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

Blog Success! Thanks Glenn, thanks Joe

On a comment at Winds of Change I noted my Fantasy Bush Speech on Sudan as Genocide -- and Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit linked.

This is called an Instalaunche. Thanks. Any comments are welcome; email too.

 

Of course -- I'm leaving on vacation for a week! So prolly no blogging from the lovely Tatras in Slovakia.

Please read my little "2 wolf packs" top paragraph. Every action has good and bad points.

 

Here are the main ideas of the long speech, a lot of things about Bush's past & future policies:
1) Iraq & Afghanistan are huge successes, and Amnesty, HRW, the UN, and the PRESS refuse to report them as successes
2) There is genocide -- but the UN doesn't use that word, and should.
3) The UN is failing. The Dem policy of "more UN" would also fail.
4) Dems don't mind failure, as long as there's a good apology, afterword.
5) Taking Action means people die. Bush is being unfairly judged by some silly "perfect" standard of no deaths.
6) This perfection standard justifies taking no action, and apologizing later. If one wants military action to be taken, one should specify, in advance, acceptance of killing innocents.
7) It should be, logically, hard-to-impossible to call for action in Sudan, without supporting action in Iraq.

[It's not as long as Den Beste! (nor as good? sigh)]

Last year I had one at a previous blog (Liberty Father, with BloggedUp; now defunct), which blew up my free bandwidth. Howard here at motime assured me this wouldn't happen, when I started here. I hope so.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/30/04 06:20 | link | comments

Solving homelessness? -- More Jobs

Some think the Dems can win by focusing on the problems of the poor, like homelessness.

This often shows a great heart, but I suggest more focus on the fundamental cause of "homelessness" -- lack of a job. (One that pays -- there's plenty of work to do!)

 

The one thing the commies did right was to have no unemployment.  Unfortunately, they used force -- it was illegal to be without a job.

 

A. Dubchek, one-time commie leader of Czechoslovakia, was relieved of his position after the Prague Spring of 68 (Communism with a human face).  He spent the next 21 years in low paid manual labor, like wood cutting.

 

I support a National Service, like a military, where EVERY US citizen would be offered a job.  It could include barracks style temporary housing, and mobile trailer type temporary family housing.  It SHOULD, specifically, involve far more restrictions on personal irresponsibility.

 

The Dems can't win on the "homeless" issue, because they deny that most homeless behave in an irresponsible manner, whether from illness, drugs, or bad upbringing.  And so the Dems want a big gov't program, and higher taxes ... on the rich!  The greedy rich!  The greedy rich who create jobs ... higher punishment, er, taxes on those who create jobs; that's how the Dems solve the jobs problem.

 

Right.  (see Rick Heller Centerfield )

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 20:32 | link | comments

Not conservative, but too far right?

Rick Heller also has notes about the DLC, which I disagree with.

 

It's incoherent to say both:

"the Bush Administration is not conservative when it comes to fiscal matters"

 

AND

" the conservatives have moved the political spectrum too far to the right"

 

In fact, fiscal conservatives are NOT happy with Bush, because he spends too much (NO vetoes, unlike Reagan).  And no, Reps in Congress would NOT let a Dem president spend as wildly; get ready for huge budget battles if Kerry wins but doesn't carry the House.  Though at least Kerry will have an excuse for not doing anything he promises.

 

This whole Leftist idea that Bush is far to right is objectively false.  On gay marriage, Kerry says he objects to it (but doesn't mean it), Bush both objects to it (like the majority of voters), AND is willing to push an Amendment to stop it.  Otherwise everybody expects the courts to "Amend" the Constitution to force states to allow it.

 

On partial birth abortions, Kerry says his personal belief is against abortions (but doesn't mean it), Bush objects and forbids them (like the majority of voters) -- and the Leftist courts overrule it.

 

On Iraq, the Reps were generally the conservative/ isolationist types, with a strong Defense.  CATO, the Lib./Cons. think tank, is constantly against Bush--because Bush is interventionist. Where is this "too far to the right"?  except in fantasy movies like F911.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 20:30 | link | comments

Can Dems focus on the deficit -- no

Deficits have two sides.

1) The gov't spending too much.

2) The gov't not taxing enough.

