Certain adware companies have cajoled or legally co-erced anti-spyware firms to stop detecting and removing their adware.
Well, if you don't want adware or spyware, there is another way to make it pretty unlikely...
Get a Mac.
That is all.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Whoop-De-Do
Deep Throat's identity is revealed.
Deep Throat is in reality - some person I've never heard of before. "W. Mark Felt."
Boy, that was anticlimactic.
That is all.
Deep Throat is in reality - some person I've never heard of before. "W. Mark Felt."
Boy, that was anticlimactic.
That is all.
Sully on Guantanamo, Etc.
Andrew Sullivan makes a good point about some of the arguments relating to the use of the Geneva conventions (or of any concepts of humane treatment of prisoners) in the War on Terror. (See the post "THE QUESTION OF RECIPROCITY").
Some of the arguments against restricting how prisoners can be treated seem to rest on the premise that there is no transcendent reason to be concerned with the treatment of the enemy; the only concern is with whether or not it will influence how they treat us. In other words, seeing as terrorists in Iraq beheaded their prisoners, therefore we know that we will not be shown mercy by the enemy if captured, therefore there is no reason to show mercy to any of the enemy we capture.
This has very dangerous implications, particularly if we wind up capturing people who are not actually terrorists/insurgents/combatants.
I'll try to post more on this later.
That is all.
Some of the arguments against restricting how prisoners can be treated seem to rest on the premise that there is no transcendent reason to be concerned with the treatment of the enemy; the only concern is with whether or not it will influence how they treat us. In other words, seeing as terrorists in Iraq beheaded their prisoners, therefore we know that we will not be shown mercy by the enemy if captured, therefore there is no reason to show mercy to any of the enemy we capture.
This has very dangerous implications, particularly if we wind up capturing people who are not actually terrorists/insurgents/combatants.
I'll try to post more on this later.
That is all.
Poor Michael Ledeen
Bush isn't yet going along with his naivete - or dishonesty.
The problem with the Ledeen strategy (helping dissidents to overthrow the Iranian and Syrian governments) is that there is a good chance that the revolution will either fail, or in Syria's case will put jihadists rather than the current secular bad guys into power. Unless we make certain that a friendly regime is the one that replaces the Iranian and Syrian regimes, we might not accomplish anything. (And I am skeptical that the Iranian opposition is as pro-American as the neocons say they are as they probably remember that we overthrew their democratically elected president in 1953).
Of course, Joseph Farah assumes that the Shah was the epitome of Iranian freedom and that the Iranians long for him, and hope to once again be ruled by a US puppet.
"Iran had a taste of limited freedom under the rule of the shah. Yes, he was an authoritarian. But the mullahs are totalitarian. There's a big difference. Iranians have seen that difference and are nostalgic for the good old days.
Further, as hard as Tehran has tried to close its society to the influence of the West, today's young people love America and yearn for freedom."
In any case, I think that despite Mr. Ledeen's claims to the contrary, if we were to try to use the internal opposition to the rulers of Syria and Iran in order to overthrow them, we would get sucked into a full-blown war.
So do I think that Michael Ledeen is naive and doesn't realize this? No, as I have said before, Michael Ledeen is a liar.
That is all.
The problem with the Ledeen strategy (helping dissidents to overthrow the Iranian and Syrian governments) is that there is a good chance that the revolution will either fail, or in Syria's case will put jihadists rather than the current secular bad guys into power. Unless we make certain that a friendly regime is the one that replaces the Iranian and Syrian regimes, we might not accomplish anything. (And I am skeptical that the Iranian opposition is as pro-American as the neocons say they are as they probably remember that we overthrew their democratically elected president in 1953).
Of course, Joseph Farah assumes that the Shah was the epitome of Iranian freedom and that the Iranians long for him, and hope to once again be ruled by a US puppet.
"Iran had a taste of limited freedom under the rule of the shah. Yes, he was an authoritarian. But the mullahs are totalitarian. There's a big difference. Iranians have seen that difference and are nostalgic for the good old days.
Further, as hard as Tehran has tried to close its society to the influence of the West, today's young people love America and yearn for freedom."
In any case, I think that despite Mr. Ledeen's claims to the contrary, if we were to try to use the internal opposition to the rulers of Syria and Iran in order to overthrow them, we would get sucked into a full-blown war.
So do I think that Michael Ledeen is naive and doesn't realize this? No, as I have said before, Michael Ledeen is a liar.
That is all.
Evil in Theory, Evil in Practice
William Norman Grigg explains the Communistic Woodrow Wilson.
And notice that he points out that denying that the draft is slavery (or at least involuntary servitude) is essentially a communistic attitude.
That is all.
And notice that he points out that denying that the draft is slavery (or at least involuntary servitude) is essentially a communistic attitude.
That is all.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Paul Craig Roberts Echoes Me
Paul Craig Roberts writes in Counterpunch:
"Considering reports that 80% of Sunnis support the insurgency passively if not actively, it looks as if extermination of Sunnis will be required if the US is to achieve "victory" in Iraq."
(Also posted here and here).
Reminds me of another writer, a nice formerly be-sideburned fellow:
"When it comes to the point where we have to start drawing down our troops or else re-institute a draft, expect to see whole villages being razed every time there is an attack against our troops." May 29, 2005
"If we get to the point where we rally start losing control, we will find a way to maintain control with the forces we have. Which is a nice way of saying that we will ge significantly more brutal. To put down the Sunni insurgency, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a resort to concentration camps and mass executions." May 27, 2005
"No, I'm not advocating this; but I think that if the US has its back to the wall, sooner or later it will be decided that increased brutality to the Sunnis will force them to submit. And if regular brutality doesn't work, perhaps razing villages to the ground, punishing the families of insurgents, or concentration camps for the Sunni Arabs will be used." May 26, 2005
"I have said many times that I think that our distaste for ruthlessness will melt away given sufficient time with little progress, and given a refusal to withdraw. If we refuse to lose in Iraq, and we cannot seem to defeat the insurgency, I think that eventually the push to take off the gloves will become irresistible." May 24, 2005
"Of course, there is probably a way that Bush can avoid cutting benefits and still get his accounts. Higher taxes. Just like there is a way that he can keep control of Iraq without a draft. Mass murder of Sunnis. In both cases, I am less than thrilled by the prospect." April 29, 2005
"Because the only way to end it with the army we currently have is to simply start wiping out the ethnic groups most associated with the resistance, i.e. the Sunni Arabs." March 7, 2005
"Ultimately a rising tide of casualties will either become so unpopular that we will withdraw or the commanders will get so frustrated that we will engage in genocide to avoid withdrawing." January 14, 2005
"In any case, from the tone that Krauthammer took, I am afraid that if the elections don't work out well for the Sunnis that we are looking at a protracted war with them - and ultimately I think that there may be a move toward heavy oppresssion of them." December 27, 2004
I also made predictions relating to Fallujah (among other predictions) last October here and here, which you will have to judge the turthfulness of for yourselves, but which generally suggested that we would countenance much more brutality toward recalcitrant groups, such as the Sunnis.
So in short, the idea that the US is beginning to go into open war with the Iraqi Sunni Arabs (not with Sunni Kurds or Turkomen) is something that I have been saying for a while now, and Paul Craig Roberts is agreeing with me.
That is all.
"Considering reports that 80% of Sunnis support the insurgency passively if not actively, it looks as if extermination of Sunnis will be required if the US is to achieve "victory" in Iraq."
(Also posted here and here).
Reminds me of another writer, a nice formerly be-sideburned fellow:
"When it comes to the point where we have to start drawing down our troops or else re-institute a draft, expect to see whole villages being razed every time there is an attack against our troops." May 29, 2005
"If we get to the point where we rally start losing control, we will find a way to maintain control with the forces we have. Which is a nice way of saying that we will ge significantly more brutal. To put down the Sunni insurgency, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a resort to concentration camps and mass executions." May 27, 2005
"No, I'm not advocating this; but I think that if the US has its back to the wall, sooner or later it will be decided that increased brutality to the Sunnis will force them to submit. And if regular brutality doesn't work, perhaps razing villages to the ground, punishing the families of insurgents, or concentration camps for the Sunni Arabs will be used." May 26, 2005
"I have said many times that I think that our distaste for ruthlessness will melt away given sufficient time with little progress, and given a refusal to withdraw. If we refuse to lose in Iraq, and we cannot seem to defeat the insurgency, I think that eventually the push to take off the gloves will become irresistible." May 24, 2005
"Of course, there is probably a way that Bush can avoid cutting benefits and still get his accounts. Higher taxes. Just like there is a way that he can keep control of Iraq without a draft. Mass murder of Sunnis. In both cases, I am less than thrilled by the prospect." April 29, 2005
"Because the only way to end it with the army we currently have is to simply start wiping out the ethnic groups most associated with the resistance, i.e. the Sunni Arabs." March 7, 2005
"Ultimately a rising tide of casualties will either become so unpopular that we will withdraw or the commanders will get so frustrated that we will engage in genocide to avoid withdrawing." January 14, 2005
"In any case, from the tone that Krauthammer took, I am afraid that if the elections don't work out well for the Sunnis that we are looking at a protracted war with them - and ultimately I think that there may be a move toward heavy oppresssion of them." December 27, 2004
I also made predictions relating to Fallujah (among other predictions) last October here and here, which you will have to judge the turthfulness of for yourselves, but which generally suggested that we would countenance much more brutality toward recalcitrant groups, such as the Sunnis.
So in short, the idea that the US is beginning to go into open war with the Iraqi Sunni Arabs (not with Sunni Kurds or Turkomen) is something that I have been saying for a while now, and Paul Craig Roberts is agreeing with me.
That is all.
Hack Kelly is at it Again
Apparently he is upset that the media gives so much attention to unsubstantiated charges of Quran desecration.
Relying on unsubstantiated sources and not admitting when they are lying is a bad thing.
Kenneth Joseph, anyone? The "human shield" turned pro-warrior? Anyone remember him?
(Note: It appears that Mr. Kelly's article from sometime in March of 2003 to sometime in March of 2004 do not have links in his archive. Strange, non?
Also, look at this statement:
"Abuse at Abu Ghraib prison — where no one was killed or even hurt — was given massive attention;"
No one was killed? So the guy in this picture is playing 'possum?
That is all.
Relying on unsubstantiated sources and not admitting when they are lying is a bad thing.
Kenneth Joseph, anyone? The "human shield" turned pro-warrior? Anyone remember him?
(Note: It appears that Mr. Kelly's article from sometime in March of 2003 to sometime in March of 2004 do not have links in his archive. Strange, non?
Also, look at this statement:
"Abuse at Abu Ghraib prison — where no one was killed or even hurt — was given massive attention;"
No one was killed? So the guy in this picture is playing 'possum?
That is all.
On Rootless Neoconism
Lawrence Auster points out the problem with today's tradition-bereft conservatism by critiquing an article by Mark Steyn.
Even though I tend toward libertarianism on many issues, I agree with Mr. Auster about the importance of having a culture and traditions.
That is all.
Even though I tend toward libertarianism on many issues, I agree with Mr. Auster about the importance of having a culture and traditions.
That is all.
Arthur Branch for President?
Could Fred Thompson run in 2008?
I'm still amazed by the number of people who want Condoleeza to run for President or Vice President, for no reason that I can think of other than that she's female, black, and does what Bush tells her to do, foreign-policy-wise. She's pro-choice, which will alienate a large segment of the population, and I'm not certain what exactly she has accomplished as National Security Advisor or as Secretary of State.
If we are to have a black female president, I know who I'd want it to be. Just because she would fluster so many liberals and neocons out there. What, I need a better reason?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Glenny Boy.
That is all.
I'm still amazed by the number of people who want Condoleeza to run for President or Vice President, for no reason that I can think of other than that she's female, black, and does what Bush tells her to do, foreign-policy-wise. She's pro-choice, which will alienate a large segment of the population, and I'm not certain what exactly she has accomplished as National Security Advisor or as Secretary of State.
If we are to have a black female president, I know who I'd want it to be. Just because she would fluster so many liberals and neocons out there. What, I need a better reason?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Glenny Boy.
