Nicéphore Niépce And The Sight Bite

Somewhere in my room – perhaps on my computer – is a photograph of my mother when she was a child. It's a group picture, and in it there are also my grandmother and several of my mother's siblings. I suspect I could figure out my mother's age at the time by determining which of her siblings are present in the picture and which aren't. Perhaps they weren't born yet. And if I can gauge the ages of her brothers and sisters I can guess at hers as well.

But even though I love the picture, determining her age and the date of the photograph are not too important. The sepia color of earlier photographs had been replaced by black, and the clothes of the subjects tell me that it's from early in the twentieth century, and I'm more interested in the picture itself, than in my mother's age. I'm interested in the formality of the pose, the clothing, the facial expressions, and all that tells me a little of the time.  Not that I'm not concerned about my mother, but I have many pictures of her and I prefer to remember the live and loving individual than the pictures of her. For she, herself, was pretty as a picture. No, so much prettier.

And the same is true of a photograph of my father in 1916. He was 13 at the time. It was probably taken a few years after the one of my mother but that, too, is of little consequence. Those pictures, and others, can give us some insight into those we recognize, but they tell us more of the people we don't know, and the times in which they were taken. For example, the sepia photograph of my grandfather standing, and wearing a nice suit of the end of the nineteenth century, in front of a painted backdrop, contains the only visual memory of a man I never met, but who was very important in his time to those in the New York Jewish community, and very important to me since. And I have an elementary-school class photograph showing my wife's mother which tells me a little of a woman I only met many years later, and it illustrates a little of the time in which she lived. And the panoramic photo of me with the entire population of camp during my first year there (1946) tells a different story, as do the three dimensional slides taken at my brother-in-law's wedding. Similarly, the albums of memories of my children's weddings remind me of those joyous events.

We have alwaysⁱ looked for ways to record the world and our experiences for our own information and to convey ideas to others. Long before there was any recorded languageⁱⁱ some form of homo erectus, perhaps neanderthal, was “painting” pictures in caves.ⁱⁱⁱ Whether they were decorations, communications, or spiritual objects isn't clear, but the need to record the world around them is clear.

That's always been the case. Throughout subsequent history people have produced pictures on vessels, jewelry, wall hangings, in book illustrations, and wherever else they found the space. It was their way of showing each other, and future generations, what they saw around them. So the more the picture reflected reality, the better.^iv   It got to a point when paintings were an accurate representation of reality, and we know much of our history because of them, but they took a long time to produce and only resulted from a sincere desire for art, or a commission.  And soon enough the desire for more imaginative images developed, and impressionism was born. And then abstract art. The pictures still represented reality, but the reality was the image that appeared in the artist's mind.

But although paintings were realistic, they weren't satisfactory as evidence or as undeniable representations of what they depicted. Something was needed that took less time and was more accurate, and showed the reality that was lacking with paintings. Concurrently – primarily in the nineteenth century – photography was being developed. The concept of reproduction of permanent images by use of a camera^v and material coated with light-sensitive material goes to Thomas Wedgwood at about the turn of the nineteenth century, but his pictures weren't light-fast. Nonetheless, he had a revolutionary idea.

Many experimenters followed, and Nicéphore Niépce produced what is generally regarded as the first permanent photograph in 1826^vi – a picture taken out his window. Not long after, in the mid 1850's, James Clerk Maxwell proposed a method of producing color photographs^vii using colored filters, and the first example of this technique displayed was by Thomas Sutton in 1861.

Many others made rapid and significant improvements in both the apparatus for taking the pictures, the materials of the picture itself, the length of time necessary for a photograph, and the subject matter shown. Numerous pictures by Matthew Brady during the American Civil War (1861-1865) evidenced the war and the people of the time, including President Lincoln.^viii His work provided actual documentation of the events of the day – not representations filtered through the mind of the artist – and earned him the designation of “first photojournalist.” And the introduction of motion pictures^ix made it possible to see accurate representations of the events of the time. They were very accurate, and they were quickly adopted into our culture and that of countries around the world. They could be used to record reality in a way that was unmatched.^x They served to document an era.^xi

