More Food For Thought

                                                                                                  

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal?

I asked that question last weekⁱ as I bewailed the change in food preparation methods in our country in recent years.

But it was the wrong question. It made too many assumptions – most of them either incorrect or too smug. Let's start by taking apart the question itself:

     a. When was the last time

     b. you

     c. had

     d. a good home

     e. cooked

     f. meal?

“When was the last time” – The implication is that it was some time in the past.

“you” – It's not clear, but this probably includes your family, or others for whom you are responsible.

“had” – Once again there is the assumption that you did. And that means that it is no longer the case.

“a good home” – Indeed. Any home. Too many of our own citizens, let alone others around the world, lack any home at all – good or otherwise.

“cooked” – Whatever home they have would need cooking implements and fuel which aren't necessarily available and affordable.

“meal?” – As opposed to whatever – if any – food can be found.

Those, however, are only details. More important questions revolve around the assumption that you have had a “good home-cooked meal” at some time. If so, it seems that it must have been some time back. But there is also the implication that such a meal is desirable and that you are entitled to it. Why should that be the case? Is anyone “entitled” to have such a meal, and if so, aren't we all entitled to it?

The original question seemed straightforward, but there are implications that require some comment. Whoever is asking the question seems to assume that he deserves such a meal, and on a regular basis. It's likely that he expects someone to make it for him and that the failure is not his own. He probably has to go out to some (expensive) restaurant in order to enjoy the kind of meal that is his due.ⁱⁱ Presumably his cook (who may be a spouse) has been cutting corners.

At this momentⁱⁱⁱ there are over 7,137,291,000 people in the world. The original question would probably never occur to most of them. And many among them would have no other experience than making rice, or some other cheap staple, with little else to nourish them. They only have home-cooked meals, if they eat at all. Indeed, some would have little to eat of any sort, apart from what they find in the fields or forests. When we wonder about home-cooked meals, we are dealing with a quandry of the privileged.

We are privileged. And we are responsible. It's easy to say that the poor – even those in our own country – should fend for themselves.^iv Or that their own governments should provide for them. The United States gives aid to many countries that are in need, but many of our own citizens resent the sending of their tax dollars elsewhere. Charity begins at home.

But that view has its own problems. Many of those same people resent paying the taxes that fund such home-grown programs as food stamps, and other plans to assist the poor. For them, “home” is the address at which they live, and while they are happy to accept government benefits, they are reluctant to pay for them. Another problem is that for many of them, charity doesn't begin at all. And whether or not we agree with their perspective, it is easy to understand a view that says that others have no right to give charity in their names – to give away their money. Moreover, if anything is given, they should have the right to choose the recipients. After all, it's their money.^v

So a better attitude is for you to choose the charities and donate before you are asked.^vi And, before you ponder the complexities regarding the issue of your own home-cooked meals, it would be appropriate to give some thought to those who don't even understand the question.

Next episode: “Complex Problems” – Do they require complex answers?

i       “A La Whatever,” January 19, 2014.

ii      Even then, there's no guarantee that it's made from scratch. More likely there are partially prepared products for restaurants. There may be many dishes on the menu, and it may be difficult to prepare them from fresh ingredients every day. “In Season” is often used to suggest that the product is fresh, but don't forget that it's always in season somewhere.

iii     Ten thirty AM on December 30, 2013.

iv      We are quick to find ways to blame the victim and to justify our own behavior.

v       Decisions of this sort are difficult, and legislators and regulators use their own preferences and biases to make them. Sometimes the choices are based on voter preferences, but not very often, and only after the legislators have told the voters what is “good” and what is “right.”

vi      You. Not the other guy.

One In Five

Wringing his hands,ⁱ yesterday the President declared that twelve percent of college women had been assaulted during their academic years. Since many such incidents go unreported the likelihood was that the percentage was higher, and he said that one in five had been assaulted. A few weeks earlier, with negative publicity mounting due to reports of sexual abuse in the service academies, he announced an initiative to deal with the high rate of rape in the entire military.ⁱⁱ For cynics it might appear that he was attempting to distract the electorate from considering other issues – ones in which they may have found him to be either on the wrong side, or on the right side but failing.ⁱⁱⁱ The number of assaults, however, is very troubling^iv and cannot be sloughed off. Some remedy must be found.

