aca, ada, abracabra

It is the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1882, as amended, that puts the American government in the precarious situation of dismissing some one-third, deemed non-essential—which has the interesting ring of the imagination of Douglas Adams (not a statesman)—of its workforce without compensation. The government will still discharge its duty to protect, duty to warn with a skeleton crew, who themselves will not see their salary until such time as Congress has set a budget, being legally bound against the incursion of further debts that it cannot vouch for. The last time a full government shut-down happened, notwithstanding many intermediate close-calls and political staring-contests, was in the winter of 1995 and 1996 and I remember being quite frustrated that the National Galleries were closed to visitors and I came expressly to see a special Rembrandt exhibit.
I was content, however, at the time with making snow-angels on the Capitol. There were dread inconveniences (a weak word) to public services and those employees embargoed, and this time we can only project the impact of disrupting the paper-push of bureaucracy the hardship of individuals just now starting to recover from the last rounds of an administrative-, as opposed to an emergency-, furlough, though the predictions of doom and despair did not come to fruition at-large and the output of the federal government is largely invisible and looks expendable until one is personally affected by the loss of a cog or two. Though the causes reach back much further and the US government has expanded into something unwieldy and self-serving—surely to be redressed by follow-on show-downs like the looming matter of America's debt burden that will make this intransigence seem like theatre, the major bone of contention that is keeping the legislative branch staunchly divided is over another Act, the Affordable Care Act (a new idea only to America, though, with most of the rest of the world having put universal health-coverage in place long ago), and not in costs, immediate nor long-term, but rather in perception and principle. The devil's advocate seems to keep company with a business-lobby not renowned for its fair labour-practices to begin with, and considering that all of the really awful and onerous laws that the US has implemented and unleashed upon the rest of the world (lately, at least, if not always) have been done so at the beck-and-call of this same cartel, perhaps it would be wise to consider careful what these groups through inflexible fear-mongering might be trying to un-write.

speakeasy or mayor mac cheese

Via Slate Magazine, we find out that the kids' menu is not merely an extension of the atavism of adult palettes—to the same level of maturity for refinement, or an attempt to inculcate young and impressionable adherents but rather come from a strange mix in America of medicine, morality and marketing.

Prohibition really opened the doors to the younger crowd and created the concept of the family restaurant. Prior to America's ban on alcohol consumption, restaurants not embedded in a hotel generally did not serve children—a phrase from whence similar punchlines stem, because they tended to be in the way and interfered with the imbibing of adult-beverages, still today any restaurant's biggest profit-maker. In order to make up for lost revenues, restauranteurs looked to catering to family-units. Unaccustomed to making dining out an experience for the youngsters too, parents needed to be presented with a certain level of reassurance, a fare for children that seemed safe and balanced, given all sorts of fretful ideas swirling with nutritional and age-appropriate foods. Compared to the gourmet dishes adults were served, kids got basically bland and safe concoctions—nothing to inspire returning when they reached dining majority, the meals were dictated by the prevailing pedagogical thoughts of the times—nothing too challenging or threatening for immature tastes nor anything indulgent. I wonder how the consequent moon-shining affected the public psyche.  The industry trend has shifted these days to a denominator of guilty-pleasures, it seems.

cri de couer or you can't handle the truth

Although I still declare that anyone truly shocked by learning that the world is the prying, groping place is a measure naïve or even complacent or complicit, public attention and outrage ought not be placated by life intimato Ars, the words of prophets of doom, or by practicality, commonality—offensive aspirations.

