It is surprising to me that the topic of torture is receiving so much attention. It is generally something that the public would prefer not to know about, hear about, or talk about. Perhaps the fuel behind it is not to investigate and have an open discussion concerning our torture techniques, but a burning desire by many to seek revenge on the Bush administration. Either way, though I also do not enjoy the subject, I will take a few minutes to lay out the critical points.
The issue of torture comes down to a pretty basic dividing line with only one criteria to make our decision whether to torture or not. We need to do what is in the best long term interest of our country. All other positions of higher morals and nobility are foolish. In war, a country must act in its own best interest. Either it will do so or it will sustain heavy losses. In modern day civilized warfare, if there is such a thing, the two opposing sides generally come to an agreement not to torture prisoners. This is quite reasonable and in the best interests of both countries. It would be frightening for soldiers to know they will face torture if captured and demoralizing for a nation to know that they themselves openly torture enemy prisoners. If both sides agree to restrain from torture there is no advantage to either side and many potential negative repercussions are avoided. Thus, in this scenario it is in the nation's best interest to avoid torture.
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are a completely different kind of game. The enemy refuses to play by any rules. The first and most troubling rule of warfare they refuse to abide by is to identify themselves. It is hard to combat an opponent when he camouflages himself in the midst of innocents. It is a war that can never be completely won as long as the opponent is willing to fight. The crop of terrorists is always being harvested and the enemy cannot be completely destroyed. After the first rule is broken, these terrorists and guerrillas find no reason to follow any other rules of civilized warfare. They torture and/or kill prisoners. They often video their acts although their faces are concealed so that they can rejoin the innocent civilians without detection. Our treatment of their fellow fighters when we capture them has little to no influence on their treatment of their American prisoners.
So, the question is in this type of scenario is it morally acceptable to torture. The answer depends on which way is in the best interest of our country. There are certainly negative effects to a country when its people, who consider themselves to be a humane and kind generation, discover its leaders have tortured prisoners. There are also very negative impacts on a country when a terrorist plan like 9/11 is allowed to be operated. Neither option, to torture or not to torture is a good option. We are picking the least of two evils. I don't believe that there can be a blanket rule. I think the decision must be left to those who are in control of the situation. If there is believed to be a threat to our national security and a terrorist or guerrilla prisoner is believed to have information that would allow us to prevent the attack, then I would not rule out any tactics.
As to the argument that information obtained from torture is not always reliable, I concede the point. It is easy to see how a person would say anything to stop torture and that the information may not be true, particularly if the prisoner does not have the information being requested. However I am quite sure that receiving no information will not be helpful. If there is decent chance that information can be gathered from a terrorist to prevent a large scale attack on the United States, it is hard not to take that chance. It may be hard to live with ourselves after we have tortured a terrorist, someone who has committed his life to killing American civilians. However, how would it feel to see that terrorist, well fed and clothed without one sign of trauma, smile when he hears that the plan he was a part of, the plan to kill thousands of Americans, was successful? Fair or not, those thousands would be on our conscience because we did not do everything we could to protect them. We protected the rights of a terrorist instead.
The issue of torture is not pleasant. It should be avoided if at all possible. Still to rule it out no matter what the scenario seems drastic. When the enemy does not play by rules, does not uphold higher moral standards, there are tough decisions to be made. While we would not want to stoop to level of terrorist, what good will our higher morals do if we lose the war? What will it have proven if Americans are dying and those who remain are living in fear?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Politics - Miss California
I admit that I don't watch the Miss America pageant. I perhaps have caught moments of it over the last 10 years, but I do not sit down to watch it. It's not my thing. Maybe there are still lingering effects from my childhood when I did watch it and miss West Virginia never made it past the first round. Apparently I missed something this year. One of the judges had the audacity to ask Miss California about her views on gay marriage. Perhaps it was an innocent question, but this is Hollywood type stuff we are talking about. This type of production demands that the participant answer in a certain way, but Miss California chose to do something truly astonishing. She told the truth.
I tend to stay away from the issue of gay rights in general. I am not sure where to draw the line on civil unions and marriage. Many people on both sides of the issue want to make it simple, but it is actually fairly complicated. However, this media buzz is not about gay rights. It is about politics versus honesty. When the judge asked a question on which the nation is pretty split in opinion, there should be no correct answer. I hope that the judge asked the question to simply judge how well the contest controlled herself and how well she articulated her answer. I doubt that was the case, but perhaps it was. The contestant, in this instance, had one great choice, another that would have sufficed, and one that was unacceptable. She chose the unacceptable option. The best option would have been something like:
"I completely respect all gay individuals and appreciate the fact that they have chosen to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. I think we should embrace them into our society and not shun them for a different lifestyle simply because we do not understand it. I support initiatives that enable gay partners to have privileges that any two people who love each other should have, such as hospital visitation rights. Marriage is a very special union. Americans are divided over the issue and many have very strong emotions and opinions on the topic. If I were so fortunate to win the title of Miss America, I would not deem it appropriate to use my position as a tool to promote my own personal opinion as some sort of agenda".
