Gene Callahan echoes thoughts that I have expressed regarding Hiroshima.
That is all.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Thoughts on Starved
I saw Starved tonight (last night, technically).
I wasn't too impressed.
Imagine "a very special episode of Seinfeld," dealing with eating disorders. Other than the female character reacting to her fathers (yes, plural), none of the major characters seems to have any real pathos, or capacity for pathos. I don't care about any of them, they are just there as, well, character studies. Which is why I never really liked Seinfeld, none of the characters had any depth.
Of course, with Starved, you get to see a guy crawling along a floor after an interrupted colonic, spraying water behind him.
That is all.
I wasn't too impressed.
Imagine "a very special episode of Seinfeld," dealing with eating disorders. Other than the female character reacting to her fathers (yes, plural), none of the major characters seems to have any real pathos, or capacity for pathos. I don't care about any of them, they are just there as, well, character studies. Which is why I never really liked Seinfeld, none of the characters had any depth.
Of course, with Starved, you get to see a guy crawling along a floor after an interrupted colonic, spraying water behind him.
That is all.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Liberal Logic
According to this article, new technology allows women in America to determine the sex of their baby very early on, so that they can have a sex-selection abortion if they so choose.
Osagie K. Obasogie finds this to be a bad thing:
"Some prochoice advocates argue... 'if you believe women have the right to choose, [selecting sex] is a perfectly legitimate reason...' 'Subsuming an ostensible right to select sex under Roe's reproductive freedoms is as misguided as the Gender Mentor Kit's mistaking sex for gender.'"
He (she?) goes on to say that:
"To the extent that the Gender Mentor Kit does little outside of lending more slipperyness to the slope toward designer babies -- where a child's physical, emotional, and mental attributes are pieced together in a Frankensteinish manner -- we ought to think long and hard about whether 'mentoring gender' is a recipe for disaster."
Let's explain what the real issue is here:
Once you accept that the state cannot restrict access to abortion, at that point, selecting sex or any other characteristic become de facto a legitimate reason for an abortion. That is, if a woman wants an abortion, one cannot stop her on the grounds that her motivations are suspect. Put another way, once a woman can determine the sex of her baby during the window in which abortion is unrestricted, there exists no way of preventing her from aborting.
In essence, the only way to prevent sex selection is to prevent people from knowing the sex of their baby for as long as abortion is possible. So what Mr. Obasogie is implying, is that learning the gender of the baby should be restricted to prevent gender selection, as the abortion aspect cannot be.
In short, using abortion for sex selection ought to be illegal; but we can't have any restrictions on abortion, so let's ban learning the child's gender instead. This also mean that if abortion were legalized throughout all nine months of pregnancy, people could be banned from using ultrasound to determine gender.
This shows how liberalism often destroys one freedom (the right to learn your child's gender early) in the service of its dedication to "equality" and other forms of freedom.
That is all.
Osagie K. Obasogie finds this to be a bad thing:
"Some prochoice advocates argue... 'if you believe women have the right to choose, [selecting sex] is a perfectly legitimate reason...' 'Subsuming an ostensible right to select sex under Roe's reproductive freedoms is as misguided as the Gender Mentor Kit's mistaking sex for gender.'"
He (she?) goes on to say that:
"To the extent that the Gender Mentor Kit does little outside of lending more slipperyness to the slope toward designer babies -- where a child's physical, emotional, and mental attributes are pieced together in a Frankensteinish manner -- we ought to think long and hard about whether 'mentoring gender' is a recipe for disaster."
Let's explain what the real issue is here:
Once you accept that the state cannot restrict access to abortion, at that point, selecting sex or any other characteristic become de facto a legitimate reason for an abortion. That is, if a woman wants an abortion, one cannot stop her on the grounds that her motivations are suspect. Put another way, once a woman can determine the sex of her baby during the window in which abortion is unrestricted, there exists no way of preventing her from aborting.
