Occupy Wall Street: The Silly Demands

This list of demands came from OccupyWallSt.org. It was posted by someone who's obviously oblivious to how .... well, oblivious to how life works in general. These aren't just childish... I think it's clear that they were written by a child. I also think it's clear that the Occupiers already know how remarkably unrealistic these demands are, as they're no longer on the site, but just for posterity I thought I'd post them here with a little comment. There's a second batch of 'demands' that I'll comment on in a follow-up post.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr. 

The "most nations" that are "dumping cheap products onto the American market" can do so because they're not demanding twenty dollars an hour. They're not even demanding $7.25 an hour. Taken as a whole, this 'demand' means that your tariffs would have to be greater than the actual profit margin of the goods themselves.

So let's think about how that will affect our economy. Faced with fees greater than any potential for profit, the Chinese decide not to sell to the US at all. They will not sell at a loss, even to sustain a token presence in the market. Almost all of our electronics, lightbulbs, textiles are now made outside of this country, as are almost all rare-earth metals used in the manufacture of alternative energy sources and batteries.

I live in a former mill town, so let's just take textiles as an example. To make a cotton shirt, you need cotton. I drive through the former cotton fields every day... they're now forest. (for real, it's the Sumter National Forest). The mills that formerly processed that cotton into yarn, thread, and fabric have been torn down. Even if we wanted to re-commission them, they no longer exist, and would have to be re-built. The experienced workers who ran them have been retired for a generation. So we would be roughly five years removed from any new clothes if we adopted this 'demand'.

The same is true for electronics. We have out-sourced our expertise AND manufacturing. They do not need us to produce these products, and we absolutely DO need them to do the same. So while we will be unable to buy electronics that we want, they'll be available everywhere else. We'll want to export our goods, but we'll have priced ourselves out of every market in the world.

Would the Chinese suffer? Slightly, in the very short term. But they would reduce prices somewhat and open markets to what is currently the Third World, and re-raise those prices as those economies strengthened. Meanwhile we would exchange places with that Third World. 

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors. 

This person has no idea how insurance works. For the record. Here's how it works, in terms that anybody can understand:

People buy insurance. Insurance is sort of a bet. When you buy health insurance, you're betting that you'll get sick. The insurance company is betting that you won't.

Every month, if you don't get sick, you lose the bet, and you make another bet. This is called paying your premium. You need to pay your premiums even if you don't get sick, because this is how the insurance company collects enough money to pay off on their bets. But be assured that this is NOT like paying into an account. Insurance is NOT pre-payment. The company has no obligation to return your stakes just because you lost the bet. A bet is a bet. 

If you do get sick, you win the bet, and the insurance company pays off on the terms of the bet. Of course, you have to keep up your end of the agreement, too. So if the bet says that they'll pay for your doctor's visit minus a $20 "co-pay", it means you're going to pay the first $20 of the bill, and the insurance company pays the rest to the doctor, the nurse, and/or the hospital.

The insurance company pays off the bet with premiums from other bettors who didn't get sick, as well as with reserves that it has set aside for such a purpose. An insurance company with lots of reserves is able to pay out, even if a lot of people get sick at the same time, so large reserves are not because of greed... it's a sign of a stable company... one you want to insure with. The last thing you want is to buy insurance with a company with slim reserves.

Like any bet, there are odds. You don't get all the money you want if you bet on a horse race and your horse comes in first. The track couldn't stay in business if you did, because they can't give everybody "all the money". Likewise, insurance pays up to a certain amount for the very same reason. If you're a bad risk and make unhealthy choices (like smoking), then they'll change the odds. In racing, this means that the more likely a horse is to win, the less difference there is between the amount of your bet and the amount of the payout.  In insurance it's exactly the same, except because they can't do much about the payout they have to raise your premium.

Notice something about this system? The insurance doesn't "take" money from anyone at all. They sell you something you want; healthcare coverage. You make the bet; you give them money. They pay out to the very people the author of this 'demand' thinks they're taking from. And limits on coverage are NOT because they're evil and greedy, but so they can continue to cover the most number of people. These other insured people are just as important as you.

