I can't help but notice that Suzan Mazur, in an article on Counterpunch where she criticizes extralegal polyamy in Utah, Arizona, ans a few other states, does not simply condem nthe way polygamy is practiced in these states, but seems to attack polygamy per se.
My question: isn't equating polygamy and taking child brides the same thing as trying to equate adult homosexualtiy with same-sex pedophilia?
And like it or not, some form of legalized polygamy is inevitable if marriage iscontinually construed as a "right," without restrictions based on who the partners are.
Do to issues of age of consent, it is unlikely that the US will ever legalize "child brides" as a matter of federal policy (although actually, some states have very low age of consent laws if the parents agree to let their children get married - I think I read on Andrew Sullivan that people as young as 12 can get marrried in Massachusetts). However, there is no principled reason to oppose polygamy in general once you have declared that the sex of the partners is irrelevant.
And I am again reminded of Steve Sailer's comment that people don't see polygamy as a civil right because the only people interested in it are white religious people and civil rights don't apply to them.
That is all.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Thoughts on Lefkow, Hale, Duke, and O'Reilly
I suppose I should have some thoughts on the murders of the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow.
I don't know if I have anything really novel to say; the killings were a bad thing, and whoever was behind it should be, in my opinion, executed.
I do find it interesting that Matt Hale, the leader of a white supremacist group who had tried to have her killed earlier, was angry at her not because she was trying to enforce racial civil rights, but because she was trying to enforce intellectual property rights. Which shows that white supremacists are really no friend of capitalism - unless he belongs to the anarcho-capitalist school that denies intellectual property, but for some reason I doubt that he was fighting on that sort of private-property principle.
He probably isn't behind this current murder, as he is practically incommunicado with the outside world, but it seems to me most likely that some of his fellow travelers did this. Of course, it is possible that it had nothing to do with this. But hopefully the investigation will turn up the answers before too long.
On a side note, I saw David Duke recently on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly should really learn to adjust his style, at least occasionally, because when arguing with a white supremacist, you REALLY don't want to look like you're the raving lunatic.
However, I had another observation. David Duke is beginning to look like some sort of monstrous frog of sorts. Certainly his eyes give the appearance that he is in a vacuum, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall" when he is exposed to a vacuum. Considering that he used to be a relatively attractive man, I wonder if this doesn't prove my mother's assertion that as you get older, you begin to look like who you are.
Something for Matt Hale to think about, for sure. At 33, he still has time to avoid going bug-eyed, or whatever other hideous deformity may someday strike him if he continues to let hate be his raison d'etre.
I don't know if I have anything really novel to say; the killings were a bad thing, and whoever was behind it should be, in my opinion, executed.
I do find it interesting that Matt Hale, the leader of a white supremacist group who had tried to have her killed earlier, was angry at her not because she was trying to enforce racial civil rights, but because she was trying to enforce intellectual property rights. Which shows that white supremacists are really no friend of capitalism - unless he belongs to the anarcho-capitalist school that denies intellectual property, but for some reason I doubt that he was fighting on that sort of private-property principle.
He probably isn't behind this current murder, as he is practically incommunicado with the outside world, but it seems to me most likely that some of his fellow travelers did this. Of course, it is possible that it had nothing to do with this. But hopefully the investigation will turn up the answers before too long.
On a side note, I saw David Duke recently on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly should really learn to adjust his style, at least occasionally, because when arguing with a white supremacist, you REALLY don't want to look like you're the raving lunatic.
However, I had another observation. David Duke is beginning to look like some sort of monstrous frog of sorts. Certainly his eyes give the appearance that he is in a vacuum, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Total Recall" when he is exposed to a vacuum. Considering that he used to be a relatively attractive man, I wonder if this doesn't prove my mother's assertion that as you get older, you begin to look like who you are.
Something for Matt Hale to think about, for sure. At 33, he still has time to avoid going bug-eyed, or whatever other hideous deformity may someday strike him if he continues to let hate be his raison d'etre.
