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

Fantastic Iraq Democracy Revolution

 So many good places to go, to read, to visit:
Friends of Democracy -- blogging about the election.
Glenn at Instapundit -- lots of links.
Double Cannister -- lists of other turnout numbers, including US 2004 at 60.7%
Belgravia Dispatch -- some Iraqi quotes, some about MSM, some against idiot Juan Cole.
Rantwraith has a nice picture of the Purple Revolution.
Balloon Juice notices the Shifting Goalposts of the Bush-hate crowd.
Belmont Club does more on Juan Cole, and the question "Did we Win".  But the main answer is -- The Iraqi People WON!

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/31/05 11:07 | link | comments

Skype is great -- but now has spam

Skype spam  -- but still great free Voice over IP.  Skype.com

[13:02:39] Tom Grey says : Your English seems good.  How did you get all the way to Ghana?

[13:04:36] maryam_mohammed1970 says : Well,after my second son and my husband was killed.And my husband uncles started seeking my life and my son,bcos of my husband wealth.i flee with my son

[13:07:16] Tom Grey says : I hope you are safe now.

[13:07:27] maryam_mohammed1970 says : not quiet

[13:07:54] maryam_mohammed1970 says : I got informations that my husband uncle want to come to Ghana

[13:08:36] maryam_mohammed1970 says : To take the bank papers from me and take my husband money for his son

[13:08:49] maryam_mohammed1970 says : They are bad people,And i do not want to live here anymore

[13:09:00] Tom Grey says : No offense meant, but I'm really powerless and poor.  Happy enough to chat a bit, but I prolly won't be able to help you.

[13:10:59] maryam_mohammed1970 says : ok.nice to chat with you.

[13:11:11] Tom Grey says : Bye now.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/05 19:46 | link | comments

Auschwitz - Normblog - gov't by Death Squad

Norm Geras is doing great work on the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz  (by the Russians).  Many personal accounts of the evil that man can commit against fellow man.

The Children's Block  At Auschwitz.   The strength she imbued me with  

Try to Look  The shaming of humanity.

The sheer POWER of these testimonials, should remind folk about the evil of accepting gov't by Death Squad.

Norm quotes Jean Amery on Marxists claiming the Nazi evil comes from capitalism, and being refuted:

 anyone in his right mind had to see that Auschwitz had nothing to do with capitalism or any other economic system, but that it was the monstrous product of sick minds and perverted souls.

But actually Norm misses it.  It is a monstrous product of a sick system that puts a theoretical "collective good" above the good of the individual, and fails to put LIMITS on the power of gov't/ of any collective.

Norm is a famous "Marxist" -- and Marxist collectivism has overseen more evil than the Nazis.  (I think he should be ashamed, but he IS an academic -- and the commies aren't "really" Marxist ...)

I also still believe that too much Holocaust crowds out Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia -- and the Sudan, and Congo, today.  But I fully support significant memories on significant dates -- these days are such dates.  Norm fits better than most with the idea of supporting, through action, NEVER AGAIN.

It also strikes me that those decision makers who were deciding about the firebombing of Dresden, 14-15 Feb. 1945, were likely to have just seen the unbelievable pictures, from the Russians, of what the Evil Nazis were willing to do.  What the German people allowed Hitler to do.  What a plurality of German people voted for (once; then no more free press, leader for life, gov't by death squad...Arafat's PA?).  I don't remember Vonnegut mentioning Auschwitz in Slaughter House 5.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/05 14:35 | link | comments

Have too many died?

I've skipped the comment BS about the Lancet study being "accurate" or not. I'm pretty sure "lots" of Iraqi civilians have died.

More than I'm happy with.

Less than I think is "worth" the benefit of booting Saddam.

Until FactCheck George, or any Leftist, is willing to put their own number on how many civilian deaths in the last 2 years is worth Iraq having an election, it's silly to pool our ignorance over the exact number; 10 - 20 - 100 000; and how many died over the duration of the "sanctions" (anti-sanction sites were claiming 10 000/ month).

How many is "worth" it is not a factual issue, it's a Value issue. (Oops, maybe only Bush supporters really care about Values?)

But it also gets to the Unreal Perfection critique that the Left has. They want good things, but at no cost. There's No Free Lunch -- even if they try to vote for one.

