Comments for Matthew D. Zimmerman, Ph.D. http://triclinic.org/blog Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:37:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Dear pundits: please shut the &@#$ up. by Michael Bujacz http://triclinic.org/blog/2011/03/dear-pundits-please-shut-the-up/comment-page-1/#comment-6583 Michael Bujacz Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:37:48 +0000 http://triclinic.org/blog/?p=232#comment-6583 I just have one question - why Libya? Why not intervene in Somalia or Sudan? Or even clear up the Mexican cartels? So many conflicts to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts I just have one question – why Libya? Why not intervene in Somalia or Sudan? Or even clear up the Mexican cartels?

So many conflicts to choose from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts

]]> Comment on Dear pundits: please shut the &@#$ up. by Matt http://triclinic.org/blog/2011/03/dear-pundits-please-shut-the-up/comment-page-1/#comment-6423 Matt Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:00:36 +0000 http://triclinic.org/blog/?p=232#comment-6423 Fair enough. When I get frustrated enough, it's hard not to be a little hyperbolic. I'm not saying that we should muzzle people. So let me say it another way-- I don't think that the current criticism is constructive. It's very easy to take the high road and criticize a difficult choice if you don't have to admit that any other choice may not be any better. And to some degree, it IS valid-- the ideal outcome (deposing Gaddafi) doesn't match the mission (the no-fly zone). But even if the criticism is valid, it doesn't bring anything to the table that helps find a better course of action. Why can't we come together, admit that all the choices suck, and have a genuine discussion about the pros and cons of each solution? Why does it have to be all about scoring rhetorical and political points? I think I've changed my mind on this. My knee-jerk reaction was that we should have acted to help the rebels defeat Gaddafi, but I am not sure I had adequately considered how big of an investment that would be, or how much better off Libya would be if he were gone. It's probably time for the US to drop its "policeman of the world" role. Fair enough. When I get frustrated enough, it’s hard not to be a little hyperbolic. I’m not saying that we should muzzle people. So let me say it another way– I don’t think that the current criticism is constructive.

It’s very easy to take the high road and criticize a difficult choice if you don’t have to admit that any other choice may not be any better. And to some degree, it IS valid– the ideal outcome (deposing Gaddafi) doesn’t match the mission (the no-fly zone). But even if the criticism is valid, it doesn’t bring anything to the table that helps find a better course of action. Why can’t we come together, admit that all the choices suck, and have a genuine discussion about the pros and cons of each solution? Why does it have to be all about scoring rhetorical and political points?

I think I’ve changed my mind on this. My knee-jerk reaction was that we should have acted to help the rebels defeat Gaddafi, but I am not sure I had adequately considered how big of an investment that would be, or how much better off Libya would be if he were gone. It’s probably time for the US to drop its “policeman of the world” role.

]]> Comment on Dear pundits: please shut the &@#$ up. by Benjamin Smedberg http://triclinic.org/blog/2011/03/dear-pundits-please-shut-the-up/comment-page-1/#comment-6418 Benjamin Smedberg Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:33:47 +0000 http://triclinic.org/blog/?p=232#comment-6418 Of course every plan can be criticized, and even the right plan is going to have serious downsides: that doesn't mean we should muzzle those who wish to point out the flaws! I think you're way off-base here. FWIW, I propose that we stay out of it altogether. We don't have an unconditional "moral responsibility to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians". It may be a good thing to prevent governments from killing their own citizens, but for goodness sake, it's a civil war: such things have happened throughout history, and by applying this weird no-fly zone we are merely limiting the fighting to ground battles, not stopping it altogether. Or we're trying halfheartedly to level the playing field, which is worse. And it's better to do one or two things well, then spread ourselves all over the globe as the issue of the hour seems to demand it. Of course every plan can be criticized, and even the right plan is going to have serious downsides: that doesn’t mean we should muzzle those who wish to point out the flaws! I think you’re way off-base here.

FWIW, I propose that we stay out of it altogether. We don’t have an unconditional “moral responsibility to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians”. It may be a good thing to prevent governments from killing their own citizens, but for goodness sake, it’s a civil war: such things have happened throughout history, and by applying this weird no-fly zone we are merely limiting the fighting to ground battles, not stopping it altogether. Or we’re trying halfheartedly to level the playing field, which is worse. And it’s better to do one or two things well, then spread ourselves all over the globe as the issue of the hour seems to demand it.

]]> Comment on That pesky Constitution, always causing trouble by Michal B. http://triclinic.org/blog/2010/03/that-pesky-constitution-always-causing-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-1030 Michal B. Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:09:47 +0000 http://triclinic.org/blog/2010/03/that-pesky-constitution-always-causing-trouble/#comment-1030 Well there's that giant "general welfare" loophole: Atrticle I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" The way I understand it is if the government decides something is needed for the "general welfare" they can spend the taxpayers' money on it. Well there’s that giant “general welfare” loophole:

Atrticle I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

The way I understand it is if the government decides something is needed for the “general welfare” they can spend the taxpayers’ money on it.

]]>