*DOING* Something. Government Need Not Apply.

In light of the most recent mass shootings in the United States (El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio) I posted on social media a lament that these shootings will pass without anyone really doing anything to prevent future incidents.

I had a good conversation with a Facebook friend about gun control, which most equate with “doing something” in these instances.

But then I got to thinking: Gun control might possibly “solve” a portion of the problem, but as people who want guns can still very likely get them illegally or legally, gun control, to me, seems like putting a concrete cap on a volcano as it’s in the act of erupting.

Let’s look at a CNN story on the Dayton, Ohio, shooting as an example.

The story says the gunman “took a deep interest in violence.”

He kept a “hit list” of people he wanted to kill or rape, including the names of “female students who . . . turned him down for dates.”

He was a member of a “pornogrind” band that sang “extremely graphic, violent lyrics.”

Authorities searching his home “found writings that expressed an interest in killing people.”

His Twitter feed was littered with “extreme left-wing and anti-police posts, as well as tweets supporting Antifa,” including one retweet that read “Millennials have a message for the Joe Biden generation: hurry up and die.”

The gunman “often simulated shooting other students and threatened to kill himself and others on several occasions.”

He also enjoyed guns, shooting guns, and teaching others to shoot.

It’s important that this last statement not be taken in a vacuum.

I have family members, friends, and neighbors who enjoy guns, shooting guns, and teaching others to shoot. What they don’t have in common with this particular gunman – and with a lot of similar mass shooters – is that long list of other negative behavior, warnings, cries for help, whatever you choose to call them. I just came back from a week at Island Park Scout Camp, where Scouts can learn to shoot .22 rifles and are taught by people who enjoy guns, shooting guns, and teaching others to shoot.

Do I think that people should have access to high-caliber rifles and ammunition drums capable of letting them shoot 41 bullets in less than 30 seconds? Signs point to no, if I were to use a Magic 8 Ball. But I can’[t compute the fact that every person who enjoys guns, shooting guns, and teaching others to shoot is going to take such weaponry and turn them on family or the general populace.

The other indicators just aren’t in place.

It’s hard to pour concrete on a volcano that’s blowing up. Or does little to stop a volcano that’s about to blow.

Who saw these indicators in this poor soul’s life and did nothing, or laughed them off as harmless? O figured it wasn’t their business, or that singing pornographic and violent lyrics is just a game, just who he is, or protected speech?  Who lets a friend keep ongoing “hit lists,” when that person knows that friend also enjoyed simulated killings of others, or had harbored suicidal thoughts? Who laughed at Walmart when they said they’d take down displays promoting violent video games, but allow gun sales to continue? (No mention whether they’ll still sell the violent video games, a band-aid being a band-aid.)

Hell, I don’t like it if my kids are playing Minecraft and are killing each other in that little world. They brought something more violent into the house, I’d probably pop a blood vessel.

I don’t know if this guy was getting the mental health care he needed. Maybe he was getting it in spades. But I have to conclude, given the current evidence, that little was being done, that these thoughts and actions were a deep subset of who this young man is, and that all along the line while there may have been people caring and concerned for him, there were also many who look at what he did and did nothing.

That’s the kind of “doing something” I’d like to advocate. Help the hurting before he becomes harmful.

And maybe this is a stupid argument.

But we panic when nations suddenly reveal they are nuclear powers but do little or only lip service when those same nations are showing signs of developing nuclear weapons technology. It’s hypocritical to act surprised when they’ve suddenly got The Bomb.



I hope I’m wrong about this guy. Maybe gun control would have lessened the toll. Or maybe not. Maybe he needed a lot more love and care and attention before he decided to pick up something that far many more use as a harmless hobby and say, “Today, I use this to kill people.”

So what am I doing?

I’m watching my own sons. I’m involved in Scouting, where we work to instill values of friendship, honesty, and virtue, no matter how much the world may snigger or point out that I’m “in cahoots” with an organization that is being nearly litigated to death over allegations of sexual abuse. I’m involved in my church, in a nation where the church of which I’m a member is still regarded as a cult, or too controlling, or misogynistic, or out of touch, led by old men, teaching outdated dogma preached by a charlatan and a neat little Hebrew guy who may not even exist. I’m trying to pay attention to what my kids are doing and saying online, who their friends are, so I can be that jerk of a parent to pull the plug on behaviors or friendships that may be leading my own onto dark paths.

