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

Harry’s Place discusses trade, and employment issues>> Why NOT have capitalists copy the one thing commies did right -- full employment?  Of course, replace ALL other welfare/ trade/ company/ farm/ subsidies and goodies.

Every country could have its own National Service Corps, which agrees to hire everybody at some 80% of the average peaceful wage (non-gov't sector) in the country.  Dormitory housing, cafeteria food, communal day care/ child care. Decent, working class life.

 

Plenty of gov't money for this if OTHER support programs are replaced by it. But leave trade, peaceful wealth creation, alone.  Please.  Even if overpaid (more than 80% of average?) programmers are unhappy.

 

 

Harry's also notes The North Korea Famine – what should be done?  Let them starve?>> Fine note, Johann; so sad.  What to do?  Let them starve at least until after Nov 2004 Bush re-election AND a generally good looking Iraq reconstruction, with a reduced need, not no need, for US troops.

 

Relations with China & Russia are complex; neither is yet a full free & fair democracy.  A big blockade is good; but also active words (never written) to the generals and other No. Korea power brokers that a coup would be well rewarded might be tried.

 

Carrots for all the #2 level mass murderers! ??

 

Stephen DenBeste and Trent Telenko are both pretty right, and it sucks, monumentally.  IF a military strike happens, I hope it's Trent's and NOT a nuke.  But more total blockade, first.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/29/03 16:40 | link | comments

Jeff importantly asks about Dean bolting if he’s not the Dem nominee.>>But Dean’s org is more Bush hate than Dean love, so most will accept a non-Dean Dem guy to oppose Bush.  Look at the Deaner’s snarking about Nader.  Their own snarks would be used against them if they bolt.  The anti-Dean will be … who???  Clark, Kerry, Lieberman?

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/29/03 16:37 | link | comments

Michael goes after Dean’s wishy washy statements about OBL. >>As Donald Sensing says about Saddam, the issue is not who tries him (SH or OBL), nor really about his guilt. The real question is:

What is justice? Justice, the attempt to positively correct an Injustice, is needed for civilization. It is the fundamental justification for gov't, and for gov't force & violence.

So Michael, what do you think Justice is? For Saddam or for Osama?

 

 

Also comments about what to do with a family member who hates Bush >>Gary's doing a great job -- but can I suggest use of the ancient Chinapanense art of HU MOR?

 

Gabriel, you need to find ways to laugh at your family's views.  And laugh at Saddam's Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban. Like, "You're so right, Mom.  Those Taliban courts in Afghanistan were so much fairer than Gitmo -- and when women were executed by head shots that was the end of it.  Swift, clean, humane.  Much better than Bush ..."

 

The Left wants to claim to be against Saddam & Islamofascism AND against Bush's policy.  That attitude needs to be laughed at.  Constantly.  Though agreeing that Bush & crony capitalism is not near perfect is prolly good, too. Plus you can always add that under most Muslim gov'ts, you don't hear so much dissent in the (unfree) press!

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/29/03 16:30 | link | comments

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/25/03 22:39 | link | comments

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1uo0x/id6.html A.W. (now with Freespeech) has a fine note about UN incompetence.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/24/03 07:45 | link | comments (1)

Brad discusses Brazil, and how Lula is doing more right-ish fiscal austerity than overspending Leftist stuff>> Anne is right that tech trade to Brazil will help; but what they need is more support for property rights of poor folk, and small businesses.  Which I understood Lula is working on.  His opposition to US and EU farm subsidies was excellent -- a good stand, and against the rich (doing bad). 

 

Because folk trust him that his heart is with the people, they can more easily accept tighter measures -- will the owners of small businesses be expanding production?  Nobody knows.

 

 

More to Brad’s note on Parmalat fraud>> I didn't mean to say Pres. Bush was personally responsible for this particular corporate thieving kind of thing; and yes, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan were all somewhat to blame.  Elsewhere I note that laws AGAINST corporate raiders (greedy folk getting rich by firing other, less shareholder friendly greedy folk) are partly to blame.

 

A lot of the current management game is how much can the managers get, from the employees, the shareholders, the customers?  How much can they get for themselves?  Plus, everything's OK as long as they don't get caught.

 

The point is to focus more Bush criticism on lousy corporate governance, and needed reforms there, and less on Iraq.

 

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002903.html

Great post, Kevin; unions doing good.  Jane Galt "might" be right about unsustainability of union training, but it's less certain than the unsustainability of the social security coming crisis, or the unsustainability of Bush's deficits (much as I like Bush booting Saddam).

 

Unions should be getting involved in every aspect of their business, including capital raising -- and watching the stock prices, and watching the evaluation of the management.  I'm not so keen on closed shops, but am generally mildly pro-union.  WalMart workers should unionize, and strike for more benefits - at least profit/ revenue sharing.  (Revenue is much harder to manipulate than tax accounting "profit".)  Unions should get better at supporting performance pay, and all forms of evaluation: top-down, peer-peer, bottom-up.

