I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Brad has such good econ stuff; but wonders why the WSJ opposes tax increase to reduce the deficit. :: anne, you so often have comments which are totally true and very debatable: We are engineering a mass transfer of wealth to the most wealthy,

This is so true, both terrible crony capitalism and market oriented rewards for wealth creation together. But then and assuring less national prosperity in future.

THIS is highly suspect. Differences in future national prosperity are most likely based on quantity, and quality, of current investment. Gov't investment is often low return investment; gov't current consumption is neutral. Private investment is more often high return investment.

(See differences between Japan's and the US's rates of return on investment).

Also, the rich invest far more than the middle class or the poor. So cutting taxes on the rich will increase investment more than cutting taxes on the poor.

I also think you're right that the: purpose of an endless deficit is a rationale for slicing social benefit spending or privatizing current entitlements so that they are sustainable. The fact is that the middle class claims to want benefits for the poor, to be paid for by the rich, but only when it's really benefits for the middle class -- who also end up paying most in taxes, anyway. So it's very inefficient. It's also dishonest by just about everybody.

Why NOT have middle class folks pay, directly & privately, for the middle class benefits? Forced savings: pensions, health costs, unemployment. Not "insurance", with a lottery to get other people's money, but your own money, saved or borrowed (with tax guarantees?), for your own benefits.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/28/03 23:27 | link | comments

Happy Thanksgiving. This year I'm praying ... for a world without dictators. In my lifetime.

 

Donald points to WoC about arguments with leftists, among others:: Joe & WoC are, indeed, very interesting, but I think dealing with left-wing friends is simpler, and harder.  The simple part: affirm shared values: a world with a minimum of violence, a minimum of poverty.

Simple.

BIG honest question, are results or theory more important?  Usually simple; results. But, if not, then theories, or motivations, become more important and you can speculate on possible alt. realities, dreaming on, but mention it as dreams.

 

If results, (then Hard) where gets the best results & why?  Result evaluation itself is tough, and reasons more so.

 

At the kid's mass I often attend, there are often prayers for "peace".  At night, as my family prays, I started (this week!) praying:

for a world without dictators.

Only this week, for the first time in my life, have I thought such a world might genuinely come to be, in my own lifetime.  So I thought I'd share this dream, maybe your liberal friends might like it.

A world without dictators.

 

Add a late comment to Kevin’s blog:: “Pardon my ignorance regarding Farsi, but is its use widespread in Iraq? I thought the major languages were Arabic, Kurdish, Assyrian, and Armenian. But regarding Iran, yes, more Farsi and regional knowledge would be helpful.”
Oops, embarrassed (too many different blogs! ?)

“1) Make sure that US companies aren't getting sweetheart deals. Hell, make sure Iraqi and Afghani companies are getting the deals!”
GREAT idea; though I think loans to local elected mayors would be even better. Authority follows cash.

 

To Rea the intellectual coward (for NOT answering questions, but asking): ‘Without being unduly rude, let me ask--What part of "Iraq didn't have WMD" don't you understand? What part of "Iraq didn't support al Qaeda" don't you agree with?’

The UN 1441, and 16 prior resolutions, indicated Iraq failed to demonstrate it had no WMDs. If you're on parole, and you're required to open your house, your car, your beach house, your bank safe-deposit box, etc., to show you have no guns -- and you fail, well, you've failed. Blix said in Feb that Iraq was NOT providing total cooperation.

Hussein PAID money to families of suicide terrorists. He supported terrorists. His lunch dates with OBL, or lack, is NOT the point.

Be a big boy, now, will you: what is YOUR speculative estimate of terrorists getting WMDs w/o Iraq invasion?

Happy Thanksgiving. This year I'm praying ... for a world without dictators. In my lifetime.

   

The professor claims that employee involvement type theories of management are NOT good for our War dept.

  

Great note about a Civil Societies program in Egypt, supporting a Liberal Age.  Noting that free speech, and a free press.

 

Lousy testimony about Social Security and the Bush tax cuts by William G. Gale, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies (Brookings).  In his 5 points, he includes some contradictory ideas:

“Nor are we ever likely to see $12 trillion in net revenues from tax-deferred retirement accounts.”

1) Big future fiscal deficits, 2) tax cuts, 3) tax-deferred savings plans will not give much net revenue 4) real problem of deficits is reduced national saving, reduced asset ownership; not just higher interest rates, 5) fiscal probs are unlike the the past – 18-19 % GNP on SS, & Medis. 

“Persistent deficits reduce national saving and therefore hurt the economy”

“The unpleasant implication is that a long-term resolution of these issues that does not destroy the role of the federal government in American society will have to include significant increases in tax revenues as a share of the economy.”

