This is an interesting site that I discovered looking through my Sitemeter referrals. (Apparently they found me using the "Next Blog" feature).
That is all.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
Ol' Sully's Latest Hissy Fit
Andrew Sullivan is apparently upset that some "theoconservatives" oppose making the new human papillomavirus vaccine mandatory.
What I find fascinating is that the issue isn't whether or not it should be available but whether or not it should be required. A lot of people are rightly concerned about forcing a vaccine, the long-term consequences of which are unknown, upon people who might never need it, as the disease is totally dependent on exual behavior. Yet supposedly, it is evil and theocratic to suggest that parents ought to control whether or not their children receive a vaccine for a venereal disease.
Ol' Sully shows his hand, though, when he mentions this quote by Michael Specter:
[Religious conservatives] have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available...'With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition' - a medical term for the absence of fear - 'would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.'
What needs to be considered here, of course, is that HIV would be ridiculous as a childhood vaccine. We wouldn't know the long-term side effects for years, and quite frankly, in the developed world only a few small subpopulations (gay males and IV drug users) would need it. It would make no sense to vaccinate anyone else and to expose them to whatever risks are associated with the vaccine.
That is all.
What I find fascinating is that the issue isn't whether or not it should be available but whether or not it should be required. A lot of people are rightly concerned about forcing a vaccine, the long-term consequences of which are unknown, upon people who might never need it, as the disease is totally dependent on exual behavior. Yet supposedly, it is evil and theocratic to suggest that parents ought to control whether or not their children receive a vaccine for a venereal disease.
Ol' Sully shows his hand, though, when he mentions this quote by Michael Specter:
[Religious conservatives] have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available...'With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition' - a medical term for the absence of fear - 'would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.'
What needs to be considered here, of course, is that HIV would be ridiculous as a childhood vaccine. We wouldn't know the long-term side effects for years, and quite frankly, in the developed world only a few small subpopulations (gay males and IV drug users) would need it. It would make no sense to vaccinate anyone else and to expose them to whatever risks are associated with the vaccine.
That is all.
Peters v. Derbyshire
John Derbyshire makes an interesting comparison of Ralph Peter's recent trip to Iraq with the "three-week sinologists" who went to China and were subjected to propaganda "education" by their Chinese "interpreters and guides" who were actually with the secret police.
Although he slightly hints at it, Derbyshire does not, however, ask the most important question: Is Peters comparable to the "three-week sinologist," or to the "interpreters and guides?" That is, has he been snookered by the propaganda, or is he a willing purveyor of propaganda?
That is all.
Although he slightly hints at it, Derbyshire does not, however, ask the most important question: Is Peters comparable to the "three-week sinologist," or to the "interpreters and guides?" That is, has he been snookered by the propaganda, or is he a willing purveyor of propaganda?
That is all.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Can You Say "Ironic?" I Knew You Could
Apparently, some gay cry-babies are upset that Brokeback Mountain didn't win more awards:
"I think [Crash winning the best picture award] an absolute horror," said Brad Bruner, who is a leader in the Golden State Gay Rodeo Association. "It's an outright sign of homophobia in our country. ('Crash') won no awards before this. It makes me sick."
Yes, there is a lot of homophobia at the academy. As we all know, if Brokeback Mountain had been about a love affair between a man and a woman in the same situation, it would have won a lot more awards.
As if. Let's be honest. The "gay factor" is the only reason why the movie was nominatedin the first place.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Russell Wardlow and Steve Sailer.
That is all.
"I think [Crash winning the best picture award] an absolute horror," said Brad Bruner, who is a leader in the Golden State Gay Rodeo Association. "It's an outright sign of homophobia in our country. ('Crash') won no awards before this. It makes me sick."
Yes, there is a lot of homophobia at the academy. As we all know, if Brokeback Mountain had been about a love affair between a man and a woman in the same situation, it would have won a lot more awards.
As if. Let's be honest. The "gay factor" is the only reason why the movie was nominatedin the first place.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Russell Wardlow and Steve Sailer.
That is all.
Guest Worker Costs and Benefits: Now You See 'Em, Now You Don't
Steve Sailer references an article by Robert Samuelson about the illegal aien issue (I don't just say "illegal immigrant" because the problem really is illegal entry into this country, not just illegal entry by those who wish to stay here permanently.
This reminds me of an earlier tongue-in-cheek proposal I made that we allow guest Mexican guest workers into the country, but suggested that "an essential part of any alien guest-worker program is a massive spaying/neutering campaign."
Dan Tarrant responded (sarcastically, folks, he is not actually advocating genocide) with:
"Good point, perhaps we can exterminate them when they're too old to do our s**t work."
What his point seemed to be was that if we want the Mexicans to do our "s**t work," we should have to take care of them.
But that is the point; that we do have to take care of them, and that no one ever mentions these costs when they talk about how helpful all that cheap Mexican labor is. Moreover, the distinction between immigrants and guest workers, which the pro-alien advocates are always making, disappears to a large extent when you consider that a guest worker just needs to get pregnant and manage to give birth inside the country in order to create a new citizen with all of the rights and bebfits that go along with that. Of course, birthright citizenship is never brought up by the Wall Street Journals of the world.
I remember suggesting to a friend (who had made the usual statement that aliens benefitted the economy by giving us cheap labor) that if we allowed aliens to work here, the companies hiring them should obligate themselves to pay their medical bills. He said that that was an unfair idea, tghe whole point would be to discourage the hiring of illegals.
Of course, he didn't realize that he was tacitly admitting that illegal aliens in the current system wind up using public health care resources.
The point is, it's not honest to ignore issues such as the alien use of public resources or birthright citizenship for the babies of so-called "temporary guest workers" when discussing their benefits, and then to bring them up again when you want to guilt the native-born into providing them, and to shame them for using the Mexicans as the cheap, expendable labor (their status as such being their main selling point in the first place).
If you think that it is wrong to use the Mexicans to "do our s**t work," then throw them away, then please don't try to make their status as cheap and expendable an argument for letting them into the country!
That is all.
This reminds me of an earlier tongue-in-cheek proposal I made that we allow guest Mexican guest workers into the country, but suggested that "an essential part of any alien guest-worker program is a massive spaying/neutering campaign."
Dan Tarrant responded (sarcastically, folks, he is not actually advocating genocide) with:
"Good point, perhaps we can exterminate them when they're too old to do our s**t work."
What his point seemed to be was that if we want the Mexicans to do our "s**t work," we should have to take care of them.
But that is the point; that we do have to take care of them, and that no one ever mentions these costs when they talk about how helpful all that cheap Mexican labor is. Moreover, the distinction between immigrants and guest workers, which the pro-alien advocates are always making, disappears to a large extent when you consider that a guest worker just needs to get pregnant and manage to give birth inside the country in order to create a new citizen with all of the rights and bebfits that go along with that. Of course, birthright citizenship is never brought up by the Wall Street Journals of the world.
I remember suggesting to a friend (who had made the usual statement that aliens benefitted the economy by giving us cheap labor) that if we allowed aliens to work here, the companies hiring them should obligate themselves to pay their medical bills. He said that that was an unfair idea, tghe whole point would be to discourage the hiring of illegals.
Of course, he didn't realize that he was tacitly admitting that illegal aliens in the current system wind up using public health care resources.
The point is, it's not honest to ignore issues such as the alien use of public resources or birthright citizenship for the babies of so-called "temporary guest workers" when discussing their benefits, and then to bring them up again when you want to guilt the native-born into providing them, and to shame them for using the Mexicans as the cheap, expendable labor (their status as such being their main selling point in the first place).
If you think that it is wrong to use the Mexicans to "do our s**t work," then throw them away, then please don't try to make their status as cheap and expendable an argument for letting them into the country!
That is all.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Music to My Ears
Steve Sailer talks about New Wave music, a subject near and dear to my heart. Of course, as a person who was born in 1978, I wasn't very much into them when they first came out (I was either not born yet, not conceived yet, or a baby), but in 1994, when VH1 had a "Whatever Happened To.." special, I got into the early 80s big time (that was back when MTV and VH1 remember that they were there to play musivc videos, not so we could see fatso celebrities lose weight, or watch Brigitte Nielsen have a love affair with a black Viking). [Come to think of it, Duran Duran (in their Thank You album
) covered one of his songs].
I especially found Sailer's analysis of Devo and Talking Heads to be insightful:
So, when "Devo" did their robotic demolition of the Rolling Stones's "Satisfaction," the message was that you didn't have to pretend anymore that you were cool like Mick Jagger, that you were what Norman Mailer praised as a "White Negro." You were a white nerd instead and that was who you were.
Ah, so that's why I love that version so much. Maybe I will pop my The Complete Truth About De-Evolution DVD into the DVD player and listen to it (and watch the video) tonight.
That is all.
.jpg){kind=link}
) covered one of his songs].I especially found Sailer's analysis of Devo and Talking Heads to be insightful:
So, when "Devo" did their robotic demolition of the Rolling Stones's "Satisfaction," the message was that you didn't have to pretend anymore that you were cool like Mick Jagger, that you were what Norman Mailer praised as a "White Negro." You were a white nerd instead and that was who you were.
Ah, so that's why I love that version so much. Maybe I will pop my The Complete Truth About De-Evolution
DVD into the DVD player and listen to it (and watch the video) tonight. That is all.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Monday, March 06, 2006
Why I Don't Trust Joseph Farah
Why, you ask, in a previous post, did I point to this article as proof of Joe Farah's mendacity?
Simple. Because he is advocating the transfer of the Palestinians to Iraq and doesn't have the guts to say so.
I don't mind him advocating such, but when he gets upset when someone writes about it and someone else calls him on it, he is being a grade-A jackass, as the person who called him on it points out.
Here is what Farah writes in his defense:
Again, I've written a great deal about the subject of the Palestinian Authority, the corruptness of its government and the culture of death it breeds, but I have never advocated the forcible relocation of any people. Anyone who knows me and my writing knows that I stand first and foremost for freedom – freedom for all people, Muslim, Arab and Christian.
And that's why Linda Heard can't cite a single quotation from me to support any of the wild accusations she makes. I never said any of those things.
But if you look at the earlier piece I linked to, it is obvious htat relocation is what he has in mind:
And it should be a time for the Iraqi people to confront their sins and pay for them – to make restitution...
et, the victims of the forced Jewish dispersal 50 years ago should not be forgotten. With the liberation of Iraq comes the opportunity for restitution of that very recent wrong.
How should that debt be paid? Not with money, but with an apology to the Jews by the new government and a pledge to help resolve the Arab refugee crisis in the same way Israel resolved the Jewish refugee crisis.
What he is saying is that displaced Palestinian refugees should be sent to Iraq.
Of course, in reality the population transfer he really cares about is ethnically cleansing any Lebanese Muslims who do not want the government to dominated by Maronite Christians. The current government is not very ethnically representative, but he would rather the population be altered to fit the government rather than vice versa. I have commented on this here, here, here, here, and here.
That is all.
Simple. Because he is advocating the transfer of the Palestinians to Iraq and doesn't have the guts to say so.
I don't mind him advocating such, but when he gets upset when someone writes about it and someone else calls him on it, he is being a grade-A jackass, as the person who called him on it points out.
Here is what Farah writes in his defense:
Again, I've written a great deal about the subject of the Palestinian Authority, the corruptness of its government and the culture of death it breeds, but I have never advocated the forcible relocation of any people. Anyone who knows me and my writing knows that I stand first and foremost for freedom – freedom for all people, Muslim, Arab and Christian.
And that's why Linda Heard can't cite a single quotation from me to support any of the wild accusations she makes. I never said any of those things.
But if you look at the earlier piece I linked to, it is obvious htat relocation is what he has in mind:
And it should be a time for the Iraqi people to confront their sins and pay for them – to make restitution...
et, the victims of the forced Jewish dispersal 50 years ago should not be forgotten. With the liberation of Iraq comes the opportunity for restitution of that very recent wrong.
How should that debt be paid? Not with money, but with an apology to the Jews by the new government and a pledge to help resolve the Arab refugee crisis in the same way Israel resolved the Jewish refugee crisis.
What he is saying is that displaced Palestinian refugees should be sent to Iraq.
Of course, in reality the population transfer he really cares about is ethnically cleansing any Lebanese Muslims who do not want the government to dominated by Maronite Christians. The current government is not very ethnically representative, but he would rather the population be altered to fit the government rather than vice versa. I have commented on this here, here, here, here, and here.
That is all.
Ralph Peters on the Civil War
Ralph Peters has an article out:
I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.
And maybe Ralphie boy's a freakin' liar.
That is all.
I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.
And maybe Ralphie boy's a freakin' liar.
That is all.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing
Osama bin Farah has put out another of his maddeningly vague articles describing how we are to achieve victory in the war on terror.
Like much of what he has written before regarding the Middle East, [I'll explain this later if you don't understand what I am referring to] what he actually wants is written between the lines (is that why he calls his column "between the lines," because that is how he expects people to read it).
He hides behind terms such as "no more appeasement" and "destroy the bad guys" but tends to avoid discussing exactly what type of policy that ought to entail.
What he seems to be suggesting is that we are coddling the enemy, and being more forgiving to those who attack us than we ought to be. Farah encourages us to forgo this attitude, recalling (surprise, surprise) World War II:
It didn't seem preposterous, cruel, barbaric and uncivilized when we were fighting for our lives against the Nazis and imperial Japan to do whatever it required to win. And it is no more preposterous, cruel, barbaric and uncivilized to destroy evil people and evil regimes now.
