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

Russian Keyboard

Can I type in Russian in motime?
Сфт Ш ензу шт Кгыышфт шт ьщешьую

Ш ерштл ыщю
I think so.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/28/05 02:47 | link | comments (1)

Tennessee to Ukraine Belarus Lebanon

Bill Hobb’s  The Age of Blogging Dreams

 [If my dream for the Tennessee blogosphere were realized]:

-- there would be a slew of Tennessee bloggers reporting and commentating on every single niche of state government, local government, and the news media. Every town - your town - would have a local blogger who intensively covers local government.

-- , every single political reporter in Tennessee would be watch-dogged by at least two dedicated, prolific bloggers for errors, bias and key omissions.

-- , every elected official in Tennessee above the rank of constable would blog, and every last one of them would be watch-dogged by at least two bloggers.

-- , every public document at every level of government would be posted online in easily-searchable databases, accessible for free, so that the public (including bloggers) could see for themselves.

-- , there would be dozens if not hundreds of blogs by experts in such things as education, healthcare, business, culture, medicine, law, taxes, law enforcement, religion, constitutional rights, and many other topics.

-- , every significant newspaper in Tennessee would publish all of its stories online in blog format, filled with links to the documents and other resources they quote from or reference and links to the websites of the people and organizations they talk about - and with a functioning comments feature so that readers who don't have blogs could still respond.

-- , those same newspapers would never put their content in a paid-access-only archive, and it would never disappear from their archives.

-- , every newspaper would post bios of every reporter and editor online, so that bloggers could link to the bios of reporters whose work they are scrutinizing - so readers could have a better understanding of the expertise, the background and the possible biases of the reporters.

-- , journalists would view the publication or broadcast of their stories as closer to the beginning of the journalistic process than the end, and they would monitor the blogosphere and respond - in print, broadcast or at least online - to critiques of their stories, and to new relevant information surfaced by the blogosphere.

-- , readers who read a blog regularly would occasionally drop $10 or $20 in the blogger's tip jar.

Bill Hobbs believes, as do I, that blogging can be a revolution in citizen journalism, and in democratic government transparency.

The Reps and Dems should get together and try to push the UN to reform itself and become more open and honest – every contract should be in the public domain, every progress report, every official meeting.  Yes, too much information for anybody to read it all – but those most interested will read parts of it, and point out problems.  PLUS, there is the Moral Suasion issue, opposite of Moral Hazard, that by knowing the public is watching, there is much less temptation to start down the wrong/ corrupt path.

Each NGO in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia: and Lithuania, Latvia, Poland; as well as Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary – can all support each other.  Except for language differences, far more similarities of society should allow lessons learned and other ways of supporting each other.  Thru the internet, using low cost Skype or other communication means, and email, and newsletters, and blogs.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/26/05 18:30 | link | comments (1)

PC journalist truth

Truth telling is important -- and it gets to the heart of the issue.  What is the PURPOSE of the newspaper?  Is the purpose to give a fair and balanced report, or is the purpose to get people angry enough to actually DO something.  Do something like: leave Vietnam; impeach Nixon; vote Carter; oppose Reagan; oppose military build-up; oppose Bush; support gov't programs; support UN programs; oppose war.

Passion usually wants an active response.  Political response usually requires outrage.  The passion for "truth" too often changes into a passion for some "desired result", and as soon as a result is desired, full truth becomes inconvenient.  

Why are there so many pictures of Abu Ghraib, but so few of beheadings, and of headless bodies?  Where are the daily pictures and body counts of those being murdered in the (non-genocide?) Sudan?

Why aren't the dead voters who supported Dems in Washington state an outrage?  There's LOTS of truth, data, but choosing what's on the front page seems to be an anti-American, anti-capitalist manipulation.

Volker's whitewash UN coverup commission had two top guys resign in disgust, why isn't that front page news?

Best of the web notes Kerry's 85th day, failure to sign the form which must not be named--why isn't that truth important?

Leftist media bias is mostly based on what truths they publish, and which ones they ignore.
(Inspired by PressThink)

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/26/05 18:26 | link | comments

Non-responsible PC critique on Bolton

I'm getting more clear about how I don't like it when Leftists use attack questions.  From Marc Cooper's Bolton attack comments, and my notes, here's more.

M. Turner writes: "That's such brilliant logic, Tom. Once you know a color is not black, you know that it's white. Once you know a color is not white, you know it's black. You can use "there are only two choices" logic for all kinds of things."

