The Gaming Den

wrote:
So naïve and otherworldly was the great logician that Einstein felt obliged to help look after the practical aspects of his life. One much retailed story concerns Gödel’s decision after the war to become an American citizen. The character witnesses at his hearing were to be Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern, one of the founders of game theory. Gödel took the matter of citizenship with great solemnity, preparing for the exam by making a close study of the United States Constitution. On the eve of the hearing, he called Morgenstern in an agitated state, saying he had found an “inconsistency” in the Constitution, one that could allow a dictatorship to arise. Morgenstern was amused, but he realized that Gödel was serious and urged him not to mention it to the judge, fearing that it would jeopardize Gödel’s citizenship bid. On the short drive to Trenton the next day, with Morgenstern serving as chauffeur, Einstein tried to distract Gödel with jokes. When they arrived at the courthouse, the judge was impressed by Gödel’s eminent witnesses, and he invited the trio into his chambers. After some small talk, he said to Gödel, “Up to now you have held German citizenship.”

No, Gödel corrected, Austrian.

“In any case, it was under an evil dictatorship,” the judge continued. “Fortunately that’s not possible in America.”

“On the contrary, I can prove it is possible!” Gödel exclaimed, and he began describing the constitutional loophole he had descried. But the judge told the examinee that “he needn’t go into that,” and Einstein and Morgenstern succeeded in quieting him down. A few months later, Gödel took his oath of citizenship.

See, I can find an incredible number of verisons of this story, but I can't seem to find anywhere that actually has the objection that Godel made to the Constitution, and since Godel was a genius logician, it's entirely possible he was right, which scares the crap outta me.

Anyone got any idea?

I don't think people are just going to take a dictator lying down just because "it's in the constitution". You can probably relax.

Actually, Americans are currently taking a dictatorship lying down who openly pisses on the constitution, and begging him for more.

Who needs the constitution when the right willingly gives away their rights so they can have the illusion of natuional security?

(Note that I don't say Conservative because a REAL conservative would hate Bush just as much as the liberals do. Unfortunately, there are precious few true conservatives left, all you have now is people who call themselves that who talk nonstop about how evil liberals are.)

I don't know much about the Patriot Act, but is it really as bad as you say?

Considering that we have a whole lot of people being held indefinately, with no promise of trial or investigation, I'd say yes. It's only a matter of time before they expand it to mean anyone the government just wants to shut up. That's what governments do, they grasp for more power whenever possible.

Bush Administration is that bad.


Yep. Permanent facilities to jail prisoners for whom there is not enough evidence to go to trial. You know... innocent people. Permanently. In jails.

-Username17

[TGFBS]
You guys are welcome to rag on the current administration, but this particular thread is Neeek's question. Let's keep this thread on topic.
[/TGFBS]

I'd wager that Godel never found any loophole in the Constitution, and the whole story is just an urban legend.

I know a lot of conspiracy nuts like to harp on and on about FEMAs capacity to suspend a large quantity of Constituional privilidges by simply declaring a Federal State of Emergency. Indeed, this is an important part of the plot of the Best PC Game Ever Made, falsehood or misinterpretation of law nonwithstanding.

What game would that be? Fallout 2?

Nah, Fallout is set in a post-apocalyptic setting. There is a real emergency there. He probably means Deus Ex.

As for Godel, I can't find the link; but I remember reading somewhere that the loophole he found was that Article V in the Constitution (the provision for amending it) doesn't preclude amending Article V. So therefore a "dictator" could amend the Constitution to provide, say; his family or his political party with all government power, and then amend Article V out of the Constitution... and it could never be amended again.

You guys really shouldn't be so up in arms over the Bush administration. While I do disagree with the fact that these suspected terrorists (I highly doubt many are "innocent," though certainly a few are) are being held without due process, this isn't some huge blow to freedom and everything. I mean, FDR held 110,000 Americans prisoner because they were Japanese-- yet America survived that. Lincoln held suspected Confederates without trial by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus-- America survived that. I can understand why you hate Bush, though I [largely] agree with what he's done; but this extremism is just silly.

(Oh yeah. Hi, guys. :] From the WOTC boards. I was a fan of Lago, Frank, et al. from back when I joined, and I found my way here following that Wish & Word thing. Lurking for awhile since I've been busy, but I felt like replying to this one.)

