A must-read article by Tom Reeves predicts the move to a draft, and spanks some leftist poseurs like Noam Chomsky for supporting conscription.
That is all.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
On Casualties
Coalition fatalities are down this month, and unlike last month, the number of Iraqis being killed by violence does not appear to be particularly high, at least for the last week.
Neocons will no doubt either credit the elections or the unrest in Lebanon for causing this happy occurrence (in the latter case, they'll claim that Lebanon has distracted Syria and/or Iran from directing the insurgency).
My feeling? I think that we are having a short breather. Things will get worse, so we'd better use this time to prepare for when the fecal matter actually hits the rotating blade again.
That is all.
Neocons will no doubt either credit the elections or the unrest in Lebanon for causing this happy occurrence (in the latter case, they'll claim that Lebanon has distracted Syria and/or Iran from directing the insurgency).
My feeling? I think that we are having a short breather. Things will get worse, so we'd better use this time to prepare for when the fecal matter actually hits the rotating blade again.
That is all.
Is Separate More Equal?
Rich Lowry has a good article on National Review Online.
Essentially, he questions whether trying to teach boys and girls "equally" (i.e. in the same way) actually increases gender imbalances in learning, because different styles work for eaxch sex.
That is all.
Essentially, he questions whether trying to teach boys and girls "equally" (i.e. in the same way) actually increases gender imbalances in learning, because different styles work for eaxch sex.
That is all.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Logic of Polygamy
While there could be breach of contract issues, can anyone argue that anti-adultery laws could survive the right of privacy?
And if we acknowledge the right to commit adultery, can we deny people the right to polyamory, where one person ha many sexual partners even if only married to one of them?
And if polyamory exists, how can we deny polyamorists equality by not letting them marrry all of their partners?
That is all.
And if we acknowledge the right to commit adultery, can we deny people the right to polyamory, where one person ha many sexual partners even if only married to one of them?
And if polyamory exists, how can we deny polyamorists equality by not letting them marrry all of their partners?
That is all.
On "Whiteness"
On Steve Sailer's blog, there is a reply to his thoughts about Nascar.
In essence, Steve is asked to acknowledgethat white people have had it too good and deserve to be questioned more.
The big thing here that is ignored, in my opinion, is the fact that crusades against "whiteness" usually hurt not the white elite, but the lower-class whites. Working class white people tend to love elite whites (by which I mean ones with the greatest political power and influence, not necessarily the wealthiest ones) because they see them as their standard-bearers, when in reality they couldn't care less.
Working class whites love Bush because he is "one of them," except that (a) he isn't, and (b) he wants to give all of their jobs to Mexicans.
I tend to think that notions such as "institutional racism" may exist, but to a much lesser extent than we are led to believe, and that the main goal of such labels are to make certain that there is always something forthe civil rights lawyers to make a living on, because the definition of "institutional racism" is so fuzzy that one can never disprove a charge of institutional racism, or that the liberals need to pass another item on their agenda to fight it.
Hey! Institutional racism is the WMDs of the left!
That is all.
In essence, Steve is asked to acknowledgethat white people have had it too good and deserve to be questioned more.
The big thing here that is ignored, in my opinion, is the fact that crusades against "whiteness" usually hurt not the white elite, but the lower-class whites. Working class white people tend to love elite whites (by which I mean ones with the greatest political power and influence, not necessarily the wealthiest ones) because they see them as their standard-bearers, when in reality they couldn't care less.
Working class whites love Bush because he is "one of them," except that (a) he isn't, and (b) he wants to give all of their jobs to Mexicans.
I tend to think that notions such as "institutional racism" may exist, but to a much lesser extent than we are led to believe, and that the main goal of such labels are to make certain that there is always something forthe civil rights lawyers to make a living on, because the definition of "institutional racism" is so fuzzy that one can never disprove a charge of institutional racism, or that the liberals need to pass another item on their agenda to fight it.
Hey! Institutional racism is the WMDs of the left!
That is all.
Thoughts on Michael Ledeen
Michael Ledeen claims that: "In fact, according to Iranians with whom I have spoken, there were monster demonstrations in eleven provinces and 37 cities, and many thousands — one source said more than 30,000 — people were arrested, some only briefly, others shipped off to the infamous prisons and torture chambers of the regime."
Perhaps, but remember, Mr. Ledeen also claims that his friends have told him where the WMDs are, but for some reason our government is refusing to look for them (so apparently the Bush administration is doing nothing to prove that its asseritons about WMDs were true).
