Cybersecurity for You and Me

February 23, 2013 8:00 a.m.

Seven Steps to Computer Security

“I divide the entire set of Fortune Global 2000 firms into two categories: those that know they’ve been compromised and those that don’t yet know.”
-- Dmitri Alperovitch, Chief Technology Officer, Crowdstrike

With seemingly every major American institution under cyberattack, is it past time you and I review our own cybersecurity?

The Times reports that, "Computer security experts estimate that more than a thousand companies have been attacked recently." Nicole Perlroth, "Some Victims of Online Hacking Edge Into the Light," New York Times, February 21, 2013, p. A1. Once reluctant to report a breach, more companies are now coming forward. The Times provides quite a list -- including Apple, Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

In fact, the Times was the first of three major papers to acknowledge they'd been hacked, probably from China, followed by similar revelations from the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

Earlier this month President Obama signed an executive order "that promotes increased information sharing about cyberthreats between the government and private companies that oversee the country’s critical infrastructure . . .." Michael S. Schmidt and Nicole Perlroth, "Obama Order Gives Firms Cyberthreat Information," New York Times, February 13, 2013, p. A16; "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," February 12, 2013, whitehouse.gov. (And see "Cybersecurity," National Security Council; "The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative," National Security Council; "Cyberspace Policy Review," White House (2009).) [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

Our computerized defense installations, including the nuclear arsenals, are getting millions of hostile hits a day. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta says that "the United States [is] facing the possibility of a 'cyber-Pearl Harbor' . . . [that] could dismantle the nation’s power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government." Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, "Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack on U.S.," New York Times, October 12, 2012, p. A1. We now have an Army Cyber Command -- not to mention our real world, lethal video game controllers, operating drones in Pakistan and Yemen, among other countries, from comfortable locations here at home. (See "Home Grown Drones," February 16, 2013.)

If, with all their multi-billion-dollar resources, our government, military, corporations and other major institutions are under cyberattack, and losing more often than not, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Fortunately for us, like risks to our health, it turns out that the greatest risks to our computers are well within our control.

How many times have you heard these health tips: get a full night's peaceful sleep, control your weight (getting from "obese to "overweight" is a good start), eat more raw fruits and vegetables (and less sugar, salt and fat), exercise (both aerobic and strength training) 30 minutes a day, eliminate all tobacco and other drugs, keep alcohol consumption to a minimum, fasten your seat belt in the car and wear your helmet when riding a bike. Whether we're looking for ways to reduce our risks of heart disease, or cancer, or diabetes, or arthritis, or Alzheimer's disease, or other conditions, the advice usually includes these same basics.

Do we follow this advice? That's another matter -- albeit one that costs us $100s of billions in excess health care bills. The point is, whether the health of our bodies or the security of our computers, many of the factors are within our control.

No one can make their home or car 100% theft-proof. Thieves can break a side window on your car, or on a second story bedroom, and remove contents. However, they are less likely to take your stuff if you lock the doors to your house than if you leave them ajar; or if you close the windows and lock the doors of your car than if you leave the windows down and the key in the ignition.

If you are a computer professional, you already know what follows and far more. If not, here are some simple suggestions -- the computer equivalent of locking your house and car -- that can save you from most of the computer grief, some say as much as 90% or more, that can otherwise come your way. (Basic security for handheld mobile devices may be covered in a subsequent blog entry.)

1. There's no perfect security. Assume every email or text message you send could show up on the front page of your local newspaper, and may have already been scanned by your employer and some government agency. Every photo or bit of information about yourself you or your friends put on Facebook, or you share with an online merchant or Web page, may find its way to those you wish didn't have it. Every program you install on your computer may come with, or develop, vulnerabilities that enable strangers to enter your computer. [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

The only surefire way to avoid contributing to such problems is to stay off the Internet entirely, or at least put your most private material on a computer that's never connected to the Internet. Even then, of course, there's no way to protect yourself from what others put on the Internet about you, or release from supposedly confidential files. The University of Iowa recently had a couple examples of this. Ryan Foley, "University of Iowa apologizes for privacy breach; A staff member mistakenly sends an email to 2,000 students with all of their GPAs," Des Moines Register, February 8, 2012; Clark Kauffman, "Register Investigation: University of Iowa gives private student data to Johnson sheriff; Info on gun permit applicants' classroom performance, discipline history is protected by federal law," Des Moines Register, February 20, 2013; Clark Kauffman, "U of I suspends record sharing; University addressing concerns raised about student information given to law enforcement for gun-permit checks," Des Moines Register, February 23, 2013.

