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

I despise Bush-hate noise without standards

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/30/04 19:25 | link | comments

Perfection is a bad standard for evaluating abuse

In a series of letters to Anne Cunningham, I’ve expressed some support for Bush while she’s expressed support for Kerry and especially against Bush.  This post is more about standards of critique.

 

I’ve asked for standards.  Criticisms without standards seem intellectually dishonest to me, and this is a different problem than merely a lack of alternatives, though there is a similarity.  My huge problem with the criticism over Bush is how often no standards are used, and thus, implicitly “perfection” is the unspoken standard, and anything less is terrible.  There’s no scale:

Slightly bad; bad; very bad; outrageously bad.

 

Each life is valuable; but 10, 20 deaths is a MUCH bigger deal than one or two.  3 000 is a much bigger deal than 300; and 300 000 is much bigger 30 000.  Orders of magnitude really do matter, to me.  Below I’ve highlighted my request for standards, and my own example, and the total lack of any attempt to write down a standard by Anne.  On anything.

 

And the utter lack of standards seems normal for Leftists, for PC types who are “totally” one way or the other.  Smoking is a little bad … it is totally bad.  Bush a little bad … totally bad.  It’s no wonder socialism, which is a little good (and very good, when voluntary), becomes “totally good”, and like, totally leads directly to totalitarianism.

 

Why can’t Leftists write some standards: like good, bad, very good (fantastic), very bad (terrible), a little bad, a little good?

Because if they DID explicitly write a standard, the fact that it was so unrealistically close to “perfection” would be embarrassingly obvious.

Or, in many cases, it would show how Bush is so often good, if not very good.

On Abu Ghraib & prisons, if US prisons are no better than Abu, it’s pretty hard for me to get upset at pictures.  I have standards: 10 rapes bad; 100 rapes very bad; 1000 rapes so bad somebody in power should get fired.  US prisons are full of folk getting raped, getting infected by AIDs, in the hundreds, if not thousands.  In Abu how many rapes?  Less than 100, it seems.  With far more mitigating and extenuating circumstances.

I haven’t seen any Abu critics lay out standards for judging, and a scale.

There’s no standard for judging progress in Iraq.

There’s almost no standard for judging the US economy: unemployment low, inflation low, mortgage rates low, gov’t deficit is high  – the economy is 3/4 great!  By reasonable standards.

 

In one of the letters, Anne says she prolly won’t convince me; and she prolly won’t.  But without specifying some scale of standards, and showing how Bush results are so poor against the standard, she certainly won’t convince me.

 

I’m afraid me doing the reverse won’t convince her, either.  I’ll try in another post. 

 

 

It started with Michael J Totten referencing Anne's case for Kerry, and my letter response.

 

Hi Anne

I believe Bush's poor PR is a real problem, but I'm not convinced of his "incompetence".

On the economy, after a HUGE depression causing type bubble pop of paper wealth disappearing, Bush's tax cuts and deficit spending have been SO successful that most folks didn't even notice much recession. If he's spending too much, the Dems should be saying what pork should be cut.  But there's not much about that, only more anti-rich envy based tax increases to punish the successful.

 

In Iraq, if he's executing poorly, there should be Dem critique on how to execute better.  Bring in the UN (like Kosovo? like UNSCAM?) is junk.  More allies? -- Bush can't get more allies for Afghanistan, why is it a surprise there won't be much more in Iraq.  The reality on the ground in Iraq won't change with 1000 more Frog or Kraut troops, nor without the 3000 Spanish (many of whom didn't want to leave).  The Iraqis are taking over, and it is NOT clear that Bush did "too little" in demonstrating to the Iraqis that Iraq is an Iraqi problem. 

 

I think so; restructuring the Army instead of disbanding it I'm certain would have been better.  But it's not proven by better examples elsewhere, NOR by horrible results inside of Iraq.  Sorry, less than 1000 Americans killed is GREAT results, no matter what the press says. I think Bush has made mistakes, but the Beat-Bush with any and every stick group have no alternative whatsoever.  9/11 ?  NOT enough pre-emption action by Bush, only.  Patriot Act?  Too much loss of freedom.  How can anybody reasonable hold BOTH of these ideas at the SAME time?  If Bush really was bad for one, the other must be excused.

