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

Instant gratification

Because I want instant gratification -- a World Without Dictators. Immediately; or at least, in my lifetime. (I am aware of my impatience.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/27/06 23:57 | link | comments (6)
iraq, democracy

More Cartoon Wars and changes

Neo has a great post about the “I told you so” slavering of many Bush-haters, so many of whom are Anonymous, in the mosque bombing and its aftermath.

I used to use Tigger, then OldTigger, now just me -- Tom Grey.

Anons are intellectual cowards, barely worth reading. 

Neo‘s doing great, (as always); not cynical like the Lib Avenger says (just look at the salivating anons there! or here?). In Slovakia, I should note that the Czechs did quite a bit of immoral post-war ethnic cleansing of Germans from the Sudetenland -- and did NOT allow the Slovaks to cleanse Slovakia of the Hungarians (at about 10% the largest minority, with a center right ethnic coalition that has been part of the gov't coalition since 1998).

The real issue is this: when are the Muslims going to accept universal human rights of Free Speech (consistently applied; some restrictions on non-offense may be included) and, most importantly, Free Religion?    

These are minimums for modern civilizations to achieve relative peace. Lebanon seems close; and Iraqi Kurdistan (see Michael Totten!).

No amount of outside troops can force this tolerance, although quick punishment for every act of intolerance is, barely, imaginable -- Leftists with such fantasies perhaps see US campuses as such a "model." 

drllyod has an excellent question: what could make you (or me) give up being a neo-con (?meaning supporting use of military force to create democracy? my meaning, TG)?

I've thought long and hard about this, and can't think of any. If Iran gets a nuke, and uses it on Tel Aviv (or Miami, or Moscow), it will only make me think we didn't use ENOUGH force, soon enough. 

Take another issue, the number of troops. I wanted fewer, because I think the Iraqis have to take on responsibility for themselves, and can't do so with too many US troops.

If Iraq goes into civil war mode, and more than 100 000 Iraqis are killed by other Iraqis in the next 3 years, I'll agree I was wrong to want fewer troops rather than more. If it's less than 20 000 Iraqis killed, and they continue having elections, I'll say my neo-con actions were successful, and worth it, and fewer troops was correct.

Let's remember history: I was frustrated like Anon Viet Vet at "not winning" in Vietnam. If I knew, in 72, that either N. Vietnam would stop aggressing (US wins), or else we would leave and let them win, I'd choose the US to win.

If I then learned that the only way for the US to win was to actually let, and make, the S. Vietnamese "win", and that it would take 18 more years (til 1990), I would still choose that path. -- But I didn't know/ wasn't sure. 

drllyod -- how many SE Asians have to be murdered by victorious commies after 1974 (vote of Dems to stop funding) before you think that decision was a mistake? 100 000? 200k? 600k? 2 000 000 (Vietnamese & Cambodian civilians)?

For me, history tells me the US should have continued using force to stop evil commies -- but less force per year, over more years, and pushing the S. Vietnamese to do more. 

How many folk must be murdered in Rwanda in '94 before the US should use force to stop it? (I think 100 000 is a reasonable, arbitrary number as a trigger for US military action)

How many folk must be murdered (& raped) in Darfur before the US, with or without the UN, should take action to stop it? (It's probably been over 100k already, but it's not certain.)

Back in Iraq, how many UNSC resolutions should a country violate before they are enforced? I think 3 is enough -- after the second, any more UNSC resolutions should specify the legitimacy of the use of force, by any coalition of the willing, to enforce the resolutions.

"Laws" without enforcement are not true laws. Modern civilization, like that started by Hammurabi, requires rule of law.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/27/06 10:42 | link | comments (1)
iraq, cartoon war

Stop censorship of abortion pictures

 Here's my new idea (for LaShawn Barber ?) -- fight abortion censorship on CNN / CBS; when they talk about abortion, and the upcoming partial birth abortion ruling by the US SC, they should show pictures.

Priests for Life has one good set, in diagram form.  The only reason NOT to show it is to keep pro-abortionists ignorant.

Horrible, in foto form. 

Yes, depends on the desire to seek publicity -- but there's a clear hypocrisy of CNN showing Abu Ghraib, but not abortion pictures.

As usual, a black woman is the hardest conservative target for Leftists to sneer at (tho of course one would get more hate mail than one deserves.)

Partial-birth abortion is a terrible thing to see.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/23/06 00:55 | link | comments (7)
abortion

I'd be Star Trek -- Star Trek ???

