State Of Flux

Governement Of Wishful Thinking

2006-04-24T18:20:00.000-07:00

I am very depressing about the state of political affair in our country. Then I realize the true nature of the problem. Every Presidential candidate in the past thought of their contemporary administration as incompetent. They believed that the sad state of the government was precisely because of the administration was incompency, corrupted, and malicious. They believe that they can do better than their predessessor. So the challengers thought of grandios plans and then marketed them to the public, promise to perform miracle. The plans are beautiful and they are sincerely believe in the feasibility of their plan.

But then the challenger was elected and attempted to implement their plans - and they found out that they performed no better than their predessesor - sometime even worse. Things always seem to be harder in reality than in paper. The more spectacular the plans, the more spectacular they fail. Pretty soon the new administration was in the same problem the previous administration was in - the same incompency, the same corruption. And the more they tried to dig themselves out of the hole, the deeper they sank.

And the cycle repeated itself administration after administration.

Our government will not improve until the voters realize that the problems is not this President or that President, this administration or that administration. The problem is the structural limitation of government. All candidates started out well intented. But the micromanagement of the lives of hundred of millions of people is impossible, futile, and harmful. I believe that our government has reach it maximum limit of its efficiency and effectiveness. Despite all the current problems with corruption, mismanagement, and incompency, our government is still one of the most efficient and effective compare to many governments I have came across. To think that one can make it more efficient or effective is wishful thinking. If anything, one can only make it less effective and less efficient, which is essentially the story of the last five years, the story of the Bush adminstration.

National Absurdity Day

2006-04-18T21:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the last day to file your tax, better known as "National Absurdity Day." I prepared my own tax return. Do not feel bad because you did not prepare your own tax but instead paid someone else to do it. Do not doubt your own intelligence. I was able to do so because I was a tax preparer many moons and sun cycles ago. I did it part time and it was a very profitable part time job. But I could not help to think that it was absurd that people had to pay me so that they can pay their own government. I guess that is why I stopped doing it.

Our tax system is so bizzare that the tax payers cannot report their income to the government - and on top of the already heavy tax burden, have to pay someone else to do so. My friends, you are not less intelligent because you could not fine your own tax. Many of my clients were successful doctors and brilliant engineers. The idiots are the people who wrote the tax code. To quote my drill sergeant in Basic Training, the Internal Revenue Code, "was written by four monkeys on a crack pipe."

First of all, it does not even conform to our own accounting standard, better know as the General Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP). Many of the codes are contradictory to GAAP. Companies have to keep two set of books, one conforms to GAAP, the other conforms to the tax code. Secondly, it follows no set of principle - no overall concept. Everything within it is completely arbitrary. One must follows one cross-reference which leads to another cross-reference and then to another, and so on so forth like an infinite labyrinth of mind game. This is the tax code of the most advanced nation on earth.

The Code (according to our own government) has 16,845 pages. Other than being grammartically corrected - it makes little sense. Even tax preparers know only the most common parts of the codes. And some people, who call themselves "progressives," (what's a misnomer!) thinks that the flat tax idea is fringe crazy concept.

A Wall Is Too Expensive

2006-04-06T20:34:00.000-07:00

There is an argument that building a wall or fence along the US-Mexican border would be too costly. Let examine the cost. In fact, let look at the most extensive and extravagant barrier - the Israel security fence. Israel is building a security fence along the West Bank, a 540 miles long fence. According to Relief Web:

The wall, which is estimated to cost Israel $1.5 million U.S. per mile to construct... In some places the wall is a 25-foot-high concrete barrier and in other places a series of razor-wire fences with electronic sensors.

According to Wikipedia, the US-Mexican border is 2,067 miles. Multiply that by $1.5 million we arrive at $3,100,500,000. Our Federal Budget is $2.119 trillion. The Bridges To Nowhere alone costs us $453 million. According to Porkbusters there are $23,345,344,262 in porks identified in fiscal year 2006.

Decide for yourself if building the wall would be too expensive.

Carnival Of The Clueless No. 39

2006-04-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

It is a day late but the "Carnival Of The Clueless" is up at Right Wing Nut House.

Liberty as Utility

2006-04-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

John Stuart Mill is an important thinker of classical liberalism and libertarianism. His book “On Liberty” is important cannon on liberty. But Mill is known most for his contribution on utilitarianism. In a way, liberalism and utilitarianism is interrelated – one must think of liberty in the context of utility. To think outside of this context lead to convoluted reasoning that in the end detrimental to the cause of freedom.

Lysander Spooner is an early contributor to the libertarianism movement in the US. I found his essay 1875 “Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty” most refreshing. His clarity of thought and power of reasoning can be seen in the following paragraph from the aforementioned essay (I also recommend readers to read the whole essay, it is excellent):

It will do for a pope or a king - who claims to have received direct authority from Heaven, to rule over his fellowmen - to claim the right, as the vice regent of God, to punish men for their vices; but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the governed never would grant it. For them to grant it would be an absurdity, because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness; since to grant away their right to judge of what will be for their happiness, is to grant away all their right to pursue their own happiness.

Yet Lysander Spooner is also famous for his opposition to the US Civil War. What made the situation absurd is that Spooner was the strongest advocate of abolition – and abhorred slavery. Spooner wrote “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” which is considered the best legal argument against slavery. Yet he could not bring himself to support a war that would end slavery and set million of people free. Due to the absolute argument against all form of coercion – to include coercion that end coercion.

Slavery is coercion, hence is wrong. But a war to end slavery is also coercion, hence is also wrong. This thinking creates a problem in practical policy. It is in fact absurd, leaving no solution to any problem concerning liberty. Short of convincing slave owners to voluntarily free their slaves, there is nothing one can do about slavery. In fact, the line of thinking would be an end to all liberty as we know it. Without enforcement to ensure that liberty is protected, liberty itself is an empty meaningless concept – discussed in philosophy class without ever realizing it.

The problem with Lysander Spooner is the same problem that faces the Libertarian Party. Their concept of liberty is missing the concept of utilitarianism. It leads to bizarre political position – such as opposition to all wars – even the one that result in the spread of individual liberty. This is why John Stuart Mill advocacy of utilitarianism should not be seen as a separate and distinct from his advocacy of liberty – but rather an integral part of liberty. Liberty should be real and tangible. Something a person can feel, taste, and enjoy in his personal life. Therefore, Liberty is best understood as “the maximum amount of Liberty for the maximum number of people.”

"The Crucified" by Khalil Gibran

2006-03-30T20:09:00.000-08:00

Today, and on this same day of each year, man is startled from his deep slumber and stands before the phantoms of the Ages, looking with tearful eyes toward Mount Calvary to witness Jesus the Nazarene nailed on the Cross. But when the day is over and eventide comes, he returns and kneels to pray before the idols erected upon every hilltop, every prairie, and every barter of wheat.

Today, the Christian souls ride on the wing of memories and fly to Jerusalem. There they will stand in throngs, beating upon their bosoms, and staring at him, crowned with a wreath of thorns, stretching his arms before heaven, and looking from behind the veil of Death into the depths of Life.

But when the curtain of night drops over the stage of the day and the brief drama is concluded, the Christians will go back in groups and lie down in the shadow of oblivion between quilts of ignorance and slothfulness.

On this one day of each year, the philosophers leave their dark caves, and the thinkers their cold cells, and the poets their imaginary arbors, and all stand reverently upon that silent mountain, listening to the voice of a young man saying of his killers, "Oh Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing."

But as dark silence chokes the voices of the light, the philosophers and the thinkers and the poets return to their narrow crevices and shroud their souls with meaningless pages of parchment.

