Just Like Us

                                                                             

Have you ever heard of “Pure Science?” The term is intended to denote science that is aimed at discerning some basic Truth, something for which no practical end is envisioned, but which the scientist is obsessed with finding out anyway. Interestingly, it is the science that is pure, not the scientist.

The scientist is just another human being, like us. Fortunately, most of us are reasonably good people, and most scientists are good, and they picture themselves as good,ⁱ but it's not always the case. Even when it isn't, however, society has placed scientists on a pedestal and their work and their views are often regarded as bearing weight that may not be there. Their phlogiston is heavier than ours.

One of the evidences that their intellectual production is less than perfect is the fact that what is accepted by the rest of us on their say-so isn't always the case, and “facts” change. The earth is not the center of the universe; there is no such thing as a philosopher's stone; the atom can be subdivided; and there are numerous other examples. But that is why they do their work: to learn and, when necessary, to change our understanding of the world in which we live. It's a noble calling.

It's a calling, however, whose methods and results society may not understand. The media are quick to publish as established fact an unverified first report. It may make good press, but it's bad science. There is a well-established principle in scientific research that studies must be replicated and verified before their conclusions are accepted as fact. But for the media, such principles shouldn't stand in the way of a front-page story. If a retraction is ultimately necessary, it can be placed on an inside page – at the bottom – if it appears at all.

There are many who have a vested interest in glorifying scientific postulations: those who question organized religion. For them, Science is their religion,ⁱⁱ and scientists make up the pantheon: there is no G-d, there are only scientists. If it can't be proved and quantitated, it isn't true. Religion is irrational. For some though, believers, rationality is overrated. If there is a conflict between science and religion, science must give way. Others, however, perhaps the majority, either give no thought to any disagreement, or they find a way to rationalize it. They, too, attribute great wisdom to the words of scientists.

And that can be a problem. While it is likely that scientists a far more intelligent than the general population, they have flaws too. They sometimes promote fallacies. There are three categories of errors – those made inadvertently, those made for personal benefit, and those, unrelated to science, made outside of their field – possibly based on ideology.

People make mistakes. Everyone. In science, honest ones may be based on poor study design, lack of knowledge, inexpert technique, or lack of attention. Perhaps they are the product of random distribution or sampling error. Others result from outside pressures, like deadlines for publication or the desire to beat a competitor. Their work may generate mistaken conclusions. Often it is corrected, or it fails peer review. But often it gets through. In a proper setting, however, confirmatory studies will be attempted and the errors determined before there is general publicity and before the results become the basis for further work.

But there are occasions when a particular result is desired, or it magically coincides with preconceived notions about what the results will be. That may be in order to earn community acceptance, fameⁱⁱⁱ or tenure for the investigator or, if some commercial product is involved, it may be because of benefits provided by the firm that manufacturers the product being tested. Perhaps a drug is being tested and the research concerning it is needed for FDA approval – approval that will only be granted if the results indicate its value. It is possible that dinners, vacations, paid “consultations” or “lectureships” will participate in the evaluation of that research. Or it may be that there will be more negotiable benefits.^iv There are fences to guard against this kind of practice,^v but they're not universally effective since a family member or a friend may be named as the beneficiary. Work promoting an invention of the author, or his discovery, are more likely to be spotted.

But, though we usually credit most scientists with intelligence, there is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom. With a desire to promote a particular point of view, an “ax to grind,” the investigator may choose a particular field in which some project can be found that will support his position. Others, favoring some idea, will interpret data to prove it. If someone has strong convictions about a notion – political, religious, social, or otherwise – he may use science to promote it, even if he has to “cherry-pick” the studies he uses as evidence. “Junk science” is the result of many of these techniques.^vi Or, based on ideology, a scientist may venture outside of his field of expertise^vii because his fame will give wider publicity to the view he wants to express,^viii whether it involves an unrelated area of science, a social cause, or a political position. He may have a good deal of intelligence but be entirely devoid of wisdom.

My intent is not to minimize the contributions of science. It is merely to point out that scientists are not gods, but humans who work in the field of science. They have good rules though, and among them are: wait until an idea is confirmed several times before acting on it; don't stray from your area of expertise without help from someone in the new field and plenty of study; and don't mix science with anything else. From our point of view, the most important things we can do are to be sure that they follow their own rules, and to let them know when they don't.

Next episode: “The Lesser Of Two Evils” – On compromise.

i       Here I'm discussing character primarily (though not exclusively), however scientific knowledge and ability do play a part.

ii      That scientific “facts” may later be found to be wrong doesn't disprove their religion any more than a change in practice disproves another religion.

iii     Data were reported to have been falsified by an investigator who claimed that immunizations caused autism.

iv      Yes, sad to say. Bribery does occur.

v       The most frequent are the suspicious department head and Ethics Committee and the requirement for full disclosure of any relationship with the research's funding source.

vi      For example, both those who favor active steps to limit production of carbon dioxide with the view that this will be of significant benefit in the battle against global warming, and those who doubt that it will be of much help and that its costs will exceed its benefits, accuse their opponents of using junk science.

vii     Psychologists and those who study the brain and intelligence may claim that there is a genetic basis for intelligence, while other scientists, not in this field, may consider it a reactionary idea that there may be variation between men and women, and between the different races. All people are created equal – at least in terms of intellectual potential. If differences are found, those results are erroneous.

viii    And it's not just scientists who do this. An actor may, all of a sudden, become an expert on social policy, or an athlete on politics.

