One of the stranger claims made in recent days is that "rape is not about sex."
Over and over it has been said that rape is not about sex, it is about power and control. "Rape is best characterized as torture that uses sex as a weapon. Like a torturer, the rapist uses sexual acts to dominate, humiliate, and terrorize the victim". Perhaps one might understand that that is the victim's interpretation, but we are told that "Rape is not about sex to the rapist; it has to do with control and power."
Not just sometimes, but every time.
Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Despite my problems with Alas, a Blog, on this particular point which Ampersand is correct:
Men who rape women don't do it because they hate women, but because they don't give a **** about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they're by-and-large indifferent to how the person they "take" it from feels.
This is why the "rape isn't about sex, rape is about violence" analysis falls short. It's not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don't rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it's not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don't consider the woman's feelings at all...
Now don't get me wrong. There are cases in which rape is simply used as a tool of violence, as a way to dominate or control someone. Homosexual rapes by heterosexual males likely often fall into this category (except in situations when men subsitute for women due to a lack of women), as would ritualistic rapes by serial killers and a large number of wartime rapes. But to argue that the casual rapist isn't raping for sex but for violence, power, and control is rather like saying that the mugger mugs people as an act of violence rather than because he wants their money or that the shoplifter shoplifts purely out of kleptomania or to get revenge on the store, not in order to, you know, get stuff free. Or that the person who murders witnesses isn't doing it to keep them from talking but just for the sake of the violence itself.
This is not to say that rape isn't an act of violence, power, and control, but to say that these are usually tools used to get sex rather than ends in and of themselves.
One argument against this is that sex is so available that no one needs to rape in order to get sex; therefore sex cannot be the motivating factor. Perhaps. But money is available as well, and people still steal. The issue isn't whether or not the rapist can obtain sex elsewhere. The issue is that the rapist's motivation is sex when he wants, with whom he wants, and how he wants. He apparently calculates that he can get a "better deal" by taking what he wants than through other means. Perhpas this calculation is wrong - to continue an analogy, lots of criminals probably make less through robbery than they could through honest work - but this doesn't change the fact of the motivation.
So why do we hear that rape is about power and violence?
Two reasons:
The most obvious is that we tend to look through the eyes of the victim, for whom the violence and the loss of control to the rapist is the major event. The victims are usually bothered by the violation, not by the fact that they had sex. So we tend to project the consequences of the rape and the victim's attitudes onto the perpetrator: the violence is what affected her, so that must have been his goal.
The second reason is more controversial, and is something that I more or less have thought up myself. To explain my hypothesis is really the point of this whole piece:
The more casually a society takes sex, the less of an impact the act of rape has in terms of sex. Therefore, in order to have rape be a serious crime, one has to redefine it away from sex.
Of course, one might argue that they didn't use to take rape seriously at all. I think it's not so much that as that people were in denial over it, suggesting that the woman either was lying or that for some other reason rape had not occurred. And it must also be pointed out that in the less humane societies of old, people were brutal enough that rape did not always seem so terrible in comparison to other things that people did to one another. In a society where pickpockets were hung publicly, the violence was casual enough that however seriously rape was taken, it wouldn't necessarily carry the same weight it does in our comfy modern times.
In any case, though, with sex being a privae topic and officially relegated to marriage and whatnot, the idea of forcing someone to have sex carried with it the idea of a pretty intense violation. Someone was being forced to go through a very private and intimate experience. But if sex is no more intimate than shaking hands, then rape is no more serious than grabbing someone's hand without their permission (or holding onto it, as the case may be).
Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale.
Thoughts?
That is all.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Value of Human Beings
The problem with those who want to value humans based on their utility is that there is no standard for utility unless humans (or something else) have (has) axiomatic value. If humans are basically worthless, then what difference does it make if something is useful to one of them? Sure, some people are drains on society and some contribute, but at the end of the day, why is society valuable?
Unless you accept some axiomatic value for humans or for something else that humans can serve, even as a starting point, you can't assign them any utilitarian value. The axiomatic value should, in my opinion, be equal, or at least I see that as the least arbitrary of the arbitrary systems of values you could assign to people.
Perhaps utility can create a second-order value; that is, a person's total value is his axiomatic value plus or minus his utility to other persons times these other people's axiomatic values. But there has to be a starting point that is either pre-logical (axiomatic, that is, it isn't deduced from other principles) or else circular.
That is all.
Unless you accept some axiomatic value for humans or for something else that humans can serve, even as a starting point, you can't assign them any utilitarian value. The axiomatic value should, in my opinion, be equal, or at least I see that as the least arbitrary of the arbitrary systems of values you could assign to people.
Perhaps utility can create a second-order value; that is, a person's total value is his axiomatic value plus or minus his utility to other persons times these other people's axiomatic values. But there has to be a starting point that is either pre-logical (axiomatic, that is, it isn't deduced from other principles) or else circular.
That is all.
More on the French Protests
Although the recent French riots could easily be discussed in terms of "bad economics" and "stupid unions," and all of the free-marker arguments trotted out, it occurs to me htat there is an immigration angle to this issue.
If France does make its hiring/firing policies more lax, or if it plays with its minimum wage at all, it would likely bring in more workers from poor immigrant neighborhoods. Policies that restrict the ability of a business to fire workers or that keep the wages up or that in any way make workers more expensive tend to make businesses more cautious about whom they hire. Therefore, it will skew jobs more toward the more skilled people, even in professions that don't require a lot of skill, because the employers don't want to take any chances of hiring someone who will work out poorly (but not poorly enough to be fired).
In fact, the connection between this bill and immigration issues (including people who are not immigrants themselves but who are descended from recent immigrants) is hinted at in the article:
Designed by the government to help ease the crisis of chronic high unemployment, particularly among poor youth after riots last fall in the suburbs, the law is seen by its opponents as a step toward eroding long-cherished employment rights and benefits.
In any case, though, if the problem is a glut of labor, the solution is to let in fewer immigrants, and perhaps to pay some of those who are here to go back to their home country (or their parents, grandparents, etc. home country if need be). In any case, the immigrant issue should be dealt with directly, not through laws on other issues.
Back though to the economic illiteracy of so many French people, though, I love this little quote:
"I'm sick and tired of all these phony contracts and I want to protect my children's future," said Carole Cases, a 43-year-old nurse, with two of her children, from the Paris suburb of Noisy-le-Grand. "They're trying to dupe the young."
"I'm sick and tired of all these phony contracts." Translated: "I'm isck and tired of having choices and then having to live up to them."
The only other interesting tidbit to me was on the second page, when it is mentioned that the protestors ran into Turkish protestors who didn't want a memorial built to commemorate Armenian victims of genocide. The French protestors expressed there opinions: "Fascists!" and "Go home!"
About the encounter with the Turks, what can I say? When French protestors are right about something, they are right.
That is all.
If France does make its hiring/firing policies more lax, or if it plays with its minimum wage at all, it would likely bring in more workers from poor immigrant neighborhoods. Policies that restrict the ability of a business to fire workers or that keep the wages up or that in any way make workers more expensive tend to make businesses more cautious about whom they hire. Therefore, it will skew jobs more toward the more skilled people, even in professions that don't require a lot of skill, because the employers don't want to take any chances of hiring someone who will work out poorly (but not poorly enough to be fired).
In fact, the connection between this bill and immigration issues (including people who are not immigrants themselves but who are descended from recent immigrants) is hinted at in the article:
Designed by the government to help ease the crisis of chronic high unemployment, particularly among poor youth after riots last fall in the suburbs, the law is seen by its opponents as a step toward eroding long-cherished employment rights and benefits.