The women who busy themselves in the splendor of Life will bestir themselves today from their cushions to see the sorrowful woman standing before the Cross like a tender sapling before the raging tempest; and when they approach near to her, they will hear a deep moaning and a painful grief.

The young men and women who are racing with the torrent of modern civilization will halt today for a moment, and look backward to see the young Magdalene washing with her tears the blood stains from the feet of a Holy Man suspended between heaven and earth; and when their shallow eyes weary of the scene they will depart and soon laugh.

On this day of each year, Humanity wakes with the awakening of Spring, and stands crying below the suffering Nazarene; then she closes her eyes and surrenders herself to a deep slumber. But Spring will remain awake, smiling and progressing until merged into Summer, dressed in scented golden raiment. Humanity is a mourner who enjoys lamenting the memories and heroes of the Ages. If Humanity were possessed of understanding, there would be rejoicing over their glory. Humanity is like a child standing in glee by a wounded beast. Humanity laughs before the strengthening torrent which carries into oblivion the dry branches of the trees, and sweeps away with determination all things not fastened to strength.

Humanity looks upon Jesus the Nazarene as a poor-born who suffered misery and humiliation with all the weak. And he is pitied, for Humanity believes he was crucified painfully. And all that Humanity offers to him is crying and wailing and lamentation. For centuries Humanity has been worshiping weakness in the person of the Savior.

The Nazarene was not weak! He was strong and is strong! But people refuse to heed the true meaning of strength.

Jesus never lived a life of fear, nor did he die complaining. He lived as a leader; he was crucified as a crusader; he died with a strength that frightened his killers and tormentors.

Jesus was not a bird with broken wings. He was a raging tempest who broke all crooked wings. He feared not his persecutors nor his enemies. Free and brave and daring he was. He defied all despots and oppressors. He saw the contagious pustules and amputated them. He muted Evil and he crushed Falsehood and he choked Treachery.

Jesus came not from the heart of the circle of Light to destroy the homes and build upon their ruins the convents and monasteries. He did not persuade the strong man to become a monk or a priest, but he came to send forth upon this earth a new spirit, with power to crumble the foundation of any monarchy built upon human bones and skulls. He came to demolish the majestic palaces, constructed on the graves of the weak, and crush the idols, erected upon the bodies of the poor. Jesus was not sent here to teach the people to build magnificent churches and temples amidst the cold wretched huts and dismal hovels. He came to make the human heart a temple, and the soul an altar, and the mind a priest.

These were the missions of Jesus the Nazarene, and these are the teachings for which he was crucified. And if Humanity were wise, she would stand today and sing in strength the song of conquest and the hymn of triumph.

Oh, Crucified Jesus, who art looking sorrowfully from Mount Calvary at the sad procession of the Ages, and hearing the clamor of the dark nations, and understanding the dreams of Eternity: Thou art, on the Cross, more glorious and dignified than one thousand kings upon one thousand thrones in one thousand empires.

Thou art, in the agony of death, more powerful than one thousand generals in one thousand wars.With thy sorrows, thou art more joyous than Spring with its flowers.

With thy suffering, thou art more bravely silent than the crying of angels of heaven. Before thy lashers, thou art more resolute than the mountain of rock.

Thy wreath of thorns is more brilliant and sublime than the crown of Bahram. The nails piercing thy hands are more beautiful than the scepter of Jupiter.

The spatters of blood upon thy feet are more resplendent than the necklace of Ishtar.

Forgive the weak who lament thee today, for they do not know how to lament themselves.

Forgive them, for they do not know that thou hast conquered death with death, and bestowed life upon the dead.

Forgive them, for they do not know that thy strength still awaits them.

Forgive them, for they do not know that every day is thy day.

The Solution To Illegal Immigration Is Legal Immigration

2006-03-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

First of all, there are no undocumented aliens. Undocumented aliens are Japanese (or any nationality) tourists who came to the US and lost their visa at Disney World. Let call them what it is - illegal aliens. And it is a travesty that they are illegal aliens and not legal aliens. The current issue we have concerning illegal immigrants did not not appear out of the blue. The massive numbers of illegal immigrants did not cross the border yesterday, they came in the period of many years. And like it or not, they came because there is a demand for unskill jobs due to our unprecedent economic growth.

But the demand for labor was predictable and should have been anticipated. Therefore the current problem is mainly the fault of Congress and the President - not only this one but previous ones as well - going back at least 10 years. They should have anticipated the labor demand in our economy and adjust their immigration policy accordingly. They should have granted more working visas or came up with a guest worker program that meet our labor need. That means we could have had the same number of immigrants - but legal instead of illegal. We could have picked and chose the best of them base on skill, language, and education - as well as the lack of criminal record. We could have had a much more diverse immigrant population - representing the world at large instead of one single ethnic group. We could have had an immigrant population who are waving the Old Glory instead of a foreign color.

I think the current problem is more complex than people realize and requires several approachs. Building a fence alone does not solve the labor need. Amnesty will not end the incoming flow of illegal immgrants. The problem requires a multi-prongs solution beginning with tightening control of the border. Let make illegal tresspassing into the US a felony with some prison times. Next we have to deal with the illegal immgrants that are here and it is a complex solution. Deporting all of them at once is not a feasible and practical solution. There are too many of them; and who would do the work if they are gone? People who favor deportation will change their mind quickly when there are no fruits in the supermarkets. The practical solution would be slowly deporting people at the sametime rapidly increase the number of authorized employment visa - equal to the rate of people we deport. Let also distribute those visas equally across the globe so that we can have a more diverse population and increase the chance of assimilation. We can also lowering the labor demand by implementing free trade policy. Many of the jobs that illegal immigrants are performing would disappear if we have a sensible trade policy. Let start with ending the agriculture subsidy. It is much better to import fruit from Mexico than importing illegal aliens.

Genocide Deniers

2006-03-22T18:18:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting piece over Oliver Kamn. Oliver Kamn fisked Chomsky (and the Guardian) over his position in relation to the genocide in Bosnia. We all know about Chomsky infamous comment on the Cambodia Killing Field. Apparently he is taking a similar position with the genocide in Bosnia. And similar to the Killing Field comment, Chomsky said something outrageous and later denied ever saying it or claim that it was taken out of context. Noam Chomsky granted an interview to The Guardian last October and the interviewer supposedly asked some tought indirect questions about the masacre at Srebrenica.

Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?
A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.

It is true that the above question- in exact wording- was never asked; and Chomsky never gave the answer - in exact wording. Therefore Chomsky is entitled to an apology and a correction from The Guardian on this specific fact. But Chomsky did indirectly support the position that Srebrenicia was not a masacre and there was no genocide in Bosnia. And as a public intellectual, he must be held responsible.

Oliver gave the evidence of Chomsky position in his piece and I strongly recommend readers to read the whole thing. It is long and laborious but worthy of your time. The summary of Oliver's article is that Chomsky by supporting Diana Johnstone's position is himself a genocide denier.

I will not address Chomsky sin which is merely an echo of Oliver Kamn's position. However I wish to address the original position of Dianna Johnstone which Chomsky supports. Dianna Johnston wrote "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions" which basically denies that there was a genocidal campaign in the Former Yugoslavia and it is minor in comparision to crimes commited by the US internationally. Of course, wacko leftist accusing the US of war crimes is not noteworthy in itself so I will not address that particular argument.

