Obama and Cheney on the World: Who’s Living in the Real World?

Answer: NEITHER OF THEM!  Although Obama seems to be more practical, he’s still holding on to an ideology and we can see this through the whole torture debates.  Here is their philosophical positions as I can see it:

OBAMA:  Since we are a democracy and a nation of law, torture is inherently wrong.  We are a nation that does not torture and we will not torture.  Along with this, I would think that Obama’s philosophy is that if there comes to a “ticking-time bomb scenario” (which is hardly likely), then torture might be the exception.  However, in a situation like this, everyone needs to know about it.  Previous presidents have taken away rights of people and declared it publicly (Lincoln and FDR, for example).  With everyone knowing about it, there’s no need for secrecy and everyone can understand what the situation is.  Thus, if there comes to a situation where rights of man are to be taken away, not only will people know about it, but everyone should know about it.  If not, then the world (and our own citizens) will look at the US with distrust, contempt, and the problem.

CHENEY: We are a nation of law, but there are cases where to protect the safety of everyone, you have to sacrifice the liberties of the few.  Thus, torture is instrumentally (or perhaps primae facie) wrong.  Yes, we don’t torture and we shouldn’t torture, unless. . .  These torture techniques (actually, Cheney calls them “interrogation techniques”) has helped saved lives and it keeps America safe.  Now with this, no one should know about this.  If this gets released to the public, then it will just embolden the enemy.  Our enemies will know about these techniques and they’ll train to get used to them or the information will be a great recruitment tool for more al-Qaeda members.  Thus, if there comes to a situation where rights of man are to be taken away, no only will we not tell the world, but we shouldn’t tell the world.  The less people know about it, the better.

This, I take it, is their philosophical positions.  Now, Obama has somewhat gone back on his philosophical consistency by not releasing the photos.  His justification is similar to Cheney’s: our enemies will know about it and it will just embolden them.

For me, I lean heavily toward Obama’s position.  With this, I wish he did release the photos so that the world would know what we did and then we can move on.  As for prosecuting the people who legitimated the torturing, I’m still up in the air about it.

Book Review: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore

I usually don’t read books by politicians, mainly because it’s usually a book displaying why the other side is wrong or putting forth some ideology.  But when I was Gore’s book and the title, I told myself, “this book is going to be different.”  After all, he isn’t a politician anymore and I thought, just based on the title, that this book would be talking about society instead of politics.  I was mistaken.  At times, Gore seems to show off his erudite knowledge.  However, these little tangents suggest that it helps his case.

I don’t want to sound stereotypical, but Gore’s book was kind of boring.  (Insert Al Gore joke here.)  I eventually got turned off because his intro says that he isn’t talking about the Bush administration, but in every subsequent chapter, it was basically stating why the Bush administration has made things worse for the country.  While I agree that the Bush administration has been disastrous for our country, it seems disingenuous to say that the book isn’t about the Bush administration, but it turns out that it is.

In chapter one, Gore talks about how after 9/11, the Bush administration took advantage of the situation to get the country geared for the War in Iraq.  The Bush administration played on the fear of the country and if there’s fear, you can play into the American public and convince people to do whatever is needed.  Something to add here, it turns out that the British were “dragged” into the war as well. While I agree that the Bush administration took advantage of the situation and played on the American’s fear, I’m wondering if other politicians have done this.  Hobbes has suggested that what moves and drives politics is fear.

Chapter two.  Gore talks about how Bush took advantage of the religious particularities to suggest that invading Iraq was a religious “crusade.”  Indeed, Bush has said that being a Christian is part of his foreign policy.  By playing into this, he appealed to the dogmas of society so that it bypasses the debates and arguments about whether the War in Iraq was needed.  Gore does admit that the Iraq War is debatable, but a debate is better than bypassing one.

Chapter Three. Gore talks about wealth.  With TV, radio, and the internet without having a sovereign, it has no regulations.  People can take advantage of this and the media can play into people’s predilections to buy and purchase things that they didn’t realize they needed.  Capitalism, by its very nature, makes things unequal.  But in a democracy, it calls for the equality of people.  I’m not an expert on economics, but I can’t help but see a correlation between democracies and capitalism.  It seems impossible to have a capitalistic society without democracy (even with the converse being false).  Gore doesn’t talk much about Bush, but without regulations, the Bush administration let everything go chaotic to the point where it leads to an economic mess that we’re in today.

Chapter four.  In this chapter, Gore points out the both Bush and Cheney either purposely ignored information about the War in Iraq, or else they didn’t care.  Either way, they aren’t capable of leadership.  Constantly, information about the War in Iraq suggested that the war would be time consuming and troublesome.  However, Bush and Cheney convinced the American people that it would be a swift war.  However, with them purposely ignoring evidence, this has lead us into a disastrous state of affairs.

