I'm very excited.  Just had a brainstorm for another TSA-based business.  I'm going to print life size cardboard cutouts of this (I got the image here):

Then I'm going to get kiosk space in the major airports and charge travelers a buck each to grope it.  For $5 I'll make an instant portrait of you groping Pistole.  This is going to be great.  

The last couple of days have gotten me as focused on the TSA as it wants to be on my groin.  I'm not exactly sure what it is about this particular X-ray machine and this particular groping protocol that got my attention so locked in, but I've been sort of, well, rigidly focused.  I mean Lord knows that in this Patriot Act era of city police rocking black tactical gear everywhere, of perpetual war with Eastasia, and the big tilt in power toward the executive branch there's been plenty of stuff to get fired up about if I had been so inclined, but this time something in me just went pop. To be clear, it wasn't a full on Michael Douglas in Falling Down "Watchout mofo's I just SNAPPED!" moment, but I seem to have found my line.

This being a modern democracy and all (i.e. a Lobbyist Republic) there isn't a whole hell of a lot I can do about any of this of course.  I mean, I can tweet about it full of Sturm and Drang, tweet some laughs instead (funny always plays better than douchy), send a note to my airline telling them I'll never fly again, or hang out with my likeminded and equally grumpy peeps at wewontfly.com.  I can even try to find one of my representatives in Congress that isn't on Rapiscan or L3's payroll.  What I can't do is actually stop flying, because of course I need to fly for my job.  Given my less specialized and more expendable talents, I'm quite certain I'll be fired if I get all John Madden and demand a personalized tour bus.  

So, call it hyperbole if you want, but I see only crummy choices.  "Dear Winston, please select between unwanted irradiation accompanied by some TSA dude mentally comparing his crank to yours (and ultimately feeling superior).  The even less pleasant blindly arranged speed date that gets to third base in the 15th second.  Or, you can get fired on your way to becoming some kind of tragically less committed Ted Kaczynski figure living in a tent under an I-95 overpass Wi-Jacking the occasional sniff of grid from a passing Bolt bus." Thankfully only two of the choices come with increased risk of melanoma.

Anyway, given that I've already tweeted the heck out of this, why am I still hanging around the topic?  I mean, sometimes I think "If I write another pointless paragraph, the terrorists will have won."  And with that one, they have.

Well, do you want the truth?  Ok, the sad fact is that Jeff Jarvis called me a whiner today and that really hurt.  So, this is my response of sorts.  Ok, you're right, he didn't single me out. After all, he would have to know who I was to do that and I seriously doubt he remembers me from that time he was on a panel with dana boyd at SuperNova and I brushed past him to ask her a question. Nonetheless, he did categorically lump me in with a whole group of whiners.  And the truth? Nope, it didn't hurt either.  I mean, honestly, he seems like a pretty nice guy and I'm sure he didn't even mean it in a particularly mean way, so, nah, it didn't actually hurt.  But still, "whiner?"

Let's explore that for a moment.  Was Patrick Henry a whiner? Was Georg von Trapp a whiner? Were Wikus and Christopher whiners? Well yes, according to the royal loyalists, nazi anschlussers, and Multinational United.  Yeah, think about it.  The whiners are always the ones fighting for freedom.

More hyperbole you say?  Well, we are a country of freedom fighting revolutionaries and freedom seeking immigrants who, with the happy accident of 1787 managed to systematize our freedoms.  So, while complaining about a friendly and well-intentioned grope might not be in the same league with Patrick Henry, I'm at least on the same side of the issue.  When the TSA, in an orgy of enhanced pat downs, puts on its latex gloves and tells us to grab our ankles does anyone believe that "enhanced" means "more free?"  Jeff and that dude from the LA Times that told us to "shut up and get scanned" aren't fascists, but it is pretty clear they are closer to being collaborators than freedom fighters.  Just saying.

Ok, let's be real for a moment.  I hope it was obvious I was being satirical back there.

Rational people may come down on either side of this issue. There are many people I respect who think that these are reasonable procedures given the threat.  Frankly, the 1992 version of me would have been one of those people.  I was still a young naval officer then, and perhaps intimidated by my responsibilities, my authoritarian streak ran deeper and wider in compensation.  After 15+ years of post-military professional life where most attempts at the imperative were generally ignored, I suppose I've come around to a world view more rooted in consensus.  

