Saturday, October 30, 2010

the grouch reads

The grouch reads: Zombie Economics; How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us, by John Quiggin, Princeton University Press.

"An analysis by the New Economics Foundation concluded that for each pound paid to British bankers, society incurred a net loss of ten pounds. The opposite was true for hospital cleaners and childcare workers, who were paid much less than their social value."

(page 171, fn. 25)

I'll bet the results wouldn't be very different if someone performed such an analysis for the "land of the free" ..... though, of course, they would be expressed in dollars....

Thursday, October 28, 2010

the grouch reads

ThE GROUCH READS.....
[i've forgotten where....]

Someone had suggested that anyone with a million dollars or more should not be allowed to run for political office...
Or vote.....
Interesting idea...
That would certainly change things.....

in passing

Can't purchase comfortable shoes in this benighted land!
It would appear that as people here walk less frequently, even the so-called "wide"
shoes are less wide than those in Central Europe,
where the trams run frequently and people walk to and from the tram stops...
Would that I had never come here, would that I had stayed there......

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

the crimes of capitalism

In civilized countries health care and education are regarded as human rights, but not in the country with the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction....

"Don't throw away that pull ring!" my mother said to me as I opened a can of soup...
(fresh food is the norm here in the land of the free)
The church is saving them to help kids who have cancer and no medical insurance...,
They will get a discount...--- a discount??? Poor kids have to pay for cancer treatment!!???
And they are going to pay a little less if they scrounge in the garbage????

And apparently they are also saving printer cartridges to get school supplies....

This is unbelievable!
Scrounging in order to have what is yours by right....

I have said it before and I will say it again: the USA is not a civilized country....

Monday, October 25, 2010

the grouch reads

The grouch reads....Keith Oatley's Best Laid Schemes (Cambridge UP, 1992)....Chapter Three, "Rationality and The Emotions", p. 160.

Oatley is explaining the errors which led to the Cernobyl disaster... not errors based upon
emotions, but errors based upon the mis-application of technical knowledge...

"the inappropriate use of skilled technical knowledge"

and in the margin of my copy of Oatley's book, I've written: how Socratic!

For, we learn in Plato's Apology that when Socrates (in his quest to refute the Delphic oracle's saying that Socrates was wisest) went to visit the skilled craftsmen of Athens, he felt sure that he would find people who knew many fine things, and they did; however, they did not know where their knowledge stopped and where their ignorance began, and held many opinions not based upon their knowledge.....so Socrates thought himself better than them.....

Saturday, October 23, 2010

in passing....

A quick glance at the New York Times reveals their pro-government stance...

(and that's putting it mildly)

a smear campaign directed at Julian Assange.

Well, I say Mr. Assange must be doing something right!


Friday, October 22, 2010

disheartening

Three weeks ago or so--maybe longer--I wrote about a less than pleasant experience with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

Today I can say that the practical problem has been solved, as I managed to successfully identify myself, and pass the written and driving tests.

Nonetheless, a certain amount of discomfort remains--despite the helpfulness of a manager at the office very distant from my home.

In brief, the manager jumped me to the front of the line and approved my documentation.
I think that was fair as my time had been wasted due to an error.

Nonetheless, I cannot stop myself from drawing a few lessons from the experience--lessons about the sorry state of democracy in the country possessed of the greatest amount of destructive power of all the countries in the world.

The helpful supervisor would have been happy to bury the past, but I brought up the subject of my flawed attempt at discussion with two Troopers. I told him that I hoped no one took anything I'd said personally. As the two patrolmen or officers who'd taken me into a room where they shut the door were not under his immediate authority, it seems that the man I refer to as the supervisor (I think that is his actual title) had needed to use some diplomacy in discussing my case. It seems the Troopers did not appreciate my behavior, but I gather that the helpful supervisor took the viewpoint of a businessman who wants to be sure a customer is satisfied. (That too is a bit unsettling as what I've seen in the past is that customers can be crazy but a certain business mind requires humoring their craziness; but I don't think I'm in the least crazy or unreasonable--not about this matter, at any rate.)

