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

Democracy, Hamas, Ho Chi Minh 1956

There was supposed to be an election in in 1956, two years after the Vietnamese Freedom Fighter Ho Chi Minh kicked the butts of the French at Dien Bien Phu, in the First Indochina War.  According to NewsMine:

“The Geneva accords that ended the French war in Indochina in 1954 called for simultaneous elections in the north and south to establish a single national government for all . Under the accords, the elections were to be held by 1956. But in August 1955, just 14 months after the successful U.S.-sponsored regime change in , Eisenhower decided to block Vietnamese elections, recognize as an independent nation and install Ngo Dinh Diem as head of state.”

This is from the Los Angeles Times, which is rampantly anti-US, and looks at the Vietnam mistake as well as the Iran and Guatemala CIA pro-US coups.  It concludes with the WRONG lesson:

“U.S. intervention is a bad idea, these cases from the mid-'50s suggest, because people want to make their own history, even if the face of oppression is like Saddam Hussein's. A quick and easy victory over must not be the model for a series of future campaigns of regime change around the world.”

 

The right lesson is that intervention is a bad idea if the result is merely “our bastard” -- instead of  true democratic elections which might let Islamofascist Hamas win, or possibly a theocratic Shia majority in .

 

The mistake in : fighting AGAINST communism more than fighting FOR democracy.  A mistake Bush avoided -- fighting against terrorism more than fighting for democracy.  In , he clearly fought more to establish Iraqi democracy; in allowing Hamas to be elected, clearly allowed pro-democracy to be above anti-terrorism.

 

The and the allowing a Hamas to win is huge step FOR Democracy -- and even true independence. 

 This is true no matter why the Palestinians voted for Hamas.  Corruption and weak terrorism (Fatah) vs anti-corruption and strong terrorism (Hamas) -- maybe I’d vote Hamas too, if I were a Palestinian living in poverty while Arafat’s wife gets millions in hush money to avoid discussing his corruption.

 

If Palestinians DID vote against Fatah corruption, this vote as a “pro-democracy” vote becomes especially true.  The anti-Israeli violence is not much different, but Hamas plausibly promises to reduce the corruption. 

 

The fastest way to help Palestine is for governments and aid agencies to work with Palestinian PEOPLE, and not their Hamas GOVERNMENT.

This is also most likely to work -- and even provide a model for aid to Africa .  Work with people, not governments.

Funny how the Canadian election was also about booting the corrupt current Liberal rulers -- and if there is any weakness to the US Reps in 2006, it is because of corruption issues.

I’m getting happier about Hamas.

Neo doesn’t understand a Palestinian Fatah supporter who voted Hamas to change Fatah.

 

While I fully agree with the conclusion that voting for TweedleDee while wanting TweedleDum is stupid, most of this post I disagree with.

 

If one is convinced in Palestine that CORRUPTION is the BIGGEST problem, and that Fatah is corrupt, what is the right vote?

 

The desired outcome is moderation, less terrorism, less Israeli response/ repression, but especially less corruption.

 

The Palestinian cited wanted a "Fatah" that doesn't exist. Every vote is for both the good AND the bad -- but you're only responsible for the bad if your guy wins!

 

I voted Libertarian, often -- because I didn't like Reagan/Bush big gov't (socially) Reps; nor big gov't Dems. Had school voucher supporting Libs gotten enough votes to decide an election, it's likely the loser would have adopted the "most popular" Lib position. This idea worked for the Socialist party.

 

(Why it works much less well for Libs is simple: Socialists favor big gov't, Libs small gov't -- both politicians AND news folk naturally like big gov't out of self interest.)

 

[By the way, Nader helped Bush win/ Dems lose; but Ross Perot even more helped Clinton win/ Reps lose in 92; and most importantly Wallace (the ex-Dem racist) made Nixon win/ Dems lose in 68. Most Wallace Dems voted Nixon in 72; many voted Carter in 76; many Reagan in 80; most are now Reps. It might well be that it's easier to change your politics thru a third party; relevant to mind changing.]

