Too Much Information

Capital One, in advertising its credit card, asks everyone “What's in your wallet?” Mostly garbage, I assume. Including too many credit cards. We live, at least in this part of the world, amidst excess. There's too much of everything – at least the things you would be better off without.

Let me give an example. The last time you looked at your snail mail, how much was pertinent and how much was junk mail? (And the same is true of e-mail, which is the reason that so many people have stopped looking at it.) If it's anything like mine it's primarily junk – catalogs, ads, bulk mailings from organizations that somehow or other got my address, political mailings, and wrong addresses – with very little of any consequence. Most of the envelopes go on the recycle pile (apart from form letters with blank backs that we recycle in our printer) after wasting too much of my time. In all fairness I have to admit that it's my wife's time. I wouldn't waste mine on the junk.

Perhaps if that were the extent of the problem it would be tolerable. But it isn't, so it isn't. Don't answer your telephone. It's a “robo” call or some other kind of auditory spam. Especially during “silly season.” Political calls seem to come in every few minutes – usually robot calls not blocked by mechanisms that stop other robo calls. I'm glad I still have the strength to get up and answer them – and hang up immediately – but I resent them. My electoral choice is often the one who bothers me least by 'phone or mailing, and the one whose message is positive rather than a rant about the other candidate. Even after my visit to the polls I get calls from the party in which I enrolled (stupidly) years ago to ask me if I have voted. It's the most active time of year for politicians who never seem to be interested in getting any kind of useful legislation passed. They're too busy. (Try calling them and you'll only get an aide whose salary you, as a taxpayer, are supplying.) Except for catering to the needs of contributors and those who can assure them of lots of publicity. (A significant number of laws named after unfortunate individuals fall into this category. Call something “Gretchen's Law” and there's certain to be wide coverage. One of the things of which we have an excess are named laws.)

It shouldn't be surprising. Scientists tell us the Universe is expanding, so shouldn't we expect the same of everything else? Since I don't know (or, frankly, care) how fast that is I can't determine if the rate of junk mail is or isn't exceeding it. Whether or not it is, it's clearly coming too fast.

But the most rapd expansion is in one of the products of science and technology – the internet and its children. Search for something on Google^® for example and, unless the search terms are very restrictive, you'll get more responses than you can deal with. And they're not always reliable. Too many are sucked into the trap of accepting what they read as fact and ignoring the advice of real experts as they defer to the views and prejudices of loud-voiced and opinionated correspondents. The same occurs in other applications. The various social media are absorbing all the free time of too many people. There are, for example, too many useless blogs by those who think they have something to say immediately and need a platform. (I should point out that this is not one of those blogs. Mine, of course, is useful.)

Accompanying the varied, and excessive, postings are too many uninteresting or insipid pictures and videos dealing, mostly, with “cute” children, “amusing” animals, and the views of the same politicians you can't reach. And ads. Targeted ads. Designed to induce your purchase of something you don't need.

Too much. Too much junk mail and telephone calls; too much political blather; too much time wasted on the computer: too many advertisements – not only on the internet but everywhere you look. And they're all detracting from the time that used to be spent thinking, or reading some worthwhile material. Things are moving too fast.

We've lost our focus. Rather than spend our time on activities of value to us we're overwhelmed by everything going on in society, whether or not it's of any consequence. And there's too much that doesn't matter. We're more interested in an idiotic “fact” from the Guinness book than in speaking to our children, or spending time in contemplation. Sadly our children aren't interested in talking to us. They're too busy on their own devices. And they have no interest in contemplation.

Is there any solution to the problem? Not really. The mail and telephone problems will get worse. Portable smartphones will increase and increase the time we spend away from thought. Politics remain as certain as death and taxes. And advertising will only increase over time as it has been doing.

I'm too pessimistic. There is a solution, but very few will follow it. Isolation. That's my approach, and, to a degree, the approach of many families. Don't answer your phone unless you want to speak to the one calling. That takes “caller ID” and some kind of answering machine, but it's worth it. Ditto your mail. Open it only if the return address is that of someone from whom you want to hear. Throw the rest of the mail out. Don't watch television. Resign from Facebook^® and its analogues. Read a classic every now and then. Think.

I suspect you'll view me as a troglodyte. That's OK. The concerns in previous generations were probably similar, but they didn't act on them and we suffer because of it. Shouldn't we protect future generations from society's advances?






May 1, 2017

Astigmatism

I'm troubled by the Trump presidency, but I accept the results. Perhaps I'm not as nervous as you, but I'm troubled. And there are many who tell me how to think about him.

