Category: Political

Categories
Political Weblogging

The debate falters, lying broken in the dust

Yesterday I accepted the challenge issued by the so-called warbloggers to engage in an ongoing debate about war in Iraq; to put forth arguments without recourse to personal attacks. I believe that I accomplished this, writing up both legal and strategic reasons against war in Iraq and not once engaging in character assassination.

My regular readers are probably wondering why I bother, as these debates rarely go anywhere. (Especially since I’m under such a tight book deadline. Yeah, yeah, and ThreadNeedle is overdue, too.)

Past experience has shown that when those in my virtual neighborhood engage in said debates, we’re usually ignored by the warbloggers, or personally impugned. Rarely are our arguments directly referenced, with the point by point rebuttal or dispassionate cross-examination that marks good debating technique. Why tilt at the warblogger windmills?

What can I say, my lance was dull and needed sharpening, and my horse is fat and needs exercise.

Joking aside, debate is a remarkably effective method of finding which of our arguments are sound, and which are so full of holes they’d sink if floated on water. And there are many decisions being made in the US (and most likely other countries) based on some very leaky arguments. Good debate is a quality assurance process.

Since the first rule of debate is to define the subject, from this point on for this particular debate I’m going to label the sides pro-invasion for those in favor of invasion of Iraq; and anti-invasion for those against. The whole warblogger, anti-warblogger, peaceblogger labeling is getting tiring–time to start addressing specific issues rather than dump each other into dismissive categories.

On to the debate:

Eric did respond to Alan’s posting on the analogy of post-war Japan and humiliation, though as you’ll read from my comments, I felt that he didn’t adress Allan’s writing specifically. He also didn’t address Jonathon’s excellent posting, though has said he is writing more on this issue later. As for my own posting, he responded here and here. However, he also wrote:

Burningbird senses a weariness on my part to engage in a point by point debate. This is so because I sense we have no common ground whatsoever. That is why I have presented detailed overviews on the various issues: they indicate where I am coming from.

Eric, if we agreed, there’d be nothing to debate.

Den Beste wrote:

 

I favored the war in Afghanistan. I favor war in Iraq. I hate the prospect, but I consider all the alternatives to be even worse, and I believe that the longer we wait, the worse the cost of the war (to us) will be, and since I consider such a war unavoidable then the sooner the better. But entering a war is a major political decision and it unquestionably should happen only with emergence of public consensus, based on reasoned understanding of the issues by the public, which I believe can best be fostered by public debate. After Pearl Harbor, no such public debate was needed to create a consensus for war against Japan, but since I’m advocating a preemptive attack against another nation instead of a direct response to a direct attack by that nation, then we have the luxury of time for a debate, and an obligation to engage in one.

 

And I have been trying, off and on, to engage those who strongly disagree with me in such debate for months now, largely fruitlessly. Perhaps I chose the wrong forum to issue my challenge, given that those on the other side of the political fence who participated there at the time also tended to subscribe to a whole mishmash of post-modern multicultural dogma, to the extent that we couldn’t even come to an agreement about the fundamentals of epistemology, let along tackle the actual political issues. At the time I dismissed those epistemological concepts as “Berkeley Rules”, and in reaction I was myself dismissed as a bully and an insensitive boor who didn’t understand what a social gaffe it was for me to actually tell someone that they were wrong about something and to try to prove it to them and everyone else.

While Den Beste is a pro-invasion and I’m anti-invasion, I do agree with him about the importance of debate of this issue.

I haven’t seen any polls in regards to invading Iraq, but if any has been conducted, I wouldn’t be surprised that at least 50% of the people in my country believe we should invade Iraq. Their reasons vary, but chances are they’re reflected in what we read within the weblogs. Time to start talking. Time to start the debate.

Update: Eric did respond to Jonathon’s post with an extensive post of his own. However, me thinks the debate on the Iraq invasion between us has run its course.

Probably for the best.

 

 

Categories
Political Weblogging

The argument in defense

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Oddly enough, two separate threads related to two totally different subjects and both leading to this posting.