But before rushing ahead headlong with solutions, it would be prudent to get more information. For example, is the newly announced problem limited to schools? Is it in fact a recent situation? What are the numbers and how have they changed over the years? Are some schools – or types of schools – more likely to have a problem than others? Is the problem more generalized?^v

None of the answers to these questions can possibly lessen the enormity of the problem or mitigate against decisive action,^vi but delineation of the causes is the first step in designing a meaningful response. I choose to believe that the President raised the issue now because it is getting worse, and he mentioned the colleges because that is where it is most severe. I choose to believe it because it seems to me to have been inevitable.

Inevitable? That's a strong word, but a country like ours that has undergone a sexual revolution in the last half-century, (whose culture^vii illustrates – no, it celebrates – the joy of sex for everyone, mixed sex dormatories – first limiting the sexes by floor, then by room, and now opening all rooms to all takers, easy availability of pregnancy prevention methods – including abortion if all else fails, pornography, and the like) is conveying the message that we encourage sexual activity among the unmarried – not just tolerate it. Our “sexual mores” seem to boil down to “more sex.” We proclaim loudly that sex is great^viii and (almost) everyone wants it, so how can we turn around and just say “no.” Indeed, there are many who believe that when a woman says no she is just being coy. And even if she means it, she may not report a rape, and the desire of the moment overpowers any concern for the future, or for the woman. And we also glorify and legalize getting high on marijuana and alcohol, with more likely to come.

It would be nice to believe that we can educate society. Perhaps that should be the first step. Not to tell people that they won't enjoy sex – they'll laugh at whoever tries such an approach. But they may be more responsive to delineations of the physical and psychological results of unprotected sex. We're doing that now, however, and not accomplishing very much. And we tried prohibition of alcohol once – a glaring failure.

Another way to educate people is through a change in emphasis in the media and in entertainment. But many will view it as an intrusion on the First Amendment if we ask TV and film producers, and the other media as well, to remove, or at least deemphasize sex in what they feed our citizens. In addition to the legal questions related to such a move, however, it would be foolhardy to ignore the economic implications. Sex makes money. If antisocial behavior results from what they peddle, so be it. It's the economy, stupid.^ix

No. Those measures won't be effective. More Draconian penalties, though, might do the trick.^x Suppose rapists were sentenced to (for example) twenty years and those convicted of lesser offences to ten years.^xi No plea bargaining and no judicial discretion. These are not victimless crimes. Long sentences would also be useful since “[a]ssailants were often serial offenders … nearly two-thirds of them said they had done so [attempted or committed rape] multiple times – six on average.”^xii Prison is a good way to keep them off the streets. Advertising of these sentences may cut down on the offenses even more than the imposition of the penalties.

Of course convictions may be hard to come by for a variety of reasons. Among them is the possibility that the accused is innocent. Women, moreover, may be reluctant to press charges out of fear or a misguided concern for the perpetrator.^xiii Should she do so, however, even with a public that is conditioned to believe the accuser, the imposition of long sentences may not sit well with juries – especially men – and they'll look for ways to find the defendant not guilty.

And guilt is difficult to prove in a situation where there are no witnesses. There is often a question of whether the sexual activity is consensual, and the argument over that point is the dispute the jury faces. But that is no different from the existing dilemma, so the best we can hope to do is improve the odds. Multiple lie detector tests of both parties may help in the determination. It is clear that the tests are not perfect, but if done repeatedly^xiv and involving both the accuser and the accused, they may be helpful to the jury, especially if one of the parties always appears to be telling the truth and the other always appears to be lying. And it certainly adds to the “he said, she said” testimony that may be all the jury has.

Unfortunately, the “he said, she said” testimony could be a major stumbling block. Because juries are often biased towards the woman, sometimes accusations are made for spite, and may result in a man's unjustified conviction and long-term incarceration. One way to make a woman think twice about making false accusations “just to get even,” would be to automatically try the woman for making the accusation if the man is acquitted. Her conviction would not be automatic by any means, but if she is convicted her sentence should be what the man she accused would have received. This might minimize the problem.

