You know, it’s funny, every time I come back to tumblr I’m reminded why I quit.
Because when the first two posts contain someone thinking Obama’s literally a fascist and lesbian furry erotica, there’s a problem.
I don’t think I’d define myself as a neoconservative. I think that’s a label others would often use to define me, but it’s not a label I’d claim for myself.
While I’m still in the relatively early stages of my education on foreign policy and international relations as a whole, I generally find myself supporting the United States in particular as a dominant world hegemon, purely because I’m well aware that the use of U.S. force projection can have in deterring conflict across the world. I’m not so sure I’m keen on the United States launching ill advised bloody adventures around the world in favour of ‘spreading democracy’. I’m not sure I’m terribly keen on Wilsonian foreign policy, nor am I entirely convinced that any one country should have the responsibility of spreading, heh, “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”, especially if other states don’t want that.
That being said however, I also view the spread of liberalization and liberal democracy in particular as a benefit to a hypothetical American intervention, but I don’t think it should be the sole goal. I worry that if the spread of human rights and democracy is the predominant goal of intervention, then many many many states around the world would be at risk, and intervention in those spheres would be ‘justified’. So rather than support intervention in conflict zones across the world due to high minded ideals, I would rather support the United States (or any world hegemon in a similar situation) and its use of force and force projection as a tool of peace. Even if that peace is achieved, ironically, through force (but then, hasn’t that always been how peace has been achieved?). I honestly think that the United States is a powerful deterrent to armed conflict and full blown wars, and I think that they’ve certainly stopped more wars than they’ve started, saved more lives than they’ve taken. Hell, just look at Taiwan!
That doesn’t mean I think intervention based on morals should never happen; I think in cases of genocide or severe human rights infringement intervention can well be justified. I just think that ending conflict and preserving peace and order should be some of the foremost considerations.
And besides that, I’m a Jew. I’m a minority in almost every aspect of my life, the only things I really have going for me (to delve into tumblr-esque levels of privilege) is that my skin is white, and I’m upper middle class. I just went on a trip to Europe visiting all the Holocaust memorial sites that I can.
If something like that repeated today could be stopped by a world hegemon, if the United States could check the ambitions of a modern day Imperial or Nazi Germany? How could I not support such an institution? How can I do anything but align myself with, on a fundamental level, the world order that would prevent a third world war?
So I don’t know what I’d label myself, in terms of my foreign policy ideology. I believe in intervention, I believe in the use of force. I think gunboat diplomacy is hella effective and often I don’t think high minded ideals enter into it. I like to think of myself as a realist more than anything else.
But I don’t think I’m a neocon. I may support some of their agenda, but I think that they and I approach it from two fundamentally different perspectives. I just think our policy recommendations may often be identical.
Anonymous asked: But what if this person is sort of claiming that like, YOU bully THEM? Like they tell you you're responsible for their self harm and some other pretty serious things? Could I just be making excuses for myself, and these things are my fault and I should feel as guilty as I do..?
Then it really sounds like you need to talk to them ASAP. I don’t know your personal situational but one would think that if you actually were causing someone to feel like that, you’d know.
It’s also important to make sure they’re not just using self harm as a weapon or an arguing tool because that is incredibly fucked up, and not something to be tolerated.
Tl;dr talk to the person. In person if possible. It’s harder for them to lie to you if you’re in front of them.
Anonymous asked: I'm sorry if this is a really weird question, but do you think that if a person posts things online about someone where they know they will see it all the time, like really long big paragraphs that are intended to make the person feel like they are like a horrible person and feel guilty and this goes on for a few years, is this bullying?
Uh, well it`s certainly a really fucking asinine thing to do. I think it probably would and should classify as some form of harassment, rather akin to them holding up a sign outside of your workplace for instance. I would caution though, that a lot of authority figures might not see it as that way, with the standard old “oh just close the page” bullshit excuse.
Yeah. That’ll help.
Seriously though it’s a fucked up thing, it’s bullying, and I’d do whatever I could to block that person as fast as I could.
Well that’s a lie, I’d totally keep reading because i’m narcissistic and a glutton for emotional punishment but it’d be a really good idea to somehow take whatever they’re saying outside of the area you regularly see and that’s what you should do.
In news that most of you will probably find promising, I can, with admittedly mixed feelings, tell you that the United States government and the international community as a whole is taking the concerns raised by the NSA hacking scandal and PRISM programs into account.
I can tell you this because I’m one of the people taking those concerns into account.
I can say this with confidence because I’m personally serving as part of a 16 member counterterrorism advisory panel to the World Justice Forum in The Hague, which will conclude tomorrow. Right now, I’m working with multiple security experts and United States military officials on establishing effective counterterrorism operations and strategies that remain within the rule of law, and more than that, seek to expand the rule of law as a whole. My specific recommendations concerned new media, and the role in which either state operations or nonstate actors can use social networking and electronic communications to determine and investigate suspicious activity, without invading privacy or violating privacy laws and protecting the rule of law.
I am working directly with multiple JAGs in the armed services, including (admittedly more distantly) with individuals such as Lietzau and James Baker and other command level officials, as well as numerous legal and security experts from the United States and around the world. None of this information is privileged, and in fact I explicitly got permission to discuss our findings. The list of attendees to the World Justice Forum should, in fact, publicly available. I certainly have access. You’re by no means obligated to believe me, but I figured it would be good to assure you that we are taking privacy concerns into account at the very highest levels, and no one wants a repeat of the PRISM scandal. In essence, we’re taking your concerns into account, as the blowback was massive, and I’m actually writing a grant request for several alternatives to mass metadata collection. In addition, we are also preparing a security brief containing counterterrorism recommendations which shall be shared with the world forum, and intelligence organizations of 97 countries (including the United States, France, and Israel). We shall not only provide future research directions on the role of intelligence agencies in promoting the rule of law, but we will also detail operational guidelines to ensure that jurisdictional challenges (i.e. whether or not terrorism is the province of intelligence agencies, domestic police, the military) are answered, and how full spectrum response to terrorist activity shall be concordant with the rule of law.
The list of attendees should be public record in case you want to fact check some of this (though you’re really going to have to take me at my word… I can talk about and even scan discussion notes, but obviously I can’t share the actual report). You can also check out http://worldjusticeproject.org for more information (yes, that’s Anthony Kennedy on the picture on the main page).
I admit I’m partly doing this to brag, since I’m the youngest person by a solid ten years in the room, but I figured y’all would be happy to know that many of your concerns are not only being taken into account, but are actively being worked on at the very highest levels.