I like it.

Posted by: Abscedere at June 15, 2006 9:17 AM

Hugh for president!!!

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at June 15, 2006 9:19 AM

Good thoughts but unfortunately a weird derangement syndrome, currently affecting one side of the political spectrum, renders them simply incapable of uttering the words 'victory' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence. Their mouths simply can't utter the words. I know.. it's weird. Heck, they don't even like it when they hear others utter those words.

FYI, I'm not sure the scientific basis for this syndrome but, from what I've read about this phenomena, it appeared widespread and virtually overnight after the US Supreme Court prevented the DNC and their operatives on the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the 2000 Presidential Election from the victor, George W. Bush. And for many, John Kerry's stinging defeat in 2004 turned their derangement into a full-blown delusion that Kerry is actually the US President.

There is no known cure although many of the hardcore sufferers on the Left have found ingenious ways of self-terminating their suffering.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at June 15, 2006 9:42 AM

You're right we have reached our objective in Iraq which was to kick Saddam out of power and it's WAY past time to bring our troops home and let the Shias and Sunnis fight it out.

Posted by: fireangel at June 15, 2006 9:58 AM

They have already begun. I think if the U.S. troops got out of iraq, it would be much better. mahmoud may want to test his weapon, and what better place than sunni iraq. That would also lead to submission of the other sunni states in the vicinity.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:25 AM

"Tis well an old age is out and time to ring in a new.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 15, 2006 11:29 AM

The world's great age begins anew? Doubtful, but if we are forced to play our energy cards right, all kinds of good things will inevitably have to happen.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 12:26 PM

So, if we get out now, Iraq is divided and chaos reigns, with violence spreading to other countries in the MidEast as the Sunnis and Shia do what they do best. A victory for infidels? Seems un-Christian, but I'll think about it.

My guess is that over the next two years, the Republicans will lead us out of Iraq and that sometime thereafter, American bombers will hit Iran. Bush is not alone in this administration, and these folks have moments of competence.

Here's a columnist who predicts that Democrats will have a surprisingly bad showing in November:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTkzNjE3YTc4YWZkZDBkNDE3ZDYxZWUxZWVkMzBmYWQ=

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 15, 2006 12:47 PM

Mahdi Al-Dajjal said

And for many, John Kerry's stinging defeat in 2004 turned their derangement into a full-blown delusion that Kerry is actually the US President.

That's the best excuse yet that the Righties have come up with for the policies of the Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House of Representatives: that Bush is deluded into thinking he is Kerry! Or maybe it really is Kerry, wearing a Bush mask. Or maybe..., well, anyways, keep trying, it's always good for a laugh.

Posted by: special_guest at June 15, 2006 1:10 PM

Hugh writes: "Wasn't the Iran-Iraq War a good thing from the viewpoint of Infidels?"

No, Hugh, it was not. It posed a direct threat to supertanker shipping through the Persian Gulf, and so it drew the Reagan Administration right into the conflict in 1987. There was an actual low-level war going on there, with the U.S. Navy slugging it out with both Iranian gunboats and Iraqi Air Force fighters in the Persian Gulf. The conflict between Iran and Iraq eventually came to an end, so our military involvement tailed off a bit too (though it never ended).

But this time, the conflicts between Shi'a and Sunni in Iran and neighboring countries would go on indefinitely, and once again that would suck the U.S. military back into the area, this time indefinitely. Reagan found he was unable to keep aloof from that struggle, and we won't be able to keep aloof from it again this time either. Even worse, this time, a nuclear-armed Iran backed up by its Hezbollah terrorist network could escalate any conflict to a point way beyond what Reagan had to face in 1987.

I've told you all that once before, but you just don't listen because you have your own cherished pet theory that you cling to and refuse to modify, in the face of all contrary evidence. Just like Bush did with his own cherished pet theory, and the results were terrible.

I'm not going to waste my time critiquing your theory yet again. You have your theory, Bush has his theory, and I have my own ideas which are different from either Bush's or yours. So be it.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 15, 2006 1:17 PM

Hugh said

I prefer, in Iraq, to concede victory. We won in Iraq; we've inadvertently created a situation which will inevitably lead to demoralization and division within the Camp of Islam.

I wouldn't expect the Administration, now, or ever, to admit that their goal in Iraq (spreading the Light of Freedom across the Middle East, regardless of the cost in lives and script to ourselves) was the wrong one, and that they will now correct course (aka "flip-flop") to the more productive goal of allowing and encouraging dis-harmony and dis-unity within the Islam world. They will never, ever, EVER make that kind of admission.

But why not declare victory within the framework of their own (ie. the Administrations') supposed goals: we got rid of the dictator Saddam, verified that Iraq does not have WMD's, de-Baathified the military, trained a new Iraqi army, gave the people a democracy that proportionally represents the different ethnic groups within Iraq, rebuilt their infrastructure, and allowed them to create their own constitution (based on Shar'ia, but no need to dwell on that). We have done a great job at giving the Iraqis a chance to build a free and democratic society. So let's declare victory, declare our goals accomplished, and bring our men and women home.

And if by some small chance it turns out that the Iraqis cannot live in a free, democratic, pluralistic society, that will just be an unforseen and unfortunate surprise.

Posted by: special_guest at June 15, 2006 1:30 PM

Had the Iran-Iraq War not taken up the time, money, and attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran for eight of the first nine years of its existence, think of how much further along in its hideous policies that regime might be -- how much further along, even, in its nuclear project?

Had the Iran-Iraq War not taken up the time, money, and attention of Saddam Hussein for eight long years, had he not been given $60 billion to fight his war from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E., discretionary funds that otherwise would, in large part, certainly have gone to fund the world-wide campaigns of mosque and madrasa-building throughout the Lands of the Infidels (thousands going up every year), and the vast propaganda network, based partly on a small army of Western hirelings, things would be even worse in the Bilad al-Kufr.

You mention an Iran now armed with nuclear weapons. Nothing is getting in the way of both sufficiently alarming Iran so that it might conceivably yield without the need for an American attack so much as the continued presence of American troops in Iraq. They make things harder, for they are essentially hostages -- hostages to certain Iranian retaliation, either from Iran itself, or from Iranian ground troops coming into Iraq, or from the thousands of Iranian agents already in Iraq, some of them prepared to engage in terrorism, or from the millions of Iraqis who would be inflamed should there be an American attack on Iran, and all the politicians who might try to hold them back from setting upon any American soldiers or civilians they could get their hands on would be brushed aside, or even killed themselves.

The sooner the Americans leave Iraq -- tomorrow would not be too soon - the sooner Iran's leaders will either come to their senses, or be dealt with by an Administration at last free of Tarbaby Iraq and possessing the full freedom to maneuver.

This has to be done soon. Bush leaves office in January 2009. If he leaves without having dealt with Iran, knowing perfectly well the time-table necessary, he will have been guilty of the worst failure in American history. If he thinks bringing toys and good things to eat to the people of Iraq, by the Little-Engine-That-Could of the American soldiers and "reconstructionists," if he thinks or pretends to think that Iraq's Constitution-making is somehow akin to the making of the American Constitution, if he thinks Iraqis "love freedom" or even that there exists such a thing as the "Iraqi people," if he continues to ignore all the other fronts, and all the other instruments of Jihad, if...Well, what can I say?

I repeat: the Iran-Iraq War was a wonderful thing for Infidels. One can only hope that the hostlities in Iraq will lead to intervention by outside parties, helping to support their co-religionists. One only hopes that members of Hezbollah will come marching in from Lebanon, that a hundred billion dollars will be supplied to the Sunnis of Anbar Province so that they may better kill those members of Hezbollah, and Iranian basiji who may arrive to see their own brand of justice done. One does not know. One hopes.

And just as the spectacle in Gaza has helped to change the image of the so-called "Palestinians" in Western Europe, and lost them support, all internecine conflict among Muslims will help change the image of Islam, to something closer to the truth, in the very countries whose citizens, and governments, need to be far more wary, far more prudent, far more circumspect, in their immigration, nationalization, and integration policies.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 1:39 PM

Steven L. said

[The Iran-Iraq War] posed a direct threat to supertanker shipping through the Persian Gulf

If there had been no Iran-Iraq War, does it follow that there would have been no danger to, or disruption of, shipping in the Persian Gulf? The history of piracy in the region goes back to 1801. Egypt blockaded the Suez Canal in 1967. There is currently widespread piracy off the coast of Somalia. If the Iran-Iraq War had not occurred, I see no reason to assume that the two countries would have spent their time living peacefully with their neighbors, set the jihad aside, and built prosperous and free societies.

Posted by: special_guest at June 15, 2006 2:03 PM

"But this time, the conflicts between Shi'a and Sunni in Iran and neighboring countries would go on indefinitely, and once again that would suck the U.S. military back into the area, this time indefinitely..."
-- from a posting above

As to the first part of the sentence above ("the conflicts between Shi'a and Sunni in Iran and neighboring countries would go on indefinitely")-- I hope so.