What is possible, however, is to reduce 90% or more of these risks by applying some common sense basics, and finding someone you can consult with about the rest -- even if she turns out to be your 14-year-old computer geek neighbor.

2. Preventing loss of your computer. Roughly 10 million computers are stolen each year. Keep an eye on yours -- especially in airports. Don't leave it visible in your car or home. If you use it in public places, or at work, consider a cable and lock sold for this purpose.

3. Preventing loss of your data.

(a) If your software doesn't automatically save your work as you write, save it manually. Don't risk losing two hours of writing if the power goes off.
(b) If you're working on, or modifying, a document over time, save daily versions separately (e.g., "article-Dec 20," "article-Jan 21"). When the current version mysteriously disappears you will at least have the next most current available.
(c) The only thing that can be said with confidence about every computer's hard drive is that some day it will crash. Get an external hard drive, and use a backup program at least once a week that will save any newly created or changed files -- or at least copy to that drive the files you really don't want to lose. Store the external drive somewhere away from the computer (so that if your computer is stolen or damaged your backup drive doesn't disappear with it).
(d) If the files are worth greater protection (from fire, flood or theft of your external hard drive), like an entire doctoral dissertation manuscript, back up your files to a second external hard drive kept in a safe deposit box or other safe place away from the first external hard drive.

Nothing can eliminate every possibility of loss, but these suggestions will prevent some of the most common causes.

Preventing unauthorized access. The computer hacking making the headlines involves unauthorized acquisition of military or corporate intellectual property, trade secrets, and the pathways to bring down our electric power grid or other infrastructure. Nobody is going to hack into your computer looking for that. So what is your risk; what might strangers be doing with your computer?

The possibilities are endless, limited only by the hackers' imagination.

(a) They may be in the identity theft business, looking for enough of the details about your financial and other relationships to pass themselves off as you.
(b) Depending on your employer, they may try to use you as a pathway into their industrial espionage of the computers in your workplace. (Most people who find a flash drive in the company parking lot bring it into work and put it in their office computer.)
(c) Perhaps they're after your money, seeking to transfer money out of your bank account, or charge items to your credit cards.
(d) Maybe it is your entire list of friends' email addresses they want, in order to sell them to spammers.
(e) They may install a bit of software that captures each of your keystrokes, including your passwords.
(f) There is software that enables them to take over your computer without your knowledge, linking it to their network of computers used to send out spam or viruses -- maybe in your name from an email account of yours.
(g) They may just be up to devilment, leaving software that will erase files, slow operations, bring your computer down completely, or instruct it to destroy itself -- just to show off to their friends.
(h) And once in your computer, they would have access to all of your documents, spreadsheets, photos, or other things you might consider private.

So what can you do?

4. Use passwords -- or maybe even encryption.

(a) Password protect your computer. That way, if you need to leave your computer from time to time, but like to keep a number of Web sites or files open, rather than having to log off (and reopening everything when you return) you can just press CTRL-ALT-DEL, and choose the "Lock" option. When you return, enter your computer's password; the screen, sites and files you last saw will be waiting for you.
(b) Obviously, you don't want to put passwords on Post-It notes on your computer screen, or in your top desk drawer, or share them with others.
(c) You shouldn't use the same password, or minor variations of one, for all sites. It makes it too easy for those trying to get to your stuff.
(d) Perhaps less obvious, you want to make it hard to guess. A distressingly large number of cell phone passwords are "1234," "5555," or the equivalent in their inability to slow up an intruder. Make your passwords at least 8 characters, and include every category on your keyboard: capital letters, lower case letters, numbers, and those symbols above the numbers, like the "#" sign above the keyboard's number "3." Of course, the stronger the password (number of characters, mix of characters) the more difficult it is to remember and use. That might be worth it for the password to your online banking, but a weaker one might be enough for your local online newspaper.
(e) If you have a number of passwords you'll need a way to record what they are and save them -- preferably not on your computer. You might want to consider a master password system, such as LastPass.com; but they involve more description and instruction than can be provided here.
(f) Finally, to borrow from Big Pharma's TV ads, "Ask your computer consultant if encryption might be right for you." Like passwords, encrypting a file will provide an added layer of security, but also create, like master passwords, one more thing you'll have to learn about, and step to go through, in using that file.