Chapter five.  Gore talks about how this War on Terror has made the prisoners into a different kind of prisoner.  These prisoners aren’t POWs, but they aren’t your common criminals.  They are “unlawful enemy combatants.”  But with these words, anyone can be an “unlawful enemy combatant” just by the President declaring these magic words.  Strictly speaking, I could be one if the President decided that I was a threat to the country.  With this, the rights of the individual are downgraded because security is at the most highest priority.  Indeed, 90 percent of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib did not have any information.  I’m sure the same is at Guantanamo.  Also, anyone can be detained without knowing why one is detained.

Chapter six.  Gore talks about how the Bush Administration’s actions have actually hindered our national security.  Because of Iraq, al-Qaeda has gained more members, Iraq has diverted our attention away from the real enemy (in Afghanistan), and America has had a tarnished reputation around the world.  Ironically, the War in Iraq is the best recruitment tool for al-Qaeda gaining about 18,000 more members since the wake of the war in Iraq.  Retired generals have displayed that this was a strategical error, but the Bush Administration dismissed them simply because they are retired.  What does Gore recommend?  He states that after we pushed the Taliban out, we should have stayed to gain a more secure force in Afghanistan.  Our military was in favor of it.  But we diverted our attention to Iraq and now the Taliban came back with the same strength in 2006.  (Now it’s 2009 and they’re even stronger than they were in 2001.)

Chapter seven.  Gore talks about how Bush and ExxonMobile are together in “solving” the pollution crisis.  Lobbyists come to Bush supporting the oil industry and they convince Bush there is no need to pay attention to any of the global climate situation.

Chapter eight.  Gore talks about how our Founders wanted to have three branches of government to keep each other in check.  But Congress doesn’t question the Bush Administration or follows him dogmatically, and the Supreme Court has lobbyists who take the judges out in order to educate them in an ideological point of view.  To me, this was the strongest chapter.  This chapter actually talks about how reason is being ignored because the government appeals to the emotions or some dogmatic idealogy.  Everything is subservient to the Executive branch of power.

Chapter nine.  The solution is to bring reason back into politics.  I was amazed at some of the studies that Gore presented.  When college students were presented with the First Amendment, that was the first time they’d heard of it!  Indeed, after they heard it, these students thought that the First Amendment “went too far.”  I couldn’t believe that.  But also, Gore’s solution is to let the little people’s voices be heard.  Part of this means that technology and the Internet will have to play a big role.

So what do I think of this?  All in all, I think it was a typical response from someone like Gore.  Mainly, I wasn’t surprised by what he said.  However, there was something in there that he constantly brought up that made me cringe.  Gore kept on saying that we need to bring reason back into democracy.  I hate to tell you this, Gore, but democracy and reason are antithetical to each other.  Democracy is about the “tyranny of the majority,” the huddled masses, and the herd mentality.  We see this in Plato, Mill, and Dewey.  Of course, each of them had various solutions but I can’t believe that democracy and reason go together.  It seems that democracy, by its very nature, is unrational.  That’s why we have politicans.  We trust them to be rational and to look out for us.  Of course, the whole idea is that we’re supposed to be watching the government, but sorry to say this, a democracy doesn’t work that way.  People in a democracy are fickle, lousy, and just plain dumb.  Sure there are smart people, but those are rare indeed.  Given a group of Americans, I can guarentee you that less than 50% will not know much about politics.  Gore even admits that.  So while Gore’s solution is predictable, I can’t help but think that the problems of democracy has been around since Plato.  Gore’s solution of “bring reason back to democracy” seems weak.  How, do I ask, can we bring reason “back to democracy” if democracy was never rational to begin with?  Gore brings some insight in the background of politics.  Unfortunately, his solution, I find, is weak at best, and utopian at worst.

Study: The More Daughters the Father Has, the More Liberal-Minded He Is

A study suggested that the more daughters a father has, the more liberal-minded he is.  Taken from the study:

Compared with males, females tend to be more in favour of higher taxes to fund provision such as the NHS. Higher taxation also affects them less since they tend to be in a lower income bracket. “As men acquire female children,” said Oswald, “those men gradually shift their political stance and become more sympathetic to the ‘female’ desire for a … larger amount for the public good. They become more leftwing. Similarly, a mother with sons becomes sympathetic to the ‘male’ case for lower taxes and a smaller supply of public goods. Political feelings are much less independently chosen than people realise,” he added. “Children mould their parents. It’s so scientifically attractive because it’s out of the parents’ control – whether they have a boy or a girl.”