In any case, though, if the problem is a glut of labor, the solution is to let in fewer immigrants, and perhaps to pay some of those who are here to go back to their home country (or their parents, grandparents, etc. home country if need be). In any case, the immigrant issue should be dealt with directly, not through laws on other issues.
Back though to the economic illiteracy of so many French people, though, I love this little quote:
"I'm sick and tired of all these phony contracts and I want to protect my children's future," said Carole Cases, a 43-year-old nurse, with two of her children, from the Paris suburb of Noisy-le-Grand. "They're trying to dupe the young."
"I'm sick and tired of all these phony contracts." Translated: "I'm isck and tired of having choices and then having to live up to them."
The only other interesting tidbit to me was on the second page, when it is mentioned that the protestors ran into Turkish protestors who didn't want a memorial built to commemorate Armenian victims of genocide. The French protestors expressed there opinions: "Fascists!" and "Go home!"
About the encounter with the Turks, what can I say? When French protestors are right about something, they are right.
That is all.
Pre-War Propaganda
I thought that this piece from September 11, 2002, would be of interest to my readers.
I think more than anything, reading this little piece of neo-puffery about the [then] coming war made me distrust Ahmad Chalabi.
That is all.
I think more than anything, reading this little piece of neo-puffery about the [then] coming war made me distrust Ahmad Chalabi.
That is all.
Scientologyism
Sully has been commenting on the South Park vs. Scientology battle here, here, here, and here.
Considering his recent decision to use the term "Christianism" as a parallel to "Islamism" to describe Christians who don't approve of homosexuality (let's be honest, however he defines "Christianism," that's what he really means), I wonder how long it will be before he starts discussing scientologyism and the difference between Scientologists and scientologyismists.
That is all.
Considering his recent decision to use the term "Christianism" as a parallel to "Islamism" to describe Christians who don't approve of homosexuality (let's be honest, however he defines "Christianism," that's what he really means), I wonder how long it will be before he starts discussing scientologyism and the difference between Scientologists and scientologyismists.
That is all.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Under Odysseus
A few weeks ago, someone asked if I would consider Under Odysseus as a blog of the week. Sorry, but it doesn't have a sitemeter icon or any way that I could track whether or not people are coming from my site to that one, so no, it can't be a blog of the week.
But I will link to it. Check it out using the link above. It appears to be a fictional blog of one of Odysseus's men.
That is all.
But I will link to it. Check it out using the link above. It appears to be a fictional blog of one of Odysseus's men.
That is all.
Vampiress Blogging
Looking at the stats on my blog, I get the feeling that my readership has declined since the New Year (or since mid-January, at least). The reason for this, I believe, is that the quantity of my blogging has declined a little since I began substitute teaching. In particular, I lost a few readers during a period when I got tired out and only blogged onc or twice in a four-day or so period. Also, the quality of my blogging has probably gone down a little as I have concentrated some on, you know, real life (shudder).
So what is my current strategy?
Well, the same as always.
First, try to post often. This means that the blogger "Next blog" function (top right buton on the blue Blogger NavBar strip at top) will get me a few extra hits from people from random blogs. It also makes my readers more likely to check up often, as there will be lots of new material. I try to post at least once a day, and usually more frequently. I also click on the "Next blog" feature occasionally so that other people with sitemeter will check my site from the link in the "referrers" links on their sitemeter account.
Second, try to make a few really good posts every week. That is, posts that are more than Instapundit-style "Click here. So and so says this. Indeed! Read the whole thing." And maybe once a week or every two weeks try to make a long post that discusses something in depth. This may not be what a lot of blog readers are looking for, but I think that the people that are in my "ecosystem" (e.g., Steve Sailer and Lyin' Eyes Ziel) are looking for some "value-added" blogging, not just insipid thoughts to show how smart they think they are.
Third, try to comment on other people's sites, and when appropriate, mention your site. Only when appropriate though.
Fourth, develop friednships with other bloggers and get them to exchange links.
Fifth, I am banking heavily on the fact that a picture that I linked to early in my blogging career has got me a lot of hits from Google Image searches. I didn't intend this to happen, but since it has, I am making the most of it. Maybe a lot of people who come here from an image search aren't going to come back, but if a few do, it's worth it.
The picture, of course, is of the vampiress Urs. Urs was a sexy vampiress played by Kristin Lehman on Forever Knight.
I mention her every so often in order to make certain that my image score stays on top.
No other picture to which I have linked has been so successful at getting me traffic, so I link once more.
That is all.
So what is my current strategy?
Well, the same as always.
First, try to post often. This means that the blogger "Next blog" function (top right buton on the blue Blogger NavBar strip at top) will get me a few extra hits from people from random blogs. It also makes my readers more likely to check up often, as there will be lots of new material. I try to post at least once a day, and usually more frequently. I also click on the "Next blog" feature occasionally so that other people with sitemeter will check my site from the link in the "referrers" links on their sitemeter account.
Second, try to make a few really good posts every week. That is, posts that are more than Instapundit-style "Click here. So and so says this. Indeed! Read the whole thing." And maybe once a week or every two weeks try to make a long post that discusses something in depth. This may not be what a lot of blog readers are looking for, but I think that the people that are in my "ecosystem" (e.g., Steve Sailer and Lyin' Eyes Ziel) are looking for some "value-added" blogging, not just insipid thoughts to show how smart they think they are.
Third, try to comment on other people's sites, and when appropriate, mention your site. Only when appropriate though.
Fourth, develop friednships with other bloggers and get them to exchange links.
Fifth, I am banking heavily on the fact that a picture that I linked to early in my blogging career has got me a lot of hits from Google Image searches. I didn't intend this to happen, but since it has, I am making the most of it. Maybe a lot of people who come here from an image search aren't going to come back, but if a few do, it's worth it.
The picture, of course, is of the vampiress Urs. Urs was a sexy vampiress played by Kristin Lehman on Forever Knight.
I mention her every so often in order to make certain that my image score stays on top.
No other picture to which I have linked has been so successful at getting me traffic, so I link once more.
That is all.
More on "Choice for Men"
I think that Udolpho explains what I have been trying to say about the "If women can get abortions, why are men forced to pay child support?" argument very succinctly:
This idea very neatly divides those who truly find abortion unobjectionable and those who just like it because it gives women whatever they want.
That is all.
This idea very neatly divides those who truly find abortion unobjectionable and those who just like it because it gives women whatever they want.
That is all.
Annie Proulx, Sore Loser
I suppose I ought to comment on the recent Guardian piece by Annie Proulx, excoriating the Oscars committee for not giving Brokeback Mountain more Oscars.
Steve Sailer (check out here as well, Diana Moon, Dennis Dale, and Udolpho have all commented on this.
So my two cents?
(1) She's a sore loser.
(2) Her hatred of Crash makes no sense to me. The movie was an interesting one (I reviewed it here, and I liked it for not trying to make any major character simply evil, and presenting a racist as a human being rather than as some sort of incomprehensible monster (Steve Sailer has also said this). Part of her hatred may be for this reason, that the racist is not portrayed as entirely evil, nor the black criminal as entirely a victim (this turned Nate Mezmer in Counterpunch against the film).
