Sterling Silver

In 1977 a group of Nazis wearing and bearing swastikas marched in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie is a town with a majority Jewish populationⁱ and, having been warned of the upcoming event by the boasting of the Nazis themselves, some citizens attempted to use the legal system to prevent the march from occurring. The lawsuits aimed at doing so worked their way quickly through the court system, and ended when the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Nazis to march.ⁱⁱ

There is protection of our people, by the First Amendment to the Constitution that established the United States, from intrusion into their right to free speech. That dictum gave the marchers the right to flaunt their prejudices untouched by the authorities. It is a protection, however, from any action by the government, and, at least on paper, does not limit a private organization from deciding what speech it will permit. Thus a newspaper can select which articles, letters, and opinions it will publish, and colleges can evict an individual who disrupts a speaker.ⁱⁱⁱ

Perhaps our laws should protect free speech from attacks by non-governmental groups and individuals – but they don't. There are certain uses of speech that are limited or prohibited by law^iv or by the courts,^v but those are exceptions. (In addition there is some limitation on the use of pejorative speech which targets “protected” minorities; and the government becomes involved when it is used during the commission of a crime. This turns it into a “hate” crime with increased penalties. In this instance however, the government is involved speech which, at the time uttered, is not Constitutionally prohibited.)

But, for the most part, free speech is not a feature that automatically exists outside of government. And we impose added limitations on ourselves and on others.

So Los Angeles Clippers' owner Donald Sterling's racist remarks are not protected. Indeed, Sterling's views have long been known throughout the basketball community.^vi And yesterday NBA Commissioner Adam Silver imposed a lifetime ban on Sterling's participation, in any way, with NBA activities. He also fined Sterling $2,500,000, and asked other team owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers.^vii Silver's decision has been widely praised, not only by those involved directly in the sport, but by the general public as well.

I must admit that I am disturbed by a law that allows Nazis to spew bigotry and hatred publicly, outside the homes of people whose friends and families were murdered by those whom the marchers admire, while words of bigotry and hatred are not protected privately inside an individual's house. I should have thought the opposite to be true – that we were free to think and believe what we want, and to speak our minds freely within the confines of our own castles (it shouldn't matter that what we said was unpopular or even, as it was in this case, racist) despite their proscription in public.^viii

The widespread dispersion of someone's words or image has been made possible and popular by the internet and the social media. The Supreme Court may have decided that there was a Constitutional right to privacy^ix but the parameters of that right aren't clear. Ideally then, even if speech isn't protected, the right to privacy should limit the damage. Such privacy, though, which used to be the heritage of all except “public figures,”^x now doesn't seem to be available to anyone. In this particular instance, Sterling was recorded “illegally,” but the person who made the recording will probably benefit greatly from the act and is unlikely ever to be punished. The concept of privacy is dead. No longer can you say what you think in public or in private; and you take a risk even thinking it.

I'm a hermit. I don't like to talk to people and I suspect my ideas don't correspond to theirs anyway. If I have prejudices, I'm not going to reveal them to anyone but you.^xi And you're not listening anyway. But sooner or later I'll be “outed” and someone will take issue with what I think. I hope so. I haven't had a good fight all day, and you can't force me out of the NBA.

I         Including a large number of Holocaust survivors.

ii        More precisely, the Court decided that the Illinois Supreme Court's action to stop the march was improper, and the group's First Amendment rights would be violated.

iii      They rarely do however. Academic institutions take pride in allowing “free speech,” especially the “proper” unpopular views. They revel in declarations of their openness to all opinions, emphasizing those popular with the faculty and with minority groups. And many of them defend the disruption of some campus speakers as the exercise of First Amendment rights by those who are disrupting. Since, by doing so, they sacrifice the opportunity for free speech by the speaker, their position is difficult is difficult to justify. Even more so since the Amendment specifically deals with governmental actions.

iv        For example libel or slander.

v        Speech aimed at causing a riot will not be permitted. The classic example is falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There are, however, other limitations on speech.

vi       Though they never were a matter of much concern until they were “tweeted.”

vii      Whether these decisions are legal is up to the lawyers to argue and the courts to decide, but the remarks attributed to Sterling – and he has admitted to having made them – have been widely condemned.

viii     Actually we should be able to speak our minds publicly as well, but some are too “sensitive” to tolerate that.

ix       Even if the Constitution is unaware of it.

x        Who is a public figure and how can someone decide he doesn't want to be one? Is it possible for someone to assert that he want's his privacy – that the Supreme Court has told him he is Constitutionally entitled to it? And if he makes such an assertion, does it have any meaning?

xi      PETA be damned, I have a very low view of skunks. There. Now I feel better. But don't tell them that or I'll never be allowed in a zoo again. Anyway, they'd probably prefer to eliminate the zoos.

