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

Tax Loans on TCS, and on-line teaching help

Great TCS note on good teaching on-line.

 

My own near and dear Tax Loan idea, as published in TCS.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/30/04 19:55 | link | comments

Achieving Peace -- support Democracy

We will have peace when we have a World Without Dictators.

 

The globalized world is too small to allow equal legitimacy to democracies and dictatorships and theocracies.  The UN needs to be reformed by an increase in the power and budget making authority of the democracy caucus, with the US and the UK pushing explicit pro-democracy.

 

The World Bank should be primarily supporting small businesses and private-owned home ownership -- "equality in the market" leads to equality among buyers, and equality among voters.

 

But transitions can be hellish.

(Jeff notes Natan Sharansky writing about democracy) 

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/30/04 16:53 | link | comments

Contracts and cheating - on wives

Brian writes wonderfully about libertinism and contracts and infidelity -- cheating:

 

    Some people, of the sort who confuse (or who like to pretend for propaganda purposes that they confuse) libertarianism with libertinism, might expect a libertarian like me to rejoice at any collapse in marital fidelity. But my libertarianism is about the right to choose what promises you make, not about the right to break them with impunity, to the point where you are not even to be criticised for such cheating. . . .

 

    And if anyone mentions France, where, allegedly, they take a more mature and rational view of these things, my answer is: precisely. Cynicism about private life is directly to be associated, I would say, with cynicism about the more public side of things. French public life is relentlessly corrupt and cynical, and they are oh-so-rational about adultery. I do not think these facts are coincidental.

 

 

Let's not forget Ayn Rand -- having her own kicks at the emotional expense of Barbara Brandon over Nathaniel.

 

On Ronny, it seems he did a reasonable thing upon finding himself in love with another woman, not his wife.  He divorced his wife, married his "true love".  In Hollywood I wouldn't be surprised if he cheated on Jane with Nancy first -- but he might not have (I don't care much).  I don't believe he ever cheated on Nancy.

 

While it IS reasonable to give Reagan some shame for his broken marriage -- it should be much, much less than Clinton for his numerous lust cheats.

 

Men CAN change -- read St. Augustine.  That's also the promise, and one of the strengths, of Christianity.  All are fallen, sinful -- but one can always repent and "sin no more."

 

As a libertarian paternalist "Conservative," I think no-fault divorce is a problem, but taking marriage vows lightly is a bigger problem.  Yet marriage behavior is both a reflection of and contributor to a culture of "responsible promiscuity".

 

I call it consumer sex, and it is one of the actual problems in any materialistic  society, especially without God or an afterlife.  The British idea of honor, mostly adopted by Americans (cowboys and superheroes, especially), helps society far more than regulations.

 

The rational Prisoner's Dilemma action with only one interaction -- cheat.

 

It also is clear that, since it's obvious some people will sometimes cheat, there is an attempt to create "pefectability", by lowing the perfect standard down.  This seems to often go along with criticizing Christian standards against an Unreal Perfection.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/30/04 16:50 | link | comments

Dems are likely doomed -- until they become pro-life

The three main election issues, as ranked by importance on the Pew polls (see below),

God (=Moral Values) at 27% was in third place,

behind Tax Cuts (=economy, jobs, health, education) at 35% second most important,

and the most important issue of War (Iraq, Terrorism) at 38%.

 

However, this obscures important facts: 1) Roughly the same number voted FOR and voted AGAINST Pres. Bush on the War issue. 2) More voters thought the Economy was important than Moral Values, and most Kerry voters voted anti-Tax Cuts as “most important” issue (55%).  3) The highest plurality of Bush voters supported his pro-God position (47%)

 

With women going to church more often, and with Bush and the GOP gaining more votes among the pro-God American voters, there IS a God-Gap, and it may soon be more massively in favor pro-life politicians. 

 

Before 2006 there are likely to be more Catholic Bishops who counsel public pro-abortion figures that they are “out of communion” with the fundamental tenants of the Catholic Church.  See the hugely important, but heavily underreported First Things report of the June meeting of the US Catholic Bishops in Denver (by Richard John Neuhaus).  It explicitly mentions the “John Paul II” bishops, and notes a very clear letter by Cardinal Ratzinger, to the effect that grave sins of abortion and euthanasia have greater moral weight than opposition to war or the death penalty, for instance.

