TGIF 6/24/22

If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, it will surely fit in a period-tracking app.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, it will surely fit in an employer's benefit package. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, it will surely fit in a smart-phone location-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, it will surely fit in a toll-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, it will surely fit public surveillance data.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, it will surely fit in your electronic medical records.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, and in your electronic medical records, it will surely fit in other places, the likes of which we haven't yet even thought.

But it won't fit in a gun cabinet.

TGIF, everyone.

Random Thoughts 5/19/22: Dear Gov. DeSantis

My husband, who has never been a Republican, received a letter from the ultimate Florida Man, Gov. Ron DeSantis. The letter was dripping with that special kind of patriotism only Republicans can say with a straight face. I took the liberty of making a couple of edits the Gov's letter, and thought I'd share them with you before I sent this to him.  

Dear Fellow Patriot, 

Liberty. Freedom. Independence. 

Whatever you may choose to call it, the extremist Right-Wing Nut Jobs (RWNJs) want to take it from you.

•  Your right to speak your mind.
•  Your right to practice your faith.
•  Your right to protect and defend your home and family.
•  Your right to own and operate a business.
•  Your right to educate your child.

The extremist RWNJs are currently doing everything they can to take these God-given rights away from you, and it isn’t an accident. 

This is their New America.          

On behalf of Sane Americans everywhere, I’m asking freedom-loving people across our Great Country:

“Are you OK with that?”

I have enclosed a vital NEW AMERICA SURVEY and registered it specifically in your name so the leaders of our Country can hear from you directly, because I believe America is already dangerously on the wrong track, with extremist RWNJs at the helm of the Republican Party.

Your NEW AMERICA SURVEY answers are an essential first step in our effort to slow down the extremist RWNJs and ultimately take back our Country from their freedom-squelching hands in the coming election.

From the moment Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the America-hating, extremist RWNJs adopted the rallying cry “Make America Great Again!” And from that moment forward, they teamed up with Far-Right broadcasters, Proud Boys, Hollywood D-listers, and other despicable individuals to seize power in towns, villages, school boards, statehouses and in Washington, DC.

And now that they are in control, they’re hellbent on radically changing America. As a Sane American, a voter, and a defender of all that’s good in our Country, 

I WON’T ALLOW IT!! 

Not if I can count on you to join with me and other Sane Americans, by speaking out and standing up for our American principles. 

Make your voice heard today by filing out the NEW AMERICA SURVEY I’ve enclosed and specifically registered to you. 

Please tell me and the leaders of America where you stand, right away. We need to build a National Movement of Patriots like you to put our Country back on track.

We need to rally Sane Americans across the country to stand up against the extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs, the angry mob that now dominates the Republican Party and pushes all of us aside for their own autocratic goals. 

So please, tell me, are you on my side?

Are you on the side of sanity, standing with Americans who truly believe that we can be a Great America again?

Or are you on the side of the extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs in the Republican party, who are hell-bent on destroying our freedoms? 

I need to know that you want us to KEEP FIGHTING BACK against the polarizing, poisonous mob that controls - and has destroyed - the Republican Party, and that wants to control every aspect of our lives. So please, take a few moments RIGHT NOW to let me know where you stand. 

It’s important to know where you stand because the biased, outrageous, so-called conservative media, who operate at the beck and call of Donald Trump and the extremist RWNJs, would have you believe that our country is breathtakingly close to becoming a communist stronghold. Sane Americans like you know this is not true, but the battle against the extremist RWNJs is going to be a long one, and we must stand strong in order to regain the America that we love. 

• We have seen their power to censor individuals – and companies – who do not follow their so-called moral agenda. 

• We have seen their power abused to control what books we can read. We have seen their power abused to control women’s bodies, and to cage women within their state borders to prevent them from receiving medical care. 

• We have seen their power abused to control parental rights, preventing children from receiving medical care with the guidance of trusted medical professionals. 

• We have seen them abuse their power to turn Americans against each other - and they have MONETIZED this behavior, with the help of activist judges and justices who are loyal to a small, powerful group of elites.

My fellow Sane American, we have NO IDEA WHERE THIS WILL END! 

