I thought about Joe's post: Politics Trumps Morals referenced below. For lots of folks, I think it is not so much politics that trumps morals, it is anger about politics. When you are still blind with rage over Bush v. Gore (or Clinton v. Lewinsky) you can't see your own behavior rationally enough to avoid immorality.
To test this, image some policital event which would really enrage you, then imagine your reaction. Does immorality emerge?
Saturday, November 29, 2003
My Votes In The New Weblog Showcase - Week Ending Nov 30
From BaySense, a post called, About BaySense (first post) which describes the blogs aims, to whit, a critique of the environmental movement by an insider.
From Joe's Thoughts, a post called Politics Trumps Morals, which advocates elevating ones morals above ones politics.
From Joe's Thoughts, a post called Politics Trumps Morals, which advocates elevating ones morals above ones politics.
I Cried Too
This letter from a daughter to her father made me cry. Via a geek with a .45 post called Tears.
An Amusing Nobel Laureate
Via geek with a .45 meet the very amusing Dr. Kary Mullis. He really is a stitch. And don't miss the docto's web site.
The League of Liberals Games The Ecosystem
N.Z. Bear complains that some members of the League of Liberals are gaming the Ecosystem to improve their rankings. No, that's too obvious. I better not say that either. Gee it would be fun to say that but it's only true in a few sad cases. Better not say that, my side was caught doing it too....
Seriously, at least two members of the League are also very unhappy about this. This post was updated to reflect their displeasure. See the comments to N.Z. Bear's post as well as this.
Seriously, at least two members of the League are also very unhappy about this. This post was updated to reflect their displeasure. See the comments to N.Z. Bear's post as well as this.
So What Do The Iraqis Really Think About Bush's Visit
The Kansas City Star leads with this headline, BUSH DRAWS IRE, PRAISE FROM IRAQIS. Rascally registration required. Remarkably, they don't actually give any quotes which demonstrate praise. First Iraqi quote:
Instapundit notes positive Iraqi feedback.
Instapundit also has some praise for Senator Clinton.
“He came for only two hours. He didn't see how the Iraqis are living and suffering,” said Fatima Star, 38, a housewife. “He doesn't care about the Iraqi people. He only cares about his troops.”Second Iraqi quote:
“He wants to gain political favor from people in the United States before the elections,” said Mathil Aziz, 26, a teacher. “He cares more about his own personal interest than the Iraqi people.”The third Iraqi quote was presented after a positive paragraph:
Others welcomed Bush's visit as a sign that he and the United States remain committed to reconstructing Iraq, even as suicide bombers and guerrillas kill American soldiers on a near-daily basis.Fourth Iraqi quote:
“Maybe the security situation will get better now,” said Haider Khadim, 29, a tailor.
Khadim and other Iraqis said, however, that they wished Bush had addressed the Iraqi people separately. Like the U.S. soldiers, Iraqis also need their morale boosted, they said.
“The U.S. Army has many leaders,” said Khadim. “But we don't have any leaders. We don't have anyone to follow. He should have given a speech to the Iraqi people, not just the American soldiers.”
“Bush's visit to Iraq was a big illusion,” he said, sitting at an outdoor cafe with his wife. “No Iraqi should welcome him because there's no improvement in our society. Whether he came or not, we're still in a bad situation.”Fifth Iraqi quote:
“American forces should stay here now,” yelled Aziz Al Yasseri, one of the rally's leaders, into a megaphone. “If they leave, who will take the responsibility for going after the terrorists?”Only Clinton quote:
“I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking,” the former first lady said. “I don't see that it's forthcoming.”I wonder what the Star News Services actually sent. Why does the headline promise praise and the body not deliver? I hope Bill Dennis at The Peoria Pundit reads this. I bet he can explain how this came about.
Instapundit notes positive Iraqi feedback.
Instapundit also has some praise for Senator Clinton.
Where Are Our Courageous Legislators?
