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

Michael says goodbye to Dean>> See David & Clay & Britt on www.corante.com & www.blaserco.com for technical blog - internet discussions; Dean's not gone, yet.  The model is adapting, quickly; and even w/o Trippi at Dean's campaign, the success of Dean energizing the Dems is undeniable.

 

Bush should be unbeatable, but because of the total, constant, pervasive, (and I think unfair/ untrue) attacks by Bush-haters, he is NOT unbeatable.  Or, he's at least as vulnerable today as Dean was likely to lead the Dems a month ago.

 

Roger writes well about BBC as liars, and French pols being bribed by Saddam’s oil >> Another good job, Roger.  I hope you start thinking more about French envy, and hate against the US because of it; and "rich Jew" envy, and hate against Jews because of it.

 

I have.  I wrote "Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate" http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069364289#174992  but haven't had time to write about the anti-American = anti-rich = anti-Jew hatreds.

 

Tax the rich becomes punish the rich becomes hate the rich.

 

 

Donald writes of an Army boast to capture Osama this year>>It can only seize him, if he's alive.  Which I still doubt; this statement will make the Army look bad -- more Bush Lies! junk -- if he IS dead and they don't capture him.

 

Or, if he's not dead and they don't capture him.   And the army doesn't look any better if he's alive and he's captured and a) the Army said nothing before, or b) the Army promised they'd get him.  There's no upside to this statement; that seems dumb.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/30/04 16:39 | link | comments

Michael also links to Berman’s fine anti-Left rant, and gets comments, like harry saying Bush is not following Berman’s rhetoric>> Harry, I don't think there's much neo-con obsession with Chalabi over the last 4 months -- have links?  Bush seems determined to do better than Wilson -- even if it means not giving UN veto holding, oil-deciding corrupt France the "permission slip" power its corrupt leaders crave.

 

If you, harry, are unwilling to criticize the Left for opposing Berman's language, it's almost hypocritical to complain about Bush not following through.  Bush stated, like a leader, that the US had been wrong in supporting dictators for 60 years.

 

Now the liberals can try to hold him to account and follow this, or oppose him -- the Left is opposing him, making follow through less likely.  The Angry Left, like in their implicit support of Saddam, is against Bush forcing regime change on other dictators.

 

So complain about the payouts, not the Iraq regime change!

 

Good discussion about corporate DNA and some possible problems. >> Bush as kleptocrat, relative to Clinton, doesn't wash -- the dot.com bubble sizzle and fizzle were Clinton's. Enron & Worldcom abuses occurred under Clinton -- and Bush is putting some of the guilty in jail (yes, it's just to look good. But that's the purpose of democracy, to have a leader do the things that look good.)

I am truly afraid of crony capitalism, and think Bush is fairly bad on this front, but every big corporation's main mission is to make profit for the owners. Regulators always get co-opted.

You totally fail to mention the agency problem: that owners of corporation are splitting a zero-sum pie of profit with the managers, who have been substantially strengthened and emboldened with poison pills, anti-takeover (save bad managers!) laws, etc. Where are corporate raiders now? Almost gone, because it's so difficult -- but raiders were the market's way of stopping super rich managers from getting too much more.

Still, envy of the super rich, combines badly with democratic corruption--voting in favor of using gov't/ other people's/ money for your own projects.

++Plus some details about software & the Dean campaign, and delegates, etc. >> Ideal software at promoting a message, combined with a bad message, will NOT get good results.

 

Booting Saddam was good.

 

Maybe Bush lied on WMDs, maybe the reconstruction could be, should be, better.

 

I, personally, dream ... of a World Without Dictators.  (see my blog tomgrey.motime.com)  Really.  This dream I have, I believe is good.  Dean, and the Dems, and the Angry Left -- you, not me -- need to understand that, best or worst social software notwithstanding,  the Nov 2004 election winner will believe that...

booting Saddam was good.

 

Clay Shirky suggests that Dean’s effective use of social software resulted in an echo chamber negative effect, as well.  Britt disagrees. >> What's needed is middle class Americans to take care of their own problems instead of wanting gov't handouts.  Maybe blogging will help--but the coopting happens in return for gov't cash/ programs.

 

Britt's point about social software getting Dean frontrunner status is important, as is Jon L's note about "Front-runner" syndrome.

 

But what issues?  Bush hate ABB is not an issue.  Cut & run in Iraq; or is it stick it out and reconstruct?  Was it good or bad to boot Saddam, or whatever?

 

It's interesting that you don't "give a fuck about the Democratic Party" -- so why should most voters?  (And doesn't casual use of deliberately offensive words, proving your hipness, increase the need for HATE to demonstrate vehemence? perhaps not an issue; though perhaps yes?)

 

Oh I know the issue, punish, er, tax the rich! They're all money grubbing JJJJJJ, er, grubbers, anyway.

 

Roger posts a great Paul Berman article on the Left>>Where is it(?): When Palestinians love their children, more than they hate Israel, there will be peace.

 

When the Left loves the (real) poor, more than they hate the rich -- they will let the poor get richer.  Paul Berman's article's great.  Not too personal for me, but great.  The Angry Left is making Bush's job harder, so his failures ARE the Left's responsibility, some -- but they'll avoid it like the lack of guilt for Cambodia's Killing Fields. 

 

Bush ain't great ... or is he?  Saddam was terrible, it IS GREAT he's gone.

++Let's also remember why France would always veto UN SC action.

French corruption --  Oil!  or is that OOOOIIIIILLLL!!!

 

 

Great note by Brad, " But there is still the awkward fact that America's financial markets do a better job of channeling capital and controlling corporate managers than any other system yet devised (whether the investment directorate of GOSPLAN, the bottom-up investment "program" of the Great Leap Forward, or the big bank-crony capitalism Germano-Japanese model). " >>  Great quote, Brad.  You might have noted that the manager performance creed ROI is also the single most objective measure of material wealth creation.

 

The super rich are pulling ever ahead of the mere "rich" (US middle class, house-car owning, vacationing normal folk; top 20% in the world).  China lost manufacturing jobs, too -- robots are making more; to the profit of the owners of capital. 

 

Too bad Dems have been lying about Soc. Security so retiring boomers don't really own their own pension funds.

 

Gabriel Syme of White Rose, via Samizdata, discusses ID cards; and 3-d, vs 2d, etc.  And Identity theft, with a claim of $24 bill in loss >>Sorry, Gabriel, I flatly do not believe $24 billion in identity theft for either 2003 or 2004.  It seems high by at least 1, prolly 2 orders of magnitude.  (spam scams are not identity theft.)  

 

But the War on Drugs, too, justifies huge snooping, since nothing else stops rich folk from taking drugs (and ID cards won't, either).  There is, in some sense, a race to rid the world of dictators, and stupid drug laws, while the security fears of the people (sheeple?) accept ever greater privacy intrusions.

 

Brazil (in Czech, not Slovak) was on over the Christmas breaks -- the security apparatus & bureau fumbling are more frightening, because of more likely realization, than Orwell.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/29/04 20:11 | link | comments

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004614

Claudia Rosset is so very right, that TYRANNY, not WMDs, is the problem, the main threat.

 

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/001876.html

Del at FreeSpeech writes about Carnegie’s selective amnesia on WMDs.  Worse than Human Rights Watch, in many ways, but related.

 

Grim at FreeSpeech notes a ceremony to denounce Baath party membership and pledge help to Iraq, some 2 000 >>Great start!

We need more events like this, AND JOBS, like from local mayors/ security chiefs, to make more of these guys deputies.  And put them as the third or fourth in group patrols, trying to do good and stop bad.

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#006026

More comments on Jeff & the UN>>HRW wants a very specific set of reasons before endorsing "humanitarian considerations" as a justification for "war".  Of course, I don't think Congress has yet "declared War" on Iraq, so there's a sense that the US is not, and was not, "at war" -- but we all accept that sending in the Marines means we're at war, with or with a UN or a US Congress "permission slip".  (Am I offending everybody?)

 

HRW also wants inhumane regimes to change without war, so do I.  But I'm willing to support war, against inhumane regimes, even if they are not actively perpetrating mass murder in the last 24 hours, or 24 days, or 24 months.  Jeff is right to ask HRW for their standard -- how many have to be killed in how many time units for HRW to accept it?

 

[BTW, Stubby, I put 1% of the 18-45 year olds killed as being "too expensive" for any good other than defense.  The Confederates were justified in defending themselves at their level of casualties; ending slavery was VERY GOOD, but TOO EXPENSIVE by the North.  Once started, though, Lincoln could not stop without it being a severe loss.  Note that Brazil ended slavery in 1886 or so, without a civil war.  Containing the South was a reasonable alternative to consider, but almost certain to lead to electoral defeat.]

 

HRW also wants the UN SC to be a world gov't, world policeman.  But it's not, either.  And, with dictators, doesn't deserve to be.  Jeff seems mostly right that HRW is trying to take away "humanitarian" reasons for Bush's war.  This is anti-Bush bullpucky, unless and until they quantify QUITE a bit more than they're willing to do, so far.  Honesty.  Transparency.  Accountability -- applies to anti-war folk, too.

 

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000472.html

Centerfield notes that we’re in unusual times>>We are, indeed, in unusual times -- when reasonable people differ on whether we are AT WAR, or should be.

 

There is also the matter of what our goals are, if we are at war, but these are difficult to reasonably discuss when there is basic disagreement on whether or not we are at war, a) due to 9/11 attacks against us, or b) wrongly, due to our war response to 9/11 instead of police response.

 

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000468.html

Centerfield also notes some Left snarks about Tom F >>As long as the ME is full of countries that severely restrict free speech, leaders who are afraid of words, they are going to remain backward.

 

Yep, National Geographic candidates -- except for oil.  Which the Allies of WW I and WW II allowed the Arab leaders to benefit from when deposing the Turk Muslims empire.  They have not gone through the required cultural changes that lead to modern, property market oriented wealth creating societies -- yet their leaders are rich.

 

The Arab street is right to be angry, but the US (& corps, etc., puh leeese) is the wrong target--it is their own leaders who are oppressing them.

 

Arafat of the PA is a fine example; elected, once, for life (?), with thugs to beat up any Pali who questions any of his mistakes or corruptions.  No free speech, little development; lots of resentment, but why isn't there "enough to change leaders"?

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/04 22:30 | link | comments

Unofficial, test version of:

AEI Today –  Events, news, and commentary from the American Enterprise Institute

New Publications, with comments by Tom Grey, for Monday, January 26, 2004

"Democracy Anxiety," by Reuel Marc Gerecht
Article in the Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19771/

“The Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad is now at odds with Iraqi Shiite history and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most influential cleric in Iraq, and probably the most renowned divine in Shiite Islam.”  Iraq's Shiites are nervous they won't get to vote; Americans are nervous about letting them.  Reuel Marc Gerecht discusses some of the historical background, and recent mistakes, in current Iraq.  Unfortunately he doesn’t mention local elections, for local mayors, with limited but real, democratically derived, power.  He does discuss the church-state separation issue, with the important note that Sistani is more on the side of separation than the Iranian Shiite theocratic mullahs, or the more militant Sadr – who has already perhaps made Bremer blink once.

"Simple Justice," by Charles Murray
Article in the Sunday Times (London), January 25, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19766/

Charles Murray looks at the current ideal of alternative, non-prison punishment, attempting to make criminals “aware of the impact they've actually had on [the victims] and, ideally, apologise”.  He contrasts this new view with the more historic one, both morally and practically. “By any realistic measure, British criminal justice historically was superb. Its philosophical core was retributive justice, applied consistently and without apology. Isn't it time for its return?”

"Leadership and the Fear Factor: Fear Is More Reliable," by Michael A. Ledeen
Article in MIT Sloan Management Review, January 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19769/

Michael A. Ledeen  writes that “Fear is a four-letter word in companies today, but CEO's rhetoric of "love" often inspires more cynicism than genuine affection. Leaders would do well to develop a more sophisticated understanding of each term.”  He notes interesting issues of the higher reliability of fear, the greater blame against the leader if love was the emotional glue.  Not at all surprisingly, “People want clear rules, honesty and mutual trust.”  Without quite saying so, he is calling for more honest performance reviews, according to clear standards.  This almost certainly would improve teaching, too.

