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

Freedom of worship at Christmas

Michael Novak has a wonderful article about freedom and Christmas, and who is the baby in the manger? It notes that each of us must answer this question on our own.

And how is this form of liberty rooted in Christmas? Read again Jefferson's argument in his Bill for Religious Liberty and Madison's argument in his Remonstrance. For both, religion is a duty every person owes to his Creator — a self-evident duty but one to be rendered according to the conscience of each individual. And why is that? Because that is the decree of the particular God they have in mind. That God is found in Judaism and Christianity, in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and also Jesus, Who demands to be worshiped "in spirit and in truth."

Michael doesn't quite reference it, but his article includes a feeling about Human Rights coming from a belief in a Christian God.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/31/04 23:29 | link | comments

Happy New Year

I'm busy busy busy with my computer system; and my family.  Here are some notes about my own posts from the prior year.

In Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate, I started this blog over a year ago, against the Liberal bias against Bush (Bush-hate), and how it relates to the Jew hate of the past (and increasingly the present), and the Democrat's hatred of Tax Cuts, or Success.  The Envy underneath it -- the desire to destroy the fortune of another.

In Tax Loans, there is my recomendation to replace current government programs of free money, with a loan.  The loan to be repaid by taxes, plus a surcharge.  I suspect this, or something like it, will replace many gov't programs for the middle classes.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/31/04 06:51 | link | comments

Pride of Agnostics - Christian faith

Many agnostics demonstrate the biggest sin of the intelligentsia--Pride.
It's quite easy for me to recognize it (having seen it so often; when I shave, for instance).

The Earth is not heaven.  I don't understand it either, or God's will, or why it "must" be like it is.  But I still believe in a Goodness, transcendant beyond humans, described more truthfully in Christianity than other religions, though perhaps not perfectly.

If you want the Truth, you can only find it by faith.  Including a faith in No God, if you're an atheist.  (Most "agnostics" are actually cowardly atheists.)

If you want the world to be better place, it's reasonable to look at different faiths, including Secularism, and see how societies influenced by such faiths respond to reality.  The faith I strongly support is the one I see doing the best, in the real world.

Watch how the Christianized cultures, as compared to the Islamic/ Jewish/ Hindu/ Buddhist/ Shinto/ Secular Left/ cultures actually respond to the real tradegy.  I predict far more Christian support than from any other group.  And love for, and support for, the poor and wounded is at the heart of Christian faith in action.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/28/04 00:51 | link | comments (2)

Media against Christianity

Hugh Hewitt has a long, detailed post about the sloppy journalism, the agenda journalism, of the WaPo in a front page article on Intelligent Design as a source of some school board conflict.  Hugh talks about the many facts left out of the article, and does a little research to find out the facts.

He asks the right questions.  Glenn R. is promoting Hugh's new book, BLOG, and it occurs to me that part of the power of curious reader/ writers is to Ask the Right Questions.  Even if the MSM doesn't; and even if the answers aren't easy to find.  Wretchard notes that AP can NOT be trusted

On intelligent design itself, there is a great email to Hugh that is repeated, so I'll copy it too.

*** end to my post the rest is from Hugh Hewitt, down at Update 2:

An e-mail from Daffyd ab Hugh --familiar to most Northern Alliance blog readers-- once again underscores why he should be blogging and not just e-mailing:

"Dear Hugh;

The thrust of your long post on the war between proponents and opponents of "intelligent design" (ID) vice evolutionary biology (EB) is completely correct and, I think, beyond dispute: the MSM has an agenda of belittling anyone who believes in ID or doubts any aspect, no matter how small, of the current understanding of EB.  They have no interest in researching the subject; and it is part of the larger and ongoing war against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

That said, and not to dispute anything you wrote, there is also another problem:  too many adherents of ID likewise dismiss any scientist who supports EB (that would be all of them, by the way) as an atheist secular-humanist liberal who, many religious imagine, spends his free time plotting the demise of Christianity.

Polarization is rarely a good thing -- as a man who calls himself a practical conservative should understand better than most. For full disclosure, I'm a secular Jew, a true agnostic (not an atheist in drag), a trained mathematician, a published novelist, and politically non-Euclidean... but voting straight Republican until such time as the Democrats are no longer a threat to freedom and democracy in America and worldwide.

