Marilee, actually, the Beatrice Hall quote is a different one (I am somewhat familiar with the controversy). The sentence I quoted is supposed to come from one of Voltaire's letters (addressed to the Abbé le Riche), though I have admittedly no way to verify or disprove that fact (and I will happily stand corrected -- as Hall notes, regardless of the words, it is a reasonably accurate paraphrase of opinions that Voltaire actually expressed in his "Essay on Tolerance").
Andy, you wrote: "That strikes me as typical of liberals, who often insist that liberal standards are fair and impartial [...]".
May I ask where you get that idea? Aside from the fact that I'm still not used to how the meaning of "liberal" -- which, as I have on good authority, used to mean "free" and "independent" in this country less than a century ago -- got perverted to mean "far left of the political center", I assure you that there is nothing more partisan than an articulate liberal. Voltaire wrote, famously, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write", but the point is that he still did detest it. We are talking, after all, about the same guy who ripped the Catholic Church a new one in "Candide".
I have honestly no idea why being too timid to have an actual, discernable opinion (a.k.a. "I am so moderate that I agree with both sides") is considered a praiseworthy quality by some. The thing that matters is to have a rational discourse -- but discourse still comes from the Latin "discurrere", which means, literally, "to run different ways". Disagreement is part of the process; either one learns to deal with it, or one should give up on dealing with politics.
Why is this so important? As Hannah Arendt wrote, "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced [adherent], but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (standards of thought) no longer exist." When we become too afraid to say what we think and instead attempt to hew closely to that fictional thin slice of the population right down the center, we destroy our capacity for critical thought. "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any." (Again, Hannah Arendt.)
(If you read the above paragraphs as a critique of the currently popular journalistic practice of treating the writing of an article as a political zero-sum game, I won't disagree.)
In any event, what currently seems to make the left discernible from the right is that the former -- literally -- still believes that the pen is mightier than the sword. Don't be surprised when they practice what they preach. Jonathan Swift's modest proposal may have upset some people more than the justest of just wars, but it almost certainly killed fewer actual children.
Alter S. Reiss wrote: Given that you were growing up in Germany of the 70s, I can only assume that you're aware that in 1972, there were Olympics in Munich? Which, as far as I know, is part of Germany? Further, I can only assume that you're aware that there was some sort of hostage thing that went on at those Olympics?
I am well aware of the Munich massacre, how the German authorities were caught with their pants down, and how the German police (not a counter-terrorism unit, which Germany didn't have at the time) in a stunning displace of incompetence bungled the operation. I also know how the German government let itself be blackmailed into releasing the three surviving terrorists. And I could also add how terrorists were released as a result of the Peter Lorenz kidnapping in February 1975.
The thing is, these occurrences were not the result of a standing policy of how to deal with terrorists, but happened because of inexperience and ignorance. It was those very events that led in 1973 to the creation of the GSG-9, the German counter-terrorism unit, with the aid of the British SAS and the Israeli Sayeret Matkal, and ultimately to a matching counter-terrorism policy. The results of this policy were seen in April 1975 in Stockholm and in October 1977 in Mogadishu, when the German government categorically refused to consider the terrorists' demands and had a kidnapped plane stormed, respectively. This general policy was summarized by the social democratic chancellor Helmut Schmidt in the brief statement: "One does not negotiate with terrorists."
Mark, no offense, but while I didn't consider your article rude, my first reaction to it was an unqualified "huh?" Maybe it is because I grew up in the Germany of the 70s, with RAF (Red Army Faction) terrorism being a constant concern, but if there is one thing that I've always considered axiomatic in politics, it is that our governments do not make deals with terrorists. Of course, for every crackpot idea there will be some individuals who actually advocate it (as illustrated by Derek's examples), but that doesn't say anything about governments.
"Centrist" is a relative term, anyway. From my own point of view (heavily influenced by my cultural background and upbringing, of course), the Democrats are a moderate right-wing party, for example.
Patrick wrote: It seems to me that history shows us that secret police are generally very good at Job One, Scaring Everybody Half to Death; but much spottier at Job Two, Knowing What the Heck Is Going On.
Patrick, may I present the East German Stasi as a counterexample? They made getting information a high priority and were frighteningly good at accomplishing that goal.
Stefanie wrote: Especially if you have a child, and especially especially if you don’t have a lot of time yourself, TV is a way to make what time off you do have at least semidiverting, and to take the edge off the pressure of child-rearing.
If I may add to that, I'd also like to point out that many of her critics don't seem to have the slightest clue what it means to raise a handicapped child (which, unfortunately, I'm only too familiar with, both through friends and through volunteer work). There's also the small matter that many do not accept anything short of outright starvation as deserving of help (even homelessness is apparently eyed with suspicion). Whereas I consider basic human dignity a fundamental right, not a privilege that can be granted or taken away.
Moreover, I don't even care if there are a few welfare abusers on the fringes that live off taxes I pay. It's a small price to pay for knowing that more people in need can have something resembling personal dignity. Definitely a much smaller price than having to listen to the whining of those who can't bear the thought of losing a few percent of their precious paychecks.
(Teresa, feel free to disemvowel that last sentence if you think it is out of line or may cause undue disruption.)
Kevin wrote: That looks and smells and acts like censorship, and so I call it that.