The Battle of the Bulge from Dec 44 -- January 25, 1945, was a big deal. The US led allies could have had a huge setback, then. Had the US lost that battle, I'd say the firebombing of Dresden on 14-15 Feb. 1945 was MUCH MORE justified. But, after "winning" the Bulge, it was clear (to historians in hindsight) that the allies would win. In checking these dates, much closer together than I "felt" before, TmjUtah's point about what is known, at the time, is far more relevant. To the decision makers, it was not known if the Nazis had more "Bulge" level counter-attack possibilities. (I don't think Vonnegut, in Slaughter House 5, mentions the Bulge.)

I don't see how my reasonable complaint about arguably excessive Allied killings is like Bush=Hitler crap. There is one idea of war that any amount of collateral damage is totally acceptable. I don't hold that idea -- I hold that some collateral damage, if reasonable care is attempted to prevent them, IS totally acceptable. (And the bombing of Japan, especially Hiroshima, is VERY reasonable, to me.)

I "totally accept" Abu Ghraib -- the US military, at times there, acted in a criminal manner and should prosecuted, in a reasonable process. Like Gen Karpinski getting booted, and others getting punished.

But the expectation of some Unreal Perfection, like bozo drydock and Kimmit seem to have, is worse than stupid -- it's the kind of immorality that supports doing nothing in Rwanda but apologize a few years later.

Yet TmjUtah, do you think it IS possible for the good guys to use "too much" force, resulting in "too many" Iraqis killed by the coalition? I do.

And it's not easy to quantify -- but I feel if I don't have a number that's "too many", I can't honestly say any other number greater than 0 is NOT too many. If you don't have the intellectual courage to give YOUR number, that's also OK; I'll still like (most of) your comments (here even more than your own site. Funny, that.)

I will continue to criticize the Left for not being able to state how good it is to have booted Saddam, in numbers; how great it is for Iraq to be getting a democracy. But it's not just a "gift" from the US -- the Iraqis being murdered by the anti-democracy Death Squads are among the future heroes of democratic Iraq.

And ALL of the "violence" deaths in Iraq since the statue drop, are more properly placed as the responsibility of the anti-democracy Death Squads -- and their Sunni supporters who hide them/ fee them/ and enable them to kill. The election will prolly be the tipping point where most folk start lying more to the Death Squads than to the Iraq National Police.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/05 14:00 | link | comments

Bush is pushing to export democracy

Disenfranchised Curmudgeon is anti-Bush:

The rapidly growing threat of Iran and North Korea were news well before we invaded Iraq. This Curmudgeon was advocating then the need for an aggressive policy to contain these real risks. Instead, we tilted at windmills while the real “giants” went unopposed in any meaningful way.

There are basically two types of government.
By honest, free speech Democracy. Or by Death Squad.

Bush is choosing to push for democracy.  I say great.

Critics who complain refuse to be honest that their opposition to Bush IS, in fact, opposition to democracy in Afghanistan, or Iraq.  They set up a strawman and oppose that -- not the "real" Bush (of his actions).

 Or they complain he's not really doin enough!  Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Syria -- China!!!  Is the US going to attack them all???  If not, isn't W. a liar?

No; he said the USA will support democracy.  That's the right goal.  And attacking, at times, MIGHT be ther right action, but it doesn't make not attacking everywhere the wrong action.  It's dishonest to say Bush is bad for doing some good in one place, but not yet more good somewhere else.  (It's also hypocritical if you also opposed the good action he took, while calling him bad for not doing more of that opposed good action.)

 If Bush decides to attack Syria, OR Iran, or Sudan, next, I'll continue to support him.  No dictatorship is fully legitimate, they are all gov'ts of Death Squads.  Even China's gov't -- though China's too big to be attacked, unless they attack first.

 And if he doesn't attack, but puts other pressure -- I'll support that, too.  And if his Halliburton buddies get sweet deals, I'll oppose those deals.  And oppose the secrecy -- and call for more honest transparency.  In the US.  And in the UN.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/05 13:49 | link | comments

The Iraqi Vote is known already

 In Iraq, the "outcome" is known in advance -- more She'at will vote than Sunnis (Arabs), or Kurds (who are mostly Sunni), or both.

 Gov't by democracy, or by Death Squad.

 There should have been more municipal elections earlier, with more local control (BUGETS!!!) earlier, etc.