 

Censorship of such important issues permeates the Main Stream Media, and the Dem Party leadership.  This is part of the God Gap, and why I label Bush’s position as pro-God.

 

I predict that most “Catholic” Dem politicians will reduce their commitment to their Church, in order to remain pro-abortion voters in good standing among the PC fem-Inquisition.  As Reps gain, and continue to win elections, the Dems will have to re-examine their radical pro-abortion stance.  It is THIS radical prediction that most analysts have been unwilling to discuss.

 

The Rolling Stone analysis was mediocre on these issues, but did mention the coalition being built by Reps among all folk who go to Church often.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/29/04 21:50 | link | comments (1)

Thanks to God -- Helped Bush win, pray for Iraq, Ukraine

The Barma group also supports the idea that believers significantly helped Bush win.

Patterico is supporting a Rep, pro-life purity strategy against a majoritarian strategy of Hugh Hewitt.

Patterico notes that the Dec'l of Independence mentions God -- and so perhaps may not be distributed in gov't schools.

An interesting discussion of Thanksgiving and the early Puritans.

But Iraq the Model has the finest thought -- a Failed Revolution. Support Democracy! It's a terrible form of government whose only redeeming feature is sustainable superiority over every other form! (sustainable eliminates "benign" dictators).

Let's pray for Ukraine.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/04 21:31 | link | comments (4)

Pew analysis on 3 axis issues

Today, it seems that “civil rights” folk are consistently opposed to Christianity in public, and oppose politicians who are believers and want laws that more reflect their Christian morals. The two key 2004 specific moral questions are on abortion and gay-marriage; Bush is pro-life, and against gay-marriage, though accepting of civil unions. Opposition to Bush often includes a desire to avoid legislation based on his beliefs. Bush can be designated as “pro-God”, as the Pew Forum on Religion discusses the “God Gap.”

 

The Pew Forum reports a list of five non-negotiable Catholic/ Christian issues: [embryonic] stem cell research, euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion and cloning. Luis Lugo (Pew Forum) implied support for my 3 axis analysis: “Exit polls taken on November 2nd reveal that 22 percent of voters cited moral values as their most important concern, seemingly trumping even terrorism and the economy. The same exit poll showed that supporters of President Bush were 4 to 1 in that category over supporters of Senator Kerry, so a heavily Bush vote.”

 

However, if the Pew’s Issues That Matter are aggregated into 3, we get:

Moral Values (God), Iraq + Terrorism (War), Econ/Jobs + Health + Education + Taxes (Tax Cuts)

For Bush: God = 44%, War 11+24= 35%, Tax Cuts 7+1+2+4= 14%.

For Kerry: God = 7%, War 34+3= 37%, Tax Cuts 36+8+6+2= 54%

 

Rough importance is the sum, divided by 2: God-26%,  War-36%,  Tax Cuts-34%.

 

When aggregated thusly, it becomes clear that the War is quite important to both sides, and is the single most important issue – but the voters are very split on being with and against Bush on his pro-War policy. It might also be that many voters feel, at this point, that the Kerry plan in Iraq is the same as the Bush plan -- so the (very important) War is NOT the issue on which to base a choice.

 

Missing questions: is there a significant difference in the Bush policy and the Kerry policy on Iraq? on the War on Terrorism? -- I suspect that those who think the answer is no will choose based on something else.

 

What seems very surprising is the huge importance on the economy for the Dems, more than half of those voting for Kerry clearly seem to want the gov’t to “do something”, i.e. spend more gov’t money and/or add regulations to increase the number of jobs, and improve health & education. While only a few admit that opposition to Bush’s tax cuts is the most important issue, there were clear and consistent statements by Kerry that taxes would go up – to pay for more spending. Had Kerry won, the big deficit spending GOP would be wondering how could they possibly have spent more money – which the Kerry voters seem to be clearly voting for.

 

But since Bush won, the focus is on God, and how the religious tinted “moral issues” choice plays out.

Three issues results in 8 groups, as I discussed in earlier posts.

