I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Harry Potter is Iraq, Snape is the UN

I’m now (re-)reading Harry Potter 4, The Goblet of Fire, in Slovak.  It’s really a great book.  Previously I’ve indicated that Harry must fight his own battles, much like the Iraqis must do.  It’s clear that, if Dumbledore merely did all the heavy lifting for Harry, there wouldn’t be the great character development.

 

It’s also clear that, despite Snape being one of the “good guys”, he really does hate Harry.  That’s the UN position with respect to accountable democracy.   In the flap about the Europe being afraid of the USA being too unilateralist, there is an echo in Ron (EU) thinking Harry gets all the attention.  And Ron doesn’t like it.  Yet Ron has been very helpful on occasion, sharing Harry’s adventures.

 

After Harry’s name comes up, Ron doesn’t believe that Harry didn’t put it in.  After Harry risks his life against the Dragon, Ron understands; and admits he was wrong; and is about to apologize – but Harry knows it, and cuts him off, it doesn’t matter.  Harry’s happy for Ron’s friendship. Harry is also the USA.  Harry is anybody good, trying to be good, trying to do good.  An archetype, and therefore destined for future literary immortality.  Prolly on the level of Tolkein.  Better for younger kids; maybe not as gripping for older – perfect for those wanting to learn English better, I think.

(inspired by Jeff Jarvis, and his posting of:)

 

Daniel Radcliffe thinks Harry might die.

 

Daniel seems like a great young guy.  It's fantastic to see a young teen grow, in the movies, each year.  I'm afraid film 6 will be done before book 7, and Daniel will be showing his age by then.

 

"I think he might die" is not a prediction of death, though.  That would be "I think he'll die".  QUITE a bit different.

 

I think it's important for JKR to keep the option open for Harry's death, because of the need to feel the danger.  At the end of book 5, 15 year old Harry must confront the seeming reality that either he must kill Voldemort, or be killed.

 

Harry doesn't really want to be a killer.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/31/04 21:31 | link | comments

Not Perfect? !! not good enough

Michael phrased it wonderfully (in comments) : “at one time I was a Christian, then I hated Christianity, then I made my peace with it and once again identify with it to a minor extent. (I am culturally Christian, after all, and many years ago I learned that my loathing of Christianity was partly aimed at myself.)”

 

The reasons the Angry Left hates Bush are likely very similar, or identical, to the reasons you hated Christianity.  Namely, it’s not perfect; that is, evil exists.  I never hated Christianity, but I was science fictionally (Heinlein) contemptuous of it, close to hate.  And loved Monty Python’s laughing at, humiliating, Christian beliefs.

 

Acton Inst. has an interesting paper that has inspired many of my own thoughts on Secular Fundamentalism:  “the intellectual framework that stipulates that religious believers ought to be excluded from politics is an absolutist doctrine that is inconsistent with a democratic interaction between church and state.”  (see below)

 

But the main issue is not a precise secular fundamentalist definition, it is a question of why do so many on the Left hate Christianity?  I think if you can remember and write up your reasons, it would make an excellent, and important, article.

 

I note that in Slovakia, a strongly pro-Catholic country, there is a Christian Democratic Movement (KDH – really the moderate Christian party).  In the recent elections for president, almost no Bishops nor Catholic Church hierarchy came out in support of the fine, well-known Christian former dissident, never a commie.   Why?  Well, he’s unmarried, for one thing.  He jokes a bit, politely and engagingly, but almost all jokes allow somebody to take offense, if there is a desire to be offended.  Instead, the Bishops were quietly supporting two other “Christians”, Meciar and Gasparovic, former commies who now attend Church, but had restituted Church property to the hierarchy of the Church, while also allowing their friends huge amount of privatization property at very friendly prices, among other things.  

 

These two were in the run-off, and Gasparovich*, Speaker of Parliament while Mechiar* (*acoustic spelling) was Prime Minister, won – he’s the new President of Slovakia, the third former commie.  Because Mikloshko * from KDH was not perfect, the Church hierarchy didn’t really support him, though many, many KDH members are also active within the Church ranks.