As more is revealed, everyone will have transgressions against the public trust to confess and defend. Arguing that tolerance and reciprocation do not justify the ends invite the same kind of arrogance of seeing the Big Picture, omnipresence, as does the intelligence Manifest Destiny of the US and conspirators. The disabusing quality of the former is far from palatable and probably inures one to the successive headlines—not only in bed with the telecommunication utilities, foreign intelligence agencies but also trawling from the series of tubes, upstream, that make up the internet and now there is an apparent mandate for snitching that's a free-pass for going beyond regular nosiness and jumping to conclusions and this mass-deputization is bound to go above and beyond—and may go far, in a social sense, of explaining why there is a poignant absence of rage on the perpetrating and perpetrated public—that and a convenient coalescing of economic conditions and conditional victories that deflect securities as a very—be-not-proud personal choice.

percentile or blue-screen

The press seemingly have an obligation to announce their special-coverage with an infographic or a dramatic-photo montage and an orchestral strike. For continuing development concerning the government budget sequestration and mitigating measures, like furloughing defense department employees—with the caveat that contracted, conscripted or otherwise exempt personnel should not be utilised to make up for lost work, one publication went with, I think, a very unfortunate symbol to illustrate a cut in 20% in pay for affected workers—evocative of a time when the Pentagon was really and truly lamed. Perhaps in some ways, it is good to trim back the rhetoric with such stoppage and temporary estoppel but from the perspective of personal hardships and future knock-on effects, it quickly reveals itself as unacceptable and counterproductive.

pyrrhic victory or the hundred years’ war

Though characterized and distilled mostly as the proprietary authority for businesses to demand applicants, supplicants and current employees surrender their social-network profile upon request, which while good for garnering glancing concern and attentions, is sadly short-lived and is not engaging public dialogue in CISPA is again positioned for passage in the US Congress, despite conflating opposition. 
Just as there are champions for keeping us over-safe, we have our tireless advocates, but the issue and the real, long-term stakes remain something that is easily placated or dismissed.
eroding privacy. Victorious skirmishes, sometimes ceded over inflated (at least, in the here-and-now) fears, overshadow—by design, I think, the larger struggle, since these assaults are becoming perennial continuing-resolutions politically.

underpass or suburban legend

Though second- and third-hand tales abounded, until recently there was no undisputed evidence of cow tunnels boring under the streets of Manhattan’s West Side. Although far less incredulous than giant crocodiles, sprung from unwanted pets flushed down toilets, lurking in sewers, urban spelunkers are beginning to map out this forgotten underground network, meant to reduce the traffic of livestock brought into 1870s Gotham disrupting human transportation.

Atlas Obscura’s intrepid team of explorers reintroduces this lost bit of infrastructure with a bit of history and discovery. Of course the detour avoiding the most crowded parts of the city was not a radically new idea, what with established gazing commons and cattle trails crossed by railroads and highways. Underpasses were dug in order to keep them doggies rolling. New York’s grid, however, seemed by all accounts a complex and unseen labyrinth. I wonder how many other cities and towns (London, Paris or Berlin, perhaps?) created similar networks (mazes of alleyways, canals or elevated catwalks) for market days and have long since forgot the original use of these passageways and re-purposed them for other uses.

null set

I first thought it was a gag-headline but soon realized that indeed, with various levels of earnestness and symbolism behind the dissent, all fifty states of the union have filed petitions (via an official submittinator) for peaceful and orderly withdrawal from the United States of America.

A block including Texas and many of the original secessionist states of the Confederacy has garnered more than the threshold of signatures and support to warrant (not deign, mind you, and to the horror I imagine of a silent majority of stake-holders that would rather remain part of the US) an official response from the White House. Maybe the hardliners ought to be allowed to try it on their own, most likely to their own chagrin since many of these maverick lands are the biggest recipients of federal aid and get more in return in national taxes than they pay in, not to mention infrastructure, social support and protection and quite a bit in the way of services hard and costly to recreate on a sub-national level. What’s astounding to me is that each and every state has expressed a desire to divorce itself either from select members or from the whole club. It’s as if one might as well start over—and more than a bit disheartening. Even the most notorious and incorrigible members have been spared being forcibly ejected so far—and even with more uncertain and arguably less venerable unions, I don’t believe there’s been discussion or the will to let it splinter into its constituents.

syncretism or give me that old time religion

Though my vote would be for the “black Muslim,” it’s remarkable, I think, that politeness and discretion and tolerance flag in such an asymmetrical fashion. One’s personal beliefs and convictions are important indicators of official deportment and ought to be afforded with respect, regardless of pedigree. Such a big schism erupted over the Kennedy presidency, the one and only Catholic office-holder (though there is an unlikely union between the challengers, and we will see what happens with that), and there’s this strange cauldron of questions and assumptions about the incumbent that’s bewitching to a large part of the voting-public—and though maybe assumptions and prejudice are already cemented in regards to the challenger candidate’s affiliation and confession, that there’s little talk of it is still rather incredulous.

