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!

Offense & Belief - is Truth Good?

Norm talks about giving and taking offense, especially relevant with the Knighting of Salmon Rushdie.

The thing I keep thinking about is Good & Evil & God.  Norm has lots on this as well, including a good note about how Hitchens is wrongly misguided by Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford.
"He [Christopher Hitchens] seems to think that religion is the root of all evil. It isn't. The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious. His misdiagnosis is not just a baleful intellectual error, it has very serious consequences in the modern world, where religion is now such a major player... it alienates the millions of ordinary, decent, moderate religious believers who look to their religion to help them in the struggle to live a better life. Most seriously of all, it hinders the alliance that should be forming between people of all shades of belief and unbelief in the basic struggle going on in every country for human rights, peace and economic justice against fanatics of all kinds."

Then Norm continues, first with agreement, then with attack: "We should regard the shared values as more important - morally and practically - than the differences of philosophical and metaphysical belief.

The freedom to criticize religion is not only a fundamental right; for those of us who are unbelievers it is also a kind of duty, since one must do one's part in opposing belief not supported by evidence or reason or, as it appears to us in this case, anything compelling at all."

For Norm, opposing "belief" is a duty.

Given the impossibility of proving there is no God, whether there is or not, what is so compelling about belief in such an unprovable "truth"?  Is it good?  Is it important?  Is it useful?  A prior Normblog post laughed at a priest's argument for God which included the usefulness of belief.

Just what criteria do athiests use in claiming superiority of their "truth about no God" over a believer's "truth of a God limited to what cannot be disproven"?  In fact, without a God, there is a strong argument that there is no "free will", not to mention the mystery at the start of the Big Bang.
It seems more likely that the atheists primarily want to assert some kind of intellectual superiority, and use their atheism as an excuse to offend Christianity, especially (in the West).

As a believing socialist, like so many proud elites, his tested and failed belief should have made him change his belief in socialism.  Yet it doesn't.  In another recent post, Norm happily reprints the dispair of a young 14 year old about to be murdered.  She asks "How can God allow this?"  How can evil exist? Free will.  In the case of this murder, the free will of a proud atheist socialist.
One whose beliefs are more like Norm's than like any Christian's.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/25/07 21:43 | link | comments
christianity

D-day remembered for Bill

A new caprice of mine -- check out a motime blog.
In Slovak.
GREAT article (in Slovak) about William B. Clark, who died on Omaha beach on D-day.  I had read his body was never found, nor his dog-tags.  Now his dog-tags have been found.

Patejl of Nochny Klub has pictures of the tags, and of the young man. So young. So much sacrifice. Check out the pictures, even if you can't read the article.  Plus other cool pictures on the site.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/18/07 21:07 | link | comments

Lions and Bisons and Crocks, oh my!

Amazing YouTube, on Megan's site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/10/07 23:10 | link | comments
blogs

Rep Policy but Dem President better on Economy

Angry Bear (via Economist) has analysis on higher growth with Dem presidents.

The analysis misses some generally accepted facts:
1) every President wants to be successful, and to be ACTIVE, and
2) it is easiest for a President to achieve success by doing a program that the OTHER party mostly likes.
"Only (R) Nixon could go to China"

Cases:
W: w/ Kennedy on education, with lots of Dems on lots of spending; new lousy Dem-lite immigration (amnesty)
Clinton: Welfare reform, NAFTA, lots of Rep support
GHWB: (the "read my lips" liar) increase taxes!
Reagan: huge increase in deficit spending
Carter: exceptional, got stupid Windfall Profits Tax despite Rep opposition
Nixon: terrible wage & price controls
Kennedy/LBJ: tax cuts!

The Reps have better policies, but are more likely to get important Rep / free market influenced laws with a Dem president and a Rep Congress.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/10/07 21:57 | link | comments
economics, democracy

Israel, sad Israel. And Palestine.

In my one (?) post this weekend, I'll try to cover most points.

But first a note about "international law" -- it does not exist in the way that most countries (mostly "nation states") have a "law".  Most countries have either a constitution or a common law tradition with precedent, which specify what actions may be punishable, and by how much punishment.  There is also a "monopoly of (legitimate) force",  which the government of the country has, which is used to enforce the law. 

This is not the case among "sovereign countries".  Instead, country gov'ts make agreements, treaties, with other gov'ts.  When they violate the treaty, they can be said to be in violation of "international law", but there is not police force to punish them, nor any prescription as to what the punishment should be.