Nevertheless (or maybe I should write "therefore"), I have to note that there is no conflict between ID and EB. Much as both sides want to turn the issue into a strict either-or, the two ideas happily exist side by side.

EB covers only one subject: how, that is, the mechanism, by which life changed on this planet (and presumably others), becoming more complex and specialized as the eons passed. ID is concerned with an entirely different point: whether an intelligent God directed the creation of the universe, the world, and the life thereon. The point is that the most die-hard, evangelical Christian must acknowledge that God, being omnipotent, could have created a world in which evolution would occur, had He wanted to do so; and had He done, He certainly would have known exactly what creatures such a system would produce (since He's omniscient). This process is just as correctly described as intelligent design as it would be if He made it all in a single nanosecond, or if he made it all in six literal, twenty-four hour days. 

Similarly, any rational EBist should admit that science says absolutely nothing, indeed by definition cannot say anything, about how the physical laws of the universe got there in the first place. Indeed, it says little about how life itself began, in the most basic sense... though that, at least, is subject to scientific inquiry. Thus, there is not a single tenet of EB that can logically deny that God could have intelligently designed all life by creating an evolutionary system that would, in the end, produce just the sort of creatures He wanted to see. And of course, EB can have no opinion whatsoever about whether the soul exists, and if it does, what its nature may be.

I have always been fascinated by the Bible, and have read the King James version cover to cover, as well as having read fairly extensively in the current Catholic Bible and the best current translation of Tanakh, the Jewish Bible. In addition, I have read various creation myths from other cultures -- Norse, Greek, many African and South Pacific cultures, and so forth. One fact has always struck me forcibly... the astonishing parallels between the Biblical account of creation and the current understanding of EB, parallels which do not exist in the creation stories of those other cultures. The order in which Genesis describes creation as occurring is almost exactly the same as the order in which EB envisions the evolution of life -- indeed, going back before life to the creation of the solar system itself.

Note, for two simple examples, that in Genesis, the first thing created is light, before the creation of the planet (clearly part of the separation of form from the void). Astrophysics and planetary physics concurs: the sun was created first, and the planets only coalesced after billions of years. Most other creation stories (such as the Norse) have the Earth being created first, and in darkness, until the sun is created later; others, such as Shinto, don't address the question... but there are no stories of the sun goddess existing before the Earth exists.  Only the Bible agrees with science.

Likewise, in Genesis, humans are the last to be created of all the living creatures; in most every other creation story, humans are created either first or nearly first, and other creatures are created later. For example, in Norse mythology, the Earth is created in darkness and is ice-locked. Then a lump of ice melts, revealing a cow. The cow begins licking another lump of ice, finally revealing the first man. Other creatures come along later. Again, only the Bible depicts the creation of life in pretty much the order that EB tells us it evolved... a counterintuitive idea, since most cultures (including ours) believe that humans are more important than animals and plants, hence (one would think) would be created first.

There are several other parallels, leading me to conclude that either the Hebrews who wrote the original passages in Tanakh were rather astonishingly insightful, or else they were -- dare I say? -- inspired in some fashion.

I hate to sound like Rodney King, but can't supporters of ID and EB just get along?  Instead of fighting, it seems like a more profitable effort for each to use the other: believers can use the extraordinary, divine beauty of evolution and the wonders it produces as further evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible; scientists can use the Bible to develop a moral core that elevates them from being merely human beings to actual persons, a morality that cannot possibly be supplied by science -- which concerns itself with what is, not what should be. I get tired of hearing foolish errors from both sides... egregious misstatements of the facts and theories of science, biased misunderstandings of faith and philosophy.

Perhaps if some highly religious scientist were to invent a drug that doubled everyone's IQ, we would see that there is in fact no conflict between ID and EB.

-- Dafydd ab Hugh"

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/27/04 23:18 | link | comments

Unreal Perfection against Christianity

I'm enjoying the Christmas holy days, and going to Church and singing songs.  I think that a revival of Christianity is about to happen (in the next few decades!).  And the good news of democracy in Arab lands.  But there is something bothering me about critiques of Christianity, or any establishment, based on some unspecified Unreal Perfection.

