You were so eager to attack a fellow democrat you twisted the comments on Sontag. I do expect as Iraq and the ecomomy falls apat fractions of Republicans will do the same.

Posted at August 25, 2005 10:04 PM in response to On the Respectables' Tolerance of Pseudo-Conservatives

I happen to think that the dropping of the atom bombs was a justifiable (not necessarily correct, but justifiable) choice at the time. I also know that individuals who engage in even justified killing are often stricken bu it at some point and that angst over the atomic bombs did not begin recently, we've been haunted since it happened. So we get some keyboard commando who claims not to be bothered by killing, almost certainly never having seeing it, who doesn't understand that being bothered by it is one of the signs of civilized behavior, who is now pushing the argument that we might fail in Iraq because we didn't blow their cities to pieces and kill them by the hundreds of thousands? I believe this is the argument Osama might be making in regards to 9/11, it wasn't bloody and dirty enough, didn't get enough children and all the rest...

Posted at August 10, 2005 3:14 PM in response to After Savagery

Democrats *have* offered suggestions, at least some have. Senator's Clinton and Biden have been supportive of the war and over 2 years ago called for more troops. This was dismissed as Bush bating and it was smugly stated that no more troops were necessary. Not even to guard the ammo dumps that were being looted or better seal the borders which jihadists cross?

This reminds me of Hitchen's recent article in slate. He starts off mourning that no one cares for Iraqis. Then he says even if the country falls apart in civil war and corruption, the breakup would have been worse if we waited for it to happen naturally. Of course most war supporters argued that such a break up would not happen, but also what about this caring. We really don't knw what is developing, there are Shiite theocracies in the south, terorist enclaves in the west, massive corruption, failed infrastructure and fears of a "genocidal" civil war.

Someone who cares about the Iraqi people would be bothered, they wouldn't glibly rationalize failures by saying "it would have been worse." This is a way of easing off responsibility.

Hitchen's goes on to chastise the "left" for not actively trying to help Iraqis. He implies that non profit groups and human rights organizations have shown disinterest. In fact many charities were forcedc out by terrorists, human rigts groups have documented the sadism of Saddam so it isn't the complete lack of activity he suggests.

But truth isn't the issue. Partisan games are. If Hitchens believes that a massive private committment can still help, then why aren't the right and the war supporters forming these sister city programs and donating skills and billions of dollars?

War supporters are not being held to the same moral standards as the "left."

For the record I do not believe this war was any more illegal than Kosovo. I also think that were justifiable reasons for going in, I don't think the administration knowingly lied though I think it distorted intelligence to "prove" what it believed true, I hoped that the effort would be successfuil, I have been frustrated that we did not really take it seriously, I still have some hope and if a serious lookng effor is proposed am willing to support serious sacrifice for making this work.

I happen to agree that many Democrats and the party has a whole have been less than inspiring. But I am most frustrated by the *alleged* a supporters who have continually regarded this as a partisn issue. They have tried to suppress criticisms and attempts at reform with cliches like "the media never reports the good news." Every 3 or 4 months they announce the greatest victory in the history of the world with the insurgency decisively defeated. They have actually convinced the American people that electric production is up, it isn't, though productive capacity is somewhat higher the amount on line is less. They ignore things like the corruption, the recent agreements with axisi of evil charter member Iran and all the rest.

Indeed to mention these things is not just to be a bad news charlie, but a TRAITOR.

This isn't true of al war supporters, some such as the Weekly Standard have attempted reforms, but they are ignored as are conservative critics because in the vision propagated to the public all questioners are American hating terrorist coddling leftists.

The "strategy to win" is purely domestic. It is to defame Democrats in partisan battle. It's cost has been the crippling of a viable strategy in Iraq because no questioning is allowed. Not only Democrats but Republicans such as Hagel and McCain and increasingly Lugar have been viciously attacked for raising concerns.

Posted at August 10, 2005 9:06 AM in response to Response to Larry Diamond

>an get it back with an equally snappy >name...how about the "Old Rich Dead White Guys >Tax". Has a certain ring to it, dont you think?

Yeah, like let's make sure Republicans keep getting elected.  Racism, sexism, agism directed at the most sensitive part of the population.  You sound like a spoiled white girl with a thing against daddy who wants to align with the "oppressed."      

The Republican's were able to hit the estate tax because it had very high rates starting at what are nowadays moderate sums of money.  The Democrats knew of the problem and didn't face it.

Also Democrats as a general rule don't know that the Republican claim of income getting taxed twice was false since the bulk of many large estates was capital gains.

Which brings up another point.  I believe there is no step up in the propsed laws, so capital gains are taxed.  Raising the rate for large amounts can accomplish some returns.  A lot of times there are multiple ways around problems.

Overall I would say Democrats should soberly note flaws and persevere.  The obvious reality as Milton Friedman pointed out is that unpaid for tax cuts are future tax increases.  This should be mentioned frequently so when the time comes it will be blamed on the Republicans.