You scored as Enterprise D (Star Trek). You have high ideals and know in your heart that humanity will continue to evolve in a better people. No matter what may happen, you have faith in human beings. A rare quality. Now if only the Borg would quit assimilating people. Enterprise D (Star Trek) 75% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 75% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 69% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 69% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 69% Serenity (Firefly) 69% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 63% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 63% Moya (Farscape) 56% Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 56% SG-1 (Stargate) 50% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 44% Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/20/06 16:13 | link | comments (2)
greys

Freedom or Security -- but not both

Michael writes more about his Kurdistan trip and the liberal assumptions being challenged when his Arab friends can't visit: 

They had been to Kurdistan only two weeks before (they went to Suleimaniya last time) but the Pesh told them Arabs were not allowed to enter Erbil without a Kurdish escort.

Gack! I was pissed off. These guys are my friends. So what if they’re Arabs? They are two of the last people in the world who would ever blow themselves up or kidnap anybody. This was racial profiling at its worst. They did nothing – nothing – to deserve that kind of humiliation. Two fine upstanding citizens were not allowed to visit a city in their own country for no reason whatsoever except that they are Arabs. And Iraq is an Arab-majority country.

I didn’t like it one bit. But I had to be honest about what was happening. I was in Iraq without a gun and without any bodyguards. The only reason that was possible is because freedom of movement – one of the most basic freedoms in the world - doesn’t exist in Iraq. Without hard internal borders the violence in the center could not be walled off from the north. The very policy that allowed me, a foreigner, to enter Erbil while my Iraqi friends couldn’t was the very policy that kept me alive. I had no choice but to be grateful for that policy, for my own sake as well as for the sake of Kurdish Iraqis, even though some of the results were deplorable and blatantly unfair to the majority of Arab Iraqis who will never hurt anyone.

Todd in comments nailed my feelings about Michael's writing "Your persona as a writer allows the reader space to "read between the lines" and perhaps catch a glimpse of this world you've been in..."

(better than I've been able to articulate in two years of steady MJT reading.)

The Liberal problem with freedom is always how to get security when there is some minority abusing others -- security requires force and a reduction in freedom. 
Two possible system errors: wrongly reduce freedom of the innocent (false positive, false guilty);
wrongly give too much freedom to the guilty (false negative, false innocents).
But it's that second, false negative error that kills.

Which is why Bush was right to invade Iraq, even if WMDs were no longer there (false positive); which is not yet certain (Syria? Iran?).

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/17/06 21:58 | link | comments (1)
iraq

More Abu Ghraib 2003 abuse

The fotos are still sickening.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/16/06 18:18 | link | comments (1)
iraq, torture, wot

Pictures in Iraq

10 families in Iraq were given disposable cameras.  Some of the photos are on the web.

Great idea. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/14/06 09:45 | link | comments (1)
iraq

On numbers, meaning, and values

Most folks are willing to use some level of quantitative analysis in their own rant. 

Yet it is really annoying to attempt to discuss numeric issues about deaths, and values, and political options.  Especially when "the facts" aren't strongly known.  Many of those against the Iraq war claim it's a disaster because of how many US soldiers are dying.  Yet, at some 2200 over 30 months, it has to be considered one of the lowest casualty rates in modern war.  I think the pre-9/11 rate of accidental death in the military was some 800 / year.

For those against the war, how few would it take for you to agree that "it was worth it?"  -- it seems only 0.  "Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?" -- nobody.  Nobody wants to be the last person to die for a good cause, either -- but many are willing to risk their lives.  And, "nobody" doesn't include the suicide bombers who ARE willing to die.

Powerline says Abraham Lincoln was the greatest US President, in a wonderful remembrance of him. 

 I agree that his speeches and his morals are excellent.  But I claim a "really great" 1860 US President would have avoided a Civil War "somehow."  Almost any President, great or lousy, could have made speeches that led either to war, or a split, or both.  And it's not clear to me that "democracy" won by the US Civil War -- although Human Rights did win.

I like Powerline but I doubt that they will answer the tough question: how many Americans would have to die before they think "too many" died -- so that Lincoln is NOT the greatest president?  Logically there has to be some "number" of deaths which is so high that even the great good of ending slavery doesn't justify that many deaths.  Our culture and history doesn't even the language in which to discuss this issue.  And, obviously, it is a "value" question, not a "factual" one -- different people will have different values. 

The US Civil War was one in which one democracy imposed its own, more Universal Human Rights values on another democracy, by force.
A great precedent.  Or not?

