Monday, October 31, 2005
It's a Minefield
More and more, our enemies in Iraq are learning not to attack us head-on.
The IED (Improvised Explosive Device) is becoming the reason for a greater and greater percentage of U.S. deaths in Iraq, says The Washington Post.
(thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
According to the Iraq Coalition Casualties website, 57 coalition troops were killed in Iraq by IEDs in Octiber of 2005, 17 more than in the next highest month (September 2005 and August 2005, tied at 40 IED-caused deaths). Put another way, that is an increase of 42.5%.
I am not certain what this portends for the future of our war in Iraq, but it isn't good.
That is all.
The IED (Improvised Explosive Device) is becoming the reason for a greater and greater percentage of U.S. deaths in Iraq, says The Washington Post.
(thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
According to the Iraq Coalition Casualties website, 57 coalition troops were killed in Iraq by IEDs in Octiber of 2005, 17 more than in the next highest month (September 2005 and August 2005, tied at 40 IED-caused deaths). Put another way, that is an increase of 42.5%.
I am not certain what this portends for the future of our war in Iraq, but it isn't good.
That is all.
Yet More from Lawrence Auster
Auster discusses originalism, Brown v. Board of Education, and the "incorporation doctrine."
That is all.
That is all.
Hopeful on Alito
Lawrence Auster expresses hopefulness about Bush's new nominee.
So I have a good feeling about this one.
But I still need to do some of my own research.
That is all.
So I have a good feeling about this one.
But I still need to do some of my own research.
That is all.
Iraq Metrics
77 coalition soldiers were killed this month by hostile fire, as of the last count. This is the fourth highest total since the end of major combat operations, and the fifth highest since the war began. It is the fifth and sixth highest for total deaths (i.e. both hostile and non-hostile).
This seems to me to put a bit of a pall over any claims that we are defeating the insurgency.
That is all.
This seems to me to put a bit of a pall over any claims that we are defeating the insurgency.
That is all.
Worse than Ledeen?
"It's time for military action on Iran," says Jed Babbin.
Does that refer to the "classified Presidential Decision Directive ordering massive covert action against the Iranian regime" that he wants Bush to sign, or to additional, overt military action against Iran?
Gosh, I never thought I'd see someone who made me long for Michael "the-Iranians-will- rise-up-if-only-we-help-them" Ledeen:
To put this as gently as I can, it is not possible to read my essays on Iran and then say I am in favor of military action.
That is all.
Does that refer to the "classified Presidential Decision Directive ordering massive covert action against the Iranian regime" that he wants Bush to sign, or to additional, overt military action against Iran?
Gosh, I never thought I'd see someone who made me long for Michael "the-Iranians-will- rise-up-if-only-we-help-them" Ledeen:
To put this as gently as I can, it is not possible to read my essays on Iran and then say I am in favor of military action.
That is all.
Alito is the Nominee
Orrin Judd's prediction was correct.
Samuel Alito was nominated.
I'll have to find out a little more about him before I say this is a good thing or a bad thing.
That is all for now.
Samuel Alito was nominated.
I'll have to find out a little more about him before I say this is a good thing or a bad thing.
That is all for now.
Oooo... Conspiracy!
Richard Steven Hack suggests a wider angle to the Valerie Plame scandal in the comments on Larry Johnson's article on TPMCafe.
This is far more serious than my headline would suggest, and I am definitely not trying to belittle his theory.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
This is far more serious than my headline would suggest, and I am definitely not trying to belittle his theory.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Why the Media Does not Report the Good News
W. Thomas Smith Jr. explains one reason why we are not heraing all of the good news stories from Iraq:
"Many reporters in Iraq are isolated in safe zones, venturing out only to cover dramatic events like bombings or the discovery of murdered victims."
So the reason we aren't beingtold of all the good news is because it is too dangerous for the reporters to go out of their hotels. Well, that should reassure us.
That is all.
"Many reporters in Iraq are isolated in safe zones, venturing out only to cover dramatic events like bombings or the discovery of murdered victims."
So the reason we aren't beingtold of all the good news is because it is too dangerous for the reporters to go out of their hotels. Well, that should reassure us.
That is all.
Blog of the Week: Untethered by Dennis Dale
Untethered has a nice, calm quality to it. Some good, calm, common sense stuff there, even when I don't agree with his point of view. Previously noted here and here.
One of the better new blogs out there. Go visit it.
That is all.
One of the better new blogs out there. Go visit it.
That is all.
Wilson, Libby, and Lies
The Push Against Syria
Syria is accusing the U.S. of performing conducting raids over its borders, killing several Syrians, including two border guards.
Supposedly, we are doing this to get at Iraqi insurgents who flee to or based in Syria. However, Syria claims it is trying very hard to stop people from using Syria as a staging ground for the war in Iraq.
If I were conspiracy-minded, I would wonder if maybe the coalition is shooting at them in order to weaken their ability to police their borders. Nothing like demanding that they stop all terrorist infiltration and then making certain that they can't do so to make a good excuse for a war...
That is all.
Supposedly, we are doing this to get at Iraqi insurgents who flee to or based in Syria. However, Syria claims it is trying very hard to stop people from using Syria as a staging ground for the war in Iraq.
If I were conspiracy-minded, I would wonder if maybe the coalition is shooting at them in order to weaken their ability to police their borders. Nothing like demanding that they stop all terrorist infiltration and then making certain that they can't do so to make a good excuse for a war...
That is all.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Good News/Bad News for the Neocons
Interesting article in the Telegraph.
Good news for the neocons: the source of the fraudulent yellowcake documents may be the French government, which was allegedly using them as a ploy to discredit the push for war - which means that they can be blamed for those documents instead of Italy (one of the "good" countries, i.e. one that contributed troops to the coalition) or Michael Ledeen. In any case, if it is true it would allow the pro-warriors to say that it was the antiwar side (especially those dirt, no-good Frenchies), not the pro-war side, that lies.
The bad news: it appears that the "second source" of the British (you remember, the secret documents supporting the claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake, the ones that Buysh was referring to when he said the infamous sixteen words about the British learning about the yellowcake, the ones the British could not show us because the people they got it from refused them permission to show us; you know, those documents) may have also come from France. That is, they may be part of the same scam as the famous forgeries.
That is probably only the tip of the iceberg of all.
Good news for the neocons: the source of the fraudulent yellowcake documents may be the French government, which was allegedly using them as a ploy to discredit the push for war - which means that they can be blamed for those documents instead of Italy (one of the "good" countries, i.e. one that contributed troops to the coalition) or Michael Ledeen. In any case, if it is true it would allow the pro-warriors to say that it was the antiwar side (especially those dirt, no-good Frenchies), not the pro-war side, that lies.
The bad news: it appears that the "second source" of the British (you remember, the secret documents supporting the claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake, the ones that Buysh was referring to when he said the infamous sixteen words about the British learning about the yellowcake, the ones the British could not show us because the people they got it from refused them permission to show us; you know, those documents) may have also come from France. That is, they may be part of the same scam as the famous forgeries.
That is probably only the tip of the iceberg of all.
161,000
The number of soldiers in Iraq is at the highest it has been at since the Iraq War started in March 2003.
Now of course this is supposed to be temporary; however, (a) our usual level is 138,000, so it is not as if returning to normal would greatly reduce our troop commit, and (b) despite constant predictions that "progress" would enable us to draw down forces, none of the milestones we have reached so far (transfer of sovereignty, elections) have resulted in any significant long-term reduction in our "usual level" of troops, nor have they made the need to increse troop levels while meeting the next milestone any less.
That is, we increased troop levels to 159,000 during the January elections to provide extra security, and now to 161,000 for the constitutional referendum, and there is an indication that we will do so again for the parliamentary elections in December.
Of course, we are told that we might be able to reduce our troop levels next year if things go well.
Don't hold your breath.
That is all.
Now of course this is supposed to be temporary; however, (a) our usual level is 138,000, so it is not as if returning to normal would greatly reduce our troop commit, and (b) despite constant predictions that "progress" would enable us to draw down forces, none of the milestones we have reached so far (transfer of sovereignty, elections) have resulted in any significant long-term reduction in our "usual level" of troops, nor have they made the need to increse troop levels while meeting the next milestone any less.
That is, we increased troop levels to 159,000 during the January elections to provide extra security, and now to 161,000 for the constitutional referendum, and there is an indication that we will do so again for the parliamentary elections in December.
Of course, we are told that we might be able to reduce our troop levels next year if things go well.
Don't hold your breath.
That is all.
More Supreme Predictions
Samuel Alito, suggests Orrin Judd.
Here are the Google Search Results for "Samuel Alito".
And here are the results for "Maureen Mahoney", whom I mentioned earlier who Joseph Farah predicted would be the nominee.
I myself have absolutely no idea who the next justice will be.
That is all.
Here are the Google Search Results for "Samuel Alito".
And here are the results for "Maureen Mahoney", whom I mentioned earlier who Joseph Farah predicted would be the nominee.
I myself have absolutely no idea who the next justice will be.
That is all.
Iran, Iran So Far Away...
"Israel must be destroyed," says Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This is bad on so many levels.
I doubt that Iran will actually move to destroy Israel (at least not in the traditional way, through all-out war or through a nuke attack, Iran likely will support terrorist actions in Israel, but those are not particularly effective at actually wiping a country out).
However, as the G-Gnome points out, this is exactly the kind of bait-for-the-neocons that could be used as a casus belli for us to attack Iran (or for us to try to overthrow the Iranian government through subterfuge, which will likely lead to a full-scale war, despite the fantasies of Michael Ledeen et al. that we will see a democratic revolution there).
If we get into a war with Iran, then we might very well find a situation where the Iranian government will be in a desperate enough position that they will feel they have nothing to lose and might as well try to take Israel with them (or take our troops in Iraq with them).
Let's hope someone in the Iranian government with less of a death wish gets rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bfore he drags Iran into war with the U.S.
But fortunately, though, as Rabbi David Vice points out, Ahmadinejad doesn't want to kill all the Jews. He only wants to destroy the country that a lot of them live in.
Oh, yeah, that sure makes me feel better.
That is all.
This is bad on so many levels.
I doubt that Iran will actually move to destroy Israel (at least not in the traditional way, through all-out war or through a nuke attack, Iran likely will support terrorist actions in Israel, but those are not particularly effective at actually wiping a country out).
However, as the G-Gnome points out, this is exactly the kind of bait-for-the-neocons that could be used as a casus belli for us to attack Iran (or for us to try to overthrow the Iranian government through subterfuge, which will likely lead to a full-scale war, despite the fantasies of Michael Ledeen et al. that we will see a democratic revolution there).
If we get into a war with Iran, then we might very well find a situation where the Iranian government will be in a desperate enough position that they will feel they have nothing to lose and might as well try to take Israel with them (or take our troops in Iraq with them).
Let's hope someone in the Iranian government with less of a death wish gets rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bfore he drags Iran into war with the U.S.
But fortunately, though, as Rabbi David Vice points out, Ahmadinejad doesn't want to kill all the Jews. He only wants to destroy the country that a lot of them live in.
Oh, yeah, that sure makes me feel better.
That is all.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Ethnicity vs. Race vs. Nationality
I can't find the exact post right this minute, but I recall Steve Sailer trying to come up with a definiton og "ethnic group" that would complement his definition of race: "An extended family that inbreeds to some degree."
He wound up comparing it to cliques at school, and coming up with some sort of clunky definitions.
However, perhaps one coule define ethnicity in a very similar way to race; if one were to extend the concept of "family."
Perhaps one could define an ethnic group as an extended family that breeds within itself, and a race as an extended biological family that inbreeds to some degree. That is, an ethnic group is like an extended family that includes adopted members (for example, Gentiles who convert to Judaism).
This could also be applied to nationality. This would help to explain Sailer's philosophy of "citizenism," and to distinguish it from, e.g., "white naitonalism." American unity stems from the fact that we are, in a way, an extended family, but unlike white nationalism, we include adopted relatives as well as blood-related ones. And like any family, we have to consider our current members before we adopt new ones. I suspect that most families put a higher priority on the kids they already have than on kids that they might adopt at a future date, and that is, I think, an appropriate attitude toward immigration.
I think I will write a moredetailed post on "Citizenism," specifically one that addresses Noah Millman's critique, sometime soon.
That is all.
He wound up comparing it to cliques at school, and coming up with some sort of clunky definitions.
However, perhaps one coule define ethnicity in a very similar way to race; if one were to extend the concept of "family."
Perhaps one could define an ethnic group as an extended family that breeds within itself, and a race as an extended biological family that inbreeds to some degree. That is, an ethnic group is like an extended family that includes adopted members (for example, Gentiles who convert to Judaism).
This could also be applied to nationality. This would help to explain Sailer's philosophy of "citizenism," and to distinguish it from, e.g., "white naitonalism." American unity stems from the fact that we are, in a way, an extended family, but unlike white nationalism, we include adopted relatives as well as blood-related ones. And like any family, we have to consider our current members before we adopt new ones. I suspect that most families put a higher priority on the kids they already have than on kids that they might adopt at a future date, and that is, I think, an appropriate attitude toward immigration.
I think I will write a moredetailed post on "Citizenism," specifically one that addresses Noah Millman's critique, sometime soon.
That is all.
Don Feder on Bush
I don't agree with everything here, but Don Feder has a mostly spot-on indictment of Bush's liberalism.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thoughts on Libby
Lawrence Auster has some thoughts on the Libby indictment.
My own feeling is that the Fitzgerald investigation may be going after bigger fish, such as the Franklin scandal and the forged Niger documents (I'll try to get a posting on all of the different theories regarding that later). This may be simply a way in; get Libby to sing by threatening him with jail, and then use his testimony to uncover the bigger things.
This has been previously suggested by Tex MacRae and Justin Raimondo.
That is all.
My own feeling is that the Fitzgerald investigation may be going after bigger fish, such as the Franklin scandal and the forged Niger documents (I'll try to get a posting on all of the different theories regarding that later). This may be simply a way in; get Libby to sing by threatening him with jail, and then use his testimony to uncover the bigger things.
This has been previously suggested by Tex MacRae and Justin Raimondo.
That is all.
David Gordon on Angelo M. Codevilla
Mr. Gordon has some thoughts on Mr. Codevilla's new book, which is non-neocon but quite hawkish in a more realipolitik sort of way, or should I say, is quite realpolihawkish.
That is all.
That is all.
Maureen Mahoney
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Source of the Quote
Remember this post?
I asked if anyone knew the source of the quote: "The Arrow Pierces the Heart of the Emperor and his True Image is Revealed!"
The answer is: the video game Crystalis.
That is all.
I asked if anyone knew the source of the quote: "The Arrow Pierces the Heart of the Emperor and his True Image is Revealed!"
The answer is: the video game Crystalis.
That is all.
BIG STORY!
I am listening to On the Record with Greta van Susteren, where she is interviewing Dennis Rodman.
I just a minute ago heard this exchange:
Greta: Why are you so good ay basketball?
Dennis: Heh, heh. Because I'm black? (The general tone was that of "I don't know. Maybe because I'm black, I guess.")
Let's see how long until:
(1) Some leftist gets upset that mentioned the stereotype that blacks are good at basketball.
(2) Some rightist gets upset that the leftists aren't upset (or aren't upset enough) that Dennis Rodman made this remark, like they would if he were white.
Start the stopwatch...
That is all.
I just a minute ago heard this exchange:
Greta: Why are you so good ay basketball?
Dennis: Heh, heh. Because I'm black? (The general tone was that of "I don't know. Maybe because I'm black, I guess.")
Let's see how long until:
(1) Some leftist gets upset that mentioned the stereotype that blacks are good at basketball.
(2) Some rightist gets upset that the leftists aren't upset (or aren't upset enough) that Dennis Rodman made this remark, like they would if he were white.
Start the stopwatch...
That is all.
On the Z-to-Z Letter
Ilana Mercer thinks it is genuine.
I'll have to check a second to see what they actually say before I make too many more comments (I previously doubted their authenticity here and here).
Of course, I may have the made the same mistake that I accuse the pro-warriors of making, namely, confusing the insurgency with Al Qaeda, and therefore doubting any statemetns of Al Qaeda weakness in Iraq because the insurgency appears to be chugging along fairly strongly. It is certainly possible that Al Qaeda-ites in Iraq feels that Al Qaeda is being "suffocated" or that the people in Iraq are turning against them, even if the rest of those involved in the insurgency are getting stronger.
While the majority (>90%) of the insurgents are Iraqis, and so the claim that the insurgency consists largely of foreign fighters is wishful thinking. On the other hand, it woul be a mistake to think that "foreign fighter" and "Al Qaeda" are synonymous; there could be quote a few Iraqi Al Qaeda members, and some of the (small number of) foreign fighters might have no ties to Al Qaeda.
So it is unclear what percentage of the insurgency is Al Qaeda-affiliated, and how much the insurgency would weaken if Al Qaeda decided to up and leave Iraq.
I(n any case, I don't think the letter is proof that we are on the verge of total victory in Iraq.
That is all for now.
I'll have to check a second to see what they actually say before I make too many more comments (I previously doubted their authenticity here and here).
Of course, I may have the made the same mistake that I accuse the pro-warriors of making, namely, confusing the insurgency with Al Qaeda, and therefore doubting any statemetns of Al Qaeda weakness in Iraq because the insurgency appears to be chugging along fairly strongly. It is certainly possible that Al Qaeda-ites in Iraq feels that Al Qaeda is being "suffocated" or that the people in Iraq are turning against them, even if the rest of those involved in the insurgency are getting stronger.
While the majority (>90%) of the insurgents are Iraqis, and so the claim that the insurgency consists largely of foreign fighters is wishful thinking. On the other hand, it woul be a mistake to think that "foreign fighter" and "Al Qaeda" are synonymous; there could be quote a few Iraqi Al Qaeda members, and some of the (small number of) foreign fighters might have no ties to Al Qaeda.
So it is unclear what percentage of the insurgency is Al Qaeda-affiliated, and how much the insurgency would weaken if Al Qaeda decided to up and leave Iraq.
I(n any case, I don't think the letter is proof that we are on the verge of total victory in Iraq.
That is all for now.
Vic, Vic, Vic
I'm sure that there is a lot I could find fault wiht in Ol' Vic's latest column, but one part of the article in particular seems particularly tone-deaf.
While discussing Syria (which he more or less says is responsbile, along with Iran, for whatever failures exist in Iraq), he says:
[Syria]'s assassination of Mr. Hariri slowed the entire Lebanese reform movement.
Excuse me?
The assassination of Hariri is what precipitated the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. That's a pretty big reform that was accelerrated by the assaassination of Mr. Hariri. One could argue that the assassination was intended to slow the reform movement (assuming that it was Syria), but if so, it hardly achieved its goal.
That is all.
While discussing Syria (which he more or less says is responsbile, along with Iran, for whatever failures exist in Iraq), he says:
[Syria]'s assassination of Mr. Hariri slowed the entire Lebanese reform movement.
Excuse me?
The assassination of Hariri is what precipitated the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. That's a pretty big reform that was accelerrated by the assaassination of Mr. Hariri. One could argue that the assassination was intended to slow the reform movement (assuming that it was Syria), but if so, it hardly achieved its goal.
That is all.
Wal*Mart's Unfair Trade Practices
Llewellyn Rockwell suggests that a call to increase the minimum wage by Wal*Mart's CEO may be a ploy to drive smaller competitors out of business.
That is all.
That is all.
Thoughts on Black Militants
I can't seem to find it now, but I distinctly remember reading something on a blog somewhere noting that Kamau "Kill Whitey" Kambon had written a book or a paper or something criticizing black people for not behaving well, or something like that. (If anyone has any idea where I could find such information, please put it in the comments).
As I recall, the poster reacted a little surprised that a black man with such a violent hatred and of whites and a desire to blame them for everything that goes wrong could write something asking blacks to take respnsibility for their lives (i.e. rather than just blaming everything on "whitey.")
This isn't necessarily surprising, I think. If the movie's portrayal of him was accurate, Malcolm X was a very self-controlled man with a strong sense of morality and responsibility, even before he left the Nation of Islam to become an "orthodox" Muslim. I also got the impression that he believed in responsibility and morality as a universal value, not jsut one for him.
Put another way, even when he was subscribing to a strongly anti-white and potentially genocidal philosophy, he seemed the type of man who would advocate that blacks take responsibility for their lives. So it is not surprising that Mr. Kambon could both believe in anti-white genocide and in personal responsibility.
In fact, in some ways it seems to me that any explicitly anti-white philosophy would have to involve an element of black self-suffiency, because someone who truly hates whites would neither want help from them not trust them to give it to him. Moreover, if one is to argue that all of the pathologies hitting the modern black community are the fault of whites, then trying to overcome those pathologies through self-sufficiency and responsible behavior could be seen as a way of "getting back at whitey" in and of itself.
Which ironically means that as long as the Kambons of the world do not actually get the resources to push their more asinine ideas, they may be less dangerous than the minstream leadership of today's civil rights leadership, who often pursue policies that are to an extent designed to make it unnecessary to become self-sufficient.
That is all.
As I recall, the poster reacted a little surprised that a black man with such a violent hatred and of whites and a desire to blame them for everything that goes wrong could write something asking blacks to take respnsibility for their lives (i.e. rather than just blaming everything on "whitey.")
This isn't necessarily surprising, I think. If the movie's portrayal of him was accurate, Malcolm X was a very self-controlled man with a strong sense of morality and responsibility, even before he left the Nation of Islam to become an "orthodox" Muslim. I also got the impression that he believed in responsibility and morality as a universal value, not jsut one for him.
Put another way, even when he was subscribing to a strongly anti-white and potentially genocidal philosophy, he seemed the type of man who would advocate that blacks take responsibility for their lives. So it is not surprising that Mr. Kambon could both believe in anti-white genocide and in personal responsibility.
In fact, in some ways it seems to me that any explicitly anti-white philosophy would have to involve an element of black self-suffiency, because someone who truly hates whites would neither want help from them not trust them to give it to him. Moreover, if one is to argue that all of the pathologies hitting the modern black community are the fault of whites, then trying to overcome those pathologies through self-sufficiency and responsible behavior could be seen as a way of "getting back at whitey" in and of itself.
Which ironically means that as long as the Kambons of the world do not actually get the resources to push their more asinine ideas, they may be less dangerous than the minstream leadership of today's civil rights leadership, who often pursue policies that are to an extent designed to make it unnecessary to become self-sufficient.
That is all.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
"High Standards" Hughie
Clark Stooksbury comments on the low standards that many Bushites have for calling someone a conservative.
I think that this Hugh Hewitt post is a good example of this.
Commenting on this excerpt from a piece written by Robert Bork:
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality).
Hugh decides to ridicule Bork by stating:
This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler and later warning of the descent of the Iron Curtain, Churchill did not govern as a conservative."
The problem, of course, with this assertion is that Hugh Hewitt is essentially using "conservative" to mean "any government action I support." That is, he labels opposing Hitler and opposing Stalin as being inherently "conservative." While I see both positions as consistent with consrvatism, I don't see either as necessarily being "conservative" in the sense that they represent a position that is distinguished from liberal. I think that opposition to Hitler was fairly evenly distributed across that dimension of the political spectrum. Granted, I can see opposition to Stalin as being more a "conservative" thing in that Stalin had a fair number of liberal defenders, but I think that most liberal Americans hated him, too.
The fact of the matter is that Harry S Truman was a big-time liberal who opposed both Hitler and Stalin.
So Hewitt's admission that the war in Afghanistan in Iraq alone are enough to establish Bush's conservative credentials in his mind does not make a whole lot of sense, even put in the context of a historical analogy.
Of course, Bork himself is a little presumptuous in his asumption that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are particularly conservative undertakings; Afghanistan strikes me as a necessary measure that had the support of most of the people on both ends of this dimension of the political spectrum (and a smattering of opposition on both). Iraq, on the other hand, can be seen as a liberal folly of Wilsonian messianic democratism as much as, if not more than, an action of conservative realpolitik. So Hugh's no the only one confued about conservatism here.
That is all.
I think that this Hugh Hewitt post is a good example of this.
Commenting on this excerpt from a piece written by Robert Bork:
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality).
Hugh decides to ridicule Bork by stating:
This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler and later warning of the descent of the Iron Curtain, Churchill did not govern as a conservative."
