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.donaldsensing.com/2004_03_01_archive.html#108069055005971115

Donald talks about soft power & hard power >> Rev., I thought YOU were going to mention that the entire Hollywood budget is "soft power".  The background of material abundance, unremarked upon in so many Hollywood movies, made Eastern Europeans understand how far behind America their pathetic economies were, in material consumption terms.

 

The biggest missing soft power is language training, for Army and CIA & FBI & diplomats, especially Arabic (& Farsi).

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000333.html

Michael disses the idea of Condi testifying in a satisfyingly partisan way, “Ugh. No.  Can we please not go there? … (like Glenn) let bygones be bygones.” >> Michael, thanks for some more common sense ("Ugh..."). Again.

Both sides have the same arguments, and the same arguments, and even more of the same arguments.

And both sides feel bad that they can't win the other side over to their side.

Most facts don't help.

 

And it's easier to want to "rub their noses in it", than to be patient or reasonable.  Um, er, yes; I've indulged elsewhere in Condi channeling Frum or even more Left-baiting stuff.  It's a fun fantasy in a prospectively grim 8 month campaign.  X-Hate at least is easy, if not so successful at changing anybody's mind.

 

Successful Iraq democracy will help, when it develops, but 18 months is pretty short -- look at Kosovo 4 years later; or Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia.

 

http://civicdialogues.org/comments.php?id=629_0_1_0_C

Erasmus discusses a Guardian post about the three fronts of the war: technological, financial, and ideological. >>And most of the reporters in the Mass Media are anti-God secularists, willing to over-report flaws in the US, like Haliburton, and under-report  flaws elsewhere,  like the UN never auditing the oil-for-palace program, the bribery & corruption, the stonewalling.

 

The current mass media is a little bit on the side of the terrorists.  This makes the war harder.

 

http://therightchristians.org/archives/000936.html

http://www.whosoever.org/v7i1/godbless.html

The Right Christians published a post by Whosoever’s Candace sort of against any ‘God bless America’ theme: “The United States, as a nation, does not possess any of the qualities of blessedness that Jesus spells out. We are a rich nation, where the meek, the hungry and the peacemakers are marginalized, not only in society at large, but within the nation's churches, as well. We are not God's chosen nation -- we are a nation forsaken by God -- a nation that has forgotten that to be truly blessed is to be humble and meek.”.  >> Candace, I wish your Whosoever movement some luck, but it seems to me you're missing the real no-God of  extreme secularism.  Bush is NOT replacing God with nation, family, military, nor capitalism -- he's implicitly integrating them all in one holistic, virtuous support system, "one nation, under God".

 

Because this is not perfect, anti-God critics attack it hypocritically. The Left implies there is no place for honest public professions of faith.  (Clinton's publicly going to Church on Sundays, when he had a more important later meeting with an intern in his office, was known to be merely for "show" -- the Left knew he didn't mean it, much).

 

Candace, you're also way missing the point about humbleness -- people are humble or not, not nations.  And I think it's hard to argue that Clinton or Kerry is much more humble than Bush, for instance.

 

Patann seems pretty hypocritically comfortable with Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.  I'd guess he was also fine with the US running away from SE Asia as Kerry's anti-Vietnam war policy became Nixon's policy -- and Kerry hasn't mentioned any acceptance, or humbleness, or guilt, or remorse, at the 2.5 million Cambodians murdered after the US exited.

 

Candace, is this the kind of humbleness you're calling for?

And replacing God with Bush-hate has to be single biggest no-God in America today.

 

http://civicdialogues.org/comments.php?id=628_0_1_0_C

Erasmus points out an Alternet idea about Christian Taliban; and is nicely offended.

>> The pro-abortion fundamentalists, those who support the killing of 40 million American human fetuses since the Roe "Abortion Amendment" was declared law, are far closer to the Taliban.

 

There are video clips of actual abortions, and the tiny fetal hands and feet.  I haven't heard any "pro-information" pro-abortion group demand that women see the reality before they make their irrevocable choice. 

 

I *have* heard of vigorous opposition to showing the truth, based on the distress it might cause for some who decide they made a mistake.

 

No good scientific study has shown zero influence of abortions on breast cancer -- yet the pro-abortionists want to escalate their belief in this to be assumed as a scientific truth, while actively preventing the NIH from really doing a good study (less formal studies have shown an increased risk).

 

In today's America, it is the secular fundamentalists avoiding the truth, much more than modern Christians. 

 

(I hope I've helped you be offended by the "Christian Taliban" smear.  Glad I blogged about it, a bit, earlier!)

 

 

Bill Hobbs on Condi testifying at the 9/11 commission>>Bill, good post & post on "it's working".  Today, I can dream of World Without Dictators!  Note that Jade is unwilling to state what "working" would look like -- it's clear that Clinton's actions were NOT working; and his treaty with N. Korea was worse than nothing. 

