Watson

“Surely, when he was home, he worked on his invention saying, in his first call, 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.'”

Many intermediaries.

“Sherlock Holmes worked on his cases with Dr. Watson and wanted him to see some hair.”

The game of “Telephone” is based on the idea – no, the reality – that when people pass on to others what they have heard, the message gets altered. Sometimes beyond the point of recognizability. Gossip and rumors are natural outgrowths of this problem. The current reality is that often the sound on telephones is so poorⁱ that the messages are not understood.

That's the good news. The proliferation of notepads, portable telephones, and Skype, along with the social media, has made it possible to spread misinformation to the entire world, not just to a group of giggling children. False information can circle the globe rapidly, and correcting it is not as easy as spreading it.

The telephone's history prior to he internet is fascinating. Not only were there real varieties, like two cans and some string, but also the imagined – at least at the time – like Dick Tracy's Two Way Wrist Radio.ⁱⁱ However, although there were experimental models for the transmission of sound, the first practical model of what we now call the “telephone”ⁱⁱⁱ was developed by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. He is famous for summoning his assistant on it^iv as the first example of its actual use.

But, as I have noted, much has happened since then, and we now live in an age when almost everyone in the country, including children, carries a telephone around. I'm not sure if having the device immediately available gives them a sense of security, but I am sure that it deprives them all of privacy. Not that people want that anymore. With social media of various sorts there is an urge to inflict their private lives on everyone else and, for reasons that are completely beyond me, everyone else looks.^v

Even more frightening is the tableau that meets our eyes as we walk down the street. No one's eyes meet ours because they are all focused on the contents of their hands: electronic devices, apps, and texts. Some even use the instruments as telephones, although that has receded into being a secondary function.^vi But, by whatever means, it seems to be necessary always to be in contact with someone else. Earbuds and isolation are the order of the day. Telephone calls and texting may be significant contributors to motor vehicle accidents and deaths, but that information is not likely to have any effect on those responsible. After all, they only happen to someone else.

I know almost nothing about economics, so I probably shouldn't be commenting on this subject. But that certainly won't stop me. To use my personal lack of knowledge as a criterion would be subjectivity, and I'm nothing if not objective. (I'll leave time at this point for your individual musings.)

You can't go anywhere nowadays without seeing people on the telephone. Nor can you escape the advertisements for various telephone and texting plans or the ubiquitous apps that you must have in order to keep up with modern society. Add to that the cost of satellite, cable, or other television and internet service and the average family is probably paying for several communications packages – enriching the providers and draining personal savings.

One might argue that such a drain is bad for the economy in addition to being an unnecessary luxury, but another approach is that this creates jobs and keeps the money moving. As I said, I'm not an economist and not the one to answer those questions. But I do suspect that, for the economic better or worse, expenditures which may extend into the thousands every year are causing people to feel poor and resent the ones who are receiving the money. Well, not all those receiving the money – not the installers, linemen, office workers, and the like – but certainly the executives of communication firms.

As for privacy, forget it. In addition to the senseless material that so many post nowadays, there's also some significant data available to those tapping our lines and to hackers around the world.^vii The only privacy that exists is the experience of blotting out the rest off the world^viii when the earbuds are inserted.

Am I a troglodyte? Do I yearn for a return to the past? Perhaps in some ways. But I'm not a Luddite. I haven't destroyed an electronic device all week, although I may, in the future, find it necessary to put some of them out of their misery if I am to maintain my own sanity.^ix Most of all I long for the days when people only talked when they had something significant to say, and when you could occasionally believe what you were told – if you cared.

Alexander Graham Bell moved society forward with his work. Or was it back?

Next episode: “As Luck Would Have It” – Growing old and golden.

I       However helpful the apps.

ii       Which first appeared in 1946.

iii      Definition of the term from the Online Etymological Dictionary: 1835, "system for conveying words over distance by musical notes" (devised in 1828 by French composer Jean-François Sudré (1787-1862); each tone played over several octaves represented a letter of the alphabet), from French téléphone (c.1830), from télé- "far" .... Sudré's system never proved practical. Also used of other apparatus early 19c., including "instrument similar to a foghorn for signaling from ship to ship" (1844). The electrical communication tool was first described in modern form by Philip Reis (1861); developed by Scottish-born inventor Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922), and so called by him from 1876.