The problem, of course, with this assertion is that Hugh Hewitt is essentially using "conservative" to mean "any government action I support." That is, he labels opposing Hitler and opposing Stalin as being inherently "conservative." While I see both positions as consistent with consrvatism, I don't see either as necessarily being "conservative" in the sense that they represent a position that is distinguished from liberal. I think that opposition to Hitler was fairly evenly distributed across that dimension of the political spectrum. Granted, I can see opposition to Stalin as being more a "conservative" thing in that Stalin had a fair number of liberal defenders, but I think that most liberal Americans hated him, too.
The fact of the matter is that Harry S Truman was a big-time liberal who opposed both Hitler and Stalin.
So Hewitt's admission that the war in Afghanistan in Iraq alone are enough to establish Bush's conservative credentials in his mind does not make a whole lot of sense, even put in the context of a historical analogy.
Of course, Bork himself is a little presumptuous in his asumption that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are particularly conservative undertakings; Afghanistan strikes me as a necessary measure that had the support of most of the people on both ends of this dimension of the political spectrum (and a smattering of opposition on both). Iraq, on the other hand, can be seen as a liberal folly of Wilsonian messianic democratism as much as, if not more than, an action of conservative realpolitik. So Hugh's no the only one confued about conservatism here.
That is all.
Coalition Fatality Trends
To be honest, the 2000 mark is not exactly that important a statistic to me. I am more interested in looking at the month-by-month fatality rate, to see if things are getting better or worse. Moreover, I like to look at the rate for the entire coalition, not just American troops, because in terms of analyzing the war and the insurgency, any coalition troops killed are just as important; and there are several months whose death tolls are altered significantly by whether or not you include non-U.S. coalition deaths.
So my preferred graph/table to look at is this one at the Iraq Coalition Casualty website.
From the figures there, here is a comparison of the total coalition hostile deaths for each month for 2003, 2004, and 2005:
......2003..2004..2005
Jan...........39....74
Feb...........14....42
Mar.....82....35....33
Apr.....53...131....46
May......6....64....69
Jun.....24....45....69
Jul.....28....45....48
Aug.....23....63....75
Sep.....18....74....45
Oct.....35....58....58
Nov.....94...129
Dec.....32....58
As you can see, in7 out of 10 months so far, 6 out of 10 months, and soon to be 7 (thank you Jody from Polyscifi!) the death toll in 2005 exceeds that of 2004. Which is not exactly comforting news.
That is all for now.
So my preferred graph/table to look at is this one at the Iraq Coalition Casualty website.
From the figures there, here is a comparison of the total coalition hostile deaths for each month for 2003, 2004, and 2005:
......2003..2004..2005
Jan...........39....74
Feb...........14....42
Mar.....82....35....33
Apr.....53...131....46
May......6....64....69
Jun.....24....45....69
Jul.....28....45....48
Aug.....23....63....75
Sep.....18....74....45
Oct.....35....58....58
Nov.....94...129
Dec.....32....58
As you can see, in
That is all for now.
Harriet Miers Withdraws
I think that this is good news.
National Review comments.
More on this as it comes and as I have time to read it and comment on it.
That is all.
National Review comments.
More on this as it comes and as I have time to read it and comment on it.
That is all.
On the Bush Administration Scandals
Start With Denying that God Exists
And you end up denying that you exist.
At least, that's what this type of writing seems to indicate.
Lucretius talks about similar issues on Mises.org.
I personally think that the idea that "consciousness is an illusion" is essentially the inevitable result of a materialistic worldview. And it is a ridiculous idea; mandated, I believe, by a religious devotion to materialism rather than by truth.
That is all.
At least, that's what this type of writing seems to indicate.
Lucretius talks about similar issues on Mises.org.
I personally think that the idea that "consciousness is an illusion" is essentially the inevitable result of a materialistic worldview. And it is a ridiculous idea; mandated, I believe, by a religious devotion to materialism rather than by truth.
That is all.
Ticked off at Bush
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Yet Another Poll of Iraqis
Some new polls in Iraq seem to suggest a lack of confidence in the coalition, a willingness to condone attacks on coalition troops, a resentment of the coalition presence, and significant level of pessimism about the direction in which the country is headed.
To be honest, though, I am not certain how much stock I put in these polls. They can be manipulated fairly easily, or soemone can of course lie aboutthe results; I'm sure that I would be skeptical if the results of the poll showed that Iraqis were ecstatic about the future of Iraq and loved the coalition, so I'm also willing to be skeptical of a poll that seems to support my suspicions about how Iraqis feel.
If anyone has a (recent) alternate poll giving results different from those mentioned in the Telegraph article, feel free to email me a link to the poll or articles about it (glaivester at yahoo dot com) or to post the link in the comments section (or if it is not on-line, at least give me some references to the source) and I'll try to look at it and see what I think.
That is all.
To be honest, though, I am not certain how much stock I put in these polls. They can be manipulated fairly easily, or soemone can of course lie aboutthe results; I'm sure that I would be skeptical if the results of the poll showed that Iraqis were ecstatic about the future of Iraq and loved the coalition, so I'm also willing to be skeptical of a poll that seems to support my suspicions about how Iraqis feel.
If anyone has a (recent) alternate poll giving results different from those mentioned in the Telegraph article, feel free to email me a link to the poll or articles about it (glaivester at yahoo dot com) or to post the link in the comments section (or if it is not on-line, at least give me some references to the source) and I'll try to look at it and see what I think.
That is all.
Not-Really-Antiwar-Leftists
Michael Brendan Dougherty offers his thoughts on the Musings of Sam Rosenfeld and Matt Yglesias (or Rosey and Yggy, if you prefer - I'm going to start increaing my use of nicknames, I think) on liberal interventionism.
In general, I agree with Mr. Dougherty that interventionism is troublesome, and that attempts to distinguish between interventions often seem to be, to a great extent, ad hoc rationalizations in order to justify the wars started by one's own party and ot by the other guy's party.
However, I will agree with Yggy and Rosey on one thing: Bush did botch the war. Not that the war would be winnable, at least not without an entirely different model that would be anathema to Americans (more on that later), but Bush's incompetence, and failure to plan have made an already foolhardy mission even more destructive.
For example, while it is true that we did not have enough troops to send in the 500,000 that Shinseki suggested, Rumsfeld could have at least acknowledged that we were going in short-staffed and tried to plan with that in mind, instead of just assuming that we had enough troops and it wasn't going to be a problem, as James Fallows (subscription required to read entire article) indicated.
Of course, as Yggy and Rosey also point out, there was some naivete in assuming that Bush wouldn't have "screwed up as bad as he did." To me, anyway, the fact that the president was not looking at Iraq realistically was obvious back in 2002. In fact, in an article in The American Conservative's first issue Pat Buchanan predicted the insurgency that we have come up against. No one should be able to use Kerry's excuse that "I didn't think he'd **** it up this badly."
That ranks way up there with "I didn't think that 'Ernest' movie would be so stupid!" Or, "I didn't realize that Carrot Top would use that as a prop!"
Sp in short, the war was a bad idea no matter who was running it, Bush screwed it up even more, but anyone who trusted Bush and his administration to be competent cannot be held blameless, because they should have known better.
That is all.
In general, I agree with Mr. Dougherty that interventionism is troublesome, and that attempts to distinguish between interventions often seem to be, to a great extent, ad hoc rationalizations in order to justify the wars started by one's own party and ot by the other guy's party.
However, I will agree with Yggy and Rosey on one thing: Bush did botch the war. Not that the war would be winnable, at least not without an entirely different model that would be anathema to Americans (more on that later), but Bush's incompetence, and failure to plan have made an already foolhardy mission even more destructive.
For example, while it is true that we did not have enough troops to send in the 500,000 that Shinseki suggested, Rumsfeld could have at least acknowledged that we were going in short-staffed and tried to plan with that in mind, instead of just assuming that we had enough troops and it wasn't going to be a problem, as James Fallows (subscription required to read entire article) indicated.
Of course, as Yggy and Rosey also point out, there was some naivete in assuming that Bush wouldn't have "screwed up as bad as he did." To me, anyway, the fact that the president was not looking at Iraq realistically was obvious back in 2002. In fact, in an article in The American Conservative's first issue Pat Buchanan predicted the insurgency that we have come up against. No one should be able to use Kerry's excuse that "I didn't think he'd **** it up this badly."
That ranks way up there with "I didn't think that 'Ernest' movie would be so stupid!" Or, "I didn't realize that Carrot Top would use that as a prop!"
Sp in short, the war was a bad idea no matter who was running it, Bush screwed it up even more, but anyone who trusted Bush and his administration to be competent cannot be held blameless, because they should have known better.
That is all.
Thoughts on Farrakhan's Accusations
Farrakhan's ranting that the levees were intentionally blown up is asinine.
Considering the New Orleans had a much higher black population than much of the US, one immediate effect of the destruction of the city was that areas all over the ocuntry had a large influx of mostly black evacuees. In fact, some of the areas accepting evacuees were mostly white.
Anyone smart enough to know how to bomb the levee would also have known that a major effect of the destruction of New Orleans would be to increase the black population of surrounding areas.
So why would a person racist enough to want to destroy black people's homes do so when it was obvious that the result would be, in essence, greater racial integration?
Here is an alternate theory on my other blog, Rankine 911, that makes about as much sense as Farrakhan's.
That is all.
Considering the New Orleans had a much higher black population than much of the US, one immediate effect of the destruction of the city was that areas all over the ocuntry had a large influx of mostly black evacuees. In fact, some of the areas accepting evacuees were mostly white.
Anyone smart enough to know how to bomb the levee would also have known that a major effect of the destruction of New Orleans would be to increase the black population of surrounding areas.
So why would a person racist enough to want to destroy black people's homes do so when it was obvious that the result would be, in essence, greater racial integration?
Here is an alternate theory on my other blog, Rankine 911, that makes about as much sense as Farrakhan's.
That is all.
Democracy, the Antidote to Civil War
Andrew Sullivan:
"If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country."
Which is of course a good reason to think that the civil war fears were overblown.
After all, voting in the 1860 Presidential election was what proved that the South was not going to secede from the U.S.
That is all.
"If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country."
Which is of course a good reason to think that the civil war fears were overblown.
After all, voting in the 1860 Presidential election was what proved that the South was not going to secede from the U.S.
That is all.
Cheney's Turnabout Delusions
Steve Sailer has a lot fo good stuff in this post, including a mea culpa for not distrusting Cheney enough and a quoting of Gregory Cochran's debunking of any nuclear program in Iraq.
That is all.
That is all.
I Haven't Forgotten
In addition to posting about Judith Miller, I need to post thoughts about social policy, race, and IQ and about liberal hawks put into posts, as I had said I would [try to] do.
Don't worry, dear readers, I haven't forgotten!
That is all.
Don't worry, dear readers, I haven't forgotten!
That is all.
Two Posts About One Thing
Juan Cole discusses the Judith Miller situation, as does Lawrence Auster.
I think that Miller has a lot of 'splainin' to do about the WMD stuff (particularly the ties to Ahmad-the-Thief). I also need to consider the claim that "everyone believed Iraq had WMDs," and also consider what role Miller's reporting had on whatever consensus did exist.
That is all for now.
I think that Miller has a lot of 'splainin' to do about the WMD stuff (particularly the ties to Ahmad-the-Thief). I also need to consider the claim that "everyone believed Iraq had WMDs," and also consider what role Miller's reporting had on whatever consensus did exist.
That is all for now.
Aren't the Kurds Sunnis, Too?
Interesting letter at Antiwar.com. Of course, this is why I always specify "Sunni Arabs," Shia, and Kurds, and don't just call them "Sunnis," Shia, and Kurds. (Although I stated in one of my early blogposts that anytime I referred to "Sunnis" in Iraq, I meant Sunni Arabs unless otherwise specified).
That is all.
That is all.
The "Magic" Number
I don't attach any special power to the number 2000, nor do I plan to involve myself with any protests.
However, I will say that I had earlier predicted (I'll find the link later) that we would see 2000 dead Americans within a year of the 1000th death.
I was wrong by about seven weeks; had my prediction come to pass, this would have happened in very early September.
It also looks like the Dow is unlikely to dip below 10,000 this year (another prediction of mine).
Just thought I would remind everyone, including myself, of my fallibility.
That is all.
However, I will say that I had earlier predicted (I'll find the link later) that we would see 2000 dead Americans within a year of the 1000th death.
I was wrong by about seven weeks; had my prediction come to pass, this would have happened in very early September.
It also looks like the Dow is unlikely to dip below 10,000 this year (another prediction of mine).
Just thought I would remind everyone, including myself, of my fallibility.
That is all.
Rosa Parks, 1913-2005
I suppose I should say something about the death of Rosa Parks.
The story of the Montgomery bus boycott is very interesting. While I am not so enamored of the use of the federal courts to desegregate the buses, I like the boycott itself very much as a tactic. Bringing the market to bear through a boycott was a good example of capitalism in action (although considering that it appears that the buses were city-owned, and therefore likely subsidized, I am willing to concede that market forces alone might not have been enough, as the buses didn't necessarily have to be profitable).
And, as is often the case, it was the state that was the enemy of freedom:
In addition, city [i.e., Montgomery] officials struck a blow to the boycott when they announced that any cab driver charging less than the 45 cent minimum fare would be prosecuted. Since the boycott began, the black cab services had been charging blacks only 10 cents to ride, the same as the bus fare, but this service would be no more.
It also comes to my attention that the effectiveness and organization shown by the 50s and 60s civil rights movement shows the great competence of the black community (or at least much of it), meaning that under the right conditions there is no reason why the U.S. should not be able to have a thriving black community. Put another way, that means that even if there is an innate racial IQ gap, no one should assume that we should take that as a reason to write off African-Americans as hopeless.
Indeed, I wonder how much of the deterioration of the civil rights movement comes from the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. decided to deal with the devil (i.e. the federal government) for much of his agenda, and how much of it came from the dissolution of the black family and of the black community following the Great Society programs of the 1960s. (Perhaps Lyndon Johnson was not a hopeless idealist whose Great Society programs failed, perhaps they were designed to do exactly what they did - bread and circuses to keep the unwashed masses in check, mm?)
Or to say something that will shock and offend everyone, I wonder whether things would have been better if Malcolm X had outlived Dr. King rather than vice versa.
That is all.
The story of the Montgomery bus boycott is very interesting. While I am not so enamored of the use of the federal courts to desegregate the buses, I like the boycott itself very much as a tactic. Bringing the market to bear through a boycott was a good example of capitalism in action (although considering that it appears that the buses were city-owned, and therefore likely subsidized, I am willing to concede that market forces alone might not have been enough, as the buses didn't necessarily have to be profitable).
And, as is often the case, it was the state that was the enemy of freedom:
In addition, city [i.e., Montgomery] officials struck a blow to the boycott when they announced that any cab driver charging less than the 45 cent minimum fare would be prosecuted. Since the boycott began, the black cab services had been charging blacks only 10 cents to ride, the same as the bus fare, but this service would be no more.
It also comes to my attention that the effectiveness and organization shown by the 50s and 60s civil rights movement shows the great competence of the black community (or at least much of it), meaning that under the right conditions there is no reason why the U.S. should not be able to have a thriving black community. Put another way, that means that even if there is an innate racial IQ gap, no one should assume that we should take that as a reason to write off African-Americans as hopeless.
Indeed, I wonder how much of the deterioration of the civil rights movement comes from the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. decided to deal with the devil (i.e. the federal government) for much of his agenda, and how much of it came from the dissolution of the black family and of the black community following the Great Society programs of the 1960s. (Perhaps Lyndon Johnson was not a hopeless idealist whose Great Society programs failed, perhaps they were designed to do exactly what they did - bread and circuses to keep the unwashed masses in check, mm?)
Or to say something that will shock and offend everyone, I wonder whether things would have been better if Malcolm X had outlived Dr. King rather than vice versa.
That is all.
Doing Something Nice
Been usin' the "next blog" feature on the Navbar, and I came across this blog. A few political thoughts here and there, nothing in particular strikes me about it, but it seems sort of a decent blog.
In any case, it has this interesting post about old TV shows that eliza (the blogger) remembers, so why not just click on either of the links in this post and visit quickly? The blog has Sitemeter, and a relatively small amount of traffic, so a few extra visits will probably make someone's day (I know that it makes my day when I get a link and a few extra visitors).
That is all.
In any case, it has this interesting post about old TV shows that eliza (the blogger) remembers, so why not just click on either of the links in this post and visit quickly? The blog has Sitemeter, and a relatively small amount of traffic, so a few extra visits will probably make someone's day (I know that it makes my day when I get a link and a few extra visitors).
That is all.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
2,000 Deaths? Thankfully, not Quite Yet.
CNN has reported that the death toll for U.S. soldiers in Iraq has hit 2,000.
The "National Debunker" mentions this, but for some reason doesn't link to the report (maybe he heard it only on the TV news; if he saw the article on the 'net and didn't link, shame on him!
However, Yahoo!, which I believe also reported this earlier, seems to have backed off and is reporting the number of deaths as being 1,999.
In any case, I won't believe that the death toll has passed 2,000 until it is reported on the Iraq Coalition Casualties website. It is foolhardy for a blogger to report the number of casualties without confirming it at their site.
Update: The death toll officially hit 2,000 sometime this afternoon.
That is all.
The "National Debunker" mentions this, but for some reason doesn't link to the report (maybe he heard it only on the TV news; if he saw the article on the 'net and didn't link, shame on him!
However, Yahoo!, which I believe also reported this earlier, seems to have backed off and is reporting the number of deaths as being 1,999.
In any case, I won't believe that the death toll has passed 2,000 until it is reported on the Iraq Coalition Casualties website. It is foolhardy for a blogger to report the number of casualties without confirming it at their site.
Update: The death toll officially hit 2,000 sometime this afternoon.
That is all.
Thoughts on Syria
Hack Kelly posts on why [he feels] we need to seek regime change in Syria, reiterating a lot of the (in my opinion) unfounded charges about Syria being a major contributor to the insurgency.
He has previously accused Syria and Iran of being "behind the insurgency" here.
Paul Craig Roberts, on the other hand, thinks that the whole thing about Syria helping the insurgency is just so much B.S. (read it at LewRockwell.com or Counterpunch, and probably soon at VDARE and Antiwar.com), designed to get us int oan expanded war in the Middle East (and of course, I have said that another motive is so that the administration can ignore the fact that a lot of Iraqis don't like us and that they excuse the fact that they failed to predict an insurgency by pretending that the insurgents are really not Iraqis at all).
I'm with Paul Craig Roberts.
That is all.
He has previously accused Syria and Iran of being "behind the insurgency" here.
Paul Craig Roberts, on the other hand, thinks that the whole thing about Syria helping the insurgency is just so much B.S. (read it at LewRockwell.com or Counterpunch, and probably soon at VDARE and Antiwar.com), designed to get us int oan expanded war in the Middle East (and of course, I have said that another motive is so that the administration can ignore the fact that a lot of Iraqis don't like us and that they excuse the fact that they failed to predict an insurgency by pretending that the insurgents are really not Iraqis at all).
I'm with Paul Craig Roberts.
That is all.
Gun Control, Illegal Aliens, UK War on Terror
The Yellowcake Forgeries
Gordon Prather discusses the forged "yellowcake" documents.
I'm not certain how important these are in terms of getting us into war in Iraq, because as I understand it, Bush's "famous sixteen lines" were not based on this document, but on other intelligence that the British supposedly had but couldn't make public. Of course, this too could be a lie, but it brings into question whether the forgery of the yellowcake documents was that important towards bringing us to war. On the other hand, the forgery is serious because it means that someone was falsifying documents with the intention of getting us into war with Iraq (unless, I suppose, some Nigerian forged them thinking that the US would pay money for such evidence, but most of the current thought seems to trace the document to Italian intelligence, which presumably would not be forging documents for mere lucre without some ideological motive). And this brings to mind who was trying to dupe us.
(As an aside, I thought that during the "Bush National Guard typewriter scandal" at CBS, Dan Rather ought to have said "the memo's not important; we have other documentation that shows that Bush shirked his duty, but darn it, British intelligence won't let us reveal them").
I have also heard claims that Joseph Wilson's denial of Iraq seeking materials from Niger was not consistent with his actual report when he had come back, although Matt Yglesias has some information seeming to deny this.
Part of this is why I have not commented a lot on the Plame case, there is a lot going on and I am not certain that I can make sense of it. If anyone wants to offer their thoughts, I am listening.
The most interesting theory so far, though, is that Patrick Fitzgerald 's investigation of "Plamegate" is actually a ruse to sniff out the yellowcake forgers. I am also interested in the theory that Larry Franklin, the spy for AIPAC, might have something to do with this.
That is all.
I'm not certain how important these are in terms of getting us into war in Iraq, because as I understand it, Bush's "famous sixteen lines" were not based on this document, but on other intelligence that the British supposedly had but couldn't make public. Of course, this too could be a lie, but it brings into question whether the forgery of the yellowcake documents was that important towards bringing us to war. On the other hand, the forgery is serious because it means that someone was falsifying documents with the intention of getting us into war with Iraq (unless, I suppose, some Nigerian forged them thinking that the US would pay money for such evidence, but most of the current thought seems to trace the document to Italian intelligence, which presumably would not be forging documents for mere lucre without some ideological motive). And this brings to mind who was trying to dupe us.
(As an aside, I thought that during the "Bush National Guard typewriter scandal" at CBS, Dan Rather ought to have said "the memo's not important; we have other documentation that shows that Bush shirked his duty, but darn it, British intelligence won't let us reveal them").
I have also heard claims that Joseph Wilson's denial of Iraq seeking materials from Niger was not consistent with his actual report when he had come back, although Matt Yglesias has some information seeming to deny this.
Part of this is why I have not commented a lot on the Plame case, there is a lot going on and I am not certain that I can make sense of it. If anyone wants to offer their thoughts, I am listening.
The most interesting theory so far, though, is that Patrick Fitzgerald 's investigation of "Plamegate" is actually a ruse to sniff out the yellowcake forgers. I am also interested in the theory that Larry Franklin, the spy for AIPAC, might have something to do with this.
That is all.
She's Number One!
I don't know about anyone else, but when it comes to blondes who are referred by a number instead of a name, Babylon 5's Marjorie Monaghan (Number One) beats Voyager's Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) in my book.
Heck, if it comes down to blondes who have played characters on Voyager (but without the number for a name requirement), then Marjorie wins again. Heck, who wouldn't rather have a hot, holographic Germanic warrior-woman than a cold woman with too much eye-jewelry?
Heck, Robert Picardo (the Doctor) agrees with me!
Question: Seriously… if you had a romantic relationship with anyone on the show, who would it be?
...
R[obert] P[icardo]: Oh, it’s got to be Freya from the Beowulf one ("Heroes and Demons") What a woman!
Come to think of it, in Babylon 5 she would also beat Andrea Thompson in my book.
That is all.
Heck, if it comes down to blondes who have played characters on Voyager (but without the number for a name requirement), then Marjorie wins again. Heck, who wouldn't rather have a hot, holographic Germanic warrior-woman than a cold woman with too much eye-jewelry?
Heck, Robert Picardo (the Doctor) agrees with me!
Question: Seriously… if you had a romantic relationship with anyone on the show, who would it be?
...
R[obert] P[icardo]: Oh, it’s got to be Freya from the Beowulf one ("Heroes and Demons") What a woman!
Come to think of it, in Babylon 5 she would also beat Andrea Thompson in my book.
That is all.
One Way You Can Tell I'm not a Liberal
I may be against the war in Iraq, but I don't give a rat's tail about some dead Taliban bodies being used as kindling.
There's enough real scandals in this war to get worked up about without going crazy over someone cremating enemy corpses.
Now, obviously, I will say that this may have been tactically unwise, as the action might offend some of the people whom we are trying to bring to our side. But of all the things to get outraged over, this falls somewhere behind the fact that House, M.D. doesn't have a second showing of its episodes each week like original programming on cable (e.g. Monk, The Dead Zone) do, in case you miss it the first time.
That is all.
There's enough real scandals in this war to get worked up about without going crazy over someone cremating enemy corpses.
Now, obviously, I will say that this may have been tactically unwise, as the action might offend some of the people whom we are trying to bring to our side. But of all the things to get outraged over, this falls somewhere behind the fact that House, M.D. doesn't have a second showing of its episodes each week like original programming on cable (e.g. Monk, The Dead Zone) do, in case you miss it the first time.