 

I discussed this yesterday with Eric, an Austrian friend at a friendly picnic: American & Slovak (I & wife), Slovak (sister-in-law), Austrian married to a French woman (close friend of sis), French man married to a Russian.  Plus our three kids, and the Aus-French two.  Fun picnic.

 

Eric pointed out that since 89 America has had the problem of being the sole superpower, and is watched with both admiration, respect, and fear.  Most Western Europeans share many of the usual US values – but are afraid of a unilateral America.  Even a US doing “good” – and they are seeing, in Abu Ghriab, that America is not good.  So Eric supports Anybody But Bush – without doing too much deep research.  Nor, quite, reading Bush’s speeches (speechwriters, right?).  In other words, Bush is not perfect, so he’s not good enough.  We agreed to defer further discussion and enjoy the sunny picnic (my first, mild red color).

 

Perhaps you hated that Christianity accepted slavery?  Or that Christianity accepted women without the right to vote?  Or accepted Jim Crow laws in the South?  Or accepted various feudal/ dictatorial regimes throughout the world, rather than revolution?

 

Christianity is not perfect, so it’s not good enough;

Capitalism is not perfect, so it’s not good enough;

Bush is not perfect, so he’s not good enough;

American ideals are not perfect, so they’re not good enough.

 

I find all these related, but the biggest one seems to be the current anti-Christian bias in the media.  Note Arnold Kling’s recent TCS column on the media.

 

Arnold talks about the media elite rejection of Republican values – but I’m pretty sure he’s missing the religious angle, and that it’s not so much media’s “liberal” bias, but their “secular” bias, which keeps them out of touch with so many religious folks.

 

The journey from inside, hating from outside, reconciling with the greater outside reality, and acceptance of belonging inside; describes my own journey fairly well.  Except I’ve taken the extra step of marrying a sincere pro-life medical doctor, and accept the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.  “Fetal rights are human rights” .  And I see the abortion dissonance causing huge problems in the Democratic Party, weakening its moral fabric and substituting PC thought police for honest inquiry into reality.  The Reps need honest, not hysterical and shallow, constructive criticism.

 

In my heart, two wolves fight.  One wolf proud of Christianity’s accomplishments, one ashamed at the sins committed by Christians.  Which wolf will win?  The wolf I feed.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/31/04 03:13 | link | comments

Who are secular fundamentalists?

There is a small, problematic number of Christian fundamentalists who want to impose their version of the Ten Commandments, and pro-life, pro-Christian, anti-promiscuity, anti-gay morality on everybody through government.  There is a much larger number of Christians who object to the elimination of the same, and the imposition on them, and their children, of a pro-abortion, anti-Christian, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay morality.

 

Tolerant secularists accept Christian students, and other religious students, praying in school when they feel it is appropriate.  They accept that, if there is an “ethics” requirement for learning, then an option of either Church based or secular based ethics should be fine.  Secular fundamentalists would insist that all receive the secular ethics, and perhaps allow an additional optional instruction in Church ethics – this is a real debate in Slovakia, which just opted for the tolerant solution.

 

Acton Inst. has an interesting paper that has inspired many of my own thoughts on Secular Fundamentalism:  “the intellectual framework that stipulates that religious believers ought to be excluded from politics is an absolutist doctrine that is inconsistent with a democratic interaction between church and state.”

 

In the USA today, objecting to school vouchers because that would allow parents to send their children to religious schools, is the position of secular fundamentalist.  Making believers pay taxes to support anti-belief in gov’t schools, and pay a second time for their own children (or teach them at home).  [Objecting to vouchers because the education would be worse is a different, more reasonable objection – but seldom heard, since it’s falsified by most studies.]

 

In fact, political decisions are motivated by values.  The value of woman’s freedom.  The value of human fetal life.  The question of when do human rights begin?  The cultural answers to such questions reflect the voters, including the religious views of the voters.  This is inevitable, and the secular fundies basically want a state sponsored atheism imposed on believers. 