 

My rough guess on how the voter numbers add up to 100% of voters; 37% Conservative

Pro- war, pro- cuts, pro- God;  37         Bush “Conservative”,

Pro- war, pro- cuts, anti- God;   5          Libertarian Hawks,

Pro- war, anti- cuts, pro- God;   5          Balanced budget believing Hawks,

Pro- war, anti- cuts, anti- God;  10         Liberal Hawks, x-Dems, 

Anti- war, pro- cuts, pro- God;   5         Isolationist Conservative,

Anti- war, pro- cuts, anti- God;   1         Classic Libertarians,

Anti- war, anti- cuts, pro- God;  16        Liberal Catholics & Church Blacks,

Anti- war, anti- cuts, anti- God.  21        “Liberal” Atheists,

 

Pro-War = 57;    pro-Cuts = 48;   pro-God = 63.

*I have found no polls which help me get better direct 3 axis numbers – haven’t finished analysis of individual issues. * 

 

Even with 8 groups, there is the problem of perhaps “agreeing” with a Bush strategy (attack Iraq, cut taxes), yet feeling Bush is failing to implement it – he had no “plan for peace” and/or Iraq is not part of the War on Terror; his tax breaks are for the rich only, and there’s not enough done for more jobs, or the economy is bad. The effect of being against the way Bush did it, is to be against it, so anti-Bush is fair.

 

“In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat or Independent?”

Pew commentary says that this question of party affiliation is for how the respondent feels, at the moment, not how they voted. These feelings can be quite fluid, and while interesting in analysis, they are quite different from non-decision based demographic parameters. Party feelings change with events.

In the Pew analysis on the pre-election poll accuracy: “Much of the movement in the polls came among cross-pressured swing voters.”

To me this shows clear movement among the moderates of what THEY think is the most important issue. Pro-War and Anti-War were fairly evenly matched, but for most voters did NOT put this as the main reason to choose between the two. Bush voters decided on pro-God; Kerry voters decided on anti-Tax Cuts.

 

One of the pre-polls showed that Kerry’s biggest support, at 62%, was among those who couldn’t afford health care (in the last 12 months).

Pew also shows a huge increase in getting news from Internet, over Newspapers and TV, comparing 2000 with 2004.

This survey and data has a few surprising figures based on stem cell research (learn more OR save embryonic lives), and three religious questions: 1) Parties asking for Church Registration; 2) Whether Catholics should refuse communion to politicians with different views (eg on abortion); 3) display Ten Commandments in gov’t buildings.

 

While most folk were against Church registrations, and against communion refusal, they strongly supported Ten Commandment displays. On the communion refusal, only 15% of non-evangelical Protestants, 18% of White Catholics, and 38% of Evangelicals think it proper for priests to refuse communion. Unfortunately, Pew fails to include Hispanic Catholics (& non-Catholics), which ignores the MOST important demographic for this election.

 

Two gay marriage questions were included, with full marriage being strongly opposed, and civil unions being acceptable as nearly as popular as against.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/25/04 22:39 | link | comments

Morals, God, Promiscuity

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/11/23/weldn_mv.html

Jay Rosen wants to debunk the “moral values” issue, and reprints a guest editorial for that purpose.

 

I claim there are roughly 2 usual groups of reasons to vote, following the Libertarian idea of looking at Economic Freedom (big or small gov’t), and Civil Liberties (big or small gov’t).

But today, the “civil liberties” has become an unlimited libertine pursuit of individual pleasure, at the expense of overstepping any moral sanction against sexual promiscuity.   I've called the Bush "moral issues" pro-God; it could also be said to be pro-morals, pro-family; or anti-promiscuity.

 

 

The idea that the election was NOT determined by moral issues fails, according to my 3 axis analysis, both qualitatively AND quantitatively. 

 

But I’ll have to add more to this, later.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/04 21:14 | link | comments

Sex, Food -- The Vice of Gluttony

The materialist culture around us, and especially ALL advertising, supports objectification and mass consumption.  There is a God sized emptiness inside of people, a hunger for meaning, and neither gluttonous eating, nor promiscuous sex, will fill that emptiness.  Nor will buying anything, nor will traveling anywhere (although the consumption of an "experience" is a bit closer).  Those that fill the God-emptiness with God, and accept their bodies as temples to God, are much less likely to be fat.

 

There was a recent article somewhere on the French paradox, the secret way they have of eating luscious food and not becoming such porkers.  They spend time on it, preparing it carefully and eating it slowly, and enjoy it, as well as the conversation and company.

 

When I was a jogger, I enjoyed the meditative aspects of movement, slight attention to where I was going, some inattentive enjoyment of the surroundings, and focus on some main thought with few distracting thoughts.  Having kids has reduced my jogging hugely, as has living in a winter-snow area (Slovakia).