No group of individuals, no political party – no one - should have this much power over you and me as citizens of our Great Country. Millions of Sane Americans WILL NOT be silenced by the out-of-control, extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs who are trying to destroy everything our Country stands for. And they will never be able to ban the MILLIONS of us who support our American values and the Golden Rule. 

So, are you willing to join the fight to keep the RWNJs from creating their NEW AMERICA?

Can I count on you to do your part by taking a few moments to fill out your NEW AMERICA SURVEY? 

I would like to ask that, along with completing your survey, you make a special gift of $5,000, $2,900, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, or even $35 to me, to put me in a financial position to turn this information you provide into concrete action against the dangerous, extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs. 

It is urgent that you get back to me as soon as possible. So please, don’t wait, return your completed NEW AMERICA SURVEY and special gift in the next five days. 

Every day, Sane Americans are facing a near-constant barrage of lies and attacks, However, the FACTS are indisputable. Over the four years Donald Trump was president:

• The scourge of hatred against immigrants, people of faith, women, the poor, and people of color hit record highs.

•  White Supremacists marched, with torches, in our streets. 

• Extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs took over local, state, and national offices, not because of an underlying love for public service, for their communities, or for our country, but in service to Donald Trump, his lies and belligerence and false patriotism. That continues, even today, as primary elections are being held across the country right now, and in the coming months. 

•  Two Supreme Court seat were stolen – one from Americans who had already chosen their President - the sitting President of our Great Country - but were denied his choice months before an election. The second was stolen from the American people, who had already started voting for the next president, with Election Day only weeks away. 

• Thousands of Americans died, unnecessarily, because the Donald Trump and his minions, the extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs, failed to appropriately deal with the COVID pandemic - on purpose. 

• Members of Congress supported insurrectionists trying to stop a legitimate election in which 82 MILLION VOTERS rejected the scourge of Trumpism and MAGATS and chose someone else to lead us back to America. 

And the list goes on, and on. 

They say we were WINNING, but were we? Does America really win when elected officials show loyalty to a MAN, while ignoring their oath to defend our COUNTRY?

Join me in fighting back, by taking these three simple steps.  

• Step One is completing and mailing back your NEW AMERICA SURVEY.  

• Step Two is rushing an urgently special contribution of $5,000, $2,900, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, or even $35 to me. It is going to take millions of dollars to enable to me and other Sane Americans to enhance voter outreach, strengthen our grassroots operations, and better deliver our message to all Americans. We cannot afford any delay in getting started.  

• Step Three is staying committed to the true promise of the American Dream, staying engaged in the fight for it, and never giving up – and NEVER GIVING IN to the extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs who are working tirelessly to steal our freedom and ruin our Great Country.  

This is a pivotal moment in our history. With your help, a wave of sanity is coming in November. And it going to wipe out the extremist Right-wing Nut Jobs and the repressive, repulsive New America they are building right now. But we cannot just wait for that to happen: We must start now – today! - and work for our country, together.  

I’m counting on you! Please send your special gift, and your survey, right away!

Thanks in advance for your support. And remember: all other Sane Americans are counting on YOU!

Sincerely,

Veritable Pastiche

Wondering on Wednesday 10/6/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering on the Facebook thing: the whistleblower, corporate profits, marketing, artificial intelligence, actual intelligence, ethics, and more. 

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with every other social media outlet?

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with Fox News, MSNBC, and every other television network?

How do you regulate Facebook's  algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do that with the NY Times, the NY Post, and every other print and digital newspaper? 

How does Wikipedia survive this new regulatory framework? Anyone can enter anything they want - who's going to be the boss of that? Are we going to create a regulatory framework for that, too?

Who gets to decide what content is abusive or divisive? Artificial intelligence can't do it, and humans can't do it either. What or who is left? And, even more fun, who gets to pick the arbiters?

What about the 1st Amendment? Doesn't that protect divisive speech?

How is it not insanely ridiculous and hypocritical for members of the House and Senate - professionals all, at spreading misinformation and division - to complain about Facebook's failure to stop the spread of misinformation and division? Seriously - how is that not the most insane aspect of this?