 

 
"U.S. Enters New Expansive 'Proof of Primacy,'" by Thomas Donnelly
Article in Navy News Week, January 26, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19773/
Thomas Donnelly notes that the invasion of Iraq marked the energetic exercise of U.S. power not simply to protect the status quo of American global preeminence but to extend the current liberal international order.  He argues that this seems unchallenged, despite the “long-held American belief that the exercise of power, even by the United States itself, is inherently corrupting and an invitation to tyranny.”  (Why can’t I avoid hearing 3 little pigs singing: Who’s afraid of the Big U.S, the Big U.S., the Big U.S.?)  Drawing upon William Wohlforth’s work on the stability of a unipolar world,  there’s a reasonable explanation of how no other power center has grown to challenge the US.  What Donnelly doesn’t say, though I dream of, is a World Without Dictators – in my lifetime.  Through evolutionary regime change in China; more energetic regime change throughout the ME.

 

"It's a Family Affair," by Roger Bate
Article on Tech Central Station, January 26, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19770/
Roger Bate considers the new push to blame fast food merchants for obesity, especially in children. The pressure on firms has been increasing, while ignoring the problem that parents (and schools) are to blame for not enabling their children to burn enough calories.  Roger is too easy on the schools, who claim that reading, for instance, is more important than outside play.  While true, there is some balance.  The schools never compare the difference between 4 hours reading, no exercise, versus 3.5 hours reading, 30 minutes exercise, versus 3 hours reading, 60 minutes exercise.  If there were only these three choices, I would want MY kids getting 60 minutes of exercise.  I also want more explanations of the responsibilities of parents to read with their children – and third graders who can’t read at even a second grade level, THEIR parents should be in trouble.  Maybe the principal should send a note to the parent’s boss?

 

"Mishandling Terrorism," by Laurie Mylroie
Article on National Review Online, January 23, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19767/

The US has mishandled terrorism since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Bush has explained what went wrong: That attack was treated entirely as a law-enforcement issue; "some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison."

Laurie Mylroie further explains that “Trials are narrowly focused. A prosecutor aims to secure convictions and maximal sentences for the defendants in the courtroom; pursuing the question of possible state sponsorship is rarely relevant to that task.”  Terrorists supported by state and quasi-state organizations are not going to be deterred by mere law enforcement.  As the Dem anti-Bush, anti-war candidates posture, the law enforcement paradigm is somewhat seductive.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/27/04 18:47 | link | comments

(via Glenn at Instapundit) Detroit News is looking for (volunteer) bloggers! Time to ask AEI!

 

Daniel Drezner on traditional marriage, noting that it’s better in almost every way. And staying married through the bad times is usually better than getting divorced.

 

The BBC and the Brit gov’t doesn’t like the fact that the people want to protect their homes, including with the use of guns. So the people are ignored.

 

David at Front Page reprints a long article about Grover Norquist being an ally of Islamofascists. He may have to go, this will be interesting to watch.

 

David offers help in documenting and reporting bias in education, usually liberal bias. Pretty good, but inactive since Nov 2004 – they need a group blog!

 

Baghdadee on CPA >> Insofar as elections need voting rolls, a voting place, voting ballots, and candidates, I don't see any reason why more Iraqi cities don't already have votes on "temporary" mayors. I understand that steps towards such earlier were rebuffed by the US led forces.

It is important to get the gov't/ reconstruction budget on the table soon -- how much money, which has to be split on the top priorities. Local Iraqi mayors should be making more decisions; the transition should be that US led forces control some money, and Iraqi elected officials control some money.

Over time, the money/ power of the Iraqis will be greater than the CPA; and the locals will have more experience.

 

Kurdo wants immediate independence of Kurds in Kurdistan>>Slovakia and the Czech Rep. split, too, after post WW I treaties. There should, eventually, be an independent Kurdistan. But that should be based on referendum, and records of ownership pre-91, pre-68 ...

It will probably need a referendum -- and Bush will be against it because a) it means Iraq will devolve into 3 states, instead of 1; b) Turkey's Kurds will want to join, and the 15-20 million Kurds outside of Iraq should prolly be part of a greater Kurdistan, too.

Please push for mayor elections, in Kirkuk, etc -- and fight over the voting rolls! Get Kurds who were refugees to be Kirkuk voting rolls!

But please, PLEASE, stop calling it genocide. Ethnic cleansing, yes -- the US-USSR allies allowed it after WW II (Sudetenland Germans, millions). Palis leaving/ fleeing Israel. Cleansing is bad, but not genocide.

 

Jeff notes the zeal of the bloggers wanting to spread the blog-gospel.

 

NRO's Rosenberg notes Abortion Vulnerabilities, “A whopping 77 percent of Americans age 18 to 29 favor the ban on partial-birth abortion signed by President Bush last year. Perhaps even more interesting, 57 percent of obstetricians and gynecologists favor the ban.”

“As a moderate Senate candidate from North Carolina, Edwards opposed partial-birth abortion. "I think partial-birth abortions should be banned," Edwards told the Associated Press on September 19, 1998. "These are terribly gruesome procedures."

But the very next year, Edwards flip-flopped, voting against the partial-birth abortion ban in 1999. Now Edwards the presidential candidate strongly supports abortion on demand.”  The pro-life is gaining, and will continue to gain among the responsible young.

 

Sean wants to thank God for allowing tarrifs to support protectionism>>Sean, the same can be said of "white" jobs going to "blacks"; the blacks are taking ever more of the good jobs. More realistically, Asian children.

An Indian in India making $15/hr doing YOUR job, or MINE, deserves it more. The US needs to make it easier, and cheaper, to start your OWN business, and not rely on some big profit-making corp giving overpaid cushy jobs.

And maybe get tougher, including taxes, on overpaid top execs.

 

Sean also thinks setting a date to leave Iraq is bad news>>you're right -- setting the deadline in time, rather than in status, is terrible.

 

Donald on abortion, asking if killing the old is basically the same. >>Killing dependents because they are inconvenient is similar in both cases.

The inconvenience of unwanted pregnancy is less and more than the inconvenience of elderly care. Less in that there can be more help by others for the elderly, like a (mostly uncaring, professional, bureaucratic) gov't institution. More because only the bio-mother can realistically carry the baby to term.

Less, again, because pregnancy is time limited, some 9 months max. Poor Nancy Reagan has been, and will be, taking care of the Pres. for years.

Adoption, giving the baby up, must become the SOCIALLY approved method of avoiding the burdensome responsibility of raising a child.

There was a list, around Roe v. Wade time, of famous women like Billie Jean King, who had had abortions.

No such list of women able to acknowledge giving babies up for adoption has been produced. Pro-life supporters must be more accepting of poor women giving babies up -- and accuse the rich women of being selfish, killing for convenience.

No elderly should be killed as long as there are any, like Church hospitals, willing to take care of them -- within their voluntarily collected budget resources. Pain reducing palliative (?) care must be a priority--yes, morphine for the terminally ill.

Gov't institutions for caring of unwanted dependents is more important than farm, airline, or any business subsidy; and even more important than most college gov't grants.

Every human life should be highly respected.

 

Ornery on Dems seeing the light, with Mech_Engr explaining how cutting a poor guy’s [income] tax in half is a bigger percentage cut than cutting a rich guys tax by a third >> Good example ME, but you missed an "income" when you mentioned the rich paying so much. In fact, all workers pay So. Sec. & other payroll taxes, etc., in the case of So. Sec. the middle classes usually pay a higher proportion of their income.

As I'm sure you know, and possibly even support -- I do. I'd favor a 10 or even 15% required retirement savings account, so people retire on THEIR money, instead of on somebody else's money (as we have now).

All over the world, destructive envy tries to stop anybody from doing "too well". Those who care about Bill Gates' multi-million $ home, and consider it unfair, and thus unjust, are really too filled with envy.

The biggest help to any deserving poor person is to offer them a job, or a better job. When Dems understand this, they'll be more helpful; lower taxes on business are the best way to get more offers of better jobs to more folks.

++ By the way, Jed's silly "Wealth's not created, it's just transferred" is a huge distraction; since subjective value is so key to wealth. Somebody with a 3 bedroom house and no fear of children being kidnapped might well feel wealthier, and choose the 3 bedroom life over a huge mansion behind security walls, lots more money, and a fear of having his kids held for ransom (in South America, for instance).

But accountants, and making investment decisions to minimize taxes, actually reduce the amount of wealth created by greatly reducing taxes paid by a person/ organization. It makes economic sense for an org to spend $3 mil on risky/ silly investment that returns only $2 mil, in order to save $1.5 mil in taxes, even if it costs an extra $100k to the accountant.

The current tax mess is full of this nonsense -- a flat rate tax (like Russia! Like Slovakia!) would reduce this. In Russia's case, it substantially increased the tax revenue. It was just passed in Slovakia, will be closer to neutral (deliberately), but in both cases it increases the ...

Return on Investment.

Big RoI in the past is why the US is so wealthy today, and why Japan has been stagnating for over a decade, despite the Japanese having much higher savings rates. Just putting huge amounts of Talants in the ground is not a good investment (see the Bible!). RoI is the nearest measure to wealth creation we have (all reduced to $ though, more or less security not well included)

The rich are usually rich because they have the talent/ skill of squeezing higher RoI out of investment dollars, and thus creating bigger future pies; so, in theory, everybody can have a bigger piece.

++ Final point, tax cuts to avoid Clinton's HUGE dot.com bubble popped recession was a good idea; it worked so well many folk forget that a 1929 sized wealth evaporation occurred under Clinton, but Bush's tax cuts (and Greenspan's fed rate reductions) really let the USA have a soft, soft landing. Few Euro countries have less than 7% unemployment ...

The tax cut went some to consumers, who kept demand up, buying stuff (on credit, etc); and it went to the rich, who can invest it, and create/ save jobs.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what the optimal macro balance is -- and few even agree on what could measure that balance (I suggest unemployment). I suspect Bush's cuts were pretty close to optimal, given the HUGE bubble pop. Nobody will ever be able to prove it, though, even if it's true -- or not. Such is the state of the art of economics.

 

An interesting paper about the weak response to bankruptcy in CEE, including criticizing the reluctance to go after individual debtors who have helped cause the bankruptcy.

 

Roger discusses another debate, sad that Edwards fumbled on a question about Islam. Comments drifted on about Bush and the deficit>>Lower taxes means better investment, by owners who want to profit. Lower tax rates on businesses means smarter investments, since tax dodges are relatively less beneficial.

Most gov't spending has lots of pork. The deficit can be cut, immediately, by less spending -- say a 10% cut all fed salaries, etc. But it (prolly) won't happen. Until the Dems accept that deficits are so bad for the future, that CUTS today are justified, and they can name the cuts.

And heck, there might be enough Bush-hate and big deficits to make the Dems start seriously looking to cut stuff; many Reps would vote for non-military cuts proposed by Dems.

Estimates of the future are never truth or lies, they're estimates. With error rates. Even global warming (tax gas!!! yechh ... but...)

 

 

Michael notes that current polls show a blow out for Bush, from Tim Blair to a keen map making site.>>Bush may be a crony capitalist big-business supporter, but the economy is doing incredibly well considering the dot.com bubble AND 9/11.

And Bush did good to boot Saddam.

How can the Dems run against a big deficit? Where are they gonna cut? No cuts, well, that means, punish, er, tax the rich!

It is FUN. Too much. Now, get to work, or else your job is going to Shanghai, or is that Bangalore; or how about Bratislava? (Bratislava? Never heard of it! 50 miles East of Vienna, cap of Slovakia -- my job's already here, you see.)

 

Roger opens his ballot, including his change of minds>>Mina, see CNN for SOTU; 3rd paragraph "thousands of American servicemen and women", later "skilled and determined military', "dealing with thugs in Iraq", "taken the hardest duty... skill and courage ... sorrow when one is lost", "America is proud of you." The Pres. was pretty darn good in supporting & acknowledging the US military.

Debra, I'll prolly support Bush, though the Libertarian party (Harry Browne? who cares -- it's the real small gov't party of principle) is the one to go for if you really want less gov't. Especially in a close election, since a Lib vote can't really be misinterpreted as a big gov't vote, AND the losing side is more likely to steal the best ideas of the Libs.

Unfortunately, politics is biased in favor of big gov't -- solving problems, doing things, being good, etc. While hiding the ugly truth that they use tax money, money taken by the threat of violence, by force, to do whatever they do. [Or they borrow, printing 'counterfeit' money (which may result in the inflation tax).]

Roger, great idea, making your blog open ballot! I'm very interested in John E. because the US needs a good Dem in order to make the Rep public position better, less pork filled. Maybe even take the best Lib. idea (vouchers? um, Reps already got that one. Limited drug legalization? helps in the terror war...)

But, after personally experiencing negative emotional problems, I'm become a supporter of abstinence for the unmarried, and faithfulness for the married. Yes, it helps that I'm happily married. But I used to believe in "responsible promiscuity". Now I don't think it's generally possible. Although I won't claim none can follow it, I DO claim more are hurt trying to follow it than would be hurt trying to be chaste.

