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

http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/games/#null

Great 80s computer games! (via Michael)

http://www.outpostsound.com/CartoonLyrics1.html

Great cartoon lyrics from 60s!

 

Fred, if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it,

Besides you knew the job was dangerous when you took it

(puk, ack!)

 

Grant, can you maybe respect me a bit too, even if not hero status?

 

There’s a live version of George of the Jungle, and the Slovak version

was on TV this week.  Pretty stoopid, like the cartoon (and George), but it

had the cartoon sound in the background, if you listened for it.

 

More Donald on Same Sex Marriage (#121)>> While I usually support the Rev., I don't think his answer to tano's list of increasingly less ideal couples is adequate.

 

There is a real issue of the ideal: "man-women" committed for life to marriage & childrearing.  If this is the ideal, it's OK to show it, mostly, in children's book, and try to orient society to expect it.

 

*It's well known that people more often act as they are expected to act*

 

The main real purpose of gay marriage is to destroy the nuclear family as the "ideal".  And, thus, to destroy the expectation, and the (pretty mild today) pressure to live up to that expectation, including the (also fairly mild) tax & financial benefits of marriage, as compared to merely cohabiting.

 

There are lesbian couples raising children, today -- and there will be more in the future.  I do NOT want their existence to be illegal. But I also refuse to alter, to corrupt, my ideal of marriage to accept their loving lesbian sexual relationship as equal, with respect to the future of society.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/27/04 00:51 | link | comments

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=121#

Salim of Baghdadee has a fine post about a reported meeting with Al Sistani, concluding: “I now believe that the American Administration could not have wished for a better person at the head of the shia clergy hierarchy. Let’s wait and see how they handle him!”

 

Michael is against Bush’s declaration opposing gay marriage>> Donald Sensing supports separating the legal from the religious aspect of "marriage". Marriage is defined, in CA law approved by a large majority of voters, as a union of a man and woman. The SF mayor was, knowingly, violating current CA law. Anybody who thinks the 10 Commandment judge was wrong to violate the law, is inconsistent if they don't think the mayor was wrong.

1) Will America be ruled by laws, or by decisions irrespective of law?

2) The US constitution does NOT discuss privacy, nor abortion -- Roe v. Wade was a victory for pro-choice, but also for rule by men. A pro-abortion amendment prolly would NOT have passed in 1972, although a few states had already legalized abortion.

The culture war involves abortion, the family, divorce, church, schools, gays -- and laws (und der punishments!) and social acceptance.

Gays in CA have all the freedoms: sex, lives together, separations without trouble. They do not have all the benefits of "marriage". Tax breaks, adopting children. Unfortunately, sometimes despite wills and other explicit documents, gay lovers are not given medical decision making authority by hospitals who DO give power to a married spouse, and rather to parents or siblings over a gay lover.

Legal proceedings should, in any case, give more support for any explicit contract/ agreement than to default inheritance rules. I hope the pro-gays focus a bit more effort on this aspect.

(ex & JFM -- you get my support, for free, worth twice that price!)

If every politician has to actually make a vote, some marriage = man + woman formulation will probably pass -- because the political cost of voting pro-gay is probably too high (Kerry is against gay marriage, how will he vote???), and pro-man+woman doesn't change much. No additional gays in any prison or other punishment; continued discrimination against adoption by most adoption agencies.

Are the gays willing to pay "fair" insurance premiums to cover AIDs costs? I don't think so.

I consider any gay who infects another gay with HIV to be a criminal -- many (most?) gays with AIDs are both criminals and victims. By definition, infecting another is NOT a victimless crime -- but I don't know of any prosecutions or attempts to punish such "criminals". Does Andrew Sullivan know who gave him HIV?

Challenge to Michael (& commenters)-- do you think it a crime for an infected gay to infect another (knowingly OR unknowingly)?

++ Although slippery slope is real, and de nial ain't just a river in Egypt. There's already a LAW, approved by LAWMAKERS, the Defense Of Marriage Act, DOMA, that defines marriage as man-women. No gay lovers have lost any freedom from this act. Note that in eliminating sodomy laws, had anybody used the slippery slope argument and said "next the gays will want to get married!" he would have been laughed at. But right. (I'm very, very glad to get rid of sodomy laws)

Gays may have not received some benefits that some get, like aid to farmers or steel or fat cat Mil. Industry types -- the marriage benefits (reduced taxes).

Rights & freedoms, nobody pays for. There IS a good reason to give gays marriage benefits, for being monogamous & committed. But such benefits are primarily for creating children for the future, not rewarding fidelity -- though perhaps they should be. I, personally, don't think this reason is good enough to destroy "marriage", but it IS good enough for civil union with all current legal survivor benefits.

It's not clear that gays want this the most. They want "equality" (and adoption privileges), but it's biologically not equal. Sperm + ovum = baby possibility. Marriage is to support that hope; very pro-life.

