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

Pro-black racism on the Jena 6

The Field Negro is happy that many blacks are showing solidarity, but unhappy at Leftists ignoring the issue.

My take:
I'm sorry about some right-oriented guys (instalaunched, like me) being poor guests, but your own use of the F* word encourages use of the N* (not Negro). If a guest acts like the host, and the host says such "people are not being very good guests", I think the host is not so great.

It's not clear you really want arguments as much as a group-hate session against injustice.

Skimming the comments, I'm glad you respond a bit, and glad you speak your mind. Also good:
- why are so many blacks so likely to be attacked ... by blacks?
- what do you think about black men being proud daddies of many kids by many women?
- are you happy to support the pro-abortion party?
- Is 90% black "unity" really good, if such unity is against advancement of black culture?

I read Jason W's account first, and your side ad about him being a house Negro, without addressing his points, makes me feel you're more of lightweight than your own opinion indicates (although, first time, you might have written more elsewhere).

I'm not sure if I'll be back often, but while I am against injustice, it's not clear to me what the right punishment for guilty aggravated assault should be.

Cheers from Bratislava.

Pam's House is also mostly tedious who said what in the Left.  But her site is full of PC.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/23/07 00:12 | link | comments
blogs

4 years, but tired

I've been blogging here on motime for 4 years now, but I'm tired.

It's clear my writing is extreme enough to generate controversy, my new ideas aren't great enough (Tax Loans and Max Employment companies), and I'm mostly just another pro-Iraqi Freedom (both Operation and reality) guy.

I'm doing less here, but still leaving comments elsewhere.

My job is also keeping me really busy.  I think I've done worse on some other jobs because blogging has been so intensely interesting, new, world changing.

It's not new anymore; it's still good.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/22/07 23:21 | link | comments (2)
blogs

The Sheikh Sattar murder

Michael's comments after Sheikh Sattar is murdered, following his great Anbar Awakening, has lots of comments. Story here.


There seems some confusion about isolationism, as compared to non-intervention.  The difference is free trade -- disastrous isolationism includes great protectionism and attempts to reduce dependence on "unreliable foreign sources" of whatever, oil, sugar, t-shirts.  A Ron Paul or G. Washington type non-intervention seeks "free trade with all, alliances with none."
India is becoming a super power without much intervention; I think it's feasible for the USA.

But I prefer the USA accepting its role as limited World Cop, and trying to do it better -- the rest of the "West" will be happy to complain about US imperfections as they 'free ride' on US defense/ war funding.

The murder of the Sheikh is likely to be a real pivotal point -- either the pro-democracy Sunni forces can carry on without Sattar's charisma, or else the Awakening will drift back to sleep, letting AQ kill its enemies, like those Sheikhs who ally with America.

In comments, MJT says "If the Arabs were more like the Kurds, Iraq would not be the disaster it is. But it's not our fault the Arabs are the way they are."  I mostly agree, yet can't help note that since T.E Lawrence (of Arabia) and WW I support of Arabs against the Ottomans, the 'West' has chosen effective dictators rather than democracy.

M. Smith notes: "The notion that Muslims are going to be won over by our “superior ideas” or “economic might” is pure fantasy."
But while Mr. Smith is certainly correct about some Muslims, he's certainly wrong about others -- many 'Muslims' are, in fact, won over by ideas and might.
The fight in Iraq is proof of this, as is the assassination.
What's not clear is which of these groups, fanatic anti-West Muslims, or more secular, power -hungry (but at times America-despising) Muslims, will win power.  Among the minority but better educated Sunnis in Iraq.

M. Smith continues: "What is the fundamental cultural/philosophical mind-set of the middle east? As near as I can tell, with a few exceptions, it mostly reflects Islam’s world view: it’s mostly pro-faith, pro-authoritarianism, anti-reason, anti-modernity, anti-equality, anti-individualism. A population dominated by those ideas will demand authoritarian government -- like an Islamic theocracy -- not a free society."

Yeah, there is this problem with a significant, perhaps even majority, of the people.
But I don't believe it's the majority, and believe if the the majority non-fanatics had jobs and hopes for better material lives, their faith in death as better would falter.  It's pretty clear the pro-Saddam Sunni Baathists did NOT have this mind set.  They seemed to have a pro-Sunni dictator, pro-cronyist, pro-modernity, pro-reason / rationalizable feeling of superiority; and like most folks they were pro-superiority. (including Americans; most US-haters would say especially).  (Pro-Americans would say 'with reason'...)