I say this as an American of Arabic heritage and a journalist who has covered this part of the world for 25 years. It's time to stop pussyfooting around and destroy the enemy. Yes, in the short run, it will mean more lives lost. In the long run, it is our only chance for peace and freedom and the preservation of many more innocent lives.
Shorter Farah: we are trying to be nice to the terrorists. That is our problem, that we are not trying to kill them.
Poppycock. The problem to solve in any anti-terrorism, counterinsurgency or anti-guerilla campaign is not how to kill the bad guys but how to find them, and only them. It's the sort of problem that occurs in probability classes, known as type A and type B errors, aka false negatives and false positives. The more cautious you are about determining when and how to target someone, the fewer terrorists you kill, but the fewer civilians die as well (and presumably, the smalle the proportion of the dead who are civilians). The more cautious you are about not letting the enemy get away, the more civilians you will kill, and in all likelihood the greater the proportion of those you kill will be civilians. Say there are 100 insurgents in a population of 1000. You kill or capture anyone you suspect of being an insurgent. If you use stringent criteria (A), you get 50 insurgents and 20 civilians. You use (B), you get 90 insurgents and 200 civilians.
There is another problem, and that is that even if you know who the terrorists are, the safest way (from our perspective) to kill them is also the way with the most collateral damage. If we bomb them from overhead, we will destroy a lot of buildings and in all likelihood a lot of inccoents. On the otehr hand, if we take pains to minimize colalteral damage, we will need to use more dangerous techniques such as searching door-to-door, which put our troops in harm's way.
A third factor is that the larger the footprint we leave, the more people we alienate and the more people will want to join the insurgency. So being "tougher," while it may result in more bad guys killed and may intimidate some people away from becoming bad guys, also has the perverse effect of angering some people into becoming bad guys or at least into sympathizing with them. Which means that any attempt to be tougher has to be tough enough to scare the people more than it angers them and to kill not only the current bad guys, but those most liable to become bad guys with prodding.
Comparing what we need to do in this war to whatwe needed to do to win World War II is ludicrous, because they are entirely different sorts of wars. World War II was a straight-up nation-to-nation terrirtory-taking war, where the goal was to destroy and demoralize the other side's army and to capture them, and to drive them out of areas they had conquered. You won by taking territory and by killing and capturing soldiers in a finite and well-defined army. In such a war, it is usually easy to tell who is the enemy and who isn't and to act accordingly. It is also clear when you are winning, because the enemy loses territory and the size and/or quality of its army is reduced (initially, dead soldiers are easy to replace, but the replacements tend to be lower quality because the highest-quality soldiers are already taken).
This would be comparable to the war we fought to conquer Iraq initially. But after we took Iraq, we shifted into occupation mode. This is a totally different sort of war, and getting tougher inevitable means treating the civilians as if they were soldiers.
So if you read between the lines, what Mr. Farah is saying, regarding Iraq at least, is that we need to go in and slaughter the populace. Or at least whatever sections (ethnic or geographic) of the populace the insurgency is most likely to come from. He has advocated this before, of course.
He also appears to be advocating that we expand the war. He specifically mentions Iran, but he has in the past suggested that we invade Syria. But his recent articles on Syria and Iran have both suffered from is unwillingness to propose any specific policies towards "getting tough" with them, claiming that he "doesn't know our strategic options," which is another way of saying that (1)if we invade and it goes south, he can deny any responsibility by simply claiming that we handled it in the "wrong way," (2) that he can shield himself from any accountability if the way that the U.S. decides to handle Syria results in devastation (that is, he can always claim, e.g. "well, we could've just supported the Syrian people surreptiously in their obvious desire to overthrow the regime themselves a la Michael Ledeen, and/or (3) his actual plan involves mass slaughter of Syrians, and he is too cowardly to say so.
Well, what about it, Joey? Care to say how you really feel?
That is all.
Like much of what he has written before regarding the Middle East, [I'll explain this later if you don't understand what I am referring to] what he actually wants is written between the lines (is that why he calls his column "between the lines," because that is how he expects people to read it).
He hides behind terms such as "no more appeasement" and "destroy the bad guys" but tends to avoid discussing exactly what type of policy that ought to entail.
What he seems to be suggesting is that we are coddling the enemy, and being more forgiving to those who attack us than we ought to be. Farah encourages us to forgo this attitude, recalling (surprise, surprise) World War II:
It didn't seem preposterous, cruel, barbaric and uncivilized when we were fighting for our lives against the Nazis and imperial Japan to do whatever it required to win. And it is no more preposterous, cruel, barbaric and uncivilized to destroy evil people and evil regimes now.
I say this as an American of Arabic heritage and a journalist who has covered this part of the world for 25 years. It's time to stop pussyfooting around and destroy the enemy. Yes, in the short run, it will mean more lives lost. In the long run, it is our only chance for peace and freedom and the preservation of many more innocent lives.
Shorter Farah: we are trying to be nice to the terrorists. That is our problem, that we are not trying to kill them.
Poppycock. The problem to solve in any anti-terrorism, counterinsurgency or anti-guerilla campaign is not how to kill the bad guys but how to find them, and only them. It's the sort of problem that occurs in probability classes, known as type A and type B errors, aka false negatives and false positives. The more cautious you are about determining when and how to target someone, the fewer terrorists you kill, but the fewer civilians die as well (and presumably, the smalle the proportion of the dead who are civilians). The more cautious you are about not letting the enemy get away, the more civilians you will kill, and in all likelihood the greater the proportion of those you kill will be civilians. Say there are 100 insurgents in a population of 1000. You kill or capture anyone you suspect of being an insurgent. If you use stringent criteria (A), you get 50 insurgents and 20 civilians. You use (B), you get 90 insurgents and 200 civilians.
There is another problem, and that is that even if you know who the terrorists are, the safest way (from our perspective) to kill them is also the way with the most collateral damage. If we bomb them from overhead, we will destroy a lot of buildings and in all likelihood a lot of inccoents. On the otehr hand, if we take pains to minimize colalteral damage, we will need to use more dangerous techniques such as searching door-to-door, which put our troops in harm's way.
A third factor is that the larger the footprint we leave, the more people we alienate and the more people will want to join the insurgency. So being "tougher," while it may result in more bad guys killed and may intimidate some people away from becoming bad guys, also has the perverse effect of angering some people into becoming bad guys or at least into sympathizing with them. Which means that any attempt to be tougher has to be tough enough to scare the people more than it angers them and to kill not only the current bad guys, but those most liable to become bad guys with prodding.
Comparing what we need to do in this war to whatwe needed to do to win World War II is ludicrous, because they are entirely different sorts of wars. World War II was a straight-up nation-to-nation terrirtory-taking war, where the goal was to destroy and demoralize the other side's army and to capture them, and to drive them out of areas they had conquered. You won by taking territory and by killing and capturing soldiers in a finite and well-defined army. In such a war, it is usually easy to tell who is the enemy and who isn't and to act accordingly. It is also clear when you are winning, because the enemy loses territory and the size and/or quality of its army is reduced (initially, dead soldiers are easy to replace, but the replacements tend to be lower quality because the highest-quality soldiers are already taken).
This would be comparable to the war we fought to conquer Iraq initially. But after we took Iraq, we shifted into occupation mode. This is a totally different sort of war, and getting tougher inevitable means treating the civilians as if they were soldiers.
So if you read between the lines, what Mr. Farah is saying, regarding Iraq at least, is that we need to go in and slaughter the populace. Or at least whatever sections (ethnic or geographic) of the populace the insurgency is most likely to come from. He has advocated this before, of course.
He also appears to be advocating that we expand the war. He specifically mentions Iran, but he has in the past suggested that we invade Syria. But his recent articles on Syria and Iran have both suffered from is unwillingness to propose any specific policies towards "getting tough" with them, claiming that he "doesn't know our strategic options," which is another way of saying that (1)if we invade and it goes south, he can deny any responsibility by simply claiming that we handled it in the "wrong way," (2) that he can shield himself from any accountability if the way that the U.S. decides to handle Syria results in devastation (that is, he can always claim, e.g. "well, we could've just supported the Syrian people surreptiously in their obvious desire to overthrow the regime themselves a la Michael Ledeen, and/or (3) his actual plan involves mass slaughter of Syrians, and he is too cowardly to say so.
Well, what about it, Joey? Care to say how you really feel?
That is all.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Contra Juan Cole
Diana Moon questions the assertion that "Iraqis" do not naturally suffer from ethnic strife.
This is an argument often used by Juan Cole to support his thesis that most of the problems in Iraq stem directly from western intervention, and not from problems with the Iraqis themselves.
Although I agree that political/military intervention in the Middle East is a bad idea, I think that part of the reason why it is bad is because of pre-exidting problems that we don't understand and don't know how to deal with.
So, in short, I am going with Ms. Moon on this one.
That is all.
This is an argument often used by Juan Cole to support his thesis that most of the problems in Iraq stem directly from western intervention, and not from problems with the Iraqis themselves.
Although I agree that political/military intervention in the Middle East is a bad idea, I think that part of the reason why it is bad is because of pre-exidting problems that we don't understand and don't know how to deal with.
So, in short, I am going with Ms. Moon on this one.
That is all.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Coalition Hostile Deaths < 50 for January, < 50 for February
A predictions I made at the start of the year:
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
Accurate so far.
That is all.
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
Accurate so far.
That is all.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
More on Ralph Peters
After my previous post on Ralph Peter's article on Iraq (free registration required), I couldn't help but notice how often he mentions a particular project, rebuilding a water-processing plant:
After inspecting a number of antiquated water-processing plants, where Gandara offered tough love and tools to Iraqi managers (he'll deliver expertise and spare parts, but won't do their work for them)...
...Gandara and his men are here to save the children's lives. The "minor" project is a nearly completed "compact sewage-treatment plant." Built from scratch for relative pennies, the plant will drain the sewage that routinely backs up into alleys and homes while further polluting a wretched water supply...
...But because of one small project (and there are hundreds such in Iraq), 10,000 of our fellow human beings won't have to live with sewage in their streets and shanties. That makes a real, human difference...
...What about those 10,000 dirt-poor Iraqis whose children will have a chance to escape disease? The old regime wouldn't spare them a few pipes and pumps. Isn't exposing a child to cholera while building palaces for yourself a human-rights abuse?
Nowhere, of course, does he mention one key reason why these water-processing plants are in such bad shape to begin with.
After inspecting a number of antiquated water-processing plants, where Gandara offered tough love and tools to Iraqi managers (he'll deliver expertise and spare parts, but won't do their work for them)...
...Gandara and his men are here to save the children's lives. The "minor" project is a nearly completed "compact sewage-treatment plant." Built from scratch for relative pennies, the plant will drain the sewage that routinely backs up into alleys and homes while further polluting a wretched water supply...
...But because of one small project (and there are hundreds such in Iraq), 10,000 of our fellow human beings won't have to live with sewage in their streets and shanties. That makes a real, human difference...
...What about those 10,000 dirt-poor Iraqis whose children will have a chance to escape disease? The old regime wouldn't spare them a few pipes and pumps. Isn't exposing a child to cholera while building palaces for yourself a human-rights abuse?
Nowhere, of course, does he mention one key reason why these water-processing plants are in such bad shape to begin with.
On Stupidity and "Certified Great Men"
More than five years ago, Joseph Stromberg, in a piece about discredited anti-gun authoer Michael Bellesiles, wrote an article that included a lot of mocking of the idea that all of history is dependent not on the decisions of the masses, or on impersonal forces that come about as the emergent properties of societies, but rather through the actions of "Certified Great Men."
Indeed, there is a tendency in punditry to assume, at least in rhetoric, that particular individuals are the sole cause for certain occurrences that determine the course of history, particularly when things go wrong; we hear about whether someone would shoot and kill Hitler as a boy to prevent him from coming to power, with the apparent assumption that Hitler alone caused the rise of Nazism and that he was an indispensible cause of World War II and the Holocaust, and not in any way a product of cultural forces and whatnot that might have produced another just like him were he not there.
This is particularly true for those who want to start a democratic "crusade" based on the idea that freedom and democracy are the "natural state" of humanity. Obviously, to assume such requires some explanation for why in so much of the world humankind engages in the exotic and perverse practice of dictatorship, oppression, etc.
The naturak assumption is that somehow an evil dictator is preventing the people's natural desire to be like us from coming to pass.
In this vein is Ralph Peter's latest little article, with the rip-roaring line:
Saddam didn't just ravage the physical infrastructure — he wrecked the moral infrastructure, too. The recovery will be long and often painful. But the patient wants to get better, something that's easily lost amid skewed headlines.
This, of course, assumes that Iraq was just like us, or at least was in the embryonic stages of developing into a western society, prior to the takeover by Saddam.
Of course, John Derbyshire, the loveable old curmudgeon, sets things straight, quoting some sources on pre-Saddam history:
"[Shia and Kurdish cities] have consequently experienced one atrocity after another in a succession of attempted coups and uprisings, massacres, assassinations, and communal bloodletting...In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television..."
That wicked Saddam, ruining all that fine moral infrastructure!
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Indeed, there is a tendency in punditry to assume, at least in rhetoric, that particular individuals are the sole cause for certain occurrences that determine the course of history, particularly when things go wrong; we hear about whether someone would shoot and kill Hitler as a boy to prevent him from coming to power, with the apparent assumption that Hitler alone caused the rise of Nazism and that he was an indispensible cause of World War II and the Holocaust, and not in any way a product of cultural forces and whatnot that might have produced another just like him were he not there.