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/30/06 19:07 | link | comments
vietnam, democracy, corruption, israel palestine

Feeling better about Hamas

 Marc Cooper writes how Bush is a fruit loop with the win by Hamas.

 The elections pushed relentlessly by the Bush administration have produced the least favorable results – for all parties involved. We saw the tight little corner that the President has placed himself in during Thursday’s White House press conference. 

I agree with Reg (a commenter) on the USS Liberty’s unjust destruction by Israel. Also on Israeli; nay, Jewish racism. (The Fiddler wouldn’t let his daughter marry one of THEM.)

It’s also clear the USA has a unique relationship with Israel; and the creation of Israel was NOT a fully just act.

But until 1967, the Arabs in control of Gaza and the West Bank could easily have allowed the “Palestinians” their own state, had Nasser the Egyptian war-monger wanted peace instead of war.

And Israel IS a democracy (though democracy doesn’t quite equal Human Rights — the correct goal.)

I’ve been saddened by the Hamas win — but in reading all this Leftist babbling about how Bush is a fruit loop, and proving it using Juan Cole (and Raimundo … Raimundo??? I knew Raimundo when he wanted Russell Means as Libertarian Party Pres. candidate instead of pro-Life Ron Paul, 1986. Passionate nutcase, fine writer.).

Since I know how wrong most Lefties have been so often lately; there must be more good in Hamas winning than I thought.

I remember.
Democracy. The People Choose.

Lefties hate it when the people “choose wrong.” The Right isn’t so happy, either — but doesn’t hate it (also may disagree on what is right/wrong; though not in this case?). Bush doesn’t claim supporting corrupt Fatah is certainly better than elections — and those saying Bush was wrong basically do claim this.

I hope Israel expands its territory by 100 Palestinian homes for every rocket and bomb attempt by Palestinians; and by 1000 homes for every Israel life lost by any terrorist attack. Give land for peace; take land for war.

The Palestinians need a Free Press — so paper editors critical of Hamas, or Fatah, or dead Arafat, are not killed. It would be good if Israel followed all Palestinian papers, and their editors.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/29/06 00:21 | link | comments (3)
democracy, corruption, islamofascism, israel palestine

Politics is mostly emotional

Neo links to a hidden NYT article: "Neuroscientists have tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates "

I just read that men are DIFFERENT than women with respect to feeling pleasure at Justice; at punishment against those who have been unfair.

Women, even those who accept the need for the punishment, seem to have more empathy.

In a Myers-Briggs type(?) test I recall a question: which is worse, to be unfair or merciless?  (The Thinkers choose unfair; the Feelers choose merciless).

But yes, look at the facts.  Big problem -- most important analysis is about the future.  No facts there, yet!

Like you mentioned in changing mind postss, the Angry Left keeps making (gloomy) predictions that don't come true.  You might suggest a game with your Liberal friends -- predict the future!

How many Americans will die in Iraq in 2006? 
How many Americans will own/ be buying their own homes by the end of 2006?
How many women will get abortions?

There is another big problem, though, in the question I like to ask:  What possible facts/ events could occur to show that your analysis is wrong?

10 000 Americans dying? 1000? 100?
10% unemployment? 8%? 6%?

The typical answers include "it's not that simple", "who knows what the future number will be."

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/06 20:47 | link | comments

Hamas and war

I'm depressed; the Palestinians voted for war.  Choosing war over tyranny and corruption; war rather than aid-dependency and "lies" about wanting peaceful co-existence with Zionist Jews; glorious war (which gets attention and headlines) rather than nation-building and house-building (which is mostly ignored in the media).

 

Hamas builds hospitals; that's great -- why didn't the EU aid money go for hospitals?  Because corrupt EU/ UN/ elites preferred corruption of Fatah, the PA, and Arafat.

 

Hamas says they want war with . 

My advice:

should declare war the next time there is an attack by any Palestinians.