 

There is some controversy about junk food in gov't schools.  I support replacing with fruit, maybe even subsidized, all vending machine junk.  I also favor more PE, and especially "affirmative action" PE on overweight kids.

 

I am afraid that the (excessive?) growth hormone pumped meat has minute saturation effects, such that at some concentration, with a different threshold for different people,  it increases human growth.  I understand this as a belief, looking for scientific evidence (or good counter evidence), yet find too much obesity as anecdotal evidence.

Joe (Evangelicaloutpost) writes about Sin on a Bun.  With a great picture of a Monster Thickburger, that doesn't show on his new WordPress.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/04 20:50 | link | comments

Reality Press Issues

Jay has more on "reality based" folks, as do some commenters.

 

The Znet link seems nearly worthless -- the opinions of Bush haters who want the US forces to leave immediately.

Instead of a ceasefire, they attack Fallujah. Are they sure that the aftermath will not be bloodier than Fallujah? The martial law is one of the nails in the coffin of this regime. The last pretext for democracy here is now buried. Their declaration of martial law is a declaration of political bankruptcy.

 

Znet folk wanted the pro-democracy forces to leave Falluja alone, let them keep making bombs and having their own, local "martial law".

*I* am fairly sure that the aftermath of Falluja will be less violence, but primarily after the elections. The Sunnis are losing power, and will lose it democratically, and it's understandable that they are upset. Too many Sunnis seem, not unlike the US Left, culturally unwilling to offer constructive criticism.

 

There's a sad issue not often noted. Assume two groups of 100 patients each, with similar difficult operations coming, with about a 50/50 chance of living. One group is told that they'll prolly survive, but it will be tough, and there is a real chance they'll die -- but that the doctors believe they'll live.

The second group is told that it's really a coin toss, they should be prepared to die and have their affairs in order.

 

After the operations, 60 live of the "prolly survive" group, but only 45 live from the "coin toss" group. The Power of Positive Thinking is a fairly objectively known fact--NOT stopping all deaths, but giving better results than non-positive thinking.

 

I think there are many situations like this. What is "reality based" information? When current beliefs shape the future outcome, in "reality", what should the current beliefs be like? In my example, if I or my wife are in such a situation, I want to be told the belief that is most likely to lead to better outcome.

This borders on, or crosses over into, justification for propaganda. But the alternative is to accept reality-doubts, and accept more deaths.

I find an interaction with my increasingly strong pro-Christian beliefs, because I think Christian beliefs most support a better future.

I note that few "reality folk" accept that their style of analysis, when applied after 1968 to the US in Vietnam, led to a US withdrawal, and a SE Asian genocide.

 

The World "liberal" press, since Tet in 1968, has pretty much supported genocide -- because fighting evil can not be done without killing innocents, which violates the Unreal Perfection standard.

 

Sudan, for instance, is unlikely to avoid continued genocide, as long as the anti-Bush "realists" have such media dominance.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/23/04 20:28 | link | comments

Reality based BS against Bush

Jay Rosen interestingly writes: In a different way of thinking, Bush is not wrong to say 250,000 when the "real" number is only 20,000. Look, if Iraqis have confidence in their state, we will have the 250 K and more, and they'll have confidence if we project confidence. Bush thinks there's at least 250,000 who will join us, and when he says "ready" he means that.

If "reality" is going to bite Bush, it means the election in Iraq fails.  Or, it could have meant that the assault on Falluja fails (reality - "not enough troops") -- but it has already been a fairly huge success.  (More American folks died on the highways in NYC than in Falluja over the same time period, no?)

What I find REEALLY interesting, Jay, is the idea that Bush will "in reality" fail in the future -- but in every objective test has succeeded.  Toppled Saddam. Created an Iraqi legal framework for a temporary Iraqi Gov't, turned over control to Alawi's gov't, that was recognized as sovereign by the UN in June (before schedule, to surprize the killers).  Ran successful Afghan elections.

Perhaps this is how "messiahs" create disciples -- by having actual results that defy the "reality based" predictions?

I don't believe Bush is any messiah -- but I DO see him leading Western Civilization back to Christian virtues, helping America to be good, and then great, too.

