Caricatures, Cultural Understanding and Color Blindness

If we want to understand cultures different from our own, we should not resort to caricaturing them.  We shouldn't simply exaggerate the differences - but focus on the similarities and imagine what causes the differences.  Doing this can be difficult - because our culture usually leaves us with blind spots.

Approximately 1/12 men and 1/200 women are color blind.  So our perception of other cultures is affected by genetics and gender.  This fact should be somewhat discouraging to anyone who wants to avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings - people with similar genetics have a tendency to be culturally similar.

The English Philosopher John Locke coined the phrase Tabula rasa which means 'Blank slate' in Latin.  He believed that our mind was formed solely by our perceptions - thus all the ideas we understand and believe in are derived from our experiences.  John Locke's ideas were also important in the development of human rights and religious tolerance - the US Declaration of Independence's memorable phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was an homage to Locke's writings.

But genetic differences between humans are at odds with the notion that improving human environments are an effective way of enabling the poorest humans to reach the same capacities as the richest.  And color blindness is far from the only psychological trait influenced by genetics.  Does this mean Locke's view of human nature was wrong we need to reconsider all his political ideas in light of modern science?

Humans don't need science to detect genetic differences.  We judge each other based on genetic factors all the time (the clearest examples of this are racism and sexism).  In some cases, these judgments become part of a culture.  The phrase 'gentlemen prefer blondes' was initially a book and then a movie.  The worldwide market for hair coloring is a 29 billion dollar (and increasing) business - and it's no surprise that most of the customers of hair dye are women.

Apparently genetics can explain cultural trends.  But the majority of men have normal color vision - less than 10% are colorblind.  So why don't more of those 91.66% of men with normal color vision dye their hair?  Why is the standard formal clothing for men a black suit when women's dresses come in hundreds of colors?

The answer may be found in Evolutionary Psychology.  If we assume that our female ancestors were gatherers and our male ancestors were hunters - then color blindness could be advantageous.  People who are color blind can detect camouflage more easily.  So a colorblind hunter could be a leader in hunting - or in detecting an enemy tribes' camouflage. 

The interactions between culture and genetics are complex.  It can be tempting to proclaim that scientific findings prove that certain stereotypes are justified.  But resorting to caricaturing culture differences we undermine the complexity of humanity and its history.

Promises To Keep

Joe Biden is so old and was in Congress for so long that Promises to Keep serves as a history of the US Senate.  Before the current political divide, Senate luminaries (and failed presidential candidates) Barry Goldwater (R) and Hubert Humphrey (D) would treat each other respectfully.  Biden's 2008 Presidential run was likely motivated by the Bush Administrations recklessness in the 2003 Iraq War while he was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Promises to Keep is largely biographical and begins with stories about Biden's education and family.  He candidly describes his stutter and how he managed it as well as his failure to correctly cite in law school (which journalists would discover after a similar incident in his 1988 Presidential run).   He admits his academic shortcomings but refences his recommendations from people who believed in his motivation and character.

Family is clearly important to Joe Biden.  His political development began by listening to his grandparents political discussions.  Though his first wife tragically died just six years into their marriage, he does dedicate a portion of the book's contents to her (including her family who are Republicans).  Joe also received substantial help in both taking care of his half orphaned children and running his political campaign from his siblings.

Why aren't there many politicians in the middle of the road?  

Because that's where the roadkill is

Biden was blessed with some luck towards the beginning of his political career.  After winning a county council seat in the Republican New Castle County (in Delaware) he challenged long term Republican incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs and pulled an upset victory.  As somebody barely of legal age to be a Senator, Biden received mentorship from older Senators.  Furthermore he began his career immediately after the death of his wife which earned him sympathy (except from the media).

During the 1988 Presidential Election Biden was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and responsible for conducting hearings for Ronald Reagan's nomination of the notorious Robert Bork.  Biden outlines why he disagrees with Bork's judicial philosophy and how he was able to convey this to other Senators.

Additionally, Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  At various points Biden was a key intermediary between strong personalities like Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev.  He took a proactive stance in an attempt to prevent the widespread violence in the former Yugoslavia starting at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration but wasn't able to convince the executive branch to take necessary action until the end of the Clinton administration.  Biden also visited Afghanistan despite limited support from the George W Bush administration.  He candidly describes the squalor of the country despite the success of the US invasion.  That contributed to his criticism of the Iraq War, where Bush was inadequately prepared for the aftermath of another successful invasion.

