« Interesting Take on Polls | Main | CBS & Abu Ghraib »

May 12, 2004

A theme I have ranted on before: the Muslimization of Europe, seems particularly ominous in the wake of yesterday's news. I know some of you thought I needed to be on hormone replacement when I went on my Mother's Day rant about family sizes, but birth rate is a critical factor in what's going on over there. And what's going on over here vis-a-vis illegal immigration, assimilation, and the culture wars. Something to think about...

I'll probably add to this as I find more depressing stuff. Or maybe jokes.

An admission you did not expect to hear from the media: we failed the American public in 2001. Long but very interesting analysis from PressThink. Via InstaPundit.

On the lighter side, I don't know if any of you have ever taken the Meyers-Briggs PTI test, but there was an interesting discussion over at Dean's World. If you've never taken the test, the long form is better but there's a shorter online one you can take.

- Cassandra

May 12, 2004 at 08:28 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b19169e200d83428207853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :

Comments

If the prosperous wersterners are going to have low birthrates; and
If the illegal immigrant poor and the Jihadists breed like rabits; and
If we do not want to be taken over by the breeding hordes;
THEN
For each of the 2.4 children the prosperous westerner has, the parents should each take out one illegal or Jihadist child from the gene pool to even things out.

Posted by: Insensitive Logical Conclusion Man at May 12, 2004 9:57:06 AM

...or we could just breed like rabbits...

More fun.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 10:05:59 AM

There are a whole lot of ideas no one likes to talk about because they are unpleasant.

That doesn't mean you jump to the ridiculous extreme just because the topic has been aired or that all problems have solutions. But I'm not sure the solution is to ignore the problem either.

Acts have consequences, and a rational society ought to examine the consequences of its actions. How else do you make informed decisions?

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 10:08:23 AM

ICLM, what a nut job.

Cass, it isn't that Americans don't breed enough. It is who does the breeding. What do you do about that? You can't even suggest the state mandating birth control on habitual, freeloading, crack whores whose 8 children are all in foster care w/o hearing it out from the civil rights folks.

Posted by: KJ at May 12, 2004 10:27:55 AM

Well ICLM isn't one of the Myers-Briggs Personality types, but sounded suspiciously like a certain lawyer I know who likes to pull my chain. I could be wrong (although I doubt it).

Never said there was a solution - not all problems have (or should have) government solutions. Doesn't mean there's no place for intelligent introspection. Where are we going, what are our values?

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 10:33:36 AM

This one will just kill you as a Librarian KJ: do we have a duty to our culture and our society beyond satisfying our own private goals as couples?

Hmmm.... duty. It's an ugly word. Almost...coercive in nature, except that one generally assumes duty voluntarily. Just a thought. These are things I muse about when I wish to become even more depressed than I already am.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 10:36:06 AM

Cassandra,

Sorry to disappoint you, but that is an easy one.

Government: no.
Personal: yes.

I am a Christian. I have duties to God and the world that are not, nor should they be, governmentally imposed. And once I choose to believe, the duty is not coercive. It is the natural offspring of a sincere belief in Christ.

Sorry to get all God-like so fast.

Posted by: KJ at May 12, 2004 10:50:24 AM

Counselor, I always thought you had somewhat God-like qualities...

And I'm glad to hear you say that. Once again, we're not as far apart as it might seem. If I have to take one of those (*&* Libertarian test again and it comes out the way the last one did, I'm outta here :)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 11:03:24 AM

I am leaning towards the Political Religion of Libertarianism. Enlighten moi. I think the Republocrat party has Sold Out.

Thanks.

Posted by: Cricket at May 12, 2004 12:04:31 PM

Oh Lord KJ - you have a potential convert :) I'll let the Jedi Master instruct you, Grasshopper...

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2004 12:24:01 PM

Cricket,
I used to read "Reason" magazine all the time, and some of the so-called 'libertarian' ideas are very appealing.
But 'Libertarianism' is just an economic and politcal rationale. After reading about it for years, there is no moral 'base' to it (liberty for all is not a 'moral' philosphy, just a good idea). A lot of good ideas and smart people, just that much of it is built on sand.
Ayn Rand was an "objectivist" whose moral philosophy was 'the Good is that which is good for the life of Man'. Libertarians claim Rand as one of theirs, but I think she rejected them before her death.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 12, 2004 12:27:37 PM

There is libertarianism, the Libertarian Party, and libertarian like. Rand is the latter. The Party is a good start, but like any group, it struggles with some issues that don't really fall neatly into the philosophy like abortion (depends on when you assign rights) or foreign policy (the Party is just a cluster f*&%^$#).