It's quite likely there are some 250 000 Iraqis, with names in a database, that are purportedly pro-Iraqi gov't.  DB lists are fairly objective. It's also quite possible that only 20 000 are fully trained, but that judgment is highly subjective -- and likely to be biased based on one's perceptions of Bush.

How much training does it take to stand with a gun near a polling place while nobody else is supposed to have guns?  Maybe the vast majority of the 250 000 have sufficient training.

How much training does it take to assault Falluja?  Prolly less than 20 000 Iraqis have THAT level of training and equipment.

I believe Bush will be shown correct, again -- and Iraq will have enough IP.  And please remember -- only Iraqis can win in Iraq, the US cannot win.  The US job is to help the pro-democracy Iraqis win.

Similary, the purpose of being "reality based" is to accurately predict the future.  The anti-Bush macro predictions have been pretty wrong, pretty consistently.

I'll know I'm wrong if Iraq elections fail.  How will you know if you're wrong? (Jay?)  A theory without falsifiability is NOT really "reality based".

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/04 23:45 | link | comments (3)

Iraq a cakewalk, Vietnam could have been won

The US Military DID win the "war" in a cakewalk -- but partly because the Saddam forces were preparing for guerrilla action. 
Which the Bush folk perhaps failed to be adequately prepared for.  On the other hand, the USA can never win in Iraq -- only Iraq can win.  The US can insure that the Iraqi Police win every battle Alawi decides to fight -- but it must be, increasingly, an Iraqi Police/ Iraqi National Guard fight.

And it seems like, seemingly slowly but much faster than a maple tree grows, turning police power over to the Iraqis is working.

Winning in Vietnam would have required the Viets to be flying the US helicopters, and the Vietnamese to be using napalm on the N. Viet positions.  LBJ tried to "win" Vietnam as if it was WWII, or Korea.  Nope.
Nixon tried a little Vietnamization, but where where the trained and supplied S. Viet troops in the 68-72 time frame?

An Islamic influenced semi-secular democracy, with fairly good support for human rights and minorities, is the likely outcome in the upcoming Jan. elections.  It will almost certainly become the BEST Arab Islamic democracy.  And any critics should be honestly asked -- where is Arab Islam better?  That may be a "low" standard, but that's how the most realistic progress happens -- one rung higher than the next.  Up the never-ending ladder of progress.  See Hit and Run

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/04 22:26 | link | comments

Iraqi names and reparations

In thinking about stopping genocides, I have a secret fantasy that Iraq collects the names of all those murdered in the mass graves in Iraq. Some 300 000. And, um, charges the UN some $1 000 000 per person for accepting Saddam's "crimes against humanity".

A $300 billion charge to supporters of Saddam seems fair -- and THAT would send a big strong signal to those in the world who support dictators. (Do you like this idea?)

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/04 19:50 | link | comments

Names of Victims of Genocide

Jeremy Brown (guesting for for Michael J. Totten) has a fine post: Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust museum has launched a website offering online access to their recently completed database of over 3 million names of Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust.

From the NYT : "The Yad Vashem Web site will not include non-Jews, like Gypsies, who were also systematically slaughtered by the Nazis ."

Naming the murdered is a wonderful / terrible thing -- terrible only in the sense that it so powerfully captures the terribleness of the occurrence.

However, I do object to "6 million Jews" when, as I understand it, some 10 million people were murdered -- including millions of gypsies and hundreds of (mostly Catholic) priests, as well as others who disagreed.

Jeremy says Remembering history is not a zero sum game; it takes nothing away from acting responsibly in the present. But in fact, saying "6 million Jews" DOES seem, in practice, to take away from the unmentioned 4 million.

 

In stores it's called "shelf space". What IS talked about reduces the time available to talk about what is NOT talked about.

This is the bigger part of current Leftist media bias.

 

And, today, most mentions of the Shoah do seem to be INSTEAD of mentioning the Killing Fields of Cambodia (when the US followed Kerry's advice and stopped fighting evil), or that in Rwanda (when the Dem president ordered "genocide" not be used).

 

I wish that Bush would challenge Kofi and the silly UN to do something, more forcefully. (see my Fantasy Bush speech on Sudan as Genocide )

3 million, 6 million, 10 million. They are all terrible. But I think of the Vietnam Memorial, some 50 000 names. Today, one of the most visited and moving memorials in DC, and rightfully so.

