Boviosity!

While forcing a change could be the object of a boycott, it can also merely be (as the good old American Heritage verifies) a form of protest. Most protests are merely symbolic, meant to raise awareness – if only awareness that an opposing viewpoint exists. A recent exception (i.e., one that fits your definition) might be the Ukraine protests.

Silly? Perhaps. Moral? YES! Certainly more so than buying comic books in counter-protest (and derisive nanny nanny boo boo). You may not agree with the protest, but do you really think protesting against war is not a moral stance?

Joe, first of all thanks for commenting and most of all thanks for bothering to sign up with Typepad. I hope the rest of our regular Boviosity commenters will go forth and do likewise. Tell 'em - it's easy!

But to answer your question: in this particular case, no, I'm afraid. Most of the protests of this war strike me about as moral as protesting the amputation of cancerous limbs. "No more amputation! You doctors are just giving people amputations for the money!" Nobody likes seeing people lose a limb to bone cancer; but it's very silly to argue that it's being done for reasons known only to a duplicitous surgeon.

I hate war. I also hate very, very cold weather. But there's nothing we as humans can do about either. Well, global warming is a good start on that weather thing, I guess ;) Protesting war is like protesting the weather. It's part of the human condition. Protesting an unjust and unjustified war would be one thing; your job at that point would be to demonstrate in what ways it is unjust, etc. (Hoisting unsupportable accusations at the administration doesn't count as "arguments," in my book.)

However, to the extent that one's opposition to a particular war is based in opposition to all war, I think it's morally neutral unless you're able to demonstrate (not just accuse) that the people running the war are doing so out of sheer bloodlust.

Have you heard from your nephew, by the way? Here's hoping he stays safe and sound. I'd love an update.

PS I'm going to assume you're not trying to imply there's anything immoral about this post. ;)

No problem with your post, but try to step back from your own disagreement with, specifically, the "Not A Damn Dime" boycott. Unlike cold weather vs. warm weather, disagreement over war vs. peace is inherently a moral issue. Some would argue generally that war is absolutely immoral as a means to accomplish the ends of peace. Or, in this case, some might argue the morality of misrepresenting WMD/imminent threat "facts" to justify going into Iraq in the first place, since truth vs. lies is also a moral issue-based discussion. There are other permutations, but disagreement over the morality of war is at the heart of the debate.

And before you say it, hatred of Bush is not a moral issue. "Isn't it good that Saddam Hussein is gone" might be, but "getting rid of Saddam for the sake of the Iraqi people" (all by itself) would never have been deemed sufficient justification for us going into Iraq as quickly as we did.

You're welcome!

And another thing (now that I’ve heard some excerpts from the inaugural speech): no matter how many times Bush used the word “freedom” in his speech, the war in Iraq isn’t about freedom or security, ours or theirs. It’s about power and wealth. Not as bad as bloodlust, but not by much.

It’s like the Social Security scam that’s being pushed now. Bush and Cheney don’t care about our retirements, they only care about their own, when their executive branch salaries and federal pensions will pale in comparison to corporate largesse. And they don’t care about regular people’s nest eggs, but rather those of the Wall Street financiers that hope to benefit, thereby getting some return on their campaign contribution investment. The prospect of higher returns (if any) from investing a small portion of FICA in the stock market will likely be eaten up by the higher administrative costs that will be charged by private firms.

If there was genuine concern for improving retirement savings, the discussion would be about encouraging savings by being able to deduct interest on savings accounts. Or the creation of a universal 401K-type account, and increasing the amount of pre-tax income you can put in 401Ks and IRAs. Instead, it’s about elimination of death taxes and permanent tax relief at the highest income levels, which mostly benefit those whose retirements are already secure.

There are better ways of improving the long term health of Social Security (as the problem is much farther in the future than the administration would lead you to believe), such as increasing the wage cap for FICA. Or deliver on the thus-far unrealized job growth promises, jobs that would increase the amount of FICA being paid into the trust fund. Or replace the deficit economy that depends on consumption for uncertain, short term growth with a 90’s style surplus economy that allows steady growth and good-paying jobs. Sorry guys, but you can’t blame things on 9/11 anymore, and you can’t blame it on spend-happy Democrats.

And there’s so mush more to the neo-conservative story! But it’s all variations on a theme: THE BIG LIE. It’s a shame so many people are willing to fall for it.

You have met the enemy, and he is you. (Speaking figuratively, of course, my friend.)

You are correct to note that I left greed off of my list of immoral reasons for war. I'm sure the list is much longer than what we have arrived at together so far, but I should at least have said, greed and bloodlust. But the fact remains that all these things need to be demonstrated - not merely asserted. I would never say that it is impossible to formulate a moral argument against this war. Just that most of the arguments I have seen, including this one, don't meet that standard.

