Tragedy Amplified; Lessons Not Learned

The shooting in Aurora, Colorado has dominated the national news for the past week, but why?  Yes, the shooting was a tragedy for those involved, their friends and their families.  I do not mean to minimize that.  But we are a country of 300,000,000 people, while 12 people died in Aurora.  Approximately the same number die ever day in car accidents.  Those deaths are just as painful and tragic.  Even more people die each day from cancer, heart disease and other causes.  So why do we spend so much time focusing on an incident like what occurred in Aurora, while the real dangers to public health are relegated to the bottom of the news?

The simple answer is that the theater shooting was spectacular and unusual.  An unusually disturbed man took action in a very unusual and violent way.  Such incidents get people's attention, sell newspapers, create hits on websites and get eyeballs on TV screens.  That is the obvious reason why the news media pays so much attention to Aurora.  It gets people's attention; it is entertainment that sells.

This perverse form of entertainment is not good for us as a society.  It scares the daylights out of some people, making them unhappy and causing them to do silly things like not got to the movies for fear of being shot.  It makes people believe that we live in an incredibly violent society.  Perhaps our society is violent, but the manner in which the media replays a single violent over and over makes it feel far more violent than it really is.  And, in the end, it may make society more violent; recent news reports reveal that gun sales are up almost 50% in Colorado since the shooting.

The real lessons of Aurora, such as they are, seem to go unnoticed.  The shooting occurred because a highly disturbed individual was able to get his hands on guns and ammunition.  The only ways to prevent future incidents is to limit access to guns and ammunition, and to improve our mental health care system.  But those lessons seem to have gone by the wayside.

An Old Story with a New Twist: Weapons of Mass Technology

Long ago,  the amount of harm a single individual could do was relatively limited.  A man with a club could kill, but not very efficiently.  Over time, humans developed arrows, metal armor, guns and tanks.  In the last century, we invented nuclear weapons that could destroy entire cities, and indeed threatened to wipe out all of human civilization.  Somehow, we managed to avoid that fate, at least so far.  Yet, the mere existence of nuclear weapons alters the way in which we respond to rogue states, such as North Korea.

Recently, the story of ever-increasing power to destroy has taken a new twist.  High tech weapons such as drone planes, cyber attacks and biological weapons have been in increasingly in the news.  This morning, NPR suggested that drone planes may soon be the size of insects.  While the specifics of these new weapons and methods of attack are unclear, at least to me, the overall path of history is plain for all to see.  As we humans become more sophisticated in general, we will become better and better at inflicting damage on each other.  It will become easier and easier for fewer (and less intelligent and less well-financed) individuals to inflict more harm on others.

Certainly, we can work on defensive measures.  Cyber security can counter cyber attacks, at least to some extent.  Radar can, one hopes, detect some drone planes.  But it seems clear that offensive weapons will always outstrip defensive ones.  And, as weapons become more effective, the damage done when just one offensive weapon gets through increases.  

The only solution I can see is to discourage people from using these weapons in the first place.  We must create a world in which people see all other humans as part of the "in-group."  We must create more wealth equality, so that everyone has something to lose.  It is not an easy solution, by any means, but it is the only one that can work.  

Why Words Hurt

I've had this post in my mind for some time, but have hesitated writing it because I am afraid some will find it unnecessarily offensive. I apologize in advance if your sensibilities are hurt; I assure you, that is not my intention, although perhaps that is inevitable in some cases. On balance, however, I believe it is important enough to justify some hurt feelings. So here goes:

This post is about the word "nigger," a word that has become so offensive that most people will not utter the word, nor write it down. For example, the media learned that presidential candidate Rick Perry owned a property that a previous owner had dubbed "Niggerhead." Perry owned the property for years before changing the name. In reporting the story, the media almost uniformly refused to use the word "nigger." Instead, they used euphemisms that suggested the real name.

I find the refusal to utter a word to be highly counterproductive because it only serves to make the word more offensive and shocked when it is used by those who seek to offend.

To be perfectly clear, I find the word "nigger" to be highly offensive, and I certainly do not condone anyone actually using the word, e.g., calling someone a "nigger" or referring to someone as a "nigger" behind their back. But saying the word, as in reporting that, "Rick Perry's failure to change the name of his ranch from 'Niggerhead' to something else shows that he is grossly incentive to Blacks" is not in the least bit offensive nor racist.

The word "nigger" comes from the word "negro," spoken with a Southern accent. While the word "negro" was not in any way offensive at the time, most Southerners who spoke the word no doubt held Blacks in disdain and treated them like sub-humans. It is easy to see how the Southern utterance "nigger" soon came to make people's skin crawl.

The socially correct word for people of African descent has changed over time, as has the socially correct for disabled people and many other groups. The reason for this is related to the origin of the word "nigger." A group of people is mistreated or looked down upon by society in general. As a result, when the then-current word is used in conversation, it is usually in a negative fashion. Eventually, negative connotations build up around the word. Those who are more sympathetic to the group in question become offended, and demand a new word.

But, if society does not change, the new word also eventually builds up negative connotations as well. Those who are more sensitive or sympathetic demand another new word. And so a word that was introduced in order to avoid an older and offensive word can itself become offensive. I love how Berkeley Breathed played on that cycle of new words in an old Bloom County cartoon. The dialogue below involves the character Steven Dallas, who is learning to be more sensitive, and his older parents, who just doesn't seem to get it:

Mom: That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside.