 

Could be a memorial for Sudan already, and maybe 20 more are coming. Only 16 for Rwanda. (Only? Utter UN failure, but it can barely be talked about because the Left wants to support the UN instead of the US.)

 

For Cambodia it would be 60 memorials; for the Shoah some 200 memorials, 120 of which would be Jews.

 

I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that supporting Kerry would have led to more active opposition to genocidal evil than supporting Bush -- but I hope that those who did, will now be pushing the US, AND the UN, to act. To intervene. To have sanctions, intrusive inspections, more aggressively defensive peacekeepers, and to STOP the genocide going on in Sudan. Even if it means military force. Even if means military force without the UN SC's blessing.

 

Sudan today is making a mockery of any and all who say "never again" -- but oppose action to stop the evil.  Jeremy, too, ends his post with a call to help Darfur.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/04 19:47 | link | comments

Cities? War? Morals?

Some think the Dems may need to become more the City party, living in the Urban Archipelago.

The Left dominates the cities because of fashion -- they desire, and live for, fashion superiority.  They like to think it is intellectual or moral superiority, but it's actually mob fashions.  And the top jet setters want to set the fashions.

Libertarians were the huge losers in the Bush/Kerry election.  The choice was big spending Bush, or even BIGGER spending Kerry, plus tax increases (on the rich! how would that get more jobs?).

If you look at three Bush policies: pro-War, pro-Tax Cuts, pro-God, you find out that Kerry had huge support on economic issues -- anti-Cuts.
See http://tomgrey.motime.com/1100218857#372506

In such a tri-issue group, one would expect that agreement on two issues would lead to support for that candidate.  But there were two groups for which this seemed to not be the case:
pro-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God  (Liberal Hawks; almost like Sullivan, whose support for the War wasn't enough; more like Roger Simon & Michael Totten).  War/ terrorism is the big issue.

The other group are the "moral value" pro-lifers, especially Catholics.  Who are:
anti-War (pope was against), anti-Cuts, pro-God.

In the coming Dem meltdown, faction fighting, etc., it would be good for anti-God small gov't types to think about adjusting the Dem position to  measure results of gov't programs.  Like reading scores, house ownership rates, etc -- so as to say Bush isn't doing enough, but to get used to judging policy more on reality measures rather than rhetoric.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/21/04 00:16 | link | comments

Another Saturday without Karaoke

Had we gone, I would have sung: Kinks,  You really got me.  And Stones: (I can't get no) Satisfaction

Eva likes the Kinks song and thinks I do a really good job on it.  A couple of weeks ago, just before the election, we were out on a Friday -- and found out that because of Halloween parties, the Karaoke had been moved to Friday.  I did the Kinks (a second time), and first time for the Clash: Should I stay or should I go

I really like singing; wish I was better.  Try to compensate a lack of talent with some extra enthusiasm, and friendly support.  Plus, I do have a good rhythm, know many of the words, and read well in English.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/20/04 23:45 | link | comments

TV sex and violence -- we need less sex

See Jeff for an ardent support of total Free Speech, which most of his commenters support.  And I used to, but don't anymore.

 

While the tech wizards will, in a reasonably short time frame, solve most of this, there is a basic "moral" problem on sex -- more so than on violence.

 

In violence, most TV violence is always "bad", unless it's necessary in use by good guys against bad guys.  Not very confusing.

 

Quite different than sex.  For married couples, sex is good.  For unmarried people, society is mixed on whether sex is good.  For children, sex is bad.  This is inevitably confusing, and leads to too much sexual activity among young people, and the mistakes of such actions.

 

There is a fairly strong belief that many religious folk have that promiscuos sex is generally bad -- immoral.  There is a LOT of anectdotal evidence that promiscuity among poor people leads to more poverty.  (Do you believe this?  If not, do you have any evidence for your counter-belief?) 

 

Raising taxes to pay for the "poor", when the poor are being "immoral", seems a clear case of imposing one set of morals (permissive), and in particular forcing responsible Christians to pay for immoral non-Christians.  I sincerely think this is grossly unfair, and hypocritical.

 

When you take the strong "Libertarian" pro-dirty words in speech, in public viewing, in support of ending (immoral) "victimless crimes" -- this has to be matched with a shift in financial responsibility to those who choose be immoral.  I don't think it's honest to support freedom to act "immorally", while forcing the moral folks to pay for the bad consequences of the immoral actions.