Unfortunately, that does not satisfy me completely. He could not resist remarking that the individuals involved were only following orders...(those are not his exact words)...

That is, however, no excuse whatsoever. It would appear that among the police or highway patrol or whatever is their exact title there is a certain spirit of obedience. One must follow orders. And I had, in effect, broken that rule. Which, one guesses, would mean that they had, in a way, resented me.


And, if I grasp the situation rightly, they are indeed right to think that their culture of obedience is not one I respect. Nor do I think it has any place in a society of free individuals.

Yet, as I was correct in my reading of the relevant laws and regulations, it was, actually, they who had broken the law, and disobeyed the relevant authorities.... as I actually said in an email to one Trooper. Which is a curious irony in the entire situation....

So, this incident could be filed together with other militaristic tendencies--for the military is the institution, above all, which attempts to train people to obey--, or perhaps, we could label the file "non-democratic" or even "anti-democratic tendencies in the USA".... (And, indeed, many police are former soldiers....)

None of which makes me happy or pleased.

It is also significant that the manager/supervisor backtracked from his earlier position in which he admitted that I had correctly read and interpreted the appropriate laws. Now, he too, was, in effect, excusing a stance that meant blind obedience. I say this now, but I did not dare to say this to him then. I write these words now, but I could not have spoken them then--before I'd actually gotten my driver's license. So, I say it now, in public, but not to the man's face.--And that, too, is deeply unsatisfying..... It is in fact the sort of division between what one says or thinks in public and what one says or thinks in private that is characteristic of totalitarian societies, as we know from accounts of communism in Europe....

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

waiting for . . . the doctor

Today I accompanied my parents to a doctor visit. Once there, we had to wait in a waiting room dominated by a large flat screen television....
On the other side of the wall were the receptionists. They opened their window, let us register, and then shut it, becoming quickly hidden by the window slid shut. That seemed so unfriendly. As if to say: Go away; don't bother me.

Later, I think I found the reason for this closed window policy.... to shut out the noise of the merciless advertising and junk featured on the purportedly high tech tv screen...

As we waited to see the doctor, we were assaulted by advertising for food--none of which was fresh--such as breakfast "kasha" in a variety of flavors....(flavored--that means chemicals, unneeded stuff and not fresh fruit or anything of the sort) and some breakfast cereal with flavoring--and I'll bet, sugar..... Both of these are kinds of food which would not be chosen by a very nutritious conscious person. Why would a doctor allow such advertising in his waiting area?
It seems to be a genuine disease in the USA to think food with preservatives, additives, etc. is real food. Whereas in reality only food that can turn bad is real food...Only fresh food is worth eating...And fresh food cannot be saved or 'preserved' indefinitely; it can only be eaten---and enjoyed!

Additionally there was an advertisement for a "reality" program....apparently the plan is to choose the most "far out" or "bizarre" situation....

Why? Why must there be such a tv in the waiting room? Why that channel with its offensive and condescending content? Why the manipuation? Has the doctor given any thought to this? Did someone give him a free television? Did he sign a contract? Why would he do this?
Does he have so much contempt for his patients?

In fact, if I am not mistaken, it was the "Discovery" channel, but a branch thereof specifically devoted to "health"--not real health mind you, but chiefly products which can be marketed as having a connection to )someone's degraded notion of( health....

Do I believe this country is civilized? No. On the contrary, my experience today in the doctor's waiting room stands part-for-whole as a good example of what I think this country really is...

Incidentally, as we were leaving, I saw an unhealthy looking older couple--two people who are not having an easy time of it right now. I commented that the television seemed primarily to feature advertising.... The man either agreed or did not disagree....at any rate, he didn't protest that he was enjoying the fare offered on the screen...... And I spoke out loud what I was thinking: Why not show something funny? --Something to make people laugh like "Fawlty Towers"? Wouldn't that be a nicer way to prepare someone for a very serious doctor's visit? Wouldn't that be even HEALTHIER than yet more manipulative advertising and degraded programming?

