The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.

Duty, Honor, Country

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/us-military-not-ready-constitutional-crisis/606367/

My very brief comment on an extremely important editorial.

A powerful declaration of loyalty and duty.  In a time when Trump supporters are calling for a military overthrow of the United States and military tribunals to mass convict political enemies, this is a critical read for all Americans. I do disagree with the author on a few points, but especially on this one:

> But with the benefit of hindsight, though I still find the torture memo appalling, I can at least acknowledge that the Bush administration cared enough about the law to offer the pretense of legality. <

Yes, I do wish you had been trained a little more in both the Constitution and the history of governments that do evil. Both Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany cared enough about the law to offer the pretense of the legality for all of their atrocities and mass murders. The question becomes, did they really care about the law or do they just want to cover their crimes against humanity with a pretense of legality?

Law And Order -- War Crimes Unit

In response to a news report that a judge is allowing some of the CIA's torture victims to sue the psychologists who planned the program, but only those "not in the chain of command" I posted:

-- “This has never happened before,” --   But it appears the case can only be brought against civilians not in the chain of command. Which means if this precedent is followed that the American military and the CIA are still above the law when it comes to committing war crimes.

Note: The US military was bitterly opposed to the torture program and may well be generally innocent, although serious issues referring to relating to Abu Graib and other such occurrences still remain unresolved.

 I'm astonished that even some civilians are being held accountable for these horrific war crimes, the first  officially sanctioned war crimes in US history. It isn't that the US did not use new torture on occasion, we have. However, the person performing the act knew he was committing a crime and could face prosecution and imprisonment. He might even face execution as did some Japanese war criminals for water boarding American captives.

Please be aware that I am not ignoring the atrocities committed against Native Americans. Those were cases of mass murder and genocide, and could certainly be classified as war crimes, though I place them in a different category, since they were aimed at the tribes as a whole rather than against specific individuals.  In other words, I consider those genocidal actions much worse than what the Bush administration authorized. And just for the record, Andrew Jackson was responsible for many of these atrocities. This is an interesting point in the light of the current dispute over removing his face from the front of the $20 bill and placing it on the rear.

 It seems to me that this surprise decision is evidence that America is truly changing. Think of what has happened just in the last few years.  The South is being forced to remove it's glorifications of the  monsters who fought for an expanded slave empire. Even Republicans are admitting that income disparity is a major problem. Gay marriage and gay rights in general have become the norm.  The ones arrogant religious right is now whining and crying about how little power they have.   A dedicated democratic socialist is running a highly successful grassroots campaign for president.    The right wing's death grip on the highly politicized Supreme Court has been broken and it does not look likely that it will be restored. The federal government now takes responsibility, limited responsibility, but still responsibility, for America's healthcare.  It seems that a Black president will soon be replaced by a female president. And many more changes away from our old self-destructive and hateful habits
are in clear evidence.

Conservatives are terrified of these changes. I find them hopeful and refreshing.

Speaking of torture and American policy, remember this old post?

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2013/10/idle-thoughts-washington-vs-bush.html

War Crimes: Then And Now

Report. --Japanese nationalists attempt to revise history on 'comfort women'--

This is why Japan, unlike Germany, is still guilty of atrocities. As a nation, responsibility, repentance, contrition, and reconciliation have never ocurred.  Right wing nationalists refuse to permit the millions of decent Japanese to perform these essential acts on a national stage.  Similarly, American right wing radicals refuse to perform these steps to forgiveness over torture and other war crimes of the Bush administration.

Facts Is Facts

In response to Andrew Sullivan's dish post, a ringing declaration against crimes against humanity and those who cover them up or excuse them, a man posted:

Andrew, if you really believe that Dianne Finestein's report is not partisan (after all she did catch the CIA spying onher computer) then you must also believe that the KKK should run Obama's race relations council or Rush Limbaugh should be a professor of Civil Discourse ... C'MON MAN, get a grip and a life....

To which I replied:

Facts are not partisan even if a partisan reports them.

Idle Thoughts -- Washington vs Bush

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/10/containing_torture.html

An article published in 2006.

The article points out that professional military interrogators could not use torture because of military law. CIA interrogators, aka amateur interrogators, could use these techniques.