As stated earlier, B!x posted a reference to the Weblogging Consortium idea to Blogroots. At this time, I rather wish this hadn’t happened because the idea was just something I was throwing out to see what kind of discussion it would generate in my own comments; to see if interest was strong enough to take the idea further.

Well, it generated discussion at Blogroots. Lots of discussion. It also generated a great deal of dismissiveness, from me, and from others. Anil says I proposed the idea because I’m promoting my return to weblogging; Matt says that the idea is far too idealisitic; Melody states the proposal is ill-formed; and someone going by the name of ‘watermelonpunch’ sure doesn’t like the reference to ‘weblogging community’.

I’m feeling trapped behind bars that allow me little room for movement. Result: Oh, Yeah?

Conversations shut down before they even started, for what was nothing more than a simple idea. Slam! Hear that door shut! And not just on the ‘proposal’, but also on the criticism. Playing the game “What animal are you”, I could have been a hedgehog. Bristle! Defensive manuever! Lick them tennis shoes and foam at the mouth!

Or: How Not to Keep a Conversation Going 101.

And as I was trying to smooth the quills down on my back, I stepped over to Glenn Reynold’s and read:

 

this

The problem, essentially, is that Dave came into this debate late, and he’s not up to speed. He’s a smart guy, God knows, and as entitled to an opinion as anyone, but a lot of people have been wrestling with these things in somewhat more depth. Vague, general statements about playgrounds and bullies are merely inapt analogies, not arguments. You can make an intelligent argument against invading Iraq. And — here’s the other post I don’t have to make — Jim Henley has done so. I think he’s wrong, but it’s a question of the weight you assign to various factors, which is something about which reasonable people can differ.

And this

MARTIN DEVON is echoing a question of my own: why are the arguments offered by those opposing the war of such generally poor quality? I can make up better, more coherent arguments against the war than those who seem to have made it their mission to oppose it.

And this

MEETING THE CHALLENGE: HappyFunPundit is proving that warbloggers are better than anti-warbloggers even when it comes to thinking up arguments against the war.

 

You can hear the door slamming in each of the quotes that I pulled from Reynold’s site. The condescension as he dismisses other opinions, the refutation of other arguments as being poor according to his standards, the very fact that he doesn’t even reference most of the other arguments — only those of like mind — are all discussion killing tactics. He is using his position of influence to control the flow of the discourse.

Rather than refute the arguments, he’s disparaging the player; surprising behavior for someone who should be skilled in debate as one would assume a law professor would be.

If I taught “How Not to Keep a Conversation Going, 101” this morning, Reynolds has been teaching the advanced course all day long.

But then, he is a professor.

Categories
Government History Weblogging

Blast them all and let God sort them out

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’ve been ignoring the whole ‘humiliation’ thing going on between Dave and Glenn Reynolds and Nick Denton. To me, it resembled the typical warblogger BS, and I’ve listened to this broken record one too many times.

What changed my opinion was when Doc joined the fray with a gentle admonishment to the warbies. What caught my attention in particular, was a quote from another weblogger, Eric Olsen, who wrote:

If the Armies of Allah are defeated, humiliated, crushed, scattered upon the four winds, then the whole philosophical house of cards collapses and you have a beaten, malleable people willing to accept a new way of life, such as Japan after WWII.

We can’t look at the puzzle piecemeal any longer: we can’t look at al Qaeda, Hamas, Saddam, wahabbism, Afghanistan, or militant Islam anywhere as separate entities. We must see the whole puzzle for what it is, and end the threat behind them all once and for all; this is exactly “inflicting a lesser misery to end a greater one.”

Eric bases his philosophical attitude about the importance of humiliation on his interpretation of Japan’s response to the atomic bombing, and how, in his opinion, they’ve become such good post-war partners because they believe that they deserved the atomic bomb. In reference to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Musem, he wrote:

The museum, the city, and the country emphasize peace and conflict resolution not because they don’t feel historical guilt for WWII, but because they do. The town and the museum almost revels in the details of the destruction wrought by the bomb, not out of self-pity, but out of a fundamental sense of sorrow and guilt FOR HAVING BROUGHT THIS DESTRUCTION UPON THEMSELVES.
…
The atomic bomb brought bitter remorse, not from those who dropped it, but from those whom it was dropped upon. Why remorse? Because they believe they deserved it.