The critique goes like this: Christianity supports some system/politician; that has this problem (not perfect); therefore should not be supported; and therefore this promise of perfection should be supported.  The last two are not usually so clearly stated; or only imply that the alternative is better, not perfect.

More on this should be coming.  Much later.  Need to read my books!  Harry Potter 5 in Slovak.  For Whom the Bell Tolls in English.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/26/04 23:10 | link | comments

Merry Christmas & Human Rights to all

Michael writes a fine note that the Constitution is NOT based on the Ten Commandments.

But it skips the point of the US Declaration of Independence, " we are endowed by our Creator ".

 

Either human rights come from "God", or from governemnt.  (see PowerLine some week ago).

 

Secular "natural rights", without some Good / Evil differentiation, do not protect human rights.  If they come from gov’t, a gov’t can take them away.

 

The Constitution IS based on human laws being "underneath" something Good and higher than mere human institutions.  So that not even a popular US gov’t can take the rights away.

 

One commenter: By this point it's become a purely secular holiday for a lot of people, while, of course, if it's all about JC for you, you're free to celebrate that aspect of it too in your home, churc, or wherever.

 

Imagine you replace this idea with human rights: today human rights are merely a secular agreement for a lot of gov'ts, while if human rights are sacred for you, you're free to celebrate them in your home, church, country, or wherever.

 

The principle is that Man is created in the image of God, and THEREFORE has human rights like life, liberty (especially free speech, free religion) and property and the pursuit of hapiness.

 

And here's my thought for "moral" atheists, who do believe in human rights.  Believing, Christian societies will, in practice, support more human rights than other societies -- secular, or religions that are non-Christian. 

 

If the "fallacy" of Christian belief leads to a better society than a "true" belief in NO God (better by the moral atheist measures: numbers of murders, of thefts, of unhappy marriages/ broken homes, of genocides), which belief is better to support? 

 

Even more non-PC, the superiority of Christian society is likely greater among communities of below average IQ.  Comparison among "low-IQ" communities would, I strongly believe, show that those communities with more Christian belief are less bad.  Any such study would be so non-PC, that I don't believe it could be done (see The Bell Curve controversy).

 

As I struggle with my own beliefs in Christ, I become increasingly pro-Christian.

 

Here in Slovakia, "Baby Jesus" brings the presents on Christmas Eve -- before the parents go to midnight mass.  I have to admit to some anger at the cultural imperialism of Hollywood pushing Santa, Santa, Santa -- taking Christ out of Xmas (shopping).  But I finished mine.

 

So please, one and all, have a joyous Holy Day, and know that, whether you believe it or not, God has a plan for you to be a good person, and a mostly happy person, despite your sins.  And despite mine.  Just a matter of our free will choices.

 

Have a Very Merry Christmas.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/24/04 15:19 | link | comments

Great News - HP 6

When I was in high school, and up until 4 years ago "HP" stood for a calculator/ computer/ printer company (started next to Stanford!)

But now, and ever more so, it means Harry Potter.  JK Rowling says she's finished with #6 -- the Half Blood Prince.

Merry Christmas JKR.  Thanks!

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/04 20:08 | link | comments (1)

David Frum -- Fantastic

David Frum is in my top tier of blogs.  His last week is an example of why:

Links to a WSJ article on the murders in Iraq: Or to put it more bluntly, we haven't yet defeated Saddam Hussein's regime.

The article notes that we are training the Iraqis to do the job; more slowly than optimal, but it's slowly getting done.

He addresses, and dismisses, the federalist approach to gay marriage -- it's all or nothing.  I might have to change my idea.

And Great, great post on loyalty to Rumsfeld.  Who gives loyalty to Bush, and gets it in return.  90% that he stays for at least 6 months.  I personally think things will cool down after the Iraqi elections.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/04 19:15 | link | comments

Abu is overblown -- in Feb it will be Iraqi

More responses to Marc about torture.

[days later] jim: <i>Do you really not recognize the sheer propaganda value this gives to terrorist organizations, not only for recruitment purposes, but also in how it gives cause to disparate orginizations to ally against us?