(3) Her obvious irritation that Philip Seymour Hoffman got the award for best actor might stem from the fact that he also played a gay character, but one who was a "lisping queer" rather than a Marlboro-man clone who just happens to like buggering men. As Jon Stewart said, "Capote was a ground breaking film that broke taboos, that showed America not all gay people are virile cowboys. Some are actually effete New York intellectuals." Perhaps she couldn't handle it.
That is all.
Steve Sailer (check out here as well, Diana Moon, Dennis Dale, and Udolpho have all commented on this.
So my two cents?
(1) She's a sore loser.
(2) Her hatred of Crash makes no sense to me. The movie was an interesting one (I reviewed it here, and I liked it for not trying to make any major character simply evil, and presenting a racist as a human being rather than as some sort of incomprehensible monster (Steve Sailer has also said this). Part of her hatred may be for this reason, that the racist is not portrayed as entirely evil, nor the black criminal as entirely a victim (this turned Nate Mezmer in Counterpunch against the film).
(3) Her obvious irritation that Philip Seymour Hoffman got the award for best actor might stem from the fact that he also played a gay character, but one who was a "lisping queer" rather than a Marlboro-man clone who just happens to like buggering men. As Jon Stewart said, "Capote was a ground breaking film that broke taboos, that showed America not all gay people are virile cowboys. Some are actually effete New York intellectuals." Perhaps she couldn't handle it.
That is all.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Riots in France
I just heard on the TV about some young people's labor riots in France, where they were protesting new rules making it easier for employers to fire them. Apparentl;y 50 cops were hurt in these dumb protests, which also involved property destruction. AS far as I can tell, the protestors were not descended from recent immigrants nor were they Muslim.
(I will link when I find a good link to the story).
If the protests don't end, I have three suggestions as to how the French government can deal with these vandals.
See? I don't discriminate.
That is all.
(I will link when I find a good link to the story).
If the protests don't end, I have three suggestions as to how the French government can deal with these vandals.
See? I don't discriminate.
That is all.
More Fiction Thoughts
I remember watching an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit where one of the conflicts was that a primary piece of evidence against some people could not be used because it would compromise a federal terrorism case.
I can't help thinking that in a real-life situation, rather than accept that they might have to let a killer get off in order to protect the information, the police might decide that seeing as they know the guy's guilty and can't use their best evidence, they'll just falsify other evidence to get them. In fact, I can see the federal agents suggesting that they do this.
I think that an episode or a story where someone falsifies evidence for precisely this reason would make an interesting show.
For this to be done properly, we would need three things:
(1) A clearly guilty bad guy
(2) Sympathetic cops
(3) Unintedned consequences for their falsifying evidence (e.g. an innocent gets caught up and convicted as well)
Without (1) and (2), you have out of control cops, and the dilemma is too easy (the cops are evil, so what they do is evil). Without (3), the dilemma is also easily resolved, because we are shown that falsifying evidence doesn't have consequences. In otehr words, the morality of one side of the dilemma would be totally theoretical, divorced from reailty.
I think it would make an interesting story.
That is all.
I can't help thinking that in a real-life situation, rather than accept that they might have to let a killer get off in order to protect the information, the police might decide that seeing as they know the guy's guilty and can't use their best evidence, they'll just falsify other evidence to get them. In fact, I can see the federal agents suggesting that they do this.
I think that an episode or a story where someone falsifies evidence for precisely this reason would make an interesting show.
For this to be done properly, we would need three things:
(1) A clearly guilty bad guy
(2) Sympathetic cops
(3) Unintedned consequences for their falsifying evidence (e.g. an innocent gets caught up and convicted as well)
Without (1) and (2), you have out of control cops, and the dilemma is too easy (the cops are evil, so what they do is evil). Without (3), the dilemma is also easily resolved, because we are shown that falsifying evidence doesn't have consequences. In otehr words, the morality of one side of the dilemma would be totally theoretical, divorced from reailty.
I think it would make an interesting story.
That is all.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Congress Worries that Internet May Allow Too Much Free Speech
More on the depredations of McCain-Feingold and the attempts to prevent it from destroying free speech.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Jim Henley.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Jim Henley.
That is all.
Persia/Iran
Joseph Farah claims that the choice of the name "Iran" reflects the Iranians' Nazi sympathies. Supposedly, they chose the name in the 1930s because they wanted to identify their Aryan heritage so as to tand with Hitler.
The problem with this account is that it ignores the fact that Iran has always been what the people living there called it. Persia was a name imposed by outsiders.
To the natives [of Iran] themselves, it has been known as Iran for centuries. "Persia" was simply what foreigners insisted on calling it, because that was what the Greeks called it...The Iranians eventually tired of accepting someody else's name for their own country... - Tom Burnam, The Dictionary of Misinformation
That is all.
The problem with this account is that it ignores the fact that Iran has always been what the people living there called it. Persia was a name imposed by outsiders.
To the natives [of Iran] themselves, it has been known as Iran for centuries. "Persia" was simply what foreigners insisted on calling it, because that was what the Greeks called it...The Iranians eventually tired of accepting someody else's name for their own country... - Tom Burnam, The Dictionary of Misinformation
That is all.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
More on Casualties
Todd Chretien has an interesting piece on Counterpunch on the carnage of the Iraq War.
Some of what he says is incorrect (I believe that Lunaville has refuted the claim that significant numbers of soldiers are dying outside of Iraq of their injuries and not being counted - I can't find the specific post right now, though). On the other hand, it is good that he points that a lot of so-called peaceniks like John Murtha really want to continue the war, just in a different, and perhaps more lethal (to Iraqis, that is) way.
That is all.
Some of what he says is incorrect (I believe that Lunaville has refuted the claim that significant numbers of soldiers are dying outside of Iraq of their injuries and not being counted - I can't find the specific post right now, though). On the other hand, it is good that he points that a lot of so-called peaceniks like John Murtha really want to continue the war, just in a different, and perhaps more lethal (to Iraqis, that is) way.
That is all.
Andrew Cockburn on the Iraqi Civilian Deaths
This is an interesting post, more than two months old, discussing the deaths of Iraqi civilians (which I discuss at length here.
That is all.
That is all.
Whom to Trust?
Sully writes:
What is the real state of Iraq? Is it this rosy picture painted by Ralph Peters, who accuses Western journalists of lying? Or is it the experience of these actual Iraqis explaining their situation?
Hmmm... do I trust Iraqis and journalists, or someone who is "A former intelligence officer, riding around Baghdad, painting a rosy picture?"
Hmmmm.... that's a tough one.
That is all.
What is the real state of Iraq? Is it this rosy picture painted by Ralph Peters, who accuses Western journalists of lying? Or is it the experience of these actual Iraqis explaining their situation?
Hmmm... do I trust Iraqis and journalists, or someone who is "A former intelligence officer, riding around Baghdad, painting a rosy picture?"
Hmmmm.... that's a tough one.
That is all.
Democracy in Iraq
One thing that confuses me is when people talk about how "democracy" or "improving the lives of Iraqis" suddenly became the rationale for the war when WMDs were not found.
That we were giving the Iraqis "liberty" was always a major part of the war propaganda. In 1998 we had the Iraq Liberation Act, and the attack was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." To be fair, that may not have been presented exactly as the Iraq War's raison d'etre, but it was always portrayed as a major consideration, so I don't know where the people insisting that democratizing Iraq didn't become a concern until mid-2003 are coming from.
(I'll update this later, with links).
That is all.
That we were giving the Iraqis "liberty" was always a major part of the war propaganda. In 1998 we had the Iraq Liberation Act, and the attack was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." To be fair, that may not have been presented exactly as the Iraq War's raison d'etre, but it was always portrayed as a major consideration, so I don't know where the people insisting that democratizing Iraq didn't become a concern until mid-2003 are coming from.
