#archive #opinion
The Future of the American Idea
November 2007
Atlantic Monthly
by David Foster Wallace
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.
2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)
The Future of the American Idea
November 2007
Atlantic Monthly
by David Foster Wallace
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.
2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)
https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1252515684149575680
俄罗斯今日 批评 英国媒体双标
几个问题可以思考一下：
1. 两边的疫情是否是一样的？
2. 两边的应对举措是否是一样的？
3. 两边一样的举措对各自的疫情与公民的影响是否是一样的？
4. 批评是否可以来自内部？
最后，完美政府已经不存在了应该已经是共识了吧。当然，“说我不行，你也不咋地”这种比差心态就更没有帮助了。
#news
俄罗斯今日 批评 英国媒体双标
几个问题可以思考一下：
1. 两边的疫情是否是一样的？
2. 两边的应对举措是否是一样的？
3. 两边一样的举措对各自的疫情与公民的影响是否是一样的？
4. 批评是否可以来自内部？
最后，完美政府已经不存在了应该已经是共识了吧。当然，“说我不行，你也不咋地”这种比差心态就更没有帮助了。
#news
#resource #archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT1jUvwRLc
Silicon Vision - Misha Mahowald & Carver Mead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT1jUvwRLc
Silicon Vision - Misha Mahowald & Carver Mead
YouTube
Silicon Vision - Misha Mahowald & Carver Mead
Silicon Vision
Misha Mahowald
Carver Mead
Mead, Carver A., and Misha A. Mahowald. "A silicon model of early visual processing." Neural networks 1.1 (1988): 91-97.
Misha Mahowald
Carver Mead
Mead, Carver A., and Misha A. Mahowald. "A silicon model of early visual processing." Neural networks 1.1 (1988): 91-97.
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200409-how-chinese-vendors-make-money-videos-african-children
Seriously, this is so embarrassing and downright rude.
Seriously, this is so embarrassing and downright rude.
The Observers - France 24
How Chinese vendors are making money from videos of African children
A video showing African children chanting racist slogans in Chinese sparked a wave of anger on social media when it was posted in mid-February. The FRANCE 24 Observers team investigated this video as well as the wider Chinese market for videos of African…
https://www.zdnet.com/article/embrace-extend-extinguish-how-google-crushed-and-abandoned-the-rss-industry/
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/12/21012553/twitter-bluesky-decentralized-social-network-developers-reaction-mastodon-activitypub
“Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” problem — where a huge company adopts an open protocol, becomes its biggest user, and then changes its system to lock everybody else out. (The phrase originated with Microsoft in the ‘90s, and more recently, it’s been applied to Google taking over RSS and the XMPP chat protocol.)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/12/21012553/twitter-bluesky-decentralized-social-network-developers-reaction-mastodon-activitypub
“Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” problem — where a huge company adopts an open protocol, becomes its biggest user, and then changes its system to lock everybody else out. (The phrase originated with Microsoft in the ‘90s, and more recently, it’s been applied to Google taking over RSS and the XMPP chat protocol.)
ZDNET
Embrace, extend, extinguish: How Google crushed and abandoned the RSS industry
Most of the commentary I've read so far about the loss of Google Reader has been about its use as an RSS client. But that's a red herring. The real victims were companies that had planned in 2005 and 2006 to build RSS sync engines. Google stomped them out…
https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%8D%80%E8%AD%B0%E5%93%A1%E6%8C%87%E9%A3%9F%E7%92%B0%E6%94%B9%E5%8F%A3%E7%A8%B1%E5%A4%A9%E7%9C%BC%E5%8F%AF%E6%94%9D%E5%AE%B9%E8%B2%8C-%E4%B8%80%E5%B9%B4%E5%85%A7%E6%95%B8%E5%8D%81%E6%AC%A1%E5%90%91%E8%AD%A6%E5%AF%9F%E6%8F%90%E4%BE%9B%E5%BD%B1%E7%89%87-%E6%86%82%E6%90%8D%E7%A7%81%E9%9A%B1/
今天是「打擊非法棄置垃圾」，明天是「保護少年兒童」，問題不是推廣「可以做什麼」，而是要小心保證「不該做」的「不能做」。
#news #whisper
今天是「打擊非法棄置垃圾」，明天是「保護少年兒童」，問題不是推廣「可以做什麼」，而是要小心保證「不該做」的「不能做」。
#news #whisper
立場新聞 Stand News
區議員指食環改口稱天眼可攝容貌 一年內數十次向警察提供影片 憂損私隱 | 立場報道 | 立場新聞
食環署在去年 12 月初，於堅尼地城爹核士街安裝兩部俗稱「天眼」的網絡攝影機，以協助打擊違法棄...
🤔一位父亲开车带自己的儿子去参加某大型公司的面试，在停车场里，儿子的电话响了。打来的是一家贸易公司的CEO，说：“儿子，祝你好运，你一定可以的。”挂断电话后的儿子看向坐在旁边的父亲。这是怎么回事？