Its Weakest Members

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menⁱ are created equal, ...”

The Declaration of Independence said that, but no one takes it seriously – at least not in that form.

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...”

Now we're heading back toward reality. Clearly there are differences that are governed by DNA. There are differences in sexual anatomy between men and women, there are differences related to physical status, appearance, and development, and there are differences in mental capacity, there are others related to susceptibility to diseases, and many others. But there are even more, and perhaps more significant, differences between people.

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”ⁱⁱ

It's finally clear that the “unalienable” rights refer to an individual's situation, not to his physical appearance.ⁱⁱⁱ With this knowledge, however it becomes even more obvious that those who believe this must be aware that the rights with which we are endowed are not necessarily the rights all people enjoy. Too many people are born into poverty and starvation, into bondage, and into families that are incapable of caring for the – perhaps because they do not wish to do so.

It seems unfair.

But that is the kind of society we would create if we could. For the principles that Jefferson espoused were goals rather than realities. David Hume wrote about the distinction and confusion between descriptive and prescriptive views – the “is-ought” dichotomy^iv – and it seems clear that the Founding Fathers had “ought” in mind when they met and discussed the separation from the Crown and the creation of a new country. It's hard to otherwise imagine what Jefferson, a slaveholder, was thinking when he wrote about “Liberty,” or what the writers and the Constitution meant when they defined a slave as three-fifths of a person. It's clear they were talking about goals – what should be – rather than what was a reality, or seemed to be a practical plan for that time. Their intent was to describe the order that they hoped would result from their efforts – eventually if not immediately.

They had in mind what so many before and since pictured as a utopia. What was yet to come were the communes and settlements, and what they hadn't considered was that they were calling for an end to free enterprise, personal initiative, and property,^v which were the anchors of the society they desired. In their zeal, they did not realize that subsequent generations would find, in their words, an argument for social equality, a “leveling of the playing field.”

Clearly that isn't what they meant. They understood “equality” to be referring to equality before the law and equality of opportunity. As time has passed, however, we have turned, more and more, to the ideas of the level playing field. We have accepted the admirable goal in which “equality” is almost identical to “sameness.” We aim for an egalitarian society in which there are no rich and poor, but everyone is the same. We have internalized the idea that “A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”^vi We have instituted programs of entitlements and charity that are intended to equalize the situations of rich and poor^vii – at least our own rich and poor.^viii

The reality, unfortunately, is that our founders were probably better judges of character than we. They recognized that there are differences among people, some of which are inborn, but some reflect the disposition of the individual. The ambitious was entitled to a reward for his action, while the lazy might be aided, but only minimally. Inborn errors, both physical and mental, were the responsibility of society even though society wasn't responsible for them. Equalizing the treatment of all members – its weakest and its strongest – is not only impossible but reflects questionable wisdom. Support of our weakest members is admirable and appropriate, but it should not stifle the productivity the rest.

That is a lesson we have yet to learn. When we give a prize to every child so as to boost his self-esteem; when we teach a class at a low level so the slowest will be able to “succeed” – ignoring the capable so as not to “hurt” those less so; when we encourage and support the poor by taking from those who have more, we are running the risk of damaging society. Elevating the measure of our society by trying to equalize the lot of its weakest members sounds better than it is. The founders sought only equality of opportunity – political and economic. They knew that they couldn't correct a malformed limb or inculcate ambition in the lazy or virtue in born deceivers. All that would be achieved would be the discouragement of those who were productive.

Equality, however desirable, is very much like utopia. It is impossible. Our ancestors knew this. They knew the difference between is and ought. We should learn from them.

