as tragedy, if not farce.

Why am I sure? because as I look more at the recent Arab history, it is clear that anything less than domination is weakness/ submission.

Saddam thought, and advertisized, that he WON Gulf I. The WTC was bombed before. Other US embassies were bombed. It was ugly, and it got worse.

How can anybody be sure of the future? Nobody can, just put out probabilities on some possible outcomes.
Like outcomes, with some "value" of that outcome:
a) Hussein develops & supplies terrorists with such weapons in the next 5 years (-10 000 -50 000)
b) Hussein has or develops WMDs, but doesn't supply other terrorits (-1 000 - 50 000)
c) Hussein doesn't have and doesn't develop WMDs
(-50 000)
d) US enforces regime change ( -5 000)

Obviously, you and I might well disagree on the number of civilians murdered by Hussein in the future; I estimate 10 000/ year = -50 000. You may well have a different value.


Then look at two cases, after 1441, noting the probabilities:
Attack or Not Attack (A or NA):

a) A - 0% NA - 10%
b) A - 0% NA - 40%
c) A - 0% NA - 50%
d) A - 100% NA - 0%

Expected value -- MUCH better for attack in terms of civilians killed, depending on the chose outcome levels, and probabilities.

Sorry, m2, I think there are PLENTY of other Mid East failures besides Arafat -- in fact, EVERY Arab country/ leader is a failure.

That's the terrible, secret, problem in the ME. And why Iraq reconstruction is the best current hope.

But, you're right about Y.A. not wanting to give up power, though he joins almost all leaders in that regard. He's just behind, meaning far away worse, on leading in any good direction for the people.

Which Founding Father Are You?

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/faith.php
I have found that priests, while not condoning homosexual relationships, find it hard to condemn them. They know from pastoral experience, in ways that the hierarchy doesn't seem to accept, that we are all human, and that the laity's real experience dealing with bad marriages, homosexual orientation or contraception is often as morally valid as the arid proscriptions issued from on high. But they cannot say so publicly. This dissonance is a little like the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The hierarchy pretends to preach these doctrines and the laity pretends to believe them.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_04_13_dish_archive.html#200152870

This passage from the BBC about Abu Abbas simply defies belief. No use of the term "terrorist," of course:
A wanted Palestinian fugitive, Abu Abbas, has been detained by US forces in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. He led the Palestinian Liberation Front, which hijacked a US cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, in 1985. During the hijack, an elderly American passenger died. Abu Abbas had been mentioned by US President George W Bush as an example of the kind of figure given refuge by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.
In subsequent versions, the BBC seems to have substituted the term "was killed" for "died." I guess even they have their limits in terrorism apologetics.

Bloggers been down so much I hesitate to try -- but perhaps it will surprise me.
[Samizdata comment Comment on: Victorian Gentlemen and the Anti-War Liberatarians]
I think "objective achievement" vs "emotional relationship with audience" as an simplification is consistent with male/ female differentness w/o the sexism.

Unmentioned is the difficulty for the "average" actor/ artist to be socially different (eg non-Leftist) than most of the Hollywood milieu. The support group is just not there.

Arguing about IP is strangely funny. (I'm very new here.)

You might look at kuro5hin.org for an alternate way of having discussions (I'm new there, too.)

Or Ornery American forum (or others).
But blogs are getting better -- and Google bought Blogger, so there's hope/ expectation that they'll get even more respectable.

*I* think that using force to enforce IP is immoral. Copying is not stealing -- I copy your idea (or you, mine), and we both have it. (Yes, other property & market relations would have to adjust, mightily, were the law changed thusly. But it would be a smaller adjustment than Iraq is going through.)

Similarly, most lying is not subject to a force based sanction, nor should it be. But claiming/ implying that one originated an idea that was copied, is lying, and the plagiarist should be treated like other liars.*

My free opinion, worth at least twice the price!

*(Well, maybe his wife shouldn't get elected to the Senate...)

Eric A. was mostly right, global TV news is an "infotainment" business. Whatever sells, that's legal. It's a business, for profit. And it suffers the same competitive pressures to cut corners on product quality that other businesses do. As little quality as the customers accept, same as McDonalds.

The problem is that so many human journalists want to elevate their work into a moral crusade -- which is not necessarily bad, if the search is for "complete truth", but HAS BECOME bad in the current PC anti-American crusade, any truth that makes America look bad, and barely enough balance to claim balance. The BBC is also full of anti-American hacks, for instance.

Sucking up to dictators for access is OK -- but NOT then claiming to report "the truth". Even when a news org has free movement in a country, and can talk with whoever they like, they can only show a part of the truth. When the parts they show are dictator propaganda, they NEED to at least warn the viewers. [Suggest --"country xx does not allow a free press" in every report]

Here the desire for product "access" instead of truth is particularly galling -- essentially direct support for Saddam. (I wonder if victims of Saddam could try to sue CNN for conspiracy? THAT would get the news agency attention/ behavior change.)

Watch Fox -- for now. But they'll be bad in some ways, too.
(Dean's World

Video Professor?
Try at work?
http://www.foxnews.com/ads/video_professor.html

[Ornery - Frodo]
I think the Arab street, especially, DOES have to have this sinking feeling that God is on America's side.

