If you think that my proposal regarding Mexico is extreme,
Look at the one by Joseph Farah.
The invaluable Wendy McElroy comments on the madness of Farah.
Not that we shouldn't do something about Mexico dumping its poor on us, but conquest would hardly solve the problem and would instead create new ones. If 1-3 million illegal Mexican immigrants a year are a problem, why would we want to, in essence, adopt all 100 million Mexicans at once?
I'm thinking wall, myself.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Free Tyrone Williams - Why Not?
On VDARE, Bryanna Bevins has commented the case of Tyrone Williams, who is facing the death penalty for his role in the deaths of Mexican immigrants who were smuggled over the border. The Mexicans who were involved are not facing the death penalty, becasue they are in Mexico, which refuses to extradite people for death penalty offenses. Apparently, more recently one of the criminals in custody in Mexico
has been set free, although three others, US citizens, are still in the pokey.
Other mentions here and
here.
My feeling?
Free Mr. Williams.
The people who died were all Mexicans, as I understand it. Our government has no obligation to them, particularly if their own government doesn't care to prosecute those that killed them.
We should tell Mexico, "You don't care about your people? Then why should we? We have enough to worry about prosecuting those who kill US citizens and other legal residents, we can't afford to spend time prosecuting those who kill illegal immigrants, at least not if you try to put up roadblocks.
A very public release of Mr. Williams along with a very public statement that we have decided that the dead Mexicans aren't worth prosecuting someone over, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE Mexico itself doesn't care, would do a whole lot to put pressure on Mexico.
(Preferably this should be done before jeopardy is attached, so it can be done "without prejudice," that is, so we can decide to try him at a later date if the Mexican government comes to its senses).
But seriously, I think that any country that refuses to extradite murderers to the US because of squeamishness about the death penalty ought to be told that we won't protect their citizens from murder when they are in the US. It's time that they were made to pay the penalty for their decisions on OUR murderers.
That is all.
has been set free, although three others, US citizens, are still in the pokey.
Other mentions here and
here.
My feeling?
Free Mr. Williams.
The people who died were all Mexicans, as I understand it. Our government has no obligation to them, particularly if their own government doesn't care to prosecute those that killed them.
We should tell Mexico, "You don't care about your people? Then why should we? We have enough to worry about prosecuting those who kill US citizens and other legal residents, we can't afford to spend time prosecuting those who kill illegal immigrants, at least not if you try to put up roadblocks.
A very public release of Mr. Williams along with a very public statement that we have decided that the dead Mexicans aren't worth prosecuting someone over, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE Mexico itself doesn't care, would do a whole lot to put pressure on Mexico.
(Preferably this should be done before jeopardy is attached, so it can be done "without prejudice," that is, so we can decide to try him at a later date if the Mexican government comes to its senses).
But seriously, I think that any country that refuses to extradite murderers to the US because of squeamishness about the death penalty ought to be told that we won't protect their citizens from murder when they are in the US. It's time that they were made to pay the penalty for their decisions on OUR murderers.
That is all.
The Situation in Iraq
Currently, the coalition has had 5 hostile and 1 non-hostile deaths during February 2005.
The past month had 74 hostile and 53 non-hostile deaths, or 64 and 63, depending on whether the plane of British troops that crashed was accidental or an enemy action.
Previously, I asked whether or not things were getting better in Iraq during January.
I would now say probably not, at least from the standpoint of monthly coalition death tolls.
I'll try to make a more detailed posting later.
That is all.
The past month had 74 hostile and 53 non-hostile deaths, or 64 and 63, depending on whether the plane of British troops that crashed was accidental or an enemy action.
Previously, I asked whether or not things were getting better in Iraq during January.
I would now say probably not, at least from the standpoint of monthly coalition death tolls.
I'll try to make a more detailed posting later.
That is all.
More of that Sailer Good Stuff
Once again, the indomitable Steve Sailer has a bunch of important insights.
The dancing Iraqi Shiites are not celebrating democracy, they are celebrating victory over the Sunni Arabs.