But, in addition to documenting the times, pictures can also mislead. The second commandment^xii makes it clear that the representation of animals and people should be forbidden. The purpose was to prevent any such representation from being worshiped, but it was also recognized that there was no way in which any picture of G-d could actually illustrate His true nature. And, in the eyes of believers, that made any pictures – paintings and photographs among them – inherently undesirable and unacceptable. For others, any photographic intrusion should be avoided.^xiii As did the development of methods to convey misimpressions using photographs. They could be as simple as cropping someone out of a picture so as to misrepresent a situation, or as sophisticated as the insertion of someone into a picture, which was done so often, and with such apparent reality, as in “Zelig.”^xiv

There is also the objection by many who object to the intrusion on their privacy that the medium presents. Those who are prominent hate the paparazzi. For many of the rest of us the surveillance has become so commonplace^xv that it is oppressive. It is incontestable that such surveillance cuts down on crime^xvi and makes the evaluation of those activities more manageable. But it also gives people the feeling that they live in a society in which they're constantly being watched – the world of 1984 and Big Brother.^xvii It gives them that feeling because it's true.

And with Photoshop-type “corrections” and falsifications of manifest and tangible beings and objects, it is no longer possible to believe such reproductions as appear to be genuine. Sometimes they're just selected frames from a longer video or a short strip intended to make a particular point. Like sound bites taken out of context, so are these “sight bites.” Add to that the fact that everyone has a video camera nowadays. They started out as car telephones but they've metamorphosed quickly. Now everyone can document or falsify as he sees fit. It started out with cave paintings over 40,000 years ago and took until only a little over two centuries ago before we got to what we know as photography, and another century and a half before we worked out the kinks. We had gone from representations of what was around us to a medium that we could rely on for truth. How quickly we've learned to pervert it and use it for our own purposes. I can trust the photos of my ancestors. Will my great-grandchildren take pictures of me seriously? I doubt it.

Ain't science wonderful?

Next episode: “Jihad, Rape, And Profiling” – More on our view of reality.

i       Whatever that means.

ii      No way existed to record it. Although some form of language probably developed between a few hundred thousand and a few million years ago – it's a topic of major dispute since there's no way to determine it for certain – it was only a little over five thousand years ago that written language came on the scene as anything other than a device for counting.

iii     The oldest cave paintings are dated about 40,000 BCE.

iv     Sometimes, especially in portraits, reality needed a little help in order that future generations better appreciated the true nature of the individual being depicted.

v       The “camera obscura” had been around for a long time. Chinese philosopher Mo Ti (Fifth Century BCE) had notice the inverted image produced by the pinhole device and traced the image to form a picture.

vi      More or less. Dates of 1825, 1826, and 1827 are found in various places.

vii     As early as 1848, a color photograph was demonstrated but the colors were extremely light-sensitive and could only be seen for a short time and in dim light.

viii    Actually, Brady's first photo of Lincoln was in 1860 while he was running for office.

ix      Movies, not flip-book “moving pictures.”

x       They're also often a waste of both time and space. Facebook et al produce more pictures than we know what to do with. Most are personal or cute and are of little documentary value, except personally. Most are not altered but they're not very interesting.

xi      “Dearie, do you remember when they waltzed to the Sousa Band. My wasn't the music grand. ...”

xii      And its explication in ancient Jewish texts.

xiii    There were other reasons to reject this form of documentation. The phtographing of a party they attended was the trigger event for the Harvard Law Review article in 1890, by Warren and Brandeis by which the concept of privacy was popularized.

xiv     Soon enough, using three D printers and artificial intelligence, we'll be able to keep our ancestors with us as long as we live.

xv      Including units that document all police activity.

xvi     As well as our running red lights.

xvii    It's a little paradoxical that our society has embraced all forms of technology that utilize tracking chips, like GPS elements. Those in control – like the government – can monitor all our movements this way. People disparage surveillance when they think they don't control it, but are eager to adopt the technology when they think it is helpful.

Bill And Coup

                                                                                                       

I fault myself for my generosity. And for my trust in human nature. Trusting in the human nature of legislators is probably a mistake since there is the inherent assumption that they are human.ⁱ And that human nature is good. In retrospect, the evidence for both assumptions is meager at best. In addition to their quest for specific personal benefits, politicians are eager to please potential voters (and donors as wellⁱⁱ). And they're likely to rush into action to solve all the problems that their constituents perceive. Their intentions are good, but the road ...ⁱⁱⁱ

Their intentions are good,^iv but the legislation they propose is formulated by their staffs, and the specifics are delineated by regulators. And the result is a flood of incomprehensible bills which are accompanied by rules and regulations that make complex and predatory laws themselves seem like models of virtue, clarity, and simplicity. No one can understand them – not their “authors” not those who vote on them. Our servants have taken over.