 

I fantasize about Condi, in response to rhetorical attacks, having rhetorical counter-attacks against the particular Senator -- how they voted, their stances on issues, etc.

 

It's still a bad precedent for her to testify.

 

There is at least one, huge, real failure of Clinton that was continued by Bush, even after 9/11 -- Arabic language training.  The whole army should probably be getting some introductory classes (and the Army should be studying what methods work best for what kinds of people); and those who have language learning talent should be found and put in special fast tracks.  I don't this failure has yet been seriously addressed. 

 

An extra $20-100/ month salary to Army personnel who can read/ speak/ write in Arabic (Farsi?) should rapidly solve the problem.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/31/04 23:47 | link | comments

++Eurasmus >>It's not really "valid" vs. "non-valid" -- but how valid, isn't it?   And so, those equating Christian fundamentalism to the Taliban need to put a little more effort towards showing such.

Similarly "unambiguous evidence", before the fact, is pretty high.  Look at the CA Court decision forcing Catholic Charities to offer birth control, against their religion.
I believe that is the purpose.  Maybe you believe it's not.  OK, different beliefs.
Have you any evidence that your belief is anything more than wishful thinking?

On acceptance of "tradition", the Left supporters of partial-birth abortion were against the change; the Left opposition to school vouchers is against the change; even the Left opposition to the 10 commandments memorial was against that change. 

The 60s Left has become an establishment, against any who challenge their political correct fundamentalism.  I think they hate this in themselves, and project it outside.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/30/04 01:57 | link | comments

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882

George Shultz (from WSJ) really nails the legality of US invading Iraq.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary031804.asp#027491

David Frum’s in fine form talking about the new Spanish PM Zapetero.  In the Euro disappointment with Clinton’s “Yes, er, not-quite” lies, he rephrases Kagan: “Now the Europeans are learning the truth. They can’t have a veto over global affairs when the nations of the EU other than Britain are essentially regional powers. They don’t like this truth, and they don’t like the president who has forced them to confront it.”

 

>> Very true, but I think he’s missing something.  After 9/11 “we are all Americans”.  This really was real.  And most in most democratic countries (all countries?) understand that America is the THE most important country.  So, shouldn’t all people have a vote?  Or at least some influence?  I think that America is the leading democracy, is the representative democracy, but non-Americans are not directly represented.  There is no immediate solution to this, but the emerging UN “Democracy Caucus”

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/issues/hrights/dcaucus.asp

may lead to a substantial reassessment.  The main issue is prolly how to stop the US from invading (from the Euro side), and how to get predictably support for military enforced regime change on terrible regimes (from the US side).

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=http://www.unausa.org/issues/hrights/demrap.asp

 

Re-inspired by Reason.

http://reason.com/rauch/032204.shtml

 

 

Pejman writes of the Holocaust Shrug, and how Hitler is in his own class of evil.>>

It is not Hitler that is in a class by himself, it is his Jewish victims.  The 6 million Jews murdered gets far, far, far, far more attention than the other 4 million, including some 3 million Gypsies.  But it is arguably deserved -- how many probable Nobel Prize winners were murdered?

 

The 2.5 million Cambodians murdered in the Killing Fields have one, fantastic, but so far only, movie -- how many Holocaust movies?  (Cabaret counts).

 

Some of the hatred against Jews is surely due to the objective intellectual superiority of the Jewish culture, combined with a (mildly) racist non-assimilation not-quite integration.

 

But I can imagine Cambodia becoming an issue this year.  Since Kerry's Vietnam policy (run away) allowed Pol Pot, it seems likely that policy consequences might get put on the table (Nixon is still terrible).

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/king/king200403260859.asp

Florence King wrote about gay marriage, and how it is certain to come, back in 1996.  All too true, but there is better opposition than there used to be.

 

http://civicdialogues.org/comments.php?id=623_0_1_0_C

Erasmus talks about the “F” word – fundamentalists. >> I think you are missing: secular fundamentalists.  Yes, there are Christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics (can you name 3 who died?  I don't think so...).

 

But "pro-choice" fails to give any choice to the human fetus that is killed.  "free speech" is censored by the politically correct thought police.

 

The purpose of gay marriage is to make it illegal for Christians to say that homosexuality is sinful and wrong.

 

Look at your definition: violating tradition's basic aims for a greater good.  Isn't Clinton a perfect example?  He pressured some women to have sex with him; they sued him; he perjured himself about his groupie sex activities -- he was the biggest violator of real women in politics.

 

And Dem feminists loved him... The Angry Left blindly hates Christianity, in a secular fundamentalist way.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/29/04 21:31 | link | comments

Lileks gets read so much because he’s so GOOD. This is MY blog, so most of what’s here is what *I* write – but now I simply must have a long quote of a much better writer on the most important war – modern Christians vs. secular fundamentalists. Monty Python is strongly secular, but not quite fundamentalist. Yet they provide to secularists the most potent intellectual weapon against belief—humor. Successfully making fun of belief, and particularly anything sacred. Sacred things are “not to be laughed at”. But what do humans think, what do they feel, if there is nothing sacred?

