The Modern Approach

Times change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I remember President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational. Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners," ("first they came for ...") the "1%," the government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.

I return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who misunderstood his message.

I'm willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft, kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent – continues. They believed that this was what they could “do for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their actions – their own lives and the lives of others.

Whom did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right" on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on their behalf.

The protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights," some of which require much teasing from our founding documents – or may not even be there – usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).

And the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in the past. More important is what the law means. At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is right.

That's not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can." For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the rasher "because I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly, although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis. The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought – only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians (including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more important.

And that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines. And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

There was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.

It's time to return government to those we've elected.






April 28, 2017

It's Time For A Change

[This is a rather long essay. I hope it's worth it.]

There's an old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it. “ Well, it's broke. And it's important. It's the American government. There are many who wonder about the ability of our public officials to deal with the problems that face our country. Many even doubt that legislators “our representatives,” have as much interest in us as in their own welfare.

We like to think we have “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but we don't. The only part the “people” have is in choosing those “sworn” to represent them, but they're actually ore interested in solidifying their own power. They pander to those who support them, and are aided by those they benefit.

Have you ever been polled? Has your opinion ever been (allegedly) sought in defining the issues of the day? Chances are that after your demographics were carefully defined you were given two sets of questions – binary ones (yes/no, more/less, etc.) and those that ask you to put your interests, or those of the poll, in order. There was neither room nor time for nuance nor opinion about compromise.

That would complicate things. It would make things difficult if not impossible. Our “leaders” could no longer lead from behind. Working groups, task forces, and committees may offer additional information, but they are costly, unwieldy, and reliant on the views of an unrepresentative few, and they are less likely to be employed.

After the vote on some important issue, however, your “representative,” after asserting that he voted just as he said he would, will use all manner of interpretation and nuance to explain a vote that is contrary to your wishes. It will be his way of vindicating all the deals and exceptions he made in an effort to obtain votes on some other issue of more importance to him. He will use nuance to justify the turning of a binary question into a thousand-page bill. The reality is that the agendas of our politicians may differ from ours.

In all likelihood, the Founding Fathers anticipated disagreement regarding policies and there were many who railed against the establishment of political parties, but it didn't take long after the establishment of the republic for parties to develop. Two parties. And that's the problem. They convert all issues to binary questions when they present them to the voters, but leave themselves more room for maneuvering. And all decisions are based on party, not voter, loyalty. It's all “black and white.” “My way or the highway.” Compromise is evil.

I can't fault their approach. In the end, all decisions are binary even if we find it difficult to figure them out. But I'd like to offer a use of that system that might make it easier and more rewarding for us, if not for the two major parties. It's not likely to happen because of the vested institution of government already in place. Those in power would oppose it. But there are those – and Jefferson was one – who favored periodic review and alteration of the Constitution. Perhaps now's the time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We live in the age of the internet and our dependence on it will only increase. We live at a time when people don't hesitate to express their opinion on line. At the moment they're mostly negative comments, but that can change when their importance is demonstrated and when we become more mature. For the same devices that spur comments can also be used to “connect” us. And that's what's happening. Like mail and the telephone before, we assume everyone has, or has access to, a computer – at home or in the form of a “smart phone.” There's always the library for those who don't. Toward what end? Expressing a preference or opinion.

But there's not much room for choice when there are only two parties and representatives hew to the dogma dictated by their leaders. (“You're either for us or against us, and we have long memories.”) So you're really voting for the party-line and can't rely on the “promises” of your “representative.” And for the party there is only black and white. No grays. There's no choice.

What I propose – and I recognize that it would require a great deal of determination to organize – is a multiplicity of parties with shades of difference on different issues. We've had third parties before, but they were mainly reactions to specific problems and not designed to deal with the subtleties of many different issues nor to last for more than one or two election cycles.

