I’m pleased to find that Dr Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on celebrating diversity are similar to mine.  From his article on OpinionJournal:

What is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity.

That word has become a sacred mantra, endlessly repeated for years on end, without a speck of evidence being asked for or given to verify the wonderful benefits it is assumed to produce.

Worse yet, Iraq is only the latest in a long series of catastrophes growing out of diversity. These include “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, the million lives destroyed in intercommunal violence when India became independent in 1947 and the even larger number of Armenians slaughtered by Turks during World War I.

Despite much gushing about how we should “celebrate diversity,” America’s great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity’s oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.

In America we are moving slowly but surely from ‘freedom reigns’ to ‘freedom wanes.’ When my father was a young boy many people existed outside the government’s purview. Births and marriages were recorded in family bibles. Unless people owned land they paid no taxes. They conducted their lives pretty much as they saw fit. Things have changed a lot in almost a century. And it’s getting worse as each year passes. Today we can hardly turn around without first getting permission from the government. What we have today are different degrees of lack of freedom. Let me enumerate some of the ways in which we lack freedom. You are not free when:

• The government can take your property and transfer it to someone else without your permission and without just compensation (market value after property has been marked for condemnation is not real market value).
• The government can deny your desired use of your property with no compensation by reserving it for the use of ‘endangered’ plant and animal species.
• You can’t subdivide your property and sell it to others for home sites without government permission.
• You can’t construct a dam on a stream to create a lake on your property without government permission.
• You can’t drill a well to provide water for you and your family without government permission.
• You can’t install a septic tank to handle your home’s waste without government permission.
• You can’t build a home or place of business without government permission.
• You can’t repair or make an addition to your home or place of business without government permission.
• You can’t install a sign in front of your place of business without government permission.
• You can’t own a motor vehicle or boat without registering it with the government.
• You can’t operate a motor vehicle without government permission.
• You can’t operate a business without government permission.
• You can’t go fishing or hunting without government permission.
• You can’t get married without government permission.
• You can’t get a job without a government issued identification number.
• You have no choice but to enroll in and pay for Social Security and Medicare.
• You can’t possess a gun with which to protect your family without government permission (in some places).
• The government can raid your home without your permission and unannounced.
• You can’t discipline your children for fear of being charged with child abuse.
• You can’t freely speak your mind for fear of being labeled.
• You can’t transfer wealth to your children without government involvement.
• Your property is taxed to pay for the public school system even though you pay to send your children to a private school.
• If you send your children to public school you have little or no control over the curriculum.
• You are taxed to pay for government programs that you find morally repugnant.
• You must inform the government each year of the amount of your earnings and send a big chunk of it to the government (much of it to be used to devise more ways to make you less free).

Sadly, governments are hard at work concocting new ‘progressive’ ideas for supposedly improving our lives, and most of these will result in further restricting our personal freedom. One of these is the move to dictate what we can and cannot eat. New York City is now considering banning foods that contain ‘trans fats’ in city restaurants.

Obviously, reasonable arguments can be made that some of the above restrictions on our freedom are necessary in a complex society — especially in light of the threats to our security from radical elements here and abroad. But this does not change the fact that our freedom is waning.

Despite all this, I still believe that we enjoy more freedom in conducting our lives here in America than we would in most any other country. But it could be better.

The Pentagon has a web site that attempts to refute what it believes to be undeserved criticism by the media. The site, called For the Record, appears to be operated by the public affairs office. This is not to say that much of what the media says can’t be legitimately refuted, but we should consider that the reason most public affairs offices exist is to be able to publicly defend the parent organization’s actions without knowingly lying. That is, the PA staff is intentionally kept in the dark about the most potentially controversial aspects of the organization’s operation.

One of the items on the Pentagon web site, New York Times Involved in Mythmaking, asks the editorial page to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.” I’ve never agreed much with the NYT but this time I think they are correct. From following the Iraq war effort I’ve formed the same opinion, but this could be biased by previous experience. I worked for the Department of Defense while Rumsfeld was serving his first stint as SecDef. I never met him personally but he had a reputation for being quite stubborn and for pushing his, you guessed it, pet theories.

The Pentagon also sent a letter to the NYT asking for a correction. The letter quotes past statements by several generals as evidence that the NYT is wrong about Rumsfeld not listening to his generals. But what is conspicuously absent are the present day signatures of the quoted generals. The letter is signed by a public affairs officer. The NYT declined to print a correction.

One thing is certain. There is something wrong in Iraq. Either the Iraqi government or the coalition forces, or both, are coming up short in maintaining order. I’ve said before that we need more troops, but if we don’t adjust our strategy more troops may not help. Perhaps new leadership in the Pentagon is the answer.