In an era of 30-second political ads and two minute debate answers it is refreshing to explore political perspective with the nuance of a 365 page book.  Biden has faced significant criticism for his 1994 crime bill but this book reveals that he needed a larger bill to attach his VAWA (violence against women act) to.  Given the nature of politics and promises it's difficult to use this book to make predictions about what a Biden presidency would look like.  But when contrast with The Art of the Deal it's clear that Biden's attitude is dramatically different from Trump's.  Biden is nuanced, determined but willing to compromise to achieve his vision.  

Bernie Sanders hair-brained plan to reduce inequality could backfire and give Trump a very Merry Christmas

 

There's an American tradition of lying to children and telling them if they behave, they'll be rewarded with toys from Santa Claus on Christmas.  There are a variety of explanations as the origins of this mythological figure.  But at this point he's entrenched in American culture and finding out that Santa Claus is fictional is a rite of passage for most children in the USA.

Hypothetically, telling children they will be rewarded for good behavior could make them do better in school, less likely to commit crime and more likely to do their chores.  But in 2019 1 in 4 Americans expected to go into debt to pay for the holidays and more than half (52%) of Americans said they would skip holiday gift giving if they could.

So perhaps the belief in Santa Claus causes more pessimism than optimism. Children will eventually learn that their gifts cost money and that somebody had to work to provide those gifts.

But that's not inevitable - there are charities which distribute toys and practical items to underprivileged children.  Voters could demand that the Federal government guarantees every child a gift for Christmas.  It's interesting that the Senior Senator of the State of Vermont, Bernard "Bernie" Sanders hasn't proposed any such plan.  He's proposed Medicare for All, College for All, a "Green" New Deal, Expansion of Social Security, Housing for All, High Speed Internet For All, Legalizing Marijuana as well as twenty other plans.

I suppose if he succeeded in implementing all of the plans on his website, children wouldn't be upset if they didn't get a toy on Christmas - even though they might be confused that a man who looks so much like Santa Claus has priorities other than giving them toys.

Some think that the DNC acted like a Grinch and prevented Senator Sanders from becoming President.  There's some truth to their claims the Chair of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign, John Podesta had his email hacked which revealed that Democratic National Committee Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested characterizing Senator Sanders as an atheist to ensure he lost the Democratic Primaries in Kentucky and West Virginia.

That evidence, along with other facts has led many Sanders supporters to suggest that the DNC 'rigged' the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Aside from the evidence from Wikileaks -  there are other anomalies in Hillary Clinton's 2016 Democratic Primary Victory.  An analysis of the voices and speech during Presidential debates shows that the candidate with a deeper voice usually wins.  And there's evidence showing that the taller candidate wins Presidential Elections 2/3rds of the time.  So how could the 5 ft 5 in woman (women usually have less deep voices than men) defeat the either 5 ft 10 in or 6 ft 0 in at his tallest baritone voiced Bernard Sanders?

Why would any voter choose to support an establishment candidate who has been in Washington DC for decades?  Perhaps it's because of her experience or the fact that her husband was President.  But Hillary Clinton did receive 3,708,294 more votes (12.1 more percentage points) and 977 (out of 4707) more delegates than Senator Sanders.  Maybe if voters knew the contents of the Podesta emails, they would have voted differently.

But the email sent criticizing Sanders' atheism was sent in at 2016-05-05 when there were only 1094 delegates and twelve primaries left (three of these primaries were in  Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico - regions which do not cast electoral votes in the general election).  Senator Sanders would need a Christmas Miracle to catch up to Secretary Clinton - even if you exclude the superdelegates.

So even though the DNC acted improperly - there's not much of a case to be made that Sanders had a chance of winning in 2016.  Yet the 'rigged' narrative persists, perhaps because so called 'Bernie Bros' have harassed reporters critical of Sanders.