Contra Morgan Spurlock
Les Sayer wants to prove that if you choose the healthier items on the menu, an all McDonald's diet does not have to be a death sentence.
An interesting proposition from the standpoint of trying to eliminate the biases in a single experiment (i.e. Morgan Spurlock's).
That is all.
An interesting proposition from the standpoint of trying to eliminate the biases in a single experiment (i.e. Morgan Spurlock's).
That is all.
Quick Thought
When I have more time, I will try to get my "topic archives" updated. Then I will try to make a list of all of my predictions so that people can see how accurate or inaccurate a prognosticator I am.
American Fatalities Top 1500.
500 fatalities in 6 months. If the rate of American fatalities over the next six months is the same as over the past six months, my prediction will turn out to be accurate.
That is all.
That is all.
Deja Vu
The two-minute, or now more like two-week hate against Syria, as Paul Michael Wibley suggests, is uncannily like the neocon's insistence that Saddam was planning on using chemical and biological weapons to extort the US into letting him conquer the Middle East.
David Frum has one thing right. The pressure is on Syria to appease us. And as the neocons always point out, appeasement never solves anything. Like with Saddam, we will increase our demands until we reach a point where they cannot comply, and at that point, we will forget about sanctions, etc. and conquer the country.
The idea that Syria will have a revolution and will turn US friendly or that we can get a government we like without invading is ridiculous. What we will get are Muslims who want to throw all of the Christians out of the country, and they will start to do so like they are doing in Iraq.
And Joseph Farah will be shocked, SHOCKED! that this is going on.
How he thought we were to prevent it in Iraq, I have no idea, although probably he thought that we could enforce religious tolerance by simply killing lots of Muslims if the Muslims proved recalcitrant.
Paul Michael Wibley suggests that we cut off oil Syria's ability to export oil through blockade or sabotage to their pipelines. Anyone who thinks that this will lead to an internal revolution and the replacement of the Assad government apparently believes that Fidel Castro is not still president of Cuba.
What will happen if we cut off Syria's oil exports is the same thing that happened when we cut off Japan's supply of oil imports in 1941. we will be provoking them into a desperate attack on us, which will be the springboard for us to attack them.
That is all.
David Frum has one thing right. The pressure is on Syria to appease us. And as the neocons always point out, appeasement never solves anything. Like with Saddam, we will increase our demands until we reach a point where they cannot comply, and at that point, we will forget about sanctions, etc. and conquer the country.
The idea that Syria will have a revolution and will turn US friendly or that we can get a government we like without invading is ridiculous. What we will get are Muslims who want to throw all of the Christians out of the country, and they will start to do so like they are doing in Iraq.
And Joseph Farah will be shocked, SHOCKED! that this is going on.
How he thought we were to prevent it in Iraq, I have no idea, although probably he thought that we could enforce religious tolerance by simply killing lots of Muslims if the Muslims proved recalcitrant.
Paul Michael Wibley suggests that we cut off oil Syria's ability to export oil through blockade or sabotage to their pipelines. Anyone who thinks that this will lead to an internal revolution and the replacement of the Assad government apparently believes that Fidel Castro is not still president of Cuba.
What will happen if we cut off Syria's oil exports is the same thing that happened when we cut off Japan's supply of oil imports in 1941. we will be provoking them into a desperate attack on us, which will be the springboard for us to attack them.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Little Frummer Boy at it Again
David Frum has once again returned to his ridiculous neocon pronouncements.
My take on his blogpost is that he is trying to blame Syria for any violence or civil war that happens after or during Syrian withdrawal, so that we have an excuse to atack Syria even if it complies completely.
Also, while he talkes about the Syrian-backed militias as a problem in Lebanon, he doesn't mentin hte fact that Lebanon had long had lots of native militias before hte Syrians won in 1990, and doesn't consider the possibility that a non-Syrian backed militia will start trouble once the Syrians leave. Or maybe he wants to blame that on Syria if and when it happens.