Anyway, I think there is moral relevancy to libertarianism as generally applied. The basic principal that I quote is that the government should not be involved in private relationships (assumptions: adult, sound minded individuals) unless it seeks to protect one from force or fraud. Of course, the government has other necessary roles. The court system is needed to enforce private property rights and operate a criminal justice system. Rules or systems are needed for efficient interaction, e.g., the rules of the road. And you need money, border patrol, police services and a national defense. Almost any other program could arguably, and many libertarians would say should, be done by the private sector. Examples: mail, fire protection, prisons, waste disposal, transportation, charitable services.

My libertarianism is tainted by lots of economic and rule utilitarian philosphy. My preference is the libertarian ideal at all times. Where legitimate utilitarian or externality issues arise, I favor an approach designed to allow the libertarian ideal but creates the necessary remedy to deal with the market problems. Eg, one could argue that legal prostitution has externalities (disease spread). Does that mean you outlaw it, guaranteeing a black market and disease spreads, or do you regulate it, allowing the vice to take place but hopefully halting or slowing the spread of disease? These are tough fact issues subject to dispute. Note that most libertarians would not view the moral issue as the prostitution. The moral issue is the state preventing a consentual sex for hire market. This causes many problems for conservatives. I understand this - struggle with it given my religion, and yet, like on the drug issue, I would rather allow sin and win hearts and minds by consent rather than force of law.

More to come.

Posted by: KJ at May 12, 2004 1:24:37 PM

KJ,
There is no disagreement between what you write and the ideas of 'liberty', but unless a philosphy has a base moral precept or a concrete axiom(s) that is inviable,with which to derive and philosophise upon, it descends into just so much 'relativism'.
This is the weakness to so much 'libertarianism'.
As soon as a libertarian posits a fundamental moral precept, another libertairian will want to read them out of the movement.
Just as the Universe is governed by a set of real, physical laws, so human behavior is also so governed by moral laws. The history of civilization has been, in part, to determine what exactly, they are. We're sort of fighting a war over that right now. My problem with 'libertairians' isn't that they are bad or immoral as individuals, but their movement rejects a consistent moral principle or principles, in the name of 'liberty'.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 12, 2004 2:06:20 PM

Liberty is morality. If my conduct does not interfere with the liberty, personal rights or property rights of another, what right do you have to interfere? You can suggest to me that I am immoral for my private or non-fraudulent personal or commercial conduct, and maybe I am, but the morality of not using the state to enforce anything more than protection seems both simple and moral to me.

All law is the application of principals that sometimes conflict. In those cases, the principals must be weighed and decisions made.

Even Bork said that the Brown v. BOE was right, even though he thought "seperate but equal" was constitutional. His analysis was at the time of the 14th Amendment SBE as a concept existed and was not intended to be done away with. But we knew as a matter of fact over time that the black's facilities were not equal. "Equal" was the principal articulated in the 14th Am. and was the superior principal. So if you have two legitimate principals, seperate and equal, and they are factually inconsistent, you choose equal, the greater principal. I don't know why I just thought of his rationale. I don't endorse it by repeating it here - I just think it explains the balancing of principals that good decision makers must go through.

Unless you want to impose a theocracy (and I'm not suggesting you do), there is little no way to remove all judgment from a governmental philosophy. Facts are very relevant. Environmental damage is a good example - even libertarians believe there is a government role in protecting the environment because it imposes costs on others that should be internalized by the polluter. Of course, pollution itself isn't bad per se - but efficient pollution is hard to measure factually. How to deal with polution, and how to measure the "costs" of pollution on society so that they can be internalized? Here is where legimate debate, even with people with the same political framework, takes place.


The philosophy does legimately frame the matrix by which problems are analyzed, and I would rather like having politicians whose analysis (and usually their decision) could be predicted upon such a philosophy. What we have now with nearly all Dems and Reps is pure politics - weighing every decision by polls and disjointed factors that they could seldom articulate. At least a true libertarian, a true commie, a true theocrat, can be relied upon for an approach and often a predictable decision.