But you can hardly blame voters for not having a nuanced understanding of the allocation of delegates during a long campaign where most of the media attention was focused on Donald Trump's extreme statements.  Additionally American student's test scores in mathematics are worse than those of children in many other comparable countries

Sanders wants to cancel $1.6 trillion in student loans (and has many other generous plans for future students) yet nothing on his plan for K-12 education costs nearly that much.  It's almost like he cares more about educating people who might vote for him than the 15.4% of students who drop out of high school  or those who graduate unprepared or not wanting to go to college.  Of course Vermont has the 10th highest high school graduation rate in the USA so maybe Bernie just isn't aware of how people outside Vermont live.

Sanders has deflected criticisms of self-characterization as a Democratic Socialist by pointing to the success of Scandinavian countries (though he's inaccurate in his characterization of those countries). Additionally Norway's demographics are relatively similar to Vermont's, but those demographics are substantially different from the rest of the United States.

It was after his heart attack that I began to seriously question whether Bernie Sanders was leading a cult of personality.  Do we really want to put somebody who believes it's a good idea for a 78 years old who recently had a heart attack in charge of a medical program which could cost $32 trillion over ten years?  Bernie Sanders only significant original legislation is a VA healthcare bill which preceded a major scandal.

I'm doubtful that Sanders most dedicated supporters will ever support a traditional Democratic Part Candidate.  The Russian Internet Research Agency targeted Sanders supporters and discouraged them from voting for Hillary Clinton. President Trump tweeted "They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously."

At present Senator Sanders is considered by many to be the front runner.  It's not quite clear to me what his supporters are thinking.  Do they want to try to replace one populist outsider with another?  He has a big vision of reducing inequality but in 2016 far he received $134,669,942 in small donations and more recent reports show teacher was the most common profession of donors, and Starbucks, Amazon, and Walmart were the most common employers of donors.

So far the Sanders campaigns have transferred money from the poor and middle class to media companies with limited transperency (who obviously transferred some of that money to TV networks and facebook - the same big businesses Sanders criticizes).  And he spent more than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic Primary  He wasn't able to effectively transfer his supporters' financial contributions into convincing more people to support him.

Things could be different in 2020 - he could receive even more money from poor and middle class people and lose in the general election.  Or he could win and fail to implement his policies.  Or his policies might not work as well as his supporters hope and lead to a worse economy and more inequality.

So I urge Sanders supporters to consider the possibility that grandiose promises made by somebody with a weak track record and a short life expectancy can easily backfire.

Or else they may be giving Donald Trump a very Merry Christmas in 2020.


(header image from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/23/rush-limbaugh-sanders-16t-climate-change-plan-more/)

SOCRATES - A review of a play which captures a critical slice of history

Socrates is a unique play driven by a series of philosophical monologues and limited dialog. Michael Stuhlbarg carries the play as the title character. He's like Robin Williams only slightly less funny and more intelligent. Teagle F. Bougere effectively narrates the story as Plato, though he doesn’t look like the statues of Plato his appearance offers a subtle hint to the connections between Greece and Egypt. Niall Cunningham is credited as 'A BOY' who is most likely Aristotle - I believe he serves as the audience's advocate by questioning Plato. Miriam A. Hyman rounds out the cast as Xanthippe's, Socrates wife and the only woman, and also the most rational critic of Socrates.


How historically accurate the play is is not entirely clear. Its author is Tim Blake Nelson who has an assortment of acting experience and a few credits in other positions. There is nothing which clearly contradicts the historical record, but given Socrates distrust of writing it is unclear how accurately he is being portrayed. It's not clear whether Socrates would even want a play to be written and performed about his life or to what degree Plato biases the narrative to fit his own theory of forms.


A debate between Aristotle and Plato begins the play and also sets its tone. People who are intellectually exhausted from a long day of work will have trouble keeping up with the complex ideas and debates but the emotions of the actors should be sufficient to entertain those who aren't academically inclined. There is no music - minimal props, costumes and action. Lighting and scenic effects are relatively minimal but used strategically at key points during the story.


Socrates is introduced by Alcibiades in a long speech where he lavishes praise on his virtues. Homophobic people should not see this play as there are explicit references to homosexuality. Throughout Alcibiades monologue, Socrates remains mainly silent and when he speaks he is humble.