 

Europe will be no help to Bush OR Kerry; the big socialist (half-commie?) French and German economies have excessive unemployment, excessive taxes already (gas at well over $4/gal -- because of taxes) and a huge pension bomb about to explode on their finances.  Their envy-based anti-Americanism is very related to the Leftist envy-based hatred of tax cuts (for the rich!); but now they want poor Slovakia to RAISE taxes.  (The EU constitution will be defeated in referendums)

 

The failure of Kerry, and the Dems since Dean empowered the LOUD BUSH-HATE noise generators, is to offer any reasonable alternatives. He has no philosophy except talk over action, nuance over clarity, conditionality over commitment.  Yechh.  Nobody likes Kerry because there's nothing there to like.  What's his solution to No. Korea? (nobody knows).  How about to Iran?  (implicitly like the Clinton No. Korea one?  Talk, get agreement, let Iran violate it and get nukes; new reality.) Kerry is frightening on Iran. 

 

The HUGE advantage to Kerry is that, if he articulates a believable line that Iran could cross and be invaded, the Rep-hawks would go along with it.  But even he did say words, would any believe him?  (me no.) Bush and Abu -- Bush is blowing it in PR.  (Again.)  Yeah, it seems his press IS incompetent.  And his press philosophy.  There should be a line between pressure/ hazing/ humiliation, and torture.  It's clear that in a few cases at Abu the guards crossed over the undefined line.  The pictures are terrible, but the reality is prolly less bad, in terms of rapes (for instance), than most American prisons under Clinton or Bush. How many dog bites?  Two, five?  Quantity matters.  More than one is "too many", but less than 10 is NOT a big problem. Unrealistic Perfection as an unspoken, obvious alternative really bothers me. (On my tomgrey.motime.com blog -- you're welcome to visit.  Comment even.)

Tom Grey

-----

 

 

Hi,

you wrote me the other day about the posts Michael Totten linked to. I  got a big negative response to them, when usually I'm just writing for a small  audience, so that's why it's taken me a while.   

 

You talk about unrealistic perfection as a standard, and that's not my  standard at all. I do understand many of the challenges the administration has  faced, but I think they complicate matters by making very bad decisions. In the  case of the prison scandal, it wasn't something that just happened, there was a  deliberate change in policy, adopting methods from Guantanamo in Iraq, with no  thought about how the situation is different - how notorious the prison was  already, how we're supposed to, you know, be liberating people from torturers.  That's startling incompetence, as well as a moral problem. Goodwill toward  American personnel has also dwindled to nil over the past year, because of  political miscalculations of the CPA, whose members, as I mentioned, were not chosen  for their competence or expertise but for how close their vision of the world  was to Bush/Cheney. Candidates for jobs in Iraq were asked things like whether  they were pro-choice or not, which is not exactly the most relevant question.   

This administration seems to drive away all sorts of people working for them.  Four counter terror chiefs have quit in frustration, Clarke writing that very  critical book, and Rand Beers joining the Kerry campaign. Both had been  moderate Republicans beforehand. Paul O'Neill also quit and wrote a critical book.  They all complain about the rigidity of thought of this administration, and  how it affects day to day operations. 

I could go on, but probably won't convince you anyway.   

Cheers,

Anne

-------

 

Hi Anne,

Thanks for this nice note.

 

I don't believe you're being honest with yourself on Iraq and your perfection standard.

Nor on Abu.

 

See the The Stanford Prison experiment for why abuse is no surprise.

Look up the US horrible prison rape scandals that have been happening under all presidents for years -- with AIDs it's really criminal.  The fact that such prison rape AIDS infection happens and has happened in the US, to so little scandal, means that such prison abuse is not such an issue.

 

The form of humiliation, published on the web, THAT IS an issue -- form over substance.

 

How can you write about Abu and NOT devote much more time to US prison reform?  Unless your purpose is Bush-hate, not prison standards, not the abuse itself.  Yes, humiliation and hazing is wrong.  Like speeding is wrong.  And a couple of incidents are even like drunk driving.  And the general was long ago fired (January!).  Seems about right to me.  What's your standard?

 

How many Americans could die for the Free Iraq operation to be a huge success? Less than 10?  Less than 100?

 

For me, less than 3000 is a definite success; less than 1500 a huge success.

 

How long before Iraq is sovereign?  As long as Kosovo, under the UN?  Well, Kosovo is STILL not sovereign, Iraq is.  Big success.

 

Asking pro-abortion/ anti-God questions is extremely relevant for entrance into a deeply religious pro-life society.  Imposing a non-democratic secular standard (the Roe Abortion "amendment" was never ratified) on a religious society should be an obvious no-no.  Imposing democracy is more in line with human rights (I believe that "fetal rights are human rights", I'm used to disagreement on this).

 

Driving folk away -- see LAT Fukayama on the lack of an Office of Reconstruction.  On my blog I note that Powell and Bremer & State won over Rumsfeld and Garner & Defense -- but only at the top.  And, that this is really where Bush is falling down, not enforcing clear authority on his Dept. of State.