Francis W. Poretto wishes we would get legislators with some courage, and explains why we need them. Be sure and click on the links, especially the second one.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Thanksgiving Remembrances From Our Curmudgeon
Francis W. Porretto remembers a Thanksgiving past in ways funny, philosophical, thankful and wise. My wife and my mom also liked this post. Mom says you could turn pro if you want to, Francis.
The Press Comes Through
My hometown paper, The Kansas City Star, had a section yesterday called Rebuilding Iraq. Thanks, folks! Can't find it on the web yet. I may have more later, post shopping.
The Fountain of Youth Is Shaped Like A Diamond
Francis is not the only great writer I read. Take a gander at Joe Posnanski's Thanksgiving Day column to find out how to be young again. Registration (darn it) required
We've Saved 13000 Lives In Iraq So Far
Bill Whittle does the math. We must stay in Iraq until the job is done. If we cut and run, we are encouraging attacks on American ships, embassies and even our soil. Ducking out on Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia taught our enemies to wait us out and take advantage of the bias in our press and our leader's lack of backbone. 9/11 was the direct result of our dishonorable actions in those places. Don't go unless you plan to win.
People, Not Policy
From the comment thread on this post on zero tolerence (scroll down a little) by the geek with a .45, I explained why I don't like laws:
Laws, processes, procedures, policies and regulations do not have brains. Students, teachers, principles, judges and parents have brains. Zero tolerence policies place people with brains in the service of objects without brains. This can't produce good results.But the geek, in an excellent analysis, explains how laws should be used:
The way I explain it is that a policy/procedure or procedure AT BEST can be an IMPLEMENTATION of a PRINCIPLE that makes sense in a given CONTEXT to effect a desired OUTCOME.He's on the blogroll.
The moment the context shifts, the policy/procedure is no longer valid, and the outcome is likely to be perverse.
On the other hand, a well founded PRINCIPLE can be applied to ANY context, and only beings imbued with sentience and good judgement are capable of that.
I've always found the assertion that a mere policy is somehow superior to the application of a root principle by the considered judgement of a sentient being to be offensive.
Good On Em Both!
George Bush visits the troops and counts coup on our enemies. Being appreciated by the man in charge is wonderful. Good for the president!
James R. Rummel on the same.
Kim du Toit weighes in.
John Cole has a round-up of the reaction from some of the most prominent lefty sites. Via Wizbang.
Cori Dauber on Rantingprofs explains that this visit is grandly symbolic (the bully pulpit is an important Presidential function) and gives the sourgrapes from the uninivited press corps. More sour grapes here and here.
The Peoria Pundit praises the President, and predicts unfounded complaints. His prediction comes true.
DaveL on Deinonychus antirrhopus gets the absurd reaction from Democratic Underground.
Courtney points out that the President may just have wanted to do a good deed. Via Wizbang.
Atrios reports and some of his commenters are disgusted. Via John Cole
Dean Esmay has the President's speech.
Senator Clinton visits the troops in Afghanistan. Let's keep them in our thought and prayers, too, along with our folks in Bosnia, Korea and Kosovo, among many other places. Good for the senator! If Hillary won the Presidency I think she would fight the war on terror well. There is steel in that lady's backbone. You can see it in her eyes. She reminds me of Tony Blair. They both will defend the West, but their domestic politics are resolutely against the little guy. I was hoping to see a mention of how she'd had a religious experience on her way there and was resigning her Senate seat in favor of missionary work in India, but no such luck.
Dean Esmay on the same.
Both of these trips made good use of the bully pulpit to raise morale for the troops out there and those of us who support the war at home. You can tell they were good ideas by both the positive and the negative reactions it gets and who makes them. These were classy gestures - and since this war is also being fought in our hearts and minds - important ones.
James R. Rummel on the same.
Kim du Toit weighes in.
John Cole has a round-up of the reaction from some of the most prominent lefty sites. Via Wizbang.
Cori Dauber on Rantingprofs explains that this visit is grandly symbolic (the bully pulpit is an important Presidential function) and gives the sourgrapes from the uninivited press corps. More sour grapes here and here.
The Peoria Pundit praises the President, and predicts unfounded complaints. His prediction comes true.