And see, Gregory Johnson, "Yahoo Accounts Vulnerable to Hacking -- Why and How to Protect Yourself," ResourcesForLife.com, February 5, 2013.

5. Update your programs. You may not care about the features offered in the latest updated versions of programs you use. What you do need to care about are your computer's vulnerability to attack as a result of the current versions you're using. The more popular the program the more likely it is to have been targeted by those spreading viruses and other malware -- programs such as Java, Adobe's Acrobat Reader, Microsoft's Internet Explorer, and Google's Chrome. Again, there is no 100% protection from these attacks. But well over 90% of them are attacks by way of programs that have not been updated. Most browsers and programs provide a feature for automatic updates at no additional charge to you. They are primarily software patches to the program's newly discovered vulnerabilities. If you're compulsive about keeping them updated you will eliminate most of the risk -- not all, but most.

6. Be cautious of Wi-Fi connections. A Wi-Fi connection to the Internet turns your laptop into a radio transmitter and receiver. (As distinguished from connecting with what is called an Ethernet cable.) Some Wi-Fi connections are open to the public, others are secured with passwords. If you're using your own at home, make sure your consultant geek knows how to maximize your security (applying the same password suggestions as in 5, above). If you're out in public, find out how secure the system is -- and probably save any financial transactions until you're back home.

7. Be skeptical. If you're over the age of 5 you probably know about scams. If someone emails you, asking you to accept their $15 million from Nigeria, after you send them a deposit, it's highly unlikely you'll ever see again the money you sent them -- not to mention any of the $15 million. Those are relatively easy. More difficult are emails from people you know (whose email accounts have been hacked) that you open reflexively before noticing, and wondering why, they are now using an email address from Russia. It's an especially good idea never to click on Web addresses in emails from people you don't know, or even from people you do know if the email doesn't look quite right, or like something they would have sent. It's highly unlikely that your bank is asking you to send it your Social Security number, or online banking password, however much that email may look like it came from your bank.

As we began, "There's no perfect security." We may not have the computer security problems confronting our military, banks, and other large corporations, but we have our own set of challenges. We also have our own set of solutions, thankfully much simpler than those required by large institutions. Moreover, as with maintaining our health, most of the reasons for unauthorized intrusion into our computers are within our control. Whether we choose to exercise that control is up to us.

# # #

Home Grown Drones

February 16, 2013, 2:15 p.m.

Drones Abroad, Drones at Home

The drones are coming! The drones are coming!

"The chickens will come home to roost," they say. So apparently do drones.

Drones Abroad

The primary problem with drones fighting our "war on terrorism" is not so much the technology as the absence of the traditional elements of a "war."

We are not fighting another country -- historically a necessary prerequisite to war. Thus, there is no territory we, or our enemy, are trying to take or defend. No frontline, or field of battle. No enemy equivalent of the Pentagon, or our Joint Chiefs. No easily identified uniforms worn by enemy soldiers. No way to produce an obvious victory, enemy surrender, armistice agreement, or even fashion an exit strategy. [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

We are not using drones to kill uniformed, enemy military killing our citizens, or destroying property, in the United States. We are using them to invade countries with which we are not at war, sometimes over the protests of their governments and peoples, to kill their non-uniformed citizens or visitors (and civilians). We kill them, not because they are engaged at that moment in destroying U.S. property, or attempting to kill U.S. military personnel, in one of the 150-plus countries where we feel entitled to have bases. We kill them because we believe they might someday do so, or are engaged in planning or training to do so.

After Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John Kennedy, Jack Ruby shot Oswald before he could be tried in court. Suppose the Secret Service, or Dallas local law enforcement, had reason to believe that Oswald, and then Ruby, were giving serious thought to murder. Would those suspicions (or "knowledge," if you wish) have justified assassinating Oswald -- or later, assassinating Ruby before he could kill Oswald, in order to enable a trial of the latter? Because that is, in effect, what we are doing with our drones abroad. [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was considered a crime, not an act of war. Our response? He was given his constitutional rights and convicted of that crime in a court of law. Although he had come from a community of like-minded folks in Idaho, we did not respond by bombing Idaho or otherwise killing his former "fellow travelers" (to borrow Senator Joseph McCarthy's phrase) who shared his rhetoric.

We're not paranoid. We have real enemies. What they are doing to our property and people abroad is much more than a "crime" -- even if that is what it would be if we stopped offering them targets abroad, and they had to come here to vent their hostility. But neither is it a "war" -- by any of the standards historically applied and regulated under an international law of war, notwithstanding the Administration's efforts to make it into one; see, "Department of Justice White Paper; Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force," (undated).

And now, before we have even developed a vocabulary, and a legal and ethical set of standards for describing, not to mention judging, what we are doing with our drones abroad, we're confronted with another set of issues regarding our drones at home.

Drones at Home
We read that "A future in which unmanned drones are as common in U.S. skies as helicopters and airliners has moved a step closer to reality with a government request for proposals to create six drone test sites around the country. . . . Possible users at home include police, power companies wanting to monitor transmission lines, farmers needing to detect which crops need water or even ranchers counting cows. Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a 'surveillance society' in which Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities." Joan Lowy, "FAA takes step toward widespread US drone flights," Associated Press/Yahoo!News, February 15, 2013.

I can't say as I mind the idea of ranchers using drones to count cows. Neither does the FAA. It's just worried about drones getting in the way of piloted planes, and there are not a lot of them out where the deer and the antelope roam.

However, I'm not so thrilled about this small step forward for surveillance that is such a giant step backward for privacy.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." -- a right primarily enforced by excluding evidence so obtained from criminal trials.

The drafters of that protection didn't have the Internet, drones, or other innovative revolutions in technology in mind.

The Fourth Amendment works pretty well when a judge is required to approve a search warrant before one person's emails can be seized and read. But how effective has it been, or could it possibly work administratively, when the government can simultaneously monitor all the emails flowing throughout the Internet?

We can't be said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (Katz v. U.S., 1967) of those things we leave in plain view. But how should, how can, the law respond when everything we do is in the plain view of constantly hovering drones?

The law is years, often decades, behind technology. And so it is again, with drones.

Drones abroad, drones at home. Drones offer us, like the airline captain told his passengers, "Both good news and bad news. The good news is we're making very good time. The bad news is we have no idea where we're going."

We're skiing too far over our skis, folks. Plummeting downhill before our ethicists and legislators, just droning on, can even find their snow shoes.

_______________
Excerpts from this blog essay appeared in the hard copy edition of The Gazette, in its "Blogfeed" section: Nicholas Johnson, "From DC 2 Iowa," February 24, 2013, p. A10, as follows:

The drones are coming! The drones are coming! "The chickens will come home to roost," they say. So apparently do drones.

The primary problem with drones fighting our "war on terrorism" is not so much the technology as the absence of the traditional elements of a "war."

We are not fighting another country -- historically a necessary prerequisite to war. Thus, there is no territory we, or our enemy, are trying to take or defend. . . .

We are not using drones to kill uniformed, enemy military killing our citizens, or destroying property, in the United States. We are using them to invade countries with which we are not at war, sometimes over the protests of their governments and peoples, to kill their non-uniformed citizens or visitors (and civilians). We kill them, not because they are engaged at that moment in destroying U.S. property, or attempting to kill U.S. military personnel, in one of the 150-plus countries where we feel entitled to have bases. We kill them because we believe they might someday do so, or are engaged in planning or training to do so. . . .

We're not paranoid. We have real enemies. . . . But neither is it a "war" -- by any of the standards historically applied and regulated under an international law of war, notwithstanding the Administration's efforts to make it into one.

And now, before we have even developed a vocabulary, and a legal and ethical set of standards for describing, not to mention judging, what we are doing with our drones abroad, we're confronted with another set of issues regarding our drones at home. . . .

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." -- a right primarily enforced by excluding evidence so obtained from criminal trials. The drafters of that protection didn't have the Internet, drones, or other innovative revolutions in technology in mind. . . .