Without baiting the same kind of shallow and flippant stereotypes about any community of faith (teetotalling, narrow-minded harem-mongers could be code for many things), it does seem that one’s background ought to be a matter of discussion—not derision, and an invitation to learn more. Of course, the loser will be forgotten as a wildly inaccurate representative (real or attributed) of his religion but the politics and climate that made this match will still be there, though with different champions and seconds and despite the rumoured separation of Church and State. There is a tendency to reject tenets that are not seeped in and mystified by traditions that did not come from an unattainable past as something too new and too human, but rather than forestalling one’s own established confession, it seems that the aversion comes from not the evangelizing, the otherness or conflicting values, but in the way that it forces one to examine native-held convictions and how one represents them or is represented by them in an unrarefied and maybe unflattering light.

swimlanes

I wonder if a flowchart ever really simplified a human decision-making process, or whether such diagrams always instigated a little aversion and defeat at first glance, regardless of content. Such a tool may be fit for representing, in terms of a more natural language, the input/output of computer programming but I think the collection of conditions and operators presented is just another layer shrouding instinct or bias in many cases. Flow diagrams provide a framework for solving algorithms, which computers can become very good at, but are not exhaustive or predictive of every contingency and are probably best at making snarls, choke-points more apparent.

Humans, I believe, are more apt to respond to a proof or a concrete and universal rule, rather than a passably effective way to work something out. While we are not always afforded the luxury of hard and fast laws for guidance and improvisation is called upon, but I do not think that the absence of established rules calls for the creation of provisional systems that either beggar our worse judgment or second-guess real leadership and such a method is not a substitute for an authentic imperative or thorough reasoning.

Once a system or method gets complicated enough, and I believe such code sketched out in long hand would quickly become too complex for human navigators, it becomes fairly convincing.

The people who design such charts are also fairly keen on the credibility of their work-product, and it can become problematic when inventors get too proud over their schemes and throughput. It’s scary to think that such guidelines (the branching off of process charts is called a swimlane), which is the deft guesswork and approximation of machines and field manuals, might be held not to the same rigour and standards as something inviolate and accepted without question.

polity

Only overshadowed by the awful graces of the conflagration over a smear video, stoked by other arsonists and fire-bugs, the uncensored and complete disdain that the appointed charismatic leader of the American duality holds for not only a full half of his fellow citizens but also for most of the rest of creation should come as no surprise—regardless how careless and candid one’s words can be among like-minds. It is tragic that such gaffes are usually cycled away, forgiven or forgotten, and press and public have stopped considering or stopped caring that this candidate’s (and generations of avatars) have already staked out his position, hectoring, divisive, and with hubris that never had a place on the world-stage. Ostracizing and dismissive words, like relegating struggling peoples to the domain of free-loaders, social-parasites or irreconcilable adversaries, is more a judgment on those who would declare hopelessness on the basis of otherness but does severely prejudice the chance for dialogue and cooperation. This outreach is necessary, despite what one faction may believe.