I’m not going to respond to Eric’s assumptions about Japan, though I hope that Jonathon Delacour does. Jonathon, do you agree with this? Can this possibly be true?

What I am going to talk about is this widening circle of dispassionate hate against anything and all things Arab. Where once the warbloggers had focused on Al-Qaeda and the Palestinians, the focus is now extending in ever widening circles of inclusion — the enemy is not only Al-Qaeda and the Palestinians, but is also Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and we can only assume most if not all Arab countries at some point.

Eric’s opinion is echoed by Martin Devon, who wrote today:

Perhaps Iraq was really behind the Sept. 11th attack. Perhaps Iraq actually had nothing to do with it. The question of what role, if any, Iraq really played in the attack isn’t relevant. The reason that the U.S. should go to war against Iraq (and Iran, ‘Saudi’ Arabia and Syria) is simple. The advanced state of technology today is such that the world can no longer afford to allow a country to be run by an irrational actor. A world leader who cannot be rationally deterred from using weapons of mass destruction cannot be permitted to control them.

(Of course, reviewing George Bush’s past actions, his dubious corporate accountability, and his willingness to instigate warfare for no other reason then to increase ratings points, his inexperience, and to be blunt, his lack of intelligence — one could apply the same to our own leader. I do not sleep easy knowing that Bush has a finger on our nuclear button.)

Months ago I asked where we draw the line. At what point is the destruction we’re willing to contemplate no longer justified by the WTC attacks? At what point is the destruction we’re willing to contemplate no longer justified by those killed in suicide bombings? What’s the ratio of acceptable death and destruction?

What will finally sate the US and Israel?

It seems as that I’m finally getting an answer, and this time without the pretty varnish of “selective warfare” and “purely defensive combat”. The answer is: bomb them all and let God sort them out. (God, of course, being the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians.)

<edit >Most people, including many Arabs, would rather die than suffer such extreme humiliation. In this country, we refer to this willingness to die to prevent the humiliation of defeat, “patriotism”. By saying we must humiliate the Arab people — the ‘Armies of Allah’ — in effect we’re saying that Arabs who refuse to be humiliated in this way must die.</edit>

And what’s truly scary is not knowing if Eric or Marvin are examples of extremist warbloggers, or are representative of a people of a country I no longer recognize.

Categories
Political

So far left…

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Doc Searls has me pegged when he says that I’m a Lefty, though I agree with him that being libertarian is the only way to go with the Net. (Or better yet, anarchy on the Net, all the way.)

How far left am I? I’m so far left that I’d come full circle and run into Glenn Reynolds’ back if all those warbloggers kissing Glenn’s butt weren’t in the way.

Categories
Political Weblogging

The CC wants you

I got to thinking about the Citizen Corps and TIPS and realized that there was something missing – there wasn’t anyone to watch the webloggers.

The truck drivers watch the freeways, the train conductors are watching the rails, the utility workers are watching the electric meters, and the postal service is watching practically everyone else while misdelivering mail, but there’s this huge gap of uncovered and potentially dangerous territory – the weblogs.

And there are so many in the weblogging world that would be so good at this type of patriotic duty. After all, they’re the ones who have already rooted out the terrorist sympathizers and the anti-Semitics and other traitors among the weblogs. Now they can do what comes naturally under official sanction.

Since the government is only providing stickers for cars, I figure the only thing missing is to provide a sticker for the weblogs of the “patriotic Americans”. Well, delay no longer – your weblog sticker is here! Feel free to copy it and display it proudly on your weblog.

And be sure to link the graphic to the CC weblog division – RATS.

ccweb.gif

Send a message to Dubya that you’re behind him, all the way.

(After all, someone has to clean up the shit.)