(I'll update this later, with links).
That is all.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
An Idea for a Character
For what, I'm not certain, but he would be a villain.
I have recently been reading some of the V for Vendetta graphic novel at Barnes & Noble," and it occurred to me an interesting way to deal with the idea of a masked man.
A little background: I have the idea for a superhero team called The Defense Force. At some point, I may blog on it; I've already reserved the name. But I think this guy would fit either somewhere in their rogue's gallery, or if not, then he would probably fit somewhere in their universe.
My idea - what if a mask were used, not for concealment - but to add things to a person? The character I am thinking of would call himself "the Cherub." But unlike the Putti that most people associate with the term "cherub," he would look more like a Biblical cherub - four wings and four faces. (I'm not certain yet whether the wings would be from genetic manipulation or prostheses of some sort).
Basically, the Cherub would be a madman of some sort who somehow grafted permanently onto the sides and back of his head masks of a lion, an ox, and an eagle. His face is unobscured.
I'm not sure yet how he would fit into the storyline, and I am also aware that none of you probably have never heard of "The Defense Force" before (unless you are one of my personal friends whom I have talked about it to - I don't think I've posted about it online before, except in an old GNXP comment thread where I don't mention the name).
But the idea of the Cherub is, I think, very cool.
That is all.
I have recently been reading some of the V for Vendetta graphic novel at Barnes & Noble," and it occurred to me an interesting way to deal with the idea of a masked man.
A little background: I have the idea for a superhero team called The Defense Force. At some point, I may blog on it; I've already reserved the name. But I think this guy would fit either somewhere in their rogue's gallery, or if not, then he would probably fit somewhere in their universe.
My idea - what if a mask were used, not for concealment - but to add things to a person? The character I am thinking of would call himself "the Cherub." But unlike the Putti that most people associate with the term "cherub," he would look more like a Biblical cherub - four wings and four faces. (I'm not certain yet whether the wings would be from genetic manipulation or prostheses of some sort).
Basically, the Cherub would be a madman of some sort who somehow grafted permanently onto the sides and back of his head masks of a lion, an ox, and an eagle. His face is unobscured.
I'm not sure yet how he would fit into the storyline, and I am also aware that none of you probably have never heard of "The Defense Force" before (unless you are one of my personal friends whom I have talked about it to - I don't think I've posted about it online before, except in an old GNXP comment thread where I don't mention the name).
But the idea of the Cherub is, I think, very cool.
That is all.
A Chance to Poke Fun at Sully
Sausy Blue posts on her blog about the general issue of apparent misconceptions about feminism and how it taints people's attitudes toward feminism on her blog.
Nothing particularly stands out, but I have derived a moment of levity in the last paragraph:
So what's to be done? With the Reverands of middle America teaching their loyal followers that the corruption of the world, and their hymnals, as well as the drowning of New Orleans, the wildfires out West, and the Iraq War are all because of "the gays" and "those feminists"?
Well, those reverends are partly right about Iraq - but only partly. The Iraq War is not because of "those gays." It's because of this gay.
That is all.
Nothing particularly stands out, but I have derived a moment of levity in the last paragraph:
So what's to be done? With the Reverands of middle America teaching their loyal followers that the corruption of the world, and their hymnals, as well as the drowning of New Orleans, the wildfires out West, and the Iraq War are all because of "the gays" and "those feminists"?
Well, those reverends are partly right about Iraq - but only partly. The Iraq War is not because of "those gays." It's because of this gay.
That is all.
Feminist Hypocrisy
Before reading this post, let me say that I am not for men getting out of paying child support. However, I am also not pro-choice. I do think, however, that there is a lot o hypocrisy involved in making men pay child support for children they did not want while being pro-choice on abortion, and that is what I am addressing in this post.
I find it interesting that when it comes to issues of child-support, feminists suddenly turn all prudish and insist that once someone is pregnant, the man has made his decision and must pay for it. Usually this involves some level of beating strawmen (implying that he wants to force the woman to have an abortion), some level of double standard (well, he did have a choice - to have sex or not) blatant shifting of the rules of argument (in a discussion on whether it was equivalent to say that a man's choice was before conception occurred and that a woman's choice was before conception occurred, Ampersand once stated that the position that a man had no choice only made sense if all sex was female-on-male rape, blithely ignoring the fact that the argument was about choice after pregnancy acknowledging that the sex was consensual), or bringing up irrelevant ad hominem attacks (well, this should teach men to be more interested in birth control), or even looking at using child support as a way to enforce morality on males in a way that offends them when applied to females (men would be more irresponsible if they didn't have to pay for the consequences of sex).
The only reasonable argument is not having to carry a baby to term against one's will has a stronger claim to be a right than not having to work to support someone you didn't consent to fathering. But rather than saying that, most feminists wind up using the other, more dishonest arguments.
It is the use of such dishonesty (or, being more benevolent, total ignorance or lack of logic), even by people whom I otherwise respected, that caused me to stop visiting and commenting on Alas, a Blog.
What is even more ridiculous is when they try to parody the pro-lifers on the issue. The reason that this is so ludicrous is that they act as if men expect to have all the options (i.e., regarding child support) when a woman gets pregnant but don't want women to have any options.
This is a blatant lie on two counts:
(1) There is no evidence that the men who believe that child support should be mandatory are the same ones who want abortion made illegal.
(2) The fact of the matter is that (with the possible exception of South Dakota until its new anti-abortion law gets overturned) women;s options are currently enshrined in law by Roe v. Wade, while men have no option but to help pay for whatever the woman decides.
It is blatant hypocrisy for feminists to pretend that there is a double standard against them on this issue when in fact all the legal issues are weighted in their favor.
This tends to support my belief that many feminists are really female supremacists and don't really care about equal rights. They care about improving the status of women vis a vis men, and about protecting female interests, whether or not doing so is congruent with equality. If it is, fine. If not, then equality must yield to female interest.
That is all.
I find it interesting that when it comes to issues of child-support, feminists suddenly turn all prudish and insist that once someone is pregnant, the man has made his decision and must pay for it. Usually this involves some level of beating strawmen (implying that he wants to force the woman to have an abortion), some level of double standard (well, he did have a choice - to have sex or not) blatant shifting of the rules of argument (in a discussion on whether it was equivalent to say that a man's choice was before conception occurred and that a woman's choice was before conception occurred, Ampersand once stated that the position that a man had no choice only made sense if all sex was female-on-male rape, blithely ignoring the fact that the argument was about choice after pregnancy acknowledging that the sex was consensual), or bringing up irrelevant ad hominem attacks (well, this should teach men to be more interested in birth control), or even looking at using child support as a way to enforce morality on males in a way that offends them when applied to females (men would be more irresponsible if they didn't have to pay for the consequences of sex).
The only reasonable argument is not having to carry a baby to term against one's will has a stronger claim to be a right than not having to work to support someone you didn't consent to fathering. But rather than saying that, most feminists wind up using the other, more dishonest arguments.
It is the use of such dishonesty (or, being more benevolent, total ignorance or lack of logic), even by people whom I otherwise respected, that caused me to stop visiting and commenting on Alas, a Blog.
What is even more ridiculous is when they try to parody the pro-lifers on the issue. The reason that this is so ludicrous is that they act as if men expect to have all the options (i.e., regarding child support) when a woman gets pregnant but don't want women to have any options.