Rather than summarize the despicable nature of the law involved, please read the following two paragraphs from the article.

Begin quote.

Prior to the enactment of the new legislation, the definition of torture, for both military and CIA interrogators, was broad and comprehensive. Torture was defined as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)" on someone in his control. This definition affirmed the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory.

The MCA changed the definition of torture. In clarifying what "severe physical or mental pain or suffering meant," it created a new standard: Torture must involve a "substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature, not to include cuts, abrasions or bruises; or significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty."

End quote.

The article goes on to point out that all torturers know that when the subject you were torturing dies, you have failed. A dead man can tell you nothing. That's why they avoid major organ failure. In other words, the Bush administration was simply finding a way to make torture sound like it's not torture.

Furthermore, military personnel who were arrested and found guilty of torture in the past have admitted that they learned the techniques by watching, guess who?, CIA interrogators at work.  Allowing torture at any level encourages torture at all levels. This is not the slippery slope argument, this is a moral corruption argument.  Once you legalize criminal activity by pretending it isn't really criminal, you are opening the door for every member of your government to participate.

The article points out that once civilian operatives were allowed to commit torture in Brazil it wasn't long before military personnel began committing these acts. Worse, the military quickly divided itself into two groups, the torturers who thought of themselves as real soldiers and those who tried to maintain the law.  These were regarded by the "real" soldiers as "bureaucrats".

Eventually, inevitably, the civilian police began these practices, especially since many ex-soldiers became policemen after they left the military.

Many of the tortures allowed by the Bush administration were practiced by the Japanese against American prisoners of war during World War II. Some Japanese officers were even hanged  by the neck until dead by American officers after an American trial for committing the same crimes which the Bush administration claimed were now legal for Americans to commit.

There isn't much more to say. I am shocked and disgusted that my country engaged in such despicable behavior. I am even more shocked that we have not brought charges against the criminals who committed these acts, and yes, I include the former president of United States, Mr. Bush.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the theory of government knows that we operate in the West under The Rule of Law. That means that the law is the law for everyone. Even the president should be charged, and if convicted, sent to prison, if he has committed crimes. Except, it seems that America doesn't really believe in The Rule of Law after all.

When the British tortured American soldiers from the Continental Army during the Revolutionary war many asked Washington to treat British prisoners the same way.  He replied:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

At another time, he issued this order to his troops regarding British prisoners of war:

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause. (End quote from http://antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/24/george-washington-no-torture-on-my-watch/)

The last paragraphs of the article are as follows. You should read them carefully as they were originally written.

Begin quote.

Which brings us to the most notorious torture: waterboarding, or choking someone in water. In 1968, a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division was court-martialed for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam. In fact, the practice was identified as a crime as early as 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Maj. Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he did not hesitate to call torture.

That military judge went further, anticipating (and then dismissing) a key justification President Bush and his allies use for torture today. The judge said that the defense of needing to obtain information through torture "falls completely," even when at war with "a savage or semi-civilized enemy" who conducts "his operations in violation of the rules of civilized war. This no modern State will admit for an instant."

End quote.

Except, it seems, the United States in 2006.

This says it all. America's actions during the Bush years in regard to torture were disgusting, disgraceful, dishonorable, illegal, and highly ineffective.  So says military justice.

To sum up, I agree with our first president in that George Bush and his administration, "by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington...

Idle Thoughts -- Torturous Logic

Unthinkable a movie.

Editorial Reviews from the web delelted

End quotes, more at search...    unthinkable movie plot summary

My comments:

The terrorist is finally forced to talk after his wife is murdered in front of him and the torturer threatens to torture his young children in front of him.   However, he admits to only three bombs and the officials come to suspect there is a fourth bomb.  An agent refuses to bring the children back to be tortured. The terrorist grabs a gun and kills himself. Then the fourth bomb goes off killing millions.

So, point number one.  The movie is not realistic. Terrorists don't actually behave this way and the whole thing is played for maximum entertainment rather than even minimum reality.

However, the question of torture is at least presented in a way that allows people to discuss it.  I am very disappointed that even Hollywood would stoop to the level of preparing to torture young children.  Even though they were attempting to get a discussion going, frankly, it just disgusts me.