And now to get back to the advertising. Ads emphasizing these penalties would make a rapist think twice about committing the act, and his victim about making a false accusation – especially if there were a few well publicized examples of both kinds of sentences being given. And if serial rapes can be avoided, others would benefit as well. Perhaps, following a few well publicized convictions, more women could even be convinced to come forward to stop the rapists and protect their sisters.

And finally, it would also help if mixed dormatories were phased out in favor of the single sex variety. After all, out of site, out of mind.

i       Figuratively.

ii      The President gave the military a year to demonstrate that it had cut down on the number or sexual assaults throughout its ranks. The Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Acadamies was issued in 2005 and the problem remains, so it is difficult to understand how significant progress throughout the military will come about in a year.

iii     The New York Times (Jackie Calmes, January 22, 2014) reports “Later, at a ceremony in the East Room, Mr. Obama signed a memorandum creating [a] task force … The issue is a priority of women's groups, which have been crucial to Mr. Obama's election victories.” A memorandum and a task force should do the trick nicely – especially when the President announces it to the press at a ceremony in the East Room.

iv      Any number is troubling. And Draconian measures are justified in eliminating all sexual assault from our society. Or at least limiting it, since there will always be disturbed individuals who can't (or won't) control themselves.

v       If so the problem may have different causes and may need to be addressed by other means.

vi      Even though governmental action may not solve the problem – especially if designed primarily for the positive press it may garner – it's worth trying. But bear in mind the following which appeared in the Times article cited above. “At [President Obama's] side was Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who 20 years ago won passage of the Violence Against Women Act ...” Twenty years ago and the problem hasn't been solved. Don't look for a quick fix unless your prepared to take strong steps and ignore the response they evoke.

vii     In books, magazines, movies, television, theater, and song. What have I left out?

viii    A point I don't dispute.

ix      In addition, though counterintuitive, the relationship between pornography and violence, and antisocial behavior is disputed. (Of course, even if proved it would be disputed, as would the remedies. Some view absolute freedom as trumping any other consideration. “Slippery slope” and all that sort of self-righteous drivel. It's more like reductio ad absurdum, and its proponents don't know how to draw lines.)

x        It is sometimes argued that with new laws and new penalties there is disproportionate penalizing of minorities. If the problem is primarily in colleges and, as many complain, minorities don't have the opportunity to attend college as often as others, it is those others who will be guilty and dispropotionately penalized.

xi      The numbers, of course, are just conversation starters and subject to change by our legislators. But a rapist convicted at the time the Violence Against Women Act was passed would just be getting out of prison now.

xii      New York Times, ibid.

xiii    Of course the opposite may happen – unfounded charges may be leveled as a form of revenge or for other reasons. But I'll deal with that shortly.

xiv     By different “experts” who have been certified by the state and work for it. If some of the tests are performed by someone later judged to be unreliable, there will be other testimony still existing. Similar multiple site DNA testing should take place when there is a denial of contact by the accused and another is blamed. The multiple site approach will improve accuracy and lessen the chances that a particular conviction is overturned because other test results in a specific site are questionable. The immediate costs may be greater, but the accuracy of the results and the conviction of a rapist before he has repeated himself will ultimately save the government money.

A La Whatever

                                                                                                       

                                                                                               

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal? Not one that came from the freezer and was simply defrosted.

(The times are different from what they were when our great-grandparents were young.ⁱ In their time there were no pre-cooked foods except the ones they made and stored themselves. There were only home cannedⁱⁱ fruits and vegetables, and some foods that were preserved in salt or by drying,ⁱⁱⁱ but these preparations were usually done by the cook herself.^iv And although commercially produced frozen foods appeared in the mid-1940s, some dishes were probably made and frozen at home before that. And others were canned.)

Additional sources of pre-prepared foods are the local take-out restaurant and the counter in the supermarket that holds the salads, meat dishes, and the like. And the supermarkets also have the packaged cereals, candies, cookies, salad dressings and the numerous other items that are so popular in the last-minute preparation of the meal on the fly that you get at home.