But we are not yet that advanced...

And there is a ready explanation: every action, every institution, every moment of our time inside and outside of the workplace must be geared to maximizing the profits of the ruling class... . until finally you are always serving them, when you buy your garden tools, when you plant grass, when you indulge in your hobbies, when you purchase your favorite this or that....etc., etc........


Monday, October 18, 2010

a disturbing trend

The link below describes police abuse and outright criminal behavior by police in Belgium. The behavior is reminiscent of recent events in Toronto and elsewhere....



acknowledgment: I became aware of this link at the blog, "Crooked Timber".
Update: The link above is not working.
The Crooked Timber article was titled "Policed brutalities in Belgium"
by Ingrid Robeyns dated October 11, 2010.

Friday, October 15, 2010

noted in passing

Was at the doctor with a family member. The usual nurse was not there.
Where's he gone? I asked. Answer: He's now working for the Border Patrol.

Tells you something about the priorities in this country.
It's more important to keep poor Mexicans out than to take care of the health of people who are here....

(I assume he's taken a job with better pay and working conditions or something like that.)

Yes, this country is in very, very bad shape.

Oh yeah, we should also mention that NAFTA had a lot to do with the destruction of the Mexican economy (agriculture), hence created the need to go north in search of work. Something of a Catch22 situation about that.... but this is not something we talk about, is it?
(And if it weren't NAFTA, there' d be some other form of interference from the big brother to the north....)

a small thing

I suppose, finally, that there is one point where I agree wholeheartedly with Terry Penner's Socratic views... on the subject of punishment.

When I lived in Slovakia, I worked in two different high schools (one Slovak-run, and one American-run) where the managers were fanatically devoted to the need to punish students who (in their view) behaved badly...

That fanaticism about the need for punishment indicates not an abiding commitment to moral principles, but, rather a deep fear that maybe morality isn't real or objective, but needs the support of sticks and stones.

I recall now, with sadness, a Slovak woman with a bureaucractic title who directed my attention to the young people moving boisterously in front of us, saying something like this; Just look at them, how they act! Isn't it obvious they need rules?

At the time I was engaged in a sort of negotiation with the school trying to get some money for my apartment, and out of fear that any dissent might affect those negotiations and simple cowardice I agreed with her... And the memory now of that assent reminds me of all that I've been through in a variety of degrading and demeaning employment contexts....I was too tired and too cowardly to speak the truth, that their chaotic excited behavior was lively and that life is good........and too big, too sprawling, too wild to ever allow itself to be hemmed in by petty rules.... and perhaps this pettiness that she so fervently demanded of me and the world was itself nothing more than a discomfort with life . . . or, one could say, a fear of freedom....

Thursday, October 14, 2010

shameless

I think students of Ancient Greek Philosophy should simply stop using the word "virtue" to translate "arete"...

Can we talk about a "virtuous" horse--except as a joke?

"virtue" introduces moralistic notions that don't belong.

I'd like to free myself of moralistic notions too. And I'd like to really start living, before it's too late....

El Paso "air show"

graphic violence described below--see note/after-thought for explanation

Blood is good
killing is good
arms ripped off
heads ripped off
women dead
children dead
all good
all glorious
all noble
all the price we have to pay for democracy and freedom
die
die
die
nothing is more glorious than death
nothing is more glorious than suffering and pain
nothing is more glorious than killing




Note:
The above does not represent what I believe, but, rather what I take to be implied by the willingness of some institutions to use killing to achieve their ends. It is a kind of poem, an imaginary recreation of a frame of mind which I do not endorse.
If you like, it is a sarcastic parody of militarism.

note/after-thought
The above words are disturbing. And I think most ordinary citizens would find them disturbing. Yet, the same citizens might not be disturbed by an "air show". The point is that they should be disturbed by an air show. An air show really is nothing more than a celebration of our ability to cause death and destruction--suffering. And that is not something to be proud of. Nor should it be a source of entertainment.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

in passing....