Whatever It Takes

                                                                                      

I was thinking of reinventing myself until I realized that I hadn't invented myself in the first place. Like the rest of us, I was a product of (to use the jargon) nature and nurture. My parents and my environment had produced me, and it was some kind of natural process rather than invention.

But that doesn't mean that things are unchangeable. It may be true that you don't have a second chance to make a first impression, but someone who is fixated on his first impression of you, and is unable to see changes, isn't worth worrying about. Everyone wants to change – or at least to appear to have changed.ⁱ To be better. In fact, though it's not always possible, we want to be better than everyone else. Whether it's politics, the Olympics, academics, salary, appearance, romance, or even the price we paid for a new car, we don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to tryⁱⁱ to keep up with us. We want to improve our value to ourselves and to the market

We live in a competitive world because we are competitive. So we want to be the best.ⁱⁱⁱ And it's not just testosterone. We're all pretending to be what we're not – to raise our self-esteem and present to the world a person who is worth knowing and envying. Some^iv may view our ploys as “cheating” or “lying,” but they've become such basic parts of our lives and our society that it's not all that clear that there's anything wrong with them. ^v

What brought this all to mind was Milli Vanilli. Last week I published an essay which included an idea of my son's, and I asked his permission to use his name.^vi He granted it, but a long time earlier I had mentioned Milli Vanilli without citing him even though his Master's thesis dealt with this duo, so he wanted me to include it. It didn't fit with last week's essay but it suggested another subject: self-“improvement.”

In the case of MV, at least until their fall, the improvement was obtained by “lip-syncing” someone else's music. They were taking credit for the work of others. That's not really a unique occurrence in our society, however.^vii Movie dubbing is a very common procedure in musicals, since the star often does not have a satisfactory singing voice.^viii But other examples include a singer's taking credit for a song written by someone else, or a famous personality writing his memoirs “with” the actual writer of the book. Ghostwriting is a major occupation. Most of the speeches of candidates for high political office are written by others, as are the “spontaneous” witty remarks by late show hosts and by many comedians. Is it a surprise that many students writing papers (as well as authors writing articles and books) have no compunctions about plagiarism? Everybody does it. After all, we use recipes from cookbooks and sometimes we even serve “ready-made” foods, passing them off as our own efforts.

And even in the field of science, with its “gods” revered by those who see it as the source of Truth, intellectual theft may be used in the race “to publish first.”^ix Credit for discovering the structure of DNA usually goes to Watson and Crick and to Wilkins, all of whom received Nobel Prizes, rather than to Rosalind Franklin, whose work they secretly appropriated, and on which they based their model. It provided a shortcut for them, an enhancement of their understanding. A long CV, even if retractions contribute to its length, adds to the luster of a scientist or another in academia, and all was (and still is) considered fair in the academic wars.

Additionally, while industrial espionage^x has increased greatly since the introduction of the internet, in the middle of the last century, intellectual theft took – and still takes – other forms.

There are many other examples of “shortcuts” and “enhancements,” usually for personal gain, which some (or many, or almost all – though usually not all) consider to be cheating, but we don't all agree on where to draw the line. I'll list some of them,^xi leaving the judgment to you:

1. Advertising and packaging designed to induce purchases rather than to inform the buyer.
2. The use of cosmetics, toupees, and hair coloring to improve appearance.
3. Use of circumlocutions and euphemisms to demonstrate sensitivity.
4. Use of steroids or other drugs to improve athletic performance.
5. Flavoring food so guests will like it better.
6. Learning from an SAT preparation class how to take tests, even if we don't learn the subject itself from them.
7. “Spinning” an event or statement for political advantage.
8. Wearing clothes considered to be fashionable whether or not you like them.
9. Changing religion to fit in or get ahead, rather than because of conviction.
10. Makeovers of yourself or your home. Cosmetic surgery.
11. An orchestra making a recording of a symphony by piecing together the best performance of different parts from multiple “takes.”
12. Professional wrestling.

“Things are seldom what they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream.”^xii What you see is what you get, but what you see may not be the thing itself.

In each of these cases – and I'm sure you can think of many others – one thing is presented with the intent of demonstrating (usually to others) a picture of the subject that is superior^xiii to the genuine article.^xiv And each results in benefits that may be economic or may affect reputation, self-image, or academic achievement.^xv Never forget that many people believe that the end justifies the means.

There's always some way in which we want to be better than we are – or, at least to convince others that that's the case. And we want to be better than them. We're all competing. We're all trying to get the upper hand. We all have the attitude that all's fair in love and war. And everything else. But that may not be true. We're quick to condemn in some cases and praise in others.

Perhaps we have to draw the line somewhere. But where?