 

And ship 100 West Bank Palestinians to Gaza , for each rocket/ bomb attempt; and 1000 West Bank Palestinians for each Israeli death.

 

And after every peace conference that doesn't end in peace, increase the number by that amount (100 & 1000; 200 & 2000; 300 & 3000).  Until Hamas wants peace.  Peace often happens when “those who want war” fight to the death; their own. 

 

Update -- Neo has a GREAT review of the internal German faction fighting that led to Hitler’s rise to power.

 

I remember that many “anti-war” liberals were calling for Bush to support some bastard (who would be “ours”) to be the new dictator.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/06 16:20 | link | comments
israel palestine

Honda S2000

I'm a Honda S2000!

You live on the edge, and you live for the adrenaline rush. You don't need luxuries, snob appeal, or superfluous gadgets. You put your top down, get your motor revving, and take all the curves that life throws at you at full speed. So what if you spin out occasionally?

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

There were a couple of questionable questions, but I do like this car quite a bit.  I'm getting old for the adrenaline though.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/25/06 23:49 | link | comments

Bush intel gathering was good idea

David Corn writes about the NSA issue, Bush the non-lawyer

"The Supreme Court obviously does not believe that whatever Bush does in the name of combating terrorism is a "fundamental incident." "

And Bush never claimed he could do "whatever" -- that's the straw man David Corn type Leftists like to attack. 

Certainly if Bush (and Rove?) think the American people believe that folk in America accept his actions as "appropriate", this issue becomes a Rep plus.  I think eavesdropping on those in America talking long distance to Al Qaeda is appropriate.  I think it was a good idea.

Too bad most Dems seem not to.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/25/06 02:06 | link | comments (2)
wot

Employment Maximizing Firms

A “innovative” type of wealth creating organization -- an Employment Maximizing Firm.

 

Summary:

What most poor people need more than anything else in order to join the civilized, developed world, is a full-time job. Most poor people’s financial problems would be mostly solved if they had a job, a regular 40-hour per week job.

 

The current organization of for-profit companies is effective for creating wealth, but not yet satisfactory for helping the poor.  This proposal is to create a new, slightly different form of wealth creating organization, one whose focus is on creating jobs. 

 

Organizations concerned about helping the poor should be creating jobs -- and be measured by the number of jobs created.

 

Firms need initial start-up capital, and some entrepreneur with an idea of what to make that can be sold at a profit.  In an employment maximizing (EM) firm, the initial capital will come from an ‘aid’ organization, as will the entrepreneur.  The capital, equity and/or loan, will be accounted for just as in a for-profit company.  The innovation in an EM firm is in compensation -- the salaried entrepreneur will get more money based on hiring more people, not based on having more Revenue-Cost profit.  In order to hire more people, the entrepreneur must track revenues and costs just as any profit-making firm does.  The desire to create a rev-cost profit will still exist, so as to have the earnings to hire more workers.

 

Evaluating such an idea requires setting up an Employment Maximizing firm and test it, in practice.  This is a proposal to set up an EM firm, based in Bratislava , oriented at hiring the poor in and around Bratislava .  While not specifically oriented at the Roma, it is expected that a higher proportion of Roma will be among those hired.

 

The first business plan will involve making low-cost furniture, including made to measure orders.  An expected market advantage of the aid-savvy entrepreneur will be better use of technology to organize, cheaply, logistic details of ordering and supplying what customers ask for.

 

 

Proposed Details of the aid-entrepreneur’s salary and other working conditions:

Starting worker compensation (W) should be about 80% of average [or midway between poverty and average?].

Starting managing entrepreneur wage should be 2*W (worker wage), until there are 5 full time equivalent employees.  Between 5-10 the manager should get (2-3)*W.

Between 11-25 the manager’s wages goes up (3-4)*W.

Between 26-50 the manager’s wages goes up (4-5)*W.

Between 51-100 the manager’s wages goes up (5-6)*W.

 

 

There should also be some amount of “profit sharing” as the firm is successful, although this is expected to low due to the push to hire more people rather than have more profit.

