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

Losing to Islamofascists is not like losing Vietnam

Callimachus posts a 5 point Leftist plan for a “better” WoT -- and demolishes most points. He concludes with this thought about the war: “We might lose. And the consequences of that would be terrible. Anti-war people seem to think this push-back against Islamism all could be done better and smarter with less work, less sacrifice, less difficulty, fewer ugly pictures in the nightly news. Unfortunately, the opposite likely is more true.”

The West will destroy Islam only after Islamofascists get, and use, a nuke; say, Tel Aviv goes mushroom. (Or Miami, or Mumbai).

I support democratization of the ME to avoid that, but recognize this means much less overwhelming force at any one time -- but continuing to fight over a long time.

I think the anti-war folk think the US can lose Iraq like we lost S. Vietnam -- with no bad consequences to the US. The 600 000 murdered Vietnamese (after S. Viet surrender) didn't cause a single anti-war politician to resign, for most anti-war folk, it increased their anger at Nixon & the Reps...

I don't think there were many, if any, ugly pictures of the anti-war supported post-surrender murders -- if a genocide occurs but the cameras are off did it really happen?
Is there anything happening in Darfur? No pictures... no news.

I stopped reading Sully regularly when his desire for gay marriage made him oppose Bush, who only favored civil unions; though of course Andrew claimed it was also the Bush incompetence in Iraq, etc. Michael Totten is guest blogging there now, with great stuff.

A French guy, Michael Béhé in Beirut, is writing about how shocked everybody is at how strong Hez was, and how he and many were supporting Israeli destruction of Hez -- Israel doing the Leb job the Leb people were unwilling to do.
“Before the Israeli attack, Lebanon no longer existed, it was no more than a hologram. At Beirut innocent citizens like myself were forbidden access to certain areas of their own capital. But our police, our army and our judges were also excluded. That was the case, for example, of Hezbollah’s and the Syrians’ command zone in the Haret Hreik quarter (in red on the satellite map). A square measuring a kilometer wide, a capital within the capital, permanently guarded by a Horla army [1], possessing its own institutions, its schools, its crèches, its tribunals, its radio, its television and, above all… its government.”

It was not a big Hez victory. I wonder if Leb can have peace with Israel; I hope so.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/30/06 17:05 | link | comments (5)
iraq, vietnam, leftist, islamofascism, israel palestine

Guerilla War and Proportionate Response

Great analysis, by SDB about disproportionate and guerilla warfare:
 “It's possible for guerrillas to win directly, but the doctrine doesn't assume that to be the only way victory can be achieved. The idea is to try to fight a long slow war and to build strength. Guerrillas try to maintain a force-in-being, and concentrate heavily on propaganda. By so doing they try to wear out their opponent, try to rally supporters, and try to find patrons elsewhere to support the fight. When handled ideally all these begin slow but increase in effectiveness as time goes on. As their strength builds, they can make more attacks, and get more headlines. The other side's war weariness grows. Patrons see the guerrillas winning and are more enthusiastic about providing more and better weapons and supplies to help them. Locals see them winning and are more likely to join or otherwise support them.

Anyone recognize Hezbollah in what I just wrote?”

I, too, am enraged at the "proportionate" talk -- the goals were to implement 1559 (ENFORCE int'l law), and get the kidnapped soldiers back. So far, these goals haven't been met, so it's logically inconsistent to claim they could have been met with less force. The media refuses to explain that this is what "disproportionate" should mean: that 1559 would be implemented and the soldiers released, with less force.

Sort of like: Japan would have surrendered without us using the Bomb -- an honest proposition I strongly disagree with.

On the very important point about it's just not fair, I really think our fairy tales & myths are missing the Strong, Good King-Hero fighting evil honor less weaklings. Our myths have us supporting the good underdog. And a "fair fight."

In the lack of such myths, now necessary, we are indeed at the 'end of history'. We need to write new history, new myths.

I first thought that Lebanon should surrender, and Israel should get an unconditional surrender Victory. But no moral Western country can achieve that today against a guerilla or terrorist force (at least, not until after a terrorist uses a nuke to mushroom Tel Aviv).

Currently I'm thinking Israel almost optimized its defeat. Perhaps the only way Israel can get peace with its neighbor shame-based society Arabs is through defeat; Israeli defeat. Like this Leb war. Peace thru defeat. Declare defeat and accept a Leb Peace Treaty.