"Last August [in 2003 -Gl.] I called [David Kay] in Baghdad to tell him that I had a person — a good person, like himself, a person I trust — who was prepared to take him to an underground laboratory from which a quantity of enriched uranium had been taken a few years ago, and smuggled to Iran. Wow, he said, let's go look. Have the guy call me, we'll check it out... But, as I say, the CIA never went to look."
Read the whole article for the whole story. But doesn't anyone else think that it is ridiculous that the government wouldn't pursue a lead that could help them prove their story? Even if you don't trust the CIA, Michael Ledeen had been talking about how corrupt, or at least inept they are for more than a year and a half before his contact with David Kay back in August 2003. (here and here and here and here for more on the fact that Ledeen doesn't trust the CIA, whether because he feels it is corrupt or inept - there is also a link to an article "why muzzle Saddam's Foes" but it goes to the wrong article) If he had good information, why not pass it to someone like Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or someone in the Defense Department, who presumably would make certain it was looked at. (And don't tell me he couldn't get to them; if he could talk to David Kay, he could have talked to someone in the DoD). Why would Mr. Ledeen only contact a person whose action was predicated on the decision of an organization (the CIA) that Ledeen so thouroughly distrusts (at least Ledeen seems to imply that David Kay's inspection of the WMD site was predicated on the CIA's go-ahead)?
A more simple, and in my opinion, better, explanation is that Michael Ledeen's "good person" is trying to trick him. An even better explanation is that Michael Ledeen is LYING.
That is all.
Perhaps, but remember, Mr. Ledeen also claims that his friends have told him where the WMDs are, but for some reason our government is refusing to look for them (so apparently the Bush administration is doing nothing to prove that its asseritons about WMDs were true).
"Last August [in 2003 -Gl.] I called [David Kay] in Baghdad to tell him that I had a person — a good person, like himself, a person I trust — who was prepared to take him to an underground laboratory from which a quantity of enriched uranium had been taken a few years ago, and smuggled to Iran. Wow, he said, let's go look. Have the guy call me, we'll check it out... But, as I say, the CIA never went to look."
Read the whole article for the whole story. But doesn't anyone else think that it is ridiculous that the government wouldn't pursue a lead that could help them prove their story? Even if you don't trust the CIA, Michael Ledeen had been talking about how corrupt, or at least inept they are for more than a year and a half before his contact with David Kay back in August 2003. (here and here and here and here for more on the fact that Ledeen doesn't trust the CIA, whether because he feels it is corrupt or inept - there is also a link to an article "why muzzle Saddam's Foes" but it goes to the wrong article) If he had good information, why not pass it to someone like Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or someone in the Defense Department, who presumably would make certain it was looked at. (And don't tell me he couldn't get to them; if he could talk to David Kay, he could have talked to someone in the DoD). Why would Mr. Ledeen only contact a person whose action was predicated on the decision of an organization (the CIA) that Ledeen so thouroughly distrusts (at least Ledeen seems to imply that David Kay's inspection of the WMD site was predicated on the CIA's go-ahead)?
A more simple, and in my opinion, better, explanation is that Michael Ledeen's "good person" is trying to trick him. An even better explanation is that Michael Ledeen is LYING.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
On Lebanon
Other than Joseph Farah's ethnic cleansing scenario, the most likely goal of ending the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is to replace it with a US, UN, or Israeli occupation.
The idea that getting Syria out will magically lead to peace and democracy in Lebanon is ridiculous.
The idea that the Muslim Lebanese will agree to letting the Christians have constitutionally-guaranteed overrepresentation in parliament is likewise ridiculous.
Of course, the neocons know this, and so they are already preparing to blame Syria when violence breaks out.
"Assad is likely to counter by having his agents and Hezbollah foment violence against pro-democracy demonstrators to justify his claim that a Syrian military presence is needed to keep Lebanon from lapsing back into civil war." - "Hack" Kelly
And once they have done that, they will likely legitimize overrepresentation in the parliament by denying the legitimacy of the claims of Lebanese Muslims:
"During renditions of the Lebanese national anthem, Lebanese in the crowd noticed that many of the participants were Syrians unfamiliar with the words." - Washington Times
"Those Syrian guest workers, it follows, are pretty likely to show up at a rally in support of Syria, particularly because the withdrawal of Syrian troops might seriously complicate their lives in Lebanon -- a story we'd like to hear more about." - Columbia Journalism Review
"The answer is simple: Many or most of those rallying in favor of Syria are not really Lebanese at all... But there is another occupying force in Lebanon today – tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iranians or Iranian-backed militiamen and civilians who have emigrated with the express purpose of using Lebanon as a base of operations and to establish an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy." - Joseph Farah
The solution will presumably be that US, UN, or Israeli troops will be sent in to enforce the old system. Or maybe Joseph Farah will get his way and we'll expel or exterminate the "surplus Muslims."