 

To blithley dismiss this issue by labeling it as an `imperfection' is just plain ludicrous.</i>

 

Go look at the Stanford Prison Experiment.  The US troops were NOT ready to be guards, or interrogators.  Hitch is right that the long-term, correct policy is painstaking and repetitive interrogation (good Stanford Magazine article on Afghanistan, too).

 

The US Military Public Relations effort does seem weak.  Abu happened.  I don't dismiss it -- but what IS the real significance?  I am certain that EVERY single Arab country has prisons with worse conditions; and in fact that many, if not most US prisons have worse abuse occuring (the rape of first time in-mates is a huge scandal).

 

Abu is perhaps the biggest club the anti-war folk can use to bash Bush.  But how big is it?  Each and every beheading by the terrorists is worse.  The recent murders in Baghdad are worse.

 

Yes, it is good, even great, for the USA to have higher standards.  In January 04, the <b>General was fired</b>.  Imperfect humans in an imperfect system, doing better than any alternative.  Compare with the French in Ivory Coast firing into a crowd and murdering some 60 -- little news coverage because it's not anti-US.  The US did the right thing, fire the responsible general.

 

I do think Rumsfeld failed to discuss the theoretical "optimal" response, and compare it to the actual response.  I think support for firing a general is NOT dismissing it.  I think calls for the Sec Def to be fired are WAY WAY overblown, especially after a so far 94% rating in handling the war, measured by US deaths, with anything less than 2500 getting an "A" (90%).

 

You have a different metric?  If you can't quantify it, it's hogwash. I haven't seen any critics with reasonable metrics for failure / success; nor any other war supporters.

 

Marc: we are supposed to chuck our pretenses to civilization and to world leadership and resort to bone-breaking, and hot pokers up the rear? I hope not.

 

I hope not either -- but aren't you asking for Unreal Perfection?  You accepted, even advocated the policies towards, the Asian Killing Fields.  The Left chucked the civilization then, didn't it?

 

If you accept some imperfections, what does acceptance mean?  To me, it means some standards.  Like exactly HOW many minutes without sleep.  30 hours?  so 29 hours is NOT torture, but 31 hours are?  In fact, actually drawing lines is so difficult, the Convention avoids it:

"severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted".

 

The US is deliberately trying to get to maximum pain/suffering that is less than severe, less than torture.  No convention says what that is.  Individual cases need individual attention -- and individual responsibility.

 

Perhaps a speed limit analogy.  Say it's 65 mph.  So you're a criminal at 66.  But most go 70-75, so the "real" limit is maybe 75.  Cops are to be feared at 80+.  What's the real limit? 

 

What's the speed you want cops coming to YOUR house, to save your wife who just called a hot-line that there's an intruder downstairs and she's hiding in the attic?

 

 

Steve: Then ya woulda had to occupy ... Vietnam, ...for a long time  Yep. Say ANOTHER 10 years, at some 200 body bags a month.  To create a S. Vietnam, strongman dominated with a market economy, like S. Korea.  [Prolly not occupy Laos or Cambodia.]

 

10 more years of war or genocide.  You still choose accepting genocide?  (I know you do, but I'm interested in whether you're intellectually honest enough to say so.)

 

To address it in Iraq you advocate

take the main force that is responsible for creating the conditions of violence in Iraq today...the US military.

 

Nope.  The Sunni anti-democrats are the main instigators of violence.  Just like the VC and N. Viet army were the main violence folk in Vietnam.  And the VC did plent of torture, beheading, and intimidation of the local peasants.

 

The main failure of the US forces in Vietnam (beside the obvious unjust draft/ temporary slavery) was in the failure to stay and train locals enough to defend themselves. 

 

In Iraq, this is prolly not going to be a problem -- instead, as the Shi'a majority take over, it's more likely the world will see what the democratic Shi'a decision is on what constitutes torture when dealing with (mostly Sunni, former Baathist killers?) anti-Iraq suspected terrorists.  After Jan 30, I expect to read about a LOT more Iraq anti-terror torture -- and a fairly rapid decline in Sunni support for the terrorists.

 

The Sunni terrorists want to postpone the elections, and then again, until the US leaves.  Once the Shi'a Iraqis take over, one of the tests of sovereignty will be Shi'a looking for that "torture line".