I like the newspeak irony of both sides then falsely claiming victory, when: Defeat is Victory.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/30/06 17:00 | link | comments
terrorism, hearts and minds, human rights

Belgravia against Bush on Iraq

Gregory D claims Gerson has 2 straw man argument camps, soft realists and hard realists, and misses a third camp, skeptical realists .
"One can be a soft realist, to use Gerson's lexicon, and so believe democracy is desirable--but question whether this can be successfully achieved by, say, invading Iraq, allowing massive disorder to prevail--with the country tottering on the brink of civil war--or too hastily cheerleading elections in Palestine, and then working in concert with Israel to attempt to scuttle the new government that prevailed at the ballot-box."

"'hard realists'. This crew, according to Gerson, think democracy is perhaps possible in the Middle East, but fearing the rise to power of Islamic radicals (and as good Kissingerian realpolitikers regardless), prefer to cozy up with the authoritarian satrapies of the region, thus showcasing a dismal tendency to prefer cursed stability to the glorious freedom taking root in the region."

[skeptical realists] " we understand that a moral dimension has its place, and always will, in the prosecution of U.S. foreign policy. We realize too, as security hawks, that the spread of democracy typically has the effect of reducing the specter of war and conflict. Which is to say, we like democracy, and we are happy to see it spread. But we are not fanciful adventurers--and we want to ensure requisite resources are brought to bear, and utopic outcomes are not breezily assured, and we suspect the effort will take place in gradualist fashion, via economic liberalization as much as political reform, and certainly not under the barrel of Israeli (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) or American (Iraq and, for some of the dimmer neo-cons salivating away, prospectively 'Syran') guns. We realize too that democracy is more than a 'ballot-cracy', more than waving purple fingers around in what was mostly a national census showcasing the rise of Shi'a revanchism in Iraq. We further realize that Bush's clumsy attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East are flailing rather dismally (see, again, the 30-day carte blanche to Israel to engage in a fanciful expedition to 'eradicate' Hezbollah, which helped put another nail in the coffin of America's repute in the region, not to mention the Cedar Revolution, or the emptily quixotic exercise that were the Palestinian elections, swiftly met with aid cut-offs which predictably have spurred on a grave humanitarian situation, and most of all, an Iraq adventure that has unleashed, in the face of our inability to provide for basic order, national furies that most Americans don't even begin to understand, as well as great skepticism about America's policy objectives in the region), and that in the face of such debacles, we must not curl up like bovine Pavlovians and ask for more of the same--but rather demand strategic changes. To do so, we must face reality square-on, learning from our mistakes and re-appraising our strategy, rather than rushing blindly towards the next misadventure with open arms."

But far too much of the analysis is focused on Rumsfeld and America, too little on Iraq and the Iraqi people, except in the abstract as helpless victims who, when killed, add to his reasons to support his policy.

I supported the war, and support the war, and claim it's not a "fiasco" -- despite press defeatism. I said less than 2500 US soldiers killed would be an "A", less than 5000 would be a "B"; Bush has moved from A to B. Leftists fail to list any scale, or measure.

The 1972 question in Vietnam: pull out or stay the course ... which meant active support for a corrupt S. Viet gov't to fight the Paris Peace Accord violating N. Viet murderers. The winners who, after S. Viet surrender, murdered some 600 000. Which should be horrible shame to the US, and especially to the "anti-war" movement, who advocated that result (pull-out; accept commie victory; accept murder).

The Vietnam "solution" -- time. 17 more years of commitment, at least.

The ONLY Iraqi solution -- time. Time for the Iraqis who want freedom to learn how to fight for it and achieve it. Time for the Iraqi mothers who have lost children to say: STOP KILLING.

If Saddam's army had fought better, and killed 6000 troops in the first month, but then been more completely beaten, the war would probably be less unpopular today. Because of American impatience -- with other people.

Gen Casey has put forth a phased time table -- why not address it? I think it's a little better course than adding more men now, but if the Gen. had asked for more men, I'd support that, too.

I think freedom is winning; but slowly. Yet while I like the second and third points of your option (3), you totally fail to convince me why pulling out is better if 3.1, 3.2, and/or 3.3 is not followed (more troops; more local/ less big base; more talk with surrounding countries). More troops probably means casualties, especially in the first months; more local troops means more exposure, more US deaths; more talk might mean an expression of weakness, and therefore more foreign based terrorists de facto, while paying lip service to US requests. I don't know; but know I don't know -- GDs analysis doesn't convince me that he do es know differently.

