More Homeless

[selenite0]

I'm still keeping an eye out for a political group I could call home. There's definitely others who agree with me, including other self-proclaimed libertarian hawks, the Anti-Idiotarians, and the Party of the West (I think this is the best summary of the principles we agree on). The last link also has some discussion on how to organize, but the consensus seemed to be that none of us had the time/energy to take that on.

There are some groups that have a presence in the primaries without taking social-conservative stances, such as CLOUT and the Club For Growth. Unfortunately they seem to be single-issue groups on cutting taxes. Club For Growth says they're for "limited government" but I couldn't find anything on their site taking a stand on the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. I'm sure taxes could get really low if the government just paid people by handing them fully built houses confiscated from former owners. I think "expanding freedom" is a better focus than lowering taxes.

One place where I might find like-minded people is in the movement to draft Condi Rice as a presidential candidate. Those seem to be folks who want an aggressive war policy but less government interference in our personal lives. Now whether Secretary Rice agrees with that domestic agenda is an unknown. It's also not that likely that she'll run, no matter how hard people try to draft her. Secretary of State is a full-time job, she'd have to quit to run a campaign. She's never run for an elected office before and would probably make some rookie mistakes. There's also going to be an incredible amount of personal abuse, at least an order of magnitude more than she's already gotten.

On the other hand--if she's running with Bush's blessing as his successor she might get the Republican nomination with a minimum of nastiness in the primaries. There'd be a Christian fundamentalist running against her which would probably make her look even more like a centrist. Imagine a centrist running for President--might even be the first one in twenty years to get more than 52% of the vote. The results depend on who the Dems nominate, of course. But that could lead to another lovely scenario--if Senator Clinton gets the nomination the US gets its first female president whoever wins.

Comments

Anti-Idiotarians

[perich.livejournal.com]

THAT the terrorists and their state sponsors have declared and are pursuing a war not against the vices of Western civilization but against its core virtues: against the freedom of thought and speech and conscience, against the life of reason; against the equality of women, against pluralism and tolerance; against, indeed, all the qualities which separate civilized human beings from savagery, slavery, and fanaticism;

None of the data I've seen suggests that's true.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

oddly, my time in Afghanistan and Iraq backs it up.

-DS

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Expanding on DS's comment--the goal they're fighting for is a unified state under sharia law. That's incompatible with democracy--"man made" law is a sin, rejecting "god's law" as found in sharia. That includes most of the list you quoted. Apostasy is a capital offense, so there's no freedom of religion or conscience. Blasphemy is too, so no freedom of speech. Tolerance is limited to second-class status for "people of the book", while "pagans" get put to death. OTOH, slavery is legal.

As for equality of women--have you been paying attention at all?

For reference, here's Osama's declaration of war:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[perich.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to suggest that, if left to their own devices, Afghanistan and Iraq would be Western-ish democracies known for their civil liberties. We know better (see: the Taliban, Sunni extremism). So I apologize if my response conveyed that.

But I don't believe that the reason Al-Qaeda is attacking Western targets (New York, London) is because we have freedom of speech and rights for women, etc. They're attacking Western targets in order to get the West out of the Middle East. Al-Qaeda's goals for Afghanistan / Iraq and their goals for New York and London are two entirely different things.

I came to this belief through Robert Pape's new book, Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. I'll cite a bit from an interview (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html) that American Conservative magazine conducted with the author:

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

So, yes, I agree with you: Islamic extremists do want to oppress freedom of speech and civil liberties. But the fanatics of Al-Qaeda aren't bombing us simply because we have those things. None of the data, as I said, seem to suggest that.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

what confuses a lot of people even "experts" about this subject is very simple.

Islam is a political ideology as much as it is a religion. The religion is the politic.

Simple as that.

The ramifications of such a fact are often misunderstood since most "experts" are looking at the situation from a background where their understanding of "religion" and of "politics" are seperate though they often overlap.

In islam, they are one unified system.

Driving out other powers IS a religious objective as much as it is a political one.

at least, to those who embrace that version of Islam.

but, to add to the confusion, there's is no homogenous kind of middle eastern terrorist. Although there are some definate pervasive similarities, there are just as many differences. We might treat them all the same, but the reality is that there is more than just AQ out there.

-DS

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[perich.livejournal.com]

Islam is a political ideology as much as it is a religion. The religion is the politic.

Simple as that.

A very good point.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

Yes DS makes a great point that for the Islamofascists there is no difference between politics and religion. Pape's book makes a big mistake because it lumps all suicide bombers into one category...while the Palestinian bombers can be argued that they are pursuing a much more political goal then a religious one, the same cannot be said for Al Qaeda and their spin offs.

