WILL YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?

 

Serious question: What would a neighbor of yours have to do to justify the authorities killing you?  Think about it.  What if your neighbor was Ted Bundy, a prolific serial killer.  Would his living next door to you justify your demise at the hands of authorities?  What if Bundy was doing his serial killing next door to you?  Assuming you did not know it was going on, should you be killed for his actions?

What if your neighbor was Adolph Hitler?  What if after he had ordered or otherwise caused the murder of millions of other humans, he moved in next door to you?  If you were killed in the effort to capture or eliminate him, would you consider that just?

Personally, I have not been able to come up with a situation wherein my demise at the hands of those attempting to hold a neighbor responsible for actions taken without my assistance or knowledge could be considered "just".  To be honest, I don't feel like any level of injury to me would be justifiable in an effort to punish someone else for something they did.  However, you need not feel limited by my position.  If you can think of a suitable answer to the question, feel free to share it with me and the world.

Brett Hankison was a police detective in Louisville, KY.  He was very involved in the no-knock raid that resulted in the wrongful death of an innocent civilian, Breonna Taylor.  While by all accounts Hankison did not fire the round that killed her as she slept, he did fire rounds that went into or through her apartment.  Oddly enough, he is so far, the only officer to be charged and convicted of any crime associated with the poorly planned and executed raid.

The DOJ submitted a sentencing memorandum that recommended essentially no repercussions for the irresponsible detective.  Nothing about Taylor's death or the rather obvious violation of her civil rights appears to be of concern to the DOJ though Hankison's well-being - his PTSD and related conditions was a focus.

I have taught several folks to shoot.  I tend to tell those I am instructing that "There is no such thing as an accident. If you point the firearm at me, I will assume you intend to shoot me and I will do my best to get you first.  I'll explain it to your parents later."  Traditional instruction is that you do not shoot if you don't know where the bullet is going if it misses the target or goes through the target.  If you cannot say with authority where the projectile will go, it is reckless and negligent to pull the trigger.

I can only see two options, either Hankison and the other LEOs on the scene knew where their bullets were going or they didn't.  Those two options translate to either they were reckless and negligent OR, for whatever reason they wanted innocent civilians to be harmed.  You are welcome to argue the existence of other options but I am a reasonably experienced shooter so, you're looking at an uphill climb.

So put yourself in Ms Taylor's apartment.  She was never the focus of the raid.  No one accused her of illegal behavior.  The officers were allegedly targeting an ex-boyfriend of hers but not someone who currently or recently resided at the address.  So should I rephrase the question?  What would an estranged ex of yours have to do to justify your demise at the hands of authorities?  If you can't think of a reason, then you need to be more upset about the DOJ recommendation.

I have exes.  I have no reason to believe that I should be killed for stuff they might be doing.  I have no reason to believe any of them should be killed for stuff I might be doing.  Breonna Taylor and her loved ones deserve justice.  

Over the years I have known several individuals in law enforcement.  Military, FBI, U.S. Marshalls, TBI, Highway Patrol as well as several local officers/deputies.  I have no idea who I would go to to get a defense of Hankison et al's actions especially if I were able to ask them prior to them knowing about the event.  Perhaps some of them would choose to stand with their LEO brethren once they knew the actual details but none of them would have tried to claim that was the right way to handle things as a hypothetical EVEN if all of the pertinent facts were included in the hypothetical.  They know better.

If I were king of the forest, the author(s) of the memorandum would be charged with a crime.  The DOJ should be the lead in getting justice for Breonna and her loved ones.  They should definitely not be the lead in evading justice for those that murdered her and negligently endangered others.

A pretty standard trope in Hollywood when they want to shock or offend is to have a character describe what are the acceptable levels of civilian casualties.  “Collateral damage” is military verbiage but essentially is the same thing.  It should never be used outside of the military (and ideally, never in the military either!).  There are no acceptable levels of degradation of my health and physical ability due to something someone else did.  What about you?  What would I, as your neighbor, have to do to make you amenable to your demise or serious injury as a byproduct of my (attempted) apprehension?

If being collateral damage doesn’t work for you, then you need to halt that shit before it gets to you.  Louisville, KY would have been a good place to stop it.

VAMPIRES AMONG US

 

There be vampires among us.  

Now, I know what you're thinking. Vampires are the stuff of fiction.  They exist solely in adolescent fantasy movies and the fevered imaginations of those with no other way to explain the incredible cruelty or apathy with which some humans have treated their fellow humans.  But bear with me.

One of the constant themes common to stories of vampirism across various genre is the inability of mirrors, or other reflective surface, to display their images.  They have no reflections.  They cannot see themselves.

None of the various vampire stories with which I am familiar ever discuss the potential ramifications of a human lifespan - or several - spent with no direct knowledge of just exactly what one looks like.  Given the current popularity of "selfies" and the long known desire for one's "15 minutes of fame", this seems a very odd omission.  How would it affect your psyche, your personality, to never see what the world sees when they look at you?  How would it affect your confidence? 

How might the mass of humanity react if they were suddenly unable to see themselves?  If you fancy yourself a writer, you might well be imagining how you would write such characters.  If you are otherwise given to mental meanderings you might be currently wondering how you would act, how you might be different if you spent a significant amount of time completely unable to see yourself.

It turns out, we don't have to imagine at all. Writer or fantacist, we can dam the creative flow and simply observe that which is.  It aint pretty.