Gregory lists 4 items that are all fine: 1-fight AQ, 2-"success strategy" (though not agreed upon which one!), 3-ideological (VERY important), 4-incremental Arab reform.

The fanatical Muslims are fighting Women's Lib, Gay Liberation & marriage, and Pornography, among other free speech and religion rights which they oppose. It's a fact that secular Westerners believing in such "freedom" are failing to reproduce at the minimum 2.1 child replacement rate -- the secular West is demographically doomed unless something changes. What is changing in Europe is the importation of Muslims, who like keeping their women barefoot and pregnant. Isn't the birthrate in France beginning to stabilize, because the high Muslim rate? The anti-Christian, pro-promiscuity folks in the West keep saying the tolerant Catholics opposed to teen sex and abortion are as big, or bigger, threat than the Muslims. This is sad.

But, just as a "success strategy" in Iraq hasn't been agreed on, neither is there a common ideology of the West to combat the unification and peace available when all in the world submit to Allah.

5-resolve territorial issues; great idea. But is he saying that Bush could just wave his magic wand and solve them? Or, why haven't they been solved before, and what has changed to make them solvable now? Seems silly to hating Bush because he has not succeeded under harder circumstances where Clinton, and Bush, Reagan, Carter all failed.

++Some might think I offer a "blank check" -- sort of like "we can never win" in Vietnam, right?
I think 17 more years of low level fighting is a lot shorter than "never".

Niether Greg nor any Leftist has specified an acceptable timetable for success or level of US casualties for success.  (I have: 2500 = A, 5000=B, 10 000=C)  Without such a standard, each and every casualty is used to support defeatism.

No blank check, but continued monitoring -- and I think the progress justifies continuation.

We can't win-- but like S. Korea as compared to Vietnam, we can help a democratic, more human rights oriented Iraq come into existence.  Including spasms of democratically elected anti-human rights Shia or Sunni fundamentalists.

Will even 50 US deaths a month be the 2006 total?  How few would the level have to be before one would support 5 - 10 more years at that level?

America doesn't know how to fight, and win, a guerrilla/ terrorist war.  Greg's points 1, 3, & 4 are great starts -- he doesn't convince me at all that "stay the course" is worse at his point 2, Iraq success.

5, getting better borders elsewhere, seems a setup for failure; it is a good outside of the WoT, and its failure is also outside (Japan and Kurila Islands?).

Of course, I support the superiority of human rights: free speech and free religion, with a democratic gov't.  I think fighting, and risking death for self and those around, for such ideals is good.  The terrorists are fighting for what?  To kill Americans?  For the honor, against the shame, of Arabs? of Muslims?
In order to keep raping women and to keep their own wives subservient?

The terrorists need to be fought -- it's a shame most of the West is "free riding" on the US military forces, but that's unlikely to change, except that the US could be moving its NATO forces South and East.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/30/06 16:52 | link | comments
iraq, hearts and minds

Long slow win is better than fast loss

On Plame, Corn has been one of the major Bush critics who has been, essentially, LYING about Bush smearing Joe Wilson.

Joe Wilson's op-ed said Bush lied -- but Joe was basically LYING.  And those who said Bush was smearing Joe, like Corn, hmm, I think Liar is not inaccurate. 

Funny, just like Hez "pictures" of poor mothers in front of their destroyed homes; er, the same "mother" in front of different homes.

US deaths in Iraq, about 3000 (and counting) -- looks like a "B" to me.  Still no scale here with Marc or any on the Left, on how well Bush is doing (had to be less than 2500 for an "A").

Unspoken Unreal Perfection is the proposed alternative.  The choices are more troops, same troops, or fewer troops.  I think more would be OK, prefer same, accept fewer -- but know I don't know.  Gen Casey's phased withdrawal over the next few years seems good.

Only Iraqis can win in Iraq.

Yet Americans want it all over, WITH a happy ending, in time for the World Series, or Super Bowl, or whatever -- nation building takes a LONG time.  It would have worked in S. Vietnam in 17 more years, or less, after 1972.