Next episode: “Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky” – Dealing with children and other problems.

i       People.

ii      Thomas Jefferson wrote these inspiring words, in large part basing them on the work of Locke and on the Virginia Declaration of Right which was largely written by George Mason. Interestingly both indicated that property was primarily what “happiness” meant.

iii      Actually all babies look alike, and they all look like Winston Churchill.

iv        A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739.

v      As was noted earlier (see endnote ii), property was what was understood to be a basic component of happiness. For many of the signers, a “man” was defined as a white male property owner. He was entitled to Life and Liberty. As the Virginia Declaration of Rights says, “... all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” That declaration was adopted on June 12, 1776, just before the Declaration of Independence.

vi      There is considerable dispute concerning the origin of this idea and among those to whom it has been attributed are Churchill, Pope John Paul II, Dostoyevsky, Truman, and Cardinal Roger Mahony. Ghandi, who was more spiritual (or less concerned with his brothers) than most wrote: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I'd pay more attention to people.

vii      We consider it the responsibility of the rich to support the poor through taxes and assesments. Thus their property is communal (community) property. Perhaps the Founding Fathers viewed the matter differently – perhaps they didn't accept the concept of socialism – however times and philosophies have changed. George Mason may have frowned on the idea that his descendants might be “ deprive[d] or divest[ed of] their ... means of acquiring and possessing property,” but that was an eighteenth century idea. We know better now.

viii      It is surely logical to assume that such equalization should include all people in all countries, but that doesn't seem to have been offered yet as a program. Chances are, though, that it will be at some time in the future.

The Right To Know

We all have the right to know. “Transparency” is the key word of the times. We want to know everything that might affect us. Except, of course, whatever we don't want to know or recognize that we shouldn't. For example, we want our government to operate in such a way that we'll always know what's going on.ⁱ We concede the need for secrecy in some circumstances, however, and we may permit it, but we also expect to be informed at some future time of what transpired. How else can we decide if matters are being managed according to the standards that we consider appropriate?

Knowledge makes it possible for us to choose. Some examples: a woman can choose to have an abortion in a clean and safe facility; parents can choose not to have their children vaccinated in order to prevent autism; voters can choose the most moral of the candidates and the ones most likely to represent their views. If only that were the case.

But sometimes we have too much information – including information that might be embarrassing, or “facts” that are just plain wrong.ⁱⁱ No relationship between immunizations and autism has ever been proved, and the paper that first asserted this relationship has been retracted. Moreover, some of those whom, based on available knowledge, we viewed as models, have been shown to be hiding information that might change our views of them or lessen their vote totals. And others have no compunctions about making promises they don't intend to keep, because those promises may help them get elected.

So, while we demand privacy for ourselves, we demand information of others. Preferably true or useful, but that's not always the case. One of the principal targets nowadays is GMF – genetically modified food. To understand the issue it's worthwhile to review how we got here. The evolution of living forms has been going on here on earth for billions of years. By trial and error Nature has “improved” the various species – experimenting with their DNA, keeping what works and disposing of the failures. But it's a slow process.

In fact it's too slow for humans who have, themselves, evolved from lower forms. But over the millennia we have found ways of speeding things up. Until recently, the most important of these was cross breeding. The method was a way of introducing sought after characteristics into species that had some desirable characteristics, but lacked particular traits, like resistance to disease, that would improve them. This kind of selective breeding has been going on for about ten thousand years. It's resulted in more healthful food crops, more beautiful flowers, resistance of crops to pests and diseases, faster growth and larger size and yields, and similar improvements. It's a form of accelerated evolution.

The latest advance is known as “genetic modification.” This method, made possible by advances in genetic engineering, involves the transfer of specific genes from one organism to another in order to achieve the same goals. But it's a lot faster and more precise, an even more rapid acceleration of evolution. In a world in which starvation results in hunger among hundreds of millions of people each yearⁱⁱⁱ and millions of deaths,^iv methods of maximizing food crop production would seem to be among the most desirable of accomplishments. So it would seem to be a matter of pride that scientists have “'improved' the various species by experimenting with their DNA, keeping what works and disposing of the failures.”^v

Not everyone sees it that way, however. There is concern that there may be unintended side effects of the practice – perhaps not to be discovered until generations after the fact. Many view the practice as one that is not natural since the species did not develop on their own.^vi Others are convinced that the companies that produce such crops are only interested in profits irrespective of any harm they cause.^vii There are also protests that we are acting as if we were G-d and trying to create new species of living things, but it is hard to deny that we don't hesitate to destroy living things as well. Not only do we use abortion as a form of family planning and population control,^viii but we permit capital punishment in many of our jurisdictions. Whether these are right or wrong, they weaken any arguments against genetic modification of foods. Perhaps we're just building a better mousetrap; providing a tool that will, in the end, help far more people than those it is shown to hurt.^ix

But that's only the background.

