Free Speech Kill Switch

Late last year Congress introduced a bill to allow the President to turn off the Internet when there is a “significant cyber threat”.  The bill died in committee when Congress adjourned.  Lately, the bill has had a resurgence of support.

Interestingly enough, the legislation was resurrected the same day that Egypt killed the Internet in its country to quell protests against Mubarak’s government.  Also interestingly enough, the bill was reintroduced by a Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.  Republicans are the supposed Bastions of Liberty in the face of the raging incrementalism of Socialism that is overtaking our country.

Perhaps what Ross Perot (and others) have said about the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats not having “a dime’s worth of difference” between them is not so far off.  Senator Collins, of course, does not have the Tea Party to answer to as she was last elected in 2008 and won’t be up for re-election until 2014, two years after the Mayan Calendar recycles, so maybe the world will end by then.

According to Senator Collins, it allows “the government to work with the private sector” when the country is faced by cyber terrorism.  Now, let me ask, when has Big Brother ever “worked” with anyone?  In the face of a cyber terror attack will they call committee meetings or create some joint fact finding commission to determine the threat level?  Heavens, no!  It took the Gulf Oil Spill Commission six months to determine that BP (and others) screwed up.  On the contrary, some Internet Czar will have the power to mandate a “temporary” shut down of segments of the Internet on his or her command.

Why is this bad?  Would not our banking and power grid be at risk if there was a true cyber attack?  Probably yes.  However, giving the Government the power to kill electronic communication is not the answer.

If certain sectors need protecting, then they should put in their own protection.  If it’s in the interest of the banking community to have better electronic protection, they should spend some of the bailout money on protecting their systems and networks rather than giving millions of dollars of that money in bonuses to overpaid executives.

Put the banking community on its own subnet that can be segregated from the rest of the Internet.  You know the military is on its own subnet.  There’s no way we could execute any war if Obama or any other President hit the kill switch on the Internet.  Do the same with the power grid and any other segment that needs to be protected.

This is, however, what the bill’s proponents suggest will be the case.  But which human can determine if any part of the Internet is under attack and what to do about it quickly enough?  When computers can send thousands of messages each second, would a person notice before it’s too late?  Would a human know which sectors to shut down or would it be just “safer” to shut down everything while a committee figured out what the problem was?  Put the software to detect attacks where the systems are that might be attacked.

The danger, as I see it, is yet one more step at eroding our Constitutional rights.  Giving anyone the ability to shut down parts of the Internet is, in my opinion an unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment that prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Shut down the Internet and you cannot send an e-mail to your Congressperson or Senator.  Shut down the Internet and you cannot electronically assemble with your friends or colleagues.   Shut down the Internet and bloggers (I admit this entry is somewhat self-serving) cannot criticize the ability of the Government to shut down the Internet.

Giving anyone in Government the ability to shut down any kind of communications is just “one small step for eroding freedoms, one giant leap for totalitarianism.”

Oh, it will be for our own good.  Simply ignore the fact that there is a technological solution to this technological problem.  Like all good Socialists, the bill’s supporters believe that only the Government can solve this or any other problem.

This is yet one more proof that we’ll never conquer artificial intelligence until we first overcome natural stupidity.

Carts and Horses

It’s not new that many college students have gotten ill or died after consuming significant quantities of caffeinated alcoholic beverages.  As a result, federal and various state governments have issued bans against their sale.

It’s never a good thing when young people die, especially for reasons like this.  Nevertheless, let’s look at some of the facts.

The death of a 14-year-old girl was linked to her boyfriend’s consumption of this kind of drinks.

An 18-year-old had driven into a house after playing beer pong with this kind of drink.

Scores of college and high school students were hospitalized after drinking these drinks.

So ban them, right?  It’s a good thing, isn’t it?  Alcohol and caffeine is a bad mix, right?

Not so fast.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Check the ages.  They’re, for the most part, underage.  The legal drinking age is 21, not 18 and certainly not 14.

Ban these drinks and what’s next?  Rum and Coke?  Irish coffee?