Let's take a look at torture as was actually practiced by the United States and our allies. Point number one:  All professionally trained and experienced interrogators say torture does not work. The way to get information from the suspect is to build a relationship of trust with them.

Point number two:  The only individuals who are now claiming that the torture worked are those were guilty of this international and American crime. That is to say the criminals say,  we were right to commit our crime.  These claims are denied by the professional interrogators who say that in fact it was their professional interrogation techniques, not torture, that gained useful information. Someone is lying. I prefer not to believe those who are confessed criminals to crimes which are generally regarded as worthy of the death penalty.

Point number three:  Of course, in the movie there is a ticking time bomb. There is no time to develop a professional interrogator's working relationship with the prisoner. In reality, no one can point to a single case in which this was true when United States officially declared torture legal and proper. It simply didn't happen.

Having expressed my complete disgust with this movie, for all it's well intentioned effort, I will now repeat to you a case which I think I told you earlier, in which I believe torture was justified.

Some years ago a man in Germany kidnapped a small boy. He was captured. He did not deny that he was the kidnapper, in fact he said that if they released him he would let the child go.  In other words, the evidence was very clear, he was guilty.

During the Bush years we tortured many people. Many of them turned out to be completely innocent and were later released. That's right, there is no doubt that we tortured innocent people to get information they did not have.

In the German case, the kidnapper said the child of been placed in a closed box and would suffocate if he was not released in time to save the child's life. The desperate police official in charge of the case went to a court and got an actual permission to perform torture under these circumstances. This was probably not legal, nevertheless, it was given.

As soon as the kidnapper saw the man who was prepared to torture him and the instruments going to be used on his body, he immediately told the police where the child was to be found. No torture was actually necessary.

Unfortunately, it was too late. The child had died. Had the police officer simply prepared to torture the man himself, without seeking permission, the child might well have lived.

Let's look at how this is different from the torture practiced by our government.  1. The individual was doing this for profit not because he was willing to die or suffer for his cause.  2. There was excellent evidence that the individual was guilty, he even admitted it himself.  3. There was actually a ticking time bomb in that the child was running out of oxygen. 4. Torture was only attempted as a desperate last measure after all other methods had failed.

And to differentiate this from the movie, the torture was performed on adults to save a child suffering, not too inflict it upon the child.

It is easy when one suspends his disbelief, to make a very compelling movie.  However, movies rarely have much to do with reality. It makes as much sense to make moral judgments based upon a movie as it does to make moral judgments based upon a cartoon starring Bugs Bunny. The level of reality reflected is usually remarkably similar.

After all, a terrorist who is prepared to die for his cause, believing this will take him straight to heaven, might very well permit his children to be tortured to death. After all, they would then face an eternity of eternal reward in heaven.  He might well think it worthwhile.

The key here, is to understand that people are willing to commit horrible acts of mass murder or not what most of us were generally regarded as sane or rational. Expecting them to behave in a sane or rational manner is not rational on our part.

We know that the most effective way to get effective accurate information out of an individual is to build a long-term trust relationship with him. This is what actually works.

Euthanasia -- A Personal Matter

Debate: euthanasia for or against?

Okay first thing we need to do is define terms. Euthanasia means different things to different people.

A few examples:

ONE:

To negative eugenicists, and that included the Nazis, it meant actually killing people who were living happy lives, but were mentally retarded, had neurological diseases, or other problems which troubled not them, but the people around them.  The Nazis learned about positive and negative eugenics in their early years by sending a group of United States to study our practices in that area. We didn't murder people, of course, but we did force people to undergo sterilization so they wouldn't pass on their weaknesses on to the next generation.  

It is one of the most disgusting things this country ever did, but most Americans don't even know we did it.  As a country we are very ashamed of it, so we usually manage to overlook it in our history books.

Eugenics is the idea that you can make the human race better through selective breeding of people. Positive eugenicists think that we should encourage people with the right genes to breed and have lots of kids. Negative eugenicists think we need to stop people with bad genes from breeding, ensuring that they have no children.