In terms of the current debate, there are demands that all foods that are genetically modified be labeled as such. The contention of those who hold this view is that they are entitled to know about this. How else, they argue, can they make the informed choice not to ingest what they consider potentially harmful. I'm not sure that I agree with that position any more than I'd require a warning label on every Epic Hybrid eggplant in the supermarket. But I'd be willing to accept it if, along with the warning, there were a statement regarding actual, not hypothesized, problems associated with about the product being labeled. I have a right to know this, too.

You'd be well advised, though, not to hold your breath.^x

Next episode: “Its Weakest Members” – Achieving utopia.

I        That will give us the opportunity to determine if our leaders are operating in our best interests, and to inform them of their mistakes in “real time.” And it will allow us to vote them out of office if they do not change their positions to align better with ours.

ii       Not that such knowledge will always convince a “believer” to abandon a disproved idea.

iii      According to the FAO's State of Food Insecurity in the World, published in 2013, 842 million people “do not have enough to eat.”

iv     The Lancet, in 2013, informed us that 3.1 million children under five die of starvation each year. (Series on Maternal and Child Nutrition) According to UN statistics, there are over eight and a half million total starvation deaths annually.

v       In fact, the progression from the “natural” development of species to cross breeding to genetic modification is a form of evolution. In this case regarding science itself.

vi      But, of course, neither are so many tea and tree roses and other flowers, most fruits and vegetables we eat, and most of the medications we take – including those for fatal diseases – since they're synthesized. And it is certainly not “natural” to select fetuses for abortion by DNA, or even by ultrasound.

vii     The same can be said of tobacco companies, those that produce alcohol products, automobile manufacturers, and makers of a host of other consumer goods, as well as those that build bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers. We are of (at least) two minds on the idea of labeling of the risks involved in all of them. I've never seen warnings of the risks on automobiles, or heard of any demand for such labels.

viii    Some see in the right to choose, the “right” to choose sex or other characteristics, or to choose not to give birth at all. Are they acting as if they were G-d?

ix      If any.

x       By the way, breath-holding, apart from causing you to turn blue, may be harmful to your health, leading to loss of consciousness and, in some cases, death.

I Think I Missed Something

I attended a dinner recently, and at the other end of the table were two friends who were having a heated conversationⁱ about politics. Actually, from my (disad)vantage point, I could only hear snippets of the exchange, but I knowⁱⁱ both of the participants and their points of view, so I'm fairly sure I know what they said.

Part of the argument centered on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, with one of the parties arguing that both the Constitution and the Supreme Court sanctioned gun ownership, and the other condemning it and contending that we no longer have militias, and that no one needs, or should have, a gun. There were other topics mentioned, but they were similarly laced with polarized rhetoric. It was a typical dispute between a “crazy” conservative and a “bleeding heart” liberal. Both had a lot to say, but neither was listening. And neither had the capacity to say “I don't know.”

Were they involved in the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” debate, I suspect that they would also have been poles apart, although the pro-lifer would probably have favored the death penalty, while the pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) advocate would have opposed it categorically. And if the subject were the Patriot Act or some similar question regarding National Security and surveillance, One would support “whatever is necessary” while the other would be adamant in expressing horror at the intrusion of the government into our lives and thoughts. Yet contrary to all reason, the latter would encourage legislation that enlarged the government while the former would recoil at such a prospect.

The problem as I see it – and I've written about this before – is that we tend to be so involved in rhetoric and so enamored of our ideology that we haven't the time nor any interest in questioning it. We're not interested in its inherent logic. As I noted recently, we're more interested in accomplishing our goals than in analyzing where our those goals will lead. Logic is not our strong suit.

It all boils down to right and wrong – or at least the views of right and wrong existing in the imaginations of single-minded ideologuesⁱⁱⁱ who see no valid alternative to their views. And there is no room for compromise. It's a “take no prisoners” situation.