 

Um, I'd support an increase in the gas tax, 1 penny each week, until the deficit went away.  But you know, and I know (and wanted you to know I know), this ain't gonna happen.

 

Spending is the problem, gov't pork.  The Dems are not serious about the deficit until they can talk about cutting spending.  

Increasing punishment, er, taxes (on the rich!) is not gonna be so great -- higher taxes lead to less growth, and fewer jobs.

 

Personally, I really wish the Dems would focus on reducing spending, but I don't see it this year.   See Todd .

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 20:28 | link | comments

Red God, Blue God

Centerfield asks about a fading middle ground in politics?

 

The Dem Party, like the ACLU, is becoming explicitly anti-God.  If there are crosses on the Seal of California, that is unacceptable.  The (semi-voluntary?) Pledge with the words "under God" -- unacceptable.

 

There is a Leftist brand of secular fundamentalism that opposes any expression of Christian faith by politicians -- the PC anti-prayer thought police types.  The truth is that all laws are based on force, and there is some moral philosophy behind each and every one; should force be used on this issue, yes or no? 

 

One important purpose of gay marriage is to send Christians to jail for preaching against homosexuals, using gov’t force, as was recently done to Ake Green in Sweden (though the pro-gay folk won’t admit this purpose).  The gay marriage debate in the US today is mostly a surrogate for the abortion debate that DID NOT happen.  There was no Congress voting for the "Roe Abortion Amendment" -- the Supreme Court "amended" the US Constitution to say that force could not be used to stop women from getting abortions, overturning a majority of state laws.

 

Legal abortions, in support of irresponsible sexual promiscuity, is the rot at the heart of the current Dem Party (much as many horny young liberal guys seem to like the grazing opportunities of hook-up sex).

 

Whether Iraq is a "just war" is debatable.  Booting Saddam was good, no GREAT.  If Bush can't save the Black Muslims suffering genocide, it's primarily because of opposition to Iraqi Freedom -- it's not because the US military is unable to take out Sudan.  Casey should be angry at: Amnesty I., Human Rights Watch, and the UN -- all of which refuse to name it genocide.

 

How many Americans would Kerry be willing to let die to stop the genocide?  3000?  200?  10?  The silly criticism of Bush in Iraq, all the "failings", are comparing him to some unreal perfection of zero deaths.

 

There has been no American military action as wildly successful as Iraqi Freedom in the last 100 years. Try to name one that was better.  And I'm pretty angry at the anti-war Left about the Sudan genocide (see my Fantasy Bush speech: )

 

On the other hand, most Americans are still far more tolerant, and kind, than the extremes, and this is good.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 20:27 | link | comments

The Loyal Opposition question

Dean wonders if the Reps are willing to pledge to be better than the Dems, if Kerry wins.

How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

 

I think this is a fine sentiment. But, if Kerry wins, it will be because The Press made people angry at Bush. It will be because Bush-hate was so strong, for so long, that folks got tired of hearing, from the press, how terrible Bush is.

 

Michael Novak has nice line about how liberals used to be against hate, Jew-hate, Commie-hate, Black-hate, etc. But, now under Bush, they get to indulge in hate, to indulge in disrespect.

 

And they like it.

 

I don't hate Kerry, and I kinda like Bush, but I'm afraid of Bush-hate -- which is all too similar to the Nazi supported Jew-hate of 70 years ago.

 

I'll pledge to continue opposing irrational hate of persons, rather than policy results.

 

But I'll continue to oppose any policy that results in 2 million, or even 200 000, human fetuses killed, every year.

 

Michael links to this, too,

 

In Dean's comments, Mark Noonan (about 55 in?), suggests that if Kerry wins, there will be more talk, less action ... until the terrorists regroup and succeed in another spectacular attack.

 

I've long been afraid of: Iran gets nukes; then terrorists get nukes; then a Western City gets nuked.  Before 2008.  Tel Aviv, Mumbai, Kabul, Moscow; Miami, Istanbul? 

 

And then (rephrasing Mark), we'll get less nuanced again and, more simply, fight to win.