 

 

Additional Background. (draft ideas)

However, an EM firm will expect to produce higher quantities of lower-priced goods, in order to maximize sales & production volumes. Such firms should be able to find a niche in the consumer marketplace where they are producing the lowest priced goods that poor people need.

 

Creating this type of  Employment Maximizing firm will also offer a challenge to all anti-poverty organizations -- how many jobs is your organization offering?

To extend the micro-finance loans which seem to be working better than most prior aid programs.

 

Non-profit organizations, dispensing “aid”, have proven to be inconsistently effective for increasing consumption by the poor.  While the aid is available, many needy get more food and clothes -- but usually there is significant bureaucratic/ administrative overhead.  In developing countries, significant portions of aid are lost through corruption.  In fact, it can fairly be said that aid is funding corruption in the worst states.  Much aid leads recipients into a dependency relationship, where their survival becomes dependent on more aid.

 

 

 

Today most private companies are run as profit-maximizing firms. This profit-orientation

uses uncertain future profits to reward the risk taking entrepreneur who invests the original capital and original business plan.  The amount of “wealth created” by the organization is the sum of the wages paid and the firm’s profit. Maximizing profit is an effective way to maximize the amount and efficiency of capital being used to create more wealth -- whether in a civilization, a country, a community, or a family.  “Capitalism” increases wealth through clear property rights ownership of capital, and maximizing the returns on this capital to the owners.

 

The economic failure of Communism included the relative failure to use capital efficiently to produce what people actually wanted.  Yet, the large compensation disparities in major companies between the top and the bottom has fed disappointment in capitalism.  Non-profit organizations have been set up with different ideas -- to help solve social problems not well solved by the profit-maximization of capitalism.  Along with government and other non-government organizations, the non-profits and the NGOs have been pushing “aid” as a way to reduce poverty.  Through such NGO advocacy, massive amounts of cash, of capital, have been distributed to poor countries and poor communities.

 

 

The compensation scheme reflects that the maximum uncertainty is with the capital owners, who hire highly paid managers to make money for them.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/24/06 23:57 | link | comments
maximum employment

Depressed about Iran

It looks like the US will let Iran get nukes --meaning it will make Israel do the dirty work of stopping them, if they are stopped.

It looks like we are losing the race: democracy in the ME, vs WMDs in the hands of Jew-haters.

Lots of blog links, Joe at Winds of Change especially good.

I'm in Prague now; ugly rain here, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/21/06 21:56 | link | comments (1)
iran

New Blog Face -- Enjoy

I've been meaning to change for a long time -- still looking for photos and uploading.  Maybe later.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/19/06 01:19 | link | comments

Cronkite supported genocide

Bush and Reps and all pro-democracy folk need to relive Vietnam.  Of course it was "winnable" -- build bases and stay there for 15 years until 1989 (MORE than 15 years ago!) until the commies collapse.

It was NOT winnable "without more casualties" -- and this is the dirty secret of all anti-war folk.  Win without death or don't fight.  He wants the US out of Iraq, and even thinks Katrina would have been a good time to say so.

Cronkite: "We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States," he said. "Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home."

Cronkite should be asked if politicians are responsible for the results of their policies -- like, if Bush is responsible for Afghanistan increasing its poppy growth and heroin export, even though Bush is against it.  When he says yes, politicians are responsible, he should be asked if newsMAKERS are responsible. He should agree. Then he should be asked if HE feels responsible for accepting SE Asian genocide after the US followed HIS policy.

There were mistakes (like the involuntary servitude; like My Lai) in Vietnam.  Like in all wars.  Clinton avoided all such mistakes in Rwanda -- by accepting genocide.

Cronkite and the anti-war folk supported genocide instead of war.  Both choices mean death; but those were the two real choices.  And the UN supports genocide in Darfur, instead of war.  I remain outraged. (Via Austin Bay)

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/16/06 10:54 | link | comments (4)
iraq, free press

Bush preparing for War in Iran

 Bush is preparing the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.  If a cakewalk means less than 1000 US soldiers killed, invasion prolly won't be one -- but it might. A massive bombing of military installations and suspected sites will prolly occur, first.