Hmm, personally I'd call it coercion, and possibly blackmail. Censorship, as I understand it, is what Guiseppe Verdi and Heinrich Heine experienced, where everything they published went first past a government-appointed censor.
There is a certain argumentative benefit in calling something censorship, in that censorship is a democratic "swear word", and one doesn't have to argue that it's wrong, only that it's the right term. On the downside, it can infect discussions with definitionitis -- because it may not be the right word -- and then it's perhaps better to argue from first principles why something is wrong, rather than getting the "censorship" hammer out.
Patrick asked: Is it reasonable to expect newly-released software from Apple to be compatible, in 2003, with Mac OS 8.5? Is it even remotely surprising when something isn't?
A few special cases aside, I absolutely see no engineering-related reason why software should not work on five-year old hardware and operating systems, assuming a semi-sane software development process.
If you think Krugman sounds pessimistic, try Kurt Richebe4cher for some really depressing views. :(
Patrick: I take it you were thinking of discussion more along the following lines?
"In the Middle Ages people believed that the earth was flat, for which they had at least the evidence of their senses: we believe it to be round, not because as many as one per cent of us could give the physical reasons for so quaint a belief, but because modern science has convinced us that nothing that is obvious is true, and that everything that is magical, improbable, extraordinary, gigantic, microscopic, heartless, or outrageous is scientific.
"I must not, by the way, be taken as implying that the earth is flat, or that all or any of our amazing credulities are delusions or impostures. I am only defending my own age against the charge of being less imaginative than the Middle Ages. I affirm that the nineteenth century, and still more the twentieth, can knock the fifteenth into a cocked hat in point of susceptibility to marvels and saints and prophets and magicians and monsters and fairy tales of all kinds."
— George Bernard Shaw in the preface of "Saint Joan"
Admittedly, Shaw has a different slant on this than Andrew, one which is open to some criticism, but his points about faith and credulity in modern times are still well-taken.
(And my apologies for recycling more thoughts by others today than providing ones of my own; I blame it on my busy schedule.)
"Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"
Bonus points for anybody who can point out where this is from.
Yonmei wrote: Behrends, I'm startled that you don't count Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes as great humanitarians... I certainly do.
Well, the examples I gave were examples, and were not supposed to be an exhaustive list. No judgment about other candidates should be inferred from that, though I obviously failed miserably at communicating it.
Patrick, I didn't mean to say that humanitarians don't get any mention at all (witness my reference to Yonmei's listing of Dunant and Benenson); just that at the end of the day, they seem to be utterly "outscored". Or how many humanitarians do you count on either of the two original top twenty lists?
What I always find fascinating (for lack of a better word) is how poorly humanitarians score in these contests. Yonmei has listed Henri Dunant (Founder of the Red Cross) and Peter Benenson (Founder of Amnesty International), but they've seen scarcely any mention elsewhere. And I haven't seen Albert Schweitzer (who was not only a great humanitarian, but had a triple doctorate in medicine, music, and theology) mentioned anywhere.
Is the art of war (Alexander the Great [sic], Frederick the Great [sic]) a surer way to greatness than helping your fellow humans?
Xopher: Only if I were so ignorant of US trademark law to not know that my use of the phrase cannot possibly constitute infringement. :) (But that's off-topic, and let's stop it right here.)
Interesting to see that Henry Ford made both lists. But I guess "greatness" is separate from being a bigoted anti-Semite. (Sorry. Pet peeve.)
Odd that Lindbergh of all people didn't make either list.
To add more great people of the 20th century: David Hilbert, Emmy Noether, Kurt Gf6del, Georg Riemann, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, Ernest Rutherford for scientists. Arnold Schf6nberg, Leonard Bernstein, and too many other composers, really, not to mention artists (de gustibus, etc.). Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, and Bertrand Russell as philosophers. Berthold Brecht, Friedrich Dfcrrenmatt, Franz Kafka, the various Manns, Erich Ke4stner (yes, I'm filling out the German-language corner here), and we could theoretically squeeze Emile Zola in (by two years), and definitely Anatole France. As to politicians, and politically involved people, consider Willi Brandt, Hans and Sophie Scholl, Aristide Briand, Henri Dunant.
Hmm. On second thought, there are way too many great people to cut them down to 20. Especially if you want a fair and balanced view.
Larry wrote on Churchill: As you say, the bombs rained down on him, too although his bomb shelter was probably deeper and better protected than most people's.
Actually, British government buildings were target prime for German bombers. The House of Commons Chamber was completely destroyed by bombs in 1941, and the Lords got hit pretty severely, too, as were most of the buildings in the vicinity. There was nothing that Hitler would have loved more than killing Churchill. Let's say that while Churchill had a better bomb shelter, he also needed it.
James D. Macdonald wrote:
Problems with challenge-response anti-spam methods include increasing the amount of stuff being shot across those wires.
I see a minimum of three messages where one would do.
Not really, because you only have to do it once, even if you send hundreds of messages.
The real problem with challenge-response mechanisms is that they suck from a usability standpoint. The average human being will experience frustration, for the same reasons for which many people dislike phone system menus.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 8 |
| 2003 | 23 |
Total: 31 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Reimer Behrends:
Show all comments by Reimer Behrends.