Sadly, it is probably true that no opinions were suaded any differently and most people’s minds are already set in this debate—even that small but deciding percentage of uncommitted voters that all these promises and money hope to court, but despite any amount of expatriation, bellicose rumblings and gentrification, the leader of the United States does not get to preside only over his half of the populace, plus that pandered middle.  Surely there are some people that are accomplished at working this system or generations that have been inculcated into the programmes of state-support but it is a grossly unfair and alienating characterization to say alleged, assumed support for the status quo can’t be bothered with and future generations are doomed to the same cycles of bleak prospects and disenfranchisement. Besides, the whole premise is more than a bit disingenuous since the serfdom of the US taxpayer tends towards just enough and no more than what’s necessary to support business-welfare, so corporate-persons also do not have to pay income-tax, and the half taken for granted as sure to vote in his favour also comprise the majority of recipients of that maligned government assistance. The hate and uproar is not a distraction but can be capitalized upon as such by skilled crafters for competing notice and attention, held just at arm’s length until defused.

eurotrashing or the columbian union

Although the most recent rhetoric against the general deportment of the body eurotique has been toned down somewhat—or at least, transmuted into a pseudo-intellectual soapbox about the urgent need for urgency and action, it is still very much cachet in Anglo-Saxon political debate and attacks to summon up the Continental, European leanings of one’s opponent—thereby ending all possible discussion.

The spectre of socialist regimes and bloated bureaucracies and welfare states are yet ammunition enough for a moment’s deflection at the expense of a distant and abstract punching-bag. One, I’m sure, can expect the criticism of the European club to become harsher and more pointed as the election season in America approaches. Meanwhile, the dissonant coda to all these judgments from critics, skeptics and sophists is that the EU government and member states ought to be converging towards a so-called United States of Europe, with common policies and standards.

I cannot imagine, however, a more disjointed and decodified union than America. The EU is not demanding that Alibamo impose the same sin-taxes as Nieuw Amsterdam does—or that Tejas or Øklahomå adopt their standards for vehicle registration plates or levy duties on income, retail sales or property uniformly either. Hopefully, once all the shouting is done with, people will realize that there are aspects, both traditional and experimental, about Europe and its organization worthy of emulation.

don’t let it rest on the president’s desk

Tumblr artist Meg Jannott has a new project, aiming to cast each of the forty-four US com-manders-in-chief as their own clever and sleek corporate brand. I really like the look she has developed so far, and it’s interesting to peruse historical memory and the epithets that these office-holders earned—especially as election-season in the States has reached such a pitch when reputations are reduced to barbs and snap-shots. As the collection grows, it is definitely worth a gander, along with the opportunity to discover some of her other works. What other subjects, series of incumbents deserve to be likewise branded—English monarchs, the some 265 Peter-Plus-One Popes of the Catholic church? Those would be fun and involved undertakings.

instructions to applicant

What an obscure thing to commit to paper, and what a bizarre punishment for those born under the sign of 87. I wonder what old legacy programming subroutine is triggered with this magic number. It’s like the legal fictions, which vary greatly by jurisdiction, for people born on a 29 February, which I imagine could get people in quite a bind and might only be remedied by a telefax addressed to somewhere on some other time continuum. These systems, which justify more than a few jobs by continuing to refuse to communicate with one another and require a translator and arbitrator, are not the most navigable and produce as much red-tape as the bureaus and agencies that the sustain. I wonder, though, if anyone has bothered to compile the surprising snatches of poetry in unappreciated bureaucratic boilerplate. Some passages are untouchable and have survived updates and revisions to regulations, like one of my favourite sections that includes “notorious misconduct off-duty—with regard to off-duty conduct, all employees have an obligation to conduct themselves so that no disgrace or disrepute will be visited on the Department of the Army” as a primary cause for dismissal—very non-committal and open-ended and probably a guildline that would defy being stated any other way.

as seen on tv

From the creative franchise that offers the daily web comics Toothpaste for Dinner, Married to the Sea, and Natalie Dee, there is a new Sharing Machine blog, The Worst Things for Sale, that is an intelligent and funny commentary on culture through reviews of the craptabulous and derivative ways to part people from the money and good senses.  You should check out them all. 