And yes, Roe v. Wade made political losers out of the pro-life folk, but there's more talk about the Roe effect -- some 40 mill Americans not born to relatively pro-abortion/ liberal mothers who chose abortion.

Homosexuality as the social norm is NOT sustainable! (I really like that green word!) It's not Bush, it's the liberal judges, usurping lawmaking powers, that have been the push -- and the pro-life, save marriage folk are gonna push back.

Michael JT -- how about your take on the criminality of AIDs givers?

 

(via Donald) A good account of the Left’s war on the Family, and its destructiveness.

“Study after study has shown that children who live in single-parent homes tend to have more problems -- emotional, educational, and physical -- than children living with both parents. It is a well-known statistic, for example, that fully 70% of all prison and reform school inmates come from fatherless homes. It is equally well known that instances of abuse in single-parent households are much higher than in two-parent households. Children in single-parent households are 77% more likely to be physically abused and have a 165% greater chance of experiencing physical neglect, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study.”

 

Donald on the huge difference between historical armies and the US Army, and how it’s revolutionarily great>>Yes, the US GIs are nicer to strange Arabs, Muslims, and others than the ruling police forces. It's great. Where is the BBC news on this?

 

Donald on catching Bin Laden >>Bin Laden, Schmin Laden. Catching Saddam didn't stop the terrorists; catching OBL, or not, won't stop the Islamofascists. It will, likely, push them more quickly to become indistinguishable from opium-pushing drug lords to get the funding to train the killers.  Only successful Iraq democracy, followed by democratic/ free market trends in other Arab-Muslim countries, will reduce the terrorism. Maybe following the aid money that Arafat has been stealing -- and pushing aid agencies to build more Pali housing, and start more Pali businesses.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/26/04 01:11 | link | comments

The Dissident Frogman posts on how the Left is anti-Religious

>> GREAT post, dacha; fits in with E. Fester about the Leftist's anti-religion, especially anti-Christianity; to those who believe the state is God, all other gods are heresies.

 

Cato’s good plan for pension reform; you keep your 6.2%, the employer’s 6.2% (invisible) goes to fund disability, etc.

 

David Boaz at Cato discusses how Americans, when they can vote, are voting for less taxes.

“In January of this year, Oregon’s liberal

electorate voted 55-45 to reject a proposed tax increase, thereby

instructing the legislature to cut spending… Alabama voters rejected

Gov. Bob Riley’s $1.2 billion tax hike by 2

to 1. California voters tossed out big-spending

Gov. Gray Davis, and 62 percent of them voted

for candidates who promised not to raise taxes

to close the state’s deficit.”

>Too bad they’re not yet voting for less benefits, less spending.

 

Daniel T. Griswold of CATO notes the relationship between open economies, wealth creation, and peace: “People who live in countries open to the global economy enjoy a higher standard of living, on average, than those trapped behind high-tariff barriers. They eat better and live longer. Their children are more likely to attend school than work in the fields. They can speak, assemble and worship more freely and elect their rulers democratically. And because economically open countries are more likely to be democracies, they are less likely to fight wars with each other.

 

Those observations are based not on academic theories, but on how the world really works.

… Expanding trade and investment ties create a more peaceful and hospitable world, where hope for a brighter future can finally replace frustration and envy.”

 

>Daniel is quite right about the world being better off, and individual countries being better off, the more open they are.  Unfortunately, the Bush-hating intellectuals of the West make me expect Envy to remain a large problem, even after we create: A world without dictators.

  

Jeff attacks Ralph Nader for running, and all third party candidates>>Jeremy, I agree that charisma could help a third party candidate get a LOT of air time.  That's why I supported Russell Means (American Indian) for Libertarian President in 1988, instead of Ron Paul (former and now again Rep. pro-life Congressman; against the Bush deficit).  Harry Browne in 96, 2000, 2004; 92?  It's not every year.  If he was "good", he could be developing a better platform, or better educating the folks -- like the Greens say they want to do.

 

Jeff, anybody who feels they are voting for "the lesser of two evils" is right to vote for Nader, or Perot, or Ed Clark (in 1980), or somebody they support.  The big lie is "voting against" somebody -- you can only vote in favor of who you vote FOR.

 

You might be FOR the Dem 'cause you hate the Rep(or vice versa), but the morality of your vote is the whole package, his good and bad points.  And one who votes for the winner IS responsible, some, for the bad that the winner does.  Gore supporters are not responsible for Iraq in the same way that Bush supporters ARE responsible for the huge (though arguably justified) deficit.

 

Also remember: “Nobody is telling the truth, Nobody will really help you, Nobody will lower your taxes… Vote for Nobody!”

 

 

 

Michael fisks Adbusters and the increasing Judeophobia>> You're so right in your analysis Michael, up to a point.

The point is the question: if London is nuked (with small dirty-bomb), will the USA go to war for the UK?  I think so.  Even Paris or Berlin; though prolly not Moscow, yet.

 

What about Tel Aviv?

And what is the likelihood of those cities being nuked in the next 5 years?