Steve: "Colored"? You're saying "colored people" in 1988? You know better, Ma.

Mom: Then why the "National Association for Colored People? I don't think Negroes mind at all.

Steve: Don't say "Negroes," Ma! You can't say "Negroes"!

Mom: Can I say "United Negro College Fund"?

Steve: You are baiting me, Ma!

Dad: That's it. We're leaving.

Mom: Stay put, Reginald. "Mister Socially Sensitive"isn't finished shaming his parents into enlightenment.

Steve: Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the the New-Age term "People of Color."

Mom: People of Color.

Steve: People of Color.

Mom: Colored people.

Steve: NO!!

Dad: We're leaving.

An interesting counter-example is the word "queer." Gays took this word and made it their own, thus changing the negative connotation. Similarly, the Republican party has taken the positive word "liberal" and managed to give it a negative connotation by repeating the word in a negative light, over and over. I certainly do not believe that we need to try that with "nigger"; better to leave that word to die off. But we can understand that not saying the word is not making things any better.

Perhaps the bigger and more important lesson is that words only mean what we agree that they mean. Changing the words does not change reality. Calling the Navaho "Native Americans" or "First Nationers" rather than "Indians" is not going to get us anywhere if we do not start treating Navaho people better. Absent better treatment of the group, we can expect the name to keep changing every ten or twenty years.

Thought Experiment for my Straight Friends

Imagine that you grew up in a world dominated by gays, where straight people were called "fags" and teased mercilessly at school. Imagine that movies and television focussed almost exclusively on same-sex relationships, and that any straight characters who did appear were portrayed as stereo-typed weirdos. Imagine that the only straight people you ever actually saw were treated as outcasts by the rest of society, and that you attended a Church where the minister told you that a relationship with a person of the opposite sex was a sin in the eyes of God, punishable by spending all eternity in hell. Imagine that marriage between a man and a woman was illegal.

How do you imagine this kind of upbringing would have impacted you? Specifically, how do you think this would effect your ability to form and maintain a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, even assuming that you could find someone with the courage to have such a relationship with you? How would your life be different? How would you be different?

There is no question that the treatment of gays has improved tremendously over the past 20 years. Back then, gay marriage was not on anyone's radar. But then again, neither was a Black president of the United States. So things have changed, and it seems that the tide is moving inexorably in the right direction.

Republican Treason

Rick Perry, the leading Republican candidate, recently referred to social security as a "Ponzi scheme." He further stated that telling young people that they will receive benefits when they retire is a "monstrous lie."

It is Perry, and the rest of the Republicans, who are the scam artists. Perry knows that what he is saying is, at best, a gross overstatement. His goal is not to inform, but rather to misinform. He knows that if he can convince people that they cannot rely on social security, they will support reducing or eliminating the entire program, a key element in the Republican agenda.

Playing fast and loose with the truth is not treason, but other Republican tactics are. The Republicans are presently engaged in a war on our own economy, knowing that Obama's chances of reelection are far lower if we are still in a recession come Fall of 2012. The Republicans are willing to damage their own country to achieve the key item on their agenda: making sure that Obama is a one-term president. That is treason.

And these treasonous tactics are nothing new. The Republican party regularly sabotages government institutions -- ranging from public schools, to FEMA, to the EPA -- by shackling them with absurd regulations such as "No Child Left Behind" that are designed to cause failure. Similarly, the Republicans appoint incompetent or willfully negligent individuals to leadership positions within those institutions. The Republicans then point to the institutional failure they have caused and demand that the institutions be shut down.

Willfully causing our a government institution to fail to advance one's own agenda is treason, even if that institution is not the armed forces.

Republicans Seem Determined to Destroy the Economy in an Attempt to Keep Obama from Getting Re-Elected

The Republicans created the recent budget and debt ceiling crisis for one reason: they seek to destroy our economy, and thus prevent Barack Obama from being re-elected in 2012. What they did was tantamount to treason, and will cause untold misery in the United States and elsewhere by derailing the nascent economic recovery. We need to call the Republicans out on what they did, and hold them accountable in the next election.

The Republicans, like everyone else, know what it takes to get a country out of recession: spending. Yet, they insisted on just the opposite, demanding cuts in spending at what they knew to be exactly the wrong time. And, by acting irrationally, they intentionally panicked the stock market, with predictable results.

The basic economic facts are not complicated, nor in meaningful dispute. The solutions are fairly straightforward. I propose:

We need to spend money to get the economy out of the current recession. At the same time, our infrastructure -- roads, bridges, electrical power grids -- are in need of repair. In addition, there are projects, like the high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, that would be highly beneficial. The obvious solution is to get to work on these projects. In the short run, the spending will stimulate the economy, creating jobs at levels ranging from engineers to construction workers. In the long run, this kind of spending will leave us with capital improvements that will improve the economy and our standard of living for years to come.

Similarly, we should invest in education. Among other things, we should hire more teachers and pay them more. Teachers do not make much money, and they therefore spend a higher percentage of every additional dollar they receive (unlike the rich, who are more like to save a dollar they receive in tax cuts). And, education is just another form of investment. A child who is educated is more likely to earn a good living, pay taxes, invent useful things and otherwise be a benefit to society as a whole. We spend the money now, we get a return on our investment later.