TWO:

Every now and then we read in the news about a doctor who killed patients that the doctor felt were suffering. Sometimes it's a doctor, sometimes it's a nurse. They mean well, but they don't even ask the patients if this is what they want. They just kill them.  

You should read the article on the link below. A book has been written about this. It's a very troubling situation.

wwww.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30doctors.html?pagewanted=all

Aug 25, 2009 - The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans. ... jury declined to indict her on second-degree murder charges, the case faded from view. ..... She said that Pou did not use the word “euthanize..."

THREE:

Many Americans believe we should do what is done in some other countries. That is, we should allow people who are suffering terrible pain at the end of their lives to choose suicide. The difference from this and the other positions is that it is the patient who was doing the suffering who was making the decision. The doctor is just complying with the request.

FOUR:

Families often have to make this terrible decision for the patient who is no longer able to decide, and may not even be conscious. My mother had to make this decision for my father. They had to keep him heavily drugged because he kept pulling the breathing apparatus out of his throat. Obviously, he did not want it there. Furthermore, every breath the machine forced down his lungs damaged his lungs more. The doctor said eventually his lungs would be so destroyed that even the machine would not keep him alive.

So she did what the doctor suggested, and we all gathered around and  held him while he died. He did not show any sign of struggle or suffering --which he had shown with that tube down his throat.  I believe mother made the right decision. I think it's what dad would've wanted. In any event, it stopped the suffering of a prolonged death being kept alive by a machine.

I think you know my position on the subject of euthanasia. Now I'll look up an article for you.

Link

Euthanasia was the right decision for my wife - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections

Oct 22, 2012 - I was living in comfortable retirement with my wife, Mathilde, when, at the age of 71, she received a diagnosis of Waldenstrom's disease.

Here's another version of the same story I told. Different people, different disease, but the same conclusion.  You can agree or disagree with the article, either way it'll work for you. Neither the article nor I spoke about the objections to euthanasia. Basically, they come down to moral issues . Is it ever right to take a human life? In my dad's case there was no need for any action to be taken except to turn off the machine it was artificially keeping him alive. But I believe that in extreme cases yes, it is acceptable to euthanize someone if that is their desire, or if that is the decision of their family under extreme circumstances.

My wishes on the subject are well-known to all of you. I had this talk with you some years ago when my vertigo reached the worst levels that I have ever experienced. It's an uncomfortable subject but I think it needs to be dealt with, once again. When I am having really terrible vertigo attacks it is like being tortured. The suffering is extreme.  

I know you believe it, I know some other members of the family do, but I also know at least a few who doubt it. But they are wrong. At those times, as terrified as I have been of death since I was six years old, death is preferable to the suffering.

I only lived through those times for four reasons.

 One, I do still fear death is the greatest terror I can imagine. This keeps me from rushing into ending the suffering, but it only slows me down.

Two, I am so incapacitated I'm afraid I would make a mess of killing myself and make my suffering even worse. During the French Revolution Robespierre got the idea that the way to support the revolution was to create mass terror through mass murder. He's the one, if any one person is responsible, for the rivers of blood running through French streets from the guillotine. But people got sick of all the blood and decided to chop his head off.  In terror, he tried to kill himself. Pun intended.

Chopping heads off was great for other people, just not for him. He tried to shoot himself and messed it up. He shattered his jaw and spent the night in horrific agony until they finally guillotined him the next day. I don't want that to happen to me.

Three, as horrible as it is I keep telling myself it will pass. So far it has. Maybe one day it won't.  Then no one needs to ask. If that happens I don't want to die, but it's better than suffering like that. You all know it and I expect you all to carry it through if it ever becomes necessary. I'm sorry. But that's just the way it is. Be comforted by knowing it is not your decision. It is mine. All you're doing is telling the doctor what I have told you to tell. Please don't get upset, I don't think I will ever be stuck permanently in that condition.

Four, the main reason I've never taken my life, as tempting as it has been at times, as necessary as it has seemed to me at times, is that I live for my family. Good food, good books, communion with God, all the joys of life, aren't worth that suffering. That is, except for my family.  Every one of you, well almost everyone of you, including my grandchildren can say that you have saved my life on numerous occasions. Because you have.