If you want to know what happens when you can't see your reflection, simply look at the vampires of the modern day GOP.  They cannot see the reflections of themselves or their migratory ancestors in the modern day refugees.  They cannot see reflections of GOP policies in the conditions that convince people with very little to leave even that little bit behind to embark on a trip fraught with danger for them and their families.  They can't see themselves in the light returning from those that have lost all of their savings due to an unavoidable medical issue.  Drug overdoses are not reflective in the least for them.  LEO abuses only happen to "others" and are certainly no reflection on them.  Nothing that happens to anyone causes any hint of self-recognition when the images reach their eyes.

Whenever you are asking yourself how a given individual or group can treat any other individual or group so callously or horrendously, it is because they cannot see themselves in that person or group.  Being a vampire apparently makes you completely insensitive to the travails others.  I would posit that it is the lack of reflection that causes this. 

If you look at a shiny-faced Dreamer and see yourself, then common sense immigration reform becomes important to you. If you can see yourself in the eyes of a child with cancer or when you see a suddenly homeless stay-at-home parent, your priorities change. 

But an awful lot of folks only see a false reflection.  They see themselves in Donald Trump but they have no rich father to start them out with several hundred million dollars.  They see themselves in the lottery winners even though they have a better chance of being struck by lightening which is particularly ironic since they do NOT see themselves in those that have suffered greatly in natural disaster.

In vampire lore, they have no tolerance for sunlight.  That level of illumination is a primary threat to their immortality.  This seems to hold up.  When we illuminate the behavior of our current day vampires, significantly fewer folks vote or otherwise support them.  Still, as with so many other circumstances, it is situational awareness that does the most to keep you safe.  Knowing about current vampires will give you greater opportunity to construct a bulwark against them. 

That is why I am telling you now, THERE BE VAMPIRES AMONG US!  As in a majority of the stories I have seen, you either are one or you need protection from them.  Our protection protocols are written into the Constitution.   Will you use them?

WE ARE US

 

Among the incredibly obvious things that apparently elude a significant percentage of humans is the fact that "we" are nested entities.

We are constituent parts of the universe, the supercluster, the local cluster, the galaxy, the solar system, the planet, the animal kingdom, mammals, humans, nations, regions, states, cities/counties, neighborhoods. We are a small portion of all of those things. All of those things certainly have other parts as well but, we would be included in any complete inventory of those entities.

The physical, social and cultural constructs of humanity are also constituent parts of all of those nested entities. While much of human misery throughout history is rooted in concepts of otherness, we are all parts of the same systems. Think about how your brain and heart and liver and lungs look nothing alike but are all part of you - such integral parts that severe injury to any of those parts can cause you to cease to exist. Not all of our parts are crucial in the same way. Some can be injured or removed without killing us but all our parts have a purpose, and we work better with them in place and functioning properly.

Some of those constructs of humans are not generalized. They function to affect humans of a specific type or location. Humans of other types in other locations might choose an alternate but corresponding function. Examples of such can be found in the various governmental and economic philosophies.

Earlier today I saw there had been established a GoFundMe for the victims of the flooding tragedy in TX. Rather obviously, GoFundMe is a social/economic construct of humans. What might not be as obvious is GoFundMe is in large part, a socialist construct. It is a collective response to a localized tragedy.

There are a lot of socialist elements in the government of the USA. We don't like to admit that because those who benefit from our fear of "the other" have conditioned us over scores of years to think of any "ism" other than capitalism as lesser. To avoid having to actually acknowledge the socialist elements they avoid using that term in the name or descriptions. It is disingenuous and hypocritical, but it is also effective. We embrace socialism to avoid financially inconveniencing those with nearly unlimited funds - but we avoid calling it what it is so as to avoid causing them even the slightest discomfort.

FEMA, under responsible and more ethical administrations, is an entity to enable and effect a collective response to localized disasters. It is socialist in spirit and effect but not in name. Medicare and Medicaid also meet that criteria. Though Medicaid in particular might be known by any of several names, what it does and how it does it is not dependent on the name. Social Security might be the most obvious socialist element in our government because the name hints at it but it is far from the only one.

I don't dislike GoFundMe. I don't even mistrust their intentions. In no way am I attempting to dissuade anyone from using that platform or similar platforms to assist our fellow citizens. However, I do find it ludicrous that in the richest nation in the world, and according to the specifics of the metrics, possibly the richest nation in history, we feel the need to rely on a voluntary platform to address real need. The folks in TX should not have to depend on the willingness of their fellow citizens to part with what little disposable funds they have. The same is true of those affected by other disasters.

Attending to citizens after a disaster is a right and proper function of government. There is nothing at all wrong with ancillary organizations helping be they neighborhoods, churches, professional orgs, online entities or even other nations. Sometimes we have an emotional need to help. We need to believe that we have done something to assist victims of tragedy over and above what the government organizations are tasked with. I have no issue with anyone doing actual good. I have a huge issue with government shirking their responsibilities and leaving it to ad hoc socialism to clean up the mess. Individually few of us have the resources and skills to replace government organizations. Responding ad hoc to each tragedy will ensure that some things, some people, fall through the cracks. We need to be ready to respond with a collective and capable response even if it absolutely reeks of socialism.

We are us, even when you don't like to think of us that way.

Maybe In A Couple Decades ...

 

Predicting the future is hard.  I suck at it.  However, I suck less at it than damn near everyone else I encounter IRL or on the interwebs.  Rare indeed is the week that goes by without someone making the most common mistake I see made when those trapped in the now try their hands at futurism.