Is it too hot? That shouldn't be a surprise. We're undergoing global warming. Are we setting records for the cold? That, too, is a result of the warming. Perhaps there's too much snow or rain, or maybe there's a drought. All of these have a single cause – global warming! And tornadoes? You guessed it. The selfish producers of carbon-based fuels are to blame. They not only pollute the earth at ground level but they destroy the ozone layer above that protects us from the sun's rays. And since we all use carbon based fuels, we are all responsible.^iv

Of course there are others who are convinced that those who rant about warming are disingenuous, or simply misinformed – the historic facts don't support the claims. Not only are we going through a warming period consistent with the variation that has always taken place on earth, and not something based on fuel usage, but the blaming of all weather conditions, both desirable and undesirable, on a single cause is just plain “junk science.” Humans are not responsible for global warming and they cannot cure it. Those contending thus are as certain of their position as are the people whom they oppose.^v

Another example of the phenomenon is in the news all the time. Russia is taking over Ukraine; Iran maintains its “right” to enrich uranium, although there is universal anxiety over the potential for developing nuclear weapons; genocide is a daily occurrence in many African countries; Christians are being killed by Muslims and the battles between Hindus and Muslims are vicious; the “Arab Spring” has turned into winter; there is unrest in China, South America, and Iraq, and there are wars and conflicts in, among many other countries, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and Kashmir. There are even numerous assassinations and other murders in the context of the drug wars in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere.

Yet the world^vi seems to have found only one way to stop the injustices it sees all around. The worst offender is Israel. Whether it involves Church bodies, academics, nations and international organizations, consumers, or simply individuals with prejudices, the response they propose for all the problems we face is to boycott Israel. Indeed, the BDS movement^vii is the answer to anything to do with the Jews and enables you to deny antisemitism while indulging in it. And if such an accusation should arise, it's probably being made by the Jews^viii who use it to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Another illustration of the phenomenon, and I'll leave it at this although there are numerous other examples, is the current dispute over homosexuality. There are many who believe that it is the cause of all the disasters to which we are subject. Humanity is punished – especially the countries and localities where it is tolerated – for such behavior. They view natural disasters as the penalty for the actions of a single “deviant,” or the toleration by society of the LBGTQ^ix movement as a whole.

At the same time, for supporters of the movement, the absence of their members from some activity is proof of sexism. Television shows, movies, plays, and written works that lack someone with their sexual orientation are intolerable. As with other manifestations of the “traditional family” and “traditional values” in general, such views have no place in the twenty-first century outlook. Absence of a recognizable member of the LGBTQ community is ipso facto evidence of prejudice.

That, sadly, seems to be the way societies – not just our own – are turning. Not only do large groups find themselves unable to recognize and accept the truth,^x but they cannot tolerate the idea that there is any virtue in the views of those who disagree. There's no room for reassessment of their views and certainly not with compromise of those views so as to achieve a harmonious society.^xi Mind over matter. We live by the rule that the “underdog” is always right and anyone who has a different view, or who favors the ideas he was taught as a child – including the love of his own country – is wrong. We live in a post-traditional world, and we live with new truths rejecting any reliance on the old. In our multicultural, morally relative reality, we accept almost anything, especially if it is a denial of what our parents believed. It is rebellion writ large. It requires that we take the side of anyone lacking power – whether or not he is right. We believe that might makes wrong. Certainly that's the mantra in the United States.

But I must be missing something. It seems to me that we're looking for “right” in the wrong places. To a degree, we want to be different like everyone else. We want to be virtuous in an evil world. But most of all we want to be right. No, we are right, and we support the right causes even if others oppose them.^xii We accept whatever those whom we see as the weak say, and do whatever they want us to do. And we rebut the strong even if, were we to pay attention, their arguments would make sense. But why listen to such tripe? I think we have a kind of blindered vision that directs us to what it is acceptable to see and believe. And we're prevented from seeing (or thinking) anything else, tolerant of the views of others we consider oppressed.^xiii We place tolerance above realism. We are fanatics who espouse the received wisdom espoused by the good guys and we do, rather than think. We don't hear anything that contradicts our preconceived ideas, and we accept unconsidered principles as we engage in what used to be considered scapegoating.

So we're pigheaded and left with endless arguments in which no one will ever convince his opponent. And we're left with a society that will go its own way – one we may consider foolhardy – irrespective of logic. But that's okay. The pendulum will swing back and everything in vogue today will be rejected. Of course that won't end the arguments and allow us to compromise. We're all too sure of ourselves. So we'll switch sides or find something different to argue about.

Next episode: “The Right To Know” – Of course that doesn't mean you understand.

