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

More Immigration

 

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/31/06 23:15 | link | comments (1)
economics, immigration

Taxes done!

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/31/06 23:10 | link | comments
economics

Immigration and humans

I think it's fair to say that treating "American" humans better, worse, or differently than treating "non-American" humans is essentially "racist" -- though "American" is a citizenship, not exactly a race.

The pure Libertarian would treat all humans equally -- all with 0, zero, gov't paid-for welfare benefits. In such a society, open immigration is both moral and fiscally easy. But if one wants to treat "our humans" (Americans), better than "their humans" (non-Americans), and most Americans do (like virtually all countries, and groups, and families, and political parties, and wolf packs, and ant colonies), than defining membership in the privileged race/ class/ citizenship is an issue. One whose solution is inevitably exclusionist, that is, essentially racist.

The racist Paul Krugman wants to keep Mexican humans really really poor, and out of America, supposedly to help the poor American humans. What he and the other economic argument anti-immigrants fail to mention, is that while there might be 1 million 5$/hr jobs, that in no way means there would be 1 million 8$/ jobs -- and all economic history shows there would be far fewer; in fact, much less than $5 million/ hr on those jobs would be available, quite likely less than $4 million/hr -- meaning some 500 000 jobs.

I don't see how it is in any way more moral to use gov't force against non-American humans to go from 1 million very low paid jobs to 500 000 low paid jobs.

But, um, isn't this always what the Dem Party in the USA wants to do? How is this issue going to help the Dems -- because pro- or anti- or more likely both immigration sides don't like the US laws, or whatever Bush does (or fails to do)? 

The $20 billion being sent back to Mexico will soon be the target -- if half of that was going to the US gov't, like I suggested by giving non-American humans legal tax loans, there would be less anti-immigration feeling. If the poor Mexican sends most of his non-consumed cash to Wash DC instead of home, there would less desire of the poor Mexicans to leave Mexico.

What would be really great is if the pro-Mexican folk would be advocating some kind of US "entrepreneur corps" of Americans to go start businesses in Mexico, to process food, make clothes, build houses (and safe drinking water!) -- and demand a better domestic Mexican business environment. Maybe hire the returning "illegals" to work in Mexico, on Mexican products, for Mexicans. (Working for exports means the product leaves Mexico, and much of the cash goes to the factory owner of the capital.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/27/06 22:13 | link | comments (1)
immigration, human rights

The Christian's life is spared -- for now

http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/03/conflict-of-laws-abdul-rahman-case.html

Wonderful post on the Christian in Afghanistan by Neo, not only what I was thinking over the weekend, but much, much better.

(Laurie Anderson; what heaven is like).

Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, are protected by UN type agreements respecting "national sovereignty." If Islamofascists get and use a nuke, look for Saudi Arabia, and other oil-rich countries which do NOT allow Human Rights like freedom of religion, to be taken over in the name of Human Rights -- because it's time that Human Rights are seen as more universal, and more important, than national sovereignty.

Let Mecca and Medina remain Islamic, non-Human Rights cities. Push to exile all Islamic imams from democracies into one of those two cities, if such imam claims his view of the Koran requires punishments against Human Rights. But the oil-rich Democratic Arabia would be liberated from sharia.

Perhaps by US trained and outfitted Indian fighters. By the hundreds of thousands.

With their wives.

Becoming new, dual, voting citizens of Democratic Arabia -- and ending oil-subsidies to non-human rights supporting organizations.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/27/06 22:11 | link | comments (4)
democracy, human rights, islamofascism, cartoon war

We can win, but it is very costly

More from Marc Cooper, there are comments about “we can not win” and other Leftist ideas.

But such a "worst case" scenario might well occur if the US left.

The purpose of most of those who say this seems to be, get the US out. Now. 

The N. Viet commies won, as predicted by pro-war pro-freedom folk, and there was murder and murder and murder. Some 600 000 in Vietnam; some 1.5 mil. in Cambodia -- murder by the commies who were known to be the expected "winners" if the US left.

This is the dishonesty of the Left, on Vietnam. The Leftist policy was followed, leaving, yet the responsibility for the bad result is denied.

In Kerry's opposition to the US in Vietnam, who was he supporting?

