Eight ways to allow 3,000 people to die: a lesson in moral clarity

President Bush is going to send more than 20,000 more troops into Iraq and spend billions of more dollars to carry on a hideous war. Why?  To protect Americans from terrorists, he tells us.  Bush convinced Americans to invade Iraq by accusing Iraq of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans.  This argument suggests that the deaths of 3,000 people is a horrible thing.

Whenever 3,000 people die, it is a horrible thing.  It might justify hundreds of billions of dollars, though certainly not the diversion of money from programs that save equal numbers of lives. 3,000 deaths justifies the deaths of more than 3,000 soldiers, we are told.  I don’t agree with this. The political party that argues that there are clear moral rules (the Republicans) isn’t convincing me.

Does it make a difference that 3,000 innocent Americans die on the same day rather than over the course of a year?  I wouldn’t think so.  A death is a death, in my opinion.  And 3,000 deaths are 3,000 deaths.

Therefore, shouldn’t the 16,000 murders that occur every year in the US require a response five times bigger than the invasion of Iraq?   That’s 3,000 every ten weeks.  Shouldn’t it require focused efforts to protect these victims?  Shouldn’t it require a revamping of our entire criminal justice system, especially our prison system, which so often trains criminals to be even more vicious, rather than preparing them for ready for release? Where is our war on criminal violence? …

Continue ReadingEight ways to allow 3,000 people to die: a lesson in moral clarity

No more smoke-filled rooms at the Capitol

This is both a substantive and symbolic point, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. With the new year ushering in a D.C. smoking ban, House members could take refuge in puffing away in the Speaker's lobby, an ornate room next to the House chamber. Members, reporters and staffers hang out there…

Continue ReadingNo more smoke-filled rooms at the Capitol

Framing the abortion debate (part 2): the nonsense of arguing about whether “life begins at conception”

In part 1 of this series, I pointed out a gaping hole in the argument of so-called "pro-life" supporters:  the missing premise that invalidates their entire argument.  In this sequel, I point out another gaping hole in their argument:  the nonsense of arguing about whether "life begins at conception" or, equivalently,…

Continue ReadingFraming the abortion debate (part 2): the nonsense of arguing about whether “life begins at conception”

Gun control vs. invading Iraq

People who support the war in Iraq argue that the invasion (what George Bush euphemistically called "preemption") was necessary because Saddam might have become a terrorist threat; i.e., he might have acquired and used Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Similarly, people who support a ban on assault rifles argue that the…

Continue ReadingGun control vs. invading Iraq

Top Secret: The identities of people with easy access to the President

According to ABC News, the White House and the Secret Service "quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public."  The agreement is in the form of a five-page…

Continue ReadingTop Secret: The identities of people with easy access to the President