-
-
Spam Blocked
20,554 spam commentsblocked by
Akismet
-
Meta
- Log in
- Entries RSS
- Comments RSS
- WordPress.org
-
Authors
-
What We're Saying
- Housing Crisis Numbers
- Interesting Read: The Bush Economic Miracle
- The Wonders of Modern Medicine
- Tallywhacker Testimonial
- The Center of the Country
-
Recent Comments
- Jet Netwal on The Center of the Country
- Craig R. Harmon on Handling the Truth
- Dusty on Lead Tainted Hillbilly Teeth Recalled
- Dusty on Interesting Read: The Bush Economic Miracle
- Dusty on The Center of the Country
-
Blogroll
- Alan Grayson for Congress
- Altercation
- Americablog
- Atrios
- Buzz Flash
- Cest Moi Citizen Media
- Clusty
- Commen Sense World
- Congress.org
- Contrary Brin
- Corrente
- Crooks and Liars
- DFA
- Digby’s Hullabaloo
- Digg
- Dizzy Dayz
- Down with Tyranny!
- Dr. Forbush Thinks
- firedoglake
- Gun Toting Liberal
- Instaputz
- Jones of the Nile
- Leftwing Nutjob
- Liberal Oasis
- Lie by Lie
- Marc Ambinder
- Media Matters
- Mememorandum
- Morning Martini
- Nation Master
- No More Mr. Nice Guy
- Obama
- Oliver Willis
- Papamoka Straight Talk
- Political Wire
- Raw Story
- RCP
- Skippy
- Some Guy with a Website
- Television Without Pity
- The Brad Blog
- The Field Negro
- The Left Coaster
- The Moderate Voice
- The Nation
- The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
- The Rude Pundit
- The Siren’s Chronicles
- The Sports Pickle
- The Unapologetic Mexican
- The US Congress Votes database
- Think Progress
- Thought Theater
- TPM Cafe
- What Really Happened
- Who Hijacked Our Country
- You Forgot Poland!
-
Archives
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
-
Tags
Abu-Gharib Albert Snyder Back To The Future Banking Bible blackwater Bonnie Tyler bring it on Bush campaign Clinton Doc Brown Economy Election Election+2008 enhanced interrogation techniques Five Man Electrical Band Foreclosures General David Petraeus Geneva Conventions George W. Bush Homophobia Housing Crisis Hunger Iraq Iraq War Jobs journalism LGBT mccain media Network Obama omnipotent poobah Politics Principles Committee racism Rape Religion Romney Rumsfeld Torture Troop Cuts Troop Surge War
14 Responses to “Simple Logic”
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Assuming this is a polemic against some actual human being who is touting war as good for the economy, who do you suppose this is a polemic against, anyway? Or — you don’t suppose it’s possible — could this be one of those straw-men that I’ve read about? Or perhaps the correct term would be red herring.
Yes, I guess there is a certain simplicity to the logic. It’s just that it’s directed at no actual position that any human being of whom I am aware is actually advancing in defense of war. Shouldn’t that be a part of the logic of a polemic, simple or not? I mean, who, exactly, is arguing: “The economy is taking a down-turn; hey, I know, let’s go to war!”
This reminds me of the silly “Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity”. Sure, it sounds logical, except that, sometimes the only acceptable alternative is dropping of bombs to ultimately achieve peace — because, you see, unlike virginity, peace is something that comes and goes. Take, for examples of what I consider to be valid instances of bombing for peace, WWII or the 1991 war to evict Saddam from Kuwait. The only other alternative was allowing a deranged dictator to freely gobble up less powerful countries around him by military force. In other words, the peace in both cases had already been broken and no amount of abstinence would repair the virginity of the victims. One could only punish the rapist, gain justice for the victim and allow the victim to try to get on with life the best way possible by restoring the victim to former autonomy.
The point of the pictured aphorism appears to be that both statements are true in that war can be good for at least certain segments of the economy and cannibalism does provide nutrition but that the author of the placards considers both to be equally immoral. It’s hard to disagree. Both war and cannibalism, except for the most extreme situations, should be considered immoral, should be last resort solutions to dire problems — bombing should be reserved for situations where just peace can be preserved in no other way and cannibalism should be reserved for situations where there is no other means of preserving one’s life than to eat parts of humans who have died in the hopes of surviving long enough to be rescued. So I would agree with the pictured aphorism, although not absolutely, since I can imagine situations where both bombing and cannibalism would be morally permissible, but in some real sense.
By Dusty on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Why..My favorite POLEMIC!:
Bombing for Peace is like fucking for Virginity.