 

Unions and management are on opposite sides in dividing the company benefits pie (zero-sum); but they're on the same side in trying to make THEIR company's pie as large as possible.

 

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002879.html

More on Kevin’s Health Insurance, a likely gov’t issue>> Health care (on topic again) -- it is a fact, as above, that lower quality care costs less.  Just "treat them" is actually right -- at the low cost $50 - $100 range, even if they can't pay.  And accept that those who die with a little treatment, die.

 

It's understandable that no Leftist is willing to put a price on poor treatment, since whatever the line, there will be those above the line that are allowed to die because of the lack of money.  What's really annoying is the LIE that there is some system for which this reality is not the case.  Honestly, with $ numbers, or dishonestly, through queues and rules and policies.

 

There should prolly be a full employment "National Service" corps, that hires anybody (like Stone's sister, or mine) but provides rules & structure--that's a different rant.

 

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000203.html

Michael talks about the BBC being anti-American>> BBC is smarmy.  They have done, and often still do, a fantastic job.  "Walking with Dinosaurs", "Walking with Beasts" (mammals) were great.  Good tech, etc.

 

But when it comes to American coverage, they are campaigning against Bush.  About 90%; they occasionally have a pro-Bush guy on.  But it's painful to watch, and listen to.  Where are their stories on Basra, for instance?  Oh, that Iraqi place where things are going well...

 

Bush recently made a speech that claimed America had been supporting dictators, and that such a policy was a mistake; implicitly calling for regime change of such countries.  The BBC, in redefining Saddam as a non-dictator, is implicitly against the regime change -- but it's extremely unlikely to change their coverage of prior US support for Saddam as anything but damning.

 

Roger on gay marriage, against an anti-gay marriage amendment>> Roger (& Michael JT), I think you need to accept "gay marriage" as a battle in the never ending culture wars.  While I think we can achieve an end to the War on Terror -- when we have a World Without Dictators-- there is no end to the culture war in sight.

 

The Supreme Court, acting ahead of lawmakers, created a "right" to abortion, to kill a human fetus if the mother thought a child would be inconvenient to her life.  All major religions opposed the doctrine underlying that "law".  And the law was successfully voted for in a few US states, but never nationally.

 

Many anti-abortion folk see gay marriage as part of the cultural wave they oppose: pro-women's lib & more divorces, pro- pre-marital sex, accepting of extra-marital affairs (& BJs), pro-youth sex (teens getting secret abortions), pro-contraception (& more sex), pro-promiscuity, pro-gays, pro- gay as teachers of young children, pro- gay adoption of children.

 

I don't want my children to be taught by practicing homosexuals.  I don't think there should be laws punishing homosexual behavior.  Andrew Sullivan, among others, makes the points about gay marriage supporting commitment, etc.  I don't believe it.  The real likely result is acceptance of gays as "equal", and therefore *I* will be wrong if I want to send my kids to some school which doesn't have homosexual teachers.

Adoption agencies will be wrong if they try to stop gays from adopting children. 

 

Insurance companies will be wrong if they try to collect the cost of AIDS treatment for gay men from the premiums paid by gay men for insurance (I'm pretty sure this is already illegal, isn't it?)  In other words, safe, responsible, committed Christian heteros are already subsidizing a behavior their religion says is evil, and yet gays want more.  Note that legal forms already exist to allow committed gays to get inheritance, guardianship over life-death decisions, etc., though less conveniently than marriage.  Such honest commitment agreements should be made easier for gays to enter into.

 

The C. Right is not fighting against promiscuity enough (though Promise Keepers, etc., seems like a reasonable start); nor are they yet strongly proposing the likely culture war result of Adoption as Always preferable to Abortion.  So they are focusing on gays.  Mostly as a surrogate against the whole pro-abortion culture.  And civil unions, w/o quite the full social acceptance of "marriage" (defined as between a man and a woman), is the likely outcome (& my preference).

 

 

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_amygdalagf_archive.html#107173506122754023

Gary Farber discusses how it should be freedom YES!  Freedom, especially limited gov't, is the key, NOT democracy, per se.  And dictators are such NOT because of a lack of elections, but because of a lack of freedom.

 

I suggest even more focus: free speech.  Without free speech, elections are not so hot. With it, elections are not so necessary (still almost always better).

 

Why? So that places w/o free speech, like under Arafat, Assad, Gadafy(?), Saudi princes, Iranian mullahs; China, Vietnam, No. Korea; are clearly not free.  And all are reasonable candidates for regime change, though certainly NOT military force (in China's case, especially).

