On becoming 75

I reached the three-quarter century mark last month, well past the traditional three score and ten, and certainly out of warranty by now, and was thinking last night (as I drove to the airport) about what it means to get that old. Of course most of the members of my age cohort are now beginning to replace knees and hips, acquire hearing aids and pacemakers and stronger glasses, and many are beginning to fight the diseases of old age, such as cancer (I have had my own turn at radiation treatment). And an increasing number of my old friends and classmates and colleagues are beginning to turn up in obituaries. And in fact I ache a bit more than I used to, and find it harder to work upside down under a sink or on my knees in the garden.

One could become depressed at this, but then as my father-in-law used to say “old age is a gift denied many”. On the positive side, I have had almost 40 years now with my beloved spouse and best friend in the world, I have three healthy and happily married children of whom I am inordinately proud, and three grandchildren whom I love dearly and am enjoying watch unfold into young adulthood. And with the perspective of age I see the world much more clearly than I did when I was younger, and I appreciate it more. I think that is a worthwhile trade for a little added discomfort.

There is a sign on the wall of our fitness center that says “Old age is not for wimps”. That is true. It takes patience, fortitude, and more than a little humor to live a worthwhile old age, but it sure beats the alternative.

Thoughts on Edward Snowden and the PRISM scandal

There is a good deal of debate on the internet about whether Edward Snowden, the ex-CIA contractor who revealed secrets about the government’s extensive surveillance activities, is a criminal or a hero. After thinking about it for some weeks, and reading a lot of opinions, I guess I think he is both. He certainly broke the law by revealing classified information, which makes him a criminal. Yet we as a nation really needed to know the unprecedented extent to which the government had expanded its surveillance activities against US citizens, so to the extent that he knowingly undertook the dangers of revealing this information, he is also a hero in the mold of Daniel Ellsworth and the Pentagon Papers.

The administration argues that all this data collection has already prevented some terrorist activities, and I don’t doubt that it has. But is that an adequate justification for such a wide ranging invasion of privacy? There are lots of things that would make law enforcement, and detection and prosecution of crimes, easier. Putting an electronic tracker on every person would certainly help, but are we willing to let the government do that? (In fact, everyone who carries a cell phone already carries a personal tracker). Putting surveillance cameras in every room of our homes would no doubt detect more crimes, but are we prepared to let the government do that?

The fourth amendment to the US constitution expressly forbids “unreasonable searches”:

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized 

By “unreasonable searches “ it means searches done simply as “fishing expeditions”, without some reason to suspect a crime. That is why police have to go before a judge and request a warrant, and why the judge has to see some reasonable evidence of a probable crime before they will issue that warrant. In theory that is going on with the government’s secret United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but in fact that court seems to have approved almost every request put to it (all but 11 of the 33,942 warrants requested up though 2012), which suggests that it isn’t setting a very high bar.

My own sense is that wholesale collection of metadata about every phone call made in the US fits the definition of a “fishing expedition”, or an unreasonable search. The government argues that in fact, while it does collect and store all that information, it can only access it under specific guidelines and with a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That would be more convincing if the process of applying for such warrants was more open. Since it is done in secret, essentially in a Star Chamber, it is ripe for misuse and abuse, such as surveillance of political opponents. We have already seen that sort of abuse in, for example, the administration of President Nixon, and more recently in the IRS scandal about conservative groups.

I am reminded of Ben Franklin’s words “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”. And of a quote from James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

More on Zimmerman trial

I notice in passing that while the nation is up in arms about one shooting in Florida last year, there were 48 shootings in Chicago alone just this last weekend, 11 of them fatal, and apparently encompassing all the racial possibilities – white shooting white, black shooting black, white shooting black and black shooting white.  Strange how none of that made the national news, or is being commented upon by the usual civil rights figures, or causing demonstrations in the streets. 

Chicago is more dangerous to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, at least in terms of casualties.

Where is our sense of proportion?

The George Zimmerman verdict

I see that there are protests across the nation today in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman (accused of murder after he shot a black teenager who was, at the time, apparently on top of him and pummeling him). Predictably, knee-jerk civil rights activist like Al Sharpton are calling for the Federal Government to find a way to retry him for the same event. (Would Al be so keen if it was a black guy who shot a white teenager? I don't think so, because that has happened a number of times without any public response from Sharpton.)