This is particularly true for those who want to start a democratic "crusade" based on the idea that freedom and democracy are the "natural state" of humanity. Obviously, to assume such requires some explanation for why in so much of the world humankind engages in the exotic and perverse practice of dictatorship, oppression, etc.
The naturak assumption is that somehow an evil dictator is preventing the people's natural desire to be like us from coming to pass.
In this vein is Ralph Peter's latest little article, with the rip-roaring line:
Saddam didn't just ravage the physical infrastructure — he wrecked the moral infrastructure, too. The recovery will be long and often painful. But the patient wants to get better, something that's easily lost amid skewed headlines.
This, of course, assumes that Iraq was just like us, or at least was in the embryonic stages of developing into a western society, prior to the takeover by Saddam.
Of course, John Derbyshire, the loveable old curmudgeon, sets things straight, quoting some sources on pre-Saddam history:
"[Shia and Kurdish cities] have consequently experienced one atrocity after another in a succession of attempted coups and uprisings, massacres, assassinations, and communal bloodletting...In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television..."
That wicked Saddam, ruining all that fine moral infrastructure!
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Science Fiction Movie Ideas
Two ideas for a science fiction movie dealing with time travel:
I have a solution for time-travel causality paradoxes, one that I haven't heard suggested before:
What if time travel paradoxes are resolved by the scenario adjusting to some sort of equilibrium? For example, if oyu go back in time and kill your father before you are conceived, everything shifts around so that it is someone else who goes back in time and kills your father, for some reason. Or so that you don't go back in time and he doesn't die.
The movie (actually a short story would work as well) would have someone traveling back in time, and for some reason shoot their father (perhaps just as an experiment). There would probably be a lot of stuff happening in the interim, of cousre. What the audience would see is the time traveler shooting, then the camera would pan away to the father getting hit and dying.
Then when the camera goes back to the time traveler, it is a totally different person. They say "darn, shot the wrong person" or something to that effect. Or perhaps when the camera goes back, it is a different person, not holding a gun, and then the camera pans back to the father, who is perfectly fine and who was never shot. The possibilites are endless.
The other idea would involve the concept that certain souls have to exist, regardless of who is born. What would happen would be that a bunch of people find a time machine in an old ruin that is rumored to be the site of an alien space ship crash. Activating it by mistake (it's like a watch that one of them wears), they become time travelers and travel further and further back into the past, unable to find a way to get into the future again. As they wind up altering events in their own lives, they keep changing; one character gets a tattoo, another loses an arm, etc. But the whole time they remember the original timeline. Finally they go back to before they were born. As they start altering things that prevent them from being born, they start turning into other people. One character, who was the product of a one-night stand, mistakenly gets his mother to choose a different guy (the two guys she chooses should be different races or somehow be very distinguishable from one another). He immediately changes so that this features resemble the new guy. Other characters change sex. But they all remember being the person they originally were.
Finally they go back to the time when the alien spaceship supposedly crashed. Desperate to return to normal, the one who is carrying the "watch" suggests that they find the watch in the older ship and destroy it. They do find the time device in the newly crashed ship, and after confronting the aliens on the ship, convince them to destroy the device (one of the time tavelers worries that if they destroy the watch themselves, they'll create a paradox, but reasons that the aliens who created the device would know how to avoid that - he is correct). They do, and the device on the guy's wrist dissolves and all of the time travelers are suddenly back at the alien ship in the present where this all started, all of them with a memory of what happened, but without any of it having happened. Everyone is back to normal.
That is all.
I have a solution for time-travel causality paradoxes, one that I haven't heard suggested before:
What if time travel paradoxes are resolved by the scenario adjusting to some sort of equilibrium? For example, if oyu go back in time and kill your father before you are conceived, everything shifts around so that it is someone else who goes back in time and kills your father, for some reason. Or so that you don't go back in time and he doesn't die.
The movie (actually a short story would work as well) would have someone traveling back in time, and for some reason shoot their father (perhaps just as an experiment). There would probably be a lot of stuff happening in the interim, of cousre. What the audience would see is the time traveler shooting, then the camera would pan away to the father getting hit and dying.
Then when the camera goes back to the time traveler, it is a totally different person. They say "darn, shot the wrong person" or something to that effect. Or perhaps when the camera goes back, it is a different person, not holding a gun, and then the camera pans back to the father, who is perfectly fine and who was never shot. The possibilites are endless.
The other idea would involve the concept that certain souls have to exist, regardless of who is born. What would happen would be that a bunch of people find a time machine in an old ruin that is rumored to be the site of an alien space ship crash. Activating it by mistake (it's like a watch that one of them wears), they become time travelers and travel further and further back into the past, unable to find a way to get into the future again. As they wind up altering events in their own lives, they keep changing; one character gets a tattoo, another loses an arm, etc. But the whole time they remember the original timeline. Finally they go back to before they were born. As they start altering things that prevent them from being born, they start turning into other people. One character, who was the product of a one-night stand, mistakenly gets his mother to choose a different guy (the two guys she chooses should be different races or somehow be very distinguishable from one another). He immediately changes so that this features resemble the new guy. Other characters change sex. But they all remember being the person they originally were.
Finally they go back to the time when the alien spaceship supposedly crashed. Desperate to return to normal, the one who is carrying the "watch" suggests that they find the watch in the older ship and destroy it. They do find the time device in the newly crashed ship, and after confronting the aliens on the ship, convince them to destroy the device (one of the time tavelers worries that if they destroy the watch themselves, they'll create a paradox, but reasons that the aliens who created the device would know how to avoid that - he is correct). They do, and the device on the guy's wrist dissolves and all of the time travelers are suddenly back at the alien ship in the present where this all started, all of them with a memory of what happened, but without any of it having happened. Everyone is back to normal.
That is all.
Idea for a Movie
I have always been somewhat creative, which is another way of saying that I spend an inordinate amount of time dreaming up music videos, movies, TV shows, etc., that do not exist.
Recently I have had at least two interesting ideas for a movie or TV episode based on the effects of time travel and resolving the causality paradozes it presents.
However, first, in this post I intend to regale my readers with a more mundane idea that has been rattling around in my brain for a while.
I have been thinking about a socially-conscious comedy, called White Pride or something like that.
The plot line is that a white man with a black ex-wife (they get along reasonably well in divorce, no tensions there) has a ten-to-twelve-year old son by her. He has visitation rights for one weekend every two weeks or somesuch.
Well, one day he discovers that his son has been exploring his black heritage and increasingly begins to feel alienated, as if his contribution to his son is being ignored.
So he goes on a quest to educate his son about his glorious white heritage. This leads to some mishaps, including inadvertedly taking his son to what turns out to be a KKK (or somesuch) meeting (yes, this guy isn't always quick on the uptake) and then to taking him to a retreat where all the men dress up like Vikings. He also goes to Oktoberfest.
The wife is somewhat understanding, but her patience is tried as the guy performs increasingly bizarre attempts to give him son some idea of his paternal heritage.
I'm not certain how it would end, but trying to teach a mixed-race kid the glory of his white as well as his non-white (in this case, black) heritage strikes me as an interesting concept for a movie.
That is all.
Recently I have had at least two interesting ideas for a movie or TV episode based on the effects of time travel and resolving the causality paradozes it presents.
However, first, in this post I intend to regale my readers with a more mundane idea that has been rattling around in my brain for a while.
I have been thinking about a socially-conscious comedy, called White Pride or something like that.
The plot line is that a white man with a black ex-wife (they get along reasonably well in divorce, no tensions there) has a ten-to-twelve-year old son by her. He has visitation rights for one weekend every two weeks or somesuch.
Well, one day he discovers that his son has been exploring his black heritage and increasingly begins to feel alienated, as if his contribution to his son is being ignored.
So he goes on a quest to educate his son about his glorious white heritage. This leads to some mishaps, including inadvertedly taking his son to what turns out to be a KKK (or somesuch) meeting (yes, this guy isn't always quick on the uptake) and then to taking him to a retreat where all the men dress up like Vikings. He also goes to Oktoberfest.
The wife is somewhat understanding, but her patience is tried as the guy performs increasingly bizarre attempts to give him son some idea of his paternal heritage.
I'm not certain how it would end, but trying to teach a mixed-race kid the glory of his white as well as his non-white (in this case, black) heritage strikes me as an interesting concept for a movie.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Same Ol' Hack, Same Ol' Fallacy
It's amaszing how naive the neocons assume we must be.
In his recent piece assuring us that everyone but the Bush administration and its cronies are lying to us, Hack Kelly regales us with this bit of ridiculousness:
"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."
Read the rest of the piece for more of this piffle.
What Mr. Kelly obviously overlooks is the question of how much can we trust what an explicitly interested party like the military says. I've already posted several times on how troops are being pressured to toe the party line (I'll do a round-up of such posts later). Can Mr. Kelly really expect that the Marines are allowed to say anything but "things are going fine?"
Essentially any claim that "we should trust the troops because they know what is going on better than the media, they have first-hand experience, amounts to no more than "Who ya gonna believe? The Bush administration and those who work for them, or your lyin' eyes?"
That is all.
In his recent piece assuring us that everyone but the Bush administration and its cronies are lying to us, Hack Kelly regales us with this bit of ridiculousness:
"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."
Read the rest of the piece for more of this piffle.
What Mr. Kelly obviously overlooks is the question of how much can we trust what an explicitly interested party like the military says. I've already posted several times on how troops are being pressured to toe the party line (I'll do a round-up of such posts later). Can Mr. Kelly really expect that the Marines are allowed to say anything but "things are going fine?"
Essentially any claim that "we should trust the troops because they know what is going on better than the media, they have first-hand experience, amounts to no more than "Who ya gonna believe? The Bush administration and those who work for them, or your lyin' eyes?"
That is all.
Violence Was Worse than Reported, No it Wasn't, Yes it Was, Etc.
A new report by the Washington Post claims that the death toll from sectarian violence over the past few weeks has been higher than reported previously in the media; presumably [if this report is accurate] this would be because most media counts rely on their ability to track specific incidents, whereas a lot of deaths may not be connected to a documented altercation.
Obviously, people on the pro-war side tend to be distrustful of such reports, but having the official numbers lower than the actual numbers is a common practice when violence breaks out in a city. This was recently shown by the deliberate minimization of rapes after Katrina (after the initial reports were likely somewhat exaggerrated), which turned out to be an example of the pendulum swinging too far the other way, as predicted and later noted by Steve Sailer (and also by Ol' Lyin' Eyes Ziel here and here).
The fact of the matter is, there is good reason to assume not just that there are good things going on in Iraq that we don't hear about, but also bad things that either slip through the cracks or that are deliberately covered up or minimized by interested parties, such as the military and the Iraqi government.
That is all.
Obviously, people on the pro-war side tend to be distrustful of such reports, but having the official numbers lower than the actual numbers is a common practice when violence breaks out in a city. This was recently shown by the deliberate minimization of rapes after Katrina (after the initial reports were likely somewhat exaggerrated), which turned out to be an example of the pendulum swinging too far the other way, as predicted and later noted by Steve Sailer (and also by Ol' Lyin' Eyes Ziel here and here).
The fact of the matter is, there is good reason to assume not just that there are good things going on in Iraq that we don't hear about, but also bad things that either slip through the cracks or that are deliberately covered up or minimized by interested parties, such as the military and the Iraqi government.
That is all.
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Exploding Dome
The lack of casualties at the Al-Askariya mosque bombing may mean that I need to rethink my ridicule of the idea that Shia (including Iranians) might have done it.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Victor Davis Hanson Still Needs to Learn About Reality...
I thought I would go about debunking V.D. Hanson's latest little piece of fantasy.
Okay, so the gist of the peace is that we are winning in Iraq, we are being into thinking we are not by the eeeeevil MSM (mainstream media), and we just need to avoid losing heart.
Now let's break this apart one piece at a time.
First, he claims that the insurgency lacks the ability to do three things:
(1) Drive the U.S. out
(2) Stop the training of Iraqi security forces
(3) Stop the formation of a new government
While technically true, this doesn't really matter. The insurgency doesn't have to win stay viable, it just needs not to lose. It can't drive us out, but it can sap our strength. It may not be able to stop us from training Iraqi security forces, but that doesn't mean that the forces we train will be able to provide security from the insurgents. And they may not be able to derail the new government, but unless that government has the ability to actually get things done, they don't need to.
And I'm not sure that the government isn't doing a good job of derailing itself. The reasons that it will be difficult to create a functioning multiethnic democracy in Iraq go beyond the problem of the insurgency, and the insurgency is not the only manifestation of ethnic and anti-U.S. strife in the U.S. And, contra Hanson, it does appear that the latest attacks have indeed been a setback to the formation of a new government, so Hanson's belief in an unstoppable democratic juggernaut is not entirely supported by the facts, to put it mildly.
Next, he outlines what he claims are the three strategies of the insurgents:
(1) Try to make things look worse than they by using suicide bombings, IEDs, and assassinations. These really aren't that big a deal, but for some reason the media emphasizes these things rather than school construction.
(2) Those who re linked to al Qaeda are trying to foment civil war. Again, the media helps the terrorists by not showing how much the vast majority of Iraqis believe in multiculturalism and tolerance.