"we can't win" -- but in fact, 15 years after 1974, the Berlin Wall came down, so had the US stayed in Vietnam for only 15 more years, the US and S. Vietnam WOULD have "won". And a S. Vietnam would likely be competing with S. Korea (a US ally dictator in 1974), and Taiwan (a US ally dictator in 1974), and Japan. Instead of being an economic Leftist basket case (perhaps ready for market reforms and an economic boom). 

To say "we can't win" is mostly to promote leaving, to promote losing. And every US death is highly publicized to show the "truth" of this speculation. Of course "we could win" -- but it's costly. The honest critique is "the cost is too high."

Reg has only a little less potty-mouth than usual, but mostly empty on the main issue:

whether, and when, to fight evil.

I'm glad Barbara Lee is complaining about Darfur:

http://www.topix.net/us-house/barbara-lee

But I see her calling for sanctions, "pressure", talking, complaining to Kofi. What I don't see is a call for the US to invade and institute regime change. I don't think the slo-mo genocide will stop until a) it's mostly complete, or b) a military force stops the killers.

The complaints about Bush in Iraq make it less likely for Bush to support using US force to stop genocide. To me, that's one of the prices those who complain about Bush should be honest about -- the blood of the people of Darfur who are not saved by the US Army. Because the Dems refuse to call for more US violence to stop evil violence.

Yeah, if torture goes down 99%, there's still some amount that should be stopped -- but it's such a big improvement that I support the basic mission. Yeah, if some 38 000 civilian Iraqis are killed (no note on how many were terrorists in civilian clothing), I would wish it would be less; but still support the mission. Democracy in Iraq.

Unfortunately, even if we "win" and get democracy, we might not see a "unity" gov't in Iraq -- the problem with democracy and freedom is that it allows people to disagree; and they often do. Bush shouldn't be requiring such a unity gov't, only mentioning that failure to have one will prolly lead to more killing.

Next Marc Cooper Sick (and Tired) thread continues:

Mavis, thanks for a thoughtful response (about those opposing Bush supporting Saddam): “That’s definitely a tough thing to grapple with and the removal of Saddam is definitely a positive. That said, those of us who are anti-war don’t “support” Saddam. In fact, the vast majority of us always disapproved of him and would mostly support other means of disempowering him. As you know, most Democrats in congress supported sanctions.”

I have to say that, before the US invaded Afghanistan, Iraq sanctions seemed to be on their last legs, internationally. A bit like Iran sanctions today — those in power get more power, continue doing the bad things, but the people get poorer, and the dictators blame the sanctions (partly true).

Sanctions worked in South Africa — where they have a free press, and, like Israel, real elections with real transfers of executive power between different parties.

I challenge you to show me a country without a free press where “sanctions work”. Cuba? N. Korea? Iran?

And, as Barbara Lee is calling for sanctions in Sudan, which the Chinese disagree with, the leaders supporting murder won’t even get sanctions.

If Bush proposes to invade Sudan, I’d argue that those who oppose such a regime change support genocide.

I wish Bush would propose that, but he hasn’t. He does support more AU; and now more UN troops — but slo-mo genocide continues.

Being neutral about it means neither supporting nor opposing. To oppose Bush, or most actions against anybody evil, is to support the evil.

What about using evil to stop evil? — this is why war is hell. If one is not willing to fight; to kill, to die, to kill innocents, than evil wins.

Evil is winning in Darfur, week after murder filled week. And complaining about Bush in Iraq makes it harder to justify action in Darfur.

(In prior thread I use Reg reference to Barbara Lee, calling for sanctions, UN, etc — but not calling for using US military)

If one disapproves of “some regime”, and somebody else is actively changing that regime, opposition to the change seems like support for the regime, to me.

Wanting the change in a different, sanction way should make one question the “way” — how many years, how many murders, before sanctions aren’t enough, and support of sanctions is actually just dishonest support for the regime?

And Marc was on the radio debating censure against Bush, arguing it’s a mistake for the Dems.

I think that if Dems genuinely, sincerely believe that Bush was wrong to go to war in Iraq, they should support censure.

Even if, as Marc C. says, it is less than popular (though Mavis says it might not be THAT unpopular). George Burns said about acting: "if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made."