Spending on war, by contrast, is of little or no economic benefit. War creates nothing. Bombs blow up, and they are gone. A solider who spends a year in Iraq could instead by creating something of value here, or anywhere else for that matter. A bomb or missile just blows up and is gone. Military hardware wears out, and while it is still operational, does not add to our economy anyway.

Cutting taxes on the rich is the least effective way to stimulate the economy. Give a poor man a dollar, and he will almost certainly spend it. That means someone else will earn that dollar. Give a rich man a dollar and he may well put it in the bank. At best, that lowers interest rates by making more money available to lend. But, interest rates are already low. And, some rich people will simply buy gold or other commodities, creating no jobs at all.

If you agree with me, please speak up. Vote. Don't watch Fox. Call the Republicans on what they do. Write a blog that no one reads. But please don't sit there quietly.

Stand Up and Be Counted

Our firm recently interviewed a young job applicant whose resume states that he is a member of the Christian Legal Society. A Google search reveals that the CLS is a student club that requires its members to sign a Statement of Faith that, among other things, rejects homosexuality as inconsistent with Christian values. The CLS sued Hastings Law School, claiming that it was entitled to funding and recognition despite its discriminatory policies.

Presumably, this applicant would not have applied to our firm if he had known that one of the partners is openly gay. Or perhaps he would have simply removed that item from his resume. But no matter, because what he actually did was present a resume identifying himself as a member of the CLS. Needless to say, he did not get the job.

The majority of the members of our firm felt that the best course of action was to simply allow the applicant to go through the interview process, and later tell him that we would not be offering him a job, with no explanation. I disagreed.

This man needs to know that his membership in a group like the CLS has real consequences. Specifically, if he chooses to belong to an organization that espouses hate towards gays, gay people will not hire him. That may not change his views on gay rights, but at least he will understand that his views have consequences in the real world. And he will understand that gays are not just outcasts who can be attacked at will, but rather include people who matter to him -- in this case, someone he wanted to give him a job. Next time, it could be a friend or family member who is afraid to come out of the closet in light of his views.

Telling a single job applicant that he cannot have a single job because of his membership in an anti-gay group is not going to change the world. No single event of this kind matters. But if everybody ignores things like membership in the CLS, then the members will rightly think that nobody really cares. They will think their views are acceptable to all. But they are not, nor should they be. Anyone with a conscience has a moral obligation to speak up in situations such as this. There is no need to be rude or disparaging; in fact, that would be counter productive, but the message must be delivered clearly: you are not welcome here because you are a member of a hate group.

Some of my friends and colleges have asked whether telling the applicant why he was rejected could expose our firm to liability. I believe that the answer is "no." No gay person has a legal obligation to hire someone who is openly hostile to gays, nor does a Black man have to hire a racist. The fact that the CLS is also a religious organization is utterly irrelevant. We did not deny him a job because he is a Christian, nor is his Christianity in any way relevant to our thinking. If he had been a member of a non-religious skinhead gang, for example, my position would be exactly the same. Whereas, if he were a member of a normal Christian group, the topic would not be relevant to our hiring decision. It is the hate, not the religion, that disqualifies him. You say you hate me, I won't hire you. It is as simple as that.

And, if I am wrong and the laws of this State compel me to hire a man that hates me simply because his hate comes from or is cloaked in religion, then perhaps it is time for me to stop paying taxes and leave this State.

Thoughts on the Firing of NPR's Juan Williams

NPR recently fired long-time news analyst Juan Williams, ostensibly for remarks he made on The O'Reilly Factor. Here is what NPR said about the firing, from NPR's own website:

"Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

NPR's position is ridiculous. Williams' statements were not in any way inappropriate.

Williams made it clear that he was talking about how he feels, not about what he thinks. All normal human beings have feelings that they do not act upon. Not acting on all of one's feelings is arguably what best distinguishes humans from other animals, or at least adults from young children. Most, if not all, people have different emotional reactions to people of different ages, genders and races. In fact, one of the most pernicious aspects of racism, and other inappropriate biases, such as homophobia, is that the victims tend to internalize society's dislike of them. Blacks and gays end up believing that they are less worthy than straights and Whites. That is why role models are so important.

But I digress. The point here is that Williams' comments were completely appropriate. He did not say that we should be suspicious of all Muslims. He candidly admitted how he feels, and made it clear that it would be inappropriate to act on such feelings. He was quite clear about that.

Ironically, however, Williams was back on The O'Reilly Factor the day after he was fired. giving what I find to be a very good reason why NPR should have fired him. Williams told O'Reilly that NPR does not want him on the show. If so, then I agree wholeheartedly with NPR. Of course, as a matter of fair dealing, NPR should have warned Williams and should have told the public the real reason Williams was fired. But in the end, I am not sad to see Williams go.

The O'Reilly Factor does not contribute to meaningful discussion of issues. Quite to the contrary, O'Reilly cuts people off and is prone to yelling "shut up" at his guests. He profits and advances his agenda by removing all nuance, and polarizing every discussion. Any self-respecting journalist should know that. Williams certainly knows that, yet he chose to appear on the program anyway, thus making a fool of himself and lending credibility to O'Reilly and his circus.

Even more ironically, what happened to Williams is completely predictable given O'Reilly's behavior. O'Reilly works on sound bites. And, he intentionally makes ambiguous statements that can be taken as offensive. For example, he recently stated that "Muslims" attacked us on September 11. That is literally true, but it suggests that all Muslims or some committee representing all Muslims was behind the terrorist attacks. O'Reilly intends to suggest that, but when confronted directly, he disowns it. This is just like George W. Bush suggesting that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. He wanted to be misunderstood. And he was misunderstood by a majority of Americans.