overseas telegram

Here’s a bit of typically nannying that strikes me like those Friday afternoon conscientious bureaucrat emergencies that necessarily wait until just before quitting-time and the weekend because to be unburdened and shared freely because it took the problem-holder all week to perfect it:

in a startling announcement, the culmination of some prancing concern and worse-case-scenario research that began back in 2007, the United States Postal Service, not the most agile and fleet-footed government entity even discounting strictures and operational model, has announced the ban on sending lithium batteries in the mail, extending at least over the holiday season and the beginning of next year, should contingencies and controls be in place. The electronics industry is outraged, although some meekly suggest that the ban is not completely without merit, since cellular phones, computers, navigation devices, watches, and hundreds of other little accessories are powered by such batteries, at times embedded and not so easily removed after manufacturing. Private shipping companies and contract couriers will still be able to post in- and out-going lithium batteries, which with the above, makes the decision seem completely arbitrary and misinformed, like the eager gloom of security theatre, since I imagine as cargo in boats and airplanes or in the bays of post offices, USPS and the packages of other companies are not segregated. Under extreme conditions or when poorly manufactured, there is a small risk of batteries catching fire or exploding in transit—but also I suppose at rest, on the shelf, in use, in Pago Pago or Novosibirsk and could be any hazardous or innocuous, randomly chosen, from substance Businesses and the national postal service will surely lose out over loss of volume and the effort associated with renegotiating carriers, not counting lost sales opportunities in the chaos or the large number of American expatriates living and working overseas. I hope that Royal Mail, Deutsche Post, and other rogue carriers do not mend their wayward ways, but such restrictions could possibly inspire electronics manufactures to invent new accoutrements that are powered by fear or by farce, which would still be hard-pressed to avoid end-of-the-day disasters.

bootstrap or birthright

For a land built for the most part on immigration, it seems sometimes like an arcane technicality that only natural born United States citizens can hold the office of presidency. I found the Birther hysteria undignified and distracting, although I didn't much appreciate California's bid a few years ago to amend the US Constitution so that a cyborg could become president. Turning the tables a bit, Reuters' examined the birth certificate of another contender in the election, illustrating that though a generation removed, the issue invited controversy and interpretation in the other camp as well. The candidate's father was born in Mexico, and once upon a time, sought the nomination of his political party to vie against Richard Nixon as a more moderate choice. The campaign was short-lived but demanded a definition of what a natural citizen is exactly, his parents both Americans. At the time, most judges and experts agreed with his reading. It does not seem, however, that being born outside of US territory was quite accidental, since religious colonies of dissidents were founded there to protest another very special type of non-traditional marriage that the US federal government was against and the family only, it seems, returned to America because of the Mexican Revolution.

chinese fire-drill

Cornered with prospects of more market bubbles (a dot-com bust redux of 1999 and 2008 after a less than stellar performance of a networking platform that’s only, but, not merely, the sum of its user-generated antics), aspersions are quick to be cast out, like so many throwing-stars and there are the usual targets, scapegoats.

Revelations that, after several years of negotiations, the Chinese central bank has been afforded direct access to the Federal Reserve’s treasuries auctions without having to go through a middle man, a Wall Street bank, to complete the transaction—bidding on, buying US debt, have raised headline indignation. While it is a fact that no other bank, domestic or foreign reserve bank, has this special privilege and everyone else must use a Wall Street intermediary and that does raise some suspicion in itself (especially in light of another revelation involving military contracts and knock-off computing components), it does seem like a false-flag diversion to first question why buying up American liabilities is facilitated for China and deflates the underlying premises: even the transactions between the Federal Reserve and government agencies are brokered by major investment banks, charging a commission, and perhaps other institutions ought to wonder about the special privilege that these select middlemen have. Are the bankers of Wall Street less than trustworthy? Should the US manufacturing Would more public disclosure of any country’s debt-buying activities (mediated through a bank) cue market volatility or keep prices low for the bidding pool of a closed-auction? Should such a pyramid-scheme be any country’s or institution’s primary means of staying afloat, no matter what nation is buying? Looking for engineered snares and backdoors, regardless of who’s the trigger and who’s the trapper, and cyber-warfare is healthy and circumspect paranoia, but overshadows more basic questions that should be asked of America’s penchant for off-shoring—its defense and its public obligations.