Suppose there were seven parties (“seven” is an arbitrary number put up for the sake of discussion and should not be taken seriouslyⁱ – the number might be fixed or depend on percentage in a previous poll of some sort); suppose the voters were polled on what issues were important to them an the different parties gave their views (indeed their reaction to the views might be used to determine which parties could contend); suppose the vote was proportional to the voter percentages: it might play out as follows. The questions could be framed by the participating political parties in order to force their opponents to confront them. I'll give a couple of sample questions. (Remember that since a long list of questions would be given, and the parties would express their opinions on a wide variety of issues, their answers would be limited to 140 characters or some such familiar number.ⁱⁱ) And, while all candidate's views and their percentages would be listed, the “official” responses would be given by the plurality choice within each party.

What are your views on gun control?

Party 1.: Eliminate all weapons.

2. Eliminate firearms as opposed to other weapons.
3. Register all firearms and exclude ownership by those with histories of mental disease, drug use, or crime.
4. Register all firearms and their users (who have been vetted for any suspicious activity).
5. Eliminate all automatic weapons.
6. Eliminate all firearms but handguns and they must be visible.
7. Leave laws as they are.
8. Another answer.
   Other parties would also give their views. – 9 and up.

And

How do you feel about DACA (Normalizing status of “dreamers” – children of illegal immigrants).

Party 1.: Tighten borders. Prosecute all illegal immigrants.

2. Prosecute both parents and children. They have violated our laws.
3. Prosecute parents but deport children.
4. Leave both parents and children in place but prosecute other illegal immigrants.
5. Leave both parents and children in place but deport other illegal immigrants.
6. Deal with parents as you would deal with other illegal immigrants but provide a path for citizenship for children.
7. Deal with other illegal immigrants as you would normally do but provide a path for citizenship for DACA parents and children.
8. Provide a path for citizenship for all “illegal” immigrants.
9. Legalize all residents.
10. Another answer.
Other parties would also give their views. – 11 and up.

On the basis of responses to these questions (gun control, illegal immigration, and all the other issues of significance to the politicians) the public would both choose the “seven” parties that would run. The “twenty” (or whatever number) questions that would be considered for election itself might be from among these, or new questions determined by a voter poll. (Since it would be a proportional election with party slates rather than voting for individual candidates, they, and their order on their party's candidate list should be recorded so that voters would have a rough idea of for whom they are voting but) Each person's vote should be for a party based on a consideration if it's positions on all the issues which would be formulated. Listed (remember this is this internet so there's room) would be a distribution of candidate views and choices of answers. There would be a short view but also a hyperlink to a longer (but limitedⁱⁱⁱ) view for each for each candidate who desires it. Included might also be a description of the party's performance on the issue to date.

Two (at least) results are likely – the voter would have a truer sense of the issues about which he's voting, and the representatives would be more free to choose their own ways – indeed almost forced to by the on-line statements they made – they'd be less under party control and more likely to compromise on issues important to the voters. Congressional decisions would be based on plurality vote, or by another formula decided separately. All sponsors of bills presented for consideration would be listed, as would any connection of those who would benefit (excluding those who contribute up to a stated limit) to the party or its candidates.

The results of “off-year” elections – every four years not divisible by four (eg 2018, 2022, 2026) – would be used to determine presidential choices. The three parties with the most representatives could put up candidates and the one with a plurality (or whatever) would be elected. There would be no Electoral College. Votes would be made over the internet based on the same short and hyperlinked longer responses to questions of significance at the time of the election. Those questions would be decided beforehand by the voters, and voting results, though done over a period of days or weeks, would not be revealed until a specific deadline is reached. Since the material necessary would be available to all voters simultaneously, there would be equal significance to every vote – not just the ones on the east coast. At issue would be issues. Negative advertising would have far less impact.