But that's by design.^v A few good “sound bites” that express concern for the “unfortunate,” or for the middle-class (if that's more representative of the district he represents or seeks to represent), will establish the author's good will.^vi Unfortunately, he's simply “talking the talk.” Congress^vii has an ax to grind, and it grinds it to a fine degree for anything but cutting expenditures. Politicians buy votes with funds that aren't their own. Along with the office goes a big payoff, so it's worth it. Especially since it's bought with taxpayer money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics^viii the median wealth of a member of the House of Representatives in 2012 was about $6,000,000, and Senators were worth twice that.^ix I don't know (but I doubt it) if that includes the benefits they'll earn after they retire or are not reelected, or the amounts they'll earn as lobbyists and “consultants,” but those amounts are not inconsiderable.

Much of this is because we don't know what they're doing in our names. In a previous essay^x I bewailed the fact that so many laws are beyond our comprehension, and they should be limited to 10,000 words. In retrospect, however, a lot can be hidden in a bill of that length^xi – especially when misleading political language is used, and regulations, on which no one votes, will flesh things out. So I'll try to simplify and clarify the process. I have no doubt that our crafty politicians will find a way around new rules, but they'll have to work harder to do so.

In any event, if those we choose to serve us are asked to do so – to let us understand from their legislation and to perform their duties because it is virtuous to do so even without personal benefit – they might be helped by some guidelines, especially ones that they understand. To wit:

First of all, no bill should have more words than the average comic book.^xii

Laws should be written in language understandable by the average taker of the SATs (using the mean reading comprehension score in the most recent exam) – it is understood that the SATs are an overestimate of the ability of citizens since only those who wish to attend college take it. Those without such goals, or those who are convinced that they won't get in anywhere, are less likely to do so.

Several things may result from these two guidelines, including the following:

       The bills may be more understandable to members of Congress and to the public,
       The bills will be short enough to read before voting,
       Congress may be inspired to improve the level of education – theirs and the public's, and
       Congress may pressure the College (Entrance Examination) Board to make the exams   easier so they can result in higher grades for those examined and the congressmen can make their bills more complex and difficult to understand.

Surely members of Congress will need well-educated aides to do some of the work for them. But that is understandable and justified. After all, Congressmen work too hard. I know that because that is what they say, and our public officials wouldn't mislead us.

But what kind of laws do we need?

The first bill should eliminate any differences between members of Congress and the people they “serve.” There should be no exemptions from the law,^xiii nor special perks – especially those that last a lifetime. That should begin immediately and members should not benefit from their jobs. Perhaps this condition should be retroactive. They present themselves as, and the public believes them to be (or would like to believe them to be), interested in making our country better. They claim to be in it for us, not for themselves. Let's make it easier for them to keep this vow.

The second requirement that should be passed is one that requires a (roughly) balanced budget. The cost of the program should be listed as part of the legislation so people know what they'll have to pay. It is not being suggested that there be a specific offset given since a binary choice should not be imposed on those voting. It is being suggested, however, that the public be shown lists of proposed and existing programs and their costs, and that some mechanism be implemented that allows the voters to indicate preferences for what they get and what they're willing to give up to get it.

And one further basic guideline is that the votes for and against all legislation be recorded and published so voters know what those whom they have chosen and hired to do their bidding are actually doing.

The guidelines and basic rules I've listed, and the ability of both voters and the media to understand other proposals, will, more than likely, keep legislation understandable. The restriction on length will require that complex bills be broken down into smaller components. While there may be some concern that such a method may lead to important components of a bill being voted down while the bill, itself, passes. If, however, that component is defeated because people understand what it says, perhaps that's a good thing. (Additionally it will be much easier to spot unjustified benefits for the Congressmen and their friends and families.) And maybe we can regain the possession of our government from those who have usurped it.

