Who Wants To Know?

A recent news item informed us all that a method was being developed to text 911 calls so they could be made silently, especially useful in the case of an intruder or another emergency. It was assumed that over the next few years we'd have a society in which everyone would have a “smart” cellular telephone with the capability of sending texts. With a GPS in the unit there wouldn't be the need to identify the location – an important consideration for those with limited time and the weight of anxiety causing confusion or otherwise limiting their ability to communicate.  However useful the tool though, the time will come when our privacy will be completely gone.

We're not so far from that society now. And we're certainly a society that revels in the ability to reach out to everyone we know. That used to happen at most once a year – in a mass mailing of a Christmas letter that was designed to let family and friends in on what had happened in the prior year. Now we see it as important to provide “real time” information on our feelings, activities, and ideas to as many of our closest friendsⁱ as we can locate. And in addition to what we've told the world, we can send individual texts and photographs of our pets, dirty dishes, and whatever else we can think of. It's so easy to take pictures with those same telephones and to include them in the messages. After all, we're sure that all our correspondents are interested – more interested than we are in their idiotic productions. And it's all so easy with the various social networks established by the latest group of billionaires.ⁱⁱ

Anyway, we're eager to tell everything to everyone – including internet vendors. We brag about how many “friends” we have. We enjoy the rapid publication of everything we think or “feel,” and we're eager to send immediate status reports and “tweets” to everyone; and to get feeds from the world. We want everyone to know everything about us and we want to know everything about everyone else.ⁱⁱⁱ

Well maybe that's an overstatement. But it's always been important to document and preserve our “selves” and our knowledge. In the past, it was often recorded on scrolls because that was the state of the art. And we might then store it in a warehouse of information that might be accessed at some undefined future time. The library at Alexandria was such a famed repository, but its destruction illustrated the tenuous nature of that attempt at preservation of knowledge. Modern computer systems are far more satisfactory in providing this service. And they should be used to serve the “people” in this goal.

Thus we may want our friends to know everything, but we don't want the government to know anything. It's a paradox. Governments were established for the protection of society but we fear our own more than any other. Espionage has always been around. It was known in the ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations and in Egypt as well. It is documented in the Bible,^iv so it is clear that this is not a new phenomenon. And it's gone on throughout history. “Everyone,” as the saying goes, “does it.” Two famous examples from the American experience are Benedict Arnold and Aldrich Ames. They were “bad guys”; they were spies. It's a given that all nations spy on each other, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to protect ourselves from such activity; yet that doesn't stop us doing the same thing. Only when we do it we term it “intelligence gathering.” Or at least that's what we call it when it's directed against others. When it's aimed at us,^v it's spying.

That's the source of our unhappiness with the NSA. When they collect records of all our telephone calls they're spying on us. It isn't intelligence gathering, it's spying. They may assure us that the material they have merely serves a database which will only be used to track the conversations of those truly threatening our security, but we know better. They may claim that what they're doing is legal and necessary.^vi But they're wrong.  And the courts may support that position, but they're wrong too – if not in fact then in implications. They may tell us that they need these records for future searches, but irrespective of that promise, the files shouldn't be saved. They should really be destroyed.^vii Who knows what use they'll be put to, and by whom.

I don't agree. I recognize the idea that society, and the protection it affords, are worth some sacrifice of privacy^viii in order to minimize the risk from those who oppose us. And I accept the view that information may be collected and saved for future use, information that has no immediate application and may, in fact, never be utilized, but will be available if needed. I have a large library with most of the books never read but they're there if I need to look something up. That's what libraries^ix are for.

Most people have no hesitation about providing information to surveyors and pollsters^x – information that we know will be used in the future – even though it will take time before its value is assessed and its applicability determined. Moreover we have no compunctions about spreading information ourselves which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be damaging now, or in the future, to others. That information is in the form of gossip, innuendo, rumors, and the like, and we enjoy it greatly. It's OK if we obtain or provide confidential information, but the government has no right to do so.

The public is of two minds about privacy. Most people don't care who's “listening.” In fact, many are pleased by it. So much so that they compete for larger totals of “friends.” The fact that the Library of Congress collects every “tweet” sent is validation. It provides their fifteen minutes of fame. Some, however, are more sensitive. Among them are the ACLU and similar organizations that question the collection of information by any government agency. “Transparency” isn't enough, though they demand it of government officials. They adopt the “slippery slope” argument and maintain that the collection of any data now will eventually lead to the collection of all data in the future. It's the “camel's nose” argument.

