Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57619771-83/colbert-turns-his-funny-gun-on-snowden-in-rsa-keynote/
12 comments
[deleted]
>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight
This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
>Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US.
This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
>Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US.
This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
>>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight
>This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
Which is itself a statement that is very much up for dispute. Maybe we should add the word "effective" before "oversight"
>This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
Which is itself a statement that is very much up for dispute. Maybe we should add the word "effective" before "oversight"
Snowden states he was able to look up information on any citizen, including the President, without any explicit approval or subsequent investigation. What evidence do you have to refute that?
That's not the way logic works. Affirmative assertions need to be demonstrated by the person making the claim. It's not encumbent on anyone to disprove Snowden's claims; it's his responsibility to show that they are true.
The weird thing is the NSA has never refuted the very specific allegation of Booz's access and the lack of supervision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-...), merely just repeated that 'oversight exists'. Since we're all discussing a massive series of leaked documents, how do you logically think otherwise?
Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals...
Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals...
>> an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight
> This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
This is a worthless comment. Of these two scenarios, which do you find more likely?
A. Your parent comment knows just as much as you do about whatever "oversight" is notionally exerted over the NSA, but chooses to describe it as "zero" for rhetorical reasons, such as for example a functional equivalence to what might happen in the case where the NSA actually outranked everything else in the country.
B. Your parent comment actually believes that in the US government org chart, the NSA is at the very top.
I lean toward scenario (A), in which case your response has all the value of "does not, infinity!" In general, saying "what you said is incorrect because you're wrong" just makes you sound even more uninformed than the guy saying "but that's wrong!" If you've got something to back yourself up with, use it, don't just assert that it's there.
> This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?
> This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
This is a worthless comment. Of these two scenarios, which do you find more likely?
A. Your parent comment knows just as much as you do about whatever "oversight" is notionally exerted over the NSA, but chooses to describe it as "zero" for rhetorical reasons, such as for example a functional equivalence to what might happen in the case where the NSA actually outranked everything else in the country.
B. Your parent comment actually believes that in the US government org chart, the NSA is at the very top.
I lean toward scenario (A), in which case your response has all the value of "does not, infinity!" In general, saying "what you said is incorrect because you're wrong" just makes you sound even more uninformed than the guy saying "but that's wrong!" If you've got something to back yourself up with, use it, don't just assert that it's there.
> This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?
> Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?
The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.
The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.
We still have a long way to go on educating the public. The 3 branches of government have conspired in secret to enable programs the violate the rule of law and create the conditions for a police state.
-The FISA court does not have the authority under statue or the Constitution to rule on the Constitutionality of NSA programs. The FISA court only has the authority to approve specific warrants.
- The Senators and Representatives who objected to the secret reinterpretation of Patriot Act for domestic surveillance have been unwilling to risk their positions on the committee to reveal this to the public as they have a moral duty to do.
- The NSA specifically lost the legislative battle to embedded backdoors, weaknesses and key escrow in commercial encryption battles. They lost and they went ahead and did it anyway. Clearly subverting democratic intent.
-The FISA court does not have the authority under statue or the Constitution to rule on the Constitutionality of NSA programs. The FISA court only has the authority to approve specific warrants.
- The Senators and Representatives who objected to the secret reinterpretation of Patriot Act for domestic surveillance have been unwilling to risk their positions on the committee to reveal this to the public as they have a moral duty to do.
- The NSA specifically lost the legislative battle to embedded backdoors, weaknesses and key escrow in commercial encryption battles. They lost and they went ahead and did it anyway. Clearly subverting democratic intent.
I just watched the 30 minute video trying to hear his opinion without being wrapped in blogspam, and I think this article is a bit sensational.
The only reference I heard made to Snowden was in the very last question where an audience member asks Colbert how to keep people from being afraid of the government. In his reply, Colbert asked if what Snowden did was illegal, and when the audience said yes, he essentially said one of the bravest (and most morally admirable) things Snowden could do after breaking an unjust law is to face trial and accept the resulting consequences. His position came across to me as a combination of civil disobedience and traditional stand-and-face-the-music thinking. He didn't at all come across as vitriolic of Snowden or deeply offended by Snowden's actions.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I&t=1610
The only reference I heard made to Snowden was in the very last question where an audience member asks Colbert how to keep people from being afraid of the government. In his reply, Colbert asked if what Snowden did was illegal, and when the audience said yes, he essentially said one of the bravest (and most morally admirable) things Snowden could do after breaking an unjust law is to face trial and accept the resulting consequences. His position came across to me as a combination of civil disobedience and traditional stand-and-face-the-music thinking. He didn't at all come across as vitriolic of Snowden or deeply offended by Snowden's actions.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I&t=1610
There were other references to Snowden in the video you linked. Two others I noticed in the first 15 minutes:
(1) Colbert mentions it bothers him that Snowden claimed he leaked in order to let us know how then NSA was spying on us, but then a lot of the information revealed turned out to be about how we were spying on others. Leaking that sort of info would only be justified if one is specifically opposed to us spying on other countries - and Colbert thinks the case for that position hasn't really been made.