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/04 12:55 | link | comments

Weasel Watch

I will submit my untitled post about Cuba, prisoner treatment, and standards.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/21/04 23:17 | link | comments

Defend Christ and Christmas

The Secular Left is attacking current Christian traditions.  "America" is the "nation" of an idea, unlike other nations which are essentially tribes or super-tribes.  That US idea:  We are endowed, by our Creator, with certain unalienable rights...

 

The essence of human rights in America, the Liberty and Freedom that we celebrate, are gifts from God.  Except that Secular Fundamentalists don't believe in God -- and don't want any tax money spent on Christian celebrations.

 

The Founding Fathers, respectful and supportive of Christianity, "started it" by integrating Christian belief into the founding documents.  There's a story of a Christian 5th grade teacher who's principal refuses to allow him to distribute the Dec'l of Independence to his class, because of the "our Creator" reference.

 

Jeff Jarvis doesn't want to be responsible for attacking Christianity, but is more comfy with anti-Religious Right steps than with anti-Secular Left steps.

 

There are issues where we can not have a single "neutral" position .  Either it IS the birth of Christ Christmas, or it's a non-Christian holiday (Xmas?); there is no neutral middle holiday.  Either a fetus has a soul or it doesn't.  Either humans evolved from inanimate matter, or were created by some Intelligent Design.  Either there is a purpose, and meaning, to human life, or there is none (so why does truth matter?).

 

Human rights have two possible sources: God, or gov't.  If rights come from gov't, from bureaucrats, it will be no surprise for them to take rights away.

 

Even if one believes in no God, one should be afraid of domination by the Secular Left.  The emptiness in Europe should make Americans ... thank God it's not as bad in the USA.  (Though, obviously, I in Slovakia don't think it's so bad in Europe, yet, either -- family is still the most important environmental variable.)

 

It might also be a good time to remind folks what the gov't, NOT the public, is for.

To use force in society, providing for the common defense and establishing justice (and thereby promoting the general welfare).

 

Because the gov't has "free money" (after it is collected by force), it is reasonable to want the gov't to do good things with it. They should collect less of it and do less, and let the Churches be the primary Christmas sponsors -- NOT the gov't schools. Have the Sunday Schools give Christmas plays, not the gov't school "holiday season".

 

Mild persecution WILL increase the faith.

See Donald   and  Michael   on supporting the Jeff Jarvis idea in And God Rolled His Eyes

  

Michael and Jeff refuse to accept the fundamentalist fervor of the Secular Left. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/21/04 19:24 | link | comments

The Left is stupid on patriotism

Michael writes: Patriotism and Intelligence will have to come together again.

 

In his comments, a Leftist accidentally nails the problem: This will never happen so long as patriotism is defined as mindless adherence to conservative power.

 

Unfortunately, most Leftists pretty much define anybody’s expression of “patriotism as mindless adherence to conservative power.”

 

The Left's continued mischaracterization of patriotism, for Bush-hate purposes, is creating a void in the Dem Party.  A void of patriotic, constructive criticism.  The Leftists here continually delight in pointing out problems, which almost always do exist, but fail utterly at offering better alternative actions. Like cutting spending somewhere in the gov't budget.

 

Fight Saddam or let him rule, rape, and murder.  Those were Bush's choices; Bush chose to take Saddam out.  (I'm really looking forward to the upcoming trials, even before the election.)  If you oppose Bush's choice, you supported Saddam.

 

Similar choices in Sudan, or the Congo, today.  Take US action or accept thousands of murders.  The Left needs to look at real results, not some Unreal Perfection of costless idealism.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/04 22:29 | link | comments (2)

On Marc Cooper, some Leftist wrote about Marc's balanced anti-Cuba, anti-US prisoner treatment:

None of this excuses the Cuban regime, to answer your impending red herring, but I'm arguing for context and more fuller understanding of human rights.

 

I don't believe Leftists really do want fuller understanding—merely to complain about America.

