Go back to sleep...everthing is fine.

So today I hear that National Public Radio and other media outlets have decided not to use the word "whistleblower" to describe Edward Snowden. Their narrow reasoning is that, since the NSA data collection was technically "legal", thanks to the Obama administration, Snowden didn't reveal "illegal government activity", therefore he's not a whistleblower. Even if the law is controversial and probably even unconstitutional, and definitely a bad thing? Apparently that doesn't matter.

Jonathan Turley pointed out that "whistleblower" can cover illegal activity, but also "wrongdoing". But most of the media seems perfectly happy to do their part to keep the public from taking too much exception to what the Executive has been doing. It's easy for them to come up with lame, "sensible" sounding excuses. If this were being done under a Romney or Bush administration, rather than under Obama, I wonder how the reaction of the press, and the people, might differ?

People point out that Google, Facebook etc. already have lots of information about us, so what's the big deal? Well, they do collect some information about us, which they use to target advertising to us. But somehow I doubt Google is going to assemble all our social and purchasing data along with all our phone records, skype calls, library books, movements and associations, health records, etc. in order to create a secret dossier that can be used against us any time some official decides that something we've said, some cause we've donated to, someone we've associated with, gives them reason to dig up dirt about us.

Hmmm, I see you traveled to Lebanon recently...oh, you have college friends there; did you know that some of them may have third hand "tribal connections" to suspected extremists (peace activists, perhaps)? I see that you attend the same church as a nun who was part of a group that entered the grounds of a nuclear waste disposal site to paint peace slogans on the wall, and who is now facing federal terrorism charges because of it. And you donated to the ACLU, and have had problems paying back your student loans. Do you often renege on your lawful obligations? What does that say about your character? 

With all these suspicious connections, you are certainly a "Person of Interest" to us, and will be added to a database for extra scrutiny when it comes time to file your taxes, or take a flight, or apply for federal loans, or check your credit or criminal background. Be careful what political causes you donate to, and be sure not to make any statements that are overly critical of U.S. Foreign policy or the War on Terror, lest they serve to confirm our suspicions about you. Oh, and, by the way, you can't be told about any of this, or have any means of appealing the process, because it's all Secret, and to reveal it to you would be to reveal our "sources and methods" to the Terrorists, and besides, it would be a violation of your privacy.

It's easy, especially with the power of big data, to build a case against anyone, due to malice or just incompetence. As an analogy, think about how often there is incorrect information in our credit records (studies show it happens a lot). We have no idea how our government and its corporate contractors might use our information, and no recourse should it be misused. We drugged and kidnapped a Canadian/Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, and had him tortured for months because of wrong information linking him to muslim terrorists. After a year he was released, but the impact on his life was considerable, as you might imagine. He was one of the lucky ones who lived long enough to be let free. The Canadians eventually paid him off, but the U.S. still insists it did nothing wrong, and he and his family are still on the "No Fly List" ten years later.

 Surveillance has always been abused. Look at the investigations carried out by the Church Committee. Read up on J. Edgar Hoover, and the East German Stasi. Look at the evidence of how the "Fusion Centers" in various American cities teamed up with the feds to surveil and harrass non-violent Occupy activists in various cities. I just can't fathom how people can say this is "no big deal". I just have to conclude that they haven't really thought things through. And I think that's the way the folks in power would like it to remain.

Attention spinal sufferers! Back away from the scalpel!

According to The Guardian newspaper, scientists in Denmark have discovered that perhaps 40% of chronic lower back pain, a condition often treated with surgery, can instead be alleviated by a course of antibiotics. It seems that an infection process once considered rare is actually quite common.

To whit: an injured spinal disc can end up becoming infected by a certain kind of bacteria known to its friends as Propionibacterium acnes. Per the name, it normally causes acne, but it can get into the blood stream at times, such as through the gums. The body produces new blood vessels around the disc as part of the healing process, which ends up providing ingress to the bacteria. The result is inflammation and pain.

In a randomized trial, a 100 day antibiotic regimen reduced pain in 80% of patients who had suffered for more than six months and had signs of damaged vertebra under MRI scans. That's quite a lot of antibiotics...you might want to add some probiotic yogurt to your diet during the treatment period.

Frontline, the great PBS news documentary show, is running "The Retirement Gamble". I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in, and worried about, retirement savings and retirement funds.

Newsflash: The system is not set up for our benefit. Understanding how and why that is the case is the first step toward doing something about it.

You can view it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

Thanks to the magic of public television, you can watch a number of other episodes, as well. All for free (though I hear WGBH appreciates donations!)

When that foot-in-the-door belongs to someone you know...

I'm listening to an NPR show, "Talk of the Nation". The guest, Nancy Ditomaso, is discussing a piece she wrote for the New York Times about how people find desirable jobs through social connections and networking, or suffer from lack of access to these resources. 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/how-social-networks-drive-black-unemployment/?hp

Ms. Ditomaso is speaking primarily in the context of black unemployment. Even with education and other earned indicators of merit, access to social networks matters a lot when it comes to getting a job, at least in the case of desirable, competitive ones. This is another area where inequality of opportunity persists, it would seem.

Networking is important for everyone, of course. This is part of why the "brand name" of an Ivy League is considered so valuable--it affords its "owners" access to exclusive networks and opportunities, in some cases anyway. 

According to Ditomaso, most people will say, "the connection just got me in the door, and then it was up to me to prove myself". This is very true, and I've said those words myself*. The problem lies in the failure to acknowledge that there were probably many others who could have "proven themselves" in that position, were they given the chance. The social network plays an important role in securing one's initial access to the hiring process, and also eases the way through to being hired. The foot in the door might not be your own, but instead belong to someone you know.

This being the Internet, it's important to mention that this isn't a dialectical argument. Merit still matters, and no one is claiming otherwise. But I think just about everyone knows, whether they'll admit it or not, that merit is only part of the story.

It seems there is an explanation to be found here for the resentment whites, lower-skilled in particular, tend to harbor toward affirmative action. Basically, it has tended to stymie the relatively more-privileged access to coveted "good jobs" which they enjoyed in the past by short-circuiting the advantages afforded by social connections, i.e. the "old boys network". Ironically, then, affirmative action can actually promote the very meritocratic conditions that its detractors claim it threatens. Big shocker, I know. I wonder if anyone has ever used the term "meritocratic relativism" to describe this particular attitude?

There's an interesting discussion to be had about the phenomenon of threatened privilege (racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious...) and the tendency of its sufferers to turn to reactionary political ideologies. Concentrated resentment can be quite flammable, both societally and sometimes literally. It can also be a powerful fuel for the boosting of political fortunes. This isn't anything particularly new, but for some reason this topic doesn't get much air time in the mass media. Not even on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, gosh darn it!

If you can get a hold of it, give the Times piece a read. Interesting stuff.

*It's funny...the way I got this job I have now, is Mom heard about it through a colleague of hers that worked here, and was looking to hire someone who knew certain languages. So I fit the bill, but the personal connection definitely played a role in both alerting me to the opening, and in easing the way once I applied.