WHY DO WE TRUST THE TECHNICIANS TO DO THE RIGHT THING?

         Some time ago, the then President Judge of Washington County scheduled a seminar to introduce the new digital electronic system, designed to replace stenographers in the courtroom, to the lawyers.  To explain the bells and whistles of the installation she invited a technician from Beaver County, where the same system was in use, to discuss the Beaver County experience.  It was discovered during the presentation that technicians sitting in the control room to monitor the system could overhear conversations in the courtrooms even when the system was not recording, an operational detail not known by the lawyers or even the judges.  When the Beaver technician was asked about this, his incredulous response was: “well when it comes to protecting privileged information we are not permitted to hear, obviously you have to trust us to do the right thing.”

         I keep thinking of this response from a technician, operating under little legal or administrative oversight, as our country continues its post 9/11 journey into the new age of high tech surveillance.  When it comes to  reviewing constitutionally protected personal data, who do we trust to do the right thing?  What are the actual parameters of the surveillance that would differentiate between legal civil disobedience and illegal terrorism?  What is the screening process and when are the hits on innocent citizens deleted? Are the nuts and bolts of American national security policy kept secret from us for protection, or to keep illegal conduct from coming to light? If neither the so called war on terror nor the Patriot Act affects most of us, should we even care, as long as security concerns are limited to information and do not take away our right to bear arms.

         Surveillance technology is expanding at breakneck speed.   Constructing a real time representation of the world, no doubt the ultimate goal of the NSA and other security organizations, requires a large and growing amount of data (big data) and a system to give meaning to the data (algorithms).  Big data has involved the universal collection of phone and computer records for some time. As reported in a recent Foreign Affairs article, The Violence of Algorithms, Taylor Owen, 5/25/15, data collection is now also enhanced by:  “a network of 100 toaster sized satellites that will take daily high resolution images of everywhere on earth. The goal is to launch thousands- a persistent real time surveillance tool.” Regarding algorithms the author points out: “If they (algorithms) are biased, flawed, or based on incorrect data, then the human will be just as wrong as the machine.”

         So even the technician who means well may make bad choices and come down on the wrong side of our civil liberties if an algorithm exposes an innocent individual. Consider the farmer in Iowa who plugs the word “Isis” into Google (another algorithm) to learn more about the organization because his son is doing humanitarian work in the Mid East.  The same day, big data picks up an e-mail conversation with his son; “we need to eliminate all the weeds and buy a half ton of nitrates for next year’s crops.”  This pattern matches a well thought out terrorist algorithm and all of the farmer’s conversations, bank statements and travel plans are monitored and read by a young technician in Alexandria Virginia.  Should the farmer just “trust him” to do the right thing?

         How about the technician who is working for an executive who does not mean well?  It was not that long ago that Richard Nixon and J Edgar Hoover sought to gain as much information as possible about their perceived enemies through any means possible.  Would anyone feel comfortable with these new technologies in their hands?

          Some are not happy with this new reality.  It has been reported that in Germany, as troublesome as the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB were during the cold war, the German government felt more secure from spying in the past than during the recent surveillance intrusions from their allies, the Americans.

                  Our own citizens do not seem to have the same doubts or concerns as new and more invasive spy techniques are revealed. Why are we willing to give up protected information concerning our private lives to technicians in secret control rooms on the slim chance of avoiding an Islamist plot?

          I believe several factors are in play. First, many buy into the claim that we are at war and believe it is patriotic to cooperate since we have  “nothing to hide”.  Second, the pervasive use of social media has degraded privacy concerns and surveillance is often viewed as harmless national data sharing.  Third, everyone gets to keep their firearms, no matter how onerous the data collection.

         There is great irony in the fact that in dangerous times to the homeland, gun ownership is not restricted. We insist that we be permitted to keep unfettered, the one instrumentality that causes a thousand times more carnage than terrorism. Even knowing that a bad guy is more likely to use a gun against an innocent rather than blown him/her up, firearms get a pass.  It remains an open question whether more gun restriction and less surveillance would lower the number of attacks inspired by radical ideologies.

