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 02/26/04 23:51 | 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 00:11 | 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 21:34 | 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 20:44 | 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 21:41 | 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 19:49 | 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 19:18 | 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 20:20 | 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 19:47 | 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 22:14 | 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 21:36 | 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.

 

Tom, you've been doing a good job -- sorry I wasn't here to support you more. 

Gay sex, and especially gay promiscuity, is terrible.  Hetero promiscuity, and adultery, and intern bonking, is also terrible; and divorce is, has been, and will always be problematic for children.

 

There's little proof either way that stable gay couples are better or worse, but I believe worse.  It will be up to gays to prove otherwise.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/17/04 21:35 | link | comments

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912/news_detail.asp

AEI’s Charles Krauthammer lecture on American Foreign Policy in a Unipolar World: “we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory. The use of the word “empire” in the American context is ridiculous….”

“Moral suasion is a farce. Why then this obsession with conventions, protocols, legalisms? Their obvious net effect is to temper American power. Who, after all, was really going to be most constrained by these treaties? The ABM amendments were aimed squarely at American advances and strategic defenses, not at Russia, which lags hopelessly behind. The Kyoto Protocol exempted India and China. The nuclear test ban would have seriously degraded the American nuclear arsenal. And the landmine treaty (which the Clinton administration spent months negotiating but, in the end, met so much Pentagon resistance that even Clinton could not initial it) would have had a devastating impact on U.S. conventional forces, particularly at the DMZ in Korea.

 

But that, you see, is the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to, dependent on, constricted by the will--and interests--of other nations.”

 

In deepening some areas of Kagan’s seminal article, Charles discusses many things, but the keys include 4 responses. “Isolationism, Liberal Internationalism, Realism, and Democratic Globalization.  And we come ashore, for regime change, when it counts.  When it can really help.”

 

Charles could get a little more targeted by focusing more on free speech, but democracy is close enough.

 

 

 

http://www.anglican.tk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=225

John McKellar has started HOPE - Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism ,

A pro-gay, anti-gay-marriage group.  Very well written, ending with a call to Canada’s politicians to stand up against the PC gay activists, or else “you and your Alliance Party may as well join the Pink Triangle Brigade, hoist the rainbow flag and shout with belligerent confidence, 'We're here, we're queer, so stick it in your ear!'

Ladies and gentlemen, real affliction out there is not 'homophobia', but rather, 'truthphobia'.”

 

http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=353

 

(Thanks Andrew Hagen, who also pointed out Steven Emerson, and his prior warning of the Islamic threat.  Apparently Steven is now having problems due to hate speech crimes.

 

I have a quick fantasy: anti-fascists copy the Bush-hate speech, but edit it to be like they’re against Blacks… when the complaints happen, agree that it was hate against Bush, not Blacks.

Of course this trick can’t work, due to plurality issues, but still…

 

 

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000692.htm

Roger plus about the question what, if any, is the link between public behavior and private actions (morality) >> Rebel, huge welcome to you -- an anti-Bush guy that makes reasonable arguments rather than mere Bush-hate and insults to pro-Bush folk (or to reason).

 

Clinton's budget success is due to the fact that, on spending, it is much easier for any Pres. to be successful by doing what the OTHER party wants.  Reps like balanced budget, easier for Clinton.  Dems like big spending, easier for Reagan, Bush, & GW.  Part of trying to "do something", and be successful.

 

And a good Pres. has to be successful, and do things.  Thrusting into nubile young things is one thing most powerful men want to do more of; and they're used to being successful.

 

Being powerful requires that OTHER men respect you, and follow you.  Successful intern bonking generates a huge amount of admiring envious respect in many other men--and as long as this is the case, it will be done with a lot more ambiguity than stealing candy or millions; though creative accounting fudges that some.

 

There was a good note about a Pres. needing a Mean Streak, which Clinton showed he sure had (see his attacks on Ken Starr).  I'm claiming a Pres. will get more good service from other men if he has a Sexy Streak.

 

BTW, some Rep women have stated that GW is a "hottie" -- I don't quite see it (I did with Slick), but suspect that there's enough.

 

Sex, and cheating, is a special character issue flaw-asset; and maybe I should read Jane's book (but I'm so busy with hundreds of blog comments!).

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/16/04 20:32 | link | comments (2)

http://www.skype.com/ Voice over IP -- using Peer to Peer. Sounds good. It's free. I'm trying it! On the other hand, using new Mozilla FireFox (0.8 instead of Firebird 0.7) doesn't post quite the same here on motime as from IE 5.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/13/04 01:01 | link | comments

As Mankiw released the annual Economic Report of the President, he said Monday that the "offshoring" of U.S. service jobs is only "the latest manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about" for centuries. "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Mankiw told reporters. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past and that's a good thing." The report itself, under Bush's signature, offered similarly encouraging words, asserting that "when a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically."

Dear Ronald, For a moment I was outraged at your protectionism, or "economic nationalism", but have already become merely sad, and embarrassed for the utter failure of Economists to teach the second principle of Economics -- that free trade is better for the world. You say "it is an old story" -- and you're right. Adam Smith says something like: "A first principle for any prudent father -- do not make at home any item which is cheaper to buy." You suggest that past outsourcing of metal-bashing, or ship building, should provide sufficient data to decide. Indeed it does, and the data show, like the theory, that moving jobs is good at the macro level.

The problem is on the micro level, people *DO* lose jobs, and feel bad, and often have to find and take a lower paying job. But the economies, like the US, that are more open, have the most opportunities.

Brad DeLong, a Bush-hating Berkeley professor of economics has a fine short piece on Comparative Atvantage -- the most misunderstood concept in Economics. Another link includes more of Adam Smith, and this fine note: Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson (1969) was once challenged by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam to "name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial." It was several years later than he thought of the correct response: comparative advantage. "That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

What did David Ricardo mean when he coined the term comparative advantage? According to the principle of comparative advantage, the gains from trade follow from allowing an economy to specialise. If a country is relatively better at making wine than wool, it makes sense to put more resources into wine, and to export some of the wine to pay for imports of wool. This is even true if that country is the world's best wool producer, since the country will have more of both wool and wine than it would have without trade. A country does not have to be best at anything to gain from trade. The gains follow from specializing in those activities which, at world prices, the country is relatively better at, even though it may not have an absolute advantage in them. Because it is relative advantage that matters, it is meaningless to say a country has a comparative advantage in nothing. The term is one of the most misunderdstood ideas in economics, and is often wrongly assumed to mean an absolute advantage compared with other countries.

