Dogmatic Slumber

Well, it's been a while since we decided to entertain, inform, and enrage the masses via the tiny soapbox here at YPS. We have been busy. We've been paying lawyers, acquiring children, and once again attempting to find the perfect location for our palatial estate. Real life has interrupted the free content generator, as it so often does.

In any event, the current kerfuffle over what, exactly, the NSA has been doing to everyone with a Verizon account has roused us from our nap. As the scandal widens, and more and more internet traffic appears to run through the servers at the Puzzle Palace, the response has been instructive.

A common thread by serious, no doubt well-intentioned, people has been the old saw about "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." This response, in part because it's so common and so misguided, deserves a little more in-depth discussion than my immediate knee-jerk bitter laugh.

A nice man named Harvey Silverglate wrote a book titled Three Felonies A Day. While I encourage you to read it, the basic thrust is simple. The federal criminal code, and the accompanying federal regulations, has become so overbroad, intrusive, and pervasive that you (and everyone else in America) are in violation multiple times a day. My favorite common example is to ask you to go read the labels on a bottle of Pine-Sol or Lysol and find the simple phrase "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." So, if you don't read the label on bottle of Lysol and comply with all of the instructions, you have committed a federal crime. Will you be prosecuted? Probably not, as long as you fly under the radar of the feds.

However, once you have come to the notice of one cog of the machine, you run the risk of being ground up by the various pieces working together. You cannot afford to deal with the multitude of federal agencies, each showing up to enforce their little bit of complex and arcane federal law. They will find something, and you will be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. This has happened to a number of people, and there is very little that can be done about it. All it takes is a 30 second phone call or chance meeting between personnel from different agencies with the comment "Maybe you should look at this guy..." and another agency can pile on.

So when some well-meaning naïf spouts the idea that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear, there's a glaring fundamental error: we've all of us, everyone, done something. Is it worth the feds time to try to harass you about? If you're Joe Average who only sends his mom baby pictures and lolcats, it probably won't happen. But what about engaging in political advocacy? Maybe you decide to form a 501 organization to oppose some governmental action? Why, it may just be time to take a look at your compliance record with all these laws and rules. If it does become expedient to target you, do you honestly think the NSA data won't find its way into the right hands in a high profile case? You have done something illegal and selective prosecution is now the name of the game.

I leave you with the cautionary tale of Joseph Nacchio. Joseph Nacchio used to be the head of telecommunications firm Qwest Communications. He consulted with his legal department and decided he needed a court order to hand over records to the feds, and at the time was the only CEO of a telecom firm to take this stance. Joseph Nacchio was subsequently convicted of insider trading and sent to jail for 6 years and was fined 19 million dollars. If you honestly think there's no connection whatsoever between these events, then there's really nothing more to say.

Except maybe this.

Low Speed, High Drag

So apparently some SEAL who went in on the Bin Laden raid can't read and doesn't understand how the system works after 16 years in the military. I find this difficult to believe for a couple of reasons.

Now, I don't know what they teach squids in general and SEALs in specific, so maybe he got told something different. Back was I was but a lowly enlisted trooper in the Army, it was pretty common knowledge that you don't get a pension unless you put in the full 20, disability excepted. It was also common knowledge that getting a disability pension was pretty goddamned hard, and you had to be clearly and obviously fucked up by your term of service.  A tendency to be startled by loud noises didn't make the grade. 

Likewise, the Army had all kinds of classes telling you what kind of transition assistance and benefits were available to you once you got out. I seem to recall they even had guys whose job it was to answer dumb questions about what to do with your life upon ETS. I think they were called 'transition counselors' or some such.  However, nobody was going to bust their ass making sure you went to the classes or talked to the counselors. The classes were provided, it was up to you to go and take notes and read the handouts.