 

 

Roger started in writing about the Times lack of coverage on the anti-dictator demonstrations in Iraq, and especially their fumbling after the fact.  The comments moved on from there over Roger quoting Deng: “I don't care whether a cat is black or white. I care if it catches mice.”  >> There are two main methods of regime change: a) active military force, and b) military containment until the contained country begins internal reforms.

 

Dubchek 68 was a commie trying to put on a human face (in former Czechoslovakia); Gorby gets credit for opening the USSR, and allowing the vassal states to leave without sending in commie tanks.

 

Deng was a surprisingly successful, reform oriented commie -- it seems because he wanted more results, for the people, than mere words.  China will, either in 2003 or 2004, be producing more cars, for people, than Germany.  Thanks more to Deng's pragmatism than to any other single man.  I expect, not merely hope, for true Chinese elections (like Russia, anyway), before 2025.

 

I'd be interested in any Chinese opinions on the relative desirability of Deng vs. the "Gang of Four", for instance.  Roger, don't you want to revisit that strange visit?  A bit of surrealism for the holidays.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml

Italian prime minister Berlusconi is calling for the UN to start more pressure, including force, against dictators in order to get regime change. >> But what he should be doing is arguing that for NATO.  And the US should be transferring it’s UN budget into a NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group, to quantify the free speech available in various countries.

 

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2003_12.html#005566

Jeff notes that Libya has agreed to disarm, but the quotes are only about the secret long term negotiations>>I think the link above is to (similar from Useful Fools):

But the facts are given by the Italian Prime minister as reported in the Telegraph:

 

Col Gaddafi of Libya, [...] said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

 

>> Jeff, I wish you could edit your top story to include this aspect -- USING force increases it's power as threat.

 

In the same article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml , Berlusconi is calling on more active UN participation in regime change.  For my part, I support enhancing NATO to include a Human Rights Enforcement Group.

 

It's time to have two main groups of countries: legitimate democracies, non-legitimate dictators.  They are not morally equal.

 

 

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/000621.html

I've prolly read the Hobbit more than 20 times; a nice evening read.  The third time was on a Christmas Day, while visiting my step-mother's family, where I was happily on a journey to "There, and back again".

 

I loved those old Brem (the artist) covers; much better than Tolkein's own drawings.  It's his language which makes him so magical.  Too bad it loses so much in translation--I've struggled with reading it in Slovak.  Harry Potter translates more easily.

 

(I understand why Dean E. likes reading you!)

 

Sheila on Libya, great selection of Tony Horwitz's "Baghdad without a map" book, with a comment by Michael.>> (Darn it! Why can't I EVER go anywhere that Michael J.T. hasn't already been?)  How can you read books and still blog, too? And, uh, work & sleep?

Isn't it great that Libya's leader says it's giving up WMDs?

 

 

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_iraqataglance_archive.html#107204975445405903

Ays at Iraq at a Glance wants to know when the trial of Saddam will start>> I think a "pre-trial" public, televised investigation, accepting evidence "on camera", could and should be started right away.  To start getting the benefits of the publicity, and the catharsis of testifying against the monster, as well as a steady deluge of individual testaments.

 

Yes, a special TV station, broadcasting date&time of testimony/ investigative evidence, along with the questions and the answers of the people.  Usually time delayed by some hour to a few days, for a little editing, but continuously broadcast. 

 

An actual trial should wait for some more-Iraqi controlled method of selecting judges (former Ba'athists? or inexperienced?), etc., for the real trial.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/03 23:51 | link | comments

more Donald on the UN, Joel comments “One world government would only "work" if the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion were eliminated and we submitted to living as robot idiots.”  >>I fear world gov't, too -- and the tranzis use the EU as a model.  Note how they are becoming afraid as the non-democratic, non-accountable elitist power grab is starting to be questioned.

 

V. Klaus is more correct that the "nation-state" is the more natural international unit -- though I would be happier with city-states, myself.  Joel, sometimes it's a pleasure to read your Left arguments, other times it sounds so, um, trollish.  And then you say something so very true!

 

Free speech should be the main focus, because it's so cheep, it's so clear when it's not allowed, it's so necessary for allowing humans to learn the info needed to decide.  And to learn to respect disagreements.  It's also a needed prerequisite to functioning democracy. World gov’t = world taxes, they are NOT needed.  What IS needed, is a World Without Dictators, where people in every country have the right of free speech.  And security for democracies against commies (China, No. Korea) and, increasingly Islamofascists, while the world is evolving into one where it is safe for people to speak out against their gov’t. 

 

Unfortunately, the sheeple of the world have always wanted more security than reality allows, and have been willing to support snake oil selling politicians/ leaders/ dictators who lie and promise them more security if they just give up a little more freedom, and accept a little higher taxation.  Like the UN advocates.  This includes Bush; but also prior presidents—who have all accepted, in the past, support for lesser evil dictators against greater evil communists/ Islamofascists (our support for secular Saddam was against theocratic Iran after the Shah).