In the case of a territory grab, the invaders who lose, must leave the territory and it is given back to gov't of before the invasion. 

I'm by no means an expert on the "legal law", but instead focus on "real law" -- which I define as the law that is really enforced.  Words on paper that are not enforced, like the UN Charter (see free speech and free religion and the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries), do not earn my respect as "real law".

On the illegality of acquisition of territory by war: China in Tibet, USSR in many post-WW II places (like the part of Slovakia taken near Hungary) show that such "law" doesn't really exist / isn't enforced.  Unless the UN SC agree to enforce it.  In the above cases, a gov't before the invasion did exist, and a legal jurisdiction had been recognized by other countries.

But my point (4) is: there is NO PRIOR Palestinian gov't, with prior borders, to return control to.

Palestine was a mess since WW I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, when the French & British got control of the ME ex-Turkish empire.  Lebanon, for instance, was created in 1943 or so.  Socialist Zionist Jews had been immigrating into the nearly empty Palestine since the 1890s, in the Zionist movement.  The Turks accepted them -- Jerusalem had little value at the time.  The nomadic Beduins and Arabs then began to increase their activities as the Jews revitalized the economy.  After WW I, there was a period when the British accepted Jews coming, and another period when they rejected it.  During this time, the Jews were usually buying the land, but there was increasing trouble with the Arabs.

At no time in the last hundred years had any Arab people been living in accordance with, (Chris):
[quote]another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination,[/quote]

Not the Turks, not the French or British, not the Egyptians nor Jordanians, nor the Israelis.  However, after 67, and especially after the sneak attack of 73 by the Arabs where they got beaten again, badly, it became clear to the Israelis that the Arabs don't want peace.

The real problem is that the Arabs, and the Palestinians, don't want peace with Israel -- and the Palestinians are willing and able to kill any other Palestinians who try to say peace would be better.  The non-democratic, non-human rights respecting Palestinians murder those who disagree.

THAT's the big problem, not what Israel has or hasn't done.

In 1947, when the UN suggested a partition plan, the Arabs rejected it.  The Jews got agreement from US Pres. Truman that he would recognize an independent Israel, so the Jews declared independence.  But the Arabs refused to accept this.  And still refuse to do so.  Because of prior Arab refusal to accept any border with "Israel", it is fair to say Israel has not violated any Arab accepted border; therefore not violated int'l law.  Because the newspapers print that it is a violation, doesn't make it so.  What is the law?  It is only, in reality, that law which is enforced.  Until the US agrees that the 67 borders are the enforceable borders, the UN SC will not make a stronger than UN 242 resolution against Israel -- and 242 does NOT "clearly" say the pre-67 borders are the legal borders. 

If you think it does, please link and quote it.

When Arabs say they will accept Israel, like the Saudi plan (return to 67 borders AND all Pali refugees back into Israel, not Palestine), they know that Israel can't accept the refugees without either losing its Jewish identity or ending democracy.  So the Saudi plan is mostly PR.  Why don't the Arabs accept the current Wall as the border, and just sign a current status Peace Agreement?  Because their pride can't let them lose ...

Welcome bangala:[quote]
since there is no crime and no border violation, how do you explain the ongoing struggle in the Middlle east since the last century?[/quote]

Well, the struggle is to see which forces get to enforce the law on which borders.  Until the borders are agreed, the struggle continues.  My suggestion is:
The Palestinians LOSE, accept defeat, accept the Wall and the loss of the Golan Heights as punishment for not accepting Israel in 47, not winning in 48, nor 56 (when Israel joined with France & Britain against Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal), nor in 67, nor in 73.
Accept borders, and peace, and move on.  Palestinian action, and change, and responsibility.
It's not *I* who ignore the Palestinians, it is those who focus only on Israel as if the Palestinians are mere baboons or apes, unable to think for themselves or change their behavior.
It is NOT "fully just", but the cost of attempting to enforce justice is also not just, and exactly what is justice is not clear.

As Moonspider says:
[quote]since the belligerent Arab parties in the 1967 war did not recognize the borders that existed at that time, no legal boundary was violated.[/quote]
I believe the purpose of the Arab non-recognition of Israeli borders is so as to be able to attack Israel while making this argument.

This seems an excellent likelihood:
[quote]Israel will swallow some strategically unpalatable land losses in exchange for a permanent third-party military presence and diplomatic agreement (in the form of a binding treaty) guaranteeing Israel's security from aggression. [/quote]

But only after the Arabs give up on "right of return".  Probably also need to add that Jerusalem become an international city.