That mistake is pretty much unavoidable for those without infinite amounts of time and memory but, envisioning potential future realities as a spectrum rather than an event might help but at some level the mistake is (apparently) unavoidable.  The mistake of which I speak is to pick a predicted product, service or event and envision it in the current social, cultural and technological idiom.

An obvious example of this mistake is displayed every time the subject of self-driving vehicles comes up.  Those in the discussion invariably talk about all those folk (usually including themselves) who will never give up the control and freedom of owning and manually operating their own vehicle.  I get that.  I've been a gearhead for a long time.  I like driving a car and riding a motorcycle.  But I also understand various aspects of capitalism.  So I point out that once the insurance companies understand they will pay out less if the cars drive themselves - and they are already collecting that empirical data - insurance costs will put legally operating your own vehicle on public streets out of reach for most of us.  Essentially, the insurance companies will change the economic paradigm which will lead to changes in the cultural paradigm.

It was also commonly made in discussion about electric vehicles.  When I point out that there were no gas stations in existence anywhere in the world when the Model T hit the market, the claims that we do not have the necessary infrastructure to "refuel" EVs the way we can internal combustion vehicles are shown to be ridiculous on their face.

A less obvious mistake has roots in the inability of folk to understand/visualize exponential growth.  A particularly vexing example of this can be seen in the commentary of those who were suspicious of the COVID vaccine(s) because they were developed so fast.  So even though there have been major advances in computers and more, "they" believe that vaccine development should take just as long as it did when the research was being written out longhand in candle light.  That the development was happening in a rapidly changing technological paradigm is ignored because apparently, "winning" the argument is more important than being correct or being healthy.

The truth of the matter is that there have been huge advances in computing, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine.  AI that was delivering inexplicable and unreliable results a year ago is being used in mission critical applications now.  Essentially the entire technological paradigm has changed but those who choose to be in denial refuse to even try to consider all the other changes.  "They" stupidly compare the speed of a specific event like COVID vaccine development to the development time for vaccines before we even had computers in common usage let alone the internet and AI and genomic research.

All of this lack of understanding is generally promulgated with uninformed statements about when the technology will be ready for mass consumption.  We hear that in a decade or two the tech will be ready.  I have heard that we are 50 years from trucks driving themselves even though they are already operating on the roads.

Everybody and everything exists within a given context.  Even though we are frequently told that "change is the only constant in the Universe", we act as though the context is not dynamic at all.  The actuality is that the rate of change is increasing in every hard science area of study.  If you want to be a better futurist, you must understand that the change is happening all around.  Telescopes and microscopes, particle colliders and tokamaks, battery tech and solar panels, computer memory and throughput speeds, battery chemistry and pharmaceutical development, all of that and more are changing far more rapidly than most of us seem to be aware of.  The technological paradigm is constantly shifting and advancing.  The tech paradigm induces changes in the social and cultural paradigms.  Whatever happens tomorrow or next week needs to be considered in the current paradigm or the probable future paradigm rather than any past paradigm if the analysis is to mean anything at all.  

We desperately need leadership that understands the nature of change.  While the nuts and bolts of politics may be as they were 20+ years ago, the issues politics are addressing are in a state of accelerating change.  I'm not an ageist, I swear I'm not.  But a 75+ year old that cannot set the time on their microwave may not be the best choice to make the rules that will govern various technologies.  We must either do better or we will watch the rest of the world leave us behind.

Prehistoric Stealth

 

You've seen it a thousand times in a movie or a television show.  It is such a standard gambit that some days it seems mandatory.  An object is thrown to make noise in a spot where the pursued is not in an effort to make the pursuer look in a different direction than the pursued's hiding spot.

There are variations on that theme.  A predatory animal is described as hunting motion.  If you stand very still the animal will ignore you as a stationary object which are not made of meat.

Either way, the foundational intent is the same.  If you can make the entity looking for you have no reason to look in your direction, you will not be found (or noticed or whatever). 

The corollary is that you are more likely to be found or seen or attacked if you call attention to yourself.  Hold on to this for a bit.  You're going to need it later.

One of the joys of modern existence is the ability to record and playback sights and/or sounds.  Still photography, video photography and audio recording affect everyone living a reasonably modern life.  Creating movies, television shows and music is the primary employment for an awful lot of folks.  The rest of us consume what they create in one way or another.  But our ability to record and playback does not stop there.

RADAR, SONAR and other sensing technologies can also have their outputs recorded and played back. For most of us, it would be difficult to find something we were less likely to watch or listen to.  However, since long-term storage memory is (relatively) inexpensive, entities like the NSA, or their foreign analogues, tend to hang on to such recordings just in case some later development makes them useful.  Therein (potentially) lies the problem.

In an example of what might be possible, an intelligence organization could acquire a cryptographic key in some method and apply it to recorded transmissions to read the contents.

Now instead of communications intercepts, let's cycle back to the sensing technologies.  If we "knew" for a fact the exact time and date an adversary's submarine was within range of our acoustic sensors, we might be able to play back the recording and use advances in computerized analysis to see if it could pick out a sound signature that a human or older computer tech might have missed.  If we can, voila!  We can now identify that sub whenever it gets within range of a sensor whether it is fixed or mobile.

In their rush to get publicity Felon47 and his DUI hire, Hegseth, have ensured friend and foe alike who might have appropriately positioned land-based or space-based or mobile radars have reason to replay those recordings to look for an anomaly that could be the signature of a B2 Stealth bomber.  They violated the precepts of prehistoric stealth in that they are calling attention to those planes.  Various entities have reason to look exactly in our direction.  