Here James Lileks reviews Life of Brian, and makes the fantastic critique, through simple identification, of secularist philosophy: “Life is shit”.

But. Brian makes a speech to the crowd in the alley, and tells them not to follow him. Good enough. Then he tells them not to follow anyone - including, presumably, that fellow who was preaching on the Mount in the earlier scenes. “You’ve got to figure it out for yourselves!” he insists. Yes, you do. But upon what do you base your conclusions? I mean, a serial rapist has it figured out for himself. No, no, no, I’m not saying that theistic beliefs are a prerequisite for coming up with a jim-dandy moral code. It is entirely possible for people to “figure it out for themselves” and decide to adopt a code of behaviors that would result in a peaceful, civil society if everyone else acted the same way. Do unto others, etc. But Brian sets up a false dichotomy. We do figure it out for ourselves. And that usually involves following someone, since we’re walking along a path that’s been flattened by billions of feet before we got here. I know this sounds as if I’m reading too much into this, but after listening to the commentary tracks it’s apparent that Jones and Gilliam thought they were making A Statement, so I’ll treat it as such.

 

Defenders of the film (and if I had to choose, I’d defend it) note that the Pythons make fun of everyone and that’s true. There aren't any explicit attacks on what religious-minded folk would call humanism, but a) that’s a nebulous concept with elastic definitions, and b) it’s hard to make specific attacks on it from a secular viewpoint, which is where the Pythons reside. But it all comes down to that Eric Idle song, “Always Look On the Bright Side of Life.” On one hand, it’s a clever parody of saccharine pick-me-up songs whose inappropriateness in this context rivals the “Springtime for Hitler” scene in “The Producers.” On the other hand, it’s the message of the film:

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

This is the result of figuring it out for yourselves? Life is shit?

The philosophy of the culture of death: Life’s a piece of shit.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/28/04 21:29 | link | comments

I delivered a presentation to Ano pro Zivot -- Yes to Life on Saturday -- naturally not done until Sat. morning.  It went great.  The pope calls this culture war the "culture of life" vs "culture of death".  I tried to present my Tax Loan idea as a more moral taxation - benefit policy.  It was well received.  The whole paper should be available somewhere, but it's not, yet.  Will be linked when it is.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/28/04 21:27 | link | comments

 16 years ago on this day: 'Candle Manifestation' in Bratislava, as a form of protest against the communist regime, was one of the most important events that led to the Velvet Revolution in November 1989.

My wife was in those demonstrations.  It was peaceful, religious based protest.  The beginning of the end of the commie regime -- too bad we're prolly going to have another (ex) commie president, though.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/25/04 21:48 | link | comments

Great article by former PM Aznar of Spain, including this gem: “This wildfire of innuendo spread rapidly among many people who were justifiably indignant after the attacks. To the accusations against the government were added others by all those who had anything at all to gain from this strategy. The din was so loud, so clamorous, that nothing else could be heard above it.

Once deception had successfully supplanted truth, our opponents sought to redirect the public's anger against the terrorists, exhorting people to channel their ire toward a government that was hard at work, a government that is still working to clarify what happened and to bring the guilty to justice. Last weekend was a time for solemnity, and for reflection. Instead, people with partisan motives scarred the moment with their screeching accusations.”

 

This is the hate Bush strategy, to create a din so loud, so clamorous, that nothing else can be heard above it.  So that the terrorists win.  To loudly proclaim how Bush is imperfect, without a real Kerry alternative to compare it to.

It’s time for bloggers to quote this, again and again, and put some personal blame against the Angry Left idiotarians.

 

Underquoted Bush speech: “All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression and instability in the Middle East. It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under sanctions. And it is a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq, are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like. …

every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq. And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East. And they have made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives. …

May God bless our efforts.”

 

Lots of good from Bush; and the basic terrorist issue that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions.

But secular fundamentalists hate that Bush wants God's blessing.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/25/04 21:44 | link | comments

Do "Christians against gay marriage” = “Taliban killing women”?

The word Idiotarian applies to those who carry signs: “Bush=Hitler”. But it is similar to those who support gay marriage and demonize Christians who oppose gay marriage. Not because they actually think that American Christians are as bad as the Taliban – but they feel that Christianity is close, very very close; so close that virtually all fundamentalists are equally intolerant.

 

It is part of the internal war between tolerant believers and secular fundamentalists.

The secular West, a civilization that has grown from a Judeo-Christian religious tradition, is facing a crisis; a crisis of multiple wars, of varying intensities. Actually, the one “Bush = Hitler” poster comes from two of the wars, the West vs. Islamofascist terrorists AND the internal Western civil war, long known as the culture wars. (The culture wars will last longer than the War on Terror.)

