Creative Destruction has added me to their blogroll.
Naturally, I am reciprocating.
That is all.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Army We Could Have Had
There has been a lot of brouhaha over the years bout Rumsfeld's statement that "you go to war with the Army you have."
Both conservative Lawrence Auster and liberal Matthew Yglesias have pointed out that going to war in Iraq with large army was impossible, because we didn't have the army that would be required (although Yglesias believes that to be one reason why we shouldn't have gone and Auster thinks that we had to go, because he still believes the old line that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs). Lots of conservatives have blamed Clinton for gutting the U.S. military.
But few have pointed out the fact that Bush has had five years since 9/11, and we have seen no major push to increase the size of the army. So while we can blame others for the fact that our army was too small for Iraq, the fact that it is still too small to hold onto Iraq must be at least partially blamed on Bush.
Granted, we are not getting enough volunteers to double the size of the army currently, but that just means that the government isn't offering enough incentives, such as higher pay or better benefits. Bush tried this war on the cheap, and we are paying the price.
That is all.
Both conservative Lawrence Auster and liberal Matthew Yglesias have pointed out that going to war in Iraq with large army was impossible, because we didn't have the army that would be required (although Yglesias believes that to be one reason why we shouldn't have gone and Auster thinks that we had to go, because he still believes the old line that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs). Lots of conservatives have blamed Clinton for gutting the U.S. military.
But few have pointed out the fact that Bush has had five years since 9/11, and we have seen no major push to increase the size of the army. So while we can blame others for the fact that our army was too small for Iraq, the fact that it is still too small to hold onto Iraq must be at least partially blamed on Bush.
Granted, we are not getting enough volunteers to double the size of the army currently, but that just means that the government isn't offering enough incentives, such as higher pay or better benefits. Bush tried this war on the cheap, and we are paying the price.
That is all.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Typical Neocon Play
When all else fails, blame the doubters for your failed policy.
It's a clever ruse. If the doubters continue to dout, blame all failures on their lack of nerve. If they syop doubting, you can avoid their criticism by saying "everyone supported it."
Ol' Penny also brings up that old chestnut, if we would be willing to slaughter a whole bunch of Iraqis now and let God sort 'em out, it will reduce the long-term suffering. An easy excuse for pooh-poohing concerns about power abuse.
In reality, he is half-right. Genocidal fury unleashed is the one thing that can pacify Iraq. However, I doubt that it will reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people, and I further doubt that down the road it would be good for us, either.
That is all.
It's a clever ruse. If the doubters continue to dout, blame all failures on their lack of nerve. If they syop doubting, you can avoid their criticism by saying "everyone supported it."
Ol' Penny also brings up that old chestnut, if we would be willing to slaughter a whole bunch of Iraqis now and let God sort 'em out, it will reduce the long-term suffering. An easy excuse for pooh-poohing concerns about power abuse.
In reality, he is half-right. Genocidal fury unleashed is the one thing that can pacify Iraq. However, I doubt that it will reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people, and I further doubt that down the road it would be good for us, either.
That is all.
Friday, November 17, 2006
What You Cannot Say, Part Two
This piece by Jonah Goldberg is interesting for what it does not say rather than for what it does. He is worried about qualified Asian students getting passed over for less qualified blacks and Latinos due to affirmative action. He also points out that affirmative acion was intended to be temporary, but is now permanent.
But notice that nowhere does he speculate as to why affirmative action didn't work when it was done as a temporary measure, or why blacks and Latinos stll can't see to meet the normal wualifications for elite law schools at rates approaching their representation in the population.
Nor does he offer any real solutions to helping blacks and Latinos (1) improve their performance, or (2) to participate in our society productively in other ways if their performance in this area cannot be improved.
Until we deal with the issue of why racial disparities exist and how to either fix them or deal with them, there will never be any real clear debate on affirmative action, just a bunch of nibbling at the fringes.
That is all.
But notice that nowhere does he speculate as to why affirmative action didn't work when it was done as a temporary measure, or why blacks and Latinos stll can't see to meet the normal wualifications for elite law schools at rates approaching their representation in the population.
Nor does he offer any real solutions to helping blacks and Latinos (1) improve their performance, or (2) to participate in our society productively in other ways if their performance in this area cannot be improved.