What the heck does this mean?  Either race IS important, or it IS NOT important, to Powell and Rice.  But I guess your statement is 'brilliant mush pretending to be sarcastic, so naturally Leftists will laugh and think they are so clever, logical, and superior, while being nearly content free, which allows deniability for almost any restatement'

Wait, I remember.  I actually say something: "race is important", but like most Leftists, rather than quote me and discuss what I say, you create a strawman 'once a color is not black, you know it is white.'  So clever you are, so logical, so intellectually dishonest.  No wonder in every argument, you always win (in your own mind) (AND in the mush minds of other Leftists).

Similarly in what you say about tempers:

"I see. So long as a diplomat doesn't actually HIT anybody, it doesn't really count."

Here you say, sarcastically, what you do NOT mean.

If this was not sarcastic it would lead you to support Bolton-- since he didn't hit anybody, or have any interns service him, or have any sexual harassment suits brought against him.  How nice, you get to feel superior and critical without being responsible for saying anything.  More Leftist weasel words.

I have to laugh when you call Eagleburger's endorsement fact-free, but then you note the facts!  Were you to be honest, you would merely say Bolton's energetic support was fairly wasted (where I'd prolly agree), but that's not snarky enough.

It IS true that I think objecting to Bolton because of an occasional temper tantrum is a weak critique, especially when it is being brought out by such wimpy not-clearly pro-American folk as Powerline notes about Freeland.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010277.php

On legitimacy, you are correct that democracy, alone, is not full legitimacy.  Human Rights (given by our Creator) are superior to all, and a limit on democracy.  Even if the majority believes it is OK to kill innocent fetal humans (so as to enjoy more sexual promiscuity.  Yum yum, consumer sex; how else to sell materialistic junk).  If an Iraqi democratic majority takes away human rights, they will become less legitimate.

Bolton is NOT "my" great hope.  But he's the guy Bush chose, and seems a reasonable choice to kick some butt at the UN, prolly with some temper (but not actual violence).  I think we need somebody who is able to talk to the UN, repeatedly, about the failure of the UN to stop genocide, and the failure of the UN to stop child-raping ... by UN forces.  And even get outraged about it.

The problem NOW is the hysterical Dem anti-Bush whining, enabled by Leftist media, and a witch hunt against Bolton.  This means that if he is NOT confirmed, there is much less chance of reform at the UN.  Of course, Leftists will absolve themselves of any responsibility, as usual.

Like Marc Cooper, a strong critic of both Parties -- always non-responsible.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/26/05 18:01 | link | comments

The News Revolution

When the Economist is talking about the future of journalism, quoting a great speech by Murdoch on how the news folk are out to lunch, it's clear the news world is changing.

Whereas 56% of Americans haven't heard of blogs, and only 3% read them daily, among the young they are standard fare, with 44% of online Americans aged 18-29 reading them often, according to a poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

Blogs, moreover, are but one item on a growing list of new media tools that the internet makes available. Wikis are collaborative web pages that allow readers to edit and contribute. This, to digital immigrants, may sound like a recipe for anarchic chaos, until they visit, for instance, wikipedia.org, an online encyclopaedia that is growing dramatically richer by the day through exactly this spontaneous (and surprisingly orderly) collaboration among strangers. Photoblogs are becoming common; videoblogs are just starting. Podcasting (a conjunction of iPod, Apple's iconic audio player, and broadcasting) lets both professionals and amateurs produce audio files that people can download and listen to.

PressThink is on top of many of these changes.  With links to other great sites.  Too many to notice.

First Draft is highlighted by Jay, and is also full of links.

What is relevant to support an open society in Ukraine?  In Russia?  In Belarus?  More thoughts later, comments welcome.

Readership Institute at Northwestern.  Bakersfield local paper.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/25/05 13:22 | link | comments

Bolton, Powell, genocide, UN and reform

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/25/05 12:28 | link | comments (1)

Leftist bias in STANFORD magazine

Dear STANFORD mag,

As a 1976 transfer from the US Naval Academy, it was great to see that Stanford still accepts transfers, although it’s true that missing Freshmen friends is a definite loss.  It was sad to read so many Leftist PC-biased articles, biased most in what is NOT said: Stedman at UN wanting a bigger UN SC and 100 other cosmetic changes – no mention of how unlikely it is that any of his changes would help the people of Darfur, dying by hundreds each week . A great note on Security Specialists & simulation supported by the good UN, but no mention of Stanford’s censorious exclusion of ROTC studies. A fantastic story of mass graves in Rwanda , but no mention of US & UN allowing genocide (Dem Pres. Clinton, 1994 UN head of peace-keeping, Kofi Annan).  A touching story of Cambodia and the suffering under a communist death squad government, but no mention of Presidents Ford & Carter, who, along with the UN (failure again), allowed the communist Killing Fields genocide – in the unmentioned 30 year anniversary of its start.