So in other words, what is being pushed here is that WE or our allies occupy Lebanon, not that it truly become independent.
And as John Laughland points out, why should we assume that only Syria is willing to stage events to keep control of Lebanon? Why is it so inconceivable that the US or one or more of its allies or both might be involved in the anti-Syrian protests and anti-Syrian activities in recent days?
That is not all. Not nearly by half.
The idea that getting Syria out will magically lead to peace and democracy in Lebanon is ridiculous.
The idea that the Muslim Lebanese will agree to letting the Christians have constitutionally-guaranteed overrepresentation in parliament is likewise ridiculous.
Of course, the neocons know this, and so they are already preparing to blame Syria when violence breaks out.
"Assad is likely to counter by having his agents and Hezbollah foment violence against pro-democracy demonstrators to justify his claim that a Syrian military presence is needed to keep Lebanon from lapsing back into civil war." - "Hack" Kelly
And once they have done that, they will likely legitimize overrepresentation in the parliament by denying the legitimacy of the claims of Lebanese Muslims:
"During renditions of the Lebanese national anthem, Lebanese in the crowd noticed that many of the participants were Syrians unfamiliar with the words." - Washington Times
"Those Syrian guest workers, it follows, are pretty likely to show up at a rally in support of Syria, particularly because the withdrawal of Syrian troops might seriously complicate their lives in Lebanon -- a story we'd like to hear more about." - Columbia Journalism Review
"The answer is simple: Many or most of those rallying in favor of Syria are not really Lebanese at all... But there is another occupying force in Lebanon today – tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iranians or Iranian-backed militiamen and civilians who have emigrated with the express purpose of using Lebanon as a base of operations and to establish an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy." - Joseph Farah
The solution will presumably be that US, UN, or Israeli troops will be sent in to enforce the old system. Or maybe Joseph Farah will get his way and we'll expel or exterminate the "surplus Muslims."
So in other words, what is being pushed here is that WE or our allies occupy Lebanon, not that it truly become independent.
And as John Laughland points out, why should we assume that only Syria is willing to stage events to keep control of Lebanon? Why is it so inconceivable that the US or one or more of its allies or both might be involved in the anti-Syrian protests and anti-Syrian activities in recent days?
That is not all. Not nearly by half.
On Jeff Gannon and Bush
The thing that people who defend Bush on the Gannon affair and who accuse the critics of Jeff Gannon of "homophobia" (For example, the neocon blonde bimbo) don't seem to understand is that the real issue here is governmental manipulation of the media.
The concern here is whether the Bush administration is trying to push propaganda disguised as journalism.
The typical neocon response is that due to the liberal media, all journalism is propaganda anyway, so they have every right to make their own.
Well, I hate to say this, but there is a big difference between a news report being biased and between it being controlled by the government, or the administration, it is reporting on. That Sean Hannity is biased in favor of Bush if far different than Jeff Gannon apparently being given special access by the administration (presumably) in return for reporting propaganda, just as there is a difference in a court case between a judge being prejudiced by his personal beliefs and having a personal conflict of interest.
It is in this light that I give this link to an entry on the antiwar.com blog where Bush essentially says that the administration bears no responsibility if the administration gives propaganda ("prepackaged stories" called "video news releases") to the media and the media does not disclose the source.
Here is the link.
That is all.
The concern here is whether the Bush administration is trying to push propaganda disguised as journalism.
The typical neocon response is that due to the liberal media, all journalism is propaganda anyway, so they have every right to make their own.
Well, I hate to say this, but there is a big difference between a news report being biased and between it being controlled by the government, or the administration, it is reporting on. That Sean Hannity is biased in favor of Bush if far different than Jeff Gannon apparently being given special access by the administration (presumably) in return for reporting propaganda, just as there is a difference in a court case between a judge being prejudiced by his personal beliefs and having a personal conflict of interest.
It is in this light that I give this link to an entry on the antiwar.com blog where Bush essentially says that the administration bears no responsibility if the administration gives propaganda ("prepackaged stories" called "video news releases") to the media and the media does not disclose the source.
Here is the link.
That is all.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Chalabi the Uniter?
According to Riverbend, Chalabi may be the force that unites Iraqis of all diffferent political, strips and religious persuasions.
They all think he's a crook.
Well, except for the Iraqis Michael Al-Rubin and Barbara al-Lerner.
That is all.
They all think he's a crook.
Well, except for the Iraqis Michael Al-Rubin and Barbara al-Lerner.
That is all.