I cannot recall ever having seen reporting on the exact route a modern American submarine took.  Why? Because this ain't the Stone Age. Technological analysis can be applied post event - possibly months or years after the event or whenever a technological advancement makes revisiting such recordings potentially fruitful.  But we just did it with Stealth aircraft.

I personally consider this criminal malfeasance.  (Not that that will impress anyone)  I will likely never know if the stealth was compromised.  That is the sort of thing national entities like to keep in their metaphorical backpockets. However, I consider it very likely the misadministration was advised about it and decided publicity was more important than national secrets.

Those people are not patriots.

Linguistic Contortions

 

I swear there are days when I am convinced that language is absolutely wasted on humanity.

Perhaps if we could actually remember a time of pointing and grunting we might value actual specific words more highly.  We don't.  Now, I have written multiple essays on the meanings of words and sometimes on their misuse.  I have taken considerable ribbing over my attitude about word usage and/or linguistic evolution. (I'm agin' it)  I seem to be fighting an uphill battle.

The epiphany that has my knickers in a bunch today occurred because I do not consider myself aligned with either of the two predominant political parties in the USA.  I fully and willingly admit that the last 30-40 years have convinced me that I will never vote for a Republican for anything in the future.  A more complete version of that would note that while I will not be voting GOP I will likely stay largely pissed off at the Democratic Party.  Not pissed off enough to vote Republican but any other apparently viable, socially progressive, fiscally sane party could easily get my attention.

Today's burr under my saddle might seem subtle to some of you but I think it is meaningful.  On social media and even in person I have seen untold analysees on what the Dems can do to win elections.  I have seen it phrased as how Dems can beat the GOP or what messaging the Dems need.   ---  Do you see the problem yet?? ---

Let me help you out.  I will be the first to acknowledge that my social media footprint is not huge.  I am no longer on Facebook.  I do not and have not participated on Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, Snapchat, TikTok, and a bunch of lesser platforms.  I am primarily active on Bluesky (and I really miss Google+) and Reddit.  Still, I see a lot of posts.  What I do not see is anyone trying to tell the Dems or Independents how they can make the current situation less bad for us.  --- You see it now, right? ---

Look, I am no Pollyanna by any stretch of the imagination.  However, at the end of the day I don't actually give a shit who is in charge.  I care what happens to me, those that I know and love, those that I know and like, and those that I don't know from Adam's housecat.  We have contorted our language and belief structure so as to render what is actually done severely subordinate to getting elected - and even more importantly, reelected.  

As a general rule, I would agree that Dems are more socially progressive and that is important.  OTOH, I also follow politics closely enough to know that some of your favorite Dem politicians had to be forcibly pulled to the left and for some of them, I wonder if their beliefs actually changed or if they were just saying what they thought would get them elected. Off the top of my head I could point out that minimum wage hasn't gone up, healthcare has not gotten less expensive, predatory lending has continued under multiple administrations of both parties.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that one of the reasons General George Washington was opposed to political parties is the same thing that is annoying me.  The party's priority becomes the elected party official's priority and the constituent's priority has to take a back seat IF allowed on the bus at all.  I don't have a comprehensive plan to fix this idiocy but the general outline is we should all focus on making life hell on any elected official that is not actively making our lives better.  I acknowledge that electing someone from a different party might be an element of that but that should be a part of the journey NOT the destination.  If your party happens to be the one in power, that changes nothing.  You still need to pay attention and make life hell for any elected official that is not making your life better.

I'm not sure this could be any more simple.

Behavioral Modification

 See, here is the problem.  At its core, a tariff is tool to modify specific aspects of a specific human or group of humans.  In theory, the tariff adds enough to the cost of a product that either the middlemen or the final customer has to actively decide if it is worth it.

If you want fewer EU citizens to purchase Fords, you increase the cost with a tariff and suddenly the Ford costs the same as a BMW.  In one fell swoop, you have removed whatever monetary advantage Ford had while not addressing or affecting any issues of quality or fun or utility etc etc.  Basically you have raised the cost without increasing the value.  If Ford has had a good year or ten and they have plenty of cash on hand, they could choose to keep the MSRP the same and just pay the cost of the tariff themselves.  In that way the EU citizens are not financially incentivized to purchase a vehicle of alternate manufacture. 

Your modification target can be either the manufacturer, the middlemen - importer, jobber, retailer, or the end user.  Any or all of them MAY be affected by additional costs but choices can be made that places the greater burden on one entity or the other.  Generally as a long-term reaction to the tariffs, the choice is to pass the costs on to the next entity in the line.  As the phrase indicates, the "end user" is the last entity.  With no one else to pass the costs on to, they must choose to either pay the cost or change their behavior and choose a different product.

If Walmart were to "eat the tariffs" as demanded by Felon47, neither the foreign manufacturers nor the end user are financially incentivized to alter their behavior.  So was the goal all along to decrease Walmart's profits?  To what end?  That has certainly not been articulated within range of my awareness.  

According to the day or the rant, the tariffs are either to punish the foreigners that stole our jobs OR they are to convince Americans to buy American and convince companies to move manufacturing back to our shores.  I fail to see how Walmart "eating the tariffs" accomplishes any of that.  Sam Walton's heirs are incredibly wealthy.  They enjoy a near unimaginable income from Walmart.  But regardless of how true that is, my behavior will not be changed by my socks costing Walmart $4.58 instead of $3.80 as long as I still see $5.00 at the register.  China, Vietnam, India, or Indonesia cashed the check and put the product on a ship.  They could not possibly give less of a shit what happens to it after that so their behavior is not likely to be modified.