In any case Jeff Jarvis is obviously much more comfortable with living publicly than some of us, and he has been open about his post-911 concerns.  So, it is perhaps natural that he would take the position he takes.  I disagree with him but I'm of the opinion it will require some more future to convert to history before either of us will have occasion to be smug in our righteousness.  

Being a country descended from freedom fighters and seekers I think the TSA is out of step with our classic American values.  But you know, maybe those values are just obsolete and the TSA and you other 85% of America are the ones that get it. Perhaps in a globalized decentralized assymetrically-organized socially-graphed world my 1970's social studies "Give me freedom or give me death!" notions of the American way are just hopelessly out of date. Hey, you know, stuff changes.

I'll think about that.  Maybe I'll come around.  On the other hand, history is rife with examples of the majority being wrong (I'm thinking Anchluss again, and a segregated military, and woman's suffrage, ...).  So I'm comfortable being in the minority if I understand the principles I'm basing my point of view in.  

The problem is that so much of my normal life requires me to waive my 4th Amendment rights. Enter the DC Metro, fly on a plane, NYC Subway, sporting events, go to the office to work, serve on a jury, ...  I figured the other day that I probably waived the 4th over 500 times last year, usually without it even being an explicit choice.  Happily I am still covered by the 4th amendment when in my bed at home, but only when the covers are pulled over my head.

So, Jeff, I don't think you are a fool and undeserving of your freedoms, even as you rush to throw them away in the name of some future you think you are the only one that fully understands.  Perhaps, for you, rushing headlong into that future is a way of validating your futurist ideals.  In any case, I know you are basing your beliefs in a different set of experiences and perhaps an even more evolved set of values than mine.  And while you may feel that I, and the others arguing against invasive inspections, are "just whining" and that talk of irradiation and sexual assault is just so much hyperbole, please consider for a moment that my values may be as closely and legitimately held as yours.

I'm not whining.  I simply believe certain principles to be inviolate and I will tell you plainly that, given the choice, I will accept greater risk in air travel before I will choose to have my freedom incrementally eroded and my government equipped with increasingly coercive powers.  Although, frankly now that every terrorist in the world knows that he or she can defeat this machine by just shoving whatever it is they want to carry up their asses, I don't see how turning this program off would subject me to any additional risk. You want to secure airports today?  Look for people in the security line evidencing severe bowel discomfort.

By the way, does anyone else think it is pretty funny how this isn't a left / right thing?  We're orienting on this around an authoritarian / whatever-the-opposite-of-authoritarian-is divide.  As a result we sure have some strange bedfellows. I was stunned to find myself agreeing with Rand Paul today.  Weird.

You know, we all need to just relax.  Today I let myself get all "outraged American" over this TSA strip scanner flap when it dawned on me "dude, mad is no way to live and besides, you have 29 leftover vicodin from your knee surgery." Then I thought, "you know, the only thing more American than getting mad, is getting rich."  So, I came up with this idea.

But before I get to that, let me digress for just a moment.  When you were in middle school did you hate that moment after phys ed, when you headed to the showers and you realized being part Irish had certain unflattering physical manifestations?  I mean, I got over it, but the first time I heard about these strip scanners I thought, aw crap, gotta go through that whole thing again but this time it will be TSA agents laughing at me.  Man that sucks.

So, I got all pissed, sent a letter to US Air suggesting they should yell at the government (money tends to yell louder after all), cancelled a trip to Chicago that I have to take, and generally got all bent out of shape.  I hate when a sense of impending corporatist authoritarian fascist doom makes me do that.  I'm trying to do more "be the change you want in the world" thing, I really am.  But sometimes the change I want at that exact moment is a punch in someone else's nose.  Then it passes...

So, anyway, back to getting rich.  In a few weeks time I'm going to launch my new business at tsasecretmessages.com.  For $20 each you will be able to order laser cut aluminized stick on letters that you can stick on your body as a special backscatter X-ray message to the TSA!  They won't be visible to anyone around you in line, but you'll smile knowing that the TSA scanner operator sure will see them.  I am still dreaming up messages, and of course I'll also be selling random mixes of letters too so that you can make up your own messages, but here is what I've got so far.  What do you think?