The problem is that to believe it wrong to go to war, is to believe it wrong to boot Saddam, is to say, logically, that Saddam continuing to operate rape rooms and torture houses is better than Bush's invasion.

(Sanctions meant Iraqis would stay even poorer -- which Saddam would blame on sanctions. It's working for Fidel.)

Reg is correct -- putting a losing censure bill on the table, or any radical bill, makes less radical bills more discussable. That's what Milton Friedman has said, repeatedly, to Libertarian Party gatherings, and it also applies to those who believe, despite all history, in a Big, Benevolent Gov't -- as long as the "good (our side) people" are running it.

The point is that taking a moral stand, even if it's unpopular, gets some respect.

Of course, what Dems REALLY need are reasonable alternatives -- like a genuine, honest strategy on how to fight Islamofascism. "We Surrender " is at least honest, but prolly quite unpopular. For which I thank God (not Allah).

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/24/06 11:50 | link | comments (10)
iraq, hearts and minds

Growl, not Howl, and a JOKE

For the literati, Gerald has a fine poem: Growl.  To be compared, not confused with Ginsberg's Howl.  (Via Roger)

But, like jokes, it doesn't move me so much.  I know it should, but I'm too serious.  So here's a good joke (via ASI):

Five Caribbean Surgeons were discussing the best patients to operate on. The first, a Cuban surgeon, said, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second, a Jamaican, responded, "Yeah, but you should try electricians. Everything inside them is colour coded." The third, a Barbadian surgeon, said he preferred librarians because he found everything inside them was in alphabetical order, and the fourth, a Trinidadian surgeon, liked construction workers because they always understood when you had a few parts left over

But the fifth, a Guyanese surgeon, shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable."

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/24/06 08:49 | link | comments (1)
hearts and minds

US Economy is too good; recession 2007

That's what I say. Not enough unemployment.

Bush disagrees, he thinks the Economy is doing well:

“Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy. Last year our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs -- that's more than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined. The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent -- that's lower than the average rate of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Productivity is strong. Inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an all-time high. Real after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. The growing economy is a result of the hard work of the American people and good policies here in Washington.”

I actually think it is doing TOO well, that the deficit spending is too much and the unemployment is too low. I think about 5% should be the right amount of “natural” full employment. Lower means that new job entrants will get more cash. Lower than 5% with no deficit is fine; but with a deficit it’s too low/ too good.

This means, to me, an otherwise avoidable bust is coming.  Bush is hoping it won't come until after the 2006 elections, which means lots more pork, this year; and prolly a recession in early 2007.  You read it here first.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/24/06 08:00 | link | comments (2)

Hari against the war

Hari on Iraq, a Melancholic Mea Culpa

Some comments on Marc’s site, where he notes that Johann Hari has changed his mind.

As Mark D says, the choice was to support Bush fighting evil Saddam — or oppose Bush’s fight; which means supporting Saddam.

I notice Hari carefully avoids claiming that Saddam is still the “legal” or “rightful” president-dictator.

Saddam has been the worst Iraqi dictator most Iraqis have ever lived thru — just as Pol Pot (as supported by all anti-V. War folk) was the worst dictator of my life.

Surrendering to evil is easier, and sometimes less messy, than fighting evil.

“Wrong to support the war” = “Wrong to support Bush booting Saddam” = “Wrong to support creation of democracy in Iraq”.

I disagree with Hari, and with Marc Cooper. But I’m glad Hari told the truth about why he changed his mind — he’s tired of the news. He’s not tired of Darfur or Zimbabwe or Palestinian Authority yet, where there hasn’t been free and fair elections with a free press. (PA was close).

The purpose of the constant gloom & doom news is to make folks tired of fighting evil, so surrender looks OK (and yes, to sell the news for profit; about 20% or else investors aren’t interested).

Saddam murdering some 50-70 000 / year means; hm, 150 - 210 000 Iraqis would have been murdered by him in the last 3 years. But Hari wouldn’t have gotten tired of the news — CNN was censoring most negative stuff of Saddam.

Hey Bunker, great shots for 10 -- it's LESS silly to look at hypotheticals than read potty-mouth Reg complain about the pro-democracy pro-war position, and set up silly God - Satan straw men. Thanks, Samuel, for some clear questions. Though Bunker’s answers are mostly “wrong”.