Admittedly, I am relying on two layers of journalism filter here, so the truth may not be what was reported in Esquire or what was reported about what was said there. But from where I'm sitting, some SEAL is asking for special treatment because… well, I don't know, exactly. Thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen get out every year, and most of them manage to go on and do something productive with their lives. The fact that you can't perhaps says more about you than the system.

Deadbeats

So, somebody named Milka Gonzalez doesn't pay her bills. Ordinarily, I couldn't care less, because I'm not the one out the money. However, when people start calling my cell phone looking for her, then I get annoyed.

You see, I got my first cell phone in 1998. I've had the same phone number ever since. So it's not like Milka has had this number recently, if ever. This doesn't prevent collection agencies from calling it.

 So today, I called a collection agency back to tell them to quit calling me. I was informed that the number was 'attached' to the account, not one she had given. In other words, some nimrod at a collection agency or credit bureau associated my number with Milka at some point, and now I get to deal with jackasses calling me for some deadbeat.

I'm not a real big fan of either Milka or dumbasses that call essentially random numbers to find her right now.

Contingency Planning

I was browsing around a bit, in a place I hadn't ventured recently, and came across a recounting of one man's recollection of the Rodney King riots in LA.

This strikes a chord because we are, once again, preparing to relocate YPS Manor.  This time, we're headed in the opposite direction.  We have decided to abandon my cultural heritage of white boy from the 'burbs and move into the city proper.  I doubt we'll see widespread looting and burning in the wake of court cases, but this is the Gulf Coast.  We get hurricanes with disturbing frequency around here. The odds of a Cat 4 spilling over into some level of disturbance as happened in  Katrina aren't real high, but they are appreciably non-zero.

Here's an enduring truth about guns: you never need one until you need one badly.  At that point, it's usually a bit late to try to go get one.  Keeping guns around the house means that should something similar occur in our fair city, we have options other than hide in a corner and hope nothing bad happens.  It's always better to have more options than less, even if you decide not to avail yourself of those options.

Letting someone who lives 1,400 miles away limit your options when they won't have to face your problems never struck me as a real good idea.

 

Cliff Diving

So, apparently, spending cuts aren't necessary to stave off the latest fiscapocalypse. We can just jigger tax rates and keep spending and accumulating debt forever!

At least that's what politicians in DC seem to think. Admittedly, I have no great skill in managing a large and disparate nation, but then again, judging from results, the current collection of elected idiots officials don't either. I have, however, seen the results of spending and indefinite debt accumulation on personal finances. The path either ends in bankruptcy, for people who care about the niceties, or what fancy policy-wonk types call 'debt repudiation'. For us low-class folks out in the hinterlands, 'debt repudiation' just means you quit paying the people you owe.

These options aren't the same on a national scale, mainly because sovereigns do not declare bankruptcy. It is now, as always, good to be the king. When you are the king, you engage in debt repudiation. You tell everybody who owes you money to get fucked. Since you, as sovereign, control the courts, police, and army, it makes it a little difficult for your shafted creditors to get much recourse.

I don't think I'd be putting a bunch of money in Treasury securities right now. Even if the Bernanke does manage to hold it all together with currency devaluation (Quantitative Easing Forever!), they aren't a real good bet.

The Death of Brick & Mortar

So, the freezer here at YPS Manor died. We had put off doing anything about it because we were hoping that the manse would be up on the selling block and we could wait until we moved before replacing it. Alas, football season rolled around and with it the need for freezer space. So, in a wild burst of optimism, I called Sears to see if it could be fixed. The estimate to fix a 10 year old freezer that cost $300 came in at $1300. I felt so good about paying a guy $65 bucks for that tidbit of information. However, he gave me a coupon so that if I bought my new appliance from Sears in the next 60 days, I would get the $65 back as a discount.

So it became time to research freezers and see if Sears had anything suitable. Lo and behold, Sears' advertising is not a lie. They have a wider selection of appliances than any other national retailer. So after some perusal and consideration, we decided upon a frost-free model from Kenmore. As the nice man had told me I would need to go into the store to use my discount, I took a shower and put on pants this past Saturday to buy me an appliance. As it turns out, I may have been better off staying at home.

