal immigrants, and Democrats will refuse anything that doesn't give away the store.

Both are stupid, and the problem is likely to go on.

Unless, of course, they adopt my Compromise Immigration Reform Program. I have beaten this lonely drum in this space often enough, and I have sent it to my Senators, my Reprehensive, and the President, all of whom have responded with form letters thanking me for my interest and stressing their readiness to tackle this difficult problem blah, blah, blah, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Yeah, right.

So, Dear Readers, for those of you who have not yet seen Bilbo's Compromise Immigration Reform Plan, here it is again (slightly tweaked from the original version). For those of you who have seen it before, sorry ... just come back tomorrow for something else. If you like this plan, send it to your Congressional delegation and the President. You can even put your own name on it, I don't care. Here we go ...

Bilbo’s Comprehensive Compromise Immigration Reform Plan

First, Congress enacts legislation to create a new category of immigration status – the “Provisional Resident Alien (PRA)” – and designate the status with a new form of ID card – let’s call it a “Blue Card.” Anyone who is in the United States illegally as of the date of enactment will have a grace period of six months to register for PRA status and obtain a Blue Card without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or deportation on any immigration violation charge.  They would, of course, be subject to arrest for outstanding criminal violations unrelated to their immigration status.

A person registering as a PRA must pay a fee of $100 per person or $500 per family (whichever is less) for the privilege of obtaining that status. This fee does two things: it levies a fine for having broken the law in the first place, and it partially funds the cost of the new program.  It provides something for those who oppose blanket amnesty, because it imposes a penalty, albeit a small one, for the willful violation of the law. Many churches and immigrant rights organizations will object to the fine because they think it’s either unfair or too much for poor immigrants to pay; in this case, individuals or organizations who object to making the illegals pay the fine could be offered the opportunity to pay it on behalf those who, for whatever reason, can’t or won’t pay it themselves.

Once a person has been granted PRA status, they will be required to obtain a valid social security number, and will be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and social services as other legal immigrants; in exchange, they will be required to obey all laws, pay all taxes, enroll in basic English classes, and otherwise act as responsible members of American society.  They will have the protection of labor laws which require payment of the minimum wage, and with a legal status, will no longer be subject to exploitation by shady employers.

Initial PRA status will be valid for five years.  At the end of this period, the individual must report to the immigration authorities with proof of employment, proof of a clean police record (no felonies), and proof that taxes have been paid.  If these conditions are met, the individual may either extend the PRA status for another five years, or apply for citizenship.  Citizenship is not automatic – it will still have to be earned through the same naturalization process completed by many millions of legal immigrants throughout our history, with the clock for all associated requirements starting at the end of the PRA period, regardless of how long the individual has already been in the country.  This protects the interests of those who have weathered the legal immigration process by preventing previously-illegal immigrants in PRA status from “jumping the line” for quick citizenship.

On the date the grace period for PRA status applications ends, anyone still present illegally in the country will be arrested and deported.  Because the great majority of previously-illegal immigrants will have taken advantage of the opportunity to legalize their status by becoming PRAs, those remaining in an illegal status will probably those with criminal records.  Immigration authorities can then proceed to concentrate on this much smaller number of more dangerous criminals.

United States laws governing citizenship would be changed to state that children born within the United States obtain automatic citizenship only if both parents are US citizens. This helps minimize the problem of sham marriages and “anchor children” used to establish legal residency for people otherwise here illegally.

On the date the law is enacted, most immigration enforcement agents would immediately transfer to border security duty to crack down on  new illegal immigration. Border security will be severely stiffened and those caught attempting illegal entry to the country will be summarily deported after being photographed and fingerprinted. Facilitation of illegal immigration (whether by “coyotes” who help smuggle illegals across the border or by those who knowingly employ illegals) will be made a felony, as will a second illegal immigration attempt.

On the date the grace period for PRA registration ends, a set of very steep fines and jail sentences goes into effect for businesses and individuals hiring persons who are in the country illegally (without a Green or Blue Card).  This will help to remove the economic incentive for businesses to support illegal immigration.

