Matt Hill writes:
> Martin:
> > You only have the impression that I don't oppose the
> > bombing?  Let me say it again.  I think the bombing is
> > wrong.  I think the bombing is incorrect.  I do *not*
> > oppose the bombing.  Is the problem that you think I
> > must oppose the bombing if I think it is wrong and/or
> > incorrect?  Why?
>
> Well, now I am confused.  How can you think the bombing is wrong and
> incorrect, and still not oppose it?
>
> Do you mean picketing and going to demonstrations by "oppose"?
>
> I have been using "oppose" merely to describe my position--whether I'm
> for it or against it.  I'm against it, opposed to it, although I don't
> go to demonstrations.
>
> I have other issues with your separation of ethics and tactics, but for
> now I'll just stick to this question.

Yes, when I say I am not opposed to the bombing, I mean that since I
have said I refuse to spend my time actively trying to stop it, then I
cannot say I am opposed to it and mean anything other than I am
uncomfortable with it.  Which is the case.  I am uncomfortable with
the bombing, because I can construct both the moral and utilitarian
arguments against it.

But there is more to it than that.  I have been arguing all along that
there is something more going on here than just protesting the
bombing, and it is as immoral as the bombing itself.  A report came
out today by some environmental group about how the world fisheries
have been managed since the Rio environmental conference (ten years
ago?).  The report said that things have gotten worse since the Rio
conference, so that today 60% of the world's fisheries are under
pressure.

This piece of knowledge is important.  If the process of destruction
continues, populations that depend on those fisheries will come under
pressures that will be similar to those caused by the IMF when it
imposed economic stresses on Yugoslavia a decade ago.  We can predict
right now that ethnic tensions will worsen in those populations as the
fish they depend on disappear.  We can predict right now that more
"leaders" like Milosevic will take advantage of the situation to
acquire power.  We can predict right now that we will be replaying
Yugslavia in ten or twenty years in, say, Peru, Chile, or a dozen
countries in Africa.  And if action is taken now to fix the problem,
those future Yugoslavias can be prevented.

But get this, there are *no* mass demonstrations going on against the
corporations and governments who are destroying the fisheries and
supporting their destruction.  Mass demonstrations won't stop the NATO
bombing, but mass demonstrations could actually stop the destruction
of the fisheries.  But it's not happening.  And it can't be explained
by saying everybody is off protesting the bombs, because we have known
about the fish problem for a long time.  Yes, there are a few
environmental organizations that make a big show now and then zooming
across the bows of fishing boats in their zodiacs, but what about all
the bomb protesters in Italy and Greece and Germany and New York?
What were they doing before the bombing started?  Why weren't they
protesting the destruction of the fisheries?  What will they do about
the fisheries when the bombing stops?

I think protesting the bombing isn't any more of a humanitarian action
than the bombing is.  Protesting the bombing is about being against
something and feeling righteous about it.  Against the use of force,
against big government, against Clinton.  Fine.  Let's eat.  You can
be against whatever action is taken as we lurch from crisis to crisis.
And the crises will keep coming, because protesting during a crisis is
too late.  It's better to protest at a point when the crisis can be
averted, but it's a lot harder to feel righteous about it when
everyone is calling you chicken little.

Now, what other issues do you have with my alleged separation of
ethics and tactics?