That is all.
Where Have All the Conservatives Gone?
Andrew Sullivan makes explicit a point that Matt Yglesias touched on. Bush is not a ture conservative, and in fact, the mainstream so-called conservative movement isn't really all that conservative; at least, those in power aren't. The Democrats and Republicans really are not all that different, it is not even a matter of degree anymore, jsut a matter of who gets the goodies and how to pay for them (i.e. taxes, borrowing, or inflation).
That is all.
That is all.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The Arrow Pierces the Heart of the Emperor and his True Image is Revealed!
Adam Bellows points out that Bush values loyalty over competence - or perhaps he confuses the two.
While this is hardly a new insight, it is good to hear NRO writers point it out.
btw, does anyone get the reference in the title? Put your guesses in the comments and I'll tell you who's right in a day or two.
That is all.
While this is hardly a new insight, it is good to hear NRO writers point it out.
btw, does anyone get the reference in the title? Put your guesses in the comments and I'll tell you who's right in a day or two.
That is all.
Karen Kwiatowski on Iraq
Karen Kwiatowski lays out the reasons for which she feels we went to Iraq, and the way out.
Other than the fact that she jumps the gun a little (she claims >2,000 American troops have been killed, when so far only 1997 have been), I think that her article is very good. So good, in fact, that at the present time I cannot think of anything to add.
That is all.
Other than the fact that she jumps the gun a little (she claims >2,000 American troops have been killed, when so far only 1997 have been), I think that her article is very good. So good, in fact, that at the present time I cannot think of anything to add.
That is all.
What's Behind these Recent Terrorist Non-Attacks?
Charley Reese thinks that Al Qaeda is engaging in disinformation, and that the goal may have been to distract us from whatever the real attack they are planning is. You can read the same article at Antiwar.com.
I guess great minds think alike.
That is all.
I guess great minds think alike.
That is all.
Kudos to Cindy Sheehan
I'm not a big very fan of Cindy Sheehan, but on the other hand, she has gone up in my estimation today for her dismissal of Hillary Clinton as a likely antiwar candidate.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
The Problem
An interesting take on the Kamau Kambon affair by "Dan" at the Center for Advanced Sarcasm.
Actually, I think he hits the actual crux of the problem fairly well:
"Oddly enough, only 20% of whites disputed the basic notion that the planet would probably be better off without them."
That is, whites are a little too shy about standing up for themselves as whites.
That is all.
Actually, I think he hits the actual crux of the problem fairly well:
"Oddly enough, only 20% of whites disputed the basic notion that the planet would probably be better off without them."
That is, whites are a little too shy about standing up for themselves as whites.
That is all.
Derbyshire on Science v. Social Policy
Interesting piece by John Derbyshire about the possibility of innate racial differences in intelligence.
One thing that I noticed about the "great race debate" is that there has so far been very fw systematic attempts to determine what to do about it if it turns out that intelligence does vary between people of different races; that is, how ought our social policies be formed if that is the case.
Steve Sailer has touched on it here and there, but I am not certain if anyone has really made an attempt to get a large-scale picture of what policies ought to be in place if equality in all faculties is not attainable?
Well I am certain that a lot of white nationalists, supremacists, and separatists have, but has anyone come up with policy ideas that do not involve apartheid or ethnic cleansing, or that do not use IQ as an excuse to do nothing at all?
I will try to post some more thoughts on this later.
That is all.
One thing that I noticed about the "great race debate" is that there has so far been very fw systematic attempts to determine what to do about it if it turns out that intelligence does vary between people of different races; that is, how ought our social policies be formed if that is the case.
Steve Sailer has touched on it here and there, but I am not certain if anyone has really made an attempt to get a large-scale picture of what policies ought to be in place if equality in all faculties is not attainable?
Well I am certain that a lot of white nationalists, supremacists, and separatists have, but has anyone come up with policy ideas that do not involve apartheid or ethnic cleansing, or that do not use IQ as an excuse to do nothing at all?
I will try to post some more thoughts on this later.
That is all.
Removal of Grace?
The Ambler (Kevin Michael Grace)'s blog has disappeared.
This is quite disturbing. Perhaps his financial woes have finally caught up to him. I would have donated, but it is only recently that I have begun to earn money after a long dry spell, and I have my own obligations for the time being.
So good night for now, Mr. Grace, wherever you are.
Is that all?
This is quite disturbing. Perhaps his financial woes have finally caught up to him. I would have donated, but it is only recently that I have begun to earn money after a long dry spell, and I have my own obligations for the time being.
So good night for now, Mr. Grace, wherever you are.
Is that all?
A Soldier Silenced
Fighting "Whiteness"
By now, I am sure that most of the people who read my blog have heard about the guy who stated on C-SPAN who advocated exterminating white people.
Well, according to WorldNetDaily, this guy was a visiting professor at North Carolina State University in Raleigh last spring.
So what to make of Kamau Kambon's remarks?
Well, as I said before, he looks like a cross between Willie Nelson and George Clinton, or put another way, I think he is probably a buffoon and am not worried about him having the charisma to build much of a movement.
However, it does seem to me that this is the logical progression of the phenomenon of people announcing that they hate "whiteness." Of course, the claim is that "anti-whiteness" isn't hatred of white people, but hatred of people using unearned privilege, of people trying to exclude other people, etc.. But in reality, the goal of anti-whiteness is to erase European culture to a great extent; in this old Salon article one notices that "whiteness studies" or whatever one wants to call the study of white people as white people, includes a siginificant number of people who think that "whiteness" is something to be ashamed of. I can't think of any other ethnic or other "group" studies that include people who dislike the characteristics associated with their group. When is the last time heard of someone teaching "black studies" who said that they were ashamed of "blackness" because of the large number of blacks in prison or the large number of black unwed mothers?
For that matter, if someone started talking about what a bad thing "blackness" was, and people objected to that as racist, and then they said that they used "blackness" to mean being on welfare, having babies out of wedlock, or being in prison, and have nothing against black people per se, would anyone take them seriously?
This is also a dangerous way to phrase issues of racism, because it ignores the fact that white people didn't invent racism; throughout history, plenty of people have decided that their group should dominate other groups. Just look at how many tribes' names for themselves translate to "the people" or "the true people," or something like that. As the number of minorities in the U.S. grow, there is likely going to be an increase in ethnic violence between people of two or more different minority groups (see this post by "Lying Eyes" Ziel), and this cannot be dealt with if you assume that all race-hatred has its roots in white people. Obviously, the intellectuals in the minority community can band together against the whites, but I think somehting more comprehensive is needed for the average Joes.
But it in any case, "hating whiteness" means exactly what it sounds like. A hatred of white people and white culture, and at best a desire that white people perpetually grovel at the feet of everyone else. At worst, it means a hope of exterminating white people. Kamau Kambon was simply honest enough to admit it.
So now that we see what "hating whiteness" really entails, I think there needs to be a movement against this idea.
That is all.
Well, according to WorldNetDaily, this guy was a visiting professor at North Carolina State University in Raleigh last spring.
So what to make of Kamau Kambon's remarks?
Well, as I said before, he looks like a cross between Willie Nelson and George Clinton, or put another way, I think he is probably a buffoon and am not worried about him having the charisma to build much of a movement.
However, it does seem to me that this is the logical progression of the phenomenon of people announcing that they hate "whiteness." Of course, the claim is that "anti-whiteness" isn't hatred of white people, but hatred of people using unearned privilege, of people trying to exclude other people, etc.. But in reality, the goal of anti-whiteness is to erase European culture to a great extent; in this old Salon article one notices that "whiteness studies" or whatever one wants to call the study of white people as white people, includes a siginificant number of people who think that "whiteness" is something to be ashamed of. I can't think of any other ethnic or other "group" studies that include people who dislike the characteristics associated with their group. When is the last time heard of someone teaching "black studies" who said that they were ashamed of "blackness" because of the large number of blacks in prison or the large number of black unwed mothers?
For that matter, if someone started talking about what a bad thing "blackness" was, and people objected to that as racist, and then they said that they used "blackness" to mean being on welfare, having babies out of wedlock, or being in prison, and have nothing against black people per se, would anyone take them seriously?
This is also a dangerous way to phrase issues of racism, because it ignores the fact that white people didn't invent racism; throughout history, plenty of people have decided that their group should dominate other groups. Just look at how many tribes' names for themselves translate to "the people" or "the true people," or something like that. As the number of minorities in the U.S. grow, there is likely going to be an increase in ethnic violence between people of two or more different minority groups (see this post by "Lying Eyes" Ziel), and this cannot be dealt with if you assume that all race-hatred has its roots in white people. Obviously, the intellectuals in the minority community can band together against the whites, but I think somehting more comprehensive is needed for the average Joes.
But it in any case, "hating whiteness" means exactly what it sounds like. A hatred of white people and white culture, and at best a desire that white people perpetually grovel at the feet of everyone else. At worst, it means a hope of exterminating white people. Kamau Kambon was simply honest enough to admit it.
So now that we see what "hating whiteness" really entails, I think there needs to be a movement against this idea.
That is all.
More on Saddam's Trial
Previously this week, I posted on an Antiwar.com blogpost by Matthew Barganier suggesting that the Saddam trial is designed so as convict him with the smallest possible "collateral damage," i.e. to prevent him from implicating other people we don't want to get in trouble, e.g. Don Rumsfeld.
Now LAmom points out that radio talk-show host, fake rock star, and Simpsons voice Harry Shearer has suggested the same thing.
I don't think that this is an unreasonable interpretation of the decision to try Saddam on relatively minor charges involving Dujail before moving on to the "big ones." Not that the killing of 143 people is a small thing, but compared to the gassing of Kurds ay Halabja or the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, this is small potatoes.
Of course, on the other hand, as Dennis Mangan and Temetwir have pointed out, this is sort of a show trial anyway; and perhaps it would have been more honest and forthright to just shoot him in the head when he was captured; at least, I think, if we are simply going to turn it into a farce anyway.
Personally, I am not exactly opposed to a trial of Saddam, for the purposes of (a) showing that the U.S., or the "Iraqi government," or whoever, is able to convict him and execute him while playing fair, and because (b) I would really love to find out whom else Saddam will be able to implicate, whether it be from Russia, the U.S., France, or whatever. But if we are going to go out of our way to cover up any part of Saddmam's tyranny that we think will make us or other powerful nations whom we wish to appease look bad, what's the point? And on the other hand, just getting Saddam dead would also provice a sort of closure and make it harder for people to make arguments that Iraq's problems are due to a fear that Saddam will come back.
That is all.
Now LAmom points out that radio talk-show host, fake rock star, and Simpsons voice Harry Shearer has suggested the same thing.
I don't think that this is an unreasonable interpretation of the decision to try Saddam on relatively minor charges involving Dujail before moving on to the "big ones." Not that the killing of 143 people is a small thing, but compared to the gassing of Kurds ay Halabja or the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, this is small potatoes.
Of course, on the other hand, as Dennis Mangan and Temetwir have pointed out, this is sort of a show trial anyway; and perhaps it would have been more honest and forthright to just shoot him in the head when he was captured; at least, I think, if we are simply going to turn it into a farce anyway.
Personally, I am not exactly opposed to a trial of Saddam, for the purposes of (a) showing that the U.S., or the "Iraqi government," or whoever, is able to convict him and execute him while playing fair, and because (b) I would really love to find out whom else Saddam will be able to implicate, whether it be from Russia, the U.S., France, or whatever. But if we are going to go out of our way to cover up any part of Saddmam's tyranny that we think will make us or other powerful nations whom we wish to appease look bad, what's the point? And on the other hand, just getting Saddam dead would also provice a sort of closure and make it harder for people to make arguments that Iraq's problems are due to a fear that Saddam will come back.
That is all.
Blog of the Week: Mangan's Miscellany
Added to my sidebar and chosen as the link of this week is Mangan's Miscellany, an interesting blog by "clinical laboratory scientist and reactionary curmudgeon" Dennis Mangan.
He has international associates, and is one of the contributors to the UK blog The G-Gnome Rides Out.
Try it, you'll like it.
That is all.
He has international associates, and is one of the contributors to the UK blog The G-Gnome Rides Out.
Try it, you'll like it.
That is all.
What They Say and What They Mean...
It strikes me that when people say that only white people can be racist, or that blacks cannot be racist, because racism requires a "system of oppression," they are really saying something else.
Let me preface this by pointing out that the statement here is that racism requires not just oppression, but a system of oppression. This means that a black person who goes on a killing spree against white people or who rapes a white person specifically tbecause they hate them for being white is not considered a racist, even though he is definitely oppressing his victims, because his oppression isn't part of a "system."
It strikes me that the real goal behind this type of thinking is to essentially condone anti-white prejudice.
Put another way, when someone says that non-whites cannot be racist against whites, they are really saying that they don't want to label anti-white p[rejudice because they agree with and support anti-white prejudice.
I will try tie this in with this earlier posting about the man promoting anti-white genocide (who, it turns out, is a college professor by the name of Kamau Kambon), later today.
That is all until (hopefully) later today.
Let me preface this by pointing out that the statement here is that racism requires not just oppression, but a system of oppression. This means that a black person who goes on a killing spree against white people or who rapes a white person specifically tbecause they hate them for being white is not considered a racist, even though he is definitely oppressing his victims, because his oppression isn't part of a "system."
It strikes me that the real goal behind this type of thinking is to essentially condone anti-white prejudice.
Put another way, when someone says that non-whites cannot be racist against whites, they are really saying that they don't want to label anti-white p[rejudice because they agree with and support anti-white prejudice.
I will try tie this in with this earlier posting about the man promoting anti-white genocide (who, it turns out, is a college professor by the name of Kamau Kambon), later today.
That is all until (hopefully) later today.
But They Voted!
Rich Lowry adopts the usual pro-war strategy of assuming that the political process is all-important, which I have discussed here.
He also explains our failures to hold territory "cleared" of insurgents by touting the "Iraqization" strategy, without mentioning the primary failure of "Iraqization:" namely, we seem to have troubles maintaining Iraqi forces that are loyal to the government: in June we had only three battalions capable of operating independently, and it seems that that may have decreased to one.
He also repeats the line that the insurgents' tactics, as they are killing a lot of Iraqis, will lead to disaffection with the insurgency and therefore a turning to the political process. Maybe. But haven't we heard this before, and the insurgency has just gotten stronger?
I don't know about you, but I am still waiting for the Iraqis to finally get tired of being targeted by terrorists and to quell the insurgency on their own. AFter all, it obviously has no popular support, so any day now, the insurgents are going to take one step too far and seal their fate.
Any day now. I'm waiting... Yep. For sure.
That is all.
He also explains our failures to hold territory "cleared" of insurgents by touting the "Iraqization" strategy, without mentioning the primary failure of "Iraqization:" namely, we seem to have troubles maintaining Iraqi forces that are loyal to the government: in June we had only three battalions capable of operating independently, and it seems that that may have decreased to one.
He also repeats the line that the insurgents' tactics, as they are killing a lot of Iraqis, will lead to disaffection with the insurgency and therefore a turning to the political process. Maybe. But haven't we heard this before, and the insurgency has just gotten stronger?
I don't know about you, but I am still waiting for the Iraqis to finally get tired of being targeted by terrorists and to quell the insurgency on their own. AFter all, it obviously has no popular support, so any day now, the insurgents are going to take one step too far and seal their fate.
Any day now. I'm waiting... Yep. For sure.
That is all.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Yes, it is a Quag-Miers
Chris Roach points out that yes, experience does count for something, especially onthe Supreme Court.
That is all.
That is all.
LRC Blog on the Conservative Civil War
Over at the LewRockwell.com blog, Anthony Gregory, Casey Khan, and Charles Featherstone share their thoughts.
That is all.
That is all.
Apotheosis
How did a two-bit dictator like Saddam get promoted to the rank of "This Generation's Hitler?"
Dennis Dale considers.
That is all.
Dennis Dale considers.
That is all.
Father's Rights
This is an interesting article attempting to debunk a lot of the arguments about why it is bad for kids to be in single-parent homes without a father.
Looking at the statements made, I can already find a lot of problems with the supposed debunking, which I will attempt to address at a later date.
Sample: This article mentions that juvenile crime has been falling throughout the 90s and that the increase in the number of juveniles going to jail is due to them being prosecuted as adults. Nowhere is it considered that the drop in crime may be due to the increase in trying juveniles as adults.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the misandrists at Alas, a Blog.
That is all.
Looking at the statements made, I can already find a lot of problems with the supposed debunking, which I will attempt to address at a later date.
Sample: This article mentions that juvenile crime has been falling throughout the 90s and that the increase in the number of juveniles going to jail is due to them being prosecuted as adults. Nowhere is it considered that the drop in crime may be due to the increase in trying juveniles as adults.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the misandrists at Alas, a Blog.
That is all.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Same-Sex Marriage? Why Not? Well...
Jane Galt urges humility in predicting the effects or supose lack thereof of same-sex marriage.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Udolpho.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Udolpho.
That is all.
More on Michael Ledeen
Scott Horton on the Antiwar blog details the possible links between Ol' Benito and the forged Niger uranium documents.
That is all.
That is all.
Joseph Farah Making Me Sick Again
*Sigh*. Just as he gained a tiny bit of respect by admitting that he was wrong to support Bush in 2004, he then comes out with this.
Now, on the surface, it seems quite right that waterboarding and other practices would be justified if they got information out of people and saved lives.
But there are several problems here:
(1) First, as Farah admits, we are talking about suspected terrorist detainees. However, he quickly changes to "a few hours of degradation for a terrorist." Let's remember that one concern here is that torture might be used against suspects who turn out to be innocent. Apparently Mr. Farah trusts that anyone the government picks up as a suspected terrorist must already be guilty.
(2) Second, as Jim Henley has pointed out, the "ticking time bomb" scenario is the case in which torture is the least likelyto be effective. This scenario is brought up mainly as a foot-in-the-door for more general use of torture.
In particular, I am worried that torture at places like Abu Ghraib is designed not so much to get information, but as a way to intimidate Iraqis into seeing "who's boss."
As Linnet
points out, the old argument "if torture didn't work [at geting information], we wouldn't use it" assumes that getting information is the real goal. Torture works very well at, e.g., intimidating populations, and it is quite possible that people use torture for this purpose under the pretense of getting information. In such a case, people would be likely to use torture "to get information" regardless of how well it achieved the stated goal.
That is all.
Now, on the surface, it seems quite right that waterboarding and other practices would be justified if they got information out of people and saved lives.
But there are several problems here:
(1) First, as Farah admits, we are talking about suspected terrorist detainees. However, he quickly changes to "a few hours of degradation for a terrorist." Let's remember that one concern here is that torture might be used against suspects who turn out to be innocent. Apparently Mr. Farah trusts that anyone the government picks up as a suspected terrorist must already be guilty.
(2) Second, as Jim Henley has pointed out, the "ticking time bomb" scenario is the case in which torture is the least likelyto be effective. This scenario is brought up mainly as a foot-in-the-door for more general use of torture.
In particular, I am worried that torture at places like Abu Ghraib is designed not so much to get information, but as a way to intimidate Iraqis into seeing "who's boss."
As Linnet
points out, the old argument "if torture didn't work [at geting information], we wouldn't use it" assumes that getting information is the real goal. Torture works very well at, e.g., intimidating populations, and it is quite possible that people use torture for this purpose under the pretense of getting information. In such a case, people would be likely to use torture "to get information" regardless of how well it achieved the stated goal.
That is all.
Hey, Mac!
Here is an interesting site for Mac users (like me) that I discovered reading the Mises blog.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Blog of the Week (New Posts Below)
In my attempts to (a) get more traffic from other sites and to (b) help to publicize other small blogs, I am going to start a "blog of the week" program.
Every week, I will put a little graphic on the upper right hand corner of my blog (near by picture) that links to the blog for that week. I think I will try to do a new blog every Sunday night.
If you would like to suggest a blog (either yours or someone else's), simply email me at Glaivester at Yahoo dot com or post it as a comment on my "General comments" link (under the "Rankine 911" illustration on my sidebar). If no one suggests one (or if I do not like the suggestions), I will pick one out myself.
The requirements:
You are eligible to be blog of the week if you have a sitemeter, or other similar account such that your stats are open to the public (i.e. someone clicking on your sitemeter icon can see how many visitors you have). It can be any system so long as I can check out your stats to see how many visits you get, and if you are ppicker, how many visits came from Glaivester) I also will only pick blogs which I think are worthy of publicity, although I will likely include blogs that are in disagreement with me on issues.
So go at it, folks!
(Note: if you have a specific graphic you would like me to consider for my link to a blog, feel free to email it to me, but please use JPGs or gifs).
That is all.
Every week, I will put a little graphic on the upper right hand corner of my blog (near by picture) that links to the blog for that week. I think I will try to do a new blog every Sunday night.
If you would like to suggest a blog (either yours or someone else's), simply email me at Glaivester at Yahoo dot com or post it as a comment on my "General comments" link (under the "Rankine 911" illustration on my sidebar). If no one suggests one (or if I do not like the suggestions), I will pick one out myself.
The requirements:
You are eligible to be blog of the week if you have a sitemeter, or other similar account such that your stats are open to the public (i.e. someone clicking on your sitemeter icon can see how many visitors you have). It can be any system so long as I can check out your stats to see how many visits you get, and if you are ppicker, how many visits came from Glaivester) I also will only pick blogs which I think are worthy of publicity, although I will likely include blogs that are in disagreement with me on issues.
So go at it, folks!
(Note: if you have a specific graphic you would like me to consider for my link to a blog, feel free to email it to me, but please use JPGs or gifs).
That is all.
Neo-Nazis and Black Gangs and Riots, Oh My...
What do I think about the black gangs rioting at the Neo-Nazi march in Ohio?
This sums up my feelings pretty well.
Here's another post about it.
Of course, what anyone who has a brain in their head will recognize is that this is exactly what the Neo-Nazis wanted, to have a situation where there were black people behaving badly, and where they (the Neo-Nazis) could be seen as the non-violent ones.
The gangs, of course, played right along with the script.
I'm sure there is a lesson in here someplace.
That is all.
This sums up my feelings pretty well.
Here's another post about it.
Of course, what anyone who has a brain in their head will recognize is that this is exactly what the Neo-Nazis wanted, to have a situation where there were black people behaving badly, and where they (the Neo-Nazis) could be seen as the non-violent ones.
The gangs, of course, played right along with the script.
I'm sure there is a lesson in here someplace.
That is all.
George P. and Chelsea - Now That's an Idea...
This post by Steve Sailer about the Bushes and the Clintons uniting through marriage and forming a dynasty reminds me of somethinganother blogger wrote a few months back.
That is all.
That is all.
Principle, Not Just Results
Lawrence Auster and David Frum point out why Harriet Miers' stated desire that abortion be banned is not enough to make her a good conservative Supreme Court nominee.
That is all.
That is all.
The Democrats are Hawks, Too
An interesting article by Sam Rosenfeld and Matt Yglesias about the liberal support of the Iraq War and the reasons behind it.
I'll post more later on this.
That is all.
I'll post more later on this.
That is all.
Genocide?
I will try to post about the infamous incident of the black man on C-SPAN promoting the idea that someone should "exterminate white people off the face of the planet," tomorrow.
I have good news though: based on his appearance, I seriously doubt that we have to worry about him being able to organize a movement to carry out his plans.
We do, however, need to worry about how Willie Nelson and George Clinton had a love child.
That is all until I post again.
I have good news though: based on his appearance, I seriously doubt that we have to worry about him being able to organize a movement to carry out his plans.
We do, however, need to worry about how Willie Nelson and George Clinton had a love child.
That is all until I post again.
Avian Flu, Etc.
I tend not to be much of a "natural disasters alarmist." Perhaps it's my faith in God, but I tend to think that we can cope with things better than some people fear. For example, I do not think that oil running out over the next 30 years, if it occurs, will lead to either mass starvation or the re-agriculturalization of our economy. (I'll talk about this in more detail at some point).
But I also doubt that pandemic diseases will be as plague-like as they were in earlier years, for the primary reason that better health and nutrition, and better medical care in general, make a lot of these dieases a lot less serious than they used to be. While we don't have a cure for viral diseases, for example, improved health makes most people much more able to fight off the diseases for themselves. And for bacteria, we have antibiotics.