Al Qaeda's stated goal is the reestablishment of the pan-Islamic Caliphate that encompasses the entire world eventually. Thus its not just the Middle East, or even North Africa, but also Spain, and Europe and eventually the US as well that would fall into a gov't system like THe Sudan where there is no civil law, just religious law.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[noumignon.livejournal.com]

Pape's book makes a big mistake because it lumps all suicide bombers into one category...while the Palestinian bombers can be argued that they are pursuing a much more political goal then a religious one, the same cannot be said for Al Qaeda and their spin offs.

Have you actually read his book? (I haven't.) You can't counter his argument by saying he's mistaken to lump them together until you've seen why he says we should. Maybe he agrees with everything you just said and still argues that al Qaeda is pursuing a political, not religious goal.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

I have read exerpts if his book. Now, I will caveat that the exerpts were in an article that was trying to use his book as proof that the Bush administration was approaching the problem of terrorism incorrectly and used Pape's central thesis (according to the author) as their primary point in their favor.

From what I have seen of his book I am not certain that he addresses Al Qaeda specifically or breaks them into a seperate grouping from the priamry source of suicide bombers by number (Palestinians).

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[noumignon.livejournal.com]

Okay, that's cool. Really the main reason I posted was I didn't know you very well and wasn't sure you were giving Pape's ideas a fair shake. Now I can hear you're a reasonable person who would engage in a fair discussion with his thinking.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

Completely understandable and not a problem. I freely admit that I am not giving Pape a completely fair shake as I haven't read his book, but making assumptions on exerpts and derrivative works. Overall I think he makes some good arguments, but I am not sure his arguments are applicable in regards to Al Qaeda (not knowing if he addresses them seperately or groups them wiht other suicide bombers).

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'm very unimpressed with Pape. A few counters:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007178.php
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007190.php
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/07/on_pape_and_dem.php

As for your last comment, Islamofascists aren't bombing us--or London--or Bali--just because we're violating sharia law. Those attacks are tactical moves to advance them toward their goal. Which is a world-wide goal, don't forget. Read Osama's rant above.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[perich.livejournal.com]

From your middle link:

Ejecting the United States from the Middle East and Asia is only an intermediate objective. Al Qaeda’s final objective is reinstating the Caliphate under strict Islamic law. The United States' presence in the region is a major obstacle to achieving this goal.

Al Qaeda wishes to topple Middle Eastern governments, replace them with Islamist regimes, and consolidate them into the greater Islamic state. The model system of governance is the recently ousted Taliban regime of Afghanistan, where the strict law of Shariah ruled.

I, um, agree. I'll need to read Pape a little more closely to see if Pape would disagree with that statement.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Haven't read it myself, but abovenyquist was quoting it to me earlier:

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

That doesn't match a campaign to incorporate a collection of nations into a larger state. And the interviews with the bombers don't sound very "secular."

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[perich.livejournal.com]

Well, as DS pointed out, extremist Islamic politics are entirely religious. Advancing a political goal (a Middle East free of Westerners) is the same as advancing a religious goal (jihad). So perhaps Pape's thesis is overly broad - although bear in mind, his thesis has to cover secular groups like the Tamil Tigers as well as Al-Qaeda.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I think the breadth of his thesis is driven more by the desire of tenure committees to see grand over-arching theories than by any actual similarity among the groups he's covering. The Provisional IRA and Al Qaeda both use car bombs, and their goals have nothing in common.

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[dbroussa.livejournal.com]

I think Pape's problem is that he did not see the difference between the Palestinian suicide bombers (of which there is the largest number) and the new breed of Al Qaeda bombers (which do work for a religious/political goal).

Re: Anti-Idiotarians

[selenite.livejournal.com]

And another link on Pape:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/07/bombings-in-egypt-and-its-implications.html

Bin Laden's Fatwa

[perich.livejournal.com]

(Note: I want to stress that, despite the tone I take in the following, my conclusion is not "appease the terrorists and capitulate to their demands." That's bad policy no matter how you slice it. But the other extreme - "ignore their demands and pretend they're not an issue" is equally infeasible)

Bin Laden's own fatwa is entitled, "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Two Holy Places." That puts it more clearly than I even thought possible - Al-Qaeda's ire is raised by the fact that the West occupies places that they find holy. It's right there in print.

After the initial obeisances and invocations to Allah, he gets right to the heart of things:

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

That's a pretty explicit laundry list of grievances. I don't see the words "Madrid" or "Manhattan" anywhere in there.

He makes very clear that the "two Holy Places" need to be remade by undoing man-made civil law ("no acquiring of power except through Allah") and re-instituting shari'ah. But to suggest that he's ordering Muslims to remake the West in the same way? I don't see it.

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

So when the president makes a speech do you take it as cannon as well? or do you watch what he does instead?

-DS

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[perich.livejournal.com]

If we're using bin Laden's religious diatribes as evidence for his motives, then that evidence suggests he wants the U.S. out of the Middle East. (What's the point of citing the fatwa if I wasn't supposed to read it?)