Or...

I think this one is kinda nice.  It says, I'm not mad, I'm just having fun with it.

Gotta appreciate a Dr. Evil reference right?

I'm sure the TSA appreciates hipster designer tramp stamp irony right?

Ok, if after all that you are still freaked out about all this, well, for you I've designed a special pair of aluminum mylar boxer shorts.

There, problem solved!  I'm happy again.

Update (11/19): I can't believe this thing has been read almost 7500 times already.  If you think it's funny, go to twitter and search #TSASecretMessages to see the ideas other people are coming up with, or post your own.  By the way, I'm not 100% certain, but I think scotch tape would adequately alter x-ray reflectivity on your skin to be visible. No need to buy my non-existent satirical product, just use tape to write a message across your body and have fun. I'm going to. In fact, I reserved my flight today.

Hi, I'm a US Air gold preferred member, but I'm afraid I won't be for much longer. This is going to cause me tremendous inconvenience but until the TSA realizes that American citizens deserve better than a choice between being irradiated/strip searched or groped I will take every measure possible to avoid flying.  I am canceling my west coast trips and switching to train / car for everything else.

This afternoon @cdorobek and @dan_munz had a friendly argument on twitter about the structure of our constitution.  Dan suggested that we should move to a parliamentarian system because our current system permits a tiny bit of our population, represented in the Senate, to obstruct the rest.  Chris responded with "if it ain't broke..."

I should have just followed the two minute rule and watched from the sidelines but I butted in.  Sorry guys.  But since I did, I figure at least I can explain what I was trying to say in those claustrophobic 140 character chunks.  

I wasn't really trying to weigh in on the Parliament argument, I was mostly reacting to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" message.  While I've used that argument myself, in the same context, I've come to believe that it is a thoroughly flawed position. First off because I think it is broken, in fundamental ways.  Our Gerrymandered mess of an election system has pushed us into the political equivalent of a high speed tank slapper.  In the context of wildly oscillating majority positions, I agree with Chris that structural obstructionism has a certain charm.  But terminal obstructionism where the teams just trade playing defense is doing nothing to help us deal with the economy, climate change, health care, foreign wars, and other issues.  

Chris makes the point that we aren't dealing with those issues because we don't agree.  I don't see that as an answer, I see that as more evidence of the problem, and they aren't really equivalent problems.  Health care, like any redistributive issue, is a question for the people to decide.  I don't fall into the camp of believing there is an absolute right or wrong in an issue like this, but I do think there are strong arguments (even strongly capitalist arguments) for why a health care program makes sense.  However, assuming there could be some kind of empirically proven optimum position for the population to take, there is no guarantee they will take it, or implement it.  Fine.

However, something like climate change is completely different.  It's issues like this that make a Republic make sense.  If the overwhelming rationally derived empirical evidence says that our climate is heating, then we need a government that will take steps to prepare for that eventuality.  And it would be nice if those steps had some rational basis.  This isn't like racism where we can wait a few generations for people that won't change their minds to just die off.  I don't have much optimism on this issue. We didn't stop killing whales for oil until we discovered petroleum after all.  

So look at what is actually happening.  People being people 1) don't want to believe unpleasant facts and 2) have trouble separating their beliefs from their self interest.  So, combine that with the Supreme Court's recent supremely stupid Citizens United decision and we have exactly what our founding fathers would have worried about playing out in front of our eyes - monied factions led by people like Koch using concentrated wealth to concentrate power by mass manipulation.  It's true we don't agree on this issue, but it is very important to look at why.  This is not the constitution working, this is the constitution being broken. Or, put another way, if the constitution works by turning rational questions into ideological battles that are intertwined with factional interests, then it just isn't working.

The second reason I don't like that argument is that it's a conversation stopper.  It basically says "it works, so there is nothing left to say."  That, and it is dangerously close to the kind of Constitutional literalism that I deplore.  Read Plain, Honest Men (and the original constitution with all of its slavery and anti-democratic provisions) and tell me those guys weren't agreeing on a work in progress.  We should think hard about any structural change we make to our system of government, but we shouldn't just stop thinking because a bunch of long dead guys, who lived with no empirical experience with democracy whatsoever, conducted an experiment that is rife with compromise.