That is all.
Tom DeLay not so Pro-Life?
A very interesting post by Clark Stooksbury on the anti-life policies pursued by Tom DeLay during the 90s.
This reminds me of a point made on the LewRockwell blog a few months ago, that it seemed that the Republicans delayed the vote on the Schiavo issue until the time when it would the most politically advantageous, even though this meant that the feeding tube would definitely be yanked, so that at best outcome left (from the pro-feeding tube perspective) would be to have it re-inserted after yanking it rather than leaving it in, and so that even if they had got the feeding tube re-inserted later, she would have been starving for at least a day and likely a few days.
Whatever your position on Schiavo's sentience or personhood, these people claim to believe that she is a human being and that pulling her feeding tube is tantamount to suicide. Therefore to play politics in this way, purely for electoral and PR advantage, either amounts to depraved indifference for human life, or else it means that they didn't really think she was a person anymore and were playing those who did for suckers.
In the same way, one has to wonder how many politicians are playing pro-lifers for suckers. Not that I would support a pro-choice politician whom I thought he was more honest about his position, but I do think that there has to be a push to get more principled conservative politicians into office. And in any case, I am dead-set against "conservative" devotion to someone simply because he is a Republican standard-bearer.
That is all.
That is all.
This reminds me of a point made on the LewRockwell blog a few months ago, that it seemed that the Republicans delayed the vote on the Schiavo issue until the time when it would the most politically advantageous, even though this meant that the feeding tube would definitely be yanked, so that at best outcome left (from the pro-feeding tube perspective) would be to have it re-inserted after yanking it rather than leaving it in, and so that even if they had got the feeding tube re-inserted later, she would have been starving for at least a day and likely a few days.
Whatever your position on Schiavo's sentience or personhood, these people claim to believe that she is a human being and that pulling her feeding tube is tantamount to suicide. Therefore to play politics in this way, purely for electoral and PR advantage, either amounts to depraved indifference for human life, or else it means that they didn't really think she was a person anymore and were playing those who did for suckers.
In the same way, one has to wonder how many politicians are playing pro-lifers for suckers. Not that I would support a pro-choice politician whom I thought he was more honest about his position, but I do think that there has to be a push to get more principled conservative politicians into office. And in any case, I am dead-set against "conservative" devotion to someone simply because he is a Republican standard-bearer.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Big Ben is not a Clock, it is a Bell!
This story reminds me of a common mistake that people make, including a lot of the people who wrote stories about the sudden pausing of the Westminster Clock Tower (aka St. Stephen's Tower).
The Clock Tower at Westminster is NOT Big Ben.
What is Big Ben?
As the poem says,
"Not the clock and not the tower, but the bell that strikes the hour."
Big Ben is the Bell inside the Clock Tower.
That is all.
The Clock Tower at Westminster is NOT Big Ben.
What is Big Ben?
As the poem says,
"Not the clock and not the tower, but the bell that strikes the hour."
Big Ben is the Bell inside the Clock Tower.
That is all.
Pre-Ordained?
Was there an attempt to create a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident for Iraq?
I keep getting reminded of how we were told that Iraq aggressed against us by shooting at American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. I wonder if perhaps some of these planes had been used to conduct bombing raids (which have been going on since 1991, if I recall), and if we have always been trying to provoke Saddam into firing the first shot, so that we would have an excuse to go to war whenever the time was right.
I also wonder if Al Gore had won if he wouldn't have invaded Iraq as well.
Oh, well. Let's all remember that Saddam was evil, he flew the planes into the World Trade Center personally, and all of the Iraqis love their new democratic government, and all of the Iranian terrorists (there is not a single Iraqi insurgent) are really, really desperate, cross my heart and hope to die. All of the weapons of mass destruction must be in Syria, and if not there, Iran, and if not there, well we can look in Egypt, or Libya, or wherever we want to invade next.
I feel so much better now.
That is all.
I keep getting reminded of how we were told that Iraq aggressed against us by shooting at American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. I wonder if perhaps some of these planes had been used to conduct bombing raids (which have been going on since 1991, if I recall), and if we have always been trying to provoke Saddam into firing the first shot, so that we would have an excuse to go to war whenever the time was right.
I also wonder if Al Gore had won if he wouldn't have invaded Iraq as well.
Oh, well. Let's all remember that Saddam was evil, he flew the planes into the World Trade Center personally, and all of the Iraqis love their new democratic government, and all of the Iranian terrorists (there is not a single Iraqi insurgent) are really, really desperate, cross my heart and hope to die. All of the weapons of mass destruction must be in Syria, and if not there, Iran, and if not there, well we can look in Egypt, or Libya, or wherever we want to invade next.
I feel so much better now.
That is all.
The Military Strain will Continue
It appears that the strain on our military forces will not be relieved by any major withdrawals from Iraq any time soon.
I'd like to know how Bush plans to deal with the growing shortage of troops. Well, I've already explained my theory several times. But I'd like to see what Bush has to say.
That's why I was irritated in the debates between Bush and Kerry where Bush kept announcing that there would be no draft, and the GOP shills kept repeating Bush's statements and Rumsfeld's desire for an all-volunteer army as a reason to be confident that there will be no draft. They also kept pointing out that Congress had rejected a draft and that Democrats were the only ones talking about a draft.
Well, yes, those things are all true. But NO ONE addressed the underlying reason why people were worried about a draft. Namely, no one talked about how to relieve the current strain on soldiers.
I suppose we could take all of our troops out of Europe. But we'll need a much bigger commitment than taking a fraction (70,000) of our troops out over 10 years, as Bush is planning. Admittedly, on this issue Bush is far better than Kerry, who wanted to keep our troops in Europe. On this, I agree with Art Chrenkoff.
In any case, if the insurgency does not die down over the next few months, it will be interesting to see what finally starts to happen as the attempts to get troops from the National Guard and Ready Reserves and the Army Reserves finally hit the dust at the bottom of the well.
That is all.
I'd like to know how Bush plans to deal with the growing shortage of troops. Well, I've already explained my theory several times. But I'd like to see what Bush has to say.
That's why I was irritated in the debates between Bush and Kerry where Bush kept announcing that there would be no draft, and the GOP shills kept repeating Bush's statements and Rumsfeld's desire for an all-volunteer army as a reason to be confident that there will be no draft. They also kept pointing out that Congress had rejected a draft and that Democrats were the only ones talking about a draft.
Well, yes, those things are all true. But NO ONE addressed the underlying reason why people were worried about a draft. Namely, no one talked about how to relieve the current strain on soldiers.
I suppose we could take all of our troops out of Europe. But we'll need a much bigger commitment than taking a fraction (70,000) of our troops out over 10 years, as Bush is planning. Admittedly, on this issue Bush is far better than Kerry, who wanted to keep our troops in Europe. On this, I agree with Art Chrenkoff.
In any case, if the insurgency does not die down over the next few months, it will be interesting to see what finally starts to happen as the attempts to get troops from the National Guard and Ready Reserves and the Army Reserves finally hit the dust at the bottom of the well.
That is all.
Three Years too Late
"Review May Shift Terror Policies: U.S. Is Expected to Look Beyond Al Qaeda," by the Washington Post.
Really? This is News? This is a New Policy? Didn't we sort of, you know, start this policy back in 2001 or 2002, right after the fall of Afghanistan?
What's next? "Soviet Union May be Ready to Fall?"
That is all.
Really? This is News? This is a New Policy? Didn't we sort of, you know, start this policy back in 2001 or 2002, right after the fall of Afghanistan?
What's next? "Soviet Union May be Ready to Fall?"
That is all.
Where Will We Get the Soldiers for Our Empire?
Sanders Research has some concerns.
An interesting article, but I'm not certain I agree with its conclusions. I still think that it will only be so long before the government realizes that it can keep order in a conquered country (e.g., Iraq) with a lot fewer soldiers if it is willing to be a little more brutal and a little less worried about whether it is killing the innocent. When it comes to the point where we have to start drawing down our troops or else re-institute a draft, expect to see whole villages being razed every time there is an attack against our troops.
That is all.
An interesting article, but I'm not certain I agree with its conclusions. I still think that it will only be so long before the government realizes that it can keep order in a conquered country (e.g., Iraq) with a lot fewer soldiers if it is willing to be a little more brutal and a little less worried about whether it is killing the innocent. When it comes to the point where we have to start drawing down our troops or else re-institute a draft, expect to see whole villages being razed every time there is an attack against our troops.
That is all.
Why I Don't Want to Fly
If people can look at our naked bodies for security, what next? When are we going to start questioning how much freedom we have to give up for security?
Oh, I forgot. We have a Republican president, so God must approve of whatever the government does.
That is all.
Oh, I forgot. We have a Republican president, so God must approve of whatever the government does.
That is all.
I'll Have to Support Saddam on this One
Saddam Hussein syas he'd rather be dead than in prison.
Funny, I'd rather he be dead as well.
That is all.
Funny, I'd rather he be dead as well.
That is all.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Don't Want to Pay for Teenage Mothers? You Bigot!
This article is very interesting and thoughtful up until the end:
"Perhaps one concern about the 'baby factory' in Derby is that these are the wrong kind of people [i.e., the "underclass"] breeding... They fall pregnant without thinking of their careers, and are happy to live off benefits.
"This is little better than some of the old racist concerns about too many black babies."
If the article is objecting to the idea that underclass teenage mothers are all "welfare queens," then that is one thing. But I seem to be getting the message that it is wrong to resent someone for taking welfare benefits after getting pregnant as a teenager.
My general feeling on this sort of question: I don't care if it is racist, or classist, or sexist, or what, I care about are the concerns accurate? If the people getting pregnant as teenagers are putting a strain on the welfare system, then we have a right to be concerned about it. If not, then you can argue about the prejudice and whatnot that is involved.
But unless you are arguing that an assertion is inaccurate, I don't care if you think it is racist, or sexist, or classist, or whatever.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists for the link.
That is all.
"Perhaps one concern about the 'baby factory' in Derby is that these are the wrong kind of people [i.e., the "underclass"] breeding... They fall pregnant without thinking of their careers, and are happy to live off benefits.
"This is little better than some of the old racist concerns about too many black babies."
If the article is objecting to the idea that underclass teenage mothers are all "welfare queens," then that is one thing. But I seem to be getting the message that it is wrong to resent someone for taking welfare benefits after getting pregnant as a teenager.
My general feeling on this sort of question: I don't care if it is racist, or classist, or sexist, or what, I care about are the concerns accurate? If the people getting pregnant as teenagers are putting a strain on the welfare system, then we have a right to be concerned about it. If not, then you can argue about the prejudice and whatnot that is involved.
But unless you are arguing that an assertion is inaccurate, I don't care if you think it is racist, or sexist, or classist, or whatever.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists for the link.
That is all.
And Now, for a Word from Afghanistan
Alan Bock explains Afghanistan as he sees it.
Short synopsis: Afghanistan's government is still very much under US control (as opposed to Karzai being independent), and the War on Poppies has not been very successful.
That is all.
Short synopsis: Afghanistan's government is still very much under US control (as opposed to Karzai being independent), and the War on Poppies has not been very successful.
That is all.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Joe Guzzardi on Iraq and the Draft
Joe Guzzardi is not happy at our prospects in Iraq.
I agree with him on this:
" Under no circumstances will the status quo in Iraq continue into 2006."
But I disagree on this:
"Expect to see the draft reinstated. Then we’ll find out just how popular Bush’s war really is."
If we get to the point where we rally start losing control, we will find a way to maintain control with the forces we have. Which is a nice way of saying that we will ge significantly more brutal. To put down the Sunni insurgency, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a resort to concentration camps and mass executions. Not because we are evil, but because if we insist on staying in Iraq, it will be the only way to maintain order. Although I suppose one might argue that in such a case, a determination to stay is evil.
That is all.
I agree with him on this:
" Under no circumstances will the status quo in Iraq continue into 2006."
But I disagree on this:
"Expect to see the draft reinstated. Then we’ll find out just how popular Bush’s war really is."