 

Also, there and here, I object to the double standard -- the more moral Reps/ conservatives are supposed to pledge to NOT do what the Dems are now doing.  The question itself correctly assumes that the Dems are doing "something wrong": spreading & repeating lies (Clarke, Wilson, Berger) to hurt Bush's efforts at establishing Iraqi Freedom, and maybe more freedom elsewhere. 

 

And, yes, if it's wrong for the Dems to do it, like NOT approving fed. judges, it will be wrong when the Reps do it.  But if the Reps do it "less", it will be less wrong.

 

In any case, the main guilty parties are the Leftist press, and so if Kerry is elected, I fully expect the press to be much, much nicer to him.  If Bush is re-elected I expect the press to continue being this negative, and continue to be less trusted by the voters. [I claim this is the only significant reason to vote Kerry – and I think he might win from it.]

 

Let me repeat Dean's pledge question: "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

 

Actually, it's clear my answer is NO.  It's unfair to expect me to 'get behind' and 'support’ Kerry when he's wrong.  That is NOT what 'loyal opposition' means, which is the core of the question.  I pledge to be an honorable loyal opposition critic, opposing bad policies with honest comparisons of his results, or expected results, with alternative policies and expected alternative results.

 

Today, the Dems are NOT a loyal opposition; and if Bush wins I don't expect the press, nor most rich elites, to change.  They don't deserve to win for being a disloyal opposition.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 18:57 | link | comments

Morality depends on Who’s Money

Greedy teachers retire for loophole –  In Texas, the law has been changed to stop double dipping.  So lots of teachers retired, and then spent a day in a job which qualifies them for social security benefits, so that they can double dip – get their own school pension PLUS some federal social security benefits.

 

Heritage thinks: "The fact that something is technically legal doesn't make it appropriate or ethical," said David John, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "A teacher is supposedly instilling in my children a sense of responsibility and a sense of worth, and you don't see that when you sneak around a rule and find a cute exception."

 

I think it’s important to remember the old commie slogan: he who doesn’t steal from the state, steals from their own family.  Let’s also remember the Supreme Court: “Nobody is required to pay more taxes, or avoid any legal devices to reduce taxation”.  Heritage is in favor of reducing taxes sent to the gov’t.

 

The teacher in the article:

Nancarrow, who plans to teach Spanish part time at a private school next year, said she is comfortable with her decisions.

 

"I think I've provided for myself, saved some money for the future," she said. "I hate to leave any money on the table."

 

The Leftist morality is similar – arranging to get money from the gov’t is just as moral as being forced to pay; and maximizing what is in the individual’s pocket is equally moral in both cases. 

 

The morality of paying less is clear – it’s your peaceful, voluntarily earned money.

The immorality of getting more from the gov’t is not so clear, but should be – it’s Other People’s Money that the gov’t took by force.

 

This problem is well known; it’s NOT unsolvable.  I haven’t yet seen a better solution than my suggestion:  Tax Loans,  gov't gives loans, folk repay the loan with taxes, plus loan repayment surcharge.

 

(thanks to Slovak language blog Ambiance )

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 18:50 | link | comments

Blacks CAN criticize other blacks!

Blacks are getting some criticism by other blacks, and this is new, and news.

 

LaShawn’s article! “Race preferences are divisive and demoralizing. They cause self-doubt. They cause others to doubt black achievement. That's why Monday, June 23, 2003, was an unusually sad day for me. That was the day the Supreme Court disregarded the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and upheld the University of Michigan Law School's skin color preference admissions policy.

 

By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that black applicants may be given an advantage over other students because of the color of their skin, to the shame of all who died fighting for equal justice under the law during the Civil Rights Movement.”

 

 

Here are 3 rules to avoid poverty -- for anybody in America

1) get educated (HS certificate PLUS real ability to read)

2) get a job and keep it at least a year

3) avoid sex until or outside of marriage (less fun) (no children outside of marriage)

 

3 rules for anybody in any group to get out of poverty within 5 years.  Until black culture copies Asian culture (Japanese Americans went to concentration camps in WWII) on these points, black results will be less than the results of those who DO follow them.  The existence of racism has been used to excuse individual behavior: having too much sex, not getting up to go to work, and never doing school homework (too white).

 

I'm sad racism does exist, but its a lousy, and now 40 year old--too old -- excuse for black/ Hispanic responsibility.  Notice Asians are not counted as "minorities", nor are Jews...