As to the second part of the sentence above ("once again that would suck the U.S. military back into the area, this time indefinitely...") what are you talkiing about? What does it mean to say, in defense of the Iraq War and 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq, with tens of thousands of others in Kuwait, Qatar, on ships, and elsewhere in the reigon, that if those forces leave, for some reason fighting between Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs will cause "the U.S. military back into the area, this time indefinitely"? On what basis do you say this? And how many soldiers would be involved? The Americans supplied Iraq with intelligence, and helped in the transfer of Saudi tanks (their markings painted over) to Iraq, but that did not exactly "suck the U.S. military" into the area. Why do you assume, as inevitable, that we cannot learn from the Tarbaby of Iraq, and keep the American presence to a minimum, and then only to possibly resupply the Kurds (the only conceivable group in Iraq to support, both because the Kurds are genuinely grateful to the Americnas, resent Arab supremacism, and could help to destabilize Iran and Syria by appealing to Kurds in both countries).

When you raise the issue of oil and oil tankers, are you aware that during the entire course of the Iran-Iraq War, not only was there very little oil disruption, but Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, in order to raise more money to give it to Saddam Hussein, increased their oil production? Are you aware that the price of oil steadily decreased, went straight down, from 1980 to 1988, during the period of the Iran-Iraq War? If you are not, find out about it and then ask yourself how your predictions fit in with that record -- or fail to.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 2:10 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald, you of all people should know that with the size and scope of government these days, no President or Presidential candidate, not Bush, not Kerry (or Gore) or anyone else, could ever possibly focus on what it is that is really important now, that is the threat posed by jihadists, of course. Truly, this is one of the few and only roles that the government should have responsibility for... sealing us up and defending us from these crazy Muslims.

But a President can't. You know why? Yes, you do (which is, again, why I don't understand why you're ranting about it) but I'll reiterate for those who don't. Here's why-- welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, Katrina and other natural disasters, the FCC, the over-reaching and over-bearing Federal Reserve. Either directly through his executive powers or indirectly through the common voters ignorance about what the President actually has any power over, the modern US President is completely overwhelmed by making decisions about, campaigning for or against, or simply doing nothing at all about these many and widespread federal programs and activities. Unfortunately, like the common voter, it is not violent jihad in the name of Allah that entertains the President's imagination, but rather whatever government-program-in-crisis of the day that happens to be in the headlines. It'd be nice if we could have a President that was actually committed to caring about seriously winning this war, but we don't, and we won't in the foreseeable future because anyone who hopes to be President must be much more forceful and "intelligent" and opinionated on these government programs than JIHAD and ISLAM and MUHAMMED (PBUH!!!1111!111).

One last thing, Mr. Fitzgerald. With all due respect (and I do respect your knowledge of Islam and your passionate and at times witty writings about it), I really would like to see you stop mentioning the environment and other emotional pet projects you occassionally choose to harp about in your writings on ISLAM and JIHAD. I know you're a real "defender of the environment," for instance, and are absolutely convinced it's being exploited and done in and destroyed by we horrible humans, but really, JihadWatch.org and DhimmiWatch.org are not the places to be worrying about it to other people. Besides the fact that you're essentially ignorant on the reality of the condition of the environment and how to best "protect" it, even if you did know what you're talking about you don't have the time and space at these sites to make any capable defense (USING EVIDENCE, as Mr. Spencer would most likely appreciate) of the subject, so it's best left alone. When you do so, despite the odds, you come off as a bit kooky, with your talk about wonderful government-designed windmill projects and cities ruined, positively RUINED, you say, by roads (man, wouldn't NYC be great if it was jammed with millions of bicycles instead of thousands of cars? No, no it wouldn't, Mr. Fitzgerald, because being congested with bicycles represents a whole different milieu of problems below the surface besides the bicycle traffic itself). As I think I have demonstrated, it distracts from the overall, more important message that you need to be delivering to your readers, convinced and unconvinced alike, that jihad is a threat that needs to be countered (this is the same thing I was talking about with the President up above!).

Of course, that's just my opinion, but it's my opinion and I value it and I think it's one you should take into consideration concerning future posts.

Oh yeah, and one last thing... BE NICE! I know you're getting frustrated, because I know I am too, but don't be TOO condescending in your writings or you might scare people off who will see you not as a well-informed, passionate lover of all things non-jihad, but rather just another overly self-important elitist telling everyone else they know what's good for them better than they do. Just something I noticed.

Otherwise, keep up the good work, ol' chap. I appreciate it, for whatever it's worth.

Posted by: sologue at June 15, 2006 2:50 PM

"the fact that you're essentially ignorant on the reality of the condition of the environment and how to best 'protect' it..."
-- from a posting above

1. On what basis do you make that observation? Perhaps I am at this very minute polishing up an article I wrote with Professor Kerry Emanuel on hurricane intensity and ocean warming, or analyzing the deep ice samples in Antarctica that I obtained on my last trip with Dr. S. S. Abyzov of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

2. In order to halt damaging, possibly irreversible changes in the earth's atmosphere and climate and all that follows from that (including the inundation of coastal areas and low-lying islands), the very same measures have to be undertaken that would have to be taken in order to deprive Muslim states of the wherewithal to continue to fund the Jihad (mosques, madrasas, propaganda, Western hirelings) in the Bilad al-kufr.

The same diminishment of demand for oil and gas, the same need to invest in nuclear power plants, in wind and solar energy, in biofuels and in much cleaner coal scrubbing, and the encouragement, by both governmental fiat and societal fashion, of other ways of pursuing happiness that use up less energy, will have to be undertaken for saving the environment and saving the Infidels.

It would be silly of me not to remind readers of this site of this fact on every conceivable occasion. I want to. I do it deliberately. I will continue to do it.

"BE NICE"?

I'm exceptionally nice.

"Overly self-important elitist"?

I'm not "overly self-important." I am aware that I possess the secret of the universe, but I have failed in my own life to act on that knowledge in time, and I don't let it get in the way of anything, nor do I tease others for their not being privy to such knowledge. Nor am I an "elitist" as that word is now popularly understood, but only in the Barzunian sense. Insufferable, in many ways, I may be, but not in the ways you describe.

Finally, I hope my mother and father are not reading this.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 3:20 PM

Apres nous, le deluge?

Probably not. Sinister players lurk in the wings, waiting for missteps such as those proposed above. China and Russia are the substances which would fill any void we leave behind were we to abandon Iraq prematurely and allow the place to descend into complete civil war. We can't simply ignore the rules and forms, the 'laws of nature' and the 'nature of mankind', and the US cannot recede to munch jujubees and watch it all collapse on TV. It won't happen, as nice as that would be. The void created by our absence will be filled by actors who would love nothing more than to see us leave. They would exploit the ME far more dangerously. Rather than impeding Islam or hampering their Jihad against the West, they'd help in Islam's ascendancy because they would benefit at our expense in every way . It's too late for the scenario which Mr. Fitzgerald proposes. It has always been too late. We either give it a college go and try to create the wiggle room for Arabdom and Islam to negotiate its way out of their sump of human degradation, hand the project over to our enemies who will exploit it ruthlessly against us, or set about on a path of World War in order to break Islam's back. (In the end, I think this last is the only real option for our survival -- but the pyschic and ethical cost is horrendous -- we're not ready yet for this kind of battle ...)

In partial proof of my thesis I pose some easily answered questions:

Would the Saudis, Iranians, or Iraqis prefer to sit across from the U.S. who fitfully impedes their designs? or would they prefer sniggering over good torture tips with the Chinese and Russians and cornering the oil market unimpeded?

Would they prefer to be checked by the US (we do impede them in many ways -- it's one of the reasons they hate us so, after all) or would they prefer other dastardly villains to join their chess game against us?

Why are the Muslims especially focused in spreading Islam into the West? Why not China? Why not Russia? Those godless domains seem more corrupt and more receptive to Islam than we. Yet they mainly focus of their hatred is us. Why?

The West is the keystone of the world order, warts and all. Take us out, and really we're talking about taking America out, and the demons of the world all win. It's the best way for them to succeed -- WE must be somehow curtailed or annihilated.

So clearly there's a natural alliance between the totalitarianisms of the Socialists and Communists and Islam. They both want us gone. I am heartened lately to see words like "multiculturalism" and "Leftist" make their way into the glossary of JihadWatch official postings -- such terminology was rarely used until recently, except within the threads. This constellation of anti-Democracy anti-Freedom forces are currently coalescing against us, and in so doing we see the nexus between those enemies emerge from the fog. It's always been lurking. Russia's desires to gain access to warm water ports. China's goals to subvert us in every theater without waging war directly against us -- Pyong Yang -- Taiwan -- Iran -- India -- Southeast Asia etc. These imperial dreams have never been killed.