 

To list some of the other wars: the Islamic civil war between modernizers and Islamic fundamentalists; the civil war between Chinese modernizers and communist fundamentalists; in India the triangular civil wars between secularist modernizers, Hindu fundamentalists, and Islamic fundamentalists; the secular+fundamentalist Jews of Israel vs. the secular+Islamic fascists of Palestine. And, finally, the drug wars.

 

The crisis involves the complex interaction of all these wars, yet it is striking that so many are “modern/ secular vs. fundamentalist X-faith”. Most are civil wars, meaning both civilians doing the “fighting”, and the fact that most fighting is pretty civil, it’s mostly a battle of words. In these battles, public relations & news management is important, and another obvious issue is how the press is quite negative about most forms of fundamentalism.

 

The US culture war has long been focused on abortion, the killing of a human fetus by its mother, when the woman doesn’t want the inconvenience of the full pregnancy and birth; and would rather kill than give her baby up for adoption. This became legal in all the US through the Roe v Wade “Amendment” (activist Supreme Court decision), without submitting to the required votes in Congress and ratification by the states.

 

There may well soon be a gay marriage “Amendment”, despite the DOMA federal law, passed by lawmakers through the normal democratic process of elections, clearly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The secular fundamentalists who support gay marriage, and oppose DOMA, would be quite willing to have the Court make such a decision.

 

The Taliban are Islamic fascist anti-women anti-human rights fundamentalists. They murdered to stay in power, and to impose medieval oppression on their society. In America, there are a few Christian fundamentalists, but most Christians who believe that it is OK to hate the sin of homosexuality, while continuing to love the sinner, the homosexual.

 

Most American Christianity has accepted tolerant secularism – we have our beliefs, they have theirs, you have yours. But Gay Marriage is intolerant secularism. The power of gov’t will be used to censor any Christian’s public speech, or thoughts, or belief, that homosexual activity is sinful. Passing gay marriage means that, if society doesn’t accept the extreme secular belief gay marriage is valid, such a belief will be forced.

In this culture war battle, it is the pro-gays who are the fundamentalists, secular fundamentalists -- against a (mostly) modern, tolerant Christianity.

 

Tom Grey

Additional thoughts (cut paragraphs)

But not all Muslims are fundamentalist.

Certainly in America, the biggest killer by far has been the drug wars – as drug dealing gangs fight for territory, to control the supply of politically banned drugs for which customers have a huge economic demand. The Islamofascists have long been suppliers of drugs, and in practice the WoT inspired Patriot Act will be far more often used to support government violence against peaceful drug users and their less peaceful suppliers.

 

While the American drug wars are prolly killing more people, the greatest publicity surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian war, where Islamic fundamentalists refuse to accept Israel’s existence, and after losing 4 tank & jet wars to eliminate Israel, now support terrorists. Jewish fundamentalists continue to want to settle ever more land in Palestine, and the original creation of Israel was not fully just, but modern Israelis seem willing to live next to a Palestinian state when the Palis give up terrorism.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/24/04 01:00 | link | comments

Michael shows pictures of a state assassinated terrorist, a comment notes that the BBC thinks of 20 years more of war. >> 20 years more, ha ha ha!!!

The Beeb didn't even wait 20 weeks for Iraq to be a quagmire; in less than 20 months it will have become a democracy! (I hope.)

 

Great news.  I think (hope?) more Palis will start thinking: if we get rid of Arafat, and terrorists, we can have our own state, and peace with Israel, and maybe even a free press -- within 20 months, like what regime change brought to Iraq.

Just dump Arafat & terrorists.

Now.

 

Michael commented on how his wife hates Bush, in a post against anti-Bush demonstrators. (#70?)

>> Michael, you claim that the Rep fiscal policy is "irresponsible".  What federal spending is JFK proposing to cut?  Virtually none; instead, more of the punish, er, tax the rich!  Oh yeah, and stop poor Indian programmers from being hired so that rich US programmers can keep getting 6 figure incomes to live in Sili Vali, even if it means their companies lose market share because of high costs.

 

C'mon -- GW is irresponsible because he's spending ... like a Dem!  (and it is likely to have been almost perfect in minimizing the post dot.com bubble pop; so Keynesian good that most Americans never felt themselves on the eve of a 1929 style market meltdown recession-depression).

 

Social policies?  You mean anti-education, like school vouchers?  How many years must more than 50% black high school graduates leave school without basic literacy???  Which is more important, supporting gov't schools or having more poor kids learn?  More learning will happen if the parents who care can choose the schools.

 

Gay marriage? Like JFK, GW opposes gay marriage.  Where's the diff?  Bush did NOT bring this up, the Mass. Court did, gay activists did -- and it's really part of the abortion debate.  Which itself is part of the faith war in America.

 

Can America tolerate both secularists AND believers, almost like today, or will secularists make it illegal to profess and live by your faith, as in Catholic Charities?  Will PC thought police make it illegal to believe, and say, that homosexuality is a sin? 

 

Really, is it GW's looks or his actual policies that your wife hates?  Or the fact that so many Leftist ideas about the world, and progress, have been successful to the extent that more movement in the same direction is now wrong?

