Re: Opportunity costs of war
Regarding opportunity costs, JDG said ... Economic Theory suggests that that is not proper foundation for cost-benefit-analysis. According to generally accepted economics, a government project should simply be considered based on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. ... which I find strange. When I studied economics, opportunity costs were seen as one way of figuring out the value of benefits. For example, when many recruits turned out to have poor health because they did not eat well -- as the US army discovered in World War II -- it became evident that as a military measure, the country should provide funds and suggestions for school lunch programs. The opportunity cost of not providing such funds was evident to the US army; the poor recruits did not turn into as good soldiers as others. By the way, the situation was more dramatic in the British Army of WWI; those recruits gained 20 or so pounds (~10 kg) eating British Army food! In the 1960s, South Vietnamese army recruits weighed about the same initially, roughly 98 pounds (~45 kg) and gained about as much on their army food. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Regarding opportunity costs, nowadays, the question in the US should not be whether school lunches use enable the US government to help the military, or subsidize small farmers, or subsidize large agribusinesses. It should be whether that same money would be better spent by hiring the farmers to become game keepers instead. Instead of farming, the land would be places where wild animals live. Aquafers need not be drained for irrigation west of the 100th meridian. Indeed, the game keepers, the one-time farmers, could organize hunting for some wild animals (hunting laws would have to be changed). Other animals could be protected ... as in `this year, we are not hunting any big elk, but only ill or elderly elk ... pretend you are a wolf ...' -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War (was Re: The OtherChristianity, was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
JDG wrote ... let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance ... Of the 32 or so of these ... To which I responded That fails to provide much legitimacy. It is the same argument as that in favor of the United Nations. and JDG answered back You may recall that I was not seeking to provide legitimacy. I was simply rebutting the proposition that the US had not listened to the opinions of its friends in the run-up to the Iraq War. Except you were trying to rebut the argument that the US did not listen to the opinions of its friends. That is what legitimacy is about: being accepted, if not happily, then grudgingly. Nowadays, one of the ways of being accepted is that people come to feel that enough have been consulted. To be considered important opinion givers, people have to be considered rich enough and to live in a populous enough country. The terrible truth is that many Americans do not pay much attention to the general opinions of people in small, poor countries, especially if their culture it different from that of most Americans. Counting countries does not work, unless that count includes big, rich countries with a culture not too different from most Americans. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more forgiving. Of themselves and their faults, you mean, or of the errant sheep in their communities? (Or both?) Both, in that those with faults, such as drinking too much, often were see by others and by themselves as particular errant sheep. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War (was Re: TheOtherChristianity, was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 09:06 PM 4/14/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: Counting countries does not work, unless that count includes big, rich countries with a culture not too different from most Americans. So, why are you including France then? ;-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:41 PM 4/14/2005 -0400, you wrote: Regarding opportunity costs, JDG said ... Economic Theory suggests that that is not proper foundation for cost-benefit-analysis. According to generally accepted economics, a government project should simply be considered based on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. ... which I find strange. When I studied economics, opportunity costs were seen as one way of figuring out the value of benefits. Think about it this way. A given project is calculated to cost $5 and provide $10 of benefits. Why wouldn't you engage in such a project? For example, when many recruits turned out to have poor health because they did not eat well -- as the US army discovered in World War II -- it became evident that as a military measure, the country should provide funds and suggestions for school lunch programs. This is not an opportunity cost.An opportunity cost is the value of the next-most-valuable expenditure for a limited resource.For example, the opportunity cost of me going to a dinner last night with a friend is the value of the enjoyment I would have received from going to a Nationals game. Your example is actually a reverse-measure of the benefits of a school lunch program. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 02:08 PM 4/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Nick: I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? JDG: No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an intrinsicly evil action. For example, if cost-benefit-analysis showed that our civilization would be better off by rounding up and euthanizing the homeless, I would be opposed to that policy. Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. Doug: OK, but what's that got to do with abortion? There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them -- who believe that abortion is intrinsically evil: that there is no such thing as a just abortion. Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception -murder, the intentional killing of an innocent, is intrinsically evil -abortion is intrinsically evil Since I knew that many of the pro-choice people on this list would have difficuly with this, I used another example where the members of the list would *not* use a cost-benefit analysis to justify the killing of other human beings. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 06:49 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) Welcome! I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. None that you (or any long-time members, either) want to hear about [again] :-D , but none that have any bearing on the current discussion. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested Just the facts, ma'am. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 08:04 AM Friday 4/15/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. Thank you! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intrinsic Evil Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:37:35 -0400, JDG wrote Thus, even if a given act is not intrinsically evil, it is only morally justified if the intent and totality of circumstances are good as well. I think I understand the position now. It is acting with good intentions, doing things that have foreseeable but unavoidable evil side effects, and with good effects that outweigh the evil side effects. I also see that war seems inevitable in this world and we cannot simply refuse to fight. At the same time, the majority of those who apply the logic above to *this* war, including the vast majority of religious leaders, have rejected the argument that it is just. To return to the distinction we were making, it seems that just war doctrine is not needed because all aspects of war are wrong, but because some are. And I have to say that the spirit of self-sacrifice and friendship that took Wes to Iraq are among the finest of human behavior. In this world, it seems that great sadness and joy are deeply enmeshed. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. My favorite passage on the scientific thoughts about when human life actually begins is from Carl Sagan. I don't have the book on hand or I would quote it. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. We're free to destroy our own livers (drinking) or lungs (smoking). After all, it is my body and if I'm an adult in the eyes of the state and understand the consequences then I have right to drink until my liver fails. However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member of Congress). -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ The WorldMaker.Network: Now more Caffeinated! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Desktop Search Question
Several people that I work with would like to begin sharing resources such as presentations, website resource info etc. We are geographically dispersed and tossed around the idea of adding a library to our intranet, but the organizational aspect is something we dread as this thing gets bigger. Someone suggested google/yahoo desktop which seems to be like gmail, constantly organizing. Anyone using either of these and want to give me feedback? I am not sure how we could all contribute to one location and then search it as needed. Thanks, Dee though still tech challenged, some of you will be surprised I am actually reading articles on BPM tools... and not near as lost as I still occasionally get on the quantum mechanics threads ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SSN ZIP Data (was: Re: 24? **correction**)
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And sometimes it's not a number, it's a text string. Some programmers don't seem to realize this. At least, some programmers writing code for programs at the university I attended didn't at some point. It's annoying to have the grade report arrive a few days late because the zip code was treated as a number when you (unlike most of the attendees) live in New Hampshire, where all zip codes start out 03. (I'll spare everyone the similar rant about Social Security numbers being treated as numbers rather than text strings. Just assume there is one.) That programmer was definitely smoking something if he forgot to force a leading zero for the zip code. Either he screwed up the research, or screwed up the coding. Having had to deal with SSNs and ZIPs when programming, I can say that there are a (very) few tricks that are made possible by treating those data as numbers, but many more problems. The thing that they don't seem to understand is that these numbers (I'm including bank accounts, etc) are really labels and not numbers at all. Proper zero-padding can be critical. Also, most of the useful number-based tricks are made possible with strings if you get the user interface to force properly formatted data and faithfully preserve zero padding in the string as well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SSN ZIP Data (was: Re: 24? **correction**)
At 12:31 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And sometimes it's not a number, it's a text string. Some programmers don't seem to realize this. At least, some programmers writing code for programs at the university I attended didn't at some point. It's annoying to have the grade report arrive a few days late because the zip code was treated as a number when you (unlike most of the attendees) live in New Hampshire, where all zip codes start out 03. (I'll spare everyone the similar rant about Social Security numbers being treated as numbers rather than text strings. Just assume there is one.) That programmer was definitely smoking something if he forgot to force a leading zero for the zip code. Either he screwed up the research, or screwed up the coding. Having had to deal with SSNs and ZIPs when programming, I can say that there are a (very) few tricks that are made possible by treating those data as numbers, but many more problems. The thing that they don't seem to understand is that these numbers (I'm including bank accounts, etc) are really labels and not numbers at all. Proper zero-padding can be critical. Also, most of the useful number-based tricks are made possible with strings if you get the user interface to force properly formatted data and faithfully preserve zero padding in the string as well. And in some versions of FORTRAN you can use the ENCODE and DECODE statements to effectively read the data twice: once as a literal and again as a numeric field, if for some reason you really want to have it as a number . . . and if for some reason you really want to use FORTRAN . . . It Beats Doing Your Report Program In Assembly Language Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Faith, Hope, and Decision Making