I’m being an asshole, matter of fact, in beating back the worldly influences that would get my kids, my neighbors’ kids, into those other habits and indicators that show up on the Dayton killer’s list. I’m the narc who watches the Scout trailers stored at the church, ready to call the cops when I see kids hanging out there, dealing in drugs.

I’m the meanie calling out my sons when they’re caught looking at naughty pictures on the Internet. The jerk reminding our daughter that boyfriends are great, but not perfect.

I hope the Dayton shooter has such influences in his life. I’m sure they’re hurting now. But all indicators are he sure could have used a hell of  lot more controlling, fusspotting assholes in his life than what he got.

Maybe Mos Eisley Isn’t all that Bad

Mos Eisley the spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Social media is often described as Mos Eisley from Star Wars, and rightfully so. There we find all of the world’s bad actors, trolls, button-pushers, traders in falsehood for cash, and other idiots and ne’er-do-wells who range on the scale of evil from bumbling to absolute.

But you can bet your boots if things got “so bad” in this country that the government took steps to shut social media down, folks would not react well.

Though the thinkers, or at least some of them, seem to think it’s a good idea.

Yudhanjaya Wijeratne, writing at Slate.com, speaks of the government-sanctioned “shutdown” of social media in Sri Lanka following Easter Sunday attacks on Christians by purported Muslim extremists, and how cries of “Good” over the shutdown demonstrate Western ignorance of how things actually work outside of liberal democracies.

Wijeratne writes:

In the West, many praised the most recent social media block. Kara Swisher wrote in the New York Times, “When the Sri Lankan government temporarily shut down access to American social media services like Facebook and Google’s YouTube after the bombings there on Easter morning, my first thought was ‘good.’ … because it could save lives … because the companies that run these platforms seem incapable of controlling the powerful global tools they have built … so many false reports about the carnage were already circulating online that the Sri Lankan government worried more violence would follow.” Swisher acknowledges at the end of her column that “shutting social media down in times of crisis isn’t going to work.” But she seems unaware of the actual source of the problem here. 

The Sri Lankan government has tried all this before. It shut down social networks in March 2018, in response to riots targeting Muslims. In the events leading up to those attacks, the government didn’t do anything about the anti-Muslim hate speech peddled on social media by the far-right Buddhist organization Bodu Bala Sena and its affiliates; they’re monks, after all. This negligence is precisely what caused organized mob violence in the first plane. The government let hate speech run its course, then took the rug out from everyone—even, for some bizarre reason, blocking my own author website (my political blog was left intact)—and then blamed the scapegoat of the day, Facebook. Media attention was focused at the time on the role of Facebook in violence in Myanmar, and Western journalists lap this stuff up.

So we should count our blessings that our national media, though at times error-prone, isn't in thrall to the state.

Yet.

And we should take heart that our government, despite its many shortcomings, is not outright incompetent.

Yet.

So in the meantime, maybe we ought to put up with the shortcomings of our social media. It may spy on us. It may sell our information. It may make money off the crap we post. But at least the government isn't shutting it down and we're not forced to go to the bad actors of the internet for our news. Or our "news."

Yet.

Section 215 to Room 101

Chances are, someone at the NSA read this blog post before I even published it.

That’s not hyperbole. Because I sent it to my personal Yahoo! email account, it’s quite likely it got routed overseas before it hit my inbox at home. And since I have a poor record of cleaning my email out at home, even if it didn’t go overseas when it got sent, Yahoo! has the right and the means to send it overseas to be stored until such time that I delete it. And even then . . .

Yes, I work as a government subcontractor. In documents. But I have never come across anything worth sharing -- aside from the desire, before this project closes out, to insert the phrase “monkey nostrils” into a significant portion of one of our working documents.

But what the National Security Agency and associated agencies and programs can do – with full sanction by our own government – is a bit scary. Even if I have nothing to be scared about.

If you have not watched John Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden, you should. Even if you don’t approve of salty language.

OLIVER: Would a good takeaway from this be, ‘Until such time as we’ve sorted all this out, don’t take pictures of your d***. Just don’t do it any more’?

SNOWDEN: No, if we do that, if we. . .  You shouldn’t change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because we’re afraid, we don’t care about those values very much.