 

I believe Marc is doing good -- all groups have identity problems and do some demonization of "them".  But in fact, the USA compares favorably with France, or any other G-7 or UN SC member, in comparing Human Rights for prisoners accused of terrorism.  POWs?  Not quite -- they weren't wearing uniforms.  Spies? Criminals?  The world doesn't know how a moral country should treat such folk when both sides are fighting over democracy in another country: the US fighting For, the terrorists fighting Against.

 

I suspect that after Iraq has elections, more prisoners will be transferred there -- so they can "enjoy" Arab levels of prisoner comfort/ torture. 

 

Neither Marc nor other Gitmo critics has described the alternative: some "due process" that results in them being set free, and then they go back, fight, and kill some Americans.  Frankly, I'd rather the US keeps all 700 or so as undocumented prisoners than have any of them kill even 1 American, in Iraq or anywhere else.

 

I don't believe "tantamount to torture" is quite the same as torture -- like going 66 mph in a 65 zone is not quite the same as reckless driving; and certainly going 65 has to be OK.  Line drawing is needed, but being close and separated by the line seems less just than being farther from the line.  There is no line on "torture" -- or perhaps you think there is a single, maximum: # of hours of sleep deprivation.  If you don't have a limit, you can't be sure the limit has been violated.

 

 

The Bush-hate Left has castrated itself by not supporting Democracy in Iraq.  Were democracy supported more there, critiques of US hypocrisy would be stronger.  But those who supported Saddam, rather than booting him, can't expect pro-War folk to take them seriously about supporting regime change against dictator "allies".

 

I want ALL dictators to go through regime change.  I'm willing to start with whatever bad regimes the current gov't think should be changed first; whether for Miami vote reasons, or Chinese geo-strategy on N. Korea, or for pure humanitarian impulses.  I hope the US pushes Sudan and Iran in the next 4 years.

 

Of course, any military regime change means the US will fight: kill, die, and kill innocents.  That killing innocents is both sad and inevitable -- but the alternative is to accept the bad regimes.  Like waiting for Castro to die.  Free trade with Cuba is almost certainly better, but if opposing free trade was necessary to get Cuban exile votes, it's not such a big deal -- sanctions are not without advantages, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/04 19:14 | link | comments

Build roads, and rail, and the markets will develop

WoC has a fine post about a big gov't railroad boondoggle in Tanzania, which has had excellent local market support characteristics.

While there are almost certainly other, more cost-effective ways of promoting development, I challenge anybody to show more cost-effective ways of GOVERNMENT funded development programs.

One of the curses of democracy is that, to be elected, the gov't must "do something".  My own guess is that road building and rail building, as gov't projects, have much greater unintended positive benefits than other gov't projects.

And almost ALL economists, including (especially?) the WB & IMF & University PhD. wienies (I'm jealous), underestimate the market passing info of retail markets.  Try to find good lit on it.  But low cost transportation, usually including high-cost initial capital, is a big stumbling block.

I advocate more WB road building, and rail building, projects so as to increase these benefits -- and less of big power generation and big factories.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/04 03:47 | link | comments

Is the Left Patriotic? Will the Left oppose Evil?

The Left seems unpatriotic only because America is currently the greatest fighter against evil.  In and before WWII plent of Leftists in the UK were "unpatriotic" against England fighting Nazi evil.

The US Leftist rot started primarily in Vietnam, where the first Democrat then Republican gov'ts were doing a lousy job fighting evil commies.  The Left sort of decided that fighting evil would always be done in a lousy way, and therefore shouldn't be done.

Kerry's 1971 choice: continue fighting evil in Vietnam, or Peace Now (and genocide).  The Left chose genocide, and peace. And denial of responsibility for the results of their choice.

Every choice has positives and negatives.  The negative of fighting evil: killing, dying, and even killing innocents.  The negative of NOT fighting evil: evil wins.

The Left pretends there is no negative to "not fighting evil." 

Funny how Rudy's fight against "small evil" in NYC was not so supported by the Left, until after he imposed it and it was successful in cleaning NYC up.  Rudy's not perfect, but his policy of fighting evil, even small grafitti evil, is the right policy for a better NYC, and a better world.

See Left2Right.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/19/04 23:23 | link | comments

Abstinence Only is best - ABC

King of Fools has a great post on AIDS.