 

The alternative “world policeman” to the USA is the UN, likely the “values” of anti-terror writer Richard Deich.  Yet STANFORD’s unspoken, uncritical support for the UN as good, despite its repeated, consistent, and structurally inevitable failures, is as intellectually dishonest as it is deadly – to those innocents being murdered by governments with UN Human Rights Commission membership.  The wondrously interesting Geoff Nunberg should be looking for liberal bias more in what is not said, rather than explicit labels.  Though I doubt he would label as “liberal” (Leftist) his own anti-capitalist quote “We don’t know whether we’ll be able to pay for our lunch in 10 years.”  As laughably ludicrous, and biased, as the Leftist continued support for big government to solve problems (noting that Bush shows how big gov’t failure is bi-partisan).

 

Perhaps Nunberg could comment on whether Ms. Schiebinger’s ‘disappointment and sadness’ about Larry Summers implies her position is that the number of females born as physics geniuses is essentially equal in number to male born geniuses.  Of course she doesn’t say THAT, and it’s probably false—but politically incorrect to notice. If equality in geniuses born isn’t what she means, then what does she mean? 

 

I look forward to the next issue, despite expecting more Leftist STANFORD bias.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/23/05 17:12 | link | comments

Belarus needs democracy, too

Condi (the Black Princess? Panther?) has said she'll support dissidents in Belarus.  Charter97 has details of reactions to this speech, though not the text (that I can find, so far).

 Speaking in Russia earlier this week, Rice called Belarus "the last dictatorship in Europe." Her session on Thursday with Belarussian dissidents visiting with her at the NATO summit in Lithuania was designed to advance the pro-democracy wave that has swept over other former Soviet satellites in recent months.

This could be great news, though it can also be counter-productive.  However, Reagan turned out to be NOT counter-productive, so it's not at all clear that this would be.  How help can be achieved is a bigger question, though.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/22/05 19:36 | link | comments (1)

Some Libertarian Paternalist Thoughts

Pejman at TCS takes a look at the NYT doing a write up of the 2003 paper (on my sidebar) Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron.

Pejman doesn't like it, based on what he reads in the NYT.  He should know they're likely to do a hatchet job; which is one reason he's wrong...

I call myself a libertarian paternalist (in Slovakia), based on the original 58p paper:

The NYT article is, in fact, a straw man type of creation to discredit the idea.

The paternalism refers to the INEVITABLE default choice, and says the decision to make the system one with opt-in or opt-out (for more additional choices ) should be explicit "for the common good."  Yes, whatever that means; but it is clearly NOT the alternative decision, "against the common good."  

The libertarianism refers, always, to more choice between alternatives.

The Libertarian (non-paternalist) wants to eliminate social security altogether; and end all gov't involvement and funding in schools.  The Paternalist (non-libertarian) wants a nanny state to decide for you on a social security plan (like today); and to decide for you on a gov't funded school (like today).  And maybe allow an opt-out on the school, but still forced to pay for the gov't school (double pay if you choose otherwise).

This libertarian paternalist wants to ADD a choice to opt-out of social security and put that money into a private account (default of T-bills, other choices available).  I want to ADD the choice of vouchers for schools, so every parent gets a voucher amount they can use to send their child to any school.

If advocating this sounds more likely to make life better than advocating the pure Libertarian "get gov't out" -- then what do you think you are?  I call it libertarian paternalism.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/20/05 15:54 | link | comments

God is Truth, a rock, not sand

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/20/05 10:00 | link | comments

Abortion may cause Chinese nuclear war

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/20/05 02:09 | link | comments (6)

Secular hedonists are against inconvenience

In my prior posts, Howard, the great technical brains behind mo'time has some issues with me.  I find some of his "questions" to actually be attacks, and responded in kind.  But this should be more clear:

Howard, I don't think I called anybody any names. "You may have noticed, if your read my comment, that I put question marks after my remarks, asking you to clarify" -- that's a quote from you (with bad “your”), but I'll quote me now: "are you just too lazy?"  Or, do you not read what I actually write because it “would be inconvenient?”