If the said misinformation- and division-spreading legislators decide to change the rules and let Facebook be held liable for 'harm' on its pages, which one of them will be the first to file a suit, and how long will it take - more than 30 minutes, or less than 30 minutes - after the rules are passed? I'm guessing Devin Nunes and less than 10...

If Facebook can be held liable for harm done to someone who's under age and on the platform, will Facebook be able to sue the parents for allowing the child to use the service?

And why do six-year-olds have smart phones, anyway? Who is responsible for that?

Before they go all out and regulate potentially harmful content - something that, by nature of the 'potentially' label, cannot be regulated - will the legislators do something to increase access to and the affordability of mental health services, particularly for children, and particularly for rural areas?

Isn't it ironic, and more than a bit ridiculous, that the same people who would to deny treatment options that would help transgender kids are all up in arms about body image issues on Facebook?

Why would the people who complain about their own voices being stifled on Facebook be willing to stifle other voices on Facebook? Is the algorithm unfair, or do they just not like what it does? Do they really care about any of this, or does it just look good to care, in which case they can make a profit, i.e., get re-elected because they 'showed they care?

How is Facebook to control the viewing habits of its users? For example, how are the people who ignore multiple notices that what they are reading is not real and then argue vigorously, and share widely, their outrage about the outrageously fake posts, supposed to be  protected from themselves?  Who's job is that, anyway?

Or the folks who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the butt cheek in the checkout line at Wegmans? (That's sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm doesn't have actual teeth.) How is Facebook to be held accountable for them? 

Are we going to regulate comedians? Celebrity magazines, with pictures of stars or wanna-be stars and their "boldly topless" photos? The Kardashians and their puffy lips, 'trained' waists, and abundant behinds? People try to emulate them, and cause themselves real physical harm in the process; clearly, that can't be allowed to continue? 

How ironic is it, that the people who don't think the government should be able to require masks or vaccines during a pandemic are now contemplating having the government dictate what we're allowed to see on Facebook? What about "my mind, my choice?"

If we're going to ban detrimental content on Facebook, can we please ban Love Island, Big Brother, Hoarders, My 600-lb-Life, Married at First Sight, Real Housewives, Love After Lockup, Cellmate Secrets, 90-day Diaries, You, Me and My Ex, Ex-Rated, Naked and Afraid, Addicted to Marriage, 90-Day Fiancé, RuPaul’s Drag Race, My Big Fat Fabulous Life, and the rest of the unreal reality TV shows? Without much difficulty, I could make an argument that each of those shows is detrimental in one way or another...and I've never watched any of them.

Who gets to determine how 'good' a company must be in order to be allowed to make a profit? And how will those decisions be made? 

Are we going to require every company to provide us with their internal research on everything they internally research? Or is that just going to be shared with regulators? Just legislators (they're not the same thing as regulators, I can assure you.) And what if someone who gets the information as part of their job decides to leak it, for fun say, to the Wall Street Journal? What's the accountability there?

Based on the number of times the quote was shared, the big soundbite from Frances Haugen's testimony was, "Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook."  

I'm wondering if anyone reading this post can tell me everything that happens inside their current employer, or any of their former employers? I maintain that it's probably true for every company, even those in highly regulated industries, that outsiders don't know what happens inside, and neither do employees. I also maintain that that lack of knowledge can be positive (allowing a company to launch a new product, charitable plan, marketing campaign, etc. without leaks) as much as it can be negative (e.g., Enron, Wells Fargo, and perhaps Facebook, too). 

Especially in a country where we're supposedly working on improving the privacy rights of people. And, of course, where we consider corporations to be people, too. Unless, of course, corporations aren't really people after all. And isn't that a whole nother world of wonderment we can attack... 

What are you wondering about tonight? 

Wondering on Wednesday (v129)

I have a day job and so was not able to watch either of the two days of testimony from Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to House and Senate committees. I did hear that his personal information was compromised, as was that of 86,999,999 other people, and that he got into a spat with Lyin' Ted Cruz about Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day and bias against conservatives or something.

