pmb

Determining who the asshole is, and visualizing impersonal statistics

Sep 23, 2007 11:16

In any given situation, the person who is claiming that something is the end of the world is almost certainly an asshole. This is a handy rule of thumb, and applies pretty well across the board, with the possible exception of people talking about global thermonuclear war or other extinction-level threats (large asteroids, etc ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 24

bagoffarts September 23 2007, 19:17:54 UTC
500k/person, that's an expensive hitman. ;)

Reply

pmb September 23 2007, 19:25:39 UTC
Alternatively, I think that we could have given each of them $250,000 (assuming 50% distribution costs) not to attack us ever and the result would have been a lot better.

Reply

djsendai September 23 2007, 22:26:21 UTC
cue patrissimo to explain why a private, non-government solution would've been cheaper & more efficient ;)

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


clipdude September 23 2007, 21:13:19 UTC
That map is striking. I don’t think most Americans have really come to terms with the cost of the war.

Part of the reason is that it is depressing. Every time I think about the amount of people we have killed in Iraq, the amount of money we have borrowed and spent, how difficult it will be to repay all that money, I get feelings of fury and hopelessness.

Even if began a withdrawal of all troops tomorrow, it would not un-kill those people or un-spend that money.

Indeed, that the war has been a humongous waste of blood and treasure does not necessarily mean we should withdraw. Proponents of “staying the course” might argue that given the harm we’ve inflicted on the Iraqi people, we have an obligation to remain and stabilize the country. (I don't agree with this; my personal opinion is that our continued presence will never help the Iraqis resolve their political problems and likely exacerbates them. We do have a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq, but sadly fulfilling that obligation is probably possible.)

Reply

pmb September 23 2007, 21:20:48 UTC
Assuming you meant We do have a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq, but sadly fulfilling that obligation is probably IMpossible, I totally agree. Which pisses me off a lot.

Reply

pmb September 23 2007, 21:21:54 UTC
(not that agreeing with you makes me angry, the fact that we've been made morally culpable for something that we cannot atone for is what makes me angry)

Reply

clipdude September 23 2007, 22:51:07 UTC
If we can’t fix what we’ve already screwed up, we can at least try not to screw up this badly again. I think Americans should make a commitment to be much more skeptical of their leaders when military action is discussed in the future. It distresses me how easily many of my fellow citizens accepted administration promises that the war would be short, involve few casualties, and not cost much money.

Reply


nuclear_eggset September 23 2007, 21:48:11 UTC
"For what?"
I'm pretty sure the answer is power and ego. Which is both so sad and laughable as to be depressing as hell.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

pmb September 24 2007, 00:00:46 UTC
Lots of political "debates" portray the other side as causing the end of the world or the end of civilization as we know it. Apocaphilia seems to be on the rise, and every time I hear an argument involving it I need to leave the room. Environmentalists bandy end-of-the-world arguments pretty frequently, and so do a lot of people on the right in various "clash of civilization" guises. Even when I agree with a person's point, invoking the apocalypse makes me want to support the other side.

Reply

esmesquall September 24 2007, 00:43:19 UTC
Amen, brother.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


Not to laugh at a serious matter, but... triath September 24 2007, 04:30:09 UTC
*phew*, at least Washington was untouched in the invasion of the US.

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more. But then again, I think you're preaching to the choir.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up