Of course, we both know that the question form of a statement is a mere dodge from responsibility for actually making a statement, or insult.  As I read your comment, I find mostly dodged-responsibility questions, NOT statements of positions that YOU are willing to argue for.  (This is clearly seen in the lack of any of your answers to those questions.)

This non-responsible pseudo-question crap is part of the PC attack (part, not all; it's all very complex, you know).  Let me be more clear and honest here: I find "attack questions" to be intellectually dishonest, and even rude.   By your own dodge "asking for clarity" is NOT making a statement, it is NOT "saying something."  I ask you, and all Leftists, to say something.  Of course, I WAS attacking you in my questions, as you were attacking me. (I feel better writing that.  Do you agree you actually WERE attacking me?)  While I genuinely did (and do) want you to clarify, I also certainly wanted to imply that you are being lazy and that you don’t read my actual words because they would be inconvenient to your own perspective. 

I laughingly “ask if/ call” your answer Lazy / Inconvenient, the same two of the main reasons for college educated folk to not have kids, especially US Leftists.  I claim that many, if not most, decisions to NOT have babies are lazy / inconvenience type decisions.

"Don't think they would be good parents."  Well, nobody is the perfect parent.  Unreal Perfection is another long term issue on this blog.  This is most likely a rephrasing of "to do a good job as a parent means I would have to give up my non-parent fun, and I want my fun."  Not too lazy to be a parent, but kids too inconvenient.  “Were abused” – a better reason; although the extent of the abuse is an issue.  Therapy should be tried; and having kids is likely part of the best therapy; finally living in the shoes of a parent with the conflicts between self-desires and child-needs.  And yes, try to give love and TIME to the kids. 

"Lacking cash" -- this is silly.  Kids do NOT need fancy clothes or expensive schools or houses.  They need care and attention -- watch kids outside playing with a ball, or even just a stick.  Yes, it's a bit of an embarrassment to grow up "poor" in the US ; I didn't like it myself.  Again, this excuse is NOT from the kids POV, it's from the parents. 

Below the US poverty line, yes, too little cash.  Above the poverty line, more unwilling to change lifestyle / kids inconvenient; though “according to their own value system” is a nice little rationalization (lie to self) to avoid admitting they don’t want to give up their happy, responsible, childless hedonism.  The pleasures of the moment.  The late night dinners and dancing and parties till 3 am.  Thank you, Howard, for clearly implying the problem.  They value their hedonism more than kids.

"Dedicated to career."  Yep.  That's the big too selfish – kids inconvenient to the career.  ‘Cash first, kids later.  Maybe.  Or let the Mexicans and Muslims and Mormons have all the kids (I’m busy).’  

Funny, you don’t mention “not married.”  That’s an excellent reason NOT to have kids.  Or sex.  Sex with the spouse should be the socially accepted reward for all the work and inconvenience of having the kids that sex would result in.  And no sex outside of marriage.  (Of course, how could cars be sold without sex? Or cola? Or anything?)

Secular hedonism is leading to the PC supported demographic death of the Liberal (PC) West.  Also called the Roe effect, though that’s a smaller part of the “no kids yet.”

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/19/05 16:03 | link | comments (5)

Secular Hedonism Attack Questions and Demographics

 The technically great Howard has some comments for me, but my response deserves a post.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/19/05 11:53 | link | comments

Algeria War 54-62

 A long post (via Wretchard and FreeRepublic) on the  Algeria War from Paul Johnson's Modern Times gives a horrific picture of successful terrorism.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/18/05 19:58 | link | comments

30 years after Khmer Rouge

Thanks to Boston Globe for giving a notice about it.  The Left argued, passionately, the at the US should leave Vietnam.  The anti-war Left.  Bah.  They supported the alternative, and the alternative was genocide.  But none accept that the genocide occurred because the US ran away, because the policy of the Left was to leave.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/18/05 13:30 | link | comments

Gandhi & US blacks accept genocide in Sudan

 War, not non-violence, is the only way to stop genocide -- short of letting the killers murder all they want.  Sylvester Brown of  the St. Louis Post admits, quite nicely, to getting his facts refreshed, after Glenn (Instapundit) outed his oversight; yes, Bush did claim that Iranians deserved freedom (did Bush mean Iraqis?), and to Iraqis that "your enemy is ruling your country."  I love that line.  I fully support Bush's vision, which will eventually mean (my new motto):
A World Without Dictators.