We can't be said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (Katz v. U.S., 1967) of those things we leave in plain view. But how should, how can, the law respond when everything we do is in the plain view of constantly hovering drones?

# # #

Tough TIF Talk

February 3, 2013, 10:20 a.m. [Looking for the Feb. 1 "Pat Paulsen on Guns" blog entry? Click here.]

Like Death and Taxes, TIFs and TIFing Seem Here to Stay

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen

February 3, 2013, p. A7

Considering all the downsides of tax increment financing (TIF), you have to wonder why public officials continue to use it. Is there that much joy in playing Santa with other people’s money?

Whatever the reason, like death and taxes TIFs are here to stay. Officials and their lucky beneficiaries love them, and the public doesn’t seem to care — at least not enough to make an organized, political difference.

Nonetheless, it’s worthwhile to remind ourselves from time to time why they are such a bad idea. Here’s a summary.

• Roads and schools are traditional government undertakings. Funding private enterprise is not.

• TIFs are backwards: voters must approve bonds for legitimate public projects, like the justice center, but private TIFs are awarded without public approval, often over taxpayers’ objections!

• They’ve lost their way. Initially designed for urban renewal and low-income housing, taxpayer-funded TIFs are now used to build upscale condos.

• It’s ideological hypocrisy to praise free markets while coming to city hall tin cup in hand.

• Telling taxpayers, “I’ll keep the profits, you cover the losses,” conflicts with capitalism’s gamble of risks as well as rewards.

• TIFs intertwine government and business in something that’s neither socialism or capitalism. It’s called “corporatism,” and combines the worst qualities of both.

• TIFs distort the market.

• Even if distortion of market forces was desirable, governments have more effective tools than TIFs that don’t require taxpayers’ money — zoning regulations and building codes among others.

• It’s inexcusably unfair to fund one business person while leaving his competitors on their own.

• TIFs take money from schools and other government units, causing either cuts in programs or increased taxes.

• Even if TIFs would produce taxes many years from now, and they often don’t, are ever-increasing taxes (and budgets) an appropriate metric for measuring good government?

• TIFs aren’t needed. There are plenty of investors for sound, profitable business plans. If they and bankers won’t fund a project, why should taxpayers?

• Many TIFed projects would have gone ahead anyway; it’s virtually impossible to know if the beneficiary’s professed “need” is genuine.

• All ventures have risk. TIFs have more, because public officials with little business experience and no skin in the game make more mistakes than experienced investors watching their own money.

• Trying to move businesses from one community to another with competing TIF bribes is a lose-lose strategy.

• Businesses pick cities for reasons other than TIFs: workforce, local economy, schools, transportation, communication, quality of life.

• Telling officials to TIF “prudently” is as effective as beer ads urging University of Iowa binge-drinking students to “drink responsibly.” TIFs can be as addictive as alcohol.

• When officials give millions in taxpayers’ money to private, for-profit businesses, the temptations for good-old-boy corruption are great — and virtually impossible to uncover.

• TIFs are, for a taxing authority, what impulse buying is for the rest of us — an expensive, unbudgeted, one-off “I’ve got to have that!” moment, often followed by buyer’s remorse.

• TIFs can devastate a government’s credit rating, thereby increasing the cost of future legitimate projects.

These concerns are relevant for any city.

But Iowa City has another reason to avoid TIFs: We don’t need them. Businesses here will thrive; others come because of what we offer. We’re ranked near the top of the nation’s cities in numerous categories.

I know our officials will continue dropping millions of taxpayers’ dollars to the bottom line of for-profit, private ventures. But it still doesn’t hurt to ask from time to time, “Why?”
__________
Nicholas Johnson, a former school board member, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org.

# # #
For discussion of the taxpayer subsidy of a previous Moen project, along with footnote documentation, and links to a sampling of other prior TIF discussions, see "TIF Towers; Giving TIFs the Sniff Test."

WWPD? Pat Paulsen on Guns

February 1, 2013, 8:20 a.m.

Comedy and Concerns from Pat Paulsen's Writer
Quick Internal Links to Content
Introduction/Background: Mason Williams, Smothers Brothers, and Pat Paulsen

Mason Williams, "Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges"

Mason Williams and Nicholas Johnson Offer Gun Violence Solutions

Remember the wrist bands, "WWJD," for "What would Jesus Do"?