Finally, it's good some in the US are looking for the Tribes to help solve the Iraqi problems.  Local real power structures exist, the US can modify them in giving support to some and not others, but often this support is two edged: the chosen may get US cash, but become anti-US targets.  Security must be effective before 'getting cash' looks worth accepting the inevitable 'becoming a target'.

Let's all remember the Far Side Bear ... in the crosshairs, but pointing with both paw-fingers at the bear next to him.

Michael, please tell Patrick to return!  The thread misses him.

Or write more yourself so the sad death murder doesn't stay on top.

None of the anti-war folk have been honest enough to say they really support having the murderers run Iraq, but that's pretty clearly what would happen if the US left and the Iraqis were too weak -- like the S. Vietnamese were too weak (and cowardly, incompetent, and corrupt) in 1975.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/17/07 01:26 | link | comments
iraq

Michael's comments after Sheik Sattar is murdered, following his great Anbar Awakening, has lots of comments.


There seems some confusion about isolationism, as compared to non-intervention.  The difference is free trade -- disastrous isolationism includes great protectionism and attempts to reduce dependence on "unreliable foreign sources" of whatever, oil, sugar, t-shirts.  A Ron Paul or G. Washington type non-intervention seeks "free trade with all, alliances with none." 
India is becoming a super power without much intervention; I think it's feasible for the USA.

But I prefer the USA accepting its role as limited World Cop, and trying to do it better -- the rest of the "West" will be happy to complain about US imperfections as they 'free ride' on US defense/ war funding.

The murder of the Sheikh is likely to be a real pivotal point -- either the pro-democracy Sunni forces can carry on without Sattar's charisma, or else the Awakening will drift back to sleep, letting AQ kill its enemies, like those Sheikhs who ally with America.

In comments, MJT says "If the Arabs were more like the Kurds, Iraq would not be the disaster it is. But it's not our fault the Arabs are the way they are."  I mostly agree, yet can't help note that since T.E Lawrence (of Arabia) and WW I support of Arabs against the Ottomans, the 'West' has chosen effective dictators rather than democracy.

M. Smith notes: "The notion that Muslims are going to be won over by our “superior ideas” or “economic might” is pure fantasy."
But while Mr. Smith is certainly correct about some Muslims, he's certainly wrong about others -- many 'Muslims' are, in fact, won over by ideas and might. 
The fight in Iraq is proof of this, as is the assassination.
What's not clear is which of these groups, fanatic anti-West Muslims, or more secular, power -hungry (but at times America-despising) Muslims, will win power.  Among the minority but better educated Sunnis in Iraq.

M. Smith continues: "What is the fundamental cultural/philosophical mind-set of the middle east? As near as I can tell, with a few exceptions, it mostly reflects Islam’s world view: it’s mostly pro-faith, pro-authoritarianism, anti-reason, anti-modernity, anti-equality, anti-individualism. A population dominated by those ideas will demand authoritarian government -- like an Islamic theocracy -- not a free society."

Yeah, there is this problem with a significant, perhaps even majority, of the people.
But I don't believe it's the majority, and believe if the the majority non-fanatics had jobs and hopes for better material lives, their faith in death as better would falter.  It's pretty clear the pro-Saddam Sunni Baathists did NOT have this mind set.  They seemed to have a pro-Sunni dictator, pro-cronyist, pro-modernity, pro-reason / rationalizable feeling of superiority; and like most folks they were pro-superiority. (including Americans; most US-haters would say especially).  (Pro-Americans would say 'with reason'...)


Finally, it's good some in the US are looking for the Tribes to help solve the Iraqi problems.  Local real power structures exist, the US can modify them in giving support to some and not others, but often this support is two edged: the chosen may get US cash, but become anti-US targets.  Security must be effective before 'getting cash' looks worth accepting the inevitable 'becoming a target'.

Let's all remember the Far Side Bear ... in the crosshairs, but pointing with both paw-fingers at the bear next to him.