 

 

The rigidity of thought -- I have to laugh!  Bush makes commitments, and keeps them; or does better.  Like a leader, not a waffler.  June 30 -- don't you remember all the criticism about why it was wrong to commit to a date, etc. etc.?  On the other hand, promises like "bring him (Sadr, Bin Laden) to justice are less fulfilled so far -- but I think he's honestly working on it.

 

Please, please document a couple of objective standards, and my respect for your (and the Leftist?) position will rise up.

 

Cheers,

Tom

-----

 

Hi,

Well I think your point about Abu Ghraib is disingenuous, and you know that  it's the result of decisions made by Rumsfeld &c. But the real point here is  that Bush is needlessly divisive, the man always plays to his evangelical base,  which means that even sensible actions of his draw criticism.  

 

Here is another case for Kerry for you:  

http://silflayhraka.com/archives/005028.html   

The highlights:  

George Bush is a divider, not a uniter--alienating otherwise natural allies  with his stands on issues such as stem-cell research, immigration, free trade,  federal spending, privacy, energy policy and yes, even gay marriage. That's  why he's stuck in a dead heat with one of the limpest dishrags the Democratic  Party has nominated since the last time they drew from the poisoned well of  Massachusetts.  

**********

For months now, whenever George Bush happens to alienate yet another subset  of the population with his stance on an issue, the response from those of us  who support the administration's foreign policy has been "Ignore it, it's not  nearly as important an issue now as the War on Terror.* That's the issue you  need to base your vote on come November. It's the most important issue of our  time." I agree. It's the most important issue of our time. It means that if the  presidential election was held today, I'd cast my vote for John Kerry rather than  George Bush, a man whose war leadership has been noticeably lacking in quality  in the year since Baghdad fell.  

 

If, as I keep being told, the side issues in this year's election aren't as  important as the WoT, and assuming that the American population's support of  the WoT is integral to prosecuting it, why wouldn't we be better off with a  Democrat in charge? Isn't it time to consider the possibility that that the very  existence of GWB as President of the United States is endangering America's  ability to defend against terrorism? For those now experiencing the onset of apoplexy, I have a question. The Bush  team that led a righteously angry America into Afghanistan and Iraq has, in  the space of a year, managed to horribly tarnish the reputation of the United  States in the eyes of her own people.

 

Should GWB win re-election, is it at all realistic to expect that he will have the political capital needed to expand  the conflict to Iran, Syria, North Korea or anywhere else should it become  necessary? No matter what George Bush does, no matter how long he remains  President, about half of America will oppose him, and a significant minority will do so at every turn.  

Cheers, Anne

 

[my answer to this one is the top part of the post - TG]

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/30/04 00:08 | link | comments

So much Bush-hate noise makes me angry

GREAT Lilek's point -- the Bush-hate noise makers hate, have hated, and will keep hating tax cuts (for the rich!).

 

Because of envy.  That terrible sin where you want somebody else's good fortune to be destroyed, so that they're not "better than you".  In America, envy was for a long time synonymous with admiration: like an American farmer dreaming of having a better cow than his neighbor's prize cow.

 

But in Europe, the "Russian" dream was that ... the neighbor’s prize cow would die.  Jew-hate destruction is based partly on this envy.

 

(my blog links have a couple notes on this envy hate.)  Thomas, Kerry doesn't want to cut much in spending.  That's because the greedy US voters WANT to spend Other People's Money, for their own benefit.  Democracy allows such corruption. 

If the Reps stay in power long enough, the Dems will eventually be against gov't spending, not just Rep pork junk -- that would be nice.

 

Please remember, taxes are NOT collected peacefully, unlike how James L or most workers collect wages.  Gov't spending is Violence spending.

 

Demosthenes could talk of the Leftist press

 

The problem is humor ... the Left knows how to laugh at Reps (excluding rad-fems), and Reps get too angry/ defensive/ annoyed at liars calling honest truths lies. 

 

I know the solution -- tell funnier jokes, with Leftists being the idiots.

(But I don't know the jokes.)  Sort of the thing Reagan could do (and Bush can not).

 

The Left has the right to be useful idiots.  I also suggest asking, over and over, for the "standard".  How many can die in a "wildly successful" Iraq?  What would one call an Iraq with 10 000 American casualties?

 

Will Kerry really stop Iran, and terrorists, from getting nukes? (whoops there goes another terror nuke, whoops there goes ...)

(see Demosthenes quotes) http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001725.php

(from Donald) http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/06/demosthenes-advice.html

 

 

http://www.populationworld.com/Iraq.php

Michael Rubin, the population of Iraq is 26 298 900; so 275 districts is just less than 100 000 per district; or 95 632.  Not 30 000.