What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men.

Indeed, another characterization labeled him as

the monumental fakir of history.

Those were the descriptions, however, not of our current leader, but of the first real “progressive” in American history, President Theodore Roosevelt, assessments by H. L. Mencken and Woodrow Wilson (as cited by David Greenberg in his book Republic of Spin, which is well worth reading). What they demonstrate is that even knowledgeable people may have slanted views of figures of their times. The terms they used then were comparable to what is said now about our president.

As I said in a prior message, history is not always correct – and even honest testimony of the times may be wrong. In this case they were misperceptions of honorable people, but they are more often the creations of politicians and their publicists. Those people have the job of convincing you that black is white, if you look at it the “right” way. And they have the responsibility for helping us form all our opinions in the manner they (are paid to) consider correct. And they also help us form images of the personalities they represent. Positive images, of course. Dedicated to truth and the American way. It's thought control.

But for every spinmeister who says “black is white” there is another who maintains that “white is black.” The script doesn't call for the view that black is black and white white. Accurate and objective determination of the facts is not part of the job; the challenge is to convince voters that there is only one way to understand the facts, and they'll tell you what it is, and anyone who disagrees – anyone who interprets events and people differently – is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Of course they are referring to those in the opposing camp.

Ideology is the prism of understanding. It is not only the moral and educated view, but the tool for convincing others of “Truth.” It's not always necessary. Some have internalized the prism and cannot see anything except through it. They're enlightened. Except to those with a different prism who consider them evil, while they themselves are virtuous.

“Spin-artists” are exemplars of this creative activity. They paint the activities of those they represent (and their families) in warm colors and attractive garb performing virtuous acts, while the opponents are depicted pejoratively, as unattractive stick figures out to do evil. And we can have no traffic with evil (except in a close election between unpopular candidates in which it may be necessary to proclaim our choice as the lesser of evils). And if we cannot tolerate evil we certainly cannot compromise with it. In the time until the next election we must stand our ground against those who aren't worthy of our admiration. In fact when the time comes we'll be pointing out whatever those specializing in spin tell us about the errors of the opposition. Almost all campaign publicity will be negative. It will be more a matter of why we should not vote for the opposing candidate than why we should vote for theirs.

When the election is over, then, we're faced with more contention than cooperation; with avoidance rather than action. And too often the supporters of those who were defeated are so convinced that evil has triumphed that they question the results, protest the acts of the winner, and refuse to cooperate with the opposition. Ideological purity, as defined by those hired to sell it, and teach voters to see it positively in every act performed by those they represent, is more important than honesty. Party loyalty and discipline trump doing the job for which the candidate ran, and for which some were elected. It is better to stand up for proclaimed virtue than to sit down and work things out with those whom your pitchmen have depicted as charlatans.

The challenge to us is to tease from the advocacy journalism we face – that of the spin doctors of the press – what we can of acts rather than the depictions of those acts by others. Difficult as it may be our job is to judge on the basis of accomplishments, not on the judgments of those who oppose those accomplishments.

“Spin” is not a new phenomenon nor a recent technique for controlling the mind of the listener, but it is a hindrance to objectivity. It is a barrier to intelligent evaluation. And it can – no, it probably will – obstruct any achievements by our government. That's the job of the practitioners of spin.

Happy Independence Day.  Make your mind independent of those who seek to take it over.

June 20, 2017  

The Sixty-four Dollar Question

It's time to think. And I'm going to help. I have a bunch of questions for you. Even if you don't print them out, remember your answers. Before you answer them, read all of the choices and justify why you agree with them or disagree. You may feel that multiple answers are appropriate for some of the questions, so mark whatever you believe. The marking key comes after the questions, and will be explained then. Please don't cheat and look at it before answering since it may affect your responses. Work with me.

1. The NASA space exploration budget should be
   a. whatever they need to discover the secrets of the Universe.
   b. increased so we can explore our own solar system.
   c. increased at the same rate as Social Security.
   d. limited to whatever is necessary to protect us from other nations.
   e. eliminated.

2. Marriage should
   a. be a religious sacrament with no governmental rules.
   b. be between one man and one woman.
   c. be between two committed people irrespective of their sexes.
   d. involve as large a group as wish it.
   e. be eliminated. It's an outdated concept.

 

3. Darwin's theory
   a. isn't a “theory,” it's a fact.
   b. should be a required subject in every school.
   c. has internal errors and contradictions.
   d. should be taught alongside Creationism.
   e. is an erroneous and harmful fraud.