Williams did not want to be misunderstood, but he should have known better. He opened himself up to being taken advantage of by O'Reilly, and he was. Perhaps he got what he deserved in that regard. In the end, both Williams and NPR embarrassed themselves. I'm not sad to see Williams go, but I am very disappointed -- yet again -- with NPR.

It's Not News

A man in Gainesville, Florida named Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Koran on the 9th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. No, not the Terry Jones of Monte Python fame. This Terry Jones styles himself a minister of some kind, but in fact he has a following of approximately 50 people. This Terry Jones is nobody, and no one actually cares what he thinks. His plans for Saturday, September 11, 2010 are not news.

Yet, every major news outlet has given Jones his 15 minutes of fame. I understand why Fox News would make a fuss about Jones' activities. The story is titillating, and it helps provoke the kind of us vs. them emotional reactions that Fox News and its far right wing overlords thrive on. But why would NPR run a story on Jones? And why would President Obama ask Jones not to burn the Koran? Why does Obama care what Jones does?

NPR should not have run the story at all, or perhaps should have run a story about how other news media were reporting on a nobody in order to provoke a reaction. President Obama should have either ignored Jones entirely or, if asked, stated that the actions of one whack job in Florida do not represent the views of the other 300,000,000 Americans, and that our First Amendment allows people to burn the flag, the Bible, the Koran or whatever else they choose to burn.

The publication of Jones' actions is not just a waste of headline space, it is extremely counter productive. The vast majority of people in all countries just want to be allowed to live their lives in peace. The few nut jobs on the fringes -- Terry Jones, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- intentionally stir up hatred for other groups. They make it possible for the slightly less nutty Dick Chaneys and Sarah Palin's of the world to exist.

Profit at the Expense of the Consumer, Part 2: Talking to India

We've all experienced poor customer service. Getting a customer service representative on the phone in the first place can be difficult and time consuming. Large companies like Chase and Citibank force customers to fight their way through computerized menus before we can talk to a human being. Some companies do not even publish their customer service phone numbers.

And, when you finally get someone on the line, they are likely to be uneducated, untrained and underpaid. Often times, they are located in India or El Salvador and might not even speak English well enough to get the job done. Hotels.com comes to mind as a company with laughably bad phone service. Their employees only speak enough English to handle two or three specific tasks. Beyond that, you'll need to speak Tagalog or Spanish, depending on which call center you get.

Part of the reason for poor customer service is a simple desire to save money. It costs a lot of money to staff a customer service line, and it is cheaper to hire someone in India whose English is less than perfect.

But there is another, and I believe more important, reason why some companies make it difficult to communicate: they want customers to just give up. Most of the time when you call your bank, for example, it is because you were charged a $7 fee you should not have been charged, and you want it removed (how many times have you called a company complaining that you were undercharged?). Many companies, United Airlines being a prime example, have an active strategy of making it difficult to communicate in order to be able to get away with overcharging or otherwise not providing what they promised.

Another way in which big American companies try to bamboozle consumers is with incomprehensible bills. If you cannot understand your bill in the first place, it is hard to know if you are being cheated, let alone convince the company to refund the $18.47 they overcharged you this month. For example, my Sprint contract is quite simple. I pay a fixed amount of money for a fixed amount of "anytime" minutes each month. Everything is supposed to be included in one price. Or at least that is how they sold me the contract. But, my current Sprint invoice has no less than 42 entries, not including the various taxes. They charge me odd amounts for various items, then credit me back for other items. None of it has anything to do with our actual agreement, and none of it makes any sense. AT&T and DirecTV both do the same thing. Their bills are actively designed to be difficult to understand so that we will not question them. It would be easy to make the bills easy to understand, but that is not what AT&T wants.

These incomprehensible bills nearly always contain mistakes, and the mistakes are nearly always in favor of Sprint, AT&T and DirecTV. I know that from experience, and if you look closely at your own bills, I am certain you will find the same thing. But, finding the mistakes, getting through to customer service and trying to get them to refund the excess charges is rarely worth the time and effort. And DirecTV is smart about the way it overbills its customers. The amounts are generally small, on the order of $10 to $30 each month. That way, some consumers will not realize that they are being cheated, especially given the complexity of the bill. Others may realize that they are being overcharged but are unwilling or unable either to figure exactly where on their complex bill the overcharge appears, or to fight through the customer service jungle to get back $18.47.

It seems that the majority of large American companies have adopted the same cynical policy of abusing their customers in order to squeeze out a few extra dollars each month. True, it is not all of them. Apple, for example, has a policy of providing excellent customer service, often giving their customers more than they agreed to provide, e.g., serving a product a month after the warranty expired. The business practices of the majority of the companies, however, are just the opposite, and the cost to society are high. The uncivilized and dishonest practices of Sprint, AT&T, United Airlines and DirecTV may net them a few extra dollars in the short run, but they make life unpleasant in small but persistent ways. These companies teach people to have low expectations, and to cheat whenever you can get away with it. And, in the long run, these companies destroy their own reputations, at their own peril.