sock puppet or propagaИda

Bundled and buried within the US omnibus defense bill is a rather unassuming rider that would overturn protections for the American public from being subjected to disinformation campaigns by the government and the military. Proponents of this language argue that past measures, which came into force after World War II and a bit ahead of the Red Scare, makes for ineffective diplomatic correspondence in demanding a measure of accuracy in message and reporting, and the success of propaganda used on terrorists in foreign lands is too promising and ought not to be squandered on domestic audiences. I suppose now it might be even more of a challenger to discern the hype from the distraction and truth, half-true from the total fabrication.

serfdom or golden thread

The purported tax-avoidance scheme of one internet entrepreneur has once again set the brain-trust of the United States of America into over-drive and grand-standing with a retaliatory plan to glean taxes from individuals who choose expatriation. Already the US is a soured thug in terms of tax treaties, demanding its cut from citizens worldwide, regardless of their place of residence and regardless of whether the targeted income was earned with the help from the homeland, made travel a distasteful affair beyond even beyond its borders, place the burden of reporting on foreign banks so as to make them wary about dealing with Americans abroad.

The proposed law would seek to repatriate tax revenues, impose withholdings and an exit-fee—in addition to barring these individuals from returning to the States. Plenty to do at the Hotel California. I am sure that this bill, should it come to pass and much worse is being done, will not affect cosmopolitan billionaires (the timing of this whole casus belli seems pretty tacky but it is unclear whether the media or the government is rightly understanding the motives and no individual ought to have to defend his or her reasons, especially political ones, for making such a choice), those brazenly berthing their fortunes off-shore or corporations that hide behind a string of nationalities, but for the average citizen, it demands that he or she would face undue hardships should they choose to immigrate. America’s bastions are not only uninviting to immigration, the gate-guards are saying that one cannot leave either. It sounds suspiciously like the policies of Soviet Russia whose restrictions on movement presented many with the difficult decision to remain or flee forever. Despite the reactionary nature of this proposal, I wonder if there was ever much difference between the two super-powers—especially within the self-styled framework of a monopolar world.

ways and means or checks and balances

Immovable opposition to changes and supplementing US domestic policy by members of the Republic, not limited to principles and ideological differences but also even bound by childish and treasonous oaths that supplant duties to the democratic process and law, have resulted in untenable social reforms that came into force as defanged half-measures. Universal healthcare for America, transparency and fairness in lending-practices, jobs revitalization, education initiatives, equitable taxation, promotion of green-industry are all excellent ideas whose time has come, but impatience and impertinence are making social programmes into empty shells of bureaucracy and targets for criticism.

Like some king in exile, however, the prohibition on cooperation and meaningful compromise has created a strange and dangerous inverted arrangement where the only powers afforded to the president are those of foreign missions. Absent a venue to affect change at home, abroad emissaries attempt to terraform the world in a way most sympathetic to American interests, but pressing the adoption of international treaties is not a tool for pressing social reform domestically, and even the most high-minded efforts are being returned as something twisted and unrecognizable and possibly even more dangerous. America does not possess the largess for its ambassadors to move unchecked, and though there is no Republican opposition to Obama in the business of envoys, there are certainly competing interests. There have been the boomerang antics of the internet intellectual property protection, and though attempts for universal application have failed, the shape it took when it finally returned to the States was more opaque and rigid, the president denied even his voice in demanding more protections for privacy be put into place.

The same goes with the proliferation of the US-style security and surveillance mentality, which has become the chief export of this honourary consul. The intent behind Battlefield Earth, expanding the definitions of war and rules of engagement, was for the defense of the Republic and was not meant to be a civic apparatus or a desperate wedge for enacting unpopular or previously rejected legislation, but perhaps when there is no other outlet, the domestic aspects of laws express themselves awkwardly in diplomatic circles. Obama has not turned to ombudsmen to unblock politics, but seemingly frustrated and unheeded in his political backyard, he is being portrayed eagerly as taking on loop-holes (punitive and selective) rather than what he is doing in fact by working in the slow and imperfect framework of creativity, democracy and dialogue.