4. Political officials
   a. have accepted a lower salary in order to perform a public service.
   b. seek benefits not known to the public at large.
   c. view local offices as stepping stones to national ones.
   d. are often untrained for the job they have assumed.
   e. are crooks.

5. The National Debt
   a. is unconscionable and should be eliminated.
   b. can be stabilized if we have a balanced budget.
   c. will be a burden for our grandchildren.
   d. is appropriate and our grandchildren will find a way to deal with it.
   e. is necessary if we are to redistribute resources from the super-rich to the needy.

6. College education
   a. and its associated increased income is a right of all Americans and should be obligatory.
   b. is an option that should be available to all who want it irrespective of background if America is to keep up with the rest of the world.
   c. should be limited to the qualified but supported by the government.
   d. is a dalliance of the rich.
   e. should be eliminated in its present form and replaced by training in useful skills.

7. “Right” and “wrong”
   a. are absolutes that apply to everyone.
   b. are relative concepts that are properly determined by individual societies.
   c. are tools of the rich to establish dominance over the poor.
   d. are suggested guidelines rather than instructions.
   e. are nonsense. You're on your own and you only go around once.

8. Entitlements
   a. are guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
   b. should be paid for out of taxpayers' money even though this may be viewed as income redistribution.
   c. will be most effective if they are international, and they should be managed by the United Nations.
   d. should be decided upon by the people, not politicians.
   e. should be eliminated. No one is “entitled” to what he does not earn.

9. Wagner's music
   a. is uplifting and magnificent.
   b. forms the basis for modern music, like what we have today.
   c. is good, but not great like the work of Bach and Mozart.
   d. is unsettling and it lasts too long.
   e. is anti-Semitic and should be banned.

10. Free speech
    a. has no limits.
    b. should be limited only if its use could lead to physical danger to others.
    c. must not be hateful nor insulting. Some censorship is necessary.
    d. differs from nation to nation. American standards are not generalizable.
    e. does not permit one to make another feel threatened or uncomfortable.

“The sixty-four dollar question” is not a term that is heard very much anymore, having been replaced by “the sixty-four thousand dollar question.” The term originate on a radio quiz show (“Take it or Leave It”) during the 1940s and reflected a reasonable payout for the times and for the medium. Sixty-four dollars in 1940, when the show started, would be worth a little more than $1073 in 2015.

But with a change in medium (radio to TV) and the public desire for excitement, ”The $64,000 Question” was born. (There were also numerous parodies of the program, including 'Bob and Ray's “The 64-Cent Question.”) That's the term used nowadays. And it's understood to designate a very difficult question – usually an issue rather than an actual question.

What I've given you, however, are actual questions, and you'll probably want to know how you did. So here's the way to determine your results:

                              For each question you answered “a,” - 5 points

                                For each question you answered “b,” - 4 points

                                For each question you answered “c,” - 3 points

                                For each question you answered “d,” - 2 points

                                For each question you answered “e,” - 1 point

If you didn't answer the question you have scored 0 points. If you have given multiple answers to any question, add up all the scores, removing the highest and lowest of them.

Add the results.

Multiply by the score for not answering a question.

Add 100.

That is your final score (assuming you're not arithmetically challenged). 100% Congratulations!

The quiz, as you may already have noted, is one of opinions, and yours are just as good as anyone else's (except mine). For you, then, it's a perfect score. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers – only opinions.

But the purpose of the quiz was the asking, not the answering of the questions. The intent was to give you the opportunity to think about some of the issues that have been bothering me. I thought I'd drag you down too. Misery loves company. There are many more problems troubling our society, and the ones I've selected tell you a little about my thought processes but, as I noted above, the goal is for you to consider these topics – to decide what you think about them but, more important, to try to figure out why you feel as you do. Insight is the real reward.

And since your questions are probably different from mine, you may want to consider them. You've probably got anwers already, but give some thought to other possibilities and examine why they are or are not satisfactory. Perhaps you'll change your mind; perhaps you won't. But you'll understand the problem better.

And once again, Congratulations!