If we do want to invoke the founders, let's remember why they were there in Philadelphia.  First and foremost it was the complete inability of the Congress of Confederation to govern.  Small states were consistently able to foil every effort to pay the country's war debts, or pretty much any other governance.  If Madison were alive today I think he would watch our Senate at work with a strong sense of Deja Vu and he'd be calling the delegates back to Philadelphia.

The most difficult thing to adjust to, apparently, is peace and contentment. As long as there is something to fight, people seem able to brave all manner of hardships. Remove the element of struggle, and they are like fish out of water. Those who no longer have anything to worry about will, in desperation, often take on the burdens of the world. This is not through idealism but because they must have something to do, or at least something to talk about. Were these empty souls truly concerned about the plight of their fellow-men they would consume themselves in the flames of devotion. One need hardly go beyond his own doorstep to discover a realm large enough to exhaust the energies of a giant, or better, a saint.

Henry Miller, Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch

I recently received the following letter from Exelon.  

I was so disappointed by the continued incursion of corporate interests into what should be a reasoned public policy debate that I emailed Exelon's head of investor relations and cc'd my representative in Congress. I'm sharing it here because I think this conversation should be public and I'm upset at this kind corporate politicking in my name, the kind that tries to narrow my interests from being an American to being a singly focused economic entity.  

This is our exchange:

1)

Ms. Frank,

I'm an Exelon investor and recently received a letter encouraging me to read your talking points on taxing dividend to my congressional representatives.  I just wanted to let you know that I find your use of investor rolls for the purposes of political action campaigning to be unsavory at best.  It has made me think much less of your company.

I am skeptical that your management's sudden concern for "a benefit  that has put money in the pockets of millions of families" isn't at least partially linked to the fact they also hold a large number of Exelon shares.  The fact that the letter points out that "maximum tax rate on qualified dividends could increase to as high as 39.6 percent for some taxpayers - surging 164 percent above current levels" gives an additional clue as to where their real concern rests.  The everyday seniors referenced in the talking points aren't in that tax bracket.  You're talking points don't lie, but they seem to be a very carefully constructed framing of the truth of the matter.

Naturally, I'm not eager to pay more taxes, but I can think of no rational argument against taxing dividends as ordinary income.  Since your letter is a strictly emotional appeal, I can only assume Exelon doesn't have an argument either.  This strikes me as a cynical attempt by Exelon management to use an emotional appeal to its shareholders to further its own interests.  If I am being overly skeptical and their some other reason that I'm missing why this is an important issue for John Rowe I am interested in hearing about it.

Thanks,

Jim Stogdill
 
cc: Congressman Joe Sestak

2) 

Dear My. Stogdill:

Thank you for your note concerning Exelon's efforts to keep the tax rate
on dividend income at a reduced level.  

Exelon rarely reaches out to shareholders on public policy issues
affecting the company, but there are certain issues that have such a
direct effect on the company and our shareholders that we feel compelled
to make you aware of them and encourage you to weigh in with your
elected officials.

The dividend issue is important to the company and our shareholders on
two levels: first, in protecting the value of your investment, and
second, in retaining the ability of the company to raise additional
capital.

The lower tax rate on dividends has made Exelon stock (and that of all
dividend-paying companies) more attractive in the market place.
Independent estimates attributed about a 10 percent increase in the
price of dividend-paying stocks after enactment of the lower tax rate.
Much of that value has been eroded in the last year as investors have
begun to assume that the dividend tax relief may not be extended.  The
more direct impact, of course, is that the value of your dividend income
is eroded by the higher tax rate.

Maintaining a lower tax rate on dividend income is also important as
Exelon and other companies compete for capital.  A higher stock price
tends to lower a company's cost of equity capital (the raising of
capital through issuing common stock) and helps the company maintain a
stronger financial condition. A financially healthy company is also
likely to get more favorable terms when borrowing money.  Under current
law, the tax rate on capital gains will increase from 15 percent to 20
percent, while the tax rate on dividend income will increase from a high
of 15 percent to as much as 39.6 percent.  This disparity is likely to
make the stock of dividend-paying companies less attractive than that of
companies that focus on increasing their stock price rather than
providing a balance of price growth and dividends.

