Thank goodness for short attention spans and the amount of nuance it requires to differentiate between a quote taken in context of a roast and a quote taken out of context entirely.
I have ancestors that were alcoholics (indeed, some of them left to fight foreign countries for their government as young men and they returned as hardened drunks who needed whisky to sleep without dreaming). These ancestors did great harm to somewhat closer relatives of mine and I have heard stories about the tears shed due to this alcoholism. I have seen friends of mine cry at AA meetings. I have been to funerals of friends who died because of a bottle of booze mixed with a bottle of pills. I have heard the stories of what the parents of my friends have done after drinking too much... horrible stories that made me shudder to think that I spent the night under that same roof.
I also know what happened when this country prohibited alcohol.
Scott, this would bug me more if it weren't the case that "everything changed" for Republicans the second their functionally identical president turned the (R) next to his name into a (D).
Are you asking "well, when did a Republican government ever invade a country in the Middle East?", I'll have to check wikipedia but I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to get back to you quickly.
I understand that those who wish to intervene have the best of intentions. Indeed, I think that, when it comes to moral arguments, *THEY HAVE THE BETTER MORAL ARGUMENT*.
It's always more moral to argue for movement. It's always more moral to argue for action. Whenever you see the moral argument, it's always weighing the best possible outcome against the outcome of doing nothing which, in this case, sure as holy hell looked like a massacre of thousands.
The moral arguments arguing for non-intervention really ring hollow to me compared to the robust morality presented by the arguments for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's like chicken pox or hockey hair.
I've already been struck quite badly by the moral argument bug and my body now has quite a resistance to such arguments.
I'm stuck looking at what's likely to happen, what's likely to not happen, and what's likely to happen as soon as we stop making things not happen.
It's like prohibition, dude. You cannot use force to make people be better. We will quickly see that the culture of the Middle East created the Middle East as we know it rather than this idea that the Middle East as we know it created the culture.
Would that it were not so.
But, for what it's worth, I know that those who argue for intervention have the best of intentions and legitimately want to make the world a better place.
So we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we're not going to intervene in the Ivory Coast, Bahrain, or Saudi?
If we promised that we *WOULD* intervene in those three places, could we then intervene in Libya?
Imagine all of the lives we could save and all of the people who would finally be free of the shackles they wear!
(Of course the problem is that "DOING SOMETHING!" always has more moral weight in an argument than "none of my business"... because "AT LEAST WE TRIED!" is seen as a legitimate defense when everything that your critics said would happen eventually happens... and, praise Allah, it looks like Libya will not necessarily have everything the critics said would eventually happen happen. This will make it easier for the next guy to intervene even quicker.)
It strikes me that the marketing of Libya, if the vector we're on continues, will provide justification for those who support intervention rather than for those who support isolation.
Why, look at all the lives created or saved! Are you really putting a dollar value on THIS: (picture of smiling Libya boy hugging a blue-helmeted female soldier)?
Something’s sure playing havoc with our moral reasoning here, isn’t it?
Moral reasoning may be the problem.
Perhaps we ought to explore the upsides of callousness, selfishness, and indifference. (On an institutional level, I mean. On a personal level we can still be directly hooked into God's Thoughts.)
I admit to not being a fan of arguments of the form "you can't volunteer at this soup kitchen because you didn't volunteer at a different soup kitchen last week".
That said, I am less of a fan of arguments of the form "I cannot *NOT* volunteer at soup kitchens!" when one volunteers at a soup kitchen this week and one did not volunteer at a different soup kitchen last week.
On “Notes Toward an Integration of Education and Citizenship”
Actually, he called the pacifists "objectively pro-fascist".
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
The subject came up enough.
On “Birtherism”
And who invited you to ride your little pigmy pony into all this, popguns a-blazing?
When it comes to putting in a word edgewise, everyone can press the Submit button, Tom.
You probably wanted a paragraph between these two sentences.
"
What have The Children ever done for me?
"
I have my moments.
"
You mean like obesity?
"
Maybe we should make suicide illegal.
People who could otherwise be producing health care killing themselves? What right do they have to do that?
On “Rand Paul and the Imperial Presidency”
While that is certainly true (and well said), I do find myself beginning to wonder if we might have to rely on "fruitbats" to not bomb places.
The reasonable and rational can't seem to avoid it, after all.
Maybe we should explore "crazy".
"
I have a suspicion that he wouldn't necessarily have bombed Libya.
Does that sort of thing not count?
"
Thank goodness for short attention spans and the amount of nuance it requires to differentiate between a quote taken in context of a roast and a quote taken out of context entirely.