Next episode: “Just Like Us” – No reference to Facebook.

i       Admittedly there are some people who don't want to be noticed at all – in their original state or with any changes – but I don't know who they are.

ii      But fail.

iii     And we want to make our children the best, by cloning ourselves (if, besides others, we've even convinced ourselves of our value) or by getting (pun intended – never believe anyone who says “No pun intended.” It was intended and it was the result of a lot of work. The punster is proud of it and wants to make sure everyone notices.) a designer baby.

iv     Usually people who didn't think of them first.

v      Lying has become an accepted art form, and fiction may become fact. For example, as Winston Churchill is said to have put it, “History is written by the victors.” (He certainly wasn't the first to expound on this theme.) Goebbels was famous for the “Big Lie” which he tried to turn into truth. Historical revisionists flourish, and they always have. It was (is?) common practice for the Russians and the USSR to rewrite history for ideological purpose whenever it was useful; to enhance self-esteem, our country, like all others, has mythologized its heroes; and the Palestinian Arabs have created a history for themselves and denied Israel's history for public relations purposes.

vi      Daniel “Oracle.”

vii     Somehow MV's fans felt betrayed even though many of them were aware of the industry practice.

viii   For example, see “Singin' In The Rain.” Yes. That's what I said. See it. It's a great movie.

ix      Plagiarize, by Tom Lerer.

x       A serious example of the appropriation of the work of others.

xi     Please note that I have taken care not to impose any order that may be understood as my own view of the seriousness – or lack thereof – to be associated with any particular act. And, of course, there are lots more.

xii     H.M.S. Pinafore, 1878, Gilbert and Sullivan.

xiii   “Superior,” unfortunately, is a societal construct. When Adlai Stevenson ran for President, many of the American people viewed his divorce as a flaw. Now it wouldn't be noticed. Terry Sanford and Anthony Wiener are back in politics – “forgiven” by much of the electorate. And who's worse (if either is bad), the husband of CBS's “The Good Wife” for paying a prostitute for sex, or “The Good Wife” herself for having an extra-marital affair with another man she loved? In my youth, both would have been condemned, whatever society's realities actually were, but there have been many soap operas and changes in our outlook since then.

xiv    Sometimes it's even true.

xv     There are times when the enhancement is based on improvement in resources. If my vaulting pole helps me jump higher than the competition, that's my good fortune. It doesn't make sense to tell everyone my secret.

The Big Picture

                                                                                    

Where is the line between right and wrong? We talk all the time about doing the “right thing,” but it's sometimes difficult to know what that is. If I steal money from a rich corporate executive, I have done wrongⁱ and should be punished. If I give that money to the poor, keeping none for myself, I have still committed a crime, however righteous I may feel about it. And if those who are given the money are aware of its origin and use it anyway, they, too, have behaved criminally. We may see fit to lessen the penalty for those who needed the money and used it despite its origin; what they did, however, was against the law. We may view Robin Hood as acting nobly, but what he did was illegal. Even if it was it was moral, it was contrary to the law and merited punishment.

There is less moral ambiguity when the thief is a “professional” who specializes in stealing goods from elderly women, and selling them to a fence. We have no sympathy for either the thief or the fence. But the principle is the same: one individual commits a crime and others knowingly benefit from it. All are aware of the risks of their criminal behavior and are willing to take them in view of the benefits they hope to see from their actions.

If, however, a public employee steals government secrets and turns it over to the press, many view him as a hero and praise the media for exercising their first amendment rights. That's the situation we face now.

That is the case with Edward Snowden and his disclosures of a government surveillance program. He did so, according to his statement attempting to justify his action, "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."ⁱⁱ His disclosures were similar to those of Daniel Ellsberg and Private Bradley Manning. Both revealed classified documents for what they considered the good of the American People. And, from my perspective, both committed serious crimes. The case against Ellsberg for espionage ended in a mistrial,ⁱⁱⁱ while litigation against Manning is still underway.

I am not competent to determine if the programs they revealed were justified. I believe that the three made righteous attempts to publicize what they considered unwarranted actions by the American government, and they may have been right, but I believe that they acted as vigilantes and put their own views ahead of the needs of their country. And for that I view severe punishment as being appropriate.^iv

This is an age when many people consider that too much attention is paid to the lawbreaker and too little to the victim. We, the American People, are the victim. There is no denying that politicians make mistakes – sometimes bad ones. Both Presidents Lincoln and Grant signed orders suspending habeas corbus, numerous presidents have issued executive orders that they wished to be kept secret for a variety of reasons,^v President Obama has authorized attacks on individuals and groups because of a belief that it was for our country's good.^vi And it is common practice for members of our government to benefit personally from their positions. So, however reprehensible, it is sometimes beneficial to those who err to try to prevent others from learning about them by classifying their crimes, as well as their errors, as secret. 