Actually, they're probably more important than you. Here's why I say that: insurance (any insurance) is a funny business, in that it only pays out if something bad happens to you. Sure, you win the bet, and that's good, but you got sick, and that's bad. The same is true with auto insurance: have an accident and they'll fix your car, but oh snap... you had an accident. You're betting on losing, so if you have any sense whatsoever, you'll do what you can to avoid winning the bet. You'll live right, you watch what you eat, exercise, and just in case all of that's not enough, you'll buy insurance. You do all of this because it's your body, nobody else's, and nobody else is responsible for it... just you. And if you can't be bothered to recognize all of that as true, omitting not one solitary piece of it, then the guy who does recognize it for himself is more worthy of society's attention.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. 

Paid for by whom? And if you have a guaranteed living wage without even trying to seek employment, where's the incentive for seeking employment at all? Who's going to make anything for you to buy? Who would work in a box factory if he can get a living wage for just sitting on his butt playing Nintendo? The very first answer that most people give when asked what they'd do if they won the lottery is, "quit my job". What you're proposing here is identical to having everyone, everywhere, win the lottery jackpot.

There will be no workers.

Demand four: Free college education. 

I have a completely different soapbox for this issue. First, you seem to believe that a college education is necessary, and that's a lie. It is a lie told to you by people who's business it is to sell college educations; and while they themselves are well-educated, they're also human, and have committed the grave error of thinking that everyone needs what they want. Some of the very highest paid jobs need no college education, and many, many people are not suited by temperment, ability, or desire to continue in academia. To be a plumber and earn $60 an hour does not require a diploma; you need a wrench and a desire to work. To put off actually working toward having your own plumbing business (or electrician, or carpenter, etc) while racking up many many thousands of dollars in student loan debt is  quite simply destructive. A trade school and/or apprenticeship, for many, is the superior choice. It doesn't take a college education to do the math and see the truth for what it is.

College, if you're so inclined, should be done for a purpose. If it is valuable to you, then there are several roads to success: 1. your parents might have saved for you. But no one anywhere is guaranteed rich parents. 2. You work your way through college. 3. You take out a student loan, paid back from your future (presumably higher) earnings. In each of these scenarios, you (or your parents, if you're lucky) make the investment. If your having an education is valuable to others, then it is paid for through scholarships. The way to attain a scholarship is to work hard so that you can convince others that your education does have value to them. But if your education is of value to neither yourself nor others, quit your bitchin' and get a job.

I'm serious.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. 

We're not done with this one. Wait for Demand seven.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now. 

Why one trillion? Only because it's a big-sounding number that people have heard a lot lately. Sadly, we wouldn't have the trillion because we're giving it away already in free education and paying for your healthcare, living wages for doing nothing, and $20/hour wages.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants. 

Remember Demand five? Forget it. We really just meant, "shut off all the lights, permanently". When talking about "alternative energy sources" we can forget all about hydroelectric power. We can forget about nuclear power. Wind energy is feeble, and where it can be used we can hamstring it by requiring ecological impact studies. The same for industrial solar. So what's basically left is small-scale solar, and we'd better throw on some regulation of the solar cells, since the materials might need to be mined and might have ecological impact if released into the environment. Since our storage batteries and solar cells use materials from China, then we can slap some hefty tariffs on those as well.

It's OK, though. The almost complete inability to generate power won't matter, because we won't be able to buy electronics or light bulbs from the Far East thanks to Demand one.

Ah, the Amish life... it's not retro, it's prophetic.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. 

That's actually a great idea. It's called the 14th Amendment, section 1 of which reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I jumped in my time machine (it's powered by unicorn farts, which are environmentally friendly and smell like daisies), went back to 1868 to have it enacted and ratified. Of course, you might remember it as having always been there, but I assure you, I just put it there in response to this 'demand'.

The alternative to my far-fetched story is that the author of this 'demand' has never read the Constitution and has no idea what's in it. BTW, this particular clause is why an ERA has never passed... it's simply already there. A new amendment would not change anything that can't be changed with simple enforcement of the one we have -- it states everything it needs to state, simply and clearly.

(Actually, I made one little error here. Given a second chance, I'd change the word 'born' to 'born to a United States citizen'. That would eliminate the 'anchor baby' loophole for immigration)

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. 

We'll need that so we can have illegal immigrants to do the jobs we can't afford to pay $20/hour to do. There will be as many of those jobs as there are today, but we'll be prohibited by law from filling them with Americans due to Demand one.

Of course, it works both ways, too. Due to the high cost of labor in the US, factories will scatter like roaches in the light to Mexico and Canada. After Demand three sucks the Treasury dry, we'll need an open border policy to allow our workers to go there to work for whatever they can get. By then, having benefited from the migration of business, rich Mexicans can afford to hire wetback gringos to clean their pools. Sadly, this assumes the Mexicans will be as lax with their immigration as we have been. A rude awakening will follow.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system. 

Yes. Because we know how well Iranian elections work. Actually, we did that in Florida, paper ballots, recounts, observers and all. I actually lived in Broward County, Florida, the very source of the 'hanging chad' jokes. I used those ballots. I now live in South Carolina, where we use electronic ballots, and they are superior to paper in every conceivable way. All it takes to invalidate the infamous paper 'butterfly ballot' is to surreptitiously poke another hole in it while counting. That's it.  The electronic ballot is clear, easily readable even if you have moderately impaired vision, and very easy to use. After voting, it re-displays your votes to you and asks for confirmation. It offers you a chance to make corrections. It keeps an audit. It automatically counts.

Of course, the author of these 'demands' doesn't remember that these electronic ballots replaced paper ballots for a reason because the author is a child.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period. 

More evidence that the author is a child. Let's very quickly explain how banking works.

Perhaps you have an understanding of banking that imagines your money to be sitting in great piles of cash on shelves in bank vaults. This is completely wrong. Most money doesn't even exist in physical form. Even if it did, you wouldn't want to forgive all debts because you're currently loaning your money out.

When you put money in an account that earns interest, have you never wondered why it earns interest? Why would a bank pay you to keep your money for you? After all, they're providing security and storage; they have to pay for their employees and building and utilities, just like everybody else. What's in it for them?

Well, what's in it for them is that when you opened your account you gave them permission to invest your money on your behalf. They take that money that you deposited, and that's what they use to make loans. Where else did you think they got it? The interest you receive is your portion of the profits of the loans that were made. To summarize, they take your money, put it with the money from other depositors, loan it out, and pay you back some of the interest of the resulting loan payments. And do you know what this means?

It means that your money is not there. 

Oh, if went to the bank and withdrew all of your money, they'd give it to you. But they couldn't give everyone all their money if everyone went to the bank at the same time. In fact, this is called 'a run on the bank', and there are laws that require them to shut down if such a thing were to happen. If such a thing were allowed to happen, then the bank would have to default on payment (meaning you wouldn't get paid at all, ever), and it would become 'bankrupt' (the bank ruptures... and now you know the origin of that term).

What is being proposed here is that all banks go bankrupt at the same time. You are then left with whatever money and property you have in your possession at the time. If you just bought a house... hey! Free house! If you just sold a house... sucks to be you! Your credit card is immediately paid off, but it's also immediately worthless, because no one will ever loan you money again, ever. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because you just gave all of their money away to people who will never, ever pay them back.

Now imagine you just sold me a new car (or house, or anything). I suddenly tell you, "Thanks for the car, I'm keeping it! You're out a car, and you're out the money for the car, because I think you should forgive all your debts, and you have no say in it. So there." If the least you did was bang up the car with a baseball bat I'd count myself as having gotten off scott-free. If all you did was break my kneecaps with that same bat I'd count myself lucky you didn't do more damage.

This is a stupid, stupid demand.  It is guaranteed anarchy and revolution, and not in the way you want. The people who would suffer most would be the ones who called for forgiveness, and you can be certain they would never be in a position of public policy making within generations of the sad event.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! 

They're demanding this for the planet. Like Doctor Evil, with a pinky in the corner of their collective mouth, make their demand... and when the laughter dies down and the foreign investors realize they're not getting paid, the US will be cut off from all foreign trade, and the dollar will be discarded in favor of the Euro in international transactions. No dollar will be worth the paper it's printed on when doing business outside the US.

But hey, we'll have some spiffy roads, even if we don't have money for gas.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. 

Credit reporting agencies are there to keep you from going from one place to another, racking up more debt than you can possibly repay. Failure to pay your debts can land you in jail. Credit reporting agencies protect not just the lenders, but you as well, because it's better to be poor than in prison.

Of course, the author of this 'demand' has already found out that he's not allowed to simply take money that he can never repay, and that's his motivation for making the 'demand'... he wants your money, that you earned, and he's not giving it back, and says so flatly in Demand eleven, and because you won't just roll over and give him what he wants, hasn't earned, and has no intention of repaying, then you are greedy.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union. 

Let's give them baseball bats, too, so they can bust in the knees of people who want to work, but don't want to join the Union. After all, it's worked in the past.