Is losing better than long, slow, winning?  Not for me; I'll vote for those who support winning.
(via Marc Cooper)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/06 17:20 | link | comments
iraq, politics

Plame burning low -- has Corn popped yet

Great work by Q&O on the Plame junk, and especially on gasbag David Corn -- who contorts himself into a pretzel about how Plame’s name being leaked proves Bush is bad. But Armitage was NOT a Bush supporting neo-con. And he and his State Dept. failed to tell the US President the truth about his leak, his failure.

I’m so glad Q&O did the analysis so well, so I don't have to.

It's especially important to note that Wilson was lying, deliberately trying to mislead the NYT readers. I don't think Corn notes this.

I would have liked a reminder of what Bush's 16 SOTU words were, what Wilson's op-ed words were, and a note about the Commission which basically said Wilson was lying.

I think it's also important that State Dept decided NOT to tell Bush the truth -- this is big evidence that the US State Department is at least passively against the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy.

Marc Cooper notes: "most likely not so ill-intentioned as some Bush critics have thought." -- without mentioning his bud David Corn as perhaps the loudest such critic.

Marc and David continue to avoid the truth, as the British Inquiry concludes:

...Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.

Tom Maguire (biggest follower): "That is not exactly the same as saying that the claim was accurate, or that it has subsequently been verified."

And Belgravia Dispatch notes, about the UK, France, and Germany:"These were largely intelligence failures--not purposeful lies emanating down from POTUS."

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/06 16:33 | link | comments
politics, wot

Will Hamas learn to love life

Neo-neocon notes Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad speaking sense:  "We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

The hope that the Palestinians start being more responsible for themselves is the right hope; withdrawal was the right policy. Continued Palestinian attacks is part of the price -- but at least some of the Hamas folk understand it's a Pali problem, not an Israeli caused problem.

I suspect Hamad will be murdered soon -- one of the failures of Israel has been to avoid noting the individual names and histories of the many Palestinians murdered by other Palestinians.

Western aid which goes to "gov't" always goes to increase the violence in the society -- gov't is force. The aid should go directly to business organizations to create wealth, thru peaceful agreement and toleration of disagreement. Companies are how humans organize to peacefully create wealth -- and that's what the Palestinians need more of.

In the last 100 weeks there have probably been some 200 000 killed in Darfur -- that's about 2 000 a week. Each week. For two years. Almost nothing from Kofi, the UN, or the MSM about the Arab Muslims murdering black Muslims.

Q&O also notes “that, in fact, their condition is one of their own making, and Gaza is simply the latest manifestation of the culture of death under which they find themselves held captive.”

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/06 14:06 | link | comments (1)
peace, hearts and minds, israel palestine

Hezbollah not winners - but Defeat is Victory

The WSJ also prints that Hez didn't win.

In fact, Israel and Lebanon have not had peace for 58 years -- actually, Lebanon attacked and invaded Israel after Israel declared its independence. Active fighting was postponed by the Lebanon Armistice of 1948, also referenced by the UN SC 1701.

"Legally" they have been at war for 58 years -- but I don't consider "laws" without enforcement as "true law". In fact, enforcement without legislation or judging -- enforcement only -- is more "true law" than nice legislation and judges but without enforcement. Enforcement needs boots on the ground.

It should be emphasized Lebanese law makes it illegal to TALK to Israelis. Illegal to communicate! That's not freedom.

Finally, I offer a fourth Newspeak phrase, to go along with War is Peace (for 58 years?), Ignorance is Strength (for Hez, and Lebs not talking), Freedom is Slavery (why Hez hates the West).

Defeat is Victory.

Meaning that, since both Hez and Israel are claiming Victory, neither has really won. So I, too, fear another round. Just two weeks ago I argued for Lebanese surrender, or at least Hez surrender -- Peace thru Victory.

However, with the perception needs of the "so sensitive" Arabs in mind, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Israel can ONLY get Peace thru Defeat.

Declare "defeat", sign a Peace Agreement with Lebanon, promise to pay war reparations (to villages where Leb Army, only, has control); agree to accept some 1000 temp Leb workers a month, open the borders for at least 1000 Leb visitors (non-workers) a month, Shebaa Farms according to the UN.

[US and EU Leb reconstruction money would then go thru Israel as war reparations. Newspeak, yes.]