iv      Alexander Graham Bell: notebook entry of March 10, 1876, describing his first success with the telephone. He spoke through the instrument to his assistant, Thomas A. Watson, in the next room. "I then shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence: 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.' To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said." We are asked to assume that he heard through the instrument, not simply because someone in the next room was shouting. OK. Sounds plausible. I'll buy it.

v        Heaven help us if there is a problem with the internet; if, as a result, we're not all connected. How will we know all that's going on. Not that most of it matters.

vi       Of course if you call a commercial firm you're not likely to get anyone. Only voice activation and simulated speech. It's hard to get a live person anymore. But remember, “Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line. It will be answered in the order received.”

vii      I won't discuss the relationship of hacking and cyber war for the moment, but it's becoming a major battlefield.

viii     And any contemplation or thought in general.

ix       I suspect questions of the sanity of others have crossed your mind as they have mine when seeing someone walking alone but talking. It might be that he's on the telephone or he may be bonkers.

The Trouble With Ernie

Have you ever read a document created by someone using speech recognition software? Some of it is hilarious. Words that sound like the ones said may be found, and they may make a sentence bizarre. Indeed, words that sand like the ones sad may be fond, and they May make a sentence bazaar. But electronic technology is improving daily and the annoyances that bother us now will soon give way to real problems.

I recently wrote a blog entitled “Kindle^® 'im Danno.” I didn't write “Candle 'im Danno,” though I realize I was dealing with a bad egg. And when I wrote “Throw the Nook^® at him” I wasn't asking Danno to pelt him with a microwave oven.

But our new generation of electronic devices is getting out of hand.ⁱ

The trouble with these new devices is best exemplified by my new Know-It-All^© Pocket-Partner^©ii – the 6g model – which knows all there is to know about me and doesn't hesitate to tell me so. The voice doing all the talking is male, and he's known as iErnie.ⁱⁱⁱ As you might guess from his name, his forte is a wisecrack remark pointing out whatever seems contrary to the expected. He also tells lame jokes and promulgates wisdom about other things, and there's no stopping him.

Let me give you some examples. When I told him I hated physics when I was in college, and anatomy when I was in medical school, He chided me on becoming a radiologist since its backbone was physics and anatomy. He loudly proclaimed, to me, and to all the world that was listening, how dumb I was. I knew that already, and didn't need for him to announce it. But he does that over and over again. Worse, he has transmitted that appraisal to all the other similar devices owned by radiologists, people in my neighborhood, and those with whom I may have communicated at some time. And I can't turn off this “feature.” Everyone knows how dumb I am by now, and they're probably as annoyed by him as I am.

Ernie has other important observations which are similarly like de Beers diamonds.^iv How many times can I tolerate “Necessity may be the mother of invention but Gene Hackman wasn't the father of computer fraud.” Or the valuable information that “iatromathematics” is the simultaneous practice of medicine and astrology, and that the term is archaic. Especially the part about it being archaic, since I use iatromathematics all the time.

All of these bits of knowledge seem to have taken on a life of their own. Including all of the information I've entered, or Ernie has gleaned about me from elsewhere on the web, whether verified or not. He passes it along freely, and he also tells me more than I want to know about friends, acquaintances, and strangers. I tried stopping him by smashing the device with a nuke (this time I mean it)^v but the information all seems to be in a cloud somewhere and it is immortal. It will live long after me. Of course that means I don't have to enter it again if^vi I get a new device, but it's no longer my decision. I was foolish to tell Ernie so much.

Unfortunately we're all doing it all the time. Even without a 6g. It's only a matter of time before Ernie or Sari or whoever else^vii lives within that little device you carry around all the time. Its transmitter will always be on sending all sorts of information to some electronic data base. Like the information collected by the NSA it will only be used appropriately and in the interests of national security. Unless it's not. iErnie is there to help. And if he doesn't help you there will be someone else who can benefit from the information. Even the hackers have to make a living.

For the present it is possible to get along without such a partner, but that time will pass. Both the government and private industry will make it difficult to do anything without the proper apps. And society and our culture will do the rest.

It won't be long before the data base will reach out and touch all of us. You'll never be alone again. When you're not on the telephone there will be Ernie, who will amuse you or insult you – at the same time as he's collecting data about you. You may think the sky is clear, but there are large clouds on the horizon. And weather or not you want to bee, your up their bearing your sole.^viii

Next episode: “Why?” – What's clear isn't always.