Bangala again:
[quote]"they decide whether they want an independent country or not and we are hearing them saying it loudly that they want their own independent country within the 1967 borders which the whole world, including the UN, USA and the European Countries are recognizing. "[/quote]

Sorry, I do NOT hear them saying this -- when they voted for Hamas, and Hamas has the position of destroying Israel, I do NOT hear "with the 1967 borders". 

However, I would be happy if there was a series of referendums, where the choices included: 1) immediate peace, independence with the Wall as the border and no right of return (Israel's current offer), or
2) continued fighting until Israel accepts 67 border AND right of return, or
3) continued fighting until Israel accepts 67 border with no right of return, or 4) continued fighting until Israel is destroyed)

Were there such a referendum, and I suggest it (but don't believe it will happen), then I'd agree a majority vote for 2+3 would be their call for such an independent country.

Then Bangala says:
[quote]the UN had clearly defined the borders for 2 states : Israel and Palestine.[/quote]

When are you talking about? 47?  That's now almost irrelevant.

I almost agree with Avraham Burg about the failed Jewish state, but mostly because I fear Tel Aviv becoming a mushroom cloud.  I think total evacuation is better than risking (1 in 10?) terrorists getting a nuke after Iran gets a nuke.  Is evacuation worse or is a pre-emptive strike against Iran worse?

Israel should be, as much as possible, making friends with the Kurds.  That 25 mil. person "nation" which has never had its own state, nor much "self-determination".  The kind of reality that mocks talk about int'l law.

more next week.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/10/07 21:20 | link | comments
israel palestine

Reducing Climate Change

Where are the progressives using Solar Powered air conditioning?

Most CA, TX, & FL gov't buildings should be getting surveyed about solar panel installation.  Rather than reflective roofs (better than what is now), conversion to energy roofs would be the goal.

CA should be budgeting millions every year, with results being posted (installation & maintenance estimates and real costs, plus energy costs).
(see Megan and Mathew)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/10/07 03:34 | link | comments

What about Iran?

Noah Pollack writing at Michael's, on Iran and the bomb and Israel:
A nuclear Iran allied with Hezbollah to the north and Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the Southwest and East would dramatically embolden Israel's enemies, suppress foreign investment and tourism in Israel, and over time would cause the economic and psychological attrition of the Jewish state -- with no bombing runs over Tel Aviv necessary.

First, US foreign aid should be going to Arab companies, trying to help them create stronger middle classes. Palestinians, Arabs, Turks, Persians.

Part of Iranian solution should start in Turkey -- autonomy for the Kurds. No Turkish Empire in the EU, let the Kurds vote to stay with Turkey or some other arrangement.
I'd guess the Turkish Kurds go for independence.
The US failure to support democracy, freedom, and independence (if democratically chosen) of the Turkish Kurds is a) understandable because of the need to keep Turkey an "ally", but b) inconsistent with support for ME democracy and freedom. We need more (b), even if we have few gov't allies.

The arbitrary post-Ottoman WW I state boundaries, almost set in concrete after WW II, are a huge problem and the goal of keeping those boundaries is what makes the goal of peace improbable/ impossible.

Tribal cantons should have been the US goal in Iraq, and in Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Iran --small "tribal-nation states".

The forcible regime change in Iran will most likely include both US bombing, and the new Iraq Army ally, after recently ending the AQ terrorism (mostly), and establishing a secular Sunni and mostly secular Shia Iraqi Arab alliance for Baghdad.  This Arab alliance, trained and supplied by US, will have become the best Arab fighting force ever in history.  At some point, Arab politicians in Iraq will be blaming terrorism on Iran, not on the Americans.

When Iran becomes both the real Iraqi enemy that it is, as well as the perceived enemy by the people, Iraqi "unity" will be enhanced by opposition to the Iranian enemy.


The Iranians are betting that they get a nuke before any democratic Iraq unite against them -- nukes are pretty good insurance against invasions.


But Noah, despite Pakistan not yet allowing its nukes into the hands of terrorists, I flatly do not believe that Israel would avoid being at 1 in 10 risk of being nuked (within 5 years of Iran having the bomb).  This is far, far higher risk than getting totally drunk (bombed!) and joy-driving for some 10-20 miles on a freeway.
Yes, 90% not-bombed means it is "unlikely", but unless you're willing to quantify the likelihood, your and glasnost dismissal of that risk is the usual blah blah.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/05/07 06:38 | link | comments
iran