(sent to Mike Seate, who wrote about how blacks are being bad to blacks)

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/04 18:46 | link | comments

The President against the Leftist Press, the press may win

I'm not a huge fan of Pres. Bush's huge spending. But I like that he says he feels a certain way, and acts in the way one would expect based on the expression of feelings, views.

The fact that Bush-hate justifies lies in the minds of liberals, extremism in attacking Bush is never a vice with those folks, this is terrible. Michael Novak points out the Leftist LIKE the liberating power of the dark force, er, lies.

I really fear for Western, tolerant Christian Civilization when there's so many irresponsible lies put out by the Leftist press.

The President needs to know, and begin to act, like the Press is his enemy. Peggy Noonan said that folk want a return to "normal". I think they ARE tired of hearing how bad their President is. And even if the bad-mouthing is lies, they're tired of it.
See my prior post.

Mark Noonan Blogs for Bush notes the prevalence of "Bush lied, People Died", and the thought process behind it.

At varied times our Democrats have said that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, Iraq/Al Queda links, Saddam/9/11 links, Iraq/Niger uranium links and a host of other issues. Thing is, the results are all in - and in each and every case it has been demonstrated conclusively that President Bush did not lie. Not only not lied, but didn't even shade the truth; President Bush has been speaking the plain, honest truth for three and a half years (especially as it relates to the War on Terrorism) and what he's got from his Democratic opponents for this unvarnished fact-transmission is: Bush Lied, People Died.

And not only has President Bush not lied, but his critics have been caught in lie after lie after lie. From the claims of critics that President Bush (and/or Cheney) claimed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 to claims that President Bush deliberately lied about Saddam's attempts to purchase uranium, it has been President Bush's critics who have been proven the liars - the worst of the lot being Joe Wilson (recently removed from Senator Kerry's website) who made up out of whole cloth the entire concept that Saddam hadn't tried to get uranium from Niger.

Right. Not lies; at worst bad information. Unfortunately, even this is not certain -- maybe Saddam sent the WMDs to Syria -- we really don't know. But the main point is that those calling out that "Bush lied" are liars. And the press supports the liars.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/28/04 16:59 | link | comments

Bush loses against Unreal Perfection

Peggy Noonan makes a fine addition to the "people are tired" meme she already identified.  But she’s still missing the key.  Media folk. The US News media orgs are full of Bush-hate, and reporters who hate Pres. Bush.

 

The people are tired of the press showing, ad nauseum, the worst of Bush, the worst of the Bush Administration, the worst of America.  They're tired of seeing all the negatives, and so many negatives.

 

More than "softly", Pres. Bush needs to speak in a balanced way--acknowledging problems as inevitable.  And strongly attacking the unreal "perfection" standard, while demonstrating a better balanced approach (more Iraq schools, better jobs & economy).

 

++Update: this post was supposed to here a couple of weeks ago, but couldn't find it so I'm putting it in, again.  Michael Novak discusses how Reps are starting to think that maybe the President could actually lose.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/28/04 16:48 | link | comments

Michael is back, and Sudan is Genocide

Michael J Totten has returned from Tunis!  With Pictures.  With a note about Kerry calling  Sudan genocide! 

 

See my earlier Fantasy Speech by Bush

 

Part of my idea in the fantasy was to get Bush pushing Amnesty & Human Rights Watch to call it Genocide (as of then, they didn't). As well as naming and shaming the UN for inaction.

 

It's a fair question for Americans and liberals -- is stopping genocide worth even one American military life? Also, and more important, is ACTION more moral than inaction, when action will, inevitably, mean Americans kill some innocents in order to achieve victory.

 

I think Bush should be making such a speech, every week or so, until the human-life loving liberals are admitting that 1) stopping genocide IS worth some American lives, like hundreds, perhaps even thousands, and 2) stopping deliberate mass-murder of innocents by using force means some innocents will be killed, and that is an acceptable, regrettable, reality of hard choices.