 

One of the current wars, the US/ Western Civ "Culture war", is primarily between tolerant Christians and increasingly intolerant Secular Fundamentalists.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/30/04 22:58 | link | comments

Limewire, Not Karaoke

One of the popular peer to peer networks is Limewire, I guess it’s a gnutella kind of thing.  So, with wife Eva being a bit sick, we stayed home and looked up all kinds of cool music.  In fact,  I had stayed up far too long the night before downloading songs, and Bill Cosby’s Wonderfulness (Tonsils, Ice Cream!), and, finally, Yes’s Relayer with the haunting last 5 minutes of Gates of Delirium (Soon, oh soon, … [don’t know the words]).  And lots of old Neil Diamond (he’s in my range) and some Chris Rea.  Just great.  Eva downloaded Higa de luna (?) and other stuff that SHE thought was cool.  And going to be early meant before 2.

 

Great fun.

If Limewire is one of the best, it still sucks, for quality.  Most songs have these terrible pops, where a musical phrase is interrupted.  1, 2, …, 3, 4.  It’s not like a record/ CD scratch, or a cassette fade out.  Makes the rhythm wrong.  I hate it.  No wonder it makes me want to buy a good CD copy of the song, instead of putting up with the not-quite-good enough free/ copied version.  MP3, as is now, is no real danger to the record (CD? )/ music industry.  I don't even have time to listen to most of my hundred or so CDs, or my 3 hundred or so tapes.  But I want what I want, good quality.  Arghh.  "Free music." Great!

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/30/04 20:56 | link | comments

Abu bad, Baath worse

Even worse torture in prison.  It needs to be shown. I think waiting for Saddam's trial is better -- but if Michael gives me a link now...  It's so sad on so many levels.

++Iran is at war with the US. (says Michael Ledeen -- whom I believe is right.)

 

More about Chalabi: if the CIA leaks something, it’s prolly false.

 

I'm expecting to see LOTS of video on Saddam's torture -- during his Iraqi trial.  In fact, now that I think of it, all this Abu fuss will make it hard to to NOT publicize Saddam quite a lot.  Say, Aug through Nov 4?  Could Bush be setting up the press, so that they'll look very partisan bad in NOT showing the trial photos of Saddam; but showing them will show a contrast in Bush's favor?  Bush may very well know that the press is an enemy, and that pretending otherwise just makes the PRESS more hysterical.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/29/04 08:23 | link | comments

Abortion may cause Nuclear War

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/markets_in_ever_2.html 

Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution) writes about how there are some 40 million "excess" men in China.   Tyler doesn't mention that sex-selection abortion, as well as infanticide, characterize the huge country that feminists decided was the best spot for the UN Conference on Women (which my Slovak wife attended) in 1995.  And with market reforms, they're rapidly getting richer than North Korea, so they're ALREADY starting to buy N. Korean women. 

The N. Korean men will be getting angry soon.  Both countries have nukes; and (the leader of) one is crazy.

I hope this prediction becomes self-negating. But in any case you read it here, first, very early Sat. morning.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/29/04 07:24 | link | comments

Chalabi in 2005?

Roger doesn’t know what to think about Chalabi, though he notes that Michael Ledeen (AEI, NRO) does.

 

Michael L’s key point:

“Before getting any deeper in this story, I want to repeat that Chalabi is a friend, and that I don't believe he's an Iranian agent. I do believe that the INC, along with every other significant organization in Iraq, has been penetrated by the extremely skilled Iranian intelligence services, and therefore I would not be at all surprised to find one or another of his associates working with Tehran.”

“…Barzani meets regularly in Baghdad with the Iranians' top man, who was a guest in Barzani's house just two weeks ago. Barzani and Talabani both get funding from Iran.

Both Barzani and Talabani are in our good graces.

I could go on, but these cases illustrate the situation adequately. Many of these are excellent people. Their standing and their experience fully qualify them for positions of leadership in Iraq.”

 

ML states how quite a few other Gov. Council members have close ties to Iran, and are embraced warmly by Bremer and the US Dept. of State.  He notes that close ties with Iran are necessary to stay alive in Iraq, while the US finds Iran “helpful”.  The big story is that the US Intel Comm failed, and they are in CYA mode – with Chalabi as the scapegoat. 