The basic idea of a union is that it only works if every single worker stands united. That way the union can withhold labor until its demands are met. It is therefore never in the best interest of the union to allow anyone to work who is not a member. If a company were allowed to just hire other workers without the veto of the union, then strikes would be busted simply by hiring other workers to replace them. With unemployment at 9.5 percent, that's not exactly difficult. So the very first goal of a union is 100% membership. With that in hand, they can negotiate a deal with the company that allows the union to approve or veto all workers, and require mandatory union membership for employment. We see this in principle and in practice.

In the short term that works. The company continues to do business and the labor union members are very happy that they have bigger paychecks and more benefits. For a while everything seems fine.

But the union very quickly gets very, very greedy, all the while pointing the finger and claiming that it's others who are the greedy ones. The cost of labor skyrockets, because nothing at all can get done if the union demands aren't met. Lazy employees can't be fired because they're union members, and their jobs are protected. Even if wages remain fairly constant, as employees retire, the cost of doing business increases dramatically as the company has to maintain exhorbitant retirement plans for an increasing number of retirees,  at ever-earlier retirement ages. Eventually the company simply can't compete in the marketplace.

So what happens? Plants shut down, manufacturing moves to other countries and to places with lower cost of employment, and most especially, non-union plants are opened. I live in South Carolina. We don't like unions for ourselves, because we've found that factories generally pay us pretty well without them. It's in their best interest to do so, since otherwise we'd unionize, and they've already had that sad experience. We love unions in other places, though, because they drive business into our sunny and friendly state.

Our solution is to be competitive, which is a damned sight better than this silly 'demand'.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

I earlier stated that the author was a child. I'm now beginning to think he's an Underwear Gnome.

Step 1: ELIMINATE MONEY.
Step 3: PROFIT.

Now let me make this clear. I want you to get the healthcare treatment you need. I want you to have a decent standard of living. But I don't necessarily want to make this easy for you. More specifically, I don't want to go easy on you. Because that's the sort of thing that gets us in to financial messes. You have to be made to take responsibility for your life and to work for what you have so that you value it. Valuing what you have enables you to be sympathetic and charitable toward others so that they can have what they need. But no one owes you a living wage. You must do your best.

Coming up...

There are some other demands elsewhere on the web. Next up, I'll have a word or two to say about them.

iSad

Steve Jobs

February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011

Old Post: Does Conservatism Exist?

Sept 24, 2011: I wrote this on June 5, 2009, and for some reason never took it out of draft status. I don't know why it slipped past, and now it's terribly stale. So stale, in fact, that I'm not going to even attempt to do a job of final editing. So I'm publishing it as a draft, complete with half-completed thoughts, poor structure, and jarring segues.

This past weekend I joined in a discussion regarding Sarah Palin resigning her office. Someone commented that Palin has done more harm than good for the conservative movement. Since I haven't asked permission to name him, I'll paraphrase his main points:

• Conservatism is no more than empty words.
• No conservative candidate is really conservative.
• Sarah Palin hurt the ticket as she came across as cocky and insincere.
• Mark Sanford always held himself up as a Christian Conservative, but his move toward fiscal conservatism was more to gain national support down the road than what might have been bad for this state.

I pointed out that a philosophy isn't the same as the representatives of that philosophy. It's true that some conservatives aren't "real"... but that's a far cry from conservatism itself not being real. The challenge for conservatives is to find people who can honestly represent the philosophy.

He responded with this, which I won't paraphrase:

"The problem is there isn't anyone. Conservatism in politics dosn't exist. Never has. Anyone who points to Reagan either doesn't know better or is too young to remember."

Now, that's blind, absolute cynicism, but I think it's probably not terribly uncommon in broadcast media. Now, as I'm about to explain, this is B.S. And if something is B.S. when someone else says it, it's B.S. when I think it. That's why I thank God for comments like this, because in refuting them I find my own cynicism dispelled and I find that my belief in my ideals and this country are renewed.

Now, I'm neither too young to personally remember Reagan, nor do I not know better. In point of fact, I worked two years at the Presidential/VIP radio station, under Reagan, and seven years in the network overall. I did this as a member of an all-volunteer military, who had joined in peacetime, during the Cold War. So I have more than a little experience with living according to my ideals. To be told that these ideals do not exist by someone who has not shared those experiences is, quite frankly, a little off-putting.

It would be easy to dismiss such flawed reasoning out of hand. After all, if your mind is clearly closed to opposition, then I'd be fully justified in simply dismissing your own argument in kind and out-of-hand, simply saying, "You're wrong, case closed."