Profit at the Expense of the Consumer, Part I: Gift Cards

Gift cards have become increasingly popular with consumers in recent years, and for good reason. Say you are looking for a gift for a friend. You know she loves music, and you know what kind of music she likes, but if she really likes an artist she may have already bought most of his albums for herself. That makes it hard to select the right gift. If you buy her a gift card, she can choose for herself, and she always gets the right gift. In a culture such as ours that frowns upon giving cash, gift cards are a good option, both for the giver and the recipient.

Gift cards are popular with merchants for an entirely different reason: about 10% them are never redeemed. Best Buy sells a $100 gift card for $100. Seemingly, there is not profit on that transaction, just a small cost in creating and handling the card. But on average, $10 of that card will never be redeemed. That money does not get forfeited to the State, nor donated to charity. Rather, it is nearly pure profit for Best Buy; a plastic card sold for $10. The business of selling gift cards is less risky and more profitable than selling televisions, computers and cell phones.

Gift cards are only profitable because consumers make mistakes. Consumers buy cards that they do not need, they lose the card or just put it in a drawer and forget about it. If everyone cashed in their gift cards, the business model would not work. It is a business designed to take advantage of people's mistakes; no mistakes, no profit.

Compare that with the ordinary business of Best Buy, which involves selling consumer electronics. Certainly, Best Buy could increase its profits by selling shoddy or overpriced goods, or by misleading or otherwise cheating customers. But none of those things are necessary in order to make money as an electronics goods store. On the contrary, at its core, the business of selling electronic goods is based on the principle of selling consumers what they want and making a profit at the same time: a win-win business model.

No, I do not think gift cards are the devil, or that they should be banned. But, consumers should be aware of what is going on. And, when you buy a gift card, you are buying a very high profit item and you should expect to get a little something in return. For example, Peet's Coffee gives a dollar off for every $20 added to a Peet's card. That makes sense; the consumers share in the windfall profits generated by the gift card business.

Medical Hell, Part III: 7.5 Minutes

Most doctors schedule four to eight appointments every hour. Eight appointments an hour, which seems to be the norm for orthopedic surgeons, means an average of less than 7.5 minutes per patient, given that the doctor must spend some time walking from room to room, etc. We're probably lucky to get five to fifteen minutes of our doctors' attention in the average appointment. Next time you visit your doctor, look at the sign-in sheet and figure out how little time the doctor has allotted for your consultation or examination.

In these short appointments, we are expected to make important decisions about our health: whether to take a medication, to undergo a procedure, or to just let things be. It is simply impossible to make a good decision in such a limited amount of time, and I can think of no other profession that gives such short shrift to its clients. Yet there is no profession more important than medicine.

I am confident of the problem, but I am less sure of the cause(s) and solution(s). Nevertheless, in the spirit of the internet (speaking out when you are not really sure if you know what you are talking about), here goes:

The underlying problem is that we simply do not have enough doctors to go around. There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, we do not have enough medical schools. There are only about 125 medical schools in the entire United States, about 1 for every 2,500,000 people. As a result, there are many capable students who would be more than happy to pursue a career in medicine, but who are not able to qualify. We would do well to close a few law schools and open a few medical schools.

Second, medical training is unnecessarily long. Many doctors --dermatologists, for example -- do not use even a fraction of what they learn in medical school. These specialists should be given separate degrees, with training focused on what they will need in their practice. Think of dentists, for example. Reducing the length of training means that each medical school can produce more doctors.

Clearly, there is a need for some doctors who know all fields well, and there is a need for all medical practitioners to have a certain minimum understanding of how the human body works. But, in a world of limited resources, it makes sense to allocate education more carefully.

Airport Security Has Become a Fraud

I fly frequently, and I care very much about my safety and the safety of my fellow passengers. Some airport security is necessary for that safety. But that being said, airport security in this country has become a very expensive farce.

All activities entail risk. Driving to the airport to catch a flight entails the risk of dying in a car crash. That risk is -- and always has been -- far higher than the risk of dying on the flight from all causes combined. Staying home is risky, too. There may be an earthquake or a hurricane. And, no matter what you do, you might die of cancer or some other horrible disease. Each of these different deaths is, in an important sense, the same. The victim is dead. To put it another way, I do not care if I die from cancer or in a terrorist attack -- I just want to put it off as long as possible!

But of course there are limits to what we can do. Even if we drive 10 miles per hour and wear helmets at all times, there is still a risk of dying in a car accident. Even if we go to the doctor every day, and have every possible test, there is still a risk that some disease will go undetected. We have to make choices about what steps we take to improve our safety.

So, we must apply some common sense. The amount of time, money and energy we invest attempting to mitigate any particular risk should be based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. How much risk can be reduced at what cost? People -- especially Americans -- like to put their heads in the sand and claim that there can never be a compromise when it comes to safety. But there always is such a compromise, whether we like it or not. Best to acknowledge that fact and make the smartest compromises. Refusing to acknowledge that we are making compromises prevents us from making good decisions and ultimately makes us less safe, not more.

The risk of dying in a terrorist attack is, in the scheme of things, trivial. No one has been killed by a terrorist in the United States in over eight years. Not one person. In the meantime, millions of people have died from cancer, heart disease and accidents of all kinds. A few unlucky folks have even died of being hit by lightning and as a result of shark attacks. Certainly, there is a risk of terrorism on airplanes. There always will be such a risk and, like most risks, it cannot be entirely eliminated. But that risk is already very, very low on the list in terms of actual size.