 

In the transition, maybe to end as soon as 2025?, US security requires an international military organization able and occasionally willing to enforce regime change on non-democracies.  Either the UNSC, a proven failure, or something else.  I support something else, specifically an enhancement of NATO to include an Human Rights Enforcement Group.  With the ability, whenever there is sufficient political will, to use (overwhelming?) military force.  No. Korea’s, and China’s, human rights violations justify regime change.  But if there is not sufficient political will, today, then there should be no forced regime change, today; even though regime change into a democracy would be good.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/03 23:42 | link | comments

 Punishment for Ba’athists  In much of Eastern Europe, the commies gave up power in a velvet revolution, but most were not further punished.  This allowed many to use their connections to be among the main beneficiaries of privatization and other moves towards a market society.

 

Iraq would do well to look at East Euro experience, and begin discussing what the right goals for various Ba'athists are.  Knowing the more complex it is, the harder it will be to get it right.  I suggest an immediate start at mild punishment for all who joined the Ba'athists -- ineligibility for Iraq oil fund social support.  Related is that an "Alaska fund" style fund is established for Iraqis, so the people can directly benefit from the oil.  And NOT let the Ba'athists benefit.

 

Other, more severe punishments should be handed out to the criminal killers, etc., but there should be some punishment to all, since all Ba'athists got some special benefits.  I think.  I wish  Slovakia had done this against the commies.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:33 | link | comments

Brad points out that $3.6 bn seem to be missing in Parmalat.  That’s billions. Gone.  Where is it???  Nobody seems to know.>> Bush & crony capitalism, the whimpering end of capitalist created American civ?  This is the terrible Bush crap the critics should focus on, NOT the Iraq (mostly good) stuff.

 

Brad on Krugman and income inequality being bad, [but PK going overboard]>> Hey Opin, Arnold K did a fine quick comment on an easily checked factoid that clearly questions the two surveys as interpreted by PK.

 

The staus of women is very important.  Also the number of poor folk in nuclear families vs broken homes -- I'd guess the vast majority of the prior bottom who make it to the top do so from homes where they live with both their parents. Yes, income inequality is bad, and getting worse.  But many gov't policies & actions are helping the rich stay rich with less effort, less risk, less benefit to others.  -- yet the Left wants more power to the gov't!

 

When will the Left admit that gov't that is stronger, bigger, more controlling will more certainly be controlled by that same top 1%, who will insure they get massive, unfair, special perks?  Just as regulators get "captured" by the industries they're supposed to regulate, politicians want to be liked and accepted by the top 1%.

 

Direct democracy could be implemented fairly quickly: 100% tax credits for donations to gov't agencies.  Let the tax payers decide how much of their tax dollars go where. Look at Europe, and France, and the bureau-hell decline, and be warned -- more gov't means more like France. Yechh.  Bush in Iraq is great.  Most other Bush spending has been mediocre, or quite bad.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:32 | link | comments

Brad suggest Bush is looking like an elephant in front, and a donkey in back.>> I usually support Jim's positions, without thinking Libs are taking over this forum at all.

 

The problems, Jon, are in the Left's images.  First, SS is supposed to fool people into thinking they are saving their own money, and everybody is forced into the system, but everybody benefits.  No means/ needs testing, it is not a redistribution program.  Obviously, if the purpose is merely to have a minimum, decent-poor income for old people before and until they die, it is more efficient to take from the general funds.  And do means testing.  And stop the New Deal Lie that the SS is saving your own money.

 

Perhaps the bigger problem is the Lie, in practice, that the mostly middle class Left wants to help the poor.  What the Left policies are really all about is taxing the rich, in the name of the poor, with benefits mostly to middle classes.  -- which consistently get diverted by the powerful into programs that help selected middle and rich, like farmers and steel company owners.

 

What the working poor need are more jobs and better education.  The Dems and their despicable, in practice, NEA controllers have given is proof that socialist education is terrible for the poor.  Half the blacks graduate from HS and can't read.  This year, last year, every year since I went to high school 30 years ago (to a high school in South Gate, just east of Watts).  And every year the Dems say "more money for teachers, but NO vouchers to let poor parents choose schools".  How many years are the Dems gonna keep screwing the blacks on measurable education results? 

 

Well, maybe until 2004 when VP candidate Condi tells them why Dem/NEA control of education has been terrible and a mass of black voters vote Rep?  Maybe Bush will be looking a bit like a big, fat, Zebra, with long pointy tusks.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:30 | link | comments

Brad tries to pick on Bush about Iraq ‘Alan Murray cannot explain anymore than anybody else what processes of logical reasoning would lead one from 911 to attacking Saddam Hussein--hence "profoundly affected.” ’>>Brad, you’re really being silly here.  The logical threat of a terrorist supporting state, developing and getting WMDs and distributing them to terrorist groups, is extremely strong.  Especially after 9/11.  Iraq was such a state, it was already in violation of prior agreements as of 98 when Saddam booted inspectors but Clinton wimped out of enforcement (certainly afraid of no-action Reps).  You don’t add it here, but Bush has stated that supporting dictators, in order to maintain some (immoral) stability, has not kept America safe.  This is the biggest, most profound shift of any president since FDR, at least.