 

Maybe, like Frank J said: "after all, if we can't suck the brains out of baby's heads, what rights do we have left?"

 

 

Roger posted more about gay marriage, and there was a great comment response, long, by John (#33?).  >>WOW, John, thanks!

 

As a pro-life libertarian(ish) guy, I agree completely with your long rant, above. 

There's a big question I don't know the answer to, but suspect it to be very low -- how many HIV positive gays have been arrested for infecting others? 

MJ Totten claimed he agree this was a "crime", but I claim such Leftist words are no more real than French condemnation of Saddam.

 

The gay marriage debate will open up this dialogue.  And, like I've mentioned often, THIS time the pro-life forces are organizing at the elected representative level.  The current culture war balance is too far pro-promiscuity; gay "union"/ some legal accommodation to lovers is inevitable.  "Marriage" benefits are not.

 

Note that the smallest minority is 1; so minority rights at the extreme are individual rights.  The smallest group is 2; marriage benefits is part of the class of group rights.  And straight couples coupling is fundamentally different than gay couplings.  At the group level, not the individual orgasm level.

 

Roger & Sortelli are right that gay abnormality will be/ is being accepted.  Requiring others to treat it as normal, not merely acceptable, is what is being resisted.  I suspect it will be partially resisted, to the point of reserving (the word) "marriage" for straights.  And maybe most cash benefits only to those with their own dependent offspring.

 

It will NOT become illegal for Christians to say that homosexuality is a sin – extreme secular PC intolerance against Christians will not go that far (though many Christians feel this is the real purpose of gays).  How to live (organize society) with such gays, who are often reasonable, responsible, caring, and otherwise normal, while accepting that some think it sinful, is part of the debate that is underdiscussed.

 

 

Roger, On changing minds>> Yes, it's horribly hard to change minds.

Try with the Civil War -- it was GREAT to get rid of Slavery.  But is was EXPENSIVE; and slavery ended in Brazil in 1886 w/o a war.

 

Was the Civil War "worth it"?  How many would have to die for it to be NOT worth it?  When I honestly asked myself these questions, I concluded that Lincoln made a mistake -- the Civil War cost too much to get rid of slavery sooner.  The point is that there must be SOME number of dead, or years fighting, that makes even the Civil War, not worth it.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/22/04 20:58 | link | comments

De Facto segregation is extremely real, and property price dependent; though more & more middle class blacks give hope to a real reduction in hard core racism.  School vouchers are the best hope for the next generations.

 

And a little judicial activism made civil rights occur faster, as in Brown v. B of Ed.  But to claim that, without the judges, Southern society would never change -- that's ludicrous.  Middle class blacks were already getting tired of going to “the back of the bus”.

 

Martin Luther King's increasingly influential movement would have gotten even more attention -- a LOT of people would agree that Jim Crow crap was terrible.  Had the court decided that it was a state's issue, the North & West would be challenged to demonstrate real desegregation, not merely court decisions.  And of course the successful baseball, football, and basketball teams would have more and more integrated blacks.  How long would Southern schools keep their sports teams lily white and losing?  For myself, I’m certain that the judges only saved at most 25 years; I suspect it’s more like 10 years.  Meaning, had the court been behind the legislature, rather than leading it, the good result would only be 10-15 years later.  Remember the HUGE integration victory came in WW II – the US Army was integrated and the greatest meritocracy in America.  And quality black soldiers were being given responsibility based on merit.  Such veterans were increasingly, and rightfully, angry about Jim Crow crap; and even without Supreme Court activism those laws were vulnerable, and would be changed.

 

There’s even an argument, that I partly believe, concerning the benefit to Black Society of a longer struggle for Civil Rights.  This argument says that had the laws changed more slowly, the internal black culture would have to change more dramatically, and a higher premium would be put on education and self help and neighborhood black helping black, to get the micro-local benefits.  The intersection of Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam war was very unfortunate for lower class black society – which has been caught in a welfare paid white guilt poverty trap.  (Also another story). 

 

But had the Court not been active in deciding on a “Roe v Wade Abortion Amendment”, the culture war would be a state by state, continuing political issue.  Honest disagreement, with some states making abortion legal, and some not; and many calling for a national amendment, and many against.  But let’s say 30 years of abortion debate, w/o Court decided legal abortion, instead left many states with abortion illegal.  And MORE adoption services, and other support for single moms, as a reaction to the criticism. 