I did wonder about a couple of questions he got from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). First, Durbin asked if Zuckerberg would be comfortable sharing what hotel he stayed in, and then he asked if Zuckerberg would share the names of anyone he had messaged that week. In both cases the answer was 'no' with varying degrees of discomfort, Zuckerberg sensing as he must have been the presumed trap he was walking into. AHA! people thought: the exchange proved everyone's point that Facebook overshares!

I didn't see it that way; Zuckerberg did not intend to share where he stayed the previous night, nor did he have any intention of sharing who he messaged - so, in effect, he set his privacy settings to 'friends only.' Just like you can do on Facebook, and should do, if you're paying attention. Congressmen are forgetting that so much information that can be gathered from Facebook is put there - on purpose - which is nothing like asking a random stranger where he spent the night.

There were also questions about political ads and disclosing who is behind them, to show transparency and protect us from bad guys. I wondered if Zuckerberg wanted to say he'd go for the same level of disclosure that Congress allows on ads that support them, but I think even if he had an inkling to, he was surely well counseled to not go there.

Another thing I thought was interesting was the level of concern these politicians have for privacy, something over which people can actually exert some control, compared to pols' apparent lack of concern over, say, clean air or clean water?  Everyone has issues with the costs of environmental regulations, and ensuring multi-billion dollar profits quarter after quarter after quarter for companies in that space. Everyone has issues with the costs of regulation on financial firms, and particularly now, no one's complaining about quarter after quarter billion dollar profits - so, why are they so concerned about Facebook and the company's profits, I wonder?

Moving on, House Speaker Paul Ryan has announced his retirement from politics - not just from the House, but from ever seeing himself run for office in the future. I wonder, will anyone hold him to that? His wife, maybe?

Ryan says he's leaving because his kids are going to only know him from the weekends, and he doesn't want that. Others say he's leaving because, well, he got his tax deal and now's as good a time as any. Or that he sees the handwriting on the wall and the House is going to fall, in the fall, so screw it all and go back to Janesville. Or that he's sick of dealing with Trump and he's not loyal enough to the orange-haired one, and loyalty is all that matters.

I could do a whole post on Ryan, and I might do that, but right now, I'm wondering about a tweet the president sent. Take a look:

Is it too much to wonder, to wish for, that Trump's "We are with you Paul!" comment means that Trump won't run in 2010?  

Nah. That's just silly stuff, not wonderful stuff. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v126)

OK, wonder-lusters, let's get to it.

If you're a Facebook user, do you know you can manage your privacy settings?

When Facebook sends you those little messages reminding you to check your privacy settings often, and how to do that, I wonder if you've ever looked to see what's what?

And if you're a Facebook user who has never, ever, ever paid attention to privacy, is there a reason why you haven't?

Do you use apps on Facebook? What about those ubiquitous quizzes? Have you ever looked at the screen right after you click on "Continue with Facebook" where it allows you to check the app's Privacy Policy and to review what you're about to share? Below is an example of the screen you might be just clicking right through.

"What's your St. Patrick's Day Nickname?" is one that was making the rounds last week. Several of my friends and acquaintances on Facebook did that one, and I wonder if any of them took steps to protect their privacy?

If you're wondering the point here, it's all this stuff about Facebook not protecting our personal data, which of course has been all over the news - including the recent stretch when the company suffered a reported $50B loss in market value.

Now, I get that we want 'them' - Mark Zuckerberg and his coders and techies and security people and his advertising contract writers and lawyers and all -  to do something to protect us, and I agree they have some responsibility here - there's no doubt about that. I wish, for example, that everything on Facebook was an 'opt in to share' default rather than an 'opt out to not share' - if that were the case, the social media giant would be protecting us even if we're not interested enough, or savvy enough, or mindful enough to protect ourselves.

But I can't  help wondering why we are so quick to ignore the phone if we don't recognize the number, but we fall so willingly into divulging our pet's names, or the name of our childhood best friend or our first car, or our high school mascot and on and on and on, especially when we should know that many of those same bits of information are used on our favorite websites to protect us? You know, those security questions?  Um hmm.