Over at Gene Expression, scottm and Rikurzhen have posts advocating the "don't panic" position. Very worth reading, in my opinion.
That is all.
But I also doubt that pandemic diseases will be as plague-like as they were in earlier years, for the primary reason that better health and nutrition, and better medical care in general, make a lot of these dieases a lot less serious than they used to be. While we don't have a cure for viral diseases, for example, improved health makes most people much more able to fight off the diseases for themselves. And for bacteria, we have antibiotics.
Over at Gene Expression, scottm and Rikurzhen have posts advocating the "don't panic" position. Very worth reading, in my opinion.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!
There is an old joke:
A man was looking all over underneath a streetlight.
Another man walked up to him and asked what he was doing.
"I'm looking for my contact lens."
"Okay, I'll help you." Looking at the ground, he noticed that the ground as very clean. "Oh, this should be easy, there isn't that much around for it to have gone under. You're lucky that you lost it here."
"Oh, no," said the first man. "I lost it across the street."
"Then why are you looking here?"
"The light is better."
This occurred to me today when listening to the Tony Snow Show on my radio. It strikes me that a lot of the neocons have essentially decided that holding the elections and capturing and trying Saddam are the only metrics for success in the War in Iraq.
He was repeating a recent criticism by Dick Durbin (I think, I'll provide a link if I find a good link to what he was talking about) that Iraq had less electricity than it had before the war, and less oil production before the war, etc. (I will admit that I am not certain whether this is true, I would need to study the issue a little more to actually endorse Dubin's statements, but here is a post from back in May 2005 discussing whether the claims that electrical capacity was constantly improving were supported by the numerical evidence)).
What is interesting is that Tony Snow did not even attempt to refute Durbin's claims. He just changed the subject to the constitution and to the trial of Saddam. "How can you say we failed when they voted on a constitution and when Saddam, the mass-murderer, is penned up in a cage?"
In other words, who cares about electiricity, oil production, etc.? We had an election! (I think I am paraphrasing a post by Lawrence Auster here, but I can't find it right now).
Hmm-mm.
A man was looking all over underneath a streetlight.
Another man walked up to him and asked what he was doing.
"I'm looking for my contact lens."
"Okay, I'll help you." Looking at the ground, he noticed that the ground as very clean. "Oh, this should be easy, there isn't that much around for it to have gone under. You're lucky that you lost it here."
"Oh, no," said the first man. "I lost it across the street."
"Then why are you looking here?"
"The light is better."
This occurred to me today when listening to the Tony Snow Show on my radio. It strikes me that a lot of the neocons have essentially decided that holding the elections and capturing and trying Saddam are the only metrics for success in the War in Iraq.
He was repeating a recent criticism by Dick Durbin (I think, I'll provide a link if I find a good link to what he was talking about) that Iraq had less electricity than it had before the war, and less oil production before the war, etc. (I will admit that I am not certain whether this is true, I would need to study the issue a little more to actually endorse Dubin's statements, but here is a post from back in May 2005 discussing whether the claims that electrical capacity was constantly improving were supported by the numerical evidence)).
What is interesting is that Tony Snow did not even attempt to refute Durbin's claims. He just changed the subject to the constitution and to the trial of Saddam. "How can you say we failed when they voted on a constitution and when Saddam, the mass-murderer, is penned up in a cage?"
In other words, who cares about electiricity, oil production, etc.? We had an election! (I think I am paraphrasing a post by Lawrence Auster here, but I can't find it right now).
Hmm-mm.
Adding Michael Brendan Dougherty
I have added fellow paleoconservative Michael Brendan Dougherty to my blogroll.
He seems a very solid fellow, the only immediate disagreement I can see is that he is Catholic, while I am Evangelical Protestant (Baptist, to be precise). So check him out.
It is filed under the name "Surfeited with Dainties," which is the title of the blog, or, if you are reading this post, click on the link I provided in the first sentence.
That is all.
He seems a very solid fellow, the only immediate disagreement I can see is that he is Catholic, while I am Evangelical Protestant (Baptist, to be precise). So check him out.
It is filed under the name "Surfeited with Dainties," which is the title of the blog, or, if you are reading this post, click on the link I provided in the first sentence.
That is all.
Let's Hope it is True
Chertoff Vows End to 'Catch and Release', by Jim Abrams.
So the DHDS is getting tough on illegals?
Well, I'll believe it when I see it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Orrin Judd, even though he is siding with the traitors to the U.S. on the immigration issue.
That is all.
So the DHDS is getting tough on illegals?
Well, I'll believe it when I see it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Orrin Judd, even though he is siding with the traitors to the U.S. on the immigration issue.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Thoughts on the Iraqi Elections and Suspicions of Vote-Rigging
In a recent Juan Cole post, concerns about irregularities in the Iraqi elections are discussed. He also discusses them here.
A few thoughts occur to me on the possibilities if the election were rigged:
(1) If it were not for the "provincial veto" provision (i.e. a 2/3 vote pr mopre against the constitution in any three provinces would cause the referendume to fail), there would have been no quesiton as to whether or not the constitution would have passed. Obviously the Shia and Kurds supported it overwhelmingly, so the overall vote would certainly give the constitution a huge margin of victory.
Therefore, problems with low voter turnout in certain provinces are, in practical terms, irrelevant, as Cole himself points out.
Also, concerns over the unbelievably unbalanced vote in some provinces are also effectively irrelevant. while Andrew Sullivan draws parellels between this and the elction under Saddam, the fact of the matter is, that all of the provinces being looked at would probably have voted for the constitution in such high numbers that any rigging would not have made much difference.
(2) If the vote were rigged, it is more likely in my opinion that the Iraqi government did it than that the US did it. And while a passed constitution serves the US's PR purposes, it serves us far better to have the vote be seen as being as fair as possible, and it is the Shia and the Kurds who have the real motivation to get it passed.
What I am trying to say is that any rigging of the elections might well have been done without any US active sanction or encouragement. To the extent that the US passively sanctions any vote rigging (if it does do so), that is,m to teh extent that the US does not raise any protest, it may well be because we don't want to upset the Shia or Kurds rather than because we wish for a staged result.
Put another way, I would not be surprised if the Shia and Kurds were determined that the constitution would pass no matter what, and if they were I am not certain that there is much that the US could do to insure a fair election without causing a great deal of resentment in our Iraqi allies.
(3) Regardless of the results, the most positive PR that the US could get from vote-rigging would be to make the Sunni Arab "yes" vote seem as large as possible. That some Sunni Arabs voted "yes" was prominently mentioned by Rich Lowry, and obviously would be a major step in the right direciton, particularly if we accept the administration's paradigm that building a popularly supported government is the way to defeat the insurgency.
The point, I guess, is that if the election were rigged it would not have the major effect that some might fear it would have, unless the rigging was done to one of the "in play" provinces. And even if it were, it is not necessarily a sign of corruption in the Bush administration or in the coalition. So to me it is not as significant an issue as it might seem it should be.
That is all.
A few thoughts occur to me on the possibilities if the election were rigged:
(1) If it were not for the "provincial veto" provision (i.e. a 2/3 vote pr mopre against the constitution in any three provinces would cause the referendume to fail), there would have been no quesiton as to whether or not the constitution would have passed. Obviously the Shia and Kurds supported it overwhelmingly, so the overall vote would certainly give the constitution a huge margin of victory.
Therefore, problems with low voter turnout in certain provinces are, in practical terms, irrelevant, as Cole himself points out.
Also, concerns over the unbelievably unbalanced vote in some provinces are also effectively irrelevant. while Andrew Sullivan draws parellels between this and the elction under Saddam, the fact of the matter is, that all of the provinces being looked at would probably have voted for the constitution in such high numbers that any rigging would not have made much difference.
(2) If the vote were rigged, it is more likely in my opinion that the Iraqi government did it than that the US did it. And while a passed constitution serves the US's PR purposes, it serves us far better to have the vote be seen as being as fair as possible, and it is the Shia and the Kurds who have the real motivation to get it passed.
What I am trying to say is that any rigging of the elections might well have been done without any US active sanction or encouragement. To the extent that the US passively sanctions any vote rigging (if it does do so), that is,m to teh extent that the US does not raise any protest, it may well be because we don't want to upset the Shia or Kurds rather than because we wish for a staged result.
Put another way, I would not be surprised if the Shia and Kurds were determined that the constitution would pass no matter what, and if they were I am not certain that there is much that the US could do to insure a fair election without causing a great deal of resentment in our Iraqi allies.
(3) Regardless of the results, the most positive PR that the US could get from vote-rigging would be to make the Sunni Arab "yes" vote seem as large as possible. That some Sunni Arabs voted "yes" was prominently mentioned by Rich Lowry, and obviously would be a major step in the right direciton, particularly if we accept the administration's paradigm that building a popularly supported government is the way to defeat the insurgency.
The point, I guess, is that if the election were rigged it would not have the major effect that some might fear it would have, unless the rigging was done to one of the "in play" provinces. And even if it were, it is not necessarily a sign of corruption in the Bush administration or in the coalition. So to me it is not as significant an issue as it might seem it should be.
That is all.
Cover-Up?
The way that Saddam is being tried is mighty strange, as Matt Barganier points out. It would appear that the goal is to get him executed on relaively minor offenses (minor, that is, compared to other things he has done) before he gets tried for the really big crimes.
The most likely explanation, according to Baranier, (and I concur) is that there is a desire to avoid getting into areas where Saddam can embarrass officials by mentioning the fact that a lot of his actions during the Iran-Iraq War were more or less condoned by the U.S. government at the time.
That is all.
The most likely explanation, according to Baranier, (and I concur) is that there is a desire to avoid getting into areas where Saddam can embarrass officials by mentioning the fact that a lot of his actions during the Iran-Iraq War were more or less condoned by the U.S. government at the time.
That is all.
Casualties from the Conservative Civil War - Maybe
"Bruce Bartlett, a Republican commentator who has been increasingly critical of the White House, was dismissed on Monday as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group based in Dallas."
Was he fired for being anti-Bush? I suppose time will tell.
Lawrence Auster ponders what these things may mean.
Personally, I hope that the conservatives manage to defeat the Cult of Bush and take back the Republican Party.
That is all.
Was he fired for being anti-Bush? I suppose time will tell.
Lawrence Auster ponders what these things may mean.
Personally, I hope that the conservatives manage to defeat the Cult of Bush and take back the Republican Party.
That is all.
More on the Continuing Quag-Miers
Jerome Corsi expounds more on the issue of Harriet Miers and the Texas Lottery.
Of course, this is WorldNetDaily, so one has to take what they say with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, this is an interesting charge, particularly when it is coming from the guy who wrote the very anti-Kerry Unfit for Command.
That is all.
Of course, this is WorldNetDaily, so one has to take what they say with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, this is an interesting charge, particularly when it is coming from the guy who wrote the very anti-Kerry Unfit for Command.
That is all.
Laurie Mylroie and Company
The recent suicide bombing in Oklahoma brought to mind the person of Laurie Mylroie, who has theorized that Saddam was the mastermind behind all important anti-U.S. terrorist attacks from 1993 to 2001, including the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.
A WorldNetDaily report on the recent bombing includes Mylroie compatriot Jayna Davis in the by-line, which leads me to suspect that we will hear something from Mylroie soon, particularly with the theories that the bomber, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, was involved with terrorists, despite official denials that any link between Hinrichs and extremist groups has been uncovered.
Given that, I think that it would be wise to take a look at why people tend to dismiss Laurie Mylroie in the first place. This is a pretty devastating article on her by Peter Bergen (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Diana Moon at Letter From Gotham). And here is another piece on Mylroie by Bergen.
What is interesting is how many connections she has with other neocons who were instrumental in the push to war, including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey.
I think there is a lot here to feed my future posts, and I will try to begin making sense of all the different threads in the days ahead.
That is all for now.
A WorldNetDaily report on the recent bombing includes Mylroie compatriot Jayna Davis in the by-line, which leads me to suspect that we will hear something from Mylroie soon, particularly with the theories that the bomber, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, was involved with terrorists, despite official denials that any link between Hinrichs and extremist groups has been uncovered.
Given that, I think that it would be wise to take a look at why people tend to dismiss Laurie Mylroie in the first place. This is a pretty devastating article on her by Peter Bergen (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Diana Moon at Letter From Gotham). And here is another piece on Mylroie by Bergen.
What is interesting is how many connections she has with other neocons who were instrumental in the push to war, including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey.
I think there is a lot here to feed my future posts, and I will try to begin making sense of all the different threads in the days ahead.
That is all for now.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Yet More Additions to the BlogRoll
I have decided to add the PolyScifi blog and the National Debunker to my blogroll.
Polyscifi has some interesting thoughts on politics, technology, science, and science fiction, and strikes me as a little bit like Jim Henley's blog in tone.
The National Debunker is very left wing, and sometimes goes nutty but some of the stuff on Iraq is good. In that respect, it's a little like Counterpunch, you gotta wade through some of the leftist muck, but there are some gems there if you know where to look.
That is all.
Polyscifi has some interesting thoughts on politics, technology, science, and science fiction, and strikes me as a little bit like Jim Henley's blog in tone.
The National Debunker is very left wing, and sometimes goes nutty but some of the stuff on Iraq is good. In that respect, it's a little like Counterpunch, you gotta wade through some of the leftist muck, but there are some gems there if you know where to look.
That is all.
Bush vs. the CIA
Now we know why the neocons tend to blame the CIA when it gets into a conflict with Bush.
Hey, if the CIA doesn't allow us to have fun with our Arab prisoners, what good are they, right?
I'll post more on the topic of torture soon.
That is all.
Hey, if the CIA doesn't allow us to have fun with our Arab prisoners, what good are they, right?
I'll post more on the topic of torture soon.
That is all.
Typical, Typical, Typical
Peter J. Wallison tells us we need to "stick with" the President despite the Miers nomination in order to keep the momentum in the war on terror.
He also compares the vote to hold the U.S. to standards in prisoner interrogation (i.e. the anti-torture bill) to the vote to stop giving aid to South Vietnam for its defense.
And that's really the issue here: surrender all of our principles and worship Bush or else the terrorists will win.
Granted, Wallison concedes that we can oppose the Miers nomination, but he doesn't seem to think that conservatives should recognize the pattern of Bush selling us out and should keep supporting Bush, as if this were an aberration.
"...opposition to this unfortunate nomination should not result in diminished support for the rest of the Bush agenda."
You mean illegal alien amnesty, huge deficits, new entitlement programs, and McCain-Feingold?
I think we have a new nominee for Bush's Bend-Over Brigade!
That is all.
He also compares the vote to hold the U.S. to standards in prisoner interrogation (i.e. the anti-torture bill) to the vote to stop giving aid to South Vietnam for its defense.
And that's really the issue here: surrender all of our principles and worship Bush or else the terrorists will win.
Granted, Wallison concedes that we can oppose the Miers nomination, but he doesn't seem to think that conservatives should recognize the pattern of Bush selling us out and should keep supporting Bush, as if this were an aberration.
"...opposition to this unfortunate nomination should not result in diminished support for the rest of the Bush agenda."
You mean illegal alien amnesty, huge deficits, new entitlement programs, and McCain-Feingold?
I think we have a new nominee for Bush's Bend-Over Brigade!
That is all.
Recruiting Woes not Limited to Active-Duty Army
Previously I commented on the fact that all of the talk about how the Army was the only branch of the military suffering recruiting woes (the Marines, Navy, and Air Force apparently are not) usually tends to ignore the question of the National Guard and reserves.
Well, unsurprisingly, many components of the reserves are also suffering recruiting problems.
According to Robert Burns of the Associated Press, several branches of the National Guard and Reserves failed to meet their quotas:
The Army National Guard fell short by 20% (or by about 12,000 soldiers, according to my calculations)
The Navy Reserve fell short by 12%
The Army Reserve fell short 16% (i.e., by about 4500 soldiers)
The Air National Guard fell short by 14%.
On the other hand, the Marine Corps Reserve exceeded its goal by 2% and the Air Force Reserve by 13%.
Another interesting tidbit: while we keep being reminded that in the active-duty forces, only the Army missed its recruiting goals, what is not mentioned is that the other branches barely made theirs; the Navy and Marine Corps recruited just enough and the Air Force exceeded its goal by only 2%, compared to the Army missing its goal by more than 8%.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the National Debunker for bringing this article to my attention.
That is all.
Well, unsurprisingly, many components of the reserves are also suffering recruiting problems.
According to Robert Burns of the Associated Press, several branches of the National Guard and Reserves failed to meet their quotas:
The Army National Guard fell short by 20% (or by about 12,000 soldiers, according to my calculations)
The Navy Reserve fell short by 12%
The Army Reserve fell short 16% (i.e., by about 4500 soldiers)
The Air National Guard fell short by 14%.
On the other hand, the Marine Corps Reserve exceeded its goal by 2% and the Air Force Reserve by 13%.
Another interesting tidbit: while we keep being reminded that in the active-duty forces, only the Army missed its recruiting goals, what is not mentioned is that the other branches barely made theirs; the Navy and Marine Corps recruited just enough and the Air Force exceeded its goal by only 2%, compared to the Army missing its goal by more than 8%.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the National Debunker for bringing this article to my attention.
That is all.
Gosh, Who Could Have Guessed?
The diaper-free baby movement is not all it is cracked up to be, says Emily Bazelon.
(In case you don't know what the diaper-free baby movement is, look here for an explanation.
I think I will file this under "duh."
That is all.
(In case you don't know what the diaper-free baby movement is, look here for an explanation.
I think I will file this under "duh."
That is all.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
We Just May Have a Constitution
Initial results suggest that the Iraqi constitution has received enough "yes" votes that it will have passed once all the votes are counted. It appears that the Sunni Arabs may not have been able to muster enough "no" votes in enough provinces to veto the constitution, which as I understand it was the only obstacle to its passage.
I don't really have anything against the Iraqi constitution, although it may well have bad or dangerous provisions, I haven't really read it nor analyzed the bits I have read with any detail. So I'm definitely not going to rain on the parade of the Iraqi who voted for it by condemning the results of the elections, or by bemoaning the results as guaranteeing Sunni Arab resistance, as does Juan Cole.
The fact of the matter is that I see Sunni Arab guerilla warfare as inevitable and civil war as near-inevitable regardless of what happens with the constitution, so I don't see the acceptance of the constitution as necessarily any worse than its rejection. I freely admit that I have no idea which outcome would actually be more helpful/less harmful to the goal of a stable Iraq. I just know that I doubt a stable Iraq will occur whatever happens. Either way, someone was going to feel cheated, and I doubt that the losers would stand back and say "we lost, fair and square." Of course, Sunni Arabs who feel cheated would probably attack in a more conspicuous way than would the Shiites and Kurds, as the latter could use the government and police forces to carry out revenge, whereas the Sunni Arabs would be limited to the much less covert insurgency. As it is, it seems that the Sunni Arabs are the losers, so I expect that most of the anger over the election results will be expressed through the insurgency.
My actual attitude toward the constitution is that I feel it to be irrelevant; while we have been told that the passage of the constitution would represent a great victory over the terrorists, I see no reason to believe that the political process is going to resolve the tensions between the different groups in Iraq. Put another way, I am more interested in what our military strategy is; how we plan to defeat the insurgents and how we plan for security to be provided, e.g. how to develop indigenous security forces. I am just not convinced that the existence of a document outlining basic rights is going to actually give the Iraqi an epiphany where they decide that they want liberal democracy.
Lawrence Auster has been criticizing Bush for focusing on the political process rather than trying to actually defeat the insurgents. I think my feelings generally echo his on this issue.
That is all.
I don't really have anything against the Iraqi constitution, although it may well have bad or dangerous provisions, I haven't really read it nor analyzed the bits I have read with any detail. So I'm definitely not going to rain on the parade of the Iraqi who voted for it by condemning the results of the elections, or by bemoaning the results as guaranteeing Sunni Arab resistance, as does Juan Cole.
The fact of the matter is that I see Sunni Arab guerilla warfare as inevitable and civil war as near-inevitable regardless of what happens with the constitution, so I don't see the acceptance of the constitution as necessarily any worse than its rejection. I freely admit that I have no idea which outcome would actually be more helpful/less harmful to the goal of a stable Iraq. I just know that I doubt a stable Iraq will occur whatever happens. Either way, someone was going to feel cheated, and I doubt that the losers would stand back and say "we lost, fair and square." Of course, Sunni Arabs who feel cheated would probably attack in a more conspicuous way than would the Shiites and Kurds, as the latter could use the government and police forces to carry out revenge, whereas the Sunni Arabs would be limited to the much less covert insurgency. As it is, it seems that the Sunni Arabs are the losers, so I expect that most of the anger over the election results will be expressed through the insurgency.
My actual attitude toward the constitution is that I feel it to be irrelevant; while we have been told that the passage of the constitution would represent a great victory over the terrorists, I see no reason to believe that the political process is going to resolve the tensions between the different groups in Iraq. Put another way, I am more interested in what our military strategy is; how we plan to defeat the insurgents and how we plan for security to be provided, e.g. how to develop indigenous security forces. I am just not convinced that the existence of a document outlining basic rights is going to actually give the Iraqi an epiphany where they decide that they want liberal democracy.
Lawrence Auster has been criticizing Bush for focusing on the political process rather than trying to actually defeat the insurgents. I think my feelings generally echo his on this issue.
That is all.
Another Interpretation
Over at the strangely named blog 8 Galloway Dr, Rm 103, Will A. Smiley (his blog address is http://wasmiley.blogspot.com and his handle is "WILL," so I am deducing here) has the opposite interpretation of the Zawahiri letters than mine; specifically, he thinks they are genuine. He posts about the topic here and here.
That is all.
That is all.
A Religious Test?
On the Llewellyn Rockwell blog, Lew posts a cartoon by Mike Luckovich which reveals that Bush did indeed use a religious test when he nominated Harriet Miers.
That is all.
That is all.
A Little More on Bush, the National Guard, and Harriet Miers
Forgetting the forged documents that got Dan Rather fired, there is still good evidence that Bush did not meet his National Guard service requirements.
Moreover, the forged documents drowned out other aspects of the case, such as the Ben Barnes angle, mentioned at WorldNetDaily by Jerome Corsi.
Now, I don't really care a whole lot; if Bush dodged the draft, that is A-OK with me. I think that the draft is a form of slavery, so I wouldn't blame anyone who tries to get out of it.
On the other hand, however justified draft-dodging may be, I cannot excuse negative consequences from the fallout of that decision. There is the question of whether this issue played a role in a scandal involving the Texas Sate lottery. Ben Barnes was apparently a consultant to GTECH, the company running the lottery, and there was a scandal involving possible corruption and kickbacks on his part, and involving the fact that the company was picked despite it not being the lowest bidder.
Apparently Harriet Miers, the head of the lottery commission at the time, was involved in the decision not to look at the lower bids.
I previously mentioned this back on October 5, but I didn't get around to reading teh details until today.
I can excuse draft-dodging. I cannot excuse the nomination of an unqualified crony as a quid pro quo for engaging in corruption as a quid pro quo for getting someone out of the draft, if that is what happened. Particularly as I doubt that there was any possible criminal liability for any of the Bushes for anything that happened during the Vietnam era, and as the only reason to cover up anything about Bush's National Guard service would be to protect his image and political career.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Moreover, the forged documents drowned out other aspects of the case, such as the Ben Barnes angle, mentioned at WorldNetDaily by Jerome Corsi.
Now, I don't really care a whole lot; if Bush dodged the draft, that is A-OK with me. I think that the draft is a form of slavery, so I wouldn't blame anyone who tries to get out of it.
On the other hand, however justified draft-dodging may be, I cannot excuse negative consequences from the fallout of that decision. There is the question of whether this issue played a role in a scandal involving the Texas Sate lottery. Ben Barnes was apparently a consultant to GTECH, the company running the lottery, and there was a scandal involving possible corruption and kickbacks on his part, and involving the fact that the company was picked despite it not being the lowest bidder.
Apparently Harriet Miers, the head of the lottery commission at the time, was involved in the decision not to look at the lower bids.
I previously mentioned this back on October 5, but I didn't get around to reading teh details until today.