(2) Somebody asked what Colbert sees as the likely endgame for Snowden. Answer: Colbert guesses the guy will probably come home in the end, but it's likely to take ten years before public opinion shifts his way enough to allow that. As an example of an analogous situation, Colbert brings up the Americans who fled the draft and were eventually pardoned by Ford and Carter.
(1) Colbert mentions it bothers him that Snowden claimed he leaked in order to let us know how then NSA was spying on us, but then a lot of the information revealed turned out to be about how we were spying on others. Leaking that sort of info would only be justified if one is specifically opposed to us spying on other countries - and Colbert thinks the case for that position hasn't really been made.
(2) Somebody asked what Colbert sees as the likely endgame for Snowden. Answer: Colbert guesses the guy will probably come home in the end, but it's likely to take ten years before public opinion shifts his way enough to allow that. As an example of an analogous situation, Colbert brings up the Americans who fled the draft and were eventually pardoned by Ford and Carter.
Definitely worth watching. One other point he made is that the investigation necessary for prosecution would be beneficiary to the country, citing the missing investigation after the torture cases during the bush administration.
Why, if Snowden was concerned with letting us know how we are spied on, why did he let us know how we spy on other countries? I think we should spy on other countries.
The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.
The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.
I think k we should spy on other countries and share his view of Snowden. I'm really glad Snow den leaked what he did, I just wish he didn't leak all of it. It does raise many questions on motivation. if he's disgusted with spy work in general he should just say so and be honest with the world. I could then have more respect for him doing what he did (and I do respect the conversation he's started.)
Can you give good reasons why the United States should spy on other countries? Or let's make it concrete, I am from Germany, why should the United States spy on Germany?
We can only gain by spying on you. We have a military base with defense systems in your country. Your political decisions therefore will have an impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.
By robbing strangers in dark backstreets I can only gain, too. Because a country can gain something is not a good reason at all. And how do German decisions affect the United States' ability to defend themselves? We are thousands of kilometers away. We could maybe decided that we no longer want US military bases on German ground - quite unlikely if you ask me - but even if so, how does that impact the ability of the United States to protect their borders?
By robbing strangers in the dark you can lose your life! I don't think you understand the argument here. I sincerely think you are confusing strongly the way you think the world should work with what decision-makers can do under the limits of bounded rationality. Because something is to be gained is almost the only justification for everything that happens.
If you want to figure out a world where people aren't self-interested and risk-averse, maybe a church would be a better place for you to have that discussion.
If you want to figure out a world where people aren't self-interested and risk-averse, maybe a church would be a better place for you to have that discussion.
If people are purely selfish, then everything is lost anyway - selfishness is not able to sustain a human society. And while people have to be selfish to some degree to sustain their lives, I see no reasons why they can not act altruistically after they secured basic human needs like food and shelter.
And I agree that most if not all decisions are based or should be based on the expected gain, but the question is then of course how you define or measure that gain. There may actually be a real gain for a country if you spy on other countries, but I argue that this is the wrong standard for gain in that situation, a selfish definition of gain. I would strongly prefer to consider the gain or loss for the whole world when evaluating decisions like whether or not to spy on other countries.
And I agree that most if not all decisions are based or should be based on the expected gain, but the question is then of course how you define or measure that gain. There may actually be a real gain for a country if you spy on other countries, but I argue that this is the wrong standard for gain in that situation, a selfish definition of gain. I would strongly prefer to consider the gain or loss for the whole world when evaluating decisions like whether or not to spy on other countries.
Everything you do has pros and cons. By spying on other countries, you may create enemies and eventually lose many lives in a war, for instance.
The point seemed to be: "just because it has a pro, doesn't mean I should do it". I could use the same logic to state that I can only gain by spying on my friends as well. Does that mean I should? Does that mean it has no downsides?