 

And regime change in Sudan is another reasonable step to reduce Islamic Terrorism -- even though Iran is the huge coming threat.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/27/04 20:51 | link | comments

Censorship of Cuba.

http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/2004/07/elian-factor.html 

 Because it's too political.  But Moore crap OK.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/27/04 00:18 | link | comments

Political Compass Test

Retook the Political Compass Test: 
Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49

Pretty standard, more right than Tony Blair, but less Authoritarian.  Less of both than Bush.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/26/04 22:23 | link | comments

Will the Dems use high tech to wire their groups?

Prolly -- but get wired, for what?

The Heritage folk knew the main thing they wanted. Smaller gov't. They've been working on getting it. (Bush kinda poor on this, though -- ruling party disease?)

The Dems booted out big-gov't pro-life folk, who are now part of the Reps. Most Christians, even Black Christians, are pro-life. But the Dems don't quite accept pro-life anymore. What is the Dem MESSAGE? So far, all I hear different from Kerry is higher taxes ... on the rich -- PUNISH those greedy suckers, those guys who only create new jobs to get even richer than they need.

Kerry doesn't even have the guts to really support higher gas taxes, to reduce the deficit and start pushing towards more fuel economy (slowly, slightly).

Oh, well, there IS the fact that when Kerry agrees with Bush on personal beliefs, abortion, gay-m

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/26/04 20:10 | link | comments

Human Rights Watch wrong on Iraq

Norm has even more on why Human Rights Watch was wrong, in January, on Iraq.

You should read it all; he perfectly connect the dots:

" The criteria for humanitarian intervention deployed by Kenneth Roth (amongst others) would allow a regime that had just massacred, let us say, two million of its own people, but had finished massacring them, to stand with its sovereignty and its international legitimacy intact. If those are the criteria you uphold, do you not, in effect, say this to every Saddam Hussein, every Robert Mugabe? 'It's not the killing of people that will imperil your regime; it's the killing of them too slowly, too continuously, in too ongoing a sort of way.' Not quite a year ago I wrote on this blog of a shameful moral failure of left and liberal opinion (July 29 - old site). Nothing that has happened in the year since has changed my view about that. One of its most unpleasant symptoms has been the style of argument I've highlighted in this post. That it should have been adopted even by so good an organization as Human Rights Watch is testimony to the sorry state of progressive opinion across the globe."  

-- if HRW condemns action against Saddam, it's hard to advocate action against Sudan.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/26/04 10:30 | link | comments

Fantasy Bush speech on Sudan - Genocide

First draft Fantasy Speech for Pres. Bush on Sudan

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: The world is slowly getting better, but for every two steps of progress, it seems there is one step back. In the last three years, there have been two terrible regimes, two regimes full of Human Rights abuses, that have been changed by military force. Afghanistan and Iraq. The world is a better place for these changes. But another regime has gotten worse, has become more inhumane to its people, has been killing hundreds, thousands, of its own citizens.

 

In Sudan, today, there is a regime which is carrying out a genocide. There are thousands of Black Muslims who are being killed or raped and being turned into refugees by a radical Arab militia which is supported by the Sudanese government – state sponsored internal terrorism. The regime in Sudan must change its behavior. They must support human rights, they must allow aid workers in to all areas. They must allow those who want to supply humanitarian aid to do so, and allow their own citizens to return to their homes, or where their homes were destroyed by the Janjaweed.

 

The US Congress has, courageously and truthfully, called the Sudanese gov’t actions by the right term, Genocide. Only 10 years ago, under the previous president, there was a genocide in Rwanda – but the Democratic Party President of the time refused to call it genocide. So thousands of Tutsis were killed, hundreds of thousands of Black Africans were murdered. Few of the Hutu killers have been punished. Naturally, years after the worst of the murders had stopped, the Democratic Party President gave a fine apology. He apologized for not acting. He apologized for not calling it genocide. He apologized, and apologized, and apologized; and it was very convincing, but it was also too late. Some 700 000 humans had already been murdered.