 

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20798,filter./news_detail.asp

M. Rubin, in the Fallujah Problem, points out that by negotiating and cooperating with Baathist generals, it has increased the ability of the terrorists to plant more bombs. 

 

The choice in the early 70s seemed to be: STAY in Vietnam and save (some of ) SE Asia from communism, but accept that more Americans continue to die, or LEAVE Vietnam and let the commies win (including Pol Pot in Cambodia).

 

Kerry supported the US leaving and letting Pol Pot murder 2 million.

 

Kerry has never apologized for supporting the choice that allowed Pol Pot's murders.

 

Clinton avoided using the word Genocide in Rwanda.

 

Clinton had a fine, inspiring apology, years later, for doing noting in Rwanda.

 

Leftists want Bush to apologize.

 

Bush invading Iraq to liberate it, and take MANY, small steps towards democracy, is not something to apologize for.  America can, and should, stand tall and proud about its idealism -- NOT perfection.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/04 23:26 | link | comments (1)

Michael Novak in Bratislava

The truly great, and friendly, Michael Novak gave a fine lecture in Bratislava.  On Europe, the North Atlantic Alliance, and even Slovakia's place at the center of Europe.  Questions at the end were more US politics, Bush or Kerry.  Michael thinks Kerry, if elected, would change more the tone, not the actual policies.

I think so too.  But, therefore, hope that Bush will be re-elected.  The more Bush-hate I see, the more convinced I am he deserves re-election.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/04 22:45 | link | comments

We need to promote democracy -- and human rights

Robert Tagorda (P&F) also quotes Fukuyama, but emphasizes the push for democracy, and criticizes Kerry for not pushing it more.

 

I note below that Fukuyama is implicitly criticizing the State vs Defense in-fighting.  Which I think is the single, most real and significant problem with Bush's admin, because Bush isn't letting one or the other win, and end the fight.

 

Of course, in Iraq, Rumsfeld & his man Garner lost out to Powell and Bremer, but the Powell (relative) loving Left have been overly critical of Rumsfeld, and under-critical of Bremer (like his decision to run party slates instead of local districts).

 

I truly like democracy promotion -- and the IMF and World Bank and UN should be more oriented towards that end.  The UN democracy caucus should start insisting that only democracies, with a free press, be represented on most UN committees, for instance.  And the purpose of democracy is to further support human rights.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/04 22:41 | link | comments

Leftist Press harps on imperfections

Hugh Hewitt rips into NYT publishing: “Professor Ignatieff announces in his piece that "the United States did one thing well in Iraq, and nobody else could have done it --overthrew a dictator. Everything else was badly done, and some of what was done -- Abu Ghraid -- was a moral disgrace and a strategic catastrophe."”

 

And Hugh lists many other good things done, and continues:

“But moral incoherence on this level is beyond foolishness, and signals that a part of the elite has simply lost all ability to judge good and evil. In this respect it is like the Vietnam conflict, when the Ignatieffs of that era were proclaiming Pol Pot an agrarian reformer, and the North Vietnamese liberators. That era's foolishness wasn't harmless. It cost millions of lives. Every one of which deserved saving. The Ignatieffs of thirty years ago never owned up to their compliciity in the deaths of millions. This time around, we shouldn't allow tweedy indifference to the suffering of peoples far away to go unchallenged.”

 

Yes, the anti-War 60s hippies and Kerry won the political argument; and the US left SE Asia, and Pol Pot took over. It’s actually time for Bush II to repudiate Nixon, Kissinger, AND the Kerry anti-war folk. The alternative was mining Hai-phong and nuking Hanoi – and winning, despite the Chinese. Split Vietnam like Korea; and stop Pol Pot in Cambodia. That alternative costs more American lives, but is MUCH better than the reality we accepted.

 

Except for the draft. Nobody should be forced to go fight, maybe kill, maybe die. The draft should have been ended, and all federal help for education should ONLY be available to those who volunteer; and the wages for privates should be raised UP, big – and all other gov’t employees should take a hit in pay until the war is won.

 

LA Times:

Preemption is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of

an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster. The

U.S. needs better intelligence before it acts in the future. It

needs to listen to friendly nations. It needs humility.

 

Lie, lie, lie, maybe, lie (implied).