Next episode: “All Men Are Created Equal” -- And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Miss Bishop, Mitchell Grossberg, Dr. Ralph Goldin, and Socrates

 

I hated Miss Bishop. She was one of the worst teachers I ever had. I had her twice – in the fifth and seventh grades and I was convinced that she was out to get me. I had always received excellent grades and I was used to having a report card that I was proud to show to my parents. And there was no reason why it shouldn't be a good card. I was one of the smartest, if not THE smartest kid in the school. But she ruined it. She gave me a “U” in something or other. (I can't remember what it was. Its presence under whatever guise was an abomination for me.) Worse. The offending grade was in red ink. It was a positive embarrassment.

I subsequently realized that the “U” must have been the rating I got for effort. Sure I did well. It was easy. But she demanded more of me. She knew I was coasting. And only since have I come to recognize that she was pushing me to accomplish all that was within my reach, and to reach even further. It was up to me. I hated her, but she was one of the best teachers I ever had.

Mitchell Grossberg wasn't one of my teachers. He was a friend – a better friend than I appreciated. Even so, I can only remember one incident in our relationship, but in view of the fact that it probably happened sixty-five years ago or so, the impression it made on me is evident.

We were playing in an overgrown vacant lot. I was about ten or eleven and he was a year older than I. I can't recall how the issue came up but I called someone (probably Miss Bishop) a ____ [expletive deleted]. Mitchell responded by asking me if I knew what the word meant. It must have been obvious to him that I didn't because I used a verb as a noun, and I used an expletive in an age when cursing was far less common than is the case now. When I admitted my ignorance (it was also an age when children knew less about the “birds and the bees” than is true now) he simply told me not to use words I didn't understand. The idea of comprehending what I was discussing has stuck with me. I suspect that he didn't think twice about what happened, but it provided an important lesson for me.

There was a hiatus before the next teaching that affected my approach to the world. It happened during my residency in radiology. I was already a doctor and learning to be a specialist, and I thought I knew everything. In the middle of the night a resident from one of the wards asked me to perform some kind of emergency GI procedure (I forgot long ago what it was) and I argued against it because I didn't think it was indicated at that hour. Rather than fight it for too long or awaken one of the attending physicians to back me up, however, I did what was requested and put off the discussion with my superior until the morning.

The superior was Dr. Goldin, who was both the staff member most experienced in gastrointestinal radiology and a thoughtful and experienced physician. From him I sought a ruling – or really a rule – concerning the indications for the procedure. I wanted to have some criteria I could quote that would justify my refusal should the situation arise again. But he refused me. He didn't say whether I was right or wrong in the particular case, only that there was no rule. Each case had to be evaluated individually. In current jargon, one size doesn't fit all.

But the individual who affected my learning most, and who most influenced my own teaching methods, was one I never met. Indeed he lived, if at all, more than two millennia ago. It was Socrates, as portrayed by Plato. He taught me to think. His lesson encompassed all the others I've described. They were all important, but the example of Socrates, that I have to question everything, and work out all problems for myself, has governed my approach to education – both my own and that of my students – for most of my life. I have learned to ask questions rather than answer them.

In retrospect, none of the three teachers I mentioned prior to Socrates didn't always answer my questions. But all made me think about them. I hope that my students have learned this lesson as well.

Next episode: “They Speak For Themselves” – I said it and I meant it. At least at the time.

Emphasis

I used to think that the most important education we could provide our offspring was in science. Other subjects were time-killers, and of little consequence. It was in our nation's interests, and it was our destiny, to stay ahead of the rest of the world in the development of scientific concepts and tools.

And it reflected the American passion to lead in everything we do: to develop the ideas that would be adopted by the rest of the world. It was the American Way. We were the explorers of the frontiers. We were competing with an ever-enlarging pool of nations determined to replace us both economically and militarily, and we'd stop them.

We were entrepreneurs as well. We'd get it done and show the others how; after all, we had (what we thought to be) the best pedagogy in the world as well as wide exposure of our culture to everyone else. The past was over. Why belabor it? Moving forward was what counted. New education, therefore, was paramount – especially that in the sciences. Early and extensive exposure to the nature of the world around us – to science – and the physical problems we faced, would ensure the interest of our children in those fields. Sadly, it was true.

That's what I used to think. But as I get older I'm less certain. Perhaps I should have become suspicious earlier. Music “Appreciation” taught us to recognize great works by the use of silly mnemonics (“This is Jupiter. This is Jupiter,” “This is the symphony that Schubert wrote but never finished,” “Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning”) and the American “history” in our aged textbooks emphasized what we now view as mythologyⁱ and xenophobia. I'm not sure if our teachers thought that was all our young minds could digest, of if that was all they knew or what they viewed as important. But they underestimated us. And we're the worse for it.

