Those who would give up Essential Common Sense to purchase a little Temporary Ideological Certainty, with earn neither Sense nor Security

I had a recent conversation (if you could call it that) on BoingBoing, discussing the recently-re-leaked NSA programs, and President Obama's comments in particular.  I think it is telling of the rhetoric and drastic reactions that the leaks are causing; reactions that may have been considerably less extreme had PRISM and the phone dumps been revealed by the President or government, and in a more measured manner.  

Me: 

"I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."Can someone please try and explain how that statement can *possibly* be wrong?"

millie fink: 

"It's a false dichotomy, and a lie by omission.
It totally overlooks the reality of what's being imposed on us in terms of loss of privacy, along with the many risks of overreaching surveillance. Have you ever heard, for starters, of a novel called "1984"?" 

Me again, with a response far too long for the setting:

"Yes, I think I remember reading in seventh grade.  You're probably right, of course, so I'll alert the people and we can storm the Ministry of Truth together.Can you even take yourself seriously, saying that?  If so, I'm very impressed; I haven't managed to muster that kind of fanatical zeal for anything since Firefly was canceled.And my entire point is that trying to have either security or liberty is a false dichotomy; it can't possible to have both entirely, OR just one or the other because of the very nature of the statement.  Is it really impossible for you to imagine a situation in which limits on the government’s ability to track down criminals and gather intelligence on terrorists could prevent some useful information? Is there no scenario in which using more invasive technology, techniques, or just plain aggressive interviewing could lead to better policing?Of course even the most radical extremist has to admit that police should be able to hold someone in a police station if they're found with blood on their hands of a street down from the murder. Likewise, the government should be able to tap peoples phones, email, and other communication when they have clear evidence of an immediate and present danger to people's lives. This situation very clearly sits between extremes; the government did and does actually have legal authority to carry out these invasions of privacy by law, by approval by all three branches; legislative, judicial, and executive.   Could this still be a violation of constitutional rights? Of course; I think you, I, and plenty of people including those doing the surveillance could easily agree on that. However that line is much, much fuzzier then most will admit, probably because it makes the answer more difficult. What makes it even more difficult to judge is when we don't even know what's going on, which is why I think Snowden’s leaks were an incredibly brave and helpful thing to do. That said, I can't imagine how prism hasn't helped the government track down and find bad people. So where should the line be drawn?  How do we reign in what are clearly unconstitutional searches by any reasonable standard while still allowing the government access to critical information? I ask myself that continually, but it doesn't help when people freak but and have impossible delusions of never needing to have any possible rights of privacy invaded.  I believe there is a great deal of truth to candidate Obama statements; especially when examining the atmosphere post-9/11 when torture was sanctioned government policy, and the only question for the Intelligence – Industrial complex was how to expand more. That has been reigned in, in significant ways. It has also not been controlled in other significant ways. Candidate Obama didn't have to sit down and be told about foiled plots to murder innocent Americans; but President Obama doesn't have to face up to the American public when the creepy surveillance programs are all secret."

Obama may already have lost people like this; the libertarian, the civil-rights fighter, the freedom-liberal, the paranoid and conspiracy-bent – this portion of the populous may have never supported any current president in any situation.  But this certainly isn't going to make things easier for him and the spooks.

The Republican Party's Evolution Problem

LGBTQ Nation has a shocking new story out - GOP dumps plan for more ‘inclusive’ party, reaffirms anti-gay marriage platform.  


I think this is a positive step for the country.  It will only be after the GOP burns to the ground - in a spectacular inferno of twisted cultural values, ruthless political amoralism and self-delusional fairyland - that something resembling a competent opposition party will emerge.  

It may take awhile.  Or it might not.

Easy Solutions to Big Problems, Suggestion 1

Cut military funding by a significant proportion.

Use some of this to reduce the deficit.  Use the rest for increased funding to NASA and the NIH (National Institute of Heath), which funds biomedical research.

Everyone wins, excepting Lockheed-Martin.

This is my comment to the moderator for the Economist's debate on fracking.  The question proposes was "Do the benefits derived from shale gas outweigh the drawbacks of fracking?".

My answer, of course, was no.  

Dear Sir,
Please ask the debaters how well fracking, or any oil or gas extraction, takes any account for it's negative externalities. Do the oil companies have funds set aside for polluted drinking water or aquifers, spoiled and polluted land (as most states have not even disallowed surface dumping), or ground and structure stability issues after the bedrock underneath is fractured?
And how about the externalities of the energy-intensive process used to obtain this fuel? Will Exxon, now that has publicly admitted its recognition of climate change (for over a decade, even while it was funding various disinformation campaigns) seek to balance the emissions it directly causes, and will cause in the distribution of its primary product?
This magazine has come out in favor of the clear scientific consensus: Global Climate Change is real, increased by human GHG emissions (or solely caused), and will cause a massive amount of widespread economic and social damage if not mitigated.
How do any of the industries involved in fracking seek to counter this?
And if they don't, why we do, as the public, accept it as given that we must pay for their waste?

And yes, all the comments are artificially started with the opener "Dear Sir".  Oh those wacky British!

Gangnam Style and Sound of Silence

Often with giant, amusing or enjoyable viral memes, I stop listening before I stop enjoying them.  Then several months later I go back and pick out the really interesting remixes and spoofs from the chaff.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as brilliant, but it got me thinking.

I present to you - Gangnam Style, sans music.

Because the Rich and Powerful Don't Already Have a High Enough Opinion of Themselves

From some leaked memos from Citigroup:

We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization… Since we think the plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger… It is a good time to switch out of stocks that sell to the masses and back to the plutonomy basket.

Depressing.  

I can see why Citigroup would pay millions to keep this under-wraps; this reads like a parody of Scrooge McDuck's evil accountant.  Not good for attracting private, low profile, rich investors.

It seems awfully limited in prognosis.  It seems to implicitly assume that what a world run by neo-feudal, capitalist states would be best for everyone, or at least everyone that matters.  Obviously no one knows the future, but our current system of technological upheaval is based, in large part, on the promise that people can and do make a decent living through invention and have the chance of striking it rich.  I suppose inequality doesn't necessarily defeat this scenario, but it does make it harder for the natural talent and ambition to eke it's way into competition with immensely substandard education, resources and support.  

But I suppose they weren't writing those memos to advise people on how to run society, so much as to flatter rich people and make them feel important, so that they will continue to pay them idiotic amounts of money for stock tips.

A realization of no particular relevance.

Do you ever get a sudden insight that is brilliant, hilarious, or interesting, and then realize the obvious nature of this observation?  Obvious, not in the sense of 1+1=2, but in the sense of "if I were in that scenario, the mostly likely outcome of 1(being some particular quantity that I deal with) +1(ditto) = 2(as someone in this scenario this answer is too obvious to mention).

I would appreciate it if someone could come up with a more pithy way of putting that,

BUT

My realization of today was perhaps obvious, but amusing: the tech engineers and the stylistic engineers at Apple must hate each other.  I'm talking Montague and Capulet level hate.

AmIright?


POST HASTE EDIT
The word is that I am wrong and Apple is much more together than I had suspected and/or doesn't divide the technical from the stylistic engineering.  First of all: wow.  Second: those poor engineers must go mad from the war that goes on in their minds; between the artistic and mathematical sides.

Or maybe they're just much smarter than I.