Bush's biggest mistake, and weakness, is poor publicity. Yes, the press will twist it -- but Bush should be pointing out how the "alternative" to US action is UN responsibility. And reminding folk about how responsible the UN is in Darfur -- not very.

Bush wanted Saddam to surrender/ prove he had no WMDs. Bush invaded because Saddam refused.

Bush wants Iran to NOT make nukes. Bush will bomb, then invade, because Iran insists on making a nuke AND claims a willingness to bomb Israel.


I disagree with Anonymous (in Neo's comments) on how morally horrible the US was in murdering Japs with nukes -- I actually think the (Vonnegut version of the) Dresden firebombing was worse. Murdering civilians is why war is hell -- those leaders who do NOT have democracy, free press, and free religion, yet push for war (like in Iran), are terrible. [But I'm glad he wrote his ideas; I think some attacks on his ideas are too dismissive.]

As for morality, the end-of-Vietnam War Dem Party vote in favor of commie victory was the most immoral action of the USA, directly allowing Viet and Cambodian Killing Fields. Next was Clinton's "NO genocide" policy in Rwanda. Today it's the UN's acceptance of genocide in Darfur.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/13/06 11:04 | link | comments (3)
iran

Let Turkish Cypriots vote

Michael Totten writes on the internal Cold War in NATO -- Greece vs Turkey over Cyprus.

But Michael offers no solution: "It is long past time for these formerly great imperial nations to come to some kind of settlement -- for everyone’s sake, not just their own."

They have "some kind of settlement" -- a border without shots being fired.  Prolly more peaceful than the US - Mexican border.

A formal settlement requires at least one side to change.  Michael failed to mention that the Turkish side of Cyprus wanted to join the EU, but the Greek side didn't want them.

My own "default recommendation" -- democracy, as seen by a referendum.  Let the Turks in Northern Cypus choose: rejoin the Greeks as part of unified Cyprus, declare independence (far bigger than Monaco, for instance), join Turkey.

I'd guess they'd vote a plurality for independence -- it might require a second referendum for a majority of Turkish Cypriots to choose.  An advantage of democracy as a solution is that it doesn't force an outcome directly, it forces a process.  And let's the people decide the outcome.

(I liked the pictures of Cyprus earlier; why doesn't TCS have a foto-gallery?)

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/13/06 00:30 | link | comments

Dems don't worry about civilian deaths

In some comments, somebody bashed Bush on civilian casualties.  Please. Don't talk about Dems caring about "civilian lives" being lost.

Clinton ordered his folks to lie and claim "NO genocide" in Rwanda >> 700 000 murdered. Dems voted for him in 1996.

Dems voted to stop aiding the S. Viet gov't as the US gave up fighting >> commies, admired by Leftists, won; some 700 000 murdered Vietnamese; some 2 mil. murdered Cambodians.  Thanks to Dem policy of "run away."

Dems want a "Global Test" before military action.  Bush calls Darfur "genocide", meaning the UN has to act.  The UN says, like Clinton, "NO genocide." This means let the civilians keep dying, we'll send 53 indictments from the International Criminal Court; and also put Sudan back on the Human Rights Commission (where the US was kicked out).  Neither Amnesty nor Human Rights Watch is calling for war to stop the killing, nor calling it genocide; "international objections" seems enough from the UN, but only to encourage the killers.

How many civilians have to die in Darfur before you think it justifies a humanitarian war to change Sudan's regime?

 In fact, there's about 10 times more complaints about any civilians killed by the US, than when the French let hot weather kill 10 000 French old folks. Where's the complaining about how the Palestinian Authority is killing folk, and letting Hamas kill folk, in Gaza? The only time most Dems care about any civilian death is when they think they can blame it on Bush. That's not much caring.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/12/06 00:24 | link | comments (3)
human rights, darfur

Reps might not want to overturn Roe

David Corn talks about how the Dems are blowing it in their wimpy attacks on Alito; perhaps not using the Corn Gambit enough?