Here's another view of the "problem".  No matter what the solution, there will be some failure rate.  Let's say that the solution with the lowest possible (unknowable) failure rate is 2% -- meaning 2% of the people will be infected with AIDS.

 

Using any other solution will result in more AIDS infections.

 

Nobody knows that it is 2%, instead of 1%, or even 3%; there is no good way to find out.

 

I believe a responsible abstinence only education, with BLAME to those who fail, will achieve the lowest failure rate.  All the Sex ed solutions will have a result of more folk with AIDS.  The Sex Ed solution providers will claim it is because the education is not "good enough".  But, if my belief is correct, the fault is that the minimum failure rate of optimal Sex Ed is higher than the minimum failure rate of abstinence only.

 

There will not be good ways to prove one or the other.  However, every time I see condom statistics on effectiveness, I see the caveat -- "used correctly".  This is hogwash.  Sex Ed in the real world ALWAYS means more sex, and more sex always means more sex with condoms used incorrectly (or "missed"), just as birth control pills are always, in the real world, occasionally missed.

 

What's extremely annoying is that the pro-Sex Ed folk refuse to accept they merely have a belief in their method, and exclude actual results based on a theory of "correct usage" -- which is never seen in the real world.

 

Even if ABC is the best, it will not be Perfect.  The Unreal Perfection is often the enemy of the good; and even the best.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/16/04 22:18 | link | comments (1)

Basis for laws and enforcement

Was sick yesterday, so made a few comments on other blogs only.

Michael won't become a Rep because of Christian Fundamentalists. I understand that, but disagree on the threats. His comments are full, as usual.

Kerry's censorship efforts against the Swifties is worse than Allen's desire:

Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle"

Allen was elected by folks who do NOT want to be taxed in order for their tax dollars support positive gay images. They don't pro-gay morals "forced down their throats", and are especially angry when it's done with their own money.

 

Ending gov't funding is not the same as banning. For many years the pro-life folk have been homeschooling -- let the pro-gays start home schooling. Replace lowest common denominator gov't schools with private schools full of passionately opinionated teachers who want their students to learn.

All kids should be getting gov't vouchers of the same amount so they can ALL go to private schools of their own choice. Until then, the more restrictions on spending/wasting gov't tax dollars, the better. Bush is already spending far too much (though Kerry never suggested spending less, except on defense).

The big issue for a Tolerant Liberal society is to find the limits of tolerance for those who are intolerant. I love Tom Lehrer's line There are people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate those kind of people! (National Brotherhood Week). For many decades, Dems have controlled the gov't purse -- and spent/wasted tax money on their "culture of death" progressive ideas.

 

The Right, in a healthy pendulum swing back, is now beginning to get a taste for spending blue state money on red state values. The two main responses are: 1) no, keep spending the gov't cash on pro-promiscuity ideas, or 2) no, stop the system of spending gov't cash on one kind of idea or another, let folks support what they want. (Clearly the Lib response).

As long gov't cash is used, there will be a culture war clash over how it is used: pro-life or pro-abortion.

The pro-choice position is to get rid of gov't control over the system, but letting parents of the children spend the cash on the private school of their choice. Individual, parental choice.

 

The pro-gays don't like this because so many parents are anti-gay.

 

++ So, schools teaching "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ... are just fine?

 

The Christian Fundamentalists *DO* have the desire to have laws enacted that reduce the freedom of all people to "sin" -- and most other people do not feel the enforcement power of the police should be used to punish many of these sins as "crimes". Like keeping the Sabbath holy (which has changed from Sat. to Sun.)

The Secular Fundamentalists have the same desire to enact laws, like funding gov't schools which promote homosexuality, that reduce the freedom of Christians to live in their preferred society.

 

Lies like the "Protocols" are not "just fine" -- but neither is sodomy to Christians. The question should be -- will a school teaching lies be made illegal? To this question, Libertarians would say "no" -- and both Secular and Christian Fundamentalists would say "yes", while disagreeing on which lies should be made illegal.

Right and wrong, truth and untruth and lie, legal and illegal. Politics is mostly about legal and illegal -- when should gov't use its monopoly of force.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/16/04 21:36 | link | comments

The Power of Shame

NRO has an important note on a cosmopolitan Iraqi woman, ashamed that the US had to liberate her.