Brad DeLong also has a fine recent discussion of this on HIS blog: " You ask any of the recent Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers--Mankiw, ..., Stiglitz, ..., Boskin, ..., Schultze, Greenspan--of either party, and they will say that politicians who link trade and jobs and reporters who enable them do America no good service at all. Increasing trade does not create or destroy jobs in aggregate. The level of employment in the United States is determined by how good a job the Federal Reserve does in offsetting shocks to domestic demand, in setting monetary policy to hit the sweet spot where there is neither high unemployment nor rising inflation (with a secondary assist or hobbling by fiscal policy). What trade does is to shift jobs, shift the composition of American employment: people in import-competing industries lose jobs, while people in export industries (or, with the capital inflow, construction and investment goods industries) gain jobs. Economists have lots of good reasons for believing that the jobs gained are better jobs than the jobs lost, and that there are more and bigger winners from expanded international trade than there are losers. "

-- I already feel better, Ronald -- you are merely one of the important and intelligent men who seen unable to grasp the doctrine. I was about to read Brad and complain that he, and his idol Paul Krugman, are partly to blame for "enabling" the reporters and politicians to do a hatchet job on free trade -- now I don't quite have to. Please read this fine example: on wheat, wine; England, Portugal, and how both are better off with trade, even if Portugal is cheaper at making both wheat and wine. Remember -- THIS IS THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD CONCEPT -- and even many Republicans either suffer from it or have given up supporting it in the face of vociferous objections. So a good letter to you has to be long. Cheers, Tom Grey

good link on explaining why it is so misunderstood: because it is not intuitive, and is easily confused with absolute atvantage, which IS intuitive. Arnold Kling tries his hand at explaining why it is so hard to understand., and adds the importance of Equilibrium conditions -- a rock in mid air is not in equilibrium. And while Arnold is right about equilibrium, I don't think Arnold is right on why it's so hard to "understand". Blame. I think the economists are missing the fact that individuals DO lose their jobs, and these individuals DO want to blame somebody else; or else they feel they have to blame themselves. What has happened TO them needs a new word, which I don't have, that has to absolve them of blame for losing their job without blaming the company for hiring Indians, or Slovaks (HP is hiring 250 for a call center!), instead. Without a new word, we get a blame oriented idea. Even Brad does not really focus on that fact that NEEDING to shift jobs makes those workers feel bad. It is probably the case that each $60 000 shift to $50 000 creates 10 or more $2 000 raises in other jobs -- but the credit for the raise is assumed by the individual, while the blame for decrease is externalized to ... outsourcing.

-----Original Message----- From: Ronald Hilton [mailto:hilton@stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:45 PM To: gf

Subject: Bush Endorses U.S. Jobs Moving Overseas

Ross Rogers, Jr. forwards an article from: The Daily Mislead (2/10/04) "Bush Endorses U.S. Jobs Moving Overseas" On Labor Day, President Bush said, "I want people to understand that when somebody wants to work and can't find a job, it says we've got a problem in America that we're going to deal with. We want everybody in this country working." But yesterday, President Bush directly contradicted himself, releasing a report which "supports the shift of U.S. jobs overseas." When asked about the report and how it contradicts the president's supposed concern about job losses, the president's top economic adviser said, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade." With more than two million jobs lost since President Bush took office, newspaper headlines across the country told readers of the White House's new support for the practice of wealthy corporations eliminating U.S. jobs and > shipping them to lower-wage countries.

The Seattle Times headline read, "Bush report: Sending jobs overseas helps U.S." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said, "Bush Economic Report Praises 'Outsourcing' Jobs" and the Arizona Republic said, "Bush Report Lauds 'Outsourcing' Jobs." And while this may be troubling to the millions in the United States who are out of work and suffering from stagnating wages, it was celebrated in India, where thousands of good paying, white-collar U.S. jobs have moved. The headlines in India read, "Bush Aides: Outsourcing win-win for India." The story said the Administration believes exporting jobs to India and other lower-wage countries "is a win-win for both exporter and importer" -failing to explain how this is a win for American workers who the president just months ago purported to care about".

RH:It seems that Bush changed his tune under pressure from corporations. Democratic candidates have been loud in their denunciations of outsourcing. It is an old story. Metal-bashing moved overseas, leaving the US with a rust belt. When I was young, the UK had an important ship-building industry. Now it is gone, but somehow the St. Nazaire dockyard in France survived and has just built the "Queen Mary 2". I did not hear a squeak of protest from the UK. Does the British ship-building exist today? The past outsourcing of metal-bashing, ship building, etc should provide sufficient data to decide whether outsourcing is good. It may well be, even though certain regions and groups of individuals suffer. However. there is a danger to national security if such basic industries are moved overseas. This is an argument some Europeans use for farm subsidies. American farm subsidies serve a quite different purpose.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/12/04 22:02 | link | comments (2)

Roger being wrong on predicting Clark, comments suggesting Rudi instead of Cheny>>Well, *I* like Condi, even though Condi vs Hillary in 2008 means a first female pres; so, prolly not.

 

Robert Kagan points out Condi wrote the "national interest. Only." essay for Bush, before 9/11; she might be one of the least internationalists, or most realistic about true support.

http://www.aei.org/research/nai/news/newsID.19821,projectID.11/news_detail.asp 

 

Why not Rudi, "pro-choice"?  He can throw bones to the anti-abortion folk: require parental consent for minors, support abstinence education and real total education, including video pictures of an actual abortion and pictures of the sliced, tiny hands & limbs after an abortion (sickening, you betcha); promote Adoption instead of Abortion; and cut tax-funds for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups international.  Legal but not supported, what the Dems (lyingly) claim they want.

 

Most pro-life folk understand that America is not ready to make abortion illegal again -- so keeping it legal while reducing its attractiveness will prolly mollify enough of them.  Especially since the Dem candidate MUST be fanatically pro-abortion; who else are pro-life voters gonna support?  (Yeah, I've convinced myself, anyway.)

 

Great Giant Gulps of Crow! (Batman).  This was classy funny.

 

Roger on our desire to build folks up AND then, envy filled, knock them down>>I recall the idea that Hitler was warning Germans about how bad the commies were; and the commies were warning Germans about how bad Hitler was.

And both were correct in slinging mud.

 

Kerry looks slimy.

 

I really like a lot of things Bush has done, and tried to do -- but I actually don't trust him to get political things done competently.  I don't believe he's doing as good a job in Iraq as he could -- maybe it's Bremer's fault, and Rumsfeld before (and I really like Rummy!). 