So what are the goals?  How would you know?  Whether you listen to the misadministration's words or observe their actions, there are internal and external conflicts with both.  The only honest effort seems to be in the attempt to make it look like the misadministration is doing something and, more importantly, to make Felon47 feel like a big man because actual successful people are jumping when he says "jump".  Past that, he has no more of a clue than do his supporters.

FREE STUFF

 I spent several years in a job that required me to frequently be on a lake and frequently involved the use of a boat. As a part of that job, I went to trade shows for boats and boating tools and accessories. A frequently stated factoid was that one could expect to spend between 10% - 20% of the retail cost of the boat every year for fuel, maintenance, storage, repair and incidentals. Funny thing, since that cost was estimated based on the retail cost of the boat, the yearly cost did not go down if you got a really good deal on the boat. Even if the boat was free, you could expect to spend 10% - 20% of the retail cost of the boat every year for the non-fun stuff that had to get done.

A while back a friend gave me a Groupon for a meal at a new(ish), high end restaurant. To this day, that free meal remains one of my more expensive visits to a restaurant. There was a lovely jazz band playing and everything except the entree was an extra cost. If I had needed transportation, taxi or Uber, it would probably be the most expensive meal. I lived within walking distance so that didn't happen but even without the extra expense, it hurt.

I have received other "gifts" that cost me a lot of money or a lot of time to fix or both. I could go on with a exhaustive list of seriously expensive "free stuff" but you probably understand already. As a general rule, it has been my experience that the greater the value of the gift I am given, the more it has cost me. I have no reason to believe that my experiences are unique or even rare. I have certainly observed a very similar set of circumstances for friends, family and even strangers.

So, to get to the point, Felon47 is being offered a "gift" of a Boeing 747 from the kingdom of Qatar. I suppose technically it would be a "gift" to the USA but the Felon has already expressed a desire to use it as Air Force One (whatever plane under Air Force command that the POTUS is flying in) and then transfer it to the Felon47 coloring book repository (library) once he is out of office for his continued use. A plan structured so as to hang the costs of maintaining and operating the airplane on the American taxpayer while the Felon has exclusive use of it.

We could talk about security concerns if we wanted to have a book length discussion but for some reason, that does not seem to be a concern for the Felon or his merry band of incompetents. So I will only mention the Felon's highest priority - money. Suffice to say that the current planes with the modifications for communications, medical, security, ECM, in flight refueling etc etc costs $3-$5billion a piece. (Personally, I say leave all that stuff off and let the Felon fly around in a vulnerable palace but TBF, I absolutely do not care what happens to the 1st asswipe.)

I have never owned an airplane. I have no real idea of the ownership costs of a low end Cessna much less a customized 747. However, I would bet dollars to donuts that it is not less than a recreational boat. So let's use that 20% estimate. Even though the two current AF1 planes are perfectly operational, we are talking about spending an additional $80million a year for this "gift". Of course, the Felon has business, political and personal enemies so to the regular cost, we will have to add enhanced security to a level acceptable by the Secret Service. That will mean a minimum of several 24/7 security guards. I think we can safely round up the cost of that "gift" to at least $100million a year. That is not the cost to operate the bird, those costs already exist for the current planes. The $100million a year is simply an incredibly conservative guesstimate of the extra costs specific to that airframe.

Basically, the guy who brags about not taking a salary while screwing us over for excess costs on every golf trip to a property he controls is trying to put us on the hook for a minimum cost of $100million per year for the rest of his life and potentially as much as a billion dollars a year. That is the cost to the American taxpayer for the Trump grifts. Personally, I don't want to pay my part of it. I will not think charitably of anyone willing to pay their share.

How To Keep A Secret

audio version of How To Keep A Secret

An embarrassing number of years ago I was a noob in the intelligence organization of the U.S. Navy. As such, I was subjected to the official and unofficial histories and whatever else the "Old Salts" wanted to teach me.

One of the stories I heard more than once concerned the very early days of said Intel org Legend had it that FDR was prone to saying (whispering) stuff like "My boys in the back room tell me ... " and then divulging classified and/or sensitive information. Allegedly this was done without consulting his advisors or even confirming need to know for the recipients.

There are any of several different reasons that a given bit of info may be classified. The information itself may well be mundane and seemingly of no consequence. However, the fact that we have the info can be the reason for classifying it. It could be that we don't want others to know specific areas, geographical or intellectual, we are interested in. The identity of assets - potentially to their terminal detriment - can be compromised by divulging awareness of certain information. Regardless of how long I have been out of that business, I can assure you that all of those reasons are still valid. Of course, sometimes the information itself is potentially very dangerous and that might justify and even higher classification. Whether the classifying authority wants to protect the fact that we have the information or wants to protect the information itself, either way the info gets classified and ideally, protected from being casually promulgated.

So what do you do when your boss is the one who cannot be trusted with classified information? According to the Old Salts, "we" quit telling FDR everything. I was told that he was told enough to make responsible decisions but whenever possible, the information was "sanitized" as much as possible. There could be no official acknowledgement this was being done. There could be no sanctioned group or committee that determined what was safe to tell the POTUS or others in the chain of command. It had to be an ad hoc decision by someone who had never been specifically told to do what they were doing.

Information was different in the 1940's. It was well prior to the internet and even the 24 hour news stations. Today's information is a mighty river where the 1940s was an active creek. I don't know that the true patriots in the U.S. Intel Orgs can effectively, but quietly, control the information the boss(es) get. However, I can assure you that organizations outside of our chain of command are taking steps to limit their exposure to harm from the flippant approach to security that our current misadministration has demonstrated.