None of the anti-war folk have been honest enough to say they really support having the murderers run Iraq, but that's pretty clearly what would happen if the US left and the Iraqis were too weak -- like the S. Vietnamese were too weak (and cowardly, incompetent, and corrupt) in 1975.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/17/07 01:22 | link | comments
iraq

Anti-war supports the enemy -- an inconvenient truth

Michael's great Anbar Awakening I is generating fine comments, so  I added more:

DPU is right, the comments are fine -- because of Dan and a few other liberals, as well as Michael (actually, calling you Michael for 4 years now makes it hard to write "Mike") being so understanding of the utopian liberal.

The kind of anti-war liberal who was against the US war in Vietnam -- and favored Democrats: who voted to stop any US military action in Vietnam in 1974, after the Paris Peace of 73; who voted to reduce funding to the S. Viet gov't, US allies who supported human rights and freedom, in 1974 & 75; who allowed the commie N. Vietnamese to attack (in violation of their signed Paris Peace); who allowed commies to win in S. Vietnam; and win in Cambodia; and commit the well-predicted, but not guaranteed, bloodbath of Killing Fields.

Utopian liberals supported SE Asian genocide, in my lifetime.

Since Dan said he'd stop commenting here, but then broke his promise, what does that make him?  (notice how I'm not saying what he is...) But with genuine thoughtful disagreement, so rare in internet comments, it's no wonder Dan couldn't resist coming back.

But not much more reasonable -- celebrim did a fine job describing Dan's 'polite near-troll' work. (yet he's wrong about shutting down the comments!  The comments are good here because Michael is doing so much work on banning real trolls; thanks MJT, thanks. 'Near-troll' is not troll.)

Dan's accusation against celebrim himself was perfect: "so celebrim is saying 'my way or the highway' " -- a usual critique of the left against Bush.  Dan gives a deliberate misrepresentation of what celebrim wrote, just as many on the left often reword what Bush or the Left's current target actually say, and then attack the reworded statement.

The usual news media does that too -- they have a short snippet of actual words, then a longer segment where they add their own 'summary', but actually rephrase into their own terms what is said, and then tell people why this rephrased (but misquoted) argument is so bad.

Glasnost has been excellent here, too.


But I have to say something that Jay Rosen of PressThink got upset over -- criticizing the US politicians who want to win, as Free Speech allows, means supporting the terrorist.  Means supporting the killers of Americans.  Means more Americans will be killed.

Michael, we should be willing to pay that price for Free Speech (plus an interventionist policy), but we shouldn't pretend that there is no price.  The N. Viet generals, after their successful Paris Peace lies and following invasion & victory, noted how they were aided and abetted by the US anti-war movement.

The current anti-war movement supports terrorists. Every anti-war movement in a country fighting a war supports the opponents of that war.  'War is hell' is a truth that pro-war folk have learned to live with, and should be honestly dealing with -- innocents are killed by us, even tho we want to be Good Guys.

'Anti-war supports the enemy' is a truth the anti-war folk have NOT been accepting nor trying to deal with -- but has been well known, if not explicit, even when pacifist Quakers were being jailed and beaten in America ... over WW I in 1918.

War is politics.  But actually, the purpose of politics, and war, is to "establish justice" (US Constitution preamble).  Justice 'justifies' using violence after an injustice.  And every justice system makes both kind of errors in a trade-off: wrongly punishing the innocent, and wrongly letting the guilty go free.  Plus, the more the system reduces one error, the more of the other error.


The US military should be given more decision making power over how reconstruction money is 'given' to Iraqis -- and choose to give more cash to those local Iraqi leaders who seem best.

Victory will mean that local cities can raise their own rebuilding money from the international bond market. 

Victory requires we stay until 'enough' Iraqi leaders are able to win without us. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/13/07 04:53 | link | comments
iraq

Best Method for helping Iraq --time

Michael's Anbar Awakening I is really fantastic, even if Instapundit linked him, too.

Thanks to defeatist Dan for at least being polite and adding interest in the thread -- to the many deserved 'Great Job, Michael' comments.

I'm happy for the "Surge" to get the credit, but let me ask an analogy in teaching youngsters to drive.
In Method A they teach 8 year olds, Method B they teach 12 year olds, Method C they teach 16 year olds.

Would you really argue that Method C is a superior method, rather than that 16 year olds are ready, and younger kids aren't?

If 1 year is 7 dog years, maybe 1 calendar quarter is a "new nation" development year ... and new Iraq is only 17 'years' (quarters since spring 2003) old.

No Method was going to work in Iraq before the Iraq people are ready (although the Kurds went thru their 20 quarters of early development starting in 1992, so  are somewhat done).

