Hugh and Larry Beware!

Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt watch out! A January 15, 2008 article in Wired.com's Threat Level pointed out that the NSA chief, Michael McConnell, is so worried about cyber terrorism that he thinks there should be absolutely no privacy online. The government, he says, should be allowed to tap your phones, tap your phone lines, tap your email and your Google searches... Personally, I think this is a secret attempt by the NSA to get free access to porn on the internet. It makes perfect sense.

Back in the early nineties he was the guy who backed the so-called Clipper Chip, which would enforce a back door in every encryption system developed. Now he's trying to get a patently illegal (in the US) law put through Congress. And why else? Not for terrorism, which would be considerably easier to stop through intense effort to develop better foreign relations. Definitely not for the safety of US citizens. (I mean, they still have trash cans in airports -- how serious can they be about safety?)

No, it's pretty obvious: they want a way to get their porn for free. Larry and Hugh have a major stake in seeing this law doesn't pass. Once the NSA has their hands on the porn, they're lost: everyone in the government will have it (and once it falls into CIA hands everyone will have it).

Drang nach Osten

Drang nach Osten. Drive to the east.

Adoloph Hitler's plan to drive into the heart of the Bolshevik Soviet Union and cleanse it of its "impurities." Jews, Russians, that sort of undesirable element. Personally I don't get it; Stalin was doing a fine job. But whatever floats his boat, I guess.

Honestly, drang nach Osten derives from a time even before Hitler. In some ways it refers to the Germanic movement to the east during the middle ages (Ostsiedlung), but it really came into its own as a concept in the 19th century when German intellectuals used it to justify their desire for "lebensraum" ("living space," another favorite of the Nazis). Later still the Poles used it as propaganda to encourage anti-German sentiment.

Drang nach osten was just the German descendant of what we've all come to know and love: the concept of the "Just War." A silly little concept developed by St. Augustine of Hippo in his book Civitas Dei ("City of God"). Now, there are several criteria of a just war (jus in bellum): just cause (and I don't mean just because), comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, and only as a last resort. Furthermore, once you're already fighting your little just war, you also have to follow certain rules (jus in bello), otherwise it becomes "just another war." There are also a third type of rule, jus post bellum, but since we're talking about history and philosophy here, not this new-fangled "let's all be plushy-happy good-people friendly." I'll stick with the originals; maybe I'll get around to jus post bellum some time. For now, I'll start with the history of Just War, and at some point in the future I'll move along to just how stupid the idea really is.

So, back on topic. The Just War moved from theoretical to practical in the 12th century with the birth of the Crusades. After all, what is Just if not eradicating Moslems, right? Anyway, after the disaster we call the Crusades we have the European expansion into the rest of the world in the form of colonialism. Be it the English in India or the Spaniards in New Spain, the results all flowed quite fluidly from the idea of jus in bellum, though the criteria was lacking almost in entirety, justice replaced by justification.

In the aftermath of the colonial period the Old World began to diverge from the New World, but the idea of a "just war" thrived. While drang nach Osten was the watchword of Germany, in the New World the twin ideas of "manifest destiny" and civilizing the Native American "indians" were born. The latter idea began to decline in the early twentieth century, but the former -- the idea of America's "manifest destiny" was championed by such leaders as Presidents James Monroe (The Monroe Doctrine) and Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (the Roosevelt Corollary). Manifest destiny gave way to the idea of the United States as a protector of the New World from Old World tyranny and, later, as protector of international law the world over in the form of interventionism, which Woodrow Wilson used to make the world "safe for democracy."

Through these policies, the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary and interventionism as a whole, was born the policy of American Imperialism. While the Just War concept all but died in Europe following the Second World War, in the New World it was still going strong and continues to be felt throughout the world.

The modern incarnation of the "just war" is the Neo-Conservative policy of "shoot first and, oh yeah, what's a question?" In short, what is occurring in the Middle East right now is a direct result of St. Augustine's vision of a Just War.

Gaming Meets Life

What more need be said? Apparently the first generation cybereye is just around the corner. After all, we're working on the first bionic contact, and we've already got the equivalent of cybernetic arms and legs in the works, cyberankles, cyberhearts -- hell, we're practically in 2080 rather than 2008. All we really need is megacorporations (oh, right -- never mind) and magic (we already have Industrial Lights).

Heroism

Heroism. What is it? Who needs it? These are the questions of the- Oh, sorry. Got carried away there for a moment (it's been done by more famous men than me when talking about heroism). Among many other circular definitions, dictionary.com defines heroism as "exceptional or heroic courage when facing danger (especially in battle)" (like I said, lots of circular definitions) and "great bravery." Bravery is, of course, "a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger or pain without showing fear" (again with many circular definitions).

That suggests a few things. Specifically, the ideas of "heroism" and "bravery" seem to be active in nature rather than passive. That is, a person must do something, not merely be in the right place at the right -- or wrong -- time.