 

At least he uses revenue loss rather than cost, but even these reduced taxes are kept by workers who earned them.  *** Language issue; tax cuts are not “costs” to the gov’t, they are direct earned benefits of the workers; gov’t benefits are direct unearned benefits to the recipients.  People cash vs gov’t cash?  Nothing good comes to mind, but it’s important to raise the issue.  Mostly have lost the “public” instead of gov’t with respect to cash.

 

PK’s official site SS post, refers to other SS stuff.

“A balanced long-term fiscal policy is likely to entail some changes in Social Security and Medicare to reduce their future claims on the budget.”

In other words, SS is broken; reduced benefits (relative to today’s dishonest Dem promises) are coming.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/28/03 00:41 | link | comments

Victor Davis Hanson “In this unrealistic view of the perfectibility of human nature, far from being appreciative of our fragile peace, accomplishments and luck, well-off Westerners demand more. Furious over our perceived failures, we equate the pathologies of man exclusively with the sins of an all-powerful West, especially those of its most powerful nation as it is symbolized now by George Bush.” (The author is a senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University. His latest book is Ripples of Battle.)

Wow – I’ve wanted to write about this. It’s also a symptom of disappointed idealism as seen in atheists & agnostics that disbelieve in God because Evil exists.

 

Very Very moving post on mass graves in Iraq. Including a comment about Jews, and against:: Great note; mind a bit numb, again.

Aaron, whatever has a point, I call it Holocaust Domination. I note that multiplying by 20 gets to the 6 mil Jews murdered; but there were some 10 mil murdered in Nazi death camps (not to be confused with US concentration camps for Japs). Don't the other 4 mil murdered count? What about Pol Pot's 2.5 mil murdered, since the Left won the war debate and Nixon ran away from Vietnam? What about the Tutsis murdered by Hutus while Clinton sat -- with little said by those who's anti-Holocaust motto is "Never Again"?

Bush has said, for 60 years the US has let national sovereignty & convenient dictatorship support trump human rights. It's time (past) to change. Booting Saddam is the right thing in 2003, even if the US can't afford to boot out all the thugs who deserve it.

The comment about the Jews by Aaron.

Hitchens on the Kennedy tarnish “There was a time when the high casualty rate among Kennedys made foolish people talk about a family "curse". On the contrary, the Kennedys were extremely lucky.

In a few decades, they went from being second-class immigrants in Boston to the holding of super-rich family compounds in Palm Beach and New England and Virginia. The family fortune was made illegally during the bootlegging epoch - which I must say I regard as having some redeeming social value - but the ruthlessness and the sense of entitlement is what most strikes the eye.

That and the political opportunism - old Joe, the family patriarch, was pro-Hitler when he thought Germany was on the winning side (and had to be recalled for this reason as American ambassador to London).

Jack and Bobby were both supporters of the foul Senator McCarthy when that looked like a path to advancement.

Jeff supports NYT blogging:: Not to divert too soon, but I think "ombudsmen" come sort of from the unresponsive gov't side. The gov't should have folk blogging, too. And prolly will.

I'd guess that some HS seniors wanting to get into Harvard or Stanford will be submitting their blogs as additional admission support -- and some will get in (maybe blogging won't be a big factor, but...). And THEN there will be a HS explosion of blogging.

By the time such graduate, they'll be expecting a LOT more interactive service from all their suppliers, especially gov't.

Wouldn't it be better if EVERY World Bank project included a requirement to report, at least every week, progress? Just knowing that others can watch increases responsible behavior (maybe it's too hard?).

 

Pat comments from Brad on what SS is:: Because they are IOMes, not IOUs. As the Treasury put it in their Analytical Perspective for 2000:

" These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. In-stead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact
on the Government’s ability to pay benefits."

and

" The Federal budget meaning of the term 'trust' differs significantly from the private sector usage. The beneficiary of a private trust owns
the trust's income and often its assets. A custodian manages the assets on behalf of the beneficiary according to the stipulations of
the trust, which he or she cannot change unilaterally.

" In contrast, the Federal Government owns the assets and earnings of most Federal trust funds, and it can unilaterally raise or lower
future trust fund collections and payments, or change the purpose for which the collections are used, by changing existing law...."

My own comment supporting Chile is attacked (w/ a ref to CBO whose address fails).

But NCPA concludes it “works” to increase savings rates.

Chile, for instance, replaced its pay-as-you-go system with a system based on private retirement accounts in 1981. Workers already in the old system could choose to remain there or switch to a new system based on private retirement accounts -- funded by contributions from individuals and employers and invested in stock funds. The new system has increased Chile's national saving rate by 2 percent to 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

 

Brad on Bush pork – no lobbyist left behind:: No lobbyist left behind is great.

Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate ... Money grubber hate leads to Jew hate. (see my blog)

Most haters hate the "tax cuts for the rich". But since, in world human terms, most all US taxpayers are rich, any tax cut is for the rich. The question should be, what helps more poor people learn to live productive lives?