Czechoslovakia had an eight-hour day before the USA...

and

Mexico’s 1917 constitution established an eight-hour workday, a minimum wage, the rights to establish unions and to collectively bargain, and a right to strike—rights not seen in the United States until the 1930s and later.

The above cut and pasted from the New Press webpage about "The Mexican Revolution" by Adolfo Gilly...

Needless, to say, thanks to so-called neo-Liberalism, such progressive ideas are sadly in retreat all over the world--in the USA, in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and elsewhere

orgies of violence

The sound of a jet overhead causes me to wonder . . . perhaps this is the time for El Paso's yearly festival of killing machines . . .

A few days ago a politician in New York state, a very rich man as I seem to recall,
expressed his "disgust" about those who are erotically attracted to individuals of the same sex.
A gay pride parade, he said, was not a place to take one's children. It was not "normal".

I wonder....

Would the same politician take his children to a festival of violence? A gluttonous festival celebrating weapons which destroy, maim, ruin lives and families?

For airplanes --or military aircraft, if you prefer--are, in fact, simply tools for killing, maiming, and destroying families.

Yet, in El Paso, Texas, there is a yearly celebration of these killing machines.

And, I believe, that families attend--thousands of "normal" families....

There are many unwritten rules in the USA, rules followed by "free" people, rules willingly obeyed by "normal" people-- one of them would say, if written down:

Killing, murder, destruction is right when we do it.--And no one had better ask any questions about that!
Note:
Just to be perfectly clear.
The last sentence above does not represent my point of view. I do not belong to the "we" referred to in the rule. I believe that violence is justified only in self-defense and only when all other possibilities have been exhausted. The point of the above is to criticize those who are too willing to use violence. I am also suggesting that there is a kind of hypocrisy involved, as well as an intolerance for the sort of discussion which is appropriate in a democracy.

Monday, October 11, 2010

did I miss something?

Where in Socrates is there an acknowledgment of the sheer pain and sadness of daily living?
I know not where.
Better to read Elizabeth Bowen--whose luscious prose if filled with recreations of the daily project of misunderstanding which is our lives with others....
Shall I perhaps blame Plato's artistry?

Sunday, October 10, 2010

not soon enough

If all goes as planned, in two weeks I shall leave El Paso--never to return.
The total incivility of the local population--their aggressive driving, hostility toward
pedestrians, noisy cars and music, and their incessantly barking dogs--is something
I have never before experienced, something I could never have imagined in my wildest nightmare....

Thursday, October 7, 2010

in passing....

I know that some people are protesting today about the destruction of public education, and I'm sorry to say that it seems to be too little, too late. So far as I can tell, this country is rapidly going downhill. We are paying for their bailout.
To judge from what I read over at Brian Leiter's "Leiter Reports", there is a trend of destroying universities... The destruction of public education in California was more or less the first step.

I see no reason for optimism. Of course, I hope that the situation will change. Today I see no evidence that it will.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

socratic reflections

Do you think I'm such a fool that at my age I don't realize that bad people do bad things--especially to the people who live nearby? And do you think I'm going to deliberately harm myself?
---my tendentious paraphrase of a remark of Socrates at his trial (as depicted in Plato's "Apology").....

It's not the business of a just man to harm anyone.....(Republic. Book I)

I'm in the middle of reading Naomi Reshotko's "Socratic virtue" and it has struck me how very different is Socrates' point of view about matters social. Socrates (as depicted in Plato's "early" dialogues) isn't the political thinker we know from Plato of the "Republic". Yet, consider the following:

1. In modern political thought there is a defense of the state which says that free-riders have to be punished, so we need the coercive mechanism of the state. aka, the problem of "public goods"
2. public goods also have the property that when I have one, it doesn't diminish your ability to have it. --Alternatively, if I pay for one and you don't, it can be hard to keep you from enjoying it.
3. Recall too the leftist criticism of capitalist economics: it just cannot deal with social costs or with negative externalities...