You may choose to go out and get a Big Mac^® or have a pizza delivered at home, or even have daily deliveries of fully prepared meals – especially if you're on a diet. Those meals are likely to have small portions and large prices, but they save the work of actually cooking the meal.

But why not? Why should we live in the past? There was a time when the cleaning of clothes required that they be beaten by rocks in a nearby stream. Now we use washing machines. And at one time we rode on horses if we didn't walk, but now we drive automobiles with GPS units. We now prefer antibiotics and other modern medicines to leeches and enemas. Times are changing, and we should as well. Ready-made meals – “less work for mother”^v – is a concept that makes sense.

Well, yes and no.

For the most part the modern improvements are just that. They are improvements. Washing machines clean better than rocks; automobiles get us to our destination faster than horses or our own legs; and modern medicines have far better results than leeches. The same can be said for many other devices. And in addition they work faster than the methods they're replacing. That concept certainly makes sense. Society has chosen to adopt these practices even though aware of the potential of some laundry products to cause allergies, the cost of automobile accidents in lives and money, and the side effects of many medicines.

But food products don't have such a clear record of benefits in relation to costs. It is undeniable that cooking from scratch has become more difficult as families have been forced into the position of requiring two bread-winners. One of the problems is that there is no one home to cook, and a particular dish may require more time than is available following return from work in the late afternoon or in the evening. And both partners may be exhausted and hungry by that time, so it is easier to assemble a meal than to cook. It's also hard to pass up food that's already prepared and food you can pass off as home-made by just heating it up. Some may even taste good, but there's more to the story than that.^vi You may even notice that the ready-made products often come in pans that can be used for cooking and then thrown out rather than washed. More time saved. Not only that, but with things like TV dinners, and other plastic meals, each diner can have something different. Something for everyone, including the person preparing the meal.

But, as I said, there's more to the story. Whereas the ingredients for meals made in season from scratch are typically tasty and of high quality, the main considerations in formulating the ready-made treats and the fast foods are shelf-life, appearance, and price. That means additives of various sorts, including artificial colors, stabilizing agents, and numerous preservatives.^vii When it comes to taste, which isn't the first consideration, in addition to added salt, sugar, and fats,^viii there are many artificial flavorings. Portion sizes tend to be small so the manufacturer can advertise a lower price (and calorie count) per “serving.”

In this age of easy travel, transport, and communication, everything is in season somewhere, and available all year around. But because it takes time to bring fruits and vegetables to market from somewhere around the world, harvesting may be necessary before the produce is ripe so that it won't be past its peak when it reaches the consumer. Or a variety may be produced that looks^ix and travels well even if its taste is not all you might like. It's far better to sell a product that may not taste good, than not to sell one that tastes better but doesn't look as good.

So people wind up without the meal made from scratch. The “comfort” foods don't do the trick. And the portions aren't big enough.^x And whoever made dinner isn't eager to talk about how (s)he defrosted or reheated what was on sale at the local store and was served. No one will beg for the recipe anyway. On the other hand, talking about a dinner made from fresh local ingredients will probably be a source of enjoyment for the chef, and a tasty home-made dish is the kind of thing that guests will want to repeat in their own kitchens, so be prepared for recipe requests.

There's nothing like a home-cooked meal. But wait. There's more.

Next episode: “More Food For Thought” – There are more important problems with that home-cooked meal.

i       Or at least mine. The level of ancestry needed to reach back to the early twentieth century and before will depend on your age.

ii       Actually they were bottled, but the term used now is “canning.”

iii     Fermentation also has a long history as a method of preservation (at least 10,000 years to drying's 12, 000 years – see http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/nchfp/factsheets/food_pres_hist.html for more history), but is somewhat more limited in its application than some of the other methods and infuses the contents with alcohol.

iv      I do not mean to be considered sexist, but the reality is that most of the cooking at home was done by women – wives and mothers or, in the case of a well-to-do family, by a paid cook.

v       Horn and Hardart.

vi      Somewhere below. I haven't figured out where just yet.

vii     In order to return some of the nourishment which the processing has removed from the food, and in order to add something for advertising value, there may be added vitamins, or something else that happens to be in vogue, proclaimed on the package, along with disclaimers of allergins and gluten – especially in products that never contain gluten – and fat where it would not ordinarily be anyway.

viii    Including poly-unsaturated fats, oils, and transfats.

ix      Wax coatings are often of value here.

x       I like “man-sized” portions. I know that sounds sexist, but when I get up from the table I like to loosen my belt.