It ain't welfare for the rich lobbyists -- but welfare in general has to be scrapped to scrap welfare for the rich (& powerful).

 

Centerfield & Dan Drezner on Medicare, boring, important; VERY expensive:: Since Congress really does control the money, it is more important for low-tax folk to have control in Congress. Usually Congress moves against the current President. 9/11 and terrorism has changed this dynamic -- Bush being great on this most important issue has allowed him to be terrible on all other pork-spending. Similarly Nixon & Clinton; presidents must "do something", and the easiest stuff to do is what the other party wants.

Libertarians should want: Dem pres., vs. Rep congress. But with 9/11, Dems are choosing to oppose Bush on defense, instead of on pork. So yes, they're trapped -- they either say "me too, but better", or else they oppose (Bush's) Big Gov't.

We need a new gov't system to fund drug research OTHER than IP -- info that is easily & cheaply copied & reproduced can no longer justify the enforcement costs of treating it like property. Eliminating IP is the revolutionary part of the "Information Revolution".

Centerfield on gay marriage; better civil unions:: 9/11 changed a lot of minds about security, and the need to take real anti-terror measures where terrorists & their supporters are based. A big, significant change.

AIDS has changed fewer minds, but strengthened the anti-gay folk -- most of whom are anti-promiscuity, anti-divorce, anti-pornography, anti-abortion; most also don't like the idea of gay couples adopting young boys.

Sorry, when what you do in the bedroom means, 6 months later, the brains have to be sucked out of the head of an unborn baby, there IS a legitimate social interest.

Ever see moving pictures of a partial-birth abortion? How about HUGE photos of the reality? They're coming; you won't like it when co-eds get grossed out at pictures of the truth.

Marriage has long been defined as a union of a man and a women -- the Mormons in Utah were essentially forced to give up many women in order to join the US.

The fact that most feel there are too many divorces, and far too many adulterous affairs, means modern marriage is already a weakened institution. Andrew Sullivan's excellent arguments notwithstanding, many feel accepting same-sex marriages is too much more weakening of an institution nobody knows how to strengthen.

Legal, civil unions seems an excellent 3/4 step to get most of the legal beneficiary/ life-decision making issues more clarified, without full "marriage" acceptance. And civil unions without the marriage allows easy discrimination against unions adopting children; I like civil unions for now.

Anti-West terrorists look at US radical feminism as justification for their fight against such evils; the negative aspects of greater individual freedom. And, obviously, once gay marriage is accepted in the US, it will be forced as a "human right" at the UN, then forced onto other cultures; it should be no surprise that cultures have many who are strongly opposed, and feel a need to fight to protect their (backward) culture.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/27/03 00:13 | link | comments

Ornery Two States:: Right-- but it's really too bad they didn't offer to make Jerusalem an international city, joint capital of both states.

 

The Palis have to seriously stop terrorism, first.  Meaning Arafat has to die, internal faction fighting blows up (good time for Mossad to execute the worst; but Jews wouldn't do that?) into a bloody, bloody, Pali-responsible death fest. 

 

Or, maybe, the EU/ UN weenies could demand a free press in refugee camps, and protect Palis who criticize Israel?  start a loyal Pali opposition?  nahhhh.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:23 | link | comments

Ornery Social Security:: Yep, Social Security is the economic mountain that was always broken, and the longer before it is fixed, the worse it's going to be.

Chile is the best model: all are required to put 10% of their income into their own private retirement account, anytime after some min age (60?) they can choose to retire -- on their money.  At death it's inheritable.

 

Smoking, by the way, helps reduce the mountain - young dieing smokers pay more in then they take out, compared to those healthy long-lived 85+ non-smoking yoga geezers who just keep on getting somebody else's money.

 

Any environmentalist worried about global warming in 100 years or so should be asked why they're not fixing SS first -- more certain, more expensive, sooner.  2014 or so and the crunching starts.  I like to tweak Brad DeLong (& Paul Krugman) on this issue -- they KNEW of this problem under Clinton and the dot.com boom, but didn't argue to fix it, then.

 

Bush's deficits, while getting the economy going sooner, also make the changes more needed sooner.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:22 | link | comments

Ornery on being a racist:

 

Jason, don't go -- just calm down, write in Word first, assume it's too angry and reduce the troll words.

Leto, you're doing a fine job in some ways, but your point is ... that you're against AA but the arguments here are weak?

LR, 200 different SAT points (out of 1400 max; scale 200-1600) seems clearly significant; but is that really the minimum difference? OK, prolly not 30 (28 is 2%), but what about 5%, ie. 70 points?

It's clear that racism exists, and is a problem in the US; though a decreasing one in many social ways (intermarriage, for one). It's also objective that blacks score less on SAT scores, and IQ scores; and that more (most?) are raised outside of nuclear families.