 

MORE social change, instead of a “quick fix” by judicial fiat.  Because such a quick fix CAN work, to make a good thing (like integration) happen sooner, it is too likely to make a not-good thing (killing innocent human fetuses for the convenience of women wanting more sexual pleasure) happen.  I really don’t think abortion would have become legal by elected law makers – but if not, it shouldn’t be the law.  Gay marriage, too, might not ever become legal by elected law makers; so maybe it shouldn’t be legal, either. I don’t think the Court is the best democracy supporting path to making law.  Change society first; longer, slower, maybe doesn’t happen.  But maybe then it shouldn’t happen.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/21/04 23:08 | link | comments

Wars, and costs, and benefits – Iraq War better than US Civil War

Leading society through an active court has some similarities to changing society through war. The issue of leading/ forcing social change can be applied to the Civil War -- in 1886, Brazil got rid of slavery, WITHOUT a Civil War; only 20 years later than the US. Had Lincoln accepted secession, w/o war, it seems to me very likely that by 1900 the South would have gotten rid of slavery, too. (and prolly want to rejoin the US, though perhaps not, admittedly VERY different world history.) Lincoln’s war “merely” ended slavery sooner.

While such is mostly speculation, thinking about what would "really" happen w/o Lincoln forcing the Civil War (after the democratically elected Confederate representatives voted to secede), and how expensive the War was, is useful in judging Bush. Wars have costs, as well as benefits (mostly when victorious). A “Pyrrhic” victory is one whose cost is so great that it’s not worth fighting – to me, the US Civil War was too expensive. If you think the US Civil War North victory WAS worth all the death and injury, years of fighting and bad feelings, I’m wondering how many more would have to die before you think those results are not worth it. Remember, the benefit was not “ending slavery”, it was “ending slavery 20-40 years sooner”. (1950s Judicial activism’s benefit was scrapping Jim Crow laws 10-20 years sooner.)

Most people who oppose slavery are extremely unwilling to say how many would have to die in the Civil War before they would say it was too many. They like to believe, “no sacrifice is too great” for their cause. This is not rational.

I agree that such judgments are harsh, and difficult; but feel strongly that those unwilling to answer for Lincoln, are not really fit to say the war in Iraq is “too expensive”. If they are too intellectually close-minded about quantifying costs of war, in the past, for a GREAT CAUSE, why should I think them serious about judging the Iraq war?

And the big benefit of the US doing nation building in Iraq is to fast forward history, and energize the movement of the Mid East people toward democracy, much sooner than they could otherwise get there. I think it’s worth even more than 3000 US soldier lives per year, though this does depend on how the Iraq democracy develops. Without the Iraq war, I’m pretty sure Libya and Iran; and then Iraq would be following Pakistan in getting nukes. The alternative to invading Iraq now, before they get nukes, looks a lot better to me than invading them AFTER they get nukes and nuke Tel Aviv; and get nuked by Israel in response.

The “North Korea – style” agreement and containment – doesn’t work in stopping nuke proliferation. This is a race. End ME dictatorships before they get nukes and use them (or give to terrorists), or else suffer the nuking of an Israeli city, and the response. (See MJ Totten on this stuff.)

Those “against” Bush’s Iraq war, prolly don’t put much value on saving Tel Aviv from getting nuked. I think I know why … hatred of

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/21/04 22:58 | link | comments

Do you think invading Iraq was wrong? I'd like to challenge you on a test -- if Iraq gets sovereignty, and within 2 (-3? -10?) years has an election, thus becoming a successful democracy, will you agree that Bush's regime change has been hugely successful? Both strategically and tactically. The converse isn't quite possible -- since democratic nation building really IS so hard, failure in Iraq doesn't prove it was wrong to go in (strategically), nor that Bush/Bremer is wrong in particular steps (tactically) -- though I will certainly blame Bush for failure after 3 years without an election. To really blame Bush as terrible, one has to have alternative, historical examples, of more successful dictator > democracy transitions. Preferablly Muslim, Arab, with lots of oil -- all of which are factors making it more difficult. No such examples exist, so far. So, is the neocon dream of democratic progress in oil-filled Arab Islamic Iraq wrong? I don't think the dream is wrong. Expensive, yes. Maybe too expensive for a majority of voters, maybe not. But not "wrong".

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/20/04 02:29 | link | comments

Roger writes about Muslim rage and terrorism

The world IS safer, without Saddam.  Whether less terrorism in 2003, or 2004, or even 2005, is unclear.  The "trends" were looking terrible after 9/11... Muslim rage and covetous -- is the sin of envy, wanting to bring down the rich, because they are rich.  It's terrible, and Leftists in America suffer from the same destructive envy, as are most cases of wanting to increase punishment, er, taxes on the rich.

However, so often in history, and in America today, some rich get rich by cheating.  Cheating, lying, stealing, violating contracts -- for THESE offenses all guilty, rich and not-rich, should be penalized.   The Angry Left's envy is all too similar to Muslim rage...

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/19/04 20:23 | link | comments

++(Michael against gay-hate). Christianity isn't hardwired. It's a choice. But that's no excuse to ban, beat up, or discriminate against Christians

 You're right, but banning prayer in gov't schools paid for, primarily, by Christian taxpayers increases the anger; as does excluding public Christ from Christmas. 

 

Anger is no excuse for any beating up of gays; which still happens, too often.  And yes, it's bigotry, and it's why bigotry has such a bad name.