I       Actually it was an argument. There's no point in mincing words.

ii      And respect.

iii     Fanatics! But I feel so judgmental writing that.

iv      The liberal is likely to hold this opinion.

v       That's the view of the conservative.

vi      As exemplified by the endless condemnations generated by the UN.

vii     Boycott, divestment, sanctions. Of all the countries in the world, and with all the conflicts and injustices that we suffer, all the groups aim their weapons only at Israel. They are not concerned about anything else.

viii    Jews make up only two tenths of one percent of the world's population yet they are believed to control all the instruments of power, and antisemites maintain that they oppress everyone else.

ix      Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. As with BDS, we seem to have an affinity for acronyms. That's been one of our national fixations since the alphabet soup of the Roosevelt administration (FDR not TR).

x       I'm the only one who knows what that is and I'm not telling.

xi      That's the way politicians gain votes, and “intellectuals” earn brownie points.

xii     And often because others oppose them. It's guilt by association. If a “bad guy” has a certain view, it must be wrong. And anyone who takes him to task – who is thus on my side – deserves my support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

xiii    No, we automatically accept them.

Lean Back And Enjoy It

Last week I talked about the schizophrenic reaction that the American people have to the dissemination of information. I didn't use that term – it doesn't stem from a psychiatric disorder but from a love-affair with technology, inattention and denial – and it is, perhaps, misleading. It is, however, clear that the public protests raised by the disclosure of the NSA's collection of telephone records can't be taken at face value.

There's no stopping progress, and we all embrace it. Perhaps excessively. It didn't take long after the introduction of the social media for them to become the megaⁱphenomenon they are now. Building on Friendster, MySpace, and LinkedIn, among others, Facebook was initiated at Harvard as a service for students in 2004. “The rest,” as they say, “is history.” Facebook passed the one billion member mark in 2012 and now has over 1.1 billion users. And every one of them is looking for friends.ⁱⁱ

There are many different kinds of social media – for friendship, advertising, job hunting, photo sharing, searching for old friends, and lots of others. So it isn't surprising that the numerous users have accepted, and become accustomed to, the sharing of information electronically. Some of it, probably a small minority, serves an actual purpose other than show and tell. But most of it consists of the narcissistic display of unfiltered – and usually inane – thoughts and bragging; of photographs illustrating the poverty of the “sharer's” existence; of personal appeals for friendship or companionship; of “clever” comments on the submissions of others; of pornography, advertising, and, in all likelihood, disguised and coded messages of spies and terrorists; and similar self-destructive or dangerous material. We're happy to give away information,ⁱⁱⁱ but we don't always rejoice in the fact that others may be taking it.

So, with the impulse to share all that comes to mind, and the knowledge that we're not alone in that endeavor, it's hard to believe that people didn't realize that governments^iv would do the same thing.^v Only they would probably try to use them less for trivial gossiping and more for the gathering of information, including, but not limited to, that which we're so eager to share. But that sharing is more than we bargained for. According to De Beers, “Diamonds are forever.” So's the internet.^vi Postings may come back to haunt us after many years^vii and access is available to everyone, unless steps are taken to block it. There can be no presumption of privacy in anything we post. And we all know it. We just don't care. In fact we're flattered when someone takes notice of us. At least until we find out that it's the government.^viii

It's disingenuous, though, to express surprise and horror that others are doing the same things we do. And it's similarly hypocritical to demand that we be protected by our government at the same time we're taking away the tools they believe they need to provide that protection.^ix The NSA will certainly be changed because of the outcry resulting from the revelation of what most people already knew – that the government had access to records of all the telephone calls in which we participate. In so many of the crime shows we watch on television the police review the logs of all calls to and from the suspect. Someone has kept the records that makes this possible. Are those records always used? Not unless there is reason to do so.^x That's what the NSA does, only they do it better than the police. Some, admittedly a minority, of the information will be useful in providing security, though its value will decrease with every disclosure about its nature and with every limitation in its use. So changes will be made. The public demands them. But assuming the surveillance serves a purpose, some method will have to be found to achieve the same results under a different guise. And it will be found. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.                  