I think an underpriveledged person who scores close to (within 5%) an average person is more deserving, but an admission point system should be honest about this. Growing up in a broken home, working after school jobs, etc.

There should be a significant positive effect for a high schooler whose after school income is a signficant portion of the family's income, for instance.

Higher points for graduating rank (eg first, or in the top 5, top 10)

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:20 | link | comments

Donald Sensing (OHC) on the near future morphing of terrorists into drug mafias:: There's also survival instincts -- staying in the background a bit as a number 3, just handling the dirty money and dealing with all the logistics ... until idealistic numbers 1 & 2 get taken, and new front leaders get funding.

 

Controlled drug legalization is a requirement for an optimally successful war on terror.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:19 | link | comments

Brian mentions that in Spain, there is growing hate/ annoyance at Euro Busybodies.  It used to be that everybody just ignored the regulations they don’t like.  Now, it’s getting tougher, so the difficulty in avoiding compliance is becoming annoying/ expensive.

:: what is needed is ways for countries to challenge regulations, including a requirement that each particular enforceable clause include a cost-benefit calculation excluding enforcement, and a specific enforce price tag.  Such EC buro paper crap should need to be approved by the complaining gov’t before it’s accepted.

The EU constitution is the current battleground.  It should be required to be accepted in a referendum -- then defeated until better (if ever).

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:07 | link | comments

Brian at Samizdata writes about the internal Freedom in concentration camps, not Liberty:: I like the internal/ external differences some, but don't think they are as important as the difference in adult & child freedom.

Adult freedom is the freedom to act, but the duty to accept the negative consequences, to pay for the results.

Child freedom is freedom from suffering the negative consequences, freedom from excessive payment.

 

Most voters want both, and the nanny state is the attempt to give the voters what they ask for (deserve?).  The welfare liberals have a good point about a starving person not really being free, nor really at liberty.  That the nanny state fails is, of course, merely because it hasn't been "done right".

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/03 01:06 | link | comments

NATO HR Enforcement Group

I propose a new -- NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group, (from Liberty Father)
which should be willing and able to protect humans, and their rights, from abuse by terrorists, rebels, foreign gov’t armies, or domestic armies. HReg (?) would be a first vigilante step, on the way towards a world police force controlled by countries that are functioning free democracies. (Japan should prolly be offered a place in NATO, while the US and Japan should continue with SEATO.) Rule of Law = rules + enforcement. Without enforcement, there is no rule of law. This elevates Human Rights above territorial integrity as the primary international goal.

While reform of the UN Security Council is theoretically possible, such enforcement reform is more likely, and far more democratic & moral, through NATO. The HR rules would be based on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

HR Enforcement Group
Enforcement war actions should be fought by NATO forces, in coalitions of the willing. Liberation Invasion should be one of the options most intensively planned for—a huge amount of human rights violations occur by the gov’ts of those people. Only the negative rights / freedom from gov’t oppression, should be enforced (those that require no supporting gov’t program).

Organizationally inside of NATO, either in parallel or as a division of the HReg, there should be additional orgs: an HR Court of Conduct, an HR Council on Free Press, perhaps an HR Election Monitoring Group; and most importantly, an Org of HR Monitors. All cooperating with existing NGOs, though also slightly competing with them.

HR Court of Conduct
There should be a standing court/ tribunal to review actions of generals, officers, soldiers, and politicians in their use and abuse of power, authority, and violence.

HR Council Free Press
Opinions critical of every current gov’t, and its leaders, should be publishable in every country. The press must be free to publish facts of what has happened, and especially opinions about how the current leader is making mistakes. This should be tested in every country, including the US—by publishing articles which note the worst things the current gov’t is doing.

The main issue should be the decision making process for starting a protection action.
Such a process should examine the ’90s+ actions: Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, (French) Ivory Coast, Sierre Lione, Iraq; Liberia? Palestine? Zimbabwe?

The decision making process should be a 3 stage process of determining that HR rights are being violated, that there exist NATO members willing and able to send their NATO troops, and that the country has been given clear time-based conditions to meet which have not been met, including a clear final ultimatum.

1. Are human rights being violated? To what extent – a relative ranking.
a. Amnesty International
b. Freedom House, etc.
c. Org of HR Monitors
2. Are NATO forces willing to start protective action to enforce rights?
a. Agreement to create an enforcement coalition
b. Action is justified, but a country may be unwilling to send troops or support
c. Action is unjustified – no human rights are being violated
3. From those willing to send troops, the final “last chance” conditions and timetables before action is started are specified/ repeated

The possible case of Liberia:
The HReg determines that human rights are being violated.
The US, France, the UK, and Spain all agree to send troops
Final ultimatum sent to Mr. Taylor, the leader.

At the expiration of the ultimatum, the coalition forces can begin their Liberation invasion.