1. Inspections would "work" -- false. Saddam would NEVER allow the inspectors to prove he didn't have WMDs. See Blix in Feb, 2003. 

2. Assuming 1-true, other countries would pressure Saddam -- ha, ha, ha. Like they're pressuring Sudan? Saddam "won" in Gulf War 1 by surviving; he was gambling he would "win" again with inspections, that would go on and on not finding anything but he would say "I have none (wink)", meaning I, Saddam, am smarter than the keystone cop UN bozos. (Many of whom are getting paid by Oil-for-food corruption).

3. Saving cash is VERY likely true; the paleo-conservative (and Libertarian) position is that War costs too much. But $50 billion/ year on the no-fly zone had already been $500 billion since 91.

4. Moderate Arabs could help the US -- *** this is the most important future issue ***

"Radical Islamists can only be defeated by moderate Islamists". True. And Moderate Arabs … back the Strong Horse. I think modern, moderate Muslims can only evolve in a democracy, and such a democracy had to be forced. I'm certain that Syria would not have left Lebanon had the US been only in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.

No way of knowing, now, of course -- but discussing the different probabilities of outcomes can help focus on and see the difference of opinion about probabilities of alternate futures. 

Yet your arm-waving pseudo-prayers for some way to remove Saddam without using military force can, and are, being testing in Darfur. If the UN/ moderate Arabs can't stop genocide there, it seems silly to claim they would "somehow" be able to stop Saddam. 

Meaning, anti-war = support for Saddam. The hard reality of choice the anti-war folk don't like to mention. Ask Reg (but be ready for obscenities, the Left’s idea of intelligent ways to persuade others; I’m sure it will be a big vote-getter in 2006 when there are real choices).

Oh no, wait. I remember -- they "could have and would have", except Bush invaded. So, now, it's all Bush's fault. PA civil war in Gaza -Bush's fault. And the murder of 500 teachers in Thailand by Islamofascists (over a few years). So is global warming, and Katrina.  And the WTC. And the Cole. And the first WTC in 93 ...

How special.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/22/06 09:59 | link | comments (1)
iraq, democracy, free press

Iraq is worth the cost

I like it when Lefties want to "honestly figure out the truth." Like in Marc Cooper's comments.

Like in Vietnam "we can't win..."   How is the future the truth? At any time it might be true to say "I don't think we will win", and even more true to say "I think the cost of winning is too high, so we should lose."
 
I think the tax-cost in Iraq is pretty high; and higher than it needed to be, because the US Army is trying to do too many good things, in Big, Inefficient ways.

I think the cost in US lives is pretty low. Still under 2500 US lives lost, to FORCE the development of a democracy. Yet democracy takes time to grow, to have elected leaders learn of their power, and their limits to power. And the need to get re-elected.

Lefties, please don't give me the dishonest crap that you are so concerned about the lives of Iraqis killing each other. Not unless you're willing to do the hard intellectual work of reporting on the facts -- how many Iraqis were being murdered by Iraqis in the years before Bush invaded?

That's the same dishonesty by Leftists about Vietnam "oh, it's so terrible the US is killing so many poor innocent Vietnamese." While there was certainly lots more civilians killed by the US there than in Iraq, the targets were N. Viet soldiers, and many of them were being killed in the fighting. But the point is that some 600 000 non-fighting civilian Vietnamese were murdered by N. Viet winners, who the anti-war folk "knew" would win if the US left.

I'm really glad some are finally talking about the cost -- because it IS costly, even if it's good that Saddam got booted.

I think Marc Cooper* thinks it's good Saddam got booted -- but doesn't have the intellectual courage to say how much "cost" or "price" the USA should have been willing to pay for the good result.

And of course, today in Iraq isn't such a great "result" -- it's only tomorrow's history, in the process.  

I think the Sunnis are on the verge of getting what too many thought they maybe wanted; a civil war to split the country into 3. Kurds with Kirkuk, prolly a lot of Mosul; Shia in the South; Sunni in the center (but sharing Baghdad), with little oil. 

Because I think this result is coming (since Bush & Bremer failed to have a unifying National Oil Trust Fund to distribute cash to all citizens), I don't think much should be spent on trying to keep the Shia together with the Sunnis, if the Sunnis don't want union enough to stop the terrorists.