Next episode: “From Nicéphore Niépce To The Sight Bite” – You know the value of a picture. (“A .jpg is worth a thousand .txt's”ⁱ)

 

I        I'm not referring to their biological species. Of course they're human as opposed vultures (I guess), but I mean the qualities that we define as such when, for example, we speak of someone as a real human being.

ii       In scientific publications nowadays, the authors must disclose the identities of those who have contributed to the work covered, and to any benefits they may have received by anyone affected by the material. Perhaps a similar rule should apply to legislators and their works.

iii      “Saul [Bellow] was suspicious of reformers, those who thought that they could perfect the human nature whose imperfections he chronicled in his writing. He would discuss the collapse of some faltering reform project like campaign financing with a sigh, "Another screw-up job by the Good Intentions Paving Company."

From “Saul Bellow's escape from time” By Eugene Cullen Kennedy, professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. The article appeared in the Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2005.

iv       At least that's what they want us to believe.

v        Lincoln spoke of “... government of the people, by the people, and for the people ...” Sadly we've come to a point in our history where it's government instead of the people. The legislators (and other politicians) are in charge – not the people who have elected them.

vi       No connection with the original bill will be made later on when the various negative effects devolve upon the voter, and the benefits accrue to those who have contributed to the legislators' campaigns.

vii      Of course this refers to politicians at all levels – local as well as national. Congress itself is the most obvious object of this criticism because it receives the most attention from the media and is one of the least trusted groups in American society. (And similarly placed groups are probably the source of similar misgivings in other countries.)

viii      See http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php.

ix       They're an influential part of the “one percent” whom we're expected to hate, but to whom we turn when we're dissatisfied with individual incomes.

x        “... and for other purposes, ” February 10, 2013.

xi       Of course they may use complexity to hide selfishness – their own and that of their supporters. Many of those supporters, especially unions, are loud in proclaiming the need for economy, but view cutbacks of their own ranks or benefits as intolerable and counterproductive. They see the work they do as the backbone of American culture, which will suffer unacceptable harm if they are forced to sacrifice any of the gains they have received in the past, or if any programs in which their members are involved are trimmed.

xii       I don't know offhand what that is, but I suspect that the GAO can determine it if the legislators, their aides, and other civil servants find the calculation too difficult.

xiii     And repeal or revision should be difficult and extremely transparent to the voter. Incidentally, any employment of government officials (including civil servants) for the length of one senate term (or longer) to influence new legislation of other government functions should be outlawed and uncompromisingly punished. Six years should be enough time for their influence to have faded and for them to get honest jobs.

xiv      That's from a t-shirt I saw on line.

BDS -- Biased and Divisive Sophistry

                                                                                                                         

“That's not our agenda.” “We have to start somewhere.” “We can only do one thing at a time.”

Those tend to be the responses to the charges of a double standard that are used by anti-Israel organizations – organizations spawned by those opposed to that state's existence. How those groups decided on their agendas is never discussed. And they seem to protest too much. In reality, however, they're inspired by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which arose from the pro-Palestinian NGO Forum held to parallel the UN World Conference Against Racism, held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. The Forum, which was condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described Israel in its final declaration as a “racist, apartheid state” guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” It also promoted the “Durban Strategy” which called for “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel [and] the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel.”

“Agenda” usually refers to a list of “to-do's,”ⁱ not to a single item, although the usage as a singular is accepted.ⁱⁱ Even so, I'd guess that none of the organizations that promote BDS actions against Israel (the agenda) has a second item listed. They all have a solitary focus. And I'd also guess that there are few, if any, similar organizations that propose a boycott of China, or Afghanistan, or some African nation – or one of the numerous countries that oppress their own citizens and the citizens of other countries. And no attention is paid to tyrannies.

“But,” they tell us, “we have to start somewhere.” Fair enough I suppose, at least as far as it goes.ⁱⁱⁱ However we import far more items from China than Israel so it would be much easier for members to find Chinese products not to buy than Israeli.^iv And, of course, “we can only do one thing at a time.” Oh? Why? If you're in the business of not buying something it's just as easy to not buy two or three things from different countries.^v

The fact that almost invariably Israel is singled out for political actions when the oppression of Christians, women, children, non-Caucasians, the disabled, and those with other than heterosexual practices, in numerous countries around the world is ignored, suggests that the agenda has more to do with Israel and its people than to its exports or its policies.^vi No notice is taken of of the actual practices in Israel where as opposed to some other countries in the area, Christians can pray openly.^vii And Israel has a higher standard of living and better health care for Muslims than in many of those other lands.^viii There are Muslim doctors, lawyers, college students, judges, and legislators. And they can speak freely. Israel is a democracy.