On “Birtherism”
I have ancestors that were alcoholics (indeed, some of them left to fight foreign countries for their government as young men and they returned as hardened drunks who needed whisky to sleep without dreaming). These ancestors did great harm to somewhat closer relatives of mine and I have heard stories about the tears shed due to this alcoholism. I have seen friends of mine cry at AA meetings. I have been to funerals of friends who died because of a bottle of booze mixed with a bottle of pills. I have heard the stories of what the parents of my friends have done after drinking too much... horrible stories that made me shudder to think that I spent the night under that same roof.
I also know what happened when this country prohibited alcohol.
On “A few Questions on Local Currencies”
If you could get hospitals to accept Bnotes, maybe you could save the lives of infants.
You should look into that.
Unless, of course, you don't care if children die.
"
Maybe they'll hope for 8% of the bills to never, ever be spent.
That's certainly a possibility for the first year given the novelty factor.
Hey, and if only a small percentage of local businesses accept them, that number could skyrocket into the 50's and 60's!
On “Quote for the day”
Scott, this would bug me more if it weren't the case that "everything changed" for Republicans the second their functionally identical president turned the (R) next to his name into a (D).
"
Folly is bipartisan.
"
He didn't say "Libya is bipartisan folly".
He said "War is bipartisan folly."
Are you asking "well, when did a Republican government ever invade a country in the Middle East?", I'll have to check wikipedia but I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to get back to you quickly.
On “A few Questions on Local Currencies”
"Clap louder."
On “Quote for the day”
Andrew Sullivan is our Libya.
Should we intervene?
For the record, I'm against it.
"
And here I thought all of the Reagan comparisons were specious.
"
Dude, don't get me wrong.
I understand that those who wish to intervene have the best of intentions. Indeed, I think that, when it comes to moral arguments, *THEY HAVE THE BETTER MORAL ARGUMENT*.
It's always more moral to argue for movement. It's always more moral to argue for action. Whenever you see the moral argument, it's always weighing the best possible outcome against the outcome of doing nothing which, in this case, sure as holy hell looked like a massacre of thousands.
The moral arguments arguing for non-intervention really ring hollow to me compared to the robust morality presented by the arguments for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's like chicken pox or hockey hair.
I've already been struck quite badly by the moral argument bug and my body now has quite a resistance to such arguments.
I'm stuck looking at what's likely to happen, what's likely to not happen, and what's likely to happen as soon as we stop making things not happen.
It's like prohibition, dude. You cannot use force to make people be better. We will quickly see that the culture of the Middle East created the Middle East as we know it rather than this idea that the Middle East as we know it created the culture.
Would that it were not so.
But, for what it's worth, I know that those who argue for intervention have the best of intentions and legitimately want to make the world a better place.
On “After the Fact”
So we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we're not going to intervene in the Ivory Coast, Bahrain, or Saudi?
If we promised that we *WOULD* intervene in those three places, could we then intervene in Libya?
Imagine all of the lives we could save and all of the people who would finally be free of the shackles they wear!
(Of course the problem is that "DOING SOMETHING!" always has more moral weight in an argument than "none of my business"... because "AT LEAST WE TRIED!" is seen as a legitimate defense when everything that your critics said would happen eventually happens... and, praise Allah, it looks like Libya will not necessarily have everything the critics said would eventually happen happen. This will make it easier for the next guy to intervene even quicker.)
On “A reed in the wind”
It strikes me that the marketing of Libya, if the vector we're on continues, will provide justification for those who support intervention rather than for those who support isolation.
Why, look at all the lives created or saved! Are you really putting a dollar value on THIS: (picture of smiling Libya boy hugging a blue-helmeted female soldier)?
"
DOMA was Bubba. The State Constitutional Amendments were Dumbya's.
On “After the Fact”
Something’s sure playing havoc with our moral reasoning here, isn’t it?
Moral reasoning may be the problem.
Perhaps we ought to explore the upsides of callousness, selfishness, and indifference. (On an institutional level, I mean. On a personal level we can still be directly hooked into God's Thoughts.)
"
I admit to not being a fan of arguments of the form "you can't volunteer at this soup kitchen because you didn't volunteer at a different soup kitchen last week".
That said, I am less of a fan of arguments of the form "I cannot *NOT* volunteer at soup kitchens!" when one volunteers at a soup kitchen this week and one did not volunteer at a different soup kitchen last week.
On “A reed in the wind”
Dude, you don't have to tell *ME* that.