I can excuse draft-dodging. I cannot excuse the nomination of an unqualified crony as a quid pro quo for engaging in corruption as a quid pro quo for getting someone out of the draft, if that is what happened. Particularly as I doubt that there was any possible criminal liability for any of the Bushes for anything that happened during the Vietnam era, and as the only reason to cover up anything about Bush's National Guard service would be to protect his image and political career.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Iraqi Bombs Come from Irish Terrorist Technology
"Eight British soldiers killed during ambushes in Iraq were the victims of a highly sophisticated bomb first used by the IRA, The Independent on Sunday can reveal."
I guess it is time we expanded the war and went after terrorism-supporting Ireland. So when do we bomb Dublin?
That is all.
I guess it is time we expanded the war and went after terrorism-supporting Ireland. So when do we bomb Dublin?
That is all.
Cathartic Blogging?
Many bloggers do so for therapeutic reasons, to get catharsis, according to this Washington Post article.
Scott Gilbreath at Magic Statistics questions this:
"Most bloggers that he follows seem to be driven by other, shall we say, more altruistic, motives. By that, I mean a desire to share one’s knowledge, expertise, or opinions with ‘net surfers. For myself, this is my experience of blogging as well. My blog, and the blogs listed in my sidebar, focus on information, expert or other special knowledge, and/or commentary on current events of various kinds. Therapy doesn’t enter into it at all, as far as I can tell."
But isn't that a form of catharsis? At least for a lot of political bloggers, I would think that part of the motivation is: "Finally, after watching all these other people opine on things, half of whom are idiots than whom my dog could write better, I have the ability to tell it as I see it, and to show those half of opinionists who are idiots for what they really are!" Well, that was my motivation, anyway - at least I find that that is part of my motivation; rebutting Jack Kelly, Richard Poe, and a host of others when they say something I vehemently disagree with gives me a small sense of control that is very cathartic; I feel like I provide some sort of balance against all of the columnists whose ideas I think are wrong or who really, really irritate me.
So I can definitely see why people would see blogging as "therapy."
That is all.
Scott Gilbreath at Magic Statistics questions this:
"Most bloggers that he follows seem to be driven by other, shall we say, more altruistic, motives. By that, I mean a desire to share one’s knowledge, expertise, or opinions with ‘net surfers. For myself, this is my experience of blogging as well. My blog, and the blogs listed in my sidebar, focus on information, expert or other special knowledge, and/or commentary on current events of various kinds. Therapy doesn’t enter into it at all, as far as I can tell."
But isn't that a form of catharsis? At least for a lot of political bloggers, I would think that part of the motivation is: "Finally, after watching all these other people opine on things, half of whom are idiots than whom my dog could write better, I have the ability to tell it as I see it, and to show those half of opinionists who are idiots for what they really are!" Well, that was my motivation, anyway - at least I find that that is part of my motivation; rebutting Jack Kelly, Richard Poe, and a host of others when they say something I vehemently disagree with gives me a small sense of control that is very cathartic; I feel like I provide some sort of balance against all of the columnists whose ideas I think are wrong or who really, really irritate me.
So I can definitely see why people would see blogging as "therapy."
That is all.
Yglesias on the Plame Case
Matthew Yglesias has a pretty thorough rendering of the arguments supporting Wilson and against the administration. I said earlier that I would try and blog on this topic, so after I read an anti-Wilson piece of two (e.g. a piece saying that Wilson lied about his findings in Niger and that his wife was not a covert agent, etc.), maybe I'll try to make some sense of this and come up with a more definite opinion.
That is all.
That is all.
Discussion Between Steve Sailer's Istanbul Correspondent and Lawrence Auster
I think that the recent "discussion" (for lack of a better term) Steve Sailer's Istanbul correspondent and Lawrence Auster about Islam and violence boils down to one basic question:
Does Islamic ideology cause Islamic violence, or is it the nature of the people who subscribe to Islamic ideology that creates the violence as well as causing them to subscribe to Islamic ideology? In other words, does Islam create jihad, or are Arabs and other Middle Eastern Islamic groups naturally more prone to jihad, which is why they have adopted Islam (or, if you prefer, why they adopt a form of Islam that emphasizes jihad).
Or put another way, is the problem Islam or is the problem the people who happen to be Muslims? So if we were somehow to force the followers of Islam to renounce Islam, would they become more peaceable, or would they simply find some other creed to use as an outlet for their violent tendencies?
Auster writes: "As long as Muslims remain Muslims, even if they are not personally devout and followers of Jihad, they remain always liable to return to a genuine version of the faith, and then they will be supporters of jihad violence." Yes, but the way I see it, Sailer was questioning whether or not a lot of the people who are Muslims are people who would remain always liable to turn to some sort of violent philosophy even if they did not remain Muslims.
That is all for now.
Does Islamic ideology cause Islamic violence, or is it the nature of the people who subscribe to Islamic ideology that creates the violence as well as causing them to subscribe to Islamic ideology? In other words, does Islam create jihad, or are Arabs and other Middle Eastern Islamic groups naturally more prone to jihad, which is why they have adopted Islam (or, if you prefer, why they adopt a form of Islam that emphasizes jihad).
Or put another way, is the problem Islam or is the problem the people who happen to be Muslims? So if we were somehow to force the followers of Islam to renounce Islam, would they become more peaceable, or would they simply find some other creed to use as an outlet for their violent tendencies?
Auster writes: "As long as Muslims remain Muslims, even if they are not personally devout and followers of Jihad, they remain always liable to return to a genuine version of the faith, and then they will be supporters of jihad violence." Yes, but the way I see it, Sailer was questioning whether or not a lot of the people who are Muslims are people who would remain always liable to turn to some sort of violent philosophy even if they did not remain Muslims.
That is all for now.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Zawahiri-Zarqawi Letter a Forgery?
Juan Cole suggests that the recently released letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi may be a forgery (a pdf of the letter can be obtained here). He adds another thought here.
I would not be surprised if the letter was fake, as I have said before, partly because the letter reads a little too close to the Bush administration line; that is, it reveals Al Qaeda's goals to be exactly what would be the most convenient for Bush to have them be, overall, it dovetails a little too nicely with what the administration is saying, much like the memo from last year where Zarqawi claimed he was being "suffocated".
(Considering that the insurgency has lived on for more than a year and a half, even if the memo was authentic I would question the reliability of any assessment of the state of the insurgency made by Zarqawi, and by extension be at least a little skeptical of any asssessment made by any Al Qaeda member).
I should immediately point out that Al Qaeda's claims that the letter was forged do not influence my opinion one way or the other, because there is no reason to assume that Al Qaeda would be truthful about whether or not it wrote a letter. On the other hand, that they are liars and that they say that the letter is a fake does not necessarily mean that it is a fake, they could be telling the truth incidentally.
In any case, if the letter is forged it does not necessarily point to the Bush administration, Juan Cole points out that Iran or some Shiite Iraqis might have reason to forge such a letter in order to manipulate the U.S.
Another objection to the authenticity of the letter is raised here, namely that in one passage Zawahiri seems to be referring to Zarqawi as a third person rather than as the recipient of the letter, but it does not seem to amount to anything to me. At most it would suggest that the intelligence community has misinterpreted to whom the letter was addressed but it too stubborn to admit it, or that Zawahiri made a mistake when writing or dictating the letter, or that someone made a mistake during some transcription step. It does not strike me as the type of mistake that a forger would be more likely to make than the actual writer of a letter, and so really is not particularly relevant to the letter's authenticity.
In any case, I usually prefer to look at the overall facts on the ground in determining the situation in Iraq, and try not to attach too much importance to any one letter or any single anecdote.
That is all.
I would not be surprised if the letter was fake, as I have said before, partly because the letter reads a little too close to the Bush administration line; that is, it reveals Al Qaeda's goals to be exactly what would be the most convenient for Bush to have them be, overall, it dovetails a little too nicely with what the administration is saying, much like the memo from last year where Zarqawi claimed he was being "suffocated".
(Considering that the insurgency has lived on for more than a year and a half, even if the memo was authentic I would question the reliability of any assessment of the state of the insurgency made by Zarqawi, and by extension be at least a little skeptical of any asssessment made by any Al Qaeda member).
I should immediately point out that Al Qaeda's claims that the letter was forged do not influence my opinion one way or the other, because there is no reason to assume that Al Qaeda would be truthful about whether or not it wrote a letter. On the other hand, that they are liars and that they say that the letter is a fake does not necessarily mean that it is a fake, they could be telling the truth incidentally.
In any case, if the letter is forged it does not necessarily point to the Bush administration, Juan Cole points out that Iran or some Shiite Iraqis might have reason to forge such a letter in order to manipulate the U.S.
Another objection to the authenticity of the letter is raised here, namely that in one passage Zawahiri seems to be referring to Zarqawi as a third person rather than as the recipient of the letter, but it does not seem to amount to anything to me. At most it would suggest that the intelligence community has misinterpreted to whom the letter was addressed but it too stubborn to admit it, or that Zawahiri made a mistake when writing or dictating the letter, or that someone made a mistake during some transcription step. It does not strike me as the type of mistake that a forger would be more likely to make than the actual writer of a letter, and so really is not particularly relevant to the letter's authenticity.
In any case, I usually prefer to look at the overall facts on the ground in determining the situation in Iraq, and try not to attach too much importance to any one letter or any single anecdote.
That is all.
Yet Another Interesting Blog to Check Out
The Polyscifi blog has a bunch of interesting posts on all sorts of topics, including this one that partially debunks the idea that the higher divorce rates in the South indicate that people in red states lack commitment to marriage (rather, they are largely a function of the fact that the people in red states tend to get married at a higher rate than those in blue states, and so there is a larger pool of people who are "eligible" to get divorced).
In any case, visit the blog, it has a lot of good stuff.
That is all.
In any case, visit the blog, it has a lot of good stuff.
That is all.
Do a Favor for the Glaivester?
For all of my readers who really like the blog, I would consider it a big favor if you would click on the link to "TNine Tapeless Paper" at the top of my sidebar and visit the website.
I have a relative who is involved with the company. They are a new company and are trying to improve their name recognition and their web traffic, so it would help them out if you visited their website even if you don't intend to buy any of their products at this time.
Plus, if you are interested in painting cars, trucks, airplanes, etc., or any sort of painting that involves masking (i.e. covering things with paper to "mask" them from being painted), you might find their products to be useful. (They sell high-quality masking paper as well as a "tapeless" masking paper that is self-adhesive [like a "sticky memo"]).
That is all.
I have a relative who is involved with the company. They are a new company and are trying to improve their name recognition and their web traffic, so it would help them out if you visited their website even if you don't intend to buy any of their products at this time.
Plus, if you are interested in painting cars, trucks, airplanes, etc., or any sort of painting that involves masking (i.e. covering things with paper to "mask" them from being painted), you might find their products to be useful. (They sell high-quality masking paper as well as a "tapeless" masking paper that is self-adhesive [like a "sticky memo"]).
That is all.
Why People are Against "Equal Pay for Equal Work"
I think the main reason why so many people dislike the "equal pay for equal work" movement is because there is a sneaking suspicion that the real motive is "equal pay for equal effort" regardless of whether or not the quality and quantity of output is the same. That is, that the real goal is equal pay regardless of equal output.
I think that this case in Sweden, where height requirements on a Volvo assembly line (for safety reasons) were ruled discriminatory because they disproportionately disqualify women, is a perfect example of what people are afraid will happen.
Theoretically, of course, Sweden did not actually require Volvo to loosen its safety requirements, because, according to Equal Opportunity Ombudsman Claes Borgstrom,
Instead, they will have to make an individual judgment of the applicants’ physical conditions for the job, for example span of reach and muscle strength.
But in reality these qualifications would likely disproportionately disqualify women as well, so if that is the requirement to prove discrimination, then any safety requirements based on the physical abilities of the applicants will be considered discrimination.
Ultimately, I predict that the government will probably mandate that women receive special treatement (e.g., special workstations, lower productivity requirements) in order to maintain both "non-discrimination" and worker safety. Which, of course, is not "equal pay for equal work," if work is determined by productivity. But many (inluding me) question whether "equal pay for equal work" was really the goal in the first place.
That is all.
I think that this case in Sweden, where height requirements on a Volvo assembly line (for safety reasons) were ruled discriminatory because they disproportionately disqualify women, is a perfect example of what people are afraid will happen.
Theoretically, of course, Sweden did not actually require Volvo to loosen its safety requirements, because, according to Equal Opportunity Ombudsman Claes Borgstrom,
Instead, they will have to make an individual judgment of the applicants’ physical conditions for the job, for example span of reach and muscle strength.
But in reality these qualifications would likely disproportionately disqualify women as well, so if that is the requirement to prove discrimination, then any safety requirements based on the physical abilities of the applicants will be considered discrimination.
Ultimately, I predict that the government will probably mandate that women receive special treatement (e.g., special workstations, lower productivity requirements) in order to maintain both "non-discrimination" and worker safety. Which, of course, is not "equal pay for equal work," if work is determined by productivity. But many (inluding me) question whether "equal pay for equal work" was really the goal in the first place.
That is all.
Alan Keyes on Bush's Quag-Miers
Alan Keyes expresses his thoughts on Harriet Miers.
He is unimpressed. (Hardly surprsiing, as so few are).
That is all.
He is unimpressed. (Hardly surprsiing, as so few are).
That is all.
Bush's Banishment of Competence
An excellent article by Nick Turse and Tom Engelhardt on how competence was punished and lock-step mendacity rewarded by the Bush administration.
Some people have chosen to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Miers nomination. I will admit, the fact that the person one nominated is a crony does not necessarily mean cronyism has occurred, it is possible that a particular crony may indeed be the best person for the job, and the fact that they are a crony is just coincidental. But given Bush's track record, only a blithering moron or a shameless butt-kisser would give him the benefit of the doubt.
That is all.
Some people have chosen to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Miers nomination. I will admit, the fact that the person one nominated is a crony does not necessarily mean cronyism has occurred, it is possible that a particular crony may indeed be the best person for the job, and the fact that they are a crony is just coincidental. But given Bush's track record, only a blithering moron or a shameless butt-kisser would give him the benefit of the doubt.
That is all.
Is Michael Ledeen a Criminal?
Here and here Scott Horton suggests that Ledeen may be involved with the forged Niger yellowcake documents.
Here are some thoughts on the subject by Steve Sailer from earlier this year.
Of course, there is quite a bit of disagreement as to how much these particular documents contributed to the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa, so it is not entirely clear to me that these documents played a major role in getting us into war. Nonetheless, they were obviously intended to help to get us into war in Iraq, so whatever role they played, the forger was trying to distort our foreign policy with false evidence. So whoever forged them should be prosecuted under applicable statutes.
That is all.
Here are some thoughts on the subject by Steve Sailer from earlier this year.
Of course, there is quite a bit of disagreement as to how much these particular documents contributed to the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa, so it is not entirely clear to me that these documents played a major role in getting us into war. Nonetheless, they were obviously intended to help to get us into war in Iraq, so whatever role they played, the forger was trying to distort our foreign policy with false evidence. So whoever forged them should be prosecuted under applicable statutes.
That is all.
Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak in Toronto Nursing Home
The outbreak is not terribly interesting news, but the diagnosis story is interesting.
Colby Cosh has the story, and a not-so-subtle hint as to what TV show it makes him think of plastered on the left-hand side.
That is all.
Colby Cosh has the story, and a not-so-subtle hint as to what TV show it makes him think of plastered on the left-hand side.
That is all.
Insurgents Black Out Baghdad
This is rather bad.
As to what it portends, I refer you to my previous non-commital statement.
That is all.
As to what it portends, I refer you to my previous non-commital statement.
That is all.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Hallelujah!
Why Mac switching to Intel chips could be good news.
And it is likely that the good side effect (Macs able to run Windows and Mac OS) will indeed happen.
I know that this is old news, but I felt compelled to blog about it today.
Of course, it would make sense for Apple to let its computers run Windows, and it makes equally as much sense to make certain that other computers can't run the Mac OS. That's because unlike Microsoft, Apple is a hardware and software company, and they (I assume) make most of their money on their hardware. So anyhting that makes their hardware expendable would hyrt the bottom line, but allowing people to run Windows on their Macs would probably expand their market (e.g. to people who would like to be able to run Mac OS but who need to run Windows for some programs and don't want two computers) and would, at worst, reduce their software sales (and probably not even that, as most people who buy a dual-OS computer presumably wantto run Mac software too).
That is all.
And it is likely that the good side effect (Macs able to run Windows and Mac OS) will indeed happen.
I know that this is old news, but I felt compelled to blog about it today.
Of course, it would make sense for Apple to let its computers run Windows, and it makes equally as much sense to make certain that other computers can't run the Mac OS. That's because unlike Microsoft, Apple is a hardware and software company, and they (I assume) make most of their money on their hardware. So anyhting that makes their hardware expendable would hyrt the bottom line, but allowing people to run Windows on their Macs would probably expand their market (e.g. to people who would like to be able to run Mac OS but who need to run Windows for some programs and don't want two computers) and would, at worst, reduce their software sales (and probably not even that, as most people who buy a dual-OS computer presumably wantto run Mac software too).
That is all.
Attaqs in Iraq
The Baghdad offices of the largest Sunni Arab political party (the Iraqi Islamic Party) were attacked by insurgents today (as were the homes of some of its supporters), in retaliation for the party's acceptance of the proposed Iraqi constitution.
I suppose one could look at this as evidence of the power that those who dislike the proposed constitution still have in the Sunni Arab community (i.e. the Iraqi Islamic Party does not command enough loyalty among the Sunni Arabs as a whole to put a stop to the insurgency by supporting the constitution), or as evidence of how evil and anti-democracy the insurgents are (and hopefully, how that will translate into the insurgents losing some of their popular support within the Sunni community), depending on what in Iraq you wish to emphasize. So the question becomes whether this portends "good Sunnis" standing up to (and shutting down) the insurgency, or that the insurgency is too strong for the constitution to stem it. While I tend to doubt that the insurgency will go away any time soon, I confess that I am have no idea in which direction the Iraqi Islamic Party's endorsement of the constitution, or the subsequent attacks on its members and offices will push things; to the better, or to the worse. So I think I will refrain on offering comments or speculation on the subject until I know more, particularly how the actual vote on the constitution goes.
That is all.
I suppose one could look at this as evidence of the power that those who dislike the proposed constitution still have in the Sunni Arab community (i.e. the Iraqi Islamic Party does not command enough loyalty among the Sunni Arabs as a whole to put a stop to the insurgency by supporting the constitution), or as evidence of how evil and anti-democracy the insurgents are (and hopefully, how that will translate into the insurgents losing some of their popular support within the Sunni community), depending on what in Iraq you wish to emphasize. So the question becomes whether this portends "good Sunnis" standing up to (and shutting down) the insurgency, or that the insurgency is too strong for the constitution to stem it. While I tend to doubt that the insurgency will go away any time soon, I confess that I am have no idea in which direction the Iraqi Islamic Party's endorsement of the constitution, or the subsequent attacks on its members and offices will push things; to the better, or to the worse. So I think I will refrain on offering comments or speculation on the subject until I know more, particularly how the actual vote on the constitution goes.
That is all.
Not Good News
The U.S. has decided not to continue upgrading its missile defense systems.
As someone who greatly prefers missile defense to preventive offense, this does not please me.
On a bright note, it is possible that they are giving up on upgrading so that they can build a new system from scratch, so they may not be abandoning the idea of progress on the missile defense front itself.
That is all.
As someone who greatly prefers missile defense to preventive offense, this does not please me.
On a bright note, it is possible that they are giving up on upgrading so that they can build a new system from scratch, so they may not be abandoning the idea of progress on the missile defense front itself.
That is all.
More on Krugman and Race
The folks over at the Division of Labor blog think that immigration restrictionism may correlate with generous welfare states.
This was a comment on Paul Krugman's column about how the U.S. doesn't have a generous social safety net because white America is too racist to help out poor black people (I posted on it here).
The essential argument is that the bigger the welfare state, the more attractive the country would be to layabouts who seek to abuse the system. Thereofre, the bigger the welfare state, the more restrictive the immigration policy must be to ensure that you get productive immigrants rather than thos who would burden the system.
Interesting hypothesis, but I think that the causation probably runs both ways, and also in oblique directions.
That is all.
This was a comment on Paul Krugman's column about how the U.S. doesn't have a generous social safety net because white America is too racist to help out poor black people (I posted on it here).
The essential argument is that the bigger the welfare state, the more attractive the country would be to layabouts who seek to abuse the system. Thereofre, the bigger the welfare state, the more restrictive the immigration policy must be to ensure that you get productive immigrants rather than thos who would burden the system.
Interesting hypothesis, but I think that the causation probably runs both ways, and also in oblique directions.
That is all.
It's the Pattern, Stupid
Bush's recent staged question-and-answer session is not a big deal in and of itself. Probably a lot of presidents have done scripted events like it, and it really doesn't matter much in the scheme of htings anyway.
But it will get a lot of play and people will be upset about it, because it fits a pattern that more and more people are beginning to see in Bush.
No, it's not that the mainstream media is unfairly piling on the guy. The problem is that Bush has a reputation of surrounding himself with yes-men, of ignoring any dissent, and generally of being deceptive by skewing all of the information in one direction.
So what Bush did, while unimportant in itself, seems to reflect a problem in his character that is very important. And that's why it bugs people. Also, I think that people are bugged less by the fact that Bush does scripted question-and-answer sessions like this than by the fact that he rarely if ever is in a situation where he answers questions from John and Jane Q. Public that are not scripted.
That is all.
But it will get a lot of play and people will be upset about it, because it fits a pattern that more and more people are beginning to see in Bush.
No, it's not that the mainstream media is unfairly piling on the guy. The problem is that Bush has a reputation of surrounding himself with yes-men, of ignoring any dissent, and generally of being deceptive by skewing all of the information in one direction.
So what Bush did, while unimportant in itself, seems to reflect a problem in his character that is very important. And that's why it bugs people. Also, I think that people are bugged less by the fact that Bush does scripted question-and-answer sessions like this than by the fact that he rarely if ever is in a situation where he answers questions from John and Jane Q. Public that are not scripted.
That is all.
Jack Michaels' Thoughts on Miers
A good post by Jack Michaels on Letters from Desolation Row. He eviscerates many of the arguments used by the pro-Miers crowd. I feel pretty much the same way about the situation as he does.
That is all.
That is all.
Making Fun of Hugh Hewitt
Here is a funny parody of Hugh Hewitt's reaction to conservative criticisms of Harriet Miers over at Hubris.
In the comments, I add my own little spiel about Bush butt-kisser Richard Poe.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ol' Sully.
That is all.
In the comments, I add my own little spiel about Bush butt-kisser Richard Poe.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ol' Sully.
That is all.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
It Is Obvious That We Don't Know One Millionth of One Percent About Anything.
James Robbins Says Things are Going Well in Iraq
Two thoughts on this James Robbins article on NRO:
(1) I am unconvinced that passing a constitution will be the death knell of the insurgency. After all, we were told that the "transfer of sovereignty" would be the death knell, then that the elections in January would signla the insurgents' defeat, and each time the insurgency has continued to plug along. Even if the Sunnis vote in massive numbers in the election, it doesn't mean that insurgency-minded Sunnis will accept any results that don't go their way. Moreover, even if a sizeable chunk can be broughtto vote for the constitution, I don't think that that will pacify those who are determined to have something different.
(2) I question the authenticity of the Al Qaeda letters we keep receiving, as well as questioning how accurate their predictions are. We are to believe that Al Qaeda thinks it is in a race against time to stop the democracy in Iraq that will occur if the U.S. stays the course and doesn't bug out. But didn't Zarqawi supposedly complain he was being suffocated back in January 2004 (use "find" function for the phrase "this is suffocation")? Pardon me if I doubt claims that Zarqawi has almost been defeated. Even if all the memos are authentic, he appears to be a bit of a hypochondriac.
That is all.
(1) I am unconvinced that passing a constitution will be the death knell of the insurgency. After all, we were told that the "transfer of sovereignty" would be the death knell, then that the elections in January would signla the insurgents' defeat, and each time the insurgency has continued to plug along. Even if the Sunnis vote in massive numbers in the election, it doesn't mean that insurgency-minded Sunnis will accept any results that don't go their way. Moreover, even if a sizeable chunk can be broughtto vote for the constitution, I don't think that that will pacify those who are determined to have something different.
