The Lap of Luxury

Jayden Smith doesn't think much of school. In a recent statement, the scion of actors Will and Jada Smith declared that "School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth." The young Smith went on to declare that "if Everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." Perhaps Smith's capitalization of every word was done in intentional defiance of the English language. Perhaps he just doesn't know any better. In either case it makes no difference to Smith. So far from thinking education is important, the young Smith asserts his belief that "if Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth." Fortunatley for him, his lifestyle will never be dependent on his grammar. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form, write a letter, or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things. 

Jayden can be excused for his hubris. He has simply seized hold of the fundamental flaw in modern educational theory. That flaw is the belief that education should serve an economic purpose. The education of our youth should be measured by the extent that education maximizes economic activity. Our schools should be focused on creating productive, useful citizens, not navel gazing philosophers, dusty historians, and idle English majors. Princlings like Jayden need no skills. They contemplate no trade. They need not squander time learning about things that will not be useful to satisfying their appetites. Jayden has what he needs and what he doesn't have he can get. Most likely Jayden always will.

Jayden doesn't need to know what is in the U.S. Constitution, why the U.S. fought WWI, or how to conjugate verbs. A recent image released by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope shows an enormous collection of galaxies and star clusters in stunning detail. Hubble spied 10,000 or so of the estimated 160,000 globular star groupings thought to reside in the huge galaxy cluster. Jayden won't know that either unless someone tells him. I am sure that is the sort of thing Jayden doesn't think is worth knowing. Why should he care? How can that possibly affect his career plans or add to his enjoyment of life? What possible use can such information be to Jayden?

"School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth," he went on, "Education Is Rebellion. If Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth."
Finally, Smith declared that "if everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." The young Smith can afford ignorance. He can afford to do whatever he wants to do. The vast majority of mankind cannot. They have to work for what they want. Increasingly in our modern world, that work requires knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through education. Jayden does not need work therefore he does not need education.

As the U.S. continues to slip in world literacy rankings Jayden proudly boasts of his illiteracy. He holds out that the solution to life's difficulties and travail is not to work hard and labor to improve one's intellect, but to be rich, or at least have rich parents. Will Smith declared "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. They won't tell him to mow the lawn. That's what gardeners are for.

Jayden wrapped up his thoughts by answering a question put to him by others: "People Use To Ask Me What Do You Wanna Be When You Get Older And I Would Say What A Stupid Question The Real Question Is What Am I Right Now?" He is the pampered son of two fabulously wealthy Hollywood celebrities, that what he is right now.

Knowledge for its own sake is a concept completely foreign to a mind like Smith's. Knowledge must serve a particular purpose. In today's world that purpose is predominantly to acquire wealth. Smith does not need wealth. He has it. Therefore he has no need for knowledge. Without a proper education, Jayden's imagination will be crimped and limited to those things that catch his attention. But that is OK, Jayden can afford to live in that world.

If everyone took young Mr. Smith's advice and dropped out of school who would write those wonderful books and scripts that have made his parents so much money? Who would invent all those wonderful gadgets and toys that amuse him and his friends? Who would check to make sure his family's finances were in order? He lives in the bubble of the present. It is a very comfortable bubble.

Should young Mr. Smith ever grow weary of illiteracy and making ignorant statements he can afford to hire people who will write intelligent things for him to say. In the mean time, he will rely on others to know things just in case he has a question or needs something done. Said Will of his son., "he is definitely not going anywhere; he is so scared of being out on his own." Indeed.

After careful thought, the young Mr. Smith concluded that "All The Rules In This World Were Made By Someone No Smarter Than You. So Make Your Own." If the world could afford to, I am sure it would. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things.  Should he ever have a question he can just pay someone to find the answer and explain it to him. He can afford ignorance.

Said Jayden's proud parents, "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. Jayden does not need to go to school. He can afford to hire people who went to school.