That answer is basically a touchy feely dodge. That's what differentiates a good politician from a bad one. She gave a clear, concise answer. That's not what was wanted. She probably could have skated by with an answer in total support of gay marriage given the liberal environment, but religious conservatives may have attacked her for it just as the liberals have. The point is that, in politics, the trick is not to align with anyone, not to offend anyone. Vague is good, honesty is bad.
That is not what I want in a politician or friend, a shifting individual who can not be trusted on his word because he refuses to definitively lie down his word. But, that's what we get because that's what we demand. The only thing that could change this in America is a change in the way we view politicians. Generally, if somebody gives a vague answer our human nature tells us that they agree with us, probably because we think our position is the most sensible. Next time you hear a vague answer assume the person disagrees with you and, more than that, he is too cowardly to admit that he does. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as the slick, slimy politician that we have come to accept as normal and natural.
Miss America is a political position in many ways. Miss California deserved to lose, because under the rules we have set forth, she was a poor politician. Instead of dodging the question, she looked it square in the eye and answered it. That type of personal is a political loser in our world. Sorry Miss California.
I tend to stay away from the issue of gay rights in general. I am not sure where to draw the line on civil unions and marriage. Many people on both sides of the issue want to make it simple, but it is actually fairly complicated. However, this media buzz is not about gay rights. It is about politics versus honesty. When the judge asked a question on which the nation is pretty split in opinion, there should be no correct answer. I hope that the judge asked the question to simply judge how well the contest controlled herself and how well she articulated her answer. I doubt that was the case, but perhaps it was. The contestant, in this instance, had one great choice, another that would have sufficed, and one that was unacceptable. She chose the unacceptable option. The best option would have been something like:
"I completely respect all gay individuals and appreciate the fact that they have chosen to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. I think we should embrace them into our society and not shun them for a different lifestyle simply because we do not understand it. I support initiatives that enable gay partners to have privileges that any two people who love each other should have, such as hospital visitation rights. Marriage is a very special union. Americans are divided over the issue and many have very strong emotions and opinions on the topic. If I were so fortunate to win the title of Miss America, I would not deem it appropriate to use my position as a tool to promote my own personal opinion as some sort of agenda".
That answer is basically a touchy feely dodge. That's what differentiates a good politician from a bad one. She gave a clear, concise answer. That's not what was wanted. She probably could have skated by with an answer in total support of gay marriage given the liberal environment, but religious conservatives may have attacked her for it just as the liberals have. The point is that, in politics, the trick is not to align with anyone, not to offend anyone. Vague is good, honesty is bad.
That is not what I want in a politician or friend, a shifting individual who can not be trusted on his word because he refuses to definitively lie down his word. But, that's what we get because that's what we demand. The only thing that could change this in America is a change in the way we view politicians. Generally, if somebody gives a vague answer our human nature tells us that they agree with us, probably because we think our position is the most sensible. Next time you hear a vague answer assume the person disagrees with you and, more than that, he is too cowardly to admit that he does. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as the slick, slimy politician that we have come to accept as normal and natural.
Miss America is a political position in many ways. Miss California deserved to lose, because under the rules we have set forth, she was a poor politician. Instead of dodging the question, she looked it square in the eye and answered it. That type of personal is a political loser in our world. Sorry Miss California.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Politics - Tax Day is gone
The deadline for filing individual taxes with the Federal Government has passed. Yesterday across the country people joined together in their cities to protest excessive government spending. It was the Taxation Tea Party or something like that. The protest is admirable; it's just too bad that in order to motivate people there has to be some corny theme. The Boston Tea Party protest and this protest were not too similar. That aside, perhaps it is time to seriously reconsider our tax structure.
I'll leave the issue of how heavy of a burden the rich should be made to carry alone for a day. Let's look at the complicated IRS code and its results. I have plenty of experience in this area during my years as a public accountant. I performed mostly audits, but I did do some tax work as well. The IRS code almost demands the use of a CPA for a normal person with anything much more than a W-2 to feel confident about filing his taxes. The biggest argument for ditching the whole system is the incredible amount of lost productivity due to the IRS code. Imagine if there were no itemized deductions, no obscure credits, no alternative minimum tax. Imagine a code where interest and dividends and capital gains were not taxed. Imagine a tax code where income was simply taxed at a rate without adjustments. That rate could increase as a person made more income, but still the average person would be able to handle his own taxes in quick order. The immediate result would be to put a lot of accountants, such as myself, out of a job. However, over the long term this would likely be a great thing for the productivity of our country. For all the millions of hours spent by CPA's preparing tax returns and IRS auditors reviewing them, nothing of merit has been produced. The only thing that has happened is that a federal law has been satisfied. It is work that does not create anything, no product, no entertainment, nothing. A financial audit of a company, by contrast, does have merit. Banks and investors find an audit very useful in determining how to conduct business with an institution. A tax return? It's not necessary, not productive. The displaced accountants would presumably find work in another field and add to the productivity of our society instead of simply fulfilling a government mandate.