A Liberation Invasion in Iraq was good; following the above steps would make it most likely that a Liberation Invasion of Liberia would be good.

Additional details on reasons for NATO:
Making international enforcement a NATO decision, rather than one for the US Congress, helps to formalize the international character of the action. It is also a step in reducing US military unilateralism. And it increases the prestige, and influence, of NATO members, including those with merely observer status—making NATO the club to join, and watch.

At this stage in time, the US should commit to informing NATO of possible HR enforcement actions, and attempting to form enforcement coalitions with NATO members, before doing so unilaterally. The US should NOT commit to waiting for approval from NATO, or any other international body, to defend itself as in Iraq, but should wait for such approval before taking action for HR reasons, as in Liberia (and retrospectively Bosnia & Rwanda).

Part of the reasons for the above structures involved an examination of the US and the UN relationship, and the needs for 1) an international forum that has influence on US policy, and 2) moral authority for such an international forum. The UN, full of dictator representatives, has little moral authority – and many, many gov’ts which are violating their own people’s human rights.

On Enforcement:
Coordination with other forces, especially non-NATO UN forces, should be encouraged (but perhaps only under NATO control?). The liberation goal should prolly be to remain under NATO control for one year after the “hostilities” end (to reduce calls for premature exit/ hand over to UN peacekeepers).

Free Press:
This UN declared freedom (Art. 19) is the single most important characteristic of a “free” country. (Compared to elections: a country w/o elections but with a free press, like Hong Kong for many years, is much more free than one w/ elections but not a free press.) The HR Council should explicitly criticize every gov’t, every week at least, and test whether such criticism can be freely published and distributed in every country—by a NATO funded newspaper (or two?) or paid advertising pages in other newspapers. Facts included in such opinions should be verifiable; and all critiques written should also be electronically published. Failure to be published or distributed is clear evidence of a failure in free press.

Court of Conduct:
Every time the Task Force takes action, there should be a review process initiated in parallel, with the expectation of producing timely, even concurrent preliminary opinions, as well as an timely final report (with the option of adding additional amendments over time).

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/25/03 01:18 | link | comments

*** The army needs to teach more US soldiers more Persian (Farsi) ***  An hour in the morning every morning for a month would give most soldiers at least a little ability to say hello; the top half of the class could continue (with a small bonus) for another month, and the new top half could continue.  Within 3 or 4 months there would be thousands who can talk with locals, even if somewhat poorly. 

Who says? me. TG  What do you think?

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/03 23:43 | link | comments

Kevin against WalMart; lots of comments:: WalMart, like capitalism itself, is a mix of good and bad.  Good for consumers, lower prices = higher consumption, greater wealth.  Good for the poorest producers in the world, more jobs. Good for its local workers, local jobs.

 

Bad for competing local workers, fewer local jobs; and/or lower paid jobs.  Bad for competing local business owners, lower return on investment.  Bad for long term flexibility & choice by consumers, since efficiency tends to standardization (see MS Word vs other word processors).

 

By all means attack WalMart for it's lousy local labor practices, and it's terrible owner/manager - worker salary issues; and fight hard to stop any local gov't giving it any expansion breaks or building roads.  Get workers to unionize at WalMart -- an organized strike strikes fear into the Waltons, I'm sure.

 

Where are the Leftists willing to join WalMart, work excellently for a year or so (MUST have written, excellent evaluations), and then try to unionize?  Yes, join specifically to use legal means to help with a future suit against them, showing their anti-unionization intimidation (eg wear wire-taps, take pictures, etc.).

 

But in terms of reducing world poverty, the world is better off if those foreign child workers work for WalMart than not.  The rural poor have always been better off as urban poor, horrible as urban poverty is. 

 

Gov'ts need to protect property rights for the poor, and enforce the duties of the rich in rich-poor contracts (rather than just enforce duties on the poor), and punish the frauds.  And gov't needs to let folk decide to buy at WalMart, or not.

 

Kevin & Armed Liberal in the war on terrorism:: The PNAC folk do want to use Iraq as a staging ground -- and if both the war AND the reconstruction were super successful, there would be much less practical opposition to invading Iran, say, for not coming clean with their nuke program.

 

It would be morally OK if the US decided, fairly unilaterally, to institute regime change in any country that signed the UN Dec'l of Human Rights, but does not have a free press.  But the US is not morally bound to do so, since it entails huge sacrifices.  Like many here think the cost of US action in Iraq is too high.  Less than $200 bil; less than 2600 US soldiers is not too high, for me.  Why aren’t more folk willing to put price tags, life number costs here?

 

Here's the biggest problem I have with the anti-war folk: were the US to merely attempt to track down terrorists as criminals, and thus allow Iran & Iraq to develop nukes and/or other WMD, and for such weapons to be used against the US, I'm sure a lot of anti-war folk would be ballisticaly angry at the US for following Clinton's No. Korea strategy.  And the US civilians would be in huge danger -- not to mention Israel, which would almost certainly have been the first target. 