The relative high destruction of Leb vs. relative low destruction of Israel can even offer this as a model for gaining peace thru "losing" to the Palestinians, if they really want it "Victory" so much ... but it seems they really do. Or too many of them to be denied in any way short of mass killing of them and too many of their not-fully guilty supporters.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/06 13:59 | link | comments
democracy, hearts and minds, islamofascism, israel palestine

10 years of Welfare Reform

The WSJ highlights how welfare reform has been a modest success: " Welfare reform has worked so well that its success runs the risk of going almost unnoticed. Welfare rolls are down to about two million today from a peak of five million in 1995....

But 98 Democrats opposed [Clinton] on the House floor, including many of the Democrats who would chair committees in the House if they re-take Congress in November. Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election. Make no mistake: This was a conservative reform opposed every step of the way by the political left and its media allies ."

60% reduction is very good.  But the Big Gov't types are promising "more help", implicitly no poor people, which is almost certainly a lie. 

This was an Important reminder, especially of the facts that this was a conservative reform, opposed by the Left AND its media allies.

Most in the media, including too many at thw WSJ, write stories with a double standard bias against Reps; often in favor of Unreal Perfection, as promised by some Big Gov't proposal.

Getting the incentives right is always the most important long-term issue.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/27/06 10:50 | link | comments
unreal perfection, poverty, reform

Amnesty & HRW against Bush -- for terrorists

Right Coast:  “I've met one senior Human Rights Watch officer at several symposia in New York over the past few months, and I was genuinely taken aback at her visceral hatred not only for George Bush (that's to be taken for granted in these circles) but for the US more generally. Over the course of several hours of discussions, touching on a variety of events over many decades, she made it extremely clear that a "human rights problem" (past or present) exists for her only if America can be blamed for it.”

I think it’s possible to defend and support AI & HRW a bit -- but I think the AI / HRW bias is clear. What they should be doing more of is similar to the Freedom Rankings, and state a variety of criteria, and evaluate each country against that set of criteria. Lebanon would be very low -- since Hez is in and is a part of Leb, and each and every rocket they shot, "targeted" civilians. Most destruction caused by Israel is probably not a "war crime", if most of the targets were military. There is the problem that AI & HRW seem to want "war" to be "illegal", and thus call the justice based response to murder, kidnappings, and illegal rocket attacks as, essentially, equally a "war crime" as the original murders.

Philosophically, before there is need of a "justice system", some injustice must occur. The operation of the justice system to punish those initiating the injustice is a grey area combining morals and pragmatism. Neither AI & HRW seem to offer much help in stopping injustice, genocide in Darfur, for instance. As of a few months ago, neither org even called it genocide -- since if it was genocide, it would obligate the UN to use violence, war, to stop it. And of course such violence would mean fighters fight, kill, die, and even kill civilians.

AI & HRW are also symbiotically connected with the Main Stream Media -- whose Public Opinion megaphones are turned on high for NGO reports critical of Bush / the US / Israel / any capitalist country, but "not much story" for reports critical of Arab governments or most other dictators (except Pinochet! gone from power for 18 years). It's likely that 40-60% of the complaints about AI & HRW are due to the biased magnification of the MSM.

Ken Anderson (A former director of HRW) also complains about the 'legalistic' form of advocacy of HRW.

Rand Simburg says: “To paraphrase Golda Meir, so-called human rights organizations will be useful when they learn to love human rights more than they hate the US and Israel. Or to paraphrase someone else--they're not in favor of human rights, they're just on the other side.”

Reform or replace?

The pro-freedom folk, perhaps like those doing the Heritage Freedom Index, need to do a Human Rights Index, and explicitly quantify and criticize the bias of AI and HRW. In fact, only by replacing them with something better, will they seriously start reform -- just like private schools are needed to help gov’t schools reform.

These NGOs support the Media in their Bush hate, and get supported by the media.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/27/06 08:51 | link | comments
media, free press, human rights

Teen girl sex manual

Fausta writes about how much tougher men's lives are, and I agree.  She lists 3 reasons:
"There are three main trends why being a man in today's world strikes me as a most difficult position:

1. The Church of Oprah
2. Sex and the City
3. Teen girl media"

 I knew about the first two, but the ever earlier sexualization of young girls, through oral sex manuals in teen girl media, is a disappointing surprise to me.