Moreover, there is very little we can do to reduce the risk further. We already spend millions of dollars, and spend millions of hours of people's time, trying to further reduce a risk that is already very small. As with any endeavor, there is a law of diminishing returns. The cost of improving something starts low and gets increasingly higher, while at the same time the benefits become smaller and smaller. At some point, there is nothing more that we can reasonably do. Airport security passed that point long ago.

Furthermore, even if we could make air travel "completely" safe from terrorism, it is unclear if that would make us any safer. Presumably, terrorists would learn that it is impossible to destroy an aircraft, and they would therefore turn their attention to other targets -- boats, bridges, stadiums and the like. Terrorists are going to hit the weakest point, so making one particular facet of our lives "terror-proof" would be of little benefit, even if it were possible.

The irony of all this is that the press and the government are playing directly into the hands of the terrorists by creating unjustified fear. The idea of terrorism is to scare people and to make them stop living their lives normally. The terrorist cannot hope to kill enough people to bring down his victim; terrorism is not war. Terror works through fear, not bombs. A "war on terror" should focus on stopping fear. But we seem to be doing the exact opposite.

The failed attack on December 25, 2009, provides a perfect example. All of our elaborate airport security was unable to prevent the would-be terrorist from getting his "bomb" onto the airplane. The attacker apparently was not particularly skilled nor persistent -- he simply stuffed a small bag into his underwear. Short of a real (or virtual) strip search, the next attacker can do the exact same thing and be all but certain to get his "bomb" onto the plane.

The attacker failed to blow up the airplane, but not because of anything the TSA did to stop him. He failed for two simple reasons. First, he was not very bright. Second, the passengers intervened (this is at least the third time that has happened -- the final plane on 9/11 and the "shoe bomber" being the other two examples of passengers intervening). Experience suggests we can count on both of these factors in the future. Competent terrorists are, fortunately, rather unusual. Brave passengers are not (and it only takes a few brave passengers on a plane to stop a given attack).

Ironically, however, the attack of December 25, 2009, did succeed in an important respect, but only because of the government and media reaction. The US government reacted by imposing more airport security measures. While those measures would not stop a similar attack tomorrow, they do impose a huge cost on travelers, airlines and ultimately the world economy. The stocks of airlines, for example, fell substantially. The attacker may have failed to take down that airplane, but he caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage, based on the airline stocks alone. And he did not even have to blow himself up to do it!

The media did its part, too. Scaring the public is always a good way to improve ratings, and almost all major media outlets could not resist. No one said, "Here is just the second attack in eight years, and again it failed without the need for any security. This is proof that we are safe." Instead, the media ran the story so as to scare the daylights out of anyone who was planning to fly.

Terrorist attacks, like shark attacks, cause visceral reaction in most people. Mature, educated people can acknowledge that fear, but at the same time apply their reason and make decisions accordingly. Please, do not play into the fear game. Do not be afraid to fly. Even when there is another crash -- and sadly, there will always be another one -- use your common sense. Flying is, always has been and always will be, a very safe way to travel. If you want to fight terrorism, do it by not being afraid.

Down with the Dow!

The American news media are addicted to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Radio and television stations seems to believe that reporting the Dow (and, often, the NASDAQ) is an essential part of any news cast. Even NRP includes a mention of the intra-day progress of the Dow repeatedly throughout the day. CNN is the worst. It displays the Dow constantly in a corner of the screen. Watch CNN, and you will see ever little movement, refreshed every few seconds. What a waste of electrons!

These constant updates on the stock market are worse than useless. The fact that the market is up 0.4% on a given day is utterly meaningless to the vast majority of people. The stock market's daily, and even weekly, drift is no indication of the direction of the market, let alone of the economy. Even a relatively large move in the market, say a rise or fall of 3% in one day, is not meaningful. There is nothing that any intelligent person can or should do in response to it, nor does it change anyone's life.

Reporting the Dow is, at best, a colossal waste of time. At worst, such reports create paranoia and fuel speculation. People who listen to the news, with its moment-by-moment reporting on stock values, could reasonably infer that these reports mean something. The Dow is down -- the economy must be in trouble! The Dow is up -- things must be improving! But that is not true. The Dow is up 0.4% today as a result of random drift, not because "bargain hunters are snapping up shares," as ABC reported.

Worst of all, the reporting of the market's small random drifts encourages people to speculate. The true value of stocks, over the long term, is based on the value of the businesses. More specifically, the value of stocks is based on the dividends that they will pay. Therefore, the value of a stock does not go up or down on an hourly basis, absent some important event, e.g., Merck's latest drug obtaining FDA approval. In any market, however, there will always be an element of speculation as well, people who buy solely for the purpose of finding a greater fool who will pay more. They do not care what the stock is worth, only what others think it is worth. Focusing on ultra-short term fluctuations in the market encourages people to focus on what the market will bear, not on the value of what is being traded.

Finally, although this is really beside the point, the Dow is a poor measure of the value of stocks, as it takes into account just 30 large companies. If you need to measure the value of the stock market, look to the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000, which take into account the broader market.

State Funded Religion in America

Approximately half the funding for churches in the United States comes from the government. The Federal government allows its citizens to take a tax deduction for money they give to their church (or synagogue or mosque). So do States that have an income tax. In addition, churches are exempt from property tax, and some of the money their pay to their ministers is also tax free. Add up these tax benefits, and approximately half of the money given to churches comes from our tax dollars.