DaveL on Deinonychus antirrhopus gets the absurd reaction from Democratic Underground.
Courtney points out that the President may just have wanted to do a good deed. Via Wizbang.
Atrios reports and some of his commenters are disgusted. Via John Cole
Dean Esmay has the President's speech.
Senator Clinton visits the troops in Afghanistan. Let's keep them in our thought and prayers, too, along with our folks in Bosnia, Korea and Kosovo, among many other places. Good for the senator! If Hillary won the Presidency I think she would fight the war on terror well. There is steel in that lady's backbone. You can see it in her eyes. She reminds me of Tony Blair. They both will defend the West, but their domestic politics are resolutely against the little guy. I was hoping to see a mention of how she'd had a religious experience on her way there and was resigning her Senate seat in favor of missionary work in India, but no such luck.
Dean Esmay on the same.
Both of these trips made good use of the bully pulpit to raise morale for the troops out there and those of us who support the war at home. You can tell they were good ideas by both the positive and the negative reactions it gets and who makes them. These were classy gestures - and since this war is also being fought in our hearts and minds - important ones.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
The Strategic Beauty Of The Iraqi Campaign
Do you play chess? The battle against Hussein is such a fabulous move in the war against Arab Fascism because it works on so many levels. It's like moving your knight into a position where it is triply protected and it attacks five enemy pieces including the King and the Queen.
The case for battle against Hussein is thus:
1. We were already at war against him.
2. The ongoing war against him was tying up American resources anyway.
3. Iraq was a problem that hadn't been solved.
4. The solutions we were trying were showing few signs of working and there was increasing pressure to abandon them.
5. Keeping a large number of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to keep pressure on Hussein was expensive, unlikely to correct his WMD problem, very unlikely to result in his overthrow and even more unlikely to result in his replacement with a significantly better government.
6. Many of our troops were based in Saudi Arabia. This both upset Muslims who didn't want kufr in the Holy Land and demoralized our troops since the Saudi's treat kufr like excrement.
7. Iraq had WMD's and had used them in the past. They may have destroyed them before the war, but nobody on the left or right, in Europe or America believed this at the time.
8. Iraq supported terrorists with logistics, training and cash, including Al Quaeda.
9. Saudi Arabia is the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism, especially ideologically.
10. Saudi Arabia had been our ally for many years and had fought alongside us in the first Gulf War.
11. As a democracy it is difficult and takes time to consider an ally to be an enemy.
12. Attacking Saudi Arabia could easily escalate in a major world-wide war with Islamic nations, and could go nuclear.
13. Saudi Arabia does have all that oil.
14. OTOH almost everyone hated Hussein.
15. Having all the Iraqi oil online will make the Saudi oil less crucial and it will lower oil prices which cuts their ability to fund terrorists and it will boost our economy which makes paying for the war easier.
16. It puts pressure on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt.
17. It pays off fabulously well in a humanitarian way.
18. It allows us to address a root cause of Islamic hatred by ceasing to support repressive dictators and bringing the very best thing we've got, democracy, to the Arab world. This is a worthy, positive goal to shedding our blood and spending our money. Not just fighting Communism or fighting Fascism, but promoting democracy.
19. I really hate 'He may be a dictator, but he's our dictator'. If you bring up Uzbekistan, please realize that I don't like their government and wish we could dump them but we can't do everything at once.
20. We've actually been pretty good at midwifing democracies when we stick with it. Sometimes it takes a long time. Here's a list: The Philippines, Western Europe (which was very iffy after WWII), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
21. We're also very good at creating repressive dictatorships when we bug out before victory: North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, Angola, Somalia and Afghanistan.
The battle against Hussein has risks. The second biggest is that we bug out before mutual victory. The biggest is that when we bug out prematurely we end up with something much worse. Mutual victory is a good government in Iraq with a healthy relationship with the US.
The biggest problem with Iraq is that it is a war. To many this is like saying the biggest problem with my plan for personal wealth is that it involves a murder. They are completely repulsed by war. My reply is that we were already at war with Iraq. It was just a low level war with a large amount of red on red civilian casualties (Hussein's strategy seemed to be to kill more of his own people to claim we were creating a human right tragedy).