The pro-promiscuity of Feminism and Secular Humanism is a huge problem.  It's a contributing reason for Islamo fascists to hate America and the West,

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/24/06 20:54 | link | comments
human rights, morality, secular

Dwarf Planet Pluto

BBC reports that scientists voted to exclude Pluto from the list of planets, which will now be only 8:
"At just 2,360km (1,467 miles) across, Pluto is smaller even than some moons in the Solar System. But until recently, it was still the biggest known object in the Kuiper Belt.

That changed with the discovery of 2003 UB313 by Professor Mike Brown and colleagues at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). After being measured with the Hubble Space Telescope, it was shown to be some 3,000km (1,864 miles) in diameter, making it larger than Pluto."

Goodbye Pluto, we hardly knew ye!  Oh wait, NASA already sent a probe, due 2015.  Hope we learn more -- all bodies are mysterious.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/24/06 20:49 | link | comments
technology

A Faith Divided Will Sunni-Shia war engulf the new Middle East?

Not mentioned in this good note is that, in the Sunni-Shia war that is now on in Iraq, America can not win until they have peace with each other.  Yet each death is a "victory" for the anti-Americans.

UNIFIL Unfulfilled -- Arnold Kling talks about how the elites are out of touch with the people, and thinks the people are right about profilling at airports to reduce terror, he's afraid of populist economists.

Israeli Left takes a Hard Right -- Neo discusses how the issue is not "land for peace", it's about Israel's existence.  Related to this Israeli Professor:

Arrogance behind Radical Left
Noting how Israel was always the Goliath.  But now, there seems to be rising a new Goliath.

There's also an Israeli's soldier's perspective.  He says it's about existence.  I say:

It is also about Arab “defeat”, or not — they have never surrendered.

Israel also needs to add video cameras, as a PR truth weapon, for documenting the human rights violations of mosques, schools, churches, etc.

“We’re here to stay and there’s no force in the world that can drive us from our homeland. ” — great fighting spirit!
Sure to win on any battlefield.

Um, except the Nuke Ballistic Missile attack on Tel Aviv that Iran is preparing Hez to undertake.

I’m really afraid of this nightmare, yet fear that only a nuke will awaken the needed “Fighting” spirit of the West.

Palestinians need to surrender, too — and accept their Palestinian half of the “Holy Lands”.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/06 03:20 | link | comments
democracy, leftist, islamofascism, israel palestine

Freedom and meaning of life

Alexander Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard was too wonderful to compress in my job press.

Yet it is Richard (Belmont Club) which identifies the key radical challenge: "principally the idea that freedom divorced from some deeper purpose was possible."  Solzhenitsyn's answer is NOT.

Only when one has a "meaning for life" is freedom meaningful.

For me, I see the current world as inter-related struggles of Modern (tolerant) Christianity against 3 fundamentalisms: against Christian fundamentalists, against Secular fundamentalists, against Islamic fundamentalists.
With two more struggles:
Modern Islam vs. its fundamentalists, and Modern Communism vs. Chinese Communist fundamentalists.

The Dems who fear pro-life Christians more than head-slicing Islamic fascists (perhaps many of Neo's friends?) seem to me to be fighting the Secular fundamentalist struggle.

Finally, one of the answers to excessive materialism should be: ending "intellectual property rights", which act as a highly efficient "innovation tax", as well as "information monopoly protectionism." -- because much advertising is based on this protectionism and its promotion of meaningless, but pleasurable, sex & violence (& drugs & rock 'n roll).

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/06 03:01 | link | comments (1)
democracy, hearts and minds, morality

Parliamentary Systems - identity politics

Donald Sensing talks about parliamentary system - Proportional Representation (PR) they have in Israel.

These Proportional Representation systems result in folks voting for a party list, rather than individual representatives. Having "party lists" also encourages extremism.  Czecho-Slovakia split partly because there were no "national" parties, merely Czech parties and Slovak parties.  Some similar (Christian Democrats), some unique, Meciar's populist HZDS (Moverment for Democratic Slovakia), a personality based populism.
[He's now back in gov't with the new Democratic Socialist populist.]

Parliamentary systems might allow the Libertarians to get into office somewhere -- so I supported it, in the past.  Seeing it in action makes me grateful to the US Founding Fathers for the geographic district based system.