Until we deal with the issue of why racial disparities exist and how to either fix them or deal with them, there will never be any real clear debate on affirmative action, just a bunch of nibbling at the fringes.
That is all.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Pro-War Lie #7
(Okay, I just made that number up. I was going to give it a larger number, like 785 or something, but I figured that among pro-war lies, this was near the top ten).
the Iraqi insurgency is mostly foreign-based and will subside if we attack Syria and Iran.
More commentary on this coming.
That is all.
the Iraqi insurgency is mostly foreign-based and will subside if we attack Syria and Iran.
More commentary on this coming.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Joseph Farah is Right - Sort of
Genocidal slaughter is the only way to win in Iraq - if by winning we mean pacifying the country, not making Iraq a self-sustaining democracy (which is impossible in my opinion). The question is, is it necessary or desirable to win in this way, rather than to simply declare victory and leave (which could still be considered winning if we define winning by the removal of Saddam and not by the pacification of Iraq as it now exists).
That is all.
That is all.
Quote of the Day
Putting up with the inflated self-regards of Hollywood artistes is the price we pay for the occasional non-moronic movie. -Steve Sailer
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
Let's Be Honest
Every time Matthew Yglesias or Tamar Jacoby open their gaping yawps, another person is converted into a (Kevin) MacDonaldite.
On Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David once said that his brother's obnoxious behavior was the cause of most of the antisemitism in the U.S.* Obviously he has not heard of Matt or Tamar.
That is all.
* Or something along those lines.
On Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David once said that his brother's obnoxious behavior was the cause of most of the antisemitism in the U.S.* Obviously he has not heard of Matt or Tamar.
That is all.
* Or something along those lines.
What We Cannot Say
All of the brouhaha over the new film Borat, featuring a Jewish comedian portraying a stereotypical Polish man mispronouncing "Poland" as "Kazakhistan" brought something to mind that has been bothering me for a while, but not enough so that I would post about it.
It is strange that in the current culture, we can laugh at things while having to deny what we are actually laughing at. In this case, we are laughing at eastern European Gentile stereotypes (okay, I admit that all of this part of it I amn taking from Steve Sailer), but pretending to be laughing about people from a more isolated area (the reason being, of course, that Kazakhistanis have not entered our national consciousness enough for people to be worried about offending them as much as we would Jews, Poles, or Gypsies. Plus, unlike Arabs and Muslims, we aren't as worried about retribution [Salman Rushdie, anyone?]
What this brings to mind is something they had on VH1 a year or so ago. It was something like "100 funniest television moments," and one of them was about Crank Yankers character "Special Ed." (Crank Yankers is a show where they re-enact prank phone calls with puppets). When describing him, he was described as "a really enthusiastic kid," or something like that.
At no point did anyone mention that he was mentalli retarded, or even say something along those lines. Which one might argue was necessary, because to mention that fact would be offensive. But for Pete's sake, that he was mentally retarded was the entire joke to his character! His name made fun of the classes that people with mental deficiencies (amongst others) take. So it's okay to make fun of the retarded, provided you don't actually admit that that is what you are doing.
It's as if there was a skit about a black man with huge lips eating a watermelon, and people laughed at it and called it funny, but for some reason no one pointed out that the humor was based on racial stereotypes. Is it somehow less offensive if you pretend not to know what the joke is?
This also reminds me of the Supreme Court case a few years back about affirmative action, where it was ruled (essentially), that affirmative action was okay provided that you were vague enough about ho it worked. Any method of affirmative action that actually quantified anything or that had any sort of paper trail to show how it worked was verboten.
Something is very wrong in a society where this level of hypocrisy is maintained.
That is all.
It is strange that in the current culture, we can laugh at things while having to deny what we are actually laughing at. In this case, we are laughing at eastern European Gentile stereotypes (okay, I admit that all of this part of it I amn taking from Steve Sailer), but pretending to be laughing about people from a more isolated area (the reason being, of course, that Kazakhistanis have not entered our national consciousness enough for people to be worried about offending them as much as we would Jews, Poles, or Gypsies. Plus, unlike Arabs and Muslims, we aren't as worried about retribution [Salman Rushdie, anyone?]
What this brings to mind is something they had on VH1 a year or so ago. It was something like "100 funniest television moments," and one of them was about Crank Yankers character "Special Ed." (Crank Yankers is a show where they re-enact prank phone calls with puppets). When describing him, he was described as "a really enthusiastic kid," or something like that.