 But since Bush's re-election, the issue is how to decide on Iraq's next step -- voting or murdering. All against the election favor gov't by death squad.  Sunnis should be turning in the anti-democratic death squads they are afraid of.

Note that, while knowing the She'at will vote the most, this doesn't mean we know who will be in the 275 member parliament.  The names are NOT known -- it's a real vote.  Like Bush and Kerry.  NOT like Palestine.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/27/05 17:14 | link | comments

Zarqawi against Democracy -- I'm for it

Jeremy, on at Michael's, repeats Zarqawi’s threat:

"Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it." That's an offer the Iraqi people cannot afford to pass up.

 My own optimistic hope: A World Without Dictators.  In my lifetime!

 Even in Slovakia, I WANT to be a part of setting up an Iraq democracy; but with a wife and 3 kids we're NOT moving; not yet.

 The Bush-hating Left doesn't realize the "real" choices: gov't by democracy, or gov't by Death Squads.

 The media implicitly supports gov't by death squads.  I won't give the details of one of my "pleasant nightmares", but it involves a mass invitation to journalists and representatives of all the news media who have been covering Saddam and Iraq over the last two decades, in Baghdad after the election.

 And then the Iraqis putting them all under arrest for supporting Saddam and his "crimes against humanity", through their coverage and support of the Death Squads ... [snip]

 The media are and have been despicable.  Blogs are helping to change things, for the better.  The "other" democratic revolution.

Thanks Michael, for your contributions here and to Friends of Democracy.  May the Spirit of America expand throughout the Middle East!

 There are two real choices: Democracy (imperfect) or Death Squads.

 The Left wants an Unreal Perfection, and thus in their own fantasy they can oppose imperfect Democracy without, in their own minds, supporting Death Squads.

 In reality, their enemy opposition to real, imperfect Democracy means they DO, in third kind fact, support Death Squads, whose enemy is any democracy.  [Friends; Friends' friends; Enemy's enemy - third kind support]

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/27/05 17:12 | link | comments

Bush for freedom -- but where next? Sudan

Glad Christopher liked Bush’s speech -- since it fits my own vision of a World Without Dictators, I loved it.
But he’s being silly: The debate over the Iraq war ended almost two years ago
It's like saying the debate over Vietnam, the Killing Fields, Rwanda, or the Holocaust, is over. It's not even over over the Civil War.
Because the key issue remains: when should WAR be used to FIGHT EVIL?

And what is evil, and what level of war, and how costly, and what about mistakes, etc. Plus, you don't even offer your own opinion. Mine?
Sudan.

President Bush should talk about, and try to shame, every European Country's leader on their inaction over calling Sudan genocide; and their support for corruption (and ineffectiveness) at the UN. And Dems should get behind this activist effort -- bring peace and democracy to Sudan, next.
With or without the UN.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/27/05 16:50 | link | comments

Truth is better than lies for capitalism

 Prof. Maximilian B. Torres, of Acton Institute

From the elaborate deceptions at Enron and Dynegy, to the deliberate misrepresentations at WorldCom and Global Crossing, to the false claims at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, to the shredding of documents at Andersen and CSFB, to the concealment of information at Merck, Pfizer, and Shell Oil, the public has been assailed with too much news of truth defeating, truth deforming stratagems from business men and women of insufficient character who are caught in tight spots.

This leads me to think there would be a high quality service of Church Auditors, who scrupulously review the books of corporations.  If they are knowledgeable enough about the issues.

But like so many humans, there is the issue of believing they will not get caught.  So they keep doing it, until they are.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/26/05 16:03 | link | comments (3)

Bush for freedom AND reducing poverty

 Claudia Rosett in the WSJ reminds that in fighting against tyranny, Bush will also be helping poor people free themselves to create more wealth.

It would be good to get transparency in the tracking of the aid, who gets paid what, for what -- and what the results are.  All aid reports should be made public, both draft initial documents, and final documents.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/26/05 15:45 | link | comments (3)

Friends of Democracy in Iraq

 Friends of Democracy is a great effort.  I wouldn't know it was Michael, if he didn't tell me -- but I would have liked it, and felt at home there.

Democracy or Death Squads -- I support democracy.  AND freedom: of religion, of the press, of thought, of speech.
Especially speech to criticize the gov't.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/25/05 23:23 | link | comments

Capitalism, Democracy, Death Squads

 "Capitalism" is about the system of honest, voluntary contracts over well defined property rights -- with contracts and property rights enforced by police and courts.