This government funding is available to all religions, regardless of whether they preach love or hate. The government pays, whether or not the religion treats blacks, women or gays as full human beings. The government pays, which means you pay. So, if you are an atheist, you pay for Catholic churches. If you are a Baptist, you pay for Muslim's mosques.

Some have claimed that the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, and that it would therefore be unconstitutional to tax churches. That is an obvious fallacy. The constitution also guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that money you spend on books or newspapers is tax deductible, and it does not stop the government from requiring book stores to pay property taxes, income tax and sales tax. Hospitals pay property tax. Private schools pay property tax. But churches do not. And our taxes therefore have to be higher to make up the difference.

Freedom of religion means that there should be no laws designed to discourage religion. If you want to have a church, you should be free to do so. The government should not tax or otherwise burden something just because it is religious. On the other hand, the government should not be in the business of giving benefits just because something is part of a religion. That is forcing people to fund religions in which they do not believe and, ironically, violating the rights of the religious, as well as the atheists and agnostics.

What I have written here is hardly new. No one who studies law seriously disputes it. Yet, one rarely hears anyone complain about it openly. I want to go on record saying that I am outraged that the government takes my money through taxes, then gives it to anyone and everyone who runs a church.

If it is not torture, why bother?

There is an on-going debate in America about whether water boarding and other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques constitute "torture." On the surface, everyone pretends to agree that when pain or discomfort rise to a certain level, they become "torture" and are no longer morally acceptable. The entire debate is a farce.

No one really believes that mild pain or discomfort is an effective interrogation technique. Just image that hardened terrorist breaking down because of mild or even moderate pain. The very idea is comical, even worthy of a Monte Python skit. I do not know if real torture is an effective way to get information, but anything less certainly is not. (Of course, there are other techniques that do not involve any meaningful pain or discomfort at all; I am not referring to those here).

Reasonable minds can differ about whether torture is ever morally acceptable and/or a good strategy in the long run. But half measures are silly, and I cannot believe anyone seriously contends otherwise. Those who are advocating the use of these techniques must really believe that they inflict intolerable pain, otherwise they would not even bother.

So, let's give up the charade and either agree that torture is acceptable under some clearly defined and limited circumstances, or ban it altogether and stop fooling around.

Phasing Out Pharmacies

There was a time, or so I was told, when pharmacies and pharmacists played an important role in our health care system. If those days existed at all, they are now long gone. It is high time that we begin to phase out the pharmacy. We should do so by progressively making more and more medications available without a prescription. At the same time, we should ban advertisements for any medication.

Pharmacies add a significant layer of expense to our health care system. While I can buy aspirin or ibuprofen at the 7-11 store, I can only get meloxicam (an anti-inflammatory that serves the same purpose as ibuprofen and is no more dangerous) at a pharmacy. That creates two different kinds of expense. First, it adds to the cost of the medication. A pharmacy must have a highly trained -- and highly paid -- pharmacist on duty at all times. In addition to the pharmacist, there is almost always a second employee who hands out the prescription medications and often rings them up on a separate cash register. Furthermore, the pharmacy incurs expenses in complying with various regulations. Compare that to the cost of selling aspirin. A store simply stocks the shelves with bottles, and the customers help themselves.

The pharmacy also imposes a non-monetary cost, one which I find particularly vexing. I can get an aspirin at the 7-11 or Trader Joes at any hour, without a prescription and without an appointment. Getting propanolol (a common beta blocker) requires a prescription, which must be presented at a licensed pharmacy. I must then wait until the pharmacist fills the prescription, and stand in a special line to receive that one item. That process is a waste of time, in addition to a waste of money.

I suspect that the prescription system imposes yet another cost, which may be even more important than the two costs described above. The prescription system discourages patients from being good consumers and paying attention to the choices they are making. Prescription drugs are treated as holy: only the doctor decides which ones we take, when and in what doses. The insurance companies have their secret formularies, which try to impose on the doctor's choice. Then, only the pharmacist can actually deliver the goods. Even a patient who wants to get involved in choosing a medication will have a hard time doing so in the face of those three forces.

Compare the purchase of pain killers, where the patient can select from a variety of over-the-counter medications, in various doses, brand name and generic. These medications quickly lose their magic aura, and patients learn to make intelligent choices. Consumers feel free to think for themselves and experiment appropriately with the available products. They learn to avoid overpriced brand names, and they learn which medications work best for them. I suspect that eliminating the prescription requirement on a medication would quickly create more savy consumers and thus reduce the price the market would bear in many instances. I bet the big pharmaceutical companies would hate the idea of phasing out the pharmacy.

We do not get anything worthwhile from pharmacies. Few, if any, patients actually seek the advice of the pharmacist. If a few patients want to pay for such advice, they should of course be free to do so, but there is no reason to require everyone to pay for advice which very few of us want or even receive. Pharmacists do not tell us how and when to take medication; doctors do that. The pharmacist simply copies what the doctor wrote down and, in my case, often makes mistakes in doing so. Theoretically, a pharmacist could alert a patient to conflicts between medicines. That only works, however, if the patient always uses the same pharmacy. The only time I have been alerted to a conflict was by my doctor, and one of the conflicting medications was non-prescription, so a pharmacy could not catch it, even if it knew all of the prescription drugs I was taking.