Preemptions succeeded, so far beyond reasonable expectations. Forcible regime change has been a HUGE success. While more info is nice, merely knowing a dictator does not have free speech and is violating human rights should be enough -- maybe one criteria should be food aid. If a gov't has people that are starving, the gov't should forfeit its existence. Yes, the USA should listen to friends, but even after listening, it shouldn't obey their opinions as orders. The USA is humble enough -- tough for the only superpower; for the fastest growing developed economy; for the economy that accepts the most immigrants. But that is what the LAT and Leftists want -- a humbled America, a failed democracy.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/28/04 20:32 | link | comments

US Gov't mistake in Iraq -- too much Powell

Fukayama (in LAT)

The real mistake regarding Iraq was the lack of a proper institutional context for decision-making on the part of the U.S. government. We simply did not have the ability or organization prior to the war to coordinate the enormously complex interagency effort required for reconstruction, although knowledge of how to do this had been painfully learned in earlier nation-building efforts — from Somalia and Haiti through the Balkans to Afghanistan.

…

If the Bush administration had done things properly, it would have created a permanent Office of Reconstruction long before the invasion. This office — a small one — would have been home to veterans of earlier nation-building exercises and could have served as an interagency coordinating center and mobilization base when the crisis came.

 

Of course, Americans will not be eager to jump quickly into another nation-building exercise in the wake of Iraq, but based on our experiences in the post-Cold War world, it's bound to happen. We've gotten involved in one new nation-building exercise every two years since the end of the Cold War, and there are plenty of countries like Pakistan and North Korea that have the potential to become dangerous, failed states overnight. 

Right now, we need to do some nation-building in Washington itself, by creating a new set of institutions to deal with such failed states over the long term.

 

This is the most reasonable criticism, Bush failed to give control to Rumsfeld, and Garner, but in reserving a lot for Powell, got stuck with a State Dept that really doesn't think democracy is worth going for. And State was never able to control security. Bremer DID do some good things, but giving lots of chances to Iraqis to control things, like budgets, was NOT one of them. Glad he's gone.  [Note that on June 16, Bremer decided to favor Iraqi civil war by supporting national party slates, instead of local districts.'

 

And why doesn't the Left beat on this State vs Defense? Because the only possible change would be to give Iraq totally to Rumsfeld. Either you have split State (on democracy & reconstruction) plus Defense on security, or all Defense. And the State department has too many Clinton anti-Bush folk, stability over democracy.  "Realpolitik" like oil-for-palaces UNSCAM junk. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/28/04 20:21 | link | comments

Iraq is Sovereign!

A New Baghdad Government

and (From CPA email, see their fine site)

The councils and how they are structured:

Baghdad is both a city and a province (governorate). The province

includes both the city and its surrounding areas, including rural

districts and several outlying towns such as Abu Ghraib.

The City Council represents the city of Baghdad, population about six

million. It is made up of representatives from the city's nine district

councils, whose members are chosen by neighborhood councils.

The Regional Council represents only the outlying areas, total

population one million. It is the equivalent of a board of supervisors

or county commissioners.

Both handle traditional municipal functions such as water, sewers, trash

collection, street maintenance.

The Provincial Council represents the whole province, with about seven

million people.  It is the approximate equivalent to a state

legislature, according to a CPA official. However, at the moment, its

main source of revenue is oil revenue, which comes from the federal

government. Eventually, all the councils will assess taxes. The

provincial council handles regional issues like hospitals and education.

 

(I missed out on being the first to blog the early transfer, oh well)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/28/04 20:12 | link | comments

US is out of gas for pre-emption; mayb Iran gets nukes

(See Michael and comments) One disagreement: "There is considerable evidence to suggest that the disdain in which the Bush administration holds international institutions and historic notions of the laws of warfare"

First of all, (Catsy's man?) Kerry says he doesn't like "war" as a term; so it's no laws of warfare. More importantly, the Geneva conventions require the warriors to wear uniforms, the terrorists don't. THEY do not kill by, nor even accept, the Christian-war history developed rules.

But Catsy quotes "in which the administration's legal team determined (among other well-documented questionable assertions) that the president's duty to protect the country give him the authority to set aside the law as he deems necessary to national security, and in which it is argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to suspected terrorists,"
Having law-slingers look into it directly contradicts the assertion of disdain. Like most Leftists, it's beating Bush with sticks from both sides: he doesn't care about int'l law AND his own side looked into the int'l law ramifications and came up with ... Abu. Well, except Abu was wrong, in January (MONTHS ago) the Bush team had already replaced a general.
A feminist career general! I suspect, no news about it, that no military force in the world in the last 20 years has replaced a general at a prison because of mild prisoner abuse.

Let me say that again. MILD. Yes, abuse. Criminal. But mostly misdemeanor stuff, not felony stuff. When the Iraqis do start trying Saddam you'll see some real atrocities. Or, maybe the BBC will go to Darfur.

