Badged

I was first required to wear an identification badge for my job sometime in the 1990s, when I was working for Disney. Whether it was clipped on or hung from a lanyard, the ID badge has been there to get me past specific doors, into sensitive areas, or through security gates. I've become so accustomed to the darned things that I nearly feel nekkid without one--especially in a work situation.

The use of badges is curious to me the more that I think about it. They are little more than plastic cards with your picture, your authorizing organization, and some other data or functionality, depending on the badge (including door and computer access). Yet the badge has a very distinct set of social meanings, depending on your line of work. It is displayed as a public symbol of trust, acceptance, authority, officialdom.

Badges have some other connotations as well. They sometimes denote professional or social rank. They tell others where you can and cannot go. Wear one outside a facility that requires one, and you're pegged as belonging to a specific organization or even social class. You can be pegged as a "government man," for example, or "a suit." They can make the individual feel like they're wearing a dog tag. The darn things get in the way at times.

Why am I reflected on this now? Because I'm about to move into an environment where I won't need to wear a badge every day. It's liberating, and a little strange. That's not to say I won't have access cards--my new employer has two at the moment--and I'll probably end up visiting facilities that require the publicly displayed badge in the near future. But it does make me wonder a little bit about the culture/mindset of large organizations vs. small. Not all jobs need a badge, or even a name tag. Sometimes just your face will do. I wonder what it would take to get back to a truly "badgeless" society.

Potpourri LXXIX

Cirque du Soleil's founder is looking forward to his trip to the International Space Station. It would be interesting to see if, after returning from his trip, he decides to create a space-themed show.

From Lin:

• The pernicious effects of "instant wealth" through history.
• Farmers in India are reviving an old fertility custom to increase the chances for rain.
• A new word, which I love: "presstitutes," i.e. members of the media willing to sell themselves in support of the Obama Administration.
• Additional links regarding healthcare:
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164033&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/24/uninsured-a-look-at-the-fifty-million/
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164074&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=16755&R=162641932E
• Also, an editorial on progressive taxation. This offers food for thought: it might make sense in the short term to "tax the heck out of the rich" to pay for government programs now, but what if you tax these folks so much that they no longer ARE rich? Where do you get the money then? There's a certain magical thinking involved with progressive taxation, and it amounts to the belief that the rich will always be there to soak and that they'll always continue to do the things that make them rich. However, if you keep taxing them, they won't be as rich, or they might leave the country, or they might cease to work as hard because the effort isn't worth the payoff anymore. Food for thought as we continue to mortgage our future. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, which I'm a little bit more than halfway through--it teaches the reader a lot about the repercussions of using political "solutions" to fix economic problems.
• Michio Kaku talked on FoxNews about Mars missions.

From Cliff, a music video on Glenn Beck's show featuring some clips of political figures.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE):

• Government and climate change.
• White Knight Two to fly at the Oshkosh Air Venture.

From my NASA PAO feed, a story about an Earth science program being run out of Edwards AFB.

Buzz Aldrin stated that there's a monolith on Phobos. Saaaaayyyyy what?

Keith Cowing is playing nice with the new NASA Administrator...so far. All it will take is for Gen. Bolden to make one decision Keith doesn't like, and the seal clubbing will begin.

New from Hu: Fans of Starship Troopers will appreciate this. Special Forces troops are getting "Land Warrior" high-tech battle gear.

This editorial irritated me because the writer presumes to take the voice of reason on the space program, but she gets several things wrongs and mischaracterizes other aspects of space. Frustrating.

From Rich: a great speech about asking the right questions, about religion and its role in democracy and capitalism, and about scouting. Yes, all of these things are related.

And lastly, from Dan the PAO Man, some thoughts by T. S. Eliot...written before the Internet:

Opening Stanza from Choruses from "The Rock"

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,
The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

Follow-up on Government's Humor-in-the-Workplace Solicitation

As funny as the original solicitation was to hire a humorist to help the Bureau of the Public Debt, Senator Byron Dorgan as put a kibosh on the idea (the solicitation is now listed as cancelled). His comments are instructive for those who believe government has a sense of humor about itself. It doesn't.

“Of all the agencies, the Bureau of Public Debt should know that there is very little that is funny about today’s economic conditions,” Dorgan said in a statement. “I understand the need for motivation in the workplace, but I think we have a greater motivation to save the taxpayers some money.”

Sure, pal. But it's your party spending one TRILLION dollars (and that's not funny)!

"Promise You'll Visit Me in the Re-Education Camp?"

Hearings are likely to begin on reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," a law that keeps controversial (i.e. conservative) topics off the radio by requiring radio stations to give equal time for opposing views. This is flatly absurd. Left-leaning attitudes overwhelm the magazine racks, the major television networks, the movies, books, newspapers, and a good chunk of the Internet. Conservatism dominates in one segment of the communications world--radio--and THAT'S the place where liberal politicians want to ensure "fairness." The quotation above was said to me by a fellow conservative. Heck, I might be next to him inside the fence.

What's really amazing is how I have been told that I'm closed-minded for not wanting to watch or read all this liberal stuff, but it's okay to impose a fairness doctrine on Limbaugh. Apparently 95% control of the media is not enough.

*

Another thing's got me in a twist lately: specifically, the notion that business is inherently less moral than government, and that therefore it is government's job to "rein in" the private sector. Those who dislike what the private sector does often cite the "excessive" salaries of this or that individual, or the amount of power businesses have to control lives.

The fundamental difference between "power" in the business sense and power in the governmental sense is that government writes and enforces the laws, with weapons if necessary. Yes, financial concerns can prevent particular ideas from spreading, but only through pressure ("If you run this ad, we'll pull our advertising"), not life-endangering threats ("Run this ad, and we'll close down your business, arrest you, seize your assets, and put you in jail"). I'm not saying either side is more moral. What I am saying is that human beings operate both types of agencies--public and private--and thus are equally susceptible to corruption or power-seeking. The difference is in methodology: businesses cannot force you to buy their products, and if they did, government would often come in and break up their monopoly.

And if I were to seek assistance in fixing the current economic crisis, I'd ask business leaders, not government leaders because business leaders understand the give and take of the marketplace. Government is used to being obeyed. In the Western system of law, only governments have a legal monopoly on the use of force. If you would rather work with people on a voluntary basis, you work with business. If you want people ordered about, you go through the government.

One reason conservatives favor limited government is that they prefer voluntary exchanges. You cannot engage in a purely voluntary partnership with the government when they control the laws. The advantages are all on the government's side. Businesses can offer incentives to elected officials (voting, lobbying, campaign contributions), but they cannot FORCE the government to do anything. Power relationships matter, and the less power government has, the better. My $.02 this fine Sunday morning.