 

If you disagree with the logic of using force, your disagreement basically means accepting terrorist supporting states developing WMDs (like No. Korea & Iran & Iraq).  Plus, either (a) claiming that Evil state possession is no additional threat to the US.  Or, (b) that even if there is a greater threat, there is no legal way to stop it, and that obedience to such UN international law is more important than reducing risks by force.  Like the Dem ostrich dwarves, believing somebody other than Bush can use jaw, not waw, to stop WMD development.  Despite strong evidence to the contrary. 

 

I do NOT believe that brand of snake oil.  I do NOT believe (a)—I think that Evil state possession IS a bigger threat.  I think (b) is more nuanced, and that current UN law does say there is no (UN) legal way to stop threats for which there is no UNSC resolution; thus, no No. Korea or Iran invasion due to a lack of UNSC resolutions.  But Iraq has been violating UNSC resolutions, and did, illegally, attack Kuwait—this seems a pretty strong (UN) legal justification for the idea that going after Iraq is not (UN) illegal. I also don’t think it good that if WMDs in a dictatorship are a big threat to a democracy, there is no legal recourse other than UNSC approval of using force.  This seems so obvious to me that I get upset at the Angry Left on Iraq.

 

PaulB, you basically claim Iraq was not a threat, and was contained.  Do you also claim so for No.Korea and Iran?  What will it take for you to change your mind?  I claim they ARE threats.  I would change my mind if they had free speech (I don't require elections).

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:28 | link | comments

Europundits notes the convergence of anti-globalization with anti-Semitism and “I think that the dynamics of post-WW2 anti-Semitism, its hibernation and its resurrection, have almost nothing to do with Israel and a lot to do with what has been going on inside the societies that are now more or less openly anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, its impossible to prove or disprove this theory.”>> Two relevant blog posts: Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate and  Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate

The point is that universal hatred of successful foreign money grubbers (eg Malays vs Chinese in Malaysia), tied to Jewish business success, is the long historical fuel of Envy. And the Angry Left is certainly filled with Envy.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:26 | link | comments

Roger continues musing on work & meaning “all we really have in life is “love and work.” The French appear to have problems with the second half.” >>Great idea about the issue of work and human dignity, diluted poorly with the smoke (from a never smoker).

 

The terrible commies did ONE thing right -- unemployment was illegal.  Everybody had a job.  OK, many just pretended to work, but like sleeping, the best way to do it is to start by pretending. Of course, this blog addiction *I* am feeding is stretched a lot to pretend that it's working.  But blogging IS important, even if my blog isn't.

 

Michael had a nice time in Paris a couple years ago.>> The French post WW II buro-state is not yet dead, but its cultural death twitchings have already started.  Le Pen is getting popular as the only option to reduce immigration and the loss of old France.  The pension bomb is nearer exploding there.  The 10% young Muslim immigrants are not assimilating.  Glad you and Shelly had a good time; prolly still a few more years available, if you only go to the nice areas.  Like Disneyland, maybe.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:23 | link | comments

Roger writes a long note about the decline of France, including a moving description of its similarity to the Soviet Union “in the midst of the capture of Saddam… the storied anti-Americanism now seemed almost the pathetic gesture of a failed state. To see the downcast newscaster on TV3 searching for something reassuringly cynical to say about the arrest of the Iraqi mass murderer was comical”,  … “While I was away, I considered scaling back this blog (.. only have so much time …). But when I read the amazing comments on here, I have to admit that I am moved. One thing is clear to me: in these extraordinary times blogs are the most political form of writing we have, possibly the most significant in terms of changing people's minds.”  and some 134 comments plus mine>>Roger, I think you are right about blogging, now, this year and next.

It's like the 89-91 Berlin wall dropping (so now I live in Slovakia) -- if I was younger & single I'd be learning Arabic.

 

See this blog-forum with lots of Arabic - English.  It is a realistic option to hope, expect, a free market, free speech, somewhat democratic Iraq to lead to massive Arab & Muslim changes.  Even Palestine will have hope, after Arafat is gone.

 

The terrible euro-bureaucratic hell of integrating French Muslims into the economic life is a huge issue, but the solution could be quite simple and easy -- emergency repeal of legal restrictions against Muslims taking whatever jobs folk will hire them for.  And require French language courses for those immigrants unable to speak French -- as long as France has the French language, their culture will prolly be OK. The expansion of the EU into the East will help the white, non-Muslim demographics, especially Catholic Poland (which ended most legal abortions).  Also provide lots more movement of young people.