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/14/06 07:49 | link | comments (1)
democracy

Israel - Palestine - Try taking land for war

I would believe 100 000 plus 2-400 000 nomads vs 20 000 or so Jews; I have no link. I have weak opinions on long ago interest (mostly pre-9/11)

UPDATE:  OK, now I believe more in the 400 - 600 000 Arabs in the 1890-1900 years.

From MidEast Web: " The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times"  Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case."

 2. Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began. The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine. in the 1890s. At this time, the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was still negligible by all accounts. It is unlikely that Palestinian immigration prior to this period was due to Zionist development. Though uncertainty exists concerning the precise numbers of Arabs living in the areas that later became Israel, it is very unlikely that the claims of Joan Peters that there were less than 100,000 Arabs living there are valid.  

Table 2: Arab Population of Future Area of Israel in 1893

Peters	Cuinet	Turkish Census
92,000	186,000	198,000

According to the report, at the end of 1946, About 1,220,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land,  or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned. The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons.  The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state, but the  land conquered during the fighting included the populous Arab areas of the Galilee, as well as Arab towns such as Lod and Ramla. Greater Jerusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of  Arabs.

Other links: Palestine-Net "Hadawi states that at the end of 1918 (WW1), there were 700,000 people living in Palestine. These were divided into 574,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians and 56,000 Jews. "

Justin McCarthy, Palestine Remembered.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/10/06 00:39 | link | comments (9)
israel palestine

Israel and Iran's bomb

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/09/06 23:26 | link | comments (1)
israel palestine, iran

I ask that LaShawn lead a boycott against NBC

LaShawn Barber hits a homer against the MSM Why Rolling Stone didn't put Kayne West as Mohamed on the Cover

" Christ is fair game, isn’t he? Unbelievers, liberals, and other secularists make fun of him, mock him, scorn him, and curse him, yet they steer clear of doing the same with Muslims’ god. They know offended Muslims, unlike offended Christians, issue death threats. "

First, LaShawn (after saying you’re doing great, still), please see Belmont Club where it’s reported the 12 cartoons were already published in an Egyptian paper in October, 2005.

Without the fake/ super-offensive 3 (pedophile, pig, dog rape) that the Danish Imam added to increase the outrage.

Second, the double standard of the MSM is horrible. Rule of Law means all religions are treated the same. I didn’t like piss Christ or Virgin Mary in dung, nor Last Temptation of Christ. MSM has no problem supporting these offensive acts. Now they are “sensitive” to avoid offense.

Please consider leading a boycott of NBC and the upcoming Grace and Will pro-gay “Cruci-fixin’s”. Such a boycott should give the anti-Christians a space to call “censorship” and Christians time reply “hypocrite — you failed to print the 12 cartoons.”

Free speech means freedom to object, peacefully. Christians can, perhaps, show Muslims how to do that. If a Modern, tolerant Muslim movement can evolve, ending the terrorist violence — the Modern, tolerant Christians will be allies against the Secular Fundamentalists. Like many Muslims at UN meetings, who are pro-life.

(Why doesn’t Tom Grey in Slovakia do this, with his 4 kids and home-consulting job? It’s not in the cards. Plus, YOU are a better face! Pretty smile, a woman, black; and leading a boycott can get you interviews to laugh at the NBC / NYT hypocrisy! I will also suggest this to Michelle Malkin — did you see her fantastic video, And then they came for the Embassies ? )

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/08/06 23:12 | link | comments (5)

Modern Christianity vs fundamentalisms three

 The Big War -- Modern Christianity vs fundamentalisms three

 

There are many culture/ religious clashes going on now. 

Modern, tolerant Christianity against secular fundamentalism; 

modern Christianity vs Christian fundamentalism; 

modern Christianity vs Islamic fundamentalism.

 

There are two other modern - fundamentalist fights: modern (property friendly) "Communism" vs Chinese Communist fundamentalism;  and (nascent) modern Islam vs Islamic fundamentalism;

 

Today in , gov't force is being used to stop believers from praying in gov't schools -- that's secular fundamentalism imposing its will. 

 

State Supreme Courts declaring that "gay marriage" is a right is secular fundamentalism.  Modern Christianity will continue saying homosexuality is a sin, but the appropriate political action should be something like "civil unions."  Meaning less than marriage -- not able to adopt, for instance.  Christian fundamentalists will want to make homosexual behavior illegal.

 

Toleration of the other cannot expect to be equally comfortable; some/ most stand for the Pledge, some/ a few sit.  They're not forced to stand; but they're uncomfortable because they don't belong. 