I personally don't believe it makes sense. Absolutism may have some validity when discussing religious principles, however when relating to secular pursuits it assumes that people lack the ability to distinguish between principles and practice. It adopts a reductio ad absurdum approach to everything. And in instances like that involving the NSA it assumes that the government is evil. Eternal vigilance may be the price of freedom, but that vigilance may also be required by the government – not just the ACLU. It all depends on whom you consider the enemy.

That's enough for now. I'll finish it up next time. But, of course, I won't give my real name. I don't know who might be reading this.

Next episode: “Lean Back And Enjoy It” – If you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

I       We target “friends” and followers whom we invite to join our networks, and we, simultaneously join theirs.

ii       That makes them members of the one (hundredth of a) percent, though we don't think of them that way.

iii     We ignore the very real risk of hackers and identity thieves, though we may get additional programs to try to minimize the chances we're taking.

iv      See Numbers 14:1 and ff, and Joshua 2:1.

v       Or we believe it is.

vi      In keeping with the Patriot Act.

vii     As is the case with all such unevaluated and global solutions to situations we view as problems, a decision to destroy the records may result in the destruction, as well, of evidence in cases before the courts. For more on this subject see Wall Street Journal, February 2o, 2014: NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits. As the article suggests, this may result in the retention of more records than initially intended, but that would be the unintended consequence of such a move.

viii    And even though I know it's not true, I can live with the premise that most people are honest and law-abiding, and the information they obtain in conformity with legal and judicial limits will ultimately be used for my benefit.

ix      Not to mention Google and other search engines.

x      In fact they're tickled by the thought that their views are considered representative of a portion of the population, and that they can express their opinions and prejudices (my term, certainly not theirs) openly, and have it taken seriously.

Guess Again

We're all competitive. It's our nature. Nature. Evolution. Survival. Why do you think we're called the human “race?” It's because we're always racing against each other.ⁱ Our goal is to win.

We don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to try to keep up with us. And fail. We all want to be ahead of the curve. Listen to a conversation sometime, on almost any subject, and someone will be bragging about how he thought of something or did something or said something before any of the others in the group. Or elsewhere.

Or even that he's funnier. Do you remember “Can You Top This?” It was a program mostly in the 1940's in which participants vied for the funniest joke. We're forever trying to top everyone else in one way or another. We're always looking for the edge and we're always looking for a way to exploit it.

And it's always been that way. Among “wild”ⁱⁱ species it started with the need to eat, and the battles for food – whether that meant vegetable species growing naturally or other species which were, themselves, the desired objects. That was the Law of the Jungle. Kill or be killed; dog eat dog. In addition there was an impulse to protect territory which also involved competition and battles. And, of course, there were always confrontations regarding the choice of sexual partners. Our weapons might have been vocal, visual, or physical, but the need to mate, and the instinct to choose the most worthy partner, prompted dangerous, and often fatal, rivalries to occur.ⁱⁱⁱ

Not much has changed in millions of years, although some of the motives for combat are now illegal. Territory, food (and other resources including money), and sex remain among the most important “justifications,” but our fellow humans have added a few more reasons, including wrath, envy, and some of the other deadly sins – especially pride. Once they've attained the position they want in the pack, and obtained the prizes they sought, the “lower animals” are done. They're not afflicted with most of the emotional issues we have, so they don't feel the need to display the various conceits that plague us. They don't have to prove that they're smarter, more devious, better connected, and otherwise more worthy than those with whom they interact. But some of us are certainly^iv (or consider ourselves) are naturally better than the others, and we demonstrate it in any way we can. Even apart from war and other forms of mayhem and megalomania.

Superiority may be physiognomic, and for that we've developed beauty contests; it may be athletic and highly valued by sports promoters; it may be intellectual with its manifestations demonstrated on tests and in spelling bees, or in chess matches; it may be commercial with the prize going to the most gifted entrepreneur. You get the idea. The early bird may be satisfied with the worm, but we want praise in addition to the worm. Thus the competition. It's important to us to get the recognition that goes with the achievement itself. That's what the Guinness Book is all about. Most of the “records” are inane and result from self-promotion by some fool who makes the largest mud-pie, or eats the most Brussels sprouts. And there will, of course, be other fools who set out to break that record, or create a new one. Unlike the “lower” animals, people seek fifteen minutes of fame even if that entails the most perverted forms of reality or the most perverted “reality” shows. As Art Linkletter said, “People Are Funny.”^v

Those are some of the formal competitions which we have established, but our practice of feigned superiority extends well beyond that and into our thought, speech, and actions. Consider the back-seat driver, or the Monday morning quarterback, or even the kibbitzer at a card game. They all know better than the one they criticize. And after the fact they do especially well. It's that 20/20 hindsight thing. Second-guessers are always right. Even when they're wrong. Indeed, being wrong can be turned to competitive advantage. “If your way – which wasn't very good – was helpful^vi (and it wasn't all that helpful) imagine how much my way would have accomplished.”