Admittedly the process would be complex and require a lot of reading, but this would ensure the greatest participation of those most interested in the process and the results. Knowing of the importance of the results to everyone, translations to all languages would be available on line if requested.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's another consideration that shouldn't be overlooked – especially now. Do we trust those whom we've elected. Responses from previous elections would remain on line and we'd be able to compare promises and performance more easily – especially if the new computer system was programed to do so. The program would also flag exceptions voted for, and which exceptions aided donors to, or supporters of the party in question. That would allow us all to judge the reliability of the promises and votes (all would be recorded – no acclamation or votes by hand). In short, we'd know what they offered and what they delivered. And to whom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's not likely that the two established parties would support such changes since it would cost them control of the government, but We The People are supposed to run things and the representatives are there only to serve as our agents.

December 30, 2017

iAs with “seven,” all numbers should be viewed as arbitrary. They are simply listed to provide room for discussion. Obviously they ar subject to change. The only condition that the increased numbers provide the voters with room for nuance.

iiSee below.

iii These would be longer, but not so much that they wouldn't be read or understood.

Simplify, Simplify, Simplify

My wife is mad. Angry, if you're not sure what I mean. Infuriated. So are some of her friends. As is often the case, the government is at fault – in this case the Social Security Administration.

By way of background, she works in a program to provide information to recipients, and prospective recipients, of Medicare – primarily the elderly. The majority are beyond retirement age and are collecting Social Security – though it is often inadequate to meet modest needs. Many of them are uncertain about the benefits available to them through Medicare – what they are and how to get them. And, for the most part, they're unsophisticated when it comes not only to the ins and outs of government regulations, but the tools necessary to learn about them are only available from the government that has formulated them and administers them. Recipients have barely enough income to get by, let alone to purchase all the innovations of modern technology. So many of them don't have the computers necessary to learn about the existing programs, and they have to rely on whatever information is sent them by “snail mail” (they know it as “mail”). And it's often the case that they don't read the mail – which is just as well since most of its contents are impenetrable to all but those trained in the law.

That's the background. The case at issue is a new program described in an e-mail message which we received recently – as, we assume, did most of the recipients of Social Security and Medicare who have computers. And of them, only some of those would understand its significance. For example, when I accessed the FAQ section of the site dealing with the new program I learned

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.

I think that what it is saying is that the government has no responsibility for what it puts on line. Of course I could be wrong.

In any event, I should mention the program in question. Here's the crux

You can create a my Social Security account if you’re age 18 or older, have a Social Security number, a valid email, a U.S. mailing address, and a cell phone that can receive text messages. You’ll need to provide some personal information to confirm your identity; you’ll be asked to choose a username and password; and then provide your cell phone number. You’ll then receive a security code via text that you will be required to enter when you first create an account. We’ll send your cell phone a new security code each time you log in with your username and password. The security code is part of our enhanced security feature to protect your personal information. Keep in mind that your cell phone provider's text message and data rates may apply.

That's straightforward, isn't it? But perhaps you still use (forgive me) a land line (or you can't text – don't have the apparatus or lack the knowledge of how to do it, since I suspect that the majority of Social Security and Medicare recipients either don't text of have difficulty doing so)

If you do not have a cell phone, you will not be able to access your personal my Social Security account. To access your personal my Social Security account, you need a cell phone that can receive text messages. Each time you sign in, we send a text to your cell phone that contains a security code you will need to enter to access your account. Keep in mind that your cell phone provider's text message and data rates may apply. Please visit our website at socialsecurity.gov/agency/contact to learn other ways to contact us.

(This is only a small part of what's written, but I'd put you to sleep if I included all of it.) So there's no problem. You can always contact their web site and find out how to contact them. (That's what you learn when you click on their contact URL – not the answer to your question.) That's all clear, isn't it? And you can be sure you're getting the best service. After all, even if you can't understand it or use it, you're paying for it. And they're not shy about telling you so.

This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.

What it boils down to is that the new program is being thrust on the group least likely to be able to understand or take advantage of it by regulators whose employment depends on creating such programs. And we're paying for it. That's what makes America great.

But I'm not angry about it. Long ago I stopped expecting intelligent actions by the government.