The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. That which is not known cannot be divulged. To be fair though, once this nation started acting as if Russia was our only ally (even though the Russians continue to act as though we are their primary enemy) intel sharing with us was already being reduced. On top of that, the "boss(es)" appears to trust Fox News and other reich-wing outlets over the alphabet agencies.

At the end of the day, I suppose the 2nd best way to keep something secret is to hide it in the middle of the Epstein files. Those without access to the files are reduced to using the best way. Eventually that reality is going to bite us in the ass.

Forced Financial Foolishness

 So, let's say one night you are out and about and you notice that your car could use some gas (or electricity or hydrogen, whatever) so you pull into a convenience store/gas station.  Imagine you encounter a criminal with real mental problems.  

The criminal puts a gun to your head and forces you to purchase a lottery scratchoff ticket - not for him - he forces you to buy it for yourself.  Once you have the ticket, he puts the gun away and disappears into the night.

You scrape the appropriate areas of the ticket and lo and behold, the ticket is a winner to the tune of $50k.

Do you force the store to take the ticket back?  I'm serious, answer the damn question.  Do you force the store to take back their $50k ticket because you did not want it to begin with?

That is what happened last night.  Extremely effective leaders and administrators have been forced out because their initial hirings, years or decades prior, MIGHT have been positively influenced by their gender and/or ethnicity.

If you would not give back the $50k, and let's be honest, who the fuck would?, you already know why last nights idiocy was wrong and you know how it is wrong.  Now you need to do something about it.

DEI was put into place to stop the USA from harming itself by adhering to fallacious biases.  Ironically, though he had no part in hiring or training these incredibly valuable folks, rather than availing himself of the value they bring, he is sending them away after they have proven their value.  

I probably should not have to explain this to grown-ass adults.

Weakness In Numbers

 

Kash Patel was confirmed today as FBI director. You are right to be curious as to the why. Weak and feckless Dems played a large part.

See, what the Dems did, or rather didn't, do was that they failed to vigorously oppose nominations that were, in theory, less impactful. The Dems conveyed a variety of stupid reasons for shirking their duties. They did not want to seem non-collegial so they did not oppose sitting Congressfolk. They acted as though there was an umpire setting limits on how many "pitches" they could reasonable swing at when they should have been swinging at all of them. They had other equally stupid reasons but the salient fact is that with few exceptions, the lack of competence and patriotism were no impedance to the confirmation of the criminals Felon47 has chosen to surround himself with.

The problem that elected Dems refused to see or acknowledge is that with every confirmation, the First Felon gained more power. You may not be personally afraid of the FBI taking a look at you but, Homeland, NSA, IRS, Interior, AG, Defense etc etc? No, pretty much no one wants all of those folks digging into them. So with every confirmation, the next nominee was less likely to be opposed so as to not inspire a close look from those already confirmed. The Dems needed to vigorously oppose every name that he spoke.

They didn't. So the Senate got weaker and weaker as Felon47's success rate went up. They experienced weakness in numbers and we are all going to suffer for it. The fact that his supporters will suffer as well is small comfort at best. My position would be unreasonable if there was any indication that PINO was acting in good faith. I have seen no such evidence. I have not even heard a Dem attempt to claim he was acting in good faith.

No politician should ever feel safe doing the wrong thing. The Dems could have done the right thing but it would have been a lot more work for them. The work they are paid quite handsomely to do. None of their reasons for not fighting harder have gained any purchase with me.

Bullies and dictators will never give up power voluntarily. They will always attempt to grab more power than they have. If they are to not have that power, it must be taken from them. The Dems are supposed to be the bulwark. If any of them are unwilling to do the job, they need to turn their position over to someone who will.

The Next Big Guerrilla Op

The Next Big Guerrilla Op 

Picture in your mind's eye, exactly what the Mujaheddin would have done had they been directly adjacent to Russia rather than thousands of miles away. Remember what OBL and his crew of religious fanatics were able to accomplish here in the USA.

If your imagination and memory are offering up seriously horrible images, good. What you are picturing is what Russia will be dealing with far into the future if PINO and Putin have their way.  The problem is that unless you have been paying closer attention than PINO, his owner Phoney Stark and his crew of incompetents have, what you are picturing is about one tenth as bad as the actuality.

All those drones that the Russians can't stop from raining fire on their refineries?  Do you think those magically stop because our idiot says they should?  All that will happen is the deference currently being given to the Geneva Convention, international law and norms, the restraint being shown by a professional army, all of that goes away once it is not the army.  Sign that agreement and those drones will be operated by an unaffiliated group of folks with a huge grudge to bear.  They have watched their friends and families die.  They have seen their homes and businesses destroyed.  They will want, and likely get, some measure of revenge.

Most of the Afghanis did not speak Russian and of those that did, most likely had a detectable accent.  A lot of the Ukrainians will be essentially undetectable by looking or listening to them. If they can get their hands on a suitcase nuke, they will use it.  We will not be able to stop them because they will have no reason to listen to us.  With their families dead and their homes destroyed, there will be damn little to threaten them with.

Are you so confused as to believe that's it?  That they will endure a little terror here and there and be done?  Given the state of education in the USA, I would not be surprised that people think that way.  However, they would be wrong, really seriously horribly wrong.