This is a blatant lie on two counts:
(1) There is no evidence that the men who believe that child support should be mandatory are the same ones who want abortion made illegal.
(2) The fact of the matter is that (with the possible exception of South Dakota until its new anti-abortion law gets overturned) women;s options are currently enshrined in law by Roe v. Wade, while men have no option but to help pay for whatever the woman decides.
It is blatant hypocrisy for feminists to pretend that there is a double standard against them on this issue when in fact all the legal issues are weighted in their favor.
This tends to support my belief that many feminists are really female supremacists and don't really care about equal rights. They care about improving the status of women vis a vis men, and about protecting female interests, whether or not doing so is congruent with equality. If it is, fine. If not, then equality must yield to female interest.
That is all.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Sensationalism? Why, Whatever Do You Mean?
This advertisement for Whistleblower Magazine is obviously working on a story because of its newsworthiness, not its sensationalism.
Particularly when you see how it is referenced on the site:
Lust-filled women on sex rampage with your kids:
What's really behind today's epidemic of teacher-student carnal relations
That is all.
Particularly when you see how it is referenced on the site:
Lust-filled women on sex rampage with your kids:
What's really behind today's epidemic of teacher-student carnal relations
That is all.
More Sailer Good Stuff!
Steve Sailer debunks the claim by Robert J. Sampson that immigration from Mexico reduces our crime rate.
That is all.
That is all.
The Civilian Death Count
Back in late 2004, there was a report published in the British medical journal Lancet saying that 100,000 people had died as a direct result of the Iraq War. Now the estimates are running as high as 250,000, with an average of around 150,000.
There was a lot of skepticism about the initial report, both when it came out, and today as well. No less a luminary than Michael Fumento has criticized it.
Some of the criticism, including the Fred Kaplan Slate piece I referenced, was on the basis of statistical problems with the study (although it ought to be pointed out that by leaving Fallujah out of their results, the team doing the study probably reduced the results somewhat, which would offset at least some of the factors that might exaggerrate their count). Often brought up were the disparities between this and the Iraq Body Count, which counts fatalities in Iraq by scouring news reports. (Estimates were between 14,181 and 16,312 deaths by October 29, 2004, and are between 33,489 and 37,589 as of today (March 12, 2006)).
Some people, such as Penraker have (in an article linked two paragraphs ago) insisted that the invasion actually saved lives, and that the people killed in the conflict are fewer than would have been killed if Saddam had remained in power.
The most obvious reason, in any case, why people discount the Lancet study is that there are nowhere near that many reports of deaths on record. So one wonders where all of these "phantom deaths" come from.
So let's first discuss the problems that have been mentioned with the Lancet study, and then discuss where those deaths might have come from.
A large part of the criticism was in the range of deaths presented. The range was somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 in the original study, or 98,000, plus 96,000 or minus 90,000. (why it wasn't 101,000, ± 93,000 is not spelled out; it apparently was not a perfectly symmetrical bell curve).
A lot of people dismiss the study as impenetrably broad based on this fact, but what needs to be considered is the way that statistics works. A 95% confidence interval means that the chances that the number will be within a particular range is 95%. However, the chances are not equal that it will be any point in the range. 95% confidence represents 2 standard deviations.
So what was the death toll as of the time of the Lancet study? If we assume an assymetrical bell curve with a mean of 98,000, and a standard deviation of 45,000 down and 49,000 up, there is a 68% confidence level that the result will be between 43,000 and 147,000. The chance that the deaths would be under 8,000 is only 2.5% (1 in 40) with a corresponding 2.5% chance that they were greater than 194,000.
For a discussion of standard deviations, click here.
Another thing to consider is that the study did not try to determine the gross number of deaths caused by the invasion but the net number. This means that if the death toll were 20,000, this means 20,000 more died than would have died if we had not invaded (assuming that the mortality rate in Iraq would have held constant at what it was from in the 15 months prior to the war). So if we save any lives from Saddam, the war killed those in addition to the 8,000 to 194,000 "excess deaths."
One issue that have with most pro-warriors when they are trying to talk about how many Iraqis were saved by the invasion is that they take the number of people who were estimated to have been killed during Saddam's reign, or at least the last 12 years of it, and extrapolate from that, without considering whether the rate of killing has gone down toward the end of the Saddam era. I would think that Saddam was not killing anywhere near as many people in the three years before the invasion as he did in his heyday, which would reduce the number of people he would likely have killed from March 2003 on, were he still in power. But I could be wrong. Anyone have any statistics to say one way or another?
So now to the issue of where the deaths come from. How can there be 100,000 deaths in October of 2004, or 150,000 to 250,000 now, if reports only show ~15,000 then and ~35,000 now? Obviously, there would have to be some unreported deaths. If one thinks about it, this is more than likely.
While Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate suggests that the Iraq Body Count is more reliable,
There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).
the fact of the matter is that reporting based on news reports is a surefire way to underestimate the death toll in a country as chaotic as Iraq. (Pro-War ideologues, of course, deny this and to the contrary insist that Iraq Body Count gives an exaggerated picture of the death toll. Penraker referred to it as "always suspect," although he didn't say why; presumably he believes that the reports on deaths are evil media lies or else that insurgents, particularly foreign ones, are being counted as Iraqi civilians) In fairness, Kaplan acknowledgs this:
The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.
However, he "allows" for unreported deaths by simply assigning a number to them; perhaps as many as the reported deaths (15,000 at the time). The fact is, he doesn't have any particular basis for estimating unreported deaths, or if he has one he doesn't tell it to us.
So how did these deaths occur? It appears at first to beggar belief that such a large number of deaths are occurring outside the radar. After all, it would seem that the media have a lot of access to Iraq and can find out anyhting they want, right? But that so many deaths could occur unheralded and uncounted becomes much more believable when one realizes that there are other major things that are occurring in Iraq that get very little press.
Tom Engelhardt and Michael Schwartz have commented on one such thing, something that in fact may explain the death count.
What people don't realize about Iraq is that there is an air war going on. Despite the way that talk of Bush's "new strategy," of more intensive air power and less intensive foot patrols (as which Schwartz hiself refers to it), tends to suggest that the U.S. has been sparing in its use of planes in the past, in point of fact air power has been a major part of this war since at least mid-2004. (If you'd like to see some article from August 2004 on, and you don't want to bother searching the piece linked to in the previous paragraph for links, then here are a few links from that piece to click on: here, here, here, or here). The "new strategy" essentially just tinkers with the air-to-ground ratio, it doesn't represent a qualitative change.
The clear import of the Schwartz and Engelhardt piece is that air attacks have caused large numbers of civilian casualties that have gone unreported due to logistical difficulties (i.e. when a bomb blows up a building, it can be difficult to establish who died; if the attack occurs outside of areas where reporters or even coalition infantry go, the attack might not even get reported).
So it is not unreasonable to assume tha the Lancet study is more accurate than it is being given credit for being.
That is NOT all. There is more. But I will leave that for another post.
That is all - for now.
There was a lot of skepticism about the initial report, both when it came out, and today as well. No less a luminary than Michael Fumento has criticized it.
Some of the criticism, including the Fred Kaplan Slate piece I referenced, was on the basis of statistical problems with the study (although it ought to be pointed out that by leaving Fallujah out of their results, the team doing the study probably reduced the results somewhat, which would offset at least some of the factors that might exaggerrate their count). Often brought up were the disparities between this and the Iraq Body Count, which counts fatalities in Iraq by scouring news reports. (Estimates were between 14,181 and 16,312 deaths by October 29, 2004, and are between 33,489 and 37,589 as of today (March 12, 2006)).