David , how can you expect the Dems to stop Alito (why do I want to type Alioto?) when even the radical Leftist commenters on your Leftist blog can't focus on him?

I actually liked your prior "Corn gambit" -- straight up honest questions.  "Would you support having the   US SC legislate to make abortion legal by creating an unwritten constitutional right, or would you leave it up to either the state or federal lawmakers?"

There are even pro-choice folk who don't like Roe because it is making law, rather than enforcing laws as written.  Without Roe, it's likely that more than half the US states would have changed their state laws to make abortion legal; some might have already changed back to make it illegal.

However, you know that some 27 million voters chose Bush because of "moral issues" being their biggest reason.
(see 3-d analysis )  Bush-Kerry:
on War: 21 mil vs 21 mil;
on Tax Cuts: 8.5 mil vs 30 mil;
on Morals: 27 mil vs 4 mil.

Only 4 mil. Kerry supporters had pro-abortion (or pro-gay marriage) as the most important reason for voting Kerry; 27 mil pro-lifers voted Bush.  (52% Catholics; many against Tax Cuts; many against Iraq war -- but pro-life, first)

I think the Dems won't win the White House again for 20 years, unless Roe is overturned -- AND I think they WILL win soon after it IS overturned.  Bush and Rove and power-hungry Reps only want to LOOK like they're going to overturn Roe, to keep those Big Gov't, anti-War Catholics voting Rep -- because of abortion.

As a true pro-life Rep (ex-Libertarian [for Life!]), I'm kinda annoyed at my own analysis.  But I favor Bush first of all for pro-Democracy war in Iraq and Mid East.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/12/06 00:10 | link | comments

Helping South Sudan

The BBC says they are interested in how to help South Sudan, where there is  Little Cheer:

With the Slovak Trnava University, I've recently submitted a bid to build a Nurse Training Hospital in Wau, near Rumbek.  The Christian Trnava U. already sends Slovak doctors to Sudan, in Mapuordit for instance (with the Diocese of Rumbek).
 
South Sudan needs everything: food, clothes, shelter, infrastructure, health care.
Most of all, they need jobs.
Aid agencies should be setting up real businesses to grow and process food; to make clothes; to build houses and roads and running water; and even build and operate health centers and hospitals.

The question of Land Ownership must be clear -- as much land as possible must be formally titled to the people living on it/ working on it.  There should be a small 1% land tax (payable monthly), as one of the main sources of gov't revenue.  First year deferred; and possibly longer.

Little or no gov't "coordination to avoid duplication" should be sought -- rather registration of what each group is doing so this info can be shared to all interested.  Already the Gov't of South Sudan Ministry of Health is going wrong--requiring aid agencies to "get permission" to operate, which too often equals paying bribes.

Big "public works" projects should be run by World Bank/ UK's Dept. For Int'l Development/ US AID -- new airports at Juba & Rumbek; railroad from Kenya (Nairobi) to Juba & Rumbek and north; new roads connecting South Sudan to Kenya.

Better road technology is important -- Kenyan roads are often terrible.  More aid support should go to organizations already there for two or more years, to reduce "aid profiteering."

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/10/06 10:22 | link | comments
economics, property rights

Happy New Year -- bomb Iran

It's been a tough few days as the sad realization about Iran is sinking in.

They don't act in a Western rational way.  They have elected a President who wants to destroy Israel, and says so publicly and often, and they are busy developing a nuclear bomb.  To use against Tel Aviv, if not also Jerusalem.

It's a surprise that the Palestinians are not at all worried by the Iranians -- I do NOT think they "know" something we don't.

It has long been a race in the Middle East.  The race has been to develop successful democracies, with rationality, before the crazy fundamentalists get nukes, or other WMDs, and use them.  Iran getting nukes; and the "liberals"/ Leftists (against America) -- the internal rot of a decadant "Culture of Death" civilization.

