The Question No One’s Asking in the Debate about Privacy and Terrorism

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or don’t read/watch/consume the news), you’ve probably heard about Edward Snowden and his decision to leak classified documents about a US government agency, the NSA, to the public. I thought I’d raise an issue that I haven’t seen raised or written, yet. In fact, I’m a little surprised that I haven’t seen it raised. There have been plenty of Op-Eds (Brooks, Friedman, Shafer, Cohen, etc.) and columns (Simon, etc.) from many of the common people who write Op-Eds and columns about national security, but no one seems to be taking a step back and re-examining the question.

Most of what I’ve seen has the illusion of taking the step back and saying something to the effect of, ‘remember 9/11? That’s why we need programs like these to spy on those would seek to do us harm. It’s because of terrorism that we need these types of programs.’ Did you catch it? Did you see the underlying question that this line of reasoning assumes away?

Before I spell out exactly the point I’m trying to make, I think another analogy may help. Have you ever been sick? Of course you have, what a silly question. Upon being sick, ill, or injured, you’ve probably had to visit a doctor. When at the doctor, you were probably asked about your symptoms. After a few minutes, the doctor likely gave you a prescription or recommendation for something that would help you take care of your symptoms. As the symptoms were the thing that was bothering you, taking care of them probably seemed like a good idea to you, too.

Unfortunately, treating the symptoms won’t solve the problem of you being sick. It’ll just make the symptoms go away, but leave the underlying issue! Maybe you got sick because you were too stressed out about a big project and so that compromised your immune system, thereby making you more susceptible to being sick. And because your immune system was compromised, not washing your hands after playing with your kids at the local park meant that those germs that remained on the swing from one of the other kids was able to take up residence in your body. So, giving you medicine to make your symptoms go away might be helpful, but it weakens your immune system slightly (as it’s not able to develop antibodies on its own to take care of what’s affecting your system) and you still have that big project to finish.

What’s the tie-in? Terrorism is a symptom. It’s not the cause. The kind of terrorism that’s trying to be prevented isn’t the kind of terrorism that happens on a whim. It’s thought out, it’s well planned, it’s premeditated. Actions like that come with a reason. There’s an underlying cause to that terrorism. What is it that the US has done to provoke “terrorism?” That’s not a facetious or rhetorical question, but I think that’s the missing question from this debate. That’s the question that needs to be debated in Op-Eds and in columns.

If Laughter is the Best Medicine, Why Don’t Doctors Specialize in It?

A couple of weeks ago, I heard the old adage that “laughter is the best medicine.” And then I thought to myself, if that’s true, then why aren’t there any doctors of laughter? Is there an degree-granting institution out there that issues doctorates in laughter? Shouldn’t there be?

I realize that idea is a bit off-the-wall, but bear with me for a moment. If laughter is the best medicine, shouldn’t we have comedians/comediennes in hospitals? Can you imagine that a doctor doing their rounds consisted of going to a number of patients and telling jokes? Wouldn’t that be fun(ny)! I wrote about medicine in the 22nd century a few days ago — maybe by then, we’ll have doctors who specialize in making their patients laugh. Probably not, but wouldn’t that be something?

So the whole idea of doctors who specialize in laughing may be a bit too far, so then I thought, wouldn’t it make a good bit? That is, wouldn’t it make for a good stand-up comedy bit. I’m certainly no expert in stand-up comedy and I’m sure that stand-up comedians often get their friends telling them (hey this might be funny) even though it’s not, but I think, with the right comedian, that bit could be really funny. To make it really work, I think the comedian would have to be really serious when telling the bit (but isn’t that true of most bits)?

Now that I think of it, I don’t know what I’d rather see more: an article that details a clinic in some remote village that has an LD (Laughing Doctor) or an article that details a comedian that’s a big hit because of the comedian’s bit about a doctorate in laughing.

~

As an addendum to this, I saw a tweet this past week that makes the case that laughter isn’t just related to medicine!