They came to mind the other day as I was thinking about what we might succeed in accomplishing as we try to reduce the 30,000 annual suicides and homicides involving firearms. With President Obama's inaugural address still echoing in my brain, my thoughts drifted back to less well-known presidential candidates during my lifetime, and the question, "What would Pat Paulsen do?" [Photo/poster credit: "Pat Paulsen for President."]

Because I had run into a grocery store clerk in Galveston the week before who had no memory of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (he was also unaware of which grocery aisle contained the store's offering of bread), it occurs to me that perhaps you, too, would appreciate a little background.

You remember "the Sixties," right? No? OK. Well, the 1960s and early 1970s were times of great creativity and upheaval in America. We had more "movements" then than . . . you get the idea. Large numbers of citizens were involved in protesting, demanding, and often obtaining their rights and goals regarding African-Americans' civil rights, women's rights, and bringing a halt to the Viet Nam War. Whether life imitates art, or the reverse, it was also a time of innovation in graphic art, music, literature, drama -- and television programming.

Given that my term as an FCC commissioner ran from 1966 through 1973, my "15 minutes of fame" pretty much overlapped these years, and caused me to be involved in one way or another with many of the passions of these times -- including one of those innovative TV programs, the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," one of CBS' most popular shows throughout the 1966-68 seasons.

There were conflicts between the show, primarily Tom Smothers, and the CBS' "censors," primarily involving politically edgy content. Ultimately, CBS' Chair Bill Paley ordered the cancellation of the program in April 1969. A film depicts those controversies, "Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," in which I play a bit part, and a summary of which is presented, ironically, on "The Paley Center for Media" Web site.

I believe it was during that time frame Tom Smothers flew to Washington and visited with me in my FCC office. My memory is that he said CBS was telling him that he was violating National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and FCC requirements.

As Mason Williams recalls, I explained to Tommy, and later to Mason, that the NAB Code (NAB "Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters) was a 1951 set of ethical standards, with something almost literally a copy of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, seldom if ever taken seriously (and subsequently abandoned by the NAB in 1983, following pressure from members), with no specified sanctions for violation.

I also reassured him that so far as I knew, there would be no commissioners or staff, many of whom (including myself) were fans of the show, who would be able to find anything in the show that was forbidden by the Communications Act of 1934, or FCC regulations.

That conversation ultimately led to my occasionally visiting the set and meeting a number of those involved with the program. Among them, I spent the most time with Mason Williams, Emmy-award-winning head writer, and composer of "Classical Gas" -- one of the most played pieces in the history of American music. [Photo of Tom Smothers, Mason Williams, Dick Smothers. Photo credit: MasonWilliams-online.com]

If you'd like to know more about this historic and influential program and its place in American television history, here are some links: The Smothers Brothers' Web page; "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," wikipedia.org; "Smothers Brothers," wikipedia.org; Mason Williams' Web page; and "Mason Williams," (including discography), wikipedia.org.

All of which, at long last, brings us to Pat Paulsen and the Pat Paulsen for President campaign, and ultimately Paulsen's proposals for dealing with gun violence. See, e.g., "Pat Paulsen for President," and "Pat Paulsen," wikipedia.org. Tom Smothers has said that Pat Paulsen "was the most important comedic talent I’ve met in my life.” [Photo credit: "Pat Paulsen for President," and other sources.]

There are a couple of videos that will give you a better sense of what that part of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was all about than I can recreate in words. But to give you a start, some early video manipulation enabled the candidate to, literally, talk out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. One of his campaign events involved climbing the highest mountain in Kansas with the governor. Another was, as I recall, an 89-cent fund raising bean dinner in Los Angeles -- with Carl Reiner acting as master of ceremonies. You get the idea. [Photo/poster credit: Mason Williams.]







Here are the videos:


This one is narrated by Henry Fonda:


This next one is a memorial tribute (Paulsen lived 1927-97), with "Classical Gas" as the soundtrack, Pat Paulsen's rendition of "God Bless America" as a close, and a couple of brief bits from the prior video:



As the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour head writer, it fell to Mason Williams to write material for Pat Paulsen as well. So who better to ask than Mason Williams how Pat Paulsen might go about controlling gun violence.