 

London - 1%, Paris, Berlin - 0.5%, Tel Aviv - 2%?  There is a much higher chance of Tel Aviv, and Israel, of being the target of WMDs from local Arab/ Muslim dictators -- and there is clearly a LOT of popular Muslim support for being the big Muslim honcho against those crafty, cabalistic Joooooos. He might be unconsciously anti-Semite, but I think he's deliberately anti-Israel. But there was virtually no chance of the US invading other Axis of Evil countries until after Saddam was neutralized.  (I do hope the Iraqis follow your advice, and kill him quickly.) 

 

The US in Iraq, and more importantly, freedom for Iraqi people in Iraq, is the best thing for the USA, and for Israel, and for most (not all) Arab people.  (Not for the Baathists or other top or favored thugs.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/24/04 22:34 | link | comments

 

Roger notes the BBC honestly says the PA terrorists for the recent bus bomb come from Arafat.  There’s questions about why the other newsfolk refuse to name Arafat>>I hope the Iraqis try to sue, for support of wrongful death or some legal phrase for injustice, all the groups that gave Saddam unaudited money -- for damages.

 

It's great when the BBC is honest, too bad it's so seldom with respect to Israel.  Folk support Arafat because he was elected -- once.  I don't even remember when (do YOU?).  He's a dictator, with PA thugs who beat up Palis that disagree, or question where the money goes.

 

But Israel could do the whole development aid industry help by claiming what the Palis need the most is private housing, and that aid should be oriented to building new housing in the future Palestinian state.  OUTSIDE of Arafat's control.

 

On the other hand, the BBC also airs biased anti-American notes by journalists looking for bad quotes.

 

Dennis Prager offers reason why women expose more of themselves.

 

 

E. Fester has gotten a LOT of emails about his professors being anti-Religious.  They prove his point.  I think more conservative students should secretly record their professors, respectfully ask provocative questions, and explicitly question the assumptions against God. Don’t know whether blogging transcripts immediately, or later, is a better tactic – but making fun of the professor should be the goal.  So that some change.

 

No need, perhaps, to link to BlogFather Glenn Reynolds.  But he’s truly good – I see few good stories that he hasn’t, and he sees many that I haven’t.  So I keep looking there.

Many of the following come from Glenn:

 

Good Economist link about the benefits of jobs going overseas.  More good than bad.

 

Fantastic little blog by a guy (Hammock man) who met the US President, had a nice 25 minute chat about what’s important. 

 

Donald’s also against the lottery, a lie by the state>> A voluntary tax on the stupid.  OK by me.

The state lies -- well, most politicians get elected by being better liars.  No news there.  No involuntary income penalty, er, tax, is more moral than a voluntary lottery tax.

 

The problem is in the gov't spending -- reduce gov't spending, first, and then there will be less need for lottery tax revenue.

 

Donald keeps up the talk about gay marriage>>I think Dennis Prager deserves to be cited, Judaism and Homosexuality:

 

He focuses on directing the sexual energy of men into marriage and commitment with one woman, and noting/ claiming that Judaism was a huge advance in favor of marriage-sex rather than more promiscuous sex.  Excessive sexual promiscuity is the main family problem in the West-sexual consumerism; no-fault divorce supports it, abortion supports it, women's liberation and the Pill (both I like) supports it, TV & movies support it, and advertising supports it.

 

Gay marriage would also support it, and needs to be opposed. Using grandson & grandma marriages is a good, creative way to oppose it -- and such winter-spring marriages are quite like likely to last "until death" parts them.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/23/04 21:44 | link | comments

TCS offers an alternate Marriage Amendment:

"'Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.'

 

Roger writes in support of Gay Marriage, which I can’t avoid, either, but I’m on the other side.  Dennis Prager’s arguments are among the best:

 

Donald Sensing is doing a great job, too, at defending marriage theologically.

 

Edward Feser in TechCentralStation articles (1 & 2) on why the Leftists dominate the Universities.  Looks at many theories, concluding that they have anti-Christian religion of Leftism: “Whatever bland official statement of purpose might appear in the introduction to a modern university's college catalog, its true raison d'etre is in practice nothing other than to destroy utterly whatever allegiance a young person might have to traditional conceptions in morality, religion, politics and culture, to "do dirt" on the faith of his fathers, on his country, and on what most human beings have historically understood to be the imperatives of decency. It is, in short, to propagate Leftism.”

Thomas Nagel: “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind.”

“…Eastern religion just does not pose the same moral challenge to contemporary Western decadence that the traditional religion of the West itself does.         

 

This moral challenge is, I suggest, the aspect of the Judeo-Christian tradition that is hated by the modern intellectual, and that the challenge follows from the unique metaphysical vision of the West is the reason for his hostility toward the latter.”

“…The call to self-reliance and self-restraint, to family and faith, still has for him its charms; yet the prospects of ever-expanding government handouts at others' expense, and of endless sensual indulgence without consequences (except to one's children, ex-spouses, the unborn, and future generations, but never mind them) [exerts too strong a pull].”

