Spider-man and war
I liked this comment so much, I'm giving it its own post (narcissistic):
In response to this comment.
I like the name change.
What was inaccurate? Cash accounting may be inferior to GAAP, but what about economic accounting? What about the opportunity costs incurred by devoting so much effort to destruction. The opportunity cost of lives cut short? Surely we do not have the means of calculating so great a loss. But I warn that those loses will be taken into account on the last day before the judgment bar of God.
Posting war spending as GDP may yield insights. But using our country's greater wealth to downplay how much we are spending on war ignores what Spider-man taught us: With great power, comes great responsibility.
My "inaccurate emotional hyperbole" is simply a result of me trying to reconcile my faith and beliefs to reality. Usually it's the liberals chewing out the conservatives for being so hopelessly ignorant and sentimental in their beliefs. I like the flip-flop.
Bonus clip from another idiot who agrees with me (Eisenhower, five-star general and president):
Also John McCain at his best.
From Why We Fight
In response to this comment.
I like the name change.
What was inaccurate? Cash accounting may be inferior to GAAP, but what about economic accounting? What about the opportunity costs incurred by devoting so much effort to destruction. The opportunity cost of lives cut short? Surely we do not have the means of calculating so great a loss. But I warn that those loses will be taken into account on the last day before the judgment bar of God.
Posting war spending as GDP may yield insights. But using our country's greater wealth to downplay how much we are spending on war ignores what Spider-man taught us: With great power, comes great responsibility.
My "inaccurate emotional hyperbole" is simply a result of me trying to reconcile my faith and beliefs to reality. Usually it's the liberals chewing out the conservatives for being so hopelessly ignorant and sentimental in their beliefs. I like the flip-flop.
Bonus clip from another idiot who agrees with me (Eisenhower, five-star general and president):
Also John McCain at his best.
From Why We Fight
Not only is cash accounting inferior to GAAP, it’s not even legal for any business that makes over $1 million. The government shouldn’t be above their own rules, but it was a good solid effort on your part to sidestep that whole Democrats-are-bankrupting-our-country thing.
ReplyDelete"Usually it’s the liberals chewing out the conservatives for being so hopelessly ignorant and sentimental in their beliefs. I like the flip flop."
Let’s look at some issues and the emotional arguments attached to them.
Which party is always whining about how the poor/middle class/elderly/single mothers/3 legged dogs/etc are without health care? It’s always a story about one of those groups of people and the evil republicans who want them to suffer by denying them the health care that they deserve just for being born, right?
Which party complains that illegal aliens should be able to break our laws because they deserve all the rainbows, puppies and butterflies that Americans enjoy?
Can you tell me which party is currently pushing for embryonic stem cell research because if the evil republicans don’t let them, billions of people will surely die because those evil republicans don’t want science to find cures for AIDS/cancer/etc. (even though dozens of cures have been found from adult stem cell research, and exactly nothing has ever come from embryonic stem cell research – but oh wait, that’s a logical reason to oppose it).
And which party do you hear yelling that the sky will fall if we don’t stop global warming – even though they can’t prove that it’s even happening? Sounds like an emotionally-charged scare tactic.
Which politician recently said that if we don’t pass the stimulus bill quickly, 500 MILLION Americans would lose their job every MONTH (yes, you read that right)? An irrational, incorrect and emotional statement used to scare people into going along with that garbage.
Remind me which party cries and moans about how if we don’t funnel billions into an education system that’s broken – little children won’t be able to learn as well. Can’t you see their sad faces? Maybe MSNBC can run another story about an inner-city school that doesn’t have enough brand new computers for each grade level to have their own set...
Which party is against the death penalty because those murderers are people too, and everybody deserves a chance, right? How would YOU feel if the government put one of your family members to death? Wahhhhhhh
And which party thinks we should give jobs and scholarships to individuals based on the color of their skin (instead of the content of their character)? Doesn't sound like a real logical idea to me. Sounds more like another feel-good liberal idea.
Would you like me to go on? I could.
To be quite honest, I’ve never heard anybody complain that it’s the conservatives who use emotional arguments, but maybe that’s about all I can expect from someone who gets their news from Jon Stewart.