I had read about and considered all this before the war, which is why my opinion changed from unsure to blood-thirsty war-monger. I don't think Bush deceived us, because I don't feel deceived. To me it seems like a no-brainer, but then I'm not actually a very good chess player, nor do I seem to have written any respected military histories.
I've never had to promote or sell a war to a republic. In addition, Bush could not emphasize all these points because they could have driven other countries into the Iraqi camp. Perhaps his sales job could have been better. It seems to me that Tony Blair is good at that sort of thing, and look at what a hard time he is having.
Is your stand against the Iraqi campaign a no-brainer for you? Are you repulsed by war? Do you have trust issues with Bush? Do you dispute most of my claims? Since there are so many positives, I think you have to discredit a lot of them as well as come up with some big negatives to convince me the Iraqi campaign is a mistake.
Steve Malynn points out that 1-8, 16-18, 21 and 22 of my points above are expressly addressed in the Joint Resolution that authorized force in Iraq. (I don't know where he got number 22.)
I've often heard cries for liberals to provide counter strategy if they don't like Bush's. It is very difficult to come up with a different strategy because, well, strategy is really hard. I do hear doves, both liberal and conservative, make intelligent arguments against the Iraqi campaign. Note that there is a difference between 1) intelligent, 2) convincing and 3) absolutely free of logical errors. #2 is harder. #3 is way harder. Not sure I've ever seen #3 on any side. Jerry Pournelle, who has written important works on military strategy, has some excellent arguments against it, which can be summarized as follows: This march (accidental or not) towards an American Empire will doom the Republic and make serfs of our descendants.
Jerry also offers alternative strategies.
Jerry cannot, however, be described as a leftist. Too bad more leftists don't read his stuff.
Note: I pulled this from the comment thread of two posts by Dean Esmay. I know this post isn't well written but I like it anyway.
The case for battle against Hussein is thus:
1. We were already at war against him.
2. The ongoing war against him was tying up American resources anyway.
3. Iraq was a problem that hadn't been solved.
4. The solutions we were trying were showing few signs of working and there was increasing pressure to abandon them.
5. Keeping a large number of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to keep pressure on Hussein was expensive, unlikely to correct his WMD problem, very unlikely to result in his overthrow and even more unlikely to result in his replacement with a significantly better government.
6. Many of our troops were based in Saudi Arabia. This both upset Muslims who didn't want kufr in the Holy Land and demoralized our troops since the Saudi's treat kufr like excrement.
7. Iraq had WMD's and had used them in the past. They may have destroyed them before the war, but nobody on the left or right, in Europe or America believed this at the time.
8. Iraq supported terrorists with logistics, training and cash, including Al Quaeda.
9. Saudi Arabia is the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism, especially ideologically.
10. Saudi Arabia had been our ally for many years and had fought alongside us in the first Gulf War.
11. As a democracy it is difficult and takes time to consider an ally to be an enemy.
12. Attacking Saudi Arabia could easily escalate in a major world-wide war with Islamic nations, and could go nuclear.
13. Saudi Arabia does have all that oil.
14. OTOH almost everyone hated Hussein.
15. Having all the Iraqi oil online will make the Saudi oil less crucial and it will lower oil prices which cuts their ability to fund terrorists and it will boost our economy which makes paying for the war easier.
16. It puts pressure on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt.
17. It pays off fabulously well in a humanitarian way.
18. It allows us to address a root cause of Islamic hatred by ceasing to support repressive dictators and bringing the very best thing we've got, democracy, to the Arab world. This is a worthy, positive goal to shedding our blood and spending our money. Not just fighting Communism or fighting Fascism, but promoting democracy.
19. I really hate 'He may be a dictator, but he's our dictator'. If you bring up Uzbekistan, please realize that I don't like their government and wish we could dump them but we can't do everything at once.