As Socrates moves on, he becomes more philosophical. He is positioned between hero and villain, between serious and funny, and between sympathetic and annoying. The narrative structure of the play is somewhat confusing, the story shifts perspectives without giving explicit context. People without knowledge of Ancient Greece will be confused throughout the play. But that's almost appropriate, given that Socrates almost seems to be motivated by confusing people and making them less certain of themselves. Still, there are a few moments when Socrates is lucid and logical and explains himself and his philosophy clearly. One example is where he describes what shape and color are simply and concretely - though these descriptions are contradicted my modern science and mathematics.


Questions are at the heart of most interaction between characters. The audience is left to contemplate or find their own answers. I found Socrates description of his experiences in war edifying. Socrates is an example of somebody whose mental health was damaged by his experience in war. Perhaps his drive to question everything was developed from his questioning of the morality of his actions during a war he did not volunteer to fight in.


The intermission ends when the trial of Socrates begins. The second act is more tragic and somber than the first. It is structured such that the audience is in the same position as those who judged Socrates almost 2500 years ago. Unfortunately there is no opportunity to change history, the audience does not get to vote to acquit Socrates and they don't get to question him. The Athenian authorities are annoyed by Socrates possibly a good portion of the audience is as well.

After his trial, Socrates' friends visit him in jail. The criticisms of democracy offered by democracy may strike a chord with viewers upset with the current state of politics. After some end of life philosophizing Socrates attempts to justify his thoughts of suicide. By killing himself, Socrates believes he is maintaining the greatness of Athens. His friends seem resigned to his fate and only his wife seriously challenges him. Throughout the play, Socrates is able to mock and undermine his critics. None of the people who dislike Socrates are heroic. But Xanthippe's passion matches her reason as she condemns Socrates for not adequately caring for his children.

Nevertheless, the play continues - depicting Socrates’ life to the last moment. This is where Michael Stuhlbarg establishes the depth of his acting skills. He captures the emotional turmoil of death more accurately than Hollywood movies would dare to try. An uncomfortable reminder as to the brutality of history and disregard for the idea of wisdom. An idea which is discussed but never fully fleshed out.

Socrates is crazy paradoxical mess that laid framework to end polytheism in Western Society. The play ends on an optimistic note - a calming in the formerly contentious relationship between Plato and Aristotle. The relationship that astute intellectuals will note is the essential summary of Western Progress. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great who overthrew the Persian Empire and set the stage for the expansion of Greek Culture throughout the Mediterranean and Asia.

Antifa, Paranoia and Preventive Strikes

In 1981 the Israeli Air Force bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq which was purchased from France. Though Iraqi and French authorities claimed the reactor was for peaceful research, the Israeli authorities claimed that within a month the reactor could be weaponized.  The attack was widely condemned throughout the world, including the UN and the USA.  However in more recent years the air strike has been praised by prominent figures including Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney.

The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States (also known as the Bush Doctrine) stated:

... The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

This policy was used to justify the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  Apparently Israel's air strike twenty-two years earlier was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (though during that time frame, North Korea developed those weapons).  Though the Iraq War had temporary victories, the instability within Iraq as well as Syria allowed for the formation of ISIS.  Though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, by most measures he was not as bad as the leaders of ISIS.  Nonetheless, the preemptive or preventative strike remains a popular strategy for dealing with rogue nations.

The USA and Israel are not the only entities that perform surprise attacks based solely on the suspicion of wrong doing.  The Axis powers of WWII launched surprise attacks on several neutral countries, most notably the attacks at Pearl Harbor.  The victors of WWII occupied a moral high ground, they did not start the war but they won it.  Yet decades later, they are employing the tactics of their former enemies.

Additionally, a small group within the USA have started launching surprise attacks domestically.  The founder of the "alt-right" movement, Richard Spencer, has been punched by complete strangers twice.  I've read arguments of progressive thinkers justifying these actions, frequently accompanied by pictures of Captain America punching Nazis (as if comic books were a source of enduring morality).  It is worth noting that Spencer denies he is a Nazi, though his beliefs are clearly outside of mainstream USA political thought.  Furthermore, the 1922 Beer Hall Putsch shows the resilience of Nazis to violence.  Hitler and other Nazis attempted to overthrow the government of Bavaria, several of Hitler's followers were killed or injured and Hitler was imprisoned and wrote Mein Kampf...  So what benefits should we expect from punching people who think similarly to Hitler?