It will probably sound obsolete – perhaps even foolish – but I sometimes think that modern education deprives its consumers of the chance to think. We have outgrown the idea of a classical education, and that is to our detriment. And, to a lesser degree, the American concept of science's superiority is international, though educationally we have been surpassed by many countries. Moreover, we don't believe that our citizens don't need to learn the languages of others (and certainly not Latin and Greek) because everyone else should understand English; we don't have to trouble ourselves with history because our focus is on the present and the future; and if there is a literary reference we don't understand we can surely find the explanation on-line. Not that we're likely to care about music or art, but there are “apps” that will help us identify what we hear and see. (We're already familiar with rock, rap, and comic book art.)

And, of course, Mythology is mythology.

But we're now seeing where that leads. It has become obvious to everyone (painfully obvious to many of us) that fiscal restraints govern the range of what we can teach. It is not original to note that education in the humanities (and physical education as well) is being sacrificed to the gods of science – often to the point of anti-theological indoctrination. In fact, with all of the scientific developments of recent years, most of education is being sacrificed. As Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.”

That's the problem. Why is it important to know history? Anything you may want to know is on line. (That was even true in the time of Yogi Berra – actually he's still alive – who taught “Even Napoleon had his Watergate.”) Do you need to know the product of 497 and 2143? Use your computer's calculator.ⁱⁱ If you need to know how a word is spelled, or what it means, your computer – desk top, notepad, or hand-held – can help out. And you can look anything else you need to know.

Actually, that's part of the problem. Those lacking real intelligence can use the artificial variety. Science has replaced actual books, knowledge, and even reality, with the virtual kind. Science is moving fast. In my view, and that of many others, too fast. Even the law can't keep up. As I mentioned, these ideas are not original. They represent the laments of many of us curmudgeons. For us, it's time to take a break. Slow down. We go too fast. Maybe it's risky. Maybe someone will get ahead of us in some area. So be it. If accurate knowledge of the classics and our history, if exposure to the arts and philosophy, will help us understand ourselves, our world, and its people a little better – if it will remind us how to think creatively – the risk is worth taking.

It will be a long time before humans land on and colonize Mars, taking it away from the “little green men” (though why they should want to do so is beyond me), and it's unlikely that it will foil G-d's eternal plan if it takes a few years longer. In the meantime, they, and everyone else, will benefit if the humanities make them more human.

Next episode: “The Final Perek” – The ? State Solution.

I        We have a new mythology of history now. One of affirmative action, multiculturalism, and a gender agenda. It's just as false as the one we were taught, but it's more in fashion. I'll deal with it another time.

 

ii       By the way, it's 1065071.

The Bible And American Law

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the permissibility of murder in other societies, and the possible benefits of killing of some people in our own. You might favor the death penalty and euthanasia as examples. Or, perhaps, the killing of malformed newborns. In all likelihood the municipality, citing the first amendment and the right to express your opinion, would grant permission.

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the evil of murder in other societies, and the harm that would result from the killing of innocent people in our own. You might decry abortion as one such example. In all likelihood the municipality would cite the first amendment, and the declare the impermissibility of promoting a religious agenda in a property run by the government, and would refuse to grant permission.

If someone stole a car he would be prosecuted for larceny because theft is illegal, and if you presented evidence that would help in the conviction you'd be praised as an upstanding citizen.

If someone performed a homosexual act he would be viewed as a an individual legally exercising his rights. If he declared it proudly he would be considered as brave in exposing himself to public opinion. If you argued against his actions you would be denounced as a religious bigot.

And the person who lies while testifying at a trial will, if caught, be tried, himself, for perjury. False testimony, as we all know, is against the law.

But whoever calls a pagan an enemy of G-d's will, will be sanctioned for hate speech. And if he touches the pagan – perhaps offering a reassuring pat on the shoulder – he has committed assault and it is a hate crime. Opposition to paganism is religious oppression, and those who speak out against it are considered to be in violation of the Constitution. They are sectarian extremists.

Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and paganism are certainly denounced in the Bible, but so are murder, theft, and perjury. In fact, murder, theft, and perjury are forbidden in the Ten Commandmentsⁱ, and should certainly be recognized as religious principles.ⁱⁱ In reality, most of those ideas, and other aspects of what we see as “right” and “wrong,” are important themes in religious works. Yet some we incorporate into the law of the land, and some are prohibited as taboo topics, even for discussion.