Don't Put A Cold In Your Pocket

                                                                                   

Why do we do what we do? What do we believe? Can we make intelligent decisions or do we lack the information? Do we give any thought to our beliefs? Do we care? Laymen follow (at least they think they do) common sense, or whatever it says on Google. But do we really know what we think we know? And is it true?

To a very significant degree this is a follow-up on the essays of the last two weeks. In this case, however, there's no science fictionⁱ in it. Rather it's an expansion on the issue of education. And it's a sad commentary on the state of what we learn. In the previous messages I suggested that education is, by and large, tailored to the desires of the audience. That's neither an original thought nor an unusual practice. But perhaps a little more exposition would be helpful in understanding my concerns in this area.

We usually associate education with schools. It certainly goes on there, although the results are often spotty, and the information given students is often contrary to what parents think or want. Indeed, sometimes the “facts” are wrong.ⁱⁱ But right and wrong are not significant criteria when it comes to what is learned. More important considerations are the student's age and interests, the frequency of repetition of the lesson, the ability of the teacher and the quality and attractions of the teaching materials, and the rewards and threats – implied and explicit – that accompany learning and not learning a particular lesson.

Childhood is best time for learning: baseball stats, movie star data, and the content of ads are good examples of what they're likely to learn. Kids don't always relate to school lessons but they remember other material that interests them. They learn best what they want to believe or want to know. And from those in whom they have confidence. Very young children trust adults and believe whatever an adult says, both for facts and philosophy. But as they get older, and primarily because of a need for independence, kids begin to rebel – to reject the teachings of their parentsⁱⁱⁱ and, to a degree, those of other adults – especially those not well skilled in getting their attention or who transmit messages in which they're not interested. They trust their peers, however, to be reliable sources of information – especially regarding subjects like sex, which the adults are loath to discuss.^iv Or popular music about which the adults know nothing.^v Actually, those we consider our peers, whether adults or children, are among the most important influences on our learning, even when their lessons are false. (It is they, our peers, who convince us, for example, that “natural” and “organic” are best for us, even if they don't know what the terms mean.^vi They heard it – or something on the subject – from someone else, or they read it in the paper.)

But the best teachers are those in the advertising business. It's not the tenured professor who will keep his job no matter what his students learn,^vii but the advertiser or copywriter who has to sell a product every day in order to stay employed, who is the best educator. It's up to him to convince us there's a problem that only his product can solve. Whether his “solution” has any value is irrelevant, as long as the goods sell. Ideally his product does what is claimed for it, but that's not invariably the case,^viii nor is it necessary. Claims usually precede knowledge, especially if the buyer is primed to accept the presumed value of the product or practice. That's certainly the case with panaceas, snake oil, and beauty products – usually accompanied by some promise of eternal youth.^ix It's also true of other health related wares. “Don't put a cold in your pocket” may be convincing advertising copy, but you can't catch your own cold, so if you use a handkerchief you're not really risking reinfection next time. And if you use tissues and there's no garbage can, you have a choice between littering, and putting the used tissue in your pocket.

Other important teachers are those who advise you to sneeze into your antecubital fossa,^x and that chicken soup is the best cure for a cold.^xi They may not be old wives, but they've learned from them. And they will try to convince you that vitamins are good for you.^xii But, no matter what they say, there's no proof that most of those nostrums they've been using for years have any effect. Don't waste your time offering contrary evidence. There's no changing the mind of someone already convinced. (As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The mind of the bigot^xiii is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."^xiv) Too often what we think is true is more important than what is true. Even if what we think is true was drummed into us by someone with an ax to grind.