20. We've actually been pretty good at midwifing democracies when we stick with it. Sometimes it takes a long time. Here's a list: The Philippines, Western Europe (which was very iffy after WWII), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
21. We're also very good at creating repressive dictatorships when we bug out before victory: North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, Angola, Somalia and Afghanistan.
The battle against Hussein has risks. The second biggest is that we bug out before mutual victory. The biggest is that when we bug out prematurely we end up with something much worse. Mutual victory is a good government in Iraq with a healthy relationship with the US.
The biggest problem with Iraq is that it is a war. To many this is like saying the biggest problem with my plan for personal wealth is that it involves a murder. They are completely repulsed by war. My reply is that we were already at war with Iraq. It was just a low level war with a large amount of red on red civilian casualties (Hussein's strategy seemed to be to kill more of his own people to claim we were creating a human right tragedy).
I had read about and considered all this before the war, which is why my opinion changed from unsure to blood-thirsty war-monger. I don't think Bush deceived us, because I don't feel deceived. To me it seems like a no-brainer, but then I'm not actually a very good chess player, nor do I seem to have written any respected military histories.
I've never had to promote or sell a war to a republic. In addition, Bush could not emphasize all these points because they could have driven other countries into the Iraqi camp. Perhaps his sales job could have been better. It seems to me that Tony Blair is good at that sort of thing, and look at what a hard time he is having.
Is your stand against the Iraqi campaign a no-brainer for you? Are you repulsed by war? Do you have trust issues with Bush? Do you dispute most of my claims? Since there are so many positives, I think you have to discredit a lot of them as well as come up with some big negatives to convince me the Iraqi campaign is a mistake.
Steve Malynn points out that 1-8, 16-18, 21 and 22 of my points above are expressly addressed in the Joint Resolution that authorized force in Iraq. (I don't know where he got number 22.)
I've often heard cries for liberals to provide counter strategy if they don't like Bush's. It is very difficult to come up with a different strategy because, well, strategy is really hard. I do hear doves, both liberal and conservative, make intelligent arguments against the Iraqi campaign. Note that there is a difference between 1) intelligent, 2) convincing and 3) absolutely free of logical errors. #2 is harder. #3 is way harder. Not sure I've ever seen #3 on any side. Jerry Pournelle, who has written important works on military strategy, has some excellent arguments against it, which can be summarized as follows: This march (accidental or not) towards an American Empire will doom the Republic and make serfs of our descendants.
Jerry also offers alternative strategies.
Jerry cannot, however, be described as a leftist. Too bad more leftists don't read his stuff.
Note: I pulled this from the comment thread of two posts by Dean Esmay. I know this post isn't well written but I like it anyway.
Read the Palace Of Reason
Francis W. Porretto of the Palace Of Reason is the best essayist in the blogoshere. Don't miss a day.
Monday, November 24, 2003
Eat at Burger King/People to Browbeat
Burger King has a new breastfeeding friendly policy. People who complain about breastfeeding in public need to be browbeaten, castigated and possibly shouted at. Would you want to feed your baby in a fast-food bathroom? How inconsiderate!
Blessed Events
Mark at Web.Kafe has the best possible excuse for not blogging. Congratulations to Mark and Edita!
Saturday, November 22, 2003
My Votes In The New Weblog Showcase - Week Ending Nov 23
The New American Revolutionist tells how every single senator wanted to increase the federal budget, among other fiscal aggravations.
Free Market Fairy Tales complains about his fellow countrymen protesting in London.
I also like these non-political posts. Linus of Pepper of the Earth lists his favorite (and they are clever) Halloween costumes, and proves that he must be the one who picked the blog name.
Last we have Hailey Xie, a Chinese woman writing in English. Her topic is 'the boy flying like a roc', the most famous AIDS activist in China.
Free Market Fairy Tales complains about his fellow countrymen protesting in London.
I also like these non-political posts. Linus of Pepper of the Earth lists his favorite (and they are clever) Halloween costumes, and proves that he must be the one who picked the blog name.
Last we have Hailey Xie, a Chinese woman writing in English. Her topic is 'the boy flying like a roc', the most famous AIDS activist in China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)