If we're using Al-Qaeda's actions as evidence, than that evidence suggests they want the U.S. out of the Middle East.

Either way you slice it ...

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Ibid:
the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential

Translation: It is a religious obligation to impose Islam on the whole planet.

As for Madrid, he doesn't call it that. It's "Al-Andalus", a Muslim land stolen by Christians. And he's still pissed.

Some more background reading, if you're interested:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Whoisourenemy.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Arabtraditionalism.shtml

and another take on that, from a more historical angle, concentrating more on Koranic background and the resulting psychology:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#48
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#6
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#51
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200206#22
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200207#87

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[noumignon.livejournal.com]

Ibid:
the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential

Translation: It is a religious obligation to impose Islam on the whole planet.

Wasn't U.S. policy in the Cold War to fight Communism in every part of the world? Did that mean we were trying to impose capitalism on others or was it just the only way to keep Communism from imposing itself on us?

Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa

[selenite.livejournal.com]

"Containment" meant defending any nation that the Communists were trying to take over. So once Cuba, Vietnam, etc. had been settled we didn't try to go back in. Nor did we send troops into the USSR after the Russian Civil War ended. That was strategy during the whole Cold War. So there was never a time we were trying to "impose" democracy/capitalism on another nation.

Our current troubles could probably have been averted if we had done some imposing of democracy on our allies. But given what Soviet nukes could do to our country, and what Communist governments have done to their people, I'm glad our leaders focused on winning the war they were in instead of worrying too much about the next one.

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

I should start a party.

-DS

[selenite.livejournal.com]

For that kind of party, I'd come down from Fort Worth.

Condi

[p-o-u-n-c-e-r.livejournal.com]

As long as we're dreaming...

Early 2006 - Dick Cheney, citing his health in general and heart condition in particular, resigns as VP. Shrub appoints, and Congress confirms, Rice as new VP i.a.w. USC XXV. (Confirmation takes only a simple majority of both houses, which now are of Shrub's party. )

Fall 2006 - Rice campaigns on behalf of GOP candidates. Either she has coat-tails, or not. If so

Spring 2008 - Rice announces for Prez.

Or, if not -- Fall 2008 -- Rice quietly adds her (un-coat-tailed) endorsement of whoever the GOP winds up with.

Having the first black prez also be the first female prez is so barrier busting I don't really care how mediocre a job she might do. This country has survived U.S. Grant, Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter -- like most jobs, GETTING it seems harder than DOING it.

Ooops. Also Kinky for Gov.

[(Anonymous)]

Us Texans have an opportunity to bail out from both GOP and Democratic barges as the Kinky Friedman petition campaign gets rolling. To qualify as a petition signatory a registered voter must NOT vote in either primary. (which limits your ability to influence down-ticket races) Given some threshhold which I forget then Kinky (novelist, sort of like Vlacav Havel, only different. ) gets on the ballot for governor and one can vote him, either of the others, and any of the other races.

The theory is that if Reagan, Arnold, Jesse Ventura and Shrub could all be governors, how hard can the job actually be?

And that's a principle I'd like to see more people "get". It shouldn't take a professional class or aristocracy of life-long politicians to get, or do, the job of administrating a republic. Oh sure, a kingdom, a tyranny -- there the difference between feast and famine is entirely up to the tyrant himself. A good wise competent unselfish devout and just king like the almost mythical Solomon can give his people a good empire -- and everybody else in history screws things up. Royally. But in a republic the people and a largish group of medium competent self-interested competitive advocates engaged in give-and-take, check and balance, negotiation and compromise ought to most years crank out good-enough-for-government work law, order, and liberty. And what such a system can't develop rules for prob'ly ought not to be ruled, no how.

Re: Ooops. Also Kinky for Gov.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'll certainly be considering Kinky, and I'm all for him getting on the ballot. But it's hard for a maverick to do the job with the legislature all opposed to him.

Re: Ooops. Also Kinky for Gov.

[deviantsaint.livejournal.com]

the term "shrub" is really annoying me to no fucking end.

not because it's disrespectful to the president, I could give a fuck about that. But because it's childish and pointless and demeans any logical points made by the person who erred in using the term.

-DS

Re: Condi

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I like the scenario--it's certainly the best way to annoint a successor--but the timing seems off. I think she'd want to stay on the SecState job through most of 2007. Doing some part-time campaigning is probably practical w/o quitting the job, depending on how many crises break out that fall.

Re: Condi

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

I see Condi as the perfect Vice-Presidential candidate: she would bring international experience and brilliance to a Republican Governor at the top of the ticket. She would certainly be able to clobber a Democratic VP candidate in a debate, but she would be insulated from charges of inexperience with regard to elected office.