Maybe any Method would work after they are 'ready'. And, like teenagers, Iraqis are getting ready now.

While I'm sure the surge has helped speed the Anbar cleansing, the tribes started their anti-Al Qaeda before the surge, and before the rules of engagement changed. 

Dan -- you ask about Iraq and your site discusses Vietnam.  How many civilians must the commies kill/ murder before you think it would have been better for the Dem Party Congress of 1974-76 to fully fund and support South Vietnam (rather than vote in favor of commie victory)?  This is the value question the anti-war folk refuse to answer or discuss.

How many must be murdered or die in exile in Darfur before liberation is justified? (knowing many civilians WILL be killed by liberating forces, despite attempts to minimize such deaths.)


Thanks partly to anti-American press, it has taken the Iraqis a long time to really believe the Americans are the GOOD guys -- good, but not perfect.  Perfectionist critics ... are the enemy of the good.

The killing in Iraq today is significantly due to Iranian support for murder.  I hope/ won't be surprised/ that an Iraqi political party starts blaming Iran for the many acts of war the Iranians have been perpetrating.

I fantasize about an anti-Iranian, unified Arab-Kurd-Sunni-Shia Iraq Army, trained, funded, and supplied by America, demanding reparations from Iran for the murders they've been supporting.
(I'd suggest 10 mil. USD per death, all to be blamed on the Iranians if not provably attributable to other forces.)  But then I fear this is a nightmare, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/11/07 03:46 | link | comments
iraq

Thoughts on 'Conservative' - love for America

Jacob Sullum of Reason writes:
The case for invading Iraq relied on a very broad understanding of self-defense that was at odds with traditional conservative skepticism of foreign entanglements, nation building, and attempts to remake the world in our image. Staying there is conservative, I suppose, in the sense that it continues what we're doing.


A commenter there notes:
Neo-cons killed conservative stars

The acoustic rhythm is certainly right -- but Bush was elected in 2000 as a NON nation builder.

9/11 changed everything... so I'd sing:
Islamists killed conservative stars,
Islamists killed conservative stars,
with bombs as planes and bombs as cars...

The conservative also loves American values, and thinks America is great, even if imperfect.
The (welfare/ victim-fetishist) liberal hates the imperfections of America so much, they feel more sympathy for the world's anti-Americans than for the real victims of the anti-American tyrants.

9/11 shows that treating terrorists like criminals, presuming innocence until AFTER the crime, basically means accepting that terrorists will get and use a nuke / WMD.
(Although Tel Aviv is more likely the target than Miami, or Moscow or Mumbai.)

What is the conservative position AFTER a successful terrorist WMD attack?  And shouldn't the likelihood of such an attack be considered in creating a conservative position today, before a successful attack?

This Ron Paul '88 voter thinks so, but now I have 4 kids, too!

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/07/07 23:46 | link | comments
iraq, blogs

Tribes decide in Iraq

The US can support democracy in Iraq only by getting Iraqis to fight and kill and die for democracy.

But in Iraq they fight for their tribes.  The Tribes can decide to win, but might not.

Michael at Daily News says it well:
"Want to know if the surge the will work?  Wait."

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/02/07 02:25 | link | comments (1)
iraq

Vietnam IS Iraq -- and every US war

The choice in Vietnam is the same choice as in Iraq:
1) keep fighting, or 2) lose.

The Dem Party chose to lose in Vietnam, and wants to lose in Iraq.

There's a good note on the Vietnam lessons in the American Spectator.
"During 1972, after all American combat units had departed, South Vietnamese forces defeated a massive North Vietnamese invasion with the help of American air power. The so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 bombed North Vietnam into submission, resulting in a peace treaty."

The North Viet commies violated their written and signed Paris Peace Treaty -- and the anti-war folk preferred their victory, and the commies in Cambodia, and the Killing Fields.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/02/07 01:10 | link | comments
iraq, vietnam

Fewer black lawyers because of affirmative action

See Michael Barone, but the key is obvious for every school, because blacks score lower in LSAT scores:
"most black law students at that school come in with significantly lower LSAT scores than nonblack students."

Higher failure, drop outs -- blacks that would be fine, average at at an average school don't compete well at the top schools.  Instead of finishing and being fine, they drop out more.

We need to scrap affirmative action.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/02/07 00:47 | link | comments (1)
politics, justice