In essence, the only way to prevent sex selection is to prevent people from knowing the sex of their baby for as long as abortion is possible. So what Mr. Obasogie is implying, is that learning the gender of the baby should be restricted to prevent gender selection, as the abortion aspect cannot be.
In short, using abortion for sex selection ought to be illegal; but we can't have any restrictions on abortion, so let's ban learning the child's gender instead. This also mean that if abortion were legalized throughout all nine months of pregnancy, people could be banned from using ultrasound to determine gender.
This shows how liberalism often destroys one freedom (the right to learn your child's gender early) in the service of its dedication to "equality" and other forms of freedom.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Calling Michael Ledeen
A report suggests that the revolution in Iran is not beginning anytime soon.
Of course, the response of Ledeen and his ilk is probably "intelligence said the same thing about the USSR! So because they were wrong then, we know for certain that they are wrong now, so we need to push for regime change!"
The problem is, if he's wrong, and a push for internal regime change fails, we will be pushed into a full-scale conventional war with Iran. Do we want to risk that? I don't.
That is all.
Of course, the response of Ledeen and his ilk is probably "intelligence said the same thing about the USSR! So because they were wrong then, we know for certain that they are wrong now, so we need to push for regime change!"
The problem is, if he's wrong, and a push for internal regime change fails, we will be pushed into a full-scale conventional war with Iran. Do we want to risk that? I don't.
That is all.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
That Sailer Good Stuff
"Perhaps, but maybe JPod is the anti-Ali G. The comedian Sacha Baron Cohen who plays the moronic Pakistani wigger Ali G is actually a member of a brilliant British Jewish family (his cousin Simon Baron-Cohen is an important autism researcher). In contrast, John Podhoretz plays being a member of brilliant American Jewish family, but actually is a moron."
Read more.
That is all.
Read more.
That is all.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
On Hiroshima
Analyses that talk about how difficult it would have been to conquer Japan without Hiroshima usually all tend to dismiss the real important question. Had we not been so obsessed with unconditional surrender, would Japan have been willing to surrender to us without the bombings?
The idea that requiring that surrender be unconditional is the sine qua non of war, and that it is justifiable to do anything in order to avoid putting conditions on surrender is a brutal and barbaric philosophy.
So were the bombings necessary? Perhaps. But I wish that someone would actually take some time to defend requiring unconditional surrender instead of just assume thnat unconditional is the only type of surrender we can accept.
That is all.
The idea that requiring that surrender be unconditional is the sine qua non of war, and that it is justifiable to do anything in order to avoid putting conditions on surrender is a brutal and barbaric philosophy.
So were the bombings necessary? Perhaps. But I wish that someone would actually take some time to defend requiring unconditional surrender instead of just assume thnat unconditional is the only type of surrender we can accept.
That is all.
Stupidity, thy Name is Glazov
Clark Stooksbury has alerted me to the presence of another of Jamie Glazov's famous "symposiums" on Front Page Magazine.
As usual, Jamie Glazov is a moron, and manages to use double-talk to advance illogic.
A few examples:
The basic setup of the symposium is an analysis of the US war effort in Iraq.
First off, Jamie Glazov (aka FP, as he represents all of Front Page Magazine) and Karl Zinsmeister give the war effort an A because we were able to overthrow Saddam and to set up some sort of government. Considering how weak Saddam was, this is the equivalent of giving a kid on a test an A because he spelt his name right.
Steve Vincent, who would come to die before the symposium was concluded, gives the US a B-, and says that in terms of securing Iraq from the insurgents, we get an F.
Glazov's response? You can't blame the US for what the insurgents are doing. "Blame the terrorists, not America."
This is stupidity. The issue, as Mr. Stooksbury pointed out, is not blame. The issue is that in order to grade the war effort, you need to grade how well we accomplished our goals. One of our goals was to secure Iraq from terrorist attacks. If the terrorists are still able to make enough attacks so that people cannot go out of their hotels, then that is a failure on our part, and should be considered in assessing the war effort.
Cliff May, after saying that "the Bremer regency was seriously flawed" (i.e., we should have put Chalabi in charge), points out that we didn't plan for a guerilla war, and that we underestimated the strength of the insurgency.
Glazov's response? "But isn’t it a bit unfair to judge the U.S. for failing to see the future? These criticisms are easy to make in hindsight, no?"
No, it is not unfair to criticize the US for failing to see the future. That is what a war plan is about, trying to predict the future, and to prepare for it. If you predict the future accurately, you get good grades, poorly, you get poor grades. Moreover, it is not as if people didn't predict a guerilla war; just look at the first few issues of The American Conservative, just look at the concerns of GEneral Shinseki that we needed more troops in order to stabilize the country. Moreover, I remember a report by James Fallows that Rumsfeld refused to consider the possibility of an insurgency when people mentioned it. As for criticisms being easy to make in hindsight, yes, they are, that is why hindsight is the standard we hold our decisions up to. Getting an "A" should not be an easy task.
He also consistently insists that anyone who opposes the US with weapons is a terrorist, and that there is no "insurgency," and that we cannot use the term "occupation," but must use the term "liberation." He also tries to imply, until it becomes untenable, that the foreign fighters are the bulk of the insurgency (which allows him turn it around whenever discussing who is the invader and occupier).
Finally, (although this isn't about Glazov) there is a little bit by Cliff May, where he suggests that grading the war effort is rather useless; how, he asks, would we grade the war effort in WWII in the early years when Japan and Germany were advancing.
My answer? Well, wars do not fight themselves. You constantly grade yourself to see how you can improve. After the first year or two of he Civil War, when the Union seemed to be losing, Lincoln did not turn things around just by "staying the course." He re-assessed his strategy and altered it in order to win. He would have done it again if he had kept losing.
In any case, the problem with Glazov is that he can't do anything but parrot propaganda that everything is always fine. He has no critical thinking skills whatsoever, or else he chooses not to use them.
That is all.
As usual, Jamie Glazov is a moron, and manages to use double-talk to advance illogic.
A few examples:
The basic setup of the symposium is an analysis of the US war effort in Iraq.
First off, Jamie Glazov (aka FP, as he represents all of Front Page Magazine) and Karl Zinsmeister give the war effort an A because we were able to overthrow Saddam and to set up some sort of government. Considering how weak Saddam was, this is the equivalent of giving a kid on a test an A because he spelt his name right.
Steve Vincent, who would come to die before the symposium was concluded, gives the US a B-, and says that in terms of securing Iraq from the insurgents, we get an F.
Glazov's response? You can't blame the US for what the insurgents are doing. "Blame the terrorists, not America."
This is stupidity. The issue, as Mr. Stooksbury pointed out, is not blame. The issue is that in order to grade the war effort, you need to grade how well we accomplished our goals. One of our goals was to secure Iraq from terrorist attacks. If the terrorists are still able to make enough attacks so that people cannot go out of their hotels, then that is a failure on our part, and should be considered in assessing the war effort.
Cliff May, after saying that "the Bremer regency was seriously flawed" (i.e., we should have put Chalabi in charge), points out that we didn't plan for a guerilla war, and that we underestimated the strength of the insurgency.
Glazov's response? "But isn’t it a bit unfair to judge the U.S. for failing to see the future? These criticisms are easy to make in hindsight, no?"
No, it is not unfair to criticize the US for failing to see the future. That is what a war plan is about, trying to predict the future, and to prepare for it. If you predict the future accurately, you get good grades, poorly, you get poor grades. Moreover, it is not as if people didn't predict a guerilla war; just look at the first few issues of The American Conservative, just look at the concerns of GEneral Shinseki that we needed more troops in order to stabilize the country. Moreover, I remember a report by James Fallows that Rumsfeld refused to consider the possibility of an insurgency when people mentioned it. As for criticisms being easy to make in hindsight, yes, they are, that is why hindsight is the standard we hold our decisions up to. Getting an "A" should not be an easy task.