But I'm not that cynical. The problem here is that the speaker has been distracted from the true nature of conservatism. He continues to confuse the philosophy with the individuals that promote it. Since he brought up Reagan, let's start there.

Now, Reagan did compromise, no doubt about it. But politics is the art of compromise. I'm going to engage in my own bit of hyperbole, and state that anybody who doesn't understand that has no business discussing politics. I'm fairly certain that the speaker did understand it, though the knowledge has been overshadowed by cynicism. But compromising on issues is not the same thing as abandoning an ideal. Rather, it's a pragmatic understanding that in order to govern effectively, you can not ignore those people that do not agree with you on every single little point. The idea that compromise = betrayal is naive, to say the least.

Even as he compromised on some issues, Reagan never lost sight of his conservative ideals. He continued to espouse them and promote them, eloquently and vigorously; with the result that even his detractors had a hard time making mud stick. So much so, in fact, that representative Pat Schroeder coined the term "Teflon President" to describe him. Keep in mind that Reagan himself didn't coin or seek that label (nor did Rep. Schroeder mean it in a positive way). He didn't espouse ideals because they would allow him to maintain his popularity... he wasn't terribly concerned with popularity at all. He espoused conservative ideals because that's what he believed. And he believed that most Americans shared those beliefs, when they're communicated directly, clearly, and without distraction. I happen to think he was and is right.

Part of the art of compromise is to pick your battles, and recognize what can or can't be accomplished during your term in office. Reagan compromised on budgetary issues, but picked the toughest battle of all of our lifetimes, and made the ending the Cold War possible. And it happened. Those of use who "know better" and aren't "too young" to remember actually practicing cowering under school desks in the '60s in preparation for a nuclear Armageddon that we were dead certain was just a matter of "when" rather than "if" thank him profusely to this day. Sadly, some people quickly forget what a scary place the world can be. To them, "never forget" is no more than the fickle promise of a mayfly.

Ronald Reagan was a true conservative in politics. Was he the last?

Hardly. But rather than go through politicians person-by-person, let's tackle the flawed reasoning directly. Here's the flaw, as I explained it:

The problem here is that you don't know what you should be looking for. You can't find perfect people in the world, so you conclude that the ideals of real people are non-existent. Wrong answer. We all aspire to things that are greater than ourselves. By definition, that means as individuals we're less than our ideals.

Pretty simple, right? You don't say "chairs" don't exist simply because you can't find the perfect chair for you. Nor do you say that "liberalism" doesn't exist, though the Democratic party is utterly devoid of "true liberals", filled as it is at the top with millionaires who satisfy a lust for power by appealing to the class envy and greed of constituencies with which they have precious little in common.
People aren't perfect. Christians aren't Christ. We can't demand unwavering, absolute perfection from politicians any more than we can demand the same of our flawed and human pastors. To suggest that we even should make such a demand, or expect such perfection is outrageous to the maximum extreme.

The real question is, can we find people who move us toward our ideals?

Yes, we can.
Now, Sarah Palin left her office for reasons she herself has stated. Cynical reporters are looking for some hidden meaning, but there's no reason to take her at anything but her word. She's a lame duck. She's run up a half a million dollars of debt defending herself from charges that it costs nothing for her detractors to levy... charges of which she's been acquitted in their entirety, by the way. She agrees in matters of policy with her Lt. Governor. She can count on him to continue her policies through the 18 months left in this term, and has placed him in the strong position of being an incumbent in the next election.

I have no sympathy for Sanford, or any other hypocrite. He set a torch to his life and knew (or should have known) what would happen. It may be that he simply has no further interest in politics; I won't guess. But he chose to live with the consequences of his actions, and I won't change those consequences just because I've voted for him in the past.

But being wrong on one subject doesn't mean that a person is wrong on every subject. These "bailouts" simply heap long-term debt atop real problems that won't get fixed because they're masked. He was right to turn down Federal bailout money. It was the conservative thing to do.

REVIEW: Digital Fortress

Note to Dan Brown: If you insist on making your heroes look like idiots at the end of the story, do NOT talk up how super-intelligent they are at the beginning.

As you can tell from the note above, I didn't like this book. It's nominally about cryptography and computer security, which is something with which I have a passing familiarity. Now, if you knew nothing about either you'd probably come away from this book thinking it was an entertaining read... even a thriller. But for me, Dan Brown's treatment of these subjects is about as accurate as The Flintstones' treatment of archaeology.

** DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW **

I am going to shamelessly include SPOILERS in this review, as I cannot possibly spoil it any worse than the author already has. DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW if you are completely ignorant of computers. You might actually like this the story... just remember that it's a juvenile fantasy, and that the "facts" and events depicted within have no relation whatsoever to reality.

** DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW **

Here's the summary: the NSA (National Security Agency) has a big honkin' supercomputer that can break any code. A Lone Genius writes an unbreakable encryption algorithm which he puts on the Internet in encrypted form (encrypted by itself, no less), and offers the passkey to the highest bidder. The NSA wants to get their hands on the passkey so they can surreptitiously re-write the algorithm to include a back-door so they can easily read any encrypted message that's encoded by what is sure to become a world-wide standard.

Now, even this far into the story we see a glaring hole. You see, what's being auctioned is simply a passkey to unlock the program that's already in the hands of the bidders. There's no way the NSA could possibly re-write the algorithm and get it into the hands of the bidders. These "super-geniuses" display astounding ignorance even to contemplate their course of action. A twelve-year-old as enough savvy to say, "OK, so you re-wrote YOUR copy. What's that got to do with the guy in Japan who downloaded it last month?" Dumb and dumber.

Back to the story: the NSA director has been using the big honkin' supercomputer to try to break into the code, with no luck, so he sends Joe College Professor (who's not a cryptographer and not an agent, but who is inconveniently dating the plucky Crypto-Geek-Babe) to Spain to retrieve a ring on which the password is engraved from Lone Genius, who's just died most inconveniently. Apparently this is high priority because if anybody knew what the password on the ring meant then they'd have an unbreakable code.

They shouldn't have bothered. The ring, which occupies our attention for all but the final chapter of the book, is a red herring. The program isn't encryption code after all, it's a computer worm, and it's intended to expose the NSA's top secret databases. Lone Genius was going to blackmail the NSA then turn it off with the passkey. If only he hadn't died. But the passkey was never on the ring. The clue to the actual passkey rests in orphaned code within the file itself, which I don't feel bad at all about revealing since Dan Brown never mentions it once until the final chapter, thus cheating you of any possibility whatsoever of solving this on your own merits. He then proceeds to misunderstand how code is 'orphaned'. It's just code that through inattention or bad editing never gets executed. Often the entry point to the routine is simply commented out during debugging. Orphaned code may be fragmentary and distributed about the program. In this case it can be retrieved in its entirety and assembled in order, on the first try. Meh, we'll let it slide because this is deliberately orphaned. Then we are treated to Joe College Professor telling them how to solve the puzzle while all the geniuses at the NSA (including his crypto-geek-babe girlfriend) scratch their butts and whistle Dixie. This yields a puzzle truly worthy of the Riddler, which you are to guess the prime difference between the elements responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, this riddle is just thrown in at the last second with none of the foreshadowing that marks a great thriller. Then you get to spend several pages shouting at the moronic imbeciles who populate this story as they spin around in circles and chase their tails until (literally) the last possible second. Meanwhile we're treated to the visual representation of Internet "sharks" circling the NSA databank just waiting for the shields to drop so they can get at all that juicy classified data (I'm not joking).

It doesn't help that the thing reads like a screenplay. Most assuredly Dan Brown had the big screen in mind when writing this turkey. It's all Hollywood, from the quick-cut bite-sized chapters to the condescending "VR" (visual representation) of the "sharks" circling to the last possible second saving of the day. We have a stalwart hero (the professor) tossed into the middle of things he doesn't understand; the beautiful girlfriend; some steretypical comic relief in the form of "Jabba", the tech guru who programs with a soldering iron (I'm still not joking); a couple of black hats; an evil minion; a chase scene... hell, we even get giant explosions. It's as if Dan Brown had watched every Bond movie ever filmed in the company of an adolescent, and made a note every time he heard the kid say, "Cool!" Then he put it all in one book. The result -- needless to say -- sucks.

There's more to complain about, but I don't think I'll bother. I read the book all the way through because I was willing to step into an alternate reality where computers worked the way Brown describes. If I knew he was going to throw away EVERY SINGLE CLUE and pull a completely different ending out of his ass... one where his main characters suddenly become blithering idiots... I would've gone outside and done something more worthwhile, like waxing the grass.