Among the contests, though, is one that we're not likely to imagine, but it's one that is quite illustrative of our thinking. It's linguistic. Guess what it is? That's the challenge. To guess. And that's what the other person is always doing: guessing. His ideas are always offered without information and without analysis. That's the way the other guy works. And that's why you're superior to him. He guesses, but you think. His focus is on guessing and second-guessing. They're designed to show off his knowledge both before and after the fact. His approach is to show off. His goal is prestige, and his tactic is one-upmanship.

But you're better than that. You think. You analyze. You prefer the wisdom of of reasoned consideration to the sophistry of debates. And if you have second thoughts, you can demonstrate how you arrived at them with irrefutable logic. They're not second-guesses, they're reasoned thoughts.^vii It makes sense to reconsider your position when appropriate, and that's what you do. Perhaps you shoulda' said something else, but you're wise enough to offer your revised view in a calm, thoughtful, reasoned manner.

You don't need to second-guess. That's for the other guy. You've got a better gimmick. And everyone around will recognize that your approach is superior to his. That was your goal, wasn't it? You win.

Next episode: “Who Wants To Know?” – Would you like to be my friend?

I        Actually the terms, as applied to the contest of speed and the origin of physical characteristics, have different roots but both, in their own ways, bespeak competition. In fact, among humans, the struggle between races often rises well above the levels of opposition experienced anywhere else. A “running” battle exists between what we consider races.

ii       Many would include humans in this group.

iii     Even plants strive with each other for space, water, sunlight, nutrients, and success in spreading (including attracting organisms that will aid in pollination). That's what evolution is all about. If you don't believe in evolution ignore this note, but the competition still exists.

iv      Me, for example. If you disagree, you're wrong.

v       The show was actually created by John Guedel.

vi      And if “your way” hadn't accomplished all you declared it would, you can be sure that you'd hear “I told you so.” You can't win against a second-guesser.

vii     Thoughts are always preferable to guesses. Thoughts are the tools of the wise; guesses the hatchets of fools.

Snowden, Aspirin, and Unintended Consequences

The best constructionⁱ that I can put on the actions of Edward Snowden is that he honestly believed that what he was doing was for the nation's benefit and that he was acting for the benefit of his fellow citizens.ⁱⁱ I must assume that he saw no alternative to what he did – that there was no place to turn. I also assume that he was unaware of the contents of all the files he saw fit to reveal, since it is difficult to believe that he read them all and understood all their implications. But it also seems likely that he did not expect to wind up in Russia or to have damaged American foreign policy to the extent that he appears to have done so. Indeed, each additional story in the media suggests that the harm was quite significant. But, of course, that was not his aim. His intentions were good. He viewed himself as wearing a white hat and riding in to take action to rescue his country.

Unfortunately the road he was taking was also paved with the good intentions of those who preceded him. It was a road often traveled by those convinced of their own virtue, people who view immediate action as mandatory. From their vantage point, no further investigation or discussion was necessary. “Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”ⁱⁱⁱ

We live in an age when it is believed that there is no problem that cannot be solved. And it's an age in which many people, both in and out of government, are convinced that they have the solutions. But they're also convinced that the solution is so obvious “it's a wonder that no one thought of it already. Let's implement it immediately.”^iv And that's one of the worst problems with those who are eager to make the world better for everyone. They're too eager. Though I don't always believe it, I'm willing, for the sake of this discussion, to accept the idea that their hearts are in the right place; that they're eager, and convinced they're right. But Don Quixote was also eager to right wrongs, and thinking through the problems would simply have delayed his action. “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”^v

Winston Churchill is supposed to have said “The Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” There is no evidence that he ever said it,^vi but that doesn't really matter. The second part of the statement is especially revealing. The “Americans”^vii (and this really applies to all those who see a rapid change as necessary when they are not satisfied with the status quo) too often want to do “the right thing” fast, no matter whom it hurts. Quick action, even if several tries are required, is better than delay for evaluation and thought so as to get it right the first time. They're willing to exhaust all the possibilities – as long as they're doing something. When they're acting and solving everyone's problems (or at least making them different) they'll feel better, even if others feel worse. In most cases they will refuse to consider anything that worked in the past. “New” and “innovative” is superior to “tried and true,” and it's important to act with dispatch. After all, “He who hesitates is lost.” “The early bird catches the worm.” So “If you don't succeed at first, [you can always] try, try, again.”^viii The problem is clear, as is the solution.