The children has a bigger influence on the parents political ideology than we thought.  However, it isn’t without it’s critics that you’ll see at the end of the article:

But Arthur Mayne, a biologist who has three sons aged from 18 to 12 years, disagrees. “This is a simplistic scientific that could be accused of gender stereotyping, especially the idea that women are more likely to be softer politically than men,” he said. “While it is true that men biologically determine the sex of their children, recent studies seem to prove that women with higher levels of testosterone – who are more likely to display dominant, positive behaviours – seem to produce more sons than daughters.

“Women with lower levels of testosterone, who are more likely to be empathetic and better listeners, tend to produce more daughters. It could be that the women who are most likely to produce daughters pick a partner who is closer to her more empathetic attitude to life. Hence people who are already more liberal may produce more daughters and those who are already conservative may produce more sons.”

So the reply is which came first: the liberal-minded father and the children who just reinforced his ideals, or the children who made the father shift his political views?  Either way, it’s an interesting study.

Being vs. Doing Again: Application in Ethics

I previously posted a blog about Being vs. Doing. It was dealing with how people looked at the world and weather a “being” philosophy has a higher status than a “doing” philosophy, or vice-versa.  I think this would also apply to the realm of ethics.  I’ll talk about abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage.

With abortion: Pro-lifers point out that the being involved is important because of what it is (namely, “human”).  The biological entity isn’t just any being but a special kind of being and because this being has special status, we should give it consideration (rather than other types of beings like rocks, chairs, pens, etc.).  Pro-choicers will argue back that the being doesn’t matter; it’s the traits that matters morally.  In other words, what is it doing?  Rocks, chairs, and pens don’t matter morally because they aren’t doing anything that qualifies them to have a special moral status.  The same applies to a fetus: it doesn’t have any traits (in other words, it isn’t doing anything morally) that we would consider having moral status.  So the question comes back: is being or doing more important?

With capital punishment: People who are for capital punishment focus on the doing.  This person did something that we must consider morally.  It’s an atrocious act, a capital crime and that person must be punished accordingly.  People against capital punishment have used a being argument.  For example:  The convicted rapist Matias Reye had a horrible childhood.  When he was 2 years old, his mother sold him to his father for $400.  At age 7, two older boys sexually abused him and threw him in a river.  By age 17, he was living alone on the street of New York, scratching for money as an East Harlem delicatessen clerk and sleeping in a van outside of the store.  People who use a being argument suggest that it really wasn’t his fault for being like this.  His upbringing made him into this type of being and he shouldn’t be blamed for this.  (I know that there are those arguments that argue against capital punishment based on traits rather than being, but most anti-capital punishment arguments do focus on being rather than doing.)

Finally, gay marriage: People against gay marriage say that the relationship isn’t the proper kind.  In other words, the being of the relationship isn’t the right kind of being and so they cannot get the full sanctity of a marriage.  People for gay marriage say that the being doesn’t matter.  It’s the doings of the relationship.  The argument is that their marriage isn’t harming anyone, thus they should be allowed to get married.

I’m sure many more applications could be used here but I’m wondering if all ethics could be reduced to a “being” vs. “doing” dichotomy.

Monkeys Understand Fairness and Cooperation

Everyone thinks humans are special because they’re the only species that understands fairness.  Think again:

How to do Philosophy

As an undergrad, I did philosophy by reading the material, trying to get an understanding of them, and then answer various questions in class.  In grad school, I did philosophy by trying to get a broader understanding of the philosophers and try to have a sense of responding to them, either by agreeing with them or not.  However, I’ve realized that that isn’t doing philosophy, I was just simply reading about it, or writing about it.

Doing philosophy is something different.  In order to do philosophy, you must always challenge your beliefs.  So for example, if you’re pro-choice on the abortion debate, you must purposely find a good book or article that argues for a pro-life position.  If you believe in God, you must find a good philosophical book that talks about atheism (and none of that atheistic trash like Christopher Hitchens).  If you believe in Communism, you must find a good book on libertarianism (and not just Ron Paul, I mean a really good philosophical position).  Why do this?

1. It keeps you on your toes.  By reading materials you don’t believe in, you are already on the defense, but you’re willing to listen.  Indeed, reading something that you don’t agree with forces you to listen so that you can argue back or perhaps modify your beliefs.
2. It makes you not dogmatic with your beliefs.  This deals with the first premise but Bertrand Russell has said that when you have a belief, always make sure you have a question mark hanging over that position.  By reading or listening to something that you don’t agree with, it forces you to have that question mark over your head.
3. It makes you more aware of your beliefs.  Foucault has called for a genealogy of your beliefs.  Although he argues that everything comes down to power, I suggest that by looking at things that you don’t agree with, you are more aware of where your beliefs come from, why you have them, and it makes you have a better outlook on your beliefs by giving better justification for your answers.  With this, you can get a better understanding of your beliefs without relying on the lame answers such as, “that’s how I was raised” or “it just is.”
4. You realize who are good thinkers.  I come across philosophers that I don’t agree with, but when I read them, I have this internal dialogue where they can always reply back to my responses.  I play the devil’s advocate, but at the same time, I’m trying to defend my views to these philosophers.  Likewise, it forces you to know the philosopher’s responses.