The point seemed to be: "just because it has a pro, doesn't mean I should do it". I could use the same logic to state that I can only gain by spying on my friends as well. Does that mean I should? Does that mean it has no downsides?
We can only gain by spying on you.
Except for a lot of damage to goodwill, which can have an economic impact. Lots of European citizens dislike the US heavily now and that comes with disliking US products.
Your political decisions therefore will have an impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.
First, the US and Germany are allies. Allies talk and don't spy. Second, by now it's clear that a lot of the espionage is economical.
The US/NSA mistreated their allies. It will take many years to rebuild trust.
Except for a lot of damage to goodwill, which can have an economic impact. Lots of European citizens dislike the US heavily now and that comes with disliking US products.
Your political decisions therefore will have an impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.
First, the US and Germany are allies. Allies talk and don't spy. Second, by now it's clear that a lot of the espionage is economical.
The US/NSA mistreated their allies. It will take many years to rebuild trust.
So, you also spy on your personal best friend then?
Diplomatic espionage is pretty much standard - you might prefer to trust your allies but you still want confirmation that they're actually doing what they're telling you they're doing. I'm from England, and fully expect the German government to be spying on the UK government and the UK government to be spying on the German government, and don't really see a problem with it. I mean ... I don't trust our politicians ... why should I expect yours to? :)
The economic espionage side I'm much less happy about.
The economic espionage side I'm much less happy about.
I am not talking about the status quo - the status quo of this world is simply fucked up. Less fucked up than in the past but still fucked up. So for me and especially for this discussion it is completely irrelevant who is doing what right now, I am interested in how it should be.
And I see neither how something we decide in Germany may affect the UK to a degree that justifies espionage, nor do I see how decision of the UK may impact Germany to such a degree. Can you think of a good example?
And I see neither how something we decide in Germany may affect the UK to a degree that justifies espionage, nor do I see how decision of the UK may impact Germany to such a degree. Can you think of a good example?
Have you never heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Even if nobody wants the status quo and everyone would like to cooperate, all we can see is other actors strongly incented to betray each other.
And if you see how nothing in Germany could be decided that affects the UK, what do you think would happen if German and French banks had refused to fund bailouts for the less responsible EU companies? No effects felt outside of Germany?
And if you see how nothing in Germany could be decided that affects the UK, what do you think would happen if German and French banks had refused to fund bailouts for the less responsible EU companies? No effects felt outside of Germany?
I am aware of the prisoner's dilemma but it does not apply because it assumes no communication between the prisoners. And even though it is just some gut feeling, I believe most game theoretic problems and paradoxes are irrelevant in real world situations because they arise from artificial constraints and countries wanting to cooperate can just try to remove such constraints if they exists.
And I did not say that the decisions in Germany (or any other country) can not influence the situation of other countries, I said they can not influence them to a degree that justifies espionage. So how does you example apply? Germany and France are free to support or not support what ever they want. How would having known such decisions before they were publicly announced made any difference?
And I did not say that the decisions in Germany (or any other country) can not influence the situation of other countries, I said they can not influence them to a degree that justifies espionage. So how does you example apply? Germany and France are free to support or not support what ever they want. How would having known such decisions before they were publicly announced made any difference?
Have you never heard of the iterated prisoners dilemma [1]?
Besides, the prisoners dilemma assumes there are no penalties for betrayal and that certainly is not the case for international politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
Besides, the prisoners dilemma assumes there are no penalties for betrayal and that certainly is not the case for international politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
Prisoner's dilemma is the wrong example from game theory, but no harm done.
What's the right example?
I think there may have been a practical issue, which is that Snowden had a very large number of documents and very limited time to go through them himself.
What makes you think he leaked all of it?
Yes, it's curious why countries assume adversarial stances towards each other as a default. Yes, game theory and all that, but its better to be optimistic and hope the humanitarian spirit will prevail.
Colbert's funny as hell and as likeable as they come. But despite his reputation, he's not exactly an "outside the box" thinker.
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
I think our problems come when we start looking for any more than entertainment in our entertainers.
He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
No they don't, they take their opinions from their parents and friends at an early age, then spend the rest of their lives choosing to listen to celebrities and politicians who confirm those beliefs.
No they don't, they take their opinions from their parents and friends at an early age, then spend the rest of their lives choosing to listen to celebrities and politicians who confirm those beliefs.
There's certainly some truth in that; the environment someone is brought up in during their most plastic developmental period sets the tone for their approach.