More According to Andrew
"Once you have accepted that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, the arguments against same-sex marriage collapse. And since the only coherent moral difference is the likelihood of non-procreative sex, and that is now the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage, there is no moral case against allowing gay couples to have civil marriage. The rest is fear and prejudice and religious conviction. None should have a place as a legal argument in the courts."
Then there is no argument against marrying one's close relatives either, as long as one does not have children with them. At the very least, homosexual incestuous marriage must be allowed, as inbreeding would not be an issue.
That is all.
Then there is no argument against marrying one's close relatives either, as long as one does not have children with them. At the very least, homosexual incestuous marriage must be allowed, as inbreeding would not be an issue.
That is all.
According to Andrew
Andrew Sullivan believes that there is hypocrisy in lamenting Al Qaqaa:
"But it's also true that you cannot both lament the plundering of al Qaqaa and other sites and insist that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war. Both sides have some reckoning to do."
Well, if the only evidence that there were no WMDs is that we haven't found any, maybe.
However,
(a) Al Qaqaa contained explosives, not WMDs.
(b) That there was systematic looting does not imply that he looting would be so effective as to remove all usable WMDs from Iraq.
(c) If there were usable WMDs, why would the Iraqqis hide them or move htem to other countries rather than (i) use them on the US, or if they liked the US and wanted to be "liberated," (ii) show them to the US to prove their existence?
I'm not certain that Al Qaqaa is the big screw-up that the Kerry supporters thought it was, but there is no hypocrisy in thinking that we let our guard down but doubting that the Iraqis maneaged to conceal stocklpiles of WMDs completely.
That is all.
"But it's also true that you cannot both lament the plundering of al Qaqaa and other sites and insist that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war. Both sides have some reckoning to do."
Well, if the only evidence that there were no WMDs is that we haven't found any, maybe.
However,
(a) Al Qaqaa contained explosives, not WMDs.
(b) That there was systematic looting does not imply that he looting would be so effective as to remove all usable WMDs from Iraq.
(c) If there were usable WMDs, why would the Iraqqis hide them or move htem to other countries rather than (i) use them on the US, or if they liked the US and wanted to be "liberated," (ii) show them to the US to prove their existence?
I'm not certain that Al Qaqaa is the big screw-up that the Kerry supporters thought it was, but there is no hypocrisy in thinking that we let our guard down but doubting that the Iraqis maneaged to conceal stocklpiles of WMDs completely.
That is all.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Funny Quote from Cochran:
From the latest print edition of The American Conservative:
"Compared to [the Iraqis], the Italians of World War II were unkillable demons of battle."
Hee hee hee.
"Compared to [the Iraqis], the Italians of World War II were unkillable demons of battle."
Hee hee hee.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Sgrena v. Hariri
Matthew Barganier weighs in on the shooting of Giuliana Sgrena and Nicola Calipari.
His point: It is unlikely that the US would have attempted to assassinate her because, even if we assume that the US military is morally capable of doing so, such an action would have too many drawbacks and too little benefit.
For the same reason, the attempts to blame Syria for the assassination of Rafik Hariri make no sense - or rather, the arguments that Syria killed him make no sense - that people who hate Syria wish to blame Syria makes perfect sense.
That is all.
His point: It is unlikely that the US would have attempted to assassinate her because, even if we assume that the US military is morally capable of doing so, such an action would have too many drawbacks and too little benefit.
For the same reason, the attempts to blame Syria for the assassination of Rafik Hariri make no sense - or rather, the arguments that Syria killed him make no sense - that people who hate Syria wish to blame Syria makes perfect sense.
That is all.
On the Lefkow Murders
It was previously thought that white supremacists/separatists were behindthe deaths of Judge Joan Lefkpw's mother and her husband. I myself thought that "it seems to me most likely that some of [Matthew Hale's] fellow travelers did this.."
It now appears that this is not the case.
That is all.
It now appears that this is not the case.
That is all.
Steroids
My personal take on steroids in sports is that they represent an unfair advantage and ought to be banned.
However, this is not the job of the federal government. It is the job of the individual sports league. If the weightlifting league or the baseball leagues want to let the Schwarzeneggers and the Cansecos use, then that is their right. But personally, I would take steps to prohibit steroid use were I a commissioner in one of those sports.
As steve Sailer has pointed out, sports have rules and there is nothing untoward with the league determining that steroids are an unfair advantage, anything more than there is wrong with people running a cross-country running meet determining that you cannot use a motorcycle to "run" the course.
On the other hand, it should be the league's call, not the federal government's.
That is all.