What is our greatest fear? To read even a summary of Section215 of the Patriot Act, it’s clear the fear isn’t clear at all.

But with the help of Oliver and Snowden, it’s clear the fear isn’t in Section 215, but in Room 101.

“You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world,” the sinister O’Brien tells the dupe Winston Smith in George Orwell’s novel 1984 (and this is in contrast to my theory that we’re descending not into 1984, but Brave New World – though Oliver’s report certainly has a certain BNW vibe to it as well). We’re witnessing Room 104 as the government uses the Patriot Act to overreach.

So what do we do? Oliver is a little scant on the details. Contact our congressmen, I suppose.

Uh-huh.

And uh-huh.

I’ve emailed Simpson, as he tends to be the more rational of the two. I merely asked him what his intentions are on renewing the act on June 1, 2015. We’ll see what kind of response I get.

The Truth About Obamacare

A while back, tubby documentarian Michael Moore said Barack Obama was destined to go down in history remembered as being the “first black president,” of the United States, with little else to his credit.

While my faith in Obama has seriously waned since 2008, I think Moore’s estimation is a little harsh, because I’m fairly certain the president will be remembered for his namesake health care reform, rather than the color of his skin.

I don’t pretend to know everything about health care policy, politics, or even the Great Pumpkin. But I do know that on the surface of things, Obamacare has helped my family out quite a bit.

First of all, our health care insurance premiums were $200 a month lower this year – thanks in part to the Obamacare provision widening the pool of insurers from which my company could offer policies. I was able to get into a very large insurance pool offered to a wide variety of federal employees, and that helped our monthly bottom line.

Then this June our son spent a day in the hospital with double pneumonia. We just got our explanation of benefits from our insurer this week (yes, the wheels of bureaucracy still function slowly) and discovered that out of $5,200 worth(!) of treatment (which, as I recall, boiled down to what our son considered to be an unhealthy interest in his urinal output) we’ll only have to pay $676. When I saw that amount I felt like one of Bob Parr's InsuriCare customers.

Again, I have no idea if it’s Obamacare that helped us out like this. We had good chance with previous insurers not to have a claim this big (though it’s a testament to our horrendously expensive healthcare system that I’d think a 24-hour stay in the hospital is a big claim). Maybe our previous insurers would have covered us just as adequately.

I’d rather not find out. Just glad to know we’re not spending more than $1,500 out of pocket on this escapade.

Take Photos in the Wilderness? Better Read This

And by “read this,” I mean this article, not necessarily this blog post, because the article gets you to the place you can grumble about what’s going on and possibly have people listen.

Here’s the deal: The U.S. Forest Service is seeking to make permanent some temporary rules put in place a few years back to require news organizations to acquire permits to the tune of $1,500 a pop in order to film or take photos in any designated wilderness area. Due to misinterpretation of the rule, Idaho Public Television reported they were required to get a permit to talk to a forest service biologist in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest – clearly not a designated wilderness area.

Why is this such a big deal?

It’s restricting press freedom, for one.

And it could potentially restrict any random person’s freedom to take photos on federal land, if the rules are interpreted too loosely.

Write a blog and post your photos? You could be considered a news agency, even if no one reads you. Because you might make money with those photos somehow – and that qualifies as commercial use, not the non-commercial use protected by other federal laws. Take photos in the wilderness and then sell copies of the photo? Oh, you’d better believe that’s a paddlin’.

But the burden of proof appears to lie with forest service officials. If legitimate news organizations are running afoul of the proposed laws, they won’t likely blink at prohibiting any random yahoo from taking photos if they’re photographing something that might not be in the forest service’s best interest. And as Roger Phillips, writing at the Idaho Statesman says, the line between amateur and professional is pretty easy to blur these days. Zealous Forest Service folks might err on the side of caution, on the side of shutting down even an amateur photographer.

Problem is, wording in the proposed rules are very vague. Read them yourself.

The Airing of Grievances . . . to the Idaho Falls Public Library

My wife thought she was doing something nice.

Something helpful.

Something honest.

Turns out what she did was a mistake.

Through a combination of negligence, our three children left our puppy alone for a few minutes with a book borrowed from the Idaho Falls Public Library. So my wife took to the Internet and found a copy of the book she figured she could take to the library and offer as a replacement.

