start your own blog now!
 
Read other blogs...

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!

About me

Blogger:
Name: Tom Grey
Now a libertarian paternalist - progressive Conservative. I want lots of choices for people, with very responsible oriented defaults. Political, smaller gov't oriented, pro- Christian with tolerance and against changes reducing Christian influence.

Contact me
My profile
Linkme
Subscribe to this blog

And the blogroll

Counter

visited *loading* times

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear
Monday, 22 October 2007
War or genocide?

The selective hypocrisy and the assumed moral superiority is what the 60's Leftists must be challenged on.
Over and over.

70's Vietnam anti-war meant acceptance, if not support, for evil commie victory & Killing Fields genocide.  Until the actual moral question is honestly addressed, War or Genocide, Western Civ will decline.

Supporting the not-so-good Shah, or accepting the unknown-evil Ayotollah.

War against Hutus or accpeting Tutsi genoicide.  War against Sudan or accpeting genocide in Darfur ... today.


The acceptance of 'F**k speak' other common potty-mouth expressions has degraded the bounds of common curtesy.  But worse, without 'dirty words' being forbidden, there is no relief from slight anger in using them.  So worse expressions of anger against "them" become common.  F**k speak as acceptable has helped foster increased polarization.

Above thoughts inspired by VDH.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/22/07 19:17 | link | comments
iraq, genocide, world cop, darfur

Monday, 15 October 2007
Can Iraqis be responsible -- or are they just animals?

Winds of Change has more good stuff about misquoting, but discussing Iraq as if the Iraqis aren't there.
So I wrote:

Do all of you WoC folk really believe the Iraqi Arabs are just dogs or monkeys, as Yglesias and most Bush-haters so often imply?

I mean the issue in the past is one of responsibility, as Matt says:

bq And that's what this is all ultimately about -- an effort to evade responsibility by suggesting that what's really at issue here is a controversy over ends.

He clearly gives absolutely no responsibility for the deaths to the Arabs, everything is Bush's fault.

Either the murderous Arab terrorists who kill are those humans most responsible for the killing, or they're as innocent as animals.

bq What some also knew was that invading Iraq was unlikely to have beneficial consequences

I never saw anybody put probabilities, likelihoods, for various outcomes. To the 5 million or so Iraqi Kurds, now living in a rapidly growing economy with peace and democracy, there were HUGE benefits. Of course, the Bush-haters don't visit and report on the Kurds much.

It's too bad that nation building takes so long -- and especially bad that the Dems were so full of Bush-hate that their criticisms were almost exclusively of the past-guilt variety, rather than what should be done to improve the slow, tough, slow, occasional back-step, nation building process. Did I mention slow?

The speed of Iraqi nation-building is up to the Iraqis. It is a different clock than the US election cycle. Where are the Dems discussing these truths.

On action and inaction, the anti-war Dems should be proud of their success in Darfur, where the US hasn't lost any men nor treasure despite Bush claiming that 'genocide' is occurring. While we can't know what not attacking Saddam would look like, we can see how well not attacking other dictators is working out. In Burma and Zimbabwe, for instance.

AL, I'm sorry I missed why you think Iraq has been a strategic failure. While it's not yet a success, except for the 20% Kurds, what is the defining failure characteristic?

As an American body bag counter, I claim 4000 dead is a "B" effort:

----

For myself, not abw, _"Saddam had it comming"_ means that this is the main justification for the 2003 invasion.
Bush's Decision Choices:
a) invade now,
b) not invade now,  b1) with option to invade later, or b2) never invade.

When Blix made his Feb. 2003 report, he did NOT say that Saddam had fulfilled all his prior commitments, and he did NOT say that he had documentation proving that Saddam had destroyed all WMDs.


Those who say "no invasion" are saying they prefer Saddam to the current post-Saddam mini-civil-war & nation building now going on.

If Bush had chosen b) not invade now, I claim that this would basically mean b2) never invade.  The inspectors were not going to find WMDs -- but this would have meant Saddam "wins" again.  First, he won (=survived as leader) after Desert Storm.  Now, again, letting the UN inspectors look but never find his "secrets" (nod nod, wink wink [say no more!]).

Without an invasion, I believe Iraq would be a much bigger threat to the US and to human rights, than it is today.


The Kurds show that liberation could have been good for the Arabs -- if the Arabs prefer development over anti-American 'pride'. 

It looks like the Sunni Arab ARE choosing it, so most 'strategic blunder' talk might well be gone by next year, as the Arabs start turning in the killers.



Solar powered air-conditioning.  That's the development the US should be pushing in Iraq, especially Sunni Iraq.  Solar power manufacturing and installation, for Iraq and for export.  And to reduce global warming / CO2.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/15/07 04:19 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

What Reps need to do about Bush

Peggy Noonan asks a good question: "How do candidates distance themselves from Bush without alienating his die-hards?"

But she doesn't answer it so well.