But I have been to Bosnia and am intimately familiar with that civil war. And I think it is important to debunk the Johnstone argument - not for the sake of the US but for the sake of the victims of that genocide. Oliver Kamn did a nice job summarizing Johnstone's thesis and in this post I will refute her argument. I am doing it in the names of the murdered, the raped, and the survivors. Oliver Kamn:

To summarise, this is what Johnstone argues: that there is “a difficulty in knowing the truth about Srebrenica”. This is partly because “uncertainty has persisted concerning the actual number of people killed, the circumstances and motives involved and the political significance of the real or assumed killing that took place.” Johnstone urges, therefore, that “a number of factors should be taken into account”.
These are:

1. The safe areas (including Srebrenica) were not demilitarised, but “served as Muslim military bases … safe bases from which to attack the Serbs”, and UN-protected food shipments were “suspected - correctly” by the Serbs of acting as a front for the shipment of weapons. The UN announcement of the demilitarisation of Srebrenica was “deceptive”.
2. The Muslim forces in Srebrenica were led by one Naser Oric who “had carried out murderous raids against nearby Serb villages”. Oric’s Muslim fighters beheaded the bodies of Serbs, reminding Serbs of the Ottoman occupation.
3. The Bosnian Muslim government pulled Oric’s men out of the enclave “deliberately leaving the enclave undefended”. This alleged fact “has aroused strong suspicion of a calculated sacrifice”. In addition, a former member of the Bosnian parliament has “insisted that many more Srebrenicans had survived than were acknowledged”.
4. The US used the “inevitable failure” of the UN safe area concept as a way of getting NATO to supplant the United Nations. “The UNPROFOR mission was a planned failure … used to discredit the whole tradition of neutral diplomacy” and colluded in by “Washington’s choice as Secretary General, Kofi Annan…”
5. “The number of Muslims killed or missing after the fall of Srebrenica is uncertain and more effort has been made to inflate the figures than to identify and count the real victims”. The original 8,000 figure was made up of 3,000 reported detainees and 5,000 who fled, of whom, according to one newspaper report, 3-4,000 had now turned up. Six years later “ICTY forensic teams had exhumed 2,361 bodies in the region and identified fewer than 50 … some of the bodies were certainly of Serbs as well as of Muslims”. Johnstone concludes that there is “no clear way to account for the fate of all the Muslim men reported missing in Srebrenica”, not least because some of the prisoners “were released in exchanges” or “even dispersed abroad”.
6. “The original accusation against the Bosnian Serbs was politically motivated.” Johnstone writes that “The accusation of a ‘Srebrenica massacre’ [note, these are Johnstone’s quotation marks] was used by the Clinton administration” to distract attention from Croat activities in the Krajina region, and on to “Serb misdeeds”. A presentation by Madeleine Albright of satellite photographs showing possibly massacre burial sites “successfully diverted attention” at the UN from the Croatian offensive against the Serbs. The photos themselves are problematic because “If … the massacres took place on the scale alleged, why were no photos displayed showing the massacres?”

7. “Insofar as Muslims were actually executed [note the use of the quasi-judicial word ‘executed’ rather than ‘murdered’ or even ‘killed’ here] following the fall of Srebrenica, such crimes bear all the signs of spontaneous acts of revenge rather than a project of ‘genocide’”. This is the context in which Johnstone claims that the separation of men of military age from women and children makes one thing obvious, “one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children”. Johnstone claims that the separation actually happened “partly because the Serbs could exchange” Serb and Muslim POWs and partly because the Serbs were looking for Oric’s notorious killers. The rapid fall of the enclave “presented the Serbs with an opportunity to exact revenge”. Furthermore “some observers” think that the whole thing “was a ‘trap’ for the Serbs who stupidly fell into it.” In fact “one man who wanted to keep Bosnian Serb forces away from Srebrenica was Slobodan Milosevic”. He may have anticipated that “the accusation of ‘genocide’ in Srebrenica was used to construct the presumption that Milosevic was plotting to commit genocide in Kosovo.”

On point one and two, it has some kernels of truth but much more factual errors. There are still Muslim (Bosniaks) fighters within Srebrenicia proper - to include Naser Oric and his men - but the number is insignificant because the bulk of Bosniak fighters were defending Sarajevo. Srebrenicia location is deep within Serb controlled territory. I includes a map to familiar readers with the locations in this article. The greenline is the current border that divide Bosnia into The Federation and Republika Sprska. It was also the front line around the time of the fall of Srebrenica. The red lines are the main roads.

By the time of the seige of Srebrenica, the combined Serbian Army (JNA) and the Bosnian Serbs (VRS) forces already took Zvonik, a Muslim majority town north of Srebrenica and emptied it of all Muslims. Many of the refugee fled to Srebrenica, increased it population by at least five times. The JNA-VRS forces pushed further south and completely surrounded Srebrenica. Srebrenica was completely isolated and if one looks at the map, it is very far from the front line to be a viable base for launching attacks against the Serbs. Supplying in the city is virtually impossible without going through Serbs controlled checkpoint. The only way to avoid the checkpoints was on foot through the mountain. Having been there, I can tell you that the mountain in Bosnia is tough terrain to tranverse - one has to be in very good shape and if one carry light load. Johnstone's idea that the city was a forward base is absurd.

There is no denial that Naser Oric is a war criminal. I have personally met Naser Oric when I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia (2000) and my impression of him was negative. He is a typical criminal scumbag that profit from war. He was a sleazy night club owner in Tuzla at the time. When he was indicted, we came close to capturing him but he managed to evade.

But I wonder what Johnstone point in mentioning Naser Oric. Naser Oric role in the Srebrenica event was a negative one but irrelevant to the later masacre. Naser and his men, during the seige, went outside the city to forage for food and supply. In the process, they indiscriminately killed Serbs who live in the outskirt of the city. Robbery was his main motive. And as the Serbs were closing in the city, Naser and his men left in helicopter. Is Johnstone implying that Naser action justify the masacre later on by Serbs? According Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who is no friend of Naser Oric, submitted a document to the UN that Naser Oric killed 371 Serbs during his raids (from 1993 - 1995). War crime no doubt; and he is being tried for it. But that fact bear no relevancy on the later masacre unless if Johnstone argue that it was spontaneous revenge - unqualified as premeditated and planned masacre.

Which she did in this article at the International Action Center (a far left center found by Ramsey Clark), which seems to be the summarized version of her book:

When the Bosnian Serb forces captured the town on July 11, 2005, civilians were clamoring to leave the enclave, understandably enough, since there was virtually no normal economic life there. Much has been made of the fact that Serb forces separated the population, providing buses for women, children and the infirm to take them to Tuzla, while detaining the men. In light of all that preceded, the reason for this separation is obvious: the Bosnian Serbs were looking for the perpetrators of raids on Serb villages, in order to take revenge.

However, only a relatively small number of Muslim men were detained at that point, and some of them are known to have survived and eventually been released in exchange for Serb prisoners. When the Serb forces entered the town from the south, thousands of Muslim soldiers, in disarray because of the absence of commanding officers, fled northwards, through wild wooded hills toward Tuzla. It is clear enough that they fled because they feared exactly what everyone aware of the situation dreaded: that Serb soldiers would take vengeance on the men they considered guilty of murdering Serb civilians and prisoners.

First of all, the revenge explanation does hold water. There was other masacres long before Srebrenica. There is a hotel in Zvornik that we nicknames "Airbone Hotel." When the Serbs took Zvornik, they took Muslims to a hotel on the Drina (the river that divides Bosnia and Serbia), killed them and threw their bodies into river - hence the nickname. There were so many bodies that the hydroelectric damn downstream was clogged. The refugees at Srebrenica include many survivors of Zvornik.

Johnstone assertion that Muslims men fled north toward Tuzla is absurd. It would normally took us most of the day to travel from Tuzla to Srebrenica in humvee using the main road. It would be almost impossible to travel from Srebrenica to Tuzla on foot while avoiding the main road. The numerous mountains in between make it physically impossible.