The Mouse-Cat

I read a story a great many years ago which I wanted to recommend. However, I've long ago misplaced the book in which I thought I read it. Astonishingly, I haven't been able to find any direct references to this story on the Internet!  Not just the Web, mind you, but Usenet, IRC, and those places we dare not name. Nor did it show up in a search of Google Books. This is all the more astonishing in that, if a thing exists at all I can generally find it in 5 minutes or less. Not only that, but I found the book that I thought it was in, and the story's not there!!

After much consternation, vexation, investigation and search, I found it re-printed in a Malaysian newspaper from 1983. This just very recently (as in, today) popped up in a Google News search. And now having found the story, and being unsure as to how long it will remain visible this time; I am, for the purpose of preservation and scholarly critique under Fair Use in accordance with Title 17 of the US Code, going to reproduce it here in its entirety. I do not recall the original title, so I'm going with, "The Mouse-Cat".

After the unsuccessful colonial revolt, the British colonies in the New World were organized into the United States of Canada. In time, this vast and peaceful nation grew to include the entire North American continent. One of its most famous heroes was the Cisco Kid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Strange reports were coming in from prospectors in the Yukon. A new animal had been seen, a swift, elusive beast that the miners called a mouse-cat.

What made the reports so remarkable was the news that the mouse-cat, unique among mammals, had three ears. The Cisco Kid was sent to investigate.

The Cisco Kid returned from the Yukon empty-handed. The mouse-cat had proved too shy and clever to be captured. He had, however, observed the little animals closely, and he could vouch for the fact that they had not three ears, but four!

The controversy was referred to the Science Court, and in short order they handed down a verdict in favor of bilateral symmetry. "For," said the Chief Justice, "who are we to believe, the three mouse-cat ears or the count of Mountie Cisco?"[*]

I believe the story was originally written by Isaac Asimov. If not, it was collected by him. I do not believe it would have stuck in my memory since childhood, forever associated with his name, if it had not been. And the story's status as an extended cringe-worthy pun is certainly typical of the excessively convoluted pun for which he was so well-remembered.  (UPDATE: As we now know, the story was by Rick Norwood, and did indeed appear in a collection edited by Asimov... But wait! Something interesting! The hardcover edition of this book was published in April 1984; the paperback was published in August 1985; but remember the Malaysian newspaper I linked to above? Monday, April 25th, 1983[**]. 

It is possible that I introduced some spelling errors or inaccuracies. It's also possible that the Malaysian newspaper did so. They certainly didn't feel the need to attribute this work. Feel free to leave scholarly preservationist comments below, as scholarly preservationists are wont to do. And seriously, if you know where this story first appeared... or better yet, if you have the book... please contact me.

---

[*] If you didn't recognize this as The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo, then you need to read more. Follow the links, the books are free. 
[**] According to the "100 Great..." collection, “The Abraham Lincoln Murder Case,” “Freedom,” and “Mouse-Kitty” by Rick Norwood copyright © 1982 by TZ Publications, Inc. Originally published in Twilight Zone under the group title, “Three Timely Tales.”

Are All Religions Created Equal?

This is the second of the two religious posts that I promised you in A Registry of Atheists?

This is sort of a reply to a post of nearly the same name by Jules Sherred. I say sort of a reply because I'm responding to the title alone, and am not responding so much to the content of the post, which basically boils down to a declaration of how all-inclusive her church is. I'm glad she's found a lovely group of like-minded people, but my analytical mind is obligated to point out that it cannot as inclusive as "all that".

First, if we assume that this statement, "all religions are created equally," means that they're all equally valid, or true, then the statement contains logical fallacies that make it incapable of being correct.

For one thing, many religions teach fundamentally different things. Some assert that you must accept the divinity of Christ to get into Heaven. Others say you cannot accept the very same thing, for the very same reason. Still others say there's no Heaven to get into. They simply cannot all be simultaneously correct. In fact, the only way for them all to be equal at all is for them all to be completely false. This includes, of course, the religion that asserts that all religions are created equally, for in order for it to be valid and true, this one religion must be as false as all the others, otherwise "all religions..." is incorrect.

So logically, the assertion is either just wrong, or, if correct, still wrong. It's not often you get to do that without bothering to discuss doctrine at all. A religion that asserts that all religions are false is basically atheism, so why not just save a step?

I personally would not argue to a Muslim that my religion is equal to his. It's a pointless exercise, in that he'd see through such a thing immediately and point out the very fallacy I just did. By asserting that all manner of contradictory things are equal is to remove any meaning whatsoever from the concept of religion. Between you and me, I think it would be more than a little cruel to do that to someone else, and I'm not willing to do it to myself.