I think it's simple.  "Bush has good strategy, vision on a few things, but bad execution on lots of things.  Good heart, but lousy TV persona, and terrible press."

Then list the different things to be done.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/15/07 03:34 | link | comments
democracy

Monday, 08 October 2007
American patriotism

Winds of Change on Patriotism.

The Atlantic has an issue about the American Idea.  But Armed Liberal reads

"A litany of abuse and failure follows. I keep digging, looking for an idea, or a pony, and find:"

What is patriotism?

I

The patriotism problem is very real, and very relevant.

Too many Leftist elites are looking for Unreal Perfection and, in not finding it in real America, are claiming ... Bush is bad. Or claimed that Reagan was bad... or that Nixon was bad (I voted Jimmy C because Ford pardoned Nixon; never for a Dem since, most Libertarians).

Elites have long hated capitalism, and with a special destructive envy against the rich -- "social justice" is an attempt to rationalize taxing the rich more. Whether it really helps the working poor or not, the poor are used as an excuse to punish the rich.

Patriots compare the real America with other real countries, whether Myanmar/ Burma, or Sweden, or China, or France, or Iraq, or Sudan.

Recently, Stanford's Prof. Zimbardo (of the Prison Experiment, 1971), wrote about evil. In his Stanford Mag interview he discussed: America's Abu Ghraib, Israeli lobbyists, and Hitler. A good example of a basically "America is evil" undercurrent message.

Hitler is the main evil that Leftists accept -- with little mention of our alliance with the Evil Empire's Stalin in order to stop Hitler; but WW II was before I was born.

In 1973, Nixon "won" the Vietnam war with the Paris Peace Accords. But then in 1974 the Dem Party Congress voted to stop any US troops from returning, for any reason; and in 1975 reduced funding for the corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly S. Vietnamese democracy, full of US allies who supported human rights. The USSR continued to fund N. Viet commie aggressors who attacked, in violation of their written but unenforced treaty, and did win the Vietnam war. And proceeded to kill thousands of those who had surrendered.

China was funding Cambodian commies and there was no America stopping Pol Pot.
Thanks Dem Party, thanks Zimbardo, for opposing the fight against evil communism.

Who is responsible for the Killing Fields -- the worst genocide in MY lifetime?

Beard, you want to know what Bush has done right?
1) Bush liberated Afghanistan.
2) Bush liberated Iraq -- look at at Iraqi Kurdistan for what his "plan" for post-Saddam Iraq was, "letting freedom ring" and letting the Iraqis develop on their own.
3) Bush has supported pro-life justices to the US SC. A couple more and the terrible, culture-destroying Federal power grabbing Roe decision might well be overturned, returning some power to the states. (Allowing diversity?!)
4) Bush has supported tax-cuts.

Tax cuts has resulted in the rich corporations getting so much richer that they've hired MORE Americans, and especially more Americans willing to work.

Rich employers who offer jobs -- money for work -- do far more to support "social justice", as well as to truly empower the people, than the social worker 'dependency pushers'. (Perhaps those who really want to help the poor should start a business and offer the poor jobs?)

On falsifiability, please try to find out how many girls, as compared to boys, got perfect 800 scores on the math SAT tests. If there is a significantly greater number of boys, Larry Summers was fully justified in suggesting a difference.

“In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.”

(why didn't you get the quote right, and look it up? Lazy AND Inaccurate Leftist). In the same Debra Sanders SF Chronicle piece

she note the Leftist support of Ward Churchill, who wrote about "little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the Twin Towers."

Many Politically Correct, intolerant Leftists, hate real America, hate success, hate Bush, and all too many hate Jews.

Rorty thinks Habermas helped to bring: "a culture into being in which it became possible for Americans to replace Christian religiosity with fervent attachment to democratic institutions"


II

Any who don't know that elites hate capitalism should read Robert Nozick:
Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism

The good talking 'wordsmith' students expect the real world to be like school -- but it ain't.

I love America, and especially love American ideals.

Everybody in the world could, in theory, become an American. (Perhaps the US should push to offer Baja California a chance to join, if a referendum there led to secession from Mexico city?)

Despite 16 years in Slovakia, while I can become a citizen, I can never become a "Slovak". Most 'nations', like the Kurds, are a non-governmental identity. A nationality.

As an American, I believe American ideals are superior. In Slovakia, many Slovaks think being Slovak is superior ... to being Hungarian or Roma (Gypsy).

American patriotism is, in this way, different than other European nation-state patriotism. (Wouldn't it be OK if Flanders left Wallonia and Belgium went away?).

But what do the Leftists like about America? Free speech, as long as it's not ROTC or Rumsfeld on campus?

The problem with secular morality is that atheists don't generally believe in nothing, many start believing in all kinds of silly things.

But the fight over patriotism is also, perhaps mostly, a fight about what is justice, and how can we get it.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/08/07 00:11 | link | comments
hearts and minds, envy