If we get to the point where we rally start losing control, we will find a way to maintain control with the forces we have. Which is a nice way of saying that we will ge significantly more brutal. To put down the Sunni insurgency, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a resort to concentration camps and mass executions. Not because we are evil, but because if we insist on staying in Iraq, it will be the only way to maintain order. Although I suppose one might argue that in such a case, a determination to stay is evil.
That is all.
Electrical News from Iraq
Deltoid (Chris Lambert) compares the stories we've been getting to the Brookings Institue's figures on Iraq's electrical capacity. Things do not appear to be exactly as Art Chrenkoff believes they are.
One commenter questions the Brookings Institute's figures.
Anyone have any thoughts?
UPDATE: In the comments on this post, Jim Heney defends the Brookings Institute; apparently their figures come from a State Department report. (Which explains why none of the neocons bother to look at it; not only does it contradict the rosy scenario they predict, but it comes from the State Department, aka the source of all evil - as opposed to the source of all good, i.e., Ahmad Chalabi).
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and to Jim Henley.
That is all.
One commenter questions the Brookings Institute's figures.
Anyone have any thoughts?
UPDATE: In the comments on this post, Jim Heney defends the Brookings Institute; apparently their figures come from a State Department report. (Which explains why none of the neocons bother to look at it; not only does it contradict the rosy scenario they predict, but it comes from the State Department, aka the source of all evil - as opposed to the source of all good, i.e., Ahmad Chalabi).
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and to Jim Henley.
That is all.
Cain and Abel
I don't know if it seems strange for me as a Christian to refer people to a Jewish discussion of theology, but I find that Rabbi David Fohrman has an interesting series starting up about Cain and Abel on Jewish World Review.
That is all.
That is all.
New Picture
I finally put a photo of myself on my blog.
Note that it is an older photo; in it, I still have my sideburns, which I shaved off sometime in April.
That is all.
Note that it is an older photo; in it, I still have my sideburns, which I shaved off sometime in April.
That is all.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Abu Masyab Al-Zarqawi El-Emmanuel Goldstein
I have long said that I thought that Zarqawi was more being used as a figure for us to focus our rage on then being the actual mastermind behind the insurgency (I don't think there is a single mastermind). Even if he is in some sense the "head" of the insurgency, he is probably mostly a figurehead and is in any case eminently expendable. While it is convenient to pretend that once we get him, Iraq will settle down, I think that in reality we'll just find someone else to focus on.
Sami of the Iraqi Thoughts blog appears to agree with me (for the most part) on this issue. Read the blog entry for some interesting thoughts.
That is all.
Sami of the Iraqi Thoughts blog appears to agree with me (for the most part) on this issue. Read the blog entry for some interesting thoughts.
That is all.
On Newsweek-gate
Matt Taibbi has some choice thoughts. (WARNING: Language)
Thank and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
That is all.
Thank and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
That is all.
Paul Craig Roberts Does it Again
Counterpunch's token (paleo)conservative writes another great article about federal malfeasance, this time dealing with an attempted cover-up of the accidental killing of an (at least apparently) innocent bystander to the Oklahoma City blast.
That is all.
That is all.
Hey! Why's the Insurgency Growing Again?
The War Nerd offers his thoughts.
But he misses one possible solution to the current insurgency. If the guerillas wind up scaring off all of our allies in the Sunni Arab regions, the US always has the option of simply considering all Sunni Arabs the enemy.
No, I'm not advocating this; but I think that if the US has its back to the wall, sooner or later it will be decided that increased brutality to the Sunnis will force them to submit. And if regular brutality doesn't work, perhaps razing villages to the ground, punishing the families of insurgents, or concentration camps for the Sunni Arabs will be used.
But one thing is clear: there is no pretty, happy solution to the Iraq War. We either leave and let whatever happens happen, or we stay, hemorrhaging troops in a growing insurgency, or we decide to show the Iraqis that anyone who doesn't play ball like we want them to will die, and a lot of bystanders too, just to encourage them to listen.
Personally, I like the pull-out option, but I have a feeling that in the end, Iraqi lives will be considered the most expendable thing here.
That is all.
But he misses one possible solution to the current insurgency. If the guerillas wind up scaring off all of our allies in the Sunni Arab regions, the US always has the option of simply considering all Sunni Arabs the enemy.
No, I'm not advocating this; but I think that if the US has its back to the wall, sooner or later it will be decided that increased brutality to the Sunnis will force them to submit. And if regular brutality doesn't work, perhaps razing villages to the ground, punishing the families of insurgents, or concentration camps for the Sunni Arabs will be used.
But one thing is clear: there is no pretty, happy solution to the Iraq War. We either leave and let whatever happens happen, or we stay, hemorrhaging troops in a growing insurgency, or we decide to show the Iraqis that anyone who doesn't play ball like we want them to will die, and a lot of bystanders too, just to encourage them to listen.
Personally, I like the pull-out option, but I have a feeling that in the end, Iraqi lives will be considered the most expendable thing here.
That is all.
I Saw Pirates Today
No, not the Pirates of the Carribean. Rather, Pirates of Silicon Valley, the made-for-TV TNT movie about the birth of Apple and Microsoft.
I am not certain how accurate the portrayal of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, etc. are (I know some of the history is inaccurate or at least misleading, e.g. the Lisa is not presented as the flop it was), but if it is accurate, then at least in the cases of Jobs and Gates, I am reminded of Bismarck's comment that you don't want to see sausage or legislation being made. Add computer operating systems to the list.
That is all.
I am not certain how accurate the portrayal of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, etc. are (I know some of the history is inaccurate or at least misleading, e.g. the Lisa is not presented as the flop it was), but if it is accurate, then at least in the cases of Jobs and Gates, I am reminded of Bismarck's comment that you don't want to see sausage or legislation being made. Add computer operating systems to the list.
That is all.
This is Bizarre
Apparently a couple are being forbidden to teach their child Wicca as part of a divorce decree.
The strange thing is that this is that apparently both parents are Wiccans, so it is not at all clear who is objecting to the kid becoming a Wiccan. I mean, if one parent were a Wiccan and the other an Evnagelical Christian, I could see where there would be some troubles in trying to determine what they should teach the child, as the parents' beliefs are diametrically opposed. But when there is no disagreement between the parents, this type of move is difficult to understand.
As best as I can tell, the problem is that they sent their kid to a parochial school. But it seems to me that in that case, the solution should be worked out between the parents and the school; if the school cannot tolerate Wicca, it should be allowed to simply refuse to allow the student to enroll. If it requires the student to say prayers that the parents find offensive, they should remove him from the school and take him somewhere else. If neither the school nor the parents have a problem with the cognitive dissonance between a kid being taught both Catholicism and Wicca, then the government should stay the #$*&& out.
There has to be something here that I am missing.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Volokh.
That is all.
The strange thing is that this is that apparently both parents are Wiccans, so it is not at all clear who is objecting to the kid becoming a Wiccan. I mean, if one parent were a Wiccan and the other an Evnagelical Christian, I could see where there would be some troubles in trying to determine what they should teach the child, as the parents' beliefs are diametrically opposed. But when there is no disagreement between the parents, this type of move is difficult to understand.
As best as I can tell, the problem is that they sent their kid to a parochial school. But it seems to me that in that case, the solution should be worked out between the parents and the school; if the school cannot tolerate Wicca, it should be allowed to simply refuse to allow the student to enroll. If it requires the student to say prayers that the parents find offensive, they should remove him from the school and take him somewhere else. If neither the school nor the parents have a problem with the cognitive dissonance between a kid being taught both Catholicism and Wicca, then the government should stay the #$*&& out.
There has to be something here that I am missing.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Volokh.
That is all.
The Military as Mephistopheles
Why joining the military can be a Faustian bargain.
I can't help but wonder what the government would do to anyone else who tried to enforce the same kind of contract against their employees.
That is all.
I can't help but wonder what the government would do to anyone else who tried to enforce the same kind of contract against their employees.
That is all.
Andrew Sullivan has Interesting Thoughts
On Quran desecration, stem-cell research, abortion, and our general situation in Iraq.
[A/N: I have decided to eliminate the apostrophe and spell it "Quran" for the time being. Comments welcome.]
That is all.
[A/N: I have decided to eliminate the apostrophe and spell it "Quran" for the time being. Comments welcome.]
That is all.
Three Cheers for the French
The French people are resisting the European Union.
I wonder if this will get neocons to change their opinion of the French?
Nah, killing Arabs is far more important to the neoconservatives than stopping the Euro-Superstate.
Unless they go the Michael Ledeen route and start implying that the French really want the war in Iraq and love Dubya, but are being suppressed in this desire by their government.
"And there [i.e., France and Germany], as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us.
"Radio Free France, anyone?"
That is all.
I wonder if this will get neocons to change their opinion of the French?
Nah, killing Arabs is far more important to the neoconservatives than stopping the Euro-Superstate.
Unless they go the Michael Ledeen route and start implying that the French really want the war in Iraq and love Dubya, but are being suppressed in this desire by their government.
"And there [i.e., France and Germany], as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us.
"Radio Free France, anyone?"
That is all.
Free Fallaci!!
Disgusting.
Absolutely disgusting.
(Italy's actions, not the valiant efforts of Messrs. Auster and Sailer to denounce them).
That is all.
Absolutely disgusting.
(Italy's actions, not the valiant efforts of Messrs. Auster and Sailer to denounce them).
That is all.
Hope?
Apparently, neoconservatism is curable. Or at least, one can get on the wagon and begin recovery.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
America as Mr. Creosote
Bill Bonner comments on the problems with US debt and fiat currency, and how we are just expanding the bubble bigger:
"When one foreign loan [i.e., to the United States] comes due...other foreigners practically line up to refinance it; it is as if they were bringing pastries to an extremely fat man...just to gawk and wonder when he might explode."
So the financial situation of the United States is being compared to Mr. Creosote (WARNING: this link is to the text of [and some pictures from] a Monty Python skit which may offend people - there's a song that celebrates the male anatomy, and several scenes of projectile vomiting). Very interesting.
That is all.
"When one foreign loan [i.e., to the United States] comes due...other foreigners practically line up to refinance it; it is as if they were bringing pastries to an extremely fat man...just to gawk and wonder when he might explode."
So the financial situation of the United States is being compared to Mr. Creosote (WARNING: this link is to the text of [and some pictures from] a Monty Python skit which may offend people - there's a song that celebrates the male anatomy, and several scenes of projectile vomiting). Very interesting.
That is all.
Charging the Runaway Bride with a Felony
This is ridiculous.
I have to agree with Wendy McElroy on this.
Perhaps she should be fined for lying to the police; but unless there is an indication that she anticipated and was deliberately trying to get the police to search for her, I feel that we should assume that she just disappeared, which she has a legal right to do, and then panicked when she discovered that there was a big multi-state search.
In any case, I am inclined to be merciful (if that is the right word) to Jennifer Wilbanks. Which means not charging her with a felony because I am embarrassed at wasting a lot of money on a futile search.
That is all.
I have to agree with Wendy McElroy on this.
Perhaps she should be fined for lying to the police; but unless there is an indication that she anticipated and was deliberately trying to get the police to search for her, I feel that we should assume that she just disappeared, which she has a legal right to do, and then panicked when she discovered that there was a big multi-state search.
In any case, I am inclined to be merciful (if that is the right word) to Jennifer Wilbanks. Which means not charging her with a felony because I am embarrassed at wasting a lot of money on a futile search.
That is all.
Koran, Qu'Ran, Moslem, Muslim
Steve Sailer is against using the spelling "Qu'Ran" when referring to the Muslim/Moslem holy book.
My feeling: I have been spelling it "Qu'Ran" because I was under the impression that that was the way that most Muslims preferred it spelt (I was also under the impression that they prefer "Muslim" to "Moslem"). I have no interest in being pretentious. I just want to avoid offending anyone unnecessarily by spelling the name of the writings that they consider scripture in a way they don't like. (Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bend over every time someone gets offended by something I say; I am just trying to avoid giving unnecessary offense because I consider it polite). If I have any Muslim readers, please tell me how you prefer me to spell Qu'Ran/Koran and Muslim/Moslem. My aim, as always, is to be polite and respectful. Anyone have any thoughts on the different spellings?