What is apparent, however, is the increase seen in the media – and secondarily in the consumers of the media – of both subtle and blatant anti-Israeli attitudes. And the fact that more and more countries are faulting Jewish religious practices, including circumcision and ritual slaughter, suggests that opposition to Israel has become the currently acceptable way of expressing anti-Jewish feelings. It is anti-semitism, but it is designed to sound virtuous. Holocaust deniers on the right, and “principled” liberals on the left have found a way to draw into their clique those in the middle. They look for people who won't ask “Why” Israel is their agenda and there is no other; who won't ask “Why,” having to start somewhere, they always choose Israel, rather than those who oppress so many groups that they otherwise favor; and who won't ask “Why” they can only do one thing at a time. They seek, and they find, “useful innocents” and “useful idiots” who can be manipulated into supporting causes they don't really understand. The ranks of their supporters are filled with “true believers,” who believe what they're told, and do as they're told.

So while it is true that one can oppose Israel without opposing Jews, such a position is usually just a smokescreen for anti-semitism. And the protesters with loud and seemingly high-minded declarations are simply the megaphones of those who dislike the Jews and the Jewish State simultaneously. So when we take such ideas seriously and buy into them (or, as their boycotts demand, we don't buy what they oppose), we only fool ourselves. Those who promote such views – especially those who understand the meaning and implications of their positions – are attempting to hide their real views behind self-righteous rhetoric. And they who give credence to such disingenuous bombast, who piously act on the patent prejudice of others, and on their own unconscious biases as well, should be made to understand the illogic and intolerance of the views they are promoting, and the manner in which they are being manipulated.^ix

But that would require too much insight, and the recognition of their own biases. So don't hold your breath.

Next episode: “Bill And Coup” -- You have to love those who prepare for your future.

i      I'm not sure the apostrophe belongs there. I certainly don't intend to imply either a contraction or the possessive form of “to-do,” only its plural state, but I was unsure if “to-dos” would be understood or would be considered some variant of an outmoded operating system.
ii      When used in the singular it usually refers to a specific goal which is to be pursued to the exclusion of all others. 
iii     Boycotts are legal in the United States as long as they're not initiated by a foreign government. Hence the prompting to establish BDS actions came from pro-Palestinian NGOs. (In this case I don't think an apostrophe is necessary to clarify the text.)

iv      It's interesting that so many of the groups that protest that they have to start somewhere decide to start with Israel. And it seems like an amazing coincidence that so many other groups have chosen Israel as the first, and only, item on their agenda. It's hard not to wonder if there is something more than coincidence that unites those who seek to act against Israel, and only against Israel.

v        There are so many products made in China, for example, that no one would have to go out of his way to not buy them. But perhaps there are too many. Perhaps China has such a hold on the American economy that no one would want to make the sacrifice, or spend the time, involved in boycotting them. It would be a lot easier to boycott Afghanistan, and it would make a strong statement about our view of the way they treat women. But it's not as politically correct as protesting against Israel. After all, the UN does it all the time. It's an obsession with them.

vi      A special irony is the accusation of racism against Israel. It used to be against “Zionism” but the United Nations eventually decided that such an accusation was unjustified and difficult to defend. So now the accusation is against Israel and, a few days ago, a UN committee condemned what it viewed as improper immigration policies there, as evidenced by protests of Africans who entered the country illegally. What makes it ironic is that Israel, the home of those whom the UN sees as anti-African racists, is forced to limit immigration because so many Africans want to go to there. Apparently the UN knows from a distance more about racism than those who have been suffering. And, according to the world organization, it appears that Israel is the only racist nation there is. Certainly no such decrees are warranted against anyone else.

vii     It's sad that so many church groups that wouldn't consider it appropriate to speak out against the murderers of those of their own faith, find their voices when it comes to condemning Israel and the Jews, and they never tire of doing so.