Indignation and a feeling of virtue, however, do not justify general disclosure of classified material. They may provide grounds for further investigation by those charged with the reponsibility for doing so, but they are not grounds for an individual taking the law into his own hands. If it does not already exist, a non-political panel, with the aid of experts when needed, should be the body to whom concerns about governmental misfeasance and malfeasance should be directed secretly, especially when the evidence is documented by classified material. Implications, justifications, and ramifictions may require extensive evaluation and may make it clear that secrecy is warranted.^vii It is unlikely that Ellsberg considered the effects on Viet Nam POWs before his action; it is hard to believe that Private Manning read the hundreds of thousands of documents that he transferred to WikiLeaks, or determined whether anyone named in them might be put at risk, or how his disclosures would affect foreign policy; and it doesn't seem likely that Edward Snowden was aware of all the details of the PRISM program^viii or what, if any, its achievements were.

One of the justifications for protests and vigilantism is that America must be a land of justice and we cannot commit the crimes of those we oppose. It's a noble view, but even if true,^ix it's not consistently followed. Our rule books – the ones designed to embody and ensure our proper and virtuous actions – are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are solicitous when anyone declares there has been a violation of the Constitution – whether or not there is substance to the claim. So the New York Times, the Washington Post, and various other organs are quick to point out the contents of the First Amendment, and to demand the “right” to publish anything they have, irrespective of how it was obtained.^x But they are adamant about not publishing material that might offend minority groups.^xi They may claim sensitivity or fear of violence as the reason, but they don't look to the Constitution for justification of publication.

Additionally, when they are prohibited from publishing the names of rape victims or children accused of crimes, they are silent concerning their “rights.” While I support the absence of the names, it is hard to ignore what appears to be selective indignation by the media.

And it is similarly hard to ignore the fact that in the zeal to protect their rights under one of the amendments to the Constitution, they pay no heed to what is in that document's body. According to the preamble, we are committed to protecting “the common defense” of our country and our people – our main concerns when we wrote the Declaration of Independence and rejected George III.

It's hard to know what's right or wrong. But it's clear that such a decision, when make on the basis of indignation rather than investigation, is a hazardous one. And it's often erroneous.

i       However others may feel about the way he got the money, or about capitalism in general.

ii      The press he chose were England's Guardian, a reliably anti-American organ, and the Washington Post, known, among other things, for its exposé of the Watergate scandal and for printing parts of the Pentagon Papers.

iii     It is informative, though not a surprise, that Ellsberg chose to present, in the Guardian, a long, and profusely complimentary, appraisal of Snowden's actions.

iv     The best remedy for dealing with a law of which you disapprove is to work to change it, not to violate it. The only time for civil disobedience is when such attempts have failed. Your violation should only be to the lowest degree possible to achieve the goal of publicizing your beliefs and getting others to work toward your goal. And then you should be prepared to accept the penalty for violation of the law.

v      Not just in the United States, but around the world. Our leaders are human, just like us. They make mistakes and commit crimes.

vi     And notwithstanding his vow, when campaigning for the presidency, that he would bring “transparency” to the government, he has become involved in many secret projects aimed at protecting America and its security procedures.

vii    It is revealing of the mindset of many of our citizens that while they consider personal privacy (especially in the bedroom) to be Constitutionally protected (there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution) but the applaud violations of national privacy (secrecy and security). And they abhor “violations” of their rights (as in the case of reviewing telephone records) while denying the government the right (actually it's a Constitutionally-mandated responsibility) to take the steps necessary to prevent acts of terror or, as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence which it echoes, to “provide for the common defense.”

viii   The collection of telephone records in an attempt to investigate terrorists. I don't know what the term stands for (I can't find any explication of what appears to be another governmental acronym) but it it's a surveillance program that has existed for about six years as an indirect offshoot of the Patriot Act.

ix     And in the world of Realpolitik many would contend that it's not always possible.

x      All's fair in selling papers. “Legal” and “illegal” are irrelevant concepts.

xi     A good example is the refusal to publish Danish cartoons that Muslims found offensive and that were responsible for riots and the killing of innocent people.

"Reality" And Belief

                                                                                       

I just received from a friend a three-disc set containing a series hosted by one of Fox News's reporters, and describing “a political movement that, against all odds, changed the world.” The set appears to be about six hours in length and is entitled “The Right, All Along.” Hosted by a reporter who is a self-proclaimed Conservative,ⁱ and featuring the views and “... the stories of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush and many others,” the content is predictable. In an era of neatly packaged propaganda, this series is to be admired for the forthright way in which it proclaims its perspective in its title, and it has some appeal to me because I favor some of the positions what I'm certain it espouses. (I don't anticipate any objectivity, however, even though FOX claims to be “Fair and Balanced.” While I like FOX, it is fair and balanced only in the sense that it provides some balance to other media news sources whose biases are toward the left. It's like the Wall Street Journal, which provides balance when the New York Times is in the scale's other pan.)

But I shall not watch it.