Employers would be responsible for reporting to the immigration authorities any change in the employment status of a PRA. If a person in PRA status is fired from a job or becomes unemployed, his status is revoked and he must leave the country until otherwise eligible to apply for legal immigration in the future.

This takes care of those who are in the country illegally today. But comprehensive immigration reform must also address the need for a responsive program to allow unskilled, low-wage workers to enter the country to take jobs that might otherwise go unfilled. PRA status can be used for these persons, too. Businesses would project their labor requirements, and the State Department would make an appropriate number of PRA visas available to meet the need.  Immigrants would then apply at the US embassy or consulate in their home country for PRA status covering any period of time from six months to five years, and need only maintain a job and pay taxes in order to maintain their status.  At the end of five years, they would also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship under the same rules as any other person in PRA status.

This plan won’t please everyone, but that’s the nature of a compromise, and the ability to compromise is what has been missing from political discourse in this country for too long.  The advantages of the PRA plan are:

1. It offers a way to legitimize the persons already here illegally (who, after all, are too numerous and well-protected to be rounded up and deported), but imposes a fine on them as a condition of legalizing their status (i.e., no reward for having broken the law in the first place).

2. It funds itself, in part, through the fines collected from those applying for PRA status.

3. It provides resources for increased border security by freeing up immigration agents who otherwise spend their days fruitlessly hunting down illegals.

4. It provides a pathway for low-wage workers to legally enter the country and take advantage of economic opportunities not available to them at home, while contributing to the US economy in taxes.

5. It removes the incentive for businesses to hire and exploit illegal immigrants who cannot seek their rights for fear of exposure and deportation.

6. It does not, of itself, provide the “path to citizenship” that is a red line for hard core opponents of immigration reform.

The downside of my plan is, of course, that prices on some goods will rise.  We’ll pay more for the produce picked by immigrants who are finally being paid a decent wage.  But I believe that in the long run, this plan represents a good start toward a stronger America and a better life for those who would share in its dream.

There you go. Sorry for the repetition of the topic over the years, but somebody's got to come up with a valid idea. What do you think? Where does my plan fall short? How can it be improved? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Countdown to Irresponsibility

Tomorrow morning at 12:01AM, barring a sudden and unexpected rush of sanity and adult behavior, Congress (mainly the far-right wing of the Republican Party) will partially shut down the United States government. Many thousands of government workers (including my son and daughter) and those whose livelihoods depend on their work will be furloughed, without hope of regaining pay lost during the duration of the manufactured crisis. The local and national economies will be damaged. Brainless wingnuts wearing tricorn hats will wave their Gadsden flags and trumpet their fidelity to concepts they do not understand, and the rest of the world will shake its head at our propensity for self-destructive behavior.

If you read the comments posted to online articles at CNN.com and Washingtonpost.com about the government shutdown, you will find some of the most amazing trolls you will ever hope to see, continuing the heaping of abuse on government workers that was begun by the GOP's extreme right wing. The people who keep you safe, ensure your food is wholesome, protect you from disease, allow you to fly safely, and try to prevent you from being exploited by your employers are derided as lazy, stupid, shiftless bums and jackbooted thugs^TM who "couldn't run a lemonade stand" (a quote from one amazing comment I read this morning) who all deserve to be thrown to the curb so that America will suddenly return to its imagined past paradise of untrammeled, unlimited "freedom."

This afternoon, Agnes's cousin Bernadette and her husband Richard will arrive from Germany for a visit. One of the things they'll ask me will almost certainly be the question I heard so often from people while we were in Germany earlier this month: What's wrong with you people?

Sadly, the problem is that the irresponsible and narcissistic people who are causing this needless crisis are impervious to logic and reason. A great quote from the film The Dark Knight applies ... Alfred, Bruce Wayne's loyal butler, is telling his boss a story from his experience searching for a bandit leader in the Burmese jungle. In the end, the search was unsuccessful because, as Alfred explained ...

... some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

And some men just believe so totally in their own righteousness that they're willing to take the whole country down with them.