(3) Third, they try to increase normal crime and thuggery, because, you know, it's not like Iraq has a lot of opportunities for thugs to rape, loot, and steal without help from organized insurgents.
Like the neocons are wont to do, Hanson makes much of the 100,000 criminals released from Saddam's jails prior to the invasion.
I'm not certain how relevant this is, for two reasons. For one thing, itis unlikely that the assassinations, suicide bombings, mosque-bombings, and IEDs are being done as part of normal criminal activity. Secondly, while Hanson is likely correct that the insurgency is not committing most of the rapes and thefts in Iraq, let's be honest: rapes and thefts are not why people think that Iraq is in chaos. I haven't heard that many (if any) any reports about rapes in Iraq, or about theft outside of a few cases where police stations were looted for guns, and maybe one or two large bank heists. The idea that "the terrorists have succeeded in making all the daily mayhem of a major city appear to be political violence" doesn't make sense when one considers the fact that most of the "daily mayhem" type violence either doesn't get reported, or else no one listens to it. The stuff that convinces people that there is a lot of political violence is the overtly political violence - assassinations of major figures, mass-casualty bomb attacks, etc. Most importantly, the killing of coalition soldiers is what concerns Americans - and in most cases, that can hardly be attributed to street crime.
And even if a lot of the violence is committed by common thugs, it doesn't speak well of our ability to maintain order in the country.
On the issue of the mainstream media's reporting, I'll believe that building schools is as significant as the suicide bombings, assassinations, and IED attacks the day that someone says "forget about the World Trade Center, I want to know about school construction projects that were going on in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
Also, Hanson sets up a bit of a straw man when he chides the MSM for believing that civil war is likely:
And indeed, in the world that we see on television, there is no such thing as a secular Iraq, an Iraqi who defines himself as an Iraqi, or a child born to a Shiite and Sunni. No, the country, we are told, is simply three factions that will be torn apart by targeted violence.
There may be secular Iraqis, but some of the Sunni/Shiite divide is simply a divide between ethnic factions, and the actual religious differences do not necessarily matter; moreover, being secular does not make one immune to hatred of other people baed on their religion. Sure, there are Iraqis who say they only think of themselves as Iraqi, not as the member of a clan or sect. But in many cases, what this means is "my clan or sect is Iraq." In other words, they just think of themselves as Iraqi, but that simply means they want Iraq to stay together as a single country which they rule.
Next, he basically lays out our choices and the stakes in a long-winded fashion that adds nothing to what he has already said.
Now for the predictions for the future. Victor Davis Hanson says that we are going to win. This, of course, is a tremendous surprise to everyone except those people who have ever read a sentence of Mr. Hanson's work.
Specifically, he says that the Americans he has talked to believe that a new government will soon form and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people, and it will lead the Iraqi security forces to victory against the insurgents.
Who, exactly, are these Americans? Are they soldiers? Is anyone stupid enough to think that soldiers are allowed to say anything but "things are wonderful!"? Military censorship of the media is well-documented.
Then he states that the terrorists through their bombs have told him that they are still trying to use terrorism to stop the two things they fear: the Iraqization of those opposed to them (i.e. the building of anti-insurgent Iraqi security forces) and the democratization of Iraq. I find it interesting that without talking to them, he can divine what they are afraid of and why they fight us. Perhaps he should go into the necromancy (talking to the dead) business with Michael Ledeen.
Then he states:
It is an odd war, because the side that I think is losing garners all the press...
Gosh, it couldn't be possible that the fault is with him, and that he is underestimating the insurgents, is it?
Who are you going to believe? Victor Davis Hanson or your lying eyes? Of course, Hanson is the one we should believe:
Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy.
Evidence for this is as follows:
(1) The Iraqi Army is now going on about half of coalition patrols and on many of its own.
(2) The Iraqi Army is now "developing into the best trained and disciplined armed force in the Middle East."
(3) We have rebuilt the infrastructure real good except for one or two essential parts - so progress on electricity and oil production will occur Real Soon NowTM (I think Jim Henley came up with this expression).
(4) We are going to use an "oil-drop" strategy to pacify Iraq, slowly expanding the "safe area" outside the Green Zone.
I suppose that the Iraqi Army may be going on a lot of patrols, but this ignores the question of where its true loyalties lie, and as to whether or not the Iraqi military is one of the institutions fomenting civil strife in Iraq. Of course, even if the Iraqi Army is fomenting strife, that doesn't necessarily negate Hanson's belief that its increase in power is a boon to U.S. Forces; it is quite possible that the U.S wants the Shiites to take revenge on the Sunnis in order to beat them down and discourage the insurgency. Nonetheless, it would tend to negate any argument that the increased activity of the Iraqi Army is a sign of progress towards a peaceful, democratic, and free Iraq. Rather, we would have an Iraq under the tenuous control of a faction that we ourselves exercise some level fo control over (for now). As far as being the best trained and disciplined army in the Middle East, bollocks. Israel's is certainly better, and Turkey's almost surely so as well. Probably he meant the best trained and disciplined army in the Arab world. This may be true, but it is rather like referrring to Carrot Top's most intellectual performance. And it looks as if they won't be replacing us anytime soon.
Hanson's argument on infrastructure bascially boils down to "trust us, here's only one step left." This is hardly encouraging. The fact of the matter is that electricity production is down below pre-war levels; oil production is ---- I even heard Fox News mention this. Perhaps all that needs to be done is the completion of the most vulnerable elements, power lines and oil pipes, but the fact of the matter is that unless we see some progress toward the completion of these things, then we can have evey other element in place and the electricity production and oil industries will still be shot to Hell.
As for the plan to expand security outward from the Green Zone, have we started yet? Is there any evidence that we have been successful in incrementally increasing security around the Green Zone at all? Without actual demonstration of the "safe zone" expanding, the "oil drop" strategy is mere wishful thinking.
Then Hanson outright lies. According to Hanson, "The nature of the debate has also changed at home." No one is concerned anymore that with whether Bush lied, or whether we "won the war but lost the peace." Nor does anyone care about flaws in our strategy. No, no, there are only those who think that we need to be patient and we will win, and those who think that it isn't worth it.
Although he doesn't say so explicitly, the way that Hanson phrases this suggests that even the antiwarriors agree that we can "win" - by which he means establish a pluralistic, democratic Iraq - they just don't think that doing so is worth it.
Of course, this is a lie. It is true that fewer people worry now about what we did wrong during and after the invasion, but that is mainly because most such people now believe that we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. A lot more people are now convinced that Bush lied (or at least distorted the facts), and that it is important to note that he did so. And the idea that staying longer will not help the situation in Iraq is a major reason why people think we should get out.
Next he suggests that everyone agrees that the people in Iraq know what they are doing, and that troop morale is wonderful, and everything is great and secure.
Most of these are simply assertions, and require the assumption that the troops are able to say what they really feel and that we can trust what the generals tell pro-war columnists. I am unconvinced that troop morale is high, due to the fact that, as stated before, the troops do not have the luxury of honesty, and due to the fact that another supposed indicator of the high morale and attractiveness of our military, high recruitment numbers, have been belied by the facts that the army has (a) reduced its goals, (b) started accepting dumber applicants.
Moreover, the high reenlistment numbers, often used to show how good soldier morale is, may be due to what amounts to coercion.
So I'm sorry if Mr. Hanson's statements don't impress me much. Sorry.
Next, there is a bunch of crap about how high the stakes are and about how our alternatives are (1) the terrorists win and take over the middle east (and next the world, presumably) or (2) we stay, in which case we will surely win. Rather naive, or more precisely rather idiotic.
Finally, he closes with a stirring rallying cry:
Can-do Americans courageously go about their duty in Iraq — mostly unafraid that a culture of 2,000 years, the reality of geography, the sheer forces of language and religion, the propaganda of the state-run Arab media, and the cynicism of the liberal West are all stacked against them.
I'm really glad to know that Hanson thinks it i a good thing that we blythely ignore the clear and present problems in Iraq, including the "cynicism" of those who think that we ought to come out with strategies and goals that are plausible.
Iraq may not have started out as the pivotal front in the war between democracy and fascism, but it has surely evolved into that. After visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not.
It's always refreshing to hear someone declare how out of touch with reality he is.
That is all.
Okay, so the gist of the peace is that we are winning in Iraq, we are being into thinking we are not by the eeeeevil MSM (mainstream media), and we just need to avoid losing heart.
Now let's break this apart one piece at a time.
First, he claims that the insurgency lacks the ability to do three things:
(1) Drive the U.S. out
(2) Stop the training of Iraqi security forces
(3) Stop the formation of a new government
While technically true, this doesn't really matter. The insurgency doesn't have to win stay viable, it just needs not to lose. It can't drive us out, but it can sap our strength. It may not be able to stop us from training Iraqi security forces, but that doesn't mean that the forces we train will be able to provide security from the insurgents. And they may not be able to derail the new government, but unless that government has the ability to actually get things done, they don't need to.
And I'm not sure that the government isn't doing a good job of derailing itself. The reasons that it will be difficult to create a functioning multiethnic democracy in Iraq go beyond the problem of the insurgency, and the insurgency is not the only manifestation of ethnic and anti-U.S. strife in the U.S. And, contra Hanson, it does appear that the latest attacks have indeed been a setback to the formation of a new government, so Hanson's belief in an unstoppable democratic juggernaut is not entirely supported by the facts, to put it mildly.
Next, he outlines what he claims are the three strategies of the insurgents:
(1) Try to make things look worse than they by using suicide bombings, IEDs, and assassinations. These really aren't that big a deal, but for some reason the media emphasizes these things rather than school construction.
(2) Those who re linked to al Qaeda are trying to foment civil war. Again, the media helps the terrorists by not showing how much the vast majority of Iraqis believe in multiculturalism and tolerance.
(3) Third, they try to increase normal crime and thuggery, because, you know, it's not like Iraq has a lot of opportunities for thugs to rape, loot, and steal without help from organized insurgents.
Like the neocons are wont to do, Hanson makes much of the 100,000 criminals released from Saddam's jails prior to the invasion.
I'm not certain how relevant this is, for two reasons. For one thing, itis unlikely that the assassinations, suicide bombings, mosque-bombings, and IEDs are being done as part of normal criminal activity. Secondly, while Hanson is likely correct that the insurgency is not committing most of the rapes and thefts in Iraq, let's be honest: rapes and thefts are not why people think that Iraq is in chaos. I haven't heard that many (if any) any reports about rapes in Iraq, or about theft outside of a few cases where police stations were looted for guns, and maybe one or two large bank heists. The idea that "the terrorists have succeeded in making all the daily mayhem of a major city appear to be political violence" doesn't make sense when one considers the fact that most of the "daily mayhem" type violence either doesn't get reported, or else no one listens to it. The stuff that convinces people that there is a lot of political violence is the overtly political violence - assassinations of major figures, mass-casualty bomb attacks, etc. Most importantly, the killing of coalition soldiers is what concerns Americans - and in most cases, that can hardly be attributed to street crime.
And even if a lot of the violence is committed by common thugs, it doesn't speak well of our ability to maintain order in the country.
On the issue of the mainstream media's reporting, I'll believe that building schools is as significant as the suicide bombings, assassinations, and IED attacks the day that someone says "forget about the World Trade Center, I want to know about school construction projects that were going on in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
Also, Hanson sets up a bit of a straw man when he chides the MSM for believing that civil war is likely:
And indeed, in the world that we see on television, there is no such thing as a secular Iraq, an Iraqi who defines himself as an Iraqi, or a child born to a Shiite and Sunni. No, the country, we are told, is simply three factions that will be torn apart by targeted violence.
There may be secular Iraqis, but some of the Sunni/Shiite divide is simply a divide between ethnic factions, and the actual religious differences do not necessarily matter; moreover, being secular does not make one immune to hatred of other people baed on their religion. Sure, there are Iraqis who say they only think of themselves as Iraqi, not as the member of a clan or sect. But in many cases, what this means is "my clan or sect is Iraq." In other words, they just think of themselves as Iraqi, but that simply means they want Iraq to stay together as a single country which they rule.
Next, he basically lays out our choices and the stakes in a long-winded fashion that adds nothing to what he has already said.
Now for the predictions for the future. Victor Davis Hanson says that we are going to win. This, of course, is a tremendous surprise to everyone except those people who have ever read a sentence of Mr. Hanson's work.
Specifically, he says that the Americans he has talked to believe that a new government will soon form and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people, and it will lead the Iraqi security forces to victory against the insurgents.
Who, exactly, are these Americans? Are they soldiers? Is anyone stupid enough to think that soldiers are allowed to say anything but "things are wonderful!"? Military censorship of the media is well-documented.
Then he states that the terrorists through their bombs have told him that they are still trying to use terrorism to stop the two things they fear: the Iraqization of those opposed to them (i.e. the building of anti-insurgent Iraqi security forces) and the democratization of Iraq. I find it interesting that without talking to them, he can divine what they are afraid of and why they fight us. Perhaps he should go into the necromancy (talking to the dead) business with Michael Ledeen.
Then he states:
It is an odd war, because the side that I think is losing garners all the press...
Gosh, it couldn't be possible that the fault is with him, and that he is underestimating the insurgents, is it?
Who are you going to believe? Victor Davis Hanson or your lying eyes? Of course, Hanson is the one we should believe:
Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy.
Evidence for this is as follows:
(1) The Iraqi Army is now going on about half of coalition patrols and on many of its own.
