Anti-Climacus

FISKING MAHER: Let's get going, shall we?

"1). Marijuana does not fund terrorism. Oil funds terrorism. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Maybe thats because of some potential conflicts of interest. Has anyone ever heard of Texaco? Do they sell oil? I can't remember."

First off, try telling the Columbians who have been terrorized for the last twenty years by FARC that there's no connection between marijuana and terrorism. But, of course, as any good Kantian will tell you, the fact that marijuana is linkable to criminal activity is merely a consequence of the fact that drug use is always and everywhere morally wrong. Putting aside this point, though, "oil funds terrorism" is, in some senses true: certainly, no reasonable person could deny it about the Saudis. But this point won't hold up under scrutiny: why doesn't oil money from Canada, Mexico, northern Britain or Russia fund terrorism? It's reasonable to believe that it's not the money from oil alone that funds terrorism, but the ideological disposition of the people with the money that makes the difference. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Fair question.
Then, of course, there's the reach too far: it cannot be the case that Bush is actuated by some policy principle that says that an oil-based economy is in the best interest for the near future for the country (that would require him being intelligent, and I suspect you'd deny him of that)--no, it can only be the case that he has a sinister motive. Notice, of course, there's no actual evidence given of a connection, nor an argument for why the link should even be made. Texaco?! That sounds like Texas! Wasn't Bush Governor of Texas?! Obviously he's in cahoots with them!!