 

Why didn’t the Democrats call Rwanda a genocide? Because the United States of America has pledged to take action to stop genocide. We have decided that a nation that is allowing genocide on its territory has forfeited its right to national sovereignty; such a nation doesn’t deserve international respect, nor recognition. Action must be taken by the international community against genocide. Or, even if other nations accept it, the United States treaty signature says we will attempt to stop it, we will take action. The problem of taking action is very acute in a democracy. Human beings are not perfect, and therefore any military action that is actually taken involves the risk of the military results not being perfect. In military actions, people die. This is a sad but true, and inevitable reality. Military people, and local fighters, and fighters dressed like civilians, and even innocent civilians are killed. Killing people is hell. War is hell. Perhaps the previous President did not want to take action, did not want to go to war in Rwanda, because he knew such action would mean some innocent people would die. The US would almost certainly have killed some innocents, had they taken action. So in 1994, the USA did not take action, and the US military did not kill any innocents in Rwanda, and there are no pictures of poor Tutsi boys in hospitals because of US action.

 

But does US inaction mean the US is free from responsibility? I ask you, was it good that America did not fight during the Rwanda genocide. Would Republicans have complained about the deaths, US and civilian, and also the monetary costs, if we had called it genocide and used force to stop it? Yes, I’m sure many would – maybe even me. No country in the world can be the world’s policeman, and enforce human rights throughout the world, against the wishes of all the abusive governments. In fact, when President Clinton did use US force to save Muslims in Bosnia, without a UN resolution, there were partisan criticisms by Republicans. Today I accept the past need for US force to stop genocide in Europe, since the Europeans were unable, or unwilling, to stop genocide. Still, in the 2000 election I argued against US military involvement as the world’s policeman. Because it does cost so much, in money, in American lives, and even in the lives of the people being freed. And 9/11 changed that.

 

But there is both a real cost, and a perceived cost. I’m sure you all agree that killing 2 000 000 is far worse than killing 26. Not just worse, not just far worse, but so far worse that it’s almost impossible to actually compare the Killing Fields of Cambodia, where communists as policy murdered some 2 000 000, with the 26 or so Iraqi prisoners who have died while in US custody. There is no comparison between the stellar behavior of the US military in Iraq, and the non-action in Rwanda allowing some 7-800 000 to die.

 

And yet the US press writes article after article about the failures in Iraq. The failure to win a war without death, without killing, without cost. The failure to be perfect. What standard does the NY Times use, or the LA Times? Do they compare deaths in Iraq with those in Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan, or even in Vietnam? Do they make any real comparisons? Or do they write as if perfection is not only possible, but expected, and somebody should be blamed if perfection is not reached.

 

Perfection is not a real option that I can choose. When I look at the successful results of Iraq, and I compare it with the worst fears, and even the reasonable fears, of how bad it might have been, I am proud of the US military. And I am ashamed of the US press coverage. It seems the US press has the idea that military action can be done perfectly, with no problems, with no uncertainty in intelligence, with no civilian casualties, with no young boys wounded and in hospitals. The US action in Operation Iraqi Freedom has been the most successful military action in a hundred years. Yes, more successful than World War I, more successful than WW II, more successful than Korea, than Vietnam, than Operation Desert Storm to free Kuwait from being conquered by Iraq. Yet much of the press writes, unfairly and negatively, as if it’s been a failure. Not only the press, but two of the major human rights organizations. I’m talking about Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

 

Both of these organizations seem to follow the same Democratic Party idea – lots of words, maybe resolutions, but avoid action. Avoid supporting any action that might be less than perfect. Today we know a lot about Sudan, and it’s mostly because of the fine work, the humane and human loving work of many people in these organizations. Because of their ideals, we know about the genocidal actions. We have eye-witness reports by victims who have survived multiple rapes, and other torture. Thanks to humanitarian workers on the ground. Such workers have been submitting reports on Sudan to their leadership for months. Yet the leadership, like the press, seems to think that Iraq has been a worse problem.

 

As you may know, recently Sudan was put on the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. The country which is committing genocide was installed as a member of the Human Rights Commission. And where was Amnesty, where was HRW, with respect to Sudan? Were there protests or objections? Where was the US press? After Sudan was put up for including onto the UN Human Rights Commission, where were the reports about its observance of Human Rights? Oh, I forgot. The press is only interested in human rights violations by the US. Not by any Muslims, like the deaths of some 500 Thai teachers in the last few years. Not by any Arabs, like the Arabs killing Arab journalists, which has continued censorship in Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

 

And the big organizations are very interested in being critical of the US. And why so critical of the US? Because they don’t want the US to act unilaterally. They want the US military to be used when the UN says so, but only when the UN says so. Their words are that they did not support Saddam Hussein, yet they strongly object to his removal. What is objection to removal other than support for staying on?