(2) The Iraqi Army is now "developing into the best trained and disciplined armed force in the Middle East."
(3) We have rebuilt the infrastructure real good except for one or two essential parts - so progress on electricity and oil production will occur Real Soon NowTM (I think Jim Henley came up with this expression).
(4) We are going to use an "oil-drop" strategy to pacify Iraq, slowly expanding the "safe area" outside the Green Zone.
I suppose that the Iraqi Army may be going on a lot of patrols, but this ignores the question of where its true loyalties lie, and as to whether or not the Iraqi military is one of the institutions fomenting civil strife in Iraq. Of course, even if the Iraqi Army is fomenting strife, that doesn't necessarily negate Hanson's belief that its increase in power is a boon to U.S. Forces; it is quite possible that the U.S wants the Shiites to take revenge on the Sunnis in order to beat them down and discourage the insurgency. Nonetheless, it would tend to negate any argument that the increased activity of the Iraqi Army is a sign of progress towards a peaceful, democratic, and free Iraq. Rather, we would have an Iraq under the tenuous control of a faction that we ourselves exercise some level fo control over (for now). As far as being the best trained and disciplined army in the Middle East, bollocks. Israel's is certainly better, and Turkey's almost surely so as well. Probably he meant the best trained and disciplined army in the Arab world. This may be true, but it is rather like referrring to Carrot Top's most intellectual performance. And it looks as if they won't be replacing us anytime soon.
Hanson's argument on infrastructure bascially boils down to "trust us, here's only one step left." This is hardly encouraging. The fact of the matter is that electricity production is down below pre-war levels; oil production is ---- I even heard Fox News mention this. Perhaps all that needs to be done is the completion of the most vulnerable elements, power lines and oil pipes, but the fact of the matter is that unless we see some progress toward the completion of these things, then we can have evey other element in place and the electricity production and oil industries will still be shot to Hell.
As for the plan to expand security outward from the Green Zone, have we started yet? Is there any evidence that we have been successful in incrementally increasing security around the Green Zone at all? Without actual demonstration of the "safe zone" expanding, the "oil drop" strategy is mere wishful thinking.
Then Hanson outright lies. According to Hanson, "The nature of the debate has also changed at home." No one is concerned anymore that with whether Bush lied, or whether we "won the war but lost the peace." Nor does anyone care about flaws in our strategy. No, no, there are only those who think that we need to be patient and we will win, and those who think that it isn't worth it.
Although he doesn't say so explicitly, the way that Hanson phrases this suggests that even the antiwarriors agree that we can "win" - by which he means establish a pluralistic, democratic Iraq - they just don't think that doing so is worth it.
Of course, this is a lie. It is true that fewer people worry now about what we did wrong during and after the invasion, but that is mainly because most such people now believe that we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. A lot more people are now convinced that Bush lied (or at least distorted the facts), and that it is important to note that he did so. And the idea that staying longer will not help the situation in Iraq is a major reason why people think we should get out.
Next he suggests that everyone agrees that the people in Iraq know what they are doing, and that troop morale is wonderful, and everything is great and secure.
Most of these are simply assertions, and require the assumption that the troops are able to say what they really feel and that we can trust what the generals tell pro-war columnists. I am unconvinced that troop morale is high, due to the fact that, as stated before, the troops do not have the luxury of honesty, and due to the fact that another supposed indicator of the high morale and attractiveness of our military, high recruitment numbers, have been belied by the facts that the army has (a) reduced its goals, (b) started accepting dumber applicants.
Moreover, the high reenlistment numbers, often used to show how good soldier morale is, may be due to what amounts to coercion.
So I'm sorry if Mr. Hanson's statements don't impress me much. Sorry.
Next, there is a bunch of crap about how high the stakes are and about how our alternatives are (1) the terrorists win and take over the middle east (and next the world, presumably) or (2) we stay, in which case we will surely win. Rather naive, or more precisely rather idiotic.
Finally, he closes with a stirring rallying cry:
Can-do Americans courageously go about their duty in Iraq — mostly unafraid that a culture of 2,000 years, the reality of geography, the sheer forces of language and religion, the propaganda of the state-run Arab media, and the cynicism of the liberal West are all stacked against them.
I'm really glad to know that Hanson thinks it i a good thing that we blythely ignore the clear and present problems in Iraq, including the "cynicism" of those who think that we ought to come out with strategies and goals that are plausible.
Iraq may not have started out as the pivotal front in the war between democracy and fascism, but it has surely evolved into that. After visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not.
It's always refreshing to hear someone declare how out of touch with reality he is.
That is all.
Meet the New News, Same as the Old News
Commenting on Jim Henley's blog, Gary Farber points out that the "news story" about the Stephen Cambone memo (which I mentioned here is not a "new" news story at all, but is at least three years and change old.
That is all.
That is all.
Figures of Speech Question
Does anyone know if there is a name for the figure of speech where the attributes of one sex are given to someone of the opposite sex? (If you're not certain what I mean by a name for a figure of speech, click here).
For example, referring to a man's "cherry" or a woman's "cajones."
If there is no such term, what do you guys think would be a good term to use?
That is all.
For example, referring to a man's "cherry" or a woman's "cajones."
If there is no such term, what do you guys think would be a good term to use?
That is all.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Ol' Sully Beats Crazy Mickey to the Punch
Andrew Sullivan suggests an Iranian connection to the mosque bombing, when Michael Ledeen hasn't even done so yet.
Here and here are more suggestions that Iran was behind the bombing.
I take these theories very seriously. You know, just like I take these theories seriously.
That is all.
Here and here are more suggestions that Iran was behind the bombing.
I take these theories very seriously. You know, just like I take these theories seriously.
That is all.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Tip of the Iceberg
In a rebuttal to those so-called "conservatives" who are unconcerned about the recent wiretapping incidents, there is a claim there is a far more wide-ranging surveillance program in place.
Rush Limbaugh has already indicated on his show that he has no problem with the information from warrantless wiretaps being used in court (which punctures one pro-wiretapping argument, that it is okay because it isn't being used as testimony in court, so it isn't covered by the fourth amendment).
If this other program involved domestic rather than half-domestic (i.e. one end in the U.S.) and foreign calls, then the other fig leaf drops.
Of course, some "conservatives" wouldn't give a damn if this were true. Andrew McCarthy has made it perfectly clear that he feels that the President has the power to take us into war (declaring war is dismissed as an unnecessary formality) and that once we are at war, the President can spy on anyone whom he chooses to designate a "potential enemy".
That is all.
Rush Limbaugh has already indicated on his show that he has no problem with the information from warrantless wiretaps being used in court (which punctures one pro-wiretapping argument, that it is okay because it isn't being used as testimony in court, so it isn't covered by the fourth amendment).
If this other program involved domestic rather than half-domestic (i.e. one end in the U.S.) and foreign calls, then the other fig leaf drops.
Of course, some "conservatives" wouldn't give a damn if this were true. Andrew McCarthy has made it perfectly clear that he feels that the President has the power to take us into war (declaring war is dismissed as an unnecessary formality) and that once we are at war, the President can spy on anyone whom he chooses to designate a "potential enemy".
That is all.
Uh-Oh
Matt Yglesias has noted that even Ol' Sully is beginning to think that Bush misled the American people into after 9/11.
The Stephen Cambone memo indicates that Rumsfeld was eager to use 9/11 as a pretext to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Of course, the fact that the Bush administration was looking for an opportunity to get Saddam is obvious to anyone who isn't it total denial.
That is all.
The Stephen Cambone memo indicates that Rumsfeld was eager to use 9/11 as a pretext to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Of course, the fact that the Bush administration was looking for an opportunity to get Saddam is obvious to anyone who isn't it total denial.
That is all.
Discussion Topic
I'm interested in knowing what the people who read Glaivester think about Peter Duesberg.
I think that his theory that HIV does not cause AIDS is wrong, but Donald W. Miller, Jr. has a piece on LewRockwell.com that argues that he is likely correct, and I can't find too much fault with what he says, assuming that the factual information he cites for support are accurate. On the other hand, a person can make a reasonable sounding argument that colds are caused by little monkey who play in your nose, so the fact that he sounds reasonable doesn't mean I should trust what he writes.
Anyone have any thoughts, or any commentary on Dr. Miller's article?
That is all.
I think that his theory that HIV does not cause AIDS is wrong, but Donald W. Miller, Jr. has a piece on LewRockwell.com that argues that he is likely correct, and I can't find too much fault with what he says, assuming that the factual information he cites for support are accurate. On the other hand, a person can make a reasonable sounding argument that colds are caused by little monkey who play in your nose, so the fact that he sounds reasonable doesn't mean I should trust what he writes.
Anyone have any thoughts, or any commentary on Dr. Miller's article?
That is all.
Prostate Cancer May Have a Virus Connection?
As I person with a father who has prostate cancer, I think that this is interesting news.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
A Plea to Comics Fans
Help to save a great comic!
Go to your local comic book store and buy the latest issue of Spider-Girl!
That is all.
Go to your local comic book store and buy the latest issue of Spider-Girl
!That is all.
Speak of the Devil
James S. Robbins blames the mosque bombings on al Qaeda, and as I had suggested it would be, it seems that the major motive in doing this is to pawn off the blame onto "foreign fighters" so as to maintian the fiction that the Iraqis really want to get along.
That is all.
That is all.
Prediction
Michael Ledeen will find some way of blaming the bombing of the Al-Askariya mosque on Iran. His argument will go something along the lines of "this proves that there is no loyalty felt from the mullahs towards the Iraqi Shiites," or "most people would have you believe that the Shiite Iranians wouldn't attack Shiite Iraqis, but in reality, they attack each other all the time, just as Shiite terrorists and tyrants always love working with Sunni and Wahhabi terrorists and tyrants." In otehr words, more of his "all Muslims who hate democracy (and are U.S. and Israel-unfriendly) are automatically aligned, and all who like democracy (and are U.S. and Israel-friendly) are automatically aligned, and that is the only meaningful division."
That is all.
That is all.
Civil War Roundup
The destruction of a Shiite mosque in Samarra, the most famous in Iraq, has sparked some counter-attacks against Sunni Arabs, whom the Shiites accuse of making the attack.
Here, here, and here are some more reports on this story.
Everyone seems to be getting in on the blame game. The U.S., unwilling to admit that the Iraqis may not love each other and may not want to live in multiethnic peace, blames Al Qaeda. SCIRI blames the U.S. because our allies in Iraq don't want Shiite death squads to roam the country. The Sunni clerics blame the Shiite clerics for the violent counter-attacks.
At some point, I'm certain that some Middle Eastern bigwig will accuse Israel or the U.S. of blowing up the mosque. I'm surprised they haven't already.
That is all.
Here, here, and here are some more reports on this story.
Everyone seems to be getting in on the blame game. The U.S., unwilling to admit that the Iraqis may not love each other and may not want to live in multiethnic peace, blames Al Qaeda. SCIRI blames the U.S. because our allies in Iraq don't want Shiite death squads to roam the country. The Sunni clerics blame the Shiite clerics for the violent counter-attacks.
At some point, I'm certain that some Middle Eastern bigwig will accuse Israel or the U.S. of blowing up the mosque. I'm surprised they haven't already.
That is all.
Why Was Larry Summers Fired
The natural assumption is that he was fired (well, technically he resigned, but that is like saying that a woman with a gun to her head "consented" to sex) for his politically incorrect statements about women and math and science. Matt Yglesias, though, wonders if he wasn't nixed due to internal issues, including the firing of a professor and attempts at rearranging the administrative structure and campus.
Matt's (well-documented and likely true) assertion is interesting, in a boring sort of way, for someone like me who likes to find boring answers to controversies.
That is all.
Matt's (well-documented and likely true) assertion is interesting, in a boring sort of way, for someone like me who likes to find boring answers to controversies.
That is all.
More Sectarian Attacks
If you haven't heard already, fresh sectarian attacks have rocked Iraq.
I'll comment more if I can think of anything interesting or original to say.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully.
That is all.
I'll comment more if I can think of anything interesting or original to say.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
It's the End of the Pair-Bond as We Know It...
Stanley Kurtz on the attempt to do away with marriage and gender in Sweden.
A lot of good stuff. The fact of the matter is, as much as Andrew Sullivan may want to deny it, expanding the definition of marriage outside of male-female pair-bonds dilutes the institution. Some people don't understand that, and for them the demeaning of marriage is an unintended consequence, but for others it is the actual goal.
That is all.
A lot of good stuff. The fact of the matter is, as much as Andrew Sullivan may want to deny it, expanding the definition of marriage outside of male-female pair-bonds dilutes the institution. Some people don't understand that, and for them the demeaning of marriage is an unintended consequence, but for others it is the actual goal.
That is all.
X-Chromosomes and Homosexuality
There appears to be a link to how a woman's X-chromosomes are inactivated and to her propensity to have multiple gay sons.
However, it appears that this does not occur in the majority of mothers who have multiple gay sons but only in about 25% of them (as opposed to 13% with one gay son and 4% with no gay sons).
How this affects the "germ theory" of Greg Cochran, I am not certain. But it hardly refutes it, as it occurs in a relatively small number of mothers whose sons are gay.
That is all.
However, it appears that this does not occur in the majority of mothers who have multiple gay sons but only in about 25% of them (as opposed to 13% with one gay son and 4% with no gay sons).
How this affects the "germ theory" of Greg Cochran, I am not certain. But it hardly refutes it, as it occurs in a relatively small number of mothers whose sons are gay.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Government-Funding = Pro-Government Bias?