But isn't if funny how little those on the left ask, at all seriously, why do bigots hate gays?

 

I think there are a LOT of bad/ silly/ lousy reasons, especially in terms of individual freedom and human dignity.  But there's a very basic, selfish, fairly good civilization promoting issue -- children & grandchildren. 

 

I want my kids to be straight, and I want them to marry and have kids, so I'll have grandkids.  Yeah, yeah, what if they're infertile, what if they don't marry; what if they're gay.  I'll still love them and want the best for them; also if they were blind or missing a limb or retarded (I really do thank God they're not).  When it comes to having kids, being (/acting) gay means fewer.  (support for Ariel & bob & Citizen Dave) especially the obvious: supporting homosexual behavior is likely to increase that behavior.

 

Most folk have a human identity model where some gays are born that way, and some learn that behavior in the environment.  More acceptance means more learning to be gay.  Whether this is 2%/4%, or 4%/2%, or 5.9%/0.1% (of gays born/ influenced), almost doesn't matter. It is HIGHLY unlikely that any definitive study will determine acceptable numbers. [Consider whether 5.6% unemployment is good or bad; or even "real"]

 

What is the balance, what lines are to be drawn, how much police violence is to be used to enforce the lines legislated? 

 

(Smokey, ... why bother?  comment on my site and we can troll/ fisk, if you wish)

 

Roger on the $10 billion known looted from UN corruption>>The ONE overriding human rights guarantee should be free press, art. 19 of the UN Decl. NATO should be reformed to allow NATO allies to form temporary coalitions to enforce regime change on countries that signed the UN Decl but do not accept a free press.

 

A NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group.  To include France, when they choose, but NOT to allow obstruction.  First, does the regime FULLY allow a free press? Yes/no.  Second, is there a coalition of democracies willing to use military force to enforce regime change AND perform nation building?  Yes/no.

 

Change worst regime; rate all regimes every year; iterate. Push World Bank to be loans for only one purpose in non-democracies, low-income housing construction (least susceptible to corruption).

 

Roger, keep watching that Oil-4-Palace money, thanks!

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/19/04 20:09 | link | comments

++(Michael against gay-hate). Christianity isn't hardwired. It's a choice. But that's no excuse to ban, beat up, or discriminate against Christians. You're right, but banning prayer in gov't schools paid for, primarily, by Christian taxpayers increases the anger; as does excluding public Christ from Christmas. Anger is no excuse for any beating up of gays; which still happens, too often. And yes, it's bigotry, and it's why bigotry has such a bad name. But isn't if funny how little those on the left ask, at all seriously, why do bigots hate gays? I think there are a LOT of bad/ silly/ lousy reasons, especially in terms of individual freedom and human dignity. But there's a very basic, selfish, fairly good civilization promoting issue -- children & grandchildren. I want my kids to be straight, and I want them to marry and have kids, so I'll have grandkids. Yeah, yeah, what if they're infertile, what if they don't marry; what if they're gay. I'll still love them and want the best for them; also if they were blind or missing a limb or retarded (I really do thank God they're not). When it comes to having kids, being (/acting) gay means fewer. (support for Ariel & bob & Citizen Dave) especially the obvious: supporting homosexual behavior is likely to increase that behavior. Most folk have a human identity model where some gays are born that way, and some learn that behavior in the environment. More acceptance means more learning to be gay. Whether this is 2%/4%, or 4%/2%, or 5.9%/0.1% (of gays born/ influenced), almost doesn't matter. It is HIGHLY unlikely that any definitive study will determine acceptable numbers. [Consider whether 5.6% unemployment is good or bad; or even "real"] What is the balance, what lines are to be drawn, how much police violence is to be used to enforce the lines legislated? (Smokey, ... why bother? comment on my site and we can troll/ fisk, if you wish) Roger on the $10 billion known looted from UN corruption>>The ONE overriding human rights guarantee should be free press, art. 19 of the UN Decl. And NATO should be reformed to allow NATO allies to form temporary coalitions to enforce regime change on countries that signed the UN Decl but do not accept a free press. A NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group. To include France, when they choose, but NOT to allow obstruction. First, does the regime FULLY allow a free press? Yes/no. Second, is there a coalition of democracies willing to use military force to enforce regime change AND perform nation building? Yes/no. Change worst regime; rate all regimes every year; iterate. Push World Bank to be loans for only one purpose in non-democracies, low-income housing construction (least susceptible to corruption). Roger, keep watching that Oil-4-Palace money, thanks!

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/19/04 19:31 | link | comments

Michael notes some anti-gay right wing bigotry.

>>First, you are absolutely right that this is anti-gay bigotry; and authoritarian/ "right wing"/ Christian oriented.  However, to claim, like Sully does, that this is NOT a legislative response to judicial (& mayoral) activism -- please.  It's a culture war battle.