I could go on, but I'm too angry and too ashamed of the ludicrous clown show that has replaced our government and the bizarre mouth-frothing that has replaced civil discourse. I wonder what sort of lesson we're teaching our children, and what kind of country we're leaving them.

Have a good day. Tomorrow I'll try to be more positive, and to tell you the story of this past weekend's visit to Chincoteague and Assateague Islands with the local grandchildren. Perhaps I'll be more centered, and my aches and pains a bit eased, by then.

Bilbo

Why Bother with Those Pesky Laws?

Do you mind if I philosophize for a moment?

Of course you don't. Of course, it's my blog, so I'll do it anyway, but I thought I'd be polite and ask.

I've been amazed at the ongoing circus over trying to come up with some common-sense ways to limit gun violence in our weapon-worshiping society. Many of the arguments made by both sides of the argument, but especially by gun advocates, are becoming increasingly shrill and wildly divergent from reality, to the point where it's all but impossible to have a rational discussion of a critical issue.

Here's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard from the NRA and other strident defenders of gun rights: "there's no point in enacting laws which restrict gun ownership, because the bad guys won't obey them and they'll only penalize law-abiding citizens."*

Well, duh.

If that's the case, what is the point of having any law about anything?

By definition, a lawbreaker is someone who ... breaks the law. The purpose of law is to protect the many from the depredations of the few. If we were all upright citizens who respected each other's rights and property, we'd have no need of laws. Sadly, that's not the case.

Laws aren't necessarily passed with the idea that they will proactively prevent people from being bad things, although that's certainly a part of it ... I'm sure there are some people who are dissuaded from committing crimes because of the possibility of experiencing the joys of prison life. But the law also provides a basis for punishing those who would willingly break the rules we as a society have enacted for our common protection.

My father always used to say that if you locked your doors and windows, it would keep out all the honest people, and that's true. It's also true that because we have laws, some dishonest people will be deterred from trying to break down those doors and windows ... and those that aren't know that they run the risk of arrest and prosecution.

The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill," and all civilized societies have laws which apply criminal sanctions to a religious law. Do some people kill anyhow? Of course they do. But the existence of laws will deter some and ensure others that they can be punished. The eighth commandment tells us not to steal. Will some people steal, regardless? Of course they will. But we have laws against theft which allow such people to be punished.

Here's my point: the argument that laws restricting guns are useless because bad guys won't obey them is utterly stupid and unworthy of rational consideration. Of course bad guys won't obey the law ... but the law tells all of us what things we have agreed are worthy of punishment, and protects all of us by providing a basis for punishing those who transgress the limits we have agreed to place on dangerous activities.

Leave a comment and let me know what you think, but don't waste my time by saying laws are useless ... because the law is what sets us apart from the animals, who often behave better than many people.

Have a good day. Obey the law - it's there for your protection.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The bumper-sticker version is "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Freedom of Stupid

Here in the United States, we treasure our freedoms. Our Constitution (well, actually, the Bill of Rights) enshrines a long series of cherished freedoms that make this country the one that people will risk death to enter illegally. You don't see a serious illegal immigration problems in garden spots like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, after all.

We have entire organizations devoted to defending our freedoms: the ACLU strongly defends freedoms in general, the NRA strongly defends the freedom to maintain a personal arsenal, and the Congress strongly defends the freedom to contribute vast amounts of money with which to buy elections. Unfortunately, we don't have an organization which strongly defends the concepts of responsibility and ... for want of a better term ... smart.

By now, you have heard of the latest outpouring of religious insanity from the Middle East, sparked by a shadowy moron who produced a silly and insulting film he had to know was going to cause a violent reaction in large parts of the world where "freedom of religion" means "freedom to believe this religion only." Someone named "Sam Bacile" (evidently one alias used by a person with a criminal record who has many other aliases), claiming (falsely, as it seems) to be an Israeli Jew living in America, financed a low-budget film that was both sophomoric and - this is the key point - extraordinarily insulting to Muslims ... who in any case are quick to take offense - frequently of a very violent nature - at perceived insults to their religion.