The USA IS running of gas, IS becoming impatient at Bush-hate noise. The LOUD Bush-hate press is supressing the truth: Iraq is moving in a good direction, and Bush has been doing a fine job, in policies. In press, no -- and that includes promises not yet kept.

Al-Sadr is wanted for murder. It's far to early to know if the USA made a mistake in its treatment. The Left, certainly, never consistently advocated any one policy; it was simultaneously Bush too soft AND Bush too hard. As usual with Bush-hate. (My view for Sadr is that he should have been picked up BEFORE his paper was shut down; not certain I'm right and Bush wrong.)

What's gonna put the gas back? Terrorists getting, and using somewhere, nukes. If the Left succeeds in stopping a pre-emptive disarmament regime change in Iran, nukes or WMDs will be used.

AND it will be Leftist opposition that should, and will, be blamed.

Can Bush speech-making put the gas back? Maybe. The handover's coming; the IAEA is making real notices that Iran is getting nukes. Kerry is about to be the official, no Torricili (?) Hilary or anybody else challenger; and Bush will be, too. That will change the positions.

When Kerry is asked whether we should wait until AFTER Iran has nukes, and terrorists have nukes, how is he going to answer?
If he says he would take action, that will be permission for Bush to do so.
If not, if Kerry says wait (law enforcement), Kerry will NOT be elected

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/27/04 05:25 | link | comments

Too much! Mostly spell checked first

 

<i>Bush would have to be the one to get right the occupation, reconstruction and democratization of Iraq--a tremendously challenging set of tasks requiring intelligence, understanding, sophistication, concentration, and open-mindedness. Talk about naive."</i>

 

Yes, and NO!  What it requires is good results, and a good standard to compare the results against.  Occupation, recon, democratization -- all seem pretty good. Yet, I think a huge Bush mistake was not accepting ration cards as voting reg cards and getting local city councils elected.  Haven't heard Kerry/ Dems pushing this.  Dems complain, but have no alternative.

 

The Leftist media has, incessantly, been trumpeting minor problems.  Abu is not nice, but it's far less bad than My Lai, or Dresden WW II.

Bush and Iraq are doing pretty well, and sometime around October I'd expect some sophisticated analysis of just HOW well they're doing.

 

At less than 1000 US casualties, with less Iraqis being killed than was the Saddam yearly average, the problem is that the PRESS, and Bush critics, have failed to provide any reasonable standard of comparison.  Instead, they infer an unreal Perfection, and complain LOUDLY about Bush failing. 

 

Clinton's many large and small lies are all fully excused, but Cheny denying his earlier quotes are terrible?  And how important is it?  The Czechs, only, say there was a meeting.  Cheny should stick with that, and say he believes the Czechs -- and that there's no evidence showing the Czechs are wrong.

 

If the Press is an Enemy, what is the right way for Bush to handle it?  I think Bush could do better, but I have no alternative which I'm sure is better.

 

"

                                   

http://www.johnkerry.com/

My guess is that for each of these, except for Iraq, John Kerry will be advocating “more government spending” – in other words, a bigger deficit.  Oh yeah, and “reduced government waste”.  How many times will we read that “reducing waste” promise?  It’s like Marxism. The only way, in practice, is to cut the budget.  Do I waste my time?

 

Economy & Jobs

 

Education

 

College Affordability

 

Health Care

 

Veterans

                       

Foreign Policy

 

Homeland Security

 

Iraq Plan for Peace

 

Energy/Environment

 

 

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13136

Reports of the deaths of two Americans, murdered by the UN.

“ON APRIL 17, two American women were killed by a Jordanian in Kosovo. With all media eyes focused on Iraq, little notice has been taken of their sacrifice, yet Kim Bigley, 47, of Paducah, KY, and Lynn Williams, 48, of Elmont, NY, apparently fell as casualties in the war on terrorism.”

Also http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=4872398

 

 

 

Anne C http://aceface.typepad.com/onesided_wonder/2004/06/as_bush_critiqu.html

“But I do think it's wrong to say a vote for Kerry is a vote for appeasement, when reasonable people can admit that the administration has made serious mistakes, presided over a terrible scandal, and come off as so ideologically driven as to alienate moderate elements of their own party. It's not exactly an unblemished record for which Bush should be given a free pass”

 

Thanks David -- Iraq is well on a path towards fantastic success, compared to all reasonable expectations.  The mullahs are racing to get nukes before Iraq has elections ... because the day AFTER Iraq has elections, all 130 000 battle experienced US troops will be in a country on Iran's border, and could get new orders...