And the idea of responsible promiscuity is particularly bad for poor people. More divorce, more abortions, more unwed mothers; more children of poor folk who can't read when they get out of high school. I believe promiscuity is a big, negative influence. What do you believe about abstinence & poverty?

 

 

Donald refers to Belmont club and the special forces being used in the Bekaa valley, to root out Syria’s domination of Lebannon. >>It would be great! Well could be; and prolly would be under Bush. We need a world without dictators, and military force is the fastest, though perhaps not the cheapest (though maybe), and perhaps not the most moral (though maybe); perhaps not the best way, though maybe.

But actual war prolly not before Nov. 2004, unless there is really good intel that Saddam's WMDs are in the Bekaa...

 

Donald also notes that the OSB is putting the start of the recession into Nov 2000, thus under Clinton; but also claiming no matter.>> Actually, it DOES matter that the recession was Clinton's, and that Bush jacked up the deficit to counter it. Bush's deficits then become, arguably, Clinton's fault -- until the current recovery.

That's Keynesian theory; gov't should deficit spend in recession to avoid depression. Bush did that. Now, will he start cutting spending to avoid inflation?

The painful joblessness of the recovery, as well as the slowly sinking (rapidly?) dollar, mean that inflation is not yet a big problem. Should be around, let me guess, Dec, 2004! A tight budget then? I'll believe it when I see it; actually a bit more likely from a Dem.

 

++[Michael on metropoliticals]>>It's too soon to be sure of Dem or Rep in Nov, unless you're already party committed. John Edwards has a 56 page .pdf on his positions, that I downloaded but slept on instead of reading last night. I suspect it's full of fine generalizations of desirable outcomes, without the tough choices of how to fund gov't actions. The big gov't Dems like endless gov't programs, paid for by "somebody else"; what a lie, but that's what Bush is giving the country, anyway.

The libertarian position of civil AND economic liberty will be influential to both parties, in differing amounts at different times. The losing Dems are most likely to take more of the most popular; perhaps ending the war on drug (using people).

But Pakistan has nukes, so all Islamic dictatorships are in line to get them in the next decade or so. Every dictatorship that is left alone will, in the not too distant future, have nukes. This is real, and really scary -- even to me in Slovakia. Lots of red states coming.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/26/04 21:44 | link | comments

Winds of Change notes the silly UK Lib Dem MP who thinks, if she was in a Pali situation, hopeless, she might become a suicide bomber, too. >>Ross has a point, a very good point.
WHY is there "no hope for the future"?
WHY can't the PA help this woman and her family have a house, educate her children, create a little more wealth?

WHY? Because of Arafat.

There's little hope without free speech.  When Arafat assited Pali thugs take children out of schools, and send them to throw rocks at Israelis -- and kill any who disagree; there is little hope with Arafat.

And the world ignores the Pali killing Pali scourge, so there's little hope there.

Where is the Pali newspaper calling on Arafat to step down, to resign???  Nowhere, and no hope -- until the UN and the external folk start demanding that Palis start respecting the human rights of the people living there.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/23/04 20:11 | link | comments

http://www.ornery.org/forums/essays/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=000405&p=2#000066

Ornery on Dems seeing the light, with Mech_Engr explaining how cutting a poor guy’s [income] tax in half is a bigger percentage cut than cutting a rich guys tax >> Good example ME, but you missed an "income" when you mentioned the rich paying so much.  In fact, all workers pay So. Sec. & other payroll taxes, etc., in the case of So. Sec. the middle classes usually pay a higher proportion of their income.

 

As I'm sure you know, and possibly even support -- I do.  I'd favor a 10 or even 15% required retirement savings account, so people retire on THEIR money, instead of on somebody else's money (as we have now).

 

All over the world, destructive envy tries to stop anybody from doing "too well".  Those who care about Bill Gates' multi-million $ home, and consider it unfair, and thus unjust, are really too filled with envy.

 

The biggest help to any deserving poor person is to offer them a job, or a better job.  When Dems understand this, they'll be more helpful; lower taxes on business are the best way to get more offers of better jobs to more folks.

++ By the way, Jed's silly "Wealth's not created, it's just transferred" is a huge distraction; since subjective value is so key to wealth.  Somebody with a 3 bedroom house and no fear of children being kidnapped might well feel wealthier, and choose the 3 bedroom life over a huge mansion behind security walls, lots more money, and a fear of having his kids held for ransom (in South America, for instance).

 

But accountants, and making investment decisions to minimize taxes, actually reduce the amount of wealth created by greatly reducing taxes paid by a person/ organization.  It makes economic sense for an org to spend $3 mil on risky/ silly investment that returns only $2 mil, in order to save $1.5 mil in taxes, even if it costs an extra $100k to the accountant. 

 

The current tax mess is full of this nonsense -- a flat rate tax (like Russia!  Like Slovakia!) would reduce this.  In Russia's case, it substantially increased the tax revenue.  It was just passed in Slovakia, will be closer to neutral (deliberately), but in both cases it increases the ...

Return on Investment.

 

Big RoI in the past is why the US is so wealthy today, and why Japan has been stagnating for over a decade, despite the Japanese having much higher savings rates.  Just putting huge amounts of Talants in the ground is not a good investment (see the Bible!).  RoI is the nearest measure to wealth creation we have (all reduced to $ though, more or less security not well included)

 

The rich are usually rich because they have the talent/ skill of squeezing higher RoI out of investment dollars, and thus creating bigger future pies; so, in theory, everybody can have a bigger piece.

++ Final point, tax cuts to avoid Clinton's HUGE dot.com bubble popped recession was a good idea; it worked so well many folk forget that a 1929 sized wealth evaporation occurred under Clinton, but Bush's tax cuts (and Greenspan's fed rate reductions) really let the USA have a soft, soft landing.  Few Euro countries have less than 7% unemployment ...

 

The tax cut went some to consumers, who kept demand up, buying stuff (on credit, etc); and it went to the rich, who can invest it, and create/ save jobs.

Nobody,

and I mean nobody, knows what the optimal macro balance is -- and few even agree on what could measure that balance (I suggest unemployment).  I suspect Bush's cuts were pretty close to optimal, given the HUGE bubble pop.  Nobody will ever be able to prove it, though, even if it's true -- or not.  Such is the state of the art of economics.

 

http://www.tu-freiberg.de/~wwwfak6/paper/schoenfelder_3_2003.pdf

An interesting paper about the weak response to bankruptcy in CEE, including criticizing the reluctance to go after individual debtors who have helped cause the bankruptcy.

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000640.htm

Roger discusses another debate, sad that Edwards fumbled on a question about Islam.  Comments drifted on about Bush and the deficit>>Lower taxes means better investment, by owners who want to profit.  Lower tax rates on businesses means smarter investments, since tax dodges are relatively less beneficial.

 

Most gov't spending has lots of pork.  The deficit can be cut, immediately, by less spending -- say a 10% cut all fed salaries, etc.  But it (prolly) won't happen.  Until the Dems accept that deficits are so bad for the future, that CUTS today are justified, and they can name the cuts.

 

And heck, there might be enough Bush-hate and big deficits to make the Dems start seriously looking to cut stuff; many Reps would vote for non-military cuts proposed by Dems.

 

Estimates of the future are never truth or lies, they're estimates.  With error rates.  Even global warming (tax gas!!! yechh ... but...)

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000248.html

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Michael notes that current polls show a blow out for Bush, from Tim Blair to a keen map making site.>>Bush may be a crony capitalist big-business supporter, but the economy is doing incredibly well considering the dot.com bubble AND 9/11.

 

And Bush did good to boot Saddam.

 

How can the Dems run against a big deficit?  Where are they gonna cut?  No cuts, well, that means, punish, er, tax the rich!

 

It is FUN.  Too much.  Now, get to work, or else your job is going to Shanghai, or is that Bangalore; or how about Bratislava?  (Bratislava?  Never heard of it!  50 miles East of Vienna, cap of Slovakia -- my job's already here, you see.)

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000637.htm#comments

Roger opens his ballot, including his change of minds>>Mina, see CNN for SOTU; 3rd paragraph "thousands of American servicemen and women", later "skilled and determined military', "dealing with thugs in Iraq", "taken the hardest duty... skill and courage ... sorrow when one is lost", "America is proud of you."  The Pres. was pretty darn good in supporting & acknowledging the US military.

 

Debra, I'll prolly support Bush, though the Libertarian party (Harry Browne?  who cares -- it's the real small gov't party of principle) is the one to go for if you really want less gov't.  Especially in a close election, since a Lib vote can't really be misinterpreted as a big gov't vote, AND the losing side is more likely to steal the best ideas of the Libs.

 

Unfortunately, politics is biased in favor of big gov't -- solving problems, doing things, being good, etc.  While hiding the ugly truth that they use tax money, money taken by the threat of violence, by force, to do whatever they do.  [Or they borrow, printing 'counterfeit' money (which may result in the inflation tax).]

 

Roger, great idea, making your blog open ballot!  I'm very interested in John E. because the US needs a good Dem in order to make the Rep public position better, less pork filled.  Maybe even take the best Lib. idea (vouchers?  um, Reps already got that one.  Limited drug legalization?  helps in the terror war...)

 

But, after personally experiencing negative emotional problems, I'm become a supporter of abstinence for the unmarried, and faithfulness for the married.  Yes, it helps that I'm happily married.  But I used to believe in "responsible promiscuity".  Now I don't think it's generally possible. Although I won't claim none can follow it, I DO claim more are hurt trying to follow it than would be hurt trying to be chaste.

 

And the idea of responsible promiscuity is particularly bad for poor people.  More divorce, more abortions, more unwed mothers; more children of poor folk who can't read when they get out of high school.  I believe promiscuity is a big, negative influence.  What do you believe about abstinence & poverty?

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107483473624369362

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107481280820783909

Donald refers to Belmont club and the special forces being used in the Bekaa valley, to root out Syria’s domination of Lebannon. >>It would be great! Well could be; and prolly would be under Bush. We need a world without dictators, and military force is the fastest, though perhaps not the cheapest (though maybe), and perhaps not the most moral (though maybe); perhaps not the best way, though maybe.

 

But actual war prolly not before Nov. 2004, unless there is really good intel that Saddam's WMDs are in the Bekaa...

 

Donald also notes that the OSB is putting the start of the recession into Nov 2000, thus under Clinton; but also claiming no matter.>> Actually, it DOES matter that the recession was Clinton's, and that Bush jacked up the deficit to counter it.  Bush's deficits then become, arguably, Clinton's fault -- until the current recovery.

 

That's Keynesian theory; gov't should deficit spend in recession to avoid depression.  Bush did that.  Now, will he start cutting spending to avoid inflation? 

 

The painful joblessness of the recovery, as well as the slowly sinking (rapidly?) dollar, mean that inflation is not yet a big problem.  Should be around, let me guess, Dec, 2004!  A tight budget then?  I'll believe it when I see it; actually a bit more likely from a Dem.

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000246.html

++[Michael on metropoliticals]>>It's too soon to be sure of Dem or Rep in Nov, unless you're already party committed.  John Edwards has a 56 page .pdf on his positions, that I downloaded but slept on instead of reading last night.  I suspect it's full of fine generalizations of desirable outcomes, without the tough choices of how to fund gov't actions.  The big gov't Dems like endless gov't programs, paid for by "somebody else"; what a lie, but that's what Bush is giving the country, anyway.

 

The libertarian position of civil AND economic liberty will be influential to both parties, in differing amounts at different times.  The losing Dems are most likely to take more of the most popular; perhaps ending the war on drug (using people). 

 

But Pakistan has nukes, so all Islamic dictatorships are in line to get them in the next decade or so.  Every dictatorship that is left alone will, in the not too distant future, have nukes.  This is real, and really scary -- even to me in Slovakia.  Lots of red states coming.

 

22 January 2004

Gabriel Syme at Samizdata on multiculturism having problems>> Assimilation starts with language, and is mostly language.  I hope the Dutch focus on schools, in Dutch (and English? OR English?), and speaking Dutch as a pre-requisite for immigrating, and for getting benefits.

 

National work schemes as a duty for those who receive benefits might be good, too.

 

Big ghettos are terrible, but small communities needed, since friendly support is so effective in the West.  And it will be very interesting, in the budget crunching coming, to see how the Dutch react to the fact that coercion is usually much cheaper than bribes.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/23/04 19:45 | link | comments

Donald, too, discusses metropolitical >>And what about us pro-war, anti-tax, small gov’t types, who think Bush is overspending, where do WE go?  I haven’t heard of any serious Dem discuss budget cuts, only tax hikes.  At least Bush II is avoiding the silly mistake of Bush I “read my lips” and raising taxes.