That is all.
My feeling: I have been spelling it "Qu'Ran" because I was under the impression that that was the way that most Muslims preferred it spelt (I was also under the impression that they prefer "Muslim" to "Moslem"). I have no interest in being pretentious. I just want to avoid offending anyone unnecessarily by spelling the name of the writings that they consider scripture in a way they don't like. (Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bend over every time someone gets offended by something I say; I am just trying to avoid giving unnecessary offense because I consider it polite). If I have any Muslim readers, please tell me how you prefer me to spell Qu'Ran/Koran and Muslim/Moslem. My aim, as always, is to be polite and respectful. Anyone have any thoughts on the different spellings?
That is all.
Men's News Daily Wants Cloning
I am unimpressed with this article supporting therapeutic cloning.
It is too short on the bigger issue, whether or not taking embryonic stem cells is taking human lives, stating simply:
"These embryos are not human beings, but microscopic bits of protoplasm the width of a human hair. They have the potential to grow into human beings, but actual human beings are the ones dying for lack of this technology."
and then leaving it at that, with no thought that not everyone may agree. In fact, he seems to imply that people who claim to be opposed to therapeutic cloning on these grounds are dishonest:
"Opponents of therapeutic cloning know all this, but are unmoved. This is because their fundamental objection is not that therapeutic cloning is antilife, but that it entails 'playing God'--i.e., remaking nature to serve human purposes."
He then proceeds to use the rest of the article dealing with the lesser issue, the Luddite opposition to therapeutic cloning, rather than the Pro-Life opposition.
Ah, reading the bottom of the page, it all becomes clear. He is part of the Ayn Rand Institute. In my experience, Randians tend to believe that no moral issues are particularly thorny, and that all moral issues have an obvious and simple answer, and that everyone knows this but some are too perverted to agree with the obvious truth. So obviously, he doesn't feel he has a need to discuss whether or not the embryo is a human being, because he knows that everyone deep down believes as he does, they're just too pigheaded to admit it.
That is all.
It is too short on the bigger issue, whether or not taking embryonic stem cells is taking human lives, stating simply:
"These embryos are not human beings, but microscopic bits of protoplasm the width of a human hair. They have the potential to grow into human beings, but actual human beings are the ones dying for lack of this technology."
and then leaving it at that, with no thought that not everyone may agree. In fact, he seems to imply that people who claim to be opposed to therapeutic cloning on these grounds are dishonest:
"Opponents of therapeutic cloning know all this, but are unmoved. This is because their fundamental objection is not that therapeutic cloning is antilife, but that it entails 'playing God'--i.e., remaking nature to serve human purposes."
He then proceeds to use the rest of the article dealing with the lesser issue, the Luddite opposition to therapeutic cloning, rather than the Pro-Life opposition.
Ah, reading the bottom of the page, it all becomes clear. He is part of the Ayn Rand Institute. In my experience, Randians tend to believe that no moral issues are particularly thorny, and that all moral issues have an obvious and simple answer, and that everyone knows this but some are too perverted to agree with the obvious truth. So obviously, he doesn't feel he has a need to discuss whether or not the embryo is a human being, because he knows that everyone deep down believes as he does, they're just too pigheaded to admit it.
That is all.
Walter Willimas on the Trade Deficit
I am not as sanguine as Walter Williams is about our trade deficit. Prof. Williams thinks that foreigners will not stop dumping our debt because they will take a great hit on any investments they have made in American interests. In other words, they can't sell without causing a market run, which will lose them a lot of money. Unfortunately, this assumes that foreigners are not at the point where they have decided that things will only get worse and they better stop digging. Eventually, they are going to decide that it is better to takethe loss now than take a bigger loss in the future, unless hte US gets its fiscal house in order.
But having said that, I think that the problems of our trade deficit come less from free trade than from the pernicious effects of our fiat money economy. I doubt that further government intervention to reduce imports will help the situation. And on that, I suspect Prof. Williams and I are on the exact same page (as we are on so many other issues).
It should be pointed out that Ron Liebermann thinks that our currency problems might have something to do with why we went into Iraq. (That's Ron Liebermann, not to be confused with Ron Leibman, who played a district attorney on a few episodes of Law & Order: SVU.
That is all.
But having said that, I think that the problems of our trade deficit come less from free trade than from the pernicious effects of our fiat money economy. I doubt that further government intervention to reduce imports will help the situation. And on that, I suspect Prof. Williams and I are on the exact same page (as we are on so many other issues).
It should be pointed out that Ron Liebermann thinks that our currency problems might have something to do with why we went into Iraq. (That's Ron Liebermann, not to be confused with Ron Leibman, who played a district attorney on a few episodes of Law & Order: SVU.
That is all.
Banning the Bomb -for the Time Being
In prosaic news, apparently the nuclear option will not be used. A compromise has been reached. Actually, this happened a day or so ago. If I found this fact interesting, I would have blogged on it sooner.
I am glad that filibustering has not been eliminated, but I was hoping for the GOP totry something bold like, you know, requiring that an actual talking filibuster take place.
As a Maine resident, I note that the two Maine Senators were both involved in this deal. I'm not exactly certain what to make of that, although I must admit that neither Snowe nor Collins has ever struck me as that impressive.
That is all.
I am glad that filibustering has not been eliminated, but I was hoping for the GOP totry something bold like, you know, requiring that an actual talking filibuster take place.
As a Maine resident, I note that the two Maine Senators were both involved in this deal. I'm not exactly certain what to make of that, although I must admit that neither Snowe nor Collins has ever struck me as that impressive.
That is all.
Is Centralization Good When it Promotes Liberty?
Walter Block and Stephan Kinsella address an issue that has comcerned libertarians for a while now.
It's been my impression that paleolibertarians are more likely to favor federalism and neolibertarians are more likely to see centralization as a good thing if it reduces the size of local government.
I fall strongly on the federalism side, myself.
That is all.
It's been my impression that paleolibertarians are more likely to favor federalism and neolibertarians are more likely to see centralization as a good thing if it reduces the size of local government.
I fall strongly on the federalism side, myself.
That is all.
Wow.
I'm not sure which is more troubling. This article, or the advertisement in the article (at least when I looked at it) where you shoot your co-workers with a sniper rifle to win a laptop computer. (When I refreshed the page, it was replaced by a different ad).
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
To Win in Iraq
Niall Ferguson talks about how insurgencies have been defeated in the past. He seems to think that there is little chance of American success in Iraq.
Sully suggests that the only hope is a good dose of luck.
I am afraid that I see things a lot worse than that. While I don't see a draft as a politically viable option, I have said many times that I think that our distaste for ruthlessness will melt away given sufficient time with little progress, and given a refusal to withdraw. If we refuse to lose in Iraq, and we cannot seem to defeat the insurgency, I think that eventually the push to take off the gloves will become irresistible.
Ideally, if we are going to stay in Iraq, we can use this as an opportunity to move American troops away from unnecessary bases in, e.g. Europe. That may be the only way to keep our manpower up when the troops, an the various methods of getting them to stay longer finally run out.
In any case, I am not hopeful about our prospects in Iraq.
That is all.
Sully suggests that the only hope is a good dose of luck.
I am afraid that I see things a lot worse than that. While I don't see a draft as a politically viable option, I have said many times that I think that our distaste for ruthlessness will melt away given sufficient time with little progress, and given a refusal to withdraw. If we refuse to lose in Iraq, and we cannot seem to defeat the insurgency, I think that eventually the push to take off the gloves will become irresistible.
Ideally, if we are going to stay in Iraq, we can use this as an opportunity to move American troops away from unnecessary bases in, e.g. Europe. That may be the only way to keep our manpower up when the troops, an the various methods of getting them to stay longer finally run out.
In any case, I am not hopeful about our prospects in Iraq.
That is all.
Iraq Casualty Update
The number of coalition fatalities in Iraq for May is 63; 55 hostile, 8 non-hostile, 60 American, 2 Bulgarian, 1 UKer.
This is the highest number of fatalities, and of hostile fatalities, in any month since the elections in January (I'm not including January itself as one of those months).
That is all. For now.
This is the highest number of fatalities, and of hostile fatalities, in any month since the elections in January (I'm not including January itself as one of those months).
That is all. For now.
When Will Someone Make Krull 2?
I just saw Revenge of the Sith.
I wasn't entirely impressed.
SPOILERS AHEAD.
The visual effects were quite elaborate, but it was usually too dark to really see enough to appreciate what was going on. The fact that both sides of the war looked very similar in the opening sequence didn't help, either. I don't mind long action sequences, but I don't like action if I cannot make out what is going on. The same applies to the climactic battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan. The lava was so bright and the ambient lighting so poor that it was difficult to see Obi Wan and Anakin. It was like watching the IPod dancers fighting.
However, I a mglad I saw he movie and I do think it took us where we needed to go and answered most of the important questions.
I wonder though - if Darth Plagus was able to create life, could be have been the one to have caused Anakin's conception?
Was the Emperor lying to Anakin about the ability to prevent death, or was he telling the truth, but it was irrelevant, due to the circumstances of the death that Anakin wanted to prevent?
That is all.
I wasn't entirely impressed.
SPOILERS AHEAD.
The visual effects were quite elaborate, but it was usually too dark to really see enough to appreciate what was going on. The fact that both sides of the war looked very similar in the opening sequence didn't help, either. I don't mind long action sequences, but I don't like action if I cannot make out what is going on. The same applies to the climactic battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan. The lava was so bright and the ambient lighting so poor that it was difficult to see Obi Wan and Anakin. It was like watching the IPod dancers fighting.
However, I a mglad I saw he movie and I do think it took us where we needed to go and answered most of the important questions.
I wonder though - if Darth Plagus was able to create life, could be have been the one to have caused Anakin's conception?
Was the Emperor lying to Anakin about the ability to prevent death, or was he telling the truth, but it was irrelevant, due to the circumstances of the death that Anakin wanted to prevent?
That is all.
I Bring Ye News!
Oyez, oyez!
George W. Bush is not God, says the New American.
I await the prosecution of the John Birch Society for heresy.
That is all.
George W. Bush is not God, says the New American.
I await the prosecution of the John Birch Society for heresy.
That is all.
Clarence Page on Immigration
Immigrants compete with blacks, says Mr. Page, writing an article worthy of VDARE. Letting too many unskilled workers into the country makes it harder for working-class people to find good-paying jobs, which hits blacks especially hard.
A good article.
That is all.
A good article.
That is all.
The Limits of Secularism as a World View
An excellent article by Dennis Prager makes the point that without a personal being behind the universe, life is ultimately meaningless.
That is all.
That is all.
We Gave Up Freedom for Nothing?
More disturbing news from VDARE.
Apparently, REAL ID has been altered for the benefit of illegals. So immigration restrictionists may have been hoodwinked into supporting a reduction of freedom for absolutely nuthin'.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Apparently, REAL ID has been altered for the benefit of illegals. So immigration restrictionists may have been hoodwinked into supporting a reduction of freedom for absolutely nuthin'.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Life Begins at Karyogamy
Thinking about the abortion debate, I have determined that I believe that life begins with the formation of a diploid zygote. In sexual reproduction (which includes artificial insemination; essentailly, sexual reproduction means all forms of human reproduction other than cloning) this occurs at karyogamy. (In cloning, it occurs at whatever point the cell becomes capable of mitosis, or, I think, just after the electric shock stimulating the inserted nucleus to restrart the cell cycle).
In any case, this means in essence that what defiens contraception as pre- or post-conception for me is whether or not it precents karyogamy. I am uncomfortable with IUDs because they prevent implantation of the egg rather than preventing the sperm from meeting the egg. I am also not entirely comfortable with the Pill or with emergency contraception because I have been under the impression that in some cases it prevents implantation rather than ovulation. On the other hand, some studies have suggested that emergency contraception only works by preventing ovulation, and does not prevent implantation which would make me quite comfortable with it (and with the pill i the same is true of it).