I remain glad that Saddam and his rape rooms and his torture rooms are no longer operating; I'm glad Bush had so few troops it was always clearly a liberation, not occupation; I'm very glad the Iraqis chose who would write their new Constitution; which they voted to support; and in which they've chosen new democratic leaders.

It's too bad non-unified democracy IS so messy -- the US two-party district system is so much more stable than Proportional Representation (party lists) often is (another Bush - Bremer - Iraq Constitution writers mistake). 

The "ongoing crises" is proof that the US is NOT calling all the shots (though I don't doubt they keep a certain veto power).

Only a foolishly naive person would think the US could force democracy without the loss of a single life -- and if at least one is accepted, there should be some way of deciding how many is too many. There has been virtually no discussion of this issue.

Thinking democracy would be as quick and easy in Iraq as in Eastern Europe was only slightly less foolish -- yet, looking at Russia for instance, it's still too soon to claim a clear "victory for Democracy." If a Leftist has ever claimed Bush will be successful in helping Iraq create democracy, but it will take some time -- I haven't seen such a claim.

But it looks to me like steady progress is coming, despite the terror attacks.

And Michael Totten's Kurdistan -- wow! 51st state! (their dream; I suspect Iranian Kurdistan joining with Iraqi when the US moves against Iran.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/15/06 17:11 | link | comments (3)
iraq, democracy

Too busy to blog; here's my 200 billion immigration solution draft

My blogging, never the greatest of shakes, will be a bit slower in the next week.  Maybe I'll try to just list some subjects I'd like to blog about?

Like Michael in Kurdistan, Zarqawi was here.

Marc Cooper on why Hillary, especially, should keep quiet about immigration -- after the harm the Clinton presidency did.
A policy recommendation:
The US gov't should offer all people in the world a green-card work visa -- for some $20 000 (about half the avg. US annual salary); which the workers will have to pay off, like a loan.

Anybody in the US illegally should be fined $20 000 and deported -- and allowed to come back for $40 000 (the $20 000 fine plus $20 000).

Anybody, including new immigrants, can report a suspected employer of employing illegals, and get a $1000 bounty if an investigation shows the company employing illegals.  Employers would pay a $20 000 fine/ per illegal employee.


Why stop at punishing employers, why not also fine landlords who rent to illegals?

Finally, all green-card aliens should be paying some $50 / month for English lessons, to go down $10 / month for each 2 years of training proficiency they demonstrate.  Big complaint is the non-English speaking issue.

Make the benefit of coming to America less, and less will want to come.  

But both Reps and Dems are dishonest about how many immigrants they're willing to accept openly.  I say, set a price, see how many come, and if it's still too many, set a higher price.  I'd guess at $20 000, 10 mil, $200 billion offers a lot of cash to the US gov' t to solve the problems of the immigrants.

And pressure by immigrants on home buying, and thus increasing prices of homes, is almost certainly more than $10 billion / yr (about $1000 increase in home price per illegal).

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/12/06 02:12 | link | comments (1)
economics

Love, Klute, Art

While I've been really busy, Neo has been writing terrific stuff.  Like two posts on Men's rights, and then some interesting, and I think related, Art history.

My third thought, after her excellent post, was of the woman's expression.  Like Jane Fonda's Klute prostitute, and the bored expression on her face as a John takes his pleasure of her body.

My second thought was of the 3-love post I wanted to write to Andrew Sullivan, who last week or so had a nice little love post. I would discuss love of body (=lust), love of soul (=soul mate companion), and love of future in a sacred creation.  Like the love of God the Creator, an act of love-creation gays can't share as normal married couples can.  (our 4th child is already 6 months old!) With the love-creation being the marriage of half the man's genes with half the woman's genes, in a new DNA life.

My first thought was that this Art post was, in fact, part III of "Men's Rights".  Where women are elevated to be equal with men in sexual liberation, and yet remain available to be seen as sexual objects.

The "first profession" trade is still valid: men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love.  [Though today women seem to be getting, instead of love, offers for lots more sex.]