Hail Mary, Heil Hitler

Many – if not all – of those who see this title will find it offensive. And it is. It is the appositioning of opposites. The former is an appeal to an immaculate symbol – an appeal to one who would help the petitioner in a quest for virtue. The latter is a denial of virtue, a pledge of loyalty to evil – the promise to support a fatally flawed individual despite those flaws, and possibly because the “supplicant” shares them.

Numerous individuals follow now, or followed once, one or both of these philosophies, but I am not one of them. I am neither a Christian nor a Nazi. Nonetheless, the two phrases weigh heavily, as I consider the role of belief and concern in the formation of the ideas of an individual and the ideals of a society.

Yes, the title is offensive, but it serves to illustrate some points that interest me. They deal with the relationship between religion and the secular world. The roots of Christianity extend more than two millennia into the past – the length of those roots depending on whether you see Christianity as an Abrahamic religion, inextricably linked to Judaism, or if you date it from the events depicted in the Gospels. In either case, however, it's old. Nazism's roots are also long, a heritage of patriotism – which has long served as a rallying cry for populists – and anti-semitism which is almost as old as Christianity. 

However that link, age, is not the focus of today's essay. Different as their current philosophies and goals, however, there is a plausible connection between the two which illustrates a feature of religions in general, and it is this feature that interests me today.

The Gospel of Matthew records the following as Jesus replied to an inquiry from some of his followers about paying taxes to the emperor,

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 21:22]

Jesus drew a distinction between Rome and Judaism (which was his religion). They were two separate realms. It is a distinction which German citizens found perfectly acceptable – even desirable. Church and State were separate. They may have proselytized more forcefully at one time, but their religious decrees were no longer imposed on others. The era of theocracy had passed, and they could remain Christians while following the dictates of their Führer at the same time. There was no obvious conflict. Or at least, none on which most of the people acted.

The origin of the obligation to accept secular law is attributed in the Talmud (and later by Rashi) to Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BCE, and it is still an accepted precept in Judaism. (In fact, a prayer for the secular government can be found in most prayer books.) While Jewish practice is to be followed if there is a conflict between religious and secular law, when there is no direct conflict we are obligated to follow the law of the State. I assume the same is true of Christianity, but the license to obey “Caesar” was well known, and it was appealing to the Germans.

Having noted the existing secular and religious legal systems, separate if not equal, in contrast to most western religions (and probably in the east as well, but I am not familiar with those creeds), the practices of Islam are striking.

Islam recognizes only a single legal system, Sharia, and adherents view it as applying to everyone – whether Muslim or not – and everywhere. Moreover, a major goal is the conversion of everyone to Islam and to its laws. There is no such thing as secular law. In any country where there are Muslims there is pressure to be ruled by Sharia, especially, but not exclusively, in lands where they are in the majority. As opposed to a separate secular legal system which is to be followed when there is no conflict with religious law, there is a desire to have clerical determination and administration of all regulations. There is also the desire that those regulations apply to all citizens including those who are not (yet) Muslim. And there is the determination as well to bring those non-Muslims into the fold – often by means that would not conform to secular law, or to the religious laws of most other groups.

Which brings us back to the issue of a balanced relationship between secular and religious constructs. There is certain to be oppression when there is unyielding religious law – law that demands blind obedience untempered by any system of secular justice. But, as the Holocaust showed us, an unyielding secular government, blindly followed by those who consider themselves religious but who don't apply their religious principles to unjust laws, and don't follow spiritual teachings and place them above those laws in order to obtain an honorable society, is also likely to place many at risk. Morality is more important than loyalty; tolerance than compulsion.

The answer then – at least in my view – is an acceptance of a dual system, but the placement of the religious, the humanist, practice in a position of dominance where they conflict. Virtue must always take precedence over evil.

They The People

“If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate.”ⁱ

That was then. 1775. Fourteen years later the United States also became a nation of laws, not men, when a constitution was written. True, there had been laws but they were not considered to be adequate. So a convention was called in order to correct the problems of the Articles of Confederation but those assembled produced a new, and far more effective instrument. It is the Constitution of the United States, under which we have lived for two and a quarter centuries.