She made the kids pay for the book, which totaled $8, including shipping.We returned a pile of books to the library Friday. My wife explained to the librarian what happened to the book, then presented her with the replacement book, identical in every detail except for the protective film and barcode the library puts on its books.

“Oh, you can’t do that,” the librarian said. “We have to charge you for the book.”

And full retail price. $14.99. Plus a $5 administrative fee.

That’s library policy. Inviolate. Because what if someone else brought in a book to replace one that was damaged that wasn’t as good as it should have been? They’d have to argue over every book. It’s just simpler to have this policy.

Simpler, maybe.

But easy to file in the big manila folder of bureaucratic nonsensicalism? Absolutely.

Here’s what galls me: My wife found the book – identical to the one the dog chewed on – for $8, including shipping. But the library had to have $14.99 to buy it from its distributor. At almost twice the price of the book my wife had in hand, ready to give the library. So when the library asks for monetary donations or a tax increase to help bring more books into the community, the tale of refusing a book in the hand while insisting on ordering one at nearly twice the cost of the one being offered will always come to the fore now. Always.

Reality for the library may be that the policy makes for less work for librarians, But what’s more important is the perception of reality: The Idaho Falls Public Library refused a good-faith effort by a patron to replace a book damaged by her own childrens’ negligence.

They did waive the $5 administrative fee. Theoretically. The receipt we got shows a “balance owed” of $5; when we called the library to ask about it, we were told the library administrator would have to approve it. We’re not holding our breath.

We were not defrauding the library. We were not offering an inferior copy of the book. We were trying to correct a mistake.

I was in the library a few weeks earlier (oh, we’re big-time library users, up until now) and heard a librarian make several calls to patrons, requesting information about books that came back damaged. Apparently all the people had done was stuff the books into the return slot and hope the damage wouldn’t be noticed. That seemed to be oafish behavior on the part of the patrons. I’m sure the librarian didn’t enjoy making those kinds of calls. I know I wouldn’t. So you’d think having someone come in, acknowledge the damage, and offer recompense right there that would have the book on the shelf as soon as it could be labeled would be a breath of fresh air.

Oh yeah. This is a bureaucracy. Fresh air is not needed. What’s important is policy. A one-size-fits-all policy that might convenience the library in some ways but in others punishes patrons who thought they were doing right by replacing a damaged book, like for like.

Now I don’t pretend to understand library cataloguing, or appreciate the superior quality of books procured from library-approved distributors. That’s a reality outside my experience. But again, it’s the perception of reality that’s important: Policy was treated as more important than people.

That’s the true crime of bureaucracy.

So we now have two copies of the book. One dog-chewed, the other pristine. The final irony: It’s not a very good book.

Want to Code? Learn to Read First.

Dear President Obama,

I like the idea of encouraging people to learn how to code – whatever that means. I’ve tried at least one variation of coding – using simple HTML not only on this blog but in an online class I teach. I built my own websites in the early 1990s, mimicking the code I saw back then. I haven’t kept up with it much, I admit.

You know what I like better? Encouraging people to learn how to read.

I listen to a lot of young boys read. I mean a lot of young boys. And most of them can’t. They stumble over pronouncing words. Simple words. And if you ask them to explain what it is they just read, the pat answer is “I don’t know.” And they’re telling the truth, because when they read aloud, they’re saying the words, but that’s all they’re doing. They’re concentrating on getting to the end of the passage, everything else is secondary.

I can tell the readers from the non-readers at the first meeting. They sail through simple and complicated texts – and I hear them read everything from news stories to their Boy Scout manual to more complicated texts, like the King James version of the Bible. If they encounter a word they’re unfamiliar with, they sound it out, and usually get it right. They can guess at meaning, and usually get it right. And if they’re stuck, they know where to go to find the answers. They can summarize. They can explain.

The non-readers can’t do any of that. Or at least they don’t try.

And it’s not just young boys. I also can tell pretty quickly which of my college students are readers and which are not. I don’t get to hear them read aloud, but I do get to see them think as they write essays and post responses in our online classes. Those less interested in reading stand out, even more so than those for whom English is not their first language – and I have a lot of students that fit that category too.

These aren’t dumb kids. They have other talents ranging from excellent math skills, a deeper understanding of emotion and empathy, and athleticism, among others. Reading isn’t “their thing.”