1984 arrived several years ago. It arrived because, though we deny it and fight it, we wanted the tools that make it possible. There were some who warned that this is where our love of technology would lead, but our desire for “progress” trumped any concerns we had that the availability of information would be a threat. Indeed, I suspect, if the American People were now offered the opportunity of ending government use of electronic technology by ending its use by individuals as well, they would reject such a plan. And, in the unlikely event that they accepted such a concept, we'd all be under the control of those elsewhere who weren't so inclined. The protection which we sought from society – the “common defence” [sic] – would be surrendered.

For better or worse, we've crossed the Rubicon. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. You certainly can't change 'em. Constitutional government in general, the Second Amendment in particular, representation in Congress, and the ACLU notwithstanding, you're not going to defeat the government, so you might as well accept the programs they impose on you. Lean back and enjoy it. Perhaps the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.

Perhaps not.

Next episode: “I Think I Missed Something” – The trouble with passion.

 

 

I       Originally it meant “million” in a combining form, but, especially in this computer age, it has come to mean BIG. Or, as Ed Sullivan would have put it, “Reeeally Big.” Huge, in fact.

ii      Often in the wrong places. Some of the “friends” we find have agendas different from ours.

iii     To confirm this, all you have to do is to listen to talk radio, or to read the endless comments and debates on line following some controversial article. People like to express their opinions (I know I do) no matter how silly they are. (Mine, as you know by now, are well-reasoned and incontrovertible.)

iv      Our own, and those of our friends and enemies.

v       They'd also do it far better than we.

vi      In the beginning, at least (according to Jewish tradition) since the Law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, there was the “written” law (that which was recorded in the Bible) and the “oral” law, that which was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Eventually, out of fear that it would be forgotten or corrupted, this too was written down. That was cutting edge technology in those days. Now we enter what we know in computers, and it will live forever. That includes telephone records.

vii     See “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age” by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

viii    We fear that “the government,” or, more accurately, government officials, will misuse the information. That's not an irrational concern but it must be balanced against the probabilities that the information will probably never be used at all and, if it is, that it will be used for our benefit.

ix      Requiring “transparency” makes it far easier, faster, and cheaper for our enemies to keep tabs on our defenses and it makes it far harder to negotiate plans and policies, to work out compromises, and to craft treaties.

x       Even if information has no immediate applicability, the possibility of a future need for it cannot be ignored. (That's why we have archives and libraries.) There is no such thing as “useless information,” only information that has no application at a particular time. The ability to respond to a threat quickly because data can be obtained rapidly is something that has obvious value. It may be argued that failure to do so – to prepare for potential future threats – is contrary to our country's interests.

"The Book Thief"

I feel as if I've been manipulated. No. I have been manipulated. But that's all right. That's what movies are supposed to do.

In this case I'm referring to “The Book Thief,” which I saw last night. It's the story of Liesel, a young German girl during the Second World War – probably the daughter of a Communist woman – who is taken to live with another family. During the film we watch her developing a love of books and reading,ⁱ and we see the the struggles over the years of her new family, presumably typical of those living under the Nazis, especially as they involved their efforts to protect a Jew, Max, whom they hid in the basement.ⁱⁱ

Depicted in the production were three types of Germans – most prominently the good but fearful Germans,ⁱⁱⁱ like Liesel and her adoptive parents, who were willing to take risks for the downtrodden; the large number of loyal and patriotic citizens hypnotized into submission by Hitler and his advocates; and those who were evil. The last group included such individuals as a child named Franz who was both stupid and a bully. The narrator of the film is Death, himself.^iv

All in all, I came away from the movie with the clear impression that the Germans were a good people who were manipulated by the few who were evil. They lived in fear; the remained silent if they had any reservations, and they cooperated with their rulers only so they wouldn't stand out.^v I get no sense of the true horrors of the Holocaust, even though Kristallnacht is shown along with Max's plight and, momentarily, that of a Jewish store owner. Were there mass killings of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals? Did the Nazis experiment on people and eliminate the weak? Presumably everyone knows about that, but it is barely hinted at in “The Book Thief.” Even “Death,” who makes his product almost attractive since it will come to all of us (in this movie it will be in the form of billowing clouds in a beautiful blue sky) sees no need to mention any of the millions murdered by the Third Reich. Indeed, there is no need to bring up the Third Reich at all.

I wound up with the feeling that the Germans were really a good people who were suffering under an intolerant regime, and they were making the best of it. That's at variance with everything I've learned up to this time – especially in the work of Daniel Goldhagen – that there was a strong component of antisemitism in the “cultured” and “advanced” German society, and the scapegoating of the Jews, and other “inferior” people, was acceptable to the German People, and to many others, and was widely accepted and acted on by them. But perhaps that was the manipulation, and the version I viewed last night was closer to the truth.

