Something to Watch Over Me

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster, largely concerned with the use of government drones to kill noncombatant Americans on American soil, may seem like a far-out hypothetical. The White House says the President doesn’t have the authority to use drones that way. But that doesn’t put the discussion of drones to bed at all. This may be the first eruption of lava in the coming volcanic debate over drones, which we think are being used only as a convenient means of getting rid of faraway bad guys. Wrong!

The fact is, drones are already being used right here for law enforcement surveillance purposes. More than a dozen states are said to be trying to pass legislation restricting police use of drones. I would not like to be a legislator or an attorney trying to sort out the legal issues involved. What’s the difference between a drone flying over your head and a helicopter? What’s the difference between a drone flying overhead and the street cameras used in many communities today?

Some argue that drones can have really beneficial uses for public safety – looking at a brush fire to see where it’s advancing, which can be a dangerous pursuit for a human being in an aircraft. Or, as I’ve read on the Internet, drones can be used for very benign reasons, for example, to inspect sensitive environmental areas from the air and the changes occurring in them.

What’s really scary, though, is that private citizens are going to get widespread access to these things, if they don’t have it already. You think you can sunbathe nude in your backyard because you have a high fence around your property? Think again. And suppose someone just wants to follow you around for whatever reason? Are these going to be standard tools for paparazzi? BTW, I'm sure it would be fun for a private pilot, trying to dodge all this new aeronautical junk.

One of my earlier posts here was titled “The Privacy Horse Has Left the Barn.” Well, he’s getting farther and farther away from the barn as time passes, and I’m not sure I like where he’s headed.

Don’t be surprised if you hear the sound of bleep hitting the fan over all this, and very soon.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble

The title is the signature of ring announcer Michael Buffer of HBO boxing fame. So if the presidential race were a boxing match, for which match-up would I buy a ticket? Would it be Obama v. Romney? Nope. Obama v. Santorum? Guess again. Obama v. Paul? Way off.

It would be Obama against Gingrich! I say this in spite of a visceral dislike for Newt Gingrich – but there’s no question in my mind he’d be the biggest problem for the President in a head-to-head policy debate.

Gingrich, as we know, has challenged Mr. Obama to a series of seven 3-hour debates (or is it three 7-hour debates?) in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. An interesting idea, but it won’t happen. In the first place, people are a lot busier now than they were in the mid-1800s. Second, there’s not that much to talk about, and I don’t think even Newt is that big a windbag. Even so, in a head-to-head match, he would clearly give Obama the most trouble.

Romney doesn’t have nearly the command of the range of issues Gingrich does. As for Santorum, I could see him as president of the Chamber of Commerce, but not of the United States. And with Paul, it wouldn’t be a debate -- it would be two guys making excellent points, perhaps, but talking past each other.

This isn’t championship boxing, of course, but even in boxing, when it goes to the scorecards, the winner not only has to beat the other guy, but bring the judges with him. It’s even possible to NOT clearly beat the other guy and win – if you get the judges to agree with you.If it ends up being Obama v. Romney, well, it might be hard to get me to pay-per-view.