Several weeks ago, while listening to the radio, the dj's kept talking about a police blitz. They were going to more actively look for people driving under the influence. Apparently they bought ad space all over the state, and were putting representatives on the radio and TV commercials to get the word out. The dj for the station I usually listen to was joking around with the officer that was visiting their morning radio show, and somehow they got on to the topic of the stun guns that some officers carry now.
These stun guns shoot thin little wires with barbed hooks on the end that hook into a person's skin. Then the gun shoots as much as like 2,000,000 volts through the wires hooked in to your skin. The dj asked if it hurt (duh) and the cop said "most of the time". 'Well, what do you mean'? The cop explained that if somebody is intoxicated enough the pain doesn't seem to register in their brain and the gun does not effectively "stun" them as it does with most people. At that point the gun significantly increases the voltage until they get a response. As they talk about it the office mentions that everyone on the force who carries one has to be stunned as part of their training. So the dj, in the name of entertainment, volunteers himself to be stunned (that part is really relevant, just funny, and it was!)
So, what is the point? There has been a lot of arguing whether "water boarding" is torture. I've never had to experience it, so I don't know. Torture is a bit of a wiggling definition in that it's hard to pin down. Different people/agencies/organizations define it differently. Am I opposed to water boarding? Yes! A retired CIA intelligence officer told me that intelligence gather by coercive means is some of the very least credible intelligence they acquire. It's maybe a half notch above the National Inquirer, she said. Ok, sorry for the tangent, back on topic...
The point is. I would feel better about water boarding and other coercive means of obtaining intelligence if the interrogators were subjected to the treatments to the same level and extent they are used and under the same conditions, before they could use them. Would that make it right? No, but I don't think there would be nearly as many interrogators using those methods.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Enough With Biographies
In life we're all kings or pawns - "The Count of Monte Cristo"
It happened again today. Few people made some politically charged statements that might have set me off, but because I respect them a great deal, I said nothing. The following is more or less what I wanted to say. This post is not about religion.
A person's biography does not make them a great person. Just because a man used to change car tires does not mean that he is qualified to race Formula One cars. It's true that he has had experience with the mechanics of cars, at least the tires, and he may have been very good at changing tires, but that is not to say that he is able to keep the whole car under control and performing at its optimum for hundreds of miles through body crushingly tight turns at mind bending speeds.
I have known men who devoted their life to religion, given up years of life as young men, spent veritable fortunes for people of their age, and put personal interests aside to do what they thought was right. Then within a few years, sometimes a matter of months, they throw it all aside, abandon religion entirely and live the life they fought against so vigorously. They become different people; they forget the things they felt and the promises they made to themselves.
The catalysts for this kind of change in a man is the same they have always been from the beginning of human history. Fame, fortune, and power. How many lives are centered on the pursuit of one or more of these, and how many have been ruined by their acquisition.
Telling me how good a man was at changing tires 40 years ago tells me nothing about how well he can drive a race car today, and the best pawn might never be a good king.
It happened again today. Few people made some politically charged statements that might have set me off, but because I respect them a great deal, I said nothing. The following is more or less what I wanted to say. This post is not about religion.
A person's biography does not make them a great person. Just because a man used to change car tires does not mean that he is qualified to race Formula One cars. It's true that he has had experience with the mechanics of cars, at least the tires, and he may have been very good at changing tires, but that is not to say that he is able to keep the whole car under control and performing at its optimum for hundreds of miles through body crushingly tight turns at mind bending speeds.
I have known men who devoted their life to religion, given up years of life as young men, spent veritable fortunes for people of their age, and put personal interests aside to do what they thought was right. Then within a few years, sometimes a matter of months, they throw it all aside, abandon religion entirely and live the life they fought against so vigorously. They become different people; they forget the things they felt and the promises they made to themselves.
The catalysts for this kind of change in a man is the same they have always been from the beginning of human history. Fame, fortune, and power. How many lives are centered on the pursuit of one or more of these, and how many have been ruined by their acquisition.
Telling me how good a man was at changing tires 40 years ago tells me nothing about how well he can drive a race car today, and the best pawn might never be a good king.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Is it really success?
Remember the end of the 2005 summer when the intelligence community busted a plot to use liquid explosives to blow up a plane? Do you remember a couple of years ago when some guy tried to hide explosives in his shoes to blow up a plane? Remember how much everything changed after 9/11?