(2) I question the authenticity of the Al Qaeda letters we keep receiving, as well as questioning how accurate their predictions are. We are to believe that Al Qaeda thinks it is in a race against time to stop the democracy in Iraq that will occur if the U.S. stays the course and doesn't bug out. But didn't Zarqawi supposedly complain he was being suffocated back in January 2004 (use "find" function for the phrase "this is suffocation")? Pardon me if I doubt claims that Zarqawi has almost been defeated. Even if all the memos are authentic, he appears to be a bit of a hypochondriac.
That is all.
Civil War Postponed
Ed Morissey of Captain's Quarters, who temporarily became irritated at Harriet Miers, (I blogged about it here) goes wobbly.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
New Link
Untethered, a relatively new blog by Dennis Dale, which I mentioned earlier, has now been added to the links on my sidebar.
That is all.
That is all.
VDARE Gets Results
Well, information, anyway.
Yes, the 14 rapists in the Immokalee case were here illegally. And VDARE readers are the ones who got that information released.
Bryanna Bevins has the scoop.
Ånd if you have the money, please donate to them. (I would, but I'm near broke currently).
That is all.
Yes, the 14 rapists in the Immokalee case were here illegally. And VDARE readers are the ones who got that information released.
Bryanna Bevins has the scoop.
Ånd if you have the money, please donate to them. (I would, but I'm near broke currently).
That is all.
Another Casus Belli?
The U.S. appears to be talking tough with Syria. Not good, I think, as it risks expanding the war into Syria, which we don't have the troops to do (unless we decide to just resort to mass slaughter of some sort).
On the other hand, I do feel obligated to point out that Lebanon has not been much in the news lately, suggesting that the civil unrest I feared would occur after the Syrian pull-out has not come to pass - at least not yet. (I am fairly certian that I blogged on these concerns at the time of the pull-out, but I can't find the post(s) just now). So it is possible that, despite my misgivings, Lebanon may be able to chug away nicely on its own without outside interference, which is, of course, a good thing.
That is all.
On the other hand, I do feel obligated to point out that Lebanon has not been much in the news lately, suggesting that the civil unrest I feared would occur after the Syrian pull-out has not come to pass - at least not yet. (I am fairly certian that I blogged on these concerns at the time of the pull-out, but I can't find the post(s) just now). So it is possible that, despite my misgivings, Lebanon may be able to chug away nicely on its own without outside interference, which is, of course, a good thing.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Subway Threat a Hoax
This from Breitbart:
According to newspaper and television reports, the unidentified officials said the informant -- believed to be from Pakistan -- had admitted leading investigators astray about a plot to bomb the New York subway system.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
My disinformation theory (#3) is beginning to look better...
With that in mind, so what now if this was a "disinformation" attack? What if the informant was working for the enemy and deliberately tryng to get us to waste resources searching for a false threat (or worse, using it to distract from the real threat?) Considering the possible "disinformation attack" that resulted in the deaths of 965 Shiites in Iraq at the end of August, this is an unpleasant thought.
But what do we do?
That is not all. This is just the beginning.
According to newspaper and television reports, the unidentified officials said the informant -- believed to be from Pakistan -- had admitted leading investigators astray about a plot to bomb the New York subway system.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lunaville.
My disinformation theory (#3) is beginning to look better...
With that in mind, so what now if this was a "disinformation" attack? What if the informant was working for the enemy and deliberately tryng to get us to waste resources searching for a false threat (or worse, using it to distract from the real threat?) Considering the possible "disinformation attack" that resulted in the deaths of 965 Shiites in Iraq at the end of August, this is an unpleasant thought.
But what do we do?
That is not all. This is just the beginning.
Truth is Irrelevant
The actions of not only the Bush administration, but of the neocon commentariat, in firing or otherwise humiliating and knee-capping (in the case of the administration) or of villifying and ridiculing (for the talking heads) those who predicted accurately beforehand the Iraq situation, and promoting or praising those who were dead wrong, are wonderfully made clear by this post by Orrin Judd.
Who gives a damn about truth if it prevents us from doing what we want to do? In a case like this, true patriots lie their butts off.
Which of course explains Judd's loyalty to Ahmed the Thief, which they actually admit.
Once you realize that truth means nothing to these people, things become a lot more clear.
That is all.
Who gives a damn about truth if it prevents us from doing what we want to do? In a case like this, true patriots lie their butts off.
Which of course explains Judd's loyalty to Ahmed the Thief, which they actually admit.
Once you realize that truth means nothing to these people, things become a lot more clear.
That is all.
More on Dutch "Polygamy"
Tacitus suggests that the distinctions between samenlevingscontracts, civil unions, and marriages, do not alter the fundamental arguments over whether or not Holland is allowing de facto polygamy. Others have argued that the distinction makes those who are arguing that Holland is allowing polygamy liars.
Previously I blogged on this here and here.
That is all.
Previously I blogged on this here and here.
That is all.
Illegal Immigration and Davis-Bacon
Racially Pure is Just Another Word for Highly Inbred
Steve Sailer points out some intrinsic problems with white nationalism here. I think a fair number of them can be summed up by the title of this post.
That is all.
That is all.
Joe Farah Admits he was Wrong
To support George W. Bush.
As a result, I'll stop making snide comments about him on this issue. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and now that he has, there's no point anymore in being mean about it.
Although I will admit, if you wanted a reason to vote for Bush, "because he's not John Kerry" is about as good a reason as you can get.
That is all.
As a result, I'll stop making snide comments about him on this issue. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and now that he has, there's no point anymore in being mean about it.
Although I will admit, if you wanted a reason to vote for Bush, "because he's not John Kerry" is about as good a reason as you can get.
That is all.
A Good Reason to Avoid Public School
Random drug testing. Supported, of course, by the party of smaller government and the party of larger government alike.
That is all.
That is all.
The Civil War Begins
For the soul of conservatism.
Yet another Bush supporter begins to question the President's wisdom.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Yet another Bush supporter begins to question the President's wisdom.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Michelle Malkin on Islam and Peace
An interesting column that talks about the recent Oklahoma University bombings, amongst other things.
That is all.
That is all.
Grace's Law of the Counterintuitive Response
Kevin Michael Grace, that is.
The Ambler points out that:
"...in any society that disdains truth, the reaction to any calamity that threatens its most dearly-held lies is much more of that which engendered the calamity. Only faster and harder."
That is all.
The Ambler points out that:
"...in any society that disdains truth, the reaction to any calamity that threatens its most dearly-held lies is much more of that which engendered the calamity. Only faster and harder."
That is all.
And We Thought We Only Had to Worry About the Sunnis
The governor of Basra says that the recent unpleasantness may threaten the constitutional referendum.
Oh goody.
That is all.
Oh goody.
That is all.
Good Ol' Hugh
Hugh Hewitt's argument for Harriet Miers boils down to two things:
(1) Trust Bush (Like Dicky Poe), he thinks of Bush the same way he thinks of God. I suppose they both go to the same church.
(2) Harriet is a good choice because she has had a lot of White House experience, including the General War on Terror (GWOT) and therefore will interpret the Constitution so as to let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants. In fact, he says this pretty much word-for-word, except for the fact that he uses the codephrase "Article II enthusiast" instead of "let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants."
So he apparently agrees with Publius that she is being picked to cover Bush's butt, except that he sees it as a good thing.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Jim Henley.
That is all.
(1) Trust Bush (Like Dicky Poe), he thinks of Bush the same way he thinks of God. I suppose they both go to the same church.
(2) Harriet is a good choice because she has had a lot of White House experience, including the General War on Terror (GWOT) and therefore will interpret the Constitution so as to let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants. In fact, he says this pretty much word-for-word, except for the fact that he uses the codephrase "Article II enthusiast" instead of "let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants."
So he apparently agrees with Publius that she is being picked to cover Bush's butt, except that he sees it as a good thing.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Jim Henley.
That is all.
Monday, October 10, 2005
The Torturous Quag-Miers of this Administration
I will really have to list all of the theories as to why Bush chose Miers sometime. Other than the affirmative action rationale (he wanted a woman) the crony theory (he knows her and she kissed his butt a few times - most brilliant man she ever met, my Hugh Hewitt), the National Guard connection, and now this:
"Publius" at Legal Fiction suggests that Bush chose her because she would condone Bush's actions regarding detainees if he were ever charged with torture.
Interesting theory. I'll have to take some time to consider it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and the Antiwar.com Blog.
That is all.
"Publius" at Legal Fiction suggests that Bush chose her because she would condone Bush's actions regarding detainees if he were ever charged with torture.
Interesting theory. I'll have to take some time to consider it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and the Antiwar.com Blog.
That is all.
Changes
I have eliminated the "Archives by Topic" section from my sidebar as it is too difficult to maintain.
I am also altering my links, so that in addition to an alphabetical list, I also list some of the links by organizing them for content. For example, I consider Clark Stooksbury, A.C. Kleinheider, and myself to be "The Paleoconservative Triumvirate." "The Truth Squad" consists of those who try to talk about statistical analysis and about what is true vs. what we are told is true. "The Heavy Hitters" are the more well-known blogs.
I plan to add more categories.
That is all.
I am also altering my links, so that in addition to an alphabetical list, I also list some of the links by organizing them for content. For example, I consider Clark Stooksbury, A.C. Kleinheider, and myself to be "The Paleoconservative Triumvirate." "The Truth Squad" consists of those who try to talk about statistical analysis and about what is true vs. what we are told is true. "The Heavy Hitters" are the more well-known blogs.
I plan to add more categories.
That is all.
Wow, I Never Knew That
Terrorism in Atlanta?
Michelle Malkin notes a bomb incident at Georgia Tech.
This, along with the suicide bombing in Oklahoma, both happening within 10 days of each otehr, sems suspicious.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
This, along with the suicide bombing in Oklahoma, both happening within 10 days of each otehr, sems suspicious.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
So What About the Subway Attack that Wasn't?
Click here, here, and here for some background.
As I understand it, U.S. forces captured some bombmakers in Iraq, and the informant who led us to them also tipped the U.S. off that a bombing attack was going to occur on the New York City subway system of Sunday.
The attacks did not occur.
So I see four possibilities:
(1) First, our actions prevented the attack
(2) The attacks were planned, but the people in the U.S. who were to carry them out couldn't get their act together.
(3) The informant is not an ally but an enemy, and was feeding us disinformation to scare us. The bombmakers were either falsely so labelled or were given up "sacrificially" in order to give the informant credibility (or may have been terrorists, but the informant was from a rival group rather than opposed to terrorism per se.
(4) The story was fabricated by U.S. officials to scare the populace, either to get more support for the war in Iraq, or to exercise more power over our lives.
I don't see any reason that #4 is likely; even if Bloomberg's increased security turns out to have been unnecessary (if, say, there were no people in the U.S. planning to attack, it sounds to me as if he made the best possible decision given what he knew at the time) and I don't think that the feds would try to drum up support for the War in Iraq by embellishing the current terrorist threat from there, because it would quite likely backfire; that is, people would question why, 2 1/2 years after the invasion, Iraq is a threat to us; it would make our policy in Iraq seem to be less than a success.
Of the three remaining options,I'm not certain that there is yet enough evidence to come to any conclusions. However, in what appears to be the absence of arrests in the U.S. over the information, and due to the fact that the informant failed some sections of a polygraph, I would strongly lead to there being some subterfuge by our informant.
Remember, the most deadly single incident in Iraq was caused not by a bomb but by people's own fears, which caused them to panic and kill each other in a stampede. Whether the deadly "Shiite stampede" was an accident or deliberately provoked by terrorists, this could not have failed to draw the attention of those who wish the U.S. harm.
So was the informant launching a terrorist attack that consisted of terror itself? Perhaps.
We shall see.
That is all.
As I understand it, U.S. forces captured some bombmakers in Iraq, and the informant who led us to them also tipped the U.S. off that a bombing attack was going to occur on the New York City subway system of Sunday.
The attacks did not occur.
So I see four possibilities:
(1) First, our actions prevented the attack
(2) The attacks were planned, but the people in the U.S. who were to carry them out couldn't get their act together.
(3) The informant is not an ally but an enemy, and was feeding us disinformation to scare us. The bombmakers were either falsely so labelled or were given up "sacrificially" in order to give the informant credibility (or may have been terrorists, but the informant was from a rival group rather than opposed to terrorism per se.
(4) The story was fabricated by U.S. officials to scare the populace, either to get more support for the war in Iraq, or to exercise more power over our lives.
I don't see any reason that #4 is likely; even if Bloomberg's increased security turns out to have been unnecessary (if, say, there were no people in the U.S. planning to attack, it sounds to me as if he made the best possible decision given what he knew at the time) and I don't think that the feds would try to drum up support for the War in Iraq by embellishing the current terrorist threat from there, because it would quite likely backfire; that is, people would question why, 2 1/2 years after the invasion, Iraq is a threat to us; it would make our policy in Iraq seem to be less than a success.
Of the three remaining options,I'm not certain that there is yet enough evidence to come to any conclusions. However, in what appears to be the absence of arrests in the U.S. over the information, and due to the fact that the informant failed some sections of a polygraph, I would strongly lead to there being some subterfuge by our informant.
Remember, the most deadly single incident in Iraq was caused not by a bomb but by people's own fears, which caused them to panic and kill each other in a stampede. Whether the deadly "Shiite stampede" was an accident or deliberately provoked by terrorists, this could not have failed to draw the attention of those who wish the U.S. harm.
So was the informant launching a terrorist attack that consisted of terror itself? Perhaps.
We shall see.
That is all.
Interesting Blog
Glaivester readers might want to check out the blog of Dennis Dale. I don't agree with him on everyhting (I am decidedly not secular, for example), but he has some interesting insights.
That is all.
That is all.
My Own Small Way of Helping
VDARE, a site that deals with issues such as immigration, and race relations in America, is in need of cash.
Not having a whole lot of money at the moment, I thought I would do the next best thing, asking my readers to donate if they could.
Here's the link to their donation page.
That is all.
Not having a whole lot of money at the moment, I thought I would do the next best thing, asking my readers to donate if they could.
Here's the link to their donation page.
That is all.
Thoughts on Iraq
A friend recently opined to me that part of the reason why things are not going so well in Iraq may be because the Iraqis are uncertain as to whether we will stay and "get the job done," and may be afraid that Saddam (or other Ba'athists) will come back to power as soon as we leave.
While this theory can be very comforting to pro-warriors, who can see this as a reason to stay in Iraq and as confirmation that the Iraqis love us dearly, I don't see it as accurate.
There are two reasons:
First, the Ba'ath Party has been smashed. We've captured almost the entire "deck of cards." Saddam is our prisoner. The Shiite Arabs outnumber the Sunni Arabs by around three-to-one (four-to-one if the Kurds and Shi'a align against the Sunni Arabs). There is little that could be done now to bring the Ba'ath Party back against the Shiite majority, unless the U.S. actively put them back in power.
Granted, we have promised to help the Iraqi overthrow Saddam before and then backed out, but this is he first time that we have actually overthrown and him and then captured him. I don't think that many Iraqis seriously think that in our absence, Saddam will be released and then gain power again.
Not that people may not be afraid of who will take over if we leave; but they would more likely be afraid of Iran or of Moqtada al-Sadr than of Saddam.
Second, even if much of the populace is afraid of Saddam coming back, it is not entirely clear to me how they would behave in a way more amenable to the U.S. if they were convinced that we would not let him come back. Most of the current problems in Iraq that are threatening to cause chaos are the result of individuals, tribes, and ethnic groups jockeying for position in the new Iraq, none of which is based on the assumption that Saddam could come back.
Put another way, the idea that "fear of American withrawal" is a major obstacle to our goals in Iraq presumes that most Iraqis love us and share our goals for Iraq, but are afraid to say so because they don't want to be on the wrong side if we bug out. If they could jsut be conviunced we would stay, then Iraqis will show themselves for the nice little democracy-lovers that they are.
But I see little evidence that most Iraqis are particularly enamored of us, or that their and our goals for Iraq coincide beyond the short-term. So if we could convince Iraqis that we would stay in large, "whatever-it-takes" numbers for the next five years, and beyond if necessary, I don't think it would dampen the insurgency severely, or cause a sudden outpour of pro-US sentiment.
In fact, increasing conviction that the Ba'athists would not return (and that U.S. troops need no longer defend the Shi'a from such a possibility) may have been a factor in the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr. It may yet cause additional problems for us in the Shiite areas, as the Shi'a become convinced that they no longer need us as a bulwark against the Sunni Arabs, and therefore, can risk offending us.
I think that the flaw in this sort of theorizing lies in trying to look at the Iraq War as having two sides: pro- and anti-Saddam. In reality, there are several sides, each working for their own goals, each motivated by their own drives, and with each responding in their own way to different incentives. There is no single force causing the problems in Iraq; no one side that we can go after, eliminate, and then everything is okay. There is no one explanation for our problems in Iraq that we can use as a clue as to how to improve the situation.
And so we plow on, trying to quench the fires one at a time.
That is all.
While this theory can be very comforting to pro-warriors, who can see this as a reason to stay in Iraq and as confirmation that the Iraqis love us dearly, I don't see it as accurate.
There are two reasons:
First, the Ba'ath Party has been smashed. We've captured almost the entire "deck of cards." Saddam is our prisoner. The Shiite Arabs outnumber the Sunni Arabs by around three-to-one (four-to-one if the Kurds and Shi'a align against the Sunni Arabs). There is little that could be done now to bring the Ba'ath Party back against the Shiite majority, unless the U.S. actively put them back in power.
Granted, we have promised to help the Iraqi overthrow Saddam before and then backed out, but this is he first time that we have actually overthrown and him and then captured him. I don't think that many Iraqis seriously think that in our absence, Saddam will be released and then gain power again.
Not that people may not be afraid of who will take over if we leave; but they would more likely be afraid of Iran or of Moqtada al-Sadr than of Saddam.
Second, even if much of the populace is afraid of Saddam coming back, it is not entirely clear to me how they would behave in a way more amenable to the U.S. if they were convinced that we would not let him come back. Most of the current problems in Iraq that are threatening to cause chaos are the result of individuals, tribes, and ethnic groups jockeying for position in the new Iraq, none of which is based on the assumption that Saddam could come back.
Put another way, the idea that "fear of American withrawal" is a major obstacle to our goals in Iraq presumes that most Iraqis love us and share our goals for Iraq, but are afraid to say so because they don't want to be on the wrong side if we bug out. If they could jsut be conviunced we would stay, then Iraqis will show themselves for the nice little democracy-lovers that they are.
But I see little evidence that most Iraqis are particularly enamored of us, or that their and our goals for Iraq coincide beyond the short-term. So if we could convince Iraqis that we would stay in large, "whatever-it-takes" numbers for the next five years, and beyond if necessary, I don't think it would dampen the insurgency severely, or cause a sudden outpour of pro-US sentiment.
In fact, increasing conviction that the Ba'athists would not return (and that U.S. troops need no longer defend the Shi'a from such a possibility) may have been a factor in the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr. It may yet cause additional problems for us in the Shiite areas, as the Shi'a become convinced that they no longer need us as a bulwark against the Sunni Arabs, and therefore, can risk offending us.
I think that the flaw in this sort of theorizing lies in trying to look at the Iraq War as having two sides: pro- and anti-Saddam. In reality, there are several sides, each working for their own goals, each motivated by their own drives, and with each responding in their own way to different incentives. There is no single force causing the problems in Iraq; no one side that we can go after, eliminate, and then everything is okay. There is no one explanation for our problems in Iraq that we can use as a clue as to how to improve the situation.
And so we plow on, trying to quench the fires one at a time.
That is all.
Is There a Downside to "Standing up to Syria?"
This Newsweek article suggests that indeed, there just might be, and that regime change might not be pretty, or make Syria more pro-American.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
I am a Citizenist
In the recent Sailer vs. Taylor verbal deathmatch, I come down strongly on Steve Sailer's side.
Whereas Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, that is, he thinks that whites should put the interests of white people first, Steve Sailer calls himself a "citizenist," that is, he thinks that Americans (by which I mean U.S. citizens), as well as the U.S. government, should put the interests of Americans first; ahead of those of foreigners, particularly those who are not yet citizens but who wish to become so. That is, the presumption should be that the interests of those who are already U.S. citizens should come first; both to the government, and, presumably, to other U.S. citizens.
[Side note: I am not particularly happy with the fact that U.S. citizens are referred to as "Americans," or that the U.S.A. is often thought of as "America." Technically, anyone living in the western hemisphere is an "American," as the entire western hemisphere is "America." I feel a little as if the U.S. has sort of stolen the term from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.]
I agree that "citizenism" is a better philosophy than any sort of racial solidarity, because ultimately it unites people based on a common culture and geography, and thus makes for less internal civil conflict than ethnic nationalism, which creates sitautions that either involve heavy repression, severe conflict, or both (Iraq, anyone?) Ethnic or racial nationalism as a philsophy would work well, I think, only in a mostly racially homogenous society, and I am not eager to see a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in the US.
I will admit that I may be biased, as I have black, Asian, and Hispanic relatives. But I think that dividing the country will not help us compete in the world, whereas aggressively promoting pour national interests will.
I probably should think more about this and post more specfic thoughts on it, but for the time being, let me identify myself as a citizenist.
That is all.
Whereas Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, that is, he thinks that whites should put the interests of white people first, Steve Sailer calls himself a "citizenist," that is, he thinks that Americans (by which I mean U.S. citizens), as well as the U.S. government, should put the interests of Americans first; ahead of those of foreigners, particularly those who are not yet citizens but who wish to become so. That is, the presumption should be that the interests of those who are already U.S. citizens should come first; both to the government, and, presumably, to other U.S. citizens.
[Side note: I am not particularly happy with the fact that U.S. citizens are referred to as "Americans," or that the U.S.A. is often thought of as "America." Technically, anyone living in the western hemisphere is an "American," as the entire western hemisphere is "America." I feel a little as if the U.S. has sort of stolen the term from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.]
I agree that "citizenism" is a better philosophy than any sort of racial solidarity, because ultimately it unites people based on a common culture and geography, and thus makes for less internal civil conflict than ethnic nationalism, which creates sitautions that either involve heavy repression, severe conflict, or both (Iraq, anyone?) Ethnic or racial nationalism as a philsophy would work well, I think, only in a mostly racially homogenous society, and I am not eager to see a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in the US.
I will admit that I may be biased, as I have black, Asian, and Hispanic relatives. But I think that dividing the country will not help us compete in the world, whereas aggressively promoting pour national interests will.
I probably should think more about this and post more specfic thoughts on it, but for the time being, let me identify myself as a citizenist.
That is all.
Is Sectarian Violence Becoming a Two-Way Street?
It seems that some Sunnis in Baghdad are being targeted for death, allegedly by members of the [Shi'ite] Badr Brigade.
If we are starting to see sectarian violence against the Sunni Arabs (earlier reports were mentioned on Glaivester here, then this is a likely sign that those trying to provoke a civil war have begun to succeed. We'll have to see, though, whether this violence is increasing or maintaining a steady-state (or even if it decreases) before we can be confident in the trends (although total violence agasint Iraqi civilians, or at least the reporting of it, has gone up since March of this year).
That is all.
If we are starting to see sectarian violence against the Sunni Arabs (earlier reports were mentioned on Glaivester here, then this is a likely sign that those trying to provoke a civil war have begun to succeed. We'll have to see, though, whether this violence is increasing or maintaining a steady-state (or even if it decreases) before we can be confident in the trends (although total violence agasint Iraqi civilians, or at least the reporting of it, has gone up since March of this year).
That is all.
Listening to Another Mother of a Dead Soldier
Admittedly, I see Cindy Sheehan as a bit whacko. Which is why I don't post much about her. She does not represent the antiwar movement as I would like to see it (and I think that it was a bad idea for Llewellyn Rockwell to give her a forum at the recent Mises Institute Seminar Series).
Having said that, I think it will be a lot harder to counteract criticism from another mother, who lost her son in Afghanistan rather than Iraq - namely, Mary Tillman, who says her son "believed the US war on Iraq was '[expletive] illegal' and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors." (Yeah, that part about Chomsky irks me, too. Too bad he didn't say, oh, Justin Raimondo instead).
Apparently, despite signing up for the war in Afghanistan, former NFL player Pat Tillman, much beloved by the neocons at the time of his death, was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, and his parents are starting to publicize that fact.
Why would the parents of Pat Tillman publicly express anger at the Bush administration?