It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise document. No one was completely happy, but all accepted it as the best they could get at the time. At the time. That's what a compromise is. There were conflicting opinions and competing “parties”ⁱⁱ and, in order to compose a document that would get the backing of enough of the participants, it was necessary to include the views of all of them – at least to some degree.

And, in order to get a sufficient number of the new States to sign on, it was necessary to agree to further additions.ⁱⁱⁱ But the constitution they had written took into consideration the likelihood that changes would be necessary in the future, and instructions were included for amendment. It's not easy – there have been only sixteen amendments in the 223 years since adoption of the Bill of Rights – but it can be done.

The question, however, is whether it should be done. Some feel that any attempt to change the document will result in a great deal of dissension in our country. The Founding Fathers were wise and they wrote a timeless document. The real problem is that we tinker with it rather than enforcing it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Follow it.

Others believe that it is broke. The original constitution may have been appropriate in its time, but that time has passed. The Founding Fathers (propertied white males), brilliant as they were, anticipated neither a country of this size and complexity nor the technology that now exists. Whether or not they agree with current interpretations, any changes should be written in rather than inferred. And questions remain: what does the Second Amendment mean?; should the President, whose authority was very limited in the original,^iv have the powers assumed by holders of the office?; what is the place of the bureaucracy in our current government^v and what should it be?; do the currently prescribed terms of office and the current election schedule make sense?^vi; should the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of what Congress meant, as it has asserted?^vii,viii And there are numerous other unanticipated issues which might be addressed head on. From their perspective, now is the time for a new compromise – new amendments or a new constitutional convention.

As I mentioned, changing the Constitution is no easy matter, but it can be done. Should it, though? Whether or not public opinion favors alteration or upgrading of the present document, there are considerations other than text that must be considered. What would be the mechanism of change? How can we incorporate the concept of "consent of the governed" in that new document and in the procedure to formulate it? Is there the possibility that the process will be compromised by fraud? Will "rich lobbyists" dominate the discussion of the proposals? Should the political season be limited? Does public involvement raise the specter of majority rule at the expense of the minority?

These are just a few of the many questions that come to mind when considering the reopening of this great document,^ix but it seems clear, since they provided for it, that the Founding Fathers both approved of, and expected, changes to be necessary. Until such time that it is done, however, it is incumbent on all of us to follow the rules that now exist, whether we agree with all of them or not. I don't, but we're a nation of laws, not men, and the ones that exist now are the ones we all have to live by.

In the next essay I'll offer some ideas about changing the Constitution. Perhaps some of them are feasible.

Next episode: “We The People” – It's time for a change.

I        John Adams, Novanglus Essay Number 7, 1775.

ii        Actually there were no parties at the time, but there were two main bodies of thought comparable to the parties we have today.

iii       The Bill of Rights.

iv       Out of fear that he would assume the role of King. They had suffered greatly at the hands of George III. They suffered at the hands of Parliament as well, but they feared the King more. Thus they made Congress primary (Article I) and the Presidency relatively weak (in Article II).

v        It has been termed “the fourth branch of government” by some (analogous to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches established by the Constitution – the maker of most of the rules by which we are governed), but that term has also been applied to lobbyists and other interest groups.

vi      See “Cancel the Midterms,” David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan (New York Times, November 3, 2014)

vii     The writers of the Constitution had relatively little to say about the Judiciary, and they dealt with it after the Legislative and Executive branches (in Article III). There was no clue in the Constitution that it would take on the power it now has.

viii   Indeed. Will Supreme Court view Constitutional change as constitutional? Especially if it weakens them.

ix      Can of worms?

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.

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.

More Food For Thought

                                                                                                  

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

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

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

     a. When was the last time

     b. you

     c. had

     d. a good home

     e. cooked

     f. meal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii     Ten thirty AM on December 30, 2013.

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

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

vi      You. Not the other guy.