Dick Cheney is a coward -- I wanted to say "girlie" man but that would insult girls everywhere!

Dick Cheney and his compadre's say that we should approve of torture and jail people without trial indefinitely because that keeps us safe. In other words, bypassing the rule of law in some cases and jettisoning age old moral precepts is ok even if there is small chance of something bad happening to us. In fact Dicky boy even has a name for this approach -- the one per cent doctrine (see for example http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2120605 for a lovely stats based analysis of this approach).

Lets look a the 1% bit first. First of all -- reality check bud -- NOTHING keeps us completely safe. Hell, we are apparently way more likely to die from an automobile accident than a terrorist attack (see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/34352.php for example). So if we applied the 1% rule then we should ban driving -- in fact we actually encourage people to drive. Of course a detractor will say -- How dare you compare driving to terrorist acts! How would you feel if your family was caught up in a terrorist attack! I will admit that would make me angry, sad, and vengeful. But I feel the same way about pedophiles. Since most pedophiles fit a certain profile (see for example http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm) how about locking everyone who fits that profile for life? After all the people who fit this profile have more than a one percent chance of being a pedophile. And if they have a 1% chance of being anywhere near my daughters I want those assholes to fry.So should we jail all white people who are above 30 years of age and like kids? Hell I'm not white so I say get 'em! You see where I am going with this? Do you see the logical flaw in the Cheney argument?

Second lets look at the moral issue. What would the world be like if if people did not stick to much loved ideals? The Christian martyrs who faced the lions when they only could have recanted and worshiped Jupiter or Nero or something would not exist in a Dick Cheney world -- because after all they should have chosen safety! John McCain's heroic resistance to torture when he could have been sitting pretty just by signing a document condemning the US would not be be source of justifiable pride and respect to all Americans -- because after all he should have chosen safety! All our men and women in uniform (and without) who fight the terrorists every day so I can blab on this blog without getting arrested or killed(well in a Dick Cheney world I probably would be renditioned -- being brown and uppity!)-- because after all they should have chosen safety! In other words Dick Cheney's position is a slap in the face for people of the faith, soldiers, war heroes -- all the people whom Cheney and his friends in the Republican party profess to support. To put it bluntly, the idea that we are free by natural right and that it is better to suffer as a free people than flourish in a cage (albeit gilded), is part of what it means to be an American. Looking towards the teats of big government to keep us permanently safe (whatever that means!) because we feel a sense of disquiet or fear should not be an American response.

Last but not the least what do these logical flaws mean for shutting down Guantanomo? First, there should be a recognition that there is a trade-off here between much cherished American ideals, the rule of law, and the expediency of a certain short term safety. The trade-off with safety assumes of course that our federal prisons are ripe for break-outs (If so this should be the source of an altogether different kind of disquiet!). Second, assuming there is a trade-off at all the question is what is the price of this safety? How do we know that Gitmo will be a holding pen for the most dangerous of the dangerous? What would happen if the government expanded the definition of dangerous once the notion of a place where one can place people beyond the reach of the law became commonplace? Gitmo is too small for imprisoning all potential pedophiles so maybe we should open a facility in Afghanistan to hold these people -- hey I would support that and I bet I could get a mob together and get Fox News, Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol to endorse my position (If you dont support me then you must be for pedophiles). Hopefully I have made my point. I exhort Congress to quit pandering to the mob and lead -- for the greater good of the nation.

Let Mr. Cheney and his friends in the Republican and Democratic party cower in his undisclosed location of permanent safety. We free people are made of sterner stuff. We will face the terrorists and we will destroy them - without losing our freedom and without trading our inherently American humanity for mere safety. So help me God.

Ideologues suck -- and I'm too tired for this battle.

I give up.

Against everyone who thinks that everyone would be safe if only some people could be tortured. Against everyone who thinks that everyone would be safe if only everyone was nice to each other. Against everyone who thinks that if we just shut our eyes and believed in god (God, GOD whatever level of capitalization!) we would be safe. Against everyone who think that if we just stopped believing in god (God, GOD, again -- whatever level of capitalization) then we would be safe. Etc.. etc. etc..