But it’s fundamental to everything. Including coding.

We haven’t left it up to schools to teach our kids to read. We read to them. We started early, with picture books, then Dr. Seuss, now others – right now, I’m reading CS Lewis’ “Prince Caspian” to my two youngest kids. And we read aloud, nearly every night, from our scriptures. We take turns reading and explaining what we read – requiring our kids to go over what they just read and using their own words to explain what’s happening.

And they’re readers. They’re up late at night reading, getting yelled at to turn off the lights and go to bed. They’re always sneaking books into the car for trips, sneaking books off the shelves to read at mealtimes. They’ll read newspapers. And magazines. And comic strips. I’m sure if I put a book on coding in front of them, they’d read it. And maybe get interested.

But the reading comes first. If it doesn’t, well, we’re slipping into Snow Crash a lot faster than previously thought. Technological achievement is highly valued in the Metaverse, but that achievement can be as shallow as it is stunning.

There is, of course, this argument:

 

Coding does require a lot of mental discipline, dealing with the concrete hidden in the abstract. Yes, a lot of what is written is drivel. But so is a lot of what is on the television. As is much of what is coded. Coding for the sake of coding, I’m not necessarily in favor of. Coding with a foundation on the ability to think and reason, well, that sounds a whole lot better.

Could coding prod a non-reading kid into reading more? I’m certain it could. But you’re going to get more coding kids if they’re reading kids first.

Furlough Called Off, Due to Congressional, Um, Can-Kicking

With Congress kicking that budgetary can down the road for another two months, we’re back to work as normal on Monday.

Listening to folks at work today, though, was kind of comical. There’s a streak of disappointment going through the plant that the furlough didn’t go through. I think a lot of people, despite the moaning, were looking forward to some unexpected time off work.

The announcement from work is thus:

As you may have heard, Congress passed legislation last night to fund the government through a temporary Continuing Resolution (CR) through January 15, 2014.  While it will take a few days for the Department of Energy to process its funding distributions, CWI has existing carry over funding to sustain operations until receipt of the funding allotment next week. 

As such, DOE-ID has authorized CWI to resume work, thereby averting the planned furlough.  Accordingly, all employees are directed to report to work on their normal schedule on Monday October 21, 2013.  We will provide additional information as necessary if there are any new developments.

I appreciate your support during these times of uncertainty and I’m excited to keep everyone working!  We will conduct a safety stand-up meeting Monday morning  to ensure we are fully focused  after experiencing the distractions of the past couple weeks.  Please coordinate closely with your managers and supervisors to confirm you have clear guidance as you move forward with all CWI activities, maintaining our stellar record of safety and performance. 

Again, a big ‘THANK YOU’ you for your patience, understanding, and caring!  This workforce is the best!  Keep your eye on the ball – see you next week!

Furlough Forward

By all indications, I’ll be furloughed next week.

That could last a week, or longer, depending on how long the ongoing derpfest in DC continues. If the news today is any harbinger of the future, a week may be too little time.

Ours is a dual-income family, because in addition to my full-time job, I also teach part-time. Having that money coming in is a blessing, though it’s not near enough to cover the bills if this turns into a long-term arrangement. We do have savings we can dip into – a rainy day fund that should last us about three months if we’re careful.

We are luckier than most. We do have a house payment, but it’s less than many of the nearby apartments rent for. We have no car payments, very little credit card debt and only month-to-month bills to fret about. We should be fine for three months or so, hoping, of course, that the furlough doesn’t last out the month of October.

But we’re torn.

Part of me thinks I should spend the time next week hanging drywall in the basement to finally cover up the new furnace ducts (thank heaven we paid for that work in cash). Part of us also think we should take the family to Disneyland, just to show Congress that life goes on. That makes me a little nervous, not knowing of course how long the furlough may last and how long we’ll have to stretch our reserves. No matter what happens, I still plan on standing in front of Rep. Mike Simpson’s shuttered Idaho Falls office waving a “CONGRESS FARTED” sign.

Most interesting to see is all the bright, shiny news about a Senate deal in the works to end the shutdown. What nobody seems to want to emphasize is that both the House and the Senate have to pass anything before it comes into effect, and the White House still isn’t talking to the House much at all these days. So pardon me if I’m pessimistic. I’m a believer in Reagan’s words, but not necessarily for the reasons he said them. All parties involved say they’re here to help, but you’ll note none of them agree on exactly where that elusive “here” might be.