 

Hitch was very impressed with Chalabi, the man, as of 1998 when they met – the year Pres. Clinton got the Iraq Liberation Act passed, without dissent.  He discusses AC, and the Petra Bank problem:

“The anti-Chalabi forces, I found upon inquiry, had several criticisms to make. The first was that he was a shady businessman whose Petra Bank had fleeced the depositors of Jordan. The second was that he was an "exile," remote from Iraq's reality. The third was that he was too close to the Iranians. The fourth was that he was too ambitious. The fifth was that he was an American puppet.

 

I do not know what happened at the Petra Bank, and not even Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, who have done the most work on the subject, can be sure that Saddam Hussein's agents in Jordan were not involved in the indictment of Chalabi by a rather oddly constituted Jordanian court. It could be, for all I know, that he was both guilty and framed. The litigation and recrimination continues, and it ought at least to be noted that Chalabi still maintains he can prove his case.”

 

Sidney Blumenthal (solon, pay or view ad) is totally damning:

“Who gave Ahmed Chalabi classified information about the plans of the U.S. government and military?

The Iraqi neocon favorite, tipped to lead his liberated country post-invasion, has been identified by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency as an Iranian double agent, passing secrets to that citadel of the "axis of evil" for decades. All the while the neocons cosseted, promoted and arranged for more than $30 million in Pentagon payments to the George Washington manqué of Iraq. In return, he fed them a steady diet of disinformation, and in the run-up to the war he sent various exiles to nine nations' intelligence agencies to spread falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction. If the administration had wanted other material to provide a rationale for invasion, no doubt that would have been fabricated. Either Chalabi perpetrated the greatest con since the Trojan horse or he was the agent of influence for the most successful intelligence operation conducted by Iran, or both.”

 

Sidney’s trying to be damning – but it feels pretty weak.  The “crime” (???) of misleading the US into booting Saddam.  Where are a couple of specific examples?  Passing military info to Iran?  And of course Sidney’s generally been complaining that there WERE NO plans, though I never believed him.  Sidney DOES mention Abu (no real reference to Chalabi), but NO mention of Oil for Food scandal.

 

I do believe Ledeen that Iran has penetrated all the Iraqi orgs, including Chalabi.  Iran casts a big shadow in Iraq – and they know how to assassinate, and do so.

 

So, Sidney – Chalabi the evil genius mastermind manipulator, or Ledeen (nod to Hitch) – the Intel Comm is in CYA mode?   Chalabi may be bad, but Sidney is far from showing it.  I’m betting more likely Chalabi is being set as the CYA scapegoat, for now.

 

I suspect he’ll be back in January.  He might even run for pres. in Iraq, using Sidney’s quotes, without admitting anything.  Wouldn’t THAT be ironic?

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 22:40 | link | comments

What is Bush's strategy?

The CPA has this link to the Presidential speech about the 5 steps for Democracy, including (all from the pdf, my bolds):

1. hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government;

2. help establish the stability and security in Iraq that democracy requires;

3. continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure;

4. encourage more international support; and

5. move toward free, national elections that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people

 

The Coalition has helped refurbish more than 2,200 schools, 240 hospitals and 1,200 health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system.

 

Securing America and the World. We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the Greater Middle East, as it advanced and changed lives in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away. America and the world will be safer when hope has re turned to the Middle East.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:35 | link | comments

Iraqis need to help themselves

Melana Zyla Vickers (Tech Central) notes that Iraqis Need to Bear the Burden

"Can (Iraqi forces) opt out of an operation if they don't want to or something of that nature? And the answer has to be yes," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 18. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz added: "I agree exactly."

If ever there was an illustration of what's wrong with the administration's perception of the U.S. role in Iraq, this is it: Current Iraq policy puts the U.S. military far too much in the front and center in that country, and relies far too little on transferring the burden of fighting armed insurgents, nation-building and policework to the Iraqis. The reasoning ranges from the Iraqis being unready and untrained, to them being unwilling, to them being unable to take the lead role in their own security and defense.