The United States Department of State states on their 9-11 website states (emphasis added):

September 11 created a new generation of heroes for America and the world. They came from diverse cultures, and many from faraway lands, but on September 11 — whether they perished in the attacks or bore witness — all were victims and each was a hero. From Pakistan, India, China and Nigeria, their stories are remarkably the same. A human being, not a nationality, saw strangers in need, and in many cases risked — and gave — their own life in order to save another. The global heroes of September 11 spoke different languages, but shared a common humanity.

Are they really heroes? Those who gave their lives? Possibly. Those who fell screaming down forty flights while diving from a collapsing building? No. They were most certainly brave in the sense that a rat fleeing a sinking ship is brave, but not in the same sense that a soldier rising an American flag above Iwo Jima is brave. They did not, in other words, have "a quality of spirit that enabled them to face danger or pain without fear."

Neither, I can hear you saying now, did the soldiers at Iwo Jima face death without fear. No. They did not. But they did have courage. That is, the soldiers at Iwo Jima -- indeed most soldiers -- share a "state or quality of mind ... that enables one to face danger [or] fear ... with self-possession, confidence, and resolution." Giving in to natural instincts does not require courage -- that is, fleeing a sinking ship, or leaping from a collapsing building (knowing there is effectively no chance of survival whether you leap or not) is not an act of courage, but one of self-preservation (no matter how misguided). Self-preservation is not heroism; they are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they the same thing.

I have to say that no matter how pathetic an excuse for an individual "Rockwell" might be, I agree when s/he points out that "being a victim doesn't mean you are de facto a 'hero'." Were there heroes on September 11, 2001? Of course. There are heroes every day all around the world (whether or not you recognize them as such and regardless of their political agenda). Were the victims, unable to do more than die, heroes? Absolutely not.

Victory through Manipulation; or, Why Reason Will Never Win A Political Debate (Part I)

Wordy title, huh?

There are 42 logical fallacies, give or take, and each of them holds a special place in my heart. A fallacious argument is an argument in which the conclusion is not supported adequately by the premises. So, when Emperor Bush says, "Do we stay the course or do we cut and run," he's using employing a false dilemma. After all, there other choices to be made -- a slow withdrawal, for instance. Obviously Bush is an idiot (personal attack).

Here's the thing, though: logicians want us to rely purely on logical arguments. Ask any logician and s/he'll tell you logical fallacies will carry the day for a while, but once people have a chance to think about the argument, they'll realize they've been had (so to speak) and disbelieve the argument until it's merits are proven logically(hasty generalization). It always seemed to me that this was something of an appeal to authority, but I'll be the first to admit I don't always get logic.

Honestly, I neither entirely agree, nor entirely disagree, with this belief. I've always held that if you want to win a war, you use every weapon in your arsenal; the same holds true for an argument. Fallacies, according to one of my logic professors, have short term affects; logical arguments have long-lasting affects. At the risk of making a fallacious argument myself, it seems that the best arguments are those that attack multiple points simultaneously rather than relying merely on long-term "feel-goods" (appeal to ridicule).

Case in point: politics. Politicians rely, in large part, on fallacies when they're running for government. A particular example from the news I heard yesterday was an argument between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama appealed to spite (keeping in mind that Democrats tend to frown on Big Business) during the Democratic caucus in South Carolina, stating that she had been a lawyer for Wal-Mart while he was defending the poor (or some rubbish of that sort); she returned with Obama's guilt by association, pointing out that when she had been working to help people, he had been defending criminals in Chicago. Whatever the fallacy used, they were both attacking using illogical arguments.

But is that wrong? Ignoring my own predilection for moral relativism for the time being, I don't think so. The problem with politicians isn't that they use fallacious arguments. It's not that they don't use logical arguments -- sometimes they manage, quite by mistake I'm sure, to do so. I am of the opinion that there is a middle ground between the logicians' "use no fallacy" and the politicians' "use no logic."

At this point is seems appropriate to point out that everyone uses fallacies (appeal to popularity), even logicians (ad hominem tu quoque). Fallacies are a political tool used since before the dawn of time, in all probability, and certainly since the Roman Republic (appeal to tradition). More importantly, they work. People don't like to think; they like to be told what to do -- it's easier (hasty generalization). Even if that wasn't true, however -- even if they loved to think about things without the least bit interest in following one another like so many cattle -- a person's initial reaction tends to be a knee-jerk emotional reaction. Not always, and it depends greatly on the situation in question. But in general, people react like puppets when confronted with certain types of arguments.

Is it bad to use this to one's advantage? As I've said before, if you're fighting a (conventional) war you use all the tools in your arsenal to win. Debate is a war, too -- it's a war of words, and one that should not be limited by bounds of "honor" except in certain circumstances (like in Ivory Tower classrooms and similar, structured debates in which the purpose is not really victory, but victory using logic). The political arena -- indeed no real life debate -- is bound by the rules of conduct typically found in philosophy and debate clubs; why limit one's tools?