viii      “In addition to family ties, it seems economic considerations play heavily into making Israel attractive to its Arab citizens. Several polls and interviews conducted in recent years suggest that given the choice, most Palestinian Arab Israelis would prefer to remain in Israel, with some willing to move house if their homes became part of a new Palestinian state. A 2011 poll of over 1,000 East Jerusalem Arabs revealed that 54% would prefer to stay in Israel and only 25% would actively move to a new Palestinian state. Even if their neighborhoods were rezoned to such a state, 40% said they would try to move back to Israel. When asked why, they identified access to better jobs, smaller classes for their children, and better healthcare as motivating factors.”

http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/israeli-arabs-want-remain-israel/#5ye21S5sh0cQmrHG.99

x      Sadly, church groups and councils, that have been manipulated by fanatics in their ranks into supporting boycotts and other negative social programs, will never admit to having been wrong. It's a slippery slope that may cause the questioning of their theological precepts. We can hope, however, that they let such programs die through benign neglect while they focus on more positive activities. (Self-righteous academics are even worse than the clergy. However intelligent they are they have no insight into their own folly and fanaticism, and would never admit to a mistake since questioning themselves would be unthinkable.  Unfortunately they impose their prejudices on the next generation.)

The Times They Are a-Changin'

Happy Groundhog's Day.

It struck me yesterday that it was a good time to make predictions, about the weather in the next few months and the Super Bowl to be played today. But the prediction I make will be on a different subject: The New York Times will be in the sunlight but continue to drop the ball.

Around the world, the Times is viewed as the standard for journalistic excellence. Certainly that's the way its staff and publisher view themselves. And they're sure that their opinions are similarly enlightened, only rarely printing dissenting views – and even then apparently with the aim of eliciting reactions which will set the errant commentator or correspondent right by familiarizing him with “truth.” That truth will be provided by readers who will set the confused writer straight. Those who argue are, after all, disputing the “newspaper of record.”

And, indeed, the paper may be the holder of a significant journalistic record, though it isn't surprising if it's not a record that others in the media will fight to take away. Even if they are more “worthy” of it, none is likely to challenge “the gray lady” for bragging rights in the field of making mistakes. I looked, last night and this morning, at the paper's record over the last full month – January, 2014 – to get a sense of how often it erred, since I have long questioned the accuracy of the purveyor of “all the news that's fit to print.” What I found were two hundred ninety corrections of articles and pictures. (Some of the articles had more than one correction, so the number is really higher.) It's hardly a rigorous scientific survey, but on an annualized basis (290 times twelve months), and assuming that January was a typical month, that's nearly three thousand five hundred errors in a year. If I'm off by a few hundred in either direction, though, it doesn't change the meaning of the findings. I don't mean to suggest that they were all significant mistakes (they weren't), but that there is a problem in the paper to which people turn for accuracy – a paper that people trust. The trust may be misplaced. The automatic assumption that what it says is true is invalid.

Adding to the problem are some other concerns. The corrections are merely the errors to which they admit. They can't deny them. There are others of which they are notified that they dispute or disclaim. (I once had a letter published in the Times in which there was a misquotation of my words, and I had a long fight with them before it was corrected.) They “stand by” their positions even though serious questions may be raised about what they have reported. And I suspect there are additional misstatements that are not brought to their attention by readers, and others which they prefer not to advertise if they have discovered them on their own. It's not likely that the paper's ombudsman would turn them in, or that they would admit to what they could finesse. Even if a correction were to be made, a small print statement, after the fact, and on an inside page is less likely to be read or taken seriously than the original statement. That initial statement will have a far greater impact than the clarification.

The problem as stated, however, only refers to the facts. It's harder to deny errors of fact than admit to illogical or misleading opinions. Such opinions, reflecting the positions (biases) of the staff of the paper, remain as testaments to their point of view irrespective of the strength of their arguments (or its lack) and the reasoning of those who disagree. They're less likely than facts to be disputed because they are labeled as opinion, and because the opinions coincide with those of most of the readership. After all, that's why they buy the paper. They already favor that point of view. But their opinions, though just as inclined (or more so) to be questionable as are many of their “facts,” are likely to get a free pass. And they will play a large part in creating the views of those readers who have not yet formed their own opinions and are ready to accept the judgment of what they see as the source of wisdom. Even when it is not Groundhog's Day, the gray lady operates largely in the shadows.

And that's the way it will probably remain. The Times's reputation will not suffer from it's sloppiness, lack of fact-checking and biases, but rather it will receive praise for its willingness to correct the errors it has made. And that willingness will raise the reputation of the paper rather than triggering a reevaluation based on the errors themselves. A party that is favored always gets the benefit of the doubt.