As for the part where you say that humanitarian reasons alone could not have morally justified the war - you are perhaps correct. This is one of the reasons why we are not war with every totalitarian regime on the planet, and thank God for that. However, this war wasn't justified on humanitarian reasons alone, even in hindsight. It was justified on humanitarian reasons, WMD, state support of terrorism, and strategic regional considerations among others. You may feel justified in kicking out the WMD prop for whatever reason you like, but you'd be wrong. Everybody believed that Saddam had WMD; Saddam himself proclaimed it and subverted the WMD inspection program at every turn. And there was no doubt that he was in violation of the UN resolutions regarding WMD which alone justified the action against him, and should have before Bush ever came on the scene. If "Bush lied," he was propagating a lie that every responsible state on Earth had already agreed to at least a decade before Bush chimed in.

As for the rest, I have but one response: Dude?

Get with the program man: refer to http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm (Hans Blix’s report to the UN in March 2003, before we invaded).

Inspections had resumed with unrestricted access. There was no evidence of mobile or underground chemical labs. Missiles (for which there was only the possibility of threat to immediate neighbors, at best) were being destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, constituting “a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s”. Inspection and verification of previously destroyed biological agents was underway. The report details actions underway to satisfy issues related to specific resolutions. Saber-rattling had done it’s part to pressure Iraq, and the UN was doing its part to verify satisfaction of UN resolutions.

Greed can be demonstrated by the involvement of Halliburton (planned before the war) and the fact of no-bid contracts for them and others (incl. Halliburton related companies). Subsequently it has been demonstrated by H’s proven overcharges, fraud, and conflicts of interest (where companies that have common business interests are given oversight over the other). ALL Muslim states sponsored terrorism in one way or another, including, most notably, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from). To single out a country that was virtually powerless (due to no fly zones and lack of any military capacity to speak of), but who happened to have the second largest oil reserve in existence, calls into serious question what motivated that decision and its urgency. Bloodlust? Maybe not specifically, but Bush certainly played upon the fears and some nagging bit of universal anti-Muslim sentiment that sought revenge for 9/11 (for which the administration did everything it could do to foster the belief that Iraq was somehow behind).

“Everyone” and “responsible states” may have believed in the possibility of a continued WMD threat (and this would be an example of something YOU would have to demonstrate), but they certainly didn’t support the rush to war. The “coalition of the willing” (more recently the “coalition of the dwindling”) may have given token logistical support, under pressure no doubt that we might withdraw vital aid, but they could hardly be described as “everyone”. So that leaves “strategic regional considerations”, whatever that means. Care to demonstrate? Iraq had not attacked anyone, including the United States or our allies (see Gulf War I).

The rest? I cite the Social Security boondoggle because Bush is using the same methods to ram it down everyone’s throat. Beyond that all I can say is that I’ve been off my medication. But mon soon come.

Well, even Hans Blix was not as sanguine as you; from the linked document:

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

There is more language in the linked document (for which, thanks) that shows a level of doubt about the actual status of the weapons systems.

I encourage you to learn about the rationale of no-bid contracts. You may agree or disagree with their necessity, but you make it sound like a pointless corporate windfall handed to Halliburton for no other reason than that the administration thought they could get away with it. A somewhat tendentious explanation can be found here. What other companies were qualified to do the work? Any of them you really like? BESIDES FINA/ELF! HAH!

PS I edited an offensive remark out of your comment. I leave the rest of the content untouched. Please remember that the phrase you used is not acceptable at Boviosity!.

Poor Halliburton, they're so put upon and unfairly maligned. But I'm sure there are other companies that could and would have bid, and the bidding process would not been so onerous. One take on the issue can be found at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11525.

I'm also thinking (especially as it relates to Dick Cheney) in terms of the need for the wife of the emperor to be above reproach. I encourage you to learn about federal law and ethics.

You just don't get it. Must be the public school education. Oh, wait... I'VE got a public school education. Perhaps there's no hope for either of us.

No, I don't. And the sooner you figure that out, the better we'll all get along.

Looks like education by assertion is lost on me.

I don't recall learning to distinguish tendentious assertions from facts at South, but I hear Barton Corbin did, and look where it got him. Anyway, thankfully, I learned it somewhere.

Not exactly soft white underbelly time, but I'll give it a rest. You know, since you're spouting so many facts, and making no tendentious assertions at all.

Well, my point, which you decided to ignore (I consider making sarcastic remarks ignoring) was not that Halliburton is some poor, put-upon victim. You asserted that the dreaded no-bid contract was evidence of Bush's holding this war to make money for him and his friends; I pointed out that no-bid contracts are a common tool in situations such as this.

But why am I telling you this? It was clear when I stated it and so you have some other reason for saying what you did. You're welcome to it. Free country and all. This is like living through 2002 all over again. "Rush to war," heh. I guess because you & I never had this discussion, we had to have it now.

Oh, speaking of facts.

Your "facts," even when they manage to live up to that word, don't usually wind up supporting your position.

Here are some facts for you: http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Fun facts - they change everyday!

Bookmark it, check it often. Think about it, pray about it, and ask yourself: Was it worth it? And if so, why? Facts only please.

Your entries aren't so filled with facts that you can denigrate mine. Take away the oh-so-clever ridicule and what do you have? Not much in the way of truth, anyway. But hey, your blog, your rules, right?

You've come a long way since voting for Jesse Jackson in 1988. An amusing choice, but one that is probably more principled than your recent ones.

No, not really all that principled a choice. Just mired-in-adolescence moral preening. Glad I learned the difference. I hope someday you'll do the same.

Dead soldiers? Yes, a tragic fact that. Tragic. And, once again, not supportive of your position. Soldiers die in all wars, moral and immoral. Are you trying to come out of the closet as a pacifist? I could respect that. Make the pacifist argument, by all means. Maybe we can start with Woodrow Wilson or FDR (to set an arbitrary starting point) and go from there. I'd actually be interested in hearing your views thereon. I think it would behoove us to step away from the current war, for now, if we're going to trundle off into pacifism vs. realism.

But all this handwaving know-nothing crap you're spouting is just silly. You "just know" that Bush is murdering our troops for his oil company friends. Anybody who doesn't "just know" it "just doesn't get it." I lost interest in this form of argumentation around the time I stopped voting for Jesse Jackson. It's lazy and dishonest and worst of all (for an argument), unconvincing.

Besides, if you honestly believe (as your Randi Rhodesian Rhetoric would seem to indicate) that Bush is a simple murderer, then why are you wasting your time arguing with me, of all things? Don't you have something better and more important to do?

So, by calling me a know-nothing you must be crowning yourself Know Everything. No real shock there. Your political views may have changed over the years, but your condescending attitude has remained consistent. But what was once amusing and endearing has become, in context, offensive. Indulge me one last response, if you will.

Not exactly a pacifist, just one of many (most of the world population, apparently) that think that military action against another country should not be entered into lightly. Going back to your earlier analogy, whereas weather and cancer are not matters of choice, war IS. Not our choice as citizens, but that of our leaders. In U.S.’s role as leader of the free world, Bush and his ilk seem to confuse things. It’s leadership AMONG other nations, not OVER. September 11 may have changed some things, but it did not change everything concerning responsible behavior among civilized nations, even during wartime. Preemptive war is an unacceptable deviation, especially against a country that had not attacked us, and was (YES!) no threat to us or our allies (who have a certain amount of responsibility to protect themselves). Bush is not Hitler, but he has put us in the same league as 1930’s Germany. That’s one of the main reasons we have lost the respect of most of the world.

At no point have I called Bush a murderer. But it is telling, per the Halliburton thread, that immediate steps to secure oilfields were prioritized over securing (and subsequently improving, post-invasion) borders and infrastructure. Also telling is the absolute failure of the administration and congressional majority to consistently prioritize and genuinely improve homeland security as a means of fighting terrorism where it can best be done – at home.

To be sure, I have definitely been wasting my time trying to change your views, which are as rigid as mine have come to be. But your stated love of facts and reasoned argument is betrayed by repeated blanket ridicule of Democrats/war protestors, which I take too personally, yet is typical of the current polarized political climate. Where are all your facts? I don’t consider links to other like-minded blog opinions and conservative blowhards as facts. BRIAN (Polly want a cracker?) NAILS IT!

Believe it not, I’m a moderate. But I’ve been radicalized by the direction Bush has taken this country in pursuit of a radical conservative agenda (formulated pre-9/11, and even before he was elected). Bush winning over Gore was no big thing to me at the time – I naively expected him to be a benign presence. He could have done so much positive and constructive work after 9/11, but he wasted it. I actually miss Bush Sr. and Reagan! And I had no great love of Kerry either, but for me it came very close to an “anyone but Bush” attitude.

So why “waste my time” with you? Because one of the most distressing things for me in the past year or so was the realization that you (my oldest friend) were, apparently, lockstep with much of the extreme right wing. It’s hard for me to accept, and I realize it is a personal failing that I can’t simply ignore it. I love you man, but when it comes to your devotion to Bush (especially as it relates to the war in Iraq) you are – in my opinion – soul-sellingly wrong.

I promise this is my last post, so you’ll now have ample opportunity to have the last pissy – sorry, urinating – word. I just hope that others indeed do the TypeKey thing, otherwise you’ll be talking to yourself.

For those not paying attention, neither factcheck.org nor wikipedia are blogs or conservative. And "Know-nothing" is a term of rhetoric art referring to a style of argumentation where facts are secondary to attitude. And even if it weren't, then the opposite of "know-nothing" would be "knows something," not "knows everything."

I've become accustomed to this brand of dismissive treatment, though, believe me. Like the good opinion of Europe, the good opinion of my liberal friends I have come to regard as optional. Has it ever occurred to you that something besides my condescension and rigidity can explain your having failed to make your case? Anyway, I've heard it all before. And hearing it from you is no surprise - like I said before, we could have gotten this out of the way years ago, but I guess we were trying not to hurt each other's feelings.

Sorry if my blog has failed to fulfill your need for responsible Right-leaning commentary. Belgravia Dispatch, this ain't. I prefer to make fun of stupid people. So sue me.

PS Dude, you breakin' up with me? There's music posts, cute kid posts, dog posts, movie posts - you have to pick a fight in the political posts and then when you lose get all melodramatic? As Franklin would say - TRY THE SHRIMP.