It works at creating wealth because the decision makers use profit as their primary criteria for allocating scarce resources.  Profit is the measure of wealth created by the organization's managers.  Organizations not making profit are prolly not sustainable.  (I really like that "leftist" word -- sustainable. Because sustainability can be measured, and is, with profits...)

Clear Channel is almost certainly looking to get low cost content that is popular with some niche audiences, so as to sell the audience attention to advertisers; and thus make profits.  See Marc Cooper on conservative Clear Channel broadcasting radical Air America.

Insofar as "all" peaceful, honest contracts support freedom, Capitalism is very moral.  Insofar as peaceful tolerance supports what some consider more or less moral, Capitalism is amoral. 

When the rich capitalists are asking the gov't for almost anything, it is almost always to use the gov'ts power of FORCE to help that particular capitalist make more deals; often by stopping buyers (of sugar, say) from peacefully buying from other capitalists (poor sugar growers from Cuba, for instance).

The vast majority of successful entrepreneurs just want more money.  And are very willing to lobby for laws that help them; and all too often are willing to bribe gov't to help them.

The Dem project, of ever bigger gov't, has always resulted in more power for the corporations that then use the bigger gov't to make laws that help themselves get richer, with less wealth creation.

++ Michael and Reg, thanks for some sharp thinking.

But Michael left out Vietnam and the Killing Fields.  If you knew, in 1971, that the US leaving Vietnam would mean a genocide, do you stay and fight or do you leave and accept genocide?

I notice, with approval, that on this 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Kofi gave a reasonable nod to the three "acknowledged" post-WW II genocides: Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia.  (I don't know if he omitted the Chinese Cultural Rev and Great Leap.)

GM alluded to it -- Reg, you are being echo chamber unserious if you refuse to link to Pres. Bush's speech (NOT the NYT spin on the speech), and show how Bush's actual words sell ONLY WMDs to the USA.  I certainly admit they were the main point, especially with the UN.  But there's a huge difference between 4 points, the main one being WMDs, with the other ones also being significant, and having ONLY one point.

At the time, 2002 and early 2003, there were few anti-war folk authoritatively claiming Saddam had NO WMDs, and even Blix, in asking for more time for more inspections, admitted that Saddam FAILED to prove he had none. 

Saddam's game -- pretend he had WMDs.  Clinton's 1998 official policy of regime change in Iraq was, significantly, based on WMDs. 

You say you're sure "Condi Rice put out "information" that they had to know wasn't true. (The alternative - that they didn't know - is even more painful to contemplate.)"  I must say, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here -- no link, no quote.

I do believe the USA does NOT know.  Clinton didn't know; Bush & Condi didn't know; the CIA didn't know.  (Rummy prolly knew he didn't know, and suspected some unknown unknowns...)  I actually don't trust the US President to "really know" as much as notherbob2 thinks (but welcome, welcome -- not many Leftist blogs exist where we can have honest disagreement without brimstone).

So what about Iran's nukes?  I don't know; I don't think you know.  Should we invade?  If Tel Aviv becomes a mushroom cloud, will that "prove" you are wrong?  (I'll certainly claim it.)  This is asymmetrical falsifiability, though -- if the nuke or WMD occurs, it IS proof we were NOT firm/ strong/ aggressive enough.  If we are "too strong", like you claim we are in Iraq (and Afghanistan?), American Freedom still wins by leaving a "democratic colony" behind as we reduce the troops is some 4-10 years.  Still a big benefit.

Costs? Too long?  How long before you claim the UN has been in Kosovo too long?  Shouldn't we expect democracy in Kosovo MUCH faster than in Iraq?

Costs -- too many Americans dead?  Well, I have yet to read any Leftist put a number of Americans dead with "booting Saddam and losing X lives would be worth it, but X plus lives are too many".  You remember MY limit?  2500, about the number killed in the WTC, for Bush to get an "A" for regime change.  Right now he's at about 94%.

Costs -- Iraqis?  For the last year, it has been Iraqi Death Squads doing a lot of the killing, and the US response.  How to minimize the US deaths to the Sunni anti-Democracy Death Squads.  Nobody knows.  Please don't give me the pumped up Lancet numbers.  I think Iraqbodycount has better numbers.