 

>> yes, the anti-religious, and especially anti-Christian overly proud, intellectuals.  Too smart to believe in God -- and so smart they can tell themselves intellectual rationalizations, lies, that are good enough to believe.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/22/04 22:41 | link | comments

Michael Ledeen of AEI has an article on Inelegant Lies, how the Iranian mullahs are lying to and manipulating the credulous among the West. This, after their supported killers had some success in killing Kurds as Wolfowitz was visiting: “This sort of message--you come, we kill you and your allies--is well understood in the Middle East, although not so well back here. Last time he was in Iraq, they tried to kill Wolfowitz… [many are] convinced that Iran was involved. "We (the two Kurdish groups) have a common enemy: the terrorists who come from Iran and other countries, and we must face them." …

Our diplomats have it wrong. Sanchez and Najmeddine are the reliable sources. We will never get a firm grip on Iraq until the regime is changed in Tehran.”

>> It’s clear that as long as there is no regime change in Iran, there will be some trouble in Iraq – but I’m pretty sure Michael L. has it wrong. Until we get a firm grip on Iraq, the Iran regime will NOT change. That firm grip has to be Iraqi mayors, and Iraqi governors (of its 28 provinces), having responsibility AND authority to fight off terrorists. Stopping terrorists is a local activity, best coordinated nationally and internationally, but with local foot soldiers.

We need more direct elections of local Iraqi leaders, and then help them AS THEY ASK, in ways they ask for. More ammo, more presence, or less presence. Yes, the US Army stops them from instituting Sharia, or banning women from the streets. UN Human Rights need to be supported against democratic majoritarian tyranny. But mostly let the Iraqis lead on security, after leaders are elected. With lots of press, critical and not, about what’s going on.

Michael Ledeen also writes about the French Interventionist Itch; and their desire to go to Haiti. Mr. Powell thinks there is will in the US to go to Haiti; but Mr. Ledeen argues the half-force of Clinton has failed: “So let's try the old-fashioned way. Let's join with the French, proclaim a pox on both houses in the current conflict, depose Mr. Aristide and let him face the judgment of his own people, arrest and try the killers on the other side, install an interim government by force of arms, organize a serious privatization and aid program, and then conduct elections in six months or a year, under international auspices, with guarantees of future elections at regular intervals. And let's call it a democratic revolution.

It's good to remind the world that democracy is often spread by force of arms;”

>> Yes, spreading good by violence against bad violence is effective, and saves lives. I’d argue it’s a good time to debate intervention inside of NATO, and suggest the US join French’s lead in a Coalition of the willing, with the US troop amount at 90% of the French. Volunteers only, of course. Preferably black?

David Frum and Michael Ledeen should try to agree on some way to get international coalitions of willing democracies, either through NATO or some other system, to spread responsible democracy around the world.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/19/04 20:49 | link | comments

 

Wonderful story about an Iraqi statue maker, forced to make statues of Saddam, now able to voluntarily make a statue of a US soldier, in a common theme seen by many Iraqis. “A soldier kneels before a memorial of boots, rifle and helmet – his forehead resting in the hollow of his hand. Behind and to his right stands a small Iraqi girl with her hand reaching out to touch his shoulder.” Touching, beautiful, tear-jerking.

 

Centerfield notes that black leadership is hoping to beat Bush, and not making waves among Dems. >> There's also a growing movement of diversity among middle class blacks, who are maybe getting tired of years, and years, and decades, of NEA-democratic failure at teaching poor blacks to read. What is the NEA-Dem rate, some 54% of blacks who leave high school are illiterate?

And of course, there's some frustration that any black who's not a knee-jerk Dem "isn't a true black" -- much like any poor young black who studies is beaten up for being "too white".

 

Donald talks about Mel Gibson’s Passion movie, and the fear of the ADL that it could increase anti-Jewish feeling. Donald also disses the Vatican’s weak response, but he’s missing the point.>> When Muslim youth can scream insults at Israeli singers in France, the ADL really should be trying to stop the anti-Jew hate that already is here. And is growing. And the UN, or is it the EU, which refused to publish a recent account of Jew-hatred should be called, again and again, friendly to Jew-haters. Until they prove otherwise.

As I note in my Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate, more Jews need to reevaluate their own support for "punish, er, tax the rich" schemes, since so many people think Jews are rich (er). And therefore deserve punishment, er, higher taxes. Irrespective of Jesus.

 

A woman photographer in Slovakia, and her pictures of ordinary women. “"[In her photographs] she discovers the world of a woman mainly through her own experience, through banal stories of surroundings, objects, and their implications. At the same time she is also interested in what is maybe only a fictive contrast [between] the women nostalgically swimming in the old [Socialist] structures and the women trying to face the attack of the 'Barbie' world of advertisement and modeling, by which they are manipulated, even tyrannized,"

Yes, the tyranny of Barbie’s attack, the manipulation of advertising and modeling. Somehow, the black veils of Islam are too extreme a reaction, yet there should be some defense against this attack.