 

But the small/ big gov't splits, social vs economic, usually favored by Libertarians, also fail with pro- anti- war. 

 

Choosing a mix of desirables and undesirables has always been there, and will continue to be there.  But the +- gov't values on a) econ, b) society, and now c) war on terror, are FAR more mixed (3 * 3) than just the 2 * 2 matrix before.

Thus big gov't control over econ, society, and war; vs small gov't econ, society, and anti-war -- and all combos in between, like mine: small, small, pro-war.

Slavery was a similar third dimension.  Abortion was almost a third dimension, but Dem purists purged all pro-life out (eg Jesse Jackson flipped to be pro-abortion).. 

 

 

At about 800 000 000 gals/ day of use petro products (about 20 000 000 b/d, 42 gal = 1 barrel)

 

 

 

Michael disses the Nation about The Myth of Rising Anti-Semitism, asking who would have thought it after 9/11? >>I recall thinking, and mentioning to my wife on 9/11/01, that there was going to be a bigger push for a Pali state.  And more scrutiny and criticism of Israel.

 

The Nation article's point is not clear to me in the first or last fifth, but seems to want to claim new anti-Semitism is not a problem because it's not really new.  Weasel words around "new", while paying some lip service to condemnation of acts against Jews (at least, still).

 

The opacity of the Nation's argument, not explained here or on Roger's site, makes me feel the title is most important "The myth ...", strongly implying there is no new anti-Semitism.

 

The Left is just too full of those who hate any successful money grubbers, especially if they can blame Pali problems on them.

 

Roger on the Dean’s Dean Horse, but one comment says he wants “his country back”>> What country 'back'???  Don't you really mean, "we want gov't to keep punishment, er, taxes high on the rich to pay for middle class entitlements, er, for the poor (wink wink)?"

 

Oh wait, I remember the country.  Where Amazon.com is worth more than GM & Ford combined.  Where the dot.com bubble remains unpopped. THAT country was the end of a millennium illusion ... 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/22/04 21:27 | link | comments

Omar at Iraq the Model notes the changeover of new currency in Iraq, especially emphasizing the psychological desire to dump the pictures of Saddam. For me, he also mentioned "the overlap process deprived the terrorists from the having the opportunity to fund their operations, as the agents of the past regime were keeping billions of ID’s " >> of course I agree, and think it should have been done LONG ago -- using USD and/or Kuwaiting Dinar. But it's good that it DID go on, and better (a bit) later, than never.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/04 23:19 | link | comments

“Quotes” & analysis of Pres. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address (via CNN) – a good step on the timeline towards: A World Without Dictators.  Leading an active America, and attempting to use military power for good. “By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent”  These are two of the greatest gifts that any country can offer to the world.  Criticisms should be focused on either bringing more hope; or more/ better justice; or less cost.

 

Because of America’s actions, more Iraqi people can have more hope.  More Iraqi murderers have been brought to justice.  This is great, and good, and not perfect.  Religious Iraqis may well hope for non-Western things, such as more Islamic laws.  Such as embedding into law some inferior status on women.  Benign dictatorship is often better than bigoted democracy.

Those against Bush are unwilling to admit to being against bringing hope to the oppressed, but do not offer an alternative program to bring hope.  There is more justice in Iraq today than last year; those against Bush favor words about justice, rather than active, real, justice.

 

The Dems do NOT believe that “terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat”, but there is no consistent alternative on offer.  In fact, no Dem candidate has his own consistent alt policy on what to do with outlaw regimes like No. Korea & Iran, “it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us.  That hope is understandable, comforting and false.”

 

Along with the Patriot Act, which I won’t discuss because I’m lukewarm about it in practice, the right action is “confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.”

 

Yet, “The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right.”  So very true – the Dems are lazy; the anti-war folk are not willing to commit the USA to some hard work = expensive.  However, I’m doubtful and uncomfortable about a possibly premature “transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.”  We should be supporting local, secular elections, sooner; get more Iraqi mayors, and see who can fix things in their towns.  Get more experience with democratic votes, and promises, and unmet promises.

 

But there are no stated US actions for dealing with No. Korea and Iran, other than insistence on eliminating the nuclear programs.  This unspecific action is contrasted with good action on terrorism where “it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers … war is what they got.”  And “Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats … encouraging defiance.”  The UN, with dictators in control of too many countries, is far too much a talking heads shop.

 

“The world without Saddam … is a better and safer place.”  And similarly the big quote about the difference “between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.  America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.”

 

While that will be the most quoted line, it’s the next two paragraphs which lead to the hope for the oppressed, where he considers the “doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East”, and rightly finds these doubts “mistaken, and condescending… God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.”  YES!!! That is the belief, the core belief of America.  And we must use military force to export it.  Yes, a world without dictators is the goal.  Yes, freedom for all, all over the world.

 

And yet, yet, yet – every heart also has the desire for security.  And security all too often conflicts with freedom.  Neither the President nor the Dems is really discussing this tradeoff much, yet it is crucial.  AND few places more so than the ME – where the US needs to be present to provide security, while the normal folks slowly get used to, even addicted to, freedom.  Freedom with responsibility.  Freedom to build buildings, organizations, relationships … lives, in the way the individual actors choose.  “America is a nation with a mission … a democratic peace …founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman.”

 

The above, pro-war, pro-democracy, pro-freedom are the most important reasons to support Bush, and are enough.

 

The world has never been 'at peace'.  The world cannot be at peace when there are countries, like China, No. Korea, & Iran, who are 'at war' with their own citizens.  Even if China is not, today, at war with Tibet – it’s oppression of Tibetans is NOT peace.  To say China is at peace is a lie, a misrepresentation of the word peace.  It is quite possible that China will be the last gov’t on Earth which is at war with a part of its own people.  At some day, in the not so distant future, there will be no dictators on earth.  And if China becomes a human rights observing democracy, including votes and free speech for Tibetans, but such a country continues to control Tibet – then it can be called peace.  Because all democratic countries included people who disagree about specific policies.

 

Every path for such a true world peace goes through dictatorship regime change, from external or internal forces.  The huge challenge for America is to reshape the democracies of the world in order to be able to act FOR democracy, when some are willing to act; and to explicitly favor democracy over dictatorship with other institutions and policy.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/04 22:55 | link | comments

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107293927872320726

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Belmont Club’s fine note about Michael Crichton’s sad tale of gullibility about science.

>> Note the people WILL BELIEVE.  “Science” takes the place of God; but it’s a science without values, or goodness.  And far more often than not, it’s wrong, in ways that few surviving Christian beliefs are.

 

Jeff writes about Hitler = Bush crap, but says 6 million Jews were killed, >> Um, er, Jeff ... what about the OTHER 4 MILLION gypsies, priests, opponents to Hitler, who were also murdered in the Nazi death camps?  The non-Jews don't count?  No mention, no word, no care?

 

There's a phenom that I call Holocaust domination. The idea that Hitler's genocide against the Jews was so unique, so singular, the purest incarnation of evil, ever that was or ever that could be. 

 

It was not worse than Pol Pot, in evil.  It was not worse than Hutus murdering Tutsis, in evil.  This constant Hitler stuff is leading to Holocaust fatigue...

 

There's one great movie on Cambodia, The Killing Fields.  Compared with how many Nazi movies, books, articles, testimonials?

 

The world was supposed to learn?  But Srebrenica happened.  Rwanda happened.  Congo is still happening...

 

OTOH, Hitler is still more relevant.  Because Hitler hated the Jews, and wanted to punish them ... and the Angry left hates the rich, and wants to punish them, er, tax them ... and so many folk think so many Jews are so rich (some would even say money-grubbers).

 

AND because Zionism long wanted a Jewish home, and now has one in Israel, but the creation of Israel was not fully just.  The Palestinians, without free speech or freedom from PA thuggery control, do not have their own state; nor did Arabs allow them to have one 48-67.  But Hitler caused the Israel-Pali problem, more surely than the Treaty of Versailles caused the rise of Hitler.

 

 

Brian at Samizdata has nice photos of older pensioners wanting a more fair system >>Actually, it's "more fair" to be forced to pay a tax for a benefit you receive -- everybody knows TANSTAAFL, although everybody is happy to be treated to a free lunch if they CAN get somebody else to pay.

 

Better lib action: signs that clearly state "Getting less in benefits than we paid in taxes - UNFAIR!"

 

Why? Because if folk got all their own taxes back in benefits, it would clearly be more fair.  But the desire for more benefits that somebody else pays for would run smack up against fairness.

 

Corruption -- using gov't force to benefit from Other People's Money. 

 

Libertarians need to be very strongly against corruption, especially populist, democratic corruption.

 

 

Brad copies a long piece of lovely prose about how HG Wells becomes a socialist >> Thanks, Brad; parts are piercingly poignant;

"but the effort and the dream of the finer order, the fuller life, the banishment of suffering," this dream is extremely interesting. 

As you know, all socialists with gov't power, including national socialists, resorted to a rather odious method of banishing suffering.

Death.  Death squads, gulags, cultural revolution, reeducation camps, death camps.

The culture of death.

 

Yet the dream is so seductive ...

And isn't opposition to Bush's Iraq war opposing the dream?

 

Man, and original sin, indicate that we need to nurture hope, and comfort in the hope of a better future for the world, despite inevitable suffering.  Though compassion for those who suffer is also good, as so many churches show--while Leftists, by and large, do not.

 

 

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7735182.htm

Donald links to a story about the reduced efforts at liberal (Left) churches.>> Social justice may be reasonable; I'm sure not happy with Bush & crony capitalism.

 

I'm disappointed there has been so little effort at Church organizations which are not-for-profit, but employment maximizing orgs. The best way to help poor folk in an industrial society is to offer them a better job -- this is even better than teaching them to fish!

 

All Christian churches should include an economic goal of full employment -- every person who wants to work should be offered a job.

 

Rev., maybe you can explain why church's DON'T try to expand their peaceful, honest, commerce and employment?

 

[I even think the Feds, and the States, and the Cities, should have job offering orgs towards this goal.]

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107456715809402376

++ Similarly, in Pakistan, the US could be more active at assisting medium sized companies to become larger, and to create more jobs.

 

Total elimination of all Pakistan tarrifs & quotas would be a good step.

 

Financing for privately owned homes would be a good step, and likely to be quite profitable (if the Pak legal system upholds private property.)

 

[Joel, the problem with any Judeo-Christian 'pro-gay' approach is the definite anti-gay message of the historical Christian Church.  Ending persecution has almost been complete -- but most Christians don't think gays should get married and get equal chances to adopt young boys.  And I don't either.]

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107456552701296145

Donald echoes Glenn in wondering why none were fired, after Clinton signed several statements about going after Al Qaeda with special ops. >>Right, TM.  When the Pentagon contradicts itself, and fails to promote one strategy over others (with due consideration), it's no wonder that Rummy seems to ignore what's ideologically irrelevant to him.

 

The world is right not to trust the US to stick it out; the military is right not to trust the CYA politicians to stick it out; the pols are right not to trust the voters to pay for more, if the going starts to look tough.

 

The pols who want to cut, they were Saddam's friends (of third kind, at least) and are friends of dictators.

 

So prudence is an important consideration; but now is the time to reaffirm commitment.

 

 

JP Barlow writes a great eulogy for Spalding Grey, with uncertainty and then more assurance.>> I've been thinking a lot about Spalding Gray this last year, amid all the Bush hating / Iraq = Vietnam quagmire politics.

 

The Killing Fields, you know; the powerful movie, and Spalding’s own fantastic "Swimming to Cambodia" filmed monologue about the making of the movie.

 

And the sad reality of post-Vietnam war Cambodia.  The US 60s anti-war folk won the political argument, and made Nixon run away from Vietnam; and allowed Pol Pot to murder 2.5 million Cambodians.  The Left in the US is guilty, and quiet, about this much blood.

Not 500;  not 4,000;  not 30,000;  not 250,000; but 2,500,000 people murdered, partly because of French & Soviet & Chinese; and US, actions and inactions.

 

Is the MASH song really true, that "Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes ..."?

 

I wonder, John, did you ever talk to Spalding about the US guilt for running away from SE Asia?

  

WSJ makes fun of a gaffe by Kerry about wasabi “Wasabi Islam is a particularly harsh form of Sushi Islam, a religious movement that has its origins in Japan and foments raw hatred--and combating this scourge is crucial to winning the war on teriyaki.”

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/20/04 05:37 | link | comments

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001020.html

Daniel W. Drezner talks about the Iraq democracy problem>> Of course FAILURE is an option, but it's also a definitional issue. If the central authority's main job is to keep the local gov'ts from violating human rights, while the locals learn how to govern, local democracy can work.