I hope you find this information to be helpful.  For additional
information, please go to www.exelonaction.com or
www.defendmydividend.com.  

Thank you again for your feedback.  Please let me know if I can be of
any additional assistance.

Sincerely,
Stacie Frank
VP, Investor Relations

3) 

Ms. Frank,

I appreciate your response, but I'm sorry, it makes me feel even worse about the way your corporation seems to be putting narrow self interest first.  Nowhere in your email do you even attempt to argue for continued lower dividend tax rates on a broad and fundamental policy level.  Your entire view of the question of whether dividends should be taxed as ordinary income is through the lens of whether it is good for Exelon - which is to say a mature corporation whose rewards to shareholders are heavily skewed toward divided distributions.  I can't help but see this is an attempt to manipulate broad public policy to make it easier for a mature industry to compete for capital with others that have higher growth potential (and are less likely to pay dividends).  And while I'm an investor in Exelon, I'm not an Exelonian, I'm an American. As an American it seems to me that we should be arguing for or against public policy through a national frame, not one of narrow self interest.  

I'm only a small shareholder and I'm sure I'm not representative of the feedback you get from your large shareholders, but I will be removing Exelon from my portfolio at the first convenient opportunity.

I'm going to cc my congressman again because I'm hoping that his vote on this question will be based on broad public interest rather than the interests of a narrow faction of mature dividend paying corporations.  

Thanks,

Jim Stogdill

Madison, in Federalist number 10, writing under the name Publius, was had an amazingly clear view of the future.

---

...

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by Fox News incites (sic), first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

...

---

I changed my mind where I wanted to post this.  I moved it to here: http://jimstogdill.vox.com/library/post/evil.html

I thought Tim's post on the subject was great and I commented on Twitter that I disagreed with Matthew's take.  I just wanted to comment a bit more fully than 140 characters would allow.

The main thing I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of citizens individually or collectively acting against a sovereign state.  It seems obvious that we wouldn't hop on an airplane and sneak into Iran with an AK, but yet we'll participate in a DDoS attack.  Is it nothing more than our perception that we can do it without consequences that makes one seem different than the other?  I mean, if we believe that democracy in Iran is a goal worth fighting for (and justifies the use of language like "enemy"), then let's do it 1930's Espana style, form an International Brigade, and head for Tehran.  A consequent-less DDoS attack strikes me as more of a lark than a movement, and because it is without consequences we are likely to enter into such an action without fully thinking things through.  We would not join an International Brigade, learn how to shoot an AK, and get on an airplane without a lot of thought about what we were getting involved in.  Lack of (perceived) consequences and twitter's photomultiplier tube effect can combine to create a cascade of action that is way out ahead of measured consideration.

Yesterday as I watched events unfold I found myself becoming less sure of the situation the more I learned.  I mean, I certainly believe that the regime in Tehran is repressive, but:

- I don't think I'm in a position to know who won the election.  I just don't think the facts, from where I sit, are clear.

- The one thing that is absolutely clear to me about Iranian politics is that I don't understand them.  Forget the nuance, I don't think I understand the broad strokes.

- While a "moderate" choice in Iran is better to me than a hardliner, I'm doubtful that if I were to share a cup of tea with Mr. Mousavi I would find in him someone who shares my worldview or even my definition of "moderate."  More specifically, I don't think he would make much difference in one issue that is of critical importance to me regarding the Iranian government, its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  I doubt he would even control the issue.

- And perhaps most important, it's clear that the hard liners in Iran use paranoia as a weapon.  Our meddling in their affairs in a direct way strikes me as a way to get us an exact opposite result of what we want.  George Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech had an effect exactly opposite of his intent because he didn't understand its impact in the cultural/political context of Iran.  We run the risk of repeating his mistake.

- Also, if during our election in November, McCain or Obama's campaign web sites were being DDoS'd from Iran, I would have been seriously pissed off.

What I do think is that the outpouring of moral support for those in Iran pushing for democracy and the expression of solidarity is an important thing, and in this I think a personal human touch via twitter or whatever is much more effective than the abstractions and instruments of our Republic.  I wish I could find it, but yesterday I saw a tweet from someone in Iran that said something like "I thought all Americans hated us Iranians. Your support has shown me otherwise." 

(edited for grammatical errors 9:18am June 17)