Time Has Not Been Kind to the Reasonable Person

I am pro-drone, by which I mean I like drones. I like the technology, which strikes me as more accurate and more cost-effective than piloted fighter planes. If you ask me whether I like drones, you are asking me whether I like robots - and I love robots.

However, I suspect that some percentage of the people who ask me about drones are actually asking me about drone use policy. (Another percentage is definitely trying to get me to be paranoid about Skynet or the Matrix or something, which no thank you. I robot.)

Our current drone policy rests quite a bit on an official making a determination that the targeted individual presents an "imminent threat," which is an interesting use of "imminent," usually defined as "about to happen," given that the targeted individual who is imminently threatening us is typically halfway across the globe and does not possess a drone. One starts to suspect that "imminent threat" means "I feel threatened," or even "I might imagine feeling threatened," particularly since "imminent threat" is sometimes placed close to the phrase "could conclude." It all gets rather "Stand Your Ground."

I prefer laws that rest on the judgment of "a reasonable person." This strikes me as the only workable standard, the reason one would look to a jury of peers to determine criminality or lack thereof: Was my behavior reasonable? Or was it instead criminal? But it seems that time has not been kind to the reasonable person.

Meanwhile, Ciro has made me chocolate pudding, and so there is some kind of kindness to some kind of person.