Yup -- all you conservatives and liberals out there -- you win.

You never liked thinking with that brain.

Just hope that I die before you ideological morons turn this world into shit.

Economics of Torture Redux

There is a lot of evidence from behavioral experiments (see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19Science-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all) about how we (as in humans) make decisions. A couple of important results. First, We weigh current benefits (or costs) much more heavily than future benefits (or costs). This means that current fears of terrorism (and therefore the desire to deal with it by any means necessary) will weigh more heavily than future costs (the unraveling of the social contract of what it means to be an American). This may explain why perfectly reasonable people become bloodthirsty maniacs when it comes to this issue. Add to that the notion of "well this bad thing (torture) is likely to happen to people who look different from me and if this bad thing to others does not happen then bad things may be done to people who look like me by those others" and one can see the support for torture to prevent terrorist attacks. Second, we seem to be learning that whether decisions are made in group settings or not matters to whether selfish or social decisions are made. Decisions to cooperate for a greater good are more likely to happen in a group setting than in individual settings. If this is true than individuals writing secret memos are much more likely to drive decision making towards selfish (save ourselves by torturing others) decisions than groups debating the same issue. In other words a decision after debating the same issue in a group may be more likely to reflect the common synergistic good than the selfish inefficient outcome. Thus a decision to torture or not taken after a debate in open society may focus more on the common ideals of liberty and justice than the goal of personal safety.

The Economics of Torture

The argument over releasing memos that governed (?) the use of "special methods of interrogation" has revolved around the whether it is moral or not (usually on the liberal side) and whether it is effective or not (usually on the conservative side). President Obama claims that torture is not what America should stand for. His appointees in the CIA say that is true, however we did get good information that saved American lives through torture. Conservatives say -- see we did get good information so we should continue with torture. The economist however is concerned with trade-offs. So the issue is not whether we get good information by torturing people (and this is itself debatable). The issue is can we get the same information without giving up American moral ideals. As an American this is what I want to know. Will the politicians quit grandstanding for a few seconds to let the intelligence community answer this? Last time I checked our government was still answerable to the people.

The Republican Inconsistency

Republicans were up in arms about paying taxes this week. I was not too happy myself! But consider -- where were these Republicans when President Bush expanded government by increasing spending and by intrusions into the rights of citizens? In fact Republicans -- scared enough to justify the erosion of liberty in the face of danger (I hope my contempt for those who would rather be safe than free shines through!) -- actively supported all of President Bush's attempts to turn the Presidency into an Imperium. That they are calling President Obama names today - "fascist" is one of the more polite names - therefore smacks of political expediency rather than any consistent ideological position. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no Republican idea anymore -- they are just people who do not want to pay their share of governance. So here's a thought for my Republican countrymen -- move to a country where there are no taxes, lots of guns, and no government (and I suppose freedom to practice religion as long as you use the guns wisely!). I will buy a free air ticket (economy now -- don't get uppity) to Somalia for the first Republican who renounces their US citizenship and asks me for the fare. Deos enim religuos accepimus, Caesares dedimus.

Jan 20 -- the Return of the US Constitution and American Honor

The man who tried to turn a democratic presidency into an imperium will have no power tomorrow. The detritus of his attempted coup of American and yes, even Republican ideals, however, will stick in the gullet of free Americans for a long time. But consider this -- he did not succeed. Our Republic prevailed. Freedom rings from sea to shining sea. The American Constitution ultimately did not bow before the arrogance of the Bush administration. They said the Constitution was not a death pact. They tried to sow fear so we would give up our freedom to protect our lives. But Liberty was not to be traded in America. The world will know on Jan 20, 2009 that the words of March 23, 1775 ring as true. We may be attacked by our enemies, we may be uncertain of our material wealth, but we WILL be free Americans. "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee i sing..."

The importance of being moral.

I suppose my previous blogs appear to have this theme -- that morality matters for success. I believe that morality (the ability to understand that there is good and evil and to know what it is) is an institution that has evolved for the success of the human species. Thus is situations where people have no moral direction the human species perishes. This view raises questions of course. What is this morality and is this morality universal? How does those this sense of morality spell success for the human species? Dont change this channel!