 

The police letting the Arab gangs terrorize the neighbors has to stop.  Yet the increasing attraction of Le Pen, to get the power to reduce the immigration, is also frightening -- though as Le Pen as a movement gets larger, it gets much less radical fascist, though remaining anti-immigrant.  The French dole needs to be replaced by a French version of workfare, and get those Muslims to work, somewhere, in a factory.  That will be an easier radical change than shipping them out, since most of the unemployed Muslims presumably want jobs. And welcome back, Roger.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:13 | link | comments

Jeff notes “Sina Motallebi, the Iranian blogger who was arrested because of what he wrote on his weblog and was awaiting trial under the mullahs' thumb, has escaped Iran with his wife and young child and is safe in Europe.
And he's blogging again

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/03 00:10 | link | comments

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_12_01_archive.html#107167996201782672

Donald discusses the trial of Saddam, rightly noting that he must be found guilty.  In advance.>> It's not just a trial of Saddam, or even mostly.  Yes, it's a public accounting.  And a shaming of him, and Iraq for letting him continue; and pride at a new beginning and meeting a new test (the trial, nice Ellen).

 

It's also part of the significant trials of the OTHER terrorists; many of whom were just following orders.  What is guilt for top terrorists who really were afraid to fail?  I remember the evil stepmother Queen in Snow White to the huntsman: "bring me her heart!" 

"But majesty, the princess"...

"you know the penalty for failure!"

 

In the story, the huntsman brings a pigs heart -- in real life, the top guys would really murder.  What is guilt?  Also, quickly establishing Iraqi jurisdiction will be excellent for when Iraqi victims of Saddam, after testifying against him -- sue all the organizations & countries who supported Saddam with money (including the USA).  For supporting terror by a dictator.

 

Is the world ready to hold the bankers liable for giving money to killers?  After Holocaust settlements, it might be.  France should be very, very, concerned.  (But I'm smiling!)  Make the money owners liable for dictators.  I dream of a World Without Dictators.

 

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002879.html

Kevin talks about Health Insurance (& the Medicare plan later)>> Medical costs are going up, too fast.  Why aren't there more med schools???  The AMA doesn't want them, too many doctors lower the prices charged.

 

How much is malpractice costing?  It should be itemized in the bill.

 

Say you're sick.  Treatment (1) cost $50 - 50% chance you'll get better.

Treatment (2), cost $500 - 80% you'll get better.

Treatment (3), cost $5000 - 90% you'll get better.

 

Which treatment do you "need"?  Who pays for which treatment?  Everybody dies, sometime. 

Does the answer change when it's only 5, 8, and 9% survival?  What is need?

(there are no right answers.)

 

At least demand that a new med school open, every year that costs go up, and accept preferentially foreign doctors for green cards (note! my wife's a Slovak doctor).

 

++ Hey puputonian -- your critique of Joe pretty much proves his point.  His mother, his dad, real people with real lives.  You, your PC ivory tower theoretical "healthcare providers" & "uninsured patients".  There might well be real people who are close to your theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if YOU haven't had lunch with any in the last 4 years.

 

Even Dean recognized that working class folk, like the pickup owners w/ the confed. flag, are NOT gonna vote for some bleeding heart liberal who is more concerned about being superior to the pathetic, than in helping real people get by. 

 

Your hate-the-rich "public virtue" (repeal Bush tax cuts!) is hypocritical, who has virtue when money is collected by the folks with guns?

 

And yeah, Joe types are prolly gonna be in trouble if there is a health crises -- and accept the $50 treatment.  And live, or not. 

 

Katherine comments “This has led to huge underfunding & overcrowding of emergency rooms in my state, which has almost certainly led to some deaths. "Everybody dies sometime" has got to rank up there with the all time least convincing arguments.”

>> So Katherine, you don't like the reality that everybody dies, sometime. I don't either, but at least I don't deny it.

What treatment do people need: $50, $500, $5000?

 

(I guess I could add the $50 000-$500 000 that gives 94-98% survival, too...)

 

 

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11301

Front Page interview of Daniel Pipes on Pali response to Saddam “Their reaction shows again – as if one needed more proof – the radicalism and nihilism endemic to the Palestinians’ political life, the degree to which they reject existing realities and are attracted to whomever challenges the status quo. Not until they come to terms with those realities, and the existence of a Jewish State of Israel in particular, can the Palestinians make real progress. …

My hope is to be useful in developing responses to issues I know something about. These days, issues surrounding militant Islam especially absorb my attention, as this movement is hugely threatening, highly complex, and quite alien to Americans.”