I shall not watch it because I've spent too much of my time on books and videos that purport to demonstrate the unarguable validity of one belief system or another.ⁱⁱ Each viewpoint is defended as supported by some famous Nobel Prize winners, movie stars, athletes, and other personalities who, without any credentials to do so, vehemently advocate the views expressed, often unquestioningly.ⁱⁱⁱ Works like the one sent me clearly outline the position they wish me to adopt, in a manner painted as objective and clear. They don't require me to think. Indeed, they generally discourage thought. Often the position is claimed to be scientifically based – although the science is usually “cherry-picked,” self-serving, and credited to famous individuals – however the motives of those individuals are often in question, and their prejudices make the outcomes predictable. After reading and watching several of these I have come to recognize the genre^iv without wasting my time on other specific examples. I have better things to do.

Right now, for example, I'm in the middle of a book by Elie Wiesel entitled“legends of our time.”^v The blurb on the back cover states “a new mythology is being made in our time. For men to comprehend events of world-shaking impact, a mythology is required...” The stories present unanswered – and perhaps unanswerable – questions that require the readers to consider the questions themselves, and the moral implications of the different approaches presented by the situations depicted. The outlines are there, but no attempt is made to dictate the decision.

A couple of decades ago, when I was writing a book featuring fanciful and unlikely Jewish ritual objects, my younger son, Daniel (now a Rabbi and teacher), suggested something he called “Tefillin The Blanks.” Tefillin are boxes worn on the arm and head during the morning service. The boxes contain parchments on which one of the major precepts of the Jewish religion is written, and my son's idea was that the parchments should only have the outlines of the words, with the user given the opportunity to participate by filling in the blank spaces. That would also offer the chance to consider, and to fill in mentally, the ideas that the letters and words represented. And the different users would have divergent understandings of the meaning of the verses, because the thoughts would not be predigested and indefeasible, but open to each individual's personal “take” on the idea. It was not a catechism, but the starting point for thought.

One of the earliest literary forms was the myth. It was designed^vi to provide answers for the questions everyone had about the world around them. It did not matter that they invoked extranatural solutions. All that counted was that they offered solutions. Legends, sagas, and folk tales were the outgrowth of mythology. And when answers were desperately sought, they provided the path to certainty. Some put religion in the same category, and while “myth” is a loaded word, religious faith may also provide the comfort of unqualified certainty when questions abound. Should the answers of the different systems compete, it's worth remembering that all of them may contain some element that is right – at least if they are reached after all the possibilities were considered. But error is likely when someone adopts the point of view that his beliefs are the Truth, while everyone else's are mythology, and wrong.^vii

That's what propaganda is all about – ready-made and obvious answers. And anyone who rejects those answers is being misled. I recently heard someone say something to the effect that he always seeks the truth, but fears those who have it. It is often the case that the question is more powerful than the answer. It is our responsibility to fill in the outlines ourselves, rather than to accept the certain positions of others – however professionally they're presented. No one should do it for us. No one can.

 

Next episode: “Whatever It Takes” – The end justifies the means.

i       “[D]uring 2006 [Brit] Hume said, 'Sure, I'm a conservative, no doubt about it.'” – Wikipedia.

ii      Only my belief system is valid. It's not unarguably so, however, because there are fools who will argue about anything.

iii     How some entertainment stars became experts on politics and society – aside from the reality that they proclaimed themselves so, and gave money to (and speeches favoring) some political candidate – is beyond me.

iv      Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.

v       1970, Avon Books.

vi     “Designed” is a strong word and suggests intent. Perhaps that's overstating the situation, at least in terms of conscious intent. But even if there was no such plan, it was at least unconscious, and folk explanations of the unfathomable are what resulted.

vii     Ignore note #2 (ii) for the moment.

Now You Know

                                                                               

I have no idea what the implications of the government's telephone monitoring program are. I don't know if it's good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal.ⁱ I know that there are many who believe it to be contrary to the Constitution, and they make very good arguments. As do those who view it as a necessary step to ensure our country's security. I admit to lacking the expertise to make an independent judgment regarding the classified information he revealed, and a smooth talker could probably convince me of almost anything. But no one can persuade me that Edward Snowden is a hero.

No. Edward Snowden is a vigilante. True, he had top-secret clearance and a $122,000 annual salary and true, he believed that what he was doing was for the good of the country, but he is a vigilante – just like Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manningⁱⁱ and so many others before him.

Vigilantes usually believe that what they do is right and good – whether the Ku Klux Klan, the Guardian Angels, or Bernhard Goetz – and their acts may actually improve a situation of lawlessness.ⁱⁱⁱ But what they're doing is wrong.^iv The virtue of their cause, even if real, doesn't change that.

“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”^v

When Chief Justice John Marshall wrote those words in 1803, in the famous Marbury v Madison case, he was citing John Adams who used the phrase “a government of laws and not of men.”^vi The more than two centuries that have passed since then do not change this. No one is above the law, whatever the nature of the law and the righteous rhetoric of the violator.

Snowden and others who leak classified information should be heavily punished (eg a year a document with fines for documents exceeding the violator's anticipated life span or harder prison conditions). And legal means should be formulated to evaluate and to deal with the problems that they consider to require rectification.^vii

There are those who view his as an example of civil disobedience,^viii an action taken despite the knowledge, that it was against the law. They liken him to the “Freedom Riders,” Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi. They, however, bravely faced the consequences. They were willing to reap the whirlwind for their actions in order to try to get the rest of us to face what they viewed as injustice.