A while back, I commented on a piece by Tibor Machan suggesting that government funding doesn't necessarily imply impartiality (as the government is hardly a neutral player in the world). I think there used to be a comment by Greg Cohcran on that post saying that he thought that government-funded scientists usually were more objective, but it appears to have disappeared (perhaps Haloscan deleted it after it had been on for a certain amount of time).
Now Michael Fumento brings up a similar point.
Interesting article.
That is all.
Now Michael Fumento brings up a similar point.
Interesting article.
That is all.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Substitute Teaching
I've been doing some substitute teaching recently, and the most surprising thing is the way that some students have an attitude toward learning. It's as if school is a contest and the first one to learn something loses. I mean, I will admit that I never liked going to school per se (in the same way that all kids don't like school much), but I never actively resisted learning.
The Simpsons quote: "Not only am I not learning, I'm forgetting stuff I used to know." (Said by Milhouse after Ned Flanders became principal and basically wound up letting the students walk all over him) didn't use to make much sense to me; I thought that viewing students as not hating just school, but hating learning itself was a gross exaggerration.
But now experiencing classes with students who are not on the honors track, I am beginning to get the picture. Not that all of them are like that, but there are a fair number.
That is all.
The Simpsons quote: "Not only am I not learning, I'm forgetting stuff I used to know." (Said by Milhouse after Ned Flanders became principal and basically wound up letting the students walk all over him) didn't use to make much sense to me; I thought that viewing students as not hating just school, but hating learning itself was a gross exaggerration.
But now experiencing classes with students who are not on the honors track, I am beginning to get the picture. Not that all of them are like that, but there are a fair number.
That is all.
Sailer on Harris
An old commentary by Steve Sailer on Judith Rich Harris's thesis that "parents don't matter."
I previously (and recently) commented on this issue here.
That is all.
I previously (and recently) commented on this issue here.
That is all.
About the State-Sanctioned Rigged Numbers Game
Dan Tarrant directs his rage at the state lotteries.
It's pretty good stuff, and connects nicely with a post of mine from a month ago.
The thing, though, that bothers me the most about the lottery are the advertisements, most of which practically scream "get rich quick! You could win! Come on and try it!" The worst of these was one where it mentioned how bad a generic "you" must feel that you had all of those dreary things to look forward too, including bills you had to pay. Then the ad stated that the narrator was "that little voice in the back of your head" and that you should buy a lottery ticket because "you will think about winning all day." Yes, if you have a difficult time making ends meet, by all means invest in a gambling scheme with a less than 50% payout (much less, if you include taxes and the fact that you don't get the advertised jackpot as a lump sum).
The lottery is, in essence, a system of taking money from the poorest and stupidest segments of society (yes, people who put a lot of money into the lottery are almost certainly more likely to have low IQs and not to actually think things through).
It's bad, and it should be stopped.
That is all.
It's pretty good stuff, and connects nicely with a post of mine from a month ago.
The thing, though, that bothers me the most about the lottery are the advertisements, most of which practically scream "get rich quick! You could win! Come on and try it!" The worst of these was one where it mentioned how bad a generic "you" must feel that you had all of those dreary things to look forward too, including bills you had to pay. Then the ad stated that the narrator was "that little voice in the back of your head" and that you should buy a lottery ticket because "you will think about winning all day." Yes, if you have a difficult time making ends meet, by all means invest in a gambling scheme with a less than 50% payout (much less, if you include taxes and the fact that you don't get the advertised jackpot as a lump sum).
The lottery is, in essence, a system of taking money from the poorest and stupidest segments of society (yes, people who put a lot of money into the lottery are almost certainly more likely to have low IQs and not to actually think things through).
It's bad, and it should be stopped.
That is all.
The Unborn as Commodities
Joshua Trevino explains why in vitro fertilization is morally problematic.
This should show people that the claim that pro-lifers don't care about the life of the fetus but just want to control women's bodies is not accurate.
That is all.
This should show people that the claim that pro-lifers don't care about the life of the fetus but just want to control women's bodies is not accurate.
That is all.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Stephen Birmingham Debunks the "Saddam Tapes"
An excellent post with a pretty thorough debunking of the "latest" "evidence" that Saddam had WMDs in recent years.
I will try to post a fresh analysis of my own later. In the meantime, you can read my previous posts on this issue here, here, and here.
That is all.
I will try to post a fresh analysis of my own later. In the meantime, you can read my previous posts on this issue here, here, and here.
That is all.
Nature vs. Nurture
Dennis Mangan has a post about a recent book by Judith Rich Harris that claims that parental care has no effect on a child's behavior:
The developmentalists found that the children's behavior was correlated with the parents' behavior and attributed the correlation to the effects of the home environment. Though they realized that heredity might account for some of the correlation, they never considered the possibility that heredity might account for all of it. But that is exactly how it turned out. Once the effects of genetic similarities were estimated and skimmed off, the correlation declined to zero. The putative effects of the home environment disappeared.
I can't entirely buy that. Taken literally, it would mean that you can beat up your children, sexually molest them, let them be raised by wolves, and it doesn't change a thing.
I think a far more likely explanation is the "weakest link" one: nurture and nature each determine a level of behavior for your child (I'm pretending that behavior can be looked at as a linear quantity from "good" to "bad") and whichever level is worse, is where your child is. Put another way, parental care cannot overcome a child's genetics, but it can harm a child. The reason why parnetal care does not seem to have an effect is that the parents are almost always equal to or better than the genetics; when the parent is biological, they tend to be equal to; when adoptive, better than; because adoptive parents tend to be screened and because people who have to give their babies up for adoption are probably disproportionately people with genetic disadvantages.
I think that this would fit the facts and also seem more reasonable to me; it does not strike me as odd that a child whose parents are from a disadvantaged ackground might not be "fixed" by putting him with a well-behaved upper middle-class family. It beggars belief that the child of a well-behaved upper middle-class family would not be damaged by letting a couple who are abusive to him and who run a crackhouse adopt him.
That is all.
The developmentalists found that the children's behavior was correlated with the parents' behavior and attributed the correlation to the effects of the home environment. Though they realized that heredity might account for some of the correlation, they never considered the possibility that heredity might account for all of it. But that is exactly how it turned out. Once the effects of genetic similarities were estimated and skimmed off, the correlation declined to zero. The putative effects of the home environment disappeared.
I can't entirely buy that. Taken literally, it would mean that you can beat up your children, sexually molest them, let them be raised by wolves, and it doesn't change a thing.
I think a far more likely explanation is the "weakest link" one: nurture and nature each determine a level of behavior for your child (I'm pretending that behavior can be looked at as a linear quantity from "good" to "bad") and whichever level is worse, is where your child is. Put another way, parental care cannot overcome a child's genetics, but it can harm a child. The reason why parnetal care does not seem to have an effect is that the parents are almost always equal to or better than the genetics; when the parent is biological, they tend to be equal to; when adoptive, better than; because adoptive parents tend to be screened and because people who have to give their babies up for adoption are probably disproportionately people with genetic disadvantages.
I think that this would fit the facts and also seem more reasonable to me; it does not strike me as odd that a child whose parents are from a disadvantaged ackground might not be "fixed" by putting him with a well-behaved upper middle-class family. It beggars belief that the child of a well-behaved upper middle-class family would not be damaged by letting a couple who are abusive to him and who run a crackhouse adopt him.
That is all.
New Links on Glaivester
I have decided to put up some new links, one to a paleoconservative site, one to a liberal site.
Pumpkinhead, the blog of Pieter Friedrich (formerly of "Blogs for Peroutka") has a bunch of interesting thoughts on politics, religion, and Macdom, among other things. He is also involved with The Backwater Report, a Constitution Party-affiliated blog to which I have linked for some time.
The Center for Advanced Sarcasm, a former Glaivester blog of the week, contains the thoughts of one Dan Tarrant. It tends toward liberalism, but has some good stuff in there occasionally.
That is all.
Pumpkinhead, the blog of Pieter Friedrich (formerly of "Blogs for Peroutka") has a bunch of interesting thoughts on politics, religion, and Macdom, among other things. He is also involved with The Backwater Report, a Constitution Party-affiliated blog to which I have linked for some time.
The Center for Advanced Sarcasm, a former Glaivester blog of the week, contains the thoughts of one Dan Tarrant. It tends toward liberalism, but has some good stuff in there occasionally.
That is all.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Michael Ledeen Must Be Happy...
So the government is officially backing Syrian and Iranian dissidents in their efforts to replace he current governments of thsoe countries.
This is going to bring us a whole lot of problems...
That is all.
This is going to bring us a whole lot of problems...
That is all.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Those Tapes
I'll wait for any extensive commentary on those Saddam tapes that have just come out until there has been enough time for more substantial analysis to take place.
But I do want to point out something.
The tapes in question are from 1995. This does not prove that there was a weapons program there after 1998.
Moreover, if there were a weapons program, why didn't Saddam either use it when we invaded (it might not have saved his regime, but it would take (presumably) a lot of American soldiers down with him, or give it up and thus bring international pressure against the U.S. to bear to try to delay or stop our invasion?
We are to believe that he was hiding WMDs so that he could not use them, but ship them to Syria while his country fell, as claimed by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikritit? Please. This guy has as much reason to be honest as Ahmad Chalabi.
I think that the sudden surfacing of these tapes at this time, and the sudden publicizing of the Tikriti interview, occurred primarily because the Bush administration needs to shore up its credibility before it begins to ratchet up the war machine against Iran. After all, if Iraq really was planning WMD terrrorist attacks against the U.S., then Bush was right, so he must be right in his claims against Iran as well. You do trust our glorious leader, don't you?
That is all.
But I do want to point out something.
The tapes in question are from 1995. This does not prove that there was a weapons program there after 1998.
Moreover, if there were a weapons program, why didn't Saddam either use it when we invaded (it might not have saved his regime, but it would take (presumably) a lot of American soldiers down with him, or give it up and thus bring international pressure against the U.S. to bear to try to delay or stop our invasion?
We are to believe that he was hiding WMDs so that he could not use them, but ship them to Syria while his country fell, as claimed by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikritit? Please. This guy has as much reason to be honest as Ahmad Chalabi.
I think that the sudden surfacing of these tapes at this time, and the sudden publicizing of the Tikriti interview, occurred primarily because the Bush administration needs to shore up its credibility before it begins to ratchet up the war machine against Iran. After all, if Iraq really was planning WMD terrrorist attacks against the U.S., then Bush was right, so he must be right in his claims against Iran as well. You do trust our glorious leader, don't you?
That is all.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
They Don't Get It
Deb Saunders has an article on the test controversy in California.
The argument that exit exams should not be required for students to graduate usually amount to:
The lawyer's argument is that it is unfair to not grant a diploma to a student who has completed 13 years of school and repeatedly received passing grades in math, English and other classes, because the student cannot pass "one test."
What they ignore is that if the students can't pass this "one test," then it is likely that all of the classes they took weren't worth very much.
Some of the anxiety appears to be over the fact that some of the students don't do well because English is not their first language.
Tough. English is what we speak here. Learn it fluently if you want to pass.
That is all.
The argument that exit exams should not be required for students to graduate usually amount to:
The lawyer's argument is that it is unfair to not grant a diploma to a student who has completed 13 years of school and repeatedly received passing grades in math, English and other classes, because the student cannot pass "one test."
What they ignore is that if the students can't pass this "one test," then it is likely that all of the classes they took weren't worth very much.
Some of the anxiety appears to be over the fact that some of the students don't do well because English is not their first language.
Tough. English is what we speak here. Learn it fluently if you want to pass.
That is all.
Andrew McCarthy: Bush Should Be Allowed to Be a Dictator
While there are some legitimate things in this article by Andy McCarthy, this line beggars belief:
The power to declare war has never been a power to make, authorize, or initiate war. Indeed, as demonstrated in The Powers of War and Peace by Professor John Yoo, formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Framers altered a draft of the Constitution that would have empowered Congress to "make" war, settling on "declare," a term of art which, at the time of the founding, merely meant the provision of formal notice to the world (including the enemy) of a state of total war (as opposed to some lesser degree of hostilities), which triggered various rights for belligerents under international law. It is no accident either that the U.S., despite having participated in numerous wars, has formally declared war only five times in its history (and not since 1941), or that our British forebears frequently fought wars with no formal declaration whatsoever.
Put another way, the President has the power to take us into a war without the consent of Congress. This is madness. The reason why the Congress is not given the power to "make war" is so that they cannot take the country to war without hte President's consent. That is, they can declare war, but the president can refuse to actually fight it. Thsi is far different from saying that the President can fight a war without a declaration.
And McCarthy's apparent endorsement of our fighting undeclared wars shows that he is another imperialist with a dictatorial ideal for the president.
His line that a formal declaration of war "triggered various rights for belligerents under international law" is also worrisome. Is he stating that without a declaration, our troops are not legally protected from abuse (e.g. we cannot charge those who capture our troops and mistreat them with war crimes) or that the declaration of war triggers rights for our enemies (in which case he is arguing that the President can figght a war harder without a declaration, making a declaration of war actually a statement of restraint rather than a statement of belligerence.
Let's be honest, Andy. You want the President to have absolute power. You really believe what this website sarcastically states.
That is all.