And, to be honest, I also can't help wondering what's going to happen as the two (so far) class action suits - one on behalf of investors, one on behalf of users - start winding their way through the process.  Facebook as we know it might end up looking very different.

And if it does, you can be sure there will still be ways for users to protect their privacy, and millions of users who don't.

As we learn more about Cambridge Analytica, the data-mining firm that bragged about helping get Donald Trump elected, and that stole (used?) the personal information of 50 million Facebook users, I have one more question:  I wonder who you think we should really worry about more?

• data-miners who pick and choose who to try and influence on social media, and then target ads and fake stories made to look real to their chosen users, or
• the lying liar in the White House, his ethically-challenged, security-challenged, less-than-forthcoming staff, and everyone else who is associated with him, including those Republicans who have thrown their ethics, self-respect, and even their long-standing policy positions out the window in order to stay in his good favor?

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Last night on the  PBS News Hour, Gwen Ifill spoke with Tamara Keith of NPR and Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief of USA Today, about Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, the "basket of deplorables" comment Clinton made at a fundraiser, and about two related Trump scandals: his $25,000 bribe of the Florida Attorney General to encourage her to not join an action against Trump University, and about his propensity to donate other people's money and take credit for it.

Discussion on the health issue were standard issue -- why didn't she come clean last week when she was diagnosed, why won't she tell us everything under the sun that we need to do, and, oh yeah, there was that little mention of Donald Trump and Clinton's health.  Here's Tamara Keith (emphasis added):

There was already a lot circulating about her health that was completely unsubstantiated, a lot of rumors, conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump talking about her stamina. So this was floating in the ether, when yesterday at the 9/11 commemoration she faltered as she  was leaving...

Note the emphasis: completely unsubstantiated, rumors, conspiracy theories and Donald Trump, who merely had to raise the question in a speech for it to become an issue, that he wondered whether Clinton had the stamina to be president. As if she herself would be charging into battle to fight the issues facing our country. Trump drove the point home in mid-August, at his 'major foreign policy address' when he read this off the teleprompter:

Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face, not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn our great country around. 

So now it's September, and she's had some allergy-related coughs, laughingly telling people she was allergic to Donald Trump.  And then the 9/11 commemoration happened, and all media hell broke loose. For several hours, the press knew not where Clinton was, why she had left the remembrance ceremony, or what was wrong.  Later, (again, NPR's Tamara Keith):

It was the end of the day (after 5:30 PM) when the doctor, her doctor, released a statement saying she was overheated, dehydrated, and oh, by the way, on Friday, three days earlier, was diagnosed with pneumonia and they hadn't told anyone about that before. 

Gwen Ifill tries to get some discussion going on what we, and by "we" I mean the media and the talking heads, are really concerned about.

Ifill: Well, that's the point Susan. Was this really about -  is our concern really about her health or is it about the fact of the failure to disclose in a timely fashion?

Page: I think both things are issues. I think she will now need to come out and show that she's healthy and vigorous and has stamina.  She has -- the fact that she was diagnosed with pneumonia, and we didn't know about it, and had this incident caught on a video has legitimized some of the critiques that Trump and Rudy Giuliani in particular have been making that she's -- that there's some question about her health.  

Ifill: Donald Trump, who has not released his...

 Page: His own health records.. That's right.

Ifill: OK, just to make that point.

Page: Yes, absolutely.  But I think her failure to disclose it is also an issue. And it goes to a different vulnerability she has, which is, is she straightforward with the Americans whose votes she wants to get?

Ifill:  And they say there is a higher standard for the woman candidate. That's what the Clinton people say.

Keith: Yes. They do. They do say that. And they say they are going to meet that higher standard.... But there was a tweet today from David Axelrod, the adviser to President Obama back when he was running for President, that really sums up what Susan is talking about. He says "Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"

A bug planted about Clinton's stamina, which Trump had been pushing since June, similar to his 'low energy' attack on Jeb! Bush. A higher standard for the female candidate, which the reporters talk about as if it doesn't exist. Completely unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, promoted by Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, being 'legitimized' because Hillary Clinton didn't tell anyone that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia.