The neocons will turn on their heretics like wolves; they want to make criticism of neoconservatism taboo, as the example of Francis Fukuyama shows.
Bush wants to be another FDR, just more friendly to welfare for the rich. He is no conservative, if conservative has anything to do with limited constitutional government.
There is much more. That is not all.
The dancing Iraqi Shiites are not celebrating democracy, they are celebrating victory over the Sunni Arabs.
The neocons will turn on their heretics like wolves; they want to make criticism of neoconservatism taboo, as the example of Francis Fukuyama shows.
Bush wants to be another FDR, just more friendly to welfare for the rich. He is no conservative, if conservative has anything to do with limited constitutional government.
There is much more. That is not all.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Ward Churchill, Joe Sobran, and Gay Marriage
Ward Churchill's defense of his remarks about 9/11.
His essential point was that he doesn't see why we have a double standard in how we view civilian deaths. Why do we not see the 9/11 civilian fatalities as collateral damage of attacks on the Pentagon and the CIA office in the World Trade Center?
(Personally, I doubt that the CIA office per se was the target in the World Trade Center as much as the civilians were).
Another point brought up, apparently elsewhere (I don't immediately see it in the article I cited), is why we don't see any moral outrage at attacking, say, Dresden in World War II. Why is it wrong for others to target the civilian infrastructure of our enemies, and not for our enemies to target ours?
I will admit that the situation is somewhat more complicated htan that, because not all countries or governments are morally equivalent. Yet, we can't allow moral superiority to become a blank check for us to excuse anything we might do to win or end a war.
This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Sobran (I'll admit that he can be an unsavory character, but when he isn't indulging his semi-antisemitism, some of his insights are profound):
"I’ve always believed there’s really no such thing as a double standard. When people appear to apply a double standard, it means they are actually applying a hidden single standard — one they don’t want to admit."
In this case, the single standard is that the US's interests or desires justify any action; we can do things that we would condemn in another nation because we are the good guys, dammit, and so we don't need consistency.
This is sort of similar to the argument of why gay marriage won't lead to polygamy. All of the arguments in essence boil down to the idea that polygamy isn't nice; that it isn't practiced by the people we wish to emulate. There is no fundamental reason why, if people have a right to marry someone of the same sex that they can't marry more than one person. It's an issue of preference.
Note that this would not be the case if the gay marriage issue were seen as one of legislation. If the legislature decided to allow same-sex marriage on the basis that they thought it was a good idea, then it still means that the legislatures have the power to define civil marriage, and if they choose to define it for same-sex partnerships but not polygamous ones, then that is the choice they made. There would be no need for an argument for any restriction on marriage other than "well, we like gay marriage but we don't like polygamy."
But once you translate it into an issue of rights, then the burden is on those who would put any restriction on marriage. There is no principled reason why polygamy not be allowed once same-sex marriage is allowed. The only reason for the double standard is the true, single-standard: "because we (the liberal elite) like same-sex marriage, and don't like polygamy, and because we get to define rights any way we like, dammit!"
So the position that Churchill criticizes - that the US can do what it wants, and doesn't need to worry about anyone else's rights - is the mirror image of the position that same-sex marriage is okay, and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamous marriage.
I somehow doubt that Ward Churchill would like having those positions compared.
That, my friends, is all.
His essential point was that he doesn't see why we have a double standard in how we view civilian deaths. Why do we not see the 9/11 civilian fatalities as collateral damage of attacks on the Pentagon and the CIA office in the World Trade Center?
(Personally, I doubt that the CIA office per se was the target in the World Trade Center as much as the civilians were).
Another point brought up, apparently elsewhere (I don't immediately see it in the article I cited), is why we don't see any moral outrage at attacking, say, Dresden in World War II. Why is it wrong for others to target the civilian infrastructure of our enemies, and not for our enemies to target ours?
I will admit that the situation is somewhat more complicated htan that, because not all countries or governments are morally equivalent. Yet, we can't allow moral superiority to become a blank check for us to excuse anything we might do to win or end a war.