Civil disobedience is honored because violators draw attention to unjust laws but are ready to be punished for their acts. Those who sat down at the Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro knew they'd be punished and might even suffer physically. They didn't run away to Hong Kong. That Snowden revealed his act while on foreign soil and is determined to fight extradition is evidence that he knew he was violating the law, but wants to avoid any penalties.

Edward Snowden did not practice civil disobedience. He broke the law and should be punished.

i       It's too important an issue for me to address without giving it some thought, so I won't do so at this time. I shall, however discuss the program and the whole question of classification of documents, the Constitution, “whistle-blowers,” and “transparency” in a few days. There may be some legal remedies which can be formulated.

ii      And the entire WikiLeaks staff.

iii    A single example – although many exist – are the Bakassi Boys of Nigeria, a group of vigilantes formed in 1998, who were viewed as instrumental in lowering the region's high crime rate when the police were ineffective. Their success, however, doesn't excuse their actions. The end does not justify the means.

iv    The results of vigilantes' actions are too often tragic (“The Oxbow Incident” is a fictional account, but a well written account of what can happen) and vigilantism should be condemned not only for the means of its practitioners, but sometimes for its results as well.

v      Similarly, it will lose any claim to “this high appellation” if we “furnish no remedy for the violation” of any laws. Legislative “fixes” should be sought rather than “jury nullification” based on sympathy for the violator's goals.

vi     1774. Boston Gazette. Adams signed the letter “Novanglus” (New Englander) and this was his seventh letter using this pen-name.

vii    See note number 1 (i).

viii  Although they revere this 1848 concept of Thoreau's, most of them would not endorse another of his views: "That government is best which governs least." It is found in his essay, “On Civil Disobedience,” which appeared the following year.

Food For Thought

                                                                         

Most diets work. Most dieting doesn't. Because most dieters can't stick to what they're doing. For example, a while backⁱ I suggested an important advance in the field of dieting: “Lessay Fare: Sir Oracle's Five-Percent No-Exercise Guaranteed Twelve-Step Weight-Loss Diet.” There's no way that you wouldn't lose weight if you stuck to it, but no one did.

So no one did.

And that's the problem with dieting. People don't stick to their diets. I gave them a guaranteed diet that didn't even require exercise, and no one lost weight. I have to admit that much of the fault was my own – it wasn't in a book, and it wasn't widely publicized, so people weren't aware of it. I'm sure that it would have raised a stir if more people knew about it. With a title like that it couldn't miss having a big impact. Not that anyone would have lost weight, but I'd have made a fortune. Why would people use my diet anyway. The only motivation that I offered was that overweight was a serious problem. And I told them that no spirituality was necessary. Not very inspiring. Reading over it I can see why I didn't get rich. Some of what it said is worth repeating, but there are several points on which I have to reverse myself, not because they're wrongⁱⁱ but because they didn't achieve the desired result.ⁱⁱⁱ So what follows is a different plan to lose weight, only the approach will be different. No one has failed to lose following this advice.^iv

The two basic principles governing the construction of my new diet are

1. The dieter has to be motivated, and
2. The dieter can't be bored.

If there's one thing that motivates people, it's money.^v Make a financial commitment to your diet, buy in, and you're hooked. And the simple way to use this reality is by making the dieting process expensive. Another motivation is the simple truth that most of us are lazy. And the ones most in need of a diet are the laziest. Their dieting will be helped most by using this characteristic. Let the couch-potatoes sit. In fact, insist that they do so.^vi You'll tell them where. It's easy to convince people that there is a free lunch^vii and you have just the recipe(s) for it. And as far as recipes go, the ideas you'll reveal to them are vital to their good health and to feeling good about themselves. It's expensive but they're worth it. (A free or inexpensive program is, in the long run, a disincentive. “How good can it be if it's so cheap?” After all, you get what you pay for.^viii) And don't forget how important it is to brag about your project.

One more motivator is success. It's easy to achieve, and I'll tell you how. Soon.

As for the second principle, it's boredom^ix that sinks most diets. I noted earlier, most diets work. Early on, perhaps during the first week, it's common to see the dieter shedding pounds.^x It doesn't matter if it's a low-carb diet, or high-fat, or low calorie, or high-carb, or liquid diet, or whatever. But it soon begins to pall. And sooner or later the initial enthusiasm wears off. So the weight comes back on.

Bearing all these points in mind, however, you can construct a program that will initiate a major loss of weight – or sour you on the whole idea for life. Either way you're a winner. So here's what you do:

1. Prepare the environment.

a.  Designate a dieting room. The room should have a very comfortable couch, preferably one that's difficult to stand up from. There should also be a very wide-screen television set connected to a service that provides at least five-hundred channels none of which is a food-channel. Install a small refrigerator. Fill it with lots of water to take your appetite away.

b.   Put up “NO FOOD” signs. No eating or drinking (except water and zero calorie drinks) is permitted in that room. It should be as far as possible from the kitchen but close to a bathroom. Going to the kitchen from that room, or for thirty minutes thereafter, should be prohibited.

c.   Install an exercise machine. That machine should be expensive and should exhaust the user. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the user will be very hungry after a half-hour of exercise, no food or drink should be permitted for the next thirty minutes.^xi

d.   Designate an eating area such as the dining room. Make sure all of the chairs in it are narrow and uncomfortable.

e. Give the entire contents of the refrigerator and food cabinets to a soup kitchen.