We cherish our freedom of speech. We pride ourselves on our right to worship God (or not) in any way we choose. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the world doesn't see things that way. In many places, freedom of worship means only the freedom to worship according to the approved religion, and freedom of speech is constrained by the requirement to avoid insult to the nation or to particular groups.

Across the Middle East, people who are unlikely ever to have seen the film produced by Mr Bacile (or whoever he is) are burning our embassies and murdering Americans. They are motivated more by blind religious fervor than by love and compassion for their fellow man.

They, like all who react violently against those of different faiths, are every bit as disgusting and reprehensible as Mr Bacile.

They are exercising their Freedom of Stupid.

I don't think you can view your religion as "merciful and compassionate" when it serves as an excuse to resort to violence in the face of perceived insult. The Bible (Luke, Chapter 6, Verse 29) encourages peaceful response to insult, saying

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also."

Christians ... and all people of good will ... are encouraged to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately, there are those who live by another version of the Biblical injunction ...

"He turned the other cheek, so I hit him with my other fist."

I'd like to think that we could all agree to live together peacefully, regardless of how we choose to worship God (or not). Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. As long as people of any religion are motivated more by blind faith and a spring-loaded violent reaction to insult than by love for their fellow man, we will continue to see inexcusable acts like those unfolding in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other places.

We'll continue to be driven by blind defense of our cherished Freedom of Stupid.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bad Times a-Comin'?

It's no secret that we're living in an America that is very different from the one in which many of us grew up. Incivility and irrational anger have skyrocketed, the level of slime and nastiness in politics is at near-historic levels, and there's a general my-way-or-the-highway attitude that has taken hold among political parties, religions, and just about everybody but the local chess club*. Society has gotten more insensitive, more crass, and more violent, and the voices of reason and civility are being drowned out by the drumbeat of argument and unreason for its own sake.

So, Dear Readers, if we follow this miserable condition to its ultimate conclusion, where do we end up?

A very sobering possibility is suggested in this fascinating article by Natalie Wolchover from the online science news magazine LiveScience: Will the US Really Experience a Violent Upheaval in 2020?

It's not an outlandish or trivial question.

Dr Peter Turchin, an ecologist, evolutionary biologist and mathematician at the University of Connecticut, uses the new science of cliodynamics to extrapolate mathematical modeling data from the historical record. Using his methods, the article points out his conclusion that "the (historical) data indicates that a cycle of violence repeats itself every 50 years in America, like a wave that peaks in every other generation. This short-term cycle is superimposed over another, longer-term oscillation that repeats every 200 to 300 years. The slower waves in violence can either augment or suppress the 50-year peaks, depending on how the two cycles overlap." The data can be seen on this chart, which accompanies the article:

On this one, from Professor Turchin's cliodynamics website, which presents the data with a bit more color and explanation:

And on this larger chart, from LifesLittleMysteries.com, which adds still more detail (click it to see the entire thing):

Extrapolating from the historical data, we could see a spike in the level of violence in this country somewhere around 2020 ... just eight years from now.

This is not an unreasonable fear. The level of political polarization and irrational anger, the growing disparity among economic classes, the ready availability of high-powered weapons, and a culture centered on the rights of the individual rather than the benefit of the larger society all suggest that the prediction could be correct.

Of course, cliodynamics has its detractors. Massimo Pigliucci, a social scientist who studies pseudoscience and skeptical thinking, comments about Turchin's theory that,

"The database is too short: the entire study covers the period 1780-2010, a mere 230 years. You can fit at most four 50-year peaks and two [long-term] ones. I just don't see how one could reasonably exclude that the observed pattern is random."

Well, random or not, it provides food for serious thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the present level of heavily-armed irrationality in this country could lead to a spasm of violence in the coming years. Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand the role of their behavior in leading to this unhappy future are those least likely to pay any attention to the message.

What do you think? Is Dr Turchin being an alarmist, or are you running down to the local gun shop to stock up your arsenal for the coming explosion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And even there, the queens are demanding the right to kiss each other at Chick-fil-A restaurants.