This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Sobran (I'll admit that he can be an unsavory character, but when he isn't indulging his semi-antisemitism, some of his insights are profound):
"I’ve always believed there’s really no such thing as a double standard. When people appear to apply a double standard, it means they are actually applying a hidden single standard — one they don’t want to admit."
In this case, the single standard is that the US's interests or desires justify any action; we can do things that we would condemn in another nation because we are the good guys, dammit, and so we don't need consistency.
This is sort of similar to the argument of why gay marriage won't lead to polygamy. All of the arguments in essence boil down to the idea that polygamy isn't nice; that it isn't practiced by the people we wish to emulate. There is no fundamental reason why, if people have a right to marry someone of the same sex that they can't marry more than one person. It's an issue of preference.
Note that this would not be the case if the gay marriage issue were seen as one of legislation. If the legislature decided to allow same-sex marriage on the basis that they thought it was a good idea, then it still means that the legislatures have the power to define civil marriage, and if they choose to define it for same-sex partnerships but not polygamous ones, then that is the choice they made. There would be no need for an argument for any restriction on marriage other than "well, we like gay marriage but we don't like polygamy."
But once you translate it into an issue of rights, then the burden is on those who would put any restriction on marriage. There is no principled reason why polygamy not be allowed once same-sex marriage is allowed. The only reason for the double standard is the true, single-standard: "because we (the liberal elite) like same-sex marriage, and don't like polygamy, and because we get to define rights any way we like, dammit!"
So the position that Churchill criticizes - that the US can do what it wants, and doesn't need to worry about anyone else's rights - is the mirror image of the position that same-sex marriage is okay, and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamous marriage.
I somehow doubt that Ward Churchill would like having those positions compared.
That, my friends, is all.
A Social Security Solution
Of course, the government does actually have assets which it can consider to be "investments" from which it can withdraw money in order to pay off Social Security.
If Social Security starts paying out more money than it takes in, we could always begin to sell off the national parks, or office space in Washington to pay its obligations.
If Social Security starts paying out more money than it takes in, we could always begin to sell off the national parks, or office space in Washington to pay its obligations.
The Problem with Private Accounts
The problem with looking at private accounts as a panacea is that unless benefits are cut by more than the amount that people will be putting into private accounts, the deficits will still occur, just on a smaller scale.
What the private account supporters are apparently planning is to invest 20% of Social Security taxes in private accounts, reduce Social Security benefits by, say, 30% (at least for those who choose to use the investment option), and then hope that the private accounts can grow 50% more than what the benefits would othewise be without the accounts.
That is all.
What the private account supporters are apparently planning is to invest 20% of Social Security taxes in private accounts, reduce Social Security benefits by, say, 30% (at least for those who choose to use the investment option), and then hope that the private accounts can grow 50% more than what the benefits would othewise be without the accounts.
That is all.
The Truth About Social Security
Brian Riedl and David John make the essential point about the Social Security "Trust Fund".
All of the talk about the Social Security "trust fund" ignores the fact that, in the end, when we "draw down on the trust fund" the money will have to come from the taxpayers.
And of course, the liberals don't see there being any Social Security crisis because they don't see any problem in raising taxes until the businesses, corporations, and rich people scream, because they don't seem to understand that that would devastate the economy and destroy the very wealth that they intend to redistribute.
Sigh.
That is all.
All of the talk about the Social Security "trust fund" ignores the fact that, in the end, when we "draw down on the trust fund" the money will have to come from the taxpayers.
And of course, the liberals don't see there being any Social Security crisis because they don't see any problem in raising taxes until the businesses, corporations, and rich people scream, because they don't seem to understand that that would devastate the economy and destroy the very wealth that they intend to redistribute.
Sigh.
That is all.
A Draft - or Mass Graves?
Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone thinks that a draft is just around the corner.
"Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point. 'This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen,' says Rangel. Bush officials 'can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push.'"