But H. L. Mencken had a clear view of such solutions. “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”^ix They were wrong. Quick and obvious solutions weren't applicable.

But it's not so simple – not Mencken's appraisal and certainly not the proposed remedies. There are times when the answer to a problem is obvious, however it may be difficult to reach that answer without causing other problems. People are hungry? Feed them! They're homeless? Build them places to live! Obvious answers. As the saying goes, however, “The Devil is in the details.” But we don't have time to wait for the details to be worked out. And that's where we fall down too often. In our zeal to find answers to all situations we face, we don't always anticipate the consequences of our acts.

An example. In 2000, the Presidential election was hotly contested. In the end, President Bush was elected when he was awarded Florida's electoral votes. The official state count, which was ultimately affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, showed a 537 vote margin.^x But the accusations and legal challenges to the vote, and to the nature of the voting machines used in Florida, were significant – great enough to warrant some evaluation, and possibly replacement, of the faulty machines. Indeed, there was a call for electoral reform in Florida and the state switched to touch-screen voting. The paper ballots which had been punched in the voting machines previously were eliminated.

Congress, however, also went to work on the problem in Florida and allocated 3.9 billion dollars ($3,900,000,000) in the “Help America Vote Act” to solve the problem.^xi The reforms were far-reaching and included, in addition to changes in voting systems, regulations that help disabled voters cast ballots independently, new regulations allowing voters to check for ballot errors, minimum standards for state data bases, and the provision of provisional ballots for those not on the state voter registration lists. Whether or not those additional programs were successful, there were continued voting machine problems. Apparently the electronic machines are susceptible to hacking. Many states, including my own, have voters mark paper ballots in an area that's not very private, and then march them over with a paid employee to machines that read them. That's extra time for me, and the need for additional paid personnel. Add that cost to the 3.9 billion. And don't forget that we're back to marking paper ballots, and the privacy that I used to have in a voting booth is gone. We're left with a very expensive “fix” which is, in many ways, worse than the prior system, and a lot more expensive.^xii Perhaps a focused effort to deal with the specific problem would have been preferable.

Let me give an example of that kind of method. (Actually it was this that inspired me to write this essay. It begins with the bottle of aspirin on the window sill. My wife bought it to replace the one that had just run out. And I have to admit that it was a vast improvement over the one before. I could open it. Actually it says “Easy Open Cap” on the label. Getting there, though, took some time.

Salicylates have been used for at least three and a half millennia – initially to reduce fever, but more recently for their effects on pain and inflammation. Unfortunately,^xiii however, because the aspirin were so effective against fever, and babies had colds and fever so often, aspirin became a common medicine given to children, though it tasted bad. The simple solution – one that really worked – was to flavor the tablets, and the term “candy” was used to entice reluctant youngsters to take them. It worked. But it worked so well that aspirin poisoning became a real problem when unsupervised children took many pieces of the tasty “candy.”

To deal with the problem, pharmaceutical makers began to produce smaller tablets, 1 ¼ grain “baby aspirin,” limit the number in a bottle to lower the risk, and put a cap on the bottle that was difficult for a child to remove. They were direct responses to a specific problem, and they worked. Because of the discovery of an association between aspirin ingestion in children and Reye's Disease, however, it's rarely used for pediatric patients nowadays.^xiv But another use was found for baby aspirin: the decrease in platelet stickiness it causes decreases the incidence of heart attacks and strokes in many older patients. Unfortunately those patients are often afflicted with weakness, tremors, and joint pains, and have difficulty opening child-proof caps. So there is now a return of the old screw-caps.^xv In each case there was a simple solution to every new problem as it was recognized. There were unforeseen consequences but they were treated rapidly, without an expensive and overarching study and plan.

The perspectives of these two cases, though, illustrate is reflective of American society and politics. Liberals view the “obstructionism” of conservatives who demand, for example, a pay as you go policy, as oversimplification, while conservatives see attempts by liberals – who, they claim, “throw money” at every problem and come up with ill-considered solutions – as being the ones who are wrong.