"It's too high."  Yes, because the Sunnis have not yet accepted that they WILL NOT be ruling Iraq.  So they have not been turning in the Death Squad terrorists.  But the tide has already turned, Zarqawi is saying "democracy" is an American trick, yada yada.  Iraqis see the real choice of how their next government will be formed. 

Through democracy, or by Death Squads.

I support democracy. ... and you, Reg?

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/25/05 22:47 | link | comments (5)

Yes, the Koran too -- Ally with Sistani

 David Frum thought the 20 minute speech was a bloated 14 (great) speech.  He is especially against Bush's:

This bothered me, too.  Because we ARE in a religious war, but so is Islam.   Here's the point.  Either Islam changes to be compatible with secular democracy, or we keep fighting towards that, or we lose.  Adding "the Koran" means Muslim Bush supporters/ democracy supporters, perhaps like Sistani?, can say that Bush respects them.  Maybe David and Peggy Noonan don't want Bush to be allied with Sistani -- but I do.  And this helps.

Democracy can be compatible with a modern Islam, even one that is suspicious of democracy.  But a majority Islam that denies democracy, and rules poorly, will inevitably cause pro-democracy feelings, and anti-Islamic feelings.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/24/05 14:14 | link | comments

Help the poor end Sex Slavery

  Heartbreaking NYT Nicholas Kristof story about sex slaves in Cambodia, and how helping one was a success, then a failure – because the culture around her failed to help her. 

“She invested $100 I had given her to build a shack and stock it with food and clothing. For a few months, business boomed.

The problem was her family. Srey Neth's parents and older brothers and sisters had a hard time understanding why they should go hungry when their sister had a store full of food. And her little nephews and nieces, running around the yard, helped themselves when she wasn't looking.”

 Then Mr. Kristof helped more, and got Srey Neth to the city, and she’s now happy.

But the point should be that helping the father, the head of the family, was more important than helping the poor daughter.  It seems very likely that if the same initial help had been given to the father, with the stipulation that NO children be sold into sex slavery, he could have created a successful small family business.  This seems to be one of the things the 5 Talants foundation is doing.  (via Acton Institute)

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/24/05 14:01 | link | comments

The religious War

 I agree with Donald Sensing that it is a religious war.
A war INTERNAL to Islam -- the Muslims must find an Islam that is compatible with the Koran, as interpreted, AND with democracy.

 As I think of D. Frum's complaint about Bush including "Koran", I now feel Bush is more correct.  The US must be on the side of an interpretation of the Koran, the good parts, that are compatible with democracy.

Wherever there is not democracy, there is gov't by death squads.  (Which the anti-Americans support, implicitly.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/24/05 12:16 | link | comments

Reg (from Marc Cooper): "[Tom] you are fundamentally an idealist who's cut a deal with people who have a radically different morality than you do. You're chewing on their "pro-life" bone and all of the "freedom" smokescreen for a fundamentally flawed Iraq policy. But you're not even going to get moral satisfaction on those, because America will throw the GOP out of power if they really do outlaw abortion and the neo-con crusade is rapidly running aground on the shores of reality."

 I want a World Without Dictators.  Yes, Idealism.  Gov't by democracy, NOT Death Squads.  Bush is claiming to be against death squad gov'ts, for the selfish security of America.  This is the fundamentally correct Iraq strategy.  (It's possible Bush made tactical errors in achieving democracy there, but this claim is not even certain -- where are the examples of it being done better?)

Reality is choosing between real alternatives.  Bush-backed regime change in Iraq OR continued rule by Saddam's Death Squad.  Opposing Bush meant, in reality, supporting death squads.  Today the Left supports death squads rather than accepting America being successful at promoting democracy.  This is despicable.

 Stay and fight in Vietnam until we Americans learn how to help the S. Vietnamese have a democracy OR accept commie victory, and gov't by death squads.  Anti-War = support death squads (in reality.)

The Left is pretty good at complaining about the Right support of death squad -- but is hypocritically quiet about the Left Death Squads.

 As a former Libertarian, I have always supported "choice", restricted by the maxim of not hurting "somebody else".  Every human fetus has different DNA than the mother -- it IS "somebody else".  None is so innocent, so helpless, so poor.  Killing because birthing is "inconvenient", so as to support irresponsible sex, is one of the core parts of the Dem message.  Dems will, increasingly, lose as long as they refuse to care about the lives of the most innocent, helpless, and poor.  Outlawing partial-birth abortion will not make the GOP lose.  Reversing Roe, so that states decide on abortion, will not make the GOP lose.

