Rationalizations: The Slippery Slope To Hell?*

In response to a recent post on the Liberals' refusal to re-examine the $15 billion arms deal originally struck by the Harper regime with the repressive human-rights violator Saudi Arabia, an anonymous commentator wrote:

Who will tell the 5,000 workers and their families that they are going to lose their jobs? Will you contribute money from your fatty pensions to put food on their table so their children don't go hungry? Or don't you care?

I responded:

What you are arguing here, Anon, is that jobs are more important than people's lives. It is an argument that likely holds sway during a time when the neoliberal agenda prevails, but it is, at bottom, a totally amoral position, in my view. If followed to its natural conclusion, perhaps we should be attempting to offer incentives for handgun manufacturers to set up shop here as well. They would certainly provide jobs, but at what social and moral cost? As well, should we stop all efforts at mitigating global warming since they will inevitably lead to unemployment in the oil patch and all the industries that supply it?

Short-term gain for long-term misery is a devil's bargain.

In a similar vein, Scott Vrooman recently asked Canadians this question: "Are jobs worth killing for?"




Clearly, many would like to equivocate and take the issue outside of the arena of morality. Are such rationalizations the slippery road to hell?



* For the literalists out there, I am using hell in a metaphorical, not a literal sense.

And Now For You Youngsters Out There

Those words, or something very similar, were often uttered by Ed Sullivan when he had an act that would appeal to a youthful demographic. People of a certain age, or, because the Mound of Sound recently chided me about my use of euphemisms, old farts like me, will remember those times.

Today, it is hard to find something in the political spectacle of campaigns to appeal to the youngsters out there. Nonetheless, comedian Scott Vrooman warns them that political disengagement, and its logical conclusion, the refusal to vote, are not viable options:

How Do You Define A Threat?

It's all a matter of perspective, I guess: