Hugh Hewitt's argument for Harriet Miers boils down to two things:
(1) Trust Bush (Like Dicky Poe), he thinks of Bush the same way he thinks of God. I suppose they both go to the same church.
(2) Harriet is a good choice because she has had a lot of White House experience, including the General War on Terror (GWOT) and therefore will interpret the Constitution so as to let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants. In fact, he says this pretty much word-for-word, except for the fact that he uses the codephrase "Article II enthusiast" instead of "let Bush do whatever the Hell he wants."
So he apparently agrees with Publius that she is being picked to cover Bush's butt, except that he sees it as a good thing.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Jim Henley.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
The Torturous Quag-Miers of this Administration
I will really have to list all of the theories as to why Bush chose Miers sometime. Other than the affirmative action rationale (he wanted a woman) the crony theory (he knows her and she kissed his butt a few times - most brilliant man she ever met, my Hugh Hewitt), the National Guard connection, and now this:
"Publius" at Legal Fiction suggests that Bush chose her because she would condone Bush's actions regarding detainees if he were ever charged with torture.
Interesting theory. I'll have to take some time to consider it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and the Antiwar.com Blog.
That is all.
"Publius" at Legal Fiction suggests that Bush chose her because she would condone Bush's actions regarding detainees if he were ever charged with torture.
Interesting theory. I'll have to take some time to consider it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Tex and the Antiwar.com Blog.
That is all.
Changes
I have eliminated the "Archives by Topic" section from my sidebar as it is too difficult to maintain.
I am also altering my links, so that in addition to an alphabetical list, I also list some of the links by organizing them for content. For example, I consider Clark Stooksbury, A.C. Kleinheider, and myself to be "The Paleoconservative Triumvirate." "The Truth Squad" consists of those who try to talk about statistical analysis and about what is true vs. what we are told is true. "The Heavy Hitters" are the more well-known blogs.
I plan to add more categories.
That is all.
I am also altering my links, so that in addition to an alphabetical list, I also list some of the links by organizing them for content. For example, I consider Clark Stooksbury, A.C. Kleinheider, and myself to be "The Paleoconservative Triumvirate." "The Truth Squad" consists of those who try to talk about statistical analysis and about what is true vs. what we are told is true. "The Heavy Hitters" are the more well-known blogs.
I plan to add more categories.
That is all.
Terrorism in Atlanta?
Michelle Malkin notes a bomb incident at Georgia Tech.
This, along with the suicide bombing in Oklahoma, both happening within 10 days of each otehr, sems suspicious.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
This, along with the suicide bombing in Oklahoma, both happening within 10 days of each otehr, sems suspicious.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
So What About the Subway Attack that Wasn't?
Click here, here, and here for some background.
As I understand it, U.S. forces captured some bombmakers in Iraq, and the informant who led us to them also tipped the U.S. off that a bombing attack was going to occur on the New York City subway system of Sunday.
The attacks did not occur.
So I see four possibilities:
(1) First, our actions prevented the attack
(2) The attacks were planned, but the people in the U.S. who were to carry them out couldn't get their act together.
(3) The informant is not an ally but an enemy, and was feeding us disinformation to scare us. The bombmakers were either falsely so labelled or were given up "sacrificially" in order to give the informant credibility (or may have been terrorists, but the informant was from a rival group rather than opposed to terrorism per se.
(4) The story was fabricated by U.S. officials to scare the populace, either to get more support for the war in Iraq, or to exercise more power over our lives.
I don't see any reason that #4 is likely; even if Bloomberg's increased security turns out to have been unnecessary (if, say, there were no people in the U.S. planning to attack, it sounds to me as if he made the best possible decision given what he knew at the time) and I don't think that the feds would try to drum up support for the War in Iraq by embellishing the current terrorist threat from there, because it would quite likely backfire; that is, people would question why, 2 1/2 years after the invasion, Iraq is a threat to us; it would make our policy in Iraq seem to be less than a success.
Of the three remaining options,I'm not certain that there is yet enough evidence to come to any conclusions. However, in what appears to be the absence of arrests in the U.S. over the information, and due to the fact that the informant failed some sections of a polygraph, I would strongly lead to there being some subterfuge by our informant.
Remember, the most deadly single incident in Iraq was caused not by a bomb but by people's own fears, which caused them to panic and kill each other in a stampede. Whether the deadly "Shiite stampede" was an accident or deliberately provoked by terrorists, this could not have failed to draw the attention of those who wish the U.S. harm.
So was the informant launching a terrorist attack that consisted of terror itself? Perhaps.
We shall see.
That is all.
As I understand it, U.S. forces captured some bombmakers in Iraq, and the informant who led us to them also tipped the U.S. off that a bombing attack was going to occur on the New York City subway system of Sunday.
The attacks did not occur.
So I see four possibilities:
(1) First, our actions prevented the attack
(2) The attacks were planned, but the people in the U.S. who were to carry them out couldn't get their act together.
(3) The informant is not an ally but an enemy, and was feeding us disinformation to scare us. The bombmakers were either falsely so labelled or were given up "sacrificially" in order to give the informant credibility (or may have been terrorists, but the informant was from a rival group rather than opposed to terrorism per se.
(4) The story was fabricated by U.S. officials to scare the populace, either to get more support for the war in Iraq, or to exercise more power over our lives.
I don't see any reason that #4 is likely; even if Bloomberg's increased security turns out to have been unnecessary (if, say, there were no people in the U.S. planning to attack, it sounds to me as if he made the best possible decision given what he knew at the time) and I don't think that the feds would try to drum up support for the War in Iraq by embellishing the current terrorist threat from there, because it would quite likely backfire; that is, people would question why, 2 1/2 years after the invasion, Iraq is a threat to us; it would make our policy in Iraq seem to be less than a success.
Of the three remaining options,I'm not certain that there is yet enough evidence to come to any conclusions. However, in what appears to be the absence of arrests in the U.S. over the information, and due to the fact that the informant failed some sections of a polygraph, I would strongly lead to there being some subterfuge by our informant.
Remember, the most deadly single incident in Iraq was caused not by a bomb but by people's own fears, which caused them to panic and kill each other in a stampede. Whether the deadly "Shiite stampede" was an accident or deliberately provoked by terrorists, this could not have failed to draw the attention of those who wish the U.S. harm.
So was the informant launching a terrorist attack that consisted of terror itself? Perhaps.
We shall see.
That is all.
Interesting Blog
Glaivester readers might want to check out the blog of Dennis Dale. I don't agree with him on everyhting (I am decidedly not secular, for example), but he has some interesting insights.
That is all.
That is all.
My Own Small Way of Helping
VDARE, a site that deals with issues such as immigration, and race relations in America, is in need of cash.
Not having a whole lot of money at the moment, I thought I would do the next best thing, asking my readers to donate if they could.
Here's the link to their donation page.
That is all.
Not having a whole lot of money at the moment, I thought I would do the next best thing, asking my readers to donate if they could.
Here's the link to their donation page.
That is all.
Thoughts on Iraq
A friend recently opined to me that part of the reason why things are not going so well in Iraq may be because the Iraqis are uncertain as to whether we will stay and "get the job done," and may be afraid that Saddam (or other Ba'athists) will come back to power as soon as we leave.
While this theory can be very comforting to pro-warriors, who can see this as a reason to stay in Iraq and as confirmation that the Iraqis love us dearly, I don't see it as accurate.
There are two reasons:
First, the Ba'ath Party has been smashed. We've captured almost the entire "deck of cards." Saddam is our prisoner. The Shiite Arabs outnumber the Sunni Arabs by around three-to-one (four-to-one if the Kurds and Shi'a align against the Sunni Arabs). There is little that could be done now to bring the Ba'ath Party back against the Shiite majority, unless the U.S. actively put them back in power.
Granted, we have promised to help the Iraqi overthrow Saddam before and then backed out, but this is he first time that we have actually overthrown and him and then captured him. I don't think that many Iraqis seriously think that in our absence, Saddam will be released and then gain power again.
Not that people may not be afraid of who will take over if we leave; but they would more likely be afraid of Iran or of Moqtada al-Sadr than of Saddam.
Second, even if much of the populace is afraid of Saddam coming back, it is not entirely clear to me how they would behave in a way more amenable to the U.S. if they were convinced that we would not let him come back. Most of the current problems in Iraq that are threatening to cause chaos are the result of individuals, tribes, and ethnic groups jockeying for position in the new Iraq, none of which is based on the assumption that Saddam could come back.
Put another way, the idea that "fear of American withrawal" is a major obstacle to our goals in Iraq presumes that most Iraqis love us and share our goals for Iraq, but are afraid to say so because they don't want to be on the wrong side if we bug out. If they could jsut be conviunced we would stay, then Iraqis will show themselves for the nice little democracy-lovers that they are.
But I see little evidence that most Iraqis are particularly enamored of us, or that their and our goals for Iraq coincide beyond the short-term. So if we could convince Iraqis that we would stay in large, "whatever-it-takes" numbers for the next five years, and beyond if necessary, I don't think it would dampen the insurgency severely, or cause a sudden outpour of pro-US sentiment.
In fact, increasing conviction that the Ba'athists would not return (and that U.S. troops need no longer defend the Shi'a from such a possibility) may have been a factor in the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr. It may yet cause additional problems for us in the Shiite areas, as the Shi'a become convinced that they no longer need us as a bulwark against the Sunni Arabs, and therefore, can risk offending us.
I think that the flaw in this sort of theorizing lies in trying to look at the Iraq War as having two sides: pro- and anti-Saddam. In reality, there are several sides, each working for their own goals, each motivated by their own drives, and with each responding in their own way to different incentives. There is no single force causing the problems in Iraq; no one side that we can go after, eliminate, and then everything is okay. There is no one explanation for our problems in Iraq that we can use as a clue as to how to improve the situation.
And so we plow on, trying to quench the fires one at a time.
That is all.
While this theory can be very comforting to pro-warriors, who can see this as a reason to stay in Iraq and as confirmation that the Iraqis love us dearly, I don't see it as accurate.
There are two reasons:
First, the Ba'ath Party has been smashed. We've captured almost the entire "deck of cards." Saddam is our prisoner. The Shiite Arabs outnumber the Sunni Arabs by around three-to-one (four-to-one if the Kurds and Shi'a align against the Sunni Arabs). There is little that could be done now to bring the Ba'ath Party back against the Shiite majority, unless the U.S. actively put them back in power.
Granted, we have promised to help the Iraqi overthrow Saddam before and then backed out, but this is he first time that we have actually overthrown and him and then captured him. I don't think that many Iraqis seriously think that in our absence, Saddam will be released and then gain power again.
Not that people may not be afraid of who will take over if we leave; but they would more likely be afraid of Iran or of Moqtada al-Sadr than of Saddam.
Second, even if much of the populace is afraid of Saddam coming back, it is not entirely clear to me how they would behave in a way more amenable to the U.S. if they were convinced that we would not let him come back. Most of the current problems in Iraq that are threatening to cause chaos are the result of individuals, tribes, and ethnic groups jockeying for position in the new Iraq, none of which is based on the assumption that Saddam could come back.
Put another way, the idea that "fear of American withrawal" is a major obstacle to our goals in Iraq presumes that most Iraqis love us and share our goals for Iraq, but are afraid to say so because they don't want to be on the wrong side if we bug out. If they could jsut be conviunced we would stay, then Iraqis will show themselves for the nice little democracy-lovers that they are.
But I see little evidence that most Iraqis are particularly enamored of us, or that their and our goals for Iraq coincide beyond the short-term. So if we could convince Iraqis that we would stay in large, "whatever-it-takes" numbers for the next five years, and beyond if necessary, I don't think it would dampen the insurgency severely, or cause a sudden outpour of pro-US sentiment.
In fact, increasing conviction that the Ba'athists would not return (and that U.S. troops need no longer defend the Shi'a from such a possibility) may have been a factor in the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr. It may yet cause additional problems for us in the Shiite areas, as the Shi'a become convinced that they no longer need us as a bulwark against the Sunni Arabs, and therefore, can risk offending us.
I think that the flaw in this sort of theorizing lies in trying to look at the Iraq War as having two sides: pro- and anti-Saddam. In reality, there are several sides, each working for their own goals, each motivated by their own drives, and with each responding in their own way to different incentives. There is no single force causing the problems in Iraq; no one side that we can go after, eliminate, and then everything is okay. There is no one explanation for our problems in Iraq that we can use as a clue as to how to improve the situation.
And so we plow on, trying to quench the fires one at a time.
That is all.
Is There a Downside to "Standing up to Syria?"
This Newsweek article suggests that indeed, there just might be, and that regime change might not be pretty, or make Syria more pro-American.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
I am a Citizenist
In the recent Sailer vs. Taylor verbal deathmatch, I come down strongly on Steve Sailer's side.
Whereas Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, that is, he thinks that whites should put the interests of white people first, Steve Sailer calls himself a "citizenist," that is, he thinks that Americans (by which I mean U.S. citizens), as well as the U.S. government, should put the interests of Americans first; ahead of those of foreigners, particularly those who are not yet citizens but who wish to become so. That is, the presumption should be that the interests of those who are already U.S. citizens should come first; both to the government, and, presumably, to other U.S. citizens.
[Side note: I am not particularly happy with the fact that U.S. citizens are referred to as "Americans," or that the U.S.A. is often thought of as "America." Technically, anyone living in the western hemisphere is an "American," as the entire western hemisphere is "America." I feel a little as if the U.S. has sort of stolen the term from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.]
I agree that "citizenism" is a better philosophy than any sort of racial solidarity, because ultimately it unites people based on a common culture and geography, and thus makes for less internal civil conflict than ethnic nationalism, which creates sitautions that either involve heavy repression, severe conflict, or both (Iraq, anyone?) Ethnic or racial nationalism as a philsophy would work well, I think, only in a mostly racially homogenous society, and I am not eager to see a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in the US.
I will admit that I may be biased, as I have black, Asian, and Hispanic relatives. But I think that dividing the country will not help us compete in the world, whereas aggressively promoting pour national interests will.
I probably should think more about this and post more specfic thoughts on it, but for the time being, let me identify myself as a citizenist.
That is all.
Whereas Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, that is, he thinks that whites should put the interests of white people first, Steve Sailer calls himself a "citizenist," that is, he thinks that Americans (by which I mean U.S. citizens), as well as the U.S. government, should put the interests of Americans first; ahead of those of foreigners, particularly those who are not yet citizens but who wish to become so. That is, the presumption should be that the interests of those who are already U.S. citizens should come first; both to the government, and, presumably, to other U.S. citizens.
[Side note: I am not particularly happy with the fact that U.S. citizens are referred to as "Americans," or that the U.S.A. is often thought of as "America." Technically, anyone living in the western hemisphere is an "American," as the entire western hemisphere is "America." I feel a little as if the U.S. has sort of stolen the term from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.]
I agree that "citizenism" is a better philosophy than any sort of racial solidarity, because ultimately it unites people based on a common culture and geography, and thus makes for less internal civil conflict than ethnic nationalism, which creates sitautions that either involve heavy repression, severe conflict, or both (Iraq, anyone?) Ethnic or racial nationalism as a philsophy would work well, I think, only in a mostly racially homogenous society, and I am not eager to see a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in the US.
I will admit that I may be biased, as I have black, Asian, and Hispanic relatives. But I think that dividing the country will not help us compete in the world, whereas aggressively promoting pour national interests will.
I probably should think more about this and post more specfic thoughts on it, but for the time being, let me identify myself as a citizenist.
That is all.
Is Sectarian Violence Becoming a Two-Way Street?
It seems that some Sunnis in Baghdad are being targeted for death, allegedly by members of the [Shi'ite] Badr Brigade.
If we are starting to see sectarian violence against the Sunni Arabs (earlier reports were mentioned on Glaivester here, then this is a likely sign that those trying to provoke a civil war have begun to succeed. We'll have to see, though, whether this violence is increasing or maintaining a steady-state (or even if it decreases) before we can be confident in the trends (although total violence agasint Iraqi civilians, or at least the reporting of it, has gone up since March of this year).
That is all.
If we are starting to see sectarian violence against the Sunni Arabs (earlier reports were mentioned on Glaivester here, then this is a likely sign that those trying to provoke a civil war have begun to succeed. We'll have to see, though, whether this violence is increasing or maintaining a steady-state (or even if it decreases) before we can be confident in the trends (although total violence agasint Iraqi civilians, or at least the reporting of it, has gone up since March of this year).
That is all.
Listening to Another Mother of a Dead Soldier
Admittedly, I see Cindy Sheehan as a bit whacko. Which is why I don't post much about her. She does not represent the antiwar movement as I would like to see it (and I think that it was a bad idea for Llewellyn Rockwell to give her a forum at the recent Mises Institute Seminar Series).
Having said that, I think it will be a lot harder to counteract criticism from another mother, who lost her son in Afghanistan rather than Iraq - namely, Mary Tillman, who says her son "believed the US war on Iraq was '[expletive] illegal' and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors." (Yeah, that part about Chomsky irks me, too. Too bad he didn't say, oh, Justin Raimondo instead).
Apparently, despite signing up for the war in Afghanistan, former NFL player Pat Tillman, much beloved by the neocons at the time of his death, was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, and his parents are starting to publicize that fact.
Why would the parents of Pat Tillman publicly express anger at the Bush administration?
I don't know, perhaps the fact that the military lied (by commission, it appears, as well as by omission) to them and everyone else about Tillman's death, which was actually from "friendly fire," might have something to do with it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
Having said that, I think it will be a lot harder to counteract criticism from another mother, who lost her son in Afghanistan rather than Iraq - namely, Mary Tillman, who says her son "believed the US war on Iraq was '[expletive] illegal' and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors." (Yeah, that part about Chomsky irks me, too. Too bad he didn't say, oh, Justin Raimondo instead).
Apparently, despite signing up for the war in Afghanistan, former NFL player Pat Tillman, much beloved by the neocons at the time of his death, was not a supporter of the war in Iraq, and his parents are starting to publicize that fact.
Why would the parents of Pat Tillman publicly express anger at the Bush administration?
I don't know, perhaps the fact that the military lied (by commission, it appears, as well as by omission) to them and everyone else about Tillman's death, which was actually from "friendly fire," might have something to do with it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
Crumbling Like a Cookie?
Stan Goff suggests that Iraq is tearing itself apart.
this is not exactly news, but he provides a lot more details as to what the predominant factors might be. In particular, he focuses a lot on Moqtada al-Sadr.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
That is all for now.
this is not exactly news, but he provides a lot more details as to what the predominant factors might be. In particular, he focuses a lot on Moqtada al-Sadr.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Information Clearing House.
That is all for now.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
The Vagaries of Blogging
Since I installed Sitemeter, I have noticed an inordinately large number of hits from people using Google Image Search (or some other search) and clicking on pictures of Kristin Lehman portraying the vampiress Urs on the TV show Forever Knight (either this one or this one, both on Kristin2's old Forever Knight website.
(Her new website is here).
When I can determine what the search terms were, they are usually "attractive women," "sexiest vampiress," or "Kristin Lehman."
It all hails back to this post, made more than a year ago, before this blog was a week old.
Disturbingly, someone found my website using search terms indicating that he or she was looking for nude photos of Ms. Lehman, which puzzles me as the term "nude" did not appear at all on my blog that month (by the way, don't worry, Ms. Lehman is not naked in that picture, it is from the Forever Knight episode "Hearts of Darkness," and she is wearing a strapless dress).
It seems to me that more people have found my blog by looking at that picture of Ms. Lehman than from any other search. (Thankfully, very few have found my blog looking for "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction" (shudder)).
The moral of the story is that linknig to pictures of a sexy vampiress is a good way to get traffic on your blog, I guess.
So therefore, here you go, some pictures of Janette (Deborah Duchene) here, here, and here.
That is all.
(Her new website is here).
When I can determine what the search terms were, they are usually "attractive women," "sexiest vampiress," or "Kristin Lehman."
It all hails back to this post, made more than a year ago, before this blog was a week old.
Disturbingly, someone found my website using search terms indicating that he or she was looking for nude photos of Ms. Lehman, which puzzles me as the term "nude" did not appear at all on my blog that month (by the way, don't worry, Ms. Lehman is not naked in that picture, it is from the Forever Knight episode "Hearts of Darkness," and she is wearing a strapless dress).
It seems to me that more people have found my blog by looking at that picture of Ms. Lehman than from any other search. (Thankfully, very few have found my blog looking for "Everybody Loves Raymond slash fanfiction" (shudder)).
The moral of the story is that linknig to pictures of a sexy vampiress is a good way to get traffic on your blog, I guess.
So therefore, here you go, some pictures of Janette (Deborah Duchene) here, here, and here.
That is all.
David Cohen and Orrin Judd Endorse Torture
Otherwise you are "mollycodling terrorists."
At least, that's what it sounds like they are saying to me.
That is all.
At least, that's what it sounds like they are saying to me.
That is all.
Some Stereotypes are Inaccurate
Earlier I was discussing the impact of stereotypes that reflect statistical reality, and their uses.
Stereotypes, on the other hand, that do not reflect statistical reality (a phenomenon discussed in this article) are of course useless - or worse than useless. Of course, such stereotypes need to be rejected or modified. As I pointed out in my semi-quote of Niger Innis, not doing so is when real bigotry begins.
(Although holding on to stereotypes solely for the purpose of ethnic humor and not taking them seriously in real life is okay, particularly if the jokes are compiled by Larry Wilde).
That is all.
Stereotypes, on the other hand, that do not reflect statistical reality (a phenomenon discussed in this article) are of course useless - or worse than useless. Of course, such stereotypes need to be rejected or modified. As I pointed out in my semi-quote of Niger Innis, not doing so is when real bigotry begins.
(Although holding on to stereotypes solely for the purpose of ethnic humor and not taking them seriously in real life is okay, particularly if the jokes are compiled by Larry Wilde).
That is all.
The Treasonous BBC
The BBC is run by traitors.
And no, this has nothing to do with their support, or lack thereof, for the Iraq Attaq.
Dennis Mangan, at The G-Gnome's site, criticizes the British Broadcasting Company for its egalitarian-based support of illegal immigration to the UK.
(And no, I don't mean traitor in the literal, "prosecute them" sense, but darnit, why should Brits pay taxes to support an organization pushing for their displacement)?
That is all.
And no, this has nothing to do with their support, or lack thereof, for the Iraq Attaq.
Dennis Mangan, at The G-Gnome's site, criticizes the British Broadcasting Company for its egalitarian-based support of illegal immigration to the UK.
(And no, I don't mean traitor in the literal, "prosecute them" sense, but darnit, why should Brits pay taxes to support an organization pushing for their displacement)?
That is all.
A Thought on Faith
From my previous post, I disparaged the idea that "faith creates reality." Some people may wonder how a Christian like myself can have a negative opinion toward faith.
Well, it is really simple. Faith is not of any value in itself. The value of faith lies in the object of the faith. Christian faith is valuable because the Christian God is real (I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one).
Faith, however, does not create reality. The Christian God's existence is not affected by the level of our faith.
Likewise, Bush's aide's statement that there is a "faith-based community" and a "reality-based community" (Bush's administration is in the former) is not a statement that should ease Christians (se, the President is a man of faith). What it reather implies to me is that Bush feels that he can do anything if he is just determined enough. That is, will conquers all.
Very dangerous.
That is all.
Well, it is really simple. Faith is not of any value in itself. The value of faith lies in the object of the faith. Christian faith is valuable because the Christian God is real (I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one).
Faith, however, does not create reality. The Christian God's existence is not affected by the level of our faith.
Likewise, Bush's aide's statement that there is a "faith-based community" and a "reality-based community" (Bush's administration is in the former) is not a statement that should ease Christians (se, the President is a man of faith). What it reather implies to me is that Bush feels that he can do anything if he is just determined enough. That is, will conquers all.
Very dangerous.
That is all.
Bush's Number One Butt-Kisser
If anyone doubted that Dicky Poe is willing to sacrifice all of his principles in blind support of Bush, this posting on "Moonbat Central" should leave no doubt.
I will agree that Bork is likely not the great constitutionalist that many conservatives think he is, but to support the nomination of a nearly blank slate with virtually no actual record to look at is madness.
I particularly like this quote:
Trying to micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty would be a sign of waffling on my part, an indication that my confidence in him is wavering.
Click and read the entire comment.
Dicky Poe is in effect implying that he will never criticize Bush no matter what he does. That is, it is not just that he agrees with Bush that Miers is the candidate for the job, or that he supports Bush because he finds himself in agreement with him on all of the issues, but because it is important to him to show faith in George W. Bush for its own sake.
Dicky is exactly the sort of starry-eyed loyalist that Bush likes to surround himself with, and represents Bush's "faith creates reality" philosophy perfectly.
That is all.
I will agree that Bork is likely not the great constitutionalist that many conservatives think he is, but to support the nomination of a nearly blank slate with virtually no actual record to look at is madness.
I particularly like this quote:
Trying to micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty would be a sign of waffling on my part, an indication that my confidence in him is wavering.
Click and read the entire comment.
Dicky Poe is in effect implying that he will never criticize Bush no matter what he does. That is, it is not just that he agrees with Bush that Miers is the candidate for the job, or that he supports Bush because he finds himself in agreement with him on all of the issues, but because it is important to him to show faith in George W. Bush for its own sake.
Dicky is exactly the sort of starry-eyed loyalist that Bush likes to surround himself with, and represents Bush's "faith creates reality" philosophy perfectly.
That is all.
Bush is not a Conservative, Bush is a Fraud
So saith Lawrence Auster.
No wonder his second term is beginning to become characterized by the fallout of scandals. Thus spake Steve Sailer.
That is all.
No wonder his second term is beginning to become characterized by the fallout of scandals. Thus spake Steve Sailer.
That is all.
New York City Subway Terrorist Bombing Threat
I should probably post on this story, but I have been too busy to really check out what is going on. After I get a grip on it, I plan to figure out an opinion and post it.
That is all for now.
That is all for now.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Ol' Vic is at it Again
There is much to disagree with in Victor Davis Hanson's latest screed, but this statement has struch me as the most interesting:
The shortcoming was never the number of U.S troops per se, but our self-imposed straightjacket on rules of engagement that apparently discouraged the vital sorts of offensive operations that we have at last seen the last two months.
Last wo months? We have been hearing about such offensive operations since at least April 2004 with the Fallujah struggle.
But more importantly, what he is actually saying seems to be that we don't need more troops, we need to be more brutal and merciless. Which is exactly what I predicted:
I think that there is only one way that we can win in Iraq. That is to resort to massive anti-Sunni Arab brutality. Even if we caused Syria to close its borders, the insurgency would be going on strong. It might lose its supply of suicide bombers, but it would still have the ability to place IEDs and would still have most of its warriors who fight with guns and mortars.
The only way to stop the insurgency is to convince the Iraqis that any ethnic group that attacks us will be decimated. Currently, that means massive retaliatory attacks against the families and towns of insurgents.
In fact, this statement by Hanson:
The lesson of Vietnam is that the south was more secure in 1973 without almost any American ground troops than with over 500,000 present in 1968. Promises of air power to support ARVN forces between 1971-3 proved about as viable as thousands of prior search-and-destroy patrols by American soldiers.
if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the US ought to use airpower to support offensive operations (and in fact, we did use airpower in Tal Afar. And against guerilla fighters, how would that work, unless we actually level villages? There are claims that we did level entire neighborhoods in Tal Afar, and then imposed a media blackout, but I am not certain how much weight I would give a report from Islam-Online.Net. (Although, considering how little news I hear from Tal Afar, it is reasonable to assume that there was a blackout, and I find it hard to believe that if the situation in Tal Afar was peachy keen that we wouldn't have had some live reports about it from Fox News (even if you accept that most of the mainstream media is antiwar and tries to cover up good news from Iraq as much as possible, only a fool would think that true of Fox).
Back to initial point, though, I think that Mr. Hanson is preaching the exact response that I was afraid we would take, and seems to feel that we are taking it, so it seems that I was prescient in my worries.
That is all.
The shortcoming was never the number of U.S troops per se, but our self-imposed straightjacket on rules of engagement that apparently discouraged the vital sorts of offensive operations that we have at last seen the last two months.
Last wo months? We have been hearing about such offensive operations since at least April 2004 with the Fallujah struggle.
But more importantly, what he is actually saying seems to be that we don't need more troops, we need to be more brutal and merciless. Which is exactly what I predicted:
I think that there is only one way that we can win in Iraq. That is to resort to massive anti-Sunni Arab brutality. Even if we caused Syria to close its borders, the insurgency would be going on strong. It might lose its supply of suicide bombers, but it would still have the ability to place IEDs and would still have most of its warriors who fight with guns and mortars.
The only way to stop the insurgency is to convince the Iraqis that any ethnic group that attacks us will be decimated. Currently, that means massive retaliatory attacks against the families and towns of insurgents.
In fact, this statement by Hanson:
The lesson of Vietnam is that the south was more secure in 1973 without almost any American ground troops than with over 500,000 present in 1968. Promises of air power to support ARVN forces between 1971-3 proved about as viable as thousands of prior search-and-destroy patrols by American soldiers.
if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the US ought to use airpower to support offensive operations (and in fact, we did use airpower in Tal Afar. And against guerilla fighters, how would that work, unless we actually level villages? There are claims that we did level entire neighborhoods in Tal Afar, and then imposed a media blackout, but I am not certain how much weight I would give a report from Islam-Online.Net. (Although, considering how little news I hear from Tal Afar, it is reasonable to assume that there was a blackout, and I find it hard to believe that if the situation in Tal Afar was peachy keen that we wouldn't have had some live reports about it from Fox News (even if you accept that most of the mainstream media is antiwar and tries to cover up good news from Iraq as much as possible, only a fool would think that true of Fox).
Back to initial point, though, I think that Mr. Hanson is preaching the exact response that I was afraid we would take, and seems to feel that we are taking it, so it seems that I was prescient in my worries.
That is all.
Ann Coulter Wants Out of this Quag-Miers
When the Blonde One makes remarks like this about Dubya:
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture...
You know that all is not well in Bushland.
That is all.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture...
You know that all is not well in Bushland.
That is all.
Preparing a New Casus Belli?
The latest accusations against Iran are ominous.
I will say, though, that Iranian involvement in the situation in Basra (for example, supporting the Sadrist protests or the riots) is a heck of a lot more plausible than them supporting the Sunni Arab insurgency.
Obviously, Iran has a lot more to gain from the Shiite Arabs becoming dominant than from the Sunni Arabs becoming dominant, and so it makes much more sense that the Iranians would help the former than the latter.
That is all.
I will say, though, that Iranian involvement in the situation in Basra (for example, supporting the Sadrist protests or the riots) is a heck of a lot more plausible than them supporting the Sunni Arab insurgency.
Obviously, Iran has a lot more to gain from the Shiite Arabs becoming dominant than from the Sunni Arabs becoming dominant, and so it makes much more sense that the Iranians would help the former than the latter.
That is all.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Iraqi Constitution News
There was a recent change in the Iraqi Constitution that made it harder for the Sunni Arabs to exercise the veto provision. It seemed to be that the referendum was being rigged to insure its passage. This change has been reversed.
First, let me say that I think this is a GOOD THING.
Second, let's ask ourselves, what does this mean? It means that the constitution is less likely to be passed, but (a) if it passes, the Sunni Arabs will likely be marginally more receptive to it, and (b) if it fails, then the situation is still probably going to better than if it passed only because of the new provision. Better not to have a constitution than to have one where one group feels it was railroaded. Not that the Sunni Arabs might not feel that way anyway, but it should marginally improve things.
Not that I am very hopeful for Iraq, but when something does go right, I acknowledge it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully and Yggy.
That is all.
First, let me say that I think this is a GOOD THING.
Second, let's ask ourselves, what does this mean? It means that the constitution is less likely to be passed, but (a) if it passes, the Sunni Arabs will likely be marginally more receptive to it, and (b) if it fails, then the situation is still probably going to better than if it passed only because of the new provision. Better not to have a constitution than to have one where one group feels it was railroaded. Not that the Sunni Arabs might not feel that way anyway, but it should marginally improve things.
Not that I am very hopeful for Iraq, but when something does go right, I acknowledge it.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully and Yggy.
That is all.
MADD Gone Mad?
MADD is apparently trying to get sanctions placed on divorce(e)s with children who have even a single drink before driving. Even the founder of MADD thinks that the group has gone too far and has essentially become prohibitionist.
Several concerns are raised here about MADD's possible attempts to overthrow basic constitutional protections.
The general story here, as I see it, appears to be that MADD mostly succeeded at its original mission of preventing most casual drunk driving. After it had done this, it faced becoming a far less important and relevant organization, and driven by the desire to survive and to maintain and increase its influence, decided, as such organizations are wont to do, to expand its mission in order to maintain a raison d'etre. In other words, the power, relevance, and importance of MADD is directly tied to how much of a problem drunk driving is, so the more MADD succeeds in decreasing drunk driving, the less relevant it becomes, unless it gets more "miles" out of each drunk-driving incident. Likewise, as more and more of its agenda keeps getting passed, it has less and less left to fight for unless it keeps adding new items to the agenda, each of which has to be more extreme than the last (unless the organization changes directions, which is unlikely because MADD's membership almost by definition will be more concerned with drunken driving than the general population). Ultimately, a successful single-issue political organization has to either become extremist or else fizzle out.
This seems to be what is happening here.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists.
That is all.
Several concerns are raised here about MADD's possible attempts to overthrow basic constitutional protections.
The general story here, as I see it, appears to be that MADD mostly succeeded at its original mission of preventing most casual drunk driving. After it had done this, it faced becoming a far less important and relevant organization, and driven by the desire to survive and to maintain and increase its influence, decided, as such organizations are wont to do, to expand its mission in order to maintain a raison d'etre. In other words, the power, relevance, and importance of MADD is directly tied to how much of a problem drunk driving is, so the more MADD succeeds in decreasing drunk driving, the less relevant it becomes, unless it gets more "miles" out of each drunk-driving incident. Likewise, as more and more of its agenda keeps getting passed, it has less and less left to fight for unless it keeps adding new items to the agenda, each of which has to be more extreme than the last (unless the organization changes directions, which is unlikely because MADD's membership almost by definition will be more concerned with drunken driving than the general population). Ultimately, a successful single-issue political organization has to either become extremist or else fizzle out.
This seems to be what is happening here.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ifeminists.
That is all.
Summing Up the Quag-Miers
I think, when discussing my overall reaction to the nomination, and the overall reaction of just about everyone, I can safely say that I speak for most of us when I say,
WHO?
That is all.
That is all.
Justin Raimondo on the Kurdish Situation
Raimondo has an interesting article where he questions whether the Kurds are the unalloyed "good guys" we have been led to believe.
One thought that does leap out at me in this article is that he seems a little unfair in his assessment of the campaign to "Kurdishize" Kirkuk by replacing Arabs with Kurds. As I understand it, a large number of those Arabs were put there and Kurds were driven out during Saddam's reign. Therefore, I am not certain why re-ethnic cleansing the area would offend Justin more than, say, removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
On the other hand, he is correct, I think, that empowering the Kurds will not necessarily lead to a wonderful, humane, liberal-democratic Iraq. My feeling on the Kurds: they may be "on the right side" as a whole, but that doesn't make them "good guys."
That is all.
One thought that does leap out at me in this article is that he seems a little unfair in his assessment of the campaign to "Kurdishize" Kirkuk by replacing Arabs with Kurds. As I understand it, a large number of those Arabs were put there and Kurds were driven out during Saddam's reign. Therefore, I am not certain why re-ethnic cleansing the area would offend Justin more than, say, removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
On the other hand, he is correct, I think, that empowering the Kurds will not necessarily lead to a wonderful, humane, liberal-democratic Iraq. My feeling on the Kurds: they may be "on the right side" as a whole, but that doesn't make them "good guys."
That is all.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Supreme Court Affirmative Action?
I've heard a few opinions that Harriet Miers was chosen despite her unstellar qualifications for "affirmative action" reasons. That is, Bush wanted a woman to fill a woman's seat (or, if you want to say that Roberts is replacing O'Connor and Miers replacing Rehnquist, to maintain the current gender balance).
Of course, that doesn't explain why he didn't find a woman with better qualifications, such as, say, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen.
To the extent that this was an affirmative action decision, all that it means is that Bush picked an unqualified female crony rather than an unqualified male crony.
That is all.
Of course, that doesn't explain why he didn't find a woman with better qualifications, such as, say, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen.
To the extent that this was an affirmative action decision, all that it means is that Bush picked an unqualified female crony rather than an unqualified male crony.
That is all.
Polygamy and the Netherlands UPDATED
Ampersand questions the reports that this situation in Holland is "polygamy in all but name." I reported on it earlier here.
I am not convinced, because (a) I don't see how "registered partnerships" is distinct from "civil unions" and (b) the fact that the law doesn't allow for three-way registered partnerships doesn't mean that someone won't grant them, law be damned. Lots of things that are theoretically illegal are actually allowed because courts refuse to recognize the law as written.
UPDATE: Looking at the comments of the article on Alas, it appears that the agreement may be something very different from a marriage. Nore on this as it develops.
That is all.
I am not convinced, because (a) I don't see how "registered partnerships" is distinct from "civil unions" and (b) the fact that the law doesn't allow for three-way registered partnerships doesn't mean that someone won't grant them, law be damned. Lots of things that are theoretically illegal are actually allowed because courts refuse to recognize the law as written.
UPDATE: Looking at the comments of the article on Alas, it appears that the agreement may be something very different from a marriage. Nore on this as it develops.
That is all.
A Rebuttal on Recruiting from NRO
Stephen Spruiell says that the Army recruiting shortfall is less bleak than the media has made it out to be, and pat of it is becasue the Army increased it recruitment goals last year. He also points out that the active-duty Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force have met their goals, in a rebuttal of claims that recruiting is in crisis (I previously dealt with the issue here).
On the other hand, there is no mention of how the National Guard or the Reserves are doing.
That is all.
On the other hand, there is no mention of how the National Guard or the Reserves are doing.
That is all.
Sully's Support of Fishback
If you would like to support Ian Fishback, here's a post by Andrew Sullivan on how you can send an email of support.
Or, if for some reason you don't want to click to Andrew's site, supportfishback@aol.com is the address to write to.
That is all.
Or, if for some reason you don't want to click to Andrew's site, supportfishback@aol.com is the address to write to.
That is all.
More on Ian Fishback
Andrew Sullivan has the Ian Fishback story. It appears that, if Fishback's testimony holds, torture and mistreatment were not limited to that small group at Abu Ghraib, and were condoned higher up the food chain than we are supposed to believe. In fact, there are some indications that it was condoned all the way to the top.
Money quote:
"Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees."
Which is why all the bellyaching about how releasing the new photos will hurt our troops, and how we alrady have seen what's on them so there is no need to see more is such bunkum. While Bill O'Reilly and the pundits may believe this, it increasingly seems that the administration doesn't want the photos released because it doesn't want any controls on interrogation techniques or any oversight. Put another way, they are not trying to protect "our soldiers," they are trying to cover up prisoner abuse.
Of course, some may argue that US mistreatment is better than what people underwent under Saddam. Yes, but that hardly excuses mistreatment, or the condonement of mistreatment by higher-ups, assuming it occurred.
And then, of course, we get the argument: "but these were terrorists trying to kill us, so why should we worry about their rights?" I will deal with that question tomorrow, as I am getting tired now.
That is all.
Money quote:
"Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees."
Which is why all the bellyaching about how releasing the new photos will hurt our troops, and how we alrady have seen what's on them so there is no need to see more is such bunkum. While Bill O'Reilly and the pundits may believe this, it increasingly seems that the administration doesn't want the photos released because it doesn't want any controls on interrogation techniques or any oversight. Put another way, they are not trying to protect "our soldiers," they are trying to cover up prisoner abuse.
Of course, some may argue that US mistreatment is better than what people underwent under Saddam. Yes, but that hardly excuses mistreatment, or the condonement of mistreatment by higher-ups, assuming it occurred.
And then, of course, we get the argument: "but these were terrorists trying to kill us, so why should we worry about their rights?" I will deal with that question tomorrow, as I am getting tired now.
That is all.
Quag-Miers
Professor Bainbridge has a very strong critique of Bush's choice of Miers (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully).
Essentially, she appears to be a moderate at best, a suck-up, undistinguished, and without conservative credentials. Moreover, her nomination seems to indicate to conservative judges that they'd better try to keep their mouths shut and not "come out of the closet" (i.e. as being conservative) if they want a chance atthe Supreme Court.
George Will is infuriated (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster).
Hugh Hewitt, of course, (who thought that Bush won the first debate, "big time," but his blog archives don't go back that far, so I don't have a link) is busy kissing George W.'s Hugh Hewitt.
Interestingly enough, George Will is, in the same article, also slamming Bush for not vetoing McCain-Feingold, stating that "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." In other words, Will is saying that Bush is not qualified to be President, and could be interpreted as saying he wishes Bush could be impeached.
And look at Michelle Malkin's posts here, here, here, and here.
I'll try to get more for the round-up later, but I think that some conservatives are beginning to get it.
The biggest thing that conservatives have to realize, though, if they want ot have some hope of rescuing "conservatism" from what it has become, is that the problem with Bush is not that he is pandering to Democrats. Put another way, the problem is not that he is an arch-conservative at heart but is too timid to stand up for what he believes in.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LIBERAL WHO IS PLAYING CONSERVATIVES FOR SUCKERS.
Howard Sutherland made this same point, as quoted on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Essentially, she appears to be a moderate at best, a suck-up, undistinguished, and without conservative credentials. Moreover, her nomination seems to indicate to conservative judges that they'd better try to keep their mouths shut and not "come out of the closet" (i.e. as being conservative) if they want a chance atthe Supreme Court.
George Will is infuriated (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster).
Hugh Hewitt, of course, (who thought that Bush won the first debate, "big time," but his blog archives don't go back that far, so I don't have a link) is busy kissing George W.'s Hugh Hewitt.
Interestingly enough, George Will is, in the same article, also slamming Bush for not vetoing McCain-Feingold, stating that "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." In other words, Will is saying that Bush is not qualified to be President, and could be interpreted as saying he wishes Bush could be impeached.
And look at Michelle Malkin's posts here, here, here, and here.
I'll try to get more for the round-up later, but I think that some conservatives are beginning to get it.
The biggest thing that conservatives have to realize, though, if they want ot have some hope of rescuing "conservatism" from what it has become, is that the problem with Bush is not that he is pandering to Democrats. Put another way, the problem is not that he is an arch-conservative at heart but is too timid to stand up for what he believes in.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LIBERAL WHO IS PLAYING CONSERVATIVES FOR SUCKERS.
Howard Sutherland made this same point, as quoted on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
That is not all. Not by a long shot.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Introducing a New Link!
Magic Statistics, a blog by Scott Gilbreath discussing issues of statistical analysis, has now been added to my permanent links list. Please check this blog out.
That is all.
That is all.
Synchronicity
I think that this post by Ziel about the New Orleans refugees and this article about the Army's alteration in its recruiting policy sort of juxtapose nicely, don't you?
(Not that the change in the Army's recruiting policy would actually allow a much larger number of recruits to be taken from the New Orleans refugees, but looking at Ziel's post and then the LA Times' article is sort of humorous.
That is all.
(Not that the change in the Army's recruiting policy would actually allow a much larger number of recruits to be taken from the New Orleans refugees, but looking at Ziel's post and then the LA Times' article is sort of humorous.
That is all.
More on Miers
WorldNetDaily has uncovered some evidence that Harriet Miers may not be much of a conservative.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Another Blog to Look At
Glaivester readers might appreciate Bull's Eye On Immigration, a blog concerned with issues of the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S.
(I'm not certain of Brian (the blogger at BEoI)'s position on legal immigration yet, i.e. should it be reduced, increased, etc.) but his stance on the illegal immigration question seems pretty sound to me.
That is all.
(I'm not certain of Brian (the blogger at BEoI)'s position on legal immigration yet, i.e. should it be reduced, increased, etc.) but his stance on the illegal immigration question seems pretty sound to me.
That is all.
Stereotypes and Their Uses
Steve Sailer directs people to some posts by Bryan Caplan on the Econolog blog.
Most interesting are these two posts that deal with stereotypes:
Crashing into Stereotypes and
How I Fight Statistical Discrimination.
Looking around on the web, I also found this article by Chris Naud of the University of Chicago.
The general argument here is that stereotypes are usually based on statistical truth, that is, groups that are stereotyped to have certain characteristics probably do have those characteristics in greater proportions than the general population. Also, people use stereotypes for the simple fact that trying to "treat people as individuals," i.e. deal with each person on a case-by-case basis, is not always cost-effective, and may be cost-prohibitive. Or put as Mr. Caplan put it, people tend to assume that a person is an average member of whatever group he or she can be seen to belong to until evidence suggests otherwise (obviously, this applies not just to race but to sex, sexual orientation, lodge membership, etc.).
Of course, one may retort that judging based on stereotypes is a sign of ignorance. Well, technically that is true; one pre-judges situations based on partial knowledge. But on the other hand, one might argue that prejudices are how we cope with ignorance; when we don't have all the information, we make the guess that is the most likely to get us the best outcome. We can never totally overcome ignorance unless we become omniscient; moreover, as stated before, information is not cost-free, so getting more information before making a decision is not always practical.
None of this is to say, of course, that government policy should be based on stereotypes per se. Obviously, at the levels of corporations and governments, there are a lot more resources to use to get information, and the consequences of making wrong decisions are a lot greater than at the individual level. Of course, on some level decisions will still be made based on a statistical truth (for example, an insurance actuarial table can't predict who will and won't have accidents, just the likelihood based on a number of factors), but they are based on a huge number of factors including ones that are not immediately obvious.
But on a personal level, decisions often have to be made with very little information, and it isn't always possible to find out someone's age, marital status, their criminal record (or lack thereof), their family history, etc.
In any case, two thoughts occur to me, looking at this.
First, I think that the best way to look at racism is to consider what Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) said during an "audience discussion" after an episode of Any Day Now that dealt particularly heavily with the issue of prejudices.
I can't find the exact quote, but what he said was in essence that the problem isn't people assuming things as much as it is when people refuse to alter their assumptions in the face of contravening evidence.
This, I think, is a good rule of thumb for when prejudice becomes destructive; when it is based not just on ignorance, but on willful ignorance and not subjected to evidence.
Second, any stereotype that is based on statistical truth will get more accurate the larger the population sample you have to deal with, assuming that the sample is representative. For example, if a stereotype about Hispanics is based on statistical truths, it might not apply when you are thinking of hiring a Hispanic for a job, but would likely be very important if you are thinking of moving into a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood (unless, of course, the neighborhood is an unrepresentative one; I would assume that if, for example, the neighborhood consists mainly of people making over 100,000 a year, stereotypes about the general population would be much less accurate as predictors).
Statistics is not as dry a subject as most people think, now, is it?
btw, I also have to see Crash.
That is all.
Most interesting are these two posts that deal with stereotypes:
Crashing into Stereotypes and
How I Fight Statistical Discrimination.
Looking around on the web, I also found this article by Chris Naud of the University of Chicago.
The general argument here is that stereotypes are usually based on statistical truth, that is, groups that are stereotyped to have certain characteristics probably do have those characteristics in greater proportions than the general population. Also, people use stereotypes for the simple fact that trying to "treat people as individuals," i.e. deal with each person on a case-by-case basis, is not always cost-effective, and may be cost-prohibitive. Or put as Mr. Caplan put it, people tend to assume that a person is an average member of whatever group he or she can be seen to belong to until evidence suggests otherwise (obviously, this applies not just to race but to sex, sexual orientation, lodge membership, etc.).
Of course, one may retort that judging based on stereotypes is a sign of ignorance. Well, technically that is true; one pre-judges situations based on partial knowledge. But on the other hand, one might argue that prejudices are how we cope with ignorance; when we don't have all the information, we make the guess that is the most likely to get us the best outcome. We can never totally overcome ignorance unless we become omniscient; moreover, as stated before, information is not cost-free, so getting more information before making a decision is not always practical.
None of this is to say, of course, that government policy should be based on stereotypes per se. Obviously, at the levels of corporations and governments, there are a lot more resources to use to get information, and the consequences of making wrong decisions are a lot greater than at the individual level. Of course, on some level decisions will still be made based on a statistical truth (for example, an insurance actuarial table can't predict who will and won't have accidents, just the likelihood based on a number of factors), but they are based on a huge number of factors including ones that are not immediately obvious.
But on a personal level, decisions often have to be made with very little information, and it isn't always possible to find out someone's age, marital status, their criminal record (or lack thereof), their family history, etc.
In any case, two thoughts occur to me, looking at this.
First, I think that the best way to look at racism is to consider what Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) said during an "audience discussion" after an episode of Any Day Now that dealt particularly heavily with the issue of prejudices.
I can't find the exact quote, but what he said was in essence that the problem isn't people assuming things as much as it is when people refuse to alter their assumptions in the face of contravening evidence.
This, I think, is a good rule of thumb for when prejudice becomes destructive; when it is based not just on ignorance, but on willful ignorance and not subjected to evidence.
Second, any stereotype that is based on statistical truth will get more accurate the larger the population sample you have to deal with, assuming that the sample is representative. For example, if a stereotype about Hispanics is based on statistical truths, it might not apply when you are thinking of hiring a Hispanic for a job, but would likely be very important if you are thinking of moving into a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood (unless, of course, the neighborhood is an unrepresentative one; I would assume that if, for example, the neighborhood consists mainly of people making over 100,000 a year, stereotypes about the general population would be much less accurate as predictors).
Statistics is not as dry a subject as most people think, now, is it?
btw, I also have to see Crash.
That is all.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The Problem with Joseph Farah
Joseph Farah has another column up about the study by Gregory S. Paul correlating the level of religiosity in a society with the level of social dysfunction.
His previous column is here.
Whereas in the previous column he essentially bloviated without saying anything, in this column he points out Dr. Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism. While this may show that Dr. Paul has a bias, it isn't particularly helpful in refuting his claims.
On the other hand, both Steve Sailer here and here and Scott Gilbreath made arguments that showed actual flaws in the study. (Although Gilbreath also points out Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism here).
That's the problem with Joseph Farah; even when he is right about an issue, he doesn't always argue with logic. This reduces his value as an ally considerably.
That is all.
His previous column is here.
Whereas in the previous column he essentially bloviated without saying anything, in this column he points out Dr. Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism. While this may show that Dr. Paul has a bias, it isn't particularly helpful in refuting his claims.
On the other hand, both Steve Sailer here and here and Scott Gilbreath made arguments that showed actual flaws in the study. (Although Gilbreath also points out Paul's membership in the Council for Secular Humanism here).
That's the problem with Joseph Farah; even when he is right about an issue, he doesn't always argue with logic. This reduces his value as an ally considerably.
That is all.
Ian Fishback
I plan to post something about Ian Fishback soon.
He's the "whistleblower" about the administration being deliberately vague about the standards or treating detainees. The only thing is, I haven't read up enough about himyet to feel comfortable putting up an opinion; I want to make certain I get my facts straight first.
Stay tuned.
That is all.
He's the "whistleblower" about the administration being deliberately vague about the standards or treating detainees. The only thing is, I haven't read up enough about himyet to feel comfortable putting up an opinion; I want to make certain I get my facts straight first.
Stay tuned.
That is all.
Miers for Supreme Court?
Earlier I said I would try to post on the nomination of John Roberts. I still get the feeling that he was not the best candidate if Bush's goal was to put a philosophical stamp on the court.
Having said that, his next choice, Harriet Miers, immediately disturbs me, just for the fact that she has never been a judge. I get the impression from listening to Laura Ingraham that a lot of other conservatives are skeptical of her too. In any case, appointing the White House Counsel seems to be a very clear case of cronyism. I will have to find out more about her positions or her political philosophy, though, before I can definitiely say whether she is good or bad.
But the bottom line? It doesn't look good.
That is all.
Having said that, his next choice, Harriet Miers, immediately disturbs me, just for the fact that she has never been a judge. I get the impression from listening to Laura Ingraham that a lot of other conservatives are skeptical of her too. In any case, appointing the White House Counsel seems to be a very clear case of cronyism. I will have to find out more about her positions or her political philosophy, though, before I can definitiely say whether she is good or bad.
But the bottom line? It doesn't look good.
That is all.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Another Interesting Blog
Here's another blog I discovered using the "referral" function of Sitemeter (Obviously, someone clicked on the "next blog" button on the strip on the top of her page). It's an interesting blog to check out, "(a)musings of a grad student."
As a recent grad student myself, I can relate to somne aspects of her position (although she is apparently a student of history, I am a student of biochemistry). Like me, she posts on politics, although she appears to be more liberal than I am.
On the other hand, she posts about Ian Fishback, the detainee abuse whistleblower, and I agree with her about that (i.e. that Fishback is a good guy for reporting the abuse and that the detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib was a bad thing - and [I'm assuming this is her position] that the administration ain't as guiltless as it pretends to be, it wasn't "just a few bad apples" doing the abuse).
In any case, please give her a click. I know from experience that it gives a blogger a little boost to see his or her Sitemeter ratings go up.
That is all.
As a recent grad student myself, I can relate to somne aspects of her position (although she is apparently a student of history, I am a student of biochemistry). Like me, she posts on politics, although she appears to be more liberal than I am.
On the other hand, she posts about Ian Fishback, the detainee abuse whistleblower, and I agree with her about that (i.e. that Fishback is a good guy for reporting the abuse and that the detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib was a bad thing - and [I'm assuming this is her position] that the administration ain't as guiltless as it pretends to be, it wasn't "just a few bad apples" doing the abuse).
In any case, please give her a click. I know from experience that it gives a blogger a little boost to see his or her Sitemeter ratings go up.
That is all.
Three-Way Civil War?
Previously, concerns about civil conflict in Iraq centered on the issue of the Sunni Arabs. But recent events bring up the possibility that the Kurds and the Shiite Arabs may be on the road to some serious strife. President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari appear to be butting heads not only on procedural and symbolic issues, but also on substantive ones as well.
Juan Cole gives us some background, which also suggests that this onlict may wind up involving the Turkmen, a "second-tier" ethnic group in Iraq that has been mostly forgotten.
The conflict revolves around the ethnic cleansing of (many, but not all) Kurds from Kirkuk under Saddam, their replacement with (mostly Shiite) Arabs, and the purported pledge of the Shiite-led government to resettle Kurds in Kirkuk. Essentially, it boils down to whether or not the Kurds will be resettled in time to vote in a referendum as to whether or not Kirkuk joins the Kurdish confederacy. While some Turkmen were displaced in Saddam's ethnic cleansing campaign as well, they might well take hte side of the Shiite Arabs, as they are mostly Shiites as well and as there is bad blood between them and the Kurds.
I would think that any Kurdish/Shiite Arab conflict would be smaller than any Kurdish/Sunni Arab or Shiite Arab/Sunni Arab conflict, as the Kurds and Shiite Arabs do not overlap as much and do not have as much to fight over. But it is certainly possible that Kirkuk itself is considered important enough to start a major war over.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
Juan Cole gives us some background, which also suggests that this onlict may wind up involving the Turkmen, a "second-tier" ethnic group in Iraq that has been mostly forgotten.
The conflict revolves around the ethnic cleansing of (many, but not all) Kurds from Kirkuk under Saddam, their replacement with (mostly Shiite) Arabs, and the purported pledge of the Shiite-led government to resettle Kurds in Kirkuk. Essentially, it boils down to whether or not the Kurds will be resettled in time to vote in a referendum as to whether or not Kirkuk joins the Kurdish confederacy. While some Turkmen were displaced in Saddam's ethnic cleansing campaign as well, they might well take hte side of the Shiite Arabs, as they are mostly Shiites as well and as there is bad blood between them and the Kurds.
I would think that any Kurdish/Shiite Arab conflict would be smaller than any Kurdish/Sunni Arab or Shiite Arab/Sunni Arab conflict, as the Kurds and Shiite Arabs do not overlap as much and do not have as much to fight over. But it is certainly possible that Kirkuk itself is considered important enough to start a major war over.
More on this as it develops.
That is all.
AIPAC Scandal
Justin Raimondo talks about the AIPAC scandal, in which Larry Franklin has been charged with disseminating classified information.
Juan Cole thinks he goes too far (look a few paragraphs down) and also makes an interesting point: he doesn't beleive that there is a sinister cabal here at work. To the extent that Israel has disproportional influence on our foreign policy, it is simply because they have better lobbies than the other side.
That is all.
Juan Cole thinks he goes too far (look a few paragraphs down) and also makes an interesting point: he doesn't beleive that there is a sinister cabal here at work. To the extent that Israel has disproportional influence on our foreign policy, it is simply because they have better lobbies than the other side.
That is all.
Scooter the Leaker
So Scooter Libby was the Plame Leak - sort of. As Eric Garris points out, Antiwar.com had him pegged back in 2003.
I wish I could say more, but the Plame-Wilson thing has always been complicated, and I never felt that I had enough of a handle on it to definitively say what happened or who was in the right.
That is all for now.
I wish I could say more, but the Plame-Wilson thing has always been complicated, and I never felt that I had enough of a handle on it to definitively say what happened or who was in the right.
That is all for now.
Roberts Repeats his Prediction
Paul Craig Roberts has long suggested that the administration, in order to spread the war without a draft, might decide to resort to using nuclear weapons:
While we are bogged down, what happens if something hits the fan in another part of the world?
Will we be forced to resort to nuclear weapons?
-"Neocons Admit They’ve Blown It – Is The Draft Next?" August 28, 2003
Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons.
-"Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV" Sept. 20, 2003
It is not American "virtue" but nuclear fallout that neocons intend to spread in the Middle East.
-"A Holocaust in the Making" Oct. 27, 2003
Unless they resort to nuclear genocide against the Muslim world, neither candidate has any hope of killing as many terrorists as their policy would create.
-"Liberty is at Stake" Nov. 2, 2004
And now he says:
Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons.
-" Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars" Oct. 1, 2005
Whether or not he is correct in this, it sems to me that it might behoove us to be a little circumspect about Bush's foreign policy; at the very least we need to make certain that he is not actively spoiling for a fight with Iran (or Syria). All things considered, I am not very worried that we will deliberately get into a conflict with North Korea, but I do think that we ought to be cautious about the administration's plans for the countries bordering Iraq.
In any case, read Mr. Robert's columns, they are always quite thought-provoking.
That is all.
While we are bogged down, what happens if something hits the fan in another part of the world?
Will we be forced to resort to nuclear weapons?
-"Neocons Admit They’ve Blown It – Is The Draft Next?" August 28, 2003
Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons.
-"Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV" Sept. 20, 2003
It is not American "virtue" but nuclear fallout that neocons intend to spread in the Middle East.
-"A Holocaust in the Making" Oct. 27, 2003
Unless they resort to nuclear genocide against the Muslim world, neither candidate has any hope of killing as many terrorists as their policy would create.
-"Liberty is at Stake" Nov. 2, 2004
And now he says:
Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons.
-" Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars" Oct. 1, 2005
Whether or not he is correct in this, it sems to me that it might behoove us to be a little circumspect about Bush's foreign policy; at the very least we need to make certain that he is not actively spoiling for a fight with Iran (or Syria). All things considered, I am not very worried that we will deliberately get into a conflict with North Korea, but I do think that we ought to be cautious about the administration's plans for the countries bordering Iraq.
In any case, read Mr. Robert's columns, they are always quite thought-provoking.
That is all.
The End of the World
Jonah Goldberg and Steve Sailer agree on something!
Specifically, they agree that Garance Franke-Ruta is a liar. Although Sailer also thinks that he (or she, does anyone know?) is stupid.
That is all.
Specifically, they agree that Garance Franke-Ruta is a liar. Although Sailer also thinks that he (or she, does anyone know?) is stupid.
That is all.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
September Iraq Round-Up
Via Iraq Coalition Casualty Count:
Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq: 52. 42 American hostile fatalitis, 3 UK hostile fatalities, 7 non-hostile American fatalities.
September wounded U.S. soldiers: 283 as of September 17 (which would extrapolate to 499 if the death rate stayed constant).
Iraqi deaths (choose September):
Iraqi military/security killed: 233
Iraqi civilians killed: 640
The statistics are mostly lower than they have been or about the same as they have been for the past four or five months, except for the civilian deaths, which is the second hiughest it has been since Icasualties started keeping stats in March 2005, and would be the highest were it not for the single incident on August 31 that killed 965 people.
All in all, I don't think that thios month seems to represent much of a change in the insurgency one way or the other.
That is all.
Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq: 52. 42 American hostile fatalitis, 3 UK hostile fatalities, 7 non-hostile American fatalities.
September wounded U.S. soldiers: 283 as of September 17 (which would extrapolate to 499 if the death rate stayed constant).
Iraqi deaths (choose September):
Iraqi military/security killed: 233
Iraqi civilians killed: 640
The statistics are mostly lower than they have been or about the same as they have been for the past four or five months, except for the civilian deaths, which is the second hiughest it has been since Icasualties started keeping stats in March 2005, and would be the highest were it not for the single incident on August 31 that killed 965 people.
All in all, I don't think that thios month seems to represent much of a change in the insurgency one way or the other.
That is all.
The Problem with the Iraqi Army
Chris Roach has an interesting post on why the Iraqi army does not appear to be good at fighting.
I think that in this statement he makes the most important point:
First, policymakers at the highest levels do not understand their own country, why its soldiers fight, and how these two factors relate to one another. Our decisionmakers have said we're a democracy, that this means elections decide things (within certain limits), and that this cosntant change in our political policy is the genius of our system. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our life is much more than a mere democracy, and that our soldiers and countrymen conceive of the nation as a set of concrete traditions and experiences, including the individual experiences of living in America, making choices, and living within certain expectations.
That is a very important point that should particularly resonate with paloeconservatives and paleolibertarians. In short, it is saying that a country, a nation, is not the same thing as the state associated with that nation. Too often ,people think of the U.S. as being defined by the U.S. Governemnt, or of any nation-state as being defined by the state part rather than the nation part.
Of course, this is part of the reason why many people question whether or not Iraq can be kept together; there is some doubt as to whether the people under the Iraqi state are actually a cohesive nation; that is, do they have any ties that bind them all together and that simultaneously define them from those outside Iraq? In short, other than being under the same government, does the term Iraqi have any meaning, and if so, what?
Chris makes another good point:
And it's an empty vessel because mistaken neoconservative policymakers wrongly assumed that the US was an empty vessel, the so-called creedal nation, when in fact U.S. society manifests a coherent way of life for individuals and society that they deem it worth fighting for. In other words, the US as a nation-state actually means something to its military.
So the neocons can't nation-build effectively because they don't understand the copncept of nation, apart from being under the same government. They don't understand how to make Iraq like America (or alternately, why Iraq isn't America) because they don't understand America. They assunme that we are merely a set of political protocols; and that you simply transplant said protocols into another country and you get America! They apparently believe that that is what happened in Japan and Germany after World War II.
This is why I tend to trust realists more than starry-eyed idealists; and why I am a conservative rather than a liberal. Because I think that we need to understand who we were and who we are in order to truly understand what we can be. Because I don't think that we can make something so just because it would be nice. Because I believe in common sense.
That is all.
I think that in this statement he makes the most important point:
First, policymakers at the highest levels do not understand their own country, why its soldiers fight, and how these two factors relate to one another. Our decisionmakers have said we're a democracy, that this means elections decide things (within certain limits), and that this cosntant change in our political policy is the genius of our system. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our life is much more than a mere democracy, and that our soldiers and countrymen conceive of the nation as a set of concrete traditions and experiences, including the individual experiences of living in America, making choices, and living within certain expectations.
That is a very important point that should particularly resonate with paloeconservatives and paleolibertarians. In short, it is saying that a country, a nation, is not the same thing as the state associated with that nation. Too often ,people think of the U.S. as being defined by the U.S. Governemnt, or of any nation-state as being defined by the state part rather than the nation part.
Of course, this is part of the reason why many people question whether or not Iraq can be kept together; there is some doubt as to whether the people under the Iraqi state are actually a cohesive nation; that is, do they have any ties that bind them all together and that simultaneously define them from those outside Iraq? In short, other than being under the same government, does the term Iraqi have any meaning, and if so, what?
Chris makes another good point:
And it's an empty vessel because mistaken neoconservative policymakers wrongly assumed that the US was an empty vessel, the so-called creedal nation, when in fact U.S. society manifests a coherent way of life for individuals and society that they deem it worth fighting for. In other words, the US as a nation-state actually means something to its military.
So the neocons can't nation-build effectively because they don't understand the copncept of nation, apart from being under the same government. They don't understand how to make Iraq like America (or alternately, why Iraq isn't America) because they don't understand America. They assunme that we are merely a set of political protocols; and that you simply transplant said protocols into another country and you get America! They apparently believe that that is what happened in Japan and Germany after World War II.
This is why I tend to trust realists more than starry-eyed idealists; and why I am a conservative rather than a liberal. Because I think that we need to understand who we were and who we are in order to truly understand what we can be. Because I don't think that we can make something so just because it would be nice. Because I believe in common sense.
That is all.
More on the Religion and Societal Dysfunction Issue
I previously commented here and here on the study by Gregory S. Paul, which can be found here (html) or here (pdf).
Most of my posts dealt with the difference in ethnic makeup between the U.S. and the more secular European countries, suggesting that the higher crime, abortion, etc. rate of Hispanic/Latinos and blacks accounted for much of the difference between the European countries (with smaller black and Latino, i.e. of Latin American origin, populations).
However, at "Magic Statistics," Scott Gilbreath points out problems with the studies that are not related to ethnicity.
I will try to discuss this in more detail later.
That is all.
Most of my posts dealt with the difference in ethnic makeup between the U.S. and the more secular European countries, suggesting that the higher crime, abortion, etc. rate of Hispanic/Latinos and blacks accounted for much of the difference between the European countries (with smaller black and Latino, i.e. of Latin American origin, populations).
However, at "Magic Statistics," Scott Gilbreath points out problems with the studies that are not related to ethnicity.
I will try to discuss this in more detail later.
That is all.
The Uncanny X-Mice
A mouse strain has been discovered that can regenerate body parts.
Exactly how well these mice can regenerate vital organs is not entirely clear:
"Researchers systematically amputated digits and damaged various organs of the mice, including the heart, liver and brain, most of which grew back."
Which is a bit of an ambiguous wording.
But it is still interesting, and definitely a healin ability beyond what we have been able to see before in mammals outside of the womb (or even in the womb in the later stages of pregnancy).
That is all.
Exactly how well these mice can regenerate vital organs is not entirely clear:
"Researchers systematically amputated digits and damaged various organs of the mice, including the heart, liver and brain, most of which grew back."
Which is a bit of an ambiguous wording.
But it is still interesting, and definitely a healin ability beyond what we have been able to see before in mammals outside of the womb (or even in the womb in the later stages of pregnancy).
That is all.
The Future of Space Travel
Private funding. We really need more millionaires like Gregory Olsen to pay to be space tourists; this is what will fund space research in the future, and what will make spacefaring such as moon missions and Mars missions doable.
That is all.
That is all.
Thoughts on Abu Ghraib
Ray McGovern discusses Abu Ghraib.
I think that Andrew Sullivan has had the best take on this (I can't find the specific post immediately). Namely, that too many pro-war people have been either glossing over the abuse of prisoners ("Oh, it's no worse than a fraternity stunt") or else trying to claim that it was committed by a few bad apples, some rogue underlings. From the pictures now available, we know that things were worse than a fraternity stunt, and it seems very likely that the abuse of prisoners was going on with the tacit approval (at least) of the higher-ups.
The reason to show these pictures is to force people to deal with the issue of prisoner abuse and to try to find out the truth about who was responsible; both issues will otherwise get swept under the rug, excepting for a few trials to punish some patsies (e.g. Lynndie England) in order to keep up appearances.
I also notice that some of the pro-war talking heads are claiming that there is nothing new in the photos, so there is no point in us seeing them, and besides it would endanger the troops by getting the Arabs angry at us. I would tend to think those who make this claim are being disingenuous, and that their real concern is not that we know enough without seeing the pictures; rather, they probably want to have the freedom to lie about things without the pictures disproving them
That is all.
I think that Andrew Sullivan has had the best take on this (I can't find the specific post immediately). Namely, that too many pro-war people have been either glossing over the abuse of prisoners ("Oh, it's no worse than a fraternity stunt") or else trying to claim that it was committed by a few bad apples, some rogue underlings. From the pictures now available, we know that things were worse than a fraternity stunt, and it seems very likely that the abuse of prisoners was going on with the tacit approval (at least) of the higher-ups.
The reason to show these pictures is to force people to deal with the issue of prisoner abuse and to try to find out the truth about who was responsible; both issues will otherwise get swept under the rug, excepting for a few trials to punish some patsies (e.g. Lynndie England) in order to keep up appearances.
I also notice that some of the pro-war talking heads are claiming that there is nothing new in the photos, so there is no point in us seeing them, and besides it would endanger the troops by getting the Arabs angry at us. I would tend to think those who make this claim are being disingenuous, and that their real concern is not that we know enough without seeing the pictures; rather, they probably want to have the freedom to lie about things without the pictures disproving them
That is all.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Happy Birthday to my Blog
Today is my one-year blogiversary.
And my traffic is approaching 100 in a single day for the first time!
That is all.
And my traffic is approaching 100 in a single day for the first time!
That is all.
Let the Black Caucus Stay Black
This story was pointed out to me in a comment by daveg.
Apparently, Republican Representative Stacey Campfield wants to join the Congressional Black Caucus, and they won't let him, presumably beccause he is white (although the real reason could be because he is a Republican).
The comment that "even the Ku Klux Klan has less racist bylaws" seems to me to be rather over the top. This whole thing seems to be a publicity stunt.
Personally, I'm all for letting the Black Caucus remain black; if you dislike the Congressional Black Caucus and the agendas it pushes, it seems to me that a far better tactic than trying to infiltrate it with white people is to try to get more blacks to reject the caucus (or to get more blacks in the Congress who are against joining the caucus).
On the other hand, he did bring up the very valid point that in the U.S., it is acceptable for every group other than whites to recognize racial interests and to promote their racial interests per se. But from what I read, he seems to have gone about it in a bad way that is more interested in getting publicity than actually dealing with the issue per se.
That is all.
Apparently, Republican Representative Stacey Campfield wants to join the Congressional Black Caucus, and they won't let him, presumably beccause he is white (although the real reason could be because he is a Republican).
The comment that "even the Ku Klux Klan has less racist bylaws" seems to me to be rather over the top. This whole thing seems to be a publicity stunt.
Personally, I'm all for letting the Black Caucus remain black; if you dislike the Congressional Black Caucus and the agendas it pushes, it seems to me that a far better tactic than trying to infiltrate it with white people is to try to get more blacks to reject the caucus (or to get more blacks in the Congress who are against joining the caucus).
On the other hand, he did bring up the very valid point that in the U.S., it is acceptable for every group other than whites to recognize racial interests and to promote their racial interests per se. But from what I read, he seems to have gone about it in a bad way that is more interested in getting publicity than actually dealing with the issue per se.
That is all.
Recruiting Problems
Despite a recent rally in recruiting, the army will likely missed its recruiting goals by the largest margin since 1979 for this recruiting year (which ends in Friday).
I can't find them with a cursory Google, but as I recall there have been a lot of claims made recently by pro-warriors that recruiting is doing just fine. Apparently things are a little worse than they are trying to make them out to be.
More on this as it develops, and hopefully more links to articles disputing that there is a recuiting problem.
That is all.
I can't find them with a cursory Google, but as I recall there have been a lot of claims made recently by pro-warriors that recruiting is doing just fine. Apparently things are a little worse than they are trying to make them out to be.
More on this as it develops, and hopefully more links to articles disputing that there is a recuiting problem.
That is all.
Bill Bennett Spoke Truth
The brouhaha over Bill Bennett's remarks regarding aborting black feti is ridiculous. What he was saying, was, in effect, true; if we reduced the black population in the US, ceteris paribus, crime would go down, as blacks commit disproportionately more crimes. (I say ceteris paribus because to actually implement any such policy, in addition to the moral concerns of such a policy per se, would most definitely have unintended consequences, and they would certainly be very bad ones).
Moreover, as Steve Sailer pointed out, that was part of the actual argument in Steven Levitt's famous theory that abortion has cut crime, although it appears that Levitt wants to downplay that angle (thanx and a tip o' the hat to Rubnot). Moreover, as the abortion rate for blacks is around 2.5 times that of the population as a whole, and around 4-5 times that of whites, and as blacks on average commit a great deal more violent crimes (e.g., 6-7 times the murder rate of whites), it is hard not to see any argument that abortion cut crime as having a racial angle.
Andreww McCarthy and Matthew Yglesias also defend Bennett.
Another consideration is that in order to drive home the point about how immoral utilitarian arguments about abortion are, Bennett had to make the example he used as offensive as possible; suggesting that we disproportionately abort males would not have had the same "shock value" that was essential to his point. And if he had said that we aborted all of the babies to "poor mothers," wouldn't the same people who are criticizing him for choosing a "racist" example simply say that "poor" was a code-word for "black?"
Of course, the assumption that abortion as it stands has disproportionately eliminated the more crime-prone elements of the black community, or that it hasn't disproportionately eliminated those with better prospects has been called into question by Mr. Sailer as well.
That is all.
Moreover, as Steve Sailer pointed out, that was part of the actual argument in Steven Levitt's famous theory that abortion has cut crime, although it appears that Levitt wants to downplay that angle (thanx and a tip o' the hat to Rubnot). Moreover, as the abortion rate for blacks is around 2.5 times that of the population as a whole, and around 4-5 times that of whites, and as blacks on average commit a great deal more violent crimes (e.g., 6-7 times the murder rate of whites), it is hard not to see any argument that abortion cut crime as having a racial angle.
Andreww McCarthy and Matthew Yglesias also defend Bennett.
Another consideration is that in order to drive home the point about how immoral utilitarian arguments about abortion are, Bennett had to make the example he used as offensive as possible; suggesting that we disproportionately abort males would not have had the same "shock value" that was essential to his point. And if he had said that we aborted all of the babies to "poor mothers," wouldn't the same people who are criticizing him for choosing a "racist" example simply say that "poor" was a code-word for "black?"
Of course, the assumption that abortion as it stands has disproportionately eliminated the more crime-prone elements of the black community, or that it hasn't disproportionately eliminated those with better prospects has been called into question by Mr. Sailer as well.
That is all.
Commander-in-Chief vs. The Closer
I haven't seen the new show about our first female president, but I have found negative reviews at both the uber-leftist Alas, a Blog and the neo-con stronghold of NRO.
Color me unimpressed.
Although I have only seen a few episodes, I sort of like The Closer, particularly the part in the season finale where even the guys on the squad who didn't seem to particularly like her stuck their necks out to make sure she wasn't sacked for political reasons. Plus, her character can get a bit bitchy, so you have the whole House, M.D. sort of vibe where people don't like her personality but admire her skill and dedication.
That is all.
Color me unimpressed.
Although I have only seen a few episodes, I sort of like The Closer, particularly the part in the season finale where even the guys on the squad who didn't seem to particularly like her stuck their necks out to make sure she wasn't sacked for political reasons. Plus, her character can get a bit bitchy, so you have the whole House, M.D. sort of vibe where people don't like her personality but admire her skill and dedication.
That is all.
Polygamy is the Next Step
This story, about a man in essence marrying two women (actually, the women may be married to each other as well, I'm not clear on that point - the civil union is said to be "between three partners," and the wives' bisexuality is mentioned, presumably meaning that they will be having marital relations with each other, but it is stated that the man was "marrying them both," so whether the relationship between the two wives is considered a civil union [legally] or a marriage [informally], is unclear).
Lawrence Auster has some wry thoughts.
Of course, in the face of such things, one needs humor, so check out my other blog, Rankine 911, for a more humorous take on this from yours truly.
That is all.
Lawrence Auster has some wry thoughts.
Of course, in the face of such things, one needs humor, so check out my other blog, Rankine 911, for a more humorous take on this from yours truly.
That is all.
I Should Post on These Topics:
The nomination of John Roberts
The decision to release new Abu Ghraib photos
The Outing of Scooter Libby as the Plame leak
Who did what wrong after Hurricane Katrina
Stay tuned, I will try to get to these - but I make no guarantees.
That is all.
The decision to release new Abu Ghraib photos
The Outing of Scooter Libby as the Plame leak
Who did what wrong after Hurricane Katrina
Stay tuned, I will try to get to these - but I make no guarantees.
That is all.
Hoagland and Chalabi, Sittin' in a Tree...
...Jim Henley points out that once again, Jim Hoagland is swoonin' over the ol'Chalabster.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Race Preferences and Truthfulness
Lawrence Auster, in an argument about racial preferences, says the following:
I’m surprised that you say that Grutter should only be narrowed but not overruled. Grutter is a monstrosity! The essence of Grutter is that the transcendent goal of proportional diversity justifies race preferences throughout society. What is there in Grutter that you think should be kept?
Actually, Grutter is worse than that; the essence of Grutter is that racial preferences are okay as long as they are obscured by a large enough level of B.S. Honest racial preferences, where there is a clear scoring system showing how they work, is forbidden. But as long as you can be unclear enough about how the preferences actually work, they are okay. In other words, Grutter banned honesty about racial preferences, but in no way actually weakened them.
That is all.
I’m surprised that you say that Grutter should only be narrowed but not overruled. Grutter is a monstrosity! The essence of Grutter is that the transcendent goal of proportional diversity justifies race preferences throughout society. What is there in Grutter that you think should be kept?
Actually, Grutter is worse than that; the essence of Grutter is that racial preferences are okay as long as they are obscured by a large enough level of B.S. Honest racial preferences, where there is a clear scoring system showing how they work, is forbidden. But as long as you can be unclear enough about how the preferences actually work, they are okay. In other words, Grutter banned honesty about racial preferences, but in no way actually weakened them.
That is all.
"Price-Gouging Laws" = Price Controls
So says William Anderson on the Mises Institute website. And of course, they carry the same problems as all price controls.
He's right, of course.
That is all.
He's right, of course.
That is all.
John Bolton Stands up to the UN... not.
This should make conservatives so proud.
Oh yeah, we paleos were so stupid not to align ourselves with the neocons in order to combine our forces against the UN, as Dicky Poe suggested. Yeah, because the neos really hate the UN, too. Sure.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Anthony Gregory at the LRC blog.
That is all.
Oh yeah, we paleos were so stupid not to align ourselves with the neocons in order to combine our forces against the UN, as Dicky Poe suggested. Yeah, because the neos really hate the UN, too. Sure.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Anthony Gregory at the LRC blog.
That is all.
Mmmmm... That Would Make Some BIG Calamari!
Some Japanese scientists have caught some glimpses of a live giant squid for the first time.
Creatures such as this, that live their entire lives out of the watchful eye of humanity, have a sort of fascination for me... it's interesting to think that they exist, but that we have no contact with them. To make a simile that is less than poetic, it's like that corner in your attic behind all of the other stuff that you've piled up; it's sort of cozy to think about because you know it is there but you can't get at it.
That is all.
Creatures such as this, that live their entire lives out of the watchful eye of humanity, have a sort of fascination for me... it's interesting to think that they exist, but that we have no contact with them. To make a simile that is less than poetic, it's like that corner in your attic behind all of the other stuff that you've piled up; it's sort of cozy to think about because you know it is there but you can't get at it.
That is all.
Violence in Iraq - Again
Once again, violence in Iraq is beginning to grow, after a brief respite early this month. Five marines were killed in a roadside bomb, in addition to two otehrs in another roadside bomb, and three suicide car bomb attacks have killed 60 Iraqis.
And now, the military is backing off from claims that the military would reduce the number of troops in Iraq in 2006.
Of course, there is always the "good news:"
"One of the most positive trends that we see across Iraq is the willingness of the Sunnis to participate in a political process. We have seen them registering in large numbers in all of the major Sunni [Arab] provinces," Casey said.
Which, while definitely better than the Sunni Arabs not participating, does not actually amount to a victory in terms of securing Iraq from the insurgents. Particularly when a lot of the Sunni Arabs are likely to vote to reject the constitution.
That is all.
And now, the military is backing off from claims that the military would reduce the number of troops in Iraq in 2006.
Of course, there is always the "good news:"
"One of the most positive trends that we see across Iraq is the willingness of the Sunnis to participate in a political process. We have seen them registering in large numbers in all of the major Sunni [Arab] provinces," Casey said.
Which, while definitely better than the Sunni Arabs not participating, does not actually amount to a victory in terms of securing Iraq from the insurgents. Particularly when a lot of the Sunni Arabs are likely to vote to reject the constitution.
That is all.
Check Out This Blog
I found this blog through Blogger's "random blog finder" (i.e. the "Next Blog" button on the strip at the top of the page).
It has some interesting posts, and it doesn't have a whole lot of traffic (yet, it is a very young blog) according to its sitemeter account, so I though I would throw a little its way.
I know how much I appreciated it when anyone linked to me, so go ahead and click on the link!
That is all.
It has some interesting posts, and it doesn't have a whole lot of traffic (yet, it is a very young blog) according to its sitemeter account, so I though I would throw a little its way.
I know how much I appreciated it when anyone linked to me, so go ahead and click on the link!
That is all.
More on God and Dysfunctional Societies
Joseph Farah has an eloquent, but fact-free defense of the idea that believing in God is good for society. (This is all in reply to this article), which I commented on in an earlier post.
Steve Sailer, on the other hand, offers a much more compelling defense: he elaborates on his earlier posting and makes the same point that I made; that blaming religion for social ills is a lot more politically correct than blaming race in the same way.
That is all.
Steve Sailer, on the other hand, offers a much more compelling defense: he elaborates on his earlier posting and makes the same point that I made; that blaming religion for social ills is a lot more politically correct than blaming race in the same way.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Can We Trust the Numbers About New Orleans?
Earlier I mentioned the controversy over whether the violence in New Orleans was exaggerrated.
Steve Sailer makes the point that we can't necessarily assume that the "official numbers" used to dispel the "myth" of the huge amount of violence surrounding Katrina are accurate.
That cities may be trying to fudge their crime statistics by "disappearing" certain crimes was a concern mentioned in this VDARE article by Nicholas Stix.
In any case, I think it might be good to withhold judgment for the time being, and to be suspicious of all reports on both sides.
That is all.
Steve Sailer makes the point that we can't necessarily assume that the "official numbers" used to dispel the "myth" of the huge amount of violence surrounding Katrina are accurate.
That cities may be trying to fudge their crime statistics by "disappearing" certain crimes was a concern mentioned in this VDARE article by Nicholas Stix.
In any case, I think it might be good to withhold judgment for the time being, and to be suspicious of all reports on both sides.
That is all.
Illegal Alien Killed in Britain on Suspicion of Terrorism
Not that it justifies the police shooting him and then lying about the circumstances afterwards, but Carl de Menezes was in Britain illegally. The G-Gnome has an entire blog devoted to this issue.
Read it. Now.
That is all.
Read it. Now.
That is all.
Racism Bad, Anti-Religionism Good
Reporting that religious societies have higher murder rates, abortion rates, and promiscuity is A-OK. But reporting the same things about racial minorities is verboten.
Of course, what this does is distract from the fact that America has a lot more blacks and Hispanics than Europe, and that this could be the reason for America's higher rate of "dysfunction" rather than the U.S.'s religiosity, as Steve Sailer points out. Indeed, as Steve has pointed out elsewhere, Christianity may be responsible for America's better-behaved (compared to Britain) white working class.
This isn't the first time this happened. As Steve pointed out before, this same analysis was also done within the U.S., with the same problems.
That is all.
Of course, what this does is distract from the fact that America has a lot more blacks and Hispanics than Europe, and that this could be the reason for America's higher rate of "dysfunction" rather than the U.S.'s religiosity, as Steve Sailer points out. Indeed, as Steve has pointed out elsewhere, Christianity may be responsible for America's better-behaved (compared to Britain) white working class.
This isn't the first time this happened. As Steve pointed out before, this same analysis was also done within the U.S., with the same problems.
That is all.
Also, the Shiites Strike Back
The Telegraph article I referenced also has this little gem of a quote:
"There has been a local surge of revenge killings in the region, with the bodies of prominent Sunni Arabs found on a rubbish tip."
The reports that the Shiite Arabs in Iraq were not retaliating against the Sunni Arabs for their anti-Shiite violence may not be entirely accurate; there may be some significant exceptions to the widely-publicized Shiite passive resistance. This means that sectarian civil war is more likely than we have been led to believe; the idea that the Shiites would sit down and take it while waiting for the coalition to solve the insurgency was always a pipe dream. It also suggests that at least some of the Shiite Arabs see their enemy as Iraqi Sunni Arabs rather than foreign terrorists.
None of this bodes well for the coalition or for the story the administration wants to tell of Iraqis united against an unpopular terrorist threat. It also seems that claims that the civil war has failed to materialize may be overly optimistic; it has materialized; it is just starting small.
That is all.
"There has been a local surge of revenge killings in the region, with the bodies of prominent Sunni Arabs found on a rubbish tip."
The reports that the Shiite Arabs in Iraq were not retaliating against the Sunni Arabs for their anti-Shiite violence may not be entirely accurate; there may be some significant exceptions to the widely-publicized Shiite passive resistance. This means that sectarian civil war is more likely than we have been led to believe; the idea that the Shiites would sit down and take it while waiting for the coalition to solve the insurgency was always a pipe dream. It also suggests that at least some of the Shiite Arabs see their enemy as Iraqi Sunni Arabs rather than foreign terrorists.
None of this bodes well for the coalition or for the story the administration wants to tell of Iraqis united against an unpopular terrorist threat. It also seems that claims that the civil war has failed to materialize may be overly optimistic; it has materialized; it is just starting small.
That is all.
Just Like I Said in Basra
The propaganda from Basra is falling in line with what I predicted.
Glaivester: "Probably again, we will hear that the current police force is controlled by Iran, and that most of the Basrans hate it, and that ther Brits are "liberating" those poor Basrans from Iranian rule..."
Telegraph: "Basra has fallen under the control of a cabal of renegade police commanders who have enforced a reign of terror in the city."
"Rumours are whispered everywhere about the malevolent influence of Iran, whose border lies just a few miles away."
Not that I think that the Basran police department is a bunch of angels; yes, they are corrupt. But I have a feeling that the Basrans are far more comfortable with them than they are with the Brits. The idea that the Brits are going to be seen as liberating the poor Basrans from Iranian oppression is dubious at best, ludicrous at worst.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
That is all.
Glaivester: "Probably again, we will hear that the current police force is controlled by Iran, and that most of the Basrans hate it, and that ther Brits are "liberating" those poor Basrans from Iranian rule..."
Telegraph: "Basra has fallen under the control of a cabal of renegade police commanders who have enforced a reign of terror in the city."
"Rumours are whispered everywhere about the malevolent influence of Iran, whose border lies just a few miles away."
Not that I think that the Basran police department is a bunch of angels; yes, they are corrupt. But I have a feeling that the Basrans are far more comfortable with them than they are with the Brits. The idea that the Brits are going to be seen as liberating the poor Basrans from Iranian oppression is dubious at best, ludicrous at worst.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
That is all.
Morris Dees is Evil
Joseph Farah on how the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center helped two ILLEGAL ALIENS to use the courts to steal a man's ranch.
I have never liked Mr. Dees, and this has just further confirmed my low opinion of him.
That is all.
I have never liked Mr. Dees, and this has just further confirmed my low opinion of him.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
No Police, No Problem
The Brits have decided to scrap Basra's police force and replace it with a new military-style unit.
Well, so much for the "transfer of sovereignty, as Jim Henley notes.
What will be more interesting is to see how the pro-warriors try to spin this so that we don't admit that this is an occupation. Probably again, we will hear that the current police force is controlled by Iran, and that most of the Basrans hate it, and that ther Brits are "liberating" those poor Basrans from Iranian rule by giving them the police force that they really want, which just so happens to be a military-style unit that (probably) answers to the British.
The disturbing thing about this is that it indicates that we may be heading toward conflict wit hthe Shiite majority soon, and not just the Sunni Arabs.
That is all.
Well, so much for the "transfer of sovereignty, as Jim Henley notes.
What will be more interesting is to see how the pro-warriors try to spin this so that we don't admit that this is an occupation. Probably again, we will hear that the current police force is controlled by Iran, and that most of the Basrans hate it, and that ther Brits are "liberating" those poor Basrans from Iranian rule by giving them the police force that they really want, which just so happens to be a military-style unit that (probably) answers to the British.
The disturbing thing about this is that it indicates that we may be heading toward conflict wit hthe Shiite majority soon, and not just the Sunni Arabs.
That is all.
Al Qaeda's (Supposed) #2 in Iraq Killed
Abdullah Abu Azzam, who is claimed to be Al Qaeda's #2 in Iraq (behind Zarqawi) has been killed in a raid.
I doubt that this will change anything one way or the other, but I like seeing AQ members dead.
Update: In the comments of Jim Henley's blog, it is pointed out that Zarqawi seems to have a fairly abundant supply of #2's.
That is all.
I doubt that this will change anything one way or the other, but I like seeing AQ members dead.
Update: In the comments of Jim Henley's blog, it is pointed out that Zarqawi seems to have a fairly abundant supply of #2's.
That is all.
Katrina Aftermath Exaggerrated - Or Not?
A recent report in the New Orleans Times Picayune has suggested that the huge increase in violence after Hurrican Katrina may have been exaggerrated.
The G-Gnome questions the writings of John Brimelow and Jared Taylor based on this article. Considering that Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, it certainly would not surprise me if he described incidents in a way that, whether unintentionally or deliberately, exaggerrated black criminality.
Ziel of Your Lying Eyes, on the other hand, believes that the reports of exaggerrated violence were themselves exaggerrated; that is, that some or most of the exaggerrated reports did not appear (at least not in the mainstream media) during the immediate aftermath of Katrina, and indeed seem to have first been brought to light by those "debunking" them. Moreover, some of the incidents may have been misreported (the guardsman shot in the leg), but the actual incident isn't really that much of an improvement on the misreport.
Things are probably not as bad as people like Taylor think, but the problems in New Orleans were probably less exaggerrated than many would like to believe.
That is all.
The G-Gnome questions the writings of John Brimelow and Jared Taylor based on this article. Considering that Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, it certainly would not surprise me if he described incidents in a way that, whether unintentionally or deliberately, exaggerrated black criminality.
Ziel of Your Lying Eyes, on the other hand, believes that the reports of exaggerrated violence were themselves exaggerrated; that is, that some or most of the exaggerrated reports did not appear (at least not in the mainstream media) during the immediate aftermath of Katrina, and indeed seem to have first been brought to light by those "debunking" them. Moreover, some of the incidents may have been misreported (the guardsman shot in the leg), but the actual incident isn't really that much of an improvement on the misreport.
Things are probably not as bad as people like Taylor think, but the problems in New Orleans were probably less exaggerrated than many would like to believe.
That is all.
An Offer to My Fellow Bloggers.
My recent Sitemeter stats have been hovering around 50 visits per day, up from around 10-20 when I started the blog a year ago next Friday.
I am very grateful to those who have put me in their links, including the big-shot early linkers (Steve Sailer and Gene Expression, and those who came along later (Colby Cosh, Clark Stooksbury, and A.C. Kleinheider).
There are also a number of others who have put links to me on their sites.
In this vein of thought, I have decided to do a favor to other up-and-coming bloggers. It's a small thing, but if Glaivester readership goes up, it might become bigger.
If you are reading this and have a blog you would like to publicize, tell me in the comments section on this post. Make sure you include your blog as your homepage on the Haloscan form. I'll look at your blog, and if I like it, I will put up a post promoting it. The only condition is that after I do so, you have to make a post on your own blog referencing Glaivester, and that post must have a link to my front page (that is, to http://glaivester.blogspot.com itself, not just to a particular post of mine). I do not need to be included in your "links" page, although if you want to do so I wouldn't object.
Anyone want to take me up on this?
I am very grateful to those who have put me in their links, including the big-shot early linkers (Steve Sailer and Gene Expression, and those who came along later (Colby Cosh, Clark Stooksbury, and A.C. Kleinheider).
There are also a number of others who have put links to me on their sites.
In this vein of thought, I have decided to do a favor to other up-and-coming bloggers. It's a small thing, but if Glaivester readership goes up, it might become bigger.
If you are reading this and have a blog you would like to publicize, tell me in the comments section on this post. Make sure you include your blog as your homepage on the Haloscan form. I'll look at your blog, and if I like it, I will put up a post promoting it. The only condition is that after I do so, you have to make a post on your own blog referencing Glaivester, and that post must have a link to my front page (that is, to http://glaivester.blogspot.com itself, not just to a particular post of mine). I do not need to be included in your "links" page, although if you want to do so I wouldn't object.
Anyone want to take me up on this?
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan...
Three recent incidents in Afghanistan, one on Sunday, two on Monday, have killed seven coalition soldiers, bringing this year's total to 84. Annualized, this would be about 112 to 113, which means that if the current trend continues, 2005 will be morethan twice as deadly as any year since we invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
While the miliary has said that they do not know what took down the Chinook helicopter on Sunday, and appear to be leaning away from violence as an explanation, Taliban militants claim responsibility. Of course, as bringing down a Chinook of their enemy would be very prestigious, they have every reason to lie and claim responsibility even if they had nothign to do with it, so I don't put too much stock in their claims.
That is all.
While the miliary has said that they do not know what took down the Chinook helicopter on Sunday, and appear to be leaning away from violence as an explanation, Taliban militants claim responsibility. Of course, as bringing down a Chinook of their enemy would be very prestigious, they have every reason to lie and claim responsibility even if they had nothign to do with it, so I don't put too much stock in their claims.
That is all.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Wow - 81 Unique Visits
With 81 visits so far, today may be the busiest day that the Glaivester blog has had (in terms of traffic) since its inception on Sept. 30, 2004.
I have to thank Your Lying Eyes and Gorilla in the Room for their posts linking to me, which I think is what upped my traffic.
That is all.
I have to thank Your Lying Eyes and Gorilla in the Room for their posts linking to me, which I think is what upped my traffic.
That is all.
Intriguing Idea About the New York Times
Donald Luskin suggests that the New York Times' restriction of its editorial page to its subscribers may be partly intended to prevent them from being accessed by conservative columnists who will criticize them.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Would You Believe...
...That Don Adams lived to the age of 120? No? Then 105? Okay, how about 90?
Don Adams, R.I.P. at 82.
That is all.
Don Adams, R.I.P. at 82.
That is all.
Is Sunni Voting a Victory?
Andrew Sullivan points out that a large Sunni Arab turnout in the referendum on the Iraqi Constitution has its perils.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Sunni Arabs signing up to vote is a bad thing; that they are willing to try to voice their concerns at the ballot is, of course, better than if they elected to stay home; in which case the only method left to them for getting power would be violence. However, it hardly means that we are out of the woods, and it definitely does not represent the major defeat for the insurgency that some pro-warriors want to paint it as.
There seems to be the assumption amongst a lot of pro-warriors that voting is in and of itself a repudiation of the insurgency. But it strikes me that there is no reason why someone could not vote "by day" and join the insurgency "by night." That is to say, if the various Iraqi groups view voting as a means of gaining power over other Iraqis, there is no reason why they might not vote as one prong of their strategy (that is, their strategy to get power for their group in Iraq) and use attacks on coalition troops and/or rival ethnic groups as another prong.
Of course, there is one particularly bright spot in this situation; because the Sunni Arabs live in the areas of Iraq with fewer resources, they have little interest in splitting Iraq up, or in redrawing its borders. This means that one large motive for insurgency in the face of voting (that the insurgents believe that the current borders are illegitimate, and that they would win if the borders were drawn differently) is not present. (I think this statement about borders is a variation on something that Steve Sailer said, but I can't find the link right now).
That is all.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Sunni Arabs signing up to vote is a bad thing; that they are willing to try to voice their concerns at the ballot is, of course, better than if they elected to stay home; in which case the only method left to them for getting power would be violence. However, it hardly means that we are out of the woods, and it definitely does not represent the major defeat for the insurgency that some pro-warriors want to paint it as.
There seems to be the assumption amongst a lot of pro-warriors that voting is in and of itself a repudiation of the insurgency. But it strikes me that there is no reason why someone could not vote "by day" and join the insurgency "by night." That is to say, if the various Iraqi groups view voting as a means of gaining power over other Iraqis, there is no reason why they might not vote as one prong of their strategy (that is, their strategy to get power for their group in Iraq) and use attacks on coalition troops and/or rival ethnic groups as another prong.
Of course, there is one particularly bright spot in this situation; because the Sunni Arabs live in the areas of Iraq with fewer resources, they have little interest in splitting Iraq up, or in redrawing its borders. This means that one large motive for insurgency in the face of voting (that the insurgents believe that the current borders are illegitimate, and that they would win if the borders were drawn differently) is not present. (I think this statement about borders is a variation on something that Steve Sailer said, but I can't find the link right now).
That is all.
The Propaganda War
As I have commented on before, there is a tendency to portray the Iraqis who support the coalition as the legitimate voice of Iraq and those who oppose us as either foreign agents, as the pawns of foreign agents, or in some other way as anti-Iraqi.
Michael W. of Lunaville has noticed an example of this in an ABC news report where Master Sgt. Greg Kaufman, a U.S. military spokesman, notes that "There were some anti-Iraqi forces killed," when discussing a clash with the Sadrists.
Oh, I think that this shows that things are going real well for Iraq.
That is all.
Michael W. of Lunaville has noticed an example of this in an ABC news report where Master Sgt. Greg Kaufman, a U.S. military spokesman, notes that "There were some anti-Iraqi forces killed," when discussing a clash with the Sadrists.
Oh, I think that this shows that things are going real well for Iraq.
That is all.
Blame Iran! Blame Iran!
More blaming of Iran for the Basra incident, more or less along the lines I suggested it would take here.
Not that this makes me any sort of clairvoyant; the blaming of Iran started very soon after the incident, and Jim Henley noticed it before my first post dealing with Iran vis a vis Basra.
Nonetheless, reading this statement by me:
Also look to Michael Ledeen and the like portraying the police as all pawns of Iran (there is already a push afoot to blame all anti-coalition sentiment in the Shiite region on Iran, whereas the Iraqi parliamentary officials who took the Brit's side represent the legitimate voice of Basra (and for that matter, look to them acting as if the entire population of Basra except for a few "foreigners" support the Brits on this issue, and expect that the "legitimate voice" of Basra will be whatever the British say it is)).
- "More on Basra," Glaivester, Sept. 21, 2005
and then this from the London Sunday Telegraph, via theWashington Times:
While the majority of Iraq's Shi'ites are happy to settle for the secular constitution currently proposed, some of the more radical groups, particularly those with ties to Teheran, are insisting that Iraq adopt a more Islamist form of government.
- "Tehran Training Shi'ite Militants, British say"
One does get the feeling (well, I do, anyway) that I accurately captured the subtext with which the Basra incident was to be described. Again, I'm not claiming that this makes me clairvoyant, I'm just saying that the neoconservatives amongst the pro-warriors have become fairly predictable.
That is all.
Not that this makes me any sort of clairvoyant; the blaming of Iran started very soon after the incident, and Jim Henley noticed it before my first post dealing with Iran vis a vis Basra.
Nonetheless, reading this statement by me:
Also look to Michael Ledeen and the like portraying the police as all pawns of Iran (there is already a push afoot to blame all anti-coalition sentiment in the Shiite region on Iran, whereas the Iraqi parliamentary officials who took the Brit's side represent the legitimate voice of Basra (and for that matter, look to them acting as if the entire population of Basra except for a few "foreigners" support the Brits on this issue, and expect that the "legitimate voice" of Basra will be whatever the British say it is)).
- "More on Basra," Glaivester, Sept. 21, 2005
and then this from the London Sunday Telegraph, via theWashington Times:
While the majority of Iraq's Shi'ites are happy to settle for the secular constitution currently proposed, some of the more radical groups, particularly those with ties to Teheran, are insisting that Iraq adopt a more Islamist form of government.
- "Tehran Training Shi'ite Militants, British say"
One does get the feeling (well, I do, anyway) that I accurately captured the subtext with which the Basra incident was to be described. Again, I'm not claiming that this makes me clairvoyant, I'm just saying that the neoconservatives amongst the pro-warriors have become fairly predictable.
That is all.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Here's a Plan!
Apparently Tom Tancredo has suggested that the U.S. sell off government-owned land to defray costs from Hurrican Katrina.
I think we should be careful, we may need that land to pay for Social Security. (And yes, I know, this is a variation on one of Harry Browne's ideas, it's not original with me).
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to A. C. Kleinheider, and a tip from him to Tom Tancredo 4 President Blog.
That is all.
I think we should be careful, we may need that land to pay for Social Security. (And yes, I know, this is a variation on one of Harry Browne's ideas, it's not original with me).
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to A. C. Kleinheider, and a tip from him to Tom Tancredo 4 President Blog.
That is all.
More on Krugman, Race, and Katrina
Your Lying Eyes has a post on Paul Krugman's recent column on race and Katrina that echoes some of the same sentiments that I expressed. I guess that great minds think alike.
That is all.
That is all.
Mark Steyn, Who Are Ye?
Lawrence Auster has made some interesting posts detailing the fact that Mark Steyn seems to be shrouded in mystery (here, here, here, here, and here).
Now, according to this eXile article (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thrasymachus). Mark Steyn wrote an article back in August 1996 making fun of the U.S. And not in a playful, "you know I love you" sort of way, but an article truly disparaging the U.S..
Does anyone else know anything about this? If it is true, then who is this Steyn fellow?
Curiouser and curiouser...
That is, well, all for now.
Now, according to this eXile article (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thrasymachus). Mark Steyn wrote an article back in August 1996 making fun of the U.S. And not in a playful, "you know I love you" sort of way, but an article truly disparaging the U.S..
Does anyone else know anything about this? If it is true, then who is this Steyn fellow?
Curiouser and curiouser...
That is, well, all for now.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
New Link
I feel that I should link to those who link to me, so I have added a link to "Iron Rails, Iron Weights," a blog about a New York commuter who also weight trains, and has decided to blog about both.
That is all.
That is all.
Islamic Radicals Take Over Mauritania. No one Cares.
The latest War Nerd column on the situation in Mauritania.
I am appropriately unimpressed by the country. Although I am impressed by the fact that Mr. Brecher has bothered to research it.
Update: According to a poster (see comments on this post), the leadership of Mauritania are not Islamic radicals, although they did release a few radicals from prison.
That is all.
I am appropriately unimpressed by the country. Although I am impressed by the fact that Mr. Brecher has bothered to research it.
Update: According to a poster (see comments on this post), the leadership of Mauritania are not Islamic radicals, although they did release a few radicals from prison.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)