Sorry

In the news, it was reported that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a state visit planed for next month over revelations that the US National Security Agency has been intercepting emails and messages from Ms Rousseff, and her aides. The U.S. surveillance came to light in documents leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
 
The White House said Mr Obama had telephoned Ms Rousseff on Monday to discuss the matter. In a phone call to Rousseff, the president promised to investigate the incident. In the mean time, the president expressed his regrets and his concerns over any unpleasantness US intelligence activities may have generated in Brazil. The president went on and vowed that he is committed to doing what he can to ameliorate any hard feelings on the part of Rousseff and her government in regard to the U.S.'s espionage efforts as well as his hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can continue to work together on issues of mutual importance. He hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can "move beyond this issue as a source of tension in our bilateral relationship," In his message, Obama expressed his regrets over any concerns caused by the disclosure of the espionage. In consistency with U.S. policy, absent in Obama's statement was any apology for the espionage itself. As the documents are revealing, nothing and no one is off limits. It is reasonable to conclude that the U.S.'s response to the matter will not be to curtail such activities, but to exercise greater diligence in maintaining the secrecy of future efforts, if for no other reason than to prevent future embarrassments for other world leaders. The U.S. has acquired a voracious appetite for information. It will be hidden. It will be denied. It will be apologized for when necessary. It will never be sated.

The president did not apologize for U.S. intelligence activities. He apologized for the discomfort that their revelation may have caused. He may well have said "I am sorry if you catching my friends going through your things has caused you any distress. It had to be done. I will make a greater effort in the future to protect you from the embarrassment of catching them. In the mean time I hope we can still be friends." What regret there is in Washington is not over spying on our friends, it is over being caught spying on our friends.

 

Finding a Niche

Senator Ted Cruz, the firebrand Republican Senator from Texas, has staked out a position on U.S. foreign policy. Cruz has stated that U.S. policy should be guided by "three simple principles". Those principals are A) a narrow focus on protecting U.S. interests, B) a clear statement of "moral clarity", and C), when the U.S. does commit its military, it should be to win. It is indeed a clear and bold statement on what U.S. policy should be. Beyond a succinct sound bite however, the principles put forward out by Cruz are not simple, far from it. They are the messy guts in the sausage factory that is U.S. foreign policy.

In order to  narrowly focus on U.S. interests, those interests must be clear and devoid of complicating details. Let us glance at Egypt. Recently, the democratically elected government was overthrown by the military. Was the the coup in U.S. interests? That remains to be seen. In the short term, a stable and orderly government that can be relied upon to maintain the status quo in Egypt is in our interests. But if the coup serves to radicalize the opposition and reinforce undemocratic elements in the region by demonstrating the impotency, and ultimate futility of elections, our efforts to spread democracy in the region will be severely undermined. Is there a clear statement of U.S. policy to be made in regards to Egypt? Is there moral clarity? Is the will of the Egyptian people more or less in line with U.S. sensibilities than public order? Where do our interests lie? Do we seek to nurture a nascent, if disorderly, democracy or do we throw our support behind a heavy handed and more predictable military autocracy? A narrow focus might simplify things in the short run but unforeseen consequences await us in the future.

Similarly, "moral clarity" is an elusive idea rarely found in the real world. It is rarely found because it rarely exists. Morals are a fundamentally subjective concept. They vary from person to person, culture to culture, nation to nation and age to age. A person might possess "moral clarity" but a nation cannot. At best a nation might possess a consensus regarding what morality consists of, but clarity is always in jeopardy as sensibilities and populations change. What is morally clear today was not morally clear a generation ago. There was no moral conundrum in WWI when chemical weapons were used. The U.S. did not stay awake at night wrestling with the moral implications of carpet bombing cities or whether to drop atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. The U.S. showed little reluctance in dropping napalm and using chemical defoliants, white phosphorous or sending B-52s over Hanoi in Vietnam. The U.S. has also retained the option of a nuclear first strike if it is felt the situation demands it.  The use of any particular weapon by the U.S. will be determined by leaders in Washington, not international treaties or conventions. Exactly what that situation might be we alone will decide, even in the absence of "moral clarity". You cannot expect nations to eschew using weapons they deem necessary if their survival is at stake. International "moral clarity" is a modern concept that represents little more than the consensus of any number of nations in regard to the way things happen to be at the moment.

The simple principles put forward by Cruz are not clear. U.S. interests vary from situation to situation. Moral clarity does not exist outside the human mind. Commitment to winning a conflict depends entirely on the the object hoped to be achieved. If by bombing Syria we hope to degrade government capabilities it is likely we will succeed. If it is to achieve a more stable and democratic Middle East it is likely we will fail. By supporting the military in Egypt, the door we worked so hard to open in the region will be closed as the ballot box will no longer be viewed as a reliable method for achieving political aspirations. Another lesson that can be drawn from recent events is the need for governments to be more vigilant in stifling dissent lest a mob rise up and clamor for democracy and thereby create opportunity for international intervention.