 

Michael on support for tyranny, Saddam's oil bribes and Galloway>> Well, I'm pretty pro-free-market, but let me challenge those who support the "poor". Do you support unlimited immigration into the USA? (I do)

If not, you want to use force, against poor folk, to STOP them from offering to work for less than minimum wage; you FORCE them to live in poverty.

I do think the commies did something really good - no unemployment. After 68, A. Dubcek was forced to work in some manual forestry function. In fact, unemployment was illegal.

I support a voluntary, "national service corps", where any US citizens (not immigrants?) can get a job; with cafeteria food and dorm rooms and curfews and other, reasonable limits on their freedoms, since they're unable/ unwilling to take care of themselves. Not so unlike voluntary prison. So all "homeless" would have a home possibility, if they accept the rules. But they are free to leave, when they want, and look for some other higher paying job, or after they have found one...

 

And then eliminate all other gov't support for rich farmers, rich airline execs, rich US programmers, etc.

There are some ugly truths about wanting to take from the rich to give to the poor. First, such programs usually benefit the middle class, and bureaucrats, far more than the poor. Second, in the USA, middle class people are, globally, rich; so such US programs are an attempt to take from the super-rich to give to the rich -- not all that different from taking from the rich to give to the super-rich (crony capitalism that I hate in Bush).

Finally, back on-topic (surprise!), support for tyranny is based partly on avoidance of these truths. The Galloway rich and envious types want to take, or support somebody taking, from the super-rich, in the name of the poor, but really to benefit their own "middle class" (world-rich), and let the real poor rot.

 

The Missing Check – local gov’t as a check against central gov’t. Almost every, the higher gov't should have one of its main tasks to be checking on local gov't. Yes, local gov't won't like it -- nobody likes to be watched.

 

Jeff quotes an FT guy about market failure in the IT industry>>The huge lake of dross is free, since you don't get paid for your comments (nor do I). Info wants to be free.

The end of enforceable copyrights is one of the real revolutionary aspects of the info revolution; so other forms of supporting R&D (eg for AIDs drugs research & reward) will be needed.

Where is the market failure? Only if "too little" info is produced can market failure in the info industry be claimed. Yes, Skype peer-to-peer telephony means old fashioned long-distance phone calls, and prices & profits, are doomed. Well, the broadband costs will adjust, and profits & losses be distributed -- that's fast creative destruction, not market failure.

Yes, mfg will be computer/robot made or made in the poorest countries that have reasonable laws -- thereby increasing the size of the world's middle class. No market failure there -- maybe policy failure if silly outsource regulations occur to protect rich US programmers from poor Indians.

And for most "info-tainment" info products, music, movies, some software, the cost is going down, down, down. China movie makers are using digital handicams -- it's the stories that will sell, or not.

Fame over cash for many; most buyers will choose a cheaper similar product produced by a fame-hungry producer over a cash-hungry producer. That's not market failure. And prices dropping - I like that part the best!

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/19/04 20:18 | link | comments

Who has the moral authority?

David Frum had an interesting 2 minute debate with Tory Sir Malcolm Rifkind on the BBC over the weekend. (can find no link) Including Sir Malcolm’s occasional rudeness, and slight but definite snobbishness, David prolly looked a bit better. Key points: Sir Malcolm complains about international law, and the need for the UN to approve military action; David counters that China should not have a veto on defense matters. Sir Malcolm concedes this, but then shifts to requiring a coalition including Arab & Muslim neighbors, as in 91’s Kuwait liberation. David refutes this noting that one of the goals is to create the first Arab Muslim democracy in the area.

But while I’m glad the BBC even had the debate, and agree that David did fine, I think he could have done better – though I’m not sure. What enrages me is that the UN canard comes up, every time. And yes, whenever the Bush-basher uses it and is challenged, he’ll back down, for a moment – and then likely bring it back up, again, in the next public forum. The same with the BBC or other biased reporter. The moral and justice authority of the dictator supporting UN is in no way greater than, or even equal to, that of a democratically elected gov’t.

I wish David had stopped it right there, and challenged Sir Malcolm on his backdown, with some phrase: “I hear you agree that veto wielding China’s permission is not a higher authority – but I don’t believe you mean it. I believe the next chance you get you’ll say Bush was wrong because only the UN has the authority. Please, yes or no, does democratic America have more moral authority than the UN? Yes or no? (if yes …) So, you agree that the next time this issue comes up, one who objects to US action citing the UN is wrong? And, if YOU use the UN argument, YOU are being an intellectual hypocrite?”

Yes, I know it’s unrealistic. But “who has moral authority” is the real issue of the WMD debate, and the anti-war anti-Bush attacks. The Bush-hate campaign is designed, unconsciously or not, to claim that Pres. G.W. Bush does not have moral authority. This is not inconsistent with Charles Krauthammer’s fine address on the issues of American power in a unipolar world: “Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.”