Sure there is. It's called keep a skeleton force of 20,000 in Iraq, and keep order by using bombs and flamethrowers to raze any town that causes trouble. And oh, yeah, any time a soldier is killed, kill 500 Iraqis, including the perpetrator's own family if it's possible to identify him.
No, I'm not advocating this, but I think that if the choice were between a draft and the coalition filling mass graves in order to keep order, we'd start the mass graves up again.
That is all.
"Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point. 'This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen,' says Rangel. Bush officials 'can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push.'"
Sure there is. It's called keep a skeleton force of 20,000 in Iraq, and keep order by using bombs and flamethrowers to raze any town that causes trouble. And oh, yeah, any time a soldier is killed, kill 500 Iraqis, including the perpetrator's own family if it's possible to identify him.
No, I'm not advocating this, but I think that if the choice were between a draft and the coalition filling mass graves in order to keep order, we'd start the mass graves up again.
That is all.
A Sunni Arab Problem
Pat Buchanan has an interesting article about the problems we face in Iraq. According to Pat, our presence both stimulates the insurgency and prevents it from taking over (I'm not entirely certain myself that the Sunni Arabs would win a civil war).
So apparently he thinks that we either leave now and they take over, or we stay and prevent them from taking over, but in the process keep making them stronger so that they will be in an even better position to take over in a year. The only solution he sees is to train an indigenous force to fight them.
However, it seems to me that there is a more likely answer to how the administration will deal with the insurgency. If it continues to be run mainly by Sunni Arabs, then eventually the conclusion might be drawn, no Sunni Arabs, no problem.
After all, guerillas can't keep recruiting new members if there is no one to recruit from.
Being a little less hyperbolic, I don't see genocide per se as happening, but a huge campaign to suppress and subjugate the entire Sunni Arab population of Iraq does not seem unlikely.
Of course, once the threat of the Sunni Arabs is gone, will the Kurds and the Shiite Arabs be so willing to bear with us? And are they participating in the elections because they share our goals, or because they see it as a way to achieve their own?
Something tells me that the neocon oversimplifiers who look at this as simply democracy vs. non-democracy are in for a BIIIIIIG surprise.
That is all.
So apparently he thinks that we either leave now and they take over, or we stay and prevent them from taking over, but in the process keep making them stronger so that they will be in an even better position to take over in a year. The only solution he sees is to train an indigenous force to fight them.
However, it seems to me that there is a more likely answer to how the administration will deal with the insurgency. If it continues to be run mainly by Sunni Arabs, then eventually the conclusion might be drawn, no Sunni Arabs, no problem.
After all, guerillas can't keep recruiting new members if there is no one to recruit from.
Being a little less hyperbolic, I don't see genocide per se as happening, but a huge campaign to suppress and subjugate the entire Sunni Arab population of Iraq does not seem unlikely.
Of course, once the threat of the Sunni Arabs is gone, will the Kurds and the Shiite Arabs be so willing to bear with us? And are they participating in the elections because they share our goals, or because they see it as a way to achieve their own?
Something tells me that the neocon oversimplifiers who look at this as simply democracy vs. non-democracy are in for a BIIIIIIG surprise.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Viruses? What are Those?
Whenever I hear these ads about viruses and about how important it is to protect your PC, I think: "Viruses? What are they? Oh, yeah, they're those things that PC-users worry about."
I luv my Mac.
That is all.
I luv my Mac.
That is all.
Bravo to Jim Pinkerton
An excellent article elucidating what exactly Bush, and more particularly Bush cum Blair, really is.
Link from Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Link from Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
No Whore-Makers?
The story about the German woman being forced to work in the sex industry seems to be bogus.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Is Glaivester Picking up Speed? Self-Referential Post
The past two days I have had over 50 visits, and my sitemeter stats have usually been over 20 for the past week or so, often hitting 30. For most of 2004 (by which I mean since September 30, when I started blogging), my visits rarely went above 20.