Do we do a lousy job of extracting real value, meaning, and strategic advantage from the Iraqi project? Yes.

Could the formulations for this war have been far more astute and far reaching than we witness so far? Of course. It's absolutely obvious. What's less obvious are those machinations turning the real world, the one where ignoring such mechinations is tantamount to losing.

It's about oil. It's about who exerts the most effective control over its flow, and to whom it flows. We expend vast sums to make sure the entire world has access in the arena of commercial competition. The Russians aren't so dainty, nor the Chinese. Russia still lusts for warm water access, and now envisions a pathway to become the world's oil broker. Chinese wish more than anything to fuel their sudden ascendancy. Both entities would exploit our absence in the fractured ME and would deviously use their power to harm us, or hold the threat of harming us without firing any bullets. I think that situation would be far less tenable than the bad dream we're in today. We would find ourselves in a nightmare by comparison.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 3:50 PM

Elsewhere Mr. Fitzgerald has also proposed taxing petroleum in order to hamper its consumption and finance the development for alternatives. Why? Such monies would be only be used, as they're always used, to finance more bureaucratic monstrosities -- more "five year" plans.

Let us go then, you and I
When the Evening is spread out against the sky
...

Proceeds would not foster alternatives to petroleum -- they would hamper our economy though, and regressively harm the poor. Europe has chosen to tax petroleum -- and we see the results. Public transportation boondoggles. Monies swiped, and much much more, to feed their Frankenstein NGOs and supra-sovereign calamities like the Euro, the EU and the World Court. Airbus -- that gargantuan bad idea -- looks as if it's teetering on collapse for the A350 and A380. So much for pseudo-capitalism.

Or should we make like the Eurocrats? That turning out real well.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 4:12 PM

jsla said

So clearly there's a natural alliance between the totalitarianisms of the Socialists and Communists and Islam. They both want us gone. I am heartened lately to see words like "multiculturalism" and "Leftist" make their way into the glossary of JihadWatch official postings

When I see references to links between jihadists and "Leftists" here, I don't think that they refer to Soviets or Communist Chinese. I take it as a reference to those who voted for Kerry, or Gore, or Clinton. Not communists or socialists, but just one of the 50% of the voting population of the U.S. Maybe you find it heartening to disparage 50% of U.S. citizens, I find it disheartening and self-defeating. Against all logic, I'm still hopeful that this one topic will unify the people against a common threat, that self-preservation will take precedence over party loyalty. We'll see.

Posted by: special_guest at June 15, 2006 5:34 PM

Special_guest: My argument above mainly deals with the external problem of Islam and Arabdom, and the proper way to extract the highest value for our sacrifices and investments in Iraq.

The issue you're bringing up has been a serious bone of contention in these threads. I agree that in the perfect fight against Jihad we would all be of the same opinion and oppose the Jihad internally with the same unity and fervor that the Muslim ummah brings to bear against us. But that's unlikely. Ever since 9/11 we've seen the fissures in our society widen by that evil deed. The following statement is from a lifelong registered democrat who is considered very liberal by many of my friends: The left in America has betrayed this country by hallucinating all kinds of threats which supposedly outstrip the Islamic one, even to the point of suggesting that "Terrorism is an invention of the Right to control the people" or "We brought it on ourselfes". If you ever read the "have your say" sections of sites by the BBC, the Guardian, the CBC, and Al Jazeera -- it is jaw dropping to see the number of Americans who feel compelled to apologize for our heinousness, sometimes to the terrorists themselves. I have observed that this is largely a LEFTIST disease. I also read Right wing sites, where far less of this kind of thing occurs. When the emanations come from the right, it's usually in the predictably Pat Buchanan mold -- if we just stopped supporting Israel and gave the Muslims what they want -- all this would go away. Both of these views are radical to me, and unacceptable. Their premises are nearly always false in my opinion.

BUT

I see a preponderance of this delusionalism coming from the Left side in the West (worse of course in Canada and Europe where the Left appears to far outnumber the Right, unlike America currently). In the left of center, the persons that subscribe to "the war was illegal" or "it's all an evil construct of Bush" or whatever misguided hallucination is trotted out, I sense that about 1/2 of the constituency holds some version of this view. In my opinion this will never be a way to unify us -- and what good would it be anyway? Wesley Clark LOVES what he did in Bosnia -- bombing the fighters of the Jihad there into oblivion -- John Kerry adheres to the "Let's not fight -- let's adopt the multilateral attitudes of our European Friends" -- yeah! that'll work -- Al Gore and his forelock subscribe to the idea that it's all global warming -- Hillary is a piece of work in progress -- I really don't see any viable ideas coming from the Left. They are mainly non-participants, or outright impeders of the fight.

It seems to me that the left hs a lot of sorting out to do. As bad and unintelligent as GWB's actions have nearly always been -- I think Democrats would have bungled this FAR WORSE -- and that's a serious indictment.

For the record, before you lob "You're just another Right Wing Christian Bushite" -- I am a lilberal but NOT with regards to Islam -- I am an unaplogetic agnostic, and I am a lifelong registered Democrat. I admit I'm increasingly wondering why. I'm stunned that fellow so-called 'liberals' are unable to see the horrific fascisms which abound in Islam, and continue to be blind to the threat therein. They seem to be so obsessed with falsely seeking fascisms within the Right Wing of American Politics that I wonder what they're smoking. Our Dem Leadership is actually far more craven than the craven Right. And that's an indictment too!

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 6:24 PM

A poster above cannot conceive of any government using tax money for any worthy purpose. At least, unless he somehow thinks that revenues raised from taxing gasoline and oil are somehow specially cursed, and doomed to be wasted because, he asserts (but does not prove) "monies would be only be used, as they're always used, to finance more bureaucratic monstrosities -- more "five year" plans.

...

Proceeds would not foster alternatives to petroleum -- they would hamper our economy though, and regressively harm the poor. Europe has chosen to tax petroleum -- and we see the results. Public transportation boondoggles. Monies swiped, and much much more, to feed their Frankenstein NGOs and supra-sovereign calamities like the Euro, the EU and the World Court. Airbus -- that gargantuan bad idea -- looks as if it's teetering on collapse for the A350 and A380. So much for pseudo-capitalism."

You are free to accept his series of wild, libertarian, government-is-always-bad and taxes-are-always-bad assertions. You are free to accept the notion that "monies [i.e. revenues from taxes on gasoline and oil] would only be used, as they're always used, to finance more bureaucratic monstrosities." Presumably, since revenues received are indistinguishable from each other -- it's only money, after all -- so that revenues from gasoline taxes are no different from those on cigarettes, alcohol, real-estate transactions, clothing, food, electronic goods, and so on -- since in the view of this poster it is all, all of it hideously misspent, we surely should live in a world where all taxes are done away with. But since we can't, since we need an army and the police, and someone to pay for the roads, and schools, and those noisy ambulances, and firemen, and food inspectors, and things like that, some taxes are needed. I insist that taxes on energy from certain sources are justified and desirable, both in order to diminish the use of fossil fuels (dangerous to our continued physical existence, in a world worth living in) and to diminish the revenues available to fund the Jihad (a Jihad dangerous to our continued moral and intellectual existence, in a world worth living in).

In Europe gasoline is taxed very highly. As a consequence, the monstous HUVs hardly exist. Small cars are the rule. The use of public transportation is much higher. Trains, RER, subways, stop everywhere, stop more frequently, take on more passengers, are kept clean and efficient. British Rail, when it was owned by that government whose expenditures you find so terrible, was far more impressive than it is now under all these private owners. I want public transportation to exist, subsidized if necessary, subsidized so much that people living in cities will not think twice about driving, unless they are old or infirm.

Taxation can depress demand. Taxation can raise revenues that need not be wasted, as you insist "always" happens, but applied directly to paying for nuclear reactors, for solar collectors, for wind energy farms, and for demonstration projects using biomass and all those other whizbang things we keep reading about, keep hoping will come on the market soon, not a moment too soon.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 6:32 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald, for someone who is a member of a site that doesn't take kindly to jihad apologists shutting down serious debate with finger-pointing and name-calling ("racist," "Islamophobe"), you sure are doing a lot right now with your insistence that people who feel government is overreaching are a bunch of crazies with "wild, libertarian" thoughts. It's a little disappointing that you're choosing to frame this particular debate this way... no one took the liberty to call you a flaming, irrational Leftist when you go on and on about your wonderful, magical bicycle world where fossil fuels no longer exist, though I'm sure some people would like to simplify things by doing so. I know I didn't, because I know you're intelligent deep down and that, while you might have errant logic when it comes to industrialized society, you're pretty god damn on point when it comes to Islam and Jihad.