And there will be six more weeks of winter.

Complex Problems

                                                                                            

H. L. Mencken, perhaps the wittiest and sharpest of American journalists of the twentieth century, was also among our most profound political thinkers. One of his very best aphorisms, one cherished by progressives the world around, was an evaluation of the thinking of some with whose opinions he disagreed. He said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Short, to the point, and devastating.

But “every” is a strong word. And in this instance it was probably an unwise choice. Unfortunately there are too many among us who view every problem as complexⁱ and, thus, demand a complex solution, since a simple one would be wrong.

Their understanding of the principle, then, can best be stated as “For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” From their perspective, no question has a simple and straightforward answer or interpretation. And there is certainly no clear answer to any subject at issue.

What about the converse?ⁱⁱ “For every problem there is an answer that is unclear, complex, and right.” Among the “too many among us” whom I cited earlier, this formulation would obviously include all problems, since they know that when we were calling complex problems “simple,” we were wrong. That notion, however, isn't the answer either. But it is the idea that has spawned an overwhelming population of interpreters, regulators, lawyers, and judges – people who believe they understand both the problem and solution better than we do. In fact, however, to a great degree they create the complexity. And since they also decide what is right and wrong, they're certain to be right. Just ask them.

Mencken's aphorism is somewhat dismissive of the views of any who would not overthink an issue in search of complexity where there is simplicity. If some see all simple answers as wrong, that does not make their view true. Some problems are straightforward no matter how earnest the protests of those who have a vested interest in complexity. Not every problem is complex, although the idea can be used as code for saying that the other person, the one who sees the issue as straightforward, doesn't understand it, but the “expert” does. You're dumbⁱⁱⁱ and he's thoughtful and can analyze the problem better than you. Sometimes you don't understand the problem, or your ideology gets in the way of your admitting it, though, fortunately, he possesses neither of those flaws.

But sometimes there is a simple answer. Not every problem is complex and requires endless regulations and delays. Even if that's not the case, though, sometimes you're willing to accept the complexities, or at least put them aside, so that you can act quickly.^iv “Analysis paralysis” is too often the result of trying to account for too much – for finding complexity where there is none. Sometimes, though, and to some people, having no answer is better than having one that is not so comprehensive as to deal with every potential implication of the problem that might exist. It's better to do nothing, they believe, than not to do everything.^v And sometimes the attempt to find a complex single universal answer to what is really a simple problem causes more harm than good. The answer may be far more complex than the question, and it may lead to other problems. “Science^vi is always wrong, it never solves a problem without creating ten more,” wrote George Bernard Shaw.

In all fairness, though, Mencken was right, even if his statement was misleading. Every problem does have “an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” But that's not all it has. It has both simple and complex solutions. It has those that are clear and those that are unclear. And, most importantly, it has those that are right and those that are wrong. It's up to you to decide the answer that best applies to the situation from among the variety available. Don't make it more meddlesome than it has to be. Remember that sometimes the solution – including the unintended consequences – is worse than the problem, and the response should not be to "solve" new situations with additional complex procedures which make things even worse. KISS.^vii Don't be seduced by a perceived need to make changes. Not everything needs to be changed. Don't just do something, stand there.

Next episode: “BDS – Biased, Divisive, Sophistry” – Something for everyone.

(PS -- Happy Groundhog's Day)

i        Don't look at me. I'm from the “Simplify, simplify simplify” school.

ii      I can never remember if it's “converse,” “reverse,” “obverse,” “inverse,” “perverse,” or whatever, but you get the point.

iii     Actually he probably wouldn't use such a direct insult, although he would certainly try to impress you with his superiority and his insight into the problem. Of course you cannot be expected to understand the implications as well as he.   After all, he's the expert.

iv     For example, there were many complexities on December 8, 1941.  A declaration of war was the simple solution, though not the only one.

v       It is a position that doesn't sanction compromise.

vi      Shaw writes of “science,” but too often the same situation pertains in social and political issues.

vii     “Keep it simple, stupid.” That's the quote, but of course I don't consider you stupid. I didn't make it up and I'm not responsible. I would never be so disrespectful. I think you're smart, so KISS, keep it simple smarty.