I don't know, perhaps the fact that the military lied (by commission, it appears, as well as by omission) to them and everyone else about Tillman's death, which was actually from "friendly fire," might have something to do with it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
Having said that, I think it will be a lot harder to counteract criticism from another mother, who lost her son in Afghanistan rather than Iraq - namely, Mary Tillman, who says her son "believed the US war on Iraq was '[expletive] illegal' and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors." (Yeah, that part about Chomsky irks me, too. Too bad he didn't say, oh, Justin Raimondo instead).
Apparently, despite signing up for the war in Afghanistan, former NFL player Pat Tillman, much beloved by the neocons at the time of his death, was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, and his parents are starting to publicize that fact.
Why would the parents of Pat Tillman publicly express anger at the Bush administration?
I don't know, perhaps the fact that the military lied (by commission, it appears, as well as by omission) to them and everyone else about Tillman's death, which was actually from "friendly fire," might have something to do with it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
Crumbling Like a Cookie?
Stan Goff suggests that Iraq is tearing itself apart.
this is not exactly news, but he provides a lot more details as to what the predominant factors might be. In particular, he focuses a lot on Moqtada al-Sadr.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
That is all for now.
this is not exactly news, but he provides a lot more details as to what the predominant factors might be. In particular, he focuses a lot on Moqtada al-Sadr.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
That is all for now.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
The Vagaries of Blogging
Since I installed Sitemeter, I have noticed an inordinately large number of hits from people using Google Image Search (or some other search) and clicking on pictures of Kristin Lehman portraying the vampiress Urs on the TV show Forever Knight (either this one or this one, both on Kristin2's old Forever Knight website.
(Her new website is here).
When I can determine what the search terms were, they are usually "attractive women," "sexiest vampiress," or "Kristin Lehman."
It all hails back to this post, made more than a year ago, before this blog was a week old.
Disturbingly, someone found my website using search terms indicating that he or she was looking for nude photos of Ms. Lehman, which puzzles me as the term "nude" did not appear at all on my blog that month (by the way, don't worry, Ms. Lehman is not naked in that picture, it is from the Forever Knight episode "Hearts of Darkness," and she is wearing a strapless dress).
It seems to me that more people have found my blog by looking at that picture of Ms. Lehman than from any other search. (Thankfully, very few have found my blog looking for "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction" (shudder)).
The moral of the story is that linknig to pictures of a sexy vampiress is a good way to get traffic on your blog, I guess.
So therefore, here you go, some pictures of Janette (Deborah Duchene) here, here, and here.
That is all.
(Her new website is here).
When I can determine what the search terms were, they are usually "attractive women," "sexiest vampiress," or "Kristin Lehman."
It all hails back to this post, made more than a year ago, before this blog was a week old.
Disturbingly, someone found my website using search terms indicating that he or she was looking for nude photos of Ms. Lehman, which puzzles me as the term "nude" did not appear at all on my blog that month (by the way, don't worry, Ms. Lehman is not naked in that picture, it is from the Forever Knight episode "Hearts of Darkness," and she is wearing a strapless dress).
It seems to me that more people have found my blog by looking at that picture of Ms. Lehman than from any other search. (Thankfully, very few have found my blog looking for "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction" (shudder)).
The moral of the story is that linknig to pictures of a sexy vampiress is a good way to get traffic on your blog, I guess.
So therefore, here you go, some pictures of Janette (Deborah Duchene) here, here, and here.
That is all.
Things I Need to Post On:
New York Subway alleged planned terror incident.
The Oklahoma University student suicide bombing.
That is all.
The Oklahoma University student suicide bombing.
That is all.
David Cohen and Orrin Judd Endorse Torture
Otherwise you are "mollycodling terrorists."
At least, that's what it sounds like they are saying to me.
That is all.
At least, that's what it sounds like they are saying to me.
That is all.
Hee hee hee
Some Stereotypes are Inaccurate
Earlier I was discussing the impact of stereotypes that reflect statistical reality, and their uses.
Stereotypes, on the other hand, that do not reflect statistical reality (a phenomenon discussed in this article) are of course useless - or worse than useless. Of course, such stereotypes need to be rejected or modified. As I pointed out in my semi-quote of Niger Innis, not doing so is when real bigotry begins.
(Although holding on to stereotypes solely for the purpose of ethnic humor and not taking them seriously in real life is okay, particularly if the jokes are compiled by Larry Wilde).
That is all.
Stereotypes, on the other hand, that do not reflect statistical reality (a phenomenon discussed in this article) are of course useless - or worse than useless. Of course, such stereotypes need to be rejected or modified. As I pointed out in my semi-quote of Niger Innis, not doing so is when real bigotry begins.
(Although holding on to stereotypes solely for the purpose of ethnic humor and not taking them seriously in real life is okay, particularly if the jokes are compiled by Larry Wilde).
That is all.
The Treasonous BBC
The BBC is run by traitors.
And no, this has nothing to do with their support, or lack thereof, for the Iraq Attaq.
Dennis Mangan, at The G-Gnome's site, criticizes the British Broadcasting Company for its egalitarian-based support of illegal immigration to the UK.
(And no, I don't mean traitor in the literal, "prosecute them" sense, but darnit, why should Brits pay taxes to support an organization pushing for their displacement)?
That is all.
And no, this has nothing to do with their support, or lack thereof, for the Iraq Attaq.
Dennis Mangan, at The G-Gnome's site, criticizes the British Broadcasting Company for its egalitarian-based support of illegal immigration to the UK.
(And no, I don't mean traitor in the literal, "prosecute them" sense, but darnit, why should Brits pay taxes to support an organization pushing for their displacement)?
That is all.
A Thought on Faith
From my previous post, I disparaged the idea that "faith creates reality." Some people may wonder how a Christian like myself can have a negative opinion toward faith.
Well, it is really simple. Faith is not of any value in itself. The value of faith lies in the object of the faith. Christian faith is valuable because the Christian God is real (I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one).
Faith, however, does not create reality. The Christian God's existence is not affected by the level of our faith.
Likewise, Bush's aide's statement that there is a "faith-based community" and a "reality-based community" (Bush's administration is in the former) is not a statement that should ease Christians (se, the President is a man of faith). What it reather implies to me is that Bush feels that he can do anything if he is just determined enough. That is, will conquers all.
Very dangerous.
That is all.
Well, it is really simple. Faith is not of any value in itself. The value of faith lies in the object of the faith. Christian faith is valuable because the Christian God is real (I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one).
Faith, however, does not create reality. The Christian God's existence is not affected by the level of our faith.
Likewise, Bush's aide's statement that there is a "faith-based community" and a "reality-based community" (Bush's administration is in the former) is not a statement that should ease Christians (se, the President is a man of faith). What it reather implies to me is that Bush feels that he can do anything if he is just determined enough. That is, will conquers all.
Very dangerous.
That is all.
Bush's Number One Butt-Kisser
If anyone doubted that Dicky Poe is willing to sacrifice all of his principles in blind support of Bush, this posting on "Moonbat Central" should leave no doubt.
I will agree that Bork is likely not the great constitutionalist that many conservatives think he is, but to support the nomination of a nearly blank slate with virtually no actual record to look at is madness.
I particularly like this quote:
Trying to micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty would be a sign of waffling on my part, an indication that my confidence in him is wavering.
Click and read the entire comment.
Dicky Poe is in effect implying that he will never criticize Bush no matter what he does. That is, it is not just that he agrees with Bush that Miers is the candidate for the job, or that he supports Bush because he finds himself in agreement with him on all of the issues, but because it is important to him to show faith in George W. Bush for its own sake.
Dicky is exactly the sort of starry-eyed loyalist that Bush likes to surround himself with, and represents Bush's "faith creates reality" philosophy perfectly.
That is all.
I will agree that Bork is likely not the great constitutionalist that many conservatives think he is, but to support the nomination of a nearly blank slate with virtually no actual record to look at is madness.
I particularly like this quote:
Trying to micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty would be a sign of waffling on my part, an indication that my confidence in him is wavering.
Click and read the entire comment.
Dicky Poe is in effect implying that he will never criticize Bush no matter what he does. That is, it is not just that he agrees with Bush that Miers is the candidate for the job, or that he supports Bush because he finds himself in agreement with him on all of the issues, but because it is important to him to show faith in George W. Bush for its own sake.
Dicky is exactly the sort of starry-eyed loyalist that Bush likes to surround himself with, and represents Bush's "faith creates reality" philosophy perfectly.
That is all.
Bush is not a Conservative, Bush is a Fraud
So saith Lawrence Auster.
No wonder his second term is beginning to become characterized by the fallout of scandals. Thus spake Steve Sailer.
That is all.
No wonder his second term is beginning to become characterized by the fallout of scandals. Thus spake Steve Sailer.
That is all.
New York City Subway Terrorist Bombing Threat
I should probably post on this story, but I have been too busy to really check out what is going on. After I get a grip on it, I plan to figure out an opinion and post it.
That is all for now.
That is all for now.
Job Americans Won't Do... as Cheap
Fear the Government
Paul Craig Roberts on why we should be concerned about the Bush administration and its position on torture.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Ol' Vic is at it Again
There is much to disagree with in Victor Davis Hanson's latest screed, but this statement has struch me as the most interesting:
The shortcoming was never the number of U.S troops per se, but our self-imposed straightjacket on rules of engagement that apparently discouraged the vital sorts of offensive operations that we have at last seen the last two months.
Last wo months? We have been hearing about such offensive operations since at least April 2004 with the Fallujah struggle.
But more importantly, what he is actually saying seems to be that we don't need more troops, we need to be more brutal and merciless. Which is exactly what I predicted:
I think that there is only one way that we can win in Iraq. That is to resort to massive anti-Sunni Arab brutality. Even if we caused Syria to close its borders, the insurgency would be going on strong. It might lose its supply of suicide bombers, but it would still have the ability to place IEDs and would still have most of its warriors who fight with guns and mortars.
The only way to stop the insurgency is to convince the Iraqis that any ethnic group that attacks us will be decimated. Currently, that means massive retaliatory attacks against the families and towns of insurgents.
In fact, this statement by Hanson:
The lesson of Vietnam is that the south was more secure in 1973 without almost any American ground troops than with over 500,000 present in 1968. Promises of air power to support ARVN forces between 1971-3 proved about as viable as thousands of prior search-and-destroy patrols by American soldiers.
if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the US ought to use airpower to support offensive operations (and in fact, we did use airpower in Tal Afar. And against guerilla fighters, how would that work, unless we actually level villages? There are claims that we did level entire neighborhoods in Tal Afar, and then imposed a media blackout, but I am not certain how much weight I would give a report from Islam-Online.Net. (Although, considering how little news I hear from Tal Afar, it is reasonable to assume that there was a blackout, and I find it hard to believe that if the situation in Tal Afar was peachy keen that we wouldn't have had some live reports about it from Fox News (even if you accept that most of the mainstream media is antiwar and tries to cover up good news from Iraq as much as possible, only a fool would think that true of Fox).
Back to initial point, though, I think that Mr. Hanson is preaching the exact response that I was afraid we would take, and seems to feel that we are taking it, so it seems that I was prescient in my worries.
That is all.
The shortcoming was never the number of U.S troops per se, but our self-imposed straightjacket on rules of engagement that apparently discouraged the vital sorts of offensive operations that we have at last seen the last two months.
Last wo months? We have been hearing about such offensive operations since at least April 2004 with the Fallujah struggle.
But more importantly, what he is actually saying seems to be that we don't need more troops, we need to be more brutal and merciless. Which is exactly what I predicted:
I think that there is only one way that we can win in Iraq. That is to resort to massive anti-Sunni Arab brutality. Even if we caused Syria to close its borders, the insurgency would be going on strong. It might lose its supply of suicide bombers, but it would still have the ability to place IEDs and would still have most of its warriors who fight with guns and mortars.
The only way to stop the insurgency is to convince the Iraqis that any ethnic group that attacks us will be decimated. Currently, that means massive retaliatory attacks against the families and towns of insurgents.
In fact, this statement by Hanson:
The lesson of Vietnam is that the south was more secure in 1973 without almost any American ground troops than with over 500,000 present in 1968. Promises of air power to support ARVN forces between 1971-3 proved about as viable as thousands of prior search-and-destroy patrols by American soldiers.
if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the US ought to use airpower to support offensive operations (and in fact, we did use airpower in Tal Afar. And against guerilla fighters, how would that work, unless we actually level villages? There are claims that we did level entire neighborhoods in Tal Afar, and then imposed a media blackout, but I am not certain how much weight I would give a report from Islam-Online.Net. (Although, considering how little news I hear from Tal Afar, it is reasonable to assume that there was a blackout, and I find it hard to believe that if the situation in Tal Afar was peachy keen that we wouldn't have had some live reports about it from Fox News (even if you accept that most of the mainstream media is antiwar and tries to cover up good news from Iraq as much as possible, only a fool would think that true of Fox).
Back to initial point, though, I think that Mr. Hanson is preaching the exact response that I was afraid we would take, and seems to feel that we are taking it, so it seems that I was prescient in my worries.
That is all.
Ann Coulter Wants Out of this Quag-Miers
When the Blonde One makes remarks like this about Dubya:
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture...
You know that all is not well in Bushland.
That is all.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture...
You know that all is not well in Bushland.
That is all.
Preparing a New Casus Belli?
The latest accusations against Iran are ominous.
I will say, though, that Iranian involvement in the situation in Basra (for example, supporting the Sadrist protests or the riots) is a heck of a lot more plausible than them supporting the Sunni Arab insurgency.
Obviously, Iran has a lot more to gain from the Shiite Arabs becoming dominant than from the Sunni Arabs becoming dominant, and so it makes much more sense that the Iranians would help the former than the latter.
That is all.
I will say, though, that Iranian involvement in the situation in Basra (for example, supporting the Sadrist protests or the riots) is a heck of a lot more plausible than them supporting the Sunni Arab insurgency.
Obviously, Iran has a lot more to gain from the Shiite Arabs becoming dominant than from the Sunni Arabs becoming dominant, and so it makes much more sense that the Iranians would help the former than the latter.
That is all.
Interesting Article on a Catchphrase.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Iraqi Constitution News
There was a recent change in the Iraqi Constitution that made it harder for the Sunni Arabs to exercise the veto provision. It seemed to be that the referendum was being rigged to insure its passage. This change has been reversed.
First, let me say that I think this is a GOOD THING.
Second, let's ask ourselves, what does this mean? It means that the constitution is less likely to be passed, but (a) if it passes, the Sunni Arabs will likely be marginally more receptive to it, and (b) if it fails, then the situation is still probably going to better than if it passed only because of the new provision. Better not to have a constitution than to have one where one group feels it was railroaded. Not that the Sunni Arabs might not feel that way anyway, but it should marginally improve things.
Not that I am very hopeful for Iraq, but when something does go right, I acknowledge it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully and Yggy.
That is all.
First, let me say that I think this is a GOOD THING.
Second, let's ask ourselves, what does this mean? It means that the constitution is less likely to be passed, but (a) if it passes, the Sunni Arabs will likely be marginally more receptive to it, and (b) if it fails, then the situation is still probably going to better than if it passed only because of the new provision. Better not to have a constitution than to have one where one group feels it was railroaded. Not that the Sunni Arabs might not feel that way anyway, but it should marginally improve things.
Not that I am very hopeful for Iraq, but when something does go right, I acknowledge it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully and Yggy.
That is all.
MADD Gone Mad?
MADD is apparently trying to get sanctions placed on divorce(e)s with children who have even a single drink before driving. Even the founder of MADD thinks that the group has gone too far and has essentially become prohibitionist.
Several concerns are raised here about MADD's possible attempts to overthrow basic constitutional protections.
The general story here, as I see it, appears to be that MADD mostly succeeded at its original mission of preventing most casual drunk driving. After it had done this, it faced becoming a far less important and relevant organization, and driven by the desire to survive and to maintain and increase its influence, decided, as such organizations are wont to do, to expand its mission in order to maintain a raison d'etre. In other words, the power, relevance, and importance of MADD is directly tied to how much of a problem drunk driving is, so the more MADD succeeds in decreasing drunk driving, the less relevant it becomes, unless it gets more "miles" out of each drunk-driving incident. Likewise, as more and more of its agenda keeps getting passed, it has less and less left to fight for unless it keeps adding new items to the agenda, each of which has to be more extreme than the last (unless the organization changes directions, which is unlikely because MADD's membership almost by definition will be more concerned with drunken driving than the general population). Ultimately, a successful single-issue political organization has to either become extremist or else fizzle out.
This seems to be what is happening here.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists.
That is all.
Several concerns are raised here about MADD's possible attempts to overthrow basic constitutional protections.
The general story here, as I see it, appears to be that MADD mostly succeeded at its original mission of preventing most casual drunk driving. After it had done this, it faced becoming a far less important and relevant organization, and driven by the desire to survive and to maintain and increase its influence, decided, as such organizations are wont to do, to expand its mission in order to maintain a raison d'etre. In other words, the power, relevance, and importance of MADD is directly tied to how much of a problem drunk driving is, so the more MADD succeeds in decreasing drunk driving, the less relevant it becomes, unless it gets more "miles" out of each drunk-driving incident. Likewise, as more and more of its agenda keeps getting passed, it has less and less left to fight for unless it keeps adding new items to the agenda, each of which has to be more extreme than the last (unless the organization changes directions, which is unlikely because MADD's membership almost by definition will be more concerned with drunken driving than the general population). Ultimately, a successful single-issue political organization has to either become extremist or else fizzle out.
This seems to be what is happening here.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists.
That is all.
Summing Up the Quag-Miers
I think, when discussing my overall reaction to the nomination, and the overall reaction of just about everyone, I can safely say that I speak for most of us when I say,
WHO?
That is all.
That is all.
Justin Raimondo on the Kurdish Situation
Raimondo has an interesting article where he questions whether the Kurds are the unalloyed "good guys" we have been led to believe.
One thought that does leap out at me in this article is that he seems a little unfair in his assessment of the campaign to "Kurdishize" Kirkuk by replacing Arabs with Kurds. As I understand it, a large number of those Arabs were put there and Kurds were driven out during Saddam's reign. Therefore, I am not certain why re-ethnic cleansing the area would offend Justin more than, say, removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
On the other hand, he is correct, I think, that empowering the Kurds will not necessarily lead to a wonderful, humane, liberal-democratic Iraq. My feeling on the Kurds: they may be "on the right side" as a whole, but that doesn't make them "good guys."
That is all.
One thought that does leap out at me in this article is that he seems a little unfair in his assessment of the campaign to "Kurdishize" Kirkuk by replacing Arabs with Kurds. As I understand it, a large number of those Arabs were put there and Kurds were driven out during Saddam's reign. Therefore, I am not certain why re-ethnic cleansing the area would offend Justin more than, say, removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
On the other hand, he is correct, I think, that empowering the Kurds will not necessarily lead to a wonderful, humane, liberal-democratic Iraq. My feeling on the Kurds: they may be "on the right side" as a whole, but that doesn't make them "good guys."
That is all.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Supreme Court Affirmative Action?
I've heard a few opinions that Harriet Miers was chosen despite her unstellar qualifications for "affirmative action" reasons. That is, Bush wanted a woman to fill a woman's seat (or, if you want to say that Roberts is replacing O'Connor and Miers replacing Rehnquist, to maintain the current gender balance).
Of course, that doesn't explain why he didn't find a woman with better qualifications, such as, say, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen.
To the extent that this was an affirmative action decision, all that it means is that Bush picked an unqualified female crony rather than an unqualified male crony.
That is all.
Of course, that doesn't explain why he didn't find a woman with better qualifications, such as, say, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen.
To the extent that this was an affirmative action decision, all that it means is that Bush picked an unqualified female crony rather than an unqualified male crony.
That is all.
Polygamy and the Netherlands UPDATED
Ampersand questions the reports that this situation in Holland is "polygamy in all but name." I reported on it earlier here.
I am not convinced, because (a) I don't see how "registered partnerships" is distinct from "civil unions" and (b) the fact that the law doesn't allow for three-way registered partnerships doesn't mean that someone won't grant them, law be damned. Lots of things that are theoretically illegal are actually allowed because courts refuse to recognize the law as written.
UPDATE: Looking at the comments of the article on Alas, it appears that the agreement may be something very different from a marriage. Nore on this as it develops.
That is all.
I am not convinced, because (a) I don't see how "registered partnerships" is distinct from "civil unions" and (b) the fact that the law doesn't allow for three-way registered partnerships doesn't mean that someone won't grant them, law be damned. Lots of things that are theoretically illegal are actually allowed because courts refuse to recognize the law as written.
UPDATE: Looking at the comments of the article on Alas, it appears that the agreement may be something very different from a marriage. Nore on this as it develops.
That is all.
A Rebuttal on Recruiting from NRO
Stephen Spruiell says that the Army recruiting shortfall is less bleak than the media has made it out to be, and pat of it is becasue the Army increased it recruitment goals last year. He also points out that the active-duty Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force have met their goals, in a rebuttal of claims that recruiting is in crisis (I previously dealt with the issue here).
On the other hand, there is no mention of how the National Guard or the Reserves are doing.
That is all.
On the other hand, there is no mention of how the National Guard or the Reserves are doing.
That is all.
Another Quag-Miers
Was Miers involved in the Bush's national guard service issue that got so much hub-bub last year?
Stay tuned.
That is all.
Stay tuned.
That is all.
Sully's Support of Fishback
If you would like to support Ian Fishback, here's a post by Andrew Sullivan on how you can send an email of support.
Or, if for some reason you don't want to click to Andrew's site, supportfishback@aol.com is the address to write to.
That is all.
Or, if for some reason you don't want to click to Andrew's site, supportfishback@aol.com is the address to write to.
That is all.
More on Ian Fishback
Andrew Sullivan has the Ian Fishback story. It appears that, if Fishback's testimony holds, torture and mistreatment were not limited to that small group at Abu Ghraib, and were condoned higher up the food chain than we are supposed to believe. In fact, there are some indications that it was condoned all the way to the top.
Money quote:
"Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees."
Which is why all the bellyaching about how releasing the new photos will hurt our troops, and how we alrady have seen what's on them so there is no need to see more is such bunkum. While Bill O'Reilly and the pundits may believe this, it increasingly seems that the administration doesn't want the photos released because it doesn't want any controls on interrogation techniques or any oversight. Put another way, they are not trying to protect "our soldiers," they are trying to cover up prisoner abuse.
Of course, some may argue that US mistreatment is better than what people underwent under Saddam. Yes, but that hardly excuses mistreatment, or the condonement of mistreatment by higher-ups, assuming it occurred.
And then, of course, we get the argument: "but these were terrorists trying to kill us, so why should we worry about their rights?" I will deal with that question tomorrow, as I am getting tired now.
That is all.
Money quote:
"Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees."
Which is why all the bellyaching about how releasing the new photos will hurt our troops, and how we alrady have seen what's on them so there is no need to see more is such bunkum. While Bill O'Reilly and the pundits may believe this, it increasingly seems that the administration doesn't want the photos released because it doesn't want any controls on interrogation techniques or any oversight. Put another way, they are not trying to protect "our soldiers," they are trying to cover up prisoner abuse.
Of course, some may argue that US mistreatment is better than what people underwent under Saddam. Yes, but that hardly excuses mistreatment, or the condonement of mistreatment by higher-ups, assuming it occurred.
And then, of course, we get the argument: "but these were terrorists trying to kill us, so why should we worry about their rights?" I will deal with that question tomorrow, as I am getting tired now.
That is all.
Quag-Miers
Professor Bainbridge has a very strong critique of Bush's choice of Miers (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully).
Essentially, she appears to be a moderate at best, a suck-up, undistinguished, and without conservative credentials. Moreover, her nomination seems to indicate to conservative judges that they'd better try to keep their mouths shut and not "come out of the closet" (i.e. as being conservative) if they want a chance atthe Supreme Court.
George Will is infuriated (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster).
Hugh Hewitt, of course, (who thought that Bush won the first debate, "big time," but his blog archives don't go back that far, so I don't have a link) is busy kissing George W.'s Hugh Hewitt.
Interestingly enough, George Will is, in the same article, also slamming Bush for not vetoing McCain-Feingold, stating that "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." In other words, Will is saying that Bush is not qualified to be President, and could be interpreted as saying he wishes Bush could be impeached.