 

The US Army, at a cost of less than 10 000 US casualties, can militarily effect regime change in Tehran.  If the Boss orders it.

 

Should he?  Yes.  [when?  not sure; prolly best to submit a UN resolution condemning Iran for violating its prior treaty commitments.]

 

Will he?  Prolly not until after Nov. 

 

Almost certainly after terrorists get nukes from the mullahs, and one explodes somewhere--but then it's "too late".  For those 10 000 - 10 000 000 who die, in a future WMD terrorist attack, because  the US President doesn't pre-empt it.  Even Kerry would then attack Iran, and Saudi Arabia afterward, so I'm not worried about Western Civ and peaceful capitalism.  I AM worried about those victims, though.

 

Blaming Bush for Iran continuing its nuke program is horribly dishonest.  Bush pre-emptively invading Iraq was the only reasonable way to deter Iran before significant military action against Iran, and deterrence doesn't always work.

 

From Kerry's site, his plan:

<i>to undertake to lead the most global, comprehensive effort in history to deal with proliferation</i> 

in other words, talk until after Iran gets nukes; until after terrorists use them...

 

Michael JT, please consider Anne's critique:

<i>reasonable people can admit that the administration has made serious mistakes, presided over a terrible scandal, and come off as so ideologically driven </i>

 

Serious mistakes?  Where?  Really.  I see terrible publicity, but regime change in Iraq was great, they're about to be sovereign, on track to be democratic; the US economy is great.  What big mistake?  That he doesn't walk on water?  That Iraq after a year isn't as successfully democratic as Japan after a decade?

 

Terrible scandal?  You mean Abu/ occupation prison treatment is a terrible scandal?  I call it a small scandal.  Over 100 Iraqi deaths in prisons is a big scandal.  Over 1000 Iraqi deaths is terrible.  Over 10 is a real, definite scandal; there's maybe been 37?  Bush-hate noise, and noise, and noise.  What's the standard?  300 000 bodies in Saddam's graves (doesn't count).  How about US prison rapes, and pot smokers who get infected by AIDS in Mass. prison?  I think there's more, and it's worse than Iraq.  How about the 2 Americans murdered on April 17 by the UN (Kerry's pals)?  THAT's worse than Abu.  Abu is bad, real, but way way overblown.

 

Ideologically driven?  What, against gay marriage?  So is Kerry.  Bush in favor of an amendment (unlikely to be voted on), instead of merely a law like Clinton?  Well, that is forced by the judges, Bush didn't ask for it.   Bush stopping partial birth abortions was great (overturned by Leftist judges); nobody stopped supporting him for that.

Bush's huge spending increase?  If anything, that is counter-ideological, therefore more centrist.  And Bush don' talk s' well, aint able ta ahticulate or apologize enuff.  Noise.

 

Photos & Bush-hate press noise are dominating serious evaluations of his policy results.  Yeah, it seems he has a tight inner group, and you're either in or out.  I don't like that, and it leads to a lot of bad press, but it's the results that should matter the most.  Check results -- and be honest about the comparison standard.

 

 

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

to undertake to lead the most global, comprehensive effort in history to deal with proliferation

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FRI3.html?8br

“the Democrats proposed adding annual mandatory financing that would have cost some $300 billion over 10 years. Senator Kerry suggested that the money come from repealing some of the recent king-size tax cuts for the wealthy. The tax cuts are indeed obscene …”

 

 

 

Jollyblogger notes a possible Christian Idol show, suggesting it would be terrible.

 

It will prolly be as terrible as you fear; at which point such criticism should be retold, with examples.

 

On the other hand, there is the possibility that some lovely, intelligent, caring girls, who look sexy, admit to being virgins (believably) and say they want to remain chaste until marriage, and faithful, afterwards.

 

If they could sing, too, they might be stars.

 

 

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2004/06/the_limits_of_m.html

Hi David (from the other thread, and your new one) the HP "Christian" values:

self-sacrifice, from love, as protection against evil--  Jesus; and Lilly Potter.

Good vs. Evil (both exist)-- all of HPs adventures against Voldemort.

The Power of Love -- Lily's sacrifice for Harry; Harry's loyality for Dumbledore (book 2) to get Fawkes' help; a big hint in 5 about one of the Mysteries.

All are Guilty -- in a reflection of Original Sin, throughout all the HP books, HP is seldom totally innocent of any rule-breaking.  This makes it difficult to get, or even ask, for help; and causes seeming unjust punishment.

 

How Evil Works -- misuses the trust of good people; half-truths used to hurt others; the desire for power over others; the treatment of inferiors.

 

(Great thought: best way to judge a person is to see how he treats the hired help.)