Chechnya has had a significant faction for quite some time that want to be their own nation.  China wants huge portions of Siberia when they take back the land that used to be theirs, known back then as Manchuria. NATO will be tough to convince to stand down if they perceive a threat.  (I speak of NATO as a separate entity because I expect the idiot that thinks he is in charge or the idiot that is actually in charge to retreat from NATO but that is a subject for a different post.)

The damage to the refineries is real and will take time to recover from.  To regain their market share they will have to sell the products at a significant discount.  The aforementioned drone operators and their waterborne drones might have something to say about the ships coming and going.

Between those that escaped the nation and those killed or severely injured in the war, Russia is down a million+ men in their prime.  Such expertise as they may have had at their jobs, military or private sector, is effectively lost. Selling their military gear will be an uphill climb since the world has had a graphic demonstration of how they perform compared to Western gear. The Russians don't really export much beyond oil products and military gear.  They have not gotten to the hard part yet, economically speaking.

As good as Felon47 is/will be for Russia, the challenges in front of them are not going to be fun.  TBF though, I hope it is worse than I have described.

DEI

audio version of DEI

I have been extremely good at more than one job. In at least two of those jobs, I was as good or better at them than anyone anywhere also doing that job. Also for most of my employment career, I was one of the very few, if not the only, Blacks in whatever profession I was engaged in - at least locally.

I have siblings and friends, also Blacks, who could (and have) honestly make similar claims. "We" could all also tell you, it was not enough. It was never enough. I could perhaps believe some or all of them had reason to lie to me. However, when I hear(heard) personal stories that so closely align to my own experiences, my level of skepticism drops precipitously. To me, the conclusion to which I came was/is inescapable. My experience was/is not unique.

That will doubtless come as a shock to all of those who have convinced themselves that no matter how educated, accomplished, dedicated and professional a Black or brown person is, nearby is a white guy that would be better at the job and the only reason they are not in the job is the skin tone of the inferior individual that stole the job from them.

TBF none of those for whom I worked had any idea that I would be as accomplished as I turned out to be. Those of my siblings and other minorities I know who have had similar experiences might have had CVs that contained clues to their potential. I on the other hand, had a resumé that, according to how it was read, showed me as broadly competent OR unable to focus.

The point is that no one that I know or know of is able to intuitively tell who will be the absolute best at a given job. While there may be clues, there are no guarantees. As far as actual ability to do the job goes, skin tone has not, in my experience, been a reliable indicator. (aside: When I was building floating boat docks, Blacks and Hispanics were waaaaaaaaaaay superior hires but yes, we also had some white guys that would work. However, if someone needed to be told to "get back to work", it was always a white guy.)

DEI is not about ability to do the work. It never has been. For as good as I was at those jobs where I was the best, when I moved on, someone else did the job. Were they as good at it as I was? No, but they were good enough. Most jobs work that way. Perfection in a job is rarely seen and even more rarely needed. In engineering circles it is acknowledged to be the "enemy of good enough".

For an awful lot of jobs, ability to do the work is a relatively small part of the hiring decision. It is useless to hire someone who is good at the job but who does not show up. Yes, I did learn that through experience. There are a thousand ways even a competent worker can kill your business. In some places the wrong accent can be a negative. Bad grooming habits, atonal "singing", flatulence or the irresistible urge to "witness" to everyone that comes in the door can all have a large negative effect regardless of the skin tone or competence level of the individual.

For the entire time of its existence as a concept, DEI has been 'a' factor but rarely the only consideration. With the possible exception my particular job in the USN (I still would have been a sailor in a different job in the Navy so, it sorta counts), no job I have ever gotten has been solely because I met their DEI aspirations. As a matter of fact, I know of no job I have ever gotten where that was an intentional consideration - regardless of what the concept might have been called at the time. Until the reich-wing of USA politics decided to use it as a weapon, most folk could not have told you what DEI was if you offered a million dollars for a correct answer. 7ish years ago, I could not have told you what it was without some contextual clues.

I'm not saying it has never happened but, news of a DEI hire being fired for inability to do the work has yet to reach my awareness. I don't need to mention that a truly business friendly administration would not try to tell those businesses how to run their business. For all of these reasons, when someone around you is using "DEI" as though it is synonymous with "incompetence", that is them trying to tell you without telling you that they are embracing racial prejudice as a means for them to get ahead.

Since they are telling you, you probably want to check your pockets for their hands. Hate is a habit and once they decide they are done with whatever group they are repressing and denigrating, there is a good chance you're next.

PTSD by Design

audio version of PTSD by Design

Your first minutes in boot camp are when it begins.  You and those with whom you arrived all line up in some semblance of a formation in whatever clothes you made the trip in.  Your Drill Instructor though, is resplendent in an immaculate uniform.  So is his superior officer and so are his subordinates, all of their uniforms look like a carefully photoshopped advertisement for perfection.  You are part of a rag tag, shoddy group of nobodies but they, they are the ruling class and you can immediately see that they are and why.  You have barely arrived and your indoctrination has begun with a bang.

You are soon introduced to your "barber".  Whether or not he has any real skill at styling hair or any particular barbering abilities is something none of you will ever know or need to know.  He is going to cut all of the recruits’ hair off on this visit and on any subsequent visits.  After the hair removal, you all line up to be issued "uniforms".  Oh no, not uniforms like your Drill Instructor's.  Your uniforms will never be described as "resplendent".  They are working clothes, drab and functional and quite intentional.  You are not now, nor will you ever be the equal of that god-like Drill Instructor in his sartorial perfection or any other way.  That is what your indoctrination is telling you and it is a very compelling argument.