It's nice to believe that all we've been taught is true. It's nice to believe that all of those who would provide us with the truth know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Too much of what we “know” has been programmed into us either by people who know less than we, but who had custody of our minds before we understood that we could question them, or those who have a vested interest in our accepting what they have to say, whether it relates to politics, advertising, propaganda, or something else.

In short, the time will come when scientists (presumably working on behalf of the government) will be able to load us with the desired “software” to be good servants of the State. We'll be properly educated to believe and to know everything our leaders want us to know. But even before that, our educational system, and a host of other interested parties, will teach us their truths – their catechism. And everyone will learn – whether it is their intention or not to do so. All, especially the young, are very open to whatever they are told. They are open-minded, and they fault their elders for not accepting new ideas. But as James Randi said, “There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.” And for too many the exposed brain can be washed and the permitted knowledge inserted. That's what will happen if we let it.

But Winston Smith^xv showed us that this doesn't have to be the case. For at least part of his life he was not obedient, even though he had been taught that following the rules made life easier, and disobedience would lead to punishment, he didn't submit to the party and accept the “facts” he was told. He questioned them. And that is what the rest of us can do. If something that we are taught doesn't seem right, it may not be right. And if something we have always accepted seems wrong, it may be wrong.^xvi We can still fight political and societal “truths,” however, if we choose to do so – if we question them and determine their veracity.

But the questioning and the evaluation of new (and old) information is up to us. The learning of the facts that govern us and on which we base our thoughts is certainly a function of education. ^xvii But another function of education is to teach us to question what we are told. When we stop questioning – when we lose the ability and interest in questioning – we will have lost any chance to form correct and meaningful thoughts.^xviii “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” But if the “truths” are false, they shall enslave you. Soon enough, the authorities you don't question will be able to determine your thoughts and make them correspond to what is desired. And what is desired will be determined by the the bureaucrats, regulators, and civil servants and whoever controls them. They will monitor what you think, and they will control what you do. Доверяй, но проверяй – “Trust but verify.” President Reagan^xix may have been concerned specifically with its application to American foreign policy, but it's good advice for all of us.

“If not now, when?”^xx

Next episode: “A La Whatever” – Food for thought.

i         Future science.

ii        “Wrong” is a loaded word – both in terms of factual accuracy and cultural or philosophical acceptability. Who decides such things? How is the culture in which a child is reared (or in which an adult lives) a determining factor in “rightness” or “wrongness?”

iii      They know more than their parents anyway, so there's no real loss.

iv       Parents are simultaneously horrified that their children are learning about sex from their friends (juvenile delinquents with dirty minds), and relieved that the need to have “that talk” no longer exists.

v       And like nothing. Of course our parents didn't share our taste in music either.

vi       Given the choice between natural and unnatural potatoes, which would you choose? And “organic” used to mean that something contained carbon.

vii       Or don't learn.

viii     The FDA has just issued a warning that “antibacterial soaps” have never been demonstrated to be useful, and they may actually do more harm than good by fostering the growth of resistant forms.

ix      The cosmetics usually contain some amazing ingredients like prune oil, vitamin Q, and some unspellable scientific-sounding material that the hucksters try to convince us is the answer to all the ravages of time. The “expert” in the television advertisement will be wearing a white coat, and the “delighted” consumer will usually be a beautiful model.

x       See Tuck And Cover, October 11, 2010.

xi      Actually, good chicken soup is the best cure for almost anything. But it has no medicinal effect on a cold or anything else.

xii     Most medical authorities consider them a waste of money and, in large quantities, potentially harmful. But what do they know? The vitamin salesman knows best.

xiii     He said “bigot,” but the same truth applies to anyone absolutely convinced that he is right about something.

xiv      Conspiracy theories abound. There are so many things that “THEY” are doing to us and that “THEY” don't want us to know.

xv       See 1984 by George Orwell.

xvi     Even worse, we may be taught something that seems right but is wrong. Or we may have such a belief from childhood.

xvii    Much – but not all – of what we are taught is true, but,

xviii   It's also important to consider the reliability of the source. Too often we are given a biased source as “proof” of the validity of a particular claim. A comparison of different perspectives may be revealing, but it's often the case that we accept what we already believe and reject anything that disagrees with it.

xix     Citing a Russian proverb.

xx      Hillel. Pirke Avot, 1:14.