Johnstone had also never visited the mass grave in Bosnia. I went to many of them and they turned my stomach. So far more than 5,000 remains were recovered in and around Srebrenica and new ones are being found. It is a higher rate of recover than most masacres in the past suggesting the number maybe much higher than 8,000 originally estimated.

Throughout her book, Johnstone deliberately avoids mentioning the rapes that occured after the fall of Srebrenica. Beside seperating the men and young boy to be massacred, the Serbs raped many women and young girls as a form of intimidation.

Beside the factual errors on the Srebrenica Masacre, Johnstone has nothing to add to the topic other than crazy conspiracy theory. The fact that Croats and Bosniaks also commited war crimes is not disputed by anyone. It does not change the fact that the Serbs were the most prolific killers in the war because they were most well equiped. It further does not change that Srebrenica Masacre in 1995 was the worst masacre in Europe since World War Two. Dianna Johnstone book has less to do with Bosnia than with America. If the US did not intervened in that conflict, Johnstone would have no problem acknowleding the masacre. I am used to the nutty Leftist bashing the US. We can take the abuse. But it sadden me to see victims of genocide being denied of their stories in the process.

Manolo Is Not A Postmodernist

2006-03-22T00:04:00.000-08:00

As a frequent visitor to Manolo's Shoe Blog, my instinct told me that Manolo is a not postmodernist. A man with such refined sense of style cannot possibly be a dreary postmodernist. Normblog profile of the great fashion guru confirms my belief.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > That beauty is the subjective, artificial construct. Indeed, it is not. Beauty and the appreciation of beauty they are part of the very essence of the human soul, and are indeed eternal verities.

Manolo, he is super fantastic!

Even Black Market Is Better Than Government

2006-03-20T01:54:00.000-08:00

The common argument among government intervention advocates is that without government regulation and intervention, a free market would lead to chaos, people would exploit one another. Here is a personal story that will debunk that myth.

I remember the period in Communist Vietnam from the late 70s through early 80s and the economic condition back then. It was a time I cannot forget because of the food shortage and other shortage of essential goods.

The Communist Forces took over the South in April 1975 and soon after completely nationalized the economy – even small and pop business was illegal. And within a year of it, consumer goods disappeared from the market. I remember standing in line with my mother for half a day to shop at Cooperative stores and by the time we get to the store, there was nothing worth buying. And in the rare occasions when there are something to buy, it is substandard and inferior products. And when I say substandard, I mean standard of a third world country – which is almost no standard.

One maybe able to tolerate not having toothpaste or soaps, but the worst experience is not having food. The collectivization of agriculture result in the worst food shortage experienced since World War Two. Those were the years of food shortage. The food shortage was experience exclusively in urban area. It happened because of two reasons. The first problem was distribution, food was gathered at central locations; and because of government bureaucracy, and they rotted in centralized warehouses. Second, there was little economic incentive for farmers to product more rice that they need for themselves. So farmers would grow just enough for their family. Congee (rice soup), to increase the volume of food, was the common meal. And it was barely enough to fill one stomach. I remember going to bed hungry. The situation was so bad that on many occasions we had to eat cattle feeds as substitution for rice.*

As a natural reaction to the economic situation, the black market emerged. At first, it was simply people battering goods and services. A fisherman would give a fish to a barber in exchange for a haircut. Since farmers were not allowed to sell their agricultural goods. However they could exchange it for other things. Illiterate people would give my mother chicken in exchange for reading lesson. This form of battering would later evolved into the black market, as complex as any market.

During the war, my mother was an elementary school teacher. My father was a music professor and a city councilman. It did not matter to the victorious Communist that my father was a member of the opposition party. He was considered to be a member of the former regime. He was arrested, jailed for a couple of years and was forced out of the job (he would be arrested again later but it is another story). The salary of an elementary teacher was not enough to feed my family so my mother quit. She and my father entered the black market as fabric merchants.

At first they knew nothing about commerce but they learned quickly and adapted. Having witnessed my parent business and other businesses that evolved out the black market, I have a great appreciation for the agility and power of the market. As the black market evolved, the economic condition improved rapidly – especially my own economic condition. Whatever one could not buy at the government cooperatives, one could get it in the black market. It became the primary market in the South but it was nonetheless illegal – more so for the merchants than the consumers.

One would assume that in a market that is not regulated (it is an illegal market), there would be much exploitation and cheating. But that was not the cases. There were cheatings, but far and few in between. A merchant’s business depends on his or her reputation. Those who cheat do not survive in the market very long. Honesty is a selling point. Commercial transaction is illegal, money and good did not change hand at the same time. Consumer would pay merchant first. At the time of payment, there was no merchandise in sight. Merchant would go get the items and give to the consumer later. Trust was paramount to the transaction. All sort of items (good as well as services) were available in the black market to includes controlled items such as pharmaceuticals.

Despite the fact that we suppose to receive universal healthcare, there was no care or medicine. Doctors could not live on government salary so they quit. Those doctors that stayed on at the hospital are unqualified. They became doctors because they were loyal members of the Communist Party, not because they were competent healers. People learned to avoid government hospital and government doctors. One was more likely to get sicker, not better from the treatment. Competent doctors practiced medicine from their house, without license or government sanction. People always knew who the good doctors were. The bad ones worked for the government.

Essential medicine was also purchased at the black market. I was a sick child and often required medical care and medicine - medicine that would require regulation, control, and prescription in this country. I never experienced any adverse effect from the medicine purchased from the black market. They always worked, and I always gotten better from taking them. In fact, they saved my lives several occasions.

It was the black market that ended the starvation – starvation caused by government action. It was the black market that cured people and gave them a decent quality of life. It was the black market that sustained the entire country economy.

Liberal economic concepts such as invisible hand or spontaneous order are not abstract concepts. They are real and observable – and they are wonderful. They show the superiority of free market over government intervention. And even unregulated black market is proven to be superior to government.

========
*According to the Economist, in 2005, Vietnam was the second largest exporters of rice. Yet in the 70s and 80s, it could not feed it citizens. It is not coincident that the increase in production of rice began after the economic liberalization of the 90s.

Iraq - 2004 and now

2006-03-16T12:44:00.000-08:00

All the talking heads who tell people how bad the situation in Iraq is was not in Iraq in 2004. When I was in Iraq in 2004 thing was really bad. Early that year we lost physical control of al-Fallujah, then a string of cities and towns in al-Anbar province fell into the hand of terrorists. From ar-Ramadi to the border with Syria, we had no physical control. Terrorists had complete freedom of movement from Baghdad to Syria. They controlled most of al-Anbar province. In al-Qa'im near the border, there was a sign in English: "Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Qa'im."

Al-Anbar was not the only lost province. The fall of al-Fallujah had a domino effect. It inspired terrorists everywhere to duplicate Zarqawi success. As-Samarra in Salah ad Din province fell; followed by Tal Afar in Niwana province. Baquba (in Diyala province), thirty minutes from my base camp, al-Zarqawi attempted to take the city. The fight for the city last a week, two soldiers from my unit died on the first day of the battle, known unofficially as the Battle for Baquba. It took several days of heavy fighting and three 500 pounds bombs to disloged Zarqawi fighters from the city. We almost lost the city. Iraqi workers who are employed in my base did not show up for work for more than a week because there was fighting everywhere.

Muqtada Sadr took advantage of the situation and started his insugency. First al-Najaf fell; then it was Karbala, then al-Kut. In al-Kut, there was a small U.S. force there. The base fell. People arrived at my base camp with the clothes on their back. Throughout the South, Mahdi Army of Muqtada Sadr roamed freely.