 

And yeah, had terrorists gotten nukes, and used them, I'm sure lots of anti-war folk would say they were wrong.  But too late.  What is your estimate of the no-Iraq war chances of this (terrorists use WMDs) in the next 6 years?  Mine was 50% -- which justifies Iraq regime change, to me.  It's now down to about 20%.

 

Intense treatment of terrorists as criminals, and worse, is needed, but not sufficient.  Controlled & regulated legalized drug use is necessary, too -- or else the terrorists will, inevitably, be involved in the illegal drug trade, as well.

 

Reducing dependency on ME oil?  Increase gas taxes by a penny, every month (every week?) until there is peace & democracy in the ME -- eventually substitutes will cost less.  Nobody likes this solution, either; but sometimes reality is a bear.

++ Praktike, I think you're mostly right about us needing to be serious in nation building -- but what's even more important is building institutions accountable to the people, democratic accountability.  Perhaps like Hong Kong, for example, which was ruled, lightly, by the UK.  The need is to get local Iraqi judges, and cops, and mayors.

 

Especially mayors with money to fix local things that need fixing -- so early mayor elections, LONG before national elections, or even a national constitution.  And even LOAN those mayors money, immediately, so it's not a hand out, and there's no need for gratitude, but the Iraqi mayors decide what gets fixed, by whom, and how much it costs. 

 

The US military backs up the Iraqi cops, though also watches that the locals cops don't stage a coup, either.  Only local Iraqis can substantially reduce terrorism -- provide good intel.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/03 23:42 | link | comments

Roger on ‘38 parallels & Jew hate:: Luckily, neither the economy nor the brown (shirts/ nosers) are as bad as 38 or 33.  I've previously noted Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate; and then Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate.

 

Israel's existence is a significant rationalization object for the emotional, envious Jew haters.  I should mention that "getting in touch with feelings" will also lead to more hate against Jews -- the Nazis were quite in touch with their hate and allowed their murderous actions to be guided by their feelings, instead of limited by cold rationality, logic, and principles.

 

All reports, all interim reports, and at least an annual report every EU committee should be published, on-line.  Transparently available to taxpayers to see what they're paying for.  What about asking Transparency International? Unfortunately, the UK Euroskeptics are focusing on the Euro, rather than micro-managing overbearing regulation from Brussels. 

 

Free speech is more important than suppressing hate crime speech -- adding penalties and police to stop real crime that includes a hate motivation is a better path.  Israel has a free press, like Human Rights require, the Arab countries do not.  A free press is needed--even more than elections.  In Iraq; Saudi Arabia; Syria; Egypt; Lebanon; Iran.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/03 23:40 | link | comments

Donald on the cultural war inside of Islam:: I think it's really important to emphasize the civil/cultural war inside of Islamic countries. Many of the fanatic anti-West Islamic feelings are similar to anti-divorce, anti-abortion, anti-promiscuity, anti-pornography, anti-homosexuality, anti-feminist positions in the West.

It's easy to "blame Israel", but radical feminism is almost certainly a bigger local emotional reason for being anti-West.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/03 23:32 | link | comments

Money grubbing hate ==> Jew hate  After weeks of thought, I put up my Bush Hate, Jew Hate, Success Hate ideas.  Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky also wrote about Jew hate: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004310   but without mentioning money grubbing.  Elsewhere I've been reminded that successful Chinese & Indians are hated in Malaysia & Uganda for being different and successful economically.  For being money grubbers.

The Left is certainly against money grubbing. Easterbrook used "money grubbing Jew" unthinkingly -- because everybody knows Jews are money grubbers, like all business leaders. Like me. I work for money (my Stanford T: Work. Study. Get Rich) -- I'm a money grubber, it doesn't bother me.

But, if money grubbing is bad, and Jews are money grubbers ... the Left will be hating the Jews.

I'm becoming convinced money grubbing hatred is a MORE important explanation for Jew hate than anything else.

 

Please, tell me you and your friends do NOT think Jews are money grubbers.

:: (I can't let this go) The left hates the Bush tax cuts, because they are tax cuts for the rich.

Taxes are essentially the same as financial penalties, punishment.

The rich are all money grubbers.

The Left hate Bush because he reduced taxes on the rich;

he reduced punishment on the rich;

he reduced punishment on the money grubbers.

The Left wants to punish the money grubbers; they hate the money grubbers.

Are Jews money grubbers?

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/20/03 22:38 | link | comments (6)

Bush Hate, Jew Hate, Success Hate

Visceral hatred of US Pres. G.W. Bush is endemic among the left. J. Chait expressed it well, and honestly, “I hate Bush … the way he walks … talks … looks. His policies.” Judging from Paul Krugman’s recent essays, PK feels the same.