Sears' sales process for appliances these days is to have a cheerful, yet somewhat clueless, salesperson type your information into an iPad on what looks like the very same screens I could have used from home. Instead of typing my info in myself, I now get to watch clueless Bob fat finger his way through the process. The kicker comes when Bob can't figure out how to apply my discount code. The discount is the only reason I got up off my ass and came in here. No $65 off, no sale, buddy. So Bob attempts to find a coworker. Coworker explains we have to use the register. No problem, right? Except that it takes Bob no less than 3 attempts to process this transaction. At one point, he attempted to find a manager, only to find out no manager was available. On Saturday afternoon. At the mall. WTF? When did retail decide no manager on duty during the busiest shopping day was a plan? But finally, our purchase was completed and delivery scheduled. Strangely, when I went online that very morning, Sears could deliver next day, but in the store it transforms into 2 days out.

Now, I am no expert on how Sears expects to stay in business in the modern era but if this transaction was any indication, they need to rethink the plan. You need to be providing me something I can't get online when I come into your establishment, be that immediate gratification, human interaction, or physical samples. In the case of clothing, it should be things I can try on to see if they fit. For a transaction like appliances, knowledgeable and trained sales staff would be a good idea. As a bare minimum, have your people trained to complete transactions. If all you're giving me is a guy who's doing the same thing on an iPad I could do from home (and screwing it up), I have no reason to come into your establishment. I can do the data entry quicker and faster, and I don't even have to put pants on or take a shower.

Chicken Sandwiches Aren't Important

Let's leave aside the very real issue of elected government officials threatening legitimate businesses over the views of the executives, okay? J already covered that. It's a real issue, and one that more people should have focused on.

But this has been going on for over a week and the circus has reached the point of absurdity. I'd like to congratulate everyone for taking the bait and going off on a tangent in the middle of disaster. We're borrowing $41,000 a second to spend on useless bullshit, and people are spending all their time worrying about a chicken sandwich chain? 

What's gonna impact your human rights more, GLBT community? The fact that some guy who sells sandwiches doesn't think you should get married or the inescapable debt peonage you'll be placed into by the federal government to pay off the $15,900,000,000,000 they owe to everybody under the sun? Think about the answer long and hard, because so far you've come to the entirely wrong conclusion. Of course, the frenzied adulation showered upon a president who has done exactly 'jack' and 'shit' for your issues shows the clarity of y'all's thinking.

Now, don't think the other side is blameless either. Great, go buy a chicken sandwich and support free speech or whatever. But it's still not a big deal. Even the halfwitted mumbler and the overcompensating ballerina had to come up and admit there really wasn't anything they could do. By driving the conversation to even more ridiculous heights, you sucked out all the oxygen in the room and diverted everybody's attention from more important issues.

Grow the fuck up, people. You're concerning yourself with trivia while the world burns. Our national spending is completely out of control, and distracting yourself with sandwich drama isn't helping.

While I'm on the subject of adult behavior, try to remember one thing if you're going to go play kissy-face in front of or inside of a restaurant tonight: a fundamental aspect of character is how you treat people who have no power over you. If you think, as this guy apparently did, that by harassing the employees of a restaurant your making some kind of grand statement, you're half-right. You're making the less-than-grand statement that you're an asshole who thinks mistreating innocent people is just peachy. Get your protest on, but don't be a dick to the people working there. They need their paycheck just as much as any of you do.    

Screw Boston & Chicago & Go Eat some Chick-Fil-A Nuggets or Something

This whole Chick-Fil-A issue has really rubbed me the wrong way. I have no problem at all if individuals choose not to patronize businesses whose corporate philosophies differ with their sincerely held beliefs; my problem is that in both Boston and Chicago, elected officials are using the power of tyrannical government to ban a legal business, simply because these officials disagree with the beliefs of the CEO. I wonder if the people who think this is so wonderful would be so thrilled if a Republican mayor closed down every movie theater in town because he or she didn't want all those communist actors on their movie screens? Let's start burning books...hooray! I mean really, what's the difference?

Ironically, it is this same Boston mayor who has circumvented every established law and code to get a mosque built that many in the area don't want. So the CEO of Chick-Fil-A doesn't like the idea of gay marriage...OK, so do most folks. (For the record, I respectfully disagree with that view.) But, there is no evidence that his company has ever maltreated any gay person. Let's contrast that to the teachings of Islam on homosexuality, which is, well, a death sentence for its participants.

 The mayor of Boston and that retarded ballerina in Chicago are disgusting, hypocritical trolls who should be banned from elective office until they can actually prove to a competent person that they have even a rudimentary knowledge of the United States Constitution.

Of course, I would expect no less pathetic behavior from the open-minded and oh so tolerant left.

Why We're Screwed

J likes to have the TV on in the morning for background noise and a little information. She keeps it tuned to Fox News, because after all, she is a republican. One story they've run a few times is the sad tale of a little company in Kentucky who makes jackets for Air Force One. The Federal Bureau of Prisons was going to compete for the work, and the loss of the contract would put the poor firm out of business. However, the brave business owner complained to the media and his Congressional delegation, and lo! The Federal Bureau of Prisons decided to withdraw from the bid, and the company is saved!

There are so many things wrong with this story it's hard to know where to start. Let's go with an immediate Business 101 level observation: if you are dependent on one customer for your continued existence, you have a problem. Diversify. Find other markets for your product. Find other business avenues to explore. Do something, anything, so if the big customer quits buying from you, you can survive. Frankly, piss-poor business practices alone should ensure Ashland Sales & Service goes bankrupt.

Moving right along, let's discuss the contracting issue. You have no right to have the taxpayer buy your product, okay? If, as it appears was the case, the Federal Bureau of Prisons can provide the item at a lower cost, guess what? I want the Federal Bureau of Prison to provide it. The federal government is not a jobs program. The fed should be trying to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' dime, which means going with lowest-cost bidding. If you ain't the lowest cost, screw you. Compete. Lower your costs. Improve your productivity. Don't whine about how the mean Federal Bureau of Prisons has lower labor costs and it's impossible to do anything. In other words, do your job and don't run to the government to get protection. This is the epitome of special interest: AS&S wants the government to screw over the taxpayer so they can benefit from the decision.

Next up, why in the hell are we buying special jackets for Air Force One, anyway? Unless things have changed, the zoomies get uniforms just like us groundlings did. All the personnel on Air Force have jackets, thoughtfully provided at taxpayer expense. What, they need another just because they fly on the same plane as their boss? Last time I checked, we don't have a palace guard in this country. The President is not the God-Emperor of America, and those blessed with his presence shouldn't get special uniforms. And the man himself? The President does not need a nice pretty flight jacket, and even if he wants one, he makes 400 large a year and should be able to afford one all by his own self.

Strangely, none of this was discussed in the coverage I've seen. These are basic considerations that maybe, just maybe, we should be considering when we decide to spend the government's our money. Instead, everybody's tear-jerking about how the business will go under and people will be unemployed and boo-fucking-hoo. Quit trying to tug on my heartstrings and think for a minute. We are $15 trillion and change in debt, and we have to be a jobs program for jacket manufacturers. We can't get anyone to ask "Why are we buying these jackets? And if we have to buy them, why can't we get them cheaper?" Nobody in the government is empowered to ask these questions but our elected officials, and they don't have the fortitude and willpower to do what's necessary.

And that, boys and girls, is why we're screwed: We have given ourselves the government we deserve.

Steve Jobs and Cultists

Steve Jobs was an innovator whose vision and fortunate partnership changed the way a lot of people use media.