Some people, such as Penraker have (in an article linked two paragraphs ago) insisted that the invasion actually saved lives, and that the people killed in the conflict are fewer than would have been killed if Saddam had remained in power.
The most obvious reason, in any case, why people discount the Lancet study is that there are nowhere near that many reports of deaths on record. So one wonders where all of these "phantom deaths" come from.
So let's first discuss the problems that have been mentioned with the Lancet study, and then discuss where those deaths might have come from.
A large part of the criticism was in the range of deaths presented. The range was somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 in the original study, or 98,000, plus 96,000 or minus 90,000. (why it wasn't 101,000, ± 93,000 is not spelled out; it apparently was not a perfectly symmetrical bell curve).
A lot of people dismiss the study as impenetrably broad based on this fact, but what needs to be considered is the way that statistics works. A 95% confidence interval means that the chances that the number will be within a particular range is 95%. However, the chances are not equal that it will be any point in the range. 95% confidence represents 2 standard deviations.
So what was the death toll as of the time of the Lancet study? If we assume an assymetrical bell curve with a mean of 98,000, and a standard deviation of 45,000 down and 49,000 up, there is a 68% confidence level that the result will be between 43,000 and 147,000. The chance that the deaths would be under 8,000 is only 2.5% (1 in 40) with a corresponding 2.5% chance that they were greater than 194,000.
For a discussion of standard deviations, click here.
Another thing to consider is that the study did not try to determine the gross number of deaths caused by the invasion but the net number. This means that if the death toll were 20,000, this means 20,000 more died than would have died if we had not invaded (assuming that the mortality rate in Iraq would have held constant at what it was from in the 15 months prior to the war). So if we save any lives from Saddam, the war killed those in addition to the 8,000 to 194,000 "excess deaths."
One issue that have with most pro-warriors when they are trying to talk about how many Iraqis were saved by the invasion is that they take the number of people who were estimated to have been killed during Saddam's reign, or at least the last 12 years of it, and extrapolate from that, without considering whether the rate of killing has gone down toward the end of the Saddam era. I would think that Saddam was not killing anywhere near as many people in the three years before the invasion as he did in his heyday, which would reduce the number of people he would likely have killed from March 2003 on, were he still in power. But I could be wrong. Anyone have any statistics to say one way or another?
So now to the issue of where the deaths come from. How can there be 100,000 deaths in October of 2004, or 150,000 to 250,000 now, if reports only show ~15,000 then and ~35,000 now? Obviously, there would have to be some unreported deaths. If one thinks about it, this is more than likely.
While Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate suggests that the Iraq Body Count is more reliable,
There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).
the fact of the matter is that reporting based on news reports is a surefire way to underestimate the death toll in a country as chaotic as Iraq. (Pro-War ideologues, of course, deny this and to the contrary insist that Iraq Body Count gives an exaggerated picture of the death toll. Penraker referred to it as "always suspect," although he didn't say why; presumably he believes that the reports on deaths are evil media lies or else that insurgents, particularly foreign ones, are being counted as Iraqi civilians) In fairness, Kaplan acknowledgs this:
The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.
However, he "allows" for unreported deaths by simply assigning a number to them; perhaps as many as the reported deaths (15,000 at the time). The fact is, he doesn't have any particular basis for estimating unreported deaths, or if he has one he doesn't tell it to us.
So how did these deaths occur? It appears at first to beggar belief that such a large number of deaths are occurring outside the radar. After all, it would seem that the media have a lot of access to Iraq and can find out anyhting they want, right? But that so many deaths could occur unheralded and uncounted becomes much more believable when one realizes that there are other major things that are occurring in Iraq that get very little press.
Tom Engelhardt and Michael Schwartz have commented on one such thing, something that in fact may explain the death count.
What people don't realize about Iraq is that there is an air war going on. Despite the way that talk of Bush's "new strategy," of more intensive air power and less intensive foot patrols (as which Schwartz hiself refers to it), tends to suggest that the U.S. has been sparing in its use of planes in the past, in point of fact air power has been a major part of this war since at least mid-2004. (If you'd like to see some article from August 2004 on, and you don't want to bother searching the piece linked to in the previous paragraph for links, then here are a few links from that piece to click on: here, here, here, or here). The "new strategy" essentially just tinkers with the air-to-ground ratio, it doesn't represent a qualitative change.
The clear import of the Schwartz and Engelhardt piece is that air attacks have caused large numbers of civilian casualties that have gone unreported due to logistical difficulties (i.e. when a bomb blows up a building, it can be difficult to establish who died; if the attack occurs outside of areas where reporters or even coalition infantry go, the attack might not even get reported).
So it is not unreasonable to assume tha the Lancet study is more accurate than it is being given credit for being.
That is NOT all. There is more. But I will leave that for another post.
That is all - for now.
Fred Kaplan Makes Sense
Fred Kaplan points out how non-answer Rumsfeld's answers before the Senate appropriations committee were. He also discusses how inadequate the Senators' answers were.
Me? When Rumsfeld said:
"The plan is to prevent a civil war and, to the extent one were to occur, to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to."
My first thought was: "That's good. Rumsfeld is actually considering the possibility that a rosy scenario won't take place."
Good grief, my standards are getting so low.
That is all.
Me? When Rumsfeld said:
"The plan is to prevent a civil war and, to the extent one were to occur, to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to."
My first thought was: "That's good. Rumsfeld is actually considering the possibility that a rosy scenario won't take place."
Good grief, my standards are getting so low.
That is all.
Why Do I Blog?
Dennis Mangan has brought up a fascinating question: why blog?
You can find some of my answers in looking at this post (I'm the one he quotes), but let's look at it a little more carefully.
Why blog? I haven't made much money on it (a few dollars for running some ads [independently] and a donation), and I don't reach that wide an audience, perhaps 70-100 on a normal day (my peak number of visits for a day was 399 for November 12, 2005). So what do I get out of it?
Well, most importantly I get the ability to speak my mind to an audience. Having been a long-time reader of newspaper editorials and a long-time watcher of all things opinion-related, I discover that I get piqued an awful lot. Therefore, it has great psychological and cathartic benefit to be able to state my own opinion in a situation, or to castigate someone else for (in my opinion) a stupid opinion.
I also notice that often a lot of things go unsaid, or in ome debates people tend to talk past each other with no one trying to reduce the point of disagreement to its essentials. For example, in the debate over emergency contraception, often the pro- and anti- EC sides will rgue with each other with no one laying out the issue that the question is whether or not EC acts post-fertilization. I like debate, but when there is an unspoken difference in premises on a topic, I find that extremely irritating, because the argument won't get anywhere until the difference is made explicit. I think that I have a talent for reducing things to basics (or at least, I have an unusually strong desire to bother to do so) and to explain what an argument is saying, and why it is saying it in a flawed way.
And some writers irritate me. Jack "Hack Kelly" Kelly being a primary example, for his credulous reporting of any claim that bolsters the case for war and for his utter disconnect from reality. I would only be talking to myself about this if it weren't for my blog. Telling someone off publicly feels really good even if your target doesn't pay any attention.
Another issue is that I have a very good memory and I like to be able to find old articles and opinion pieces and bring them to my readers' attentions. Often someone made a comment long ago that would be forgotten if someone did not bring it up again, and if I don't see anyone else doing it, sometimes it falls on me to do so.