The fantastic Mark Steyn essay on the Suicide of the West is part of my depression.  Victor Davis Hanson, Stephen Green (Vodkapundit), and finally Austin Bay - The Mullah's Quest, The Mullah's Fear.

Plus, now, Arial Sharon in hospital.  Whether deathbed or not, at 77 he is gone from leading Israeli politics -- they simply MUST move on without him.  Does this make it more likely, or less likely, that Israel will do a defensive pre-emptive strike against Iran?  It's not clear how likely it was before, nor now.  I argued that Israel would strike Iran last year -- if Kerry won -- before Kerry was inaugurated.  Glad that didn't happen ... (Though the Dems would be a lot more responsible if Kerry had won, and prolly the Reps in opposition would continue being responsible.  Rewarding Dems for being irresponsible? Yechh.  Possible Realpolitik)

(a) Either Iran will suffer regime change, or (b) it will get nukes, or (c) their President will not push for nukes.  But their Pres. is pushing for nukes; (c) has never been up to the US, EU, or UN.  When Iran's gov't chooses nukes, the choice is either (a) or (b).

I favor (a) -- regime change in Iran.  If the plane crash with an Iranian commander was an assasination, I'm kinda OK with it.  Iran must be dealt with.  Publicly, or more covertly.   I do not believe "talks" with Iran will result in them stopping their program, most of the talks are delaying tactics by the Iranian.

So, from Iraq on the West, and from Afghanistan on the East, the US is in the best possible military position to exert pressure on Iran.  Yes, try to refer Iran to the UN SC -- and expect the UN SC to not have sanctions.  (No sanctions on the genocide murderers in Sudan...)  Prepare for blitzkrieg?

War or acceptance of Iran having nukes.  I think war is better for the world, and for the USA.  (And Dick Cheney, too!)

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/10/06 09:30 | link | comments (1)
islamofascism, iran

Israel and Kadima after Sharon

Meryl Yourish is a good place to watch what's happening to Israel -- and as Sharon leaves the political scene, it is less certain then ever.  She has exerpts from Sharon's last interview: A blueprint for Kadima

On Jerusalem: “Jerusalem will be forever a united and undivided capital of Israel. ”

On kassams: “The first responsibility is on the PA to stop terror. The problem is they are not taking any steps whatsoever. The road map says very clearly that to move forward there should be full cessation of terror hostilities and incitement.”

On the West Bank: “We are not going to face now also not in the future any unilateral disengagement. ”

On Hamas in the PA legislature: “Hamas is a terror organization with a covenant that speaks about the elimination of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. They are not partners for negotiations. And if, for instance, Hamas’ weapons would have been collected and if (portions of) Hamas’ covenant would have been banned, then, it is a different situation. I don’t see any steps whatsoever by Mahmoud Abbas to try and reach such a position. As to the Hamas terrorists, we will deal with them the way we deal with them now.”

On the Golan Heights: “I don’t see any situation where Israel will not be sitting on the Golan Heights. For 19 years the northern part of Israel was under heavy war of attrition. We are not going to return to this situation, although Israel will never attack Syria.”

Thanks, Meryl; thanks, Ariel Sharon.

I kinda wish Israel WOULD at least keep open the possibility of assisting "regime change" in Syria.

In Public Relations, Israel should emphasize how the Palestinian people do NOT allow a free press, and how Palestinians murder Palestians to maintain their own partial "fear-state".

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/07/06 13:04 | link | comments

What Dems could do

I hate the big-spending ways of the Reps.  After the dot.com bust I accepted that deficit spending, especially from tax cuts, was likely to be the optimal short and mid term macro policy for the USA.  I also suspected it might turn some Dems or Independents into supporters of "Compassionate Conservatives."  It mostly didn't work.  Despite Bush's excellent economic record, many Dems voted for Kerry on economic issues (more gov't cash for their favorite "good thing").  And leading Dems constantly attack the tax cuts (for the rich!), despite the fact that the rich pay more of the tax revenue AFTER the cuts, then they paid before.