1s: Contrast with 1 the Socratic notion that if someone has done something bad they need education, not punishment--found, e.g., in the "Apology" . ( a notion persisting in Plato's ridicule of the vulgar people who fear punishment and chains more than what or who they will become--in the "Theaetetus")

2s: Contrast the idea (combining 1 and 2 above) that we need to threaten people with punishment to make them contribute to a common good (because we can't stop them from enjoying the good they didn't pay for) with the Socratic notion that my goodness or happiness doesn't take away from your goodness or happiness, and, indeed, my happiness can't be purchased at the price of your misery. It just can't be done.

And, I hasten to add, there's the further Socratic point that you can't make someone just by threatening them with punishment.....

And recall the familiar point that capitalist economic systems (as in the EU or the USA) have a form of prosperity which depends upon the misery of others. But note that the EU and the USA do not have thereby anything like happiness---as is attested by the frequent observation that wealthier countries are not immediately for that reason happier....

(with respect to 3 above, it seems to me that Socrates couldn't support capitalism.... because it betrays certain basic principles about justice, happiness, and virtue.....If correct, this is a funny thing for me to discover, since just the other day I was thinking that the evils of capitalism could not have been known to Socrates since he lived in a pre-industrial age. yet the very plausible principles of justice and virtue which he espoused are precisely at odds with capitalism's disregard for the consequences of our actions....)

Yes, it's true; there's much to learn from Socrates . . . and his ideas are of a different sort altogether....one might even say radical and revolutionary....

references
Robin Hahnel, The ABC's of Political Economy, Pluto Books: London, 2002, Chapter 4 objects to capitalism that it can't deal with externalities or social goods.
(Chomsky frequently mentions the problem of externalities in his writings and lectures; so I feel justified in referring to it as the "leftist" or even "familiar leftist" critique.)
another useful discussion of externalities is: Daniel Hausman's "When Jack and Jill Make a Deal", Social Philosophy and Policy,9, 1992, 95-113.; available at Hausman's homepage

Naomi Reshotko, Socratic Virtue: Making the Best of the Neither Good-Nor-Bad, Cambridge UP, 2006. Another former student of Terry Penner who follows his interpretation of Socrates on key points.

Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy, and Liberty, Cambridge 1982, mentions the defense of the state on the grounds of preventing "free riders". (Taylor himself rejects that defense.)
Economic systems which rely upon creating misery? Here one might see Richard Miller's recent book, "Globalizing Justice".

Sunday, October 3, 2010

like communism--but not 100%

Important: See Post-Script Below (CORRECTION: It's not true to say this was 100 percent like communism!)

I have been thinking about my unpleasant experience last week at the "Texas Department of Public Safety"... yes, public safety, and a subtle form of uninformed intimidation behind closed doors....
thinking about how two uniformed policemen took me to a room where they shut the door door behind us.........thinking about their arrogance, their dogmatic certainty, the superior stance they took toward me, their wholly unjustified and unshakable confidence..... and their shock when I pointed out that they were mistaken..... which they were unable to believe..... and it reminds me of experiences I had while living in Slovakia, a former communist country, where there are policemen who came of age during communism......

For their dogmatic confidence rested on precisely three things:
1. an inability to read carefully,
2. an incapacity to think clearly,
3. the confident assurance that they were doing what they had been told to do by someone "superior".... the smug assurance that they were following orders....
---a toxic mix of ingredients which is fatal to any form of democracy or freedom.....

post-script
I've just spoken with the supervisor at the Department of Public Saftey.
He was very agreeable. He indicated that I was correct and there was a problem he
needed to correct.
That is gratifying.
Of course, in the meantime, I have had a little aggravation.

So (retraction) what I said is not completely correct. It is not 100% like communism because with communism you can't appeal to a supervisor.....

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Unpleasantness at the Texas Department of Public Safety

Please note: This post won't make much sense unless you read the previous post first.

Below you find a copy of the message which I've sent to one of the two officers who took me in a room and shut the door behind us,where they attempted to convince me that what I knew to be true is not true..... (something like Communism I gather.....)

Dear Trooper X,

My previous message was not clear.

Please allow me to summarize more clearly now

First of all, neither you nor any of your colleagues have produced any evidence that your interpretation of the law is correct.