Oh, and Craig, what’s with the five dollar words today? Polemic, aphorism-using them several times in the same paragraph no less.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
Hey…I spent years of my life gettin’ ejumakated. I gotta show off occasionally, otherwise, who would know?
By Chris Radulich on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Are Wars Good for the Economy? - The Myth
One of the more enduring myths in Western society is that wars are somehow good for the economy.
This morning on NBC’s Today Show, President Bush denied that the there’s any link between the faltering U.S. economy and $10 billion a month being spent on the Iraq war. In fact, according to Bush, the war is actually helping the economy:
CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war — spending on the war?
BUSH: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Well, I did say war could be (not was) good for certain segments of the economy (not for the economy as a whole) so I don’t think I’ve fallen into the broken window fallacy (one I’ve actually read about in the self-directed, informal phase of my ejumakation on the subject of economics).
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Although the guy makes a great, conservative point: “Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve at all.” No kidding!
By christopher Radulich on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
It was in response to this
Assuming this is a polemic against some actual human being who is touting war as good for the economy, who do you suppose this is a polemic against, anyway? Or — you don’t suppose it’s possible — could this be one of those straw-men that I’ve read about? Or perhaps the correct term would be red herring.
Yes, I guess there is a certain simplicity to the logic. It’s just that it’s directed at no actual position that any human being of whom I am aware is actually advancing in defense of war
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Okay. Gotcha. I retract the “strawman”, “red-herring” part of my comment.
By Jersey McJones on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Craig, let’s just talk economics here. Now, “war” in your context is a Keynesian economic policy. It is a public investment with targeted returns. Of course, it is funny when conservatives argue the Keynesian benefits of war, but it is also incorrect. The returns are rarely worth the expeditures. In all our wars, for example, only WWII was profitable in this context and only because we financed the return of the very competitors who now out-compete us in many sectors.
Wars for cheap labor over the long term usually don’t work out well either. No colonial empire has ever remained intact more than a couple hundred years. There has to be some more overall cost/benefit to consider than just a few winners and a bunch of losers. The “cannibalism” reference is more than just some emotional appeal to morality - war cannibalizes the society and economy. Like free trade from cheap labor countries we bully around, in the end war cannibalizes our lives, treasure, priorities, relations, culture - you name it. It is not Keynesian at all, really. It’s just stupid. Whether war is profitable or not shouldn’t ever be the measure of it’s justness. But f you want to argue the economics, I would suggest beefing up. The numbers aren’t good.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
As I said, I haven’t argued that war benefits the economy but that it may benefit certain segments. That’s all. I mean, even some punk shattering windows is good for the glazier. So I have no intention, let alone desire, to argue that war is good for the economy.
So then, if you want to argue anything with me, I would suggest beefing up your reading and comprehension skills. Your abilities in this regard aren’t good.
By Jersey McJones on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Craig, my ruffled feathered friend, my point was that with the “moral” metaphor of cannibalism is also economic. Even if you were to factor the benefits of those who’ve gained from the war, and from most wars, the overarching economic drain is eventually felt by all. In other words, even the most greedy, souless profiteers of war suffer for its costs. Those who give only for love of their country usually suffer only more and have less to gain.
I can read, Craig. I just don’t get hung up very much.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Uh, yeh, whatever dude!
By Jersey McJones on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Class dismissed (apparently). Can you at least acknowledge the entendre(s)? Jeezez effin… And what, am I a “dude” now? Try me. See how much of a “dude” I am. “Uh, yeh, whatever dude!” is ‘pretty sorry man’ even by “dude” standards.
“The point of the pictured aphorism appears to be that both statements are true in that war can be good for at least certain segments of the economy and cannibalism does provide nutrition but that the author of the placards considers both to be equally immoral.”
You said this. So then I said, “The “cannibalism” reference is more than just some emotional appeal to morality - war cannibalizes the society and economy.” Can you address that point rather than demeaning me? Its not very Christian of you to do otherwise, Craig. And nowhere have you addressed these further arguments.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
I don’t know what you think I mean by “dude” but I use it as the equivalent of “guy”. No derogation or demeaning intended.
I’m not sure to what entendre(s) you refer that you want me to acknowledge. Cannibalism is as good a metaphor for war as any, I suppose, if that’s what you’re talking about. I took it literally rather than metaphorically and commented on that basis.
Since I nowhere implied that war was good for the economy, since, in fact, I denied it explicitly, I saw little point in defending something I’d never asserted in the first place and denied in the second place. My “whatever” was merely to dismiss your argument with me as a faux argument. We do not disagree on the points that you raised so I declined to get into a fight over our agreement.
If there’s something unchristian about declining to fight with someone with whom one agrees, I fail to see it.