« Eppur si Muove | Main | What is Math for, Anyway? »
August 25, 2006
Shaw's "But" Proves Him an Ass
Russell Shaw, writing at HuffPo (hat tip: Instapundit) has really, really set me off.
I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.
So far, so good.
But
Oh, no! Here it comes...
on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.
That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.
So, basically, as I see it, Shaw has attempted to rhetorically inoculate himself from the further comments of any decent person in two ways. First, Shaw has declared his opposition to deaths from terrorism. Second, Shaw has noted that he's really just playing games in his head, just like "Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time."
What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?
I wonder what Shaw would think of this hypothetical: what if a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear strike on every town in Iran and Syria with a population of more than 5000 people could save many thousand times the number of lives lost in the nuclear attack? That is, in fact, not out of the question. Would Shaw then support such an attack? I am guessing not.
I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.
Actually, as a non-Republican, I tend to vote GOP since 2001 because I believe that President Bush and many (certainly not all) of the Republicans want Americans to be safe, and their hypotheticals, unlike both Shaw and the national Democrats, don't apparently tend to involve theories about how great it would be for their party if only a few thousand more Americans would die.
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
I think Shaw needs to realize that it is his reasoning that is fallacious. No one votes on past performance in the US, so far as I've ever been able to tell. Americans vote on future performance expectations. I suspect most of the voters Shaw is referring to have voted Republican because they've paid attention to the Democrats' alternative, and have decided that the Republicans would keep them safer in the future, not because they feel the Republicans kept them safe since 9/11.
If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:
OK, and now we get into the real meat of Shaw's fever dream. Shaw is uninterested in the Americans who would be killed. Note that the first eight of his nine points are purely about domestic policy. That is, Shaw's concern is with political power, which he wants to be wielded by those of the same mind as himself, rather than about any deaths or suffering that would be required to bring it about. Indeed, Shaw posits those deaths and suffering as a precondition of Democratic rule. And I use the word "rule" instead of "governance" quite deliberately.
Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;
I think that it's rich for a man arguing for the legal murder of millions of children (and even more entities that would become children if not aborted) argues that he's on the side of saving lives.
Be in a position to elevate the party's chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:
Yes, we've already established both that you want power and that words have no fixed meaning to you. Move along, nothing to see here.
Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;
Evidence? Any evidence? My understanding of both the British and Canadian experiences is that the results of "universal" health care are quite the opposite of "[s]av[ing] hundreds of thousands of ... lives". If anything, our health care is too regulated, rather than not regulated enough.
Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;
Evidence? Any evidence? Clean air standards currently are nearly at their maximum in practical terms. Enacting stricter regulation would cause the loss of jobs and prosperity, both of which would in fact imperil more lives than they would save. There may be fiddling at the margins that is possible, but in that case "untold" means "a very few, so we won't tell you how many".
More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;
Not at all. Mass transit is wonderful where it works, and it likely saves some lives in those places simply by replacing a more dangerous mode of transportation (cars) with a less dangerous mode (trains). Where the meaningful replacement is "buses", however, the difference in accidents is somewhat smaller. In any case, these are not "highway deaths", because inherently mass transit runs in cities, not replacing highways. Something like the TGV would not work in the US, because of the distances involved. Either it only goes city to city where cities are quite close together, in which case in might replace short-haul air and auto transport, or it goes from point to point with no stops in between, forcing those who live in between to not use the trains. Otherwise, there is no way that people would take the trains, because they would be no faster than taking the car, which is generally far more convenient than taking a train. (For example, you don't have to rent a car on the other end of your trip.) Mass transit works in Europe. It works in Chicago, New York, Boston and a few other places in the US. It does not generally work in the US because of the sheer size of the US. But then, we've already established, I think, that Shaw is beyond economic arguments. What is economics to one with TRUTH on his side?
Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;
From the history of English and Australian gun control efforts, I suspect we'd see the opposite: far more fatalities, and social dissolution as a side effect. Worse still, if the overbearing state Shaw seems to be hoping for comes about, it would leave us defenseless against the government. That may comfort Shaw, but I've read too much history of totalitarian states, and it scares the willies out of me.
Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;
I don't suppose there's any point in noting that the first administration to provide any federal funding for stem cell research was the Bush administration? I don't suppose there's any point in noting that private stem cell research funding, or state stem cell research funding, are unhindered?
Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;
Basic law of economics: price is a regulatory mechanism that regulates supply and demand. If you fix the price artificially low and supply remains fixed, demand rises. If you fix the price artificially high and supply remains fixed, demand falls. Raising the minimum wage will encourage more cheating (including more use of illegal immigrant labor), will eliminate many of the entry-level jobs that kids in particular rely on to gain practical work experience, and will in general increase poverty levels, which in turn will increase violent crime and the resulting deaths. Once again Shaw is off on the completely wrong track. Can't let facts get in the way of TRUTH, apparently.
Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers' lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.
It's ironic that Shaw begins his essay with the notion of fighting the Nazis having prevented further deaths. Had France stood up to Germany in 1936 or 1937, Hitler would have been forced to back down, and WWII may well have been avoided. Yet Shaw seems to miss the point of his own analogy: sometimes wars save more lives than they cost. I suspect Iraq has already passed that threshold, and I am certain Afghanistan has. I suspect that going to war against Iran now would also save many lives later, more than would be lost now. Syria may be the same. North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, likely not. But Shaw also misses a larger point: it was the Clinton administration that turned Somalia into a war mission, instead of an aid mission, and the Clinton administration who launched wars in the Balkans when there was no US interest involved, and little possibility of stopping future violence. It was the Clinton administration that tried to get Israel to "lay back and take it" when under constant terrorist attacks, leading to the recent battles in Lebanon as well as far more terrorism than would have occurred if Israel had not relented on the occupation. It was Carter who let the Soviets invade Afghanistan without a meaningful response, and let the Iranians take American hostages with impunity. Frankly, I don't like our chances in military affairs with the Democrats in charge as a general rule. The party of Scoop Jackson and JFK died a lonely death in the rice paddies of SE Asia, and what's left of their spine is now in the Republican party.
I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful.
Yes you are. Were you not, you would never have published this. It may be a public shame for secret and perverse pleasure, but true shame this is not.
And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.
More inoculation against accusations of what Shaw is really saying: he wants Americans to die in order for his preferred political party to gain power. He should be ashamed, but instead he glories in this. As noted by the second "but" of the article:
But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?
Any at all?
First, Shaw sets up a false choice: either you are for Americans dying in large numbers, or you are for making America into "a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for ... tens of millions". Second, Shaw sets out a false premise: "Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history" — when Shaw clearly intends this not to be "a purely intellectual exercise", but rather a blueprint for his hopes, dreams, fantasies. Finally, Shaw dares us all to say that he is, in a moral sense, a monster.
Very well: Mr. Shaw, you are a monster. You are heinous and barbaric and I am ashamed to be from the same country as you. I dearly hope that you are forever frustrated from ever seeing your fantasies for the future of the United States put into practice, and I curse your name and all you stand for.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/2100
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shaw's "But" Proves Him an Ass:
» Go Read This... from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Thanks to Instapundit, I ended up here trying to unwind after several trips around the country when most of you are asleep. I'm not posting much anymore 'cause I don't have too many profound thoughts and feel it's fairly rude... [Read More]
Tracked on August 27, 2006 9:54 AM
» Submitted for Your Approval from Watcher of Weasels
First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council link... [Read More]
Tracked on August 30, 2006 11:32 AM
Comments
Yes, Mr. Shaw should by all rights, in a sane society, not be allowed to ever show his face again. What scares me is the people on the left who will look at this as courage and that any opposition to his filth as censorship. Supporting attacks on your own country is nothing a sane society would consider as acceptable free speech.
Posted by: Kevin at August 25, 2006 11:37 PM
Good fisking! You took the words right out of my mouth...err, fingertips.
Posted by: pseudotsuga at August 26, 2006 12:31 AM
A cleansing, point-by-point thrashing of a particularly cynical thought experiment. Greed for political power knows no peer in its ability to corrupt moral sense.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
Posted by: Mark H. at August 26, 2006 12:35 AM
I find myself (sadly) surprised by the fact that several HuffPo commenters have taken to calling Shaw a moral monster as well. Predictably, however, they're attacking him for the wrong reason: "You're hoping for the deaths of thousands to further your agenda? You sick f__k, what are you, a goddamn Republican?"
Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at August 26, 2006 5:06 AM
I have only one criticism of your comments, most of which I whole-heartedly agree. That is your first comment, "So far, so good." in reference to Shaw's use of the "If it saves even one life..." absolutist logic. THAT should be the first tip that this guy's not going to use normal arithmetic to get his answers.
Otherwise a great post. I happened across it at Instapundit and blogged at http://response39.blogsome.com/2006/08/26/this-must-be-the-weekend-of-upside-down-logic/
I also found your blog referenced in the Instapundit post.
Posted by: Steve G. at August 26, 2006 6:36 AM
All Things Beautiful TrackBack 'Progressively' More Crazy
Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2006 6:40 AM
Great job with the fisking. And congratulations on all the new traffic, it is well-deserved.
Posted by: Morgan K Freeberg at August 26, 2006 8:04 AM
It is only a small step from wishing for a terrorist attack to actively helping the terrorists bring one about. How? Perhaps by publishing information a terrorist would need on target locations and how a terrorist might penetrate a possible target's security.
Of course, a lot of this information is being published by the MSN. Perhaps they share Mr Shaw's vision or maybe they hope a new catastrophe will sell more papers and advertising.
Posted by: sol vason at August 26, 2006 8:08 AM
Bravo! Chapeau!
Posted by: jaafar at August 26, 2006 8:41 AM
Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
Posted by: Dan at August 26, 2006 8:59 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to call Russell a monster, but he is certainly making a fallacious argument. I think it is far more likely that another major terrorist attack on American soil would solidify GOP support and make anti-war Democrats seem more frivolous and un-serious than ever. Attacks on America - e.g., Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, 9/11 - have always given at least a short-term surge in support to the incumbent party (Ted Kennedy would have probably defeated Carter for the Dem 1980 nomination if not for Iran).
Posted by: Gary at August 26, 2006 9:14 AM
What a brilliant takedown!
Posted by: Tushar D at August 26, 2006 9:15 AM
The meaning of this article is clear: What are the lives of the unwashed compared to the prospect of political power for the elites?
This article illustrates the difference between the "chickenhawk" and the "chickendove"
The "chickenhawk" believes that the deaths of soldiers who volunteer for service is a tragic but necessary cost to protect Americans and the west, this would include all Americnas including those who disagree with that sacrifice.
Apparently the "chickendove" believes that the deaths of civilians who have nothing to do with war (Iraqi, Israels and western in general) are a tragic but necessary cost to allow those elites who are now out of power to regain power and defeat the true enemy of utopia; Conservatives and Republicans. They also will support slaying and maiming of solidiers in as much as it brings about the desired result.
Posted by: Peter at August 26, 2006 9:18 AM
I wonder if Mr. Shaw would feel the same way if a terrorist attack included the death of his family or even himself? What do you say, buddy, would you sacrifice yourself or family members for the cause?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 26, 2006 9:49 AM
Great stuff! Here's another thing Shaw may have overlooked. After Katrina, Dems were very concerned that New Orleans may start to shift conservative because their liberal voters left town. Being that a nuclear stike would most likely be targeted for a highly populated area, i.e. a big city like New York that tends to be very liberal, is it possible they could lose more voters than they gain? After all, that is Michael Moore's belief.
Posted by: MagicalPat at August 26, 2006 10:17 AM
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 26, 2006 12:37 PM
Excellent job, Caer, truly an excellent job. You've got more patience than I do; when faced with the likes of this dolt, I usually stop at the first but, since I know what's coming next and I am not interested in hearing it.
Posted by: Akaky at August 26, 2006 1:16 PM
Great post.
I did a post this morning on this topic as well.
What I am left wondering is if I did a post calling for the murder of all gay males in America, which would reduce the risk of contracting HIV at least 10 fold for every person in the US, how he would feel?
Posted by: The Ace at August 26, 2006 1:35 PM
Your insight that Americans vote on expectations of future performance, rather than to judge past performance is I think exactly right and explains a lot.
I wish Shaw's drivel could be featured prominently in the MSM so that more people would be able to wake up and realize how sick the party of death has become.
Posted by: Gandalin at August 26, 2006 1:36 PM
There will be another attack on American soil. There is nothing particularly reprehensible about pondering the aftermath - political or otherwise.
What is incredible about Shaw's, uh, pondering, is that it doesn't have anything to do with the attackers!
10,000 Americans have been killed and a city evaculated because a terrorist dirty bomb. Let's raise the minimum wage!
What kind of a nut-case is this guy?
Posted by: mrsizer at August 26, 2006 3:11 PM
Mayor Nagin and Shaw drink from the same trough of stupidity. And of course, Mr. Shaw is pro choice or pro abortion, right?
Posted by: Cricket at August 26, 2006 3:44 PM
What this guy Shaw is actually saying is, "I would gladly sacrifice a hundred or so innocent American lives in order to win the next election."
And these dudes wonder why they keep on losing elections!
Posted by: jaafar at August 27, 2006 8:14 AM
On top of the many moral issues in the set-up we also see the midless certainty that Dems in power would produce all these policy changes AND that these would lead to the idyllic state of the Worker's Paradise just like it always has, right? What a crack up! As always with the Lefties of whatever coinage they are making omelettes by breaking eggs. Never a few, as promised, and never do we get the omelette. But if we could hang a few thousand rotting American corpses around Chimpy's neck we'll get yet ANOTHER shot! A mountain of shells. A mountain of skulls. These mutts don't make a distinction. Monstrous is definitely not too strong a word.
Posted by: megapotamus at August 28, 2006 10:11 AM