However, I will go a step further and say that I have no problem with preventing implantation if doing so prevents karyogamy. I know that the sperm unites with a secondary oocyte, which goes on to develop into an egg through meiosis II. If this process can be stopped before the oocyte becomes an ovum and before the nuclei merge, I have no problem with it.
Of course, I have problems with artificial conception techniques (e.g. invitro fertilization) when they produce large number of embryos that are simply discarded.
That may not be all, but it is all for now.
In any case, this means in essence that what defiens contraception as pre- or post-conception for me is whether or not it precents karyogamy. I am uncomfortable with IUDs because they prevent implantation of the egg rather than preventing the sperm from meeting the egg. I am also not entirely comfortable with the Pill or with emergency contraception because I have been under the impression that in some cases it prevents implantation rather than ovulation. On the other hand, some studies have suggested that emergency contraception only works by preventing ovulation, and does not prevent implantation which would make me quite comfortable with it (and with the pill i the same is true of it).
However, I will go a step further and say that I have no problem with preventing implantation if doing so prevents karyogamy. I know that the sperm unites with a secondary oocyte, which goes on to develop into an egg through meiosis II. If this process can be stopped before the oocyte becomes an ovum and before the nuclei merge, I have no problem with it.
Of course, I have problems with artificial conception techniques (e.g. invitro fertilization) when they produce large number of embryos that are simply discarded.
That may not be all, but it is all for now.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Viagra for Rapists
It's perfectly logical, as David Neustadt points out. Or rather, it is perfectly logical when government bureaucrats are put in charge of medicine, and when insanity defines our premises.
Lawrence Auster has some good posts on the stupidity.
That is all.
Lawrence Auster has some good posts on the stupidity.
That is all.
Permanent Bases?
This report is not encouraging, if you are against permanent bases in Iraq.
The entire structure of the plan as outlined in the article reminds me of theory that Iraqi "democracy" is just a form of outsourcing, which I have blogged on, and which was originally (to my knowledge) suggested by Neve Gordon in Counterpunch.
That is all.
The entire structure of the plan as outlined in the article reminds me of theory that Iraqi "democracy" is just a form of outsourcing, which I have blogged on, and which was originally (to my knowledge) suggested by Neve Gordon in Counterpunch.
That is all.
A Good Article on NRO
A thoughtful and useful post by Michael Know Beran on why we need to maintain our moral standards when fighting wars.
Although I will admit that I am not upset about Saddam being shown in his BVDs.
That is all.
Although I will admit that I am not upset about Saddam being shown in his BVDs.
That is all.
The End of the PowerPC?
Apple is apparently considering using Intel chips in its Macintosh computers (it currently uses IBM's PowerPC chip).
Anyone else notice the irony of the fact that Macintosh uses IBM chips, while the computers based on IBM's PC design don't? Or that Mac chips are called PowerPC while PC chips do not have the term PC in them?
Hmmm....
That is all.
Anyone else notice the irony of the fact that Macintosh uses IBM chips, while the computers based on IBM's PC design don't? Or that Mac chips are called PowerPC while PC chips do not have the term PC in them?
Hmmm....
That is all.
Protecting the Border
There is a way that we can stop the Mexican invasion, according to a report by the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.
So muhc for the argument that we have done "all that we can do" and have to give up.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
So muhc for the argument that we have done "all that we can do" and have to give up.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Coalition Fatalities in Iraq Meet May Milestone
The number of coalition fatalities for May so far is currently exactly equal to the number of coalition fatalities in April for the whole month. Moreover, the numbers break down the same way (46 hostile, 6 non-hostile).
On the other hand, 3 of the dead this month are not Americans, whereas all of the dead in April are Americans.
If we convert to a per mensem basis, the rate of death in May is ~ 60 hostile, 7-8 non-hostile fatalities.
I think that reports of the death of the insurgency are greatly exagerrated.
That is all.
On the other hand, 3 of the dead this month are not Americans, whereas all of the dead in April are Americans.
If we convert to a per mensem basis, the rate of death in May is ~ 60 hostile, 7-8 non-hostile fatalities.
I think that reports of the death of the insurgency are greatly exagerrated.
That is all.
Oh,Yes, I DO agree with the Ambler
Steve Sailer explains the thuggery that is destroying Canada.
The talk about how they keep trying to prevent Quebecois secession by destroying the country further and further reminds me of nothing so much as the scene in Canadian Bacon (an actualy good movie by Michael Moore) where the protagonists drive through Canada in a truck spray-painted with such expressions as "Canada Sucks!" and they get pulled over for not including French translations on the truck.
That is all.
The talk about how they keep trying to prevent Quebecois secession by destroying the country further and further reminds me of nothing so much as the scene in Canadian Bacon (an actualy good movie by Michael Moore) where the protagonists drive through Canada in a truck spray-painted with such expressions as "Canada Sucks!" and they get pulled over for not including French translations on the truck.
That is all.
On Another Front Entirely
Justin Raimondo discusses the situation in Uzbekistan.
It doesn't seem pretty, and to be truthful, I'm not certain if the neocons were right to support the regime before or right to oppose it now. It appears to be a monstrous government, but I'm not certain that I know enough to know if Uzbekistan can survive under any other kind of government.
One thing I am certain of - I think that the US should have, and should now, stay out of it as much as possible.
That is all.
It doesn't seem pretty, and to be truthful, I'm not certain if the neocons were right to support the regime before or right to oppose it now. It appears to be a monstrous government, but I'm not certain that I know enough to know if Uzbekistan can survive under any other kind of government.
One thing I am certain of - I think that the US should have, and should now, stay out of it as much as possible.
That is all.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Mises Institute on Social Security
Bob Murphy explains the awful truth: the Social security reform offered by George W. Bush is essentially nothing more than a shell game.
This is a similar critique to mine: that the use of personal accounts will not help Social Security because the reduced benefits paid out by the government (because the private sector is paying out some of it) will be offset by lower revenues.
In any case, I don't see private accounts per se as a bad idea. I just hate the belief that somehow Bush can offer us a free lunch.
That is all.
This is a similar critique to mine: that the use of personal accounts will not help Social Security because the reduced benefits paid out by the government (because the private sector is paying out some of it) will be offset by lower revenues.
In any case, I don't see private accounts per se as a bad idea. I just hate the belief that somehow Bush can offer us a free lunch.
That is all.
Mises Institute on Employ-at-Will
Arthur Foulkes discusses why he believes that employers should be able to fire any employee at any time for any reason.
I mostly agree, but with a few exceptions:
I do think that assurances in employee handbooks ought to be considered contractual obligations if adherence to the employee handbook is written into the contract. Anything else is fraud on the part of the employer.
I also think that if a business fires someone on the basus that they refused to break a law (e.g. because they refused to lie ot the police), the employer should be brought up on charges relating to whatever law they wanted to break; for example, if they tell an employee he must perjure himself to keep his job, they should be charged with whatever the normal charges are for trying to get someone to commit perjury. Admittedly, in some cases this might be hard to prosecute; if the employer can deny that he knew what the employee was doing was illegal; e.g. in the case above, assume that the employee was lying about an illegal action that he himself did; the employer might claim he fired the employee for doing something wrong rather than for admitting he did something wrong, he assumed htat what he told the employee to say was true, because he had assumed htat the employee hadn't performed an illegal action. As for jury duty, however, my feeling is that the government shouldn't force people to serve on a jury (13th amendment, you know, and htere must be 12 willing people out there somewhere), so this shouldn't be an issue.
In any case, firing someone should not be done in a way that contradicts explicit provisions of the employment contract; if the employer contractualy agrees not to fire the employee except under certain circumstances, he must be held to that; anything else is fraud.
UPDATE: Mr. Foulkes agrees with me on explicit contracts.
That is all.
I mostly agree, but with a few exceptions:
I do think that assurances in employee handbooks ought to be considered contractual obligations if adherence to the employee handbook is written into the contract. Anything else is fraud on the part of the employer.
I also think that if a business fires someone on the basus that they refused to break a law (e.g. because they refused to lie ot the police), the employer should be brought up on charges relating to whatever law they wanted to break; for example, if they tell an employee he must perjure himself to keep his job, they should be charged with whatever the normal charges are for trying to get someone to commit perjury. Admittedly, in some cases this might be hard to prosecute; if the employer can deny that he knew what the employee was doing was illegal; e.g. in the case above, assume that the employee was lying about an illegal action that he himself did; the employer might claim he fired the employee for doing something wrong rather than for admitting he did something wrong, he assumed htat what he told the employee to say was true, because he had assumed htat the employee hadn't performed an illegal action. As for jury duty, however, my feeling is that the government shouldn't force people to serve on a jury (13th amendment, you know, and htere must be 12 willing people out there somewhere), so this shouldn't be an issue.
In any case, firing someone should not be done in a way that contradicts explicit provisions of the employment contract; if the employer contractualy agrees not to fire the employee except under certain circumstances, he must be held to that; anything else is fraud.
UPDATE: Mr. Foulkes agrees with me on explicit contracts.
That is all.
Withdrawal?
Not of the army but of individual officers.
A lot of officers may decide not to re-commit when their deployments are up.
To be fair, the evidence in this article is entirely anecdotal, and I remember hearing a report that while enlistments were down, re-enlistments were up (although I forget where).
But if it turns out that people are not re-enlisting because they wish to avoid re-deployment at the same time as recruitments are down, that is not good news. Not at all. Even if you are anti-war, this is more likely, in my opinion, to lead to either a draft or to increasing brutality (i.e., so that fewer soldiers can keep order) than it is to a withdrawal from Iraq.
That is all.
A lot of officers may decide not to re-commit when their deployments are up.
To be fair, the evidence in this article is entirely anecdotal, and I remember hearing a report that while enlistments were down, re-enlistments were up (although I forget where).
But if it turns out that people are not re-enlisting because they wish to avoid re-deployment at the same time as recruitments are down, that is not good news. Not at all. Even if you are anti-war, this is more likely, in my opinion, to lead to either a draft or to increasing brutality (i.e., so that fewer soldiers can keep order) than it is to a withdrawal from Iraq.
That is all.
Bad News from Iraq - or Maybe Bad Olds from Iraq
This is distressing news. Many Iraqis do not appear to have good drinking water.
On the other hand, according to the article, this problem has been going on for at least 30 years, so it can't be blamed on the invasion or even on the sanctions - at least in this case. (There have been reports that the sanctions crippled Iraqi water purification, although in the cases mentioned it appears that there wasn't good purification in the first place).
That is all.
On the other hand, according to the article, this problem has been going on for at least 30 years, so it can't be blamed on the invasion or even on the sanctions - at least in this case. (There have been reports that the sanctions crippled Iraqi water purification, although in the cases mentioned it appears that there wasn't good purification in the first place).
That is all.
Sad One-Year Anniversary
On May 22, 2004, Richard Biggs, known to Babylon 5 fans everywhere as Doctor Stephen Franklin, died of an aortic tear. He was 44 years old.
That is all.
That is all.
What Glenn Reynold's Doesn't Get
Glenn Reynolds thinks that Abu Ghraib is being overemphasized.
Maybe it is, but that doesn't change the fact the actual occurrence of Abu Ghraib is still a bigger deal than Newsweek putting information in a story that wasn't vetted as well as it should be. Moreover, I don't think that Newsweek actually ever said that people didn't flush the Qu'Ran, just that they couldn't confirm that it was mentioned in a report.
"But while I think that what happened at Abu Ghraib was bad, and that it should be punished, and that Koran-flushing (if it had happened) would have been bad, though not torturous, I don't think it's terribly important compared to the war as a whole..."
Then neither is the Newsweek story that important. The only reason that I care at all about whether or not he Qu-Ran flushing happened is because there are people who want to punish Newsweek for reporting on the allegation. If it turns out to be true, than Newsweek's report is not such bad reporting, and the only criticism would be that they should have covered it up, as others have said.
That is all.
Maybe it is, but that doesn't change the fact the actual occurrence of Abu Ghraib is still a bigger deal than Newsweek putting information in a story that wasn't vetted as well as it should be. Moreover, I don't think that Newsweek actually ever said that people didn't flush the Qu'Ran, just that they couldn't confirm that it was mentioned in a report.