I completely agree with you. I believe the Democratic party aligns more closely to the teachings of Jesus Christ than does the Republican party. That's why I voted for many Democrats this time around (though I didn't vote straight ticket), and that's why I'm so confused as to why so many Christians are Republican.
ReplyDeleteBut I am not the Democratic party, and do not adhere to all of their tenets. Politically, I am more of a Libertarian/Democrat, if there is such a thing. I supported Ron Paul before he dropped out of the race. But above all, I am a Christian.
If charity and empathy for my fellow brothers and sisters makes me a whiny, unrealistic, feel-good liberal, then I am all of those things.
And yes, 500,000,000 is a lot of imaginary people. And Nancy Pelosi is very bad at math. And she might be a robot.
You failed to address the opportunity costs of war.
Nice. Hopefully I'll have more time to respond later. But to tide you over:
ReplyDeleteWar: Which U.S. military leader has direct contact with God?
Nephites: Only fought on their own land. I wrote about this in an earlier post.
Death Penalty: I am not opposed.
Abortion: I am strongly opposed. I've written extensively about this. Because America has a two party system, it's easy to simplify the issues. But life, people, you, and I are not that simple.
Gay Marriage: I agree with my church on this one, but think it's a topic that allows for uncharitable people to tally when they want to congratulate themselves on what good Christians they are.
Foreign Aid: You said earlier that the U.S. is not so bad because even though it spends more money than any other country on war, it spends a smaller amount of its GDP. Now you're saying that even though we spend a smaller amount of our GDP, we give more money than anyone else. It seems you've turned the argument on its head depending on how you want the facts to sound. We all do it. I'm not opposed to capitalism. It's a great system. But it's not God's system. We will not use money in heaven.
Taxes: So you agree that taxes are a good thing? Explain this more.
Poverty: Great scripture. I'll have to write more on this. But it doesn't only apply to lazy people on welfare. It applies to rich people who live off of the work of their employees. And to us consumers, who live off of the slavish labor of those who grow our food, make our clothes, and about everything else we buy.
Opportunity costs of war: Americans are not the only ones who died in Iraq. I think the lives of the Iraqi dead, civilians as well as enemy dead, also carry an immense opportunity cost. And the Iraqi people did not sign up for this.
You may have used a narrower definition of 'people.' Our country does that too, which is perhaps one reason there is no official Iraqi death toll, though estimates range as high as a million.
Thanks. Perhaps I am not as liberal as you thought.
Oh. Could you also point me to scriptures of self-sufficiency? I seem to only notice the ones about giving to the poor.
ReplyDeleteThis is a real question. I'm not trying to be a jerk.
I think every able man should work to support his family. But I haven't found much scriptural backing for that.
I've also written earlier about choice, taxes, and giving to the poor.
Also, my earlier comment about capitalism in heaven is a little too hippyish and wishy-washy.
ReplyDeleteA better way to say it is: Capitalism is a great tool. But it can be, and is, abused.
War: My point wasn’t that I thought our leaders were directed to war by God. My point was that God is not opposed to it.
ReplyDeleteForeign Aid: When discussing issues, different things matter at different times. When talking about defense spending, I think spending as a percent of GDP is more insightful than overall spending. The US might not be considered as charitable as countries that donate a higher percentage (I inferred that in my response), but the dollar amount the US is able to give is higher, and thus, more helpful.
Taxes: My only point with the tax scripture is that we have been commanded to pay taxes, but a healthy portion of Obama’s cabinet appointees have chosen not to. Do as I say...
Poverty: Why is it that liberals think that all rich people are sitting in the Bahamas somewhere, drinking tequila and lighting cigars with $100 bills? Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they aren’t working. CEOs still work, you realize that, right? I mean, if CEOs are just sitting around doing nothing and making millions of dollars, why aren’t we all CEOs?
So what about all the people that Saddam killed? Or do you only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people when it suits your agenda? Would you have preferred if we turned a blind eye to Saddam killing his own people? That’s not very Christian of you.
Not sure where you got the idea that I said there was a scripture on being self-sufficient. That was more of a LDS thing.
Now, how about that admission?