I        Figuratively, at least. Literally it's quite the opposite.

ii       There's also a beautiful bejeweled Pocketbook-Partner^© for those who would prefer that.

iii      HAL retired a while ago.

iv       They're “forever.” I can't get rid of them.

v        Boy they're heavy.

vi       When.

vii      Or whatever you've named the voice on your GPS. The one who knows where you are even if you don't.

viii     You'd better get used to the idea that this is all real. It's not a fish story.

Lean Back And Enjoy It

Last week I talked about the schizophrenic reaction that the American people have to the dissemination of information. I didn't use that term – it doesn't stem from a psychiatric disorder but from a love-affair with technology, inattention and denial – and it is, perhaps, misleading. It is, however, clear that the public protests raised by the disclosure of the NSA's collection of telephone records can't be taken at face value.

There's no stopping progress, and we all embrace it. Perhaps excessively. It didn't take long after the introduction of the social media for them to become the megaⁱphenomenon they are now. Building on Friendster, MySpace, and LinkedIn, among others, Facebook was initiated at Harvard as a service for students in 2004. “The rest,” as they say, “is history.” Facebook passed the one billion member mark in 2012 and now has over 1.1 billion users. And every one of them is looking for friends.ⁱⁱ

There are many different kinds of social media – for friendship, advertising, job hunting, photo sharing, searching for old friends, and lots of others. So it isn't surprising that the numerous users have accepted, and become accustomed to, the sharing of information electronically. Some of it, probably a small minority, serves an actual purpose other than show and tell. But most of it consists of the narcissistic display of unfiltered – and usually inane – thoughts and bragging; of photographs illustrating the poverty of the “sharer's” existence; of personal appeals for friendship or companionship; of “clever” comments on the submissions of others; of pornography, advertising, and, in all likelihood, disguised and coded messages of spies and terrorists; and similar self-destructive or dangerous material. We're happy to give away information,ⁱⁱⁱ but we don't always rejoice in the fact that others may be taking it.

So, with the impulse to share all that comes to mind, and the knowledge that we're not alone in that endeavor, it's hard to believe that people didn't realize that governments^iv would do the same thing.^v Only they would probably try to use them less for trivial gossiping and more for the gathering of information, including, but not limited to, that which we're so eager to share. But that sharing is more than we bargained for. According to De Beers, “Diamonds are forever.” So's the internet.^vi Postings may come back to haunt us after many years^vii and access is available to everyone, unless steps are taken to block it. There can be no presumption of privacy in anything we post. And we all know it. We just don't care. In fact we're flattered when someone takes notice of us. At least until we find out that it's the government.^viii

It's disingenuous, though, to express surprise and horror that others are doing the same things we do. And it's similarly hypocritical to demand that we be protected by our government at the same time we're taking away the tools they believe they need to provide that protection.^ix The NSA will certainly be changed because of the outcry resulting from the revelation of what most people already knew – that the government had access to records of all the telephone calls in which we participate. In so many of the crime shows we watch on television the police review the logs of all calls to and from the suspect. Someone has kept the records that makes this possible. Are those records always used? Not unless there is reason to do so.^x That's what the NSA does, only they do it better than the police. Some, admittedly a minority, of the information will be useful in providing security, though its value will decrease with every disclosure about its nature and with every limitation in its use. So changes will be made. The public demands them. But assuming the surveillance serves a purpose, some method will have to be found to achieve the same results under a different guise. And it will be found. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.                  

1984 arrived several years ago. It arrived because, though we deny it and fight it, we wanted the tools that make it possible. There were some who warned that this is where our love of technology would lead, but our desire for “progress” trumped any concerns we had that the availability of information would be a threat. Indeed, I suspect, if the American People were now offered the opportunity of ending government use of electronic technology by ending its use by individuals as well, they would reject such a plan. And, in the unlikely event that they accepted such a concept, we'd all be under the control of those elsewhere who weren't so inclined. The protection which we sought from society – the “common defence” [sic] – would be surrendered.

For better or worse, we've crossed the Rubicon. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. You certainly can't change 'em. Constitutional government in general, the Second Amendment in particular, representation in Congress, and the ACLU notwithstanding, you're not going to defeat the government, so you might as well accept the programs they impose on you. Lean back and enjoy it. Perhaps the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.

Perhaps not.

Next episode: “I Think I Missed Something” – The trouble with passion.