2004 was a desperate year. It was the year of the Twin Insurgency. To call the US presence in Iraq an occupation was grossly exagerated. We barely controlled half of the country. The other half was firmly in the control of terrorists. They ruled their areas like mini-states. They even had Sharia court. People are worry about a future Islamic Caliphate in the Sunni Triangle. There was an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq in 2004 with Zarqawi as its head of state and al-Fallujah as its capital.

But that Caliphate is no more. Now, all the cities and towns I mentioned are fully in the control of the US or Iraqi government. There are still violences and Iraq is not out of danger yet. But thing had improved signficantly since then. Iraq has an democratically elected government. It has an Armed Forces.

If someone tell you that thing has gotten worse in Iraq, ask him where he was in 2004. Wherever he was, he was certainly not in Iraq.

"Journey From The Fall"

2006-03-13T17:03:00.000-08:00

An independent film that I will see. There are a whole lot of movies made about the Vietnam War and the effect of the war. But there are few, if none, made from the perspective of a Vietnamese. Unless that Vietnamese happens to be a Communist "freedom fighter" who triumphed over the "Imperialist America."

Few undestand that horrible price paid by many of us in the South, particularly my parent generation who had to live under Communist tyranny. "Journey From The Fall" is the first movie attempting to fill that gap.

Fresh from its screening at the Sundance Film Festival, JOURNEY FROM THE FALL is the first major American film to dramatize the traumatic aftermath of the Vietnam War from a Vietnamese perspective. Unlike Hollywood films with a one-sided focus on the American psyche, Ham Tran’s impressive feature-length debut delves into the stories of those left behind after the fall of Saigon.

Despite his allegiance to the toppled South Vietnamese government, Long Nguyen decides to remain in Vietnam. Arrested and imprisoned in a Communist re-education camp, he urges his family to make the treacherous escape by boat without him. They embark on the arduous ocean voyage, braving sickness, starvation and pirates in the hope of reaching the U.S. and freedom. Back in Vietnam, Long suffers years of solitary confinement and hard labor, and finally despairs that his family has perished. But news of their successful resettlement in America inspires him to make one last desperate attempt to join them.

This gorgeous, gripping epic skillfully interweaves the little-known horrors of the re-education camps with a visceral account of the trials and triumphs of the refugee experience. With superb performances and luminous cinematography, it tells an intensely moving story with dignity and astonishing lyricism. Filmed in the lush terrain of Southeast Asia by Guillermo Rosas (BEFORE NIGHT FALLS) and the sun-baked streets of California by Julie Kirkwood, JOURNEY FROM THE FALL is a tribute to the perseverance and hope of the Vietnamese people, and a testament to the beauty and power of filmmaking.

I will not be able to see it until it comes out in DVD, but if you are in San Franciso (March 16 -23), Berkeley (March 17 - 25), and San Jose (March 24 - 26), go see the movie. Here is the site you can order tickets.

“Public Purpose” Versus “Public Good”

2006-02-25T18:48:00.000-08:00

Fifth Admenment, US Bill of Right:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is much controversy over the public use clause, especially post Kelo v. New London. According to Justice Steven, “Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.” (Emphasis is mine)

The public use clause should not be equated to public purpose. The test for public use should be public good – not public purpose.

There are two qualities to public good (via wikipedia):

Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good.

This should be the qualifying test for all eminent domain cases. If this test had been use, the City of New London could not rob the home owners of their houses. In fact, I would favor the public good test for all government spending, not just on eminent domain. It would severely limit the ability of our government to waste our money.

US-India Relation

2006-02-23T19:17:00.000-08:00

I am looking forward to the President visit to India next week. I say it's about time. In fact he should have visited India the first year he was in office. India is the most populous democracy in the world, a future economic and military powerhouse. India is a key player international. Unfortunately the US has ignored India importance; and even in the past hostile toward it. I believes it was to our own detriment that President Nixon side with China against India. Our foreign policy in relation to China and India in the past reveals the hypocrasy and immorality of international realism. It is absolutely absurd that the US sided with China, a tyranical dictatorship, against India, a liberal democracy.

But relationship between the US and India is warming up. According to the Economist ("The great Indian hope trick," subscription required)

According to Promod Haque of Norwest Venture, a venture-capital firm, it is also suffering a “reverse brain-drain” as Indian and Chinese engineers go home. This, he argues, coupled with the retirement of the baby-boomers, is creating a “shortage of intellectual capital” in America which will eventually threaten its superpower status. The solution is to build a “strategic competitive advantage” through an alliance with an offshore base of intellectual capital. India is the obvious choice. Its pool of highly qualified graduates will be twice as large as China's by 2008, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, and they speak English.

Such a de facto alliance is already in the making, and is helping alert American business to India's other attractions: an economy expected to grow by more than 7% in 2006, for the fourth year running; a fast-expanding middle-class; and a government committed to liberalisation, even if implementing it is painfully slow. In the past year, India has allowed foreign firms to enter the construction and property industries, signed an “open skies” agreement with America and passed a patent law that meets WTO standards. As India continues to open up new industries to foreign investment, the opportunities for American firms are proliferating, says Ron Somers, head of the US-India Business Council.

One key huddle during the President visit will be India status as a nuclear power - both its civilian program as well as its military program. When Prime Minister Singh came to Washington DC, the US promised to share our civilian nuclear technology with India. However implementing the promise is easier said than done. The non-proliferation purists in the US object. According to another Economist article ("A passage to India", subscription required):

Under American and international law, such technology can be given only to countries that have renounced nuclear weapons and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has never joined the treaty, and it tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Mr Bush, in effect, was driving a coach and horses through the treaty in order to suit his own strategic ends, a move that invites the accusation of hypocrisy from other nuclear states and wannabes not so favoured. The idea was that India, in return, should take steps to satisfy the Americans on a long list of nuclear-security concerns, such as not exporting weapons technology and continuing to observe a moratorium on testing. Most important, India was asked to separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, with the former subject to a rigorous inspection regime.

The Economist:

So far, however, the proposals offered by the Indians actually to do all this are far from adequate. As Mr Bush packs his bags, desperate attempts are being made to bridge the gap. The obvious danger is that in order to portray his summit as a success Mr Bush will be tempted to accept even fewer safeguards from India. That would be a dangerous mistake: nuclear proliferation matters too much to allow excessive wiggle-room or create bad precedents. Fortunately, whatever deal is agreed between Mr Bush and Mr Singh will also require the approval of America's Congress, which has already taken a dim view of Mr Bush's nuclear generosity to India.

I disagree with the Economist and Congress. I think we are overreacting. India was never a threat, is not a threat, and extremely unlikely to be a threat. If we are comfortable to transfer our nuclear technology to the United Kingdoms, there should be the same level of comfort with India.

Furthermore, India relying on nuclear energy is important to the world security and the US security. The increase price of petroleum is due to increase demand from India and China. And petrodollars are being used by the Saudi regime to fund various madrassas, mosques, and religious institutions across the globe, turning those institutions into Jihadi information center, which in turn produce more terrorists. The President is commendable on his goal of reducing dependency on petroleum. But the the effect will be negligent if the demand for petroleum worldwide is not reduced. If India depends primarily on its nuclear reactor for its energy need, it will ease its demand for crude oil, and in turn lessens the amount of pretrodollars available to the Saudi regime.

The security and prosperity of the US depends on India-US relation. Do not let isolationists and protectionists stand in the way of our most important diplomatic victory in many decades. And isolationists in the US is not the only obstacle.