"But while I think that what happened at Abu Ghraib was bad, and that it should be punished, and that Koran-flushing (if it had happened) would have been bad, though not torturous, I don't think it's terribly important compared to the war as a whole..."
Then neither is the Newsweek story that important. The only reason that I care at all about whether or not he Qu-Ran flushing happened is because there are people who want to punish Newsweek for reporting on the allegation. If it turns out to be true, than Newsweek's report is not such bad reporting, and the only criticism would be that they should have covered it up, as others have said.
That is all.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
More on 3/11
More attempts to prove that the Spanish bombing was "an inside job."
Even if we assume that a spanish police officer of Syrian defense was involved with this, it could just indicate that some terrorists infltrated the police force. It doesn't seem to indicate that there was a conspiracy by the Socialists to get rid of Aznar and replace him with Zapatero, which is what it seems that Frank Gaffney wants to imply.
That is all.
Even if we assume that a spanish police officer of Syrian defense was involved with this, it could just indicate that some terrorists infltrated the police force. It doesn't seem to indicate that there was a conspiracy by the Socialists to get rid of Aznar and replace him with Zapatero, which is what it seems that Frank Gaffney wants to imply.
That is all.
A Welcome Change
It has often been pointed out by my fellow pro-gun rightsers that the Police have no legal duty to protect anyone, making relying on them for safety a little less than reassuring idea.
Well, apparently in Sweden, it has been ruled that Police do have a legal duty to, you know, do their jobs.
That is all.
Well, apparently in Sweden, it has been ruled that Police do have a legal duty to, you know, do their jobs.
That is all.
Friday, May 20, 2005
A Little Canadian Grace
I don't know much about Canadian politics, but I think I agree with Kevin Michael Grace on a lot of issues.
That is all.
That is all.
More on Newsweek
Interesting thoughts from the always well-spoken Alan Bock.
And Juan Cole disagrees with the idea that the riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan show a lack of civilization in those countries, relative to other countries. This contradicts the opinions I have expressed. I'll have to think about it, but I still think that I am right that there are many, many cultural problems with the Afghanis and Pakistanis that will severely hinder the development of their countries. They are not ready for representative government. I don't agree with Mr. Cole on this one.
That is all.
And Juan Cole disagrees with the idea that the riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan show a lack of civilization in those countries, relative to other countries. This contradicts the opinions I have expressed. I'll have to think about it, but I still think that I am right that there are many, many cultural problems with the Afghanis and Pakistanis that will severely hinder the development of their countries. They are not ready for representative government. I don't agree with Mr. Cole on this one.
That is all.
Dick Morris's Bioweapons
I heard Dick Morris on the radio today (I was listening to Sean Hannity's show - he can be entertaining even if he isn't that good at making a coherent argument), and he supported my idea of the GOP unleashing the "bioweapon option" on the Democrats.
(For those who don't read Glaivester regularly, the "bioweapon option" means forcing a 24-hour, yakkity-yak-yak-yak filibuster rather than the "virtual filibuster where someone threatens to filibuster and everyone tables the issue and moves on).
That is all.
(For those who don't read Glaivester regularly, the "bioweapon option" means forcing a 24-hour, yakkity-yak-yak-yak filibuster rather than the "virtual filibuster where someone threatens to filibuster and everyone tables the issue and moves on).
That is all.
Oil-for-Food Scandal
I am all for investigating the Oil-for-Food scandal, and for punishing anyone involved.
However, I am concerned that a lot of the concentration on the Oil-for-Food scandal is a way for the US and UK governments to shift the blame for the problems caused by the sanctions - "the sanctions didn't kill anyone! The Iraqis would have been healthy and prosperous if George Galloway and Kofi Annan had not stolen their money! We are blameless!"
That the sanctions per se led to a lot of deaths is not negated by the oil-for-Food scandal (in no small part due ot the fact that the sanctions existed for 5 years before the program was set up), methinks.
And the claims that if Saddam had used the money as it had been meant to be used everything would have been fine suffer when we consider that the sanctions, as I recall, prohibited certain items from being imported into Iraq; that is, the sanctions didn't just limit the quantity of Iraq's total imports, certain things were not allowed to be imported even if they were willing to spend Oil-for-Food money on it. I believe that these included many of the water purification materials used in Iraq.
I'll get more information and blog on this later.
None the less, let me close by saying two things: first, if Galloway is guilty, hand 'im, and second, let me say:
That is all.
However, I am concerned that a lot of the concentration on the Oil-for-Food scandal is a way for the US and UK governments to shift the blame for the problems caused by the sanctions - "the sanctions didn't kill anyone! The Iraqis would have been healthy and prosperous if George Galloway and Kofi Annan had not stolen their money! We are blameless!"
That the sanctions per se led to a lot of deaths is not negated by the oil-for-Food scandal (in no small part due ot the fact that the sanctions existed for 5 years before the program was set up), methinks.
And the claims that if Saddam had used the money as it had been meant to be used everything would have been fine suffer when we consider that the sanctions, as I recall, prohibited certain items from being imported into Iraq; that is, the sanctions didn't just limit the quantity of Iraq's total imports, certain things were not allowed to be imported even if they were willing to spend Oil-for-Food money on it. I believe that these included many of the water purification materials used in Iraq.
I'll get more information and blog on this later.
None the less, let me close by saying two things: first, if Galloway is guilty, hand 'im, and second, let me say:
That is all.
Disagreeing with Jim Glaser
"All Americans have benefited from our War economy. Millions of us make money, either directly or indirectly from our government killing people in foreign lands."
I'm not certain what "benefits" he is talking about. Gas now being over $2.00 a gallon? The huge deficit? The threat of a rapidly devaluing currency? The concern over a draft? 1600 dead Americans?
To which benefit exactly does he refer?
That is all.
I'm not certain what "benefits" he is talking about. Gas now being over $2.00 a gallon? The huge deficit? The threat of a rapidly devaluing currency? The concern over a draft? 1600 dead Americans?
To which benefit exactly does he refer?
That is all.
Just So I'm Clear
Anyone who attempts to troll in the postings (by which I mean tries to call me names rather than trying to argue with the facts I present) will find their posts altered. If you want to call me a racist, or a liberal, or anti-American, or too pro-American, or whatever, and you explain why you think that, fine. But if you call me a fool, or something along those lines without backing it up, you will find your post altered in an embarrassing way.
I also don't particularly care if you insult other people, such as politicians or columnists I link to, as long as you aren't vulgar, libelous, or use profanity.
Oh, and please avoid profanity.
So keep it civil, capische?
That is all.
I also don't particularly care if you insult other people, such as politicians or columnists I link to, as long as you aren't vulgar, libelous, or use profanity.
Oh, and please avoid profanity.
So keep it civil, capische?
That is all.
News From AntiWar.Com
Justin Raimondo discusses Uzbekistan, while William S. Lind talksa about possible war with China (he's against it).
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Hal Lindsey is a Moron
And I say this as a Premillennialist.
In an article on WorldNetDaily, he suggests (a) That we know that the Newsweek story is false, something I don't think has been proven - we just know that it doesn't have evidence confirming the story (b) that Newsweek should be prosecuted for getting the story wrong, and that (c) Newsweek should have sat on the story to prevent such a riot.
Let's be honest about his real opinion - we should have the right to do whatever we want because we are fighting evil!!!!, and the media should cover it up to prevent anyone from protesting it.
This is why I think we need to be able to question Allied actions in World War II - not because I feel particularly sorry for the Germans or the Japanese, but because we need to get over the idea that there are times when the government can do no wrong. When we start believing that, we go down a dangerous road.
That is all.
In an article on WorldNetDaily, he suggests (a) That we know that the Newsweek story is false, something I don't think has been proven - we just know that it doesn't have evidence confirming the story (b) that Newsweek should be prosecuted for getting the story wrong, and that (c) Newsweek should have sat on the story to prevent such a riot.
Let's be honest about his real opinion - we should have the right to do whatever we want because we are fighting evil!!!!, and the media should cover it up to prevent anyone from protesting it.
This is why I think we need to be able to question Allied actions in World War II - not because I feel particularly sorry for the Germans or the Japanese, but because we need to get over the idea that there are times when the government can do no wrong. When we start believing that, we go down a dangerous road.
That is all.
Ann Coulter off the Deep End
"Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation – though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something."
Uh - agreeing with them about what, exactly, Ann?
That is all.
Uh - agreeing with them about what, exactly, Ann?
That is all.
Shocking News
Muslim World is Largely Anti-American, says a Council on Foreign Relations report.
Why haven't we been told this before?
That is all.
Why haven't we been told this before?
That is all.
Don't Worry, Johnny my Friend, I Know Better than to Praise You.
Johnny the Pod, that is.
"...Beware praising those who have placed themselves outside the bounds of civil discourse. Really." - John Podhoretz on John Derbyshire's posting complimenting Pat Buchanan.
Link via Steve Sailer.
That is all.
"...Beware praising those who have placed themselves outside the bounds of civil discourse. Really." - John Podhoretz on John Derbyshire's posting complimenting Pat Buchanan.
Link via Steve Sailer.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
What the Neocons Really Think
On the Corner at NRO, Jonah Goldberg mentions a letter that revelas the real opinion of a lot of neoconservatives: "who cares if the story about the Qu'Ran was true? We should have suppressed it!"
Which is exactly what this sadistic blogger said a year ago.
The reason that the talk over whether or not Newsweek should have printed the story is important is because it indictaes a desire of many neoconservatives to try to control the media in order to make certain that their agenda isn't questioned, or at least that the evidence that might cause us to question them isn't widely known.
This particular story about flushing the Qu'Ran doesn't strike me as too big a deal. I also think that we are not critical enough of the rioters; even if Newsweek printed a story based on too little information, and even if the riots were a result of that, I still think that blaming Newsweek lets the rioters way off the hook.
Let's be clear. The Newsweek story didn't kill anyone. Rioters did.
Nevertheless, I think that given the brouhaha, it is important to determine whether or not the story was true; just because so many were so quick to condemn Newsweek as liars. And, to be honest, because some of the neocons are definitely trying to muzzle the press. Not that they (most of them, anyway) are trying to violate the First Amendment by putting legal restrictions on the media; but they definitely want the media intimidated into parroting the Bush agenda, and the truth is not high on the list of their priorities.
That is all.
Which is exactly what this sadistic blogger said a year ago.
The reason that the talk over whether or not Newsweek should have printed the story is important is because it indictaes a desire of many neoconservatives to try to control the media in order to make certain that their agenda isn't questioned, or at least that the evidence that might cause us to question them isn't widely known.
This particular story about flushing the Qu'Ran doesn't strike me as too big a deal. I also think that we are not critical enough of the rioters; even if Newsweek printed a story based on too little information, and even if the riots were a result of that, I still think that blaming Newsweek lets the rioters way off the hook.
Let's be clear. The Newsweek story didn't kill anyone. Rioters did.
Nevertheless, I think that given the brouhaha, it is important to determine whether or not the story was true; just because so many were so quick to condemn Newsweek as liars. And, to be honest, because some of the neocons are definitely trying to muzzle the press. Not that they (most of them, anyway) are trying to violate the First Amendment by putting legal restrictions on the media; but they definitely want the media intimidated into parroting the Bush agenda, and the truth is not high on the list of their priorities.
That is all.
Search Engine Ranking Changes
I am no longer #1 for searches of "Gender-Neutral Statutory Rape" on Google. (This is becasue of my postings on the Mary Kay Letourneau situation).
I am, however, #6 for searches of "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction".
And no, I don't write slash fanfiction, or Everybody Loves Raymond fanfiction, nor do I write fanfiction that is (shudder) both.
That is all.
I am, however, #6 for searches of "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction".
And no, I don't write slash fanfiction, or Everybody Loves Raymond fanfiction, nor do I write fanfiction that is (shudder) both.
That is all.