While Krauthammer (see my 16 Feb.) has a reasonable excuse in this formulation for NOT going into Haiti, for instance, or Bosnia or Kosovo, for that matter, I find it too weak; necessary, but not sufficient. We WILL go, when we feel we must; we should TRY to go, when we can join a coalition of the willing. I suggest using NATO to create a Human Rights Enforcement Group. The point would be to define places where non-democratic regime change is justified on Humanitarian Grounds, and allow members to form military coalitions of willing. Yes, the beginnings of a democracy world police force. One that allows France to opt-out in Iraq, AND that allows the US to opt-out of Ivory Coast or other French adventures, including Haiti.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/18/04 21:20 | link | comments

http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAcurrent.html

Interesting blog about national defense.

 

 

Donald on marriage, after 2 of 3?>> I think the critics of the Rev. are missing something, or else I missed something.  His proposal: the legal issues are based on gov't CICs, "marriage" is strictly religious -- with NO imposition on others.  Hospitals ask for CICs, couples tell their friends they're married.

 

Though I guess this understanding is contrary to his own explanation of taking the Church out of marriage; I read it as taking the law, and violence, out of marriage. I eagerly await proposed solutions, but offer two (plus note) that might not yet be included.

 

First, DNA testing on paternity, as a matter of course, unless explicitly requested NOT by both the mother and the responsibility accepting "father".  I don't mind women getting child custody & support from men, unless they were married AND it was the woman who cheated (the man should have to prove this) -- and the man should then get custody.

 

Second, tax advertising.  I believe advertising is mental, and moral, pollution -- implicitly claiming that happiness comes from buying stuff, from material possessions.  Hollywood's ease of showing promiscuous emotion in 90 minutes, but difficulty in showing committed love in a 90 minute movie creates a false reality perception of what is "normal".  I suspect TV, cars, & drive-in movies are at least as important as the pill in the increase in promiscuity, and the acceptance, then celebration, of it.

 

Finally, the biggest child rearing problem involves two facts: 1)optimal is birth mother & birth father in a committed relationship = marriage. 2) there is little agreement on how the state can, or should, best help the children & families in the huge number of sub-optimal arrangements.

 

Donald also points to a wacko who wants to have telephone polls to determine Pres. actions.  With a 1-900 number (toll call) to register your vote.>> It's not obvious to me that this is worse than what we have now, especially in endless poll watching.  The phrasing of the questions would then become part of the focus of the debate -- and we actually do need more focus on what, exactly, are the important questions.

 

And he can always change his mind, like most Pres.  Still, prolly wacko like you say.

 

Why not have folk fill out votes with their income tax forms?  Some % for each gov't office, with the forms stating the dollar and % amount in the past.

Plus a question on increasing/ decreasing taxes: +10 +5 0 -5 -10%.

 

MORE direct democracy on total amounts raised, and how it's spent, seems fine to me.  Of course, with voluntary income tax form filing for non-taxpayers who just want to "vote".

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/18/04 20:47 | link | comments

Gabriel at Samizdata writes about, what are taxes for, anyway.>>See my note on Tax Loans to provide an alternative.
Yes, user fees.
Yes, tax loans, and separate payments for every gov't benefit.
And then push to reduce taxes, and double payment.

People understand that there's not really a free lunch, but know that gov't programs are almost free, to them; yet also know that taxes are needed to get the almost free benefits. Let tax-sucking users pay, for use, for all that's really usable, and the demand for services will go down.

If students were able to borrow 10 000 pounds a year for school, and repaid that loan from their taxes, plus a small (5%?) loan repayment surcharge, they would demand better education, at lower prices/loans. And would wonder why other benefits aren't done similarly -- and tend to be against general tax spending/wasting.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/17/04 23:14 | link | comments

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ldt.00.html

Glassman vs Dobbs on Trade  (in the middle, after 125 latinos were held in an upscale coyote-house.  Clearly, going after the owners of the property, AND taking the property, would help)

Really weak show.  Glassman looked bad, but Dobbs not so great.  Here’s an example:

 

DOBBS: When you are carrying a half trillion dollar trade deficit, it's not benefiting both sides. That's precisely the point. If it were I would...

 

GLASSMAN: Of course it benefits both sides. The United States is the most...

 

DOBBS: Do you realize there are 3 trillion dollars in IOUs held by foreigners against U.S. assets? Does that trouble you.

 

GLASSMAN: The United States is the most robust economy in the world.

 

DOBBS: You can keep doing it.

 

GLASSMAN: Obviously, we have problems.

 

DOBBS: You talk like a cult member. There's a mantra, you say market, you say largest and dynamic.

 

GLASSMAN: I don't think I've said market yet.

 

DOBBS: And it simply removes the need for rationality.

 

GLASSMAN: I just wish you would devote your considerable intelligence what I think is the biggest problem with trade, which is alleviating the pain of the people who get caught. Trade definitely has more benefits...