NBC of course made the whole issue much worse by airing an edited version of the exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher he was talking to at the time;  The edited version, deliberately edited to make Zimmerman look racist, went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

And of course that is all most people have ever heard.  The actual exchange, which paints a very different picture, went like this: 

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

In any case, I think for once President Obama got it right when he commented that although many may disagree with the verdict, it was the unanimous verdict of a jury who heard ALL the evidence, and under our system that trumps anyone else's less-informed opinion, as it should. They apparently concluded, after listening to weeks of evidence, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on that charge. American law does not allow a person to be tried a second time for the same crime (as used to happen in less democratic nations if the powers that be didn't like the original verdict). It would be a travesty for the Federal government to try him again, even if they use the fiction of trying him on a different charge (civil rights violation).

There is some evidence that Zimmerman was a bit of a vigilante, and may have suspected the victim in the first place because he was young and black, but the reality apparently is (a) that neighborhood had been burglarized repeatedly by young black men (so suspecting another one is not so unreasonable), and (b) the victim was indeed physically attacking Zimmerman at the time he was shot.

This is, I think, another case where populist emotion and political ideology is overwhelming common sense. He was tried. A jury didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. Case closed.

Human stupidity

We have just returned from a three-week trip to Britain, and I spent an hour today catching up on the accumulated copies of The Economist that were in the mail. Unfortunately the thing that stood out most clearly in all that reading is the endemic stupidity of the human race. From the dysfunctional political systems around the world (including our own here in America to those in the European Union to those in hapless South America and African nations to Indian's, Pakistan's, China's and Russia's) to the self-defeating policies of left-wing and right-wing groups to the religious wars, humans all over the globe seem as hell-bent now on doing stupid things as they have been throughout recorded history.

There are certainty many issues on which there are legitimate differences of opinion as to causes or best solutions - I don't count those arguments as stupid.

What is truly stupid is waging wars over religious differences (eg: Shia vs Sunni, Catholic vs Protestant). What is truly stupid is waging expensive wars when it is not necessary and there is no pressing national interest at stake (eg: Afghanistan, Iraq).  What is truly stupid is launching expensive social programs, or promising expensive pensions when there is no possible way to pay for them over the long term (eg: EU welfare states, US Obamacare). What is truly stupid and self-defeating is preventing the immigration of the best and brightest from other nations (eg: US immigration policies, the immigration policies of many European nations).  What is truly stupid is ignoring or denying compelling scientific data (eg: climate change, nutrition studies).  What is truly stupid and self-defeating is allowing the systems that educate our young - the workers and leaders of tomorrow - to remain in the hands of incompetent bureaucracies (eg: most nations in the world, including especially the US).

The past three weeks of The Economist report instances of all of these stupidities, and many more, throughout the world, just in the past three weeks.  It is enough to make even an optimist despair.

“Free and fair” elections

The US media has been making much of the overthrow of an Egyptian president elected in “free and fair” elections. This plays into a prevalent fantasy among American politicians and US media that somehow popular elections create democracy. In fact, democracy is a fragile flower that requires a specific set of shared cultural values which are not often found, and certainly not in a country coming out of decades of authoritarian rule.

The Egyptian elections were apparently “free and fair” to the extent that no one seems to have stuffed the ballot boxes or tinkered with the counts, as has happened recently in places like Russia and Iran.  But it was hardly a level playing field.  After Mubarik’s overthrow, the only group that was well organized was the Muslim Brotherhood, so of course they won the elections. It was hardly an informed decision by the majority of the population.

But then, are American elections “free and fair” when corporations and unions can pour millions into campaigns, or when incumbents (at least in Congress) have free postage and free media exposure?

Recommended: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

As is so often the case, American media is discussing the Egyptian unrest in terms of American world-views, not Egyptian world-views, which means that much of the media commentary on this issue is meaningless.  Adam Garfinkle has a great article in his National Interest blog: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name. He gives a much better context to this event than anything else in the American press that I have read.

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name