As a result, we have many problems and, at times, a choice between no solutions and solutions that don't work or are worse than what they're designed to remedy. Is there any hope? I think so, although I know that many would argue either with my appraisal or my approach.^xvi It seems to me that the questions that society will have to handle will become increasingly vexing, and that we, as humans, are prone to errors – no matter how well intentioned we may be. So since we can't hope to come up with errorless resolutions to the situations that plague us, we're best off following the advice given every medical student: “First of all, do no harm.” And since it cannot be eliminated entirely, minimizing the harm we cause when we deal with mankind's ailments should be our goal. We should avoid treatments that are overkill or are not well thought out – that cause more problems than they solve – as we seek solutions for problems as they arise, and with the least intrusive (and the least expensive) remedy for each.

Remember Murphy's Law. There will be consequences you didn't anticipate. Although that knowledge shouldn't keep you from acting, don't take so long and spend so much money considering it that you never get around to solving the problem. You're going to fail in your attempt to prevent unwanted results, so don't waste your time trying.^xvii Do what you can do.

Next episode: “I Think I Missed Something” – Run that by me again.

I        I'm generous to a fault. Or, in this case, to a traitor. At least that's the way I view it.

ii       I wasn't nearly as forgiving in my posting “The Big Picture” which appeared on June 18, 2013. That view is more reflective of my own, but I'll give Mr. Snowden the benefit of the doubt as this essay relates to a different issue. I doubt, though, that he consulted his fellow citizens before acting on their behalf.

iii     This is one – the most common – version of a frequently-used idea. See http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/13/confuse-me/

iv     There are so many among us who somehow believe that they were the first to discover a problem, and they want to act before someone else does – with the apparent goal of being recognized as the savior of some group of people. Precedence and political gain seem to be more important than merit. You can change things later if this doesn't work.

v      That's the way it's usually quoted but, at least according to Wikipedia, it was a little different: "Damn the torpedoes!" said Farragut, "Four bells. Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!" It doesn't matter though. Either way it as a “[Let] the Devil take the hindmost” approach. There was little concern for the consequences – especially to others.

vi      Abba Eban was quoted, in 1967, as having said “Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources.” Most researchers attribute the idea – or at least its exposition – to him. All state that they cannot confirm its attribution to Churchill.

vii     In Eban's rendering, “Men and nations,” because he recognized that this was a more universal trait. I think it's fair to state that there are many who are so intent on doing good that they will keep trying out “solutions” to any problem they perceive. They will do so rapidly and often without any evaluation, rather than not act on the problem. “Shoot first and ask questions afterward.” Until they've exhausted all the possibilities. Even then, however, they may not have solved the problem.

viii    The solutions they sought may have been new, but the bromides were old.

ix        New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917.

x        Of 5,963,110 cast.

xi      That's a little more than $7,262,569.83 per vote by which Bush defeated Gore in Florida. Assuming all American votes have equal value, and in view of the fact that 105,405,100 were cast in the 2000 presidential balloting, the American electorate is worth over 765 and a half quadrillion dollars. What a country!

xii     Another example is the Affordable Care Act which took over 2,000 pages to write and over 15,000 pages of regulations to implement. (Winston Churchill wrote: “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.") Except that implementation of this overly complex legislation has been disastrous and there have been unexpected surprises in its roll out, and due both to executive orders necessitated by unanticipated problems, and mixed court responses to the legality of its provisions, it has been a very expensive, and thus far unsuccessful, “solution” to a perceived failure of the health care system.

xiii    "Fortunately” it seemed at the time.

xiv     The following message appears on the aspirin bottle: “This product not for households with young children.”

xv      And flavoring is less important.

xvi     Or both.

xvii    As for situations like Snowden's, there should be a panel to which he could turn with his disclosures – a panel that will direct the problems he discovered to those capable of dealing with them. The panel should review the results of the referral and escalate it if no effective action is taken in a prescribed time. Some governmental secrets are too sensitive for public disclosure, but not for disclosure to authorities tasked with their remediation.

Forget It

There's an old joke that you've heard, whether or not you can recall it:

            A: Your memory is the second thing to go.

            B: Oh? What's the first?

            A: I don't remember.

It's funny. The younger you are, the funnier it is. Unfortunately it reflects the reality that your memory deteriorates as you age. I'm not talking about dementia,ⁱ but about normal aging and its consequences.

My wife and I have it worked out. Fortunately we tend to forget different things (mostly) so we can usually help out each other with missing facts, words, events, and fill in the other lacunae left in our memories. It's kind of a joke between us. Sometimes what is missing will reappear on its own if we focus on something else, but sometimes we need help. Rarely the problem is solved with the aid of a family member and for some things a search engine is the magic bullet. And once you've accepted the inevitable, that's funny too.ⁱⁱ Of course it's less funny when you're driving along and have a thought and can't record it. The sign says that you can wait five minutes until the next “text stop,” but you know you can't. You know you'll have forgotten it by then. That's better than having an accident, though. I guess.