It is true that the libertarian will usually take a neutral position on the social wars. The liberty (or the limitation of state power to certain functions) is the moral decision - immoral decisions by individuals that don't violate that framework are not the concern of government with the libertarian. That doesn't make the libertarian void of a moral underpinning. It just means that government's morality is not the same as the individual's.

Posted by: KJ at May 12, 2004 4:14:11 PM

Just who are you, to talk about balancing us, anyway?

We are not intellectual playthings for idle attorneys to toy with - damnitall, we're human beings.

Posted by: The Principal at May 12, 2004 4:28:58 PM

I am:
moderately expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
distinctively expressed judging personality

For What it's worth

The Sheepstream Media lost it a long time before 9/11. I hold very few of them in high regard.
If we did hard enough into the old KGB files, I'd bet you hard currency that there are a few members of the forth estate on the Kremlin's payroll.

I'm really torn about the Jihadists: Whether to torch the town, or Daisy Cutter it. I have no more symphathy left.

Posted by: purple raider at May 12, 2004 4:36:21 PM

Goodness gracious I can't spell.

Posted by: purple raider at May 12, 2004 4:37:26 PM

The Unit's an ISTJ - I found that interesting because supposedly you're supposed to marry your opposite type (oh well).

There is a summary of the personality types linked to my name - you can drill down to the more detailed descriptions.

The test isn't perfect, but it helped me understand some things about myself that had always bothered me, and also about my mother in law, believe it or not. Knowledge is power :)

Posted by: Principal at May 12, 2004 4:42:16 PM

FWIW, the inabulity to spel is a sine of great intelligance.

Posted by: KJ at May 12, 2004 5:10:01 PM

Just messin' with ya.

Posted by: Cass at May 12, 2004 5:30:54 PM

I married my opposite once, after 12 years that opposites attract thing faded and we were left with opposites.

Posted by: Pile On® at May 12, 2004 5:34:41 PM

Well, I guess it's not good to be too different or too much alike. If you're too different you fight or drift apart - if you're too much the same there's no spark after the initial attraction dies down.

Hopefully you find some balance between the two. The main value I saw in the test was that it helped me to view behavior I found puzzling as more an involuntary manifestation of who someone was (how they think/interact with the world) than as a deliberate attempt to be irrational/annoy me :)

At least that's what I tell myself.

Posted by: Cass at May 12, 2004 6:40:31 PM

"Bones, pass me the salt and pepper," said Capt. Kirk
"Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a busboy, get your own salt and pepper!" McCoy retorted.

Liberty may be a state of being ( a desirable state), but as always happens, one person's excercise of liberty, sooner or later, ALWAYS interfers with someone else's privacy or liberty, or something.
The law exists to adjudicate, in part, those conflicts, in a fair manner.
The problem that is growing in this country, is just what are the underlying moral precepts that should govern people (individuals). There have to be clearly understood moral precepts and values, else the society will collapse into a kind of free for all of law administration and judgement(whoa! too much like reality here). Too much "I'm right", "no, I'm right". Well there have to SOME absolute rights and wrongs. I don't want to administer them here, but without them we descend into chaos.
Hey, what about those Muslims in Europe?

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 12, 2004 7:21:12 PM

Don,

Most absolute rights and wrongs involve either human interaction with humans or human interactions with God. We don't really need to worry about the latter, so long as we allow it to flourish. As for the former, a strong public opinion favoring morality is more than sufficient. The law will protect you from force or fraud (Consider the commandments, e.g., murder, false witness, covet/theft (the former acted upon). Even adultery, the breaking of a contract, where the law provides a remedy.

The government need not be involved in preventing idol worship, working on the Sabbath (once you can agree when it is), etc.

The Muslims in Europe? I thought they were in the Middle East.

Posted by: KJ at May 13, 2004 10:16:04 AM

As I think this thread is dead, and nobody will end up reading this, I write this to clear my mind.
KJ, I'm not advocating a theocratic solution, far from it. But in your post above, I think you frame my question;"a strong public opinion favoring morality is more than sufficient".
That is, I'm afraid, what we are losing.
You can't 'impose' morality in the sense that you can impose building codes, but the culture and public behavior are the air we breath and food we eat that nourishs the mind and spirit of every individual.
If the culture can instruct and re-inforce those 'mystic bonds' that tie us together, that is good.
If every messages are mixed and some destructive, confusion reigns.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 13, 2004 7:51:33 PM