         In the United States, the right to bear arms is sacrosanct and this is not about to change until fiscal conservatives realize that curtailing guns will save millions in social welfare and make us safer. In the mean time, If big brother gets out of hand with this surveillance stuff, we can always shoot him.

SECOND POT OF COFFEE THOUGHTS

·      How did the comic books we hid from our parents warp into an 8 billion dollar (and counting) business at the movie theaters and toy stores?

·      It seems that the empty store fronts are growing in Washington and that the new businesses that do open are marginal.  Why not give a developer whatever incentives it takes to start a renovation project in the City.

·      With the recent social acceptance of expanded health care, gay rights and the apparent death knell of capital punishment, can meaningful gun control laws be far behind?

·      Why do I still prefer a hard cover book at twice the price to the same new read on my kindle?

·      Wash Arts is a remarkable community resource.  If you can teach a class in the creative arts, call the office.  When your program is set up, enthusiastic students will follow.

·      The millennial generation is finally approaching the age of home buying, marriage and child rearing.  Adjust your stock portfolio accordingly.

·      The enhanced schedule and funding for the Whiskey Rebellion Festival and the farmers market will continue to bring seasonal foot traffic to the City of Washington. This is not enough for capital intensive business owners to set up shop.  They need a year round commitment from the County to sell the City.

·      A Joe Sestak victory to replace Senator Pat Toomey in 2016 would not only be of great importance to those who want to elect a thoughtful liberal in Pennsylvania, it would also be a crucial win for the democrats to retake the Senate.

·       What do members of Congress, hedge fund operators and foreign dictators have in common?  All three are held in low esteem, do little for the common good and use their positions to accumulate undeserved wealth.

DIVERSITY IS A REGIONAL ISSUE

         When I discuss the need for diversity in Washington County, there are typically three responses.  The average resident on the street places diversity near the bottom of any community wide wish list.  Some old timers even suggest that the shale/gas industry has ruptured Washington County’s economic structure and the last thing we need is a diversity campaign, encouraging minorities to live and work here, to rupture our social structure.  The second response comes from community leaders who have the power to initiate diversity programs.  Their position is often that there is no reason to take action because the County is thriving. They point out that Washington County is an open community and anyone can choose to live here or apply for employment.  Lastly are minorities who are already residents of the County.  These citizens often feel there are “bigger fish to fry” than diversity, including education, crime, racism and economic inequality.

         Before I give my reasons why I believe these views are misplaced, some facts concerning diversity and economics in Southwestern Pennsylvania are in order. First, population growth throughout the Pittsburgh region is nonexistent.  According to the US census, between 2011 and 2012, the region had a net increase of only 619, with a total regional population of 2.3 million.  Second, as reported in the May 14, 2015 Pittsburgh Post Gazette: “Pittsburgh is one the of least diverse places in the U.S., according to a new study of 200-plus cities  that consider factors such as types of jobs and industries as well as race and ethnicity.”  The study conducted by WalletHub, a Web-based Washington DC firm, ranked Pittsburgh 227 out of 230 regions.

         Many specialists in urban and community planning believe there is a strong correlation between a growing, younger population and a commitment to both economic and population diversity.  The above Post Gazette article interviewed Melanie Harrington, chief executive of Vibrant Pittsburgh, a nonprofit dedicated to diversity issues.  She found the report troubling.  Ms. Harrington believes: “Our long term future economic growth goals are dependent in part on our ability to attract and retain a diversity of people in the region.”

         Another spokesman, Harold D. Miller, Adjunct professor of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, believes that lack of racial and ethnic diversity in our region is one of the biggest factors in holding the population back.  He concludes in his 6/2/13 blog post that: “If Pittsburgh wants its population to grow, attracting and retaining more minority residents isn’t an option, it is a necessity.”