Aside from individual surprise attacks, a disorganized group known primarily as 'Antifa' has come to disrupt events where they believe disagreeable views will be expressed.  When conservative entertainer, Milo Yianopolis visited the University of California at Berkeley (the birthplace of the 1960s free speech movement) a number of masked protesters wearing black committed acts of mass vandalism.  More recently during the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' rally marchers who had Nazi and Confederate symbols were fought by the Antifa.  In the Boston Free Speech Rally, they fought the police.  It's worth noting that their violence is limited and so far I am not aware of any acts of murder or terrorism that they have committed.

Many people condemn the Antifa, but few try to understand them.  It seems like they are trying to unite by fighting a common enemy.  Fascism was briefly a popular ideology in Italy, and though it is connected to Naziism, the ideologies are not identical.  Very few people today call themselves fascists, so Antifa is searching for an enemy that barely exists.  They are hypersensitive to symbols, speech and behavior that are associated with right-wing ideologies.  They are trying to prevent the rise of the forces that started WWII.  But their strategy may be so ineffective that it creates sympathy for their enemies.  It may be hard to understand why citizens of the USA would resort to violence against people who hold radically different political beliefs from them.  But if you examine the foreign policy of the US in recent years, you'll see that it's not that different from Antifa tactics, it's just that the military of the USA has much more resources at its disposal than Antifa and the violence is directed primarily towards areas which display Islamic symbols, behavior and speech.

If we want to implement principle-based politics we have to understand what causes violence.  If the solution to violence is more violence, we risk escalating conflicts and divisions.  If the solution is forgiveness, we risk being ruled by those who accept forgiveness but do not give it.  If the solution is dialog, then we need to assure those with extreme views that they won't be attacked simply for expressing them.  So we need to understand why people feel it is acceptable to be violent towards those who express extreme beliefs.  I believe that people who attack extremists usually do so because they are paranoid.

Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety and fear.  Paranoid people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.  A single paranoid person isn't necessarily dangerous, but groups of paranoid people who share a world view that places them as better than other people and justifies violence is dangerous.  In practice, paranoia creates more paranoia.  When we look at history in hindsight, there are some cases when paranoia was clearly justified.  And their are patterns in history, but every year is distinct, in most cases paranoia is not rational.  The only solution to the escalation of paranoia that I can think of is trust in humanity and a belief that humans are fundamentally the same and our differences are insignificant compared to our similarities.

Remembering Keshab Ghimire

I first met Keshab in my Introduction to Computer Science class in 2003 at Hamilton College.  Almost all of the seats were full and he would usually arrive a few minutes after the lecture started and sit in the back.  I asked him why he was always late he told me he had another class on the other side of campus.  We were given ten minutes to get from class to class which should have been long enough, considering Hamilton had a physical education requirement (run 400 meters in less than 80 seconds, also swim four laps in a pool).  I'm not sure Keshab ever managed to fulfill that requirement.

Keshab was clearly the brightest computer scientist in our class, an attribute my 18-year-old ego wanted.  I was working on a project in the computer science lab, hoping to find some sort of adrenaline induced inspiration to finish the program before the rapidly approaching deadline.  The teaching assistants were unable to help me, another student was there and said he'd call Keshab.  I was slightly concerned, not just with my ego but also with the school's honor code.  I was reassured that as long as we weren't using copy paste or looking at each other's monitors helping each other was acceptable.  We waited for Keshab to arrive for about ten minutes, within five minutes of arriving he'd helped us solve our problem and explained to us why the solution worked.

I decided to take the next course towards a CS major, Data Structures.  Our new class had only six students and was taught by the experienced and charismatic Professor 1.  We worked together in two person teams building basic data structures in C++, after one team built a data structure another would test it.  Though Keshab was still probably the brightest student there were two new students whose skills were impressive.  I discovered my talent for mathematical computer science (I was able to determine the computational complexity of several algorithms immediately after Professor 1 wrote them).  It was the best class I've taken throughout all my educational experience.  Even though we were all freshmen, we won the Sam Welsch Memorial Prize Scholarship in Computer Science.