For the record, no one ever said we don't need an army or police (or a justice system). In fact, I think I did say we specifically do need an army and that that is a perfectly valid need the government can fulfill (and which it does, fairly well... the cost, on the other hand...) and as for your other "public works items," they could all be easily provided by a free market, much as they are today and most likely properly capitalized rather than constantly clamoring for funds. The government doesn't do anything special when it comes to "providing" these surfaces that the free market couldn't handle, besides being particularly expert at taking our money. There isn't space here to go into an economic theory debate with you, but for someone who is so concerned with the environment and use of fossil fuels to claim that the government is the only possible provider of roadways demonstrates a serious logical disconnect in my mind. The reason the roads are so congested and so many people drive is because they don't have to think about how much it costs them to do so. If roads were privately built and maintained and tolls were levied each time someone used them, tolls which were decided on based on the relative demand for such a service at a given point and time... you can bet your bottom dollar people would think before taking their car down the block to the grocery store, or what have you. And obviously it's not THAT simple and placing toll booths to monitor people getting off their driveways, for instance, would be impossible, but the point is to use that as a demonstration of how the free market would naturally control something like traffic congestion and an "over utilization" of motorized transport, as you've come to see it. As it stands right now, there is no incentive for people to not do what they're doing, and no, higher taxes is not the answer.

And one last thing... "someone to pay for " X is not the government... it's the taxpayer. And the taxpayer should have a choice in what he's paying for, not the government. The government doesn't create wealth, it takes it from others to do what it thinks is right with it. Don't ever forget that.

"in order to diminish the use of fossil fuels (dangerous to our continued physical existence, in a world worth living in)"

Stop and think about it for just a second, Mr. Fitzgerald. What role have fossil fuels played in helping to create this world we currently live in one that, I think most Westerners would agree, is a world worth living in? Is it really so dandy to go back to the horse? Or the foot? What's so admirable about life in the early 1800's, the 1700's, 1600's, and further back? No, it turns out that fossil fuels, and the immense savings in time their powering of machines allows, is largely responsible for the high standard of living people in the industrialized parts of the world have enjoyed for the past couple of centuries.

I don't see where your love of small cars comes from. I'm not a real fan of the SUV either, but if someone wants to buy one, that's there choice. I drive a small car, but that's because it's cheap and efficient and works for me. Small cars don't work for everyone. Some people like to go up to the mountains on weekends, to get in touch with the great outdoors (you might know some of these people, Mr. Fitzgerald). These people typically drive larger, SUV type cars because they bring a lot of equipment with them. Other people have large families. They need larger cars, vans and SUVs to get around everyday. Some people run businesses that rely on trucks, and they can't afford to have a pleasure vehicle and a work vehicle so they just drive a truck. But in your mind, this isn't right. These people are horrible polluters, just going around living excessive lives at everyone elses expense. Screw the guy with the job and his truck, he can try to cram it into a little Smart car! And that big family of 6... screw them too. They can climb into a little Fiat Punto and put Johnny, Jimmy and Janey in the back seat and little baby Jackie can sit on Daddy or Mommy's lap in the front seat, just waiting to propel through the windshield in a collision (I saw this at least 4 times in the space of an hour driving around Naples a few months ago... that shining example of what you get with a big wasteful government). And definitely screw anyone who would like to motor around in a V8 sports car on the weekends as their entertainment... that's a waste. But who cares about these people, Mr. Fitzgerald... you and me like our small cars and everyone should be just like us, right?

"Taxation can depress demand. Taxation can raise revenues that need not be wasted, as you insist "always" happens, but applied directly to paying for nuclear reactors, for solar collectors, for wind energy farms, and for demonstration projects using biomass and all those other whizbang things we keep reading about, keep hoping will come on the market soon, not a moment too soon."

Sigh. Taxation does depress demand. It always does. It always raises revenues that the government doesn't need (we don't need welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., all this stuff I have already mentioned and the stuff that really gets we dreaded, evil, nefarious libertarians' panties in a bunch). Show us some science on these wind energy farms, solar collectors, etc., show us how it's more efficient, cheaper, works better and provides more for less, than what we've got right now. And while you're at it, let us know why we DON'T have nuclear energy in greater supply (it couldn't be that over reaching, tax-charged federal gov., could it?). Meanwhile, we'll all be sitting around, waiting for these great "whizbangs" just like you, because everyone knows the market always rewards innovators, and if this stuff is actually the panacea you HOPE (keyword there, Mr. Fitzgerald) it is, it'll show up on it's own account because the market demands it.

On to your other points in your earlier response--

1. In response,I make that statement on the basis that you're sure the environment is doomed and we're "all gonna die," when the reality of the situation is that the "science" behind all of this is far from certain, far from determined with any finalty and far from agreed upon by an overwhelming percentage of actual scientists (Al Gore and Al Gore look-alike politicians need not apply). I've got no idea who those other two fellows are that you mentioned, and I don't really care because it looks like an attempt at intimidating me through name-dropping.

2. In response, "In order to halt damaging, possibly irreversible changes " the keyword again is POSSIBLY. Nothing is definite. There's a small chance that I will die if I get out of bed this morning for any number of reasons, but I take that chance because it isn't worth it to sit around in my bed all day worrying. If I did, I'd forget to live. Furthermore, have you ever considered an alternate method of stopping the increase of wealth of oil Arabs? Have you ever considered liberalizing the governments policy on energy production and exploration? Maybe if private companies could explore some of the potential reserves in our own lands and coastal shelves, we wouldn't need to pay so much for it from the Arabs. That's a maybe, but it's worth a try before we do something extreme like TAXING PEOPLE TO DEATH for it. I mean, how would you even implement this in a meaningful way without completely shutting down the economy right away?

"the encouragement, by both governmental fiat and societal fashion, of other ways of pursuing happiness that use up less energy, will have to be undertaken for saving the environment and saving the Infidels."

That's just disgusting. I'll resist the government telling me how to enjoy myself just as much as I'll resist the jihadists trying to tell me how to live my life. How are the two any different in your eyes, Mr. Fitzgerald? Let's look at it in reverse... what if I was the government and I said you HAD to drive a big SUV, you HAD to do things that were, in your mind, harming the environment. Would you accept that? Would you accept me taxing you to pay for your "re-education" in this regard? Because that is what you are suggesting right there.

As for the last bit... you took me much too literally. I said you wouldn't WANT people to think that, I didn't say I do think you're an elitist, though with some of the things you've posted in response, you're getting there.

It's been a pleasure, Mr. Fitzgerald. Now let us hope and pray that good-hearted people like jsla, who obviously mean well and are as serious about this situation as we are, don't actually hope for a WW3 of any kind, with Arabs or Russians or Chinese or whoever. And let us all remember that it doesn't really matter if someone other than us "controls" the Middle East oilfields (do we control them? Aren't Iraqs fields nationalized?)... if anyone wants to truly "exploit" these resources they're going to be forced to sell to us... they don't make money on their own. They can't sell them to themselves (Iraq to Iraq, por esempio) because they're all poor (years of socialism/Islamism will do that to you!), no, they must sell them to we free, industrialized nations because we have the means to have a need for the stuff, and we've got the money to buy it with. After all, Saddam would've loved to sell us some oil, but for a long time we (or rather, the UN) wouldn't let him. And that's a damn shame.

Posted by: sologue at June 15, 2006 8:16 PM

A poster above answers me, for he thinks I was responding to something he wrote. I wasn't; I didn't. I was responding not to "soloque" or "sologue" but to "jsla." Thus I find points being made about something I never said. Impossible to rebut.

But I catch the drift. Government is bad, private parties doing what they feel like, following their damn bliss, good. "Don't tell me what to do." Etcetera, much more in the same vein. When I suggested that both "governmental fiat and societal fashion" can encourage certain ways of obtaining happiness through undertakings less squandering of energy, he turned this "encouragement" promptly into a government's diktat. Apparently this is a case of all or nothing at all. Surely it is possible, by bringing back some semblance of education, by filling empty heads with something, to encourage people to take pleasure in things -- oh, a game of Dictionary, a walk in the woods where the walkes actually know something, perhaps can even recite something, and are good company for each other -- for otherwise they are more likely to rely on the crutch of, say, the energy-expending snowmobile. People flying about the world, faxing and emailing and ipoding and so on -- what the hell are they faxing, and emailing, and listening to with their head rolling and their glazed eyes? In this clockwork-orangerie, is there no way to turn back the clock? When Emerson and Thoreau walked about, were Americans -- in that pre-oil period of their existence, incapable of happiness? Did they not have other ways, other means, to achieve it?

I don't expect to make a dent on those who, like "soloque," wish still to instill doubts about global warming, think it wise or useful to prolong such doubts rather than to sound the tocsin.