He also consistently insists that anyone who opposes the US with weapons is a terrorist, and that there is no "insurgency," and that we cannot use the term "occupation," but must use the term "liberation." He also tries to imply, until it becomes untenable, that the foreign fighters are the bulk of the insurgency (which allows him turn it around whenever discussing who is the invader and occupier).
Finally, (although this isn't about Glazov) there is a little bit by Cliff May, where he suggests that grading the war effort is rather useless; how, he asks, would we grade the war effort in WWII in the early years when Japan and Germany were advancing.
My answer? Well, wars do not fight themselves. You constantly grade yourself to see how you can improve. After the first year or two of he Civil War, when the Union seemed to be losing, Lincoln did not turn things around just by "staying the course." He re-assessed his strategy and altered it in order to win. He would have done it again if he had kept losing.
In any case, the problem with Glazov is that he can't do anything but parrot propaganda that everything is always fine. He has no critical thinking skills whatsoever, or else he chooses not to use them.
That is all.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Things in Israel
This whole incident is bad. Very bad.
The ramifications of this, both in terms of the terrorism situation in Israel, and in terms of the political fallout, are not going to be pretty. From Israel's standpoint, having an Israeli Jew commit a terrorist attack to protest his government's Gaza evacuation plan is a PR nightmare. And yes, that may sound rather shallow, worrying about Pr when five or six people are dead, but when most of the world hates your country, you'd be surprised how problematic bad PR like this can be.
Too tired to blog more on this.
That is all.
The ramifications of this, both in terms of the terrorism situation in Israel, and in terms of the political fallout, are not going to be pretty. From Israel's standpoint, having an Israeli Jew commit a terrorist attack to protest his government's Gaza evacuation plan is a PR nightmare. And yes, that may sound rather shallow, worrying about Pr when five or six people are dead, but when most of the world hates your country, you'd be surprised how problematic bad PR like this can be.
Too tired to blog more on this.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Steve Sailer vs. Matthew Dowd
Steve Sailer discusses population trends in Mexico.
One thing I remember from this: "Population momentum" is also known, as I recall, as the "bulge in the snake" effect, because when looking at population bar graphs that plot the population at various ages like so,
0-10 XXXXXXXXXX
11-20XXXXXXXXX
21-30XXXXXXXX
31-40XXXXXXXX
41-50XXXXXXXXX
51-60XXXXXXXX
61-70XXXXXX
71-80XXXXX
81++XX
a baby boom results in a bulge in the youngest group that gradually advances through the different age groups as time passes, like a large animal, swallowed whole, moves down a snake's body.
In any case, a decrease in the birth rate doesn't begin to decrease population until the number of people who are dying overtake the number of people being born, so if we assume three to four generations at any one time, population doesn't begin to decrease until the youngest generation is smaller than the oldest, or until the grandparents and/or the great-grandparents (and others in their generation) outnumber the children.
Population momentum (also known, I think, as "demographic momentum") is, of course, a vital point to consider in any population growth model.
That is all.
One thing I remember from this: "Population momentum" is also known, as I recall, as the "bulge in the snake" effect, because when looking at population bar graphs that plot the population at various ages like so,
0-10 XXXXXXXXXX
11-20XXXXXXXXX
21-30XXXXXXXX
31-40XXXXXXXX
41-50XXXXXXXXX
51-60XXXXXXXX
61-70XXXXXX
71-80XXXXX
81++XX
a baby boom results in a bulge in the youngest group that gradually advances through the different age groups as time passes, like a large animal, swallowed whole, moves down a snake's body.
In any case, a decrease in the birth rate doesn't begin to decrease population until the number of people who are dying overtake the number of people being born, so if we assume three to four generations at any one time, population doesn't begin to decrease until the youngest generation is smaller than the oldest, or until the grandparents and/or the great-grandparents (and others in their generation) outnumber the children.
Population momentum (also known, I think, as "demographic momentum") is, of course, a vital point to consider in any population growth model.
That is all.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Goodbye to GayLikeaFox
The Gays for Life Blog is Shutting Down. At least, there will be no new postings for hte foreseeable future.
That is all.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)