You have produced no document whatsoever that says or implies that a first-time applicant for a driver’s license must show his or her social security card.

The documents which you and your colleagues produced said the applicant must produce evidence of his or her social security number. --And that I did do.

Secondly, when you attempted to convince me that your (mis-) interpretation was correct, you all made an elementary reading mistake. You all acted as though by pointing to the words “social security card” on an official document you had proved your case. That is an elementary error. If you only find the words “social security card” on an official document without finding a sentence, then you don’t know what the document is saying. It could be saying a social security card must be produced or it could be saying that a social security card must not be produced. That’s the difference a sentence makes.

I have no doubt that you were following orders—illegitimate and over-reaching orders.

If you actually read the law carefully, it is written in such a way as to avoid requiring an actual Social Security Card. And, it also does not limit supporting documents to those which are listed in the Texas Drivers Handbook or at the Department web site. So, it follows that by limiting supporting documents and requiring an actual Social Security Card, someone has over-reached their authority. Somebody at the Department of Public Safety has illegitimately and illegally taken on the duties of a legislator.

The job of a policeman or employee of the Department of Public Safety is to follow the law, not to make new laws, and not to abridge or amend existing laws.

Finally, by choosing to blindly follow the orders you were given, and by setting aside your ability to think rationally, you and all of your colleagues have chosen to behave like citizens living in a totalitarian state—not at all like free and thoughtful citizens living in a democracy.

Sincerely yours,

Mark J. Lovas

Note

At the Department of Public Safety homepage, the wording is very precise. I will quote it for you now, using a different font to indicate what I am quoting:

Acceptable Documentation of the Social Security Number includes:

(The page then goes on to list different documents.)

Note carefully the word “includes”. If I say my lifetime achievements include driving safely, I am not saying that my only lifetime achievement is driving safely; I have allowed for the possibility of other lifetime achievements. So if the homepage says that acceptable documentation includes the following, that does not mean that acceptable documents are only the following. In other words, the homepage says “includes” NOT “is limited to”. And it says that because the authors of the law wanted to allow for the possibility that a citizen might have other means of establishing his or her Social Security Number besides those which are listed on the web site or in the Texas Drivers Handbook.

However, the interpretation which you and your colleagues have placed upon the law is not “includes” but “is limited to.”

Hence you and your colleagues are actually changing the law—even though that is not your job.

You are going beyond your legitimate authority and you are re-writing the laws.

Note:

I have now added a link to the pertinent page at the Texas Department of Public Safety:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense.socialsecuritynumber.html




Friday, October 1, 2010

Fallacies and all-round Stupidity Courtesy of the Texas Department of Public Safety

This entry was composed 1 October.
I am posting it despite its imperfect nature in the interests of exposing stupidity wherever I encounter it...

I've honestly done my very best to read the web site of the Texas Department of Public Safety as well as the Driver's Guide (whatever exactly they call it--"handbook" I suppose)... in preparation for taking a written test and a driving driver's test so that I could legally drive a car in the great state of Texas.


But, I was stopped at the very first step of identifying myself.

The employees of the Northeast El Paso branch of the Texas DPS think I've got to have my social security card. But I have found no evidence whatsoever of their claim, and during my visit to their offices yesterday, they showed me no evidence.

I have found evidence that I must tell them what my number is and I must identify myself.
But nowhere does it say that a " first time applicant" must present her/his social card. (Notice that "first time applicant" is itself a technical term. I've had a Texas driver's license before--so I've applied before. But I count as a "new" applicant since that was more than two years ago.--Or, so I was told by one of the not very helpful employees yesterday.)

At the web site and in the handbook there is a list of acceptable supporting documents, but nowhere does it say that these are the only possible documents one may use to establish SSN/identity.

Nowhere have I found in official documents originating in Dallas or Austin or wherever is the central headquarters anything saying that I have to have that card.

The police officers and bureaucrats I met yesterday have a different opinion, an opinion which they were unable to substantiate.

To their credit, they listened to my claims, and tried to convince me I was wrong.