 

Yes, the Arabs need to learn the lesson of a Loyal Opposition; and respect for Free Speech. Free speech is more important than democracy; you can't keep democracy without free speech. You'll be pushed towards democracy with it, even if it's a temporary CPA.

Note that no Arab country has free speech.  Nor local elections with real opposition candidates. Free speech, and opposition, should be first goal.

 

AW on freespeech excerpts a great Martin Luther King about being willing to die for a cause, for right, truth, justice. >> I realize the rhetorical flourish is important, but "willingness to risk death", willingness to die, and deliberately dying, for a cause, are all different.

 

Few soldiers deliberately die, though they are willing to risk death--in fact they all expect to live, like car drivers, while knowing full well that "some" will die.

 

Heroic courage is when you risk dangerous acts where the expectation of dying goes way up, like fire fighting.  Though especially the fire fighters in the second of the WTC towers, after the first one had crashed.

 

To live is to risk death.  To take a stand increases the risk.

 

To suicide bomb is to seek death for a cause.  The Islam generated suicide bombers, the fanatics, THEY are the true, and fearful, weapons of mass destruction.

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107446019086030132

Donald on Rumsfeld blowing the phase IV post-war reconstruction>> The Rev. is right, Rummy did less listening than he could of, and should have.  However, I, too, have not read the whole long report from the Army War College, so it occurs to me to ask Donald whether he has read it all?

 

Because with TOO MUCH info, the important overview gets lost in the details -- and thus Rummy should get a bit more slack.  His job IS to squeeze and transform the military; of course those being squeezed will want less pressure on themselves, and more elsewhere.  And criticizing the OSD, especially where it's wrong, is a likely way to reduce the pressure without doing what Rummy wants.

 

What I STILL don't understand is why there is so little discussion of elected Iraqi mayors of towns.  Local democracy can be learned earlier, with less risk, and more legitimate US oversight, at the municipal level.  With the likely beneficial side effect of developing a corps of elected mayors, who are more likely to prefer the benign non-interference of a US occupation over a nosy powerful central authority.

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107427144025876484

Donald writes a long post about men, Wimps & Barbarians, and whether our society is able to raise honorable men.>> I think you've wrongly accepted the redefinition of "responsibility".  It's not just the words, or even sincere feelings, it is the restitution. 

 

To make the situation whole, again.  Not so hard, when a window is broken - pay for the window.

 

Much harder for mean embarrassment.  For instance, the older brother Buzz in Home Alone 2, making fun of Kevin while he's singing.  So Kevin pushes him, chaos.  Buzz makes a cynical 'word only' apology, and the family expects Kevin to, also.  He doesn't.

 

What's missing in society is psychic restitution for mean, cutting remarks that genuinely hurt others.  Justice is missing.

 

On manly men, it seems that bullies are still admired by those young women. (sorry, no link.)  But also, that cute girls are starting to be more Rep oriented -- and THEY do set the youthful cultural norm.  By ruthlessly making cutting and derogatory remarks against those who are outside their standard, men AND women.  (Legally Blonde comes to mind)

 

Maybe the current hate speech is a reflection of the cultural pendulum swing returning from the sex lib wimpy man rad fem cultural PC thinking of the last 30 years?

 

 

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12357

Tim King “A decade of corruption trials has chastened the French elite. But few heads have rolled and little has changed. What are the roots of French corruption?”>>

Frogs accept corruption of the elite. 

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093798/

Jacob Weisberg of Slate

“The choice wasn't between an invasion led by George W. Bush and an invasion led by a president who would make an eloquent case to the world and build a credible global coalition. The alternatives were Bush's flawed war or no war. So, the question I'm asking myself now is whether the marvelous accomplishment of deposing and capturing Saddam justifies costs that I really ought to have expected.”

 

Tom Freidman “the real WMD that threatened us, and still do, are the young people being churned out, year after year, by failed and repressive Arab states, who hate us more than they love life and therefore are undeterrable. …youth who want to run away from the Arab countries they were raised in because they are so frustrated, angry, and humiliated by how their governments and society have left them unprepared for modernity.

A decent Iraq may be impossible. But I would rather go down swinging as an optimist than resign as a pessimist. Because if there is no way to produce governments that can deliver for their young people in the Arab world, get ready for a future full of Code Orange and Code Red.”

 

Paul Berman “Regime change, nation-building, and humanitarianism are the equivalents of slum-clearance, housing development, schools, and soup kitchens—matters for the do-goods. In city politics, conservatives cheer on the police department, and liberals cheer on the do-goods.

Only this vision of life has the minor drawback of leaving out the single largest fact [the rise of] the big totalitarian movements, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, and a few others—movements whose greatest goal was to destroy liberal civilization.”

 

[days later] Paul “Millions of people have to be persuaded to change their ideas. Not forced—persuaded. Which is to say, someone has to go out there and try to persuade people.

… Bush has failed us almost totally. It is pretty outrageous. His failure to take up these matters ought to be seen as a calamity. But then, who has been making up for this terrible failure of his? Who has taken up the burden to wage a really extensive war of ideas?

 

I think the political right is incapable of waging such a war, by virtue of its own militaristic and isolationist instincts… So, then, this should be the business of people on the left side of the spectrum. But where are the Democrats, on these matters? The left? This is truly a problem, and nobody seems to be doing very much about it, not on a grand scale, anyway.”

 

Jacob, deciding he was wrong to support Bush’s war, “A democracy must not be led to war on the basis of deceit, even if the unarticulated reasons for going war remain persuasive to many of us. … Mistake or no, we must all live with the consequences of our decision. One point we all seem to agree on is that America must stay and finish what it started.”

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000240.html

Michael is upset at the title of S. Hannity’s book “Deliver us from Evil.  Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.”  He thinks this ups the hate speech level; he’s prolly right.>> To religious pro-life people, abortion is evil.  Each of us began our lives at conception, when half the DNA of your father joined with half of your mother to create your own DNA.  With a soul, according to believers.

 

Obviously, pro-life believers feel that pro-abortion advocates are evil.  Thus, if 'liberal' today means pro-abortion, they're evil.  Few pro-abortionists will buy his book.

 

Personally, I claim to be a classical liberal (libertarian), who accepts that the killing of human fetus, for mere convenience, is wrong.  Adoption instead of abortion has to be the future choice, and should be the focus of the pro-life folk.

 

I haven't and won't read or buy the book, nor do I read or buy Ann C. or Michael Moore.  But the abortion issue is destroying the term 'liberal', because of the pro-abortion lie that the issue is one of choice. If so, why not choice in schools, ie. vouchers?  why not safe & legal drug use? safe & legal prostitution? --at the age a young woman is old enough to get an abortion without telling her parents?  Because the 'pro-choicers' really want only one choice pregnant women didn't have, the choice to kill their inconvenient, innocent, unwanted fetuses.

 

And the pro-life true believers are similarly radical, but with more justification.  My point is the Michael, here and elsewhere, continually ignores the abortion issue and the fundamental truth that it involves massive fetus killing for (sexual) pleasure and convenience.

 

And one of the worst aspects of tyrannical Islamofascism is the terrible treatment of women.  But consider a limited choice of (a) continued Taliban style women oppression, or (b)total, immediate, sexual liberation of women AND abortion and divorce and promiscuity and homosexuality.  It at least becomes understandable, even reasonable, for a normal Muslim to be unhappy at supporting (b), and even to accept that proponents of (b) are "evil".

 

And I suspect Hannity is claiming that too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/19/04 20:13 | link | comments

Dan asks about Iowa up for grabs.>> Orson Scott Card long ago wanted Edwards; the lack of press means the lack of specific reasons against him.

Dean peaked too soon.  Lieberman should have tried an Iowa eCampaign; for practice, and to be real.

 

As long as Edwards stays nice, his opponents will mostly fight each other, angrily and meanly.  He DOES look more JFK-like than any, and he COULD carry some Southern States.  I'm guessing (hoping?) he gains.

 

 

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/

http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

(via Grim) Interesting note about the Jacksonian Tradition, by Walter Russell Mead, 23 pages: “A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny;

 

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_grimbeorn_archive.html#107374675950616478

Grim goes on about helping the poor empower themselves; pretty good stuff>> I like it, nice (too long??) Jackson link.

 

How about my Tax Loans proposal?  And private savings/ retirement accounts?  The real tragedy is the Dem lie: we tax the super rich to help the poor [... and it's not our fault if most benefits go to the more popular college educated middle class, we meant well.]

 

 

Del thinks Bush gets reelected, despite bad news on Bush and spending>> Prediction: Dean is NOT the candidate, and the race is close in Nov.  And the Dems make the deficit an issue -- but are unwilling to cut spending anywhere.

 

 

JohnBR on Freespeech is tired of Bush, the Mars mess is the last straw. >>Actually, Kman, for space I'm sure he's gonna put LOTS of mil-industrial pork into high tech Sili Valli and So. Cal.  He'll be pork-feeding US companies against China, see; not hydro- vs big oil.

 

I like space, and the idea of space exploration.  Let NASA live on 100% tax credit donations; and be open source with software, specs, results, etc.  Let private ventures try.  But we don't need gov't to make NASA even more bloated.  I don't believe Bush knows how to reengineer any org.

 

He's GREAT on Iraq, and OK on tax cuts.  Maybe good.  Maybe great?  Could any other set of tax cuts have ended the depression level bubble-pop better?  - I think (believe) his are within 5% of the optimal mix supporting more investment and more immediate consumption and even a little structural improvement.

 

But the tone of his admin is terrible, terrible, terrible.  Sigh.

++ asked about deficits >> Well, deficits don't matter "this year" -- until bond interest rates start going up. 

 

When deficits are used to fund more investment, the increase in productivity (prolly?) allows increased growth to pay back the "investment".  When the deficit is consumed, it becomes a burden...but the immediate increased consumption, relative to less current consumption, certainly means fewer bankruptcies, so less of a spiral downward.

 

Yes, it is all so complex that, even those who "understand" it, cannot reliably change any one parameter (more or less deficit say) to induce desired changes in other variables (growth, or profit, or employment).

 

Nuke research is no big threat to big oil -- they can easily transfer their centralized, huge efficiency of scale organization to big nukes.  It's hundreds, thousands, of wind farms, solar collectors, small company hydro making plants that would hamper them.

 

Though nukes off of Santa Barbara to make hydrogen gas based fuel cells has a certain allure, I'm sure.

++ Oh yeah, with Arnie as gov, Bush has illusions of winning CA in Nov.

 

NOW how much will he pay?

 

 

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/005362.html

David at Samizdata says war is NOT the health of the state>>Thoughtful premise, but with more ups & downs.  I hope to live, someday, in World Without Dictators.  It will take this current anti-Islamofascist war, at least, to get there.  Maybe others. 

 

In such a world, war will be far less likely.  That's an upside, in the future.  Today, with the war on terror, and it's big gov't ally war on drugs, and the 100% certain prediction that terrorists will be running drug rings, both wars will be making the gov't bigger.

 

But it is corruption, not democracy per se, that makes gov't too big.  Corruption as defined: using the gov't to control the spending of other people's money, for private purposes.

 

If Soc. Security was privatized and individual accounts were required (10% Chile model), folks would be forced to save their own money for their own retirement.  Then the $400-500 billion would be privately owned -- much better. 

 

Corrupt voting for specific desired gov't benefits is the corruption of the voters -- in virtually all democracies through history.  It should be replaced by alternate programs of greater individual responsibility, and choices, though perhaps less choice to be gov't subsidized when irresponsible.

 

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html

Stephen Pollard quotes Julia Magnet (on reviews of 3 movies, +Metropolitan, The Last Days of Disco) “What Stillman notices in Barcelona is that irresponsible politics and irresponsible sexual behavior spring from the same ideology. The moral relativism that informs post–sexual revolution mores also undergirds European anti-Americanism. To a relativist, there is no difference between Soviet Russia and NATO; the Americans are no better than the fascists—what they all really want is power, which, like judgment, is one of the only postmodern vices.”

She quotes fine conversation and comments: “When you’re an egoist,” he remarks sarcastically, “none of the harm you do is intentional.” There is no moral relativism here; Tom, like every Stillman character, is expected to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. …

“The term 'bourgeois' has almost always been one of contempt,” says Charlie, “yet it is precisely the bourgeoisie that is responsible, well, for nearly everything good in the world for the last four centuries.”

Here is the Catch-22 of the sexual revolution: you diminish rather than fulfill yourself when you separate sex from love. To give our lives meaning, we make commitments to each other, which commitments then define us. Sexual mores and manners have everything to do with what distinguishes us as human.