 

I'm really annoyed that there aren't more Iraqi mayors with money & budgets to do Iraqi rebuilding.

 

But Bush may be bad, with Kerry badder?  Isn't voting the lesser of two evils just what we're all expected to do in a (great word!)

 

Schadenfreudocracy.

 

++More of Michael >>

Bush is wimpy on econ numbers, enough to add fuel to Bush-haters.  Even though I suspect, despite being against deficits, that his policies are really close to optimal.

The Bush military flap.  Maybe not officially AWOL, but likely taking advantage of being an irresponsible son of a VIP, and doing less than the minimum, but getting away with it.  Less bad than Clinton, less two-faced than Kerry; before he became born again.  Why not put these cards out more clearly, earlier?   (Maybe this is a good time; by the time Kerry is fully focused, it will be old news).

 

Bush *HAS* shown guts in follow through so far, and after 3 years of pushing the things he said he would push, that's quite a lot.  Maybe I'm suffering from being open-minded and thus polluted by excessive Bush-hate, despite disagreeing with it? 

 

Which is the purpose of libelous accusations, isn't it? 

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000276.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/021004A.html

Michael writes up Arnold Kling for Type I & Type II errors. >>Kling's MAIN point is that ERRORS will occur.  Say it: errors will happen.

Now, which errors are worse?  which are more probable?  HOW should we make decisions?

 

Look at Clinton's decision in 1998: invade Iraq, or not.  Type I error, wrong no-attack; result, WTC attack against US.  If, instead, he had attacked, he'd be looking at a Type II error, wrong attack, no WMDs there.

 

Don't you think Clinton was wrong to not attack?  I do -- if he had attacked, I'm pretty certain that the WTC would still be standing.  Likely with Pres. Al, and most Dems supporting a good nation-building in Iraq, and most Reps complaining about how it's too expensive.

 

But let's say you disagree, that you're glad Clinton didn't attack.  If with the WTC planes there had ALSO been an anthrax attack, so that 30 000 people died, would you think not attacking a mistake?  Is there any number of US Americans killed that would make you think it was a mistake to not attack?

 

In fact, tano, making decisions under uncertainty is hugely important, and really difficult, but most intellectuals follow YOUR lead and try to trivialize or over-simplify it.  Sound bites make lousy arguments.

 

 

My own favorite T I and T II errors were only just mentioned by Kling, the justice system.  EVERY justice system has both errors: wrongly punishing non-guilty people AND wrongly letting the guilty go.  And virtually every real change in the system to reduce one error leads to an increase in the other error: more protection of the innocent means more guilty go free; more crooks go to jail mean more innocent do, too.

 

Trade-offs.  Value judgments.  But thanks to tano type pea-brains, the public political discussions don't even come close to examining these issues in a rational way.

 

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.17741,filter./news_detail.asp

Radek Sikorski, an Oxford educated Pole now at the AEI, has been writing good stuff for awhile.  This testimony on ‘The Future of Transatlantic Relations’ seems consistent with Kagan’s Power article and the two Europes, though Sikorski is more clear about France stepping into the ‘leading anti-America’ role, vacated by the USSR implosion. 

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19436,filter./news_detail.asp

Radek also points out that New Europe supported America, and America’s leadership, in sending troops to Iraq.  Not the fear of Saddam; nor even such a big willingness to die in order to stop humanitarian abuses.  Support, and gratitude, for America.  But America is showing no gratitude in return, and that’s a shame.  It should, indeed be trying to give perqs to the Poles, and especially those serving in Iraq – like automatic visas to the US.

 

 

http://www.aei.org/research/nai/news/newsID.19821,projectID.11/news_detail.asp

Kagan recently wrote a fine note, and quoted Henry K: “The task in Iraq, Mr. Kissinger argued in an essay, was not just to win the war but to convey "to the rest of the world that our first pre-emptive war has been imposed by necessity and that we seek the world's interests, not exclusively our own." America's "special responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the world," he said, "is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power--indeed, that strives to translate power into cooperation. Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust us." 

The United States, in short, must pursue legitimacy in the manner truest to its nature, by promoting the principles of liberal democracy, not only as a means to greater security, but as an end in itself.”

 

>> YES.  The USA must put its world vision on the table – a World Without Dictators.  In this vision, it is the dictator supported UN which is illegitimate, and it’s the UN that supports dictators.  More than the US.

 

And yes, there needs to be a way to allow France or Germany to object to the USA taking action, yet that accepts US action against dictators.  I suggest a NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group, focusing on free speech (article 19).

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/11/04 19:44 | link | comments (4)

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/02/08/nhr0208c1.html

(via Baghdadee, Husain Hassan Sayyed Abdullah) Tell Afar Demand Province membership, West of Mosul is a site of a Turkoman-ified large town, some 200 000 people.

 

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/02/08/nhr0208k.html

by Adnan Darwash is frightening.  It has a good point “For political, strategic, technological and economic imperatives, America needs enemies. Having an enemy justifies military expenditures.”  Yes, war justifies bigger states.  But it blames the US, only for an attack, no mention of Iraq aggression, Islamic terrorism, or total lack of democracy & human rights.

Darwash rightly claims that Arabs should learn lessons, but it’s the wrong one.  His “The large national armies are good for parades only. Every Arab and Muslim country must arm the people and build its own tactics that aim to inflict heavy casualties or to annihilate those daring to desecrate the homeland.” 

 

Mine – every Arab and Muslim person must accept that non-democratic dictator leaders are, TODAY, desecrating their homelands.  Muslims must stop accepting dictatorship and corruption!  Nobody sane should be expected to die to defend a corrupt dictator, Arab or Muslim.  And Arabs must start being brave enough to read words they don’t want to hear.  Instead of cowardly being afraid of free speech.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040210a5.htm

The Tokyo High Court denied damages, or an apology, to 7 comfort women, upholding a lower court ruling.  It will go to the Supreme Court, possibly an International Court.  The Japanese are terrible about this.

 

 

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

More Iraqi stuff, from River and a new IraqiSpirit>> Yes, corruption is hard to stop.  But publish RESULTS.  Not so much the tender process, though that should be clear, too -- the results.  And always follow the money. 

 

Every dinar spent should be publicly known.

 

Good job; please keep following the money!

 

http://iraqispirit.blogspot.com/

IraqiSpirit also thanks the Japanese for coming. >> The Japanese are there 1) because the US is begging, pushing; and 2) because they want to be important in the world.  And a country that can't send troops anywhere there's fighting is not going to be as important/ influential as the Japanese think they deserve.