I learned to program on a Mac SE over 25 years ago; I still have my fully functional "banana junior computer" that T constantly threatens to dismantle and turn into a fish bowl. I love my iPod and I love my iPhone and intend to purchase the new one. And guess what? Apple will still make products, and I will either choose to or not to buy them.

I don't know Mr. Jobs personally. I am sure this is a terrible loss for his family and for the people who knew and cared about him. I've lost many people I love and know what they face. It is unfortunate, and it is life.

What I detest is this creepy mourning death cult mentality so many take up every time somebody famous dies. Teddy bear shrines and candles and WTFever at Apple stores is just retarded. Stop it you idiots, it's meaningless. If you want to show support for Mr. Jobs' family, buy a Disney movie then go home and cry your crocodile salty ham tears in private. You're an irrelevant spec on the ass of the world and we don't care about your manufactured pain.

Despite PC society's reactionary anti-religionism, like it or not, people still yearn to be part of something greater than themselves. So instead of finding solace in the divine, they turn to the most frivolous crap that pops up, in a feeble attempt to give their empty existence some meaning. Creepy mourning death cults are fleeting, kiddies. Stop littering in front of retail stores. Do something. Find a real belief system. Try a Church.

You're Not That Smart

So, some lefty brought up the fact that libertarians are all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect the other day on some website I shan't bother to name because I forgot which collection of deluded statists I was reading. This made me giggle.

A fundamental component of my distrust of the government and desire to limit the power of it comes from my intellectual arrogance. I have, according to J, a pretty severe case of smartest guy in the room syndrome. I'm fundamentally convinced, on an almost cellular level, that I am a lot brighter than most people.

Going along with my intelligence, I recognize the limits of my capabilities. I'm not smart enough nor do I know enough to make a global rule that should be universally applicable to everyone in this country about, say, what kind of health insurance they should buy. I also strongly believe the people doing their damndest to impose that rule on all of us aren't smart enough, either. Having met a wide selection of elected officials, bureaucrats, and government employees at all levels, I'm convinced the average person in government is about as qualified to tell me how to live my life as my dogs are.

So now you can understand why some asshat bringing up Dunning-Kruger makes me so amused. I may be intellectually arrogant, but I'm not so arrogant I think I, or anybody else, should be telling 307 million people how to manage their lives in exquisite, painful, and legally binding detail. Somehow, that makes me the one who can't recognize my own limitations. The irony is so thick you can melt it into ingots.

Heroic Me

So, apparently the losers over at Gawker think sending out a mass email telling a bunch of people with whom you disagree 'FUCK YOU' is heroic. Or was that sarcasm? I can't tell when your network of sites includes Jezebel. The entirety of Jezebel strikes me as some sort of absurdist performance art mockery, but I'm reliably informed they're serious.

Anyhow, if your standard for heroism is telling people 'FUCK YOU', I'm a hero a million times over. Yay me! Somebody send me a medal.

H/t dbcooper.

Owie

Via the always informative Tam I came across this lovely story. In no particular order, I draw three lessons from this tale:

Don't carry a Glock.
Unreinforced leather is bad, mmkay?
Fix what's broken, instead of working around it.

That last one there? That, to me, is the critical one that (literally) bit this gentleman in the ass. The other two are, while sub-optimal in my opinion, perfectly survivable without injury for many people.

I work in industrial plants, and have ever since I graduated from college. Before college was 6 years in the Army on full-track combat vehicles. I have spent the entirety of my adult life around equipment which will fold, spindle, and multilate your tender self if you are not careful. A lot of accidents happen because something breaks and the operators find a work-around for the malfunction. That's okay, if they notify somebody and it gets fixed reasonably promptly. When your work-around becomes an accepted fact of life and never gets fixed, sooner or later it'll bite somebody. If you're lucky, it just affects equipment and nobody gets hurt. If you're not lucky? Well, somebody gets to make an unpleasant phone call to the next of kin.