This essentially reduces the problem down however, saying that the twisted narratives of media are resultant of a system where early education teaches you to simply accept that message. (I speak in what would be hyperbole in most cases for the situation you suggest, where the parents and friends advocate taking narratives "as faith"), and at that point it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
The parents and friends lived in a system that perpetuated their narratives, so they communicate this to their children, to create a new generation of etc.
So where do you break the cycle? I'm not going to be sticking my nose into someone else's parenting, as much as I think it might do them good. Maybe I should, but I haven't been convinced yet. At this point the best approach I've come up with is just trying to _talk_ to more people. Prompt them to think; and be communicative.
This essentially reduces the problem down however, saying that the twisted narratives of media are resultant of a system where early education teaches you to simply accept that message. (I speak in what would be hyperbole in most cases for the situation you suggest, where the parents and friends advocate taking narratives "as faith"), and at that point it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
The parents and friends lived in a system that perpetuated their narratives, so they communicate this to their children, to create a new generation of etc.
So where do you break the cycle? I'm not going to be sticking my nose into someone else's parenting, as much as I think it might do them good. Maybe I should, but I haven't been convinced yet. At this point the best approach I've come up with is just trying to _talk_ to more people. Prompt them to think; and be communicative.
I don't know that there is a great way to break the cycle, which is why MSNBC and Fox News have very different but fiercely loyal audiences. Certainly there are exceptions- I've had certain issues that I've changed my mind about after hearing some very convincing arguments (opposition to the death penalty is one example), but most people come to certain conclusions about hot-button issues and then have a very difficult time changing course because they want to convince the other person why they are wrong before listening to the other person first. I think a certain amount of that is simply human nature.
Nowadays, the most reliable way to see (at least more of) the facts on television is by watching comedy shows. "Real" television news programs are in the business of advertising to their viewers, not informing them.
How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities, entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues that are supposed to inform us?
How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities, entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues that are supposed to inform us?
I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the conclusion.
There are some unbiased and quality sources of reporting, even on television. E.g. PBS's Newshour does a good job.
More importantly, there is a lot of useful material outside of television land. For instance, Foreign Affairs does a good job covering both sides of defense issues. HIR, Brown Journal of World Affairs, and similar publications are also high-quality.
I think the real problem is that we want our news to be entertaining (or at least not work-like), but truly understanding any given issue in the news requires consuming large quantities of evidence prepared and presented from various perspectives. And that's not always as fun as watching (or making fun of) Fox/CNN/NBC/etc. In fact, sometimes it's pretty boring.
There are some unbiased and quality sources of reporting, even on television. E.g. PBS's Newshour does a good job.
More importantly, there is a lot of useful material outside of television land. For instance, Foreign Affairs does a good job covering both sides of defense issues. HIR, Brown Journal of World Affairs, and similar publications are also high-quality.
I think the real problem is that we want our news to be entertaining (or at least not work-like), but truly understanding any given issue in the news requires consuming large quantities of evidence prepared and presented from various perspectives. And that's not always as fun as watching (or making fun of) Fox/CNN/NBC/etc. In fact, sometimes it's pretty boring.
I can't, I do the same thing. (use comedy shows as one tool to expose myself to "what's going on in the world").
It's a really sad statement on the current state of things; but there's a degree of personal responsibility in not taking this narrative unilaterally, we have these amazing tools of message boards and other channels with which to chat with people firsthand around the world, and while I can't say it's any substitute for proper reporting, it is certainly "another tool" for constructing a more accurate picture of things.
It's a really sad statement on the current state of things; but there's a degree of personal responsibility in not taking this narrative unilaterally, we have these amazing tools of message boards and other channels with which to chat with people firsthand around the world, and while I can't say it's any substitute for proper reporting, it is certainly "another tool" for constructing a more accurate picture of things.
Can you support this? So you don't think comedy shows have any advertising agenda simply because their main purpose is to entertain? I would suggest that they have an additional tool at their disposal (humor) to help put a spin on matters.
My theory is that most of the comedy shows (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc.) make jokes out of showing the opposite end of extreme viewpoints or stories that show up on news. You might be laughing at the absurdity, but you're more informed.
That smells uncomfortably like an ad hominem to me.
What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you?
Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you?
Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
Religion is a set of rules people abide by, primarily ethical rules. Of course that has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be.
The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
By that argument, everyone who follows ethical rules has limits to how "out-of-the-box" one can be.