My prediction: after Syria vacates Lebanon, the civil war will start again.
And I thnk that Syria is much less involved in the Iraq war than Mr. Frum is claiming.
That is all.
My take on his blogpost is that he is trying to blame Syria for any violence or civil war that happens after or during Syrian withdrawal, so that we have an excuse to atack Syria even if it complies completely.
Also, while he talkes about the Syrian-backed militias as a problem in Lebanon, he doesn't mentin hte fact that Lebanon had long had lots of native militias before hte Syrians won in 1990, and doesn't consider the possibility that a non-Syrian backed militia will start trouble once the Syrians leave. Or maybe he wants to blame that on Syria if and when it happens.
My prediction: after Syria vacates Lebanon, the civil war will start again.
And I thnk that Syria is much less involved in the Iraq war than Mr. Frum is claiming.
That is all.
And Who Will Have Won, when the Soldiers Have Gone?
Juan Cole and Justin Raimondo share their takes on the situation in Lebanon.
The general agreement seems to me to be that the demographics of Lebanon prevent a return to the exact system that Lebanon had before the civil war borke out. So those using Lebanon's hisotry as proof that it can exist as a democratic nation are leaving out important points.
(Title from the Human League's "The Lebanon")
That is all.
The general agreement seems to me to be that the demographics of Lebanon prevent a return to the exact system that Lebanon had before the civil war borke out. So those using Lebanon's hisotry as proof that it can exist as a democratic nation are leaving out important points.
(Title from the Human League's "The Lebanon")
That is all.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Syria and Lebanon
The general neocon position is that Lebanon used to be a vibrant democracy, then the nefarious Syrians started a civil war, used it as an excuse to occupy the country, and are now preventing Lebanese democracy from reasserting itself.
This is what Hack Kelly and Joseph Farah, are saying.
In fact, it has been a consistent refrain of Mr. Farah for a long time, that the democracy of Lebanon was stable, and that the Lebanon of the 1950s would return if only Syria were out of the way.
A more realistic look at the situation can be found from Steve Sailer and Gary Brecher.
The Lebanese democracy was never stable, and only existed because the Christians were numberous enough to maintain a three-sided power-sharing truce with the Sunnis and the Shia. This fell apart because the Shia (and I think the Sunni as well) got more numerous.
Seeing as the Syrians initially intervend in 1976 to protect the Christians from the Muslims, I wonder why Joseph Farah thinks that things will get better when the Syrians leave.
Presumably, his goal is not an independent Lebanon, but that Israel will wind up occupying it. I remember in 2000 that he was outraged when the Israeli troops left. (I'll get all of the links later).
Of course, Israel no longer wants Lebanon, it's too much trouble. So maybe Farah is hoping that Israel will cause Lebanon to be less trouble by killing all of the uslims there. Or maybe he is delusional enough to believe that without Syria, Lebanon will not put up any resistance.
Or maybe Farah just doesn't think.
That is all.
This is what Hack Kelly and Joseph Farah, are saying.
In fact, it has been a consistent refrain of Mr. Farah for a long time, that the democracy of Lebanon was stable, and that the Lebanon of the 1950s would return if only Syria were out of the way.
A more realistic look at the situation can be found from Steve Sailer and Gary Brecher.
The Lebanese democracy was never stable, and only existed because the Christians were numberous enough to maintain a three-sided power-sharing truce with the Sunnis and the Shia. This fell apart because the Shia (and I think the Sunni as well) got more numerous.
Seeing as the Syrians initially intervend in 1976 to protect the Christians from the Muslims, I wonder why Joseph Farah thinks that things will get better when the Syrians leave.
Presumably, his goal is not an independent Lebanon, but that Israel will wind up occupying it. I remember in 2000 that he was outraged when the Israeli troops left. (I'll get all of the links later).