 

But they have a true democracy, meaning that there is some opposition to anything their gov't does.

 

O - this is a fine blog. I hope the Japanese do help Iraqis become more free.

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19717/news_detail.asp

Joshua Muravchik, AEI, Bringing Democracy to the Arab World: “Accordingly, Bush set the goal of spreading democracy to the Middle East as a way to drain the fever swamps in which terrorism breeds. As the president has explicitly acknowledged, his initiative constitutes a break with 60 years of American foreign policy.”

>> Something not discussed often enough is how Bush has explicitly broken with 60 years of American support for lesser-evil dictators.  The Left should love this – but instead so often tries to bash Bush as if he’s continuing.  Yes, a new policy will take time to take root and be seen for what it is, but the Left should be helping it grow, not trying to stop it.   

 

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000683.htm#comments

Roger isn’t so happy that everybody is crawling back to the UN.>> The world needs an organization of legitimate, democratic governments.  The UN problem is not of world gov't, like the EU Brussels folk; but that so many countries are dictatorships.

 

The US should transfer its economic support to a new, NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group -- allowing all democracies to join, and judge whether any regime in the world is violating human rights.  And forming coalitions of the willing to enforce regime change on those who violate human rights. see http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069719534#176755

 

Iraq would be better off if there were other nations helping -- but it's silly of Bush to go begging, or offering much.  Other countries won't have much money to help America's grand victory, no matter how worthy.

 

Unipower - superpower means the USA does what it wants, but pays virtually the whole price.  Kind of a reasonable check on excessive American arrogance, I'd say -- so America better have a schedule for helping make Iraq democratic on a budget America can afford.

 

Which would be less if America supported more Iraq cities having elections of mayors; and then loaning the Iraqi mayors lots and lots of project money.  Maybe at no interest, or maybe to include the purchase/ gift of some Saddam palaces.

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000682.htm

Roger also notes interesting media in Iraq>> Two choices: victory & democracy in Iraq (& Bush wins 2004), OR ... chaos, continued killing, non-victory; possible civil war; non-democracy in Iraq (& maybe Bush loses in 2004).

 

Dems have dug themselves this hole -- being against successful democracy in Iraq because it leads to Bush winning; such strong Bush-hate that failure in Iraq to get Kerry (say) is worth it.

 

But the US needs to be getting more mayors elected to more cities; or publicize the local leader-selection processes.  Assassination of moderates is continuing, maybe even getting worse.

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6136

Blogs making a difference?  Maybe.  I hope.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004667

Saddam’s payroll, weasel alert.  It’s terrible.  I keep fantasizing about the Iraqi people suing the UN, and the gov’ts of those who supported Saddam (post 1991? Or including the US, before?).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/international/middleeast/07ASSA.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1076174134-05oRz6hc1z+tgSuruZCj1g

But we’re losing – professionals are being targeted, assassinated, and not being protected, and there’s too little news of it.

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000273.html

Michael writes about the AQ letter of desperation, and how the AP slant against Bush is wrong.  Comments talk about what to do in Saudi Arabia>>How about really helping Iraqi people???

NOT the new Iraqi gov't, but the working folks who want better jobs, better houses, better newspapers.

 

As Iraqis do better in an Islam-friendly, human rights respecting, free speech accepting, fairly secular, woman-voting (???) democracy, the internal anti-Saud pressures will be increasing.

 

When the Saudi Islamofascists revolt against the House of Saud -- THEN the US can save the royals of the House, invade and protect the oil, and possibly force democracy.  Until then, Syria & Iran are more likely targets for regime change.

 

The US presence in Iraq is HUGE boost for the internal Arab and Muslim reformists -- but reform always takes time.  And pressure.  Iraq, and especially its pending democratic success, is already adding pressure -- and AQ knows it, too.  (even if this letter is questionable, though I believe it).

 

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014017.php

 

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/001952.html

Del at Freespeech covers the same letter, and Glenn shows the initial CNN spin, since corrected.>> I'd say, with 17 pages of Arabic, translated into English, including bits like "Americans are the greatest cowards", it's more likely to be genuine than mis-information.

 

Unless the Bush team has HUGELY increased its own competence.

 

And what's FUN is that CNN has changed the headline!  Proof of Liberal Bias!  (sort of)

Really, changed headlines, like due to blogs, are a pretty reasonable measure of previous bias, and are clearly Orwellian "changing history".

++Yes, Kman -- quagmire like Germany; with US troops based in a rapidly (re-)industrializing democracy, on the front lines against dictatorship neighbors.

 

Wait until those Iraqi women start dancing with black US servicemen in discos!

 

 

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm

http://www.doktorfrank.com/archives/002808.html

Dr Frank reminds me to read, again, Paul Berman’s great reasons for why the Left doesn’t see the need to be anti-Saddam: “We have had to choose between supporting the war, or opposing it-supporting the war in the name of antifascism, or opposing it in the name of some kind of concept of international law. Antifascism without international law; or international law without antifascism. A miserable choice-but one does have to choose, unfortunately."

>> This is so good, everybody should Read It All (RIA).

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19813/news_detail.asp

Kevin Hassett discusses how the current deficit is not as bad as many have been in the past, in terms of percentage of national income.  He notes: “First of all, the absolute level of the deficit is not the largest we have seen relative to our national income, and certainly not even a worthy entrant in a top-ten list for developed nations.” 

Unfortunately, he doesn’t provide numbers, neither absolute nor percentages.  I don’t understand why not, and it weakens his technical argument.

 

“our outstanding debt is less than half of our national income. Big, conservative blue chip companies should be so debt-free. General Electric, for example, had earnings before interest and taxes of about $29 billion in 2002. At the same time, it had $192 billion in long-term debt.” >> Again, Kevin doesn’t give the deficit numbers.  Worse, he seems to avoid tax collection revenues, instead talking about national income and outstanding debt.  It’s not clear what he’s really talking about.

 

Besides this fluffiness, what really bothers me is this – the Clinton dot.com bubble popped in 2000; or warbled flobbily as it passed gas, farting out the hot air inside.  The fact that Bush reacted so well, so quickly; and perhaps more importantly so did the Fed, meant that the USA felt a mild recession instead of a depression. The amount of wealth that warbled away was enormous.  Higher taxes, or lower spending, could have been terrible.  Yes, I don’t generally like deficits – but it might be that Bush’s tax cuts, and spending increases, were actually the optimal mix of support for savings/ investment (tax cuts for the rich!), and increased consumer demand (other tax cuts and spending increase, including pork).

