Donald Knuth is a Stanford academic, a serious Lutheran Christian, and a liberal. For any of those three types of people, these viewpoints are unsurprising. I share them, too, but I feel queasy about an HN headline that says "Respect", as if it were contemptible to hold a different viewpoint.
It's the obligation of the intellectual elite to point out fallacies, inaccuracies and problems of the governing body of a country. There's a long tradition of this, from Noam Chomsky to Ralph Waldo Emerson.
To qoute Emerson "Before we acquire great power we must acquire wisdom to use it well." Intellectuals have the wisdom, and the brave ones speak truth to power.
It is ironic that Knuth fumes about his personal lack of consent for the Iraq War (which was authorized and funded by dozens of votes in Congress) and in the same breath calls for imposing the legal rule of an unelected international criminal court on his fellow Americans.
Americans, a self-governed people, have established a proven system of rights and freedoms in our Constitution, and that sovereignty should not be transferred to international bodies -- particularly when those bodies are controlled by groups that plan to use the courts against U.S. and Israeli soldiers.
It is ironic that Knuth fumes about his personal lack of consent for the Iraq War (which was authorized and funded by dozens of votes in Congress) and in the same breath calls for imposing the legal rule of an unelected international criminal court on his fellow Americans.
Actually read it again. He says no such thing. He says those are questions and then explicitly says he has no good answers for any of the questions, except maybe one of them (not one that you mention). Saying that this is a question that we should have a real discussion over is neither calling nor fuming.
If a country's honor as a concept is ludicrous, why should a country bother to be moral?
Surely you can see that honor and morality are closely tied concepts, such that a country's moral actions define its honor. In what respect can someone deny the validity of honor and still evaluate the quality of a country's actions?
These are moral questions. There are equally perplexing related practical questions, such as: Why did we go into Iraq? Wars are typically fought for vengeance or gain. There was really nothing to avenge and clearly nothing has been gained. I'm chocking the war up to pure foolishness.
This page seems rather silly. He isn't actually espousing any views; he's saying he doesn't have any answers. You may read the questions as implying his views, but he doesn't explicitly state any opinions on the matter.
I'm not sure why this is even on HN, even given its author.
" Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about their country's possible guilt, without committing political suicide?"
Well we did get the whole "apology tour" stuff on the tv and radio with Obama and by then he wasn't a "potential new leader", but perhaps the answer is yes? (at least it's not a no)
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mite-mitreski|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmax|15 years ago|reply
To qoute Emerson "Before we acquire great power we must acquire wisdom to use it well." Intellectuals have the wisdom, and the brave ones speak truth to power.
It's nice to see Knuth in good company.
[+] [-] mixmax|15 years ago|reply
In skating over thin ice our safety is in our speed.
Little minds have little worries, big minds have no time for worries.
Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art.
Men love to wonder, and that is the seed of science.
No great man ever complains of want of opportunity.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.
Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen.
Our best thoughts come from others.
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail.
People only see what they are prepared to see.
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.
The ancestor of every action is a thought.
[+] [-] OstiaAntica|15 years ago|reply
Americans, a self-governed people, have established a proven system of rights and freedoms in our Constitution, and that sovereignty should not be transferred to international bodies -- particularly when those bodies are controlled by groups that plan to use the courts against U.S. and Israeli soldiers.
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
Actually read it again. He says no such thing. He says those are questions and then explicitly says he has no good answers for any of the questions, except maybe one of them (not one that you mention). Saying that this is a question that we should have a real discussion over is neither calling nor fuming.
[+] [-] mak120|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexeiz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kstenerud|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Anechoic|15 years ago|reply
It's just the nature of the beast.
[+] [-] nandemo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maw|15 years ago|reply
Mistake two: the idea of a country's honor is ludicrous.
I'm with him, otherwise, although I don't think the case is as clear-cut as I used to.
[+] [-] Helianthus16|15 years ago|reply
Surely you can see that honor and morality are closely tied concepts, such that a country's moral actions define its honor. In what respect can someone deny the validity of honor and still evaluate the quality of a country's actions?
In other words, did America 'do wrong' by Iraq?
[+] [-] billmcneale|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] euroclydon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fourspace|15 years ago|reply
I'm not sure why this is even on HN, even given its author.
[+] [-] johnny22|15 years ago|reply
Well we did get the whole "apology tour" stuff on the tv and radio with Obama and by then he wasn't a "potential new leader", but perhaps the answer is yes? (at least it's not a no)
We're still here after all :)
[+] [-] trurl123|15 years ago|reply