 "You must not mind seeing American soldiers on the streets."

The woman's smile vanished. Her brow darkened and she shook her head. "Oh, no. I hate the soldiers. I hate them so much I fantasize about taking a gun and shooting one dead."

Stunned by her vehemence, "But American soldiers are responsible for your freedom!" I replied.

"I know," the woman snarled. "And you can't imagine how humiliated that makes me feel."

Yes, I can imagine it.  Iraq needs its own freedom fighter heros.  America hasn't quite found the way to help them get those heros, and to make sure the Iraqi heros win.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/14/04 22:20 | link | comments (1)

Abu Ghraib -- PC denial, marginalization, hypocrisy

Stanford Magazine article with 3 pictures of Abu Ghraib.

“What made denial or marginalization of the events impossible were the constantly unfolding visual reminders that we were perpetrating the kinds of abuses we had entered the arena to prevent,” says law professor Deborah Rhode, who directs the center and moderated the panel discussion. “That hypocrisy, in a useful sort of way, galvanized public opinion and focused on the need for the United States to play by international rules.”

 

I am enraged by Ms. Rhode’s words of “denial”, “marginalization”, and “hypocrisy”.  The Army did not deny the Abu Ghraib abuses – it fired the General.  The pictures of simulated torture, NOT real torture, created an opportunity for the World Press to complain, loudly, about America.  But only a sick person would say the pictures of simulated torture, similar to Dr. Zimbardo’s results, is the same kind of abuse as using a knife to behead prisoners. 

 

Usually I wouldn’t mind that Stanford avoids exploiting inflammatory pictures of any Americans being beheaded, or bodies abused, but this seems to be a clear case of hypocrisy to deny and marginalize the barbarism of the Islamofascists, and their own self-promotion in glorifying their exploits on internet video.  I sincerely doubt that Ms. Rhodes is advocating that the US plays by the same rules as the terrorists – but if not the terrorist rules, what does she mean?  A double standard of rules for the US, but none for the murderers? Perhaps she thinks the videotaped murders is part of a game the US is playing.  It’s not a game or verbal debate.  We are fighting, killing, dying, and even killing innocent people, because we are in a war to create a democratic Iraq, and we want victory in that war.  The terrorist murderers are not playing either – they are murdering and torturing in order to intimidate and govern by fear of death and indescribable torture.  Far more than Greg Miller’s recent interrogation article, this Rhode article is almost explicitly calling for America to lose, so that the unshown terrorist killers control Iraq.

 

Any and all supporters of the war need to accept that these and other abuses, like marines killing unarmed men who might be “faking” death, are all part of war –unintended, yes, but predictable, nearly inevitable.  And bad. I accept those consequences, and my own small responsibility for them.  The lesser evil as compared to not freeing Iraq.

 

I’m pretty sure that the radical feminist Ms. Rhodes was against the Vietnam War.  Somehow I doubt that she has accepted any responsibility for the unintended consequences of Kerry’s “Peace Now” advice – the SE Asian Killing Fields.  How ethical is it to oppose fighting evil?

Isn’t it hypocritical of her not to do so? 

 

Oh, I forgot.  Sudan must be marginalized; Rwanda was apologized for#; and never, ever, mention that anti-war protesters knew thousands would be murdered if the US left SE Asia. Ignore Cambodia, ignore re-education camps, ignore the Killing Fields.  Pretend they never happened.  But it’s OK. The Left really is against genocide – against Nazi genocide, the only group that PC folk will call Evil. And sure enough, the next Farm article was a fine Testimony of a Holocaust Survivor*, crowding out the more recent three genocides. Denial. Marginalization. Hypocrisy.  An ethicist’s words; self-description.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/14/04 21:52 | link | comments

No movie for Bernard

Joe says prolly no movie for Kerik.

Too bad no movie   -- it really should be made as an honest, schizoid drama.  The same guy, being both a hero AND a heel.

Maybe too much like real life.

 

But the marital affairs -- sex plus comedy (when one finds the note to the other).  And possibly his own guilt at the bad (business & spouse cheating), driving him to be better in the other ways.

 

Maybe a play, first?

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/14/04 21:06 | link | comments