Maybe Bush’s macro numbers were BEST possible, when slowly reducing unemployment is included.

 

 

Funny, there’s no word for what a balloon does, bubbles out isn’t quite right; but this is a http://www.balloonhq.com/column/caldwell/nov03/ routine with balloons if you entertain kids

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/10/04 21:13 | link | comments

 

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/02/08/oh_those_cultural_contradictions.php

Harry relates a writer claiming that buying on credit is the cause of the reduction of the Protestant work ethic.  Ben says advertising>>Ben, you're right, it's ADVERTISING.  Mental and spiritual and moral pollution.  Really.  It should be taxed, heavily (100%?).  And the income taxes should be reduced.

 

But there's also the corruption of democracy, voters who vote to spend other people's (tax) money on the goodies that they want -- and the assumption that if a majority wants the spending, the tax & spend process is "moral".

 

http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/01/the_counterrevo.html#comments

++More JPB comments>>Bob, thanks for support on the abortion issues; it's always tough to discuss a complex point; though I'm afraid you are too strident to be convincing to the open-minded.

 

Misty, I have NEVER voted for any Republican -- mostly Libertarian.  For Life (now).  The fetus has different DNA than the mother-- it is NOT the mother's tissue.  It *IS* dependent on the mother. Human life begins at conception, please look at virtually any Biology book "when life begins". 

I do not support laws punishing women for having an abortion -- and I'm VERY aware that laws mean punishment, and the use of force. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal, and punished by law.  (Hate speech should not be, for instance.)

 

C-chron, great story. (Forgive my not fully believing you, though...)  I think the pro-life people should more strongly support such women as yourself, who HAVE given babies up for adoption.  Society must change so that mothers who feel they are not ready to raise children should have anonymous adoption; or other adoption possibilities, easily and cheaply available.  When abortion is correctly seen as a selfish act, for convenience and socially incorrect, then there will be a vast reduction in it.  I mean, isn't killing a fetus worse than smoking a cigarette in a bar?

 

But the complex point I wanted to make was the intellectual stranglehold that pro-abortion PC thought has among the Dem/ progressives.  I don't think there is now, nor has been for a decade, any national Democrat who is pro-life -- they've been PC excluded/ excommunicated.  So devout Catholics who want to serve and help the poor, but believe abortion is wrong, are not welcome among the Dems.

 

Look at Arnie, a pro-choice Rep.  In fact, there are Reps who oppose Bush on lots of issues, though not so much on booting Iraq.  Where would somebody who is anti-abortion, and anti-war (like the pope) fit?

 

"Imposition of morality" -- please be a little more honest with yourself.  All laws and rules are imposed; and either based on morals--or on whimsy!  Where's the morality for Kyoto?  "Tree life is more deserving than human fetus life."  Where's the pro-choice folk when it's time to legalize what drugs women put into their body? (oh, choice only for reproduction parts of the body, Misty aren't drug laws terrible?) Or to legalize renting out the fun parts? (right, prostitution is only legal in most of Nevada, Misty?).

 

The point about honesty in language is that PC promotes dishonesty. 

 

And the honest truth is: booting Saddam is good.  Saddam was evil, and ending evil is good.  Not even a new Dean inspired hate-Bush love-fest on the internet can overcome this fundamental truth, which most voters feel. 

 

Jim: <i>"Opponents to abortion are predominantly male. I wonder why." </i> 

I believe this is changing in the 18-38 age groups.  Do you have any source, or is this your mere 'belief'?

 

On "Forced democracy": worked in Germany, worked in Japan; worked when America was sure enough to fight for unconditional surrender, and impose human rights after victory.

 

Terrorism will never end (Oklahoma, etc.), BUT we can help create a World Without Dictators.  And we should be striving, actively, to do so -- for the poor people's sake (I know most Dems don't care about poor foreigners; nor Reps much, for that matter), AND for the security needs of the people of the world's only superpower. 

 

(JPB, nice to hear you lurking!  Love your heart!  You're all welcome to visit my blog at tomgrey.motime.com)

 

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/391362.html

BEST news (via Harry) about public PA thinking that violence is a mistake.>>

The hopefulness of the article is high.  I have long supported FREE SPEECH, criticism of the gov't, as more important to democracy than elections!  The PA folk need to stop suppressing the press; and the PA press needs to identify the murders, beatings, and thugery intimidation of any Palis who dare to criticize Arafat (when was he last voted for???).

 

Israel will prolly, rightly, ignore it for now -- will there be real discussion?  Will there be an alternative to Arafat?  Will the EU/ UN money people start helping the poor Palis, rather than the thug leaders?  Like, with housing and small business loans instead of bureau-corrupt klepto-projects.

 

 

http://donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html#107627329447735058

Donald missed the Meet the Press, which has had mixed reviews>>Andrew Olmsted notes that Bush may be misinformed/ lying about his spending increases.

 

Sad.  I wish Bush had stated: our deficit spending has been so successful in stopping the dot.com bubble depression, that many folks expect us to be as over-employed as a new bubble.

 

Personally, it's not clear that his tax cuts, higher spending, higher deficit has been anything less than optimal.  The dot.com bubble popped a depression sized amount of wealth away. 

 

(I note and thank you for a link to me!)

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_02.html#006166

Jeff correctly states that we cover politics too much; and the presidential race, too much.  And not enough coverage of the boring other parts of gov’t. Good recommendations “So let's start with a post-Dean manifesto for local government and federal agencies:

1. We should insist that all town meetings be webcast (live and recorded). I can't go to night school board meetings because -- duh -- I have kids and need to be at home. But I would watch them.

2. We should insist that our local politicians and federal congressmen have weblogs or the equivalent to inform us of their stands and actions. We should mistrust any politician who doesn't -- what are you hiding? -- and not vote for any candidate who doesn't.”

This should include automatic voice to text, with some post-editing.  Yes, get the record!  Actually, all trials, too, should be like this.

 

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd

Spencer Ackerman,  Iraq’d “The administration official quoted by the Post admits as much when he explains, "[W]e have to have a handoff." Now, if I were to tell you that I'm planning on writing a novel about postwar Japan by June 30, and then a few weeks later told you that instead I plan on delivering a history of how the Japanese oligarchs adjusted to U.S. military rule, still by June 30, you'd think I was out of my mind. You would be convinced that my only interest lies in having a book finished by a certain arbitrary date. And you'd also be convinced that as a result, my book wouldn't be worth reading.”