 

 

I       Originally it meant “million” in a combining form, but, especially in this computer age, it has come to mean BIG. Or, as Ed Sullivan would have put it, “Reeeally Big.” Huge, in fact.

ii      Often in the wrong places. Some of the “friends” we find have agendas different from ours.

iii     To confirm this, all you have to do is to listen to talk radio, or to read the endless comments and debates on line following some controversial article. People like to express their opinions (I know I do) no matter how silly they are. (Mine, as you know by now, are well-reasoned and incontrovertible.)

iv      Our own, and those of our friends and enemies.

v       They'd also do it far better than we.

vi      In the beginning, at least (according to Jewish tradition) since the Law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, there was the “written” law (that which was recorded in the Bible) and the “oral” law, that which was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Eventually, out of fear that it would be forgotten or corrupted, this too was written down. That was cutting edge technology in those days. Now we enter what we know in computers, and it will live forever. That includes telephone records.

vii     See “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age” by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

viii    We fear that “the government,” or, more accurately, government officials, will misuse the information. That's not an irrational concern but it must be balanced against the probabilities that the information will probably never be used at all and, if it is, that it will be used for our benefit.

ix      Requiring “transparency” makes it far easier, faster, and cheaper for our enemies to keep tabs on our defenses and it makes it far harder to negotiate plans and policies, to work out compromises, and to craft treaties.

x       Even if information has no immediate applicability, the possibility of a future need for it cannot be ignored. (That's why we have archives and libraries.) There is no such thing as “useless information,” only information that has no application at a particular time. The ability to respond to a threat quickly because data can be obtained rapidly is something that has obvious value. It may be argued that failure to do so – to prepare for potential future threats – is contrary to our country's interests.

Who Wants To Know?

A recent news item informed us all that a method was being developed to text 911 calls so they could be made silently, especially useful in the case of an intruder or another emergency. It was assumed that over the next few years we'd have a society in which everyone would have a “smart” cellular telephone with the capability of sending texts. With a GPS in the unit there wouldn't be the need to identify the location – an important consideration for those with limited time and the weight of anxiety causing confusion or otherwise limiting their ability to communicate.  However useful the tool though, the time will come when our privacy will be completely gone.

We're not so far from that society now. And we're certainly a society that revels in the ability to reach out to everyone we know. That used to happen at most once a year – in a mass mailing of a Christmas letter that was designed to let family and friends in on what had happened in the prior year. Now we see it as important to provide “real time” information on our feelings, activities, and ideas to as many of our closest friendsⁱ as we can locate. And in addition to what we've told the world, we can send individual texts and photographs of our pets, dirty dishes, and whatever else we can think of. It's so easy to take pictures with those same telephones and to include them in the messages. After all, we're sure that all our correspondents are interested – more interested than we are in their idiotic productions. And it's all so easy with the various social networks established by the latest group of billionaires.ⁱⁱ

Anyway, we're eager to tell everything to everyone – including internet vendors. We brag about how many “friends” we have. We enjoy the rapid publication of everything we think or “feel,” and we're eager to send immediate status reports and “tweets” to everyone; and to get feeds from the world. We want everyone to know everything about us and we want to know everything about everyone else.ⁱⁱⁱ

Well maybe that's an overstatement. But it's always been important to document and preserve our “selves” and our knowledge. In the past, it was often recorded on scrolls because that was the state of the art. And we might then store it in a warehouse of information that might be accessed at some undefined future time. The library at Alexandria was such a famed repository, but its destruction illustrated the tenuous nature of that attempt at preservation of knowledge. Modern computer systems are far more satisfactory in providing this service. And they should be used to serve the “people” in this goal.

Thus we may want our friends to know everything, but we don't want the government to know anything. It's a paradox. Governments were established for the protection of society but we fear our own more than any other. Espionage has always been around. It was known in the ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations and in Egypt as well. It is documented in the Bible,^iv so it is clear that this is not a new phenomenon. And it's gone on throughout history. “Everyone,” as the saying goes, “does it.” Two famous examples from the American experience are Benedict Arnold and Aldrich Ames. They were “bad guys”; they were spies. It's a given that all nations spy on each other, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to protect ourselves from such activity; yet that doesn't stop us doing the same thing. Only when we do it we term it “intelligence gathering.” Or at least that's what we call it when it's directed against others. When it's aimed at us,^v it's spying.

That's the source of our unhappiness with the NSA. When they collect records of all our telephone calls they're spying on us. It isn't intelligence gathering, it's spying. They may assure us that the material they have merely serves a database which will only be used to track the conversations of those truly threatening our security, but we know better. They may claim that what they're doing is legal and necessary.^vi But they're wrong.  And the courts may support that position, but they're wrong too – if not in fact then in implications. They may tell us that they need these records for future searches, but irrespective of that promise, the files shouldn't be saved. They should really be destroyed.^vii Who knows what use they'll be put to, and by whom.