Put another way, I feel that certain things need to be said, revealed, brought to the forefront of one's mind, and clarified. If I don't see other people doing it, it falls to me to do so.
Not that I am delusional enough to think that I make a large difference. But if I really feel that something needs to be said, it is a wonderful load of my mind to be able to actually say it. This is something that I have commented on before, but I think it needs to be explained in more detail.
Another benefit is that blogging forms a community. It may sound silly, but you actually get a sort of feeeling of camaraderie with other bloggers who agree with you on certain issues, or even with non-blogging commenters. Often you wind up connecting with multiple blogging communities which have not previously had much contact with one another. In any case, you get to talk to people who have similar ideas to your own, making you feel less alone out there. You also get a chance for people to tell you how much they admire your ideas (and to tell them how much you admire theirs) both of which cary an enormous psychological benefit.
And, of course, there is always the fact that this is probably my best chance to ever make anything out of my opinions. If I were to ever make money from editorializing, I would probably do so through the blog. If I were to ever convince a magazine to hire me for a piece, it would probably be through building a large audience on the blog that the magazine would covet. Likely? No. But as my blog is the one forum where I don't need someone else's permission to publish my opinions, I at least can peddle my opinions without the usual requirements of convincing someone to let me.
I guess I am still convinced somewhere in my mind that if I keep blogging hard enough, I will eventually get 20,000 visits a day or something, lots of donations and ads, and lots of referral fees. And of course, if I am delusional, blogging's still a fun way to spend my time.
That is all.
You can find some of my answers in looking at this post (I'm the one he quotes), but let's look at it a little more carefully.
Why blog? I haven't made much money on it (a few dollars for running some ads [independently] and a donation), and I don't reach that wide an audience, perhaps 70-100 on a normal day (my peak number of visits for a day was 399 for November 12, 2005). So what do I get out of it?
Well, most importantly I get the ability to speak my mind to an audience. Having been a long-time reader of newspaper editorials and a long-time watcher of all things opinion-related, I discover that I get piqued an awful lot. Therefore, it has great psychological and cathartic benefit to be able to state my own opinion in a situation, or to castigate someone else for (in my opinion) a stupid opinion.
I also notice that often a lot of things go unsaid, or in ome debates people tend to talk past each other with no one trying to reduce the point of disagreement to its essentials. For example, in the debate over emergency contraception, often the pro- and anti- EC sides will rgue with each other with no one laying out the issue that the question is whether or not EC acts post-fertilization. I like debate, but when there is an unspoken difference in premises on a topic, I find that extremely irritating, because the argument won't get anywhere until the difference is made explicit. I think that I have a talent for reducing things to basics (or at least, I have an unusually strong desire to bother to do so) and to explain what an argument is saying, and why it is saying it in a flawed way.
And some writers irritate me. Jack "Hack Kelly" Kelly being a primary example, for his credulous reporting of any claim that bolsters the case for war and for his utter disconnect from reality. I would only be talking to myself about this if it weren't for my blog. Telling someone off publicly feels really good even if your target doesn't pay any attention.
Another issue is that I have a very good memory and I like to be able to find old articles and opinion pieces and bring them to my readers' attentions. Often someone made a comment long ago that would be forgotten if someone did not bring it up again, and if I don't see anyone else doing it, sometimes it falls on me to do so.
Put another way, I feel that certain things need to be said, revealed, brought to the forefront of one's mind, and clarified. If I don't see other people doing it, it falls to me to do so.
Not that I am delusional enough to think that I make a large difference. But if I really feel that something needs to be said, it is a wonderful load of my mind to be able to actually say it. This is something that I have commented on before, but I think it needs to be explained in more detail.
Another benefit is that blogging forms a community. It may sound silly, but you actually get a sort of feeeling of camaraderie with other bloggers who agree with you on certain issues, or even with non-blogging commenters. Often you wind up connecting with multiple blogging communities which have not previously had much contact with one another. In any case, you get to talk to people who have similar ideas to your own, making you feel less alone out there. You also get a chance for people to tell you how much they admire your ideas (and to tell them how much you admire theirs) both of which cary an enormous psychological benefit.
And, of course, there is always the fact that this is probably my best chance to ever make anything out of my opinions. If I were to ever make money from editorializing, I would probably do so through the blog. If I were to ever convince a magazine to hire me for a piece, it would probably be through building a large audience on the blog that the magazine would covet. Likely? No. But as my blog is the one forum where I don't need someone else's permission to publish my opinions, I at least can peddle my opinions without the usual requirements of convincing someone to let me.
I guess I am still convinced somewhere in my mind that if I keep blogging hard enough, I will eventually get 20,000 visits a day or something, lots of donations and ads, and lots of referral fees. And of course, if I am delusional, blogging's still a fun way to spend my time.
That is all.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Problem with the Dukes of Hazzard Movie
The fact that there is an "unrated" version tells me all I need to know.
(Note that I didn't link through Amazon. I don't want to encourage the buyin of this DVD or make money off of it).
That is all.
(Note that I didn't link through Amazon. I don't want to encourage the buyin of this DVD or make money off of it).
That is all.
Ellen Ratner Gives the Game Away
I don't know what show it was on, by I was listening to the readio today (Sunday, March 12, 2006) and heard Ellen Ratner as a guest on some guys radio show. She was arguing that we should let Mexicans in to do our unskilled labor, but should be sparing of letting Europeans in to compete with us for skilled labor positions. Her supposed rationale was that with unskilled labor would somehow equilibrate, while skilled albor wouldn't. She also suggested that we could benefit from an open-borders policy because Americans could work in Mexico and Canada as well as letting foreigners work here.
Of course, the host (please tell me if you know who this is) pointed out that it was unlikely that there would be a lot of jobs for Americans in Mexico (at least at wages that we would work for). As for Canada, it's a tenth our size, population-wise. It couldn't possibly create enough jobs to make up for the jobs taken by Mexicans.
In any case, the host kept acting mystified as to why Ratner wanted to let unskilled Mexicans in to work, but not skilled Europeans. While the host couldn't understand the difference, anyone who thinks can understand it quite well. All that is needed is to realize that Ellen Ratner is a self-interested little hypocrite.
The difference between unskilled laborers and skilled laborers isn't their effect on jobs. Both will increase the supply of workers for their profession and thus lower wages. The difference, of course, is whose jobs will be affected. Ratner is a political comentator, reporter, and all-around media person. Unskilled Mexicans won't be competing for her job. But skilled Europeans will. So let the peasants eat cake, as long as her job is protected.
So she gets to be anti-racist by making certain that the poor Mexicans and other foreigners are able to get work in the U.S. while at the same time not putting her earnings at risk.
I am certain that Steve Sailer has commented on this, but I can't find the exact article I am looking for right now.
That is all.
Of course, the host (please tell me if you know who this is) pointed out that it was unlikely that there would be a lot of jobs for Americans in Mexico (at least at wages that we would work for). As for Canada, it's a tenth our size, population-wise. It couldn't possibly create enough jobs to make up for the jobs taken by Mexicans.
In any case, the host kept acting mystified as to why Ratner wanted to let unskilled Mexicans in to work, but not skilled Europeans. While the host couldn't understand the difference, anyone who thinks can understand it quite well. All that is needed is to realize that Ellen Ratner is a self-interested little hypocrite.