"This debate... has been hijacked over here [in the United States] by non-proliferation theologians and in India by those rallying under the banner of self-reliance," (India's Ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen)

Mythical Creatures

2006-02-22T21:57:00.000-08:00

Black Five suggests that “moderate Muslims” may be “mythical beasties;” somehow I managed to have met many of those mythical creatures, even fought alongside many of them. They exist, and they are very real. I wrote about them here, even includes a picture.

I am a strong supporter of the Danes against fundamentalists, but I am also a strong supporter of Muslims against fundamentalist. Those who claim, that because there is no uproar of opposition against fundamentalism from Muslim, that there is no moderate Muslim, have never lived in an oppressed tyranny. This is the equivalence of the argument from the Left (made during the Cold War) that because there is no protest against Communism behind the Iron Curtain, the Worker Paradise is truly a paradise.

The reason moderate Muslims are so quiet is the same reason we victims of Communism were so quiet – fear. For 15 years, I lived under the tyranny of communism; and for those 15 years, I said nothing. My father said nothing, my neighbors said nothing, and my (then) countrymen said nothing. In fact, if a Western journalist asked me a question about the government, I would have nothing but glorious praise for the Communist government. Of course, I would not believe what I said. We had food shortage; our lives were miserable and oppressive. But miserable as we were, we preferred living in misery to death and imprisonment. My family and I were terrified, and being terrified is a forgivable sin.

The majority of Muslims are afraid – and they have every reason to be fearful. We, in the West, think of Islamic fundamentalists in term of the September 11th attack, the Madrid attack, the London attack. But Islamists waged war on moderate Muslims long before they waged war on the West. All the Western casualties combined are only a fraction in comparison to the Muslims killed in Algeria by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). And Algeria is only a small front in the war. Add that number to the number of Muslims killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The recent bombing of the al-Askari Mosque prove that extremists are waging war against moderate (or as they call it “the near enemies’) and that we in the West are the peripheral to the conflict (“the far enemies).

Those who claim that there are no moderate Muslims must have never read the blog of Iraq the Model or the Big Pharoah. They of course never fought alongside the Peshmerga or the 206th Iraqi National Guard.

By not separating between the extremists and the moderates, we will loose potential allies and pitch ourselves against the greater Islamic world. The oversimplified clash of civilization meme will be detrimental to our cause.

Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues (from Ibn Khaldun)

2006-02-18T00:58:00.000-08:00

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) is an Islamic scholar living in the 14th century Andalusia, what we now known as Spain. Ibn Khaldun is many things. He is a historian, a government administrator and an Islamic jurist. But he is also the first sociologist and the first economist. In “The Muqaddimah” (translated as Prolegomena or Introduction), Chapter 3 titles “On dynasties, royal authority, the caliphate, government ranks, and all that goes with these things. The chapter contains basic and supplementary propositions,” Section 36 titles “Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues,” Ibn Khaldun wrote:

QUOTE:

36 Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues

It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.

The same reason for this is that when the dynasty follows the way of Islam, it imposes only such taxes as are stipulated by the religious law, such as charity taxes, the land tax, and the poll tax. Theses have fixed limits that cannot be exceeded.

When the dynasty follows the ways of group feeling and (political) superiority, it necessary has at first a desert attitude, as has been mentioned before. The desert attitude requires kindness, reverence, humility, respect for the property of other people, and disinclination to appropriate it, except in rare instances. Therefore, the individual, the individual imposts and assessments, which together constitute the tax revenue, are low. When tax assessment and imposts upon the subjects are low, the latter have the energy and desire to do things. Cultural enterprises grow and increase, because the low taxes bring satisfaction. When cultural enterprises grow, the number of individual imposts and assessments mounts. In consequence, the tax revenue, which is in sum total of (the individual assessment), increase.

When the dynasty continues in power and their rulers follow each other in succession, they become sophisticated. The Bedouin attitude and simplicity lose their significance, and the Bedouin qualities of moderation and restraint disappear. Royal authority with its tyranny and sedentary culture that stimulates sophistication, make their appearance. The people of the dynasty then acquire qualities of character related to cleverness. Their customs and needs become more varied because of the prosperity and luxury in which they are immersed. As a result, the individual imposts and assessments upon the subjects, agricultural labourers, farmers and all the other tax payers, increase. Every individual impost and assessment is greatly increased, in order to obtain a higher tax revenue. Customs duties are placed upon articles of commerce and (levied) at the city gates. Then, gradual increases in the amount of the assessments succeed each other regularly, in correspondence with the gradual increase in the luxury customs and many needs of the dynasty and the spending required in connection with them. Eventually, the taxes will weigh heavily upon the subjects and overburden them. Heavy taxes become an obligation and tradition, because the increase took place gradually, and no one knows specifically who increase them or levied them. They lie upon the subjects like an obligation and tradition.

The assessments increase beyond the limited of equity. The result is that the interest of the subjects in cultural enterprise disappears, since they compare expenditure and taxes with their income and gain and see little profit they make, they loose all hope. Therefore, many of them refrain from all cultural activity. The result is that the total tax revenue goes down, as individual assessment go down. Often when decrease is noticed, the amounts of individual imposts are increased. This is considered a means of compensating for the decrease. Finally, individual imposts and assessments reach their limit. It would be of no avail to increase them further. The costs of all cultural enterprise are now too high, the taxes are too heavy, and the profits anticipated fail to materialize. Finally, civilization is destroyed, because the incentive for cultural activity is gone. It is the dynasty that suffers from the situation, because its profits from cultural activity.

If one understands this, he will realize that the strongest incentive for cultural activity is to lower as much as possible the amounts of individual imposts levied upon persons capable of undertaking cultural enterprises. In this manner, such persons will be psychologically disposed to undertake them, because they can be confident of making a profit from them.

COMMENT:

The commentary by Ibn Khaldun describes what latter known as The Laffer Curve, names after the supply side economist Arthur Laffer. It should have been name the Khaldun Curve since he was the first to have mentioned it. It is important to note that Ibn Khaldun in describe the phenomenon was mainly interest in the effect on the state coffer, not the taxpayers; so he cannot be accuse of being anti-government or a libertarian.

Imagine writing the above paragraph in The Middle Ages. Ibn Khaldun was very wise. He was ahead of his time, and is perhaps ahead of our time as well. We are now seven hundred years after Ibn Khaldun. Yet we still have people who believe in big government, in high taxation, who still refuse to see the aggregate benefit to society when individual is given economic incentive.

Not Even Slavery Is Offered

2006-02-14T22:58:00.000-08:00

Dymphna quote me from this post.

Let not pretend that they seek to redress an insult to their religion. It is a mere pretext. They seek nothing less than our submission - our unconditional surrender to their rule. To them I say “bring it on.” I will not submit. I will not surrender. I will not be a dhimmi. I did not escape Communism to live under Sharia.

I just realized that dhimmitude is not even available to me. To be a dhimmi, one has to be of “people of the books,” that is either a Christian or a Jew. I am neither. I am a Buddhist, therefore slavery is not even offered. The choice for me is conversion or death. Some choices!

When this war began, many Buddhists (and Hindus) took a position that the war is between the West (implying Christians) and Muslim Fundamentalist – and it does not concern them. They are “useful idiots.” It is not possible for them or me to sit on the fence. In the global caliphate, at least Christians will be offered a chance as lowly second class citizens – if they submitt themselves to the Sharia. If one is an atheist or if one religion is not from a Abrahamic tradition, no quarter will be given. It is time for the fence sitters to take side in the war against Islamic fundamentalists; because the consequence for them is life or death.