 

DOBBS: I am trying to stop the pain before it continues and that's what has got to be addressed. And you are too smart to buy in as a sycophantic response to your corporate bosses and say, you know whatever you want to do, whatever the American enterprise needs to do.

 

>> Why is James Glassman looking so poor?  Because trade & jobs is a complex subject, and there ARE individuals who lose jobs, often good jobs, and have to change.  Change their jobs, change their lives.  Yes, James did say, clearly, that trade benefits both sides. But this point is essentially lost.

 

James did not add that China, or India can do 3 things with its dollars: buy American stuff, invest in America and create jobs here, or put its dollars in bank and collect interest, letting the bank do the investing.  What are the banks investing in?  US houses.  The trade deficit is a big reason that house mortgage interest rates are so low.  Banks have dollars looking for good investments.  That’s why house construction is so high.

 

At 5.6% unemployment, the US should be compared with Germany at 10%.  Less change there, less house ownership, less possible advancement.

 

Trade deficit is NOT a problem.  Not for anybody, ever.  Jobs changing IS a problem for those people who have to change their lives.  Every time Wal-Mart opens a store, offering lower prices to the consumers, all the other store owners feel the change.  But the consumer is better off.  And the vast majority of job changes is due to technological advancement NOT trade based job shifting.

 

Free trade helps the poor the most.  The alternative is obstructed trade, protectionism.  The word “balance” is a way to lie about the obstruction: the purpose is to protect overpaid American jobs, which keeps poor Indians poor.  Now it is a fact that those without jobs are easily identified.  But economics always involves policy options that are a package, something like: 200 lost jobs AND 2000 jobs getting 15% better, or 20 lost jobs and 100 jobs getting 5% better.

 

Economics is interconnected.  It may be possible to stop companies from lowering costs by hiring overseas; obviously that means forcing higher prices for the same product or service.  It also pretty clearly means less total growth in the world, less wealth being generated, since there is no cost savings that can increase demand for other products.  It is a LIE to believe obstructing trade can be better, for the world, than free trade.  Better to have under 6% unemployment, and a trade deficit, than over 10% unemployment, and a surplus. 

 

 

However, the ANGER is based on the super rich corporate executives, who have been overly protected by a Congress opposed to hostile takeovers.  Congress has been protecting golden parachutes, poison pills, and other anti-takeover measures that allow rich, lazy execs to get fat pay even without doing a good job.  Both super rich Kerry Dems and the Bush family Reps are guilty of this, and until this is more fairly resolved, the unsatisfied envious demand for justice will spill over into other related, and less related, areas.

 

The budget deficit is a more real problem, but it seems that Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases has successfully stopped the Clinton dot.com bubble pop from becoming a full depression, despite the huge evaporation of paper wealth.  Actually, Bush has been SO successful that most Americans sort of feel that nothing much happened after the bubble – if Hoover had followed Bush’s policies, perhaps there wouldn’t have been such a great Depression in the 30’s. And the Dems would have said it’s terrible.

 

Similarly, the world’s economies are adjusting, through the exchange rate, to less opportunity for making money in America.  They are investing less, which means they want dollars less,

which is why the exchange rate is going down.  It will keep going down as long as the Europeans continue to strangle their own growth – but at least the Euros have a trade surplus.

That German/ Euro trade surplus, by the way, is exactly what is most at competitive risk to a falling dollar.

 

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001100.html

Dan Drezner started a huge comment fest on a post about outsourcing: >> Clinton's dot.com bubble meant that IT workers were widely overpaid.  Outsourcing is addressing that imbalance; lower IT salaries would help, too.  I'm pretty sure there are few IT professionals unable to get work at the USA average wage (of about $30 000/year?).  A big drop after $80k, but maybe they need to sell their house (or walk away from an excessive mortgage), and live much more simply.

 

It's great, GREAT, that India and China are growing, and their dirt-poor, disgustingly-poor, obscenely-poor people are, finally, having more opportunities.  If 40 Indians take the place of a 10 person USA call center, that's mostly good.

 

But the 10 Americans have to change.  Sell used cars?  Not so easy, but easy to start trying.  For 40 years or so, especially as the Rust Belt manufacturing jobs were disappearing, Hi-Tek was the coming thing.  Now, hi-tek is the outsourcing thing, and the future good jobs don't seem so clear.  They're not; and not obvious; but that doesn't mean they're not there.  But an average US job is good job; even if half the money of a prior job.

 

Something like 5-6% unemployment is the natural, long term, full employment number.  Wanting a lower rate is pretty unsustainable.

++ Oh, on the trade deficit, there is no real problem.  Foreign companies/ countries have 3 choices of what to do with dollars: 1) buy American products, 2) invest in America (creating US jobs), 3) put the money in a bank (which has to invest in something American, bonds, etc.)

 

The trade+investment sum is always moving towards balance -- that balance is pushing the dollar down.