Civil Disobedience

Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849.

We can either accept the government that we have or take steps to change that government into what we want.

But that’s harder than it looks. Or sounds. Or best testing indicates.

Casey Neistat did a little bit of what I mean, in making this video showing why at times it’s impossible or hazardous to stay in New York City’s bike lanes. He got a $50 ticket for wandering out of the lane. But was safer doing so.

So what can we do, with a government that closes the open-air monuments on the Mall in Washington to tourists, but allows pro-immigration protesters access to that same Mall during the same week?

We do what would-be visitors to the World War II memorial on the Mall did: We cross the barricades. We demonstrate, as does Mr. Neistat, the danger of being too literal in obeying a law when there are others around who do not.

There are folks jumping the fences and barricades at national parks. Some, I’m sure, for the thrill of it. And some, of course, out of desire to be civilly disobedient. Utah’s San Juan County, for one, is rumbling about taking on duties of letting people use the national parks in its borders, as a demonstration of a local government being civilly disobedient.

I, for one, think that’s a fantastic idea.

What am I doing?

Nothing.

And that’s sad. Because those who do nothing have the government they deserve.

Oh, I’ve got plans. If I get furloughed on Monday, my plan is to hang out at Rep. Mike Simpson’s shuttered office in Idaho Falls until somebody notices.

“I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward,” says Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience. “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”

He goes on:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

The remedy right now is worse than the evil. Yes, evil is in the eye of the beholder, but Thoreau points to anticipating and providing for reform as more desirable than scoring political points and remaining inflexible.

A good compromise shows, they say, when both parties go away from the agreement disappointed in what they did not get but glad for what they got. Compromise shouldn’t come in name-calling, weak-ass analogies (President Obama, this is not leadership, it’s schoolyard name-calling), locking US citizens and foreign nationals in a hotel to prevent them from “recreating” at Yellowstone National Park, and other excuses for not doing anything because to give in to the other side would be perceived as weakness.

Face it, Feds, you all look bad already. Congress has an approval rating of 5 percent, without anyone giving a cuss for what party those Congressmen belong to.

So here’s to seeing what Thursday brings.

Your Government, Serving You

The good news is, your government is wasting just as much time on Facebook as you are.

Bad news is, you don’t have $630,000, like the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International information Programs, to drop buying Facebook likes from the likes of insignificant scum like yourself.

Read that in a little report at foreignpolicy.com.

Diplopundit.net has longer excerpts of the report, including this gem:

Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as “buying fans” who may have once clicked on an ad or liked a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further. Defenders of advertising point to the difficulty of finding a page on Facebook with a general search and the need to use ads to increase visibility.

I guess I have to agree with the latter. I mean, when I want to interact with my government – or, hell, the government of any country – I’m going to turn to Facebook and do a quickie search to see if there are any representatives of that government there – aside from the NSA, to be sure – with whom I can exchange movie lines from The ‘Burbs or whom I can encourage to like posts featuring my nightly song (Last night: “If I Only Had A Brain” from 1939’s The Wizard of Oz. And Facebook’s searches make it nigh on impossible. Of course, it’s also hard when governments make their “foreign-facing public diplomacy communications bureau” have names like the Bureau of International Information Programs.

So why was the IIP buying all these Facebook thingies? Back to the report:

In September 2012, Facebook changed the way it displays items in its users’ news feeds. If a user does not interact with a site’s postings, after a time these postings will no longer appear in the user’s news feed unless the site buys sponsored story ads to ensure their appearance. This change sharply reduced the value of having large numbers of marginally interested fans and means that IIP must continually spend money on sponsored story ads or else its reach statistics will plummet. For example, a posting on cyber censorship in March 2013 reached 234,000 Facebook users on its first day; only about 20,000 would have received the item on their news feed without advertising.

I’ve seen this. I have a few Facebook sites that’ve sent me this warning: Interact with us or you’ll no longer see our posts in your feed. And I have to think, well, a few things:

1) Meh.

2) Probably time to do some Facebook maintenance and get rid of a few of these likes.

204) Wow. I should interact with these guys more.

So yeah. This is money well-spent.