I like #1 a lot. Remember that kid in your fifth grade class, the weird one who never said very much, the one who liked to blow stuff up? He didn't socialize much or play any sports. He did, however, have access to low grade explosives, and a large back yard. Well he grew up, and now he runs the defense department. Make you feel safe?
I'm now imagining a remake of the monster.com ads, where the monkeys run the company. Only we're at the white house, and the only non-monkey is Colin Powell. He points to the graph with the downward trend, and the monkeys turn it upside down, and then he dances, reticently, to "Feel the Noise."
It was probably a lot like that. Anyway, I always wanted to work for that company.
In this context, I remember seeing somewhere a calculation of what it would have cost the US to buy and free every single slave in the South at market prices in 1860 -- something like a couple of percent of the cost of the Civil War. I wonder if there'd be a useful way to bring that in to make a point.
Sure, there's something bothersome about buying the slaves v. freeing them by force. Maybe that would be outweighed by the huge costs of the civil war, but it's a cost that goes on the other side of the scale.
But I don't see anything like that with regard to Iraq. To the extent that we freed anybody, their freedom wouldn't have been tarnished had we funded a revolt from the inside.
The main problem, of course, with buying slaves to free them is that you create a market for more slaves. The Union would have had to both buy up all the slaves and seriously enforce the ban on importing new slaves (which I think was in place.)
One of the problems with publically advocating pacifism is that people expect you to come up with plausible alternative histories to explain how each and every major war could have been avoided. Since no one human being can do this, your position always winds up looking weak.
Oh, the idea would have been to make slavery illegal and pay for the freed slaves, and it wouldn't have worked because the Southern slaveowners wouldn't have gone for it.
Wasn't this what a lot of Christian organizations were doing in South Sudan during that civil war? And, as I recall, secular NGOs were begging the Christian organizations to stop because the money received for the slaves was going directly to buy guns, and the freed slaves often got kidnapped and re-enslaved. I don't know what the situation is like these days.
Yeah, it's pretty useless if not combined with an effective ban on slavery. I'm not actually certain what point I'd make with this; it just seemed related.
Re: #2 in the post - Yglesias's cover story for the most recent TAP is similar to that.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:04 PM
I like #1 a lot. Remember that kid in your fifth grade class, the weird one who never said very much, the one who liked to blow stuff up? He didn't socialize much or play any sports. He did, however, have access to low grade explosives, and a large back yard. Well he grew up, and now he runs the defense department. Make you feel safe?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:05 PM
Surely there's room in the kitty to preserve the United States' most endangered sites.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:08 PM
Ha, yeah, very much like Yglesias's article. I hadn't seen that.
Smasher, you damn liberals...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:11 PM
I'm picturing a TV spot featuring Caroline and her cohort beating each other to a bloody pulp.
Posted by Sven | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:13 PM
Followed by a list of things like
Bought every bottle of wine in Italy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:16 PM
I'm now imagining a remake of the monster.com ads, where the monkeys run the company. Only we're at the white house, and the only non-monkey is Colin Powell. He points to the graph with the downward trend, and the monkeys turn it upside down, and then he dances, reticently, to "Feel the Noise."
It was probably a lot like that. Anyway, I always wanted to work for that company.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:19 PM
Ok, so they're chimps, not monkeys.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:19 PM
You can't get liberals talking about homeland security for even a minute.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:21 PM
I'm totally on point here.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:22 PM
The monkey thing would also work well since they don't believe in evolution -- thus, they are stuck at the monkey stage. Get it?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:26 PM
Smasher, you damn liberals...
Hey, one of those endangered sites is New Orleans & the Gulf Coast. Ogged doesn't care about black people.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:36 PM
My "Cost of War" suggestion.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:37 PM
Ogged doesn't care about black people.
You bastard, some of my best friends know black people.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:40 PM
In this context, I remember seeing somewhere a calculation of what it would have cost the US to buy and free every single slave in the South at market prices in 1860 -- something like a couple of percent of the cost of the Civil War. I wonder if there'd be a useful way to bring that in to make a point.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:41 PM
George W to Lizardbreath: "So I could buy all the Iraqis?"
Posted by heebie_geebie | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:50 PM
George W to Lizardbreath: "So I could buy all the Iraqis?"
Posted by heebie_geebie | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:51 PM
Sure, there's something bothersome about buying the slaves v. freeing them by force. Maybe that would be outweighed by the huge costs of the civil war, but it's a cost that goes on the other side of the scale.
But I don't see anything like that with regard to Iraq. To the extent that we freed anybody, their freedom wouldn't have been tarnished had we funded a revolt from the inside.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:52 PM
Except George would be so embarrassed that he'd double-posted. He'd apologize right away.
Posted by heebie_geebie | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:52 PM
Also there was that whole thing about the South seceding before anybody could be freed. Who knows, maybe such a plan was on Lincoln's hopper.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 2:53 PM
I wonder if there'd be a useful way to bring that in to make a point.
For the price of so much body armor, Ogged could buy a slave?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:04 PM
All the tea in China.
Also, how about "the difference between security and 'yee ha! let's get them sumbitches'"?
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:08 PM
We could have gone to Mars 10 times, Bitches!
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:09 PM
How many times could you get to Mars if you lined up Iraqis end to end? It really makes you appreciate numbers.
Posted by heebie_geebie | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:13 PM
14: "black people" s/b "blackies".
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:14 PM
The main problem, of course, with buying slaves to free them is that you create a market for more slaves. The Union would have had to both buy up all the slaves and seriously enforce the ban on importing new slaves (which I think was in place.)
One of the problems with publically advocating pacifism is that people expect you to come up with plausible alternative histories to explain how each and every major war could have been avoided. Since no one human being can do this, your position always winds up looking weak.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:25 PM
24- that sounds like a response from a GYWO strip.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:26 PM
Oh, the idea would have been to make slavery illegal and pay for the freed slaves, and it wouldn't have worked because the Southern slaveowners wouldn't have gone for it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:26 PM
"Compensated emancipation" it was called, and I believe it was actually proposed at the time (though nothing came of it).
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:33 PM
Wasn't this what a lot of Christian organizations were doing in South Sudan during that civil war? And, as I recall, secular NGOs were begging the Christian organizations to stop because the money received for the slaves was going directly to buy guns, and the freed slaves often got kidnapped and re-enslaved. I don't know what the situation is like these days.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 3:58 PM
Yeah, it's pretty useless if not combined with an effective ban on slavery. I'm not actually certain what point I'd make with this; it just seemed related.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 4:07 PM
Why don't we buy Palestine from the Israelis and set the Palestinians free?
The Israelis themselves are already costing us $3b a year.
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:12 PM