It is not an exaggeration, but a statement of simple fact. There were times I would've killed myself to put an end to the suffering, but I did not do so because I knew it would inflict suffering on you to have me do that to myself and because I wanted to get through it so that I could live with all of you another day.

The best teacher I ever had, Dr. Danielson out at the VVC, the best school I've ever attended, taught me philosophy. I remember a discussion in which he talked about a philosopher who said no one is truly alive who has not sat up alone at night with a gun in front of him and decided whether to kill himself or to continue to live.

 I agreed with that position. On the other hand, I never actually did that. And I had no idea that one day I would actually consider suicide as a necessary option compared with continuing with the life I was living at that moment.  

I know this talk is disturbing to you, and to any of my children who may read this, but it is reality and it must be faced.  Again, take comfort in the fact that all of you are the reason that I kept living. That is actually a conscious decision I have made on numerous occasions. I hope I never have to face the choice again, but my health has been slipping back again lately, as you know.

All of you were the only things worth living for on more than one occasion. That should make you happy.

Idle Thoughts -- Torture and Bentham

Evaluate the question of torture used as a last resort in a national security crisis : What would Bentham recommend ? Would you agree? Why or why not ?


Good teacher! Make it current, hit right in the middle of the controversy. Keeps interest high.

I did a blog post about this back when the Bush administration was actually torturing people. Let me look that up first.

Excerpt:

A few years ago I had an argument with my youngest daughter, the only other family member interested in politics. Her point, as info is declassified, we will see that torture was necessary and did save us. My response, no my dear, we will see that torture hurt us and the government used "classified" to cover us its failures. Cheney's famous memo that would prove torture worked was finally released. It proves that by torturing Zubaida [spelling?] we got info which allowed us to travel back in time and arrest Padilla even before Zubaida was arrested, much less tortured. Wow! the necromancer's had it right, torturing people gives you magic powers!!

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2010/03/heard-about-straw-poll-at-cpac-home.html

Note: a necromancer is the most evil of wizards or magicians. They do magic by working with the dead, or even by killing people. The Witch of Endor in the Bible is an example of a necromancer.

In other words, as expert, professional interrogators all stated at the time, torturing people gets you false and inaccurate information. You get much better results by using traditional interrogation methods, not including torture.

So, Bentham's arguments notwithstanding, why would you ever use torture when you know it doesn't work? A Benthamite might answer, well, maybe it doesn't work but it makes people feel good and that's the only important thing, isn't it?

I have to add, I know of one case in which torture use was actually justified and I'll explain that after we go through the rest.

I'm not really sure just how far Bentham would actually go. Would he really recommended we do horrible things to people as long as it made many more people feel good? That is what his calculus says, but would he really do it?

To be clear, that IS what his calculus says we would have to do. No matter how wrong it seems to the rest of us, it isn't really wrong at all, as long as it results in more happiness than it does suffering.

Obviously, I strongly disagree. 1. I reject the concept that people feeling happy is inherently moral. I'm not saying it isn't desirable, but I am saying that there is nothing moral or not moral in happiness in of itself.

2. While most Americans strongly supported torture at the time it was being practiced, now a majority of Americans wish we had never done it. How do you calculate present happiness against future guilt ? Bentham attempts to allow for that in his elaborate calculations, but, again, it's all guesswork. Who could even have predicted that the Americans who so eagerly embraced torture would, only a few years later, reject it?

And if someone had predicted, who would've believed it? Consider my position on the Iraq war. I and quite a number of my friends were bitterly opposed to it, at a time when the vast majority of Americans were strongly supportive. I said at the time to a number of people that they would regret their support for the war. I said, "The day will come when the American people will ask, how did we get into this mess?" Only the people who already agreed with me accepted this opinion. The others were sure they would never regret their commitment to the war. And I did not see that we would regret our support of torture.

Let me conclude with my example of a real world case in which I am convinced torture was justified. The argument that was made at the time of US torture by its supporters was, well what if there's a ticking bomb, don't we need to torture person to make him tell us where the bomb is? The problem with that argument was, they could not point to a single case of that actually happening in the real world. That means the argument was, well we might have to torture someday, so we can go ahead and torture all we want to now. By that argument, any person can say, I might have to kill someone someday. Therefore, it's okay for me to kill as many people as I want now.

