I was reading through a thread in social media the other day.  One of the writers questioned the tactic of using masks when showing up to political events.  Why, she wondered, are the masks necessary?  It was a question I’ve asked several times…it’s why the thread caught my eye.

A little background.  There’s a group known as “Antifa.”  Apparently, that’s shorthand for anti-fascists.  (Really?  A special group to oppose fascism?  Sign me up!)  Word is, they support violence as a primary technique of disrupting “the opposition.”  (Crap, violence?  I’m out…)

I’ve always been bothered by the masks.  It seems they promise ill-intent.  But in response to the question “why the masks”, another writer suggested the masks were to protect the wearer’s identity to prevent “doxxing.”  That one got me.  At first blush, it makes sense.

“Doxxing” is the practice of searching out and publishing on the web identifying information about some person.  Names, phone numbers, addresses, employers, that kind of thing.  It’s often done with malicious intent – the idea is to open up a given individual to ongoing harassment.  It allows “your” group to intimidate and punish a member of “the other” group for not believing the way you think they should believe…

It wasn’t always about punishment.  There was a time, for example, when Paul Ryan got into some scrape with Americans about some thing and people wanted to deliver a petition of protest to him.  So, he bravely locked all his office doors so people couldn’t get in and unplugged his phones so people couldn’t complain and hid under his desk – you know, to show his connection with the people.  Since Ryan had taken such a bold stance at his office, some clever sod out there encouraged people to send postcards to Ryan, instead – and published Ryan’s home address in the hope that the postcards would be sent there.

I have to confess: I kind of liked that early bit of doxxing.  At the time, I thought that if Paul Ryan wouldn’t do his job at his job, he could do his job at home.  In truth, I hadn’t given enough thought to the reality that people surely sent more than postcards on the subject and, of course, made Ryan and his family subject to some of our more…unhinged elements.  (What can I say?  Sometimes it takes awhile to fully get one’s arms around new developments…)

So, when I read the suggestion that these Antifa individuals were simply trying to avoid doxxing, I thought that kind of made sense.  I thought that, perhaps, it had put a hitch in my giddy-up about the masks.  Maybe there WAS a legitimate reason to protect one’s identity.  As I said, on first blush, it made some sense…but not for long.

The idea that a person showing up at a political rally wearing masks to protect their identity in order to avoid doxxing is what I call a philosophical argument.  If you don’t think about it too much, it seems to make sense – but there is no practical application.

See, they aren’t JUST wearing masks.  They’re also wearing body protection of various kinds.  As often as not, they’re packing SOME kind of weapon.  To my mind, the most salient part of the question of showing up armored for – and, often armed for – battle is the “battle” part.  People don’t come to rallies like that ready to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.  They’ve come for the violence.  They’ve come to initiate the violence.

You can tell the difference by the people on BOTH sides of any issue who are NOT covered head to toe in protective gear and still managing to wave placards and banners and shout their various beliefs and who intend, after the event, to go home quietly and make jokes about how foolish the opposition is…and so are not worried about doxxing.  Why would they be?  Oh, I got caught out standing up against hatred?  Well, I’m standing tall…

But it turns out, if violence is your first response, I WANT you doxxed.  If violence is your first response, you clearly do not know how to live in a society and the society in which you dwell has a right, perhaps an obligation, to protect itself.  The society needs to know who you are so we can, as a group, try to correct your behavior.

As a bonus, we could all find out who you really are.  ARE you a far left nut ball trying to advance the cause of peace through violence?  Are you a far RIGHT nut ball pretending to be a far left nut ball?  Perhaps you’re just some apolitical individual on somebody’s payroll.  I’ll tell you this: whichever it is, I condemn your violent tactics and I WANT you unmasked…

Well, Reality Winner, the NSA contractor who leaked the document about the GRU supposedly going on a phishing expedition against a company that makes voting software, is probably going to go to jail over it.  They caught her – and she confessed – right away.