Many areas of government have waste, not just in spending, but in man hours. This is one instance where the government creates wasted man hours not only by government employees but also in the private sector as citizens seek help to comply with the law. It would be a drastic change, but if you were starting from scratch, would you want the simple system, or the incredibly complex one that we have now whereby a citizen must rely on another person to follow the law?
I'll leave the issue of how heavy of a burden the rich should be made to carry alone for a day. Let's look at the complicated IRS code and its results. I have plenty of experience in this area during my years as a public accountant. I performed mostly audits, but I did do some tax work as well. The IRS code almost demands the use of a CPA for a normal person with anything much more than a W-2 to feel confident about filing his taxes. The biggest argument for ditching the whole system is the incredible amount of lost productivity due to the IRS code. Imagine if there were no itemized deductions, no obscure credits, no alternative minimum tax. Imagine a code where interest and dividends and capital gains were not taxed. Imagine a tax code where income was simply taxed at a rate without adjustments. That rate could increase as a person made more income, but still the average person would be able to handle his own taxes in quick order. The immediate result would be to put a lot of accountants, such as myself, out of a job. However, over the long term this would likely be a great thing for the productivity of our country. For all the millions of hours spent by CPA's preparing tax returns and IRS auditors reviewing them, nothing of merit has been produced. The only thing that has happened is that a federal law has been satisfied. It is work that does not create anything, no product, no entertainment, nothing. A financial audit of a company, by contrast, does have merit. Banks and investors find an audit very useful in determining how to conduct business with an institution. A tax return? It's not necessary, not productive. The displaced accountants would presumably find work in another field and add to the productivity of our society instead of simply fulfilling a government mandate.
Many areas of government have waste, not just in spending, but in man hours. This is one instance where the government creates wasted man hours not only by government employees but also in the private sector as citizens seek help to comply with the law. It would be a drastic change, but if you were starting from scratch, would you want the simple system, or the incredibly complex one that we have now whereby a citizen must rely on another person to follow the law?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sports - Clearly the best NCAA basketball team ever
We saw a basketball team that has never been equaled in its sport. I find it hard to believe that any would argue that it was not the best of all time. They cruised through the tournament without a challenge. The talent difference was immense. Yes, the Lady Huskies 39-0 season is unparalleled. Congratulations to them. What did you think I was referring to the Tarheels? Hardly.
North Carolina was probably the best/most talented team in the country this year. However, they had it fairly easy. They avoided a #1 seed and really the worst match up for them in the tournament was Oklahoma. If Oklahoma had shot just decent from 3 (2 of 19) then maybe that could have been a game. Blake Griffin dominated Hansbrough (23 points and 16 rebounds versus 8 and 6). Villanova and Michigan St. both were not that big and liked to run. North Carolina could run with anybody and was also big. The other #1 seeds may have been able to provide a challenge to North Carolina. Pitt, UConn, and Louisville were all big enough and athletic enough to compete. Alas, we were left with Michigan St. This year's tournament was filled with many blow out or double digit games and an early Mountaineer exit. It was a disappointment. The best game of the tournament was clearly Villanova and Pittsburgh. That outcome gave North Carolina the easy walk to the championship. College basketball is over. Until next year...
North Carolina was probably the best/most talented team in the country this year. However, they had it fairly easy. They avoided a #1 seed and really the worst match up for them in the tournament was Oklahoma. If Oklahoma had shot just decent from 3 (2 of 19) then maybe that could have been a game. Blake Griffin dominated Hansbrough (23 points and 16 rebounds versus 8 and 6). Villanova and Michigan St. both were not that big and liked to run. North Carolina could run with anybody and was also big. The other #1 seeds may have been able to provide a challenge to North Carolina. Pitt, UConn, and Louisville were all big enough and athletic enough to compete. Alas, we were left with Michigan St. This year's tournament was filled with many blow out or double digit games and an early Mountaineer exit. It was a disappointment. The best game of the tournament was clearly Villanova and Pittsburgh. That outcome gave North Carolina the easy walk to the championship. College basketball is over. Until next year...