A Short Diatribe About The Metric System

So, I hate my job and haven't had the time or energy much to blog lately. I'd much rather tweet random statements and make snarky comments over at Hit & Run.

Anyhow, my ire was raised by the absolutely bastardized implementation of the metric system that exists in the US. Now, I'm not talking about the SI system of units, a lovely idea in theory that has failed to catch hold here in America. I'm discussing the ancillary bits and bobs of technology that are specified in metric units. Today's example will be bolts.

As I peruse my handbook of all things mechanical I note an M8 x 1.25 bolt has a head size of thirteen millimeters. This means one uses a 13 mm wrench to remove said bolt, right? Perhaps in a perfect world, such is the case. Here in ugly reality, oh, but hell no. I have before me two M8 bolts, which go in the same piece of equipment. One was removed with a 12mm wrench, the other with a 1/2 inch wrench. I mean seriously, people, WTF?. There is no system of bolts I am aware of where you use metric threads with inch heads.

On the other hand, if I go buy a 3/8 inch bolt anywhere in the country I have a close to 100% chance I will be able to use a 9/16 inch wrench to remove or install it. Metric? Luck of the draw. Somewhere close to the nominal size will be what you need.

This is why people who work with things in this country have a propensity to hate the metric system. We're just not very good at it.

Get Another Job

The TSA employees apparently feel they are performing a valuable public service. Their delicate little feelings get hurt when the individual they are molesting calls the poor dear a molester. This makes the TSA agents sad.

Well, poor government drone, you have no right to a job where your feelings don't get hurt. In fact, you have no right to a job with the TSA. So if you don't want people to accurately describe what you're doing to them, I suggest you find another line of work.

I hear McDonald's may be hiring. You'll even get to wear a uniform, and the public will hold you in slightly greater esteem.

Back Off My Sandwich, Biatch

So, Michelle Obama has taken it upon herself to lecture us about what we should be doing about food. As the LA Times so snarkily points out, perhaps she needs to get her husband to give up the cigs before she nags us about what we're having for lunch. Since that's apparently too difficult, maybe she needs to have an ass that's NOT the size of two adult females before whining about obesity.

I think I'm just going to cherry pick stupid statements.

Together we have to do more.

Well, actually, unless she has a mouse in her pocket, "we" don't have to "do" a damn thing. What I choose to eat is about as much her business as how big her ass looks in any dress is mine. In other words, it's not. It's also not her business what restaurants offer on their menus. If she doesn't like their menu choices, she shouldn't eat there. If she wants a restaurant that offers healthy kid-friendly options, she should borrow some money from Tony Rezko and start one. If she thinks she's smarter than the rest of us and should dictate our food choices, she should piss right the fuck off with the quickness.

As a mom, I know it is my responsibility, and no one else’s, to raise my kids.

Well, then, get after it! What the hell is she doing bitching about the right menu choices? Go raise the sprogs! Oh, wait, she doesn't believe all the lumpy proles have the same responsibility? Or does she think they're too stupid? I'm betting on the latter, because, as she says:

many parents are finding their best efforts undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at our kids

Unless your kids came into the world with their own debit cards and checking accounts, Mommy and Daddy still make the purchasing decisions. Advertisements don't change that. If the parental units can't say no to the precious little snowflakes about a Chicken McNugget, they're all gonna have much bigger problems in life later on.

Oh, wait, here's another gem.

I’ve yet to meet a single parent who’s not eager to buy healthier products. They just need more information. They need easier access to those products.

Bitch, please. They have posters in the grocery store telling you how eating vegetables is good for you. The TV set has been pumping out eat healthy propaganda my entire life, and it was even aimed at kids! Somebody wants to know which choice is healthier? They have these neat labels on everything in the freaking store. And parents need more information? And easier access? Double you tee eff, Michelle? There's a big section in every grocery store I've set foot in that has all kinds of vegetable and produce. Admittedly, sometimes it was the freezer section, but still. How could she and some linty rodent possibly make that easier? Hand deliver the food?