I don't agree. I recognize the idea that society, and the protection it affords, are worth some sacrifice of privacy^viii in order to minimize the risk from those who oppose us. And I accept the view that information may be collected and saved for future use, information that has no immediate application and may, in fact, never be utilized, but will be available if needed. I have a large library with most of the books never read but they're there if I need to look something up. That's what libraries^ix are for.

Most people have no hesitation about providing information to surveyors and pollsters^x – information that we know will be used in the future – even though it will take time before its value is assessed and its applicability determined. Moreover we have no compunctions about spreading information ourselves which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be damaging now, or in the future, to others. That information is in the form of gossip, innuendo, rumors, and the like, and we enjoy it greatly. It's OK if we obtain or provide confidential information, but the government has no right to do so.

The public is of two minds about privacy. Most people don't care who's “listening.” In fact, many are pleased by it. So much so that they compete for larger totals of “friends.” The fact that the Library of Congress collects every “tweet” sent is validation. It provides their fifteen minutes of fame. Some, however, are more sensitive. Among them are the ACLU and similar organizations that question the collection of information by any government agency. “Transparency” isn't enough, though they demand it of government officials. They adopt the “slippery slope” argument and maintain that the collection of any data now will eventually lead to the collection of all data in the future. It's the “camel's nose” argument.

I personally don't believe it makes sense. Absolutism may have some validity when discussing religious principles, however when relating to secular pursuits it assumes that people lack the ability to distinguish between principles and practice. It adopts a reductio ad absurdum approach to everything. And in instances like that involving the NSA it assumes that the government is evil. Eternal vigilance may be the price of freedom, but that vigilance may also be required by the government – not just the ACLU. It all depends on whom you consider the enemy.

That's enough for now. I'll finish it up next time. But, of course, I won't give my real name. I don't know who might be reading this.

Next episode: “Lean Back And Enjoy It” – If you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

I       We target “friends” and followers whom we invite to join our networks, and we, simultaneously join theirs.

ii       That makes them members of the one (hundredth of a) percent, though we don't think of them that way.

iii     We ignore the very real risk of hackers and identity thieves, though we may get additional programs to try to minimize the chances we're taking.

iv      See Numbers 14:1 and ff, and Joshua 2:1.

v       Or we believe it is.

vi      In keeping with the Patriot Act.

vii     As is the case with all such unevaluated and global solutions to situations we view as problems, a decision to destroy the records may result in the destruction, as well, of evidence in cases before the courts. For more on this subject see Wall Street Journal, February 2o, 2014: NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits. As the article suggests, this may result in the retention of more records than initially intended, but that would be the unintended consequence of such a move.

viii    And even though I know it's not true, I can live with the premise that most people are honest and law-abiding, and the information they obtain in conformity with legal and judicial limits will ultimately be used for my benefit.

ix      Not to mention Google and other search engines.

x      In fact they're tickled by the thought that their views are considered representative of a portion of the population, and that they can express their opinions and prejudices (my term, certainly not theirs) openly, and have it taken seriously.

Oh, Give Me A Home

                                                                            

What's the point of the whole internet project as it relates to our debt? Wrong question. It's in the singular, and there's no single solution to our economic problem, so there are several different points involved. In fact the project can't possibly solve it alone, and wasn't intended to. Indeed, though it will provide an important start, many additional projects will be necessary. But there are certain gains that can achieved through the use of a nationwide internet capability and it's worth rehearsing them.  So here are some suggestions.

The first is the backbone of the proposal – internet and telephone service from wherever you are in the United States and its territories.ⁱ With whatever device you own you can have internetⁱⁱ service wherever you are, even in a moving car or train. And there will be no dead areas between towers.

Next will be the availability of a state-provided computer for everyone. True, that computer will only get material distributed by the government, but governmental “connectedness” will allow for greater participation by all – from the President to the average citizen – in those activities that make our country unique. Only a few are mentioned, but American ingenuity can certainly bring us many more applications.

The various applications have advantages, however, besides promoting good citizenship. As was demonstrated, they also offer us, among other advantages, the opportunity for more efficient and less costly operation of the government. The elimination of a need for congressional buildings with congressmen and Executive employeesⁱⁱⁱ working from their homes will result in lowering governmental costs, as will the implementation of a cloud-based IRS. There would also be better tracking of taxpayers resulting in greater revenues at a lower cost.

