Episteme

So my not-so-noticeable absence can be explained by one word: disruption. I've just been disrupted the last few weeks and as I sit on my bed now looking around a room half in boxes, I realize I'm almost through it. Almost.

But I haven't stopped wondering about things, which brings me to my primary point: terrorism. I don't really understand what goes through the minds of people who want to kill bystanders and threaten the fabric of free societies, so I won't guess. I do know when I board a plane headed to Europe next weekend, I won't be able to bring any liquids me with as a consequence. It's going to be a wonderful vacation, one I've worked hard for almost a year to pay for, but nonetheless, I am - as all airline passengers are - in the drag net of terrorism. And that makes it seem a little less joyous or maybe it should be even more so. But really, I'm going to drink beer and see friends, nothing else. I'll let you know when I get back.

Continue reading "The Bigger Threat Is Us" »

Posted by Dawn at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Are there limits to what's acceptable for debate in a democracy? As I heard Alan Dershowitz discuss his views on torture on NPR this morning, his belief that torture should be legalized insofar as a warrant would need to be issued (or the act formally sanctioned) by the highest echelons of the government (read: the White House). He makes the point that the US government is in a terrible situation because not only does it use torture but it publicly denies that it uses it and denies that it sanctions it. Abu Ghraib wasn't the work of some rogue underlings, he said, but an order from the top. He isn't asking for torture to be condoned but rather for there to be public acknowledgement that no matter, in times of conflict, torture will be used and there should be a legal framework in place to address that.

With all the sham debates going on in Congress right now (as prep for the election) over things like gay marriage and flag burning, a debate on torture might sober up the place or at least make clear to voters exactly where members of Congress stand on something that has stained America's image abroad and ruined America's credibility in many places of the world. But who has the courage to purpose public discourse on such a horrible subject? Maybe this is the failing of democracy. Perhaps discussing how a country based on the principles of equality and universal dignity can engage in such deplorable behavior (this also the same country founded with the belief that blacks were only 3/5 citizens) would uncover too nakedly the seamy underside of humanity. After all, Susan Sontag said the photos are us.

Posted by Dawn at 09:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John Stuart Mill takes democracy form the very beginning. In the first chapter of On Liberty, the London-born political theorist looks at why we created democracy in the first place and how it evolved. Basically it's all about the search for liberty. There are different things that can infringe on our liberties - oppression can come from other citizens, but it can also come from the government itself.

Mill says the first governments were meant to protect us from each other. Fellow citizens can become abusive, and this infringes on our liberty. So we needed someone more powerful than the rest to limit the power of these abusive citizens.

But what if the rulers themselves, the protectors, become abusive as well?

Continue reading "In the Beginning..." »

Posted by Kim at 06:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s easy to live in the US and forget about all the debate and careful planning that went into the construction of the Republic.

The Complete Anti-Federalist, edited by Herbert J. Storing, talks about the contingent of people who didn’t want there to be a federation of states at all, because small states would retain the power of the voice of each person, which would be lost in a large entity. Their goal was to retain as much individual liberty as possible for each person, which they felt could only happen in a small state. While the anti-federalists opposed the formation of the United States at all, their struggle can still be seen in today’s precarious balance between state and federal power. Just think of abortion and gay marriage – lots of people would like to override state laws, which reflect the thinking of that particular region of the country, with federal ones that outlaw both of these things.

Continue reading "Does size really matter?" »

Posted by Kim at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)