If I am a pacifist, then that places limits on me. If I am a vegetarian, then that places limits on me. If I am a teetotaler the that places limits on me. If I don't believe in using murder to settle parking disputes then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in dumping untreated waste water into the city's water supply then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in tripping people just to see them fall, then that places limits on me.
I am well inside the box on a huge number of things. I hope you are too.
If I am a pacifist, then that places limits on me. If I am a vegetarian, then that places limits on me. If I am a teetotaler the that places limits on me. If I don't believe in using murder to settle parking disputes then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in dumping untreated waste water into the city's water supply then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in tripping people just to see them fall, then that places limits on me.
I am well inside the box on a huge number of things. I hope you are too.
A notable difference between your examples and "religion" (or at least some subset of that widely scoped word) is that religion, at least in the context of this conversation, is someone else's large set of loosely-correlated rules. If one takes the Torah to the literal extreme, they build a fence on their roof, because it was common thousands of years ago to let neighbors sleep on one's roof.
Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.
Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.
Hate to break this to you, but the law and culture are mostly "someone else's large set of loosely-correlated rules."
Rules against sex with minors. Rules against animal cruelty. Rules against trespassing. Rules against insider trading. Rules against littering. Rules against CFC emissions. There's also cultural views in parts of the US against eating bugs, against cross-dressing, and against promoting atheism, which are sometimes met with social scorn even though neither illegal nor unethical. Miss Manners had a long running column on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable etiquette, and wearing last year's fashions, or white after Labor Day, can be a grave faux pas for some situations, with possible negative social and career implications.
The original question was "What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"?"
The response was that "Of course [religion] has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be."
My counter is that every law, moral, or ethical standard keeps people in a box. That's not always a bad thing. The original question asks specifically why his Catholicism necessarily prevents him from being an out-of-the-box thinker. Must one be outside of every box before one can be labeled thus? Which boxes are okay to be in and still be an out-of-the-box thinker?
Based on watching his show, I do not think Colbert blindly adheres to the Catholic religion. He is quite aware of the internal logic of how the faith reaches certain conclusions in the current cultural context. I therefore don't think your final comment is relevant.
Rules against sex with minors. Rules against animal cruelty. Rules against trespassing. Rules against insider trading. Rules against littering. Rules against CFC emissions. There's also cultural views in parts of the US against eating bugs, against cross-dressing, and against promoting atheism, which are sometimes met with social scorn even though neither illegal nor unethical. Miss Manners had a long running column on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable etiquette, and wearing last year's fashions, or white after Labor Day, can be a grave faux pas for some situations, with possible negative social and career implications.
The original question was "What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"?"
The response was that "Of course [religion] has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be."
My counter is that every law, moral, or ethical standard keeps people in a box. That's not always a bad thing. The original question asks specifically why his Catholicism necessarily prevents him from being an out-of-the-box thinker. Must one be outside of every box before one can be labeled thus? Which boxes are okay to be in and still be an out-of-the-box thinker?
Based on watching his show, I do not think Colbert blindly adheres to the Catholic religion. He is quite aware of the internal logic of how the faith reaches certain conclusions in the current cultural context. I therefore don't think your final comment is relevant.
Colbert has stated he's a Catholic because he doesn't believe there's any other reasonable explanation for the existence of joy.
I'm sure there's a little bit more to it - but perhaps not much more. His take on the Bible is literal enough that he believes in the existence of hell.
I'm sure there's a little bit more to it - but perhaps not much more. His take on the Bible is literal enough that he believes in the existence of hell.
And how is that blind adherence?
More specifically, please characterize what makes something "blind adherence" vs. "adherence" in general. When can I say that someone blindly adheres to vegetarianism? When can I say that someone blindly adheres to a support of representational democracy?
Going back to the topic, how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
More specifically, please characterize what makes something "blind adherence" vs. "adherence" in general. When can I say that someone blindly adheres to vegetarianism? When can I say that someone blindly adheres to a support of representational democracy?
Going back to the topic, how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
It doesn't, at least not necessarily. That is to say, they may (and often probably do) correlate, but as we all know, correlation != causation.
What you're seeing here is just another flavor of blind adherence — namely to the dogma of atheism which dictates that people of faith are by definition delusional.
It doesn't, at least not necessarily. That is to say, they may (and often probably do) correlate, but as we all know, correlation != causation.
What you're seeing here is just another flavor of blind adherence — namely to the dogma of atheism which dictates that people of faith are by definition delusional.
If no one is willing to define what "blind adherence" means then it's hard to determine if there's a correlation, as you suggest.