I suggest the power of America is: peaceful, voluntary, human associations.
In economics, this is free trade and companies/ corporations.

Since they're run by humans, all the human evil is still possible in them -- but all the image of god good is also possible.

There is also an "objective" measure of sustainability - profit (unprofitible companies are NOT sustainable).


Most Americans do feel that God is on the side of the US (or quality this with "if he exists"). I think many Muslims will now question whether the US is really the great Satan or not. And the US must control the reconstruction of Iraq enough to insure it is successful, so the fundamentalist anti-American rant will not include references to it.

Bush as Isildur is excellent, too -- and that is prolly the fear of most anti-Bush folk. Though Bush/ America as Sauron is a related fear.

I think, with all the expected weaknesses of representative democracy, there should be more effort at direct democracy.

The temp interim gov't should create new Health-Education-Retirement accounts for each citizen, and deposit into that account money from the oil profit (or royalty) sold by the state oil company.

The point is to preemptively reduce the power of the future Iraqi gov't by diverting a lot of its expected cash directly to the people.

Of course it has many other bottom up virtures.
[Ornery}

Already too late on immediate policing, to some extent.
Need to use more links.

Fine overview of our significant forces and yet the additional missions required.

I think, on the PR / TV front, it is time to show how "liberation" looks, in day-to-day governing.

Why not start US $ denominated banking/ rebuilding accounts, including a US $100 grant(optional loan?) to replace dinar with dollars and move the Iraq economy to a dollar economy. With individual accounts -- so that the Iraqi people voluntarily come in and identify where they live, who their neighbors are, etc.
Yes, one main purpose would be to start creating a "civil society", with a civil database of who lives where.
Such "police state" info will be very valuable for finding the civilian-clothed fighters who do NOT belong...


From Kausfiles on Moynihan:

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.

The real problem of "information" is a limitation of reality.

We don't know the future; and can NOT compare two different "what ifs". What if Gore had won? What if Bush wins? In advance.

But term limits would be a good start to get better info into discussion.

I think the Dems could score an interesting PR coup if they came up with a reality TV show to select their candidate, against some
entrenched old Republican. The novelty exposure, especially, might evan make the race close. (I don't think it would work for a Rep.)

Many devout Christians rightly condemn the materialistic and consumeristic societies, where church and even spirit have been separated from daily life. Excessive luxury-based hedonism, devoid of any meaning in life, is a tradegy all too often seen in rich Western countries.

And capitalism, based on property rights & rule of law, have allowed such excessive free will mistakes. But too many Christian social reformers want to correct the hedonism, before there is basic poverty alleviation.

The Acton Institute seems to be taking the lead in supporting reasonable material comfort, without separating the spirit, the sacred, the meaningfulness of life.

If Christians ARE to be involved in the public & government debates, there also needs to be work done on what taxes are more or less moral, and why.

I argue that pollution taxes, for instance, are less immoral than income taxes. (Therefore, Christians should support gas taxes to get higher income tax refunds.) On the spiritual side � all advertising has, as part of its message to buy something, the other message that �buying things� creates happiness. This advertising lie, often including the sexiest of pictures, is a spiritual pollution.

Ornery

and another lopsided Gulf landslide is prolly going to start soon.

I confess, I try to read stuff from women a bit more, since I'm not one, and there are less of them.

But Den, you haven't exactly said why you don't get your tubes tied? I'm really sorry you can't safely have children. And Luny, your history is sad too.

But killing a human fetus is pretty bad -- like much worse than killing a whale, or a baby harp seal, or a spotted owl; or even the very last dodo bird. Adoption should be the chosen method to avoid suffering while taking care of an unwanted child.

And there should be FAR more punishment against men who rape.

But Den, don't you think there might be a connection with anti-Western feeling when the UN promotes "reproductive health", in documents which deliberately do NOT define what that is? It means abortion, on demand, up to the day before birth -- doesn't it?


I challenge you to try to show me it doesn't, warning you that my pro-life wife took part in some UN women's meetings: in (and before) Beijing, and 5 years later in New York (again).

Scientifically, human life starts at conception, when the first moment of existence of that new DNA. At least, that's how you & I "began", some may not be sure of Chiu. The "non-agression principle" (libertarian) should prolly apply then, since that cell is now a different body -- and NOT the women's.

But nobody seems to be happy calling abortion the murder of a parasite.

Most religions support conception as the point where "rights", and especially the right to live, begin. I certainly support medical procedures to save the life of the mother over the fetus, when the mother's physical life is in danger -- but with ceasarian sections and ultrasound, I suspect that number is really really small. You both might be in that minority.

But the religious issue is that the UN is pushing Universal Rights documents, and is pushing abortion as a universal right -- in opposition to many religions, including both Christianity and Islam. For many folk, if they have to choose between their religion and the corrupt, elitist UN, it's easy to choose the religion. Especially if you're one of the religious power elites in a theocracy.

Just wondering if you had considered how advocating abortion is one of the ways many folk become certain that US/Western values are bad?
(undated Jan?)