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1112214988[/unixtime]]As for Godel, I can't find the link; but I remember reading somewhere that the loophole he found was that Article V in the Constitution (the provision for amending it) doesn't preclude amending Article V. So therefore a "dictator" could amend the Constitution to provide, say; his family or his political party with all government power, and then amend Article V out of the Constitution... and it could never be amended again.

Let's see... it's been a good long while since my government class back in High School (I rode dinousars uphill, both ways, back then )... wouldn't this be essentially impossible, though? to alter the constituion requires (as I recall) 2/3rds of Congress and the states to ratify it, doesn't it?

Which is probably why he was assured it was impossible. *chuckles*

Don't forget that he became a citizen in 1948 (immediately after World War 2). Hitler had seized power over a constitutional republic (and the Weimar government had a surprisingly good Constitution, from what I remember) by being elected Chancellor and invoking an "emergency powers" clause. The US Constitution doesn't have anything quite so broad as that, but to a logician like Godel it probably didn't seem far-fetched for one man to be either charismatic enough to get everyone to want him to rule (a la Palpatine ) or, better yet, to get the Supreme Court to do it (as politicians, especially on the Left, are doing right now when they can't pass laws they like).

Of course, I don't remember where I heard the explanation about Article V, and it could've been wrong. In any event, the "separation of powers" is becoming more and more farcical as time goes on....

Given that Gödel starved himself to dead bcase he was afraid of being poisoned, I woulden't put even the most unlikely eventualities beyond his realm of worry...

But as Frank said, those 'unlikely eventualities' are becoming more and more likely. I'd have turned Libertarian by now if the Libertarians didn't have an incomprehensible tendancy towards not voting and supporting Bush.

You guys really shouldn't be so up in arms over the Bush administration.

I'd love to hear your take on some of the Bush administrations unqualified success stories. Seriously, I'm really looking forward to it!

While I do disagree with the fact that these suspected terrorists (I highly doubt many are "innocent," though certainly a few are) are being held without due process, this isn't some huge blow to freedom and everything.

According to recently appointed DCI Porter Goss, approximately 1/3 of the detainees "could be" not guilty of any actual United States crimes. A suprising statement especially since it runs completely counter to the DoD's assessment of Camp Delta's constituency. Clearly, all the detainees are enemy combatants. With a very high percentage of them being captured in military group combat with Coalition Forces. Making their legal distinction as "enemy combatants" and not P.O.W.'s a tenuous one at best.

Regarding your last sentence, you seem to not be concerned with issues of legal precendence. Sure, the administration's rump-wrangling of due process may not seem like a big issue when it comes to dealing with *filthy terrorists* ... but it opens Pandora's Box for future potential manipulation of the American legal system be either Bush or future politicians.

I mean, FDR held 110,000 Americans prisoner because they were Japanese-- yet America survived that. Lincoln held suspected Confederates without trial by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus-- America survived that.

What's your point about "survival"? Sounds like you condone this kind of crap if there is extenuating circumstance in doing so.

I can understand why you hate Bush, though I [largely] agree with what he's done; but this extremism is just silly.

In the US, the Liberal Left extremism is waning, the Conservative Right extremism is waxing. Come now ... you can't see that? How many hot topic current events in the news do I have to post to get you to see where the social and political shift of power is occurring in this country.

Hi, guys. :] From the WOTC boards. I was a fan of Lago, Frank, et al. from back when I joined, and I found my way here following that Wish & Word thing. Lurking for awhile since I've been busy, but I felt like replying to this one.)

Welcome aboard!

Wayne said:
"He probably means Deus Ex."

Yes, excellent. Someone knows what the hell I'm talking about. Welcome to the board. And you are somewhat correct about prez tWit.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1112214988[/unixtime]]. I can understand why you hate Bush, though I [largely] agree with what he's done; but this extremism is just silly.

I'm tired of moderates in this county being called extremists.

It seems that if you aren't on the street protesting "[EDITED]" in the country and burning witches, they call you an "extremist". For the record, I'm just an angry moderate whose voice has been silenced by both the religious right and the california liberals, and I'm watching both sides go out of their way to destory this country in their own unique way. It's just that the radical right holds the power now, if Hippy McGarnolaeater got into office, I'd be protesting how my taxes went up over 60% to give crakheads mansions and butlers.

