Thursday, June 11, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama and National Security
Even though Obama just spoke this past Thursday in Cairo about relations with people of the Middle East, what I have to say here pertains mostly to Obama's previous speech about U.S. National Security and is a response to the following article from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/06/obama-derangement-syndrome/
From the article: What might have been a serious debate over interrogation techniques has been mishandled. Instead of trying to balance the need for intelligence on terrorist operations with the desire to respect civil liberties even in the most extreme cases, an attempt has been made to criminalize past policy decisions and demonize those who made them.
This is the rhetoric of Dick Cheney – in fact, what is said here closely mirrors Cheney’s May 22, 2009 response to Obama’s National Security speech of the same day. Obama has, in my opinion, rightfully taken a firm stance against water-boarding and other interrogation techniques that are, without doubt, forms of torture. Cheney apparently felt that it was important to point out that water-boarding was only ever used on a small number of prisoners at Guantanamo. But if water-boarding is torture (and I assume you oppose the use of torture), then the number of instances of U.S. government application of water-boarding becomes irrelevant; the torture of human beings, in all its forms, wherever it is used, and whoever uses it, is wrong. Obama was right to criticize former policy. We must recognize past mistakes. Obama demonized no one. To see Obama’s condemnation of torture as a demonization of past policy makers is to expose one’s own unwillingness to admit to past mistakes. This kind of outlook seems like nothing more than defensive quibbling to me. As a general rule, however difficult it is for each of us to accept our own errors, it is the only way we will learn to do better.
From the article: Meanwhile, al Qaeda operatives now sleep more soundly, secure in the knowledge that, if captured, the worst that will happen is that some CIA agent of Satan will attempt to establish a "trusting" relationship with them.
This is more borrowed rhetoric. Cheney said the exact same thing in his speech. The fact that the U.S. government makes an official pronouncement against the use of torture is not likely to embolden Radical Islam. Those who do violence in the name of Radical Islam are already unafraid of the consequences of their actions because they are emotionally charged and believe that their actions are justified. And it only fuels their hatred, strengthens their convictions and, in their eyes, further justifies their violence if the U.S. uses or supports the use of torture. There is a common but mistaken response to this point that goes: “If one criticizes the U.S. in any way regarding terrorism, then one is blaming the U.S. for the terrorist atrocities committed against the U.S.” No. Violent attacks on innocent people are wrong. The wrongs done by the U.S. government under no circumstances justify such attacks, but our wrongs are still wrong, and we ought to learn from and correct our own mistakes.
From the article: Finally, it is becoming apparent that Mr. Obama's diplomatic ‘surge’ to stop the nuclear weapons and missile development programs of Iran and North Korea is proving unproductive. Still, Mr. Obama is not yet pressing Congress to give him the tools he would need to squeeze Iran's rulers by cutting off their gasoline supplies - the most promising of possible economic sanctions.
Maybe, and I am skeptical about this one in light of the U.S. government’s recent history, just maybe the U.S. will step back from or even reverse its practice of using military force and coercion to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. The U.S. ought to lead by example, not by force and coercion. Hopefully Obama was thinking along similar lines when he quoted Thomas Jefferson in his speech in Cairo: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/06/obama-derangement-syndrome/
From the article: What might have been a serious debate over interrogation techniques has been mishandled. Instead of trying to balance the need for intelligence on terrorist operations with the desire to respect civil liberties even in the most extreme cases, an attempt has been made to criminalize past policy decisions and demonize those who made them.
This is the rhetoric of Dick Cheney – in fact, what is said here closely mirrors Cheney’s May 22, 2009 response to Obama’s National Security speech of the same day. Obama has, in my opinion, rightfully taken a firm stance against water-boarding and other interrogation techniques that are, without doubt, forms of torture. Cheney apparently felt that it was important to point out that water-boarding was only ever used on a small number of prisoners at Guantanamo. But if water-boarding is torture (and I assume you oppose the use of torture), then the number of instances of U.S. government application of water-boarding becomes irrelevant; the torture of human beings, in all its forms, wherever it is used, and whoever uses it, is wrong. Obama was right to criticize former policy. We must recognize past mistakes. Obama demonized no one. To see Obama’s condemnation of torture as a demonization of past policy makers is to expose one’s own unwillingness to admit to past mistakes. This kind of outlook seems like nothing more than defensive quibbling to me. As a general rule, however difficult it is for each of us to accept our own errors, it is the only way we will learn to do better.
From the article: Meanwhile, al Qaeda operatives now sleep more soundly, secure in the knowledge that, if captured, the worst that will happen is that some CIA agent of Satan will attempt to establish a "trusting" relationship with them.
This is more borrowed rhetoric. Cheney said the exact same thing in his speech. The fact that the U.S. government makes an official pronouncement against the use of torture is not likely to embolden Radical Islam. Those who do violence in the name of Radical Islam are already unafraid of the consequences of their actions because they are emotionally charged and believe that their actions are justified. And it only fuels their hatred, strengthens their convictions and, in their eyes, further justifies their violence if the U.S. uses or supports the use of torture. There is a common but mistaken response to this point that goes: “If one criticizes the U.S. in any way regarding terrorism, then one is blaming the U.S. for the terrorist atrocities committed against the U.S.” No. Violent attacks on innocent people are wrong. The wrongs done by the U.S. government under no circumstances justify such attacks, but our wrongs are still wrong, and we ought to learn from and correct our own mistakes.