I now have been linked to by Colby Cosh and Clark Stooksbury in addition to people who have previously linked to me:
Gene Expression
Steve Sailer
Kurdistan Bloger's Union
Iraqi Thoughts
I think that my recent (relative) explosion in traffic is due to Steve Sailer's recent mention of me in his blog.
So thank you, dear readers, and thank you, Steve Sailer, and I'll try to keep blogging for everyone, and I hope that I will blog well!
- The Glaivester.
I now have been linked to by Colby Cosh and Clark Stooksbury in addition to people who have previously linked to me:
Gene Expression
Steve Sailer
Kurdistan Bloger's Union
Iraqi Thoughts
I think that my recent (relative) explosion in traffic is due to Steve Sailer's recent mention of me in his blog.
So thank you, dear readers, and thank you, Steve Sailer, and I'll try to keep blogging for everyone, and I hope that I will blog well!
- The Glaivester.
More on Those Elections
An interesting post about the Iraq elections on the AntiWar.com blog. It includes links to more interesting articles.
The gist is that the pro-warriors tend to make lots of claims, and then only acknowledge the ones that came true, or they ret-con the position of the anti-warriors:
"For example, who among us ever claimed that the Shiites and Kurds wouldn't vote en masse?"
It's an interesting position, and a post well-worth invetigating.
That is all.
P.S. ret-con means retroactive continuity. In fiction, it is the practice of changing background facts in the story. For example, if the main character in a TV show has been portrayed as a divorcee in the first season and then in the second season it is stated that she was never married, that is a ret-con.
By "ret-con the positions of the anti-warriors" I mean that they pretend that the arguments they made were different than they were.
The gist is that the pro-warriors tend to make lots of claims, and then only acknowledge the ones that came true, or they ret-con the position of the anti-warriors:
"For example, who among us ever claimed that the Shiites and Kurds wouldn't vote en masse?"
It's an interesting position, and a post well-worth invetigating.
That is all.
P.S. ret-con means retroactive continuity. In fiction, it is the practice of changing background facts in the story. For example, if the main character in a TV show has been portrayed as a divorcee in the first season and then in the second season it is stated that she was never married, that is a ret-con.
By "ret-con the positions of the anti-warriors" I mean that they pretend that the arguments they made were different than they were.
Gaffney Doesn't Know his Murphy
Frank Gaffney is against us having any particular timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Indeed, he believes that we need to base our troop reductions on on the situation on the ground. In other words, no timetable for troop withdrawal, or even for troop reduction.
What he ignores are three facts:
(1) Without some timetable, Iraqis will presumably become convinced that we intend to occupy their country forever.
(2) A deadline will give us more urgency in working things out in Iraq.
(3) All work expands to fill the time allowed. (See unnatural law # 54). Give them forever to pacify Iraq, that's how long it will take.
That is all.
Indeed, he believes that we need to base our troop reductions on on the situation on the ground. In other words, no timetable for troop withdrawal, or even for troop reduction.
What he ignores are three facts:
(1) Without some timetable, Iraqis will presumably become convinced that we intend to occupy their country forever.
(2) A deadline will give us more urgency in working things out in Iraq.
(3) All work expands to fill the time allowed. (See unnatural law # 54). Give them forever to pacify Iraq, that's how long it will take.
That is all.
Question about William F. Buckley
If agents of a Middle-Eastern government were agitating to get Fox News shut down, would William F. Buckley be so sanguine about it?
That is all.
That is all.
You Can Tell a Lot by a Headline
James Glaser (with help from Carol Watson) gives us a list of headlines from Sunday about Iraq.
That is all.
That is all.
Bias?
Antiwar.com has an interesting post on biases and the nature of bias.
Apparently, disclosure of an analyst's bias doesn't necessarily help the people listening to him to compensate for biases. It may even make the biases worse, as disclosure reduces the analyst's concern that he be fair; after all, if everyone knows where you're coming from, why bother hiding your biases? (Not mentioned but also possibly important- I'm speculating here, folks - would be if people using the analysts become more confident that they are correcting for the analyst's biases and so become more careless about doing the correcting).