 

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107422465297035420

Donald on Clark going nowhere, from Michael JT >>Clark was a panic choice of the Clintonistas; he failed to unite the Anti-Deaners.  Now he is a diversion.  Lieberman keeping out of Iowa was prolly a huge mistake.

 

Dean is vulnerable.  In fact, I predict he's not going to get the nomination--because even many of his supporters hate Bush more than they love Dean, and are starting to seriously consider November electability. 

 

Though Kerry - Gephardt - Edwards will split the non-Dean vote with Clark awhile.  Until Dean's getting over 40-50%, which I doubt that he'll do, he won't be walking away with it. 

 

The anti-Deaners will have to decide, somehow, how and when to drop.  As they do (who first?), virtually none of their votes will go to Dean.

 

 

Zeyad talks about the GC instituting Sharia, and how the Sunnis are being marginalized.  Though every group is thinking of themselves as marginalized.>>

The Sunnis need to be demanding elections to get their own mayors.  Elected mayors, with some real budgetary power, are the most likely first line of defense against imposition of unwelcome laws on the minority.

 

Requiring super-majorities for certain law changes would be good too (eg to deny women the vote), or to increase taxes!

 

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000614.htm#comments

Roger talks about Sharia from the Iraq GC, and how terrible it is.>> The question the Angry Left should have been asking for months:

How much sexual equality should be (imperialistically) imposed on Iraqis who do not want it?

 

Christian pro-life activists have long found Muslims to be among their best fellow travelers at the UN.  But the Christians do not like the imposition of Sharia, nor the oppression of non-Muslims.  In Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, or any Muslim country.

 

Excommunication should be the main punishment a religion can have on its members who no longer believe its tenets -- NOT civil/ criminal punishment.

 

The UN Dec'l of Human Rights, in its negative forms (restricting gov't), should be the model for Iraq until there is a functioning market & property protecting legal system.  And significant democracy, initially with women voting.

 

But true democracy for Iraq requires them to be able to choose laws the US disagrees with, eg abortion as illegal, or women cannot vote.

 

Swopa, and other Leftists, in arguing against Bush, are pushing him to leave too soon.  The destructive criticism of the US Left is terrible; it should instead by critically promoting better policies in Iraq, today.

 

 

So I took the IQ test and was told: “We also compared your answers with others who have taken the test. According to the sorts of questions you got correct, we can tell your Intellectual Type is a Visionary Philosopher.

This means you are highly intelligent and have a powerful mix of skills and insight that can be applied in a variety of different ways. Like Plato, your exceptional math and verbal skills make you very adept at explaining things to others — and at anticipating and predicting patterns. And that's just some of what we know about you from your IQ results.”

But they want me to join, and pay to take tests which will show me what I should be doing.

Oh well, I don’t really have time for this.  Nor for blogging.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/16/04 18:54 | link | comments

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000021.html

Brad on O’Neill NOT doing Rubin’s job>>Brad, you should read Lindsey's write up in WSJ today, where he claims Bush in 98 thought there was a bubble and wanted tax cuts to cushion the pop.  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004553 

Pretty strong defense of Bush, and the fact that Bush's political policy overrode the deficit consideration.  Interesting that the Bush cut fiscal stimulus agreed with the Greenspan rate cut (first of 13) -- and seems to have worked.

 

You can't prove the 1/3 cuts, spending, recession, can you Brad?  Even though I believe you and pretty much accept the numbers, I recognize it as merely belief.  I note the complaints, here especially, of a no-jobs recession end.  I strongly believe that, without the tax cuts, we'd STILL have more recession. 

 

The bubble pop was Depression level. HUGE deficits are macro justified.  And spending is needed in all ways: to support general consumption, general investment, and yes, even specific industry (steel) support where market-bankrupt firms can be restructured to become profitable at lower gov't/ social subsidy cost than the social cost of more closures.  No way can I prove this; just belief.

 

But your list of what O’Neill should have done seemed GREAT.  Thanks!

 

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000026.html

Brad on the Iraq war >> Brad, Clinton signed into official policy regime change in Iraq.  Yeah, the Reps wouldn't let him do it.  But, had Gore been elected and had 9/11, you can bet the PNAC neocons would be VERY loud, and more listened to, in wanting forceful regime change in Iraq.

 

The political calculus of attack or not changes totally after 9/11.  Only humiliating, and obviously unlikely, total capitulation by Saddam would stop the US invasion after the Nov 2002 elections.  In Saddam's power, but he didn't do it.  Nor even cushy exile. 

 

Saddam NEVER believed the US would actually attack.  Now lots of Arabs are changing their mind sets. 

 

This big Bush war win trumps all the domestic small blunders, all the small minded, back stabbing O'Neill style whining, all the Bush misrepresentations.

 

And it should.  Booting Saddam was good, was GREAT.  Maybe expensive (but the alternative???).  But Great.  Better than NAFTA or Welfare Reform, Clinton's two huge victories (because they were Rep policies).

 

And deficits?  Well, it's Keynesianistically turning a recession into growth.  I don't hear any Dems arguing to increase gas taxes, or pollution taxes, to save the world and the reduce the deficit.  I don’t hear about programs the Dems want to cut.

 

(Maybe your comments & site is really fixed?  That would be fine, too!)

 

Kevin on CalPundit complains about Bush wanting to stop CA from enforcing more stringent anti-pollution clean air procedures in the local gov’t purchasing decisions>>Crony capitalism, big oil, big auto, big company, big gov't support.  Bush is terrible about using big gov't to promote friendly big companies.

 

When are Dems seriously going to stop promoting big gov't?  Of course the Dems want the big gov't to do good ... how many Rep presidents will there have to be, using big gov't to favor cronies, before Dems start seeing the truth.

 

Big gov't doesn't solve the problem.  Big gov't IS the problem.

 

Of course, if it's OK for there to be differences in pollution standards between states, maybe it should be OK for there to be differences on other issues, abortion for instance.

 

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/01_large.shtml

MoveOn’s winner in the anti-Bush ads.  Really great.  True.  I genuinely hope the Dems focus on this aspect of Bush’s policy—but don’t believe they really will. (QuickTime needed, Radley sent me)

 

 

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/009961.php#009961

Radley Balko, The Agitator, on his FoxColumn of Libertarians for Dean for President >> When Bush is re-elected, no way is he going to reduce spending.  His NASA pork barrel for high tech/ military spending is announced.

 

The best case Bush domestic agenda is this: he'll bribe the retired enough so that a partial privatization of Soc. Security is enacted, that over a generation will become sustainable.

 

He'll mildly push/ accept higher gas taxes to reduce the deficit, but only instead of more regulations (though I think he'll actually do the reverse).

 

He'll propose a lower flat rate corporate income tax, to spur employment.

 

He'll leave such a big deficit that, whoever wins in 2008, spending cuts will "have" to be on the table.  And the Soc. Security/ Medicare underfunded mountain (2014) of prior gov't promises will be close enough to be exerting higher interest rate fears in the bond market.

 

Then, *really speculative*, VP Condi Rice explains to blacks how they MUST take more care of themselves, because gov't is flat broke.  And she gets enough positive response from middle class blacks to break the Dem lock on the black vote, without a huge boondoggle benefit.

 

Dean for Pres. in 2004 would be fiscally better; but the War on Islamofascist Terror is too important, still, to entrust to an angry Left radical Bush hater. 

 

[Condi vs Hillary in 2008; the USA with a woman pres.?  20% likely from my view today.]

 

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwartz_herold.php

Radley also sends me to a fine AtlasSphere interview with Sabine.

 

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/009962.php

Radley on the morality of poor country sweatshops “Anti-globos and "fair traders" are right about one thing: This is a moral issue. Each time anti-globos send a third-world worker back to the garbage dumps, or the sex trade, or to begging, with their boycotts and demands that, for example, universities not buy sweatshop-made textiles, these principled activists make the morality of the free trade issue quite clear.”

 

 

 

http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2004/01/i_guess_the_man.html

Mithras wrote against a proposal that might send gov’t support to Churches in order to support more stable marriage.>> In other words, if such a subsidy passes, you're against Churches helping to counsel poor people on how to stay married.

You're against Churches helping to reduce the problem of single moms.

You're against reduced divorces.

You're against reduced promiscuity.

 

And you believe such a society is better?  Or do you have some factual evidence?  If it's only a belief, I'd think Bush's belief that Church help would be good is more likely to be true.

 

It's a little ironic that most atheists hate the Church for what the Church believes, but have so little evidence for their own beliefs.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004553

Lawrence Lindsey at WSJ has fine notes on how Paul O’Neill is economically wrong.  Paul wanted to abolish corp. income tax, but the Bush policy was more direct tax relief.  Notes that the econ was faltering already in 2000, before the election; and that Bush feared the bubble pop even as early as 1998.  Big O’Neill econ problem is that he wanted no tax cut if the gov’t had a deficit, “the tax cut would have to be cancelled just at the time the economy needed it the most!”– exactly the reverse of Keynes’ anti-depression policy.  Bush wanted to help middle class folk the most “Being a single mom with kids, [Bush] explained, was the toughest job in America.”

 

After 9/11, “Mr. O'Neill favored focusing resources on two big long-term reforms: a complete privatization of Social Security and the abolition of the corporation income tax.”  Wow – I like O’Neill better and better, but I wonder if the Angry Left will really like to hear that Bush is too moderate for a more radical conservative, and promote O’Neill’s rejected policy.  There is an arguable case that Bush is sacrificing the long term for the short term, but the short term’s certainly more politically popular, and it’s not certainly economically worse. 

 

The USA, and the industrialized West, needs to reform Social Security towards more individualism.

 

It would be great if the Dems ‘forced’ Bush to at least partially privatize Soc. Security.  The main issue should be giving folks the money they were forced to save, and let THEM decide at what age to retire. For instance, one has put in some $300 000 by age 60 into the Soc. Sec. fund (including gov’t interest, same as unpaid tax interest, but NOT including employee contributions).  This money should be transferred to a private gov’t account with the taxpayer’s name on it, available for additional contributions or retirement withdrawals.

 

With an additional minimum-poverty level gov’t support when their own retirement savings are exhausted.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004554

CLAUDIA ROSETT  in WSJ on Clinton & Carter’s No. Korea policy “the U.S. and its allies paid nuclear extortion in the form of food and fuel for Pyongyang, propped up Kim's regime, and began building him $4.6 billion worth of nuclear reactors.

In return, Kim lied and cheated on his promise to give up nuclear weapons; launched a program to enrich uranium for more bomb fuel; built, tested and sold missiles; and along the way starved to death some two million of his fellow North Koreans.

…

Kim wants another "peace" deal in which he'd get paid yet again for giving up weapons he already got paid for promising not to make in the first place.” >> Yay, Claudia!  The US paid extortion to liars under Clinton and now the “pragmatists” want a new deal – the US should pay more money to the same liars!  The Bush haters are not prolly not going to look so good on this issue.

Invade? Contain? Bribe/ pay for liars?  I don’t like mere containment, but other options are worse – payoffs are terrible.

 

http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.650,filter./book_detail2.asp

The AEI book summary on the new Frum & Perle book “An End to Evil”. “[Local US terrorism goes way down if current immigration laws are enforced, but ] those laws cannot be enforced, however, so long as the United States lacks mechanisms for quickly and readily identifying who legally resides in the country and who does not. The United States needs a national identity card based on the latest biometric technology that enables local police to verify the true identity and immigration status of every person with whom they come in contact.”

 

“Terror must replace oil as issue one in the relationship with Saudi Arabia. Anything less than total cooperation against terror must carry the severest consequences for the Saudi state--including possible American support for secessionist movements for the severely oppressed Shiite people of Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern regions.

“Pakistan is seeking more generous access to the American market. Those wishes should be granted, but only [if free trade is restored with India, etc.]

“Extremist Islam is an ideology--not a religion--and it must be countered in the realm of ideas. So far, America's efforts on this battleground have been strikingly unsuccessful.

 

“Many foreign-policy professionals insist that the single most important answer to terror is a Palestinian state. Such a state, if rightly constituted, could offer benefits to Palestinians and Israelis alike. But it is hardly likely to contribute much to the fight against terror. Worse, since the state is very unlikely to be either stable or successful, it will require massive American support to survive--not only economic support, but also military and intelligence backing against the radicalism of its own population. There is a very real risk that a Palestinian state could prove in reality to be a Middle Eastern South Vietnam.

 

“The American alliance system must also be transformed. The United States must acknowledge that a closely integrated Europe has ceased to be an American interest, if it ever was one. It must face up to the fact that France has ceased to be a U.S. ally in any meaningful sense of the word and that the Russian government of President Vladimir Putin is playing some sinister double games.