The Left, Tort Reform, and Universal Healthcare

2006-02-13T23:00:00.000-08:00

Regardless if you are from the right or the left of the political spectrum - you should support tort reform, especially tort reform on medical malpratice. It puzzles me a great deal that the Left are adamantly opposed to tort reform.

If you are on the Right, like me, you support privatization of health care. If you are on the Left, you support universal healthcare. But neither goal can be achieved without reducing the cost of healthcare. I think both sides agree that the current price of healthcare is too high. It is too high for a person to buy health insurance on his own. And it would bankrupt the government if we decide to nationalized healthcare.

One factor that makes heathcare so expensive is the high cost of malpractice insurance to healthcare provider. And I do not buy into the argument (by attorney lobbyist, of all people) that there are no frivolous lawsuits. Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp is not as rare as they claimed. Both my brother and I had been partied to frivilous lawsuit.

The Right, by supporting tort reform, shows that they are serious about keeping healthcare in the private sector. If the Left is truly serious about universal healthcare, they should be supporting tort reform. Their current position only reveals that they are in the pocket of trial lawyers, and all the talks of universal healthcare is mere political rhetoric, not to be taken seriously.

Kurosawa view on Postmodernism and Multiculturalism

2006-02-10T01:30:00.000-08:00

Akira Kurosawa is perhaps my most favorite film maker in the history of cinema. His works is the best proofs that postmodernism and multiculturalism are wrong. There are many critics of both postmodernism and multiculturalism – but Kurosawa is perhaps the best and the most successful critic.

Among the best of Kurosawa works are two of my favorite movies, “Ran” and “Throne of Blood.” The first is based on Shakespeare’s “King Lear. The second is based on Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.” The two movies are Kurosawa declaration of universalism and a condemnation of postmodernism and multiculturalism.

“Ran” and “Throne of Blood” are both set in medieval Japan – a period known as Sengoku-jidai (The Warring State Period). Kurosawa did not simply doing imitations of Shakespeare. He had done something amazing. Here are two movies made my a modern Japanese, inspired by a playwright living in Renaissance England, transposed to medieval Japan, through modern medium (cinema), created masterpieces that are loved and understood by modern movie viewers across the globe. When I first watched the movies, I simply thought that the movies are Japanese movies about medieval Japan. To someone who is unfamiliar with Western classic literature, there is nothing to suggest that the movies derived from a Western source. I did not recognize Shakespeare in Kurosawa. I did not know anything about Shakespeare at the time. But later, studying Shakespeare in college, I recognized Kurosawa in Shakespeare.

By making these two movies, Kurosawa rejected postmodernism and its offspring, multiculturalism. Postmodernism rejects that words have no intrinsic meaning, that there is no universal human value. In fact, there is no such thing as value. This philosophy then gave birth to modern multiculturalism. Kurosawa through his movies demonstrated that there are universal values that transcend time, space, and culture.

I invite readers to watch “Ran” and “Throne of Blood,” as well as other Kurosawa’s movies.

Dishonesty and Dishonor from the U.S. Media

2006-02-07T18:14:00.000-08:00

I find the stated reasons by US mainstream media not to show the cartoons extremely disingenuous. It is understandably if they did not show the cartoons a month ago, when the issue had not surface. But the cartoons themselves are now a central part of the story. How can they report about the story without showing the cartoons that began it all? The reason that the cartoons should be reprinted is not to offend Muslim, or to express any opinion about the cartoons themselves, but to put the story in context.

These are the very same organization that had no second thought about showing the pictures of Abu Ghraib or other equally offensive images. The reason is no other than fear. They are afraid that Muslim extremists would bomb their building or harm their staffs. It is an understanding fear and they should say so. I would still respect the media if they came out and said that the reason they did not reprint the cartoons because they fear for their lives. At least they can score points for honesty. We expect the media to tell the truth, but we certainly do not expect them to risk their lives. We do not expect the media to be fearless, but we expect them to be honest.

Let me suggest a respectable press release for media organization who will not reprint or show the cartoons.

“We apologize to our readers/viewers that we cannot show the controversial cartoons. We wish we could show it to you so that you can completely comprehend the cause for the controversy. We wish we could show the cartoons to you so that you can decide for yourself if they are offensive or not. We do not show the cartoons because of the risks they pose to us as an organization and to our staffs as individuals. Our job is to report to you the story in it entirely, as honestly as we possibly can, but without jeopardizing our lives. In this case, our lives can be in serious danger. It is therefore with regret that we cannot show you the cartoons. We hope that you will understand our position.”

Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of the German newsweekly (which reprinted the cartoons) had this to say in a Washington Post editorial title: “Tolerance Toward Intolerance”

When the cartoons were first published in Denmark in September, nobody in Germany took notice. Had our publication been offered the drawings at that point, in all likelihood we would have declined to print them. At least one of them seems to equate Islam with radical Islamism. That is exactly the direction nobody wants the debate about fundamentalism to take -- even though the very nature of a political cartoon is overstatement. We would not have printed the caricature out of a sense of moderation and respect for the Muslim minority in our country. News people make judgments about taste all the time. We do not show sexually explicit pictures or body parts after a terrorist attack. We try to keep racism and anti-Semitism out of the paper. Freedom of the press comes with a responsibility.
But the criteria change when material that is seen as offensive becomes newsworthy. That's why we saw bodies falling out of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. That's why we saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. On such issues we print what we usually wouldn't. The very nature of the discourse is to find parameters of what is culturally acceptable. How many times have we seen Janet Jackson's breast in the course of a discussion of the limits of family entertainment? How many times have we printed material that Jews might consider offensive in an attempt to define the extent of anti-Semitism? It seems odd that most U.S. papers patronize their readers by withholding cartoons that the whole world talks about. To publish does not mean to endorse. Context matters.

He also has this to say about President Clinton and our government.

The former president has turned the argument upside down. In this jihad over humor, tolerance is disdained by people who demand it of others. The authoritarian governments that claim to speak on behalf of Europe's supposedly oppressed Muslim minorities practice systematic repression against their own religious minorities. They have radicalized what was at first a difficult question. Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules. Does Bill Clinton want to counsel tolerance toward intolerance?
On Friday the State Department found it appropriate to intervene. It blasted the publication of the cartoons as unacceptable incitement to religious hatred. It is a peculiar moment when the government of the United States, which likes to see itself as the home of free speech, suggests to European journalists what not to print.

It is an excellent op-ed. Please read the whole thing.

Under Seige

2006-02-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

A Muslim commenter left behind an absurd and bizzare comment. "Are you trying to say that you are happy that the Danish government has still not apologized to Muslims all over the world?" It is absurd to ask a government to apologize for an act of it private citizens - acts that are protective by freedom of expression. If a government is responsible for all action of its citizens, we should have bombed Riyadh, Medina, and Mecca to the stone age. We did not. The commenter should consider himself lucky that we in the West do not apply his bizzare logic.

Let be clear, my previous posting is not about whether the cartoons are offensive or not. That is beyond the point of debate. Last year, a US under-garment company introduced a line of panty with the image of Lord Buddha on them. My family and I, who are devout Buddhists, wrote to the company, explained to them why the products were offensive to us, and asked them the stop. Buddhists throughout the world participated in the campaign. We did not threaten bodily harm to anyone, we did not ask the US government to apologize, we did not boycott other companies that had nothing to do with the offense.

Demands by some Muslims on the government of Denmark, Norway and the people of Denmark and Norway is unacceptable. They may boycott the company that published the cartoons, they may even boycott the companies that have financial relationship with the company that published the cartoons. Other parties (the governments of Denmark and Norway, Danish and Norwegian bussinesses) are innocent of the offense.

