Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The inescapable fact...

Cool article on Iraq by Brian Whitaker of the Guardian.
Without the histrionic posturing, it offers a sober and insightful perspective on the war in Iraq. The entire article is very interesting and thought-provoking, but here are the last two paragraphs:

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.


The thing that never fails to ignite my temper is a blithe disregard for reality. I find myself befuddled by having to prove the obvious, or that which will be obvious tomorrow, but meanwhile has a theoretical chance of a benign outcome.

A lot of people (though not enough) were right about W, and his abilities. In the end, all of us voted one way or the other, frequently basing the decision on the candidates stance on one or just a couple of specific issues.And to this end, I wanted to make a couple of points:

1. Intellectual ability matters! His faith or the quality of his relationship with the Almighty cannot be measured. His IQ, on the other hand, can. And yes, I suggest that that alone shouldve disqualified him from the presidency (below average should be unacceptable THIS should be an amendment to the Constitution. - Hey, let him take the test and prove me wrong.) There a LOT of people that cast their votes for him based on what he DOESNT support (just think of the litany of liberal causeshere). Reason, as an ethical and economic value, is grossly underrated. Reason, not faith, machismo, hatred, or fear shouldve been the guiding principle.

2. Consider pure facts. (Yes, there is such a thing, contrary to what you mightve come to believe watching FOX.) The simplest illustration of the point is the way military records of Bush and Kerry were examined. We dont know (and at this point, will never fully know) just how well they served. The only things that are beyond dispute are the mere facts. One served in active combat, the other one didnt. Its a naked, stark fact. All the commentary in the world isnt worth 5% the actual value of this simple FACT.

Reason and Facts instead of faith and beliefs... wouldn't that be refreshing.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Rand on "the barometer of a society's virtue"

"When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsionwhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed."

OK, it's no surprise I'm a fan of Rand, right? You know what attracted me first to Rands ideas? They have the same feeling as the words "The emperor has no clothes!" in that old tail. Nobody had uttered them before, but everyone thought it was the case. But now that theyre in the air, and the truth is plastered on the world, there's no escaping it. Kind of like the law of gravity. It was there all along, only Newton pointed to it, described it, and named it.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Part Deux

Chicago Tribune, 11/10/05
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0511100303nov10,1,1658818.story

“A Muslim civil rights group demanded an apology Wednesday from U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for remarks he made condoning discrimination against some Arabs.”

“Kirk, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer, [said]… I'm not threatened by people from China. I'm not even threatened by people from Mexico. I just know where the threat is from. It's from a unique place, and I think it's OK to recognize that.”

In a letter faxed Wednesday to Kirk's office, Yaser Tabbara, director of the Muslim civil rights group, wrote that he was shocked by the comments.

’It's one thing for me to hear it from Joe Schmoe on the street and deal with it as an ignorant attitude and give that person the benefit of the doubt," Tabbara said. "It's another, and 100 times more disturbing and dangerous, to hear something like that spewed out of the mouth of a public figure, a political representative who represents a constituency of Americans. This, to me, is a manifestation of ... a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude.’”

First, why does Mr. Tabbara think that it’s rather common and acceptable for “Joe Schmoe” to be ignorant? Right off the bat, this strikes me as an insolent discriminatory comment. Second, while Mr. Tabbara throws around terms like, “ignorant” and “malicious, bigoted attitude” with authoritative insouciance (I learned this term at the peak of my education, at the 6th grade of parochial school); he fails to substantiate his views.
“…to hear something like that spewed…” Something like what?!! Kirk’s observation is based on hard facts. Mr. Tabbara’s dismay, on the other hand, is based on nothing more than… hm, nope, I guess it’s just on nothing.

And one more thing, why did it take months before there was a single fatwa issued against Bin Laden by any imams in the U.S.? I’d like to find out exactly what this enlightened Muslim civil rights group (isn’t it an oxymoron?) has done to aid the fight against terrorism. Or even, to simply further democracy in their neck of the woods.

In conclusion, I’d like to mention a Russian proverb that is rather fitting for this situation. “Don’t blame the mirror for the ugly face.”

On racial profiling

I’m so sick and tired of hearing why and how racial profiling is bad. Primarily because the arguments are so goddamn stupid, that I’m not sure whether I should get a tissue for the idiot, since he’s bound to start drooling any second, or to humor him, and actually try to reason.