Proposing a Federal anti-abortion amendment prolly won't happen until after a Federal anti-gay marriage is passed; but most folk don't think such an amendment will pass.  As long as the Reps are fighting about the laws, they will be getting stronger while not-winning; and the "conservative = anti-change" Dems, who oppose any new restriction on the right of mothers to kill any unwanted human fetus, will be weaker on this "moral values" issue. 

Top CEOs do NOT like a truly free market -- I know that.  You should know that, too.  What they want is gov't protection/ loopholes/ "regulation"  so that they do not have to allow the customers the easy possibility of choosing something else.  On taxes, look at Heinz-Kerry; she made millions but paid less than 18% (because most of her listed income was tax free bonds).

In practice (reality?), the flat rate taxes as introduced in Russia, Estonia, and Slovakia, for example, have resulted in higher absolute amounts of tax revenue collected by the gov't.  The "theory" of progressive taxation fails the "reality" test of tax collection in the real world.

I, too, support a "wealth tax" -- especially on land value.  (See Henry George), but most important is a reduction in US gov't spending.  The Dems real problem is the success of American Capitalism, for the average worker.  Some 68% of Americans are buying their own homes.  On an absolute global level, they are ALL "rich".  So the Dems are basically supporting "take from the super-rich, to give to the rich".  This may win on a populist envy-based, destroy/ tax the super-rich platform, but it fails any honest "moral superiority" test.

Rich Americans don't "need" the gov't to take more from the super-rich.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/24/05 12:00 | link | comments

Bush is inaugurated

Belgravia Dispatch likes the Bush inaugural address.

I love it -- even though Peggy Noonan didn't.

I really really want to live in A World Without Dictators.  And to claim that as both a goal, and realistic (though not in the next 4 years, unfortunately.)
Unless China votes for it (!!)

This is also the "end" to the "war" on terror -- although with only democratic states in the world, the terrorists will be mostly drug gangs.

The big question is how fast to export -- slow, with peace.  Or quite fast after a successful WMD attack on a Western City (like Tel Aviv?).

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/05 19:18 | link | comments

Tolerance for sinful gay actions

 Michael doesn't like Dobson. Some people on the more crimson end of the spectrum don’t do Red America’s image any favors. Look no further than the latest hysterical outburst by the brainless, bigoted blowhard James Dobson.

Dobson is neither brainless nor an idiot, nor that much of a blowhard. (Where's the full quote in context?)  He's a person who sincerely wants to minimize homosexual behavior in the USA...  While accepting that gay sex remain legal -- it's not clear to me that he wants to reinstate any sodomy laws or use of more force to punish that behavior.  He is strongly opposed to any promotion of the gay agenda (gay lifestyle is 'equal but different' to straight lifestyle).  He also believes the Bible calls gay sex "sinful", and he is concerned that the gay agenda includes declaring parts of the Bible as unacceptable*, for instance as  "hate speech".  As has already occurred in Europe AND the USA*.

 Michael, I know you disagree with this desire. You have fine gay friends.  I do (did?) too.  And I see there hasn't been much AIDS discussion here, either. 

AIDS, as well as the demographic trends (noted by Wretchard), has convinced me, on "civilization utilitarian" grounds, that homosexual promotion is a mistake.  As is the more serious sexual promiscuity; even more serious abortion ethic (is OK); and the most serious huge divorce rates (as high among Christians as non-believers, to the shame of Christian family folk.)

The high divorce rate problem (my mother divorced 3 different men; my father 4 different women -- I have a half-sister and a half-brother who are unrelated to each other) is a little bit like human rights violation in China.  Just too big a problem to do much about.  Even though it might be the biggest, worst problem.

Let's remember that the pro-abortion courts "forced" the pro-abortion morality into the Law of the Land.  It wasn't done by democratic votes.  Whenever I hear opposition to having "morals shoved down their throats", this fact doesn't seem to come up.  The FMA is a democratic response to stop the imposition of pro-gay morals by the courts.

On AIDS, most gays who have been infected were infected ... by irresponsible gays.  If not criminally irresponsible.  But I don't see many calls, here or elsewhere, to hold infectious gays to anything close to the same level of responsibility as drunk drivers, for instance.