The world, or rather both worlds -- the man-made one and the natural one -- should not become even more unbearable than they, or it, already are, or is. "Radix malorum cupiditas est" has more meaning for me, I suspect, than it does for "soloque," whose notion of completely unfettered individualism would certainly horrify Edmund Burke. He apparently sees the government as an enemy, full of people "telling" him how to behave, what to think, what to do. I don't. I think taxes and exemption from taxes has been a useful way to encourage some things (home ownership, for example) and discourage others (cigarette smoking, for example). I see no reason why the system of taxation all over the Western world, and here, should not be used to discourage the use of fossil fuels.

Your world view is one that emphasizes not real individualism, not that of the lonely crank, who deserves all support, but rather the economic operator who doesn't want any gummint interference with the accumulation of money.

Count me out.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 8:31 PM

Thank you to 'the poster above' for the entertaining burlesque.

"revenues raised from taxing gasoline and oil are somehow specially cursed"

"cannot conceive of any government using tax money for any worthy purpose"
"all of it hideously misspent"

Gee -- I just re-read my post. I didn't say or imply any of that. Those are examples of him being silly. I did make several points, 1/4 of which the poster reduced to absurdities, and the rest he simply ignored.

He does, at least, express one idea I can respond to: "In Europe gasoline is taxed very highly. As a consequence, the monstous HUVs hardly exist. Small cars are the rule. The use of public transportation is much higher. Trains, RER, subways, stop everywhere, stop more frequently, take on more passengers, are kept clean and efficient."

So what? What does that have to do with fighting the Jihad?

Europe can barely afford these grandiose socialist schemes, they are unsustainable. She partially pays for them by skimping on her defense largely at US taxpayer expense. While there are laudable reasons to conserve natural resources, his linkages to anti-Jihad strike me as somewhat flimsy. The notion that such regressive taxes will have any impact on Jihad is arguably nonsense. The sluggishness of such economies (due to greedy tax proposals such as his) guarantee that such economies will decay and eventually fail. Either that, or they drop all the baloney. So why does he hold Europe's unsustainable model up as some kind shining example? Is it an indierect way to answer to one of my questions? I gather he's saying YES! we should be more like the European model! That is: More taxes. More give aways. More public subsidies for all kinds of inefficient schemes. More boondoggles and surrenders to supraliminal bodies. More hoards of immigrants. More demographic suicide. Less money for defense. Less money for survival. Shrinking revenues due to failling policies. Death.

Weird.

His one mention of the popular Manhattan Energy Project always strikes me as a good idea. It's the kind of thing that would yield many valuable results for the real world, and not just the land of make-believe.

Persons who spend most of their time bemoaning the horrors of bureaucracies, lamenting the inefficiencies of Governments, and criticizing all the actions therefrom never seem to notice their inconsistency when they spin around and advocate for enormous public spending contrivances though. Don't such persons remember the things they just finished ranting about? It always makes me wonder.

I advocate doubling our defense budget at least, and putting the US more on a war footing. Let's get this war in gear! I couldn't think of a better use for my taxes than contributing to the National defense through genuine strong border control (absolutedly NO illegal immigration, NO further Muslims allowed, and much higher security measures provided at all ports of entry for commerce) and an extremely robust military. Heck! Let's triple the Military budget to $1.5 trillion, that way we'd probably get about twice as much defense. ANd that's OK with me. I never minded those $600 toilet seats -- I very much liked seeing those wonderful black bombers, and as long as they have bombs aplenty and pilots to fly them, what care I? Excellent ways to spend tax dollars.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 8:40 PM

I was listening to Michael Medved this afternoon, and he usually argues stridently in support of US troops staying in Iraq. This may not surprise anyone given his role as a supreme apologist for the administration, but the surprising part here is that he is not totally ignorant about Islam, just some. One of his reasons for staying in Iraq is to "change the Islamic world for the better". One would expect this from someone who genuinely thinks that there is good in Islam, but given that Medved has correctly put his finger on certain events in Islam, such as the cartoon riots, the riots in Thailand, the Islamic aspect to the French riots et al, can someone explain where Medved, his Bush fanaticism notwithstanding, is coming from?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 15, 2006 8:43 PM

jsla

Unlike you, I'm as far right as one could go, Libertarian (except on the Narcotics question) and usually oppose taxation. But I agree with Hugh on this one.

Basic question: what is the purpose of taxes?

1. Raise revenue
   
2. Alter society
   
3. Punish behavior
   

Of the above 3, the reason Islamic petroleum (let's learn to think of it in those terms) ought to be taxed is so that it would do item 3 above, and minimize consumption. To an extent, the impact may be limited, as people do have to drive to work, school etc, but you can be sure that there will be a trend towards doing what's possible to reduce consumption, such as buying more fuel efficient cars, minimizing trips, and expediting efforts into research of alternative fuels. For this reason, Charles Krauthammer, no loonie Leftist and who normally supports tax cuts, supports taxes on gasoline. So do I.

As far as research into alternative energy goes, I agree with you - it's unlikely to be done by government any more than it currently is. What will happen instead is more money being spilt into pet programs of each government at every level - federal, state or local. But due to these resultant high costs of gasoline, research will happen in the private sector, and you'll see energy companies (which do need to show growing income) as well as car companies invest heavily into such research. Some things would have to be done by government, such as deregulation in sectors like nuclear, coal, hydro,... so that these known sources of energy can be tapped into again, while intense reasearch is conducted in sources like solar, nuclear fusion, and if viable, fuel cells.

Of the various tax proposals put forward by Forbes or Boortz, there are strong arguments to be made for each of them. But while I'd welcome taxes being reduced elsewhere, I'd welcome that being collected at the pump. I don't see all the taxes that we pay going away anytime soon, although tax reduction is one of the best things done by this administration (the wars included).

If enough people agree with you and don't agree that this money should end up with bureaucrats, let those taxes be deductable at the end of the year for any group of people (like with tax credits) or all people. At least, it will be less cash to the Jihad, and more towards the personal needs of the average Infidel citizen.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 15, 2006 9:05 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald-

I wasn't aware there were new rules here at JihadWatch that you can only respond to comments that were posted in response to things you had earlier said. It seems I was able to find a rebuttal for your earlier statements in response to jsla's comments, even though you weren't addressing those statements to me. That's the nature of open debate, but I guess it isn't encouraged here anymore?

When you state that you want to tax people and subsidize things like public transport until city-dwellers would be crazy to drive their own cars, it certainly sounds like government diktat, whether you intend for it to be so or not. The problem with what you advocate is that the only difference between "encouragement" and "diktat" is magnitude and methodology, the overall objective is the same, and of course this means that because "encouragement" is less effective than "diktat," you will see that the government will slowly but surely come to rely on "diktat" in favor of "encouragement" because it really isn't interested in wasting it's own time. That's what is known as a "slippery slope," and any sane person who values their life (and their freedom) tries to avoid these things whenever possible.

You've got a really bad case of behaving just as you criticize your critics of behaving, and it's really starting to peeve me. You keep blowing things out of proportion, putting words in my mouth and claiming things I don't imply and don't wish to. I never said people should have unfettered individualism, because I don't believe that's truly free. No one has the right to murder anyone, you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, etc. because these things impinge on other peoples rights to exercise their own individualism. Let's not go that way, please.

I'm not really sure why you have so much hate for people entertaining themselves in whatever manner they find most entertaining (within reason! We've already discussed that people with homicide fetishes will not be able to see this one through). Some people just don't find games of Dictionary fun, and some people think of walking as a waste of time. Do you think that people play videogames, race cars, ride on boats, hang glide (never had that back in Thoreau's day!) and jump out of airplanes for fun, do so because they're lying to themselves about their satisfaction from said activities? They're all just fooling themselves into thinking that they enjoy what they're doing? They're that stupid? Or is it maybe that the same simpleton who thought sledding down a hill in the snow was fun, dreamed of moving himself over the snow at high-speeds and developed a machine that would let him perform this activity, which he then judged to be even more fun then simply climbing up a hill and sliding back down? Or is he just a greedy jerk who wants to waste as much oil as he can while he needlessly trammels the environment on his snowmobile?

It's funny, in your earlier post you credited the government with being responsible for our education. And it's true, right now the government controls education... and look what it's done, Mr. Fitzgerald. Look at all of these stunning high school graduates (and drop outs!) who are just so interested in learning and expanding their minds. Of course, I am being sarcastic, as our students are appalling and their disinterest with being educated is well known. This is a FAILURE of the government here. Let's throw them some more money, right? That must be the problem.

What are these people doing, jetting and faxing and calling each other all day long? They're doing BUSINESS, Mr. Fitzgerald, it's what makes the world tick. It's what has elevated we humans from poor peasents who spent all their time living in hovels and farming at a subsistence level just to get by, with no time to even engage in a pleasureable walk through the woods, to men in suits who run companies that provide even people who are considered to be "poor" today with so much more than the richest had only a century ago. The fact that you're so pissed off and clueless about all of this is a glaring exposition of your overall ignorance of a large, prominent aspect of reality for many people, that being that they have to do work and earn money to survive and enjoy themselves. Does someone just give you a blank check every month, or why is it that this concept seems so foreign to you?

I can assure you, I am of an "open" enough mind to consider any EVIDENCE to the contrary of my beliefs about global warming. If you tell me of some websites, books, news articles, etc. that detail, thoughtfully and honestly and scientifically, the true nature of this threat, I'd be more than willing to look into it. I can see I have some spare time to do so now, as I would've been spending such time reading more about Jihad but you've become too busy proselytizing about anything but.

It may be true that greed is the root of all evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all greed leads to evil. How evil was Bill Gates greed, now that he benefits the world with his great wealth by donating it to charity? How evil was the greed ("profit motive") of pharmaceutical companies who developed life-saving and enhancing medications? How evil has been all the greed of all the investors and innovators which has resulted in the invention and mass-production of all our modern products we value so dearly for their convenience and contribution to the quality of our lives? Every evil person is overcome by their greed, in one form or another, and in that sense greed is their root. But greed can be positive, too, when people work together to fulfill their own self-interests. Again, your ignorance or denial of this fact is telling about your overall understanding of the reality of the way much of the world works.

By the way, home ownership is a major hurdle for many people specifically because the governments assorted programs of taxation and entitlements, and all the "free money" the government prints to support them, has resulted in actual homes becoming financially out of reach for millions of Americans. It's pretty crude to chalk that one up as a benefit of selective taxation, when in reality taxation and government policy have resulted in the exact opposite effect. And despite the high price of cigarettes, about 27% of Americans still smoke. Some people just want to smoke, Mr. Fitzgerald. As long as they don't do it around you, who effing cares? Right now, millions of people around the world are lighting up a cigarette and puffing away... can you tell?

"Your world view is one that emphasizes not real individualism, not that of the lonely crank, who deserves all support, but rather the economic operator who doesn't want any gummint interference with the accumulation of money."

Not sure where you came up with that, not sure why you admire anyone who is lonely, especially a "crank," but what I do know is that you are definitely against the accumulation of money and all the "Radix malorum cupiditas est" that comes with it, and in consideration of that, I ask you what I ask anyone who claims to hate modern, material life, and that's this: There's plenty of uninhabited, cheap, lonesome land all over the world, including the United States. If you're so determined to live in such a fashion, (and no one is stopping you) why don't you go out into the woods and climb up a tree like the nut you are?

Quit complaining, show some courage and DO SOMETHING. No one but you and a few other "environmentalists" want to live like that, so why don't you?

I'm really sorry I had to make this so personal, but I felt it was necessary as I think your ignoring of my points simply because I was responding to something you wrote to someone else was very rude and intellectually dishonest. I've now taken the time to respond directly to your comments concerning my post, so I hope you will show me some respect by addressing me this time. Mr. Fitzgerald, again, I really respect you as an anti-jihadist, but when it comes to anything else, it seems you are just not informed enough to thoughtfully respond.

jsla-

"She partially pays for them by skimping on her defense largely at US taxpayer expense."

Great point. Reminded me of Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power", in which he demonstrates that Western Europes ability to focus so much public spending on public works (what we see as European socialism) was facilitated in large part by the fact that Western Europe could rely on the US to shoulder the brunt of defense spending for the fifty years that composed the Cold War.

The funniest thing about Mr. Fitzgerald's championing of increased taxes (and the wider growth of government that comes with it), is that such things bring us closer and closer to a system like that of the EU, which is much loathed for its betrayal of the European people in Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia," which Mr. Fitzgerald is concurrently constantly referring to as a daring novel that should be read and reread by any true anti-jihadist. I just always find that ironic.

Infidel Pride-

You seem to be forgetting that if we don't buy Islamic oil, someone else will (China, India, other up and comers). Net result? Our economy stagnates and whithers on the vine as we wait around for the government to produce our miracle energy source, while India and China zoom by the once prosperous US and the Islamic nations keep getting richer and richer at higher and higher prices. No, what we need is to increase the supply to drive prices down. Let's start by exploring for more energy on our own land and in our own waters.

Posted by: sologue at June 15, 2006 9:59 PM

"I do know is that you are definitely against the accumulation of money and all the "Radix malorum cupiditas est" that comes with it.."
-- from a posting above

No, the Radix malorum comes first, then the single-minded and grotesque accumulation of wealth. I'm not against the non-single-minded and non-grotesque accumulation of wealth. Measure in all things. And of course how one does it also counts. The inventor, the industrial designer, the intelligent entrepreneur, is not someone I begrudge. Edwin Land, Raymond Loewy, Schultz of Starbucks -- all entitled to their fortunes, big and small. But not everyone is. In this country, the rewards for those who ignore the shareholders but promote themselves, have gotten too large, and the spectacle of conspicuous consumption would make Veblen tear out the hair from his bald head -- or did he have hair? The free market is not a free market; there are a thousand ways that government intervenes. That being the case, government can intervene not only to encourage the stimulus of greed, but in its tax policy, to un-encourage certain kinds of behavior.

Some kinds of rewards are deserved. Some amounts are justified. And some kinds, and some amounts, are not. You don't like that idea. It offends you.

"Eurabia," by the way, is not a "novel."

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 10:24 PM

sologue: It is ironic. The poster in question really doesn't believe half the stuff he writes. He couldn't possibly. I think he's just trying to inspire lively exchanges, and get in some gelastic gymnastics. I'm all for it.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 10:25 PM

Define "grotesque accumulation".

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 10:27 PM

Not what you have.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 10:30 PM

Tom Friedman then. Tell us about him.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 10:34 PM

I can't stand him. But you knew that.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 10:45 PM

Again, I didn't say anything to detail what kind of wealth accumulation I do or don't find offensive, you simply decided for me. I don't condone people who unethically steal from others to increase their wealth (Enron scandal, which I am assuming it, and others like it, are what you are referring to). But beyond that, it's all fair game. None of this "Oil companies are evil for their windfall profits" nonsense the US Congress has been going on about lately. How would we define something like this, Mr. Fitzgerald? Do people who profit $1 less than those in the "windfall profits" category fly with a free conscience?

"The free market is not a free market; there are a thousand ways that government intervenes. That being the case, government can intervene not only to encourage the stimulus of greed, but in its tax policy, to un-encourage certain kinds of behavior."

Or, the government could get the hell out of the free market, because that's really the only thing keeping the market from being truly free, and is, amazingly, the first reasonable thing you've pointed out so far in this entire debate.

I'm sorry I called Eurabia a novel, that was a poor choice of words and was simply a mistake of hasty thinking.

Thanks for the quick responses, Mr. Fitzgerald, but your decision to not respond to most of my latest points shows me that I have you pretty much right where I want you in this debate and I am content with that (I'm not THAT greedy) so now I will step off to the gym to relax, and hopefully let sleeping dogs lie on this one.

Oh, and jsla, I don't think he believes all of it either, but if that's the case, why is he going on as he does?

Oh, and also, I can't stand Thomas Friedman either. Everytime I read his "witty" little editorials I wish I had never learned how to do so in the first place. He is truly, intellectually detestable.

I bid you all a buona sera.

Posted by: sologue at June 15, 2006 10:56 PM

"Thanks for the quick responses, Mr. Fitzgerald, but your decision to not respond to most of my latest points shows me that I have you pretty much right where I want you in this debate and I am content with that..."
-- from a posting above

Let that stand as a testament, or rather monument, to something. What, exactly, that something is, each reader can decide for himself.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 11:05 PM

Meanwhile, back in Iraq...

If we could only learn to harness the daily apoplexy of Muslims in general ...maybe via a rotary engine adapted to the human hip structure and strapped on the abdomens of outraged and gyrating Mohammedans? Generating juice that could be stored in battery cells on their belts and then collectively fed into the local grid at the end of each diurnal outburst ...a power-productive day of yelling, leaping, screaming, shouting, marching, jumping, shimmying, wailing, running, prostrating and pillaging ...to light the lamps of Iraqi Shi'ite and Sunni alike, (plus the minority Christians and Jews as well).

All of this latent, clean energy going to waste!

And, think of their 5-times-a-day bowing ritual.

A simple gyroscopically-adapated two-stroke motor, fitted to and wired from the millions of praying Muslims in every mosque, would produce enough mega-wattage from the collective kowtowing to render Iran's nuclear ambitions moot.

We need to box outside the think.

(Personally, I prefer to practice kendo with a bamboo stick and over-ripe, large fruit specimens than Emersonianly walk in the woods or play Pictionary... but my main disagreement on the subject of Power is: until fusion reactors are feasible, the nuclear fuel waste issue/possible melt down threat is too problematic to glibly encourage new nuclear ambitions, since, as the Cherobyl disaster demonstrated, the dead zones which such gamma boo-boo's can cause will plague a landscape for centuries, -and are ultimately more "expensive", per kilowatt hour, than comparable solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, biodeisel, etc., -when such costly dangers are factored in. And they provide wonderfully-messy targets for ambitious jihadists... whereas, knocking over a wind farm's huge fleet of propellors might kill a grazing sheep or two below their blades, at worst.)

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

(You may drive Nature out with a pitchfork, but she will ever find her way back.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 16, 2006 1:57 AM

You seem to be forgetting that if we don't buy Islamic oil, someone else will (China, India, other up and comers). Net result? Our economy stagnates and whithers on the vine as we wait around for the government to produce our miracle energy source, while India and China zoom by the once prosperous US and the Islamic nations keep getting richer and richer at higher and higher prices. No, what we need is to increase the supply to drive prices down. Let's start by exploring for more energy on our own land and in our own waters.

Sologue

I don't know about China, but India does exactly what's being advocated here - gasoline/petrol costs twice there what it costs here. The search for alternative fuels, or energy independence, is something every country that doesn't sit on petroleum would like to achieve. That's part of what drove India's nuclear deal with the US (it isn't just nukes). In fact, other than transportation, petroleum doesn't drive their commercial energy needs at all - that gets serviced by other commercial sources, such as coal, hydro-electric, etc. Rail is a huge portion of the transportation sector there, and runs mainly on coal. Granted old-tech, but keeps dependence on Islamic sources of energy to a minimum, that stupid gas pipeline deal with Iran notwithstanding.

I agree with you about increase in supply, and happen to be opposed to "conservation" in so far as it indicates a reduction in production. Conservation is fine when it means turning off the air-conditioner or the lights while leaving a room. It's a bad idea if it means factories operating at 50% utilization or less.

Taxing the energy sources we want to consume less of is a good idea, and despite my usual opposition to big government, this is the one tax I support. That makes petroleum unattractive, and gets us hunting aggressively for alternatives. For staters, eliminate the use of petroleum for commercial power i.e. electricity generation, home heating oil, etc, and replace it with nuclear, coal, hydro, which are there today. While this happens, research into solar, and fwiw, wind. This reduces the use of petroleum products to transportation. There, we should research alcoholic and other such fuels. While there are security aspects to it that would ostensibly justify government (in the US, the Dept of Energy) engaging in some of the research, and limiting the scope of patents to a limited extent to ensure that competition isn't stifled (this one would be tricky), I do believe that it's more likely to happen in the public sector.

Only part where I might disagree with Hugh is where he states that "Some amounts are justified. And some kinds, and some amounts, are not" - seemingly implying that government should be the vehicle to determine how much people/organizations should earn. I cringe when I read that. One may ask - how do I support taxation on gasoline. Well, when the existance of our civilization is jeopardized by this constant funding of our enemy just by going places, such as work, school, groceries, et al, such dire situations do call for desparate measures.

Also, in your analysis of Europe, you slam Europe for taxing gasoline, and lay the blame for its abysmal growth on that. But the reason Europe is in the situation it's in has been a whole lot of other factors, such as the welfare super-state, cradle to grave government benefits, of which Muslims have been major recipients, et al. It's possible for Europe to follow pro-growth policies (like Russia), while keeping their consumption of Islamic fuels to a minimum.

To make a long story short, you don't describe how continually funding the OPEC (10 Islamic and 1 crypto-Marxist) countries would de-fund (and thereby de-fang) the Jihad.

Reason being it wouldn't happen.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 16, 2006 2:05 AM

"And some kinds, and some amounts, are not" - seemingly implying that government should be the vehicle to determine how much people/organizations should earn. I cringe when I read that. "

The world today suffers a crisis due to lack of boundaries. The Muslims are storming ours -- attempting to destroy our society from within. Our politicians no longer recognize the limits of their sway -- and concoct clever and ever more insidious ways to gather money and power without accounting to us for it. The teachers don't understand the lim of their authority as teachers. We see it in the Ward Churchills and the teachers of Los Angeles herding their students onto the streets to "protest" for "social justice" and "march" for the "rights" of "immigrants"...

You should cringe. Mr. Fitzgerald, for all his insights and brilliant rhetoric on the dangers of Jihad, is also a freeze dried leftist educator. It's one of the reasons this subject has been (until recently) verboten at this site for discussion -- Believing in property rights as I do, I have always agreed that such a policy is the absolute right and privilege of JW's owners and operators. I try to comply. But when the Vice President of this site wishes to purvey his socialistic tax polices, or worse, suggest that the act of abject surrender in Iraq should occur under the unfurled banner of "Concede Victory" (the banner no doubt would feature splashes of red everywhere) -- he's crossed over a line -- become one of those nosey Zealots of the Ministry from 1984. Teachers in Academia today quash challenges to their dogma in the exact same manner displayed above, it's fascism's kinder gentler face.

I suggest Mr. Fitzgerald should stick to his encyclopaedic knowledge of history and tie it always into the subject of Jihad. I suggest he should stop the homilies about surrendering Iraq and dispensing tax advice for the fuel lorn. It muddies his own message of anti-Jihad. He can ignore counterpoints above, but that doesn't cover the fact that when a teacher turns pedant, and worse, uses the scope of his knowledge to sermonize and quash debates which he himself is guilty of beginning -- he becomes less like a teacher, and more like a member of the Intellectual Goon Squad.

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 12:34 PM

"also a freeze dried leftist educator.."
-- from a poster above

Complete and utter nonsense as all those who know me understand perfectly. I just don't share the great respect that some automatically accord mere businessmen, mere makers of enought to "retire in their 40s" and scoff at those who haven't made it, and who do not quite understand that the comment "money can buy everything -- except civilization" is not a comment only on the Saudis.

Pobrecito. Maid and all.

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2006 12:45 PM

That's similar to an answer, but not quite.

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 12:51 PM

Why not respond to my points, rather than lashing out again?

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 12:53 PM

Well...? I'm the one asking for debate, not quashing it with absurd and extravagant characterizations of what was said. This is the refuge of a scoundrel who's been found out.

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 12:55 PM

jsla

Despite my disagreements with Hugh on things like climate, government regulation of earnings,... I do agree with him on getting out of Iraq, despite having supported the ouster of Saddam in the first place. The civil war that would ensure is in the interests of Infidels everywhere. Let all the warring factions go and fight out the battle of Baghdad - Hizbullah vs Saudis, Syrian vs Badr Bridages, Iraqi-Shia vs Iranian Shia, Shia vs Sunni, Kurd vs Arab... and let it spill over into Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The more money they have to spend on this fight, the less there is for dawa. For the same reason, I'd support Iran being bombed, but not occupied in the way Iraq is now.

If you happen to disagree with the "conceding victory" part of Hugh's statement, I disagree with you there. It's an Islamic battlefield to be had - no point in one drop of infidel blood being spilt.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 16, 2006 1:27 PM

Charges against me that contain the word "socialistic" are passing strange. After all, the whole brouhaha at this unravelled thread appears to have originated in my daring to suggest that taxation would depress demand for oil, and that therefore such taxation would make sense, to combat both the Jihad, and to protect poor Stepmother Nature from further depredation. Judging by a few posters, one would have thought Lenin had arrived on the scene to see justice done, to nationalize every business, seize every property, take away everything, everything. Then I apparently compounded my crime, and revealed my true Bolshevist leanings, bu suggesting that one ought not to accept, what too many in modern America do accept (and in up-to-date capitalist China, up-to-date crony-capitalist Russia), which is that the mere accumuliation of wealth or making of money, no matter how that is accomplished, is somehow worthy of admiration, or that no limits should ever be contemplated on the size of that accumulation, no matter what, or that one is supposed to agree that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or some gangster in Moscow or Medellin is entitled to automatic respect if he hits the Forbes 400. An entire civilization used to based on the premise that such activities were inferior to others that did not make such money, based on the premise that greed was one of the Seven Deadlies, that no one ought to think the possessor of great wealth should be accorded automatic respect.

The word "socialistic" for me evokes a collecivist mentality, the person who likes to be part of a group, who wants others to want to be part of a group, defined any damn way you want. I don't. I've never joined anything. I can't stand the idea.

The same word ("socialistic") further evokes the idea of "equality." Not "equality before the law" which is legitimate as an ideal, even if the costs of lawyers makes it always unattainable. But other kinds of "equality" are terrible in outcomes. Economic equality, nationalisation of the means of production, leads to the mess and boredom and horror and injustice of Soviet Russia. Mass Man, being what he is, makes the idea of the collective even more horrifying than it was in the age before Mass Man developed, was sent to school, was mande functionally literate, and was then told he was just as good as anyone, if not better -- and he believed it.

It is not "socialistic" however to suggest that when Wealth-of-Nations invisible hand stuff mutates or metastasizes, without Adam Smith's concomitant moral philosophy, or societal disapproval, to hold people's greed in check, all hell will -- and has -- broken loose. Not the honest workman or tradesman or merchant, but rather the high-flying, inside-dealing, rapacious beyond belief businessman, examples of which phenomenon can be seen everywhere now in the Western world, is the hero of the age. He's not my hero. I think he should be slapped down and locked up. And if religiouis belief will no longer hold people to certain standards, and if a sense of measure is no longer insisted upon by a larger society, then --- well, then we have the mess we have.

The word "equality" at this point makes me sd sick as does the word "diversity." It makes me sick especially when it results in what Yeats worried about-- "The beating down of the wise/And great Art beaten down." It makes me sick when bad drives out good, when it is believed as an article of baseless faith that all people are equal in intelligence, in talent, in knowledge, or that these differences do not really matter as much as they do. But start to mention the only kind of equality that is not about innate differences, but all sorts of things, including timing, luck, stamina, a wilingness at times to pander to bad taste or even to help create that bad taste by lowering standards every which way (see Television, tonight and every night).

Occasionally one may intervene through the tax system. The government already does. It promotes home ownership. It discourages smoking and drinking. It encourages businesses to buy new computers and other equipment, through that transformative device, part of the tax system, depreciation schedules. That does not mean the IRS rule-makers are akin to Lenin or even renegade Kautsky. I'd say: don't nationalize, don't tax away differences, but try to limit the amount of sheer rapaciousness, and the activities that sheer rapaciousness rewards. And through the tax system, make the differences in financial rewards less huge, so that the earnest young man or woman who feels compelled to enter one of a very few fields (often defined by business and law schools) might not do so, if the take-home pay, as a botanist or teacher or nurse, was not one-fiftieth or one-hundredth of what might be and is being earned by business executives. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the highest tax rate was 90%. America was not then mired in economic paralysis. Job security was higher. Families were more stable. Things still hummed, hummed a lot better than they do today. The hectic vacancy of constantly trying to expand, to grow, to build, to raise the damn GDP or GNP or one's private holdiings, was not the sole activity deemed worth undertaking. Yes, there were other differences, including the fact that after World War II America had no foreign economic rivals. But now the effects of the race to the bottom, with capital mobile and labor iin the more advanced countries suffering (suffering especially if its own captains of industry show little concern for their fellow citizens, whom they apparently regard as fungible, and replaceable by others who receive less, overseas)cna be seen by all those who care,, or can stand, to look.

In general, the less bomfoggery -- the brotherhood-of-man-fatherhood-of-god stuffof which commencement speeches are made when there has been a surfeit of give-something-back or follow-your-bliss drivel-- the better. But no sentimentality about money, money-making, money-producing either, and none of this screaming about socialism and "socialistic" proclivities when someone merely suggests taxing gasoline. It's simply silly.

One last riff on the well-regulated state. For me, it would ideally be ruled by an assembly of representatives, able to protect and instruct, and keeping government to a minimum (but that does not mean that government should never ever using the power to tax to achieve certain aims, not all of them narrowly economic) simply because there are too many dumb people running around and if you give them power as officials they are inevitably going to do harm. Those representatives, each one more like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams than the next, will ideally be imbued with, and inspired by, sentiments akin to those expressed in Ulysses's Speech on Degree in "Troilus and Cressida." Tillyard describes that speech as part of the "Elizabethan World Picture." But the ideas in that speech do not date. They remain vivid and attractive today.

Take but degree away.

We've been there.

Untune that string.

We've done that.

And hark, what discord follows.

We can hear it now. It's the steady hum, the ringing in our ears, that never stops, wherever you go, with the degradation of the democratic dogma, in any mass democracy.

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2006 3:17 PM

In an effort to get this thread re-strung and tuned:

The title above is "Concede Victory" -- According to you, we are to withdraw and watch the fun begin. Sectarian strife will be the result, and you always argue this would be ripping good fun for us, and terribly bad for Islam. WE GET IT.

Then I always argue it's more complicated than that. In this particlar thread ( maid notwhithstanding -- ¿Tiene usted ningún sentido de la decencia? ) I suggest that Russia and China lust to fill any void we create in the ME, I then suggest you are wrong in your calculations, and then suggest that any void left by us would not only be filled by sectarian strife, but that the days of dark and sinister players such as Russia and China would also descend. Such an interjection would make a far worse situation than the one we're embroiled in today.

At some other point we can discuss your Royalist Leanings, your Belief in the Perfectability of Man, your Despair that Man is Imperfection Personified, your Buying into Faerie Tales about the Past, (and your Promulgation of Same), your Disbelief in Tyranny! (while you happily Espouse It), your fervent Yearnings for the Dignity of Man vis a vis your Labelling and Judging of the Dumb and the Inferior, and the gas tax. For now I'm just interested in your views on China and Russia.

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 5:33 PM

¿Tiene usted ningún sentido de la decencia?
-- from a posting above

It is you who at some point offered what you apparently took to be a heartwarming display of good master-servant relations -- god, the story dripped with unrecognized condescension on your part -- the tale of how, when you are feeling low, "my maid" calls me "Pobrecito" and "we both laugh." If you don't see what is offensive about that tale -- offensive in a way that many masters over time have failed to recognize, preening themselves on their "good relations" with the staff, if you failed to understand why I deliberately alluded to it because, precisely, it was so offensive for that very reason (presumably the reason you attribute to me with that rhetorical question above, but your story was the one that contained the indecent condescension), then there is nothing to be done.

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2006 5:57 PM

The title of this thread, "Concede Victory", has ironically taken on a whole new meaning.

Posted by: Caroline at June 16, 2006 7:42 PM

Apparently, you win, you lose

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 16, 2006 8:06 PM

"Apparently, you win, you lose"

I am guilty of misusing the term "irony" all the time (not unlike Alanis Morrisette).

It's dictionary meaning is :

"The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning...
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning."

The irony here (I hope used in the real sense of the term) is that the title of the thread, "Concede Victory", has apparently assumed its opposite meaning: "Concede defeat".

Posted by: Caroline at June 16, 2006 9:16 PM

Wow. Untuned -- and now unstrung.

I just looked, and the post sequence you've obsessed about went like this.

I'll start with the last portion of your post wherein we were exposed to another doleful accounting where the pronoun "they" clearly is a reference to your self:

"in not deviating from uttering unpleasant and certainly unappealing truths, find that they [YOU] can barely eke out an existence, while others, who have misconstrued and mis-articulated the problem, have proven remarkably adept not only at raking in enormous sums from well-paid lectures (were I to do the math here, the sums would amaze you) and incessant dunning for further donations, and are tirelessly engaged in still more empire building which will bring in still further sums.
This grates.

Posted by: Hugh at June 4, 2006 01:14 PM"

to which I replied:

"Whenever I complain, my maid says "Pobrecito", shakes her head sorrowfully, and looks despairingly at the ground. And then we both crack up.
Maybe the poster above should write a book.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011655.php#c224702

Your ungenerous, and hysterical Marxist interpretation of my humorous response to your embarrassing pity party says far more about you than it does about me... If you truly can't recognize a self deprecating tale, one in which I have my own hypocrisy pointed out by my maid,or the fact that it followed your hogwallow, and was designed to humorously chide you for being over the top: "barely eke out an existence" -- (pobrecito indeed) -- well -- that's YOUR problem, friend, not mine.

Further, if you prove immune to challenges and civil criticism, or insist on deriding or consistently ignoring posters of all stripes in their careful arguments against your case, you make yourself into a cartoon. Is that really what you want? I still think you're better than that, though it's hard to believe given what's transpired in this thread so far -- In any case, this is hardly the way to promote the main message of this site. This thread has been a debacle.

Posted by: jsla at June 16, 2006 9:58 PM

This requires a reply, and a reply, tomorrow night, it will get. Too much wallowing in self-pity to engage in to get to it before then.

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2006 11:46 PM

I look forward to it, and thanks. If it's the pedagoguish speech again, hopefully you'll revise it to explain how your personal political interjections advance the pedagogy of this site. It is called JihadWatch. And many who come here perceive a definite link between Islam's advance in the West and Leftist structures which have shrouded our perceptions of Islamic Jihad for what it is, or worse, enticed and abetted Islam into our domain. Explain how your "monstous HUVs" and your clumsy schemes to generate taxes to fight the Jihad and your endless complaints about how little money you make while excoriating all manner of persons (and now, apparently me) for making money in ways you find odious and detestable-- explain how these talking points from Spartacus Youth and MoveOn.org advance the anti-Jihad.

Your downright venomous Marxist "master-servant" construct above is only the latest installment in a long list which I (and I suspect many others reading this site and others who have been driven altogether from this site) have endured without comment until now. Take those topics up too, if you would be so kind.

Posted by: jsla at June 17, 2006 12:35 PM