Times.konradturski.com – Political and Economic Commentary by a Postgrad in London

Consider an experiment in which the experimenter pre-establishes not  only his or her assumptions, but also the data, the method, the observations and the conclusions of their trial. It’s the empirical equivalent of a one-man judge, jury, and executioner, and it’s a common practice in philosophical novels and America’s new superhero genre.

It’s not entirely a bad thing: many atheists have long held the Bible to be just this kind of deterministic morality play, and many more, myself included, find moral proselytizing to be valuable regardless of whether viewed through a secular or faith-based lens. But therein in lies the catch.

There is a difference between, on the one hand, finding a train of thought valuable for its normative or moral pedigree (“Value by Induction”), and, on the other hand, equating that value with a sound logical foundation (“Value by Deduction”). Both Ayn Rand and Director Christopher Nolan should be commended for continuing the long tradition of the former; we, on the other hand, should know better than to do the latter.

(more…)

McCain gave a speech at the La Raza Hispanic convention in San Diego today. Instead of deriding Obama, he went out of his way to complement both him and Hillary. There’s nothing friendly about his aggressive foreign policy proposals, but it’s clear that McCain has brushed up his public speaking skills as well as his manners since the widely-panned “Not Change we Can Believe in” Green Speech. Good for him.

My Favourite Conservative, Bill Kristol, has a new article in the NYT  today, bashing a Moveon.org ad that, in turn, bashes John McCain and his 100 years in Iraq misquote. I’ll skip right to the chase today, because I have an exam tomorrow. In his page long review of Moveon.org’s ad (I’ll let you guess his verdict), Kristol Googles up McCain’s addendum to his famous 100 years quote, which goes as follows:

As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. …”

The implication being that, given the state of events, America cannot afford not have military bases in Iraq, double negative and all.

Oh yes it can. Here are the three reasons McCain has some explaining to do, if he thinks Baghdad can be transformed into another West Germany.

(more…)

When the Democrats took control of both legislative chambers in 2006, I was unpleasantly surprised by the rapidity with which they caved into the Bush administration’s successful push for an endless occupation of Iraq. I will not discuss that mistake at present, other than to say that it is disappointing to watch dozens of legitimately and democratically-elected peoples’ representatives shirk their mandate and their convictions as a result of a daylong testimony by a pre-emptively deified military man (Gen. Petraeus). What I will argue is that Obama is falling into a similar trap, a trap conveniently set by a national discourse that continues to value the appearance of strength more than the safety, security, and consistency that come from rationality and common sense.

It is  called the “Strong” fallacy, and it is what convinced Hillary Clinton to vote in support of the Iraq War five years ago. It was Obama’s common sense that allowed him to understand, back in 2003, the logical inconsistency of a “strong” national policy that leads your nation to war and ruin. To put it bluntly, Obama grasped the fact that it doesn’t matter how much you love your country, if you destroy it in the process.

Unfortunately, that stroke of common sense seems – like so many a college student this summer – to have gone on holiday. Consider these four recent examples:

(more…)

…But WHICH ONE?

Oh, it was Jerome, again.

Hey Tom, if you love Egypt so much, why don’t you MARRY IT?

NYT Op-Ed Today

…NYT Op-Ed Last Week

Related Posts:

More of Thomas Friedman’s Boneheaded Shenanigans

Say Again?