I don't quite think the expression is the snotty-snob, though it's close.  Klute again, Brightlightsfilm describes 1971 Jane: "Bree has channeled her talent, quite successfully, into performative-based prostitution, which she finds thrilling in the moment and deadening afterwards. Bree is unable to find joy in the power she wields over her johns; she’s too hung up on her past. After servicing one client superbly, Bree sits alone smoking a joint and suddenly starts to sing a familiar church hymn. The lingering effects of early puritanism stifle Bree’s fulfillment; her guilt numbs her. Her deepest hope is to be “faceless and bodiless ... and be left alone.” She is clearly on the road to suicide."

A Western Civ that allows legal abortion, the killing of an innocent human fetus because of the inconvenience -- such a Civ would be on the road to suicide.

Luckily, the Roe effect is starting to have some impact, and the 44 mil. aborted fetuses, the vast majority of which come from mothers who support legal abortion, will lead to and ARE leading to a demographic change of greater pro-life density.  Ever higher percentages of children come from pro-life families.  

In Europe, many such Muslim pro-lifers are far far less tolerant and more fundamentalist than the "fundies" the US Leftists love to demonize & ridicule {no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!).

Demographics is destiny -- and vice versa.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/12/06 01:20 | link | comments (8)
abortion, gays

Soft Europe plus other Web

Soft Europe -- if the only thing most Europeans will fight for is more welfare, now -- things will get worse before they are willing to fight.

Andrew Sullivan went to Cato, and is down on the Bush spending.  Yes, technically it's Congress spending, but Bush is leading the big spending, big government Reps.  A Dem letter to Andrew complains about it, with the clear Dem signature line against the Tax Cuts.

Normblog links to Shuggy's on (fisking the Guardian): 

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/07/06 23:29 | link | comments (2)
iraq

Happy Name Day to Tomas

My kids sang me a little song:
Happy Name Day to you.
Happy Name Day to you.
Happy Name Day dear Daddy/ Thomas
Happy Name Day to you.

Today, 7 March, is the name day of all who are named Thomas, or Tomas (Slovak spelling).

My wife also spent time experimenting with Luscious Chocolate Truffles.
No wonder I love her, so much!
She said I MUST let the kids have some tomorrow after breakfast -- they won't last until the kids get home from school.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/07/06 22:59 | link | comments
greys

Left and Unreal Perfection

Neo posts on Leftists Blaming the Parent.

C'mon, you know you want to say it -- the Left wants ... Unreal Perfection.

In fact, what the Left wants of America, and never gets, is very much similar to what the anti-Christians want of Christianity, and never get. A world without problems, and with totally non-hypocritical powerful rulers (elected and anointed).

The US certainly tries to influence, but not control by force (beheading those who disagree!). Like socialist union members taking higher paid union jobs -- if the boss gets more money and the company is making profits (to pay dividends to capital owners), the union member feels ripped off! controlled by the profiteer! unfair! inhuman! greedy!

"Most powerful" is not all-powerful; but Leftists often criticize as if they think the US could be, and should be. Thus, on torture, some 100 Iraqis have died in US custody, some through firm interrogations. I don't call usually call them torture, because the aim is not to cause pain, but merely severe discomfort (no clear border).

Yet Michael Totten writes that, in one building in Kurdistan, Saddam had 10 725 Kurds murdered, by torture (interrogation). Even accepting the 100 number as US tortures, that means not a 50% improvement, nor 90%, but 99% plus. Yet the Left hates America because of torture (of Iraqis). 

What a lie. The anti-capitalist/ America/ Jew/ success folk are only using the "torture" of Iraqis as a stick to beat the US. With a "higher standard". Bah!

We have the UN, we have Universal standards. No torture. (Christians: no sin). Sometimes US soldiers fail (Christians sin). Humans are imperfect.

But let's have one standard, please. And compare: 10 725 vs 100. Those "against the war" are in favor of the leader who wants 10 725 torture murders. The anti-war folk do NOT care about Iraqis being tortured, just as anti-war folk did NOT car about Vietnamese being murdered. 

My Lai allowed them to hate-Nixon/ America/ imperfection of the all powerful USA parent = God. They can "claim" they want the US to leave Vietnam ... for the sake of the Vietnamese! Since, as Kerry testified, the US acts like Genghis Kahn. Bah!