Do you fish? I used to. Generally, when I went fishing, I’d look at the river, and spot a couple of places where the fish is more likely to be. And usually I was right. When I wasn’t, I’d try other spots, and would stick with the ones that worked. I can also look at the neighborhood and say how likely it is to find a crack dealer there. Isn’t that ingenious of me? - Not really. While I do find the necessity of explaining how it’s done rather ludicrous, this is where the obsession with political correctness has gotten us.

Here’s why it’s good and absolutely necessary to conduct racial profiling. – How many whites were there among the terrorists of 9/11, London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jordan? How many blacks? Anyone from the Midwest? No, huh? (gotta say it, it pisses me off to no end when I see some security guard waving his magic wand over some 80-year old lady from Wisconsin. Does anyone sincerely believe she might be concealing something other than her annoyance?!) “But does that mean that there couldn’t be one from Cuba or Midwest?” – is a typical response. Yes, actually, for all practical purposes, it does. All of them were Muslims, and most, of Arabic origins. In 9/11 most were Saudis. Absolute majority of the terrorists in the U.S. so far, have been Muslims from the Middle East. Since most of the terrorists seem to come from there, it seems only logical to focus more efforts on screening people from that region. Could it be any more self-evident? “Do most terrorists come from there?!. What about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? Were they also Saudis?!” – Got me there. Are there domestic wackjobs? Yes! White supremacists, disgruntled postal workers, depressed teenagers, self-appointed defenders of the disenfranchised, etc. HOWEVER, if we look at the proportion of Arab Muslims (or to be more inclusive, the good folks hailing from terrorist-producing states) to the general population of the U.S. it will be less than 10% (I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it’s more than that, probably much less). The same slice of population however would comprise well over 60% of terrorists in the U.S. So the benefit of focusing on this slice of the population is humongous.

“But if we start focusing on Arabs, the real terrorists will then coerce or bribe a Mongolian man or a Midwestern woman into carrying out the next attack. And thanks to your disregard of these groups as potential suspects, you’ll have missed them.” (Or something to that extent.) First, nobody suggests that everyone else besides Arab Muslims just waltzes into the plane or goes buying TNT unquestioned. Second, good luck to them trying to recruit an 80-year old Midwestern woman for such a mission. Third, when that happens, we’ll adjust the tactics. Trying to recruit potential terrorists outside of their “comfort” zone is a difficult and dangerous undertaking for them. Therefore it is also rather unlikely. Meanwhile, if we DID, focus on Arab Muslims or militant Muslims (call them whatever you want, we all know whom I’m talking about), our chances of preventing more attacks would be increased tremendously.

Those who oppose racial profiling, do so on the grounds of it being “racial”. And these days, anything “racial” is just unacceptable and undemocratic. Sickle cell anemia tends to afflict people of African origins considerably more than any other. Should we start screening others too, since we’re clearly selecting them based on their race? What about Tay-Sachs disease? Most (but NOT ALL) of the afflicted are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin. That’s a pretty specific group of population as well. Generally, they’re the only ones screened for it. Isn’t it a discriminatory practice then? Yes it is. In as much as discrimination means discernment, it is. And this discernment happens to be based on ethnic and geographic origins. I’d love to hear the argument for why we should make the Tay-Sachs screening tests for everyone.

And lastly, I don’t think that even those who say that racial profiling is a form of discrimination and should be illegal believe it themselves. To those who do, I say put your money where your mouth is. If you’re genuinely convinced that the chances of the next major terror act (or let’s take two out of three next ones) being perpetrated by a non-Muslim from a country that has NOT been identified as a terrorist-producing region are equal or greater than that they will be, let’s make a bet. If the next two out of three major terrorist acts are committed by individuals that fall into my “evil stereotype”, you pay me $100. If not, I pay you $100. If you believe what you say, why not make an easy hundred bucks off of an ignorant idiot like me.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Where are his manners?!

WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801683_pf.html

France. "…his [Sarkozy's, who's the interior minister] attempts to reach out to Muslim and immigrant communities have foundered amid rage over his undiplomatic references to marauding youth as 'scum.'"

According to WaPo it all started "when two teenage boys from the northern suburbs of Paris [leapt] into a power substation on Oct. 27 while trying to dodge police at a checkpoint, according to their parents… [and] were electrocuted."

13 Nights of rioting, looting, and burning down property. Perhaps "scum" was too harsh. Naughty? Misbehaving? Maybe unseemly?.. But "scum"?! After all, they haven't killed anyone. Clearly, Monsieur Sarkozy needs to learn some good manners. Tsk-tsk-tsk, what a shame.