2. Further preparations.
 

a.    Purchase eight diet books.^xii Each will have the best plan, recommend the best foods, and specify why it is better than all the others. Also join one weight-loss program or another. It doesn't matter which, as long as it's expensive and provides you with a buddy who'll suffer with you and keep you busy talking over watercress and rice crackers when you'd prefer to be eating real food.

b.  Buy all of the foods recommended by each diet book and restock your refrigerator and larder^xiii food cabinet. Buy foods of the highest quality at the highest prices. To determine this, comparison shop in several stores until you're sure you've paid the highest prices. Be sure to include large supplies of expensive bottled water.^xiv

c. Keep plenty of salad (no dressing) in the refrigerator at all times. Eat lots of it and drink plenty of water every time you feel hungry. If that doesn't make you sick of eating, nothing will. But remember: “No pain, gain.”

 

d. Post on your refrigerator and food cabinet pictures of yourself at your fattest.ⁱ

e. Dispose of all clothes larger than you are and buy new and expensive ones. And each time you get to be a size smaller, give away all those that are now too large for you as you get new and expensive ones.

 

By now you've an idea of what I'm suggesting.  The goal is to waste money. Spend as much as you can – especially on the discomfort foods (preferably ones that make you throw up) – before getting to anything you really want to eat. Once you've spent all that money and replaced your clothes, you'll be motivated to keep your diet rather than admit you wasted your money. Everyone knows about your diet. Failure will be a major embarrassment.^xvi It's true the bottom line for your expenses will expand, but your bottom, itself, may contract. And change diet books once a week to avoid boredom. Most diets work the first week, so if you rotate them it will always be the first week (of whatever diet you happen to be on at the time). It would probably be prudent to take a vitamin pill daily to compensate for the fact that your new diet will be anything but balanced, but it will be different.

Next episode:  "'Reality' And Belief" – On creative thinking.

i       November 7, 2010.

ii     I'm never wrong, even when I disagree with myself.

iii    Especially my request to send me money. No one did.

iv    Remember, however, “Past performance is no indication of future results.” (I don't want to get in trouble with unsuccessful dieters.)

v      Or, as Governor Bill Clinton put it (in the words of James Carville), “It's the economy, stupid.”

vi    And you have just the seat for them. First you convince them that they must exercise and you know just the way they should do it – with an expensive exerciser like a exercise bicycle. They'll quit soon enough. But we'll come to that presently.

vii    Even though by the time you're done with them they won't be able to afford it.

viii   I hope you don't really believe that.

ix     By the way, “boredom” and “bedroom” are anagrams. This diet does not require you, however, to get the two confused.

x      Or kilograms. It's unrealistic to expect the loss of stones during the first week. (Even Lorena Bobbitt didn't go that far.)

xi      Don't worry though. It won't be long before you lose all taste for exercise.

xii    Full disclosure. I get no kickback from all the books sold. But if you want to send me money (perhaps a dollar for each pound lost) I'll make good use of it. Crumpled, unmarked bills. The UCDC hasn't been established yet. (You'll know what that means if you've read previous blogs.)

xiii   Lard's out. Fattening.

xiv    It's no better for you than tap water (and may, in fact be worse) and the plastic bottles will certainly be bad for the environment, but the fiscal disbursement will contribute to the conviction that the diet is a serious one.

xv    Pregnancy not included.

xvi   How's that for motivation?

A Chip Off The Whole Block

                                                                                  
“Ah, for the good old days.” I'll bet you've heard that before. It represents a generational confrontation. The older takes issue with some of the changes in society which have occurred since their own youth. We say it of our times and the faults of our children, which are numerous. Our parents said it of us; their parents said it of them; and on back throughout history.

But this time it's different.

Recently two terrorists committed mayhem at the Boston Marathon. Three were killed and hundreds were maimed and injured – many seriously. My particular interest, however, is not the terrorism itself, but the fact that the bombs that were used appear to have been triggered by some electronic device. Murder, which has been a part of our history since Cain and Abel, has, in recent years, teamed up with computers and chips to make chaos, pandemonium, and terrorism easier to effect and harder to prevent. The toll at the marathon – both the human toll and the destruction of the local streets and stores – was devastating, but the incident in Boston was certainly not the first of its kind, although it has provided a good deal of publicity for the technique. We have achieved the distinction of being able to destroy something or someone from the other side of the world.