And look at Michelle Malkin's posts here, here, here, and here.
I'll try to get more for the round-up later, but I think that some conservatives are beginning to get it.
The biggest thing that conservatives have to realize, though, if they want ot have some hope of rescuing "conservatism" from what it has become, is that the problem with Bush is not that he is pandering to Democrats. Put another way, the problem is not that he is an arch-conservative at heart but is too timid to stand up for what he believes in.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LIBERAL WHO IS PLAYING CONSERVATIVES FOR SUCKERS.
Howard Sutherland made this same point, as quoted on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Essentially, she appears to be a moderate at best, a suck-up, undistinguished, and without conservative credentials. Moreover, her nomination seems to indicate to conservative judges that they'd better try to keep their mouths shut and not "come out of the closet" (i.e. as being conservative) if they want a chance atthe Supreme Court.
George Will is infuriated (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster).
Hugh Hewitt, of course, (who thought that Bush won the first debate, "big time," but his blog archives don't go back that far, so I don't have a link) is busy kissing George W.'s Hugh Hewitt.
Interestingly enough, George Will is, in the same article, also slamming Bush for not vetoing McCain-Feingold, stating that "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." In other words, Will is saying that Bush is not qualified to be President, and could be interpreted as saying he wishes Bush could be impeached.
And look at Michelle Malkin's posts here, here, here, and here.
I'll try to get more for the round-up later, but I think that some conservatives are beginning to get it.
The biggest thing that conservatives have to realize, though, if they want ot have some hope of rescuing "conservatism" from what it has become, is that the problem with Bush is not that he is pandering to Democrats. Put another way, the problem is not that he is an arch-conservative at heart but is too timid to stand up for what he believes in.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LIBERAL WHO IS PLAYING CONSERVATIVES FOR SUCKERS.
Howard Sutherland made this same point, as quoted on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Introducing a New Link!
Magic Statistics, a blog by Scott Gilbreath discussing issues of statistical analysis, has now been added to my permanent links list. Please check this blog out.
That is all.
That is all.
Synchronicity
I think that this post by Ziel about the New Orleans refugees and this article about the Army's alteration in its recruiting policy sort of juxtapose nicely, don't you?
(Not that the change in the Army's recruiting policy would actually allow a much larger number of recruits to be taken from the New Orleans refugees, but looking at Ziel's post and then the LA Times' article is sort of humorous.
That is all.
(Not that the change in the Army's recruiting policy would actually allow a much larger number of recruits to be taken from the New Orleans refugees, but looking at Ziel's post and then the LA Times' article is sort of humorous.
That is all.
More on Miers
WorldNetDaily has uncovered some evidence that Harriet Miers may not be much of a conservative.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Another Blog to Look At
Glaivester readers might appreciate Bull's Eye On Immigration, a blog concerned with issues of the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S.
(I'm not certain of Brian (the blogger at BEoI)'s position on legal immigration yet, i.e. should it be reduced, increased, etc.) but his stance on the illegal immigration question seems pretty sound to me.
That is all.
(I'm not certain of Brian (the blogger at BEoI)'s position on legal immigration yet, i.e. should it be reduced, increased, etc.) but his stance on the illegal immigration question seems pretty sound to me.
That is all.
Stereotypes and Their Uses
Steve Sailer directs people to some posts by Bryan Caplan on the Econolog blog.
Most interesting are these two posts that deal with stereotypes:
Crashing into Stereotypes and
How I Fight Statistical Discrimination.
Looking around on the web, I also found this article by Chris Naud of the University of Chicago.
The general argument here is that stereotypes are usually based on statistical truth, that is, groups that are stereotyped to have certain characteristics probably do have those characteristics in greater proportions than the general population. Also, people use stereotypes for the simple fact that trying to "treat people as individuals," i.e. deal with each person on a case-by-case basis, is not always cost-effective, and may be cost-prohibitive. Or put as Mr. Caplan put it, people tend to assume that a person is an average member of whatever group he or she can be seen to belong to until evidence suggests otherwise (obviously, this applies not just to race but to sex, sexual orientation, lodge membership, etc.).
Of course, one may retort that judging based on stereotypes is a sign of ignorance. Well, technically that is true; one pre-judges situations based on partial knowledge. But on the other hand, one might argue that prejudices are how we cope with ignorance; when we don't have all the information, we make the guess that is the most likely to get us the best outcome. We can never totally overcome ignorance unless we become omniscient; moreover, as stated before, information is not cost-free, so getting more information before making a decision is not always practical.
None of this is to say, of course, that government policy should be based on stereotypes per se. Obviously, at the levels of corporations and governments, there are a lot more resources to use to get information, and the consequences of making wrong decisions are a lot greater than at the individual level. Of course, on some level decisions will still be made based on a statistical truth (for example, an insurance actuarial table can't predict who will and won't have accidents, just the likelihood based on a number of factors), but they are based on a huge number of factors including ones that are not immediately obvious.
But on a personal level, decisions often have to be made with very little information, and it isn't always possible to find out someone's age, marital status, their criminal record (or lack thereof), their family history, etc.
In any case, two thoughts occur to me, looking at this.
First, I think that the best way to look at racism is to consider what Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) said during an "audience discussion" after an episode of Any Day Now that dealt particularly heavily with the issue of prejudices.
I can't find the exact quote, but what he said was in essence that the problem isn't people assuming things as much as it is when people refuse to alter their assumptions in the face of contravening evidence.
This, I think, is a good rule of thumb for when prejudice becomes destructive; when it is based not just on ignorance, but on willful ignorance and not subjected to evidence.
Second, any stereotype that is based on statistical truth will get more accurate the larger the population sample you have to deal with, assuming that the sample is representative. For example, if a stereotype about Hispanics is based on statistical truths, it might not apply when you are thinking of hiring a Hispanic for a job, but would likely be very important if you are thinking of moving into a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood (unless, of course, the neighborhood is an unrepresentative one; I would assume that if, for example, the neighborhood consists mainly of people making over 100,000 a year, stereotypes about the general population would be much less accurate as predictors).
Statistics is not as dry a subject as most people think, now, is it?
btw, I also have to see Crash.
That is all.
Most interesting are these two posts that deal with stereotypes:
Crashing into Stereotypes and
How I Fight Statistical Discrimination.
Looking around on the web, I also found this article by Chris Naud of the University of Chicago.
The general argument here is that stereotypes are usually based on statistical truth, that is, groups that are stereotyped to have certain characteristics probably do have those characteristics in greater proportions than the general population. Also, people use stereotypes for the simple fact that trying to "treat people as individuals," i.e. deal with each person on a case-by-case basis, is not always cost-effective, and may be cost-prohibitive. Or put as Mr. Caplan put it, people tend to assume that a person is an average member of whatever group he or she can be seen to belong to until evidence suggests otherwise (obviously, this applies not just to race but to sex, sexual orientation, lodge membership, etc.).
Of course, one may retort that judging based on stereotypes is a sign of ignorance. Well, technically that is true; one pre-judges situations based on partial knowledge. But on the other hand, one might argue that prejudices are how we cope with ignorance; when we don't have all the information, we make the guess that is the most likely to get us the best outcome. We can never totally overcome ignorance unless we become omniscient; moreover, as stated before, information is not cost-free, so getting more information before making a decision is not always practical.
None of this is to say, of course, that government policy should be based on stereotypes per se. Obviously, at the levels of corporations and governments, there are a lot more resources to use to get information, and the consequences of making wrong decisions are a lot greater than at the individual level. Of course, on some level decisions will still be made based on a statistical truth (for example, an insurance actuarial table can't predict who will and won't have accidents, just the likelihood based on a number of factors), but they are based on a huge number of factors including ones that are not immediately obvious.
But on a personal level, decisions often have to be made with very little information, and it isn't always possible to find out someone's age, marital status, their criminal record (or lack thereof), their family history, etc.
In any case, two thoughts occur to me, looking at this.
First, I think that the best way to look at racism is to consider what Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) said during an "audience discussion" after an episode of Any Day Now that dealt particularly heavily with the issue of prejudices.
I can't find the exact quote, but what he said was in essence that the problem isn't people assuming things as much as it is when people refuse to alter their assumptions in the face of contravening evidence.
This, I think, is a good rule of thumb for when prejudice becomes destructive; when it is based not just on ignorance, but on willful ignorance and not subjected to evidence.
Second, any stereotype that is based on statistical truth will get more accurate the larger the population sample you have to deal with, assuming that the sample is representative. For example, if a stereotype about Hispanics is based on statistical truths, it might not apply when you are thinking of hiring a Hispanic for a job, but would likely be very important if you are thinking of moving into a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood (unless, of course, the neighborhood is an unrepresentative one; I would assume that if, for example, the neighborhood consists mainly of people making over 100,000 a year, stereotypes about the general population would be much less accurate as predictors).
Statistics is not as dry a subject as most people think, now, is it?
btw, I also have to see Crash.
That is all.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The Problem with Joseph Farah
Joseph Farah has another column up about the study by Gregory S. Paul correlating the level of religiosity in a society with the level of social dysfunction.
His previous column is here.
Whereas in the previous column he essentially bloviated without saying anything, in this column he points out Dr. Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism. While this may show that Dr. Paul has a bias, it isn't particularly helpful in refuting his claims.
On the other hand, both Steve Sailer here and here and Scott Gilbreath made arguments that showed actual flaws in the study. (Although Gilbreath also points out Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism here).
That's the problem with Joseph Farah; even when he is right about an issue, he doesn't always argue with logic. This reduces his value as an ally considerably.
That is all.
His previous column is here.
Whereas in the previous column he essentially bloviated without saying anything, in this column he points out Dr. Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism. While this may show that Dr. Paul has a bias, it isn't particularly helpful in refuting his claims.
On the other hand, both Steve Sailer here and here and Scott Gilbreath made arguments that showed actual flaws in the study. (Although Gilbreath also points out Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism here).
That's the problem with Joseph Farah; even when he is right about an issue, he doesn't always argue with logic. This reduces his value as an ally considerably.
That is all.
Ian Fishback
I plan to post something about Ian Fishback soon.
He's the "whistleblower" about the administration being deliberately vague about the standards or treating detainees. The only thing is, I haven't read up enough about himyet to feel comfortable putting up an opinion; I want to make certain I get my facts straight first.
Stay tuned.
That is all.
He's the "whistleblower" about the administration being deliberately vague about the standards or treating detainees. The only thing is, I haven't read up enough about himyet to feel comfortable putting up an opinion; I want to make certain I get my facts straight first.
Stay tuned.
That is all.
Miers for Supreme Court?
Earlier I said I would try to post on the nomination of John Roberts. I still get the feeling that he was not the best candidate if Bush's goal was to put a philosophical stamp on the court.
Having said that, his next choice, Harriet Miers, immediately disturbs me, just for the fact that she has never been a judge. I get the impression from listening to Laura Ingraham that a lot of other conservatives are skeptical of her too. In any case, appointing the White House Counsel seems to be a very clear case of cronyism. I will have to find out more about her positions or her political philosophy, though, before I can definitiely say whether she is good or bad.
But the bottom line? It doesn't look good.
That is all.
Having said that, his next choice, Harriet Miers, immediately disturbs me, just for the fact that she has never been a judge. I get the impression from listening to Laura Ingraham that a lot of other conservatives are skeptical of her too. In any case, appointing the White House Counsel seems to be a very clear case of cronyism. I will have to find out more about her positions or her political philosophy, though, before I can definitiely say whether she is good or bad.
But the bottom line? It doesn't look good.
That is all.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Another Interesting Blog
Here's another blog I discovered using the "referral" function of Sitemeter (Obviously, someone clicked on the "next blog" button on the strip on the top of her page). It's an interesting blog to check out, "(a)musings of a grad student."
As a recent grad student myself, I can relate to somne aspects of her position (although she is apparently a student of history, I am a student of biochemistry). Like me, she posts on politics, although she appears to be more liberal than I am.
On the other hand, she posts about Ian Fishback, the detainee abuse whistleblower, and I agree with her about that (i.e. that Fishback is a good guy for reporting the abuse and that the detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib was a bad thing - and [I'm assuming this is her position] that the administration ain't as guiltless as it pretends to be, it wasn't "just a few bad apples" doing the abuse).
In any case, please give her a click. I know from experience that it gives a blogger a little boost to see his or her Sitemeter ratings go up.
That is all.
As a recent grad student myself, I can relate to somne aspects of her position (although she is apparently a student of history, I am a student of biochemistry). Like me, she posts on politics, although she appears to be more liberal than I am.
On the other hand, she posts about Ian Fishback, the detainee abuse whistleblower, and I agree with her about that (i.e. that Fishback is a good guy for reporting the abuse and that the detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib was a bad thing - and [I'm assuming this is her position] that the administration ain't as guiltless as it pretends to be, it wasn't "just a few bad apples" doing the abuse).
In any case, please give her a click. I know from experience that it gives a blogger a little boost to see his or her Sitemeter ratings go up.
That is all.
Three-Way Civil War?
Previously, concerns about civil conflict in Iraq centered on the issue of the Sunni Arabs. But recent events bring up the possibility that the Kurds and the Shiite Arabs may be on the road to some serious strife. President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari appear to be butting heads not only on procedural and symbolic issues, but also on substantive ones as well.
Juan Cole gives us some background, which also suggests that this onlict may wind up involving the Turkmen, a "second-tier" ethnic group in Iraq that has been mostly forgotten.
The conflict revolves around the ethnic cleansing of (many, but not all) Kurds from Kirkuk under Saddam, their replacement with (mostly Shiite) Arabs, and the purported pledge of the Shiite-led government to resettle Kurds in Kirkuk. Essentially, it boils down to whether or not the Kurds will be resettled in time to vote in a referendum as to whether or not Kirkuk joins the Kurdish confederacy. While some Turkmen were displaced in Saddam's ethnic cleansing campaign as well, they might well take hte side of the Shiite Arabs, as they are mostly Shiites as well and as there is bad blood between them and the Kurds.
I would think that any Kurdish/Shiite Arab conflict would be smaller than any Kurdish/Sunni Arab or Shiite Arab/Sunni Arab conflict, as the Kurds and Shiite Arabs do not overlap as much and do not have as much to fight over. But it is certainly possible that Kirkuk itself is considered important enough to start a major war over.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Juan Cole gives us some background, which also suggests that this onlict may wind up involving the Turkmen, a "second-tier" ethnic group in Iraq that has been mostly forgotten.
The conflict revolves around the ethnic cleansing of (many, but not all) Kurds from Kirkuk under Saddam, their replacement with (mostly Shiite) Arabs, and the purported pledge of the Shiite-led government to resettle Kurds in Kirkuk. Essentially, it boils down to whether or not the Kurds will be resettled in time to vote in a referendum as to whether or not Kirkuk joins the Kurdish confederacy. While some Turkmen were displaced in Saddam's ethnic cleansing campaign as well, they might well take hte side of the Shiite Arabs, as they are mostly Shiites as well and as there is bad blood between them and the Kurds.
I would think that any Kurdish/Shiite Arab conflict would be smaller than any Kurdish/Sunni Arab or Shiite Arab/Sunni Arab conflict, as the Kurds and Shiite Arabs do not overlap as much and do not have as much to fight over. But it is certainly possible that Kirkuk itself is considered important enough to start a major war over.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
AIPAC Scandal
Justin Raimondo talks about the AIPAC scandal, in which Larry Franklin has been charged with disseminating classified information.
Juan Cole thinks he goes too far (look a few paragraphs down) and also makes an interesting point: he doesn't beleive that there is a sinister cabal here at work. To the extent that Israel has disproportional influence on our foreign policy, it is simply because they have better lobbies than the other side.
That is all.
Juan Cole thinks he goes too far (look a few paragraphs down) and also makes an interesting point: he doesn't beleive that there is a sinister cabal here at work. To the extent that Israel has disproportional influence on our foreign policy, it is simply because they have better lobbies than the other side.
That is all.
Scooter the Leaker
So Scooter Libby was the Plame Leak - sort of. As Eric Garris points out, Antiwar.com had him pegged back in 2003.
I wish I could say more, but the Plame-Wilson thing has always been complicated, and I never felt that I had enough of a handle on it to definitively say what happened or who was in the right.
That is all for now.
I wish I could say more, but the Plame-Wilson thing has always been complicated, and I never felt that I had enough of a handle on it to definitively say what happened or who was in the right.
That is all for now.
Roberts Repeats his Prediction
Paul Craig Roberts has long suggested that the administration, in order to spread the war without a draft, might decide to resort to using nuclear weapons:
While we are bogged down, what happens if something hits the fan in another part of the world?
Will we be forced to resort to nuclear weapons?
-"Neocons Admit They’ve Blown It – Is The Draft Next?" August 28, 2003
Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons.
-"Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV" Sept. 20, 2003
It is not American "virtue" but nuclear fallout that neocons intend to spread in the Middle East.
-"A Holocaust in the Making" Oct. 27, 2003
Unless they resort to nuclear genocide against the Muslim world, neither candidate has any hope of killing as many terrorists as their policy would create.
-"Liberty is at Stake" Nov. 2, 2004
And now he says:
Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons.
-" Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars" Oct. 1, 2005
Whether or not he is correct in this, it sems to me that it might behoove us to be a little circumspect about Bush's foreign policy; at the very least we need to make certain that he is not actively spoiling for a fight with Iran (or Syria). All things considered, I am not very worried that we will deliberately get into a conflict with North Korea, but I do think that we ought to be cautious about the administration's plans for the countries bordering Iraq.
In any case, read Mr. Robert's columns, they are always quite thought-provoking.
That is all.
While we are bogged down, what happens if something hits the fan in another part of the world?
Will we be forced to resort to nuclear weapons?
-"Neocons Admit They’ve Blown It – Is The Draft Next?" August 28, 2003
Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons.
-"Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV" Sept. 20, 2003
It is not American "virtue" but nuclear fallout that neocons intend to spread in the Middle East.
-"A Holocaust in the Making" Oct. 27, 2003
Unless they resort to nuclear genocide against the Muslim world, neither candidate has any hope of killing as many terrorists as their policy would create.
-"Liberty is at Stake" Nov. 2, 2004
And now he says:
Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons.
-" Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars" Oct. 1, 2005
Whether or not he is correct in this, it sems to me that it might behoove us to be a little circumspect about Bush's foreign policy; at the very least we need to make certain that he is not actively spoiling for a fight with Iran (or Syria). All things considered, I am not very worried that we will deliberately get into a conflict with North Korea, but I do think that we ought to be cautious about the administration's plans for the countries bordering Iraq.
In any case, read Mr. Robert's columns, they are always quite thought-provoking.
That is all.
The End of the World
Jonah Goldberg and Steve Sailer agree on something!
Specifically, they agree that Garance Franke-Ruta is a liar. Although Sailer also thinks that he (or she, does anyone know?) is stupid.
That is all.
Specifically, they agree that Garance Franke-Ruta is a liar. Although Sailer also thinks that he (or she, does anyone know?) is stupid.
That is all.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
September Iraq Round-Up
Via Iraq Coalition Casualty Count:
Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq: 52. 42 American hostile fatalitis, 3 UK hostile fatalities, 7 non-hostile American fatalities.
September wounded U.S. soldiers: 283 as of September 17 (which would extrapolate to 499 if the death rate stayed constant).
Iraqi deaths (choose September):
Iraqi military/security killed: 233
Iraqi civilians killed: 640
The statistics are mostly lower than they have been or about the same as they have been for the past four or five months, except for the civilian deaths, which is the second hiughest it has been since Icasualties started keeping stats in March 2005, and would be the highest were it not for the single incident on August 31 that killed 965 people.
All in all, I don't think that thios month seems to represent much of a change in the insurgency one way or the other.
That is all.
Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq: 52. 42 American hostile fatalitis, 3 UK hostile fatalities, 7 non-hostile American fatalities.
September wounded U.S. soldiers: 283 as of September 17 (which would extrapolate to 499 if the death rate stayed constant).
Iraqi deaths (choose September):
Iraqi military/security killed: 233
Iraqi civilians killed: 640
The statistics are mostly lower than they have been or about the same as they have been for the past four or five months, except for the civilian deaths, which is the second hiughest it has been since Icasualties started keeping stats in March 2005, and would be the highest were it not for the single incident on August 31 that killed 965 people.
All in all, I don't think that thios month seems to represent much of a change in the insurgency one way or the other.
That is all.
The Problem with the Iraqi Army
Chris Roach has an interesting post on why the Iraqi army does not appear to be good at fighting.
I think that in this statement he makes the most important point:
First, policymakers at the highest levels do not understand their own country, why its soldiers fight, and how these two factors relate to one another. Our decisionmakers have said we're a democracy, that this means elections decide things (within certain limits), and that this cosntant change in our political policy is the genius of our system. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our life is much more than a mere democracy, and that our soldiers and countrymen conceive of the nation as a set of concrete traditions and experiences, including the individual experiences of living in America, making choices, and living within certain expectations.
That is a very important point that should particularly resonate with paloeconservatives and paleolibertarians. In short, it is saying that a country, a nation, is not the same thing as the state associated with that nation. Too often ,people think of the U.S. as being defined by the U.S. Governemnt, or of any nation-state as being defined by the state part rather than the nation part.
Of course, this is part of the reason why many people question whether or not Iraq can be kept together; there is some doubt as to whether the people under the Iraqi state are actually a cohesive nation; that is, do they have any ties that bind them all together and that simultaneously define them from those outside Iraq? In short, other than being under the same government, does the term Iraqi have any meaning, and if so, what?
Chris makes another good point:
And it's an empty vessel because mistaken neoconservative policymakers wrongly assumed that the US was an empty vessel, the so-called creedal nation, when in fact U.S. society manifests a coherent way of life for individuals and society that they deem it worth fighting for. In other words, the US as a nation-state actually means something to its military.
So the neocons can't nation-build effectively because they don't understand the copncept of nation, apart from being under the same government. They don't understand how to make Iraq like America (or alternately, why Iraq isn't America) because they don't understand America. They assunme that we are merely a set of political protocols; and that you simply transplant said protocols into another country and you get America! They apparently believe that that is what happened in Japan and Germany after World War II.
This is why I tend to trust realists more than starry-eyed idealists; and why I am a conservative rather than a liberal. Because I think that we need to understand who we were and who we are in order to truly understand what we can be. Because I don't think that we can make something so just because it would be nice. Because I believe in common sense.
That is all.
I think that in this statement he makes the most important point:
First, policymakers at the highest levels do not understand their own country, why its soldiers fight, and how these two factors relate to one another. Our decisionmakers have said we're a democracy, that this means elections decide things (within certain limits), and that this cosntant change in our political policy is the genius of our system. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our life is much more than a mere democracy, and that our soldiers and countrymen conceive of the nation as a set of concrete traditions and experiences, including the individual experiences of living in America, making choices, and living within certain expectations.
That is a very important point that should particularly resonate with paloeconservatives and paleolibertarians. In short, it is saying that a country, a nation, is not the same thing as the state associated with that nation. Too often ,people think of the U.S. as being defined by the U.S. Governemnt, or of any nation-state as being defined by the state part rather than the nation part.
Of course, this is part of the reason why many people question whether or not Iraq can be kept together; there is some doubt as to whether the people under the Iraqi state are actually a cohesive nation; that is, do they have any ties that bind them all together and that simultaneously define them from those outside Iraq? In short, other than being under the same government, does the term Iraqi have any meaning, and if so, what?
Chris makes another good point:
And it's an empty vessel because mistaken neoconservative policymakers wrongly assumed that the US was an empty vessel, the so-called creedal nation, when in fact U.S. society manifests a coherent way of life for individuals and society that they deem it worth fighting for. In other words, the US as a nation-state actually means something to its military.
So the neocons can't nation-build effectively because they don't understand the copncept of nation, apart from being under the same government. They don't understand how to make Iraq like America (or alternately, why Iraq isn't America) because they don't understand America. They assunme that we are merely a set of political protocols; and that you simply transplant said protocols into another country and you get America! They apparently believe that that is what happened in Japan and Germany after World War II.
This is why I tend to trust realists more than starry-eyed idealists; and why I am a conservative rather than a liberal. Because I think that we need to understand who we were and who we are in order to truly understand what we can be. Because I don't think that we can make something so just because it would be nice. Because I believe in common sense.
That is all.