One more thing on poverty. How does forcing other people to pay more in taxes to be funneled through an inefficient government bureaucracy help YOU to be a better Christian? If you are going to pretend that this is about you being a better Christian, then give more of YOUR money to charity. Or does forcing others to pay more in taxes to fund sloppy government agencies make you feel like you are following Christ's teachings that much more?
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, you don't have to be a democrat to help others.
War: You are entitled to your opinion, but the scriptures you quoted do not back your opinion that "God is okay with war." God is okay if He commands us to go to war and we go. He's also okay with killing if He commands us to do it and we do it. If we do it without His command, the sin be upon our heads.
ReplyDeleteForeign Aid: Funny thing about all of that money we spend on foreign aid, especially when it comes to food aid. When we send food aid to a foreign country, unexpected things happen: 1. it enriches our own food corporations, because charitable people buy U.S. manufactured and packaged food and send it overseas. 2. it impoverishes the country to which we send the food, because their local food markets can in no possible way compete in price with free food from the U.S.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't help people, but life, and the issues, are complex. And if we do so much hurt by trying to help people, imagine how much damage we do when we intend to hurt people.
Taxes: So you're a conservative who thinks we should pay taxes. Good for you.
Poverty: I never said that all rich people are lazy. Many of them work 100 hour weeks. The same can be said of some poor people. However, some rich people, and some poor people abuse the system. Some rich people live off of the endless labor of minimum-wage workers, and/or the slave labor of foreign factory workers. Some poor people may abuse the welfare system, but this type of laziness is relatively new, made possible by the welfare system (Though there have always been some poor who were also lazy, before welfare was involved, it was on their own heads).
Saddam: Bad dude. But there are lots of tyrants in the world, why did we target him? And why did we use military force to install a dictator (the Shah) in Iran (this was from 1941-1979)?
In both cases we used the military to further our own purposes, and the freedom or bondage of those peoples was incidental to our country's wishes.
I, too, have found no scriptural backing for being self-sufficient. But I have found several about helping the poor. We may blame the poor for their poverty, and not help them because they are lazy, but the scriptures do not justify us in this.
My only apology is for being rude in some of my former remarks.
On force and taxes:
ReplyDeleteOur debate isn't about taxes. The government does take our taxes by force, and I am opposed to that. I agree with Ron Paul, and believe that coercive taxation is equivalent to theft. Taxes should be optional.
The government is going to take our money, that is not our choice. But we can choose how our government uses that money. We choose when we vote.
For example, in the last election, you could have chosen McCain, who joked about bombing Iran, and he probably would have used your stolen tax money for war, but not for as many social programs.
Or you could have chosen Obama, who has chosen to use it on social programs and war.
If our country managed to get rid of every social program, we would still be taxed, because we would still have to support the military-industrial complex. They would defend this forced taxation in the name of national defense, and probably with slogans like, "freedom isn't free."
Foreign Aid: Then don’t hand out foreign aid to other countries. Fine by me. Problem solved.
ReplyDeleteTaxes: Of course I think we should pay taxes that we are already supposed to pay. Democrats aren’t above the law – though they seem to think they are. Would I be happier with lower taxes? Absolutely. It’s no wonder democrats don’t care if we raise taxes, they don’t seem to pay for the ones we already have.
Poverty: See, here you go again with the whole emotional arguments. You try to paint a picture of lazy rich people and hard working poor people who just can’t scrape by because evil, lazy, rich people are holding them down.
Saddam: He was targeted because he had been purchasing uranium from Africa. Prior to this, he had always let UN weapons inspectors in, yet after he started purchasing the uranium, he suddenly didn’t want the weapons inspectors to come in anymore. Why the change of heart? Please let me know what you would have done as president. If Bush had done nothing and Saddam’s actions had resulted in WWIII, you’d be sitting here complaining that Bush did nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Not to mention that you sit here and complain about these impoverished nations in the world, and liberals love to bring up all the other dictatorships that we’re supposed to help – and yet they complain about Iraq. So is the liberal stance ‘help all or help none’ for this issue?
Poor: Again, if you want to help the poor, then help them. I believe you are LDS, right? So as a church member, we believe in the word of wisdom. Now, if you go out and try to force everybody else to stay away from cigarettes and alcohol – how does that make you a better church member? If it’s about being a better Christian, do you think God is going to judge your charitableness based on how charitable the people who you elected were?