The integrated circuit was, for all practical purposes, developed in the nineteen fifties,ⁱ and a Nobel Prize was awarded to Robert Kilby in 2000 for his work in bringing about this revolution. Even before the chip changed everything, however, societal disruption by television had already taken place. Idiotic local news shows had made everything banal or titillating. “Will the burning down of your house mean any change for you?” “How do you feel about your wife being raped and murdered?” Intrusive reporters asked stupid and insensitive questions. Their local “features” crowded out the real news. (Now we've advanced to “reality” programing. “Reality” attempts to imitate reality, only not very well. It's popular, but it's all pretense. And there is certainly no art in it. As long as there are clouds and ether, though, it will continue to plague us. )

But even though such gossip has remained on the air, and now, supported by electronics, we reveal all there is to know about ourselves. With the various social media and the ability to upload our most mortifying moments for everyone to see, we no longer need aspiring “investigative” reporters as our intermediaries. We can create cybergossip, or embarrass ourselves,ⁱⁱ because we think others care or are interested. We're exhibitionists and the computer chip has revolutionized our lives. And while there are untold improvements that have been brought about by modern electronics, the negatives make it unclear if we are really better off. A listing of some of those negativesⁱⁱⁱ may put some of the progress into perspective:

1. The addiction of the screen. Some view it as a psychiatric disease.
2. The inactivity and related health issues caused by that addiction.
3. The cost of the devices, and the services for them – both for the wireless provider and for the electronics repairman.
4. The costs of the various applications – both for the applications and for the things that are so easy to do and to buy since you never have to leave your house.
5. Loss of privacy associated with the presence of personal information on line that is available to the increasing number of people around the world who know how to get it.
6. The costs associated with hacking and identity theft. Among the information accessible by hackers are passwords, account numbers, and any social security and bank information that you probably thought were safe.
7. Improper actions caused in the stock market which may result from computer programs which automatically respond to monitored information, even if it isn't true. A few weeks ago there was a precipitous fall in the market^iv due to automatic responses to a “Tweet” containing false information.
8. Penetration of firewalls in governmental agencies like the Pentagon resulting in loss of security. Similar mischief might be caused in other agencies like the IRS, FDA, Fannie Mae, and all the rest. Cyber attacks are now a great cause for concern, especially those arising in other countries, and may be aimed at spying on us as well as disrupting our government's functions. According to recent news, China has been waging “cyberwar” against us for years.
9. Hacking for the purpose of industrial espionage. That's one of China's projects.
10. Hacking for the purpose of obtaining mailing lists and personal information held by commercial and governmental organizations.
11. Spam, scams,^v fraud, phishing, and other personal intrusions. It's so easy now to contact huge numbers of people simultaneously. That's what happened when someone – apparently overseas – caused the stock market to tank.
12. The unwanted interruptions and annoyance and cost of “robo” and live junk telephone calls on cell phone units – not that they're any great pleasure on land lines. (Note: Don't call on “Do not call” lists for help. They're not worth the effort, and those supposed to compel their use have sometimes given up. They – the lists and the enforcers – frequently don't work.)
13. The risk of answering calls while driving and the cost of hands-free devices.
14. The use of electronic devices to trigger weapons of mass (or other) destruction.
15. The use of the internet to get information regarding how to make a bomb.
16. The use of the internet to contact and connect to others with similar ideas regarding what used to be considered anti-social activities.^vi That includes, among many other things, for example anarchy and conspiracy.
17. Search engines that, in addition to the useful information they make available, assist in plagiarism.
18. Social media that cater to the voyeur and trivialize everyone's existence as they waste our time.
19. Pornography and a platform to induce the naïve and trusting to become involved in psychologically unhealthy, or physically dangerous relationships.
20. People all around us who are walking and talking to those we cannot see. Those we used to view as touched are now reaching out and touching others, but they're in far greater numbers than they used to be, and their addiction interrupts conversations, meetings, and the public peace.^vii

Of course I've just begun. I haven't mentioned such problems^viii as cyberbullying,” computer games and their risks (immediate and long-term), GPS's and our inability to just get away without others knowing where we are, and the dangers to the libraries and the newspapers.^ix And I suspect you know many others. If nothing else, the addiction that I mentioned drains time from our attending to other matters. And some of them may even be significant.

When I was young,^x things were slower and simpler. We can accomplish a lot more now, and do it faster. But I sometimes wonder if it's all worth it.

Next episode: “Food For Thought” – Thinking about it won't help.

i      The first such integrated circuit was patented in 1949 but never adopted for use in any device nor developed. According to Wikipedia,

“Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (de) (Siemens AG) filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device showing five transistors on a common substrate in a 3-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi disclosed small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. An immediate commercial use of his patent has not been reported.”

ii     Possibly permanently. Computers and the cloud are good at keeping such information alive forever.

iii     The particular problems, of course, will differ depending on the nature of the device(s) you have.

iv    The Dow Jones Industrial average dropped 146 points and there was a temporary (fortunately) loss of over a hundred billion dollars.

v      While many of them seem to be originating in Nigeria, the sources are numerous and international.

vi     Some of them still are.

vii    I still think they're crazy, but for a different reason.

viii  Among numerous others.

ix    Some favor the sacrifice of print media in favor of that delivered over computerized devices, but I prefer a book or a newspaper. And you don't need to recharge them.

x      You've heard that one too.