Cruz hopes to find a political niche. He seeks to erase moral ambiguity by boldly asserting a clear and forceful U.S. policy on when to involve itself in a conflict. In doing so he would create a reflexive and unthinking approach to foreign policy guaranteed to harm U.S. interests and send us lurching from crisis to crisis. The world is a messy and complicated place. It requires understanding, nuance and subtlety: principles Cruz would eschew in his pursuit of clarity.

We have done an admirable job in this country in keeping kids from smoking. Now, if we can just get them to pay attention in school and stop eating like pigs, we might be OK

Setting a Good Example

It is reported some time back that hospitals and medical businesses have begun to adopt strict rules intended to weed out smokers in their midst. Increasingly, they are refusing to hire people who smoke or use tobacco. Some employers are reaching beyond the workplace and administering urine tests to screen out tobacco users. Two reasons are given for the adoption of strict policies against tobacco use. First is the concern over appearances. It is felt by some in the medical profession that smoking by health care workers sets a bad example. Secondly, there are economic concerns. People who use tobacco tend to have more health problems than those who don't. Because of that, they increase health care costs and diminish productivity when they fall ill. In this reasoning, the medical profession is simply falling into line with the economic casuists in evaluating human behavior in terms of costs and benefits.

While the move can be considered part of the growing impatience with tobacco users in this country, there is a more troubling component to this thinking that even those who do not use tobacco should be concerned about. If health and economic productivity are to be prime measures of human behavior, the door which is being pushed against will be kicked wide open. Many habits and behaviors work against health and undermine economic productivity. Chief among those are eating poorly and not exercising. The health and economic costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed the costs of tobacco. Over 30% of Americans are currently obese. Obesity is defined as being 30 or more pounds overweight. While the number of smokers goes down every year, the number of obese goes up. People who are overweight are more prone to injury and illness and more likely to miss time at work than those who are not overweight. From diabetes and heart disease, to bad knees and fatigue, overweight people cost time and money.

If the health care industry is going to ban tobacco use by employees in order to set a good example, they should do something about overweight doctors and nurses as well. They should consider penalizing health care workers who are over weight. They should also prohibit them from eating hot dogs, french fries, and other unhealthy foods, at least in public. If a doctor smoking a cigarette sends a bad message, what message does an overweight doctor eating a cheeseburger send?

Welcome to the Future

Welcome to the United States of America, where everyone is a suspect. It has been revealed that the federal government is engaged in the largest data collection program in the history of mankind. Emails, phone calls, toll tags, the Internet, credit cards, traffic cameras, drone surveillance, spy satellites, DNA, facial recognition, and more, are all being consolidated into one huge data base that will span the globe and allow the government to monitor and identify every single person in the U.S. and beyond.  The jigsaw puzzle lives of Americans is being put together by the NSA.

The FBI has claimed the authority to secretly sweep up voluminous amounts of private information from data aggregates for data mining purposes. In 2007 the FBI said it amassed databases containing 1.5 billion records, which were predicted to grow to 6 billion records by 2012, or equal to "20 separate ‘records' for each man, woman and child in the United States." When Congress sought information about one of these programs, the FBI refused to give the Government Accountability Office access. That program was temporarily defunded, but its successor, the FBI Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, currently has 360 staff members running 40 separate projects. Records show analysts are allowed to use data mining tools to establish (not investigate) "risk scores" for U.S. persons. A 2013 IG audit questioned the task force's effectiveness, concluding it "did not always provide FBI field offices with timely and relevant information."

More than a few seek to minimize the reach and scope of the government's data collection efforts. They argue that rapidly evolving technology provides "obligations and opportunities that never existed before".  They are correct, the opportunity open to the government has proven irresistible. The ability of the government and others to collect and analyze data is near impossible for the layperson to comprehend. Indeed, most Americans likely have no clue to the extent to which they are open to observation. Cell phones, traffic cameras, credit cards, and Internet tracking all provide windows into the personal lives of Americans. Rapidly evolving computer technology makes possible the ability to vacuum up the trail of bread crumbs Americans leave behind as they go about their lives and organize those crumbs into the loafs that are their lives.