         While many regions are keeping and attracting minorities and growing for the future, the Pittsburgh region is not.  The new restaurants, the universities, the new sports venues will not stop this trend.  In order to compete, Southwestern Pennsylvania must take action by focusing on the issues and dedicating resources to encourage diversity and soon.   Mr. Miller is persuasive in his analysis that Minneapolis, another shrinking rust belt region, was able to reverse its Pittsburgh like results by putting into place diversity programs over the last three decades.  By taking steps that dramatically expanded the number of Asians, Hispanics and African Americans living in the area, jobs in the Minneapolis region grew four times as fast as they did in Pittsburgh over the same time frame.  This point made by Mr. Miller in 2013 is reinforced by the fact that the Minneapolis region placed forty third (43) in racial and ethnic diversity on the recent WalletHub report.   

         When it comes to employment and population growth, Washington County is the outlier in our region.  A new study recently concluded by our own Washington and Jefferson College found that the energy industry supports in the range of 10,000 jobs, the equivalent to 7-9 % of total county employment.  Moreover, shale/gas resources increased county economic output by15% to 20% in recent years and has consistently placed Washington near the top of those Pennsylvania counties with the lowest unemployment.

         So why should Washington County care that the rest of the region is shrinking in population?  Why should we seek diversity when we are growing without it?  The answer is simple. Washington County is too small and the Marcellus Shale industry too undiversified in its own right to carry the region on its back.  One dimensional economic growth has its limits in the same way that a one dimensional population has its limits.  Diversity in both is the proven, rational policy to ensure sustained generational expansion in both.

         In the short term Washington County does have the growth engine that may well be the sweetest incentive to jump start economic and population diversity in Southwestern Pennsylvania.  Let’s exploit this advantage within the County by recruiting minorities in both the public and private sector into our booming economy.   Let’s partner with Allegheny County to develop meaningful incentives.  Let’s advertise the incentives to bring in the best and the brightest, including the newest crop of minority professionals in all occupations, to live and work in Washington County and throughout the region.  Let’s use our excellent regional higher education system, state of the art medical complexes and new business and technological platforms at places like Southpointe to train and retain international and home grown minorities for generations to come.

         To summarize for the naysayers why we need to act, diversity is a regional concern and Washington County stands in a unique position to be in the vanguard to address the problem.  The Marcellus Shale explosion will not last forever.  Reshaping our community and making Washington County a magnet for minority entrepreneurs and professionals of all backgrounds will transform our region for the better.  Not only is supporting diversity the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do.

        

        

  

WHY THIS YEAR’S ELECTIONS DESERVE YOUR ATTENTION

         Off year elections like those in the coming months are notorious for little excitement and low voter turnout.  Most potential voters are more focused on the early stages of the 2016 presidential primary circus than the slim offerings on this year’s ballot.  This is a shame because circumstances have given Pennsylvania voters an unusual three openings on the critically important Supreme Court. 

         What happens in the May primary and November general election will shape our Supreme Court for decades to come.  Those who care about the rights of women, workers, patients and plaintiffs in civil law suits (among many others) should be completing their due diligence on the Supreme Court Candidates and urging their families, friends and associates to do the same and to show up on election day.

         What is to be done to vet those running for the Supreme Court? By my count there are thirteen candidates, all of whom are able to cross file on both ballets in the primary, running for the three openings.  Rules of judicial conduct prohibit candidates from discussing specific issues.  Commercials are often misleading and funded by interest groups seeking to elect a Justice or two sympathetic to their cause.  Clearly research is in order to uncover the most deserving candidates.

         My plan is to first check the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Allegheny County Bar Association recommendations, published earlier this year.  These evaluations are readily available on Goggle and pavotesmart.com. 

         The PBA evaluation process is conducted by highly qualified lawyers who: “seek to give voters guidance by only recommending potential candidates who have the legal ability, experience, integrity and temperament needed to provide satisfactory or outstanding performance as judges on our appellate courts.”  The PBA Evaluation Commission also publishes a summary of its findings on each candidate as well as the questionnaire submitted by each candidate, to give the voter more than just a rating.  This is most useful information you are likely to find in considering your choices.

         I also will review the Allegheny County evaluations because, all things being equal, I will vote for a jurist from Western Pennsylvania and these ratings shed further light on these candidates.  Once I have narrowed my list I will run each selection through Wikipedia and Google to make sure I have not missed any dirty laundry.  Lastly I will call my lawyer friends in Allegheny County who have interacted professionally with the individuals I have selected, to make sure my judgment is sound.