In any event, “The Book Thief” was a “feel good” movie that restored my faith in the basic humanity of the German People. It may have been fiction, but it was a fine movie. How can puffy clouds in a blue sky be bad?

I        Encouraged and assisted by her new “poppa.”

ii       Max was another co-conspirator in her new-found reading program.

iii      And this group includes Frau Heinrich, the wife of a Nazi official, who befriends Liesel and lets her read some of the books in the family library. At times Liesel “borrows” some of those books for reading at home.

iv       Death seems to have taken a liking of Liesel who is depicted as brave, honest, and faithful. (She's a real Boy Scout.) So Death lets her live until the age of ninety.

v        There is a scene in which Liesel, and friend named Rudi, yell out their hatred of Hitler when they are in an isolated area and won't be heard. Even so, that hatred seems to be based on how the Nazis have affected their own lives and was not in any way related to any greater evil which they perpetrated.

A Yakov Smirnoff America

It appears that as of today, April 1, 2014, the deadline for open registration, the Affordable Care Actⁱ will have achieved the stated goal of seven million registrants (of the approximately 318 million Americans). Several extensions of the deadline were necessary because of “glitches” in the system. There were many protests and court cases involved in the acceptance of the new legislation and its associated regulations, but it's now the law of the land. And those who do not wish to participate may elect not to do so. But they'll be fined for that kind of protest. And the fine will increase as time goes by. Such is the “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” with which, according to the Declaration of Independence, we were “endowed by [our] Creator,” and the prized “freedom of choice” which American culture values so highly.

Whether or not the legislation is wise – and I must admit to some reservations – there are a few points about it worth noting. The first relates to its legitimacy. The Supreme Court, a non-legislative body appointed for life, came close to invalidating it yet didn't, though portions of the act were found not in keeping with our laws. But the greatest argument surrounded the mandatory registration of everyone, with a penalty for those who didn't accept the concept. The government maintained that it had the right to do so under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and it maintained, with great vigor, the idea that this was not a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that it wasn't justified under the Commerce Clause, and, along with the four Justices who considered the entire law to be unconstitutional, that would have made a majority to strike it down. However Justice Roberts ruled that Congress had the right to tax (even though they vehemently denied that they were doing so in this instance) and that this would be acceptable as a tax, so they could have done it that way. Therefore he sided with the four Justices who favored the act and it was upheld.

Another problem is the view of many that the law contravenes their religious freedom. It does so, they claim, by mandating their provision of contraceptives and abortions to those in their employ, irrespective of their own personal beliefs. Several lawsuits are currently being argued on this point.

Additionally, the legislation is long and complex. Much of it was written, subsequent to the law's passage, by unelected bureaucrats who crafted the regulations which will be used in its implementation. These regulations come from anonymous civil servants who do not answer to the voters, and what they write is never reviewed or passed by Congress. The Constitution may not authorize them to write our laws, but they do so anyway. Congress makes no pretense at understanding the implications of what they've done, so they leave it to others to make it sound right. And the “others” may have their own axes to grind.

There are many other objections to the act, however one interesting feature is that it emerged from failure. When the public was first asked to sign up for it, the mechanisms to do so failed miserably. Years had been spent perfecting the system, but it couldn't do the job. The regulators tried various fixes but were unsuccessful. So they called in private industry to pick up the pieces. After about a month of reprograming, the “outside consultants” corrected the errors of our bureaucrats.

The implications of this situation are significant. The government decided that it would do what it claimed private industry couldn't. It would provide health insurance superior to that on the open market. When it realized that it lacked the expertise to do so, however, our leaders did not abandon their plans but called upon private industry to fix what they had broken. They asked one group of entrepreneurs to help them in their move on another. And the public was in the middle – often having to accept what they didn't want in the first place or be “taxed.” It doesn't bode well that the same less than skillful bureaucrats will be running the health insurance program that they couldn't implement. And the same “experts” are contriving so many of the other rules that govern our lives. “What a country.”ⁱⁱ

But it's April Fools' Day, so we can only laugh about it. The joke, though, is on us.

I       “Obamacare”

ii        Yakov Smirnoff, Russian comedian.