But there is a real case example, which has nothing to do with terrorism or world politics,in which torture was justified, in my opinion. German police had arrested a kidnapper. He had kidnapped a young boy and demanded ransom. The police knew the boy's life was in danger, but the kidnapper refused to tell them where he was. The police officer in charge of the case actually went to court to get permission to use torture against the man under these extreme circumstances. The moment the man saw the individual who was prepared to torture him and saw the instruments of torture, he confessed to the police where the boy was held. Sadly, the delay had been too long. The boy was already dead. The fact is, had the torture been threatened earlier, the boy would have lived.

But please note some important points. The police knew that this man was in fact actually guilty. He wasn't denying that he had the boy and that the child's life was in danger. Also, he wasn't doing this for religious or political reasons, which can inspire people to make incredible sacrifices, and endure incredible suffering. He was doing it because he was a moral egoist. He wanted money, so he saw nothing wrong with kidnapping and even killing a child, as long as it made him happy when he got the ransom. In other words, the idea of him experiencing any suffering would immediately make him confess. He was only in it for his own benefit. The moment it began to hurt him, he would stop.

This is a totally different motive from that of true believers in either political or religious systems which command that they sacrifice themselves to the cause, especially when you consider that many of them expect go to heaven as an ultimate reward.

The fact is, torture doesn't really work, except in extremely rare, very special circumstances. The show 24 made it always work. It was magic! Many Americans actually pointed to this fictional television show as proof that torture must work. This is the same thing as saying, a safe falling on your head can't hurt you. I know because Donald Duck dropped one on Daffy Duck and all that happened was that Daffy flattened into a pancake shape, went quack quack quack for a while, and then popped back to normal.

But remember, according to Bentham's calculus, as long as it makes enough people feel good, we are morally obligated to do this awful thing. We must inflict this useless suffering upon our fellow human beings, Bentham's calculus says so.

A New War in Iran?

In his 1980 book, Expanded Universe, Robert A. Heinlein commented on the subject which has an interesting impact today. The book is a set of predictions he made in the past, then updated more recently. In 1950 he predicted that, "It is utterly impossible to United States will start a 'preventative war'. We will fight when attacked, either directly or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend. In 1965, he modified his position in regard to some aspects but not in regard to the key point that we would never start a preventative war.  In 1980, he further modified some elements of his position, but once again let stand the statement that the United States would never attack another nation unless we were directly attacked, or an area we were obligated to defend was attacked first.

This was a matter of honor for the United States for well over its first 200 years of existence. When George Bush became President, things changed. We have now engaged in the utterly dishonorable and historically un-American act of striking at another nation which was not a threat to us in a preemptive war. Add the to this the issues of torture and war crimes in general, and we see just how far America's honor has been degraded under the leadership of George W Bush.

As we remain entangled in Afganistan and Iraq, many are calling for another war in Iran and some, following the lead of Sen. McCain, also want military intervention in Syria! Have we learned nothing from the adventures of the junior Bush? Apparently not!

It is interesting that the comment directly above this one demonstrates that in 1950 Mr. Heinlein declared that, "The most important military fact of this century is that there is no way to repel an attack from outer space. Too bad Mr. Reagan hadn't read this sentence. It might have changed history and done a lot to end the Cold War a few years sooner.

Heard about the straw poll at CPAC? The home hive of the neocon "we hate anything the dems or liberal do" movement gave us a surprise. Ron Paul won the unscientific but not insignificant vote on who should be the next presidential candidate for Conservatives. is it possible the libertarian wing of the republican party is not dead after all?

A few years ago I had an argument with my youngest daughter, the only other family member interested in politics. Her point, as info is declassified, we will see that torture was necessary and did save us. My response, no my dear, we will see that torture hurt us and the government used "classified" to cover us its failures. Cheney's famous memo that would prove torture worked was finally released. It proves that by torturing Zubaida [spelling?] we got info which allowed us to travel back in time and arrest Padilla even before Zubaida was arrested, much less tortured. Wow! the necromancer's had it right, torturing people gives you magic powers!!