The thing that struck me about the document was that it was the first implication that someone – ostensibly the Russians – intended to hack into voting machines.  The official word, of course, is “no.”  “They” didn’t succeed.

I used to be a techie guy, running IT departments.  Back then, I was excited by the possibilities technology could bring to voting – easing access, for example.  But for every upside of technology, there’s a downside.  My thinking on the topic was limited to the application of the technology, not the application of nefarious intent by interested parties.  (Hey, I was young…)

But then we got George W. Bush in a disputed “election” in which many districts were seen to have “voted” in ways other than the exit polls predicted.  The thing was, the districts in question were computerized voting districts.  Then we were treated to online videos showing how ridiculously simple it was to hack into the machines and flip votes.  They’re essentially spreadsheets.  Simply switch the contents of one cell with the contents of another and you’ve changed the outcome of the “election.”

The companies who made the voting machines – the same companies that make ATM machines – insisted it was impossible to make a machine that created a paper trail.  The “official” message was that Americans needed to ignore exit polls since they’re largely inaccurate.  It was a stupid message in view of the fact that exit polling is and has been the gold standard of polling since it’s inception but that was the message.

It put me off computerized voting.  I noticed that nobody did anything about it, or even tried to.  Sure, there was some lip-service paid to fixing the problems but there was no concerted effort to stop using the voting machines until people could know, with one hundred percent certainty, that the machines were secure.  My suspicion is that the parties each thought being able to hack into the machines and “control” the voting was a GREAT idea.  I have no evidence to support that assertion – it’s just a gut feeling.

I use over-arching precepts to guide my thinking.  When there’s a problem nobody does anything about, there’s a reason.  We first saw it in Florida, in 2000.  Nobody did anything about it.  Then, people trying to sound the alarm among the electorate TOLD us it would be Ohio in 2004 – and it was.  Nobody did anything about it.  Truthfully, I didn’t see it in 2008 or 2012 but not so much, I think, because “my guy” won.  I think in order to be effective, the “election” needs to be close and those were not.  But strange doings were again afoot during the 2016 Democratic primary.  Another close race, more “ignore the exit polls” bunk.

Through it all, the “official” position is that there’s nothing to see here, everything’s okay.  The refrain we hear over and over is that it’s important to “maintain the integrity of the vote.”  Can you tell by the fact that I can’t write “vote” or “election” without “quotes” that I no longer trust the “integrity of the vote?”

It’s easy to see how each of the “two parties” might have come to the conclusion that, from now on, the REAL “elections” would take place between two rooms of techies each hacking into machines and flipping votes, racing each other, flipping one way then the other, until the final gun.  Whoever flips most effectively “wins.”  But what if there was a third room?

The document Reality dropped indicated that the Russians were interested in accessing the machines.  What if they got in?  Our own government would NEVER acknowledge the fact even – perhaps especially – if it meant We, the People had “elected” a person so incompetent, it’s a wonder he can move about on a daily basis without supervision, let alone run this once-great nation.

I’ve never accepted the story about Russia affecting the “election” by flooding social media with information critical to Hillary.  I mean, so what?  I saw TONS of information critical to Hillary.  It never crossed my mind it might be coming from the Russians.  I thought it was coming from the GOP just like it had been since the world first heard the name Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

I vote absentee.  I do it because, well, let’s be honest, it’s easier and more pleasant.  But in addition, it creates a paper trail – a way to do a recount.  (Did you know it’s not possible with the machines?  They only keep a total, not a record of individual votes…)  I think everybody should vote absentee.  Yes, I know there are ways to cheat with paper but they’re not as easy as the invisible voting machine hacks.

I’ll tell you this: I want to know if the software company the Russians are said to have tried to access wrote the software for any of the machines used in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.  But in the meantime, Reality goes to jail…

I’ll be voting yes on Measure C, the rent control measure here in Santa Rosa, CA.  I’m not a fan of rent control.  Generally speaking, I think rent control treats a symptom and not the underlying problem.  But at some point, if one doesn’t stop the bleeding, there will be no patient to save, you know?