Had Iraq copied the distric based system, there would be less sectarian violence -- Proportional Representation rewards identity politics over location politics.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/19/06 08:49 | link | comments
democracy

Quick hits

US house market 'at 15-year low' -- BBC looks for and finds the bad in the news.  Notes 20 straight interest rate increases, it's about time the housing bubble cooled off. 

Will it burst?  Not asked, not discussed.  I think a slower, longer, deflating is what is known as a "soft landing".  And already the Fed stopped raising rates at their last meeting.

Orin Kerr (at Volokh) notes in the London Terror post-analysis, everybody is claiming "I told you so".  Pro- and anti-wiretappers, pro- and anti-airline securities. 

Facts are facts, but analysis, why those facts occurred, is not really a science.  Only conjecture.

ACT scores are rising!  This doesn't mean NCLB is working, but it's a good indication that positive progress is being made.

Visiting a Jewish site referenced a couple of older posts: How to stop Iran (Without firing a Shot) -- good note about non-invasion options.  Wish I could believe they would work; but I don't quite believe it.  However, I do hope they are tried before invasion escalation.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/16/06 13:04 | link | comments (1)
blogs

Blame Hezbollah for the destruction

Hezbollah should be blamed for all the destruction in the war.

1) It's clear Hiz wants to murder Jews -- 2) and that means all the majority of S. Leb Shia, who voted in favor of the Jew-murdering org, are choosing to support Jew-murder. 3) How much support do they have to give before they become accomplices[?]

But perhaps you don't believe the Shia civilians are guilty?

Do you deny that Hiz wants to murder Jews? Have you read what they write? Or ... you deny that voters who vote for murderers are supporting murder?

Here's the deal in America -- everybody who voted for Bush is voting in favor of his Iraq war. Of Bush supporters, some 22 million thought Iraq/WoT was most important (including MJT); 8 mil thought Tax Cuts/economy most important; 27 mil thought moral issues most important. (For Kerry, 22, 30, 5 -- more against Bush tax cuts than against war).

(See my Pew based analysis)

In democracy you get to choose a package, and you're supporting the worst of the package you choose. Bush pro-life supporters, perhaps like many of the 52% Catholics who voted for him because he’s honestly anti-abortion, are stuck supporting his war. Bush pro-choice supporters, like MJT here, are stuck supporting his anti-abortion because he’s honestly pro-war (on terror) in Iraq.

When one is bribed by murderers to support them, one still supports the murderers. It's certainly understandable that the Shia, ignored (?) by the others in Leb, feel that at least "somebody" supports them with hospitals, but understanding why they support murderers doesn't absolve them of responsibility for supporting the murderers.

In fact, if Shia support for Hiz murderers is based on Hiz built hospitals, doesn't that imply such hospitals should be targets of Israel, to reduce Hiz support?

As has been asked rhetorically, the reason Israel can't just kill Hizbollah seems to be a) Hizbollah violates "rules of war" and pretends to be civilians, and b) real civilians seem not to be honest about identifying who the Hiz murderers are.

I'm not sure they're being asked, but would you agree that a "civilian" who lies about who is Hizbullah becomes guilty of protecting Hizbullah, becomes an accomplice?

I would guess you would say "no" -- because such folk are, rightly, afraid Hiz would murder them or their families. Again, understandable; but again showing low Hiz morality.

I'm hoping that Israel has killed enough Hiz murderers that more Shia can feel safe enough to tell the truth about who, in their communities, has been guilty of trying to murder Israelis.

Inspired by Michael's fantastic posts on the Lebanon war front.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/16/06 09:10 | link | comments (1)
democracy, hearts and minds, islamofascism, israel palestine

McCain-Lieberman -- or Rudy

Professor Bainbridge thinks McCain-Lieberman 2008 is terrible -- too much focus on war.

I agree it's terrible for "conservatives", which I have become (libertarian paternalist?). But I claim it's a winning ticket if it runs as the Republican choice; and it wins for the Dems (whoever they run) if it runs as Unity08 or somesuch non-Rep.

I prefer McCain-Rice; much prefer Rice-McCain or Guiliani-McCain or X-conservative (Tom Coburn?) - McCain.

But I think if McCain isn't the VP choice or Pres choice, he'll run as an independent and accept splitting the Reps so the Dems win.

There is more, other talk about Rudy.  He also isn't such a great moral conservative.