Cogito Ergo Sum – Pars II

                                                                                                           

It goes without sayingⁱthat even before science learns how to insert thoughts – and they willⁱⁱ– there will be ways found to read thoughts from the outside. It's already possible to identify the areas of the brain that are active in relation to a variety of stimuli, so it can be determined what“turns you on.”ⁱⁱⁱ Thoughts used to be considered sacred and beyond legal consequence. A couple of examples of that philosophy are the German song, Die Gedanken sind frei(thoughts are free) and a line from Frank Loesser's Standing on the Corner which says “Brother, you can't go to jail for what you're thinkin'.” The time will come, however, when you can. Right now all they can do in some jurisdictions is charge you with loitering.

The insertion of ideas, however, is not new. And it needn't be surgical. For better or worse it's always been with us. We call it education, but we try to limit the particular concepts our children learn to those with which we, ourselves, are comfortable. And we look for the“best” schools and teachers to implement the program we have prescribed. We want to choose the school district or, in some cases, a particular school – secular or parochial – to instill both the desired facts in our children and the techniques for working with them, and the “proper” outlook, which is sometimes more important than the facts. And, during this period of information acquisition, youth, we want to shield our children from ideas that we view as detrimental – whether because they are wrong or because we consider them contrary to our own ideas and, thus, confusing and misleading.

When it comes to “proper outlook,” most people usually accept the one that is available at no cost, the one usually described as public education, although some families will opt for a parochial^ivor a private school – even at what may be a significant cost – in order to promote a particular set of values or to improve the chances of a particular outcome that is likely to result from, the attendance at a desirable (type of) institution.

The“promotion” of thoughts, values, and philosophies in a parochial school is often viewed as restrictive and coercive by “liberal”citizens who don't use them, but the techniques they use are no different – and perhaps less harmful – than those used by the state in general.^v Under the usual circumstances the education our children receive –public education – is whatever is believed by the majority,^viand minority viewpoints are either ignored or belittled. It's usually some form of default to generally accepted ideas without much attention to details. In some instances, however, there may be a specific intent to indoctrinate the students into “correct”beliefs and “knowledge.” George Orwell, in 1984,^viishowed what can be done with the recasting of history, the“correction” of existing texts, careful crafting of the message, and the creative use of language. If there are no time constraints, if it can be done over generations, and no one will notice or care. Soon enough the information people are taught to believe becomes common knowledge. First “knowledge,” and then memory. Mythology and old wives' tales are well accepted in our society already. Who is not aware the George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and admitted his transgression, and that vitamin C will prevent or cure the common cold? In the next generation these will be the truths that everyone knows.

The education, provided by those who will seek community through uniformity of knowledge will be greatly assisted by technological advances, as well as by the popular desire for test score improvements and a common curriculum for all – however inappropriate it is for many of the students. Disingenuous innovators will, with feigned diffidence claim they are “standing on the shoulders of giants.” What is actually the case is that they've had an education and are working with more information than previous generations – the real giants – had. The idea, as they express it, sounds modest but noble, yet it is too often camouflage for calculated misrepresentation. And with the internet and all the social media outlets, false “truths” and spins, that “calculated misrepresentation” can be disseminated instantaneously. If it doesn't stick the first time, it can be presented again and again. After all, one of the basic techniques of education is repetition.

So the public may be horrified by scientific advances,^viiiwithout realizing that the advances research will bring some day by techniques now viewed as science fiction, have been present in less dramatic form since the dawn of civilization. And so, as with so many other things, before we take issue with what's to come, the perils of the future, it's vital that we evaluate what we have and what we've been taught is right. That, itself, may hold some dangers that need reconsideration. If I am what I think, I may not be what I think I am.

Anyway, that's what I think. At least I think it is.