Oh, wait, I forgot. We're talking about restaurants. Here's an easy one: stay home. Or better yet, quit trying to interfere in people's choices. Last time I checked, I had a mother and don't need Michelle Obama to try and take the job.

Of course, she's just a private citizen and isn't using the hammer of the state, right? Well, her and her pocket mouse have been busy.

It’s not enough just to limit ads for foods that aren’t healthy.

And we’ve started by requiring chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menus and menu boards.

we’re working with mayors and other local officials to make our cities and towns healthier

Yeah, that sounds like the state to me. Maybe I missed something in all the pertrouserating she was doing about how this is all voluntary. Right up until it's not, like calorie counts.

Seriously, is there any domain of modern life that some useless meatbag doesn't feel compelled to have the .gov stick their nose into?

Location, Location, Dislocation

So the .gov has been running ads about flood insurance. Perhaps you've seen them? Some guy stands there with a roof floating over his head and explains how he's a home, and homes need flood insurance, and you should buy some flood insurance.

I'll be honest. Flood insurance infuriates me. Well, flood insurance in the abstract doesn't bother me a bit. The National Flood Insurance Program disturbs me greatly. Here's how it works. You pay a pittance to the feds to insure your house. When your house floods, the feds write you a check. This would be all well and good except the premiums the fed takes in don't cover the checks the feds have to write. The advertisements are so the feds can drum up new revenue sources to help cover the losses instead of robbing the general revenue.

I'd be in favor of the program if it were actuarially sound. It's not. Insurance rates aren't based on risk, they're based on politics. Flood insurance rates are set artificially low. Apparently, pricing the insurance accurately would lead to people moving or not getting flood insurance. Either one works for me if we don't bail people out when bad shit happens. Unfortunately, we do.

Any insurance that is subsidized by the government leads people to make stupid choices. In this case, building houses in floodplains. If Joe and Jane Homeowner had to bear the real cost of their flood insurance themselves, we wouldn't see many houses built below sea level in a swamp.

So what do we get instead? We subsidize flood insurance to make it cheaper to build houses on floodplains. So more people build houses on floodplains, thus ensuring more losses when the inevitable flood happens. We've created a lovely feedback loop of bad decisions. When the program blows up fiscally, do we ever start to rethink the initial bad decision of subsidizing insurance? Nope. Our legislators and bureaucrats tweak the margins in a perpetual attempt to keep the game going. Revisiting the initial assumption of providing subsidized insurance never enters the debate.

If you look around, you can see plenty of examples of similar dynamics at work in a lot of federal programs. So we keep throwing money down ratholes, and we're rapidly going broke. I wonder why?

Not Your TV, Monkey

Okay, so I’m a big fan of Make magazine. I’m a charter subscriber, I have all the issues, etc., etc. In general, I find it a pretty neat operation with lots of things to interest me.

One reoccurring theme does bug me, however: the continuing fascination with the TV-B-Gone. In case you’re unfamiliar, I'll give you the condensed backstory. Some nit with no self-control apparently cannot be in a public space with a television on and ignore it. He is compelled by the evil mid control rays emitted by the demon box to sit and stare blankly at the moving pictures and pretty lights. So he invented a device that turns TVs off. Before you ask, I’m not joking. This is his own account, slightly paraphrased, of why he invented the thing in the first place.

Leaving aside the issues the account displays about the inventor, I have no problem with the device. A small remote control cycles through eleventy billion power codes for TVs when you push the button. Neat. There’s some slickness I can admire in the design and execution.

What grates on me is the absolute sense of entitlement the whole episode displays. I don’t like TVs being on in public spaces, so I’ll turn them off. Fuck everybody who might have been watching the TV, it annoys me, so off it goes! The idea that your wants and desires are more important than those of everybody else in the facility makes you a pretentious douchebag with an overdeveloped sense of self-importance.