The demands suggest a few things about those who demanded them. By asking the government of Denmark and Norway to punish the cartoonist and their publishers, the demanders have absolutely no regard for individual liberty. By asking the government of Denmark and Norway to apologize for the offense of private citizen, they believe that the state and the individuals are one and the same - this is the central value of facism. By boycotting Danish and Norwegian products, they believe that one member of the collective can be punished for the action of the other. This is the very same attitude that result in the barbaric gang rape of Mukhtar Mai.

Let not pretend that they seek to redress an insult to their religion. It is a mere pretext. They seek nothing less than our submission - our unconditional surrender to their rule. To them I say "bring it on." I will not submit. I will not surrender. I will not be a dhimmi. I did not escape Communism to live under Sharia. You are prepared to die for your religion. I am prepared to die for my freedom.

The new front is being fought in Denmark and Norway. If they fall, we are next. So here are the address, phone number, and email to the embassies of Denmark and Norway. Please send them your words of support and encouragement.

Embassy of Denmark

3200 Whitehaven St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008

Tel: (202) 234-4300

Fax: (202) 328-1470

wasamb@um.dk

Royal Norwegian Embassy
2720 34th St. N.W.

Washington DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 333-6000

Fax: (202) 337-0870

emb.washington@mfa.no

Open Letter To Denmark

2006-02-05T16:02:00.000-08:00

Dear the People of the Kingdom of Denmark,

We are all Danes today. I am a Dane today. Today I stand in solidarity with you and your great kingdom against the barbarians who want to put you under submission of their fanatical tyranny. Your kingdom is a loyal friend of the United State of America. You have always been along our side. I had the distinguish honor of serving along side your brave soldiers in Bosnia. I can say with certainty that the Danish Royal Armed Forces is one of the finest military forces in Europe. Since then, your country had stood by us in every conflict. You fought with us in Kosovo. After our country was attacked in September 11th, 2001, you sent your brave soldiers to dangerous mountains of Afghanistan. When we liberated Iraq, despite the strong sentiment against the war in Europe, you again sent your brave warriors to the heart of Mesopotania. In every case, you were honorable, dependable and continue to be so.

You have never fail us. We could not have asked for a better friend. But with great shame, anger, and embarrasment, I apologize for my government. My government have fail you. I am sorry for the cowardice statements that came out of our State Department. If you have felt betrayed by our State Department, it is a correct sentiment. You were stabbed in the back by those with tender spines. But please be mindful that they do not speak for me, nor do they speak for the Americans people. We, the great people of the United States of America hold the Kingdom of Denmark and her people in our heart and our prayers.

We are all Danes. I am a Dane.

A friend of Denmark,

Minh-Duc

What President Bush Should Have Said

2006-02-03T20:08:00.000-08:00

This should have been the State of the Union Address (via Pedro the Quietist). Robert Mandel wrote the best alternative speech that the President should have given. It starts out:

My fellow Americans, tonight I report on the state of the Union.
We are mired in debt.
We spend far more than we take in every year.
We have exceedingly high taxes.
We have huge trade imbalances...

The solution:

...So tonight, I say to the American public that we can restore this great land. But it will require change. And the change is far more than just some federal program, law, or department. It requires a changing of the soul, the very fiber of what made our nation the shining city on a hill, the envy of the world. We must stop asking the government to solve our problems, blaming others for our own failings, and expecting the world on a silver platter without work and effort commensurate...

This is perhap the best line:

...So tonight I propose nothing. That is I propose no new programs, no new spending, no new departments, no new anything. In fact, I propose quite the opposite. We must reduce, we must contract, we must devolve. Power, and money, must devolve from Washington and be returned to the citizens. We must allow the citizens to be free to conduct their own lives free from government intrusion...

Carnival of the Clueless #31

2006-01-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

I am a bit late, but here it is. Carnival of the Clueless #31: The "What Would Jack Bauer Do?" edition is up at Right Wing Nut House. Rick Moran essemble a good number of posts to includes my post: "Betrayal and Sacrifice."

Hamas and Fact on the Ground

2006-01-28T14:09:00.000-08:00

Call me an optimist, but I actually think that the recent development with the Palestinian Legislative Council is a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to be fearful about Hamas electoral victory. Much of alarms that generated both from the Left and Right are the failure to see thing as it is – to see the reality instead of the illusion. I agree with Dave Price at Dean’s World that “between incompetent, corrupt terrorists and somewhat more honest, less corrupt terrorists. Frankly, given their options, I think they made the right choice.”

Before we go on, we need to see the real situation on the ground prior to January 26, 2006. I find headline such as this, “Hamas win heralds new reality” (BBC), ridiculous. It is not a new reality; it is a same old reality. Hamas electoral victory changed nothing, it only makes thing clearer.

Fatah (and the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah) was not a negotiation partner – at least not a viable one. I am not questioning their willingness to negotiate or desire to compromise. It is the ability to deliver that is in question. It is delusional to think that Fatah had control of the situation on the ground. It never had any control of the Palestinian territories and it certainly never had any control over the political and military actors within the Palestinian territories – to include it own factions. Therefore the whole peace process involving Fatah was an absurd idea. It is akin to business negotiation, but instead of negotiating with the majority stock holders, one negotiates with the minority stockholders. Fatah lack the ability to deliver peace – so peace with Fatah in charge was wishful thinking.

With Hamas in control, the situation is closer to reality in the Palestinian Territories than it was before. Hamas was the entity that controls the situation on the ground (politically and military) – it is naturally that they should be in charge. Their ascendancy allows for more realistic assessment of political situation and allows the US and Europe to arrive at more realistic foreign policy decisions. This is especially true for Israel. Israel now knows exactly what it is dealing with – clear, concrete, and without ambiguity. So whatever it is that Hamas decide to do, it is easier to counter. If Hamas decides to moderate it position, one can guarantee that it can and will deliver its end of the bargain. If it decides to escalate the conflict, there is an identified address for Israeli Hellfire missiles. The fact that the controller is now in the light and not in the shadow is a good thing.

The last few years, Israel military options were limited. It could not strike the Palestinian Authority after a suicide attack. Since the entity (PA) is not the direct author of those attacks. And when attack PA, such as destroying PA police stations; it was condemned by the world. The only viable military option for Israel was striking Hamas which was illusive. This time, striking PA itself is an option.

Of course, I was merely describing the worst case scenario – not what will likely happen. The reason I am optimistic is because I believe that Hamas entry into politic will limit it severely. Hamas political platform was political governance. Hamas asserts that Fatah was corrupt and incompetent, and that Hamas can govern more effectively. It must now prove it to the electorates or loose the next Legislative Council election. Hamas will soon find out that governing is not an easy task. It is one thing to criticize; it is another thing to actually deliver. Therefore, if Hamas can govern wisely and effectively, it does not matter who is in charge. Hamas leadership did not anticipate their own victory; therefore I doubt that they have a plan to govern the Palestinian territories. So Hamas either has to adjust quickly – which will result in realistic and pragmatic policies; or the problem of Hamas will be a temporary one.

This has an impact on Hamas policy toward Israel. I doubt that Hamas will change its charter and rhetoric – for instance the destruction of Israel. But it will certainly reconsider its military option and weight it more carefully than it did before. Hamas is radical, but not irrational. It would not waste its military resource in a fruitless confrontation with Israel – especially a confrontation that it knows it will loose.

The electoral victory of Hamas will likely cause a split within its rank – between the leadership in exiles and the leadership in the Palestinian territories. Facing with the reality of governing, the leadership in the territories will be more pragmatic. Living in exiles, the leadership in Syria will stay true to its idealistic and radical vision. This split will come as it did within Fatah.