And now, a word from our censors

Sorry if I've been a bit quiet. I think it's been because of the weather -- a little chill in the air.

No, no, not with K. Sure, that's a readjustment: the bathmat once again moldy because someone has to be a contrarian when it comes to the manifestly rational shut-water/towel-off/step out-of-the-shower house rules; my suitcase returned broken. But we're readjusting (the massive amounts of Fritos, French chocolate, and Oregon pinot noir packed into the aforementioned suitcase help. A lot).

I was chatting a couple of days ago with a visiting colleague whose completely innocuous blog was abruptly ordered yanked. The cause of his discovery was a little technological marvel that I fear to name but which is presumably not subject to Asimov's three web-laws. I find it utterly incredible (if it turns out to be true) that his thing was created at taxpayer expense and set loose for the express purpose of unearthing people like him. Or me.

There are a passel of blogs out there -- I just checked -- written by self-identified colleagues who brazenly link to the Mother Ship, even while publishing policy material that has presumably not been cleared (I can't direct you to them, natch, due to those nasty trackbacks referring links). Curiously, a key feature shared by all these blogs is the narrow space in which they cluster together on the political spectrum. Coincidence?

So Kugelmass had his episode with a large and hairy irregular verb; I've got my own spindly-legged critter. Whatcha gonna do? Would an "all opinions are mine" disclaimer help? Or is that unnecessary, since this entire site is a work of fiction; all characters appearing in it are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental? Plus, it's actually written by K?

These are rhetorical questions on a beaten-to-death subject, folks. No comments solicited.

But, continuing on the topics of both the cold snap and the finer points of law:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled in favor of a title-removed-due-to-spindly-creature person who hit a pedestrian while driving home from a gym on foreign soil. At issue: was he acting in his personal capacity, or -- even whilst blasting his lats -- within "the scope of his employment"? Though the Mother Ship initially attempted to disown him, the Court found, inter alia, that the defendant(-appellant) was never not on duty.

The decision has been hailed by everyone from our union-ish thing to my colleagues. And while I can't deny this is good news for the appellant, I'm gob-smacked that no one has turned around and said, "People, are you nuts? You are owned."

If I'm never not on duty, can I ever voluntarily decline to work a holiday weekend? Can I ever drink to excess? Express an opinion that isn't official? When the technology improves, will the spindly creature be implanted subcutaneously, to monitor my always-on-duty alpha waves for deviation from the party line, as they do now (somewhat less efficiently) on the internet? And why am I working so hard for $6.85/hr?

Perhaps because I've been casting about for any bit of warmth on this very chilly tropical day, a thirty-two-year-old (yes...) memory percolated up from the depths, bringing with it, perhaps, inspiration for an eco-friendly and old-fashioned cybercide for those spindly borgs.

Signing off from within the offices of condolorum....