That is all.
Apparently, disclosure of an analyst's bias doesn't necessarily help the people listening to him to compensate for biases. It may even make the biases worse, as disclosure reduces the analyst's concern that he be fair; after all, if everyone knows where you're coming from, why bother hiding your biases? (Not mentioned but also possibly important- I'm speculating here, folks - would be if people using the analysts become more confident that they are correcting for the analyst's biases and so become more careless about doing the correcting).
That is all.
Vox Day on Iraq
Vox Day is worried about
(a) whether we are going to manipulate the Iraq election and
(b) whether an Iraq ruled by the majority is a good thing.
He makes an interesting point here:
"I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?"
On the other hand, in a district-based system (like in the US), it doesn't necessarily matter which party gets the most votes overall, or what percentage of people in a district vote; for that matter, our Senate guarantees that 500,000 Wyomingians have the same representation as 30,000,000 Californians.
So guaranteeing represnetation isn't necessarily anathema to representative government; particularly when it may be necessary to soothe ethnic tensions.
On the other hand, he is very right that there is something wrong if we are trying to game the system in order to put our man (according to Day, Allawi, although Chalabi might be in the running as well, heck, with separate Prime Minister, Premier, and Presidential positions, we could have both as well as a third guy - Pachahi? Talabani?) in power. If we are gaming the system to make certain that one Iraqi group doesn't become the lepers of Iraq, that's one thing, if we're just exercising control in order to fill the government with our puppets, that's quite another.
In any case, if the Sunni Arabs boycott the election, one has to wonder about the wisdom of saying "tough beans." After all, maybe they don't want to be in the same country as the Shiite Arabs and the (mostly Sunni) Kurds. Rather than punish them for non-participation, maybe they need to be partitioned. Of course, if their goal is not just not to be dominated by Shia, but to dominate the Shia; that is, if they want rule over the entirety of Iraq rather than just self-rule, that is a problem.
And, of course, there is the problem of what happens if the Shia, encouraged by Sistani, decide to make the government semi-theocratic. Vox Day has a big concern that there will be a trade-off between allowing the Iraqis to have true self-rule and keeping them a relatively liberal society; perhaps even between allowing self-rule and keeping them a society that doesn't threaten us.
I concur with him.
That is all.
(a) whether we are going to manipulate the Iraq election and
(b) whether an Iraq ruled by the majority is a good thing.
He makes an interesting point here:
"I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?"
On the other hand, in a district-based system (like in the US), it doesn't necessarily matter which party gets the most votes overall, or what percentage of people in a district vote; for that matter, our Senate guarantees that 500,000 Wyomingians have the same representation as 30,000,000 Californians.
So guaranteeing represnetation isn't necessarily anathema to representative government; particularly when it may be necessary to soothe ethnic tensions.
On the other hand, he is very right that there is something wrong if we are trying to game the system in order to put our man (according to Day, Allawi, although Chalabi might be in the running as well, heck, with separate Prime Minister, Premier, and Presidential positions, we could have both as well as a third guy - Pachahi? Talabani?) in power. If we are gaming the system to make certain that one Iraqi group doesn't become the lepers of Iraq, that's one thing, if we're just exercising control in order to fill the government with our puppets, that's quite another.
In any case, if the Sunni Arabs boycott the election, one has to wonder about the wisdom of saying "tough beans." After all, maybe they don't want to be in the same country as the Shiite Arabs and the (mostly Sunni) Kurds. Rather than punish them for non-participation, maybe they need to be partitioned. Of course, if their goal is not just not to be dominated by Shia, but to dominate the Shia; that is, if they want rule over the entirety of Iraq rather than just self-rule, that is a problem.
And, of course, there is the problem of what happens if the Shia, encouraged by Sistani, decide to make the government semi-theocratic. Vox Day has a big concern that there will be a trade-off between allowing the Iraqis to have true self-rule and keeping them a relatively liberal society; perhaps even between allowing self-rule and keeping them a society that doesn't threaten us.
I concur with him.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)