Folksy torture is the best kind of torture, no?
I believe that’s how Saddam used to describe his acts of torture: “You know, some folks just need to be tortured from time to time. So, we torture some folks.”
I used to be on the fence about the wisdom behind prosecuting the Bush administration’s routine and willful use of torture. Seeing how Obama’s hesitance now seems to have been born out of what can only be described as a casual approach to the rule of law and governance, I rather regret my earlier hesitance. Obama’s approach to egregious breaches of law (forget human dignity) is to state the obvious once the topic is considered safe for public discussion, and then to act as if he’s a meager chairman of a fact-finding mission with little power except to make policy recommendations.
Let’s be frank, this president has turned out to be neither the resolute, principled, or visionary leader that his campaign led many to believe. He may indeed be all of those things as a person in his own dwellings - but not as a leader of a country so consequential to the global order.
“ Another thing he claims not to be is a reporter. He describes himself as a tourist: “a marine anthropologist whose data was so thoroughly and distortingly mixed up with the means of obtaining it that it probably had no value as data”.”
Geoff Dyer’s interview with The New Statesman.
This is actually how I feel about the value of data collected by most social scientists (I myself don’t collect data, being at the humanities end of the social sciences and all). Too bad their writing isn’t even half as good as Dyer’s. Full interview here.
Evgeny Kissin - Bach Siciliana (No. 2 in E Major)
Should you need a mental health break from the cruel world around, then simply disengage from the torrent of sad news and pointless commentary. I’m on a 72-hour Bach and Beethoven piano sonatas/concertos regimen followed by seeing a really good friend get married.
Too many ignorant comments about the war in Gaza in high and low circles of the internet. It strikes me that if one has the luxury of opinion about what are life and death matters to others in far away lands, then one at least should have the decency to pause before justifying any action that causes suffering. Power differentials matter.
Imagine for a moment that you and your family were confined to a piece of property too small for your basic needs and nourishment (forget flourishing!). Now, imagine that the entrances and exists to the property are controlled by overwhelming armed forces on the ground, in the air, and even from the adjacent river that runs behind the house. You and your family are doubtless resentful of this (justifiably or not), and so you are desperate to gain access to any and all pieces of weaponry and armor to lash out at your jailers, even though you have no hope of ever even approximating their military prowess. Lastly, let’s also suspend all sense of history and judgment about the reasons behind you and your family’s confinement to this piece of land in the first place (maybe you deserved it, maybe you didn’t, maybe your plight is a historical accident).
Mindful of the immense power differential between you and your jailers, and leaving aside the morality of your confinement in the first place, the key moral question then is about your ongoing treatment. What amount of punishment constitutes too much - i.e. cruel and unusual - punishment?
A common sense of decency and humanity demands that we affirm a reasonably similar answer to this question regardless of what we might each hold dear in our views of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Cruel and unusual behavior is never justified, but the temptation to do so, alas, is at its highest when there is such asymmetry in the distribution of power.
“ The consequences of our actions take hold of us, quite indifferent to our claim that meanwhile we have improved.”
Leo Carey recalls working with Nadine Gordimer: http://nyr.kr/1jTyEsI
“Gordimer had a slightly fearsome reputation—not suffering fools gladly, that sort of thing—but we got along well. Of course, I was trying hard not to be a fool. I sent her memos that were highly detailed, as a way of semaphoring that all was under control.”
Photograph: Jerome Delay/AP
“ A perilous and unspoken accord in American politics has grown up while no one was looking, which unites the liberal left and the authoritarian right. They agree in their unquestioning support of a government without checks or oversight; and it is the Obama presidency that has cemented the agreement. The state apparatus which supports wars and the weapons industry for Republicans yields welfare and expanded entitlements for Democrats. The Democrats take to the wars indifferently but are willing to accept them for what they get in return. The Republicans hate the entitlements and all that goes by the name of welfare, but they cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy when they vote for ever-enlarging military entitlements.”
What can be the reason for Obama’s decision to ‘partner’ in counterterrorist training and the supply of weapons to protract the civil war in Syria? This would scarcely seem to be in his interest if he wants a settlement with Iran to round off his record in foreign affairs. And yet Obama has a propensity, which no walk of reason could justify, to pledge to do a thing that looks strong, then call it off, then halfway do it anyway. Syria in the summer and autumn of 2013 was the most damaging instance of this to occur in open view. From threat to hesitation, to declaring an attack, to postponing the attack, to aborting the attack because a solution was offered from outside that didn’t require the use of force: the giddy succession of warlike postures entertained and abandoned last year is now to be followed by the subsidising of a proxy war after all.
Anonymous asked: My mother really likes the London Review of Books. My family is in debt to you for the recommendation. She asked me today why the LRB has so few female writers. I had not noticed that but do agree with her upon reflection. I thought you might an answer because I really could do nothing but speculate. Thanks for maintaining such an honorable blog.
I had wondered about the same point until I saw the following article in The Guardian on the LRB and its inimitable editor, Mary-Kay Wilmers. She seems aware of the disparity as well, but not concerned that it somehow diminishes the quality of what they have published in the past. I can’t speculate beyond what’s in the article.
So much of what bothers me about the commentary on the murderous mess in Iraq today is linked to the classic American tendency (even evident in progressive writings) to judge actions and events based on their consequences. This line of thinking has a long and storied lineage in the Western philosophical tradition, but so does another way of thinking, which, alas, receives far less attention in comparison.
The latter perspective, a deontological one, insists on judgment based on the moral worth of the action undertaken - i.e. if it offends or violates fundamental aspects of our humanity. In his terrific slim book, On Compromise and Rotten Compromises (a must-read for anyone interested in the nature of politics), the philosopher, Avishai Margalit, makes a key distinction between morality and ethics. The former, he writes, “is about how human relations should be in virtue of our being human and in virtue of nothing else.” Morality touches on concerns related to our membership in the human race. Ethics, however, “is about what relations we should have with other people in virtue of some special relationship we have with them, such as family relations or friendship.”
This distinction is an important one when it comes to thinking about politics (and especially about international politics) because the two operate on fundamentally different philosophical bases. Morality does not lend itself to utilitarian calculations or consequentialist principles, no matter how optimal the results.
I point this out because so many of us who objected to the Iraq war did so for moral and not ethical reasons. The Bush administration’s decision to attack Iraq was wrong because it was based on an utter lack of disregard for the scores of human beings that had already suffered due to American policy, and whose basic dignity would continue to suffer after the invasion, no matter how optimal the results. The Iraq war was morally wrong because it placed the national interests of the United States (as misunderstood by the Bush administration) ahead of thelives of ordinary human beings.
To date, however, much of the media reports of the carnage left behind seems to judge the efficacy of the invasion based on its consequences. This is wrong and must not be left uncontested. If there is to be a reasonable and morally just response to the terrible killings that have continued, more or less consistently, since March 20, 2003, then the moral sources of this conflict must be recovered and taken seriously.
For all his faults, I actually believe that this is a distinction very much in the mind of President Obama. In his many speeches against the Iraq war, he has been especially keen on defining it as a moral failure, and not merely an ethical one.
So the big question, then, is how to address and fix a moral failing as tragic and consequential as this one (especially one wrapped in a language so moralistic that it’s made a farce out of moral principles)? The answer is as dispiriting as it is simple: moral failings can’t be fixed, they can only be acknowledged and atoned for. The important thing for the US now is not to commit any more offenses against human dignity, and to find ways of paying for and facilitating a better future in Iraq. It sounds like not much, and it isn’t much. But then again, there simply are no positive or rewarding consequences for gratuitously violating others’ humanity.