However, this is not the job of the federal government. It is the job of the individual sports league. If the weightlifting league or the baseball leagues want to let the Schwarzeneggers and the Cansecos use, then that is their right. But personally, I would take steps to prohibit steroid use were I a commissioner in one of those sports.
As steve Sailer has pointed out, sports have rules and there is nothing untoward with the league determining that steroids are an unfair advantage, anything more than there is wrong with people running a cross-country running meet determining that you cannot use a motorcycle to "run" the course.
On the other hand, it should be the league's call, not the federal government's.
That is all.
Friday, March 11, 2005
On Rathergate
I apparently haven't posted it on my blog, and quite likely nowhere else on the net either, but my theory as to how Dan Rather and others at CBS justify the publishing of forged documents (as well as how various liberals who defend them choosing to publish justify the publication) is that they feel that the content of the notes were true, so it doesn't matter whether those notes were genuine or not.
In other words, it's like a cop who plants evidence, but feels that the person he arrested was guilty, he just couldn't prove it, so planting evidence to make certain that the correct verdict is obtained is OK.
Obviously, this is a morally bankrupt position, because determination of the truth needs to be based on the evidence. Once evidence is determined based on what someone feels the truth is, in essence evidence itself becomes worthless, as it is simply a tool for propaganda rather than a means of confirming or refuting claims. In other words, if someone is willing to manufacture evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, on what basis can the conclusion have been made?
Bill Press, on WorldNetDaily, defends Dan Rather using the argument I outlined previously: we all know that Bush dodged the draft, so what difference does it make whether we found the actual documents or used forged ones? After all, the forged ones were probably what hte real documents looked like, so what harm was done?
The harm, Mr. Press, is that "everyone knows" is not a substitute for evidence, and the conclusion should follow the evidence, not the evidence follow the conclusion.
To be honest, the Byzantine intricacies of whether or not Bush did his duty in the guard bore me. Some feel that he was given special treatment and let out of some requirements, others insist that whenever he appeared to get away with shirking, he was within regs (e.g. he didn't complete a flight test, but the proper plane, the type he had trained on, was not available at the time).
I don't care. I have nothing against anyone who did anything (short of violence) to get out of being enslaved by the military and Shanghaied (or Saigoned) to Vietnam.
Moreover, I am not particularly upset about the use of the forged documents; networks make mistakes, and sometimes jump the gun and don't check their sources. Not that the documents should have been used, but I am willing to forgive it if it was an honest mistake.
However, I am deeply disturbed by the attempts to justify the use of the forged papers, and by Rather's unwillingness to admit that he had been duped (assuming that he was not complicit in the fraud). To use a fraudulent paper unwittingly is one thing, and understandable; to refuse to retract anything or apologize after it has been discovered that the paper is false is something altogether different, and outrageous.
That is all.
In other words, it's like a cop who plants evidence, but feels that the person he arrested was guilty, he just couldn't prove it, so planting evidence to make certain that the correct verdict is obtained is OK.
Obviously, this is a morally bankrupt position, because determination of the truth needs to be based on the evidence. Once evidence is determined based on what someone feels the truth is, in essence evidence itself becomes worthless, as it is simply a tool for propaganda rather than a means of confirming or refuting claims. In other words, if someone is willing to manufacture evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, on what basis can the conclusion have been made?
Bill Press, on WorldNetDaily, defends Dan Rather using the argument I outlined previously: we all know that Bush dodged the draft, so what difference does it make whether we found the actual documents or used forged ones? After all, the forged ones were probably what hte real documents looked like, so what harm was done?
The harm, Mr. Press, is that "everyone knows" is not a substitute for evidence, and the conclusion should follow the evidence, not the evidence follow the conclusion.
To be honest, the Byzantine intricacies of whether or not Bush did his duty in the guard bore me. Some feel that he was given special treatment and let out of some requirements, others insist that whenever he appeared to get away with shirking, he was within regs (e.g. he didn't complete a flight test, but the proper plane, the type he had trained on, was not available at the time).
I don't care. I have nothing against anyone who did anything (short of violence) to get out of being enslaved by the military and Shanghaied (or Saigoned) to Vietnam.
Moreover, I am not particularly upset about the use of the forged documents; networks make mistakes, and sometimes jump the gun and don't check their sources. Not that the documents should have been used, but I am willing to forgive it if it was an honest mistake.
However, I am deeply disturbed by the attempts to justify the use of the forged papers, and by Rather's unwillingness to admit that he had been duped (assuming that he was not complicit in the fraud). To use a fraudulent paper unwittingly is one thing, and understandable; to refuse to retract anything or apologize after it has been discovered that the paper is false is something altogether different, and outrageous.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)