 

 

The Bush-hate volume/ passion is related to the anti-God feelings of religion-hate that many atheists seem to have.  They have booted virtually all serious pro-life folk OUT of the Democratic Party, it's no wonder that the Reps are becoming more unified in a pro-life, pro-family, pro-responsibility format.  [With Condi as VP, the Reps could get breakthru in Black votes among church goers]

 

 

DeSade is the right atheist comparison -- pleasure being the highest principle.

 

 

*I* am a believer that GOD is good, and goodness is the highest principle.  Not always excluding pleasure, but always higher.  Atheism almost inevitably degenerates to pleasure and/or power; objectively not good.

 

(Most of the above was written in July 04.)

 

The Cartoon War may become a tipping point, because most Bush-haters are radical secular fundamentalists -- and thus opposed, in theory, to Islamic censorship.  Here is a case of secular fundamentalism against Islamic fundies.  And thus, on the side of the Christians who want to accept tolerant, modern Islam but not the Islamic fundies.

 

But one of the main principles remains the Rule of Law -- all religions must be equally protected, or equally subject to ridicule. The "sensitivity" of the anti-Christian MSM is outrageous, when they claim protection for piss Christ; or a Virgin Mary covered in dung; or that Christians protesting Last Temptation of Christ are doing censorship.  This is the Leftist lie that objecting, peacefully, to offensive speech is the same as censorship.

 

In having respect for religion, and things sacred, the Christians are actually on the side of the Muslims.  The EU, the UN, and the US are all too anti-sacred, and too disrespectful of any faith. Peaceful protest remains the correct strategy to fight against this excessive license, not actual freedom.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/08/06 17:46 | link | comments (1)
christianity, leftist, cartoon war, secular

Moderate Muslims advocate boycotts, not bombs

Michelle Malkin shows the 12 cartoons.  On Video. (via Expose the Left).

Thank you.  You're doing great. (Yes, you're so outraged you can't quite keep your voice from rising.)

Points made: the Muslim state-sponsored press has horrible cartoons about every other religion. Almost all US media is accepting the censorship-intimidation.

The Danish press was asking two questions: Is there a culture of intimidation by Muslims against those who disagree?  The answer is YES.
Can the press show pictures of Mohamed?  So far, the answer seems "maybe."  It should be Yes.

It should also be clear that provocative cartoons ARE provocative, and possibly deliberately offensive.  Yet is is totally against the UN Universal Human Rights (art. 19) of Free Speech and Free Press.  There is nothing wrong with this shepherd.  With this as a start, the Danish press has a good question: what IS the freedom of the press?

A point Michelle could have emphasized is Rule of Law -- meaning all papers, and all religions, and all protests, get the same treatment under the law.  If they are peaceful, they are allowed -- if they have violent actions, the police should stop the violence.

Another point is the LIE of the three extra offensive cartoons added by the Muslims themselves.  The Danish Imam who went to Saudi Arabia with these extra pictures was certainly a "villian" in terms of lying to provoke.the violence.

A final point is the issue of National Sovereignty.  If a state refuses to abide by the obligations of minimal Human Rights, perhaps there should be a corresponding loss of protection of sovereignty for that state.  All of the Muslim states suffer from this issue.  Again I call for a Nato based Human Rights Enforcement Group - HReg.

Hugh refers to Hedgehog, where there   are   many   fine  posts:

" I happen to think the State Department's position is exactly right:  'So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. '  "

" The Danish cartoonists behaved idiotically, and everyone should tell them so. But death and kidnapping threats? I don't support the cartoons, but I certainly don't support the refusal of so many Muslims to accept civilized norms of behavior. It's time to get out of the ninth century, folks. "  -- with a picture of a Protester: Behead Those Who Insult Islam

"A cartoon of a severed hand -- 'How to draw Mohamed' "

" I agree with the [free speech] cause, broadly speaking, but I wonder about provocation as a useful tool in these circumstances. I think shining the light on the real culprits is more important (and effective) than provoking an outcry over what so many people, rightly or wrongly, see as blasphemy. "

And from Joe Carter:

" I believe that, like religious liberty, this is a divinely permitted freedom that demands due vigilance.

But just once I’d like to be called upon to champion speech that is true, honorable, just, and pure. Just once I’d like to defend a freedom that wasn’t vulgar, degraded, and profane. Just once I’d like to defend freedom that aspired to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson rather than to the inclinations of Larry Flynt."

While Lowell is rightly cautious, and both he and Joe and I think some of the cartoons are indeed tasteless and needlessly offensive, there is a hugely important point.