The one aspect everyone can agree upon around here is there’s a housing shortage.  The most popular reason given is lack of building and certainly that plays a part.  The other thing I point to is REITs – Real Estate Investment Trusts.  These are investment vehicles in which people with a little money to invest pool their resources with other people with money to invest and buy up available inventory.  Since REITs use pooled money, they can offer whatever they need to offer to acquire the property and then charge whatever they need to charge to make the investment profitable.

I don’t know who’s going to stop such a process.  A seller receives an offer OVER the asking price, as is, all cash, with a 14 day escrow.  Who’s going to say no?  Is the seller going to “pass” on that offer and take the one below asking in which the buyer still needs to secure funding?  Will the Real Estate agent, who stands to make a killing on the artificially inflated price say no?  How about the bank that gets to charge interest on the loan, will they say no?  Eventually, inevitably, the market, itself, will say no.  If I try to rent my storage unit to a family of four for $5000/mo and I get no takers, I’ll have to change my position.

But in the meantime, how much damage has been done to society?

To be clear, I see the REITs buying single family homes as the driver of the problem but Measure C doesn’t even speak to that issue.  It only applies to apartments and only certain apartments at that.  But as single family homes become unavailable, people are forced into apartments.  The increased demand for apartments created by artificially skyrocketing rents on single family units allows landlords to charge increasingly high rents.

Consider: the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Santa Rosa as of April, 2017 is $2,083 a month.  Management companies look to make sure the prospective renter makes three times the rent as a qualifier.  That means a prospective renter needs to show $6,249 a month in income just to qualify.  Let’s carry this out, shall we?  That monthly income amount works out to $74,988 per year.  A full time employee works 2,080 hours a year so in order to rent that 2 bedroom unit, the prospective renter needs to earn $36 dollars an hour. ($36.05, to be exact…)

Is that the guy who washes the cars at the dealerships before going on display?  Is that the server who just handed you a bag of food through a window?  Is it the person stocking the shelves in your local Wal-Mart?  Fun fact: California will push it’s minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour – by 2022!  If they started that today, people would only be $21 dollars an hour short of what they need to rent a 2 bedroom apartment.  How far behind will they be in 2022?  So you see, I could support Measure C just on the math, alone.

But the truth is, that’s not why I’ll be voting for it.  My reason is more…visceral…

See, the Santa Rosa city council saw the problem and tried to implement a solution.  No, it’s not a “solution” so much as a stopgap but they tried to do something.  Then, big moneyed interests got involved and used the proposition process to force the issue to a ballot – but they lied to people in order to gather signatures.  They’ve been lying pretty much every day since, as well.  I get a new, glossy, full-page flyer in my mailbox nearly every day telling me all the things Measure C won’t do.  The thing is, the pretty mailers are addressing issues nobody else is talking about.

Hey, Measure C won’t make the airlines run on time so vote no!
What?  Who said anything about airlines?
Well, measure C won’t make your kid prom queen so vote no!
Prom queen, what?!?
OMG, Measure C won’t stop fourth graders from smoking, vote no!
Nobody said Measure C would stop fourth graders from smoking – that’s not even the point!
Hey, if you think fourth graders should smoke, go ahead and vote yes on C!

If you hate your grandma, vote yes on C…

All right, I may have made up some (all) of those anti-C arguments but the urgings of the anti-C flyers are no more relevant.  There has been a non-stop flood of falsehoods flowing into my mailbox.  Frankly, it makes me a little suspicious.  I have a rule of thumb that, in my humble opinion, always applies.  It says that when a person (or group, in this case) resorts to lying, they’re admitting they know their own position is false.

Of course, none of that matters with today’s electorate.  Huge swaths of Americans have become dumber than bricks and I’m pretty sure all the slick mailers and outright false advertising – that is, all the money poured into this effort – will have the desired effect.

But I’ll tell you this: the truth is, I’m not really voting for or against Measure C.  I’m voting against the lies…