Of course, Israel no longer wants Lebanon, it's too much trouble. So maybe Farah is hoping that Israel will cause Lebanon to be less trouble by killing all of the uslims there. Or maybe he is delusional enough to believe that without Syria, Lebanon will not put up any resistance.
Or maybe Farah just doesn't think.
That is all.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Good Ol' Joe Farah
Joesph Farah gives me my link to explain the mindset I mentioned in the previous post:
"Honestly, I never really expected to see Lebanon so close to freedom and independence again."
Independence, yes. Freedom? The idea that Syria is the only thing holding back the Lebanese from freedom is ridiculous.
I predict a restart of the civil war.
Just as civil war has broken out in Iraq.
That is all.
"Honestly, I never really expected to see Lebanon so close to freedom and independence again."
Independence, yes. Freedom? The idea that Syria is the only thing holding back the Lebanese from freedom is ridiculous.
I predict a restart of the civil war.
Just as civil war has broken out in Iraq.
That is all.
Thoughts on Lebanon
If the Lebanese want the Syrians out, they should get out. They should get out of the government, and if the Lebanese want them to remove their troops as well, then the Syrians should remove them. If the Lebanese want the Syrians to stop interfering with their govenment but wnat the troopsto stay to stabilize Lebanon, then the Syrians should stop interfering with their government and then determine whether or not they still want troops in the country.
My caveat is: don't assume that without the Syrian troops, Lebanon will blossom into a democracy. I get the sense that some neocons feel that Lebanon would have stayed a wonderful democracy had not the Syrians occupied it; that it was Syria (and/or other Arab countries') fault that the war started in the first place.
I think that the war started because of demographic shifts, and that it would have happened without outside interference; and that unoccupied Lebanon will not revert to democracy but will fall back into civil war.
I'll try to find some links later to support these positions.
That is all.
My caveat is: don't assume that without the Syrian troops, Lebanon will blossom into a democracy. I get the sense that some neocons feel that Lebanon would have stayed a wonderful democracy had not the Syrians occupied it; that it was Syria (and/or other Arab countries') fault that the war started in the first place.
I think that the war started because of demographic shifts, and that it would have happened without outside interference; and that unoccupied Lebanon will not revert to democracy but will fall back into civil war.
I'll try to find some links later to support these positions.
That is all.
Did Syria do it?
Gary Leupp offers an excellent argument that Syria did not kill Lebanese prime minister Hariri.
Chris Sanders argues the same thing.
I won't say that I agree with the simplistic analysis that the US or Israel did it, but definitely Israel and the US have benefitted from the assassination politically.
Who did it? My guess is that it was done by some Lebanese faction that thought its agenda would be served by Hariri dying and by Syria getting blamed for it.
That is all.
Chris Sanders argues the same thing.
I won't say that I agree with the simplistic analysis that the US or Israel did it, but definitely Israel and the US have benefitted from the assassination politically.
Who did it? My guess is that it was done by some Lebanese faction that thought its agenda would be served by Hariri dying and by Syria getting blamed for it.
That is all.
What Was Not Said
In the CNN report on the suicide bombing in Hilla, CNN neglects to mention an important fact:
Hilla is a mainly Shia city.
Civil war, anyone?
That is all.
Hilla is a mainly Shia city.
Civil war, anyone?
That is all.
Astounding! I Agree with David Frum Again!!!!
As much as I castigate him for his support of Chalabi, on gay marriage when David Frum is right, he is right. Gay marriage is already changing the societal attitudes toward marriage in Canada.
That is all.
That is all.
Hostile/Non-Hostile Timeline
Iraq Coalition Casualties' Hostile/Non-Hostile Timeline for Coalition Fatalities now has the option of looking at just US deaths as well as total coalition deaths.
That is all.
That is all.
Hack Kelly is at it Again!
The war in Iraq has been won!