The U.S. government is engaged in the largest data collection program in the history of mankind. It makes Big Brother look like an amateur. Emails, phone calls, toll tags, the Internet, credit cards, traffic cameras, drone surveillance, spy satellites, DNA, facial recognition, and more, are all being consolidated into one huge data base that will span the globe and allow the government to monitor and identify every single person in the U.S. and beyond. It was revealed that nearly every phone call made in the U.S. has been logged. Sure, they may not have been listened to, but they can be. They are on file should the government have occasion to take interest in someone. The issue however is not what is done or not done with the data collected, it is that the data was collected in the first place. Suppose the government had compiled a complete profile on you. Would you sleep easier believing no one had looked at it yet? Or would it trouble you that there was a profile on you to begin with?

Some are attempting to minimize the threat that government surveillance poses to our liberty by asserting that there is no evidence that PRISM, the government surveillance program at the heart of the issue, is being misused. We are assured that the program is operating to our benefit. But how can that be determined if the program is secret? The vast majority of Americans did not even know the program existed until Snowden blew the whistle on it. Others may have been aware that the government was collecting data and monitoring the Internet, but very few had any clue as to how wide a net the government was casting and that the government was collecting the phone records of every American. The effort put in to protect the program from the public eye was exceeded only, but the effort to create the program.

The reason given by the government for collecting the records is that it will provide authorities not only the information needed to ferret out plots before they come to fruition, but also to provide a comprehensive data base. What is neglected in this argument is that the data being collected is the lives of the American people. The government is not tapping the phones of suspected mobsters or tracking down Internet pedophiles. It is not pursuing a drug cartel through the brush. It is collecting data on everyone, everywhere. School teachers, mechanics, truck drivers are all being caught up in the dragnet without the slightest hint that they are being monitored.

What is truly remarkable about the revelations of the size and scope of the government's data collection efforts is the muted response on the part of the general public. By and large the public has met the news with a shrug. Perhaps people feel that the ordinariness of their lives will keep the government from taking an interest in them. Even if the government did turn its eye towards them, what would it learn?  That they like to watch Gilligan's Island and eat ice cream? That they belong to the local gym and have a kid on the school soccer team?  These are the people who will carry on a phone conversation in public oblivious to the fact that everyone can hear. Maybe it is due to life in the age of facebook. In the age of facebook people have become comfortable in making public every aspect of their lives. The more people who know what they do, where they go, and what they like, the better. Facebook is their own, personal paparazzi. In that light, what difference does it make if the government is watching and listening? Maybe the government will sign up and follow their posts. Who doesn't want as many people as possible tuning in to their antics and exploits?

It has repeatedly been asserted that only people with something to hide fear scrutiny. For those who hold this belief, privacy is no longer a right unto itself that needs no justification, it is only important as a means to an end. Where privacy does not serve a specific end, such as the case with priests and doctors, it is frequently viewed as little more than a convenience.  Privacy has become only of situational importance. People who would protest their neighbor listening to their phone calls and reading their mail easily brush off government surveillance. The fact that their neighbor is no threat to their liberty carries no weight with such people.

Where are the agitators and protesters? Most of this is being done in secret. Where is the public outrage? Just because Obama is a democrat should be no reason to ignore what he is doing. Once the police state is set up, it will not go away. The way technology is developing, the U.S. government will soon make Big Brother look like an amateur. Neither should we harbor any illusion that the steps taken to "protect" the nation are temporary measures to be abandoned once the war on terror is won. Like the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror will be endless. The security apparatus being erected in Washington is here to stay.   Even, or rather especially, if it succeeds it will never be dismantled. Tranquility and peace will be directly attributed to it. Any attempt to trim it will be met with protest that the nation will be put at risk if the bulwark that keeps terrorists at bay is weakened. Like the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror will be endless. Unlike the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror threatens to sweep every American in because every American is a potential suspect. We cannot know who the suspects are so we suspect everyone to be safe.

If we are not careful, we might soon find that we are only one spectacular terrorist attack away from a police state. The machine is being assembled. It will only take a word to turn it on.

Good News, I Guess

It was reported today that, for the first time in the 5 years Barrak Obama has been president, the budget deficit will be under $1 trillion. It was announced that the projected deficit for the current fiscal year will be $759 billion. Of course the report does not take into account variables such as a war, or an economic downturn. How can it? Such variables would throw a wrench into any economic forecast. With every dollar stretched, there is no cushion to absorb any shock. Naturally, the news was greeted with enthusiasm by the administration. They finally have something concrete to point to in their assertions that they have turned things around.

Good news, I suppose, but in a very qualified way.  It is akin to reporting an air crash in which no one was killed and calling it "good news".