>> Exactly.  The date is stupid, the process needs to be started.  Local mayors need to be elected.  The WORLD needs elected Iraqi leaders – even if they’re only mayors.  Better if they’re only mayors, only concerned with rebuilding their cities – but naturally with opinions.  But elected!

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200402060837.asp

Victor D Hanson in NRO is outraged at the media; as am I: “The real outrage is instead that at a time of one of most important developments of the last half-century, when this country is waging a war to the death against radical Islamic fascism and attempting to bring democracy to an autocratic wasteland, we hear instead daily about some mythical rogue CIA agent who supposedly faked evidence, Martha Stewart's courtroom shoes, Michael Jackson's purported perversion, and Scott Peterson's most recent alibi. Amazing.”

>> Yes, the War on Terror, the war on dictators (?), is the most important civilization activity now going on.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson010303.asp

VDH earlier writes about the silly idea that we should use more money, less force, against the Islamofascists “True, the so-called masses of the Middle East have grounds for redress — who wouldn't without elections, free speech, sexual equality, religious tolerance, or the rule of law? But their want arises largely from self-created failures and runs the gamut of tribalism, corruption, fanaticism, and frequent apartheid of women and non-Muslims — not a lack of dollars and euros…

if the United States wins in Iraq, and if it establishes with justice and humility a consensual government under international auspices, most Middle Easterners will either grow mute — or once more, as in 1991, a few will start naming their children after an American President.”

 

 

David Frum & Richard Perle have been doing great in writing about Iraq & Security:

http://www.aei.org/news/filter.,newsID.19702/news_detail.asp

Beware the Soft-Line Ideologues – “When discussing foreign policy and the war on terror, the press often divides officials into two groups: hard-liners and pragmatists. "Hard-liners" are actually far more pragmatic and realize that the war on terrorism requires vigorous, decisive action; in contrast, the policies promoted by "pragmatists" are grounded in ideological dependence upon failing international organizations and denial of the realities of the post-September 11 world.”  >> an important article about how the soft-liners, media labeled “pragmatists” are actually wedded to their belief that the UN works in fighting terrorism.  Despite reality. 

“Soft-liners tend to think that so long as we are talking with other countries, we are accomplishing something--even if everything they say to us is an obvious lie.”

>> This is so obvious in No. Korea, and Iran, and with Arafat’s PA.

“Hard-liners are not bent on imposing democracy on anybody. But it is realistic to notice the connection between Middle Eastern tyranny and Middle Eastern terrorism; and it is realistic too to understand that it is sometimes true that societies that yearn for freedom are denied it by force--as Iraq was by Saddam's force. [and US force can be used to open freedom’s door.]”

 

Well, maybe some hard-liners want to impose democracy on some; I am quite willing to impose democracy on Iraq; and prolly would be willing to impose it on Iran & Syria & Saudi Arabia, a democracy of local mayors, with minimum central national power, whose main job is to stop local majorities from tyrannizing local minorities.

 

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19851/pub_detail.asp

Reuel Marc Gerecht on the Direct Election Standoff with Iraqi Shiites: “Simply put, Shiites everywhere have been cheated--by the Ottomans, British, Sunni Arab Hashemites, pan-Arab nationalists, Baathists, and the first Bush administration, which let them die by the tens of thousands when Saddam put down the rebellion following the first Gulf War. To make matters worse for the Shiites of Iraq, their country is the birthplace of Shiism, where annually the faithful commemorate (except when the Sunnis would not let them) the mother of all shortchanges, the defeat and martyrdom of the Imam Hussein, the son of the Caliph Ali and the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. …

Once Sistani began Iraq's internal democratic discussion--a debate the Governing Council and the Provisional Authority had failed to generate on their own for months--Bremer's stature was destined to collapse.”

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/09/04 21:39 | link | comments

 

AEI & TAE on What Iraqis want -- results & analysis of Zogby polls of Iraqis.

Newt is best: “In local communities, elections for mayor and city council should proceed in 30 days, not 30 months. Most Iraqis under Saddam were not torturers, rapists, killers, and looters. Most are decent people who want a chance to have safety, health, prosperity, and freedom. The worst 30,000 or so Iraqis can be proscribed from elective office and prohibited from serving in the military or the police, leaving some 25 million Iraqis who can begin the process of running their own country.”

 

Natan Sharansky, really great AEI article from the summer: “the clarion call of the late Andrei Sakharov to the West could not have been clearer: Do not trust governments more than governments trust their own people. Link all ties with the Soviet Union to the encouragement of democracy and human rights inside Soviet Union….

Democracy is for everybody. Of course, encouraging democracy does not mean that people's lives, mentality, and culture need to be transformed. "Democracy" means one simple thing--the ability of people to express their views, thoughts, and beliefs freely, without the fear that they will be imprisoned as a result….

For a period of three years, the transitional administration must address two primary goals: dismantling terror and building economic infrastructure. This will require a great deal of money--a Marshall Plan for the Palestinians. During this period, the educational, economic, and political systems, as well as the media, must be revamped--and set free from the current propaganda, terror, and violence. ”

 

 

JP Barlow writes about Dean’s fall, and lots of comments>>Above is a quote that makes me laugh:

"The reason we're in this mess is because people aren't thinking for themselves."

 

It's called Political Correctness, and it means the killing of a human fetus, also called abortion, must be called "pro-choice".  And no Dem can say it's wrong.  We need ADOPTION, rather than fetus killing, to be the social solution for an unwanted pregnancy -- and I wonder if Spalding Gray's feelings of loneliness ever dwelt on this decadence in Western society.  Killing human fetuses because pregnancy is inconvenient.  2 million a year, human, fetuses, killed, for convenience..

 

LOTS of independent, unsure college students are wondering about the problem of Terrorism, and Islamic - fascist non-human rights, no free speech dictators.  Like the once-elected Arafat.  Like the killers who killed 3000 Americans in NYC, after 8 years of Clintonian appeasement (like after the 93 WTC bombing, and the US Cole, and Somalia). The mostly Dem social science professors mostly say "no war, Bush = Hitler", and the students, say "what?".

 

Bush's neo-con answer -- impose human rights by military force.  NOT pretty, but what's the Dem alternative?  A) accept less human rights, and more terrorism; B) vigorous "police action" -- like under Clinton, meaning equal to (A);  C) work with the UN/France (those corrupted by Saddam's OIL bribes) to pass 1 more, final, resolution, then another, then another, meaning more (A).

 

After Dec. 7, 1941, we knew we were at war.  We fought, we killed, massively (but less than the enemy), we won -- now both Germany & Japan are democracies.