I call for you to find something, on purpose, that disagrees with your beliefs.  Read it seriously.  It will help you develop critical thinking skills and to bring about an awareness of your beliefs that you’ve never thought out before.  Read it as if the other philosopher is a formidable opponent instead of a blowhard.  (This is why I’ll never read anything by Sean Hannity.  Sorry, but I can’t consider him a formidable opponent.)

To give an example, I used to be extremely liberal on the abortion debate, but then I forced myself to listen to Peter Kreeft on his stance on the pro-life position and now I’m on the fence.  I think it’s actually good.  Kreeft has made me realize that the belief I have could be mistaken and so it’s better to have a true belief than a false one.

On the other side, I have read books talking about religion, and this has actually modified my views on religion which resulted in a paper that I wrote about.  I hope to develop this skill and by doing philosophy, I’ll have a more developed life and a more developed philosophy.  Nietzsche has said that philosophy is a shift of your perspectives.  That’s how one does philosophy instead of just thinking about philosophy.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with books that you do agree with, but there’s no challenge in that.  If you want to do good philosophy, find something that you purposely disagree with and listen to it seriously.  Treat it as if it was a friend you disagree with actually, and then discuss it.  Philosophy books aren’t just books, they are like your friends and you must reply in a serious manner.  After all, if you don’t know your opponent’s views, you truly don’t know your own.

Along with this, I find that philosophers are like friends.  There are those that you’d want to visit often.  There are those that you rarely visit.  And there are times where if you have some philosophical problem, you know which philosopher to go to.  For me?  I usually go back to Sartre.  I find that he’s the “friend” that I can go back to.  (Of course in real life, I doubt we could ever be friends, but that’s another story.)

Saying “I Love You”

Saying “I love you” seems to be a trick, a chicanery, a manipulation just to get the other person to say “I love you too.”

US views of Abortion Have Shifted to Pro-Life

. . . for the first time in 15 years.  The majority of Americans have typically been pro-choice since Roe v. Wade (except for a few moments during the Regan administration).  But a recent poll which you can see here has shown that the opinion has shifted.  51 percent of Americans are now pro-life.

There are more interesting statistics at the site as well: more people believe that abortion shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances.  Pro-choicers have actually gone down a bit over the years.

I’m sure the numbers will change.  Throughout history, people’s view of abortion changes usually with whoever is President.  I predict the pro-choice opinion will go up slightly, but probably no higher than 55 percent.

Adding Sketches to Spam

Someone has made sketches pertaining to those lame spam mails that you receive. 

Check out the rest here.  It’s awesome.

Two Examples of Freedom of Speech in Crisis

A few weeks ago, Carrie Prejean (aka Miss California) got some heat mainly from two things.  The first is seen below:

Many people got offended by this.  At the same time, Prejean also posed in topless pics before she became Miss California.  You can see them here and here.

Now, were people offended?  I’m sure they were.  And because of this offensiveness, people wanted Miss California to relinquish her crown.

Example number 2: Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondence Dinner.  She made a joke that you can see below: 

People were really offended by that and said that Sykes went too far.

So what’s the story behind this?  They both practiced freedom of speech and when it comes to that, I can’t help but think of what John Stuart Mill said about freedom of speech and harm.  He said:

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.

So at what point can we restrict your freedom?  Mill states again:

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

To be clear, offense does not mean harm.  Were people offended by their speeches?  I’m sure they were.  Were they harmed?  It seems hard to prove that.

(On a personal note, I never understood offense.  However, it takes a lot to offend me.  Perhaps I just admire Mill so much that I’ve taken his work to be a good measuring stick of society’s standards.  So if someone makes a speech which is deemed “offensive,” I seem to be the only one that has the mentality not of, “I’m offended,” but rather, “that person is expressing his or her opinion, and nothing more.”)

With Prejean, she got to keep her crown and rightfully so, I think.  As for Wanda Sykes, the media kept asking was this joke going too far.  Here’s my question back to the media: did she harm anyone?  Did people die? Did people needed to get psychiatric help?  Did these people need counseling from this joke?  It seems not.  At most, people were mad and offended.  So did Wanda Sykes and Carrie Prejean go to far?  The answer is simply no.  They expressed their opinion (and notice that it’s an opinion, which means you don’t have to agree with them or not).  Therefore, they didn’t go “too far.”