Brown notes, correctly, that Bush emphasized the threat of WMDs.  And how Bush was prolly right to do so, since most Americans were against the war otherwise.  It's good to be against unneeded war, but it's not clear when war is needed.  The problem is this: in any real war, innocent people are going to be killed by YOUR side.  If the reason for the war is not worth becoming a killer of some innocent people, the war is not worth it.  But Brown needs to be looking at not only Iraq (& Lebanon), but also Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Consider Gandhi in the Sudan.  From the great movie there is Gandhi's fine line: "There are many things I would die for.  There is nothing I would kill for."  If stopping genocide required Gandhi to kill somebody, he would accept genocide.  This seems to be the state of some 89% of the black American voters who voted for Kerry, and against Bush taking action.  The US has said Sudan is committing genocide, the UN says no.  Only some war crimes.  So indict the individuals, but no regime change (and prolly no stop to the genocide, but it's not really genocide anyway so there's no need to stop it).

Isn't it time for Brown, and all US Blacks (and Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Greys!), to look at Sudan and ask: how many must be murdered before real action is called for?  And if the UN fails, as it almost always has in the past (Srbrenica, Rwanda, Cambodia, North Korea), when should the US take action without the UN?  How many black Sudanese must be murdered before the genocide is so immoral that a war against genocide is called for?  5 thousand, 40 thousand, 300 hundred thousand?  Or will it be over a million -- accepted by Gandhi loving US blacks?

I'd guess Brown supported Clinton in 1996.  In other words, when there was a US President who lied about genocide against black Africans in Rwanda, and had a deliberate policy of "not calling it genocide", this type of president is the kind that Mr. Brown finds worthy of support.  800 000 murders wasn't enough of a US & UN failure to have the leaders fired.

Brown's continued Bush-bashing insures a higher number of Sudanese murders before action, if ever.  Whatever the already mind-numbing huge atrocity body count is, unserious discussion about when war is justified means accepting the evil of genocide.  Opposing the fight against evil supports the evil, Gandhi notwithstanding. 

" When did the United States become the chief exporter of democracy to the Arab world? "  -- few indeed are the usually general type questions so easy to answer with a single date:  9/11/01

It's time for Brown and other Dem Party hacks to give up opposing Bush's democracy exports, and try to have ideas on how to do it better, faster, with less loss of life (American and non-), with less US taxpayer cost.  Not only because that's the only way the Dems will ever win elections again, but also because it's the good thing to do.  It is good to fight evil; and it is necessary.  It doesn't always mean war, but it does meant truth -- naming evil: in Sudan, in Syria, in Zimbabwe, in North Korea.

Glenn's Martin Luther King quote is worth noting again (correcting "your enemy") from Richard Land:

Richard adds more:

Every dictator in the world is an enemy of democracy, even if temporarily allied with some important US gov't policy.  The world is at a tipping point, where democracy is ready to become not only the dominant form of gov't, but the only truly legitimate form.  With all the good and bad (eg corruption) that comes with it

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/18/05 11:19 | link | comments (2)

Katka is the Slovak Superstar

 For the past 3 months, Friday nights have mostly been reserved for Slovakia looking for a SuperStar.  We have one, finally.  She's great (though not as great as #2 or #3, in my opinion;  my wife likes to listen to her the most.)  (Link is in slovak -- just download the files and listen.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/17/05 23:33 | link | comments

The demographic drum beat of Western doom

 Wretchard:  "Colonialism died in part, Johnson argued, because it provided the demographic basis for its own demise. (Hat tip: FreeRepublic)" and further quotes Paul Johnson on Algeria:

The demographic drum beat of doom.
The tax code "can't afford another child" is red herring.  The problem is the <b>culture of secular hedonism</b> -- without God, nor much of a real "country," there's little <i>purpose</i> in life, little reason to put up with the inconvenience of a child, or an unwanted old parent, or an unwanted fetus.

When people choose, they usually choose convenience; ease; the lazy way. 

The welfare state benefits only increase resentment--they KNOW they don't deserve the benefits; but don't want to do without, especially since they would still have to pay high taxes.

Still, massive gov't investment into bigger family homes, with huge tax breaks for those with 3 or more kids would really help.

I have three kids -- plus one on the way.  You should have 3 or more kids, too -- or else you're doing too much blog reading.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/17/05 23:09 | link | comments (8)

Secular hedonism vs the Culture of Life

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/14/05 19:12 | link | comments (5)

Leftists against Bolton, prefer corrupt UN as is

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/14/05 18:55 | link | comments