Melana is right, as I stated in my April post about Harry Potter, Ender Wiggins, (no) Help for Iraqi People.

But neither she, I, nor Bush nor Bremer can know, and be sure of the knowledge, how to guide the Iraqis in the least costly / fastest way.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:16 | link | comments

UNSCAM is not sorted out

Roger watches UNSCAM.

Bremer switching accounting firms is truly bizarre bad.

 

The UN, like the US at Abu, needs to operate more transparently.  This is clearly political: Kerry strongly supports the UN, Bush less so. 

The Bush-hating press, the (third) friends of terrorists, is having success at making Bush & neo-con pro-democracy seem too flawed to be worth pursuing.  If Iraq becomes secure and democratic, Bush will get big credit.  Bush thinks the handover on 30 June needs UN approval; and is sort of right, since he failed to specify in Nov what it really meant, when HE could have set the agenda.

 

But the current UN is far more bad than good.  The US needs to push NATO, and coalitions of the willing; and the Democracy Caucus (inside of the UN); and possibly other organizations.  "Push" meaning take US money away from the UN and put it elsewhere.

Let UNSCAM start hammering the UN now -- it's part of the publicity war, and yes, partisanship and justice wise, it hammers Kerry, a bit.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:14 | link | comments

Liberation constrasts, joy and whatever

Donald has a great story about the only American to fight both with the Americans at Normandy, and with the Soviets.  And of his torture at the hands of the Germans, before he escaped (East).  The post included scenes of liberation joy by Europeans.

 

Can't help but think that the Dutch, and other occupied W. Europeans, had a much better idea of the freedom they could hope for with liberation than people who have never been free. 

 

It was prolly FAR too much to hope that Iraqis, who have never been free, would have similar strength in their imaginations of freedom.  I don't think there were many such liberation stories in Asia, against the Japanese.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:11 | link | comments

Was Bush I right to stop with Kuwait?

Brenden Miniter (WSJ) provocatively writes that it was good that Bush I stopped with just Kuwait. “But it's time to face a hard truth: America cannot afford to be beaten in the sands of Iraq. 

Let's consider what would've happened had George H.W. Bush ordered the troops to go on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. Whether in quiet desertion or mass protest, much of Europe and the Arab world would have turned against the American president in the face of a protracted insurgent war--and there is every reason to believe Saddam loyalists would have been much stronger then than they are today.”

 

Strong point that the current politics, and the mass media gloom & doom Bush-hate is certainly getting old.  The strategy seems to be: elect Kerry or else you’ll get 4 more years of press gloom.

 

Still, I don’t quite buy it.  Bush I should have booted Saddam, and taken in the problems then; and let Clinton do the work.  And get nation-building credit.  It looks to me more like revisionism for Bush I NOT doing the right thing, despite it meaning he's less likely to be reelected.  I think there's even a good case that his "failure" to achieve regime change in Iraq was symptomatic of his, and America's, weakness, and especially leaderlessness.  And why he deserved to lose in 92.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:08 | link | comments

Iraq Strategy Good; implementation?

Dan Drezner (New Republic) argues that the neo-con vision of democratic reform in the ME is the best strategy, among poor choices.  But that its implementation has been poor.

 

While I certainly agree that the implementation has not been optimal, how bad is a pretty wide range.  It seems to be complaining about the lack of Oak Tree shade, after planting the acorn only a year ago.  The real problem is the inability of the Bush-haters, and the press, to accept the need for time.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:04 | link | comments

Capt. Abby and Arabs as people

Michael copies a great post of one of his commenters TmjUtah, on dealing with Capt. Abby.

 

The Arab states are formally on record to support democracy.  I don't believe we'll really see much progress until after Iraq gets sovereignty, Bush gets reelected, and Iraq has a genuine democratically elected gov't (Jan 05?).

 

The dream of transformation of the ME in 1-2 years was ambitious; too ambitious for the West (needing the US to defeat/ liberate/ occupy first Iraq, then Iran, then Syria/Saudi Arabia -- not in the cards, though militarily possible).  Iraq as a model democracy is still possible.  And will always be possible, until it descends into civil war and the 3 state division -- and then democratic Kurdistan (Nth Iraq) will be a model for the Arabs.