Take these drinks off the market and the kids will just have to go back to making their own drinks again, until they ban caffeine altogether.

I have a better idea.  Punish severely those who give or sell alcohol to underage children.  Make them legally liable for any damages these minors cause and put them in jail.  If the under-21 crowd is the only group drinking these beverages, cut off their supply and these drinks will be pulled by their respective companies.  It won’t take government spending any more money; just enforce the laws we have.

The government’s solution: The cart’s too heavy so shoot the horse!

A New Beginning or More of the Same?

OK, we all know that the Republicans have taken control of the US House of Representatives.  They seem (as of this writing) not to have taken control of the Senate.  Is this good?  It depends on which side of the aisle you find yourself.

For Republicans, this may be the best result.  They may not be able to undo the unpopular policies such as ObamaCare or bailouts. They don’t have the votes to override a Presidential veto and Democrat Senators can block their proactive legislation.  They can, however, not fund them.  Money is the grease of politics.   Without money, the programs will grind to a halt.  Afterall, how many bureaucrats will work for free?  Their main task will be to show the American public what they try to do and make the case in 2012 that they need help by having more Republicans in office (including the Presidency).

On a related note, the Republicans picked up several state legislatures and governorships.  This year’s census will reapportion the seats in the House of Representatives and the states set their districts.  This can be important for the next round of national elections.

For Democrats, the moderates lost.  There mostly Liberal Democrats got reelected.  Will there be conciliation or will there be entrenchment?  They can pass any bill they want (except spending bills which Constitutionally must start in the House) but will the Republican-controlled House pass them also?

The victor in 2012 will the one who can blame the other side the best.

For President Obama, this is a national repudiation of his policies.  As seen in the past few weeks, there have been empty seats at places where he spoke to support some candidates.  This in itself is telling.  Who would not want to see the President in person, regardless of your political persuasion?  People for whom he campaigned simply lost.

The next two months will be important.  Will outgoing Democrats push through more unpopular bills that Obama will quickly sign or will they finally listen to the people whom they still represent until January 3rd?   Will President Obama reach out to the new Republican majority in the House?  Will there be gridlock?

If Harry Reid’s comment in his victory speech is any indication, We’re not in for a change of direction.  He simply called this “the next round”.  To him and the remaining liberal Democrats, the next two years will have many bloody battles.

One thing is certain, there are now several unemployed Democrats.  I wonder how this will affect the jobs numbers next month.

A Fond Farewell

I, like so many others, was stunned and saddened upon hearing the news about Greg Giraldo’s passing.  All too often we hear of great entertainers, whether they are musicians, singers, actors, or, as with Mr. Giraldo, comedians.  I truly hope it was an accident.

This is not a eulogy, although I’m sure there are many good things to say about him and his career.  He was a very talented man.  I am not a fan of insult comedy, his specialty.  I personally find very little comedic about insulting others.  I have, however, enjoyed his stints as a stand-up comedian and liked him as a judge on Last Comic Standing.  For the hours of entertainment he provided, I am very grateful.  He will be missed.

Also this week, some young men in our church lost a friend, a 14-year-old sports buddy, in a car accident.  Nobody is invincible.  No parent should ever have to bury a child, but it happens.  The loss can be devastating.  our hearts and prayers go out to the friends and family here as well.

I hope that these events remind everyone how fleeting and fragile life can be and how we should never take our lives for granted.

We should take every opportunity to tell those we love that we love them.  We may not get another chance to say it or show it.  Several years ago I was going to visit friends in central Texas.  I had to fly through Dallas. There was a terrible ice storm that delayed and canceled most flights into and out of DFW.  Since I dislike traveling (I want to be there, not go there), I decided not to play “Weather Roulette”, turned around and returned home.  I promised to return.  Unfortunately on of my friends there passed away before I could return and everyone has gone off to other places.  It saddens me to this day that I could not see them yet one more time.  Don’t make the same mistake.

For those taking medications, be they prescription or not, please remember that Mae West’s quote, “Too much of a good thing is wonderful,” is not always correct.  Seek professional attention if you need to.