It has to be remembered that an important impetus for the entire project is the desire to lessen, and, perhaps, ultimately eliminate, the National Debt. The outsourcing of many governmental functions will contribute to that goal. And that brings us to the final piece of this aspect of the puzzle. Once we have sent Congress and the President home, and the other criminals to foreign countries, once we have outsourced most of our functions and moved the rest to inexpensive parts of the country, and once we have limited the use of paper, saving huge forests while maximizing the returns from such natural resources as shale-oil, we'll possess one of the most valuable commodities that exists anywhere – one on which our country was founded – property. The Federal government is the largest land owner in the country with nearly 65o million acres. While some has to be retained as Indian reservations or military bases,^iv a lot becomes available when the functions served are exported, and some simply serve as park land. Many claim that the flora and fauna are a heritage we should leave for our children (along with the massive debt we're piling up for them now), but that could be accomplished by building an area where some of them can live and be displayed in their natural habitat, and the remainder could provide us with a large injection of capital, capital that could be used in small part to maintain those new habitats but would largely be transferred to payments on what we owe. Development of that property would also provide us with many, many jobs. And with the current economic situation, the prices of new homes in the beautiful settings available are likely to be quite attractive, providing residences amid America's spacious skies where we can dream our patriots' dreams, and simultaneously end current land management costs while putting the property on the tax roles.

But in addition to land, we'd have a lot more to offer. Were we to outsource our correctional functions, to India for example, many properties would become available. Some could be converted into condominiums or other housing. And the ample surrounding property, properly landscaped and provided with suitable amenities might make the new residences quite desirable. Imagine living in a beautifully remodeled National Historic Landmark with an unobstructed and stunning view of San Francisco Bay, with rock pools and a colony of seabirds, and with access by the nation's first hybrid propulsion ferry. It's a dream, and no security will be necessary. And despite its name, the development would be a windfall, rather than an albatross. Occupy Alcatraz! It gives the “occupy” movement a whole new meaning. And the governments – Federal and State – have many properties already developed and only in need of a little freshening up to become sources of income rather than burdens on the taxpayers.

Moreover we, the taxpayers, own many other developed properties around the country that could be sold with their land to private developers at large profits, and they could benefit us all by their annual tax payments to the Treasury. Additionally, some of what already exists should be considered for increased tourist potential. Washington DC, for example.

Once DC is emptied of politicians, outsourced services, and unneeded bureaucrats,^v many buildings and open land would be available for “repurposing.” Because of its history as the nation's capital, it is already an important tourist destination, but, with the internet in place and the government moved elsewhere, let me describe a District of Columbia that would be far more popular with both Americans and foreign visitors:

The White House would be converted into a luxury hotel. The congressional office buildings, printing office, and other unnecessary and abandoned buildings, would be leased to banks and to major corporations, foreign and domestic, as home offices. The Library of Congress would be subdivided into countless fancy restaurants, large and small, serving the finest cuisines from all over the world to people with a broad range of budgets. The National Mall, almost a mile and a quarter from the Capitol steps to the Washington Monument, would serve ideally as the world's largest outdoor mall,^vi while the Pentagon would be subdivided as an indoor mall. While the footprint of the Pentagon is not as large as the Mall of America, it has seven stories to the Mall's four, and combined with the proposed outdoor National Mall mall, and the giant food court at the Library of Congress,^vii there will be plenty of action for all who come to visit – and it's far more convenient than Minnesota.

The various national museums would remain, since the American heritage is sacrosanct, but they would be supplemented by additional facilities to emphasize our heritage. The Lincoln Memorial, for example, would be turned into an expanded version of Madame Tussauds with tributes to all our heroes from Pocahontas to Wolfman Jack. The Viet Nam Memorial would be a superb outdoor cafe. And most important, especially for tourists, a large theme/amusement park would be constructed. “DC Adventure Park” would, of course, be managed by DC Comics^viii, although Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are certainly part of our national heritage. A mechanical George Washington could throw dollars across the Potomac, Booth can assassinate President Lincoln, Michelle Rhee would distribute school vouchers, there's no end of sites that can be used as fun houses or chambers of horrors, and, as pièce de résistance, the Washington Monument could be converted into a parachute jump more than twice the height of the fabled ride in Coney Island.

