Donald Knuth's IFAQ

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.<p>To qoute Emerson <i>"Before we acquire great power we must acquire wisdom to use it well."</i> Intellectuals have the wisdom, and the brave ones speak truth to power.<p>It's nice to see Knuth in good company.

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.<p>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.

Proves once again that being an expert in one field doesn't mean you have a slightest understanding in another.

Just because the author is Knuth doesn't make it on-topic.

Mistake one: thinking its his country. It is not.<p>Mistake two: the idea of a country's honor is ludicrous.<p>I'm with him, otherwise, although I don't think the case is as clear-cut as I used to.

By the way, Knuth was at Google today. He started his presentation by saying "I don't think I can top Lady Gaga".

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.<p>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?"<p>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)<p>We're still here after all :)

Another question: Why does my country have the right to be occupying Libya?