The bottom line is that there surely is a higher standard for the woman candidate - and that's magnified because it's Hillary Clinton. She must be smart but not too smart. Kind but not too kind or she'll appear fake. Empathetic, but not too empathetic or she'll be seen as using people to get votes. She must be personable, and bake cookies. She must be energetic and fiery but not sound harsh and or shrill or show emotion. She must be strong, but she can't be too strong.

She must never make a misstep, whether that's an actual misstep, or a fashion faux pas or a verbal scuff in a speech or, heaven forbid, have to pee - because those make the woman look unpresidential.

I agree with Axelrod that Clinton and/or her team of advisers repeatedly create unnecessary problems - I think that's been proven any number of times. But on this issue, she had two choices: tell, take time off, and be seen as weak, knowing that the media will mention over and over and over that "Trump said" she's not healthy enough to serve. Or, don't tell, and get through it as best you can, as long as nothing goes wrong. And know that something will go wrong.

Between a rock and a hard place, that's where she was. 

What would you have recommended she do about the pneumonia diagnosis? What would you have done in her shoes?

Fighting Back Against a Hack Attack

Another day, another announcement that some major US institution of the retail, insurance, entertainment or governmental variety has been hacked.

Usually, by the time we hear about it, the security breach is over and the perpetrators are not resting on their laurels but instead, deep into planning their next foray into everything we hold sacred: our social security numbers, birth dates, naked selfies, financial information, emails, and, at least in my case, the fact that I love Chocolate Silk (that's coffee, not a lingerie preference or anything like that).

The latest one, an attack on the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that apparently happened last December and was only discovered this April, is said to have been initiated by China, and comes on the heels of Russia sticking its official nose into emails at the State Department and the White House. (We haven't heard of any emails on Hillary Clinton's personal server being compromised; I wonder who handles her data security?)

As I've noted in the past, I've been hit in at least two of these things. Somehow I seem to have missed out on the Home Depot breach which is surprising given how often we shopped there, and the rest of my transactions seem to have been fairly well protected. As far as I know, anyway.

While our government and other targets have been quick to identify who the perps are, and confidently point to Russia, China and of course North Korea on the infamous SONY breach, we don't seem to be even half as adept at preventing the darn things from happening in the first place.

And of course, we have no idea how the information that's been compromised will be used, or even if it will ever be used.

Cyber attacks, like any other kind of terrorism, are successful even if the information never sees the light of day, because what's compromised for all who get caught up in this is our feeling of security, of safety, and the fact that, no matter what, some troll in a basement, dormitory, or sweatshop hack factory in a foreign land can nose around in our electronic underwear drawer almost at will and we, sitting in the greatest country in the world, are helpless to prevent it.

But then, are we realty helpless?  Really helpless?  Or, are we merely convinced we're helpless because we are portrayed as such by friend and foe alike?

What if we, as consumers and employees and dammit as Americans just stepped away from our laptops and notebooks, our smart phones and app-laden watches, our microchips and hi-tech glasses, and coerced our driverless cars to take to the shoulder, and we all pulled a 'Network'?

I mean, if we all went Peter Finch on every website we do business with, and we demanded our employers took better care of our data, and we required our insurance companies and financial institutions to prove they cared about us and our personal information as much as they say they do, could it make a difference?

Or, if that won't work, what if we stopped doing business electronically, and decided our financial security, our personal security, the names and birth dates of our pets and children, the make and model of our first car or our elementary school best friend's name, or any special phone number we remember from childhood were actually important to us?

What if we decided that it was worth it to carry cash and actually pay for stuff the old fashioned way, where you all had to know to protect yourself from getting ripped off was how to count change?  

What if we conscientiously made the choice that instead of shopping at big retailers, we would search out and patronize local stores and yes, paid more for the privilege of becoming known to the shop owners? If they know that I'm me because I shop there all the time, there's not much chance that you're going to pull off a switcheroo, even if you're a rat bastard and physically have my credit card in your hand.

Or, finally, here's perhaps an only slightly more ridiculous idea: from now on, I'm only doing business with folks who encrypt their data in a random, ever-changing combination of baby talk, late 70's jive, and Navajo.

Are you with me?