 

We are at war.  Not with a state, with a fanatic strain of one of the world's largest religions.  The Dems don't want to fight this war--unless/ until we get attacked again.  Many independent thinkers would rather fight now, than wait for an otherwise inevitable future attack.  In Nov 2004, prolly a majority of US voters will prefer forced democracy in the ME rather than appeasement.

 

It's not the media, it's the fear of terrorism. A smart fear.

 

 

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/

Grand Ayatolah Sistani has a big website, multi-lingual.  Very impressive.

 

 

JP Barlow, on depression and stuff. “Merely to speak of death in plain terms is considered by many to be disrespectful and offensive. This is a peculiarly American sickness which is, among other things, wrecking our health care system - over 70% of America's total medical expenditures are devoted to extending the last few miserable weeks of life. Our pathology about death abstracts us from it and renders us far too capable of inflicting it on others without remorse. And, worst, it allows us to dwell in a kind of numbness to life that we would not permit ourselves if we did not make ourselves numb to death. To be in denial about death is to be in denial about life.”

 

 

++Roger on health care>>Intellectual Property rights is increasingly not the best way to support R&D.  Gov't transferable tax credits, based on prescriptions written, may be  better -- but other incentive systems need to be honestly looked at.  Drug testing/ FDA approval is a huge cost, that should be streamlined, reduced.

 

Myria, great example.  The Health Care problem is this: even at 13% of GDP, there's not enough care to give everybody the maximum percentage chance to live as long as possible.  Scarce care will be allocated/ rationed, one way or another.

 

People, after $1000, after $10 000, after $10 mill in treatment, will still die.  How much, of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, should be spent on sick people?  Especially sick old people?  Whatever level it is, it won't be "enough" -- more money would have saved the lives of some people. 

 

Also, of course, why should the non-smokers pay for the smokers?  The straights pay for gays with AIDS?  The healthy & fit pay for the unhealthy obese?  The responsible be FORCED to pay for the less responsible?  Yes, those who can afford more in insurance, in pre-paid health care, in individual accounts, should be allowed to, encouraged to; rewarded with lower taxes.

 

Still, providing some $50 000 (or only 10k, or 100k?) worth of health insurance, through a mandatory health insurance levy perhaps could help quite a bit. Myria, my father, grandmother, & stepmother all died of cancer -- it's sad.  Your friend, at some point, will die too.  Optimistic America is not good at dealing, honestly, with the truth about inevitable aging, and dieing.

 

Donald points out the good, created from the blogosphere, of Operation Give.  Helping westerners to send toys to Iraq kids. >>The Blogosphere, in allowing individual activists to make a difference, can really help make small parts of the world a better place -- FAST. 

 

And more of this would be welcome -- how about a gov't "AID" program to reward good initiatives, with cash prizes to help their organizations?  So Operation Give could qualify, maybe win some $10 000 (taken OUT of the USAID overblown budget).  The main point is to REWARD PERFORMANCE, rather than good promises and plans and pre-contract paperwork (as is now).

 

Michael points out  (via BBC) the Pakis don’t want to put one of their few science heroes on trial for sharing nuke secrets.  Also that democracy will likely triumph, though it’s unknown when. >>Fine post.  But feel "safe"--if the terrorists DO get a WMD, and do use it, once, in the USA, then the USA response will be devastating to Islam, and to leaders who support terrorism.  The Jacksonian attack-dog, unconditional surrender US response will kick in, and we'll "win", quickly, and with huge Islamic/ dictator, but not American, casualties.

 

The race is to end Islamic dictatorships before the terrorists succeed in getting/ using a WMD against us.  So that we can win most morally, even if not most rapidly nor most quickly.

 

The policy change should be micro-economic, supporting legalized home ownership FOR the poor people, of the places the poor people now live, mostly illegally.  More low cost loans/ profit sharing (Islam forbids interest) support for small Islamic businessmen, NOT big World Bank infrastructure boondogle kleptocrat projects.  The seduction of American style capitalism has always been its successful wealth production; the world's bureaucratic aid(=corruption) agencies typically support more big gov't, rather than small businessmen. Local gov't needs to be democratic -- I don't even know about elections for mayor of cities in Pakistan (this is annoying).  Certainly Iraq should be voting for mayors, weekly, so as to increase the number of Iraqis who have been voted into some, limited, power.

 

And free speech, free press -- criticism of the gov't, needs to be a matter on the agenda in every US discussion with foreign leaders. [Nobody knows what the US response will be if the terrorists just WMD Tel Aviv, first; but Israeli response is likely to be very impressive.]

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/06/04 21:06 | link | comments

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

Dennis Prager on Judaism’s Sexual Revolution; fantastic rejection of homo-sex, etc.

 

http://ceciledubois89.journalspace.com/?entryid=843

Cecile (via Samizdata) stood up against affirmative action PC crap and got teacher supported laughed at.>> Great job, Cecile.  Think for yourself.

 

But you don't really have to speak the whole truth, nor can you, so you must choose to speak the truths you do speak.

 

For instance, you may answer questions in the future: "I don't think you really want my honest answer, except to laugh at it."

 

You can also claim "to believe in Martin Luther King's dream: where everybody is judged by character, not skin color" -- and even ask if THEY believe in King's dream.

 

Affirmative action judges folk based on their skin.

 

You may be interested in my:

Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate;

and Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate blog posts. (After Easterbrook)

http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069182789#173964

 

++You might well talk to a lawyer, as well, with the following scenario: you've been beaten up by the teacher-encouraged "racist" label.  You feel the teacher, and school, are responsible (they have to take responsibility for consequences, didn't the teacher say?), and you want to sue.  Questions for the lawyer, what is the phraseology of the letter to use because of your fear of persecution, and should you send a copy to the police?

 

Part of the idea of preparing for an attack is to increase your awareness, and decrease the likelihood. A letter might even get the teacher to admit, in class, that opposition to AA does not necessarily mean racism (PC thought police notwithstanding).

 

(This may well be one of those unrealistic fantasies for some other universe -- but the crack about responsibility burns me up.)

 

By the way, in high school I had two ten-speed bikes stolen.  The first time I went to the VP, we drove around, didn't see anything. Gone.  The second time, I called the police first, and they got the bike back and the guy with the knife.

 

Wow, what passion!  I really liked AW's "> What's the point of having a good hand and never showing it?

 

Because the point isn’t to embarrass them but to eliminate threats. Duh."

 

I'm emotionally with AW.  But Will & Ken have points about the "idiot" references.  But AW has points about refuting the same Leftist lies as last thread, or last response, over & over; how many patient replies must be made before the other side IS an idiot?