The goal of terrorism is not to kill people. Its goal is to make a lot of noise in order to bring attention to a specific cause, or to make a point. Killing big groups of people just happens to be one of the best ways to get people's attention. The point jihadists are trying to make is that capitalists are morally corrupt and are trying to corrupt their children and their culture in the same ways. Few people can argue that this is not true. I've never heard a reasonable argument against it; especially if you know just a little about Islamic beliefs. The cause the jihadists are working for is to "cut off the hand which offendeth thee" as Christians might say. They want the decadent capitalists and their evil influence out of their nation.
This is not to say that I condone their killings of thousands of people. It is only to make a point. They want to disrupt capitalism as much as they can, as long as it is stretching is imposing shadow over them. This raises two questions: first, have they succeeded, and second, what is the cost-benefit for us?
The first question is answered straightforwardly. Absolutely yes. The 9/11 attack was tremendously successful, as were later attacks whether carried out or "foiled" by intelligence. After 9/11 it became much more difficult to travel by air. Business representatives were undoubtedly impeded in their work. After the liquid explosives incident, what happened at airports? More security, more inconvenience, more time for check-in, and no electronics for a time (thank goodness that restriction has been eased up). You can't take your own water onto a plane. Then the explosive shoe furthered our inconvenience.
Of course, you're thinking right now, 'yeah, but at least nobody has died recently', and I would agree, but jihadists don't care. Each mission has been a success.
So what's the cost? Mere inconvenience? Perhaps. If you have traveled much you know that it can be a significant inconvenience. Imagine people who travel several times a month. They likely lose several working days worth of time by the inconvenience. The department of Home Land Security pays for all of the security guards, their training and their equipment, which may not be a great deal of money for a single year, but it adds up.
'But that's a small price to pay if it keeps us safe' you're saying. I would ask, does it keep us safe? For all of the security measures in place at airports there are still countless ways in which already familiar attack plans could again be implemented. How many retail stores are inside the security gates, and how many packages come in everyday? There are other ways to blow up a plane than putting someone with explosives on it. If we want to talk about other means of terrorism, how many millions of shipping containers come into the US every year with out ever being looked at?
So have their been "successful" terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? YES, although fortunately none have been lethal. Do the security measures in place keep us safe? I don't feel any safer traveling now than I did in 2000. In fact, I wonder if the security measures aren't taken as a "challenge" for some.
The final question then, is our involvement in middle eastern Islamic countries really worth all of this?
The goal of terrorism is not to kill people. Its goal is to make a lot of noise in order to bring attention to a specific cause, or to make a point. Killing big groups of people just happens to be one of the best ways to get people's attention. The point jihadists are trying to make is that capitalists are morally corrupt and are trying to corrupt their children and their culture in the same ways. Few people can argue that this is not true. I've never heard a reasonable argument against it; especially if you know just a little about Islamic beliefs. The cause the jihadists are working for is to "cut off the hand which offendeth thee" as Christians might say. They want the decadent capitalists and their evil influence out of their nation.
This is not to say that I condone their killings of thousands of people. It is only to make a point. They want to disrupt capitalism as much as they can, as long as it is stretching is imposing shadow over them. This raises two questions: first, have they succeeded, and second, what is the cost-benefit for us?
The first question is answered straightforwardly. Absolutely yes. The 9/11 attack was tremendously successful, as were later attacks whether carried out or "foiled" by intelligence. After 9/11 it became much more difficult to travel by air. Business representatives were undoubtedly impeded in their work. After the liquid explosives incident, what happened at airports? More security, more inconvenience, more time for check-in, and no electronics for a time (thank goodness that restriction has been eased up). You can't take your own water onto a plane. Then the explosive shoe furthered our inconvenience.
Of course, you're thinking right now, 'yeah, but at least nobody has died recently', and I would agree, but jihadists don't care. Each mission has been a success.
So what's the cost? Mere inconvenience? Perhaps. If you have traveled much you know that it can be a significant inconvenience. Imagine people who travel several times a month. They likely lose several working days worth of time by the inconvenience. The department of Home Land Security pays for all of the security guards, their training and their equipment, which may not be a great deal of money for a single year, but it adds up.
'But that's a small price to pay if it keeps us safe' you're saying. I would ask, does it keep us safe? For all of the security measures in place at airports there are still countless ways in which already familiar attack plans could again be implemented. How many retail stores are inside the security gates, and how many packages come in everyday? There are other ways to blow up a plane than putting someone with explosives on it. If we want to talk about other means of terrorism, how many millions of shipping containers come into the US every year with out ever being looked at?
So have their been "successful" terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? YES, although fortunately none have been lethal. Do the security measures in place keep us safe? I don't feel any safer traveling now than I did in 2000. In fact, I wonder if the security measures aren't taken as a "challenge" for some.
The final question then, is our involvement in middle eastern Islamic countries really worth all of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)