We all know that “the golden years” aren't as golden when you experience them as they might have been when you anticipated them, or when you saw them as someone else's problem, which people are likely to do when they're still young. One of the greatest difficulties you're likely to face is the need to make too many hospital visits and attend too many funerals. Of course you're glad they're not yours, but the loss of a friend or family member, and the need to comfort someone bereaved by that loss are difficult to manage. As is the knowledge that the time until your own funeral is decreasing.

However it's not all bad. At least if your health is reasonably good – apart from the various aches and pains that increase through the years and to which none of us is immune. They go with the territory.

In some ways getting older also has fiscal ramifications. The kids are out of the houseⁱⁱⁱ and the food bills now have human proportions. No more concerns about getting them to school on time or about tuition bills. And the various expenses they incurred are gone.^iv In addition, Medicare and Social Security are quite helpful for keeping the checkbook balanced, although you'll probably have to pay for some supplementation – medical or medicational.

On the other hand, there are some increased costs as well. One is the cost of insurance which rises with the years unless you have an already overpriced lifetime policy. And the cost of heating^v and lighting. I seem to need more of both as I get older, but I'm always debating with myself over the wisdom of spending more when I don't know how long I'll need whatever it is that I'm getting.^vi Should I save as much as possible to pass on to my children and grandchildren? Or will I simply be padding Uncle Sam's coffers by leaving them more money on which they'll have to pay taxes?

But, besides some savings in expenses, there are other features of an “up” side that result. At least there's an up side if those around you understand the problem – which they're likely to do since they see the aging as someone else's problem. Yours.

For example, seeing the arrival of grandchildren, and watching them grow up, is a pleasure and privilege without peer. As everyone knows, it's a grandparent's permitted pleasure to spoil them, and his privilege to go home when problems arise.

And since I'm retired, I have more time to go out – though I tend not to do so. But when I do, I often take the subway. It's so much easier to do so than to drive at night, and then to look for, and pay for, parking. I don't need to sit down for my trips on the subway. In fact I like to stand. But it's nice when someone offers me a seat. It doesn't happen very often, but it's nice when it does – whether or not I accept.^vii I'm more likely, however, to accommodate the magnanimity of those who would help me with something they consider too heavy or too difficult for me. I'd be a fool not to. I'm often amused when someone does for me what I'm quite capable of doing for myself, but if I have to get older^viii I shouldn't abjure the “perks.”

So I'm grateful for my “Senior Citizen”^ix card when I go into the subway and I never refuse the discounts that are given to those of a certain age.^x But, given the chance, I'd be willing – I'd be delighted – to forgo them for a few more years.

Next episode: “Snowden, Aspirin, and Unintended Consequences” – If it can go wrong ...

i        Who's to say, though. At some time in the future, someone will publish a paper listing the forgetfulness that we experience as we get older along with diseases, and everyone will jump on the bandwagon and turn it into a new form of dementia.

ii       My assumption is that a failing memory is your only affliction.

iii      Despite all our grousing, theirs and ours, it was fun at the time. And one of the costs of aging is the emptying of the house. However much I love my wife, when the children leave to go their own ways there is both a sense of loss and increasing knowledge of your mortality.

iv      Costs still exist. Assistance when it's needed and gifts when you feel like it. Presents for the grandchildren so that they won't forget you. But the costs are more a matter of choice than obligation.

v       That, of course, includes more sweaters and gloves, even to wear indoors. Something seems to happen to the circulation.

vi      And that applies to everything – not just clothing.

vii     Though I usually do. It would be a shame if my pigheadedness led to the belief by some young, healthy, individual that (s)he was a fool to make that offer and should avoid it in the future. I don't want to ruin it for others.

viii    And, as the saying goes, it's (usually) better than the alternative.

ix      My Metro Card is safe in my wallet so I won't forget it.

x       One of my favorites is the discount I get on Wednesdays at the used day-old cake store.

Jihad, Rape, And Profiling

All men are pigs. That's stereotyping – a characterization which has, for a variety of reasons, become embedded in the minds of many women. Usually they're referring to the sexual appetites of males, and to their propensity for aggressive and bestial behavior. Sadly, there is much to support that concern. Women and children have something to fear and it is reasonable to be wary. The establishment of registries of sex-offenders is society's way of identifying possible threats. Would you buy a home for your family next door to that of a “rehabilitated” rapist?