 

Most importantly, remember there was insufficient political debate when the "Roe vs Wade Abortion Amendment" was added to the US Constitution, NOT by states' & Congressionally elected representatives.  Christianity's pro-life anti-abortion position was, by judicial fiat (after some 7 states had legalized it), overruled.  Christians are still fighting this, and have been booted out of the Democratic party over it.  (Where else to go except the Reps?)

 

What more can pro-life, pro-Christian folk do?  Well, anti-gay is more legislatively possible now than anti-abortion, so that's one place where anti-abortion frustration can be, and is being, redirected.  Gay marriage is the current spear tip in the whole culture war.

 

I don't think this is so hard to understand, nor even so unreasonable.  Wrong, yes, because it's overbalanced anti-gay.  Yet this is an affirmation that hetero couples who can create life through sex are fundamentally unequal to gay couples who cannot.  I think this as scientifically valid as the fact that a fetus has different DNA than its mother from the moment of conception. What these facts mean, legislatively, should be the focus of the political debate; but the pro-gay position of full equality in coupling is just false.

 

Personally, as mentioned on other threads, full civil union/ dom. partnership legal issue equality is the right balance for me, LESS than "marriage", but not much less. 

 

As a quick aside, I wrote on my own blog about Zapetero's huge threat to Bush -- if he decides, once in power, to stay the course in Iraq and be even tougher than Aznar on terrorism.  Showing that it's possible to change horses, not in midstream, but in mid-marathon like the pony express.  So the WoT, the most important gov't action, becomes a wash between Rep & Dem.

 

In my mind I was almost thinking about why you, Michael (the secularist), will vote Kerry in Nov, due to the culture war at home.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/18/04 19:40 | link | comments (4)

David Bach of WaPo writes of Spain that Voters want honesty.  Yes, some against Iraq “But for many, rejection of the governing party was not based on a simple notion that the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq brought on the attacks. Instead, it stemmed from the perception that the government withheld information about the attacks and deliberately tried to sway public opinion on a matter of utmost importance. Over the weekend Spain didn't have a government that led, it had a governing party that campaigned.”

 

This is extremely dangerous to Pres. Bush.  Of the mud that the Dems are throwing, the sticky stuff is whether the Bush gov’t is leading America, or campaigning & misleading.  Yet this could be VERY good, for American democracy.  Because Clinton lied, and to Dems it didn’t matter, now it does, a bit.  Bush, not so much on WMDs but on a host of other issues, DOES seem to be withholding, or spinning, information.  For his spinning, plus the constant bad press and anti-Christian bias, he is vulnerable.

 

But the biggest threat to Bush is different.  The biggest threat is that the new Spanish Socialist WILL be effective against terrorism in Spain, AND keep troops in Iraq, perhaps even increasing them after the handover to temp Iraqi gov’t.  This will show that, once in power, an anti-Iraq warrior can be as responsible, and perhaps more so, than a former war hawk.  This example could show that “changing horses” can make sense.  It’s not “mid stream” – it’s in the middle of pony express cross-country race, so of course a fresh horse can help.  The liberals who can’t support Bush’s war (as MJ Totten) so well put it, WILL be able to support the same war if it becomes Kerry’s. 

 

Finally, it could ease MY mind that Kerry won’t be a disaster.  Yet, it doesn’t now; and I don’t think it will in July, or after, either. 

  

JP Barlow on finding Spalding Gray’s body, and the service.  JPB has had a stirring memorial site, and a few posts, for the many weeks he has been missing, and presumed dead.>> God Bless You, Spalding.
Rest In Peace.

Thank you, John, for a site and a memorial and new remembrances of old memories.

Tears in my eyes, yet hope in heart.
Many tears swim, but less than 2.5 million.
The world, in general, is really getting better, slowly. It is so very sad that, in losing Spalding, the world is poorer.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/17/04 23:31 | link | comments (1)

Sirius Black killed Harry Potter’s parents!  No, really – in HP 3 (Prisoner of Azkaban) Sirius accepts blame for the fact that James was going to make him the secret keeper, but he had them choose their other friend Peter.  Peter the real spy, Peter the betrayer, Peter the rat – Wormtail.  Scabbers, Ron’s long-lived rat not killed by Crookshanks. (Just re-read it, in Slovak).  Blame, guilt, responsibility.  It's all there in Harry Potter.  JKR = genius.

 

In Harry Potter, it all works out, sort of, in the end (so far).  (Well, OK, some others die, and there are other problems, and neither 6 nor 7 is finished yet, and Sirius dies, too, but there has to be some interest).

 

The point is: Voldemort killed Harry’s folks; Peter, not Sirius, betrayed them.  And maybe they’d be alive if Sirius had acted differently.

 

This is a post about Spain, and murder, and blame.  The killers did it.  Not Aznar, not the Spanish police, not Bush nor America – the (AQ?) murderers.  Others had influence.  They are not blameless.  But the anti-Bush protesters are MORE to blame, than Bush.  The Spanish who marched in opposition to Iraq action are MORE to