More on REAL ID
Worse than the concerns over losing our freedoms - is it possible that REAL ID might not even work in its stated goal of helping us to identify illegal aliens?
Juan Mann has that concern.
That is all.
Juan Mann has that concern.
That is all.
Galloway Attacks the Senate
For anyone interested in a transcript of the exchange between George Galloway and the US Senate (I thought it was the House, well, it doesn't matter), here 'tis.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
That is all.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Blame the US or the Afghanis? #@$% it, Let's Blame Newsweek!
Counterpunch has a good take on the "Blame Newsweek!" movement.
It's somewhat different than the Lawrence Auster take I mentioned earlier, because it denies that the Qu'Ran flushing stories were the main cause of the riots and suggests that US policy was to an extent the cause (as opposed to Mr. Auster, who seems to believe the storyline that the reported flushing was the cause of the riots, but that the riots demonstrate a lack of readiness for democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Either way, the riots suggest that the US project for the region is not going to go smoothly, whether because the US is behaving so offensively that it is creating the conditions for riots or because the Afghans and Pakis at like spolied children and are not ready for representative government. Whether you blame the current US government or the rioters for the riots, they do not bode well for the prospects of demopcracy breaking out any time soon - or, for that matter, of pro-American stability breaking out in Afghanistan or Pakistan (let alone Iraq).
So let's ignore the riots and blame everything on Newsweek, who forced, forced those poor Afghanis to riot.
That is all.
It's somewhat different than the Lawrence Auster take I mentioned earlier, because it denies that the Qu'Ran flushing stories were the main cause of the riots and suggests that US policy was to an extent the cause (as opposed to Mr. Auster, who seems to believe the storyline that the reported flushing was the cause of the riots, but that the riots demonstrate a lack of readiness for democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Either way, the riots suggest that the US project for the region is not going to go smoothly, whether because the US is behaving so offensively that it is creating the conditions for riots or because the Afghans and Pakis at like spolied children and are not ready for representative government. Whether you blame the current US government or the rioters for the riots, they do not bode well for the prospects of demopcracy breaking out any time soon - or, for that matter, of pro-American stability breaking out in Afghanistan or Pakistan (let alone Iraq).
So let's ignore the riots and blame everything on Newsweek, who forced, forced those poor Afghanis to riot.
That is all.
Good point by Lawrence Auster
Even if we assume that the Newsweek story was the trigger for the riots, why are the neocons so concerned with blaming Newsweek rather than blaming the Muslims for rioting? I mean, if Christians had rioted after a similar report about the Bible with Christian prisoners, would we be giving them a pass?
Lawrence Auster has some thoughts on this here, here, and here.
My feeling on this is that if the neocons were to blame the Muslims rather than Newsweek, it would have to admit that the prospects for democratization, beyond a few staged elections where the whole country has to be shut down in order to keep security, are... er... not good.
That is all.
Lawrence Auster has some thoughts on this here, here, and here.
My feeling on this is that if the neocons were to blame the Muslims rather than Newsweek, it would have to admit that the prospects for democratization, beyond a few staged elections where the whole country has to be shut down in order to keep security, are... er... not good.
That is all.
Hmmm.....
Listening to George Galloway being questioned by the Congress Senate, I don't find myself particularly surprised by anything that was said. He didn't say anything that you wouldn't hear a defendant say on Law & Order.
Essentially, Galloway is claiming that he is innocent, and that the people testifying against him were forced to lie, or bribed to lie with the promise of a plea agreement when the war crimes trials against the Baathists start.
He brought up Abu Ghraib, that that the Iraq War is (in his opinion) a disaster, and the fact that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo are British citizens (by which he obviously hopes to drum up British nationalist sentiment to bear against US).
He also suggested that the people pushing for oil-for-food investigations are more interested in punishing him for being antiwar than for seeking justice.
For what it's worth, I suspect that he is right that a lot of people are more concerned with punishing him for being against the war than they are in seeking justice on the Oil-for-Food scandal. Problem is, the fact that they have impure motivations doesn't change whether or not he is guilty or innocent. I disagreed with the decision to push for regime change in Iraq, but now that Saddam is in custody, I think we should fry him. Same with Galloway; if he did it, we should make him bungee jump with a non-stretching rope.
I also can't help but find something repulsive about the man.
In any case, I will try to keep my antiwar sentiment from coloring my opinion of Galloway's guilt or innocence. I bear no illusions that all anti-war people are good guys.
That is all.
Essentially, Galloway is claiming that he is innocent, and that the people testifying against him were forced to lie, or bribed to lie with the promise of a plea agreement when the war crimes trials against the Baathists start.
He brought up Abu Ghraib, that that the Iraq War is (in his opinion) a disaster, and the fact that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo are British citizens (by which he obviously hopes to drum up British nationalist sentiment to bear against US).
He also suggested that the people pushing for oil-for-food investigations are more interested in punishing him for being antiwar than for seeking justice.
For what it's worth, I suspect that he is right that a lot of people are more concerned with punishing him for being against the war than they are in seeking justice on the Oil-for-Food scandal. Problem is, the fact that they have impure motivations doesn't change whether or not he is guilty or innocent. I disagreed with the decision to push for regime change in Iraq, but now that Saddam is in custody, I think we should fry him. Same with Galloway; if he did it, we should make him bungee jump with a non-stretching rope.
I also can't help but find something repulsive about the man.
In any case, I will try to keep my antiwar sentiment from coloring my opinion of Galloway's guilt or innocence. I bear no illusions that all anti-war people are good guys.
That is all.
Monday, May 16, 2005
More on the Newsweek Story on the Qu'Ran being Flushed
Newsweek'ssupposedly discredited story about the desecration of the Muslim's holy book is hardly unique or new, according to "Calgacus."
That is all.
That is all.
WorldNetDaily Advertises Thong Bikinis
It seems that there are disadvantages to using software that automatically put up ads based on keywords in an article.
Look at the advertisements on this article. Then look at the "Ads by Goooooogle" green box.
That is all.
Look at the advertisements on this article. Then look at the "Ads by Goooooogle" green box.
That is all.
Abortion and Breast Cancer
For as long as I have heard the claims that abortion contributes to breast cancer, I have also heard the counterargument that the apparent link really is nothing more than the fact that abortion prevents the breast-cancer reducing effect of a pregnancy (i.e. a pregnancy ending in birth decreases the risk of pregnancy in a way that a pregnancy ending in abortion does not - although I am assuming this is only known for early-term abortions). So having abortion is no more risky than not getting pregnant in the first place.
Now, according to WorldNetDaily, there is evidence that there actually is a link - but it has been covered up. Obviously, I am a little skeptical of WorldNetDaily, because on the Iraq issue they have been a little too credulous of any report saying that things are going wonderful, and in general seem to be a fount of conspiracy theories that support war or suggest that mass-killing or ethnic cleansing is a morally-acceptable way to solve the Middle East's problems.
But, I have linked to this article (click on "according to WorldNetDaily") so you can read it yourself and see what you think.
That is all.
Now, according to WorldNetDaily, there is evidence that there actually is a link - but it has been covered up. Obviously, I am a little skeptical of WorldNetDaily, because on the Iraq issue they have been a little too credulous of any report saying that things are going wonderful, and in general seem to be a fount of conspiracy theories that support war or suggest that mass-killing or ethnic cleansing is a morally-acceptable way to solve the Middle East's problems.
But, I have linked to this article (click on "according to WorldNetDaily") so you can read it yourself and see what you think.
That is all.
Iran, Nukes, and the US
An interesting aticle by Martin Woollacott about the implications of Iran's potential nuclear ambitions, and the fallout from an American attack.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
This is Different
I don't know about the democracy and the whiskey, but we're definitely seeing the sexy.
Link courtesy of Ifeminists.
That is all.
Link courtesy of Ifeminists.
That is all.
Blame the MSM!!!!!!!!
Via Tex, here's an interesting article questioning the attempts to blame Newsweek's reporting (see also here and here) for the recent riots in Afghanistan.
If it's actually about drugs, and the Afghanis' desire to be able to grow poppies to make them, then it is understandable that the neocons would want to find some way to blame Newsweek, as the alternative is to admit that the Afghanis may not be the wonderful people ready for a modern democracy that we are supposed to believe they are.
That is all.
If it's actually about drugs, and the Afghanis' desire to be able to grow poppies to make them, then it is understandable that the neocons would want to find some way to blame Newsweek, as the alternative is to admit that the Afghanis may not be the wonderful people ready for a modern democracy that we are supposed to believe they are.
That is all.
What the Hell are YOU Starin' at?
Saturday, May 14, 2005
In Right-to-Shag News
This is an interesting story.
I can't entirely say that I disagree with the woman's lawsuit. It seems to me that if you can't perform and if you know you can't perform, you probably should let the bride (or groom, as the case may be) know before the wedding.
Link from Ifeminists.
That is all.
I can't entirely say that I disagree with the woman's lawsuit. It seems to me that if you can't perform and if you know you can't perform, you probably should let the bride (or groom, as the case may be) know before the wedding.
Link from Ifeminists.
That is all.
The Terrorists Must be Twice as Desperate
Has anyone else noticed that the coalition has suffered more hostile fatalities in the first 2 weeks of May (2005) than in the entire month of March (2005)?
And there's been 135 Iraqi Police/Miolitary and 330 Iraqi civilians deaths this month, as well.
That is all.
And there's been 135 Iraqi Police/Miolitary and 330 Iraqi civilians deaths this month, as well.
That is all.
Colby Cosh on REAL ID
The great Colby Cosh has thoughts on the REAL ID. It does bother me that because of stupid rulings on citizenship by the Supreme Court (based on the illegally ratified 14th amendment), and because stupid idiots like Dubya won't put enough border patrol units on the border, we're getting "your papers please" as a way to try and control immigration. But knowing how Dubya is Vincente Fox's bitch, it probably won't even be used for that, and innocent Americans are going to be getting harassed for their ID, whereas anyone with a Mexian accent will be ignored for fear of lawsuits.
And Vincente Fox's bitch probably won't even complain.
That is all, amigos.
And Vincente Fox's bitch probably won't even complain.
That is all, amigos.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Tobin on World War II
Jonathan Tobin writes an interesting article about the current tendency to question the actions of the Allies in World War II.
Onm one hand, I can understand his position; a Jewish person definitely would get indignant over Germans being upset over their suffering in World War II.
On the other hand, Tobin also seems to be against questioning the morality of the actions of the Allies in World War II for a much more sinister reason; he's afraid that moral concerns will hamper our efforts in future wars.
Which sort of brings me to my point; the main reason to be concerned about Allied actions in World war II isn't because we need to apologize to the Germans or make restitution or anything; nor do I deny that the Nazis were very much responsible for the fate of Germany in World War II, a fate that was ultiamtely was a result of German expansionism.
The reason is because if we delude ourselves that because the Nazis were evil, it justifies anything we did, it will set a precedent that will allow us to feel good about anyhting we do in a future war.
What keeps us humane is that we question our actions. This is why we keep trying to do right.
I believe that the only way we can "win the war" in Iraq, if winning the war means setting up a stable government over the entire country, is by killing most of the Sunni Arab population. If we subscribe to the notion that the evilness of our enemies justifies any action on our part, then when the going gets tough, we will eventually choose this rather than setting more realistic goals and withdrawing after they are accomplished (I'm not certain that an immediate withdrawal, bad as it might be, wouldn't be better for us than staying longer; staying longer, at least without a major change in our goals, will just mean more bloodshed before we are forced to withdraw, or will mean more bloodshed until we are goaded into mass murder of the Sunnis).
The reason to question our actions at Dresden isn't for the sake of the Nazis, or even of the ordinary Germans; it's for the sake of our souls, and for the sake of any innocents in the next country we go to war with.
That is all.
Onm one hand, I can understand his position; a Jewish person definitely would get indignant over Germans being upset over their suffering in World War II.
On the other hand, Tobin also seems to be against questioning the morality of the actions of the Allies in World War II for a much more sinister reason; he's afraid that moral concerns will hamper our efforts in future wars.