That's an easy question, so let me pose another. How do you feel about “stop and frisk” laws? That, too, is an easy question. The idea that people might be considered a threat prior to there being a crime, and lacking evidence that they have criminal intentions, is abhorrent to our principles. It's unconstitutional, isn't it? Profiling – an activity that causes us to suspect a particular individual of being more likely than others to pose a threat – robs that individual of the presumption of innocence. Indeed, to a degree, his mere existence incriminates him.

Perhaps, however, the question is not as straightforward as it seems. We all profile all the time. It may be termed prejudice or justified caution, but it's the same thing. Is there a group of “Hell's Angels” ahead, and a way to reach your destination without walking the gauntlet? You'll probably take it. Has there been a home invasion in your neighborhood? And is there a “suspicious” person on your street looking at the houses? “If you see something, say something.” No one would accuse you of profiling if you notified your Neighborhood Watch, but that's what it is.ⁱ Perhaps it would be profiling if we just dragged in “the usual suspects.”

The act takes on another dimension, however, when it's done by a governmental agency. After all, though societies were formed to protect the individual from harm and our all-knowing government has instituted the Patriot Act,ⁱⁱ that Act, and society's obligations notwithstanding, our officials are the ones bound by the Constitution – even if we're not. So if a man whom no one knows is seen giving out candy bars to small children leaving a kindergarten, there is no justification for police questioning him.ⁱⁱⁱ Authorities would not question a soldier giving out chocolate to children in a town his division had just liberated, so the act itself cannot justify any official suspicion of the man in front of the school. Even if there has been a rash of kidnapings from the school. Absent a specific indication that he is linked to those crimes, questioning his motives isn't justified. Pull out your camera (or camera-phone) and document police oppression, like this profiling, if^iv it occurs.

Yet profiling by all of us is common.^v It always has been. We think of it now in terms of race^vi and religion,^vii but there's always been a reason. Throughout history, including our own,^viii specific groups have been chosen as suspect or to be rejected. But we consider that kind of bias “normal,” and when we focus on private prejudices like this, we avoid the basic question: Is there ever any justification for profiling; for using statistics to govern our own actions? If we act only on the basis of those prejudices, what we do isn't justified, but the decision about the rational use of the information available – even is some see bias in it – cannot be dismissed out of hand. We may not think about it that way, but it's the cause for most of what we do. The things we know, and the things we have learned from others, control what we do. Experience, education, and intuition are our guides to action. Yet we would deny them to those who represent us. We reject the idea that they should have preconcieved notions.

When there is a short circuit or other electrical problem we call in an electrician who, knowing the most common sources of such failings, will look at these first. They may or may not be responsible for our problems, but it is rational to evaluate them before other possibilities are explored. The same is true of plumbing problems. We leave to the expert, the one with experience, the determination of the cause of the problem in our case. Perhaps it will take several different approaches before the answer is found, but we don't forbid the expert from any particular one because there isn't a demonstrable cause. And we don't second-guess. For we know that dispensing with education, expertise, and experience – the sources of preconceived notions – is dispensing with common sense.

Years ago, before some of the currently available medical tools had been perfected, it was a common practice to perform “exploratory” surgery when a specific diagnosis couldn't be made otherwise. The surgeon might have suspected one disease or another, but lacked certainty. In some cases a particular problem – often incurable – was located. In some, a process, sometimes unsuspected, was discovered in an early enough stage that treatment and cure were possible, while in others it was determined that there wasn't anything serious going on; the patient wasn't suffering from some horrible disease, and could be treated conservatively.^ix It was a case of medical profiling. The person with undiagnosed abdominal symptoms was subjected to surgery whose results couldn't be foretold. Perhaps the risks were high, but the payoff would be higher.

And the same is true of other of society's problems. If Jihad is feared, action to prevent it is warranted, even if those being investigated are later found to have no ties to terrorist organizations, and their caution is viewed as intrusive and unwarranted.^x If rape is a possibility, waiting for it to occur before taking necessary steps to prevent it may be ideologically pure, but it is foolish. And waiting for a theft or a murder to take place because, notwithstanding the knowledge and intuition of a police officer, it cannot be proved in advance, is nothing less than malfeasance, cowardice, misconduct, or whatever other description you prefer. A signed threat should not be required before action is taken. The officer may be wrong, but inaction is often worse than a mistake. Proof is one end of a spectrum and infinitesimal possibility is the other. In between are many gradations, and somewhere we have to draw the line. We have to follow up on valid suspicions even if they don't pay off.