 

Usually there's dishonest support for an "immoral" imposition of costs.

 

Which, by the way, is why I've changed away from an L-Libertarian; the culture needs to accept paying the consequential costs of individual immoral behavior BEFORE getting the freedom to act immorally. 

 

Leftists always want to just raise taxes (on the rich!). Like Kerry.   

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/19/04 22:37 | link | comments

The US Marines protect this woman

(Via Powerline -- just a whole fantastic quote):

Jana says: "Monir you dont know anything about Iraq or Islam or the Koran ...."

Dear Jana, I was born in the Middle East and went to Islamic school and at one time I memorized parts of the Koran. I am from a neighboring country to Iraq.

The Koran says Sureh 4, Verse 35: Men have authority over women (not just the wife but sisters, daughters, maids, etc.). If they disobey, "first admonish them, then refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them". You can read it for yourself at http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/ or other sites. Also try http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html to see the 2nd class citizenship of women in Islam (for example they are counted as half of one witness, or receive inheritence half of a man).

Now Jana you are wrong that this is a matter of interpretation. When the Koran says women receive half the inheritence of a man, then this is not an issue of interpretation. It says Sureh 4:11 - "A male shall inherit twice as much as a female". Now how can you interpret mathematics in multiple ways?

You say that I am "not allowed" (by whom may I ask?) - that I am not allowed to say that the Koran has recommended to beat women or to disinherit women because of their gender. And why can't I say this? What stops me and other open minded people to say that the Koran contains nonsense of this sort? If it offends you that I say this, well then take a cold shower, and if you are a moslem (by the sound of it) then change your religion instead of being so embarrased about it, as I am just repeating what is in there complete with verse numbers and am exercizing my right to free speech, and I can say all I wish about Islam, including facts about the Koran - and this is exactly why the Marines are in Fallujah beating the hell out of these Islamofascists - because they want to stop me from saying the facts, and no Jana, you cannot stop me as those Marines are protecting me, the Iraqis, and ultimately America, and neither can you stop the good Marines who are risking their lives, to bring out the truth about this decrepit religion. You should be ashamed of yourself to undermine our men and women in danger in the battlezone who are fighting tyranny, while people like you suck up to it.

I wish I knew this Monir Kazemi. I just read her words again, and I think they are the most eloquent defense of America's commitment to freedom that I have read in a long time. If she ran for office, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/18/04 23:39 | link | comments

Bias in the Press

Actually, we need a Right biased News org, to show what real bias would look like. 
While Fox may be a bit on the right, it's far closer to the Center than CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.
Maybe Sinclair will be able to do this -- but their caving in to Leftist censorship pressure on the Stolen Honor documentary shows that they aren't Right, yet.  (as documented here on Jay's PressThink)

Funny how Leftists, when they successfully censor something they don't want shown, refuse to accept that they're practicing censorship.

Objectivity is good.  But bias posing as objectivity is very bad.
Honest bias is not so bad.

Why aren't there more actual debates on TV?  I mean, it seems Crossfire type shows are more about gotcha moments and overshouting, rather than looking at the good and bad consequenses of alternative policies.

Two people can look at the same facts and label it differently, and draw different likely scenarios.    Was the second week of Iraq fighting a "quagmire" -- pretty hard to maintain that fiction.
Is the current insurgency a quagmire?  Meaning the insurgents will keep fighting, and killing, until America goes home (and lets the insurgents establish a Killing Fields based terror government).  I don't think it's a quagmire, yet -- and in fact claim nobody can know until, at the earliest, after the Jan elections, or upon their cancellation.
Any talk of "obvious mess" (ie quagmire by different words) is, therefore, premature.

What seems to be lacking around many facts is the context of meaning for these facts.  If you already have some belief about what the facts mean, they are usually analyzed to support that belief.  This is the bad bias which the Leftist press is doing now.

If "objectivity" is real, it can be measured.  Journalists seem unwilling to discuss concrete measures of objectivity, and then measure themselves.

I don't want the "objective" news I thought I was getting when growing up watching Viet body bags at dinner time.  I want a set of "published facts" that both Pro and Anti Administration agree on, and then I want to see both stories of what these facts mean.  Optimistic and Pessimistic estimates of the future.  But maybe most stories aren't worth the effort?

