In The Public Eye

Snoopsters Ahoy!

As I've mentioned previously, I work for the Post Office, and so handle other people's personal information on a daily basis.  This means I avoid looking at or telling others about the information I'm exposed to.  For example:

   * I don't read postcards

   * I avoid talking about what little information I do know; if a letter from the IRS requires a signature, for instance, I like to skate around the obvious when handling the transaction

   * If I leave a package at the door of an apartment building, I turn the label toward the wall so the neighbors aren't unnecessarily informed of a person's name

This all surfaced in my mind as the nation came to grips with government spying on our communications, both foreign and domestic.  We've recently learned that a record of all telephone calls, for example, is kept, that can be accessed, if needed, for national security purposes.

Which raises the question of what's more important, privacy and a faith in the direction history will take, or security and the likelihood of less violence--especially terrorism?

Actually, there is little choice, politically, since there are many in the public realm who choose to focus on security and in a way that willfully overplays the risk involved.  Which often results in voters who are afraid for their safety more than they are concerned about their privacy.

And yet the dialectic of history would suggest that gradually, as fewer terrorists acts flow from increased security, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction.  We shall see.

Robot-istan

Where's My Robot Taking Me?

Kevin Drum, an unusually able blogger at Mother Jones, has written about the likelihood of artificial intelligence soon outperforming the human brain.

The article's first page suggests that this may be but several decades away.  In the second, Drum deals with the implications.

If robots of the future can do the work that humans can, faster and more accurately and just as easily, what becomes of a society organized around the idea that everyone works for a living?

Drum suggests that we can head in two different directions as super-smart robots do more and more of our work for us: either we ramp up the redistribution of wealth, so that even if only a few of us actually work, we still all enjoy the ride, or, all but the few who own robots will be unemployed.

Ah, but isn't their a third possibility?  That the economy bifurcates into two parts: the super-efficient, robot-run, money-making machine that pays for national security, the welfare state, etc., and a secondary, artisanal, more locally-sourced economy that crafts and creates, as opposed to mass produces.

This secondary scene would likely center around the arts in their broadest sense: in areas where the primary focus is on relaxation, entertainment, the natural world and artistic expression.  Much of the initial support for these areas might have to be from visitors, although wealthy patrons, foundations and inherited wealth would also likely play a part.  

Any takers?

Good For The Goose Is A Fattened Gander

Subsidized Elbow Grease

The Republican-controlled House recently passed a Farm Bill that expanded government assistance for most farmers (those that grow corn, soy, wheat, sugar, cotton, for the most part) and there have been fingers pointing at lobbying by corporate agriculture as the cause.

Several writers, including Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, wonder how farmers, who represent 1% or 2% of the population, can have such a large impact on public policy.  Here are a few reasons why, aside from corporate lobbying:

  * the farm economy is much larger than the total number of farmers; think workers for John Deere, ADM and Monsanto, not to mention the small-town stores and service providers whose customers are often farmers

  * if you live away from metropolitan areas, chances are you transit through agricultural areas, and the intuitive effect is to subconsciously judge farmland as taking up many times more geographical area than developed land, so that the importance of the farm economy is likewise seen as larger than it in fact is

  * there is something in our social fabric that identifies with the farmer and makes his case easier to make: not so long ago--maybe 100 years, maybe a little more--a majority of our ancestors were making a living based on what thet could grow and what thet could make from the things that were grown in their community

All of which happen to zero in on the Republican party's sweet spot: rural voters, especially those who own land or a business as a sole proprietor.  Little wonder, then.