I saw Keshab more in my second semester.  I had also befriended another student from his home country, Nepal.  I didn't socialize with Keshab too much, but I would always talk with him when I saw him.  He once told me that he did go out drinking with a fraternity, but after his parents called him when he was drunk, he followed their instructions to never drink again.  Keshab had secured a research position for the summer working on electronics with a Professor from the physics department.  I'd secured a research position with Professor 0, trying to use automated reasoning to find relations between genes and hopefully cure cancer.  My old desktop computer broke down and I decided since I was going to be staring at a computer for eight hours a day in the summer I wasn't going to immediately replace it.  Towards the end of the summer, after I finally decided on a laptop, I got in touch with Keshab for help installing Linux on it and recovering data from my old hard drive.  I told him I'd drive him to the airport in exchange for his services.  Afterwards I decided that I didn't want to (his flight was very late at night) but gave him information about a cab company as well as $60.00 to pay for it.

My next semester was horrible.  I had decided to take five classes because I wasn't sure if I wanted to major in CS and Mathematics or double major in Neuroscience and Chemistry.  I also decided to work for ITS as well as continuing research for Professor 0.  I managed to enjoy some parties on campus and one night wandering around I ran into Keshab who gave me back the $60.00 I'd given him.  Another time Keshab asked me if he could have the Linux CD I'd used back.  When I told him I wasn't sure where it was he told me not to worry.  In the midst of a stressful semester I received an email from the ITS employee listserv saying that Keshab was 'sick' and had gone back to Nepal.  I never signed the card they sent him, I was too busy with my own problems.

I ended up taking a leave of absence midway through that semester.  I returned to the snowy campus with a sense of practical cynicism.  Aside from courses necessary for my CS major, I took Introduction to Hinduism.  The most salient thing I learned in the class was that many Hindus don't believe in acquiring 'good karma' but in ending life with 'no karma'.  Keshab and I shared a class and had lunch together occasionally.  He complained that when he asked a Professor for help the Professor called him stupid.  I discussed some of my business ideas with him, hoping that he'd help me implement some of them.  He told me about how he'd been translating Nepali poetry into English.  I knew his father worked for the Nepali government, but I did not know the tremendous upheaval Nepal was going through at that time.

Keshab managed to get a research position with Professor 0, I gave him some tips on how to deal with him, feeling that they'd get along well because Keshab had more patience with computers than I did.  I had tried to find an internship with a high powered company (like Microsoft or Google) that summer, but failed.  I managed to have a relatively relaxing summer.  I visited my Dad in New Jersey, driving there and back for the first time on my own.  I remember hearing the song Right Back Where We Started From on the radio just as I was reaching home.  It was the first time I'd heard the song but by the end of it I was singing along to the chorus.  It fit my feelings of returning to being half way through college with optimism that the second half would be better than the first.  When I got home and checked my email, I saw that the President of the Hamilton College had sent an email with the title 'Keshab Ghimire'.  I knew what happened before I opened it...

Keshab had killed himself.  There was no suicide note but police ruled out foul play.  I was devastated and considered seeing a grievance counselor but ultimately decided against it.  I knew that the area was dominated by Christian Philosophy and that some of Keshab's suicide had to do with not embracing that philosophy.  There was an article published on Hamilton's website... I never knew Keshab had worked with impoverished children until I read this.  I still managed to enjoy myself at some moments during that summer.  But I was worried about how Keshab's death would resonate with the college, particularly within the CS classes I would take.  I had Professor 0 for a class and I knew I'd have to suppress my feelings that he was partly responsible for the suicide.  Aside from demanding hard work and not taking excuses, Professor 0 had three bibles on his desk and was very open about being a Christian.  I thought that he might take Keshab's suicide as motivation to be easier on his students and to put his bibles away but it wasn't.

Keshab's memorial service was about a month into the semester.  I was more motivated to give a good speech than to comple any academic assignment I'd ever received (though Professor 0 did tell me that I did the best in the class for the first assignment).  For some reason, it never occurred to me that Professor 0 would also speak and I only discovered that he would a few hours before the service.  I thought about the recommendations I might need and how Professor 0 might not like some of what I had planned to say.  I decided not to change anything.