As it turns out, although Pat Paulsen has not been with us in a temporal sense since 1997, Mason Williams is still able to channel Paulsen's thoughts from the great beyond. Here, then, is . . . ____________________
Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges
by Mason Williams

[Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.] Solving the gun control issue, less paper work & reduced pressure on hospital emergency rooms

“I’d pass a law that states that from here on, anyone who wants to buy a gun has to be willing to be shot with it. It would be a little like the “golden rule” in reverse: “Do unto yourself what you might do unto others.” In this case, I’d probably call it the “lead rule”. This would solve several aspects of our gun control problems.

1. It would probably get rid of anyone wanting to own ten guns.

2. You wouldn’t need a permit, you’d have the scar from the bullet-wound. No need for a permit means less bureaucracy and therefore less paperwork. This would save a lot of time & money.

3. Local gun shows would probably have to go out of business. You wouldn’t want to buy a gun from some guy who would take you out behind the building and shoot you with it before he sold it to you. You would want go to a reputable dealer who’s a good shot, a marksman.

4. As to the part of the body where you would be shot, that would of course be your decision. This is, after all, a free country.

Pat is asking Congress to act quickly and pass this proposal into law, not just to save lives, but in order to clear the decks for his other proposals. He is concerned about the indication a number of public prosecutors are planning on bringing an "aiding and abetting" criminal behavior case against the National Rifle Association. The theory of the case is that the NRA's efforts to increase the sales of their members who are gun manufacturers and gun show owners, while weakening such regulations as exist, and stonewalling efforts to staff the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have the effect of aiding and abetting the crimes of those who use guns in the course of robberies or as the preferred instrument for homicides. Candidate Paulsen is concerned that the focus on these protracted and contentious criminal prosecutions, and their attendant publicity and public participation, will detract from what he considers essential legislation for the American people.

Here are some of his other proposals.

Education vs. The escalating cost of putting young people in prison. We need to spend more money and effort to provide a better education for our young people. A great many of today’s high school student’s drop out early only to begin a life of crime. We need to convince kids that if they stay in school and get smarter they’ll be less likely to get caught. This obviously means fewer kids going to prison. This will take a lot of pressure off of the costs of running our prisons.

The smarter kid is a fiscally responsible crook for us all! Who knows, they could even go on to have a career on Wall Street.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. It's the Republicans who are, for the most part, anti-abortionists. They have no qualms about butting into your personal life, but they do have the basic philosophy of staying out of private business affairs.

Therefore, I’d recommend passing a law to have all of the women in America become corporations. This way, if the hypothetical Jane Doe Corporation got pregnant & decided to “downsize” it would be strictly her “business,” and the Republicans, being honor-bound to abide by their tradition of staying out of people’s business affairs, would have to make her business decision none of their business.

Given the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United (that turned all corporations into persons), although the women would no longer be able to rely on the Nineteenth Amendment for their voting rights, they could simply vote as corporations.

And here’s the “two-fer,” since there are approximately 150,000,000 women in the United States, this would provide an enormous business opportunity for the lawyers of America.

Drugs and Social Security. I’d solve our nation’s drug problems & our Social Security problems in one fell swoop.

I’d propose that only Senior Citizens deal illicit drugs! (They could certainly use the money!) Think of the big load this would take off of the Social Security Reserves.

They’d probably even be willing to report their income and pay taxes on it!

It would also probably stop much of the violence associated with drug dealing. Who’s going to blow away somebody’s grandmother? Sure, there might be a walker-by-swatting with a handbag once in a while, but I’m sure the cops could handle it. I also think that older, wiser people would be more apt to show a little concern for their clients: “Now sonny boy, don’t take too many of these at once!” Or, “No downers with alcohol.” “These together will kill you.”

So there’s an extra, additional bonus here! The users won’t overdose and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune in treatment and rehabilitation. In this case you get three solutions for the price of one!

# # #
There you have it, folks. Mason Williams channeling Pat Paulsen from the great beyond, bringing solutions to a political Washington seemingly mired in mud, members of Congress accorded less respect by the American people than the regard they have for cockroaches and communists. We are desperately in need of the leadership only Pat Paulsen could provide.

Now . . .

But seriously, folks . . .
Nick: Mason, why do you think people want assault rifles?