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful change I can go back through the posts, but I see repeated claims that we can find a choice that involves far less violence than war, yet accomplish the most important objectives. Is a claim the same thing as a hope? Is an argument the same thing as faith? I have been struggling with an answer to this, because I've had very difficult experiences with people who equate faith and hope with wishful thinking. I think that there is the same type of difference between them as there is between joy and having a good time. Let me relate a couple of experiences regarding this to give a background for my thinking. First, I have experienced this type of thing in church related work, and I've been accused of not having faith when I differ with the people. The best example of this comes from our church Our church membership started dropping about 5 years ago, close to the time I joined the Session (the governing body of the church). There was a faction on the Session who believed that God provides contributions to the church if the church is faithful to it's mission, so that to look at these type of trends and working out why...and then deciding which is integral to our mission (and thus faithfulness requires us to accept the loss of membership) and what is not integral (like playing hymns at a dirge-like pace which can be changed to attract more members). But, people refused to face hard issues. Instead they called the expectations that God would take care of the problem hope and faith. I made an argument similar to the one I made here: it could very well be that we needed to risk losing the property and restarting as a smaller church if we found that our identity as a church was counter-cultural in the Woodlands. But, we needed to make that a conscious decision, instead of letting things slide...and perhaps losing our buildings and grounds over things that could be changed without seriously affecting the mission of the church. For a while, I thought giving up the site would be a very reasonable solution, until I started to see how much community work we did (ESL, babysitting for children of ESL, pre-school, etc.) in those facilities. I don't think the Lord calls us to simply hope for an easy solutionthat's not what I consider Christian hope. The second example is work related. I have worked around a group that attracted the faith and hope of the management team. They told the management team that what they wanted was feasible, and that they could do it. The whole team did optimistic engineering. The team was so good at relating to the wishes of the management for what could be, they kept on getting a lions share of resources, even when they didn't produce. Now, you could argue, and I would agree, that the type of faith and hope the management team had was not spiritual in nature. Wishful thinking would be a better term than faith and hope for their actions/attitude. I would argue the same is true for the first group. We were a church that was very good with providing opportunities for advanced discipleship for believers, so-so at encouraging belongers, and absolutely terrible with seekers (to use common church nomenclature breaking potential members into three groups). As a result, we were an aging church, with a big hole where young families should be. In my opinion, the views that staying with the same old same old was not an expression of faith, but an unwillingness to leave their comfort zone. Their faith and hope inoculated them against having to face unpleasantness. I struggled with this for about two years, becoming very frustrated as a brick wall was put up. So, when I see the 6-point program for correcting Iraq and see a cornerstone of it is legal proceedings resulting in massive internal and external changes, I immediately feel echoes of this type of unpleasant situation. The faith and hope of these people stopped all discussion. If they were immunized against any arguments against their position, then there is no real chance for dialog. Trusting God for a third solution, when there just seems to be two, is a perilous undertaking. Even with 50+ years of hindsight, war seems to have been the only possible way for non-Germans to stop or minimize the Holocaust. One lesson I have taken is that trust in God is not a matter of the things of this world, even if every indication is that our desires in terms of the things of this world are virtuous (like wishing to stop Hitler's mass murder without a war that would kill many). The temptation to believe that one has God in one's pocket because one is working at being faithful to one's call is not just a problem for religious conservatives. I hope this expression of my viewpoint furthers dialogand does not sound accusatory. It's just that after
Re: Faith, Hope, and Decision Making
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:52 PM Subject: Faith, Hope, and Decision Making - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful change I can go back through the posts, but I see repeated claims that we can find a choice that involves far less violence than war, yet accomplish the most important objectives. Is a claim the same thing as a hope? Is an argument the same thing as faith? I have been struggling with an answer to this, because I've had very difficult experiences with people who equate faith and hope with wishful thinking. I think that there is the same type of difference between them as there is between joy and having a good time. Let me relate a couple of experiences regarding this to give a background for my thinking. First, I have experienced this type of thing in church related work, and I've been accused of not having faith when I differ with the people. The best example of this comes from our church Our church membership started dropping about 5 years ago, close to the time I joined the Session (the governing body of the church). There was a faction on the Session who believed that God provides contributions to the church if the church is faithful to it's mission, so that to look at these type of trends and working out why...and then deciding which is integral to our mission (and thus faithfulness requires us to accept the loss of membership) and what is not integral (like playing hymns at a dirge-like pace which can be changed to attract more members). would be a sign of a lack of faith. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested Just the facts, ma'am. Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the south end of the complex. (If you park by the scrapbook shop, for example, you'll have a bit of a hike to get your subs and/or brownies.) 1110 N I H 35 # D, Round Rock, TX 78681 (512) 244-2468 http://tinyurl.com/csg9v for Yahoo map driving directions. And if you're in the neighborhood and don't want a sub, you can go to a Mexican restaurant, a barbecue place or a Mr. Gatti's pizza place in the same shopping complex. (There's also a CVS if you just want to grab a cold bottled beverage, or if you need something for indigestion after eating at one of those places, plus a number of other businesses which I will not enumerate in this post.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the south end of the complex. Ah, intelligence has provided us with the information we require. And this is the axis of evil that [gasp] RAN OUT OF BROWNIES? The horrors! They cannot be allowed to do that to their people, people have basic rights and needs! We must prepare the invasion...but wait, it may be difficult to mobilize hearts and minds with just humanitarian concernsmust justify invasion...aha, they have weapons of mass dest--er, biological weapons? Uhh, germ warfare, yeah, salmonella, that's the ticket! Send in the UN inspectors, er, I mean send in the health department inspectors! If the inspectors aren't shown the salmonella post-haste, we invade! Justice will be served! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the south end of the complex. Ah, intelligence has provided us with the information we require. And this is the axis of evil that [gasp] RAN OUT OF BROWNIES? The horrors! They cannot be allowed to do that to their people, people have basic rights and needs! We must prepare the invasion...but wait, it may be difficult to mobilize hearts and minds with just humanitarian concernsmust justify invasion...aha, they have weapons of mass dest--er, biological weapons? Uhh, germ warfare, yeah, salmonella, that's the ticket! Send in the UN inspectors, er, I mean send in the health department inspectors! If the inspectors aren't shown the salmonella post-haste, we invade! Justice will be served! I was willing to cut them some slack because one of the employees was still in the hospital after an auto accident. :) I'm hoping they have plenty of brownies next time. (And maybe when this promotional thing they're doing this month is over, there won't be such a rush on subs OR brownies right after 1PM.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. Hm. Chips is the British word for fries. Is there some conspiracy here in which Great Britain is a party? Julia they have potato salad, as well, but I haven't sampled it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Evil and Wrong
Finally, I would argue that the only justification for killing and war is weakness. If we were strong enough to stop evil actions without such extreme measures, then we would be morally compelled to do so. I cannot agree with the premise that underlies this -- that evil is out there and we in here, if powerful enough, can eliminate it. That really isn't the premise. The premise is this: we as a community need to address evil actions. I don't see community action with regard to evil within the heart because the community I cannot see into people's hearts. Second, I might accept a technical theological correction that the actions are better described wrong or harmful, with evil better being reserved for internal risks to our souls. Using this nomenclature Hitler's ordering of the Holocaust was horribly wrong and very harmful, but we do not know if he was morally responsible for his actions or insane enough so that he didn't sin. If it was the former, then he did evil; if it was the latter; then he did not. But, accepting this, I'd also point out that this was a rather technical distinction, and that a lot of slack should be given to those people who are not this technical. So, it would be reasonable for someone who holds such a technical opinion to either internally translate statements like the Holocaust was evil (best option in my opinion) or be very careful to explain that they are making a technical distinction. So, if you allow me a bit of slop, then I'd say that I agree that we don't need to be concerned about the sin of others. What we do need to be concerned about is the present and likely future actions of others as part of our decision making process. The morality we need to consider is not the morality of AQ or Hussein; the morality we need to consider is indeed our own. But, in choosing rightful actions we need to use our God given abilities to obtain our best understanding of the consequences of various actions. So, if convicting Hussein in the Hague were to have a 90% probability of ending his regime without violence within a year, then it would be hard to argue for going to war before trying this option. But, if our best analysis is that the odds of this are really under 1%, then one has to weight this outcome by .01 and weigh the outcome that he continues to rule as ruthlessly as he has at .99. If one accepts just wars, then one figures this into the question: are his actions ruthless enough so that a war to overthrow him would be of net benefit to the people of Iraq? If one is a pacifist, one needs to acknowledge that the price of non-violence is to stand by while people are tortured and killed. Looking hard for a third option is reasonable, but basing action on the wish that the search will be fruitful is not. Finally, while analysis can be self-deceptive, I don't think that concluding that one's countries goals are more in tune with what is good and helpful to the whole world than one's enemy's can simply be written off as self deception. Even though we had our share of mis-deeds during WWII (like firebombed civilians), the world is better off with the US beating the Germans than with the Germans triumphing. Even though we were not always moral during the Cold War, there was still a stark difference between our actions and those of the Soviet Union. The fact that other's worse behavior isn't an excuse for one's own poor behavior doesn't mean that there is no differences between the two. Anti-war critics would perform a much better job of serving as counter-point to an argument to war by acknowledging that their internal adversaries are not monsters who trade blood for oil, but are often people who are doing what they think is right. The human cost of leaving a dictator in place needs to be acknowledged. It's much harder to chant these ideas, of course, but if we are to have the community building dialog that you want, I think this is a very needed step. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
I see nothing wrong with pointing to Saddam and saying that he was doing extremely evil things. But the next step that we have take as a national policy, which is to say that they are evil and we are good, seems to me is hubris of the most dangerous kind. It is nationalistic idolatry. We are not the good. Actually, that's not what Bush is saying. That would be idolatry, I agree. Rather, Bush is saying the world is full of freedom loving people. Some scoundrels, like Saddam, have gotten power over them. We have the chance to help them get on their feet and be truly freeto determine their own fate. Our method of government is superior to Saddam's, but the Iraqi people are just like us, freedom loving people. Only they've been horribly oppressed. He does talk about evil-doers. But, it is clear that he is focused on the actual members of AQ, Hussein and his henchmen, etcnot the whole people of the middle East. In short, he has drawn a line between dictators, terrorists and their cronies and everyone else. I do think he has made a couple of mistakes in how he does this. There is a tendency to take a WWF attitude towards things...what one does to bad guys is OK because we know who are the good guys and the bad guys. One draws fine distinctions between advance stress and torture and crosses bright lines that the military has had in place for very good reasons. The second is that he seems to think that God makes everything work out for those trying to be faithful to a call. I sincerely think that Bush thinks God's will for the world is a prosperous world filled with people living in peace and freedom everywhere. God has blessed us with stewardship over earthly power and it is our responsibility to use that power towards God's end. So far, I don't have a problem with this. The next step is the view that, so long as we are faithful, God will smooth the path. In some ways, I see Bush as very much like the clergy who thought that through legal proceedings we could cause the downfall of Hussein. If we are only faithful, God will ensure that we will succeed. I don't think this is sound. But, if this type of criticism of the activities of the US were made by those who are uncomfortable with aspects of our actions, then I think it would be much easier to find common ground. As it stands, the marches of the anti-war movement looks to those supporting the war as accusing them of being duped pawns, evil, money-grubbing, or combinations thereof. Insulting one's fellow countrymen that way is not a good way to start dialog. Again, I'm not accusing you of this, I realize you want to stay away from that sort of self righteousness. I'm merely making suggestions for things that might have the potential to improve the chance for dialog. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
I see nothing wrong with pointing to Saddam and saying that he was doing extremely evil things. But the next step that we have take as a national policy, which is to say that they are evil and we are good, seems to me is hubris of the most dangerous kind. It is nationalistic idolatry. We are not the good. Actually, that's not what Bush is saying. That would be idolatry, I agree. Rather, Bush is saying the world is full of freedom loving people. Some scoundrels, like Saddam, have gotten power over them. We have the chance to help them get on their feet and be truly freeto determine their own fate. Our method of government is superior to Saddam's, but the Iraqi people are just like us, freedom loving people. Only they've been horribly oppressed. He does talk about evil-doers. But, it is clear that he is focused on the actual members of AQ, Hussein and his henchmen, etcnot the whole people of the middle East. In short, he has drawn a line between dictators, terrorists and their cronies and everyone else. I do think he has made a couple of mistakes in how he does this. There is a tendency to take a WWF attitude towards things...what one does to bad guys is OK because we know who are the good guys and the bad guys. One draws fine distinctions between advance stress and torture and crosses bright lines that the military has had in place for very good reasons. The second is that he seems to think that God makes everything work out for those trying to be faithful to a call. I sincerely think that Bush thinks God's will for the world is a prosperous world filled with people living in peace and freedom everywhere. God has blessed us with stewardship over earthly power and it is our responsibility to use that power towards God's end. So far, I don't have a problem with this. The next step is the view that, so long as we are faithful, God will smooth the path. In some ways, I see Bush as very much like the clergy who thought that through legal proceedings we could cause the downfall of Hussein. If we are only faithful, God will ensure that we will succeed. I don't think this is sound. But, if this type of criticism of the activities of the US were made by those who are uncomfortable with aspects of our actions, then I think it would be much easier to find common ground. As it stands, the marches of the anti-war movement looks to those supporting the war as accusing them of being duped pawns, evil, money-grubbing, or combinations thereof. Insulting one's fellow countrymen that way is not a good way to start dialog. Again, I'm not accusing you of this, I realize you want to stay away from that sort of self righteousness. I'm merely making suggestions for things that might have the potential to improve the chance for dialog. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:20 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . There's some sort of witty retort involving Fry's Electronics, but I can't come up with it right now. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