It’s qualitatively different than partisan Clinton hate. Bill Clinton is a man beloved by radical feminists despite using his power to get sex with women, and perjuring himself in a sex harassment lawsuit. Pro-lifers sure hate Clinton, but balanced budget, welfare reform, and free trade Reps all acknowledged that good stuff happened.

Bush haters seem incapable of saying “it is good that Saddam has been booted out.” Nothing Clinton did was that good. Yet everything Bush does gets ridiculed, questioned, often twisted into a diametrically opposed straw man, and that straw man is then attacked.

Gregg Easterbrook, a popular Leftist writer of TNR (The New Republic), was recently fired from ESPN for claiming, in an anti-violence movie review (against Kill Bill) that his ultimate boss, Disney head M. Eisner, is a money grubbing Jew. For insulting his boss, he deserves to be fired. But many, if not most, University educated people of the world do believe that Jews are money-grubbers – and that money-grubbing is bad. The problem of Jew hate is clearly increasing in Europe, and in many other places of the world. The reasons, like the reasons for Bush hate, seem more to be an accumulation of small things: excessive reaction against mild Jewish racism, the continuing Israel-Palestinian problems where Palestinians are being portrayed as the only victims, and the issue of how bad it is to be successful in business.

Jews, as shown by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, are guilty of the following kind of racism: they’re willing to do business with goys, but not willing to accept their daughter marrying one of them. In the discussion about who is a Jew, a key answer: if they want their children to specifically marry a Jew, then they are Jews. Of course, the male descendants of Abraham, with his Y chromosome (!), do seem to be an inordinately successful group. This mild exclusion doesn’t excuse the racist anti-Semite Holocaust. But neither should the terrible Shoah blind us to this honest, normal reason for resentment. And anti-racism is a good part of the liberal, humanist tradition. Everybody who opposes racism has to object, at least mildly, against this Jewish separatism.

The Palestinians’ unwillingness to stop their own terrorism, and accept Israel’s right to exist, dooms them to suffer. They ARE victims, but mostly of their own leaders. The Pali leaders need to change, or be changed, before peace can occur. But this problem has been around so long, the Left knows it’s useless to complain about Arafat. “How many Palis have to die, before Arafat is a failure?” This is a question the Left implicitly asks about Bush, but never, ever, Arafat. When Palis die, it’s Israel’s fault, and/or Bush/America. But if Americans die in Iraq, it’s not any terrorist leader’s fault, it’s the fault of … Bush! and/or Israel!!

Israel has suffered enough, and killed enough, to deserve their own state. They have it, and will fight to keep it – while being willing to allow the Palis a state, if the Pali leaders would accept one of two. Pali leaders don’t accept. They can’t win against Israel in a fight, and don’t accept fair terms in their loss, so they choose to try to murder Israelis, and do so, and also die. Stupid choice. The Palis have been stupid for a while now, as anti-Semite Malaysian Mahatir says “not using [their] brain.”

Israel companies (business folk) are also practicing being successful, even without oil – unlike any Arabs w/o oil. Successful meaning they peacefully and honestly make contracts with others to provide goods & services for money; and voluntarily give stuff and get cash. The kind of money-grubbing Leftists hate. I don’t hate money grubbing, since I wouldn’t do my own job if they didn’t pay me.

Neither would almost all Leftists, many making more than US worker avg (about $30k / year?). Yet Leftists hate success, hate money grubbers – people who put money before other, more important causes. Causes like stopping unwanted pregnancies, stopping AIDS, global warming, pollution, land mines, drug abuse, ivory trading, illiteracy in gov’t schools, seal clubbing, logging, gun ownership, women's rights, minority rights, animal rights, and stopping war. (Especially stopping wars against murderers who are friends with France.)

To a big hearted Leftist, the very existence of such a problem, combined with a person who has “too much” money, is proof of uncaring, and hence immoral, money-grubbing evil, er, um, social injustice. Leftist Jew haters don’t like the term evil – it’s too religious.

Who in America has too much money? The rich, the successful, the money-grubbers. And the Left demands Punishment! er, um, justice, social justice. It is a fact that the vast majority of human genocides in the last 100 years have included, in their justifications, explicit calls to rectify some prior injustice. It’s curiously under-discussed that providing justice in any civilization requires force and violence to stop injustices.

Leftists want social justice, a Robin Hood gov’t that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. But punishing the rich is always far more important to Leftist leaders than is helping the poor. Note how few Leftists discuss the great success of Clinton’s (& Rep Congress) welfare reform. Clinton’s welfare reform was a success, but Leftists don’t care about success as much as about punishing the rich. With Bush reducing the punishment, er, taxes, he’s aiding and abetting the evil, er, socially unjust successful.