Off you go to learn to march.  Even though marching has not come in handy in combat for 300 or so years, you learn to march in step with your platoon mates.  It is the most obvious indication of the effort to diminish individuality and convert you all into a single machine of many parts.  You learn various drill maneuvers and you practice them until you actually do them in your sleep.  There is also plenty of instruction in exactly how you are to keep your uniforms and how you are to wear your uniforms.  The rank structure is explained to you in excruciating detail over and over and over again.  Pretty much everything you are expected to know is explained to you that way and then, you are expected to practice it.  All of that knowledge, all of the actions will become as automatic and familiar as the movement of your legs and arms.

There is much more to learn and as you progress, the knowledge you have already acquired is built upon.  That is completely normal and predictable.  What might not be as obvious is that the indoctrination is following a similar path.  You have been taught to do even the simplest things a very specific way to achieve a very specific outcome.  You have been taught through military drill to follow orders immediately and without question.  You know at a glance who you must show respect and who (if anyone at this early state) is junior to you and must show you respect.  You know how you must address anyone you encounter.  You have also been taught that you all are a single unit and any failure is a failure of the unit.

By the time you leave boot camp you have acquired an impressive amount of knowledge and habits in a brief time.  But you're not done, not by a long shot.  The things that you learn in boot are expanded and refined throughout your professional training and indeed, throughout your military career.  Every day, every minute you are in your indoctrination continues and is made stronger and more permanent.  Regardless of the job you have chosen (been assigned), the unit you join or, the rank you achieve, your indoctrination continues.  That is completely by design.

Training is not the only place to receive the indoctrination.  Actual operations, doing the job you have been trained for, will continue your indoctrination.  Combat in particular is an intense and accelerated aspect of military indoctrination.  No matter the activity, in recreation, in recovery from illness or injury, in training or at work, in ways subtle and overt the indoctrination continues.

Until you get out.  Then it stops.  Cold Turkey.  Immediately.  You are traumatically separated from that you have been relentlessly trained to identify with.  At best it is about like running out of the hot water in the mix to create your nice warm shower.  Going from luxuriously warm to harshly cold in a few seconds gets your attention.  At worst it is like waking up from a nap with a limb missing.  Either way it is a traumatic shock.  Sometimes you learn to deal with it.  The conditions under which you served, the justness of your cause and other aspects of your service can make your transition a lot less impossible.  Still, it is a shock.  It is supposed to be.  You have trained and lived and eaten, slept and breathed a different way of doing things until the day you no longer did.  

The alienness of civilian life - even the things you love, the familiarity of the military - even the things you hate, are different for every service member.  The existence of those concepts however, is consistent across the board.  Again, it is by design.  It is supposed to be that way.  You are expected to be 100% committed to your shipmates and job anytime you are assigned to a military command.

I am not a doctor and psychology is not my field of expertise.  Still, it is my considered opinion that the conditions I describe above conspire to insure that anyone who makes it more than a couple of weeks into boot camp has some level of PTSD.  The longer you are in, the more intense your service, the more sensitive you are, the greater the conflict with your belief system, the more drastic the differences between your life before the military and your time in, can all influence how "bad" your PTSD will be.  It may be so mild you think it not worth mentioning but, it is still there.

I used to “wake up” hearing a cryptographic machine alarm and walk into the living room looking for the machine so that I could correct the problem.  Of course, there was no machine in the living room and I had been out of Navy for months or years when I heard the alarms.  I still occasionally rush to do something that hasn't needed me to do it in 35 years or so, ignoring the fact that the materials I would need and the equipment I would work on could not possibly be around.  With decreasing intensity as the years roll on, I still lament the loss of friends and shipmates and feel guilt that I made it when they did not.  The closest I ever was to combat was the occasional bar fight.  I didn't fly a plane or shoot a big gun (or a small one for that matter).  Nothing ever exploded close to me.  All of the things the public has been led to expect to be present in PTSD cases have nothing to do with me, except the indoctrination.  My indoctrination was as complete as anyone's.  My issues, and trust me - the above descriptions are nowhere near a complete inventory, exist because the indoctrination took.  PTSD is by design.  If we ever decide to honor our debt to those who sign up and serve, as a nation we will fund and create a de-indoctrination program that will have to be a part of every service member's exit.  We need to invest in the time and energy it takes to undo SOME of the psychological changes necessitated by being in the military.  I am not ashamed or regretful of my service at any level.  I have largely readjusted to being a civilian (but boy did it take a while) but my situation was not everyone's.  There are men and women coming back who have gone through hells that I quite thankfully, cannot imagine.  If I could have benefitted from such a de-indoctrination program as I suggest should be in place, just think of the good that could be done for them.

As is all too frequently the case, PTSD is in the public awareness again because of a tragedy.  The deaths of movie subject Chris Kyle and his business partner at the hands of an afflicted individual and the subsequent and ongoing trial, serves to alert distracted citizens that potential problems walk among us.  The attention will not last but the problem will.  Those who can source their PTSD to military service are everywhere in this nation. They are your neighbors and coworkers, your elected officials and law officers.  They are members of your family.  If you are lucky, their experience with it is as mild as mine.  If you are not lucky, you - or your survivors - may come to agree with me that we need to be as active and intentional and comprehensive in our approach to treating PTSD as we are in instilling it.  No, I do not believe that we desire or intend our combat vets to return home “straight up crazy”.  The extreme cases have causes all their own.  But for an awful lot of us, our PTSD is by design.  If our veterans are to ever be free of that malady, it will have to be by design as well.