[Jay remains objectively biased in failing to call for Kerry to sign Form 180]

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/18/04 23:32 | link | comments

Faith Charity is not HAMAS

Barbara Ehrenreicht doesn’t like evangelical charity.

Hamas has INSURED that the local state fails, and their gov't by terrorist intimidation insures that property rights are not formalized -- thus the poor are doomed to be in a tough situation.

 

Hamas is smart to help such people, in order to manipulate them.  Were they educating them to become self-respectful and responsible, they'd be doing good.  It's their message of hate and violence which is evil.

 

Ehrenreich has it backwards -- faith charity support is from the long term failure after failure after failure of the Leftist secular welfare society.  Many Christians were willing to politically support welfare "in theory," when the Depression didn't offer "enough" help to undeserving poor (folk willing to work).  As the results of welfare dependency in creating too many "deserving" poor (folk unwilling to work), this state welfare looks worse and worse.

 

Where is her call for rich liberals to start businesses and HIRE more poor people?  That's really the one change that helps poor people the most -- getting a job.  (Of course, they DO have to work to keep it.) (not blog all the time, for instance.)

(see Joe Carter)

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/18/04 23:19 | link | comments

Future of Reps, tax cuts and less abortion

I believe the Left is strongly against the Bush tax cuts; and the "amorality" of capitalism and the free market. I, too, am enraged when the rich and powerful in some country can violate property rights and not fulfill contracts with poor folk, usually with no negative consequences. Is the fault with "capitalism", or with bad property rights and contract enforcement?

 

But there is a destructive envy that so often drives the Left. See Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate This envy usually includes an Unreal Perfection as the unspoken alternative, compared to any real situation looks bad.

 

It's pretty hard to condemn the general policy of allying with the lesser Devil, unless one accepts the USA made a mistake in allying with Stalin. Neither Pinochet nor the Shah of Iran was in the same league -- though the Left's criticism is at least an order of magnitude greater than their criticism of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.

 

Allende seems likely to have been ready to keep power, despite Marc Coopers' personal knowledge of different intentions. Pinochet seems a "lesser evil" -- who could have chosen to be like the dictator of Singapore, but chose to be worse.

For Dems & Liberals, this would be a good time to start developing a useful ranking of dictatorship critiques, including criteria on why which one is so terrible. Even rankings, like an inverse Freedom House. Honest discussion about the terms of the Deals with Devils should be the goal of moderates -- most Reps would prolly be happy to join in. Because Kissinger's friends look bad, but not nearly as bad as Mr. K's enemies.

The best hope for a moderate Rep is prolly after Roe is overturned -- and abortion laws are made at the state level.

 

The pro-life folk today are FAR more one-issue choosers than the pro-choice, pro-gov't, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-education, pro-retired, pro-black, pro-gay, pro-Hispanic, pro-labor, pro-poor, pro-middle class ... Dems.

And the Dems have pushed most pro-lifers (only 52% of Catholics, so far -- this is changing, fast) into the Reps. So pro-life is becoming a litmus test for grassroots Rep activists. As Sully said, gay-marriage is an issue being used to "purify" the Reps.

 

I'm truly sorry this has been happening. But the pro-abortion Roe "amendment", slipped in by 5 SC votes, is poisoning moderation on other issues.

Of course, the desire to enjoy arrogance by actually winning more power is always a strong counter to this polarization -- so winning pro-choice Reps will not be driven out. But the fight over Specter, for instance, shows the pro-lifers pushing for more actual use of their voting power. And, like women but unlike blacks in the Dems, the pro-life block is very often a local majority in choosing the Rep candidate. So pro-life Reps are mostly winning Rep primaries. (It's likely Arnold would have won a Rep primary, based on his star power and being in CA. Not sure nationally, and lesser pro-choice Reps are even more questionable.)

 

Getting better Congressional districts, thru more technocratic districting, is an important pro-democracy issue for folks in almost all states. And would lead to more moderation.

 

And of current regimes, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia; and North Korea, all come to mind immediately, though Zimbabwe (& the Leftist Mugabe) is terrible, as is the mess in the Congo -- and even the frog problems in Ivory Coast. (Though racist Leftists don't seem to think that blacks in Africa can really handle both Democracy and Human Rights, nor criticism of their lacking.)

See Michael on Rudi being a popular GOP nominee for President, 2008.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/18/04 22:35 | link | comments