 

Islamofascism has been growing, like a sturdy oak tree, since the mullah takeover in Iran in 79.  Democracy's acorn was planted last year, in June the first slender twig will open its first leaves.  Just because it won't give much shade this year, nor even next, doesn't mean it won't someday be a mighty oak.

No amount of passionate blogging, analysis, bombing, fighting, reform -- will change the need for time.  Though good fertilizer and watering is better than constant urination; too salty.

 

++Last week, the BBC had a short selection on Capt. "Abby", how he enjoyed piloting a helicopter, and actually being a real military officer.

I hope he can become a benign dictator.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 20:00 | link | comments

US Muslim Org has Convention

(via Glenn)

The Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) is holding SECOND Convention of the Shia Muslims living in the United States and Canada on May 28-30, 2004 at Wardman Park Marriott Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW, Washington, DC, 20008. Please mark your calendar for this great event. Register NOW to become part of this important moment in history.

 

The Theme of the UMAA Convention 2004  is: " UNITY IN DIVERSITY "

(via the Weekly Standard 

“The most extraordinary aspect of this convocation, which is expected to draw 5,000 participants, is that a majority who will attend are firm supporters of the Coalition's operations in Iraq.” )

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/28/04 19:58 | link | comments

FOUAD AJAMI (NYT ) writes sadly about Arab reality in Iraq May Survive, but the Dream Is Dead

" In their fashion, Iraqis had come to see their recent history as a passage from the rule of the tyrant to the rule of the foreigners. We had occupied the ruler's palaces and the ruler's prisons. It was logistics and necessity, of course — but that sort of shift in their world acquitted the Iraqi people, absolved them of the burden of their own history, left them on the sidelines as foreign soldiers and technicians and pollsters and advocates of "civic society" took control of their country. "

Fouad says the dream of Iraq democracy leading to a Middle East rebirth is gone: "If some of the war's planners had thought that Iraq would be an ideal base for American primacy in the Persian Gulf, a beacon from which to spread democracy and reason throughout the Arab world, that notion has clearly been set aside."

Wow, he's so despondent -- why do I feel somehow glad? Perhaps because he's missed the point of Bremer's strategy? For Iraq to be a democratic beacon, it must be an Iraqi democracy. NOT an imported American democracy. Certainly I think Bremer missed out on getting more local Iraqis elected in city councils; and could really blow it with national party slates instead of constituencies. But it's up to the Iraqis to do it. And they're very new at doing "it" -- the democracy freedom private property human rights thing. I don't know of any fruit tree whose seed can be planted one year, and the next give abundant fruit.

" The Iraqis shall have a president, two vice presidents, a prime minister and 26 ministers who will run the country. "

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/27/04 23:18 | link | comments

Wolf packs, not just wolves -- Really

Perhaps you've heard the "Two wolves in my heart, good & bad, fighting.  The winner? The one I feed" -- old Indian urban legend.  Which is really true, and important -- which wolf do I feed.  But actually, it's more complex.  I have to choose a whole package of good and bad points, vs an alternate package, also with good and bad points. 

There are two wolf packs, fighting in my heart. One mostly good; one mostly bad. Which pack will win? The wolves I feed. But this means the bad wolves in the good pack get fed, while the good wolves in the bad pack do not. Justice is a grey area.

My birth name was Thomas George Graessle.  I changed it to Thomas Graessle Grey, partly because (Gandalf! Tarzan, Lord Greystoke!) ... justice is a grey area.  I really hate societal injustice. 

Which wolf pack do you feed?

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/27/04 22:50 | link | comments

Kerry and pro-abortion is NOT Catholic

If Kerry supports abortion, the killing of an innocent human fetus, he can hardly call himself a Catholic.  Yes, there's a group of Catholic haters calling themselves Catholics for a Free Choice. And there's the Pope, and many encyclicals, and a living Roman Catholic Church -- all opposed to abortion.