 

<b>It is also pushing US mortgage interest rates down.</b> Since that's one of the easy things for banks to do with dollars. 

 

Limiting the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, maybe to a lifetime maximum of $500 000, would reduce this tax subsidy to the super rich, without hurting the middle class (=world rich). 

 

US middle class ARE rich, in the world.  And trade protection is designed, like most gov't regulations, to hurt the poor (in India) and help the rich.  (And/or the super-rich.)

(From Slovakia -- willing to do great programming outsourcing at half US rates, or maybe now 80%)

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/17/04 22:36 | link | comments

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32547

Dennis Prager has a great zinger in his post about a talk at Stanford: “The American university is this country's primary incubator of anti-Americanism and opposition to Judeo-Christian values. Therefore, the funding of effective speakers on college campuses on behalf of America and its Judeo-Christian values must now be regarded as important as the funding of our military. We are at war at home as much as we are abroad.”

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/

Jeff talks about how blogs are going to be kept, and history will be more and more clear.  How much to worry?>> We all have to live with who we "are" -- in 4d.

Time is that 4th dimension, Kerry 1970 is himself.  We need more acceptance that you can't always, or usually, or perhaps ever, start with a completely clean slate.

 

(Leaving the US for Slovakia 12 years ago is close)

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32294

The short version, not as good, of David Prager’s great article against homosexuality marriage.

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000693.htm#comments

Roger is asking about the Oil for Food money, and the trail>>Follow the money, follow the money! Yes, against Bush & Halliburton, if less than clean. And Yes, yes, yes against the UN -- why NO AUDIT of the oil for palaces & bribes program???

 

 

http://www.fredriknorman.com/archives/000058.html#000058

Fredrik K.R. Norman is head of Friends of America, and was on TV defending Bush, to some extent.

 

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000296.html

Brad discusses employment differences, and has a nice graph that shows the unreliable, and almost certainly politically motivated, alternative employment forecasts.>> Fine graph, Brad, but I think it's missing a "long term sustainable full employment" estimate.  This is important because the dot.com boom was overemployment, and unsustainable -- and therefore an employment contraction was inevitable.

 

Unless the bubble pop, and it's second & third order ramifications, are more fully explored, it's hard for me to credit a lot of criticism of Bush's macro handling -- a big deficit of tax cuts and spending increases DID avoid a depression, despite the huge evaporation of paper wealth.

++Seems a lot like the deep green bogus science on global warming. There's prolly a good post there in using the global warming critics' arguments, against Bush's forecasts--but it's also prolly a lot of work to do right.

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html#107697265143483679

Donald wants to separate the legal & religious aspects of marriage: “As far as the state is concerned, a wedding is a legal meeting in which a contract is made and property rights are allocated according to law or other legal agreement. That is really the state's only interest….However, weddings were not performed in churches until about 500 years ago. Martin Luther, for example, was not married in a church. While marriages were seen as falling under religious dominion, the wedding ceremony was a civil affair. (Note that the Catholic churches hold marriage, not weddings, to be sacramental.)…

1. Have states issue only "Civil Interpersonal Contract" registrations that may be used by any two adults of legal age…

2. Certificates of marriage, having no additional legal effect, would be issued by churches, synagogues or mosques, not by the state.”>>

This was not my idea, but I quite like it.  Separation of the religious meaning from the legal contract.  Still doesn’t answer for adoption criteria, etc.  And Justin Katz has excellent reasons to oppose CICs, taking down the need for (usually) young couples to seriously look at the marriage issue from a religious point of view. 

I agree that the word “marriage”, itself, is part of what the battle is about – who controls what that word means.  I do not want it to mean gays, but don’t see how to stop it except by gov’t amendment; not sure it’s worth that.  I was quite ignorant of the Registered Domestic Partnership law, and I think more advertising of DomParts could relieve a little pressure.  But insofar as “marriage” means a higher quality relationship, it’s understandable that gays will want it, and pro-family folk would want to stop gays from getting it, from co-opting that word (as they’ve already stolen the formerly happy word “gay”).

 

 

 

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html#107688913395664447

Donald has an important post on judicial activism, and becoming a nation of men, not laws.  Comments moved to gays, and marriage>>I, slightly, support civil unions for gays, NOT marriage. The state should get out of marriage, altogether, and Donald makes a good case on CICs, contracts. And the purpose of such a contract is enforcement, if there's a problem.

 

Gays want marriage to adopt -- so that the adoption agencies are NOT allowed to choose non-gay couples. I support freedom to discriminate based on behavior; gay marriage is an attempt to reduce the freedom of others to disapprove of their lifestyle choices.

 

David Prager has a fine note about how Jewish creation of marriage, between a man and, fairly soon after, just one woman, was helpful in orienting the male sex drive to be more child beneficial.

 

The gay John McKellar is more impassioned against gay marriage: http://www.anglican.tk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=225

noting that AIDS is a huge problem, still undertreated. He makes a strong, implicit, case against A. Sullivan.