How much free speech IS there?  The same against Muslims as against Christians, or a double standard?  No double standard is acceptable.

And Muslims are not ready to be as tolerant of sacrilege as Christians have been.  Prolly Christians have been too tolerant.  Christians should teach Muslims how to be peacefully in opposition to provocative acts; like they're doing.

Boycott.  Boycotts are peaceful, they are a correct way to express outrage.

Christians should boycott NBC -- and the biggest advertisers on NBC.  Until they cancel the Cruci-fixin's show.

Where are the Moderate Muslims?  Advocating boycotts, not bombs.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/08/06 14:30 | link | comments
free press, human rights, cartoon war

The anti-Christian lie the Left loves

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/07/06 14:31 | link | comments (3)
christianity, hearts and minds, cartoon war

And then they came for the Embassies

Some folk think Michelle Malkin is some kind of right wing fanatic. I haven't seen such folk take her argument seriously, and show factual problems with it. I don't agree with Japanese Internment/ sending US Japs to concentration camps in WW II.

But the "fifth column" issue, and spies, is a real problem. Most anti-McCarthy type folk refuse to admit that McCarthy was correct -- commies were inside the government, the Rosenbergs WERE spies for the USSR, and commies were a threat. Many folk in Hollywood were getting funding and support and acting, in Lenin's phrase, as "Useful Idiots."

Like John Kerry acted in Vietnam. Michelle developed a fantastic video. And then they came for the Embassies.

It reminds us that the Islamic Jihadists are all over the world -- and will either change us, or we will change them.  But they are fighting in the meantime.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/06/06 15:41 | link | comments (4)
cartoon war

The sacred vs Free Speech in the Cartoon War

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/06/06 15:34 | link | comments (1)
christianity, free press, cartoon war

Michelle Malkin Rules

There should cultural, not legal, limits on the satire available to NewsPapers and to culture.

Free Speech is NOT compatible with censorship to protect something sacred.

Michelle is on top of this International Day of Anger, wonderfully: " God have mercy on those who would ransack, threaten, kidnap, and kill in the name of Allah over a bunch of cartoons. Cartoons. "

It was bound to happen sometime.  The hypocrisy of the Leftists who support the terrorists is terrible.  This was Denmark, not Bush nor America.  But it's Free Speech vs. Islamofascism.  So far the Islamofascists are winning -- and yet this might be the turning point.

Muslims need to enjoy Human Rights -- and Respect the human rights of others.  Maybe this is the beginning of the artists, and free speechers, starting to understand what side they've been supporting.  I sincerely hope so.

She refers to Brussels Journal, where "The War is On"  The Muslims are declaring war against the West.

Michelle correctly skewers the Leftist double standard:

"Many moonbat readers are equating criticism of Toles' cartoon with the Muslim world's violent reaction to the Danish forbidden cartoons.

So, there you have it. Another example of liberal math:

Writing a letter and posting blog entries = issuing fatwas, threatening suicide bombings, and conducting armed raids."

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/03/06 13:03 | link | comments (4)
democracy, hearts and minds, islamofascism, morality

Commericial songs in my head

 "Superchicken" and "George of the Jungle" theme songs are often in my head, and I like to sing them to my kids, who especially like the buck buck buaaack.

On hot dogs, it's "what kinds of kids eat Armor hot dogs?  Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks.  Tough kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox, eat hot dogs."  (see Ed Cone )

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/03/06 09:51 | link | comments

Not Blunt, Boehner

Via Reuters: "Boehner, who campaigned on a vow to seek to renew the party's "spirit and vision," defeated Blunt and Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona in a secret election by fellow Republicans. Boehner had 122 votes to Blunt's 109. Shadegg dropped out after a first ballot loss."

Glenn says his name rhymes with explainer.  I'm really glad it's not Blunt.  I wished that the House election rules were to be a "full" 3 person ballot if nobody wins on the first one, so that more could leave Blunt on number two.  But this makes it more likely to reduce corruption in the House.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/02/06 23:23 | link | comments
democracy, corruption

A future Justice hearing?

What I would like to see is a Justice nominee, when asked by Shumer about the Constitution, read aloud the First and Ninth Amendments.  Then ask Shumer about where "his" Constitution mentions a right to abortion.  (Not yet Amendment 28?)

Judge: "Here it is: Neither Congress nor any State shall pass a law denying a woman the right to purchase abortion services.  Right here, Amendment 28.  Right here on my index card.  But only 27 Amendments have been ratified so far."

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/01/06 17:50 | link | comments (1)
abortion, democracy