Friday, April 3, 2009
Religion - Forgiveness
On Wednesday our youth group watched a video about forgiveness. Some of the video was centered on typical sermon topics such as "God forgives us so we need to forgive others". Most of the video, however, was very intense. It discussed the wounds that we carry, the pain that won't go away. We all have them to different degrees. If a person lives very long, he or she will almost certainly be wronged in a way that is almost impossible to forget, in a way in which the pain seems to never really go away. The pain may be gone for a while, but something will remind us of the situation or person and the pain returns. The video reminded us that forgiveness and forgetting are not the same. Some things we cannot forget nor should we. Forgiveness can free us from the pain and free the other party from the guilt. Yet, the video was right when it said that it's a nice idea but hard to practice. I do think that time helps to heal wounds, it just take much longer for some than others. True forgiveness is being able to wish that person well. I think that often the hardest circumstances for me to forgive are when somebody hurts a loved one of mine or I hurt somebody I love. Forgiving myself can very difficult. Yet, God does forgive us. That is comforting. We may need to work on forgiveness just like many other things in our quest to model our lives after God, but it is something worth trying. Forgiveness feels much better than anger, resentment, or guilt.
The other aspect of the video that was interesting was the discussion about toxic people. We are called to forgive, but if a person keeps hurting us over and over, we need to remove ourselves from that situation and away from that person. Jesus says that if a person hits you on the cheek, present the other one to him. What if he hits that one too? Second and third chances are deserved, but if a person cannot break the habit of hurting you, ideally you forgive the person and wish him or her well, but you also need to take yourself away from that person. We are called to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others, for the good of a lost world. However, I do not believe we are called to be punching bags, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, for others. There comes a point that we should do as Jesus instructed his disciples and shake the dirt from our shoes and leave that person.
The other aspect of the video that was interesting was the discussion about toxic people. We are called to forgive, but if a person keeps hurting us over and over, we need to remove ourselves from that situation and away from that person. Jesus says that if a person hits you on the cheek, present the other one to him. What if he hits that one too? Second and third chances are deserved, but if a person cannot break the habit of hurting you, ideally you forgive the person and wish him or her well, but you also need to take yourself away from that person. We are called to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others, for the good of a lost world. However, I do not believe we are called to be punching bags, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, for others. There comes a point that we should do as Jesus instructed his disciples and shake the dirt from our shoes and leave that person.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sports - NCAA second round recap and Final 4 preview
The Louisville loss hit me hard and took the excitement of the NCAA tournament out of me. Not only was I going to win my pool if they won the championship, I was hoping for three Big East teams in the Final Four. Many were worried about Louisville's propensity to lay an egg here or there. They had won their last ten games coming into the tournament. I thought they were past that. Apparently they were not. Michigan St. did an excellent job breaking the press. Still, Louisville did not play solid half court defense and particularly did not rebound on the defensive end which could have given them some transition opportunities. Louisville themselves turned the ball over more than usual and struggled more than they should have even against a good Michigan St. team. I blame some of this on the committee for the inclusion of Arizona. Anyone who thought the committee was justified for putting them in because they beat Utah and Cleveland St. saw the real Arizona team. That was disgraceful against Louisville and perhaps the Cardinals became a little too relaxed after the forty point blow out win. So, we have the Spartans.
The Villanova vs. Pittsburgh game was the best game of the tournament. I wasn't shocked by the result since Pitt seems to always choke in the tournament. If Xavier would have been a normal four seed, Pitt would have lost that game. However, Pitt actually played a very good game against Villanova. The Wildcats were just better. 22-23 from the foul line is ridiculous.
Looking ahead to the Final Four, the odds have to be in favor of a UConn vs. NC final. Sure with Michigan St.'s slow tempo they may be able to stay in the game and pull it out, but I'd go with UConn. On the other side, NC may have struggled with Pitt, but Villanova seems to be a bad match up. Villanova has no answer for Hansboro and they like to run. I would bet that NC can outrun them. The Wildcats will have to be on fire from three. If it is a Huskie-Tarheel final, it should be a good game. It's a tough call. The Big East in me will not let me pick the Tarheels, though. I say the Huskies nip the Tarheels because of poor NC defense.
The Villanova vs. Pittsburgh game was the best game of the tournament. I wasn't shocked by the result since Pitt seems to always choke in the tournament. If Xavier would have been a normal four seed, Pitt would have lost that game. However, Pitt actually played a very good game against Villanova. The Wildcats were just better. 22-23 from the foul line is ridiculous.
Looking ahead to the Final Four, the odds have to be in favor of a UConn vs. NC final. Sure with Michigan St.'s slow tempo they may be able to stay in the game and pull it out, but I'd go with UConn. On the other side, NC may have struggled with Pitt, but Villanova seems to be a bad match up. Villanova has no answer for Hansboro and they like to run. I would bet that NC can outrun them. The Wildcats will have to be on fire from three. If it is a Huskie-Tarheel final, it should be a good game. It's a tough call. The Big East in me will not let me pick the Tarheels, though. I say the Huskies nip the Tarheels because of poor NC defense.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