Envy is one of the most destructive, if not THE most destructive, human forces since pre-history.  Cain killing Abel is about Cain's envy of Abel "pleasing God" more, and Cain's unwillingness to "lose".  Communisms appeal always included going after the rich.  The Nazis got a lot of support for being against rich Jews -- today the Dems get support for being against rich Reps/ rich Businessfolk.

Yes, many Enron type business folk are crooks.  But under capitalism, most of the rich are not crooks.  That's a big strength.

The Dems calling for punishment of the rich, er, tax hikes, is a dispicable call to use gov't force for destruction.

In the basically two-party system that's evolved in America, any and every criticism of one political side should include at least a brief mention of the most likely alternative -- the other party's policy.  I usually find the Dems worse, or far worse.

But being fair is never enough for my troll -- he wants me, at least once, to purely criticize the Reps.  I'll be happy to oblige, if I think there's an area where the Dems are clearly better.  But on civil rights & privacy, for instance, I think there's too much privacy and not enough security.  So the Dems supporting more privacy, AND less security, is not better.

On spending, Dems never ask for cuts.  When Reps also suck on the gov't teat, gov't gets bigger fast -- but when are the Dems going to be responsible enough to call for cuts, rather than the destructive tax hikes?

On pro-life issues, the radical pro-abortionists seem to think: "if you can't suck the brains out of an unwanted fetus, what rights would we have left?"  Far too extreme.

On Iraq, I support democracy.  If that means Iraqis choose to split into 3, that will be their choice (I think they will; and Bush could have reduced that liklihood, but failed.)  The war has been a huge success so far.  I've yet to read any Dem calling it a failure willing to say how many casualties would have been acceptable for a "success".  Dems need to become pro-democracy in action, and they're not.

So, any criticism of the Reps will continue to include a mention of the Dems -- as I think the MSM should do as well.  Like comparing Iraq under Bush/ CPA/ new elections, to Iraq under Saddam.  The alternative in Iraq was more of Saddam.  Any who complain about Iraq under Bush, and fail to compare, are missing part of the truth.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/07/06 12:41 | link | comments (2)
hearts and minds

Big ugly Steamroller Gov't

Peggy Noonan wonderfully writes a column about the ugly Steamroller of big gov't.

The OpinionJournal even published my response.

 No One Is Saying 'No' Now

We do need a government to use force because force is necessary in solving justice and self-defense issues. Government is force; yes, a steamroller.

But government also tries to spend money on "good things." The tax money spent is collected by force. Most of the good things would be paid for in other ways, but the voters are corrupt. They want the government to use other people's money on their own favorite good thing.

And the Republicans in power are now addicted to OPM spending--a worse addiction than the Dems, since the Dems in power had Republicans crying "no." The Republicans in power only have the Dems crying "tax hikes (on the rich!)."

Support pork-buster Republicans in primaries!

UPDATE:  OpinionJournal writes:

"More broadly, however, the Abramoff scandal wouldn't resonate nearly as much with the public if it didn't fit a GOP pattern of becoming cozy with Beltway mores. The party that swept to power on term limits, spending restraint and reform has become the party of incumbency, 6,371 highway-bill "earmarks," and K Street. And it's no defense to say that Democrats would do the same. Of course Democrats would, but then they've always claimed to be the party of government. If that's what voters want, they'll choose the real thing. "

Actually, the Dems would be less bad on spending -- because the Reps as a minority party would be saying "no!".

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/06/06 01:18 | link | comments (1)
corruption, democracy

It's the Demography, Stupid

I'm pro-life; I believe in the Christian West (Judeo-Christian rule of law; justice and mercy; respect for private property) but I see secular materialism as a spiritual rot.  Mark Stein has already written an important essay for 2006 -- and beyond (read it all!):

" Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West. " 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/05/06 18:27 | link | comments (2)
christianity, democracy