+++ oops, corrected Lieberman's name in the title.
Glenn has a poll on who should be the Rep. Pres. candidate:  George Allen, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

There's something I don't like about all of them, plus Condoleezza Rice is not there, though her unmarried status is the one thing I don't like about her.  Right now, kind of like Romney.  Newt would make the best VP, for his ideas, but he's a loser as a ticket lead.  Niether Rudy nor McCain are pro-life enough for me.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/14/06 19:38 | link | comments
politics, democracy, wot

Group hate

Frewin discusses group hate, so I comment.

This is good, and important. Fighting for identity. Who are you? Who are you, really?

And “Nationalism” is a form of racism; “we” are better than you.

"Us and Them" (also great Pink Floyd song) is certainly a problem.

You mention Palestine/Israel; you should look at Dr. Sanity and the differences between guilt cultures and shame cultures.

Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, in order to have peace. Hezbollah has been wanting to, and preparing to murder Jews for all of those 6 years, rather than build their own peaceful civilization.

And don't you think the Dems excommunicating Lieberman is a perfect example of a group behavior which is basically genocidal in an attempt to be "pure"?

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/11/06 23:49 | link | comments (2)
hearts and minds, islamofascism

Islamic Fascists - the enforcers of their law

Anal-Philosopher doesn’t like Bush calling the murderers Islamic Fascists, because he says Muslims are anti-statist.

Just recently I read: "Hollander cites a study by the late Edward Shils of the similarities in beliefs and attitudes between the extreme ideological right and the extreme ideological left. His examples are drawn from Nazism and Communism, but the analysis applies to situations of ideological and political polarization more generally."

Today, I would it National Socialist fascism and National Communist fascism, because the key aspect of "fascism" is dictator control.

AP says: "I can’t think of a worse word for the people President Bush has in mind than “fascists.” " -- but this is predicated on the claim
2. No Muslims are statists.

This claim may well be true, in theory -- like the Marxist theorists who believed their communist state would wither away, as well.

In practice, the "state" is the local group with the most guns, the most power to enforce their own rules.

Of the 3 branches: "making law", "judging according to law", and "enforcing law" -- enforcement is first and foremost.

If you have enforcement, the enforcers can be the makers and judges. Without enforcement, "making" or "judging" is mere wordplay.

Hezbollah murderers of any Lebanese who oppose them are effective enforcers -- THIS is what makes them a "state within a state". Iran and the Taliban are similar in-practice examples.

In a very real on the ground sense, enforcement IS the law, and ONLY enforcement is real law.

Doesn't this lead to a good time for using a quote: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."

Because Bush is practical, calling them Islamic Fascists is good; even great. North Korea is essentially a National Communist fascism; and I think China and Vietnam are, too. [English -- the living language, where definitions drift; and likely the Chinese and Vietnamese will insult each other in English]

Extreme Mortman has pictures.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/11/06 23:46 | link | comments
hearts and minds, islamofascism

Iraqis responsible for Iraq

I don't think Leftists should be SO offended at being called a racist; I've also called those who want to close the American border to "them" racists. I consider a big F* U to be more offensive than "you racist", especially if there is some reason for the racist label. (When younger, I used F* a lot; don't, now.)

In the book Ender's Game, there's a scene with the hero calling a future friend "nigger." The author (Card) has revised the book, based on many complaints about the word, and taken the word out.

However, I consider those who assign moral responsibility for action to one group, but not another group, to be racist. The "condescension of low expectations" is related to this. I'm sorry if this offends you so much.

Then you get to the heart of it: "of course they are responsible for the killing they engage in, and this is, I would think, so elephant-like in its obviousness as not to need utterance. The two thoughts opportunity for you is: Who made the conditions where this kind of deadly anarchy can happen?"

Responsibility is a zero-sum issue. If the Iraqi murderers are responsible (51-100%), there is less responsibility for Bush.

The responsibility of the Iraqis for what Iraqis do needs far more utterance, and repetition, and is far more important than what Bush does, or doesn't do, in Iraq. I've long been writing on this (to little effect, not enough jokes! I know).

Freedom always allows murderers a lot of ability to murder; and the lack of law enforcement always increases the disrespect for the law. However, while the US army can give "freedom" from gov't oppression, it cannot provide local Iraqi law enforcement.  (from Marc)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/11/06 23:18 | link | comments (11)
iraq, islamofascism