 

In early 2004, there was a report by Human Rights Watch claiming that the United States was committing the worst human rights in the world, or some sort of non-sense like that. I’m proud, mighty proud, of the performance of the US military. But silly critics dishonestly demand perfection. Why is it dishonest? Because they always deny demanding perfection. How can we easily know if perfection is the standard? If there’s no alternative offered. If they talk about prisons in Iraq without discussing homosexual rapes in America.

 

Why am I talking so much about the press? Because the press matters. Because there is the question about why the Sudanese is government allowing the genocide. Because of the press. Why genocide-- Because of Iraq? Because of Israel? Because of Oil? Because the Arab Muslims are racist against the Black Muslims? Because the UN is essentially irrelevant? Because the Sudanese government thinks the American Government is irrelevant, or too busy elsewhere?

 

It’s a little bit of all these, but most importantly it’s because Sudan thinks it has an ally in the US press. The Sudanese government thinks that America will fail to act, will fail to stop the genocide, and will offer a sincere apology in a year or so, to the few, scattered, disposed remnants. And it thinks America will not act because of the press, and the fact that Amnesty refuses to name it genocide. Because the Sudanese gov’t has been told by Human Rights Watch Democratic Party attack dogs that America is guilty of the worst abuses in the world. Since America promotes a tolerant, Christian civilization, HRW seems to think we deserve to be punished; and that America can’t afford any activity except for Iraq.

 

I ask myself, is there anything more I could do to demonstrate to Sudan that I am serious about stopping genocide? And the answer is, not much. I can ask Congress for a resolution about genocide – I expect to do this. I can ask Congress for new spending authority to mobilize troops in case they are needed, as seems very very likely. And I can submit a resolution to the UN. Of course, since there was so little objection to Sudan’s Human Rights mere months ago, it will be no surprise if the UN SC fails to pass a resolution on genocide in Sudan. Especially since the famous orgs do NOT call it genocide.

 

While the fault is clearly with the UN, if the UNSC fails, such a failure must also be understood as a failure of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both. And a failure of the International Press. While such policy persons are outspoken against the Iraqi Freedom operation, they have been too quiet on other issues, too quiet about genocide in Sudan. Where are the protests in the street against Sudan? Anti-war protesters seem willing to accept genocide.

 

I expect to be reviewing our military options. I expect to be planning to go to war, yet again, with another inhumane Arab gov’t; this one actively committing genocide. If we do decide to institute regime change, we will save thousands of lives. I challenge you to support freedom for black Muslims in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/25/04 19:12 | link | comments (8)

Sudan is Genocide

Pres. Bush should lead on this issue, and declare himself a leader of humanitarian help for Sudan, including regime change if Sudan fails to save their own people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/20/do2002.xml

 

Mark Steyn has some real anger about Sudan, the genocide that’s happening NOW:

“Why should the West's ability to help Darfur be dependent on the visa section of the Sudanese embassy? The world would be a better place if the UN, or the democratic members thereof, declared that thug states forfeit the automatic deference to sovereignty. Since that won't happen, it would be preferable if free nations had a forum of their own in which decisions could be reached before every peasant has been hacked to death. The Coalition of the Willing has a nice ring to it.”

 

Centerfeud, too. http://www.centerfeud.com/centerfeud/2004/07/praising_rape_i.html

 

"The ends justify the means", is a good question.  If not, then "the means justify the ends" -- meaning smart, hardworking, honest people get rich trading peacefully and respecting commitments, while others don't get rich.

 

I support a World Without Dictators.  I think Bush should start attacking Amnesty I. and Human Rights Watch, by name, for not calling Sudan a genocide.  And noting that far more have died in the last year there, than in Iraq.  But press coverage, who is most interested in making folk think Bush is somehow bad, is far lopsided.

 

Bush should really call out the UN, and France, and the international community, about genocide in Sudan.  And actions to stop it. 

 

 

http://www.rippleofhope.net/2004/07/gods-of-history-are-asking-okay-if-we.html

David (Ripple of Hope) posted a great story by Amnesty about Darfur.  But you fail, Fail, FAIL to note that Amnesty refuses to call it genocide, so far.