Taxes: Don’t forget that when you say things like. “You could have chosen Obama, who has chosen to use it on social programs and war,” to also point out that Obama is using our tax dollars to fund abortions, to find out why pigs stink, for tattoo removal in Los Angeles, and other hidden gems to pay off his buddies who helped get him elected.
My guess is you probably don’t pay much in taxes (I could be wrong), but you don’t care that other people are being forced to push the liberal agenda through Obama’s executive orders and every one of Nancy Pelosi’s left-wing fantasies.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think point of the federal government is? And what kind of jurisdiction do you think the founding fathers intended for our federal government?
I'm not sure you read what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteI didn't generalize rich people as evil. Read it again.
Also, applying what a few democrats do to the entire population of people who choose to vote for democrats, is overly simplistic, and yields false results. To argue strict GAAP principles when accounting for money, but to then use simplistic generalizations when it comes to people, is extremely paradoxical.
We don't know what Saddam would have done. That's what makes war so complicated. If we would have waited, and he would have attacked us, we would have been justified in our war.
But like I posted today, the individual soldiers in Iraq are often justified by their courageous action and charitable sacrifice. It's even possible that Bush was justified in his decision to go to war. I do not know his heart.
But there are many involved in the military-industrial complex who do not have pure hearts nor good motives. But who, for the love of money, sacrifice our countrymen.
You may not have used the word "evil" but when you describe them as "people who live off the endless labor of minimum-wage workers, and/or the slave labor of foreign factory workers" I’m not sure what else you could be insinuating. Quit mincing words in an effort to detract from the fact that you don’t like a lot of rich people (maybe all rich people, who knows?). Honestly, when people bring up these types of arguments, I can’t help but think it’s a jealousy thing. You don’t like when people generalize poor people, and I don’t like it when people generalize rich people. I’m getting kind of tired of you using Christianity to condemn and condone other people’s behavior. Worry about yourself and those slave driving rich people you hate so much will have to answer for themselves on judgment day.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not fair for me to say all Democrats don’t pay taxes. I’m sure there are a couple who do – after they are appointed to Obama’s cabinet. Not trying to make generalizations – I just find it odd that you’re perfectly fine with all these new appointees knowingly breaking the law and yet they’re going to be helping to run the country. Not very Christ-like of them.
You still haven’t told me what you would have done in the president’s situation. Unless you are saying that we should always wait until we are attacked before we enter into a war. Can you remind me when Germany attacked us first in WWII?
Personally, I think Bush had our best interests at heart when he (and congress) chose to go to war. Not really a debatable topic because neither of us has any idea what his intentions were.
I never generalized rich people. I never said all rich people are this and that. I'm simply combating the argument that "poor people are lazy." Because rich people can be lazy too. The scripture you quoted about not working can apply to both groups. A person's socio-economic status does not say a thing about his or her virtue.
ReplyDeleteI know that, but is it really your job to make that assessment?
ReplyDeleteI wish. I'd love that job. Supreme Judge of America. How much do you think they'd pay me?
ReplyDeleteBut really, that's why we need to be careful about making public policy based on grand generalizations.
I think it would be prudent for you to take your own advice in this matter.
ReplyDeleteLooking over everything the Jerk and Chris say, as an anonymous third party, I have to vote in favor of the Jerk, jerky as he may be, Chris is always wrong.
ReplyDeleteAny non-democratic system would have ostracized or exiled you long ago.
Anonymous: I'm flattered that you would recommend my advice to anyone. (Yes it took me 3 hours to think of that one, I'm not very witty in person).
ReplyDeleteAlong: I'm glad you exercised your right to vote on my blog. Hurray.
I also find it incredible that I am always wrong. It's like a super power or something.
It's also an incredibly simplistic way of viewing the world, you know, stacking people in categories of right and wrong. It makes it much easier to discern the truth. You don't need to actually listen to what people say, you just need to know who's talking.
I am also incredibly grateful to live in a country where we can all express our views without the threat of exile.
But I could be wrong.