 

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004338.html

On Winds about hate I was asked why tax loans are different>> First, loans are not grants -- they need to be repaid.  Second, your taxes go to repay the loan; so this means you didn't get "other peoples money", you got your own, in advance.

Third, you pay MORE in surcharge/ repayments (like a surtax).

 

The educational example is instructive -- allow a $25 000/year loan for four years.  The grad gets a $40 k/year job, 20% in income taxes = 8k.  Plus a 5% additional repayment = 2k; his repayment is that 2k + 8k = 10k.  The next year he owes $90k.

 

The sooner he pays it off, the sooner his taxloan charge is gone. ***This is the incentive for the recipient to take less loan, it's not free money -though it is, and is supposed to be, cheap***

 

The IRS, not some private bank, will be in charge of crediting the payments, and collecting.

 

 

 

A trend I'm certain to get worse -- morphing of anti-American terrorist funding into illegal drug based funding.

 

The war on terror can't be ended until the war on drugs winds way down.  Controlled and limited legal use of drugs. 

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004399.html  Winds of Change on Iraq

 

 

Samizdata asks about whether Hitler or Stalin is worse>>Pol Pot was the worst: 2.5 million murdered out of some 8-9 million.  And the Angry Left, which successfully made the US run (not walk, not with honor) away from Vietnam & SE Asia, has hidden it's guilt and shame for this for far too long.

 

Alan makes an excellent, chilling post about how likely he would have been to join the Hitler Youth.  Me too.

 

But he doesn't quite follow through.  Remember, Hitler lied about the concentration "work camps", claiming they were just to collect Jews.  Like the US concentration camps of Japs.   Many Germans supported ethnic camps, only a few supported them becoming death camps.

 

Hitler and his top staff decided on the genocide, but that is why HITLER is so evil; and Nazi = Hitler is made equally evil for other Leftist reasons.  Not Mussolini's or Franco's or (certainly not) Pinochet's fascisms--though they, too are real evils.

 

Had Hitler not murdered the 6 million Jews, and 4 million Gypsies & others, but left them near starving in the camps, this whole comparison would never happen.  USSR much worse. 

 

Yes, the German people voted for him in '33 -- after seeing how terrible the commies really were through the 20s.  The Treaty of Versailles is blamed for Hitler's rise, but Stalin was a known mass murderer BEFORE Hitler was chosen (to save Germany from the commies).

 

What is the right metric between Hitler & Stalin, if not folk killed?  How about median life?  Or a comparison of the median lives of each quintile (top top-mid mid bottom-mid bottom)?  It seems that the imagined daily life of each median quintile archetype, is better under the Nazis, except maybe the bottom--more likely to be targeted for death.  (Like Sgt. Mom's Lithuanian friend)

 

Note also that while the Nazis hated the "money grubbing Jews" (phrase from Easterblock's Kill Bill review), the Angry Left & communists hate just about all "money grubbers" -- and are increasingly, and unsurprisingly, anti-Jew.

 

And of course, the confusion of "public" with "gov't", where "we" means our gov't, makes it more likely that such abuses will occur in modern democracies.  Especially in response to external murdering threats.

 

 

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/001527.html

Freespeech on PETA and against mommies wearing fur >> Will, it's because real fur is so ... luxuriously warm, comfortable, pleasurable.

 

And why do women have abortions?  Because they enjoy the pleasure of sex ...

 

I have long imagined a seal-abortion group putting pregnant seals to sleep, then giving them partial birth abortions of the little seal pups -- and using and selling THAT fur.  With pictures of the procedures.  "No seals were killed for this fur!"  Uh, that would be a radical pro-life seal-abortion group.  [too radical?]

 

Adoption, instead of Abortion, has to be the cultural answer to the abortion problem.

 

Baghdadee on Prerequisites for Peace>> Woody, I agree with letting the rich get richer -- while focusing attention & social programs & aid at helping the poor help themselves get richer.  Note my phrasing -- only the poor can end their own poverty, by behaving differently.  Usually by getting a better job!  Getting a better job requires different behavior -- it also requires somebody to offer that job.

 

The reason economists focus on "economic growth" is that only growing economies see a lot more job offers.  But those employers HAVE to be "rich", to have the money to start the business; and they only offer jobs because they want to get "richer".  If the system doesn't allow the rich business folk to get richer, they will not offer more jobs.

 

Woody, I totally DISAGREE about "utopianism" being the cause of wars.  Rather, destructive envy is the main cause: Jew hate due to envy; intellectual hate (in Cambodia, everybody who was educated was murdered) due to envy; Tutsi power hated and envied by Hutus; successful Chinese envied & hated in Malaysia; successful Koreans in black US neighborhoods, envied & hated. 