If wealth continues to shift the way it has, the new taxes will fall heavily on the wealthy because that's where the money is.    

Posted at July 26, 2005 10:21 AM in response to Follow the Money

You may want to see more international workers recruited into unions, but to say failure to do so will do "no good" indicates the blindness of what is going on. Groups of workers can be organized to pursue their own self interest, this is their primary purpose. And when people state that getting people at MacDonalds a few bucks more an hour is not worthy unless coupled with all sorts of progressive agendas, they clarify the reason for the decline of unions. The purpose of unions is not to enlist workers into the international movement for progressive causes, it is to protect them. A very limited number of political causes are essential to that agenda. Adding others coerces people who don't believe in them.

The fact that this has been the goal of unions for the last 30 years when college trained "organizers" rather than workers took over marks a period when unions, even the old CIO unions stopped caring about people making lousy wages in lousy conditions because there were so many other wonderful causes that could be supported with the dues including paying all those people with the progressive agenda. So why aren't they giving information to every burger King worker in town? More important stuff to do than worry about a bunch of kids and Mexicans!

Posted at July 19, 2005 2:32 AM in response to On The Brink

You are inventing things. A simple example of Neumann's game theory might have the following rules. 2 people play, they chose one of 2 moves, they each get 1 point if they both cooperate, one gets 2 if s/he refuses to cooperate and the other agress and they both lose 1 point if they both refuse to cooperate.

The ideal strategy depends on who one plays with, but you can see the long term advantage goes to long term cooperators.

In various simulations with a large number of programmed behaviors and more complex point systems, you can lose if you cooperate and the other doesn't, the simple model of "retailiators" who initially cooperate, but remember and don't cooperate wth those who have previously refused turns out to dominate. Failure to cooperate in all cases (parasitism) only works in systems with high levels of trust and they soon rebalance.

Optimum strategies are of course a matter of great complexity and debate, but even with 50 year old concepts of game theory the purely exploitive stance would never be regarded as always the best. Models that proved the value of "altrusism" (iincreased avaerage gains) were well established by the seventies. The "selfish gene theory" was an attempt to explain their development genetically.

Posted at July 16, 2005 12:29 PM in response to Politics and Organizing

I'm going to have to take a bit more time posting rather than rish in between things.  Sorry.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bush-admin-may-be-responsible-for.html

Posted at July 15, 2005 4:05 PM in response to See You and Raise You

The really, really big leak?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bush-admin-may-be-respons
ible-for.html

There is no doubt that to get good publicity around the time of the Dem convention, Tom Ridge blew a British mole in AQ. He later apologized.

Now it turns out that parts of the netowrk that got away may have been responsible for the London bombings.

Posted at July 15, 2005 4:02 PM in response to See You and Raise You

Iraqs former prime minister Allawi stated that civil war has begun or will soon begin. While questionable, it is plausible.

It is no secret that elements of the insurgency have been butchering Shia since the beginning. In the last few months the lauded restraint of the Shia has diminished and massacres go in the other direction. It has been reported that in the fundamentalist stronghold of Basra hundreds of Sunni have been murdered. Frequent complaint that the elite units of the new military are grabbing Sunni, torturing and kill them are heard.

From the insurgency's point of view civil war is ideal. For the Saddamites it offers the chance to force all Sunni to unite in a desperate battle for survival, a battle the old guard thinks they'll win. For the Jihadists the possibilities go further.

Murder of Sunni will inflame much of the Islamic world. The flow of volunteers from the outside will multiply as will funds. It will not be difficult to set off bombs in Lebanon to try and enflame the conflict. Iran will easily be drawn in.

The United States will be in a very tough position. To the extent it seals off borders and continues battling the insurgents it will be percieved as aiding the Shia, in the intensity of things claims that this is part of a plot to destroy true Islam will seem increasingly believable to populatons inclined towards conspiracy theory.

To the extent it trie to rein in the Shia it risks turning the elite units of it's new military against it. And the south is lightly occupied, angered Shia could play hell with logistics and the ability to mantain already strained forces.

The Kurds are almost guaranteed to take a few more steps towards independance and Turks already angered by the murder of Sunni are likely to be less patient. Already Russia and China are putting pressure on central Asian states to close the American bases. Fed by fears that the United States is overthrowing governments there has been at least some nodding on the part of these nations. A situation in which the United States is seen as allied against Sunnis and also as weak and unable to defend the places it puts troops means that we could lose major lines to Afghanistan. Which leaves Pakistan.

The thing all the insurgents have to do is keep picking at the wounds. They have years, we will grow wearier with each one. It seems that the potential for civil war is close and if the killing continues it is difficult to see that it can be reduced.

That the results could be apocalytic with the entire mideast inflamed, much of the reast of the Islamic world too. Perhaps oil supplies shattered as civil unrest and conflict with Iran sweep Saudi Arabia...

This may be farfetched, but it may not be. To me it seems more realistic than the model of change that motivated the administration to venture into this place.

Posted at July 13, 2005 4:18 PM in response to Al Qaeda and Muslim Apostates