Do you always do this much cherry picking? You seem to only answer one out of every 5 or 6 questions that I pose. It's ok, though. Every time you pass on a question, I assume you are conceding my point.
ReplyDeleteWhich question did I not answer?
ReplyDeleteWas it the, "What would you have done as President?" one?
I answered that one:
"We don't know what Saddam would have done. That's what makes war so complicated. If we would have waited, and he would have attacked us, we would have been justified in our war."
Was it another one?
A few that I was hoping you’d answer:
ReplyDeleteWould you have preferred we turned a blind eye to Saddam killing his own people?
I never got a response to your assertion that war is what causes our debts after I showed you why democrat policies are actually bankrupting us.
I’d still like to know how forcing others to pay higher taxes to fund our inefficient social programs somehow makes you a better Christian.
And along those lines, if you think voting for people who will give more to social programs somehow makes you a better Christian, then would you be a better Mormon if you went around trying to force others to stay away from cigarettes and alcohol?
Regarding Saddam, you never answered why you think he stopped letting UN weapons inspectors in at the exact same time he started purchasing uranium (you did say that we don’t know what he would have done, but I’d like to know why you think Saddam did that).
You never answered my question about Germany and WWII.
I’d still like to know if you are a ‘help all or help none’ kind of guy, since you’re upset we helped out Iraq but you want us to help others.
You never told me what you think the point of the federal government is, and what kind of jurisdiction you think the Founding Fathers intended for our federal government.
I don't have all of the answers. But this is what I think:
ReplyDeleteSaddam: I don't think we attacked Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people. We did for our own self interests, whether that be profit or safety.
Ron Paul makes a good argument in his book (The Revolution) about why we shouldn't get entangled in foreign wars. I think George Washington made some good points on this too.
I agree with them, for the most part, but admit that it's a hard question. And like every rule, there could be exceptions.
But our dependency on war is bankrupting us morally and financially.
Morally because the state of mind we have to get to in order to justify killing people hurts our soul.
And financially because . . .
Bankruptcy: If you spend a million dollars on some bombs, and you drop those bombs, they explode, ruining the product, destroying the value of the real estate upon which they were dropped, and destroying any future value of the people they kill. But the company that built the bombs gets a million bucks, so that's good.
You're basically cashing in on human capital.
If you spend a million dollars on social programs, (if you do it right), you enrich the community. For example, if you support community colleges, you aid those who want to move up in life. They gain an education, and get a higher-paying job.
Is a lot of money misused under the guise of social programs? I'm sure.
Also, Social Security may be bankrupting us, but I think it falls under respecting your elders, or honoring your father and mother.
It is expensive. But it doesn't drive down real estate prices by exploding.
Force: I answered this. Reread the section "Force and taxes."
More Saddam: He probably wanted to build a nuclear bomb, because we've never attacked a country that has one.
WWII: Was it justified? We usually assume so. But it happened long ago enough that I am not personally familiar with the justifications of our going there. The concentration camps were a surprise to us, and not our reason for going.
We were bombed by the Japanese, and they were allied with Germany, so that seems pretty clear-cut.
We often claim the victory, but forget that Russia sacrificed more of its people to achieve victory over Germany. And they were directly invaded, which justifies their war. So maybe they didn't need our help. Though I know many Germans who are very happy that they did not live in Russian-controlled East Germany.
Help all or help none: I'm for helping people, and think the best way to do that is to give them opportunities to achieve self-reliance, and to preach the gospel to them. Social programs can sometimes be wasteful and ineffective. But I think one of the most ineffective ways of helping people is to drop bombs on them and to shoot them.
Our current industrial mindset robs people of the means of self-reliance by removing from them the means of production and alienating them from the fruits of their labor. Even doctors no longer have control over their own practices. Its all in the hands of insurance companies.
Founding Fathers: They were as bickering and opinionated as us. I side more with Jefferson than Hamilton on this one.
Civil War: The Civil War ended slavery, but it also limited the power of states, and gave more power to the Federal Government. I wish that states had more power and that the Federal Government had less. Washington is as nearly distant and foreign to me as Britain was to the colonies. Such a distant power can not make informed decisions as efficiently for local problems as can the state.
I wrote this in a hurry, so I apologize for typos.