         I have found that voting for judicial candidates is like stock picking. Do not listen to the guy at the bar and do your homework.  In a low turnout election your vote is more likely to make a difference.

THE REAL THING

         Something clicked in my aging memory banks while reading the recent O-R article on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The word is that Justice Kennedy has been chosen by his colleagues to be the author of our highest court’s gay rights decision, soon to be released.  The article details Justice Kennedy’s friendship with Gordon Schaber, a gay man who mentored him through law school.  This relationship helped Justice Kennedy shape his progressive views on sexual equality and placed him years in front of the curve on this important subject.

         This charming story is not unlike so many others where life events shape important opinions. I have come to understand that there is “nothing like the real thing” in getting us to work for one cause or another.

         Nancy Reagan changed her views on gathering stem cells for research when her Husband developed Alzheimer’s. Dick Chaney altered his views on sexual orientation after his daughter came out as a lesbian.  Many average Americans become lifelong advocates for a social issue that was of little importance to them until a family member was afflicted with a rare disease, struck down by a bullet, or returned from battle as a wounded warrior or with mental health issues.

           I have found that meaningful opinions, ones that feel “right”, come into focus through actual experience as opposed to second hand reading, discussion, or talk show pundits.  For example, there are a multitude of books on the grieving process and dozens of memoirs written by cancer survivors.  Until we actually lose a loved one or receive a diagnosis of cancer, these written accounts give us information but no deep understanding of the crisis.

         No matter how many articles I previously read concerning the Tuscany region of Italy or how many wildlife shows I watched concerning the Serengeti in Africa, nothing prepared me for the real experience of traveling to these places.  The real thing changes your perception of what a place, or a social issue or a rare disease is all about.  August Wilson could never have written his ten play cycle about African American life in Homewood, without sitting in the cafes, barber shops and bars and listening to the stories.  His imagination and poetic sensibilities gave him the talent, but his experience of the real thing gave him the plays.

         There may be a lesson to be learned in all of this.  The further a politician, author, religious leader, or social commentator is from the real thing, the less credible he or she becomes.   The call to vote, worship, and think in a certain way deserves our consideration when the speaker or writer has life experience regarding the issue at hand.

         This is why Senator McCain gets my attention when he calls for zero tolerance for torture by Americans, when he suffered so greatly at the hands of the North Vietnamese.  Why Pope Francis gets my attention when he speaks about humility and the poor, given his work in the slums of Buenos Aires.  Why Nicholas Kristof, the award winning columnist, gets my attention when writing graphic commentary from the scene in faraway places, often at personal risk.

          The absence of the real thing is a major source of latent discrimination and intolerance.  Those who rage against Latino immigrants, welfare mothers and same sex marriage often have never met an individual who fits the profile they are ranting against.  Embedded prejudices and community norms replace actual experience in forming long held opinions.  As our country becomes younger, more urban minded and more diverse, the real thing will replace fabricated myths and move us forward.

                  

WASHINGTON COUNTY’S WOMEN LEADERS SHOULD BE IN THE VANGUARD OF THE DIVERSITY CHALLENGE

          I read with great interest the reporting on the recent panel discussion sponsored in part by the Washington County Chamber of Commerce concerning diversity and the lack of women voted into elective office in Pennsylvania. This is an important topic and there is certainly work to be done to topple the “old boy’s network” in the Commonwealth.

          Women running for elective office are bottom up affairs and require dedicated, knowledgeable and well funded candidates willing to get involved.  Most diversity issues involve hiring, training and recruitment and are top down issues where enlightened leadership makes all the difference.  My challenge to the panel participants:  Commissioner Irey Vaughan, State Sen. Bartolotta and President Judge Emery is to turn the diversity imbalance on its head and to use their positions to make meaningful diversity change in Washington County.  I would add Washington County Bar Association President, Dawn Haber Esq., to this triumvirate because the law community faces many of the same challenges.