The prescription system most certainly does not protect those who would abuse drugs from getting what they want. Even making a drug completely illegal does not prevent determined buyers from getting ahold of it. The prescription system provides even less protection than an outright ban. One who is determined to get his hands on a prescription drug can always find a crooked doctor, forge a prescription, fake a symptom and/or send the same prescription to ten different online pharmacies. Pharmacies are not in the business of preventing the improper sale of medications.

Far more importantly, only a small minority of prescription medications are drugs of abuse, i.e., fun. No one is going to pop Lipitor at a party. Sudafed, on the other hand, can be turned into a drug of abuse.

Most prescription medications are no more dangerous than over the counter medications. It is easy enough to kill oneself with all sorts of household items, beginning with alcohol. I doubt that taking an entire bottle of Crestor is any worse than taking an entire bottle of ibuprofen.

In the end, pharmacies are just another entrenched special interest. We take it for granted that they are necessary, but they are not. It is time to start phasing them out.

Giving

Most of us have heard the saying: "Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime." It seems to me that the old saying may not go far enough. Giving a man a fish may provide a lesson along with the meal: the way to get a fish is to wait until someone gives you one. Simply handing out free food may, in the long run, do more harm than good.

It seems that most charity focuses on eliminating an immediate need without addressing the underlying problem. In fact, Mother Teresa herself, that icon of giving, has been criticized for perpetuating poverty, rather than trying to alleviate it. She is alleged to have said: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." That, in my view, is not kindness.

Government charity is often in that vein: food stamps, unemployment payments, medicare, welfare and Section 8 housing vouchers address the need of the moment without doing anything about the underlying problem of poverty. The unintended result of this kind of charity is poverty that is passed down from generation to generation. Similarly, food kitchens and homeless shelters do nothing to address the underlying problems of poverty, addiction and mental illness that lead to homelessness in the first place.

I realize that there is a place for simply giving support to the needy. Victims of one-time disasters such as hurricanes need help now. Similarly, there are those who simply will never be able to take care of themselves for whatever reason. There is no point in trying to teach them to fish, because they simply cannot learn for whatever reason. In these instances, it is makes sense to provide what is needed. In my view, however, the more important task is addressing the underlying problems that leave people sick, uneducated and poor.

Recently, I have become a fan of Kiva.org, a micro lending organization that allows people to make no-interest loans to small businesses in the third world. The borrowers include taxi drivers in Moldova, small farms in Peru and grocery stores in Nigeria. The borrowers do pay interest to Kiva's local partners, but at lower rates than would otherwise be available to them, assuming that they could get a loan at all. One of the biggest problems in the third world is the lack of access to capital. Hopefully, these small loans help people grow their own businesses and move them up just a little bit towards economic Independence.

Letting Go of Gay "Pride"

For years, western society has preached that being gay is a sin. Most gay people internalized that message and were ashamed of being gay. Eventually, some gays began to stand up for themselves, and they stopped being ashamed. Instead, they became proud. After all, being proud is, in most people's mind, the opposite of being ashamed. In fact, this new gay "pride" misses the point entirely and is ultimately counter productive to the gay rights movement.

Being gay is not something to be proud or ashamed of. Sexual orientation is a preference, and it does not make sense to be proud or ashamed of a preference. For example, no one is ever proud that they like ketchup, or cold weather, or that their favorite color is blue. The fact that people are born gay is not even the point. Being gay still simply means that someone has a sexual preference for people of their own gender. There is nothing to be proud or ashamed of, no matter what one prefers.

The use of the phrase "gay pride" is far more than a simple gramatical error. Quite to the contrary, it confuses the debate about gay rights and alienates straight people. It confuses the debate because it perpetuates the wrongheaded idea that sexual orientation is one of those things that we should be either proud or ashamed of. The entire point of the gay equality movement is that sexual preference is not something good or bad. Saying otherwise frames the issue in a way in which gays will lose. If sexual orientation is something to be proud or ashamed of, then straight people will surely decide that they are proud of being straight -- and that gays should be ashamed. It creates a pitched battle over who is better, gays or straights. That is the opposite of the message gays should be sending: we are different in our sexual orientation, but those differences do not make us better or worse than you.

Cancer as a Political Issue

For the eight years of the Bush administration, our political were dominated by an irrational fear of terrorism. Even now, with President Obama providing immeasurably better leadership, terrorism still plays far too large a role in our political debate. Terrorism killed a total of approximately 3,000 people in the continental United States on September 11, 2001. It has killed approximately zero since then.

Cancer, on the other hand, kills thousands of people every day. Cancer is the greater threat to public health, by a huge margin. In fact, in terms of the threat to publich health, terrorism is lower than the common cold, while cancer is at the very top of the list. As far as I am concerned, a death by terrorism is no worse, and maybe in some ways much better, than a death by cancer. Yet, we spend far more money on preventing terrorism than we do preventing cancer.

The most important function of a government is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves individual. This includes things like building roads, maintaining a currency, national defense and disease control. Basic cancer research is far too expensive and far too long term for any individual to undertake it alone. Only the government can fund it adequately.

Moreover, the benefits of successful advances benefit not just all Americans, but everyone on the entire planet -- as well as everyone who is born in the future. The market cannot provide adequate incentives under those circumstances.

If there is anything that our government should do for us, it is to fund basic cancer research and make the result as widely available as possible. This is something that we all have an interest in, and it should be a major political issue, well ahead of relatively smaller threats, such as terrorism.