Sandy and the federal government's response

James Madison called and wants to know why people of the 21st century are having a partison debate on which of two presidents did a better job cleaning up after natural disasters when neither possessed the authority to do so. I hope it's OK that I told him he left us with a government that routinely exceeds its authority, with the consent of the least informed citizens.

It's interesting to watch this debate on the quality of the federal government's post-disaster cleanup in the affected states following Hurricane Sandy.

Isn't there something objectively wrong in expecting presidents to exercise authority of medieval kings?

On the floor of the US House of Representatives James Madison said he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.  (See the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170.)

Those objects of benevolence Madison refers to are compulsory levies imposed on the people with no other authority than the claim of prerogative -- authority we typically attribute to medieval kings, not a US President who is supposed to be constrained by a charter that traditionally limits government powers to the general welfare, of all the people.

Would we be having this conversation if government didn't routinely exceed its authority, with the consent of the least informed citizens?

In our society we have elected and civic leaders that fully expect the citizens to graciously accept their representations of the laws of the universe without question.  The people are well to let others do the important thinking, like judging the validity of evidence.  Critical thinking is not encouraged.

In science, well-founded ideas are advanced if they are open to scrutiny and are peer-reviewable.  But ideas of politicians requires a measure of faith and trust in their character.

The First and Second Amendments are there precisely because government is not to be trusted, but watched and held accountable by the people and their press -- with arms, if necessary.

Reynolds seeks to train predators

Credit: Hearst Entertainment
& Syndication

Punishing all decent people for the sins of predators is injustice for all and an exercise in futility for those who need to be stopped.

To think imposing sensitivity training on grown-ass men will prevent sexual harassment is to pretend we don't see and understand the modus-operandi of sexual predators, whom often openly devise identifiable traps for their prey.

KCCI 8 News' Eric Hanson and Elizabeth Klinge interviewed Acting-Governor Kim Reynolds on its local Sunday show "Close Up." They asked her what she felt her role is with respect to sexual harassment allegations at the statehouse.

On this issue I don't want to just beat up on Reynolds because she's the usual punching bag; her tactics and viewpoint are shared across ideological lines. But does anyone think sexual harassment is something decent men wouldn't understand without the state's highest elected official "setting the tone" and imposing training? That's theater.

I submit to you that we can't train away sexual harassment, that all of us have to expose it and remove the offenders, and grownups need to recognize and eliminate the traps predators devise to lure their victims.

I wouldn't waste one second trying to explain expectations to someone whom otherwise would engage in sexual harassment, or assault, or bullying. Leaders need to remove the veils and create an open and transparent environment that enables and encourages our best selves, individually and as a collective, to be on full display.

Ringless voicemail coming to a phone near you

It’s not enough that the race to the White House is a billion-dollar industry unto itself, if business & political interests have a say (and they always do) you'll soon be inundated by a sea of unblockable voicemails aimed at leveraging cash & votes for all manner of elected office -- under purported free speech guise, no less.

A political party wants to circumvent long standing telco conventions, the "do not call" list, U.S. law, spam filters, and frankly common decency, in order to foist marketing robo-call voicemails, en masse, into your phone, without it even ringing. It’s called “ringless voicemail” and this isn’t the first time it’s come up.

Get this. They’re saying it’s not disruptive because there’s no ring.

The tactic is of course being sought to raise money for their election campaigns and to placate business interests. Politicians have conveniently written themselves legal exceptions to rules others have to follow, and they’re suggesting the FCC carve out a ruling that clears the way for this new way to quietly force themselves into your life.

It’s yet another example of the privileged class putting their own interests above all others, at the expense, and to the dismay of the people who elected them.

You might have thought you had a right to be left alone, but the commercialized political machine is performing some clever acrobatics with the Bill of Rights and logic & reason by threatening the FCC with this bizarre rationale: “The Commission should tread carefully so as not to burden constitutionally protected political speech without a compelling interest."

Sadly for marketers voicemail is on the decline as a common mode of messaging, and forced stealth voicemail will likely speed up its extinction. People who actually know one another are increasingly more likely to use SMS or social media to reach out to each other.

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/23/15681158/political-campaign-robocall-ringless-voicemail-without-ringing-cellphone-republican