But I am willing to do this: I assert that I have a strong conviction that my religious beliefs are correct. However, I don't know this to be factually true. Even if I thought I knew it to be factually true, I recognize that God so highly prizes Free Will that He refuses to show himself. To do so would be proof, which negates Faith, and biases our choices. I respect that your unbiased choice is important to God, and therefore I respect your right to have whatever Faith you will... even where that Faith is at odds with mine; even where that Faith is in no god at all. I am more than just willing to do this... I'm obligated to.

In return, I demand the same consideration, even if you don't agree with my faith-based reasons. There are secular reasons that are equally compelling.  The Golden Rule ("And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." -- Luke 6:31) isn't just some superstitious religious admonition... it is the primary basis for any just and fair social contract. An atheist's attempt to silence prayer is no more "right" ... i.e., socially valid... than the forced conversions of the Inquisition. Make no mistake: The zealot who forces you to engage in his practices is a tyrant. The atheist who feigns "offense" to force you to stop your practices is likewise a tyrant. Both use excuses to force their will on others, and some even believe the outrageous lie that they do so for the good of Humanity.

Ignore them both. If you want to worship, go ahead; but don't insist that others join you. If you don't want to worship, don't; but don't insist that others stop.

This is called tolerance.

A Registry of Atheists?

I'm about to post about religion twice in a row. I promise I'll try to make them short. I'll try to make them interesting. I'll try to make you think. If you think you already think, I'm going to try to make you think harder about what you thought you thought about. (UPDATE: The second post is here.)

First up, pastor Mike Stahl recently posted that he thought a registry of atheists would be a good idea. It would be similar to the sort of registration that is imposed on sex offenders. That's his comparison, by the way... not mine. In fact, he couldn't see why anyone would be opposed to such an idea. I'll link you to this blog post by P.Z. Myers, because Meyers thought to quote it in detail. Stahl, on the other hand, locked down his blog's comments almost immediately (here's me, being unsurprised), and locked down the entire blog shortly thereafter, as you can see for yourself (UPDATE 2011-09-24: If you follow the link now you'll see that the website is open, with a couple of interesting things to note. First, the 'Registry of Atheists' post has been completely removed. While that's an improvement, actually addressing the issue instead of pretending it never happened would have been even better. Second, there's text on the sidebar: "BWAAHHHH!! DOES THIS BLOG "OFFEND"? TOUGH!!! THEN LEAVE, HEATHEN!"  Hmmm.  Jesus did not confine his preaching to the already converted and was pretty vocal about loving his enemies. Also, I can't help but notice that this is a hefty chunk of bravado from a man who denies his mistakes instead of teaching from them. I find myself wondering exactly what Pastor Mike thinks he's there for. Under other circumstances I might not care, but here I feel obligated to point out that this man has represented Christ falsely, and it neither began nor ended with this PR disaster.) Between the time he locked down the comments and withdrew the blog, I gathered his email address from his profile page and sent him this letter, to which he has not responded.

Mike,

I'm writing this in email because it wasn't possible to do so on your
blog, even after subscribing. Apparently, the comments are locked down. Unfortunate for a blog that literally invites free discussion.

It bothers me that you think so little of your own right to practice the
religion of your choice that you would persecute others for
exercising their religious freedoms, including the right to have no
religion at all. After all, if you can do that to them, it's only fair
that the same be done to you. Let's finish the thought and espouse a
national registry where everyone must declare declare his religious
persuasion. Give everyone a number so there's no ambiguity about that
list. Or perhaps, you should refer back to a volume of our own
religion's scripture (namely the Revelation of St John) to see what
Christian doctrine is on such a subject.

Of course I am opposed to such a disastrously ill-conceived idea. I hope
from the previous paragraph that you, as well, can now see why anyone, even the most devout Christian, should oppose it. If it isn't clear yet, let me say that you have proved to me today that all it takes is a
momentary lack of thought to pave the way for the Antichrist, and you
don't have to be hateful to do it.

Even God himself respects an atheist's right to be wrong. So lead by
example and persuasion, not coercion. I do hope you pray about his, see
the obvious folly of it, and retract the idea publicly.

Peace to you,

Dave Leigh

Well, I can't exactly say that what Stahl has done counts as "retracting the idea". That would, of course, require him to say it's wrong. Rather, following Brave Sir Robin's lead, he has bravely run away. (The second post is here.)