 

See the Angry Left, and their hatred of Bush, almost always including references to his tax cuts (for the rich!) -- the US Angry Left envies & hates the US rich (& powerful).  My point is to support low taxes in Iraq; an Alaska-modeled "Iraq oil fund" to pay every Iraq (except not Ba'athists?) a monthly dividend so that few other gov't programs are needed for the poor -- and be as "business friendly" as possible so that all of Iraq can follow the Singapore & Hong Kong models of business growth.  And, like many in America, replace destructive envy with admiration and competition -- we can do BETTER. 

 

I truly believe that, within 5 years, the Iraq economy will be the admired model of the Arab and Muslim world. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/19/03 00:11 | link | comments (1)

On freespeech comments on the Vatican digressing off topic and what to do about other dictators>> Where we when? Under Clinton when the Hutus started murdering; and the Muslims at Srbrenica were watched, and protected in a safe area, by the UN while the Serbs murdered them. And the current Angry Left was, mostly, much younger and very satisfied that Nixon ran from Vietnam--yet the Left is quite silent about their implicit support of Pol Pot in his Killing Fields of Cambodia. The US is not, yet, able to change all dictator regimes militarily. But 45 have gone to 43 with Saddam and Charles Taylor (Liberia) out.

I doubt the intellectual honesty of the "what about country X and their dictator" critiques, because few such people advocate US strikes against Iran, No. Korea, etc. And I do not advocate strikes, at this time -- but I DO support 43 more regime changes as good policy. I prefer pushing for free speech, and the creation of a NATO Human Rights enforcement group (democracies, only, willing and able to strike for regime change). And yes, I now dream: of A World Without Dictators. In my lifetime.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/17/03 22:39 | link | comments (3)

 

Donald  opens the questions about Internationalizing Iraq.>>  The US either supports the lesser of two evils, or lets the greater evil win.  That's the realpolitik since WW II, and the terrible commies were the MAIN enemy through the cold war; the Iranian Mullahs were a bigger threat in 83.  In the judgment of the gov't (though I agree). [to Joel, writing about Saddam in 83]

 

I think you're being intellectually silly, if not dishonest, if you truly believe Bush's new policy of non-support for dictators should have been in place under Reagan, and now it's "too late".  If you believe what you wrote, you should be a BIG supporter of the NEW sentiment against any support for dictators.  And OK, point out Uzbekistan and even Saudi Arabia as problems.  But Saddam in 83??? That's BS.

 

More on target, there IS a need for a world organization, of democracies (ONLY), occasionally willing and able to use force for regime change against non-democracies.  I suggest expanding NATO to include a Human Rights Enforcement Group, but the main point is that a UN with 45 x now 43 (minus Saddam & Charles Taylor) dictator run countries is NOT the place.

 

And the friendly ghost has a good report of UN failure.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/17/03 22:16 | link | comments

More Kevin and Armed Liberal about Israel, and AL’s condition 3, illegal settlements of Israel must stop>> US money "can" be used, negatively, to push Israel into doing something, including dismantling all illegal (Israeli OR Int'l law) settlements. Or, more likely, offering the new settlement houses as compensation to true Pali refugees instead of a "right of return" inside of Israel. (A true refugee was born in Israel and fled/ was driven out -- the children born in Pali refugee camps are not) But the first step needs to be the Palis, and the Israelis want it to be shutting down Hamas. Pretty reasonable. But unrealistic -- Pali civil war. The unwillingness/ inability of Palis to stop terrorism is the main obstacle. Here's an alternate first step that the UN, EU, and Israeli pundits should be calling for: free speech in PA controlled territory. On the other hand, Gaza Strip City could be created, with enough money, as a 6 million Pali inhabited metropolis, with housing, jobs, water, etc. How much money? How well used?

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/17/03 22:15 | link | comments

On the Baghdadee blog-forum general comments >> Is this the place to Congratulate Iraq on getting him? There was a question about why it is so hard; but now it's why WAS it so hard? Because he was hiding, well.  I hope most Iraqis feel safer knowing Saddam is not coming back.

 

Can I ask the Iraqis -- who are your favorites, most & least, on the GC?

Or maybe that should be a separate thread, too?

 

On trial of Saddam>>Criminal Justice is based, partly, on restitution.  There can be no full restitution and only very limited repatriation (eg homes confiscated to be returned -- but where do the later dwellers go?).

 

Fair?  The UN Dec'l notwithstanding, there is no single accepted international concept of "fair", nor even an accepted method of creating such a concept.  The newly established Int'l Court has no jurisdiction over crimes before it was founded, so if Saddam was tried there, his pre-2001 crimes would not apply.

 

How can one support the UN in trying a dictator criminal that they were unwilling to authorize explicitly using force to remove?  They're a bad joke, a mistake, because of their accepting democratic countries as no more moral than dictatorships.  I hope the Iraqis, in some way, try him and decide what fair is.  For them.  The most important aspect is to try to get justice for the survivors and victims.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/17/03 22:12 | link | comments