What, not know about Deus Ex (aka one of the best games ever)? God forbid! *chuckles* And really, to this day; Simons is one of my favorite video game villains, and he's much more memorable than Page [at least in my opinion]. It also had Men in Black that explode, a surprisingly coherent plot for the subject matter (as we well know, most games that run "conspiracy theories" end up about as logically consistent as, say; 3.5 D&D), and more.

Count-- Well, being "extreme" isn't limited to the polar partisan positions. And it wasn't that much of a criticism, since being "extreme" means about half of what it did before the early 00's completely overplayed the word. :/

But, seriously, I understand where you're coming from. I've gotten into some arguments with my Republican friends (and family >_>) because I do have some serious reservations with Bush-- the fact that he's favored even more spending programs than our last infamous liberal President (Clinton), that he's got this weird tendency act on his own instincts when it's a bad idea and to compromise when he really shouldn't, etc. etc. And if I was a member of a conservative forum online (like, either one of them ) I'd be criticizing them too a lot. I'm just a lot more conservative than I am liberal, that's all.

Wrenfield-- Replying in order, one paragraph per quote:

-I can link you to my LiveJournal if you want, but I've defended the administration so many times around election time I'm pretty tired of it now. *chuckles* Basically, while I have indeed been disappointed with a lot of what's been going on, we can point to what's going on in the Middle East (the PA at least pretending to be friendly with Israel, Syria backing down for the first time in like forever, the elections in Iraq (and the amazing-- if you listen to the media, heh-- lack of violence and repression on the part of the winners) and Afghanistan, etc.). This is progress that simply wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't been aggressive there. And this is progress-- of the sort we haven't seen in decades.

-I am very unhappy with the Guantanamo situation, and I'm disappointed in how Bush has been handling it. I won't lie here. (And no, I'm perfectly aware of the precedent this creates. I'm with you on this one-- I just think that if future politicians are going to run roughshold on our freedoms even more than they already are, heh, Bush's detainments won't change that.)

-No, I don't. I'm just saying that Bush has not been the first President to pull this, and in fact he's been pretty moderate compared to the oft-loved FDR. And my point is that while any loss of personal freedoms is bad, America's survived Presidents doing this stuff.

-And I have problems with conservative extremism too. I just don't see any far-Rightists here.

-Thanks! (Though it almost feels sarcastic after the initial barrage, heh.)

And to make at least one topical statement....

Catharz-- Yeah, I remember reading about that when I was Googling Godel. Of course, he had a very good reason to be paranoid about government, coming from Austria immediately after World War 2. *chuckles*

(I'm thinking maybe I should go ahead and sign up, if I'm going to stay here, heh....)

Please do.

Speaking of "moderates in this county being called extremists," does anyone remember when Clinton was a "middle of the road" politician? It wasn't that long ago...

Ah yes all those muslim folks rounded at random up out of their homes in America by your lovely former attorney general.

(the one so insane he had a cover put over the statue of justice in his government building because he supposedly couldn't abide by her bared breast... though personally I think it made his skin melt in a vampire like fashion if he was exposed to a symbol of actual justice)

You know the folks, the thousand or so folks including American citizens, legitimate refugees and their various born in America children.

I say thousand or so because thats the group that suddenly became "too hard to count" when the number grew in excess of a thousand and became embaressing. Considering that was a long time ago if the group continued to grow at the same rate its probably well in excess of four times that by now.

You know, the people who are guilty of no crime other than belonging to the one community that could potentially voluntarily come forth to your justice department to give you vital information informing on ACTUAL terrorists planning to attack you again. The people who now no longer trust your justice department to provide them with justice.

Now precisely how many of them, locked up for no reason for months and years have been found guilty of well, ANYTHING. How many have even gone to ANY trial...

Here's a hint, the answer ryhmes with zero, and I'm not ruling out that it may in fact be zero.

And some Americans wonder where they get their reputation for political ignorance.

(Disclaimer: I also live in a country where our evil government, yes, evil, locks up brown muslimy people for up to 6 years without charge or just reason. We however know about it and struggle against it. We don't go "oh they're probably all terrorists, we can trust the word of a guy AFRAID OF STATUE BOOBIES").