          Minority employees and staffing in county government and the court system are embarrassingly underrepresented.  Recruitment of minority lawyers to live and work in Washington County appears nonexistent.  Women leaders who have had to battle the status quo to achieve positions of power can speak from experience in developing diversity programs and policies for the hiring and advancement practices under their respective domains.

          Diversity is not a luxury that Washington County can afford to leave to chance.  Diversity programs are proactive and seek out qualified minority candidates.  They build a multicultural workplace and community because it is the right thing to do.

           A diverse workforce is many times stronger than the sum of its parts.  This is particularly true in the public and legal sectors where minorities must believe their interests are fairly represented.  Our knowledgeable and compassionate female leaders are in the best position to make this a reality.

TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

         The subject of tolerance in a mature democratic republic such as the United States would appear to require little thought or discussion.  One would suppose that tolerance of others is a harmless notion that always signifies good character and is an enlightened, liberal goal, above reproach. 

          The history of tolerance in political theory and philosophical circles reveals that the concept of tolerance is in fact complicated and is often exercised without any compassion or even true acceptance. Since the time of the ancients there have been two opposing schools of thought. On the one hand are those who believe tolerance is a positive force that can be used to strengthen pluralistic democracies.  On the other is the belief that tolerance is nothing more than another tool of the majority to keep well meaning minorities in their place.

         In an attempt to better understand the racial, religious, gender and sexual conflicts which have flooded our discourse in recent times, I have reexamined the literature on tolerance, trying to develop my own understanding of this important topic.  Is tolerance to be embraced or disgraced as a social and political tool?  Does it resolve conflicts among competing interests or produce conflict?

          I have found that tolerance is indeed elusive and full of contradictions, many of which are beyond the scope of this essay.  I conclude that as the term is used in practice today, tolerance deserves our attention and is anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance can provide a roadmap to help us through the difficult social, political and moral issues we face each day.

         To begin with, majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance.  Minority religions will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

         With permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, the majority may change its collective mind and have the objection reinstated.  In this case intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted.  Permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  This is an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

         The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”, or: “homosexuals are against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”, or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue.  The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equally in every respect.

         I will consider two additional questions raised by the tolerance debate.  First, when is intolerance the appropriate course to take?  After all, notwithstanding our democratic freedoms and liberties, the majority is rightfully intolerant of incest, pedophilia, terrorists and anyone who would exercise the “assassins veto” by killing another individual who disagrees with them.  But where do we draw the line? When do we come down on the side of individual freedom and when do we seek to ban unacceptable views and behavior?

                  This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism and homophobia by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to remove these views from the public mindset? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant?

         The conceptual framework developed by the esteemed political philosopher, Rainer Forst, offers a commonsense solution to some of these questions.  He believes that tolerance and justice are closely correlated. The majority or individual with an objection to a particular group or behavior must justify its objection by asking: “are my reasons for objecting sufficient to reject the group or practice as a law abiding citizen?… The objection cannot be based on religious or ethical views or some traditional belief that cannot be generally justified in a pluralist society.”  See: The Power of Tolerance, A Debate (2014)

         This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance.  Appropriate, justifiable reasons can be presented to those who do not conform to the ethical or legal norm because of their subjective practices and beliefs.  In this way both rejection and acceptance of a behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms.  There is still the problem of what is a “good justification.”  However it seems to me that it is better to have this objective debate requiring justification, rather than be limited by subjective intolerance and permissive tolerance, both of which often involve imbedded prejudices and misconceptions.

         By applying this simple test it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect.  Theoretically, it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict. In weighing whether to be tolerant, rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment in this country. 

         With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the good faith concession and remain angry.  Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.  When there is no justifiable reason for an objection to a minority view or behavior, it is time to provide unmitigated acceptance with no strings attached.

         I will finish with an observation that may not be obvious to all.  When one respectfully accepts another religion, racial minority, political ideology or the like, this does not mean that one is adopting that person or belief as one’s own.  Conflict between competing interests remains and the (civilized) debate continues on a level playing field.  After all, this healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy.