Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chromatic (983) on 2003.03.16 15:20 (#17970) Homepage Journal

    "Depression" means something very specific in economic terms. Looking at the latest BEA [doc.gov] data for GDP (not GNP; that's a little harder to find in Google) shows increases in 3Q and 4Q 2002. That's not even a recession.

    I agree that war is an ugly thing, that unemployment is terrible, and that things like Total Information Awareness are nasty, horrible things.

    There's really no excuse for an intelligent, reasonable person to make things up to support an argument. "The White House wants to kill orphans for oil" is one of those unsupportable claims.

    My problem with the anti-war movement is twofold. First, I think a great deal of its arguments are simplistic and completely at odds with history. (Why is there no longer a League of Nations?) Second, I find its rhetorical tactics deplorable. "Bush is scarier than Hussein"? Please.

    I don't mean this as a personal assault on you, Ovid. You're about as reasonable person as I am. (Sorry :)

    It's really tiring to be considered a baby-killing, warmongering, hateful fool when all I really think is that some people will never budge without a show of force.

    • Re:Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)

      chromatic, I consider you a friend, so I trust you won't take this personally!

      When I used the phrase "further depressing the US economy", I did not mean that we were experiencing a depression. I meant, very explicitly, to "Lessen the activity or force of; weaken". In fact, for this definition, dictionary.reference.com [reference.com] specifically uses the example feared that rising inflation would further depress the economy. I was not implying that we were experiencing a depression. As reported in the Washington Po [washingtonpost.com]

      • I misunderstood your intent with "depressing". It's a word with connotations in this context.

        Most of my rant is against the simplistic logic found on protest signs and in the editorial pages of the Oregonian. Too few people seem to understand either economics (your focus) or history (mine). Whether that's due to institutional bias, concidental accidents, or the simple realities of publishing, it's not a place to find well-supported arguments.

        Like you, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of going to wa

      • Re:Rhetoric (Score:2, Insightful)

        • If, however, we use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument (which I concede that he is), then why do we remain silent about many other nations headed by brutal dictators?

        I don't think anyone but those wishing to knock down a strawman use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument.

        I feel that we must enforce the conditions of the original armistice [fas.org]. Iraq has been in non-compliance, and been warned about serious consequences for quite some time [fas.org].

        I believe Iraq has failed to live up

  • Please don't confuse Bush's actions for Christian ones. He is making decisions based on the oath he took for office, though he often infuses the Bible and God into his rhetoric.

    JFK (a Catholic) said during his campaign that he would not base his decisions on any decrees from the Pope, putting the interests of his country first.

    IMO, the only Christian response is peace (the whole "just war" doctrine is a cop-out {again, IMO}, but that's a whole other discussion) - but if the U.S. were a Christian country,