“Above all, the time has come for reform of the U.N. Charter, to expand the Article 51 right of self-defense to include the pre-emption of imminent terrorist threats.

 

“The war on terror is not just a metaphor, and it can be won. …What will decide the outcome is less the correlation of forces than the will to win--and the imagination to accept new ideas.”

>> Sounds like a really great book.  Wrong about Europe, because a closely integrated Europe is an American interest, though right about France and Russia.  Right about the UN, about Pakistan.  Prolly right about a Pali state, the conditions in Palestine are not conducive to stability or success. 

 

More than reforming the UN, reform of NATO is needed.  NATO needs to become the world’s policeman, controlled by democracies.  When Human Rights are grossly violated by a regime, like No. Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or China, NATO should be identifying that regime as being in violation of the UN Dec’l of Human Rights, AND, therefore, forfeiting the UN protection & inviolability of national sovereignty.  And then a mechanism needs to be created so that a NATO based “coalition of willing” countries can mobilize in preparation for regime change.  The mobilization exercise itself, may well be enough to induce behavior modification of the specific regime; Saddam DID allow some limited inspections.

 

The key issue is that disagreement in NATO, say France, means that French forces are NOT included in the coalition.  No French, or even American (?), veto over actions, only over their own forces.  Thus, in theory a French led coalition of NATO forces, without America, could then have pushed for regime change in the Ivory Coast, rather than unilateral French forces.  The veto comes earlier, in whether a regime is violating human rights or not.  Yes or no. 

 

Should be based on free speech, and a NATO sponsored newspaper critical of the gov’t.  If it’s allowed to be published, the violations are not sufficient.  Otherwise, they are.  In China’s case, or Pakistan’s, there is unlikely to be any coalition of willing, at this time.  Despite their violations.

 

What’s missing in this summary, and I suspect in the book, is the MAIN idea that needs to be pushed to fight extremist Islam.  That main idea is free speech.  Article 19 in the UN Dec’l of Human Rights.  We need the Western Civ ideal of free speech to be imperialistically promoted throughout the world.

 

On Privacy & Freedom vs. Security, unmentioned here is the failing War on Drugs.  The US needs legal, registered, controlled drug use instead of corrupting illegal drug gang warfare.  Illegal terrorists will soon be big players in the illegal drug traffic, and terrorists will be winners in any illegal drug wars.  Controlled legalization would greatly reduce the drug wars, and the prison populations, and prolly the crime.  Any controls mean there would still be some illegal market, like sale to children, but such more abhorrent criminals would be a more proper focus of police response.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/15/04 18:35 | link | comments

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000233.html

More Michael comments about Tom F. >>Mithras "The overwhelming majority of Muslims and Arabs are moderates. "

I believe this, but their votes don't show it.  Cause they can't vote.  Post WW II & Cold War policies & OIL have warped the Arab countries.  Without Western force, they were NOT getting more democratic.  In fact, the reverse, Tom F.'s bubble of terrorism.

 

The terrorists DO use force, and words.  And Arafat's thugs DO beat up, and kill, those who disagree.  If the terror thug force is not met with opposing force, in use (not mere 17 UN empty threats), the terror thugs win, almost by default.

 

The costs are large.  It's really good, and important, to mention them.  But the alternatives are bad, too; especially pulling out.

 

After the anti-Vietnam war leftists won the US policy debate and got out ... Pol Pot murdered over 2 million, over 25% of the Cambodians.  The left did not murder them, but starting in the summer of love (67) they opposed the US in trying to contain and stop such commie crimes.  The Killing Fields are part of the left's Vietnam costs of withdrawal, usually unmentioned (since it was on Rep. Nixon's watch, after all, both US parties guilty.)

 

After Bush cleaned up the Taliban in Afghanistan, before the 2002 elections, THAT was the democratic time to say containment, no invasion.  The Dems wimped out, because ... politics, whatever.  After that, and the surrounding buildup, Blix needed to say: Saddam is fully cooperating.  Or else war.  Blix asked for more time, and agreed that Saddam was NOT fully cooperating, not fully accepting the parole conditions of Desert Storm.

 

We don't need to attack Al Qaeda, the most.  We need to support regime change in the Arab world away from human rights denial, and towards societies that have free speech.  Societies where the leaders are not so afraid of words that thugs are sent to beat up dissenters.  Lack of free speech/ free press is the largest root cause of Islamofascism.

 

++I like the fence too (makes better neighbors!), but the "cage" is more like an Israeli protection cage in a sea of predator Pali/ terrorist sharks.

 

There's no Israeli cage stopping the Palis from developing Gaza, building factories, or following prior Semite footsteps into Egypt.  The Arab borders closed to Palis are, and have long been, a disgrace to Islam.

 

 

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/01/13/welcome_antidote.php

Harry’s place >>Stephen, the creation of Israel was not morally unquestionable.  Nor was the expulsion from the Sudetenland of the German Czechoslovaks, of more people, of less threat, and with more death.  Nor was the USA's treatment of the American Indians just (nor the war treatment of Japanese Americans). 

 

But the Palis COULD have settled in Egypt & Jordan; and COULD have created their own Palestine state of pre-67 borders, had they chosen.  They chose war.  The Arab leaders, like Nasser, chose war, not peaceful coexistence.  This was also unjust.  And more, it was sick.

 

The PA thugs dominating Palestine do not allow free speech, do not allow honest discussion.  They enforce a greater hatred for Israel than love for Pali children.  They are, truly, a sick society. 

 

The Palis chose Arafat - once.  How many elections since?  Where are the Pali newspapers critical of Arafat?  Not there.  Pali thugs beat up, or kill, dissenters; Arafat is now another African-style pres/dictator (like Mugabe).  A sick society. 

 

While yes, Prof. Ophir is right that Israel, too, is not healthy, he is mostly wrong about focusing only there.  There ARE critics to Sharon, the Israeli people do have choices and do hear opposing viewpoints -- and believe that Arafat is not serious about any two state peace.

 

Like France was not serious about booting Saddam.  The Palis will be stuck in sickness until they get regime change.

 

++Oh, and the rising anti-Arab rhetoric is also related to an increase in anti-dictator feelings.  Bush clearly stated that 60 years of supporting dictators hasn't made the US safer.

 

The sad, sad, sick fact is that all the Arab countries are dictatorships, or near, without full free speech.  This underlying sickness in Arab society is being more honestly recognized.

 

And the solution: Iraq!  As Iraq becomes democratic, and better, it will become the positive Arab "model", and then the current feelings of anti-Arab will become more anti-Arab Dictators.  The hope.  My own dream -- a World Without Dictators.  In my lifetime.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/14/04 17:15 | link | comments

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000602.htm#comments

Roger, in The Dominoes are Real,  talks about some good news in exporting democracy, “maybe we should have done this long ago”>> Yeah, it's too bad Clinton didn't do this in '98 (against Rep objections).

But, really, he couldn't -- no pres. could, w/o a 9/11 type of wake up call.

 

Too bad the Left wants to hit the snooze button instead of getting up and smelling the coffee!

 

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html

Benny Morris, an Israeli dove REALIST "There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy.">>

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000592.htm#comments From Roger.

Wow – what powerful honesty.  Yes, only some 800 Palis killed in the ethnic cleansing.  And Benny thinks Ben-Gurion, who ordered it originally and then lost his nerve to complete the cleansing, made a historical mistake. Well I have long claimed that the founding of Israel WAS morally questionable—not unjustified or wrong, but questionable.  Not clean. 

 

It’s useful to note that there was tremendous ethnic cleansing before and after WW II, of Poles, Russians, and of course Germans.  The US did ethnic cleansing of Japanese Americans after 1941.   The Czech’s inhumane expulsion of some 2 million Germans, with thousands dying, should be included in this.  And the Bavarian Germans don’t fully accept it, even now, yet they are not bombing the Czechs over it, or even stopping the Czech Rep from entering the EU.

 

These are at least as morally questionable as what the Zionists did.  But it leads towards a solution.  The Israeli gov’t should publicly say “we’re sorry – here’s $20 000 each” (what the US gov’t gave to Japanese Americans) to all of the surviving 700 000 (some 300 000 * 20 = $6 bill … ) but only if they give up the right of return.  And the Israelis should continue to flatly deny return to children born in UN camps; such children are not refugees.

 

The US should also allow all Israeli Arabs to become US guest workers, if they choose – and reduce that demographic pressure in Israel, now.

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000232.html

Michael writes about some Hitch anti-Bloomberg NYC pranks, and his own.>> Prankster fun depends on who you're with, and the group peer pressure to be "more fun". Or more cool.

Hating can be fun, too. The feel goodness of group hate is not much talked about, but clearly important. Insofar as Clinton hate supported an environment that now accepts Bush hate, the upsurge in feeling good about hate is a growing problem.

Hate the policy, not the people? Not so easy.

 

 

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003018.html

Kevin writes about missing WMDs>>"We could" invade because: 1) after Afghanistan, we had forces near by, 2) the gov't had popular support which was used in Oct 2002, a year after 9/11/01, to get 3) Congressional approval for force (due to election fear by incumbent Dems of opposing it), and 4) Saddam was in violation of many prior UN SC resolutions.  (Unlike SA, NK, Pakistan or even Libya.) 17 resolutions violated is arguably "enough" form of international violation to justify US action to enforce UN resolutions, even if the UN SC, including dictatorships, does not vote in favor of an additional use force resolution.

 

The WMD argument is this: states, not terrorist orgs, have the resources to get WMDs.  But states that have them CAN give them to terrorists, who then use them against America or Israel, to kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of civilians.  Saddam's Iraq is a clear threat to develop and distribute such WMDs--unless he fully agrees to UN inspections and offers full cooperation.  Blix last Feb reported less than full cooperation.  Saddam -- busted. 

 

Finding WMDs in Iraq sand spider holes, or in Syria, would help show Iraq was a more immediate threat.  But it is not necessary for believing his threat was sufficient to justify his forced ouster. 

 

*I* thought Clinton should have attacked in 98 when Saddam booted the inspectors; AND I thought Bush I should have booted Saddam in Desert Storm; AND it was a disgrace not to give much more support to the anti-Saddam uprising at the time.  It has been the US duty, unmet under Clinton (due to Clinton hate by Reps), to save the Iraqi people after 91.

 

I'm glad we invaded -- booting Saddam was good.

 

And yes, Bush is not doing great in the reconstruction work -- and constant, incessant, and almost purely destructive criticism from loud Leftists does, in fact, make it worse.

 

Where, Kevin, has been the discussion on what decisions should the IGC be allowed to make, and which ones not?  And the sequencing order?  Maybe I missed it on some other Left site, but it hasn't been here.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004540

WSJ (Tamar Jacoby, Manhattan Inst.) on Bush’s immigration “So just what is the conservative case for immigration? President Bush made it well last week. He spoke of the American Dream and of the entrepreneurial spirit immigrants bring. He described the reality of global labor markets and asserted the need for policy that makes the most of them. He threw in a pinch of the liberal case for immigration, compassion for the least among us. But he also sounded some hard-headed practical strains--the homely conservatism of the stand-up leader determined to confront what isn't working.

…Pro-immigration conservatism recognizes this and sees that the all-important first step toward fixing it is accepting reality--the reality of the market-driven migrant flow. The Bush package does just that and endeavors to bring the entire influx above ground, acknowledging both those arriving now and those who came illicitly in the past by granting them legal status as temporary workers. Not only does this promise to put critical sectors of the economy back on a legal footing; it will also restore the rule of law in immigrant communities and enhance national security, freeing up border agents and other resources that can be devoted to fighting terrorism.”  >> Pretty well said for idealism.  Which I’ve had so long, it has gone without saying for me.  But others should hear it, again, here and there and wherever they talk about immigration.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/13/04 18:44 | link | comments

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#005833

Jeff on iNews and Pew tracking info sources, showing the Net going up>> Why doesn't Pew, or you Jeff, ask about policies?  What, if anything, is the difference between a Dean and a Clark (or Kerry Gephardt Edwards Lieberman) policy?  ANY policy?

 

The PEOPLE focus by the news media is unrelenting, and annoying (to this policy wonk).

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#005828

Jeff on Citizen Bloggers>> Note the "Big org" blogger is also possible, and edited, and similar to a personal blog but with the reputation, and restraints (?), of the org behind it.

 

The excitement is with the citizens.  Who are excited because of the aroma, and occasional tastes, of true influence, of power.  But the multiplicative effect of people orgs doesn't go away with blogs.  Either blogs influence org's decisions, like Dean's campaign or the NYT editorial policy or Iran's mullahs, or they don't.  It won't take many "yes, we DID have influence" (Raines resigned!) to justify doing a blog to the committed. 