 

"Humanitarian disaster" doesn't require the UN to take action.  Amnesty is dropping the ball.  So is Human Rights Watch.  It was Bush's Sec. of State Powell that is highlighting this, NOT the UN, NOT France, NOT Russia.

 

Your bias is showing (bad), so is your heart (good).  Keep up the heart work.

 

Here's a question.  If Bush leads a humanitarian regime change in Sudan, and saves thousands, he'll probably get re-elected.  Do you want that?

 

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2004/07/us_congress_dec.html

GREAT new blog on Sudan!  No time to write my fantasy Bush speech.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/23/04 17:59 | link | comments

Lesser of Evils, votes

As a former Lib, now a libertarian paternalist pro-God conservative, all three votes have merit:

 

LP - vote FOR smaller gov't, let other voters decide on the lesser evil that will win.

Rep - vote for Iraqi Freedom, and maybe Iranian freedom and Sudan Freedom (interventionist), AND lower taxes [unfortunately, NOT smaller gov't]

Dem - vote for personal freedom [much higher taxes].

 

But I think that no election in my life has mattered as much.  The hope for freedom includes the world, and the Mid East, accepting human rights and women's rights (though not necessarily abortion).

 

Iraqi Freedom, despite its costs, was good, and pro-liberty.  The only hope for reducing big terror, state-sponsored terror, is regime change in the ME.  Throwing UNSC resolutions at Saddam didn't change him.  Military did.  It's great, Great, GREAT he's out of power.

 

Iran is trying to get nukes, to use them.  I believe the world, and the US, will be in great danger, and suffer a nuclear blast (Tel Aviv?  Moscow?  Miami?) if Iran is allowed to get them, AND through them terrorists.

 

I guess 10% of a nuke going off in next 4 years under Bush.  I guess 40% under Kerry.

Consider writing YOUR guestimates.  Before voting.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/23/04 17:57 | link | comments

Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><A href="http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006403.html">http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006403.html</A> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Scott (Samizdata) reminds me about the 60<SUP>th</SUP> Anniversary of the Bomb Plot to kill Hitler by Col. Stauffenberg.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Admiral Canaris was involved &ndash; as was the Pope.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Pope Pius was attempting to act as a go-between with the allies.</P>

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/23/04 17:57 | link | comments

eGovt transparency

There is an increase in Business Intelligence / Key Performance Indicators, and drill down technology, in business - IT today.

 

eGov't and full transparency of gov't actions is coming -- just as it's coming to the newsroom.  It will be fought by middle managers who don't want it known how little, in terms of results, they contribute. 

 

The power of capitalism to increase wealth is the focus on "profit" -- the increase in wealth due to an organization's effects.  Quantified, watched, and, if CEOs don't create enough of it, the CEO gets replaced.

 

Gov't services are going to be quantified, measured, and tracked.  It's starting to happen, finally, in education.  It will, it should, it CAN happen in all gov't areas. 

See http://www.fpdc.gov/fpdc/fpdc_home.htm

and others. 

 

What programming teaches is the need for test cases and following the logic of how the system handles it.  A main QA issue is the question, how do you know it's right?  By some specific output.

 

Tracking the expected specific outputs, results, rather than the "desire" or motivation or sincerity.  (See Jeff)

 

 

I've suggested to my Professor wife that a daily class blog by students be a good way to reduce plagiarism.  As well as, possibly, a reasonable way to do research about a subject.

 

Naturally, I have NOT followed through, quite, by doing so on any subjects, but now I think I might.  It would be on eGov't ...

(see Brian) http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006411.html

 

Part of the Libertarian ethic is that "force" should not be used to promote social goals, directly, merely to punish violators.  So, somebody who steals your car deprives you of it, and this justifies using force to punish him.

 

Ideas and digital information, when they are massively and cheaply copied, reduce the "market value" of such digitized info.  And, therefore, arguably (probably but not certainly) reduce the incentive to produce the new idea.

 

Good innovation, for me, does not justify using force to stop folks from sharing their digital info -- the gov't should get out of the business of enforcing any "property rights" about digital info.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/23/04 17:55 | link | comments