Which sort of brings me to my point; the main reason to be concerned about Allied actions in World war II isn't because we need to apologize to the Germans or make restitution or anything; nor do I deny that the Nazis were very much responsible for the fate of Germany in World War II, a fate that was ultiamtely was a result of German expansionism.
The reason is because if we delude ourselves that because the Nazis were evil, it justifies anything we did, it will set a precedent that will allow us to feel good about anyhting we do in a future war.
What keeps us humane is that we question our actions. This is why we keep trying to do right.
I believe that the only way we can "win the war" in Iraq, if winning the war means setting up a stable government over the entire country, is by killing most of the Sunni Arab population. If we subscribe to the notion that the evilness of our enemies justifies any action on our part, then when the going gets tough, we will eventually choose this rather than setting more realistic goals and withdrawing after they are accomplished (I'm not certain that an immediate withdrawal, bad as it might be, wouldn't be better for us than staying longer; staying longer, at least without a major change in our goals, will just mean more bloodshed before we are forced to withdraw, or will mean more bloodshed until we are goaded into mass murder of the Sunnis).
The reason to question our actions at Dresden isn't for the sake of the Nazis, or even of the ordinary Germans; it's for the sake of our souls, and for the sake of any innocents in the next country we go to war with.
That is all.
I Agree with Sully and Bruce
Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bartlett both admit that Bush is pushing us in a direction where we will have to raise taxes.
I have more to say on that, and on the deficit, and on the fiscal profligacy of Dubya (hint: it has nothing to do with the tax cuts he passed, as much as the lefties want to blame them for our woes). But later.
For now, that is all.
I have more to say on that, and on the deficit, and on the fiscal profligacy of Dubya (hint: it has nothing to do with the tax cuts he passed, as much as the lefties want to blame them for our woes). But later.
For now, that is all.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The "Bioweapon Option"
Instead of the "nuclear option," I think that the Republicans in the Senate ought to use the "bioweapon option."
The "bioweapon option" refers to forcing any filibuster on judicial nominees to be an actual, stop-all-business, speechifying-for-hours-on-end, talk-till-you-collapse, bringing-porta-potties-into-the-Senate filibusters.
I like this little term I've coined, and I want to see if it will spread like other terms with "pun-parallel" etymology, such as "western blot" and "northern blot" (the original "Southern blot" was named for the person who created the technique)
So spread the word, Glaivester readers; the GOP ought to use the "bioweapon option" to push through the judicial nominees. You want a filibuster? We'll give you a filibuster!
That is all.
The "bioweapon option" refers to forcing any filibuster on judicial nominees to be an actual, stop-all-business, speechifying-for-hours-on-end, talk-till-you-collapse, bringing-porta-potties-into-the-Senate filibusters.
I like this little term I've coined, and I want to see if it will spread like other terms with "pun-parallel" etymology, such as "western blot" and "northern blot" (the original "Southern blot" was named for the person who created the technique)
So spread the word, Glaivester readers; the GOP ought to use the "bioweapon option" to push through the judicial nominees. You want a filibuster? We'll give you a filibuster!
That is all.
The Problem with Leftists
Greg Moses seems to confuse the workings of very different types of conservatives in this article.
For some reason, I seriously doubt that most of the people who support the Minutemen have any interest in a guest-worker program. They want the illegal aliens OUT, not legalized as Bush-boy does.
That is all.
For some reason, I seriously doubt that most of the people who support the Minutemen have any interest in a guest-worker program. They want the illegal aliens OUT, not legalized as Bush-boy does.
That is all.
Hack Kelly Strikes Again!
Iraq is just peachy-keen! The suicide bombings show how weak the insurgency is!
I'd believe it if it weren't for the fact that it's the same song-and-dance that the Ol' Hackster has been throwing at us since October 2003.
We're being told that the insurgency is losing all of its Baathist dead-enders and is now becoming increasingly an arm of foreign infiltrators, particularly Al Qaeda. But isn't that the same song-and-dance we've been hearing since the end of major combat operations?
By this time next year, we'll once agian hear how the latest attacks indicate how desperate the insurgents are, and how all of the insurgents are really foreigners. And this time, we really, really mean it, cross our hearts!
That is all.
I'd believe it if it weren't for the fact that it's the same song-and-dance that the Ol' Hackster has been throwing at us since October 2003.
We're being told that the insurgency is losing all of its Baathist dead-enders and is now becoming increasingly an arm of foreign infiltrators, particularly Al Qaeda. But isn't that the same song-and-dance we've been hearing since the end of major combat operations?
By this time next year, we'll once agian hear how the latest attacks indicate how desperate the insurgents are, and how all of the insurgents are really foreigners. And this time, we really, really mean it, cross our hearts!
That is all.
Iraqi Metrics
Via the Iraq Coalition Casualties website:
So far in May 2005, here are the death tolls
3 security contractors (2 Americans, 1 South African)
2 Turkish truckdrivers
119 Iraqi Police/Military
311 Iraqi civilians
23 American troops by hostile incidents
2 American troops in non-hostile (e.g. accidents) incidents
2 Bulgarian troops in a vehicle accident
1 UKer in an IED attack
That is all - for now.
So far in May 2005, here are the death tolls
3 security contractors (2 Americans, 1 South African)
2 Turkish truckdrivers
119 Iraqi Police/Military
311 Iraqi civilians
23 American troops by hostile incidents
2 American troops in non-hostile (e.g. accidents) incidents
2 Bulgarian troops in a vehicle accident
1 UKer in an IED attack
That is all - for now.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Supporting the Troops
Michael Neumann's post on Iraq in Counterpunch brings up an important question.
What does it mean when I say that I oppose the War in Iraq, but support the troops?
The answer is simple:
It means that I am against the war because I don't want to people dying in an unnecessary and counterproductive war.
However, if it comes down to it, and someone has to die in an unnecessary and counterproductive war, I would rather it be the Iraqis than our troops.
Also, it means that I am against losing a few thousand American troops in this war even if it saves, net, a few hundred thousand Iraqis to get Saddam out of there (which I don't think it will - I think that more lives will be lost than saved, but I would oppose the war anyway).
I think this highlights the difference between the conservative and liberal opposition to the war.
That is all.
What does it mean when I say that I oppose the War in Iraq, but support the troops?
The answer is simple:
It means that I am against the war because I don't want to people dying in an unnecessary and counterproductive war.
However, if it comes down to it, and someone has to die in an unnecessary and counterproductive war, I would rather it be the Iraqis than our troops.
Also, it means that I am against losing a few thousand American troops in this war even if it saves, net, a few hundred thousand Iraqis to get Saddam out of there (which I don't think it will - I think that more lives will be lost than saved, but I would oppose the war anyway).
I think this highlights the difference between the conservative and liberal opposition to the war.
That is all.
Chrenkoff the Credulous
Reading this and this and this, I'm beginning to think that Haider Ajina is probably a paid propagandist for the coalition.
But of course, according to Chrenkoff, he's so reliable that it must be the mainstream media that is mssing all ofthe good news!
Click here for a collection of his mentions in Chrenkoff's site.
And of course, the recent uptick in violence should not dissuade anyone from the fact that the Iraqis are deserting the insurgency.
Art, I hereby dub thee Sir Chrenkoff the Credulous.
That is all.
But of course, according to Chrenkoff, he's so reliable that it must be the mainstream media that is mssing all ofthe good news!
Click here for a collection of his mentions in Chrenkoff's site.
And of course, the recent uptick in violence should not dissuade anyone from the fact that the Iraqis are deserting the insurgency.
Art, I hereby dub thee Sir Chrenkoff the Credulous.
That is all.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Slow News Day? Are You Kidding?
Clark Stooksbury points out that John Derbyshire and
Glenn Reynolds seem to think that yesterday (Sunday) was a slow news day.
Maybe that's because 6 coalition soldiers died on Sunday and 5 on Saturday.
Of course, that's not news. Not like a school getting a new coat of paint, anyway.
That is all.
Glenn Reynolds seem to think that yesterday (Sunday) was a slow news day.
Maybe that's because 6 coalition soldiers died on Sunday and 5 on Saturday.
Of course, that's not news. Not like a school getting a new coat of paint, anyway.
That is all.
Master Glaivester
I am a Master of Biochemistry now.
It took four years, but I got my M.S.
That is all.
It took four years, but I got my M.S.
That is all.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Iraqi Deaths
A comparison of this to
this suggests that this will be a bloody, bloody, month for Iraq.
My prediction:
Iraqi fatalities are going to stay high (> 500/month, perhaps > 1000/month) for the rest of May, and will continue to do so until the coalition puts its foot down. As soon as the coalition puts its foot down, coalition fatalities will go up again (> 50 hostile fatalities/month).
That is all.
this suggests that this will be a bloody, bloody, month for Iraq.
My prediction:
Iraqi fatalities are going to stay high (> 500/month, perhaps > 1000/month) for the rest of May, and will continue to do so until the coalition puts its foot down. As soon as the coalition puts its foot down, coalition fatalities will go up again (> 50 hostile fatalities/month).
That is all.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Nazis and Commies and War, oh my!
The War Nerd explains why the Eastern front in World War II was no fun, not even for a war nerd.
I especially liked the point that white supremacists who celebrate Hitler are actually celebrating one of the most efficient killers of white people in history. If you didn't already think htat Neo-Nazis were dumb, that should convince you.
That is all.
I especially liked the point that white supremacists who celebrate Hitler are actually celebrating one of the most efficient killers of white people in history. If you didn't already think htat Neo-Nazis were dumb, that should convince you.
That is all.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Sorry for Light Blogging
I'm just finishing up my Master's degree (Biochemistry).
I'll hopefully be back in full force in a few days.
That is all.
I'll hopefully be back in full force in a few days.
That is all.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Fatalities in Iraq
Hmmmm....
Hmmmm again.....
So 42 hostile coalition fatalities in February, 33 in March, and 46 in April. 60, 40, and 51 total coalition fatalities, respectively, during the same three months...
If this trend continues, well, actually the current trend seems to be a fairly stable level of coalition losses, neither increasing or decreasing. (I choose three months as a time period in order to look at the situation post-elections).
Well, we'll see what happens in May.
So what are the long-term fatality trends?
Well, ignoring non-hostile fatalities, and ignoring flukey months like Nov. 2003, Feb. 2004, April 2004, and November 2004 (i.e. months with unusually high or low fatality counts - I don't include January 2005 as a flukey month because I am not counting non-hostile fatalities), the trend was upwards up until January 2005. (~20 deaths/month from May 2003-September 2003, ~ 35 deaths/month from October 2003-March 2004, ~45-65 May 2004-Auguest 2004, ~ 58-74 September 2004-January 2005). Immediately after the election, fatalities went down for two straight months, but they went up again in April, so it looks as if the immediate bounce from the elections, if that's what it was, is over.
In any case, Iraqi casualties are still pretty high. If they increase greatly, US troops might need to go on more active patrols, which will bring our casualties up again.
We shall see.
That is all.
Hmmmm again.....
So 42 hostile coalition fatalities in February, 33 in March, and 46 in April. 60, 40, and 51 total coalition fatalities, respectively, during the same three months...
If this trend continues, well, actually the current trend seems to be a fairly stable level of coalition losses, neither increasing or decreasing. (I choose three months as a time period in order to look at the situation post-elections).
Well, we'll see what happens in May.
So what are the long-term fatality trends?
Well, ignoring non-hostile fatalities, and ignoring flukey months like Nov. 2003, Feb. 2004, April 2004, and November 2004 (i.e. months with unusually high or low fatality counts - I don't include January 2005 as a flukey month because I am not counting non-hostile fatalities), the trend was upwards up until January 2005. (~20 deaths/month from May 2003-September 2003, ~ 35 deaths/month from October 2003-March 2004, ~45-65 May 2004-Auguest 2004, ~ 58-74 September 2004-January 2005). Immediately after the election, fatalities went down for two straight months, but they went up again in April, so it looks as if the immediate bounce from the elections, if that's what it was, is over.
In any case, Iraqi casualties are still pretty high. If they increase greatly, US troops might need to go on more active patrols, which will bring our casualties up again.
We shall see.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)