 

Critics have some points:

Magic is heavily and extensively used, by the main characters.  This is a big contrast with JRRT & CSL.

 

It is NOT a far, or distant world -- it is "today", in a "real England", just a fictional real UK.

 

Just as JRRT's world spawned Dungeons & Dragons, I'm sure HP's popularity will increase the desire for magic to "work".  But magic/ occult doesn't seem to work, so I don't have much fear about HP leading to more search for it.

 

The good of the good hearted HP, including the very important need to study in order to master one's power, outweigh the criticism. 

 

Pullman's books, which I haven't read, seem far worse.  And I can imagine HP leading more to read them.  But most heroin abusers drank milk, when young.

 

 

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0703/071003.html

Lileks: “If only I could flash text messages on the side of my vehicle: fear not. Don't worry about being seen with uncool mom. At the next stop sign, give her a kiss. If you don't, no harm; this day goes unnoticed. But if you do, she'll remember this day until the day she dies. And she will die, you know. Then the remembering is all up to you.”

 

 

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2004/06/on_being_judgme.html

Jollyblogger has a note on porno and being Christian.

I'm happily & faithfully married now, with this suggestion.  When seeing a picture of a  sexy woman, practice thinking of your wife, of love-making, hugging, talking, enjoying life together.

 

As a previously sinful man who had, explicitly, denied the sinfulness of promiscuous, pre-marital sex, lust has long been an issue with me.  I wanted lustful pleasure to be honest & responsible -- only later learning it's not possible.  Sex-lust is merely a cheap drug; our sales culture tries to make it into love (and is devaluing love & commitment even now).

 

I also hated St. Augustine, whom had sinned so much while young, and then denounced his own wild fun -- while I feel I've followed too much in those footsteps.

 

So, fantasies about my wife helps me resist porno attractions.  Maybe others could try this.

 

 

 

 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20786/news_detail.asp

Michael Novak nails the accomplishments, for the poor, of the Reagan revolution.

Nearly the whole world (not the extreme Left) grasped the main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution, viz., that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea. The truly progressive idea is enterprise--with its creativity, hope, growth, and opportunity.

 

When Jimmy Carter handed over the presidency, he also handed over a prime interest rate at 19 percent, inflation of nearly 14 percent, and an unemployment rate of seven percent--for a "misery index" of 40 percent. Reaganomics soon reduced this misery index to 17 percent. At the end of 1988, Reaganomics left the prime rate at 8, inflation less than four percent, and unemployment barely above 5 percent. A higher proportion of adults were employed than at any previous time in U.S. history.

 

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Altogether, Reaganomics created some 19 million new jobs. Between the end of 1980 and the end of 1988, black Americans alone got 2.4 million of these new jobs. The numbers of the black employed jumped from 9 million to 11.4 million in that short period--a jump of more than 25 percent.

 

Of course you should read it all (just a page).  I wonder what Michael would think about my Full Employment idea – prolly not so hot.  Tax loans, first.

 

 

 

Affirmative action should end, now, for all tax funded schools.  Private schools should be free to choose their students as they see fit.

 

State schools should follow the Texas example and promise admittance to to the top 10 students from every high school in the state, or something like that.  For grad schools, accepting the top 5 applicants from each of the state's accredited colleges.

 

Poverty is a real problem.  Specifically, unmarried mothers with one or more children who do not live with their fathers.  Far too many black people have chosen this poverty enhancing life.

 

Black folk who choose behavior that make poverty more likely -- like dropping out of high school; like not studying or doing homework (being too white), like not keeping a job for a year (not even at McDonalds).

 

There ARE enough role models.  There are NOT enough honest expressions that bad behavior by poor folk leads to bad results; and usually, bad results are because of prior bad behavior.

(See Joe Carter) http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000724.html

and La Shawn Barber http://lashawnbarber.blogspot.com/archives/2004_06_01_lashawnbarber_archive.html#108782084075477804

 

 

The War on Terror will end when all major oil exporting countries are democracies.  Individual whacko terror will always be with us, hopefully less than more, but organized terror depends on the oil wealth (selling valuable dirt).

 

Democracy, human rights, and especially creative capitalism are what Arabs need, in order to catch up and, possibly, surpass the West (50 years?).  Prolly there will be a terrorist based WMD attack before this.  I hope for the best, but expect the worst (could be Tolstoy, or Patty Hearst...)

 

The modern & tolerant Christian West needs to be preparing to impose regime change on all regimes which are not democratic, violate human rights, and have oil resources.  The oil means they can "be rich" without adjusting their society in ways necessary to "create wealth".  In this respect, neither Syria<