The power to declare war has never been a power to make, authorize, or initiate war. Indeed, as demonstrated in The Powers of War and Peace by Professor John Yoo, formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Framers altered a draft of the Constitution that would have empowered Congress to "make" war, settling on "declare," a term of art which, at the time of the founding, merely meant the provision of formal notice to the world (including the enemy) of a state of total war (as opposed to some lesser degree of hostilities), which triggered various rights for belligerents under international law. It is no accident either that the U.S., despite having participated in numerous wars, has formally declared war only five times in its history (and not since 1941), or that our British forebears frequently fought wars with no formal declaration whatsoever.
Put another way, the President has the power to take us into a war without the consent of Congress. This is madness. The reason why the Congress is not given the power to "make war" is so that they cannot take the country to war without hte President's consent. That is, they can declare war, but the president can refuse to actually fight it. Thsi is far different from saying that the President can fight a war without a declaration.
And McCarthy's apparent endorsement of our fighting undeclared wars shows that he is another imperialist with a dictatorial ideal for the president.
His line that a formal declaration of war "triggered various rights for belligerents under international law" is also worrisome. Is he stating that without a declaration, our troops are not legally protected from abuse (e.g. we cannot charge those who capture our troops and mistreat them with war crimes) or that the declaration of war triggers rights for our enemies (in which case he is arguing that the President can figght a war harder without a declaration, making a declaration of war actually a statement of restraint rather than a statement of belligerence.
Let's be honest, Andy. You want the President to have absolute power. You really believe what this website sarcastically states.
That is all.
Why Affirmative Action is Dumb
Steve Sailer on the latest nuisance launched upon us by the diversity police.
As a job-seeker, this worries me greatly.
Meanwhile, I don't recall our stupid "conservative" president actually doing anythign to fight this, or, like, even actually, like, you know, saying anything about it.
That is all.
As a job-seeker, this worries me greatly.
Meanwhile, I don't recall our stupid "conservative" president actually doing anythign to fight this, or, like, even actually, like, you know, saying anything about it.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Thoughts on Al-Tikriti
So the WMDs are in Syria, eh?
The latest "confession" by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti means one of two things:
(1) Saddam behaved in an entirely preposterous manner prior to the war, deciding to let Iraq get invaded without putting up a no-holds-barred defense (i.e. moving his WMDs to Syria rather than using them against American troops), because humiliating Dubya was his primary goal.
(2) Someone is coercing or bribing him to say what the administration wants him to say, including creating a casus belli for us to attack Syria. (Sorry folks, when I first read this I thought he was one of the guys we captured in the Second Gulf War; I didn't read carefully enough and see that he actually had defected in the early 90s).
(2) He fell out of favor with Saddam [which is why he defected] and initially had been trying to pay him back by asserting whatever the U.S. wanted to hear in order to justify the overthrow of Saddam. Now that Saddam is gone, he is trying to curry favor with the U.S. in order to gain a position for himself in the new Iraq [again, by telling the current U.S. administration what it wants to hear, including creating a casus belli for us to attack Syria].
Given that this is a WorldNetDaily article, guess which one I am siding with.
That is all.
The latest "confession" by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti means one of two things:
(1) Saddam behaved in an entirely preposterous manner prior to the war, deciding to let Iraq get invaded without putting up a no-holds-barred defense (i.e. moving his WMDs to Syria rather than using them against American troops), because humiliating Dubya was his primary goal.
(2) He fell out of favor with Saddam [which is why he defected] and initially had been trying to pay him back by asserting whatever the U.S. wanted to hear in order to justify the overthrow of Saddam. Now that Saddam is gone, he is trying to curry favor with the U.S. in order to gain a position for himself in the new Iraq [again, by telling the current U.S. administration what it wants to hear, including creating a casus belli for us to attack Syria].
Given that this is a WorldNetDaily article, guess which one I am siding with.
That is all.
New Things on Glaivester
I have put up some links through the Amazon Associates program, so if people want to buy what I advertise, I get a cut. (This also gives me an opportunity to advertise Spider-Girl, a comic I greatly enjoy).
I have also fixed my Paypal button, so if you want to donate using PayPal, you can now.
(To donate to Glaivester, click on the link on the "DONATE" link on the right-hand sidebar, and then you see the donation options. If you don't see a right-hand sidebar, then scroll down; the sidebar will be on your left after the text runs out).
That is all.
I have also fixed my Paypal button, so if you want to donate using PayPal, you can now.
(To donate to Glaivester, click on the link on the "DONATE" link on the right-hand sidebar, and then you see the donation options. If you don't see a right-hand sidebar, then scroll down; the sidebar will be on your left after the text runs out).
That is all.
Argentum et Aurum
Gary North comments on whether silver or gold is a better investment.
Me? I do both, although my gold outnumbers my silver by 4 to 1 (in dollar terms).
But Mr. North makes one important point, that silver has more industrial uses than gold and so is more vulnerable to alterations in demand, particularly more vulnerable to loss of value during a recession.
That is all.
Me? I do both, although my gold outnumbers my silver by 4 to 1 (in dollar terms).
But Mr. North makes one important point, that silver has more industrial uses than gold and so is more vulnerable to alterations in demand, particularly more vulnerable to loss of value during a recession.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Hack Kelly is at it Again
This article is mostly laughable.
While I agree that the anti-Bush comments at the Coretta Scott King funeral were not what I would consider appropriate, I think that the idea that the blacks will be voting Republican en masse any day now is stupid. Moreover, the idea that the GOP should make Condoleeza Rice the new Presidential candidate - ridiculous.
That is all.
While I agree that the anti-Bush comments at the Coretta Scott King funeral were not what I would consider appropriate, I think that the idea that the blacks will be voting Republican en masse any day now is stupid. Moreover, the idea that the GOP should make Condoleeza Rice the new Presidential candidate - ridiculous.
That is all.
Heterohomophilia
Steve Sailer has printed an email of mine on the "Brokeback Mountain" issue (the second email), where I offer my thoughts on the fascination by some heterosexuals with homosexual activity amongst the opposite sex, a term I call "heterohomophilia." (I actually referred to it in my email as fascination with homosexuals, but on second thought I realize that it is homosexual activity (either sex or pair-bonding), not actual homosexuals, that is found fascinating by the opposite gender).
In any case, I brought up the parallel between "slash fanfiction" and girl-on-girl porn was myself way back in January of last year, and Yggy brought in up in the context of Brokeback Mountain here.
That is all.
In any case, I brought up the parallel between "slash fanfiction" and girl-on-girl porn was myself way back in January of last year, and Yggy brought in up in the context of Brokeback Mountain here.
That is all.
Monday, February 13, 2006
About that Accident
I probably should make a comment about Dick Cheney shooting that guy by accident. But I can't really think of anything novel and/or non-obvious to say. I don't really see much importance in the story from a standpoint of what it shows about Cheney or the Bush administration in general. It was a hunting accident, and doesn't really prove anything one way or the other about the war, or Halliburton, or illegal immigration, etc. So I'll wait to comment until I find something to say that is either relevant or clever.
As for those of you who take joy in berating Cheney, best of luck to you. He deserves all of the ribbing he gets. But I'm not going to join in the party.
That is all.
As for those of you who take joy in berating Cheney, best of luck to you. He deserves all of the ribbing he gets. But I'm not going to join in the party.
That is all.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Math and Science
Lew Rockwell denies that there is a shortage of Americans qualified in math and science.
As usual, he believes that the free market calibrates it so that we have jsut about the right amount.
It's an interesting proposition.
And of course, as I have mentioned before, any discussion of the gaps between the U.S. and other countries on test scores have to be considered in the context of our different racial demographics.
That is all.
As usual, he believes that the free market calibrates it so that we have jsut about the right amount.
It's an interesting proposition.
And of course, as I have mentioned before, any discussion of the gaps between the U.S. and other countries on test scores have to be considered in the context of our different racial demographics.
That is all.
York and Iran
Blow the Hell out of Iran now, says Byron York.
There are two problems with Mr. York's analysis of a post by Atrios.
First, he willfully misrepresents Atrios as suggesting that he wouldn't mind if nukes took out a city or two. Obviously, what Atrios is actually saying is (a) Iran is not an existentiaal threa to the U.S. and (b) it would by far be at a disadvantage in a nuclear exchange with the U.S., so it can easily be deterred from attacking us. Atrios is suggesting that taking out Iran's nuclear program is not necessary to prevent nuclear attacks, not that nuclear attacks would not be devastating.
If a nuclear Iran took out Jerusalem and London, to name a city or two, wouldn't that be really bad -- even if the U.S. was capable of devastating retaliation? Wouldn't it be better to prevent such an outcome, even if it involved a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?
Would such an attack end there, or would we be forced into actually conquering Iran in order to have any long-term victory? Byron York coneniently ignores all of the unintended but likely consequences of an attack on Iran.
Second, Byron York trots out the old "[Insert eeeeevil country here] is just crazy, and will gladly let itself be blow to nothingness by the U.S. in order to destroy a city" canard.
In addition, there was a certain rationality that underlay the Cold War system of mutually assured destruction. Does anyone know whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would display that rationality?
York would do well to remember that (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; he can't choose to nuke something without other branches of government consenting, and (b) Ahmadinejad is a lot less crazy than people think.
I'll analyze (b) first. For one thing, even if his comment on the Holocaust were a denial - the term "myth" does not necessarily imply fiction, so he might have simply been saying that the Holocaust has become Israel's raison d'etre, and he thinks the implications of that are unfair (I would disagree with him) - that would be more playing to the crowds than an evidence of madness. Most of the Middle Eastern Muslims hate Jews, so it wouldn't be irrational for a Muslim leader to publicly speak nasty lies about them. For the second thing, the statements about taking Israel off the map are again, almost certainly just normal Iranian boilerplate to try and direct the people's anger outside fo the country.
Finally, back to the issue of (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator: Steve Sailer has pointed out that the neocons always seem to assume that whatever branch of government in Iran contains the most belligerent people must be the one in charge, the better to wave the bloody shirt over; if Ahmadinejad were a moderate, like Khameini, they would assert that he had no power and that the crazed mullahs were really in charge. As it is, they claim, if not directly then by implication that Ahmadinejad is essentially a dictator.
Thanx and a tip o' that hat to Thrasymachus.
That is all.
There are two problems with Mr. York's analysis of a post by Atrios.
First, he willfully misrepresents Atrios as suggesting that he wouldn't mind if nukes took out a city or two. Obviously, what Atrios is actually saying is (a) Iran is not an existentiaal threa to the U.S. and (b) it would by far be at a disadvantage in a nuclear exchange with the U.S., so it can easily be deterred from attacking us. Atrios is suggesting that taking out Iran's nuclear program is not necessary to prevent nuclear attacks, not that nuclear attacks would not be devastating.
If a nuclear Iran took out Jerusalem and London, to name a city or two, wouldn't that be really bad -- even if the U.S. was capable of devastating retaliation? Wouldn't it be better to prevent such an outcome, even if it involved a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?
Would such an attack end there, or would we be forced into actually conquering Iran in order to have any long-term victory? Byron York coneniently ignores all of the unintended but likely consequences of an attack on Iran.
Second, Byron York trots out the old "[Insert eeeeevil country here] is just crazy, and will gladly let itself be blow to nothingness by the U.S. in order to destroy a city" canard.
In addition, there was a certain rationality that underlay the Cold War system of mutually assured destruction. Does anyone know whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would display that rationality?
York would do well to remember that (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; he can't choose to nuke something without other branches of government consenting, and (b) Ahmadinejad is a lot less crazy than people think.
I'll analyze (b) first. For one thing, even if his comment on the Holocaust were a denial - the term "myth" does not necessarily imply fiction, so he might have simply been saying that the Holocaust has become Israel's raison d'etre, and he thinks the implications of that are unfair (I would disagree with him) - that would be more playing to the crowds than an evidence of madness. Most of the Middle Eastern Muslims hate Jews, so it wouldn't be irrational for a Muslim leader to publicly speak nasty lies about them. For the second thing, the statements about taking Israel off the map are again, almost certainly just normal Iranian boilerplate to try and direct the people's anger outside fo the country.
Finally, back to the issue of (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator: Steve Sailer has pointed out that the neocons always seem to assume that whatever branch of government in Iran contains the most belligerent people must be the one in charge, the better to wave the bloody shirt over; if Ahmadinejad were a moderate, like Khameini, they would assert that he had no power and that the crazed mullahs were really in charge. As it is, they claim, if not directly then by implication that Ahmadinejad is essentially a dictator.
Thanx and a tip o' that hat to Thrasymachus.
That is all.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Not About Dollars v. Euros After All?
Paul Craig Roberts disputes the idea that the Middle-East war is motivated mainly by the "petrodollar," and also disputes that the currency in which oil is priced has more than a marginal effect on the dollar's value.
That is all.
That is all.
"Str8ening" Things Out
More of that Sailer good stuff, publishing an email from a gay reader on why he can accept Jake Gyllenhaal as a gay shepherd, but not Heath Ledger.
That is all.
That is all.
Everything Has an Economic Dimension
Economics is not just about wealth, says Llewellyn Rockwell Jr.
This is an interesting point that is overlooked by too many people who dismiss economists as assuming that man is "homo economicus," concerned only with wealth maximization. Love, charity, the warm fuzzy feeling that you get doing a good deed are all economic decisions in that in each case, you are exchanging finite resources (even if the resource is only your time) in order to satisfy a desire (e.g. you spend an hour giving and receiving affection from a loved one rather than cataloguing your comic book collection, because the affection is more satisfying to you at the current time than having the collection be complete).