Here’s a way to deal with it: don’t hang in places that have TVs on all the time. Real hard, right? Alternatively, you can always sit facing away from the TV, ask somebody to turn the volume down, or just ignore the idiot box. Seriously, they’re not magic. You can ignore them.

Honestly, this would be a petty annoyance and all would be well and good except Make keeps beating this horse. Buy a TV-B-Gone! Oh, wait, people notice when you point your remote at the TV and it goes off. They then throw you out of their establishment. Problem solved! Build it into a hat! Or a sweatshirt! So you can turn TVs off and not get caught at it! Because sometimes, that has bad consequences.

Okay, TVs annoy you. I get it. I didn’t own a TV until I got married. TVs are primarily useful to me as display devices for my electronics. If I wasn’t married, I wouldn’t even have cable. I have no problem if you don’t like them either. But guess what? If it’s not your TV in your house, you have as much business turning it off as I do dumping a bottle of water on smokers. Somewhere in your whole solipsistic narrative about how TVs are teh debbil, you missed the point where other people like them. Just because people like or do something you don’t like doesn’t give you the right to interfere with them. Your right to tell people what to do is limited to your property. To turn one of Make’s dicta on ownership upside down, if you don’t own it, don’t open it. How hard is that as a concept?

I’ve read a bunch of bullshit justifications from guerrilla activist culture-jammers about why this is somehow noble and is an attempt to take back public spaces and yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah. If you've written one of these justifications, be honest with yourself. Your high-minded nonsense scribblings are rationalizations to dress up your own prejudices. Bottom line is TVs annoy you and you feel like you should be able to turn them off anytime, anywhere, despite what anybody else thinks. Make spends a lot of time pushing things that are empowering, creative, and return control of technology to the individual. The TV-B-Gone is none of these. The TV-B-Gone in practice runs against everything else Make claims to uphold. Frankly, the continued championing of a device which exists to let you be a controlling asshat is disappointing.

Why Congress Is Stupid

Actually, Congress is an emergent system which, by definition, can’t be stupid as it has no consciousness. However, as our fearless congresscritters and other functionaries in and around DC try to manage the business of a vast, unimaginably complex collection of disparate individuals, it’s important to consider the limits of their knowledge. Congress may not be stupid, but Congress does make bad decisions.

One of the reasons why was explained 65 years ago by a guy named Freidrich Hayek. The short version (long version here) is coordination of any complex system requires too much information for any one individual to collect and process in time to make rational decisions which will affect the system. Computers, strangely, made this problem worse because the guy trying make decisions is going to be overpowered by the multitude of computers everywhere else. He can't possibly keep up with the data. It's a simple truth, but one that everybody ignores.

As recent events have proven, Congress can't even keep track of their own information, much less any other information. Congress just passed a 2,300 page bill none of the members had read in its entirety. What effect the bill will have on the 266 volumes of federal law and regulation, nobody yet knows. So, once again, I have to ask: in what universe was passing this bill a good idea?

Unintended Consequences Lead To... Thuggishness?

So, the accountants over at AT&T read the new heath care bill and figured they were in for a screwing. So, in accordance with well-established law, the accountants have to disclose the event and what the cost will be or else the SEC will go after AT&T. All okay so far, right? If AT&T did their math wrong and our fabulous attempt at health care deform doesn't cost them as much as they think, well, they can always restate the financials right?

Alternatively, some jackass in Congress can request AT&T corporate officers appear before that august body because he doesn't think their assessment is correct. I mean, hell, Henry Waxman (D-emagogue) knows more about how the new law is going to affect AT&T than AT&T does, because he's a congresscritter, right?

I'm not AT&T's corporate counsel, but in the absence of a valid subpeona, I'd tell Rep. Waxman to go piss up a rope.