And there's little doubt that, utilizing American know-how, we can come up with many additional projects for turning government owned and managed land into taxable private holdings, using the savings, as well as the sale prices, to cut our debt. (For example, wouldn't it make sense to transfer all the graves in Arlington National Cemetery^ix to some unused land in Iowa or North Dakota and build town houses on the site? And we could offer boat rides on the Potomac.^x) That's the goal. And a national internet will allow many additional projects to take place while promoting greater participation of all our citizens in America the Beautiful.

Keeping up with the times pays. And deer and antelope play more intelligently than elephants and donkeys.

Next episode: “All I Know” – And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

i      One of the many points not mentioned earlier was that additional charges can be applied for faster service.

ii     And GBS.

iii    Including the President.

iv     Though many of these functions could be merged with tremendous savings. According to WikiPedia,there are 149 active military facilities in the United States, 115 that are closed, and 94 overseas. Even if the numbers are a little off, it is hard to believe some cannot be merged. Except for the need for particular political members of Congress to have facilities in their districts, despite the cost.

v      That's almost all of them.

vi     If it isn't converted into a flea market.

vii   The Supreme Court can eat there. It would be inappropriate to move the Justices and turn them into the circuit riders they used to be. And how much harm can the jokers do with Batman there to watch them? (See following text.)

viii   You know – Batman, Superman, the Green Lantern and all that crowd.

ix     We should probably leave the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for old time's sake and because it's a good tourist attraction.

x      If you catch one of George Washington's dollars your next ride is free.

Taxation Without Representation

                                                                                        

We've already reviewed some, but certainly not all, of the expenses assumed in our names by the government pledged to uphold the Constitution. The greatest of these are the so-called “entitlements,”ⁱ such as the welfare package, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like.ⁱⁱ It's a mixed bag. Part of it is shared by the states,ⁱⁱⁱ while the Federal government is solely responsible for many of the programs. Indeed, some of it is funded through the donations^iv of individuals. But the combination of the cost of entitlements and the debt service for what we owe^v is more than can be handled by the implementation of an internet service so they will not be further addressed here, except to note that these programs are here to stay. Their promises have been around too long for us to back out now, and too many people have come to depend on them. All that we can try to do is to rein them in, make their administration less burdensome, and implement some of the cost-saving methods that have been proposed.

 

But it's time to return to the use of the internet to reduce the National Debt, and, more specifically, how we can trim the expense of collecting revenues.   I am most interested in the revenues provided through the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS.^vi For better or worse, we all deal with it. At least we're supposed to.

The tax system is chaotic. And no one understands it although there are a lot of interpreters who claim they do, or promote their own ability to play the system. Filling and filing taxes is a big business – especially for tax franchises and computer software makers. The IRS is now able to handle returns filed electronically, but that merely remains an option. Universal internet access should be used to make this kind of filing mandatory. Forms should be completed on line – using a government-designed audio/video program guiding taxpayers. There's a lot of money in it and it makes sense that some of it should go back to the taxpayers. The program would ask the same questions as (or possibly better questions than) existing programs and services. Actually they should be a lot better. It's reasonable to expect that the IRS's questions will be more perceptive than someone else's, since no one could possibly understand IRS regulations better than the IRS,^vii and the forms should be simple enough^viii for the average citizen to manage on his own. All IRS forms should be included in the program so that it is (theoretically) possible to complete the task on your own. Even so, some individuals may still require “professionals” to do the dirty work for them, especially for businesses or others who require complex returns, but if the government program is mandated the rest of us can get a cut of the action, even if done by a professional.

Requiring electronic filing of a governmental form, with no option for any kind of filing requiring expensive human intervention, will provide more than the saving of money (a Good thing by itself). Instantaneous auditing of all returns will be possible, as well as immediate payment. By instituting governmental credit/debit cards the IRS can rapidly collect what is due, as well as interest payments on what is owed. And if refunds are warranted, they can be credited immediately. The credit card accounts that result from this system can also be used to collect fees for other services^ix

Converting the existing method of tax collection to an internet/credit account such as this will allow the government to identify those who haven't filed their returns.^x As would be the case with voting, machine function would be frozen if tax forms are not filed. Until the form is completed,^xi what might appear on screen is a notification of the penalty, which would increase daily, for not filing the tax forms.^xii Prior to the filing date, for some predetermined period of time, a daily countdown of days until the deadline would be on screen continuously until filing, and it may annoy some people enough to file, in order to rid themselves of the reminder.