Next episode: “Don't Put A Cold In Your Pocket”- Common sense but not Thomas Paine.

i           But I'll say it anyway.

ii            Surgery has already been employed to govern thought. Lobotomy was designed to sever pathways of emotional thoughts, allowing the victims to be more manageable. We now use mind-altering drugs to achieve the same results, but what we're learning may also teach us how to surgically change thought patterns. And we're experimenting with the transfer of genetic material to prevent, treat, and possibly cure diseases, so why not use the injection of facts as a cure for ignorance? It will be especially useful in those likely to have low IQs. Obviously that kind of procedure will be more difficult, but when scientists set their minds to solving a problem, it eventually gets solved, though it may take a long time and may be a problem better left unsolved.

iii         How long will it take before the techniques are refined and more specific information, perhaps individual thoughts, ideas, and memories, can be determined? Who knows? But it's only a matter of time.

iv          While a parochial school is usually chosen in order to have a particular religion inculcated in its students, the “public” schools similarly inculcate religion – the secular religion of the society in which the students live. (Although uncommon, there are occasions when a parochial school of another religion is chosen because of the quality of the education.)

v         Actually, it is not only the schools that do this, but the media. In their editorials, which are often repetitive messages emphasizing a particular viewpoint, they hammer home to susceptible readers the virtuous way to understand a particular situation or idea. Their way.

vi        Depending on sophistication and intent, that may be old wives' tales and mythology, or brainwashing and “reeducation.”

vii       Following the lead of the USSR and other totalitarian governments.

viii      As will many scientists.

2014 – What's To Come

                                                                                                                                                                                             

I've been looking at some of my previous posts and noted that many of them were repetitive and dealt with the past. The messages are heart-felt, but it seems to me that while they offer important issues for you to consider, they are safe – too safe for me. Since I know everything (I've told you that already) it would be reasonable to let you know, as well as I do, what's on the horizon. So since today is 2,059^th anniversary of the Julian calendar, I've chosen today to offer my predictions (and with the assurance that they're from me, you know they're sure things) for the 2,060^th year. To wit:

  

1. There will be a major calamity involving a nuclear facility in China
   There will also be a meltdown in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
2. The LGBT movement will demand that one of its members be given the next open seat on the Supreme Court. The President will announce that such had been his intention since his last appointment.
3. Drones will be approved by the FAA for garbage delivery pickup.
4. The Chicago Cubs will win the Heisman Trophy and the Brooklyn Dodgers, who will come in second, will advise fans to “Wait 'til next year.”
5. Iran will complete production of an atom bomb and bomb Israel. The United States will condemn the action and demand talks.
6. Democrats and Republicans will compromise on several issues. (Actually, that's too bizarre a scenario for this list. We'll view it as “Possible but highly unlikely.”)
7. Bill Clinton will be chosen as Entertainer of the Year (for his saxophone playing) just beating out Nero.
8. Programs for the manufacture of sex toys will be marketed along with home 3D printers.
9. Recreational cocaine use is sure to be approved by voters and the City Council in Aspen, Colorado.
10. An earth probe from Mars will arrive in Roswell, New Mexico. (The Tea Party will demand a Constitutional amendment outlawing anything from the Red planet.)
11. “The Texas Chain Saw Exorcist's Cemetery On Elm Street – XIII” will make 423 million dollars during its first week.
12. The stock market will go up (or down) if it doesn't remain the same.
13. Severe weather anomalies will be common and Hell will freeze over.
14. Power Ball will pay out 1.791 billion dollars to a single winner who will donate it all to the care of abandoned ferrets.
15. Hugh Heffner and Gloria Steinem will be married.
16. Mexico will bar the immigration of all Americans.
17. Kim Jong Un, Sayyed Ali Khamenei and Vladimir Putin will receive the Nobel Prize for Peace “in anticipation of their future acts.”
18. The Supreme Court will strike down a lower limit on voting age, viewing it as unconstitutional. Instead, in order to determine voters' qualifications, they will prescribe a literacy test and a measure of maturity. Kaplan will offer courses in both within a few days of the ruling.
19. Rush Limbaugh will be cloned.
20. Pigs will fly.

These may not be completely accurate although I suspect that they will be for the most part. So don't tell me I didn't include you when I formulated this list and began disseminating all this inside information.

And may you live in interesting times.