 

But the decision power still rests with the powerful; blog info, like ad info, like most TV info, is still mostly infotainment. (And so many books sold are romance novels.  It's OK, they're books!)

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#005829

Jeff quotes Tom Friedman about the War of Ideas, one & two (of 5)>> These pieces by Tom F. are excellent -- since I agree with them.  Some of his earlier stuff is not so good, which I disagreed with then.

 

Hm, but I don't (try to) judge him only on whether he agrees with me!  I don't think...

 

But this IS a war for the soul of Islam, and the Soviets could be deterred because they were NOT willing to die in order to kill.  Too many Islamofascists ARE willing to.  Because they see no Arab alternatives.  Neither Turkey, nor Malaysia, is Arab.

 

Where is the Arab free speech state?  Why are Arab Muslims afraid of words?  This will change significantly, and quickly (in 10s of months instead of decades), as Iraq blooms.  Prolly starting this coming Spring!

 

 

 

Michael is no fan of Clark, “I agree with Wesley Clark. We should never occupy countries to extract their natural resources. I mean, for crying out loud, what kind of person could support such a policy? Thank goodness I've never heard a single person say they do,” >> Michael, one reason so many Dems can support Bush should be his high deficits -- Dems are usually tarred by Reps as the big spenders.  Has Bush actually cut ANY fed programs, in real dollars, that the Dems have complained about?  Yeah, tax dollars for international abortion programs.  Beeg Deel. Reagan did cut, and tried for more, but Bush is doing almost nada -- which should really please Dems, but doesn't.

 

Bush's positions should make the real small gov't Reps unhappy; and it does, some.  But THEY truly have nowhere else to go (not even to the Harry Browne Libs).  Winning is more important than WHY you're running, except on maybe one or two big issues.  So, heck, Bush is right against dictators.  And Clark is 'one of those people' who would rather the US just keeps paying money for torture palaces than force regime change.

 

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000227.html

More on Michael & the Club of Growth ad>> Michael, If the ad had merely said "campaign" or "campaigners", instead of "freak show", would it still be over the top? 

 

I think only the freak show is truly insulting, and pretty much minimally.  Use of the word "hell", like in this blog, is more offensive. The rest is merely sneering by common sense folk against intellectual elitists.  And you don't like it because these old fogies are sneering at you.  (And in that respect they're dumb, counter-productive.) 

 

I have the feeling your blog posts have done some, not too much, sneering at those you disagree with.  Enjoying a group sneer is one of the main things in blogging, isn't it?

 

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107387453484204535

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/opinion/11FRIE.html?ex=1389157200&en=24eb2905c794ef10&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Donald quotes Tom F. on the need of the EU, and the West, to support Turkey>> I think the two most key issues in Turkey are 1) a free press, or not.  This is underreported, but I think theirs has gotten better.

 

2) Home ownership (& mortgages).  Folks buying their own homes are middle class, and I don't know how many in Turkey are there -- but think it's pretty good.

 

Tom F. is right about Turkey being at a hinge moment, but the Iraq issue makes it easy to defer longer.  Also their Kurd minority oppression will remain a huge problem -- for the rest of Turkey's good, they should prolly encourage an independent Kurdistan of the 15 mil. or so Kurds in Turkey.  Ain't gonna happen.

 

 

From Donald on immigration>>Mostly good to start thinking about the issues.

 

First, the FINE should be small monthly payments, ($100?, $200) for as long as they have been here illegally -- or some 3 years.  So they have less to send back home.

 

Second, all LEGAL immigrants should be on a faster track, to make more legals available, and reduce the demand for illegals.  Similarly, for some $50 000 anybody (any non-Muslim?) in the world should be able to quickly get a green card.

 

Third, in conjunction with legalization of the undocumented, the employers need to be hit with punitive fines if they do NOT check their Soc. Sec. (national ID) numbers.

 

Fourth, guest workers need to be tested for English language -- and pay a fee based on their mastery (or lack).  English language is the single key assimilation skill needed.  While everybody who can talk can learn English, learning another language is really hard.  Incentives matter.

 

Practically, for today, it's a reasonable solution.  But the moral hazard of "rewarding" the successful illegals is a problem.

 

A better alternative would be a huge NEW guest worker program, ONLY for those not in the US who want to come -- combined with a crackdown on Employers and Landlords who employ and house illegals.  Let the current illegals go back, quickly, and apply to be legal?

 

The only really HUMANE solution is the Lib one -- open borders.  Statue of Liberty, let those who want to come, come.  But no gov't benefits for new immigrants.  Currently gov't benefits should be cut so as to allow more deserving needy to enter.

 

Welfare for illegals needs to be stopped, immediately.  Even without, even before passage of any new bill.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/12/04 18:15 | link | comments (2)

Thanks, JP Barlow, for putting the whole ad up -- in my Michael J. Totten comments he didn't quote it all.

Quick answer: Yes, it was an econ ad.  But it was also an anti-intellectual ad.

 

Is Dean presenting a "left wing freak show"?  Well, the pro-Deaners claim Bush's policies justify their rage, but *I* claim that the level of Angry Left Bush hate is maybe 90% like a freak show, while Bush is only 20% like "Hitler" -- meaning passing the dictator laws and using them on a massive scale to intimidate opposition. 

 

The NYT, for instance, remains well read, free, and quite biased against Bush.  I suggest folks try to quantify some of their feelings about such issues; above I just changed B=H to 20% from 10% as I realized the Patriot Act does have the potential to be abused.  And of course, Hitler was elected once (sort of), and then ended elections; far, far different than Bush.

 

Let's say some comedian wanted to present a real, rabid, frothing at the mouth "freak show", your definition, anti-Bush -- how far away would such a display be from Dean?  Can't be that far, can it.  What would the freak show say that Dean hasn't said? Can you even be honest about this? 

 

All the Angry Left candidates really do oppose Bush's tax cuts, so they really do want higher taxes, and that's the main policy issue of the ad.

 

The anti-Bush folk have a reasonable point: if Bush is killing folk, call him a killer; but it sort of has to be in comparison to some other policy of fewer folk killed.  500 military lost in ending Iraq's human rights abusive dictatorship ... that balance looks pretty pro-Bush.  Even 3 000 killed, about as many as died in the WTC, makes the balance for me pretty much pro-Bush.

 

As Nozik noted, intellectual elitists, especially the verbal kinds, are generally more anti-capitalist pro-gov't.  see: I noted this in my blogpost: Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate.

 

But let's also remember WHY the welfare liberals want to raise taxes on typical families by some $1900 (according to the ad)--the usual reason is to help the poor.  Do the poor drink lattes? eat sushi? drive volvos? Mostly no. How about welfare liberals?  "Stereotypically" yes.  So, rich(er) welfare liberals want to raise normal folk's taxes "for the poor". 

 

The dirty secret of the Dems is that so much of America is middle class or more, which is rich on a world humanity scale, that what they really want to do is tax the super-rich to make the lives of the working rich easier.

 

And being against tax increases is prolly going to work (Bush I lost!), until interest rates rise due to investor fears of the budget deficit -- because Bush is such a big spender.  And then, maybe, there will be Dems who say ... "we need to CUT GOV'T spending -- because the Reps are big spenders and we can't afford it". 

 

So far, the only spending Dems want to cut ... the military.  The folks trying to make the USA safer, according to the Bush doctrine against dictators.  The one gov't program that really can't be privatized or market supplied, unlike Soc. Security, Medicare, steel, farms, etc.

 

 

Kenneth, you better look at why you think money-grubbing is bad, offensive, abhorrent.  How you define it, what it means to you.

 

I don't think we're talking about two different things, but you need to elaborate on how being successful can be a virtue (why isn't it always?) and how that's different from money-grubbing. 

 

If you can have such an excessively negative reaction to the term "money-grubbing", then it pretty much shows, on your part, a hatred of money grubbers.  Though you vehemently deny that you and friends think Jews, in general, are such vile creatures, do real "money-grubbers", in your definition, deserve hatred?  If not, why?

 

If so, then the difference between you and the Jew haters is that you don't think Jews are money-grubbers; perhaps also not money-changers?

 

MY difference is that MONEY GRUBBING is not bad, nor is money changing (though doing so in a temple IS).  I also do think Jews are generally money-grubbers, like me.

 

It's YOUR idea of money grubbing being bad that leads many to hate Jews.

 

 

Michael on Dean Hate, making fun of an Iowa ad from the Club of Growth>> C'mon, there were two issues in the ad: tax hiking, gov't expanding.  Dean is bad on both, Bush is only bad on gov't expanding (like farm subsidies for Iowa farmers, terrible for the poor of the world).

 

I doubt I'll see the ad in Slovakia (reasonably good coffee normal), but it's clearly anti-intellectual; and intellectuals, especially verbal (writing) intellectuals, are historically more anti-market than normal. (See Nozik.) How do you identify intellectuals without naming them?

 

Michael is one such intellectual.  Without 9/11, he'd prolly be writing for Gore or some other Dem, and Bush hate would be only a little worse than Clinton hate.  But Clinton's, & Bush I's, and the UN policies have allowed the small sore of Islamofascism to become a real, festering, threat to US lives, in the US.  A different world after the Berlin Wall came down in 89; another different world after 9/11.

 

Different worlds need paradigm shifts -- and labels and categorizations.  I've changed from Lib isolationism, and think Bush is lousy on many issues (too big gov't), but agree that fighting dictators is needed for reasonable security of the USA.

 

I wonder if Bush will push the Clinton-Albright initiated "Democratic Caucus" inside the UN?  How to get the World Without Dictators?  Soonest or with least US tax dollars or with fewest US (or total?) lives lost?  Different criteria, different best paths.  Like with poli labels.

 

More on Michael>>Kimmit wrote: that progressives (Leftists) have "championed a carefully monitored government as a counterweight to the unfettered power of private organization."

 

Hah!  Part of the Angry Left fuel is that, yes, they have been supporting Big Gov't since FDR (Michael, too).  And now Bush, whose party's ideology has been mildly anti-big gov't, is using the Big Gov't to help his rich friends.  What a surprise!  Just like all the other kleptocracies, corrupt democracies throughout the world. And Bush is no real friend to private, peaceful, voluntary orgs -- he, too, wants more gov't/ force based orgs.

 

Kimmit, a "carefully monitored" gov't would not have accepted Roe vs. Wade -- there is no privacy in the US constitution (read it!).  Abortion should have been made legal through amendment, or not; or state by state (like the 9th amendment implies); 7 had it legal in 1973.  In Nevada, prostitution is legal (except not in Las Vegas or Reno!) -- the US could have survived with different abortion laws in different states.  [There are no more innocent humans than unborn fetuses; killing them for the 3-8 month preg - termination convenience of non-responsible mothers is morally abhorrent.  Using gov't force against the mothers is also questionable; a tough issue.  Future reduced problem when pro-life forces really focus on adoption rather than abortion, and more public support for young mothers, with & without husbands (eg child care credits; tax credits to corps who give longer maternity leave, etc.).] No Democrat candidate today can be pro-life.  But a Rep (Ahhnold) can be pro-choice, still, barely.

 

Bush has given up on carefully monitoring gov't; just as Clinton did little against Fed agencies for the Waco fiasco, Bush does nada about Fed mistakes prior to 9/11 -- and maybe even makes it tougher to be a whistleblower.

 

But Dems don't want better gov't ... schools.  Monitoring implies testing & performance evals, Dems oppose.  Dems want a big gov't, that they control.  And the control freakism is what PC and heretic purging is all about. But lots of folks are getting mighty tired of PC thought control tendencies.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/08/04 17:52 | link | comments

More on John Barlow's comments>>AA, the Islamofascists bombed the WTC before (93?), and only some 30 folks died.  No big deal.  Now you say: 3000 folks die, no big deal.  I suppose if it was 30 000, you could say more die on highways each year.
300 000?  More died in Iran's recent quake.
Paul Wolfowitz and his PNAC group thought 30 or so was too many, and that Bush I should have taken out Saddam in 91.  In hindsight, I agree -- had that happened, even against the UN SC advice, I sincerely believe that the WTC would still be there.  But that's a what if, too late, speculative belief.

This is a value question: How many have to die before you realize we ARE at war, in an ideological war, between Christian inspired UN Universal Human Rights "liberal society", and Islamofascism?  OBL claims HIS side is in a war...
This is a real question.  How many Americans must die before YOU think we are at war?

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/08/04 15:08 | link | comments

I added a new link to Over the Edge , but it correctly comes out as http://trespass.motime.com/.

I've had it come out wrong, before, but can't remember how.  Oh well.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/08/04 14:45 | link | comments