The discussion, however – that of mechanisms of lowering the debt – cannot be completed without acknowledgment that many jobs will be lost. It was previously suggested that the workers would be beneficial to private industry, especially computer construction, but there could be governmental jobs as well, though some may require retraining. Many individuals will be needed for computer repair and internet management, and this will absorb some of the bureaucrats who won't be needed. Most important, though, will be construction of the “infrastructure” – an act dear to the hearts of all our people. Included in such an effort, of course, would be the construction of communications capabilities, including the burying of overhead wires and cables which are susceptible to weather damage, and the protection of the nation' electrical system.^xiii But this is only a small part of what needs to be done. Great efforts should be undertaken to shore up those areas in which damage can be anticipated from future episodes of unusually harsh weather. It will require a large work force to do this, but it will lessen costs and grief in the future. It may diminish the expenses for agencies like FEMA.

Most important in the construction effort would be the building of new roads across country. Much is said about the inefficiency of the automobile as a source of transportation^xiv and the need for more public transportation. The reality, however, is that Americans love their cars. And the personal vehicle can get someone to the place he wants to go, rather than to a “central” clearing house inconvenient to everybody. And the individual driver makes his own schedule. Imagine having modern highways coast to coast with E-ZPass and never having to stop between Key West and Point Barrow^xv or wherever. At least not for tolls. The availability of the roads will create a stimulus for the automobile industry and a need for additional gasoline, until another power source is perfected. Many displaced workers could be employed in the shale-oil industry. Properly managed, shale-oil will make us the greatest producer of gas in the world, and if that is as much of a boon to our economy as anticipated, it will certainly have a long-lived and beneficial effect on our National Debt.

And that brings us back to where we started. There's been some rambling, and there's one more topic I want to cover,^xvi but the bottom line is that a national internet capability will offer the possibility of changing America (for the better). We might even get our representatives to actually represent us and cut our taxes. A higher internet may help us lower our safety net – at least what it costs us.

Enter.

Next episode: “Oh, Give Me A Home” – Help for the foreclosed.

i      How these are viewed depends very much on your philosophy. Some see them as a religious obligation – an act of charity – while others see them as a moral obligation of the rich toward the poor; some consider them to be in keeping with the Constitution, though some view them as contradicting the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Some don't care about the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and some simply don't care.

ii     Conservatives argue that the whole system represents redistribution of wealth from those who have, to those who do not; that the provision of entitlements furnishes a paving stone (or several stones) on the road to Socialism. Liberals point out that everyone, even Conservatives, gains by government programs. (Some might even contend that Socialism is preferable to Capitalism – but that's a different discussion.) They're likely to cite such benefits as the funding of the government itself, the military, road building, and various subsidies. These, however, are dwarfed by the entitlements which the government has taken on itself, and, indeed, some of the programs noted by the Liberals, like the government and the military, are specifically mandated by the Constitution. (Many of our citizens would prefer to pay fees for the non-Constutionally-mandated services if, in exchange, their taxes were significantly lowered because they were not forced to pay for services they did not need or want.)

iii    Or imposed on the states. Like “entitlements,” definitions are in the eye of the beholder.

iv    “Donations” isn't really an accurate description of the funding method of Social Security since participation is mandatory. In any event, your donations may not cover the extent of your benefits, and the difference must be covered by those currently working and by taxpayers in general.

v       Over sixteen and a half trillion dollars at the time of this writing (February 13, 2013).

vi      The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution legalizes the income tax, but our “representatives” (the legislators), and the bureaucrats they hire to write the rules, have found ways to soak us that we would never have approved if given the opportunity. In reality we understand neither the rules nor the forms.

vii     Okay. You can stop laughing now.

viii   Perhaps it's wishful thinking to credit the IRS with the ability to make anything simple, but it would be nice if they could.

ix     Like the “co-pay” for computer repair, lottery payments, and the fee for voting if the individual accepts it.

x       It hasn't been discussed, but a parallel internet mechanism would have to be instituted for businesses, charities, and other organizations, so they can receive pertinent information and file necessary documents.

xi      No matter how long it takes.

xii     In addition to interest on unpaid taxes.

xiii  Perhaps we should consider a second electric grid as well to provide redundancy in times of disaster.

xiv    And its carbon tireprint.

xv     We'll give Canada a cut if they participate.

xvi    See “Oh, Give Me A Home,” which will appear on March 17^th. I'll bet you can't wait.