Of course, he was saying the same things back in October of 2003, so don't put too much faith in him.
That is all.
Of course, he was saying the same things back in October of 2003, so don't put too much faith in him.
That is all.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Costs of War
Charles V. Pena has an interesting point about the cost of the War in Iraq.
"Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has surmised that 'we will never achieve democracy and stability [in Iraq] without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation.'"
As I have said before, I have a feeling that if it comes to the point where the costs of the war are overwhelming, and if Bush is not willing to withdraw, and if he refuses to go to a draft, there is only one option: mass murder.
If it comes to that, I have a feeling that the administration will resort to simply firebombing Sunni Arab towns and massacring the survivors, until the Sunni Arabs are finally subdued or wiped out.
Of course, without hte Sunni ARabs, there is a good chance that other problems will appear in Iraq, but wiping them out would probably be the government's first step.
Oh, cynical am I? Surely, wonderful, Christian George W. Bush wouldn't commit genocide, would he?
Ha.
That is all.
"Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has surmised that 'we will never achieve democracy and stability [in Iraq] without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation.'"
As I have said before, I have a feeling that if it comes to the point where the costs of the war are overwhelming, and if Bush is not willing to withdraw, and if he refuses to go to a draft, there is only one option: mass murder.
If it comes to that, I have a feeling that the administration will resort to simply firebombing Sunni Arab towns and massacring the survivors, until the Sunni Arabs are finally subdued or wiped out.
Of course, without hte Sunni ARabs, there is a good chance that other problems will appear in Iraq, but wiping them out would probably be the government's first step.
Oh, cynical am I? Surely, wonderful, Christian George W. Bush wouldn't commit genocide, would he?
Ha.
That is all.
Stupid Arguments
The stupidest argument about "gay rights" (i.e. antidiscrimination laws) is that they attract businesses, or conversely that not having the mscares businesses away.
"Companies may be hesitant to move to Maine because MAine doesn't have a nondiscrimination law," according to Betsy Smith of Equality Maine.
Poppycock.
A business that doesn't wish to discriminate doesn't have to.
So-called "gay rights" laws are simply more government regulation, people telling businesses and private property owners that they must hire or serve people whom they wish not to serve, and providing a greater number of charges for which people can fire lawsuits.
Does any business ever say "I won't locate in that state because they don't regulate me enough?"
Of course not. The idea that some companies are hesitant to locate in Maine because we do not tell them that they MUST hire homosexuals is stupid. If we had a law prohibiting the hiring of homosexuals, then yes, that would depress business, and a nondiscriminatio nact that repealed the law and allowed businesses to hire gays would attract new business.
But as businesses ae now perfectly able to hire gays if they so wish, there is no reason for a company not to locate here because Maine hasn't made the choice (to hire or not hire gays) for them.
People who believe that gay rights bill should be passed because it is just should say so. But they shouldn't use bogus and stupid economic arguments.
That is all.
"Companies may be hesitant to move to Maine because MAine doesn't have a nondiscrimination law," according to Betsy Smith of Equality Maine.
Poppycock.
A business that doesn't wish to discriminate doesn't have to.
So-called "gay rights" laws are simply more government regulation, people telling businesses and private property owners that they must hire or serve people whom they wish not to serve, and providing a greater number of charges for which people can fire lawsuits.
Does any business ever say "I won't locate in that state because they don't regulate me enough?"
Of course not. The idea that some companies are hesitant to locate in Maine because we do not tell them that they MUST hire homosexuals is stupid. If we had a law prohibiting the hiring of homosexuals, then yes, that would depress business, and a nondiscriminatio nact that repealed the law and allowed businesses to hire gays would attract new business.
But as businesses ae now perfectly able to hire gays if they so wish, there is no reason for a company not to locate here because Maine hasn't made the choice (to hire or not hire gays) for them.
People who believe that gay rights bill should be passed because it is just should say so. But they shouldn't use bogus and stupid economic arguments.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)