Leftists are correct that money is not everything, and too many Americans wrongly believe that amount of money equals amount of success. But the Leftists grow this grain of truth into a field of dreams where all poor are mere victims, and glorified; a Leftist calculus where every failure deserves sympathy, support, understanding; where every success implies lying, cheating, exploiting, insensitivity and injustice.

In Bush’s great liberation of Iraq, Leftists instead see lies about reasons, a desire by money grubbers to get oil, lies about imminent threats, a disregard for Iraqi collateral damage, and unjust violation of international law. All extremely debatable, if not clearly false -- yet the Left essentially forbids debate. Did America successfully accomplish its mission of booting Saddam? – yes. Do Leftists like this or hate it? - they hate it.

They hate American success, the culture of McDonalds, fast food & cokes, violent movies and rampant promiscuity (oops, the Left likes the promiscuity). As Nozik explains in why verbal intellectuals elites hate capitalism, the Left hate American equality and the gross lack of deference most have for such elitist intellectual snobs. And it follows, in a feel good sort of logical way, that if American success is bad, because it exploits so many poor victims, then the victims are morally superior to the implied exploiters.

When America was victimized on 9/11, most Leftists loved America as much as others (though some were quick to blame America instead of terrorists). As America fought back, not content to remain a victim, Leftist critiques increased, and Bush hate gets more emotional. Unsurprisingly, whenever Jews demonstrate their capacity to succeed, Left hatred is inflamed against them, too.

These hates are connected, though not identical. It may well be that merchant success, and hatred against money grubbing merchants, predates anti-Jewish feeling, but both have existed far longer than the current calendar. It’s clear that envy, destructive envy, drives those who hate. Bush hate follows Reagan hate and Nixon hate, and its bastard brother Clinton hate (on the Right). The Left has chosen between support for regime change of a dictator, or hate for the President who leads a successful regime change, & supports successful capitalism. The Left has chosen hate. Bush hate, Jew hate, money grubbing hate. A victory of envy.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/18/03 20:13 | link | comments (18)

Roger L. Simon also writes lots, like Michael J. Totten.::  Great Daniel Pipes article about the greatest line in a great speech:  "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe."  This sentence, spoken last week by George W. Bush, is about the most jaw-dropping repudiation of an established bipartisan policy ever made by a US president.

 

::How to help a country become democratic?  Support free speech.  Attempt some minimal enforcement of the UN Dec'l of Human Rights, especially art. 19 (speech) -- so that Iraqis can learn to hear, listen, and talk with others who disagree. 

 

Sometimes a disagreement about ends, more often a disagreement about means; almost always a disagreement about basic assumptions and future expectations.

From Roger on liberal Bush-hate:: “he hates to see his enemy co-opting the moral argument. I think this is responsible for much of the anti-Bush anger that is going around nowadays--how dare that bastard, of all people, pretend he is in favor of exporting democracy!”

 

More Roger against the TT cartoon:: It might well be dark times -- but it's also among the lightest of times.  Human rights are rising; more folks (esp. China & India) are leaving starvation poverty for wage income; more countries espouse democracy as a value, and practice it more now (than less before). 

 

Ever since Human Rights were declared as universal, we have been in, de facto, a war.  HR respecting civilization can win this war (unlike the war on terror, which will never be over)--I feel, and think, that in my lifetime there may come a day when every country on earth is democratic.

 

Won't be paradise, jokers like TT will still be annoying about something; maybe adoption will have become the "only" acceptable option over abortion (like non-smoking?); there will still be health problems & pension problems & church/secular tensions.

 

But a world w/o dictators ... looks more likely today than any prior day of my life.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/14/03 23:50 | link | comments (2)

Great reminder, Michael, that Clinton did, eventually, do the right thing in Bosnia ... and (some? many of?) the Reps opposed it on partisan grounds.  Also that there are still problems, big problems, after all these years.

 

Did you follow/ read/ think about Cantonization of Yugoslavia, to avoid this?  I also thought it would be a better policy for So. Africa, though admit that Mandela was far, far better than I thought he would be.  And I think cantonization would be a good policy for Iraq, now: getting elected governors of the 28 provinces and devolving much of the governing authority to them.

 

For the US, tax policy & social security are actually more important ... but you're so right that they're much, much more boring.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/14/03 23:46 | link | comments

I'm an Iraqi Optimist! Thanks GA Cerny::in Sept 2004, Iraq is gonna look a lot better than East Timor, or Kosovo, or any other recent example. Although there will still be problems. For me to accept "gross" incompetence, I'd have to see an alternative, realistic set of benchmarks, and note the differences. You say you've known it would be long and hard -- meaning how many dead US soldiers in how many months, years?

I put the number at 3000, in two years. Less than this, Bush's team is doing pretty good. I haven't specied for occupation only, but I do separate his fantastic Saddam Blitz. So let's judge Bush on US d