I visited the college chaplain shortly before the service.  He gave me some reassurance as well as a copy of the Bhagavad Gita which I planned to read from (though it was a different translation than the one I'd used in my class).  I was scheduled to speak after one of Keshab's friends from another college and Professor 0.  My emotions raced as I heard the other speakers (especially when Professor 0 spoke about how Keshab was a great computer scientist, glanced at me, then proceded to list Keshab's flaws).  Shortly before I spoke I felt like some external force was squeezing on my brain and forcing tears out of it.  I considered refusing to speak, or changing what I had originally written.  I stood up and moved to the podium and looked out at the crowd for a while, hoping to see some sort of encouraging smile.  Instead, the brown furniture turned into the outline of Keshab's face.  The white faces became his teeth and the sclera of the eye of Keshab, the few darker people became his iris and pupil.  I knew I was going to say exactly what I wanted to, regardless of what anybody in the audience thought.

I wish I could remember what I said; unfortunately it's all in the past now, I doubt anybody in that audience remembers it.  I mentioned Keshab a few times to people who knew him, but nobody wanted to talk about suicide so I pushed his memory away.  I suppose I could blame my less than stellar career as a programmer on Keshab's suicide, but that's a pretty lame excuse.

Why then, did I bother writing this?  Is it because I'm a noble saint who reminds people of the forgotten and tries to extract feelings of guilt?  Not really, I can't say I really knew why I wrote this until I'd already written everything besides the conclusion.  I suppose I might get some sympathy from friends (or reconnect with people in college I haven't spoken with in years).  Though ultimately, I think death is a major taboo in society that eludes rational thought.  Atheists turn to religion when death occurs, empires have fallen after their leaders die, and sometimes leaders claim that certain dead people deserved to die.  Many so called 'rationalists' turn to discredited ideas of freezing their brains and living forever.  They forget that the world may not be around to wake them up and that this procedure costs more than what it costs to save multitudes of less fortunate people then.  What then is the rational approach to death?  I still don't know, but I have a much better idea than ten years ago when my friend decided to end his own life.  

Review of No Place To Hide

Edward Snowden's leak of NSA documents caused a great deal of controversy and shock, however I was not surprised.  I always thought the NSA was spying on whomever it could.  Glenn Greenwald's latest book, No Place To Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. describes exactly how Snowden leaked his documents and what they mean.  Greenwald makes no attempt to separate his personal views and experience from the NSA, Snowden or surveillance in general.  As a reviewer, I will follow Greenwald's lead and inject my personal opinion into this review.

At less than 300 pages, the book didn't take me that long to read.  However, there were only five chapters so I found my attention span stretched further than usual.  The first chapter deals with how Snowden contacted Greenwald, Greenwald's reluctance and ignorance to indulge in cryptographic technologies, his discussions with a friend and how he dealt with The Guardian (the UK newspaper which he chose to initially publish the leaks to).  The next chapter explains exactly how he met Snowden in Hong Kong and is full of praise for Snowden.  The middle chapter contains many documents which show the extensive surveillance the NSA commits on US allies and  US citizens and how US technology companies have allowed the NSA to do so.  The penultimate chapter explains why surveillance is bad with some interesting rhetoric, including references to historical figures.  The last chapter explains the problem with the state of journalism and why so many journalists have condemned Snowden and Greenwald.  Lastly an epilogue explains the harassment that Greenwald's husband faced; having his computer stolen (in Brazil) and being detained after a flight (in the UK).

I appreciate the courage Glenn Greenwald has, but his book is far from perfect.  I was slightly surprised it was published (after my research, I discovered the publisher is one of the oldest in the USA).  I noticed several errors/typos: JKF airport (meaning JFK), 2012 Boston Marathon Bombing (it happened in 2013!) and image is used where imagine should be used.  Perhaps the editors at Metropolitan Books were scared of the NSA and neglected to examine the book thoroughly.  The book also demonstrates that while some people cannot explain Snowden's behavior without claiming he hates America or is working for China or Russia, others are willing to criticize the NSA.  A bipartisan bill to defund the NSA was narrowly defeated in congress.

All of the controversial claims in No Place To Hide are substantiated by documents, Greenwald clearly establishes that the NSA collects massive amounts of information most of which is outside of its legally established mandates.  He counters variations of the 'if you have nothing to hide, you don't need to worry about being watched argument' but does little to speculate on what harmful activities the NSA may be committing.  Snowden was only a contractor for the NSA, so the information he had access to was limited.  An astute reader may remember events that occurred amidst the 2008 Presidential Election which the NSA may have been involved in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption