Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

I absolutely think we need to accept refugees.

I totally agree Talent. I favor unlimited legal immigration. But my understanding is that, in Europe, the refugee flow is heavy with military age young men. The reason is that these are the ones who are "sent ahead" to see if the trip can be made safely. To me, that makes sense.

So, I'd support taking the elderly, women, and children in the short run. I believe that the men who are "going ahead" to judge whether it is safe to flee to Europe would jump at a chance to put their family on a plane or ship to come to the US. Then take the time to really check out the men who follow.

And don't settle these folks where they are unwelcome. Settle them in DC, where the President rules. No problem. 5 of the richest counties in the US are around DC, so let the Muslims settle there, where the folks who work for the government and want this policy live. I'm sure they would be delighted as "public servants" to take in the refugees.

[hack]

Hack, so, you see the central foreign policy action in the fight against ISIS to be isolating the Saudis. Is that it? A start? What else?

I'm for ramping up military action both for its strategic and tactical benefit but, unlike Jon, I support Special Operations and targeted killing. At this point, I don't care much about collateral damage so, these kinds of operations become easier to conduct under those circumstances. I'm not sure the US would undertake operations where that is a problem though, so, there is that constraint.

You and I agree on the power of developing a financial strangle hold but the more I read about this, the harder it gets where ISIS is concerned. They seem to have a remarkably well developed and financed underground logistics chain. They may not really need the banking industry to move money. It seems they are hiding millions under mattresses. You have to take the mattresses out I'm thinking.

I don't know. It's a lot easier to spot the problem than it is to come up with the solution. It's hard to know what we should start doing, but it's easy to know what we should stop doing.

One thing back we can now expect though is that for the deep state in the US to push for more privacy invasion. ISIS is supposedly all over the dark web. I don't know for myself. I do know, or at least have read, that within the community of experts there isn't a real consensus on what ISIS relies on. I do suspect that it would be a lot easier to screw Saudi than it would be to stop ISIS. One indication of ISIS' strength is Anonymous. The group said they would start sabotaging ISIS through hacking in the wake of these attacks. But then again it said the same after Charlie Hebdo, and ISIS has only struck harder. So who knows?

But, overall, Saudi is one enemy. ISIS is another. And there are presumably others. My point is that waging war in the Middle East in the past decade has also come with a side of corrupt military contracting and the preservation of a false alliance that facilitates more defense-sector income and makes the world less safe in the process. So it's time to stop that. I don't see how you can get to serious policy without ditching the corrupt policy.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, got it, thanks. Step by step. I tend to be a want it all now guy. I've gotten better in my senior years but still I've got that complex weighing on my ability to think rationally.

[Da Geezer]

I totally agree with what I'll term a financial blockade, as Hack proposes. Very effective and relatively cheap. It will also force those within the financial system to make a choice, and that is good.

I see the US hit an oil truck convoy two days ago. 116 tankers destroyed by Wart Hogs. Reports are that they shot until they ran out of ammunition. That is another way of shutting off the money. It would be a lot easier to just destroy the oil fields that fund the terrorists.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Historically in the Middle East there were three major civilizations vying for power and influence: The Egyptians, the Turks, and the Persians/Iranians.

Up until the 20th century, the US didn't give a damn about the Middle East. Then they discovered oil. Oil turned the Arabian peninsula (the Middle East's West Virginia) into a new competing power. For the past 90 years the US has allied with one power or another but our longest and most permanent relationship has been with Saudi Arabia. Longer than our 'friendship' with Israel by several decades. Saudi Arabia is more responsible than any other country on the planet for Islamic fundamentalism and terror. Pretty much every major Sunni terror group that exists got its start with Saudi money. And we (the world's self-declared good guys) have (at best) enabled it all or (at worst) given our active support.

[hack]

It's true. West Virginia has a very rich cultural history and a tradition of spectacular architecture. Some pretty good food too.

[hack]

I totally agree Talent. I favor unlimited legal immigration. But my understanding is that, in Europe, the refugee flow is heavy with military age young men. The reason is that these are the ones who are "sent ahead" to see if the trip can be made safely. To me, that makes sense.

So, I'd support taking the elderly, women, and children in the short run. I believe that the men who are "going ahead" to judge whether it is safe to flee to Europe would jump at a chance to put their family on a plane or ship to come to the US. Then take the time to really check out the men who follow.

And don't settle these folks where they are unwelcome. Settle them in DC, where the President rules. No problem. 5 of the richest counties in the US are around DC, so let the Muslims settle there, where the folks who work for the government and want this policy live. I'm sure they would be delighted as "public servants" to take in the refugees.

There's no good Arabic food in the area. I welcome this.

[hack]

Hack, got it, thanks. Step by step. I tend to be a want it all now guy. I've gotten better in my senior years but still I've got that complex weighing on my ability to think rationally.

My feeling is that, well, government can screw up so much so easily. Rather than make a plan, if there's stuff we know we can stop doing and that will help, that's something to hang on to.

[Da Geezer]

Religious people are having more babies than secular.

Correct. Although "secular" is a rather kind word for some whose religion is environmentalism or pantheism.

When I was younger, and a leftist, I read The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. I believed what he said. Many of my generation walked around with a sticker "1" on their chest. It really meant, "I'm smarter than you are, you dumb shit."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html?_r=0

Well, educated folks worldwide decided not to have more than 1 child. This was particularly potent in Europe, because, imho, those socialist countries were in the market to separate the state from religion, and the best thing for them to push was the replacement of Christianity with pantheism. So Europeans decided to do the responsible thing, save the planet, and stop replacing their population. Beside, Socialists believe man is ultimately good, and the leaders had to make choices for the uneducated who just didn't understand.

So now Europe needs people because demographics is destiny. Merkel is letting masses of Muslims into Europe. It all makes sense.

The problem is that none of this was ever true. I don't mean just in the 20th century, I mean ever. Malthus first proposed it, and there is a long line of thinkers who have followed him with one rationale or another. But never true. Look up the Julian Simon Bet" where Ehrlich bet with an obscure economist that in 10 years, goods (of Ehrlich's choice) would cost less in constant dollars, meaning they would be more available. Ehrlich lost.

The pantheists have made an industry of citing goods that, had they been chosen by Ehrlich, would have won. He didn't choose them.

Religious people tend to look with some skepticism on the self-serving "secular" beliefs of our intellectual betters. So, devout Muslims, Jews, and Christians tend to have more children. They are just stupid that way. Hack, no sense in castigating me over the following generalization: most often, you show me a "secular" person, and I'll show you an environmentalist (pantheist).

And, now I can address Mike, who several months ago on this thread, when I was being mocked as a climate denier, chimed in with something along the lines of " yes,and gravity is open to question". The truth, Mike, is that you happened to say that to the year, 100 years after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was published. It changed the whole Newtonian "settled science" that gravity is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance. It turns out that it is also related to the curvature of space. There is no such thing as "settled science". That is an oxymoron. But the idea of prosecuting "science deniers" is viewed favorably by 27% of Democrats polled.

http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/12/poll-27-of-democrats-want-global-warming-doubters-prosecuted/

[hack]

You'll have to define environmentalist(pantheist) for me, but I sure as heck am an environmentalist. And for practical reasons. Species that upset the balance don't last.

If I had to pick an ism, it would be epiricism. What works should be copied until it doesn't anymore, and what fails should be abandoned. What is clearly bullshit should be ignored.

[Da Geezer]

Pantheism is the worship of the earth. One of its tenants is that man is a curse on the earth and it is best for the planet if he is eliminated. Today, pantheism is seen in the belief of human-caused (I can't spell anthropromorphic) global warming.

I am absolutely an empiricist too. So was John Locke, I believe. Let me give you an example of holding to what works: Capitalism combined with Christianity as produced a result that has produced more goods for more people, and more liberty, than and other combination of economic system and religion in history. The reason is that both systems are unique in viewing man as evil in the purely philosophical sense. Locke would say "stay with what works". Why then not you?

No surprise you are an environmentalist. You have to be if you claim to be secular.

I would simply state that the greatest asset on the planet is the human mind.

Nothing derived from quantum physics would exist without Einstein's General Theory. We might still be burning whale oil if not for JD Rockefeller and kerosene. We might be riding horses if not for H. Ford using the useless byproduct of kerosene production, gasoline. Think of the liberty those men have given us all.

There's no good Arabic food in the area. I welcome this.

Are you in Windsor or DC?

[entropy]

Looking at this morning's news, Daesh has just murdered a Chinese hostage for failure to pay ransom. Don't see much advantage in pissing off the Chinese.

as I said in my post yesterday.. they're not being very smart. They are going to attract the attention of the entire global community and I doubt the Russia or China will have a leader who is concerned about anything but winning.

[Da Geezer]

In thinking of what is wrong with the US, I went back to my younger days to the Port Huron Declaration of 1964(the second PHD). This was during the move of we student activists from the SDS to SNCC. From Wikipedia

The Port Huron statement argued that because "the civil rights and peace and student movements are too poor and socially slighted, and the labor movement too quiescent", it should rally support and strengthen itself by looking to universities, which benefit from their "permanent position of social influence" and being "the only mainstream institution that is open to participation by individuals of nearly any viewpoint". However, it stated that this "will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty" who "must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy", ally with groups outside the university, integrate "major public issues into the curriculum", "make debate and controversy". In short, "They must consciously build a base for their assault upon the loci of power."[7]

You are seeing the results of this now, in Missouri and elsewhere. Taking over the system was ultimately successful. At that point, free speech was shut down. Progressives tend to favor free speech until they reach power, then they shut it down. This has been a pattern since Woodrow Wilson.

The Federal Judicial system was later given the same priority as the university system.

I'll post the whole 1962 Declaration, but this is the one from Tom Hayden and Michigan State in 1962. I am a friend of Fr. Robert Sirico of the Action Institute for Religion and Liberty in GR. Sirico was the campaign manager for Tom Hayden when he ran for the US Senate from CA. Hayden was Jane Fonda's husband.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html

Rather different concerns that today's activist's focus on microaggressions and safe space.

[hack]

The original? Or the compromised version?

[entropy]

Overall IMO I think you start with having an actual clean policy. It makes no sense to rattle sabres about Iran whilst Saudi is funding all this hate and violence. Because of this everybody knows we're not serious and shouldn't be taken at face value.

We haven't been serious in years. You can't "draw lines in the sand" and not back it up.

While I've always been a fan of other countries pitching in and policing the world besides the US (especially the 5 permanent members of the security council), Putin isn't a fool. This is his time to show the world Russia will deliver. I'd expect if he uses force, it will be over whelming.. he will want to say Russia did what the US couldn't in 14 yrs.