As any means for accomplishing a task, be it a machine or a process, becomes more complicated – the opportunities for unintentional errors or intentional abuse rises proportionally. Complexity breeds fragility.

Everybody understands how paper and pens, or paper and punch-holes work. It doesn’t take a computer-science professional to count tick-marks.

As the technology used for voting becomes more arcane, the audit process needs to be exhaustively comprehensive and the mechanisms secure but transparent: Imagine watching a gear-box encased in bullet-proof glass.

Insomuch as the mechanism for voting provides ample opportunity for subtle manipulation; insofar as unscrupulous self-serving agents of political abuse have the method to effect these manipulations; and so long as we continue to elect those who chose to benefit from the motives of corrupt, short-sighted and unpatriotic cronies – we will see our beloved democracy decay.

It is imperative that our Political decision-makers become familiar with the and assured of both the security and transparency of voting mechanisms. I have personal and direct knowledge that the government’s approach to computing systems tends to be slap-dash and replete with flaws from conception, to construction through deployment and support. Corners are cut, process which should have nothing to do with bureaucracy become crippled by incompetency born of partisanship, graft, cronyism and nepotism.

I applaud H.R. 550 as a necessary and heartening step in the right direction of assuring transparency and security.

I support John Laesch as an arbiter and facilitator of desperately-needed oversight and decision-making.

Improvements in scientific analysis and improvements in humanity’s knowledge-base of cause-and-effect relationships regarding the natural world translate neither obviously nor easily to the political and social world. As any teenager clearly demonstrates, knowing about or simply being told about dangers doesn’t necessarily lead to personal belief alteration or behavior changes. It takes a certain level of maturity to separate viable truth from probable rubbish. It then takes a level of credulity to accept viable truths without needing to personally verify them (Did you *see* the White House tree fall?). One of the best mechanisms for inspiring credulity is deference to authority. If a teacher, a policeman, a minister, a scientist, a judge or a President says a thing, it is more likely to be accepted as truth, at face value. If a person (or group) acting as a recognized authority on an issue makes a claim, it sometimes takes tremendous effort and vocal skepticism for a contrary view to make headway in society. A common problem is an authority venturing in to territory where he has no expertise – A minister declaring scientific truths, or a Judge ruling on religious doctrine. In general, the young are often overly skeptical and risky while adults are often too trusting and risk averse. It is a hard-won and delicate skill to be able to separate wisdom from prattle, truth from speculation and fact from dogma. A person can spend a lifetime cultivating the skill and still be vulnerable to lies, baseless claims and sensationalism. Because each of us is gullible to varying degrees, ensuring our authority figures deserve their titles and roles – which in turn entitle them to an automatic assumption of credulity – is a profound responsibility we must all fulfill. Whether our authorities are professors, mayors, priests or Presidents, it is our preemptive duty of due-diligence to first assess their integrity before handing them a title that garners immediate and little-questioned credibility. In the end, a voice of integrity, before all other things, resonates most strongly with the chorus of liberty.

To become skeptical of an established or vested authority is a hard struggle against mass gullibility. Contrary to the truism “first you have to earn my trust”, it is often more difficult to earn distrust once trust has been granted, or taken for granted. In the 1770s the colonists acquired a growing skepticism about their being recognized and treated fully and equally as English citizens. This skepticism had been growing slowly (as a social movement) for many decades. In 1773 one of America’s most incisive skeptical and pragmatic thinkers – Ben Franklin, still held out hope that Britain would indeed live up to the ideals (and his ideals) for honorable and trust-worthy behavior as he pleaded for reconciliation between it and the Colonies in London. Sometimes it takes an obvious breach of trust which cannot be ignored – a faked claim, an uncovered bribe, overt aggression or an obvious lie – to tip the balance of trust for many people. The issue with President Bill Clinton was for most people, and for the law, not whether he had a messy private-life, but that he lied about it. Now many people accepted that if a man is most expected to lie about anything at all, it would be that; however the core issue was one of trust. Citizens found themselves having to decide how much and what kind of lies they could accept and still retain political trust. It was an excellent time for all Americans to be introspective about the issues of trust, authority and the relevance of context.

Now is another similarly good time. Recently, three profound decisions have been made by our government: One by the U.S. Senate, one by the Supreme Court, and one by the President. The Senate quashed by one vote, further progress on a constitutional flag-burning amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch’s legal treatment of Guantanamo “Enemy Combatants” is non-constitutional. The President huffed and fumed against reporters who uncovered a covert executive-branch program to monitor banking transactions. Allow me a few words about each…

(more…)

Well, here we are. And there HE is. It’s difficult for me to constrain my thoughts and express them cogently. In truth, as these last few years have yielded up to history, with all their lost potential and frightening realities – I found myself variously proud, hopeful, forlorn and ashamed as concerns my Country. And now these tumultuous feelings have yielded to depression, sadness, and not a little fear about the potentials of our future history. Yet I am determined to find hope…

(more…)

There’s an old aphorism, “No man is an island.” The wisdom this phrase tries to encapsulate is the notion that no person can live in complete isolation or be absolutely self-sufficient. In principle, we can imagine a person who does live on an island indefinitely (such as Alexander Selkirk of “Robinson Caruso” fame). Even in such extreme cases though, the isolated person must necessarily obtain at least food, water and shelter by first recognizing then manipulating his environment. He is not, of himself, the island“ external support, even if minimal, is absolutely required. The necessity of recognizing what the environment has to offer (and especially those aspects required for survival), can be stated differently: To provide for one’s self (or others) one must correctly take in information, or apprehend the world in which one must live – even if that world shrinks to but an island.

(more…)

The Liberty Tree

A Celebration of Independence Day

It was a cold grey day in December 1773 when about one hundred fifty Sons of Liberty dressed up as Native Americans and dumped a few crates of tea into the frigid Boston harbor. They were indignant about Great Britain’s decision to impose a tax on most everything, including documents and tea. Britain, trying to pay off debts incurred during the French and Indian war, was desperate for cash. England pointed out quite reasonably that much of the war in North America was fought on behalf of the colonists, so the Colonies should bear the cost. Parliament resorted to requiring a stamp of approval (and proof of paid taxes) on playing cards, marriage certificates, newspapers, etc. The colonists were not particularly cooperative, and the aforementioned Sons, egged on by one Samuel Adams were theatrical in their discontent.

Tax collectors had not just been unpopular in the colonies, but despised for at least a decade. In August of 1765 a particularly notorious tax collector for the British crown, one Andrew Oliver was hung in effigy from the stout branches of an elm tree in the front yard of Deacon Jacob Elliott of that unctuous town – Boston. Poor Mr. Oliver had recently made the unwise choice of agreeing to collect stamp-act taxes for the Crown. Bostonians were piqued, and whipped into a near frenzy by Sam Adams. The elm tree from which Oliver’s mock-up was hanged became thence something of a symbol itself as people started placing all sorts of symbolic tokens and messages on and around the tree. The leavings were as random as notes, banners, boots and dolls, but they were all about freedom, political voice and liberty. Occasionally, particularly reviled agents of the Crown were stripped, tarred and feathered under the tree. The shade of the tree also served as a gathering place for folk to discuss their discontent and toss around ideas for tossing out the oppressive British. Soon, other towns throughout the Colonies took up the practice of designating and decorating their own trees, and the icon known as the Liberty Tree was born.

(more…)