The difference between unskilled laborers and skilled laborers isn't their effect on jobs. Both will increase the supply of workers for their profession and thus lower wages. The difference, of course, is whose jobs will be affected. Ratner is a political comentator, reporter, and all-around media person. Unskilled Mexicans won't be competing for her job. But skilled Europeans will. So let the peasants eat cake, as long as her job is protected.
So she gets to be anti-racist by making certain that the poor Mexicans and other foreigners are able to get work in the U.S. while at the same time not putting her earnings at risk.
I am certain that Steve Sailer has commented on this, but I can't find the exact article I am looking for right now.
That is all.
Better Them than Us
Nowadays the America First movement has a lot of detractors, who think that we really screwed up by not getting into World War II much earlier on.
Actually, I think that that is an unfair assessment, that ignores a very relevant issue.
First, to debunk any issue over whether or not the U.S. could have stopped Hitler in the mid-1930s when he was first beginning to conquer territory. Perhaps action against Hitler at this point would have accomplished something, but it is ludicrous to blame the U.S. or the "America First" movement for our un-involvement at this point. France and Britain did not go to war with Germany until September of 1939. It would have been ludicrous to assume that there were conditions under which we would have gone to war with Germany before that. So even if it would have been possible to have stopped Nazi Germany back in 1936, 1937, or 1938, this was not and could not have been the U.S.'s job.
So really, we are talking about September 1939 to December 1941 here. If America were to get into World War II any earlier than it did, it would have had to have been sometime within that date range. At this point, I think that it was a very good thing that we waited as long as we did; or at the very least that we waited until after the invasion of the U.S.S.R. by Hitler in June of 1941.
What many Americans don't realize is how much of the fighting against Germany was done by the U.S.S.R.
Even then, others did the fighting. The best description of how Hitler was defeated was Stalin’s. The old monster said that England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood.
Not only did it take the Western Allies nearly three years after the German attack on Russia seriously to engage the German army in Normandy, but even then most of the fighting was still on the other side of Europe. In the campaign from D-Day to V-E Day, something like 110,000 American soldiers were killed, as well as about half as many from the combined British-Canadian armies. That sounds formidable, and indeed is by today’s standards, until you remember that in the same 11-month period more than half a million Russians were killed on the Eastern Front. Leaving aside the respective Allied casualties, to see how the war was won you need only compare two figures. In all the western campaigns of the war against French, British, Americans, and troops of many other lands, some 200,000 German soldiers died. Four million Germans died on the Eastern Front.
- Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Boston Globe
While I am not certain that the exact numbers are correct (most accounts put total Germany military fatalities at 3.5 million), there is little doubt that Stalin did most of the work defeating Hitler.
If we had declared war on Germany at any time before he invaded the U.S.S.R., Hitler might have decided to delay the war on the Eastern front. He didn't go after Stalin until France was conquered and Great Britain was pretty much neutralized as an actual threat to the Nazi Empire, so if he knew that he was about to fight a country with as many resources as the United States, he might well have decided to delay the eastern expansion. At the very least, he might have devoted fewer resources to it.
This would have meant far higher casualties for us, and in all likelihood, a much more powerful Soviet Army.
By waiting, we managed to get Hitler to, in the short term, expend a lot of resources on the U.S.S.R., and in the long term, to commit a lot more resources to the U.S.S.R. for the rest of the war. Put bluntly, he killed more Soviets and fewer U.S. citizens.
Which was better for us.
Now of course, one could argue that this course of action would not have been better for those under the Nazi thumb. However, that would assume that if we had gone to war with Germany earlier that it would have shortened the war. If Germany had put off the invasion of the U.S.S.R. as a result of our earlier entry into the war, then it might have gone as for as long or longer. The only people who likely suffered more because the U.S. waited are those who were living in the U.S.S.R. and in U.S.S.R.-controlled areas in June of 1941, which areas Hitler might not have invaded had we gone to war in 1939 with France and Britain.
And I'm sorry to say, better them than us.
That is all.
Actually, I think that that is an unfair assessment, that ignores a very relevant issue.
First, to debunk any issue over whether or not the U.S. could have stopped Hitler in the mid-1930s when he was first beginning to conquer territory. Perhaps action against Hitler at this point would have accomplished something, but it is ludicrous to blame the U.S. or the "America First" movement for our un-involvement at this point. France and Britain did not go to war with Germany until September of 1939. It would have been ludicrous to assume that there were conditions under which we would have gone to war with Germany before that. So even if it would have been possible to have stopped Nazi Germany back in 1936, 1937, or 1938, this was not and could not have been the U.S.'s job.
So really, we are talking about September 1939 to December 1941 here. If America were to get into World War II any earlier than it did, it would have had to have been sometime within that date range. At this point, I think that it was a very good thing that we waited as long as we did; or at the very least that we waited until after the invasion of the U.S.S.R. by Hitler in June of 1941.
What many Americans don't realize is how much of the fighting against Germany was done by the U.S.S.R.
Even then, others did the fighting. The best description of how Hitler was defeated was Stalin’s. The old monster said that England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood.
Not only did it take the Western Allies nearly three years after the German attack on Russia seriously to engage the German army in Normandy, but even then most of the fighting was still on the other side of Europe. In the campaign from D-Day to V-E Day, something like 110,000 American soldiers were killed, as well as about half as many from the combined British-Canadian armies. That sounds formidable, and indeed is by today’s standards, until you remember that in the same 11-month period more than half a million Russians were killed on the Eastern Front. Leaving aside the respective Allied casualties, to see how the war was won you need only compare two figures. In all the western campaigns of the war against French, British, Americans, and troops of many other lands, some 200,000 German soldiers died. Four million Germans died on the Eastern Front.
- Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Boston Globe
While I am not certain that the exact numbers are correct (most accounts put total Germany military fatalities at 3.5 million), there is little doubt that Stalin did most of the work defeating Hitler.
If we had declared war on Germany at any time before he invaded the U.S.S.R., Hitler might have decided to delay the war on the Eastern front. He didn't go after Stalin until France was conquered and Great Britain was pretty much neutralized as an actual threat to the Nazi Empire, so if he knew that he was about to fight a country with as many resources as the United States, he might well have decided to delay the eastern expansion. At the very least, he might have devoted fewer resources to it.
This would have meant far higher casualties for us, and in all likelihood, a much more powerful Soviet Army.
By waiting, we managed to get Hitler to, in the short term, expend a lot of resources on the U.S.S.R., and in the long term, to commit a lot more resources to the U.S.S.R. for the rest of the war. Put bluntly, he killed more Soviets and fewer U.S. citizens.
Which was better for us.
Now of course, one could argue that this course of action would not have been better for those under the Nazi thumb. However, that would assume that if we had gone to war with Germany earlier that it would have shortened the war. If Germany had put off the invasion of the U.S.S.R. as a result of our earlier entry into the war, then it might have gone as for as long or longer. The only people who likely suffered more because the U.S. waited are those who were living in the U.S.S.R. and in U.S.S.R.-controlled areas in June of 1941, which areas Hitler might not have invaded had we gone to war in 1939 with France and Britain.
And I'm sorry to say, better them than us.
That is all.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
The Pro-Invasion Rally
Udolpho discusses a recent pro-illegal alien rally.
I think his post is way too polite.
I'm wondering why someone didn't send in the INS agents to arrest and deport these little buggers.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lyin' Eyes Ziel.
That is all.
I think his post is way too polite.
I'm wondering why someone didn't send in the INS agents to arrest and deport these little buggers.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lyin' Eyes Ziel.
That is all.
Terrorism News
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.
That is all.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)