Interestingly, it's not just atheists who oppose the discussion of “religious” ideas in public placesⁱⁱⁱ since many religious supporters of the Constitution will cite the “wall of separation” between Church and State and the Constitutional ban on the support of religion by the government. They fear that if such discussion should take place it would lead to the support of a religion, or religion in general, by the state in violation of the First Amendment. It's “slippery slope” argument – the camel's nose concern – the “domino theory” masquerading as Constitutional Law. It's the presumption that the majority can't be relied on to distinguish between right and wrong. People, however virtuous their intent, aren't to be trusted. And the intent of the writers of the founding documents cannot dictate our interpretation of them.

But the laws we follow are of human origin. Whether they were inspired by the Bible or another religious text, or even if they sprang fully formed from the head of some lawmaker, they have the same religious heritage as the concept of “Creationism.” The intent of the proponents of both ideas is the same – to govern human behavior using “just” criteria.^iv Only it is humans who decide which religious laws are “just” and which reflect bigotry. And it reflects our intent now^v rather than that of those who lived in earlier centuries.

That path, however, isn't invariably followed, and sometimes we loudly declare the intent of our predecessors to be a critical factor in deciding the validity of an idea. It is such intent that keeps us from imposing the will of the majority on the minority – sometimes.^vi And the “wall of separation” of which Jefferson wrote in a letter^vii in 1802, is considered a basic Constitutional principle by the Supreme Court, even though Jefferson played no part in the writing of the Constitution and wasn't even in the country at the time.^viii But his intent is considered as relevant to an understanding of that document and our current interpretation of it. There is less sympathy for his views regarding states' rights: that a state could overrule laws passed by Congress that it considered unauthorized by the Constitution.^ix “Intent” is a deciding factor – but only if it supports your preconceived notions.

Some of the Ten Commandments ceased to be religious precepts when they resonated with lawmakers, while others, with which they disagreed, were viewed as blinders of the ignorant. According to those who view themselves as non-believers, there are certain basic strategies by which people can live together and these include the proscription of murder and theft. They reflect what we call “morality.”^x But, it may be argued, it was people who made the decision about what strategies to consider useful to society^xi and which ones to dismiss as inappropriate. And those people saw any rules with which they disagreed as religious and bigoted to those who scorned religion, while they were simply deemed wrong by those who followed a different religion.

However an individual, or a society, decides what is Right and what is Wrong, it cannot be denied that all such judgments come from the same source – whatever you believe that is – and human beings, at various times in the past, chose which would be considered moral and which were to be dismissed as fantasy. As they still do. Arguments that some are “religious precepts” simply reflect the rejection of such ideas and the wish to have them viewed in a negative light. Perhaps we're not prepared to accept everyone's views on all issues, but making their discussion taboo, and limiting people's right to think whatever they want and believe whatever they want only serves to divide us. If we only want to hear what we already believe and ban the expression of different ideas, it's not likely that we'll ever learn or grow.

Banning thoughts and ideas is a more restrictive concept than any you'll find in the Bible. The Constitution ha no place for it and neither should we.

Next episode: “The Devil Made Me Do It” – I'm entitled to be bad.

I        In fact its posting is itself beyond the pale in many communities

ii       Indeed, they are among the most important and famous religious principles that we know.

iii       Or anywhere else for that matter.

iv       Wed like to believe this is the goal of both, but we know that such is not always the case.

v        But it may be different tomorrow. Remember that “now” is always changing.

vi       Most laws apply equally to those who agree with them and those who do not, but are the product of the majority – a majority of Congress. There are times, however, when particular minorities are exempted from the laws – for example conscientious objectors didn't have to fight even when others were subject to the draft, and Congress often exempts its own members from laws it imposes on others. The Supreme Court, moreover, has no hesitation in deciding what the Constitution “means,” sometimes based on its view of the intent of the writers and sometimes in spite of that intent.

vii       To the Danbury Baptist Association.

viii     The original idea wasn't his either. According to Wikipedia, it “echo[ed] the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams – who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" – Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”]

ix        See, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Jefferson was the author.

x        Of course morality is a relative concept, and the standards may differ depending on the society in which you live.

xi       Moreover, since they disagree on morality, it is not surprising that different societies have different views on some of these issues.

Snowden, Aspirin, and Unintended Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ix        New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917.

x        Of 5,963,110 cast.

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

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

xiii    "Fortunately” it seemed at the time.

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

xv      And flavoring is less important.

xvi     Or both.

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

Cogito Ergo Sum – Pars II

                                                                                                           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i           But I'll say it anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii      As will many scientists.