Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
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.
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.
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.
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"?
The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.
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...
-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 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:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The economic espionage side I'm much less happy about.
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 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 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?
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...
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
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.
Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/
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...
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.
The link I supplied shows that it is predominantly Democratic voters being disenfranchised.