At no point did anyone mention that he was mentalli retarded, or even say something along those lines. Which one might argue was necessary, because to mention that fact would be offensive. But for Pete's sake, that he was mentally retarded was the entire joke to his character! His name made fun of the classes that people with mental deficiencies (amongst others) take. So it's okay to make fun of the retarded, provided you don't actually admit that that is what you are doing.
It's as if there was a skit about a black man with huge lips eating a watermelon, and people laughed at it and called it funny, but for some reason no one pointed out that the humor was based on racial stereotypes. Is it somehow less offensive if you pretend not to know what the joke is?
This also reminds me of the Supreme Court case a few years back about affirmative action, where it was ruled (essentially), that affirmative action was okay provided that you were vague enough about ho it worked. Any method of affirmative action that actually quantified anything or that had any sort of paper trail to show how it worked was verboten.
Something is very wrong in a society where this level of hypocrisy is maintained.
That is all.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Thought for the Day
When people wonder why initiatives to cut spending and lower taxes are not more successful, the answer is obvious: because we let the parasites vote.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Thoughts on the Saddam Verdict
It's good that he has been sentenced. However, I doubt that it will change much in Iraq, as Saddam is unlikely to be of much use to the multiple insurgencies. I don't think that any of the insurgents ever thought he would get back in power, even if the Ba'ath Party were to take over again. And the idea that one of my friends suggested, that there are lots of people in Iraq who love us and want to help us, but who are not doing so because Saddam is still alive and they fear he will make a comeback - I sseriously doubt that there are a significant number of people in Iraq whose actions for or against us are determined by thoughts about Saddam's fate.
Definitely some will protest his execution, because as a Sunni Arab, he on some level is considered to be representative of the Sunnis in general. He is, in a sense, their man, and they will object to his execution for that reason (even if it is a pro forma gesture), or because as Sunnis they fear reprisals or alienation from other Sunnis if they are not seen as "part of the team." However, I doubt that many really have their heart in it for Saddam's sake, and likely this will pass quickly, as they have far more pressing concerns that they will insurge for.
That is all.
Definitely some will protest his execution, because as a Sunni Arab, he on some level is considered to be representative of the Sunnis in general. He is, in a sense, their man, and they will object to his execution for that reason (even if it is a pro forma gesture), or because as Sunnis they fear reprisals or alienation from other Sunnis if they are not seen as "part of the team." However, I doubt that many really have their heart in it for Saddam's sake, and likely this will pass quickly, as they have far more pressing concerns that they will insurge for.
That is all.
Monday, November 06, 2006
I Agree with Penraker on Something!
Although I find him to be a bit of a hack on Iraq issues, Penraker certainly has some good points on the euthanasia issue.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if every time a liberal shows a pro-life person who speaks out against birth control and uses him as evidence that all pro-lifers are against birth control and that the movement is really about controlling women, what he would do if someone put out an article like this and suggested that the pro-choice movement was really about eliminating the inconvenient.
Certainly some feminists seem to have few qualms with a woman committing (post-natal) infanticide, although they express their upsetness at society that she was forced into it. In fact, her biggest objection is that it is a more inconvenient form of birth control than abortion:
I think it would be a hideous form of birth-control, because you would still have to go through the stress and danger of nine months of pregnancy.
Notice how she doesn't really care if the baby suffers or not. Or maybe it's not a baby, it's a post-gestational fetus.
That is all.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if every time a liberal shows a pro-life person who speaks out against birth control and uses him as evidence that all pro-lifers are against birth control and that the movement is really about controlling women, what he would do if someone put out an article like this and suggested that the pro-choice movement was really about eliminating the inconvenient.
Certainly some feminists seem to have few qualms with a woman committing (post-natal) infanticide, although they express their upsetness at society that she was forced into it. In fact, her biggest objection is that it is a more inconvenient form of birth control than abortion:
I think it would be a hideous form of birth-control, because you would still have to go through the stress and danger of nine months of pregnancy.
Notice how she doesn't really care if the baby suffers or not. Or maybe it's not a baby, it's a post-gestational fetus.
That is all.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Same-Sex "Marriage"
Jim Kalb makes the best argument about why the ideology behind it is faulty that I have yet seen.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Mean Mr. Mustard.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Mean Mr. Mustard.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)