How many gays have to die before "infecting another" (knowingly OR unknowingly) is a crime that is actually enforced?  If Sully (great writer!) indulges in his preferred bare-back riding sex play, and infects somebody, should he be treated as a criminal?  I think so.

*In Sweden a preacher was sentenced to jail (don't know if he served) for hate speech against gays.  In America, a Christian former-lesbian, separated from prior lesbian lover, was prohibited from reading parts of the Bible on homosexuality to her daughter.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/05 19:16 | link | comments (5)

Ideas for Dems

I just don't know how to "sex up" balanced thinking on good and bad points of complex subjects. Of course, I try for solutions, rather than Marc's high quality, but almost exclusively negative, criticism of just about everything.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice was a respected Dean at (my alma-mater) Stanford University. I actually think she has been the single biggest influence on Bush's thinking about foreign affairs -- so State is the perfect place for her (I suggested VP. Had Bush lost, I'd have said NOT choosing her for VP was his biggest mistake.)

Some critics suggest she has little merit, and is just a token. Merit / token? Wasn't Bill Clinton the Token White Southern Male Democrat (hard to find then, too) that the Dems could scrape together -- and wasn't that good enough to become President, although elected by only 43% of the vote?

The Dems are about to lose the church-going Catholics, because they've excommunicated pro-life folk. Wallis is fine (as Rosedog says); there was a nice little debate between him and the Action Institute President, Father Sirico (a very Libertarian oriented priest), on Lehrer (?). Bush only got 52% of Catholics -- looks set to increase when the John Paul II Bishops start not giving communion to those (token?) "Catholics" who publicly support killing human fetuses.

The Dems need to decide how much "toleration" they are going to force down the throats of Bible believers -- who have LOTS more children.

The Dems could follow the Montanan's efficacy of economic populism in red America. He swept into office on a campaign of anti-corporate, anti-corruption, pro-small business and small farmer/rancher, pro-sportsman sentiment that (gasp) for the most part ignored social issues, and focused on bread and butter stuff. Anti-Big corporation; anti-corruption. More transparency. In gov't too -- like in schools, and testing results.

Get rid of most tax loopholes and write-offs. Accept a flat rate tax of some 25 or 20%; and hugely reduce the corporate money in politics -- most of which goes to insure special interest tax breaks. Yes, I mean give up on envy. The desire to punish the rich just because he's rich, and poverty still exists.

Finally -- start hiring more people. Start companies where the goal is not "profit maximization", but employment maximization. With very transparent books, so employees know they are getting a "fair share" of, at least, that company.

Teach a man to fish, and he feeds himself ... but still needs clothes and housing. Offer him a job and you offer him -- civilization. - Tom Grey

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/05 19:08 | link | comments

Condoleezza Rice - Secretary of State

Congratulations to Condi!  US Secretary of State!

Crush Kerry reminds us of why we went after Saddam:

The reasons for war:
1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Not included in this list is the WMD claim (I think it should be; 3b – Threat of WMDs).
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,

The fact that this claim turned out to be overblown IS a problem, but it change from “perfection” into rubbish; merely weakens a no-brainer into just a strong argument.

Condi is defending herself well, it seems by reading The Age. 

 
Of course, Condi agrees with me!  So she must be right:
ultimately Iraqis have to be willing to defend and fight for their freedom. Senator, I've thought a thousand times about how one thinks about nation-building, something that I famously said we probably wouldn't be involved in. And I - we have been, and it's turned out that we've had to be, because our security depends on states that can function, on not having failed states in the midst.

 
Belgravia Dispatch asks if Condi’s will be a kinder, gentler approach.

I don't see Condi being in any real sense "kinder, gentler" than Powell.  In fact, I see the opposite -- Condi being more firm.  But in the publicity sense, I can believe she will allow the Euro folk (wimps?) to portray her as less hard-line.

Because Condi will be able, in all likelihood, to deliver on deals that Powell could not, she is more likely to be more effective.

It may well have been the case that Condi was the main Bush influence on foreign policies (a black woman pulling Bush's strings??? Yowsa!), and tacitly supporting Rummy against Powell.  I really do not know the extent of Rice Powell conflict, if any.

I'm sure Bush trusts Condi in a deeper, more significant way than he trusted Powell.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/20/05 18:20 | link | comments (2)