Mason: Don't you see? You can't paint everyone with the same brush, but some of them act like fathers who are afraid their daughters will end up dating someone who is like they were. They know they are out there! They want to be able to protect themselves from people who have assault rifles. In other words, they want to be able to protect themselves from people who think like they do. If nobody, including them, had assault rifles, they wouldn't need to protect themselves from themselves. [Photo credit: Mason Williams.]


Nick: OK, good point. What else?

Mason: I think we ought to encourage and enlist the NRA members to help police themselves.

Nick: Are you serious? How is that going to work?

Mason: The goal would be to encourage the NRA to help solve gun violence problems rather than resisting all solutions. Not that they should go out hunting for criminals -- no good guys with guns going after bad guys with guns -- but agreeing to intensified restrictions that are inconvenient to all when they're applied.

Nick: Lots of luck with that one.

Mason: No; listen now. Suppose in a town like Butte, Montana, there are very few, if any, firearm suicides and homicides. Why should the gun owners in Butte be inconvenienced with regulations and prohibitions on gun ownership? My guess is that most of the congressional opposition to gun controls come from communities, counties, and states like that. Eliminate that opposition, focus the regulations on localities where they are needed, make sense, and could save lives, and the whole effort becomes more politically possible.

The NRA claims to be willing to back sensible regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopathic killers. Giving the NRA a base on balls in that 75 percent or more of geographic America where responsible gun owners outnumber the armed criminals and psychopaths might just be attractive to them.

Nick: Hey, you may actually have something there. But how would it work?

Mason: Well, once a community reaches a certain threshold of gun violence, that would trigger a set of laws and regulations. But they would only apply to that area. It would be like conditions triggering a curfew; something nobody wants to happen. Maybe Congress or the FCC could require radio and TV stations to report firearm deaths, and broadcast what we used to call public service announcements about shootings.

For example, if the selective enforcement would come into play maybe those who own hunting rifles or pistols would not be bothered, but those who own assault rifles would be subject to more scrutiny.

Don't you see? This would provide an incentive for NRA members to do everything possible to keep these rules from going into effect, an incentive to be left alone. In fact, the whole community would have a vested interest in not bringing these Draconian measures down on itself.

But I see a couple possible problems.

Nick: What's that?

Mason: Nick, it's always the same dilemma. You can't legislate common sense or personal responsibility. Laws tend to be absolutes. The reason is, you can't have loopholes without absolutes, and folks like loopholes. Common sense doesn't have any loopholes.

Besides, could Congress do that? Can you have different standards that apply in different ways to different areas of the country?

Nick: The first example that comes to my mind is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson when I was a part of his administration. It was an effort to outlaw voting practices throughout the South that resulted in the disenfranchisement of African Americans.

That Act had a built-in formula for distinguishing various areas of the United States. What the Act called "covered jurisdictions" were forbidden to make any changes in their voting laws without the Justice Department's prior approval, or "pre-clearance." Covered jurisdictions were states and counties in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote, and that had used a "device" to restrict voting. Other parts of the country were not subject to that review, and triggering of restrictions.

That doesn't answer your question, but it's at least an example of something somewhat similar. Another might be the FCC regulation, when I was there, that exempted the smallest radio stations from the burden of lengthy paperwork for their license renewals. They could just submit a postcard. That didn't involve geographical areas, but did provide a disparate standard in the application of the law and regulations.

Mason: Those examples hit the mark; they establish legal precedents.

I remember reading an article in the New York Times opinion section that was about how, more and more, people are coalescing into what is called groups of "like minded people," like organizations, or gated communities. And one of their findings was that the larger the group got, the more it embraced the views and perspectives of its most extreme and radical members, rather than the collective average of the group. ("[W]hen like-minded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before . . . [a] kind of echo-chamber effect . . .. '[B]iased assimilation' . . . means that people assimilate new information in a selective fashion. . . . [I]nformation that supports what they initially thought [is given] considerable weight. . . . [I]nformation that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss . . .." Cass R. Sunstein, "Breaking Up the Echo," New York Times, September 18, 2012, p. A25.)Maybe the NRA has fallen into this category. Maybe the NRA is just a group of like minded people who are held hostage by the extremist views of its most radical members.

# # #