If you drive, do everything possible not to be distracted.  Turn off your cell phones!  Don’t let that call be your last one.  I know you are a safe driver, but I cannot vouch for the other drivers around you.

If life is rough, find someone with whom you can talk in private and in confidence.  Nobody is so strong that he or she doesn’t need someone else.  Even the Lone Ranger has his Tonto.  Find yours.  You’d be surprised.  There a probably more people willing to talk to you and listen to you than you think.

Lastly, be at peace with your eternal destiny.  Eternity lasts forever.  Make sure you know in your heart how forever plays out and that you are on the good side of it.

To the friends and family of those we lost, please accept my deepest condolences.  To everyone else, if you have a problem, please seek help.  If you don’t please help someone who does.  After all, in the words of John Donne, “No man is an island.”

Their Fair Share

I stopped to get gas when I was on my way home today.  As I was filling up my tank, I saw a Prius and two other hybrid vehicles drive by.  I started thinking about the all-electric cars coming and asked myself a question: Are they paying their “fair share”?  That’s only natural to ask that, I suppose.  After all it is the election season.

“Their fair share of what?” you may ask.  Their fair share of the taxes that build and maintain the roads upon which we drive.

I believe Congress and state Legislators suffer from some kind of group multiple personality disorder.  On the one hand, they mandate ever higher gas mileage averages for the auto makers.  Then they turn around and steal (they call it “reallocating”) money from highway trust funds for purposes other than building or maintaining highways for those vehicles.  In the vernacular, I believe we call this being “schizo”.

Higher mileage means you buy less gas.  Less gas sold means less gas tax money.  Less gas tax money means reduced highway funds (or what’s left of them).  Reduced highway funds means construction, maintenance and safety suffer.  I don’t know many people (other than politicians) who think this is a good way to maintain roads.

It gets even worse with electric cars coming out.  Let’s say I buy an all-electric car that I can charge up in my garage.  How much gas will I need?  Zero.  How much highway gas tax money will I “contribute”?  Zero.  Not only that, I would also get (if it hasn’t expired) a tax credit!  At least the hybrids use some gas and pay some tax.

I don’t think it will be long before the legislative “powers that be” wake up to this fact and start getting back some of that tax credit money they gave you to buy those more expensive cars.  They’ll get it back by giving you some kind of a “non-gasoline tax”.  You’ll probably pay it along with your auto registration or with your vehicle inspection.  Hybrid taxes will be lower than all electric vehicles because they do pay some fuel taxes (but not “enough”, I’m sure).

Don’t worry, they’ll come up with some fancy name like “alternative fuel highway reconciliation usage fee for the children”.  They will call it a “usage fee” and not a tax and it will be “for the children” so it will be OK, I’m sure.  It probably will come out to be so many cents per mile per year based on your odometer readings.  Like all taxes it will start small.  Nevertheless, once they get the taste of that new tax in their collective mouths, there will be a feeding frenzy so fierce that the Discovery Channel will have to preempt Shark Week for it.

To be sure the died-in-the-wool tree hugger will whine and moan that they shouldn’t have to pay this “fee”.  After all, aren’t they saving the world by not burning fossil fuels?  Well, maybe they’re not burning them but the power plant that generates their electricity is burning them or creating radioactive waste for them.  It doesn’t fly.  If you use the roads, somebody has to pay for them.

Don’t get me wrong.  Unless we privatize all roads (an ultra Libertarian view, I believe), and as long as Congress has the Constitutional requirement to regulate interstate commerce, governments will build and maintain roads.  The question will be how to fund it.

I’m not opposed to usage fees, including those to use our roads.  In a way, the gas tax is one form of that.  The more I use the roads, the more gas I use and the more tax I pay.  It’s progressive in that poorer performing cars pay a higher tax because they burn more fuel.  The crime is that we pay for roads but they’re not maintained well and bridges fall.

The question will be how to balance electric non-gas vehicle usage with the more traditional usage.  Maybe we abolish the gas tax and implement a straight forward mileage charge.  Chances are, though, that Congress will impose both.