From the article: Finally, it is becoming apparent that Mr. Obama's diplomatic ‘surge’ to stop the nuclear weapons and missile development programs of Iran and North Korea is proving unproductive. Still, Mr. Obama is not yet pressing Congress to give him the tools he would need to squeeze Iran's rulers by cutting off their gasoline supplies - the most promising of possible economic sanctions.
Maybe, and I am skeptical about this one in light of the U.S. government’s recent history, just maybe the U.S. will step back from or even reverse its practice of using military force and coercion to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. The U.S. ought to lead by example, not by force and coercion. Hopefully Obama was thinking along similar lines when he quoted Thomas Jefferson in his speech in Cairo: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Friday, May 29, 2009
Concert!
I can't contain my excitement in anticipation of U2 and MUSE together in concert this September.
Observe:
Epic:
Observe:
Epic:
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
people and places
t: what do you like best about Australia and being abroad? tell me, I need to day dream about far away places.
p: what I like best about Australia isn't anything exotic. it's the people. auzzies as well as internationals. getting past the exterior and pushing the limits of casual conversation. really getting to know people. you can go many places in people.
p: what I like best about Australia isn't anything exotic. it's the people. auzzies as well as internationals. getting past the exterior and pushing the limits of casual conversation. really getting to know people. you can go many places in people.
Friday, April 10, 2009
I reckon
that things are more complicated than you [can] think. It's hard to accept uncertainty, and in the course of daily life I suppose we have to act certain about some things. But I think we often run into problems thinking things to be so clear-cut. We like to simplify. We have to simplify. It's evolutionarily advantageous for our survival (like a local optimum). It's efficient. Conserves energy. Human understanding has its limits, so we have to bend the world to fit within the boundaries of our understanding. That's the only way it all makes sense. I'm suspicious when things make too much sense. Something's bent.
None of this is remotely practical, but I'm through with practicality. If I were a machine, I'd be doing economics instead of philosophy.
Everything I know or think I know is used to configure a framework for "seeing" the world. If I take the things I know to be less clear-cut, more uncertain, less stable, I get a more "open" view of the world (as contrasted with the popular phrase "narrow-minded"). The world opens up, if you like. It's easier to slide my knowledge around and reconfigure new and more sophisticated frameworks for thinking and perceiving the world. I don't know what truth we can aspire to. We have to realize that we can't help but bend things to make sense. Human understanding covers a fairly wide range (to what do I compare it to?), but a finite range none the less. All we have are interpretations. Interpretations are never "wrong." It's not wrong that we bend things, and I don't see it as a condition to be overcome. That I see it, however, is important.
Things that do make "perfect" sense to us most likely only do so because they are parts of a system, a worldview, that we invented -- that we've bent into shape because we find it meaningful. Myths. Sometimes myths we live by.
So I'm building up a tolerance for uncertainty. You may not be thick if you don't understand the world; you may not be thick if it doesn't make sense. Don't always let yourself bend it, whatever it is you're trying to comprehend. Sometimes allow things to seem unstable.
Your brain may fall out; I don't know. I think it'll be okay if you're open-minded but pay attention to your feelings.
I really like when something prompts a radical alteration in my perspective of things. My experience from then on is deepened and more attuned. Each time I am repeatedly aware of many more uncertainties as well. My worldview has to be ever reconfigured to make meaning of particular uncertainties, and each time inevitably reconfigured in such a way that a different set of uncertainties crop up (sometimes "tainting" ideas and views which used to stand firm and unchallenged).
That's what I reckon.
None of this is remotely practical, but I'm through with practicality. If I were a machine, I'd be doing economics instead of philosophy.
Everything I know or think I know is used to configure a framework for "seeing" the world. If I take the things I know to be less clear-cut, more uncertain, less stable, I get a more "open" view of the world (as contrasted with the popular phrase "narrow-minded"). The world opens up, if you like. It's easier to slide my knowledge around and reconfigure new and more sophisticated frameworks for thinking and perceiving the world. I don't know what truth we can aspire to. We have to realize that we can't help but bend things to make sense. Human understanding covers a fairly wide range (to what do I compare it to?), but a finite range none the less. All we have are interpretations. Interpretations are never "wrong." It's not wrong that we bend things, and I don't see it as a condition to be overcome. That I see it, however, is important.
Things that do make "perfect" sense to us most likely only do so because they are parts of a system, a worldview, that we invented -- that we've bent into shape because we find it meaningful. Myths. Sometimes myths we live by.
So I'm building up a tolerance for uncertainty. You may not be thick if you don't understand the world; you may not be thick if it doesn't make sense. Don't always let yourself bend it, whatever it is you're trying to comprehend. Sometimes allow things to seem unstable.
Your brain may fall out; I don't know. I think it'll be okay if you're open-minded but pay attention to your feelings.
I really like when something prompts a radical alteration in my perspective of things. My experience from then on is deepened and more attuned. Each time I am repeatedly aware of many more uncertainties as well. My worldview has to be ever reconfigured to make meaning of particular uncertainties, and each time inevitably reconfigured in such a way that a different set of uncertainties crop up (sometimes "tainting" ideas and views which used to stand firm and unchallenged).
That's what I reckon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
