The Daily Bork

July 11, 2005

Q and O round up

Q and O take to task the pervasive idea, in some parts,that making a War on Terror is a failure because of London. Neatly summed up as they usually do...

Very Bad Analysis

I've noticed a couple of commenters making an extraordinarily foolish argument, and it's a very common argument on the Left, although I can't, for the life of me, see how such an intellectually vapid premise could be mouthed by anyone who was willing to give it a moment's thought. The argument is essentially this:

The London bombings prove that the US British strategy on the war on terror is a failure. Because we've invaded Iraq, it's gotten a lot of Muslims PO'd and so they're now launching more terror attacks. The war on terror was supposed to have made us safer, and, instead, it's creating terrorists where there were none before! It's proof that Chimpy McBushitler hasn't got a clue about what's going on.

This is a deeply silly argument on a number of levels.

In a follow on they even manage to semi-defend George Galloway (granted, in the "well he's technically right even if he is a conniving ratbag on the take") in an analysis which would send most nice lefties mental...

The Marginal Cost of a War on Terror

In a sort of related fashion, they also ponder Thoughts on Left libertarianism and conclude it is virtually oxymoronic. Which it is, almost like Leftist Humanism.

There are a few more good ones there recently too:

Taking a swipe at the "living wage". A neat summary of why minimum wage/living wage or whatever you try to dress it up as is an abject failure that inevitably harms those least able to afford it.

Liberal Paternalism. On why the hell are lefties so desperately keen to get government out of the bedroom (a good thing) by pushing it straight into the kitchen (a dumbarse thing)???


Post a Comment

<< Home