I was taken behind closed doors and where two uniformed officers attempted (as they saw it) to explain to me what the law is. I was, however, wholly unconvinced by their attempt; and also overwhelmed by their poor reading and reasoning skills.

Why behind closed doors? Nothing I was saying was provocative. I was merely repeating what I had read, and even attempting to read carefully out loud as they simply insisted upon their point of view without giving adequate attention to any text they presented me with.

Why must such an activity be carried out in secret?---literally carried out "behind closed doors"?

One tactic the two employees of the Texas Department of Public Safety tried was to find something legal and official with the word "social security card" on it, point to the words and say "See! We told you! You have to have it!"

My response: Pointing at a word is not enough. We need a sentence to read the document.
And their response was incomprehension. The nearest uniformed man seemed absolutely dumb-founded by the word "sentence". "Why"?

Hmmm, I guess he never heard of "quoting out of context".

At the time I was so amazed by his reaction that I found myself at a loss for words.
So, I will supply the appropriate explanation now:

If you merely point at an official document which has the words "social security card" on it,
and you cannot find a complete sentence (or re-construct one from the context) then you do not know what the document is telling you about the social security card. Without a specific sentential context, you do not know whether the document says:

Social Security cards are one of many forms of identification allowed. -or,

Everyone must have a social security card to apply for a driver's license.--or,

Everyone must not be carrying their social security card when they apply for a driver's license.--or,

In applying for a driver's license, a person may use a social security card or another document to establish their identity.

etc

etc

Moreover, according to our Driver's Handbook (a passage other officials gleefully pointed to because, I suppose, it had the words "social security card" in it) the purpose of the social security number revelation is to establish identity. And, one knows on general principles that for that purpose the card itself is not needed.

I did supply other documents with my social security number, but, no they said, only the card will do.

I repeat: I can find no public statement of the relevant laws which backs up what they are claiming.

Personally, what I think is going on is something like this:

The actual laws are rather liberal about allowing a variety of forms of documentation and nowhere specifies that only a specific list of documents is allowed---although it does provide examples of the sorts of things which are valid.

Someone in northeast El Paso has decided to make their life simpler by requiring a social security card and nothing else. That cuts out the need to make a decision.

You might say someone is being lazy.

That's what I believe to be the explanation for what I experienced. I cannot "prove" it. But neither have I found any clear support for the policy these bureaucrats are following--neither have they provided me any.

But then aren't these servants of the public we are talking about? They should serve me, right? So, I should not have to gear my behavior to their convenience.

Shame

Shame

Shame

Another fallacy: The uniformed officers also seemed to suggest: It's my job to know; so, I know.

My retort: It's your job to know. You do not know. So, you are incompetent. (Or perhaps illiterate and therfore incompetent, since your job requires you to read.)

Again like Slovakia.
I recall getting in an argument at one school where they committed the following fallacy:
(a) The Slovak Legislature requires schools to have rules-[-though it is not specified exactly which rules one must have.]
Therefore,
(b) The rules at our school are required by law!

The parallel would go something like this:
You have to establish identity and provide some legitimate document with your social security number.
versus
You have to have exactly this document...

Yawn

DISCOVERING SLOVAKIA IN TEXAS? no! všade policii su debili!!!

STUPIDITY IS THE RIGHT WORD;
As further evidence of the sheer stupidity at the Department of Public Safety, let us ask the following:
What is a social security card?
A social security card indicates that an individual is registered with the Social Security Administration? Why? If you are registered, then you can save money for your retirement. They take money out of your paycheck and set it aside for your retirement.

Now, let's ask: What actual documentation did I provide? Among other things, I provided a letter from the Social Security Admsinistration in Washington which detailed the money taken out of my paycheck and set aside for my retirement.

Hello! If a person is having money taken out of their paycheck by the Social Security Administration and set aside .,.. then they must have a social security number, musn't they?

Yet, our public servants were unable to read my document and engage in that very difficult bit of reasoning which I have just rehearsed above. Sounds like stupidity to me.