Those against the war were in favor of commie victory, and 600 000 Viet murders; the results.

Western Civ won't fail -- it will revert to total war fascism before it lets Islamic fascists win. (Sometimes I think the PC thought police Nazis actually want this.)

Watch the French become "Nazis" in the next 10 years, with EU blessings. If Tel Aviv is nuked/ WMDed, look for lots of nukes flying. Mecca and Medina can just as easily become mushrooms.

Of course, maybe the US can convince India to increase its Indian Peacekeeper forces (especially if the US pays), so the US-UN can pay the Indian army to pacify Darfur. First.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/06/06 01:46 | link | comments (6)
unreal perfection, wot, leftist

Rahmatullah is perhaps like Severus Snape

Neo is interested in political change, even of the ex-Taliban spokesperson now at Yale, Rahmatullah.

In Book 6, Severus Snape kills Dumbledore at the end; at the beginning he is busy proving to other Deatheaters he is on the side of the Dark Lord.

Dumbledore trusted him, and he had saved Harry Potter's life. (I think he hated Harry's father, but loved Harry's mother.)

Only JK Rowling now knows if Snape will, ultimately, be for or against the Dark Lord. (I suspect he'll be both in book 7, but not sure till near the end which way he'll end up.)


I strongly suspect R. is trying to keep some options open -- everybody who leaves one place of work is told: "don't burn bridges."

If Bush's WOT is successful, so Afghanistan's democracy holds, R. will be one of the very, very few Afghans educated at Yale. And, if the Taliban return to power, and R. wants to be a Big Man there, he'll likely have kept that option open.

No verification is possible; no more than polite trust is called for.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/06/06 01:24 | link | comments (1)
harry potter, wot, islamofascism

My Karaoke audio When you're dreaming

I really like Slovensko Hlada SuperStar (Slovakia looks for a SuperStar = Slovak Idol), and the great singing.  This is year two.
In year 1 they had a fine group song (11 finalists), Kym Vies Snyvat.
I translated it into English.
Maybe somebody, with a good voice, will sing it.  (I sent it off to Daniel Hevier, who wrote the words).

My kids like the way I sing it, OK.  That's good enough for me to be glad.
I'll try to add it here, too.

I know my adoring readers really want to hear my Karaoke voice.  Heck, it's Karaoke Saturday night, but my wife is sick, and I've lots of work to do.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/05/06 00:23 | link | comments (1)

Look at Kurdistan

Everybody else is finally linking to Michael J Totten, who I’ve been linking to for years..

Everybody should see his blog pictures of SULEIMANIYA, IRAQ.

And see the heartbreaking ending of their own genocide museum.

“10,725 people were killed in this one building alone. All died during torture. Formal execution actually took place in Abu Ghraib”

99% reduction would be 107 -- just about the total number of “deaths in custody” of the USA over 3 years.
But that's not good enough for Bush-haters.  They'd rather have 100% Saddam torture continue, than a reduction by at least 99%, if it means Bush is promoting democracy.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/04/06 22:12 | link | comments (1)
iraq, unreal perfection, torture

Left a longer note on our earlier Arab conspiracy issue; but can't stop thinking about the issue.

"Chosen People" and "superiority" are primarily related to one issue: discrimination. I claim Jews have, historically, discriminated against non-Jews with respect to marriages for their children.

If I'm wrong about Jew-hate being partly caused by the Jewish discrimination against non-Jews in their children's marriages, it means either the discrimination doesn't happen (50% intermarriage rate in USA, maybe last year), OR what discrimination that exists is not a problem.

If I'm right about it being a reason, that implies Jew can reduce Jew-hate by changing their own behavior, and increasing inter-marriage.

I'm afraid, dear Neo, you WANT me to be wrong, to avoid the recommendation that Jews should reduce their own discrimination.

You might also want to make a point that such mild, and primarily personal discrimination should be acceptable in civilization, and not be fuel for hatred -- a point I would fully agree with. But "correctly" claiming that such discrimination doesn't justify Jew-hate is different than claiming anybody is mistaken who claims Jews do discriminate.

Which was the point I was trying to make, likely much less articulately than you would have had you wanted to make such a point.

Posted by: TomGrey at 03/02/06 11:18 | link | comments (3)