We're all gamblers. We play the odds. “Slick” Willie Sutton is credited with robbing banks because “that's where the money is.”^xi Our practices, of course, are more mundane: We look for books in the library and meat at the butcher rather than go to the automobile dealership for both. There's an excellent chance of success, though no guarantee that we'll find the book we're after nor the cut of meat needed for the recipe we've chosen, at the “right” distributors, and the odds that are certainly better than they would be at a car salesroom. A suspicious individual is more likely to be a bomber in Kabul than Keokuk. And if the line in front of the movie theater is long, we'll probably avoid it, rather than stand on it only to find out that we're still waiting when the film we want to see has started. Our prior experience and our intuition are likely to pay off.

So when it comes to profiling, the keys to success with the least disruption of public order and personal rights, are the goodwill and credibility of the investigator and the minimization of any prejudices. If the authority that invests him with a badge or other similar credential, determines, after extensive testing and psychological probing (and that authority is pledged to investigate when any suspicion of overreaching arises) that he is worthy of trust, then we should be cautious about second guessing.^xii Thresholds of suspicion will certainly vary from one individual to another, but a society that would remain free will have to tolerate them. The system won't be perfect, but we're not perfect. We're inclined to tell the police to stop profiling and do “police work.” But we never define that work, and we never acknowledge that it includes experience and intuition in assessing threats. And profiling is part of that.^xiii

It's not an easy question.

Next episode: “Forget It” – As if you remembered in the first place.

i        Just as it would be profiling if you became suspicious if you reported a known jewel thief looking furtive in front of Harry Winston, or an apparent Middle-Easterner wearing a bulky coat on a hot summer day and walking toward a crowd. As a matter of fact, it's not unreasonable to view the refusal to buy a house next door to a rehabilitated rapist as profiling. You're doing so if he's served his term, isn't suspected of anything, and hasn't broken any laws since release.

ii       And the Alien and Sedition Acts in the past, as well as Supreme Court decisions restricting Freedom of Speech.

iii      Although we might attack him.

iv      Actually, when it occurs. The police are known to trample on the rights of individuals who are not violating any laws, so you know it's going to happen.

v       Perhaps the “rapist” who might be next door really is rehabilitated and wants to forget the past and move on. Perhaps he just wants to be left alone and actually represents no risk. Perhaps he was wrongly convicted and doesn't belong in the registry. Is it worth the risk?

vi      We always think first of blacks when a crime has been committed and when we want to prevent crime. There may be no specific reason to suspect someone apart from his race, but that statistic is sometimes used for selective stopping and questioning when a crime is being investigated and when authorities seek to keep the streets safe.

vii     Muslims, and those that police and the public believe to be Muslims, are often the targets when people are getting nervous about the possibility of terrorism. It's based on the reality that most of terrorist attacks around the globe, whether or not associated with a known terrorist group, are perpetrated by Muslims. Even if the vast majority of Muslims oppose violence (at least in this country), the stain of Jihad has covered everyone, and the determination not to risk a future disaster colors the thinking of those who protect us.

viii    Blacks, Catholics, Irish, Jews, and Italians are among many groups that have, in the past, been singled out for special exclusion and condemnation.

ix      It was interesting to see how often patients, no longer suspected of a fatal disease like cancer, weren't relieved, but (after signing a consent which acknowledged this as a possibility – a possibility for which they probably prayed) questioned why they had had surgery if there was nothing wrong. There was no recognition that such a procedure, however painful, could also be beneficial and could provide useful information or guidance for further therapy. But once bitten, twice shy. The surgeon might then choose to do nothing for future patients until signs of a specific disease were obvious. But by that time it might be too late. Avoiding “red flags,” and waiting for proof might make the search academic, but the patient couldn't accuse him of action with insufficient evidence. A balance between intuition and provable fact has to be accepted.

x       The increased number of attacks by individuals not associated with known organizations makes proof of institutional membership a questionable criterion for consideration of a suspect.

xi      In his biography he denied ever having said it. “Quote Investigator” suggests its origin is an Alfred Tennyson poem “The Northern Farmer, New Style” published by 1870, which includes the following: Doänt thou marry for munny, but goä wheer munny is! (See http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/10/where-money-is/)

xii     If, in one or more particular cases, a properly designed tool is abused, more attention should be paid to training people in the correct way to use it rather than tossing it out. In this instance the tool is profiling, which is used to great advantage in many other countries.

xiii    The tools are likely to be better in the future but we can only work with what we have. And if someone who would abuse a current tool slips through the system, and we take away what we're now using, he'll find some other outlet for his bias. It's the screening and training of those we entrust with our safety that deserve a greater part of our attention than efforts to limit their authority and their tools.