Based on the conversation so far, I interpret it to mean "someone who believes something other than what I believe, and for reasons I don't agree with."
Perhaps the best solution might be to invert things, but I have been unable to find a list of out-of-the-box thinkers. Mostly I find people claiming to be so, without providing any external evidence.
Based on the conversation so far, I interpret it to mean "someone who believes something other than what I believe, and for reasons I don't agree with."
Perhaps the best solution might be to invert things, but I have been unable to find a list of out-of-the-box thinkers. Mostly I find people claiming to be so, without providing any external evidence.
I think "rule of law" isn't an apt phrase. The term is mostly defined procedurally, and not based on if the law itself is unjust. (There are alternative definitions, but this is the most common.)
The relevant law here is the Espionage Act of 1917, which has no provision for intent, no need to show that there was specific harm, and no balancing of public good with the amount of harm caused.
Quoting Wikipedia on "Rule of Law": Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law.
The relevant law here is the Espionage Act of 1917, which has no provision for intent, no need to show that there was specific harm, and no balancing of public good with the amount of harm caused.
Quoting Wikipedia on "Rule of Law": Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law.
But when it comes to doing the right thing for your
country, as Snowden has stated was his reason for leaking
the NSA documents, Colbert said that you must face the
consequences of the law.
If I was Snowden I wouldn't be in a hurry to return to the United States and spend twenty years in prison.
Ironically, none of the officials that caused the last Iraq war have even been charged or investigated despite failing to produce any evidence of WMDs or massive support for Al-Qaeda.
> Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of law too
Rather - Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of trying to sell his country's oil in something else than the dollar [1]. As did Gaddafi [2].
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro [2] http://rt.com/news/libya-all-about-oil-818/
Rather - Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of trying to sell his country's oil in something else than the dollar [1]. As did Gaddafi [2].
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro [2] http://rt.com/news/libya-all-about-oil-818/
Stating that "the American People" voted for the Patriot Act repeatedly is ignoring the massive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in states with Republican-controlled legislatures, and the gerrymandering that leads to a lock on US House seats[1]. The goal of the Republican Party is to win government by hook or by crook, and lately it's been the latter.
Without this gerrymandering, it's debatable how things might have gone otherwise. Colbert might not have so much faith in the system if he played the Redistricting Game [2].
[1] http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1...
[2] http://www.redistrictinggame.org
Without this gerrymandering, it's debatable how things might have gone otherwise. Colbert might not have so much faith in the system if he played the Redistricting Game [2].
[1] http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1...
[2] http://www.redistrictinggame.org
Gerrymandering works both ways; you can't bring up the disenfranchised Democratic voters in Republican districts without recognizing the disenfranchised Republican voters in Democratic districts, or third party voters in every district. You could have simply stated that the goal of established political parties is to win government by hook or by crook, with preference to the latter since it requires less effort.
I think the argument mrartzloff is trying to make hinges on the fact that the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans even though republicans lost the popular vote nation wide. i.e. 1.4 million more people voted for a Democratic representative than a Republican one and yet, Republicans had 33 more seats than Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represen...
There are at least 2 possible reasons for this. One which is argued above is that it is because of gerrymandering districts. The second is that in Democratic districts votes were more lopsided where in districts where Republicans won, they won by smaller margins. In either case, more than 50% of Americans voted for a Democrat to be their representative in the house of representatives and yet Democrats do not hold the majority of seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represen...
There are at least 2 possible reasons for this. One which is argued above is that it is because of gerrymandering districts. The second is that in Democratic districts votes were more lopsided where in districts where Republicans won, they won by smaller margins. In either case, more than 50% of Americans voted for a Democrat to be their representative in the house of representatives and yet Democrats do not hold the majority of seats.
> Gerrymandering works both ways; you can't bring up the disenfranchised Democratic voters in Republican districts without recognizing the disenfranchised Republican voters in Democratic districts
The link I supplied shows that it is predominantly Democratic voters being disenfranchised.
The link I supplied shows that it is predominantly Democratic voters being disenfranchised.
There is a video of this on youtube: /watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I
This is Colbert's 'truthiness' showing.
Disgusting. For those that thought Comedy Central brought you alternative news (which I actually did during the Bush years) in the form of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show should now know if not already that they're both just talking heads paid for by the mainstream media apparatus.
Which brings me to the counterpoint which is that Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US. I think it's of little matter that he revealed how we spy on other countries. I think the point of that was to show that that's how we're being spied on by the 5 Eyes, who will freely share their spying information.