Although I suppose one could argue that everything could be considered wealth as well, depending on how you define wealth. Certainly, one could argue that non-material benefits could be considered wealth of a sort.
That is all.
This is an interesting point that is overlooked by too many people who dismiss economists as assuming that man is "homo economicus," concerned only with wealth maximization. Love, charity, the warm fuzzy feeling that you get doing a good deed are all economic decisions in that in each case, you are exchanging finite resources (even if the resource is only your time) in order to satisfy a desire (e.g. you spend an hour giving and receiving affection from a loved one rather than cataloguing your comic book collection, because the affection is more satisfying to you at the current time than having the collection be complete).
Although I suppose one could argue that everything could be considered wealth as well, depending on how you define wealth. Certainly, one could argue that non-material benefits could be considered wealth of a sort.
That is all.
CIA vs. W.
Paul Pillar reports on the (blindingly obvious) fact that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
For what it is worth, here is the Weakly Standard's (deliberate misspelling) response.
That is all.
For what it is worth, here is the Weakly Standard's (deliberate misspelling) response.
That is all.
Thomas Sowell a Utilitarian?
According to William L. Anderson, Mr. Sowell's recent column on wiretapping veers in that direction.
That is all.
That is all.
Repeat a Lie Often Enough
Rumsfeld once again accuses (and subtly threatens) Syria and Iran of aiding the insurgency.
While I won't say that Iran and Syria have never done anything that might help the insurgents, they are not anywhere near important enough to the insurgents to justify the constant focus on them.
This is obviously done more for the edification of Rumsfeld's American audience than out of a desire to alter Iranian or Syrian policy, neither of which is likely a major player in the insurgency.
As I have said before, the two goals of this "blame Syria and Iran" campaign are (a) to excuse our failure to stop the insurgency, and (b) to set the public up to support the next Middle East war.
That is all.
While I won't say that Iran and Syria have never done anything that might help the insurgents, they are not anywhere near important enough to the insurgents to justify the constant focus on them.
This is obviously done more for the edification of Rumsfeld's American audience than out of a desire to alter Iranian or Syrian policy, neither of which is likely a major player in the insurgency.
As I have said before, the two goals of this "blame Syria and Iran" campaign are (a) to excuse our failure to stop the insurgency, and (b) to set the public up to support the next Middle East war.
That is all.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
On Wiretapping
It is strange how many otherwise good, government-distrusting conservatives ªincluding those who believe thatpublic schooling is terribly wrong) don't seem to have any problem whatsoever with the wiretapping issuethat has recently been brought up. I am specifically thinking of a personal acquaintance of mine when I say this.
But what the pundits are saying is also distressing. Just today, Sean Hannity essentially came out and said that the President has unlimited power as long as he is doing it under the rubric of "protecting the country," and that if Congress tries to curb him, it is the institution which is abusive its power.
Why doesn't Hannity come right out and suggest that we add a dictatorship clause to the constitution like the Romans had, but without the six-month limit?
That is all.
But what the pundits are saying is also distressing. Just today, Sean Hannity essentially came out and said that the President has unlimited power as long as he is doing it under the rubric of "protecting the country," and that if Congress tries to curb him, it is the institution which is abusive its power.
Why doesn't Hannity come right out and suggest that we add a dictatorship clause to the constitution like the Romans had, but without the six-month limit?
That is all.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Public vs. Private Schools
Gary North and Steve Sailer opine on a recent New York Times article that suggests that private schools are no better than public ones.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Not Even Israel First; Bush First
Mona Charen and Dennis Prager are apparently hallucinating a silver lining to the cloud of a Hamas electoral victory.
Presumably, their goal in this is either ideological (they want to preserve their neoconservatism) or loyalty-to-Bush-based (they are unwilling to admit that Bush's foreign policy is flawed in any way).
While Charen seems to be finding reasons to excuse the Palestinians for voting for Hamas, Prager, as Lawrence Auster points out, seems to be looking at the issue mainly as a club with which to attack the left rather than worrying about the actual issue of the Palestinians themselves.
This reminds me from something Steve Sailer has been saying: that a lot of whites look at minorities as being props that they use in order to improve their status with other whites. In this case, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is being used more as a prop in the right-left wars than as an issue in and of itself.
That is all.
Presumably, their goal in this is either ideological (they want to preserve their neoconservatism) or loyalty-to-Bush-based (they are unwilling to admit that Bush's foreign policy is flawed in any way).
While Charen seems to be finding reasons to excuse the Palestinians for voting for Hamas, Prager, as Lawrence Auster points out, seems to be looking at the issue mainly as a club with which to attack the left rather than worrying about the actual issue of the Palestinians themselves.
This reminds me from something Steve Sailer has been saying: that a lot of whites look at minorities as being props that they use in order to improve their status with other whites. In this case, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is being used more as a prop in the right-left wars than as an issue in and of itself.
That is all.
Good Ol' Tom Toles
Clark Stooksbury comments on the hoopla over a recent Tom Toles cartoon. He's pretty much on the money.
I must say that I find most of the criticism of the cartoon to be disingenuous. One of the commenters on The O'Reilly Factor compared it to Nazi-era cartoons of Jews. This is totally ridiculous, as the point of Nazi-era cartoons was to make the Jews look like evil monsters needing to be destroyed; not as victims of bad decisions by the leaders of their community.
Most of the other criticism simply seems to be that it is offensive to portray a wounded soldier. My answer is, why? It seems to me that Rumsfeld and company's cavalier attitude about our military's limits is a much bigger concern, one that the cartoon's critics have apparently ignored.
I also note that I don't see any similar concern about offending the Kopechnes when making jokes about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. (This is, of course, a good thing, as jokes about Ol' Rock-Liver are usualy pretty funny).
That is all.
I must say that I find most of the criticism of the cartoon to be disingenuous. One of the commenters on The O'Reilly Factor compared it to Nazi-era cartoons of Jews. This is totally ridiculous, as the point of Nazi-era cartoons was to make the Jews look like evil monsters needing to be destroyed; not as victims of bad decisions by the leaders of their community.
Most of the other criticism simply seems to be that it is offensive to portray a wounded soldier. My answer is, why? It seems to me that Rumsfeld and company's cavalier attitude about our military's limits is a much bigger concern, one that the cartoon's critics have apparently ignored.
I also note that I don't see any similar concern about offending the Kopechnes when making jokes about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. (This is, of course, a good thing, as jokes about Ol' Rock-Liver are usualy pretty funny).
That is all.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Supporting the Troops and not the War
Some morons on the right and the left don't believe that it is possible to support the troops and not the war.
Well, it is.
Because, you see, there is a difference between believing that a policy is stupid and will likely fail, and between hoping it will fail.
Obviously, I hope that our troops will do as well as they can, and that they will help to create a better situation in the Middle East. It would be nice if they could create a functioning multiethnic democracy there.
However, I would rather they not try, because I think they will fail. However, if they do try, I hope they succeed. But I can't support a policy that I don't think will succeed, as much as I would like to see it succeed.
This is as opposed to someone who wants the other side to win and who wants to see as many coalition soldiers get hurt as possible.
Capische?
That is all.
Well, it is.
Because, you see, there is a difference between believing that a policy is stupid and will likely fail, and between hoping it will fail.
Obviously, I hope that our troops will do as well as they can, and that they will help to create a better situation in the Middle East. It would be nice if they could create a functioning multiethnic democracy there.
However, I would rather they not try, because I think they will fail. However, if they do try, I hope they succeed. But I can't support a policy that I don't think will succeed, as much as I would like to see it succeed.
This is as opposed to someone who wants the other side to win and who wants to see as many coalition soldiers get hurt as possible.
Capische?
That is all.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Gay Un-Rights
A good article to read for anyone who claims that the gay rights lobby is only interested in protecting gays' rights, and doesn't want to take away the rights of people who dislike homosexuality.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Shylock, the Arab
In Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Portia, Bassanio's newlywed wife, pretends to be a judge and hears the case of Antonio and Shylock.
In case anyone here doesn't know the story, in essence, Antonio borrows money from Shylock, with the condition that if he cannot pay, he must let Shylock cut a pound of flesh from his chest (which will obviously kill him). When he can't pay, Shylock takes him to court to collect the penalty. (Shylock is a Jewish moneylender and he hates Antoino because of suffering prejudice from Christians all his life (as well as from the fact that Antonio undercut his lending business).
In any case, an interesting exchange occurs in the fourth act that shows one of themes of the play, which is (according to Shakespeare) the difference between the Christian and the Jewish outlook on life; between the (supposedly) overly legalistic outlook of the Jews and the merciful forgiveness of hte Christians.
Por. Of a strange nature is the suit you follow;
Yet in such rule that the Venetian law
Cannot impugn you as you do proceed.
[To ANTONIO.] You stand within his danger, do you not?
Ant. Ay, so he says.
Por. Do you confess the bond?
Ant. I do.
Por. Then must the Jew be merciful.
Shy. On what compulsion must I? tell me that.
Act IV. Scene 1 ll. 171-179
Forgetting the specifics of the play, and of the specific comparison used here (Jews v. Christians), we get a clear picture of a person trying to operate under the assumption of universalism, that all people share the same values.
Portia finds it so absurd that someone would kill someone as punishment for an unpaid debt that her response to the deal is "Then must [Shylock] be merciful," as no other reasonable option occurs to her.
Shylock, however, doesn't see it that way. He doesn't see why be merciful unless he is forced to by an outside power. "On what compulsion must I [be merciful]?"
After this, Portia goes into her "the quality of mercy is not strained" speech, where she in essence admits that Shylock doesn't have to be merciful, but really, no one could possibly not be merciful in such a situation.
Shylock responds (ll. 202-203) "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law,
The penalty and forfeit of my bond."
In other words, "I don't have to be merciuful, I ain't gonna be merciful!"
In a nutshell, this shows why it is unwise to approach people from other cultures as if they share your values, and why it is foolhardy to try and project your worldview onto them.
For our next exercise, students, let's pretend that the Israelis are Antonio (so the Jew [or the Jewish state, at least] is now the hero), the Americans Portia, and the Palestinians are Shylock. Omar al-Shylock.
In his recent state of the union, Bush said:
The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.
I can just hear Omar al-Shylock's reply:
Under what compulsion must I?
That is all.
In case anyone here doesn't know the story, in essence, Antonio borrows money from Shylock, with the condition that if he cannot pay, he must let Shylock cut a pound of flesh from his chest (which will obviously kill him). When he can't pay, Shylock takes him to court to collect the penalty. (Shylock is a Jewish moneylender and he hates Antoino because of suffering prejudice from Christians all his life (as well as from the fact that Antonio undercut his lending business).
In any case, an interesting exchange occurs in the fourth act that shows one of themes of the play, which is (according to Shakespeare) the difference between the Christian and the Jewish outlook on life; between the (supposedly) overly legalistic outlook of the Jews and the merciful forgiveness of hte Christians.
Por. Of a strange nature is the suit you follow;
Yet in such rule that the Venetian law
Cannot impugn you as you do proceed.
[To ANTONIO.] You stand within his danger, do you not?
Ant. Ay, so he says.
Por. Do you confess the bond?
Ant. I do.
Por. Then must the Jew be merciful.
Shy. On what compulsion must I? tell me that.
Act IV. Scene 1 ll. 171-179
Forgetting the specifics of the play, and of the specific comparison used here (Jews v. Christians), we get a clear picture of a person trying to operate under the assumption of universalism, that all people share the same values.
Portia finds it so absurd that someone would kill someone as punishment for an unpaid debt that her response to the deal is "Then must [Shylock] be merciful," as no other reasonable option occurs to her.
Shylock, however, doesn't see it that way. He doesn't see why be merciful unless he is forced to by an outside power. "On what compulsion must I [be merciful]?"
After this, Portia goes into her "the quality of mercy is not strained" speech, where she in essence admits that Shylock doesn't have to be merciful, but really, no one could possibly not be merciful in such a situation.
Shylock responds (ll. 202-203) "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law,
The penalty and forfeit of my bond."
In other words, "I don't have to be merciuful, I ain't gonna be merciful!"
In a nutshell, this shows why it is unwise to approach people from other cultures as if they share your values, and why it is foolhardy to try and project your worldview onto them.
For our next exercise, students, let's pretend that the Israelis are Antonio (so the Jew [or the Jewish state, at least] is now the hero), the Americans Portia, and the Palestinians are Shylock. Omar al-Shylock.
In his recent state of the union, Bush said:
The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.
I can just hear Omar al-Shylock's reply:
Under what compulsion must I?
That is all.
Thoughts About Guest-Worker Programs
Unless we can get rid of birthright citizenship, an essential part of any alien guest-worker program is a massive spaying/neutering campaign.
That is all.
That is all.
So Far, So Good
From some predictions I made earlier this month:
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
For January 2006, the current coalition fatality numbers are 44 hostile (i.e. combat-related) and 20 non-hostile (i.e. accidental or otherwise non-combat-related, e.g. deaths.
Turns out my doubts were unfounded.
So far, my predictions on coalition fatalities are pretty accurate.
That is all.
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
For January 2006, the current coalition fatality numbers are 44 hostile (i.e. combat-related) and 20 non-hostile (i.e. accidental or otherwise non-combat-related, e.g. deaths.
Turns out my doubts were unfounded.
So far, my predictions on coalition fatalities are pretty accurate.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)