 

I strongly suspect some WMD stuff was moved to Syria, less than Saddam thought he had.  I really wish, and think it important, that Bush reveal more of the intelligence.  Saddam's traitors, intercepted communications, all (most of?) the stuff that Clinton had -- why the world believed Saddam had WMDs.

 

It would enhance the credibility for Bush to declassify a document such as: comm interception from one Iraqi scientiest to one of Saddam's "aces" -- "yes sir, we tested the device/ chemical/ bio-agent and it achieved 86% effectivenss".  I strongly believe we have some stuff like this.  I believe that Kay now thinks most scientists were lying to the top army, which makes sense and is a good explanation for why we believed their lies.  But Bush/ Rice/ Rumsfeld needs to come out and explain it.

 

AW, I think you're a bit wrong on the Iraqi innocent lives.  Let's say that we hadn't invaded, and some 50 000 Iraqis would have been killed by the regime, including sanction effects.  Instead we invade, save those lives, kill some 5-10 000 Iraqi fighters, and some 5-10 000 Iraqi civilians, "innocents".

 

Yes, we net save lives.  Yes, it's a net good.  But it does have a cost, in real Iraq lives lost.  We need to enforce the building of such a good democracy that the majority of the families who lost loved ones can forgive us, and accept the weak, real excuse that their lives were lost for a greater good -- as are the 383-500+ Americans, and even the 22 UN workers.

 

There is also a real cost, without finding WMDs, in presidential credibilty, and intelligence credibility.  Bush could, easily I think, get a lot of it back, quickly.

 

A final issue the Left strongly ignores is that perfect intelligence is a stupid standard, because it's so unrealistic.  A la Kay, we were overestimating Saddam -- and underestimating No. Korea, Iran, & Libya (see the Paki nuke scientist's mea culpa).  We need to accept that we either make decisions based on bad intel, or we decide to wait, in some cases too long, for better intel. 

 

The Left that ignores this does so, as AW says, in order to use intel as a club against Bush.  In their feel-good through togetherness and harmonious pure, thoughtful, sophisticated Bush-hate.

 

 

Jeff writes a nice post about violent criminals needing boundaries, not empathy.  But a silly commenter talked against spreading democracy, so I’m outraged.>> CorpSlave, you have a good point -- both Dems & Reps avoided democracy in the Cold War, in favor of anti-communism.  And the commies did NOT attack, and kill, thousands, or hundreds, or even dozens of Americans in America.

 

Clinton was too wimpy to say that the prior policy was a mistake.  Many in the US State Dept. still want us to follow that.

 

Bush has. Because he got elected in 2000 on a platform AGAINST foreign, Somalia-like adventures/ humiliations.  And the Islamofascists attacked, and murdered, thousands of US.

 

I was born in 1956, the year the US did NOT allow Ho Chi Mingh to win a Vietnam election, because he was commie. You FAILED to mention the Cambodia killing fields, 2,500,000,000  (big number, huh?) murdered by commies because the anti-war folk "won" the US political argument. The US has done a reasonable job of supporting "the lesser evil".  Now it wants to supports good, democracy; and you object???

 

Clinton & Carter knew for years about No. Korea -- I'm not sure we should invade, but I'm sure we should NOT rule it out.  What else is there, when China vetoes any UN SC resolutions?

 

A world without dictators is what I want.  What do you want?  And how to get there, given reality?

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200401300847.asp

Again and again, Victor Davis Hanson calls it right: “We must put more ostensible political responsibility even more rapidly into the hands of Iraqis — from letting them conduct their own press conferences to creating entirely autonomous local governments. Only then will the explosion of a refinery or school bus rightly be a blow to the Iraqi, rather than to the American occupational, future.”

 

Please, Mr. Hanson, keep calling for local elections.  There have been a few small towns with elected mayors, the Iraqi AND international press needs to see significant mayor election campaigning.  There is little reason not to have many local, 2 year provisional terms.

 

Yes, it would be limited local democracy under the occupation umbrella – but this is the best way to learn democracy.  Such elected Iraqis, albeit at a local level, will really have more legitimacy than the occupied appointees.  And be able to discuss national issues, and national disagreements, and compare progress.

 

Plus, locally elected mayors can, legitimately, start asking for municipal bond issues.  Money.  Political power equals money, and using the budget process to decide how to spend it.  There is far too little talk of this, in Iraq and the USA.

(My letter to the author)

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000264.html

Michael disses Jonah about independents>>Michael, you're with Jonah in missing the main point -- various issues have different weights.

Consider the expression 10x - 1y > 0x + 5y.

x is YOUR most important issue, y is all the other issues.  One party is better on the most important issue, and may or may not be better on all other issues.

This year, the War on Terror is, by far issue X.  You've repeatedly said the Dems are bad on it.  Even if on all other issues, Y, they're better, they're not enough better.  Obviously, how much more important is your subjective call: whether it's 10 or 6 or 5 (your weights) can change.

 

For a long time, issue X has been abortion for serious anti-abortion and pro-abortion groups.  What is new since 9/11 is the WoT -- whether more UN "international law" type diplo talk would keep US citizens safe or whether military action was needed in Iraq.

 

Consider just the four cases: (PP) pro-war, pro-abortion; (PA) pro-war, anti-abortion; (AP)anti-war, pro-abortion; (AA) anti-war, anti-abortion.

 

In a two party system, you can't easily accommodate even two "important" issues -- there is little AA (though the Pope would be close; Pat Buchannan?), since the Dem purity police require pro-abortion (no xA).  The Dem primaries purified it of PP; they are the AP anti-war, pro-abortion group.  The Reps will try to be OK for the rest -- Arnie is PP in CA, though Bush is PA.

 

 

Please consider a more complete comment on Jonah's list of other issues:

"The Democratic party at the national level is, generally speaking, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-welfare state (yes, yes, I know the GOP is inching closer to the Dems on this one), pro-gun control, anti-death penalty (with some clever exceptions), and quite comfortable with high taxes and strict regulations. Culturally, it is more apt to celebrate multiculturalism over assimilation and gay pride over tolerance for gays. When leftists hector a Democratic president he will, in all likelihood, listen intently rather than yawn. And, most important, on foreign policy Democrats will stress the importance of words and international law over action and American sovereignty. The war on terror will be seen more like a law-enforcement issue than, well, a war. ...

The Republican party sees things largely in reverse."

 

I think you're a Dem who understands the War.  And, therefore, currently seem to be independent.

(And a really fine writer).

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/05/04 20:28 | link | comments (1)