Let’s remember, it’s the Democratic Party which has excommunicated any politician that dares to oppose abortion.  Churches that remain churches do so based on absolutes – let compromising, semi-principled, government power hungry Parties change THEIR principles to be more popular. 

In fact, the abortion litmus test for the Democrats is almost certain to cost them this next election.  Catholics WILL NOT be happy supporting him, and many in the pro-life movement have long been demanding that Catholic Bishops, so quick to write in favor of welfare liberal issues, have been failing, failing, failing to seriously support the pro-life position.

I remain an Episcopalian, happily going to Catholic Church every Sunday with my wife and three kids – and I don’t take Communion.  Kerry shouldn’t either.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/27/04 22:43 | link | comments

Reporters checking reports?

Kman (Freespeech) reports that the NYT is looking at weak reporting, of positive Bush articles before the war.

I’m glad the NYT is looking to be more rigorous -- too bad it's only looking at a part of itself.

Say, how many Abu pictures has it shown?

How many of Nick Berg's head being carried?  Or of the killers as they sliced?

Any pictures from the AQ snuff film of Daniel Pearl?

How about coverage of these seven men who were abused in Abu?  Their HANDS were cut off!  At Heritage. 

 

Oh, yeah.  By Saddam.  So it's not news.  Which abuse is worse?  Where any apologies?  Where any firings, like Generals?

How about that Sarin gas shell found in Iraq?  There's one WMD, ready to kill some 60 000 people if used to maximum effect.

Inability to be act perfectly is a stupid reason for not acting.  How about some constructive criticism? 

 

Like, Bush & Bremer should be supporting more local city council elections; and promoting elected Iraqis, and listening to THOSE Iraqis, even more than to UN Brahimi.

 

And, if they want to keep Iraq as one country, it needs local constituency/ district reps, NOT a national party slate (like most of Europe has, and is easier).  But NYT doesn't have much room for important news.

 

Spreading democracy IS my own cause (here in Slovakia).  I truly wish Bush's vision well.

 

Insofar as Bush is the enemy of Al Qaeda, and Ted K. is the (political) enemy of Bush, it follows that Ted and AQ are friends of the third kind -- enemy's enemy.  Humiliation abuse is common throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, the USA, France, Germany ... prolly everywhere they have prisons with violent people.  The Abu scandal is to hurt Bush (help AQ), not to get better treatment for prisoners.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/26/04 22:58 | link | comments

Joe fisks Gen. Zinni, & big national party slate mistake

Joe (Evangelical Christians) on Gen. Zinni: “The worst decision that Zinni can find was the disbanding of the Iraqi army. While the general may have preferred that we force Saddam’s conscripts to continue to serve against their will, it would hardly have provided a foundation for a new army. The process of reconstructing the countries military force is already well underway. If this is the worst “bad decision” that Zinni can find then we have little cause to worry.

 

Zinni is fair enough that he not only points out what we are doing wrong in Iraq but explains what he would do differently. The “first and most important” thing he would do is -- are you ready for this bold move -- get yet another UN resolution.

 

The first 13 resolutions failed to be effective but apparently a 14th one would change everything. To be honest, it is difficult to take Zinni seriously after such a ridiculous comment. If he truly believes that is the “first and most important” step in the reconstruction process then he is clueless. Unfortunately, he appears to believe just that.”

 

Great fisking, Joe.  Thanks.  The US plan is to let the Iraqis decide, somehow.  I think it's a good plan.  But the Iraqis have to have more power.

 

The biggest mistake so far has been the lack of elected local city councils; too much Bremer and not enough Mr. X, elected mayor of some Iraqi city/ town.  With money = authority = power; and the US monitoring its use to increase responsibility.

 

The biggest future mistake is to have national party slate democracy, like Czechoslovakia had, instead of local constituency individual representatives.  This hasn't been decided yet, so far as I know.  If the UN chooses the (easier) national party slates -- then Iraq will be 3 states within 4 years, unless occupation stops it.

 

Joe also notes the UN hopelessness.  UN Germans hiding during Kosovo riots.  UN Africans demanding sex for food.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/26/04 22:52 | link | comments