I’m convinced that our objective of establishing a democratic government in Iraq was misguided. The Bush Administration either doesn’t understand or refuses to acknowledge that Islam and democracy are incompatible. They cannot coexist on the same level; one has to trump the other. If the Iraqis install an Islamic government, then there will be no democracy. And one of two things will result: Either Iraq will become another Iran or the country will split into three more or less independent countries. I tend to believe that the latter will happen.

____________

The NYT opinion piece makes a convincing case that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. It says “at this point, all plans to avoid disaster involve the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass.” Then it wraps up by saying: “Right now, the best place to express bitterness about what may become the worst foreign policy debacle in American history is at the polls. But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.” In other words they say, don’t expect voting the Republicans out of office to change anything in Iraq, but do it anyway just to vent your anger.

Running statewide or nationwide political advertisements on television is very expensive. But it seems to me that some clever campaign managers have found a way to get free exposure. They put together an ad with a message but then spice it up to the point that it provokes interest from all the talking heads on the cable news channels. Then in order for the heads to talk about it they have to show it; and they do, over and over and over. Producing such an ad that will create controversy but not a backlash against the candidate is probably very tricky.

One of these ads is the one running in Tennessee by Republican Senate candidate Bob Corker. It includes an attractive woman suggestively inviting Corker’s opponent, Harold Ford, to give her a call. This alludes to the fact that Ford attended a Playboy party in Jacksonville during Super Bowl festivities. This has caused the ad to get a lot of play on National television. Apparently the controversy is about the suggestion that Ford is especially attracted to white women (the woman is white and Ford is black). Some even say that it is racist. Some see racism in everything.

A pair of ads getting a lot of national attention are running in Missouri. One supports a state constitutional amendment that approves the conduct of stem cell research and/or human cloning, or something like that. Michael J. Fox, the actor with Parkinson’s disease, appears in the ad. The other ad opposes the amendment and uses athletes especially well known in Missouri to give the message. The controversy is about whether Fox is or is not allowing himself to be exploited by the supporters of the amendment. I suppose it depends on your point of view.

Chris Matthews and a guest, Charlie Cook of the National Journal, talked about the Missouri ads on Hardball last night. After watching the opposing ad with the athletes, Cook observed that the ad didn’t do anything for him because he didn’t even know who those people are. Then he said, “I guess you have to live there.” Well, yes Charlie, you are more likely to know the Missouri celebrities if you live in Missouri. And you’re more likely to get to vote on the amendment if you live in Missouri.

The Associated Press reports that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is prodding President Bush to help him terminate global warming. The block quotes are from the AP article followed by my comments:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently signed a sweeping law to cut greenhouse gas emissions in California, complained in a letter to President Bush that there is no coherent federal policy to stop global warming.

Just what California needs, another sweeping law. The article doesn’t say if there is an incoherent federal policy to stop global warming. I wonder if the Terminator wants the federal law to be “sweeping” as well as “coherent.”

The Republican governor wrote that the state’s request for a federal waiver to set vehicle emissions standards has been “ignored with no explanation” despite an earlier letter from the governor to Bush, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

The Terminator doesn’t like being ingored, especially when he doesn’t know why he’s being ignored.

Schwarzenegger, up for re-election, has taken several jabs at fellow Republicans in Washington over environmental policy in recent weeks. He calls the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times.

Politicians (or reporters) just can’t help but weasel word everything they say. Notice that he calls the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times. It doesn’t say that he believes the fight against global warming is one of the most important issues of modern times. I can call white black if I want; I just won’t be correct if I do.

Notice also that he calls the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times. I could say that the fight against ingrown toenails is one of the most important issues of modern times, and be correct — if I’m talking about the million most important issues.

At a recent campaign stop in San Diego, Schwarzenegger boasted of the steps he had taken to fight global warning and cut reliance on Mideast oil by promoting alternative energy. “The sad story is that, nationally, we don’t have great leadership on that,” he said.

Not like they do in California! Right Arnold?

California’s efforts on global warming have been in the spotlight since Schwarzenegger and the state’s Democrats reached an accord in August on legislation to cut greenhouse gases. The measure imposes a first-in-the-nation emissions cap on utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for warming the Earth.

I seem to recall that one of the reasons that Gray Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger was elected to replace him was that California was staggering under the burden of a huge debt, and one of the reasons for that was lost tax revenue due to manufacturing and other businesses leaving California because of burdensome laws and regulations. If I recall correctly, Arnold promised to fix that problem if elected. Further burdening utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants with caps on emissions doesn’t seem like fixing the problem to me.

Where do you stand on abortion? Are you for it, against it or don’t care? Millions of people feel strongly that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn fetus. They are said to be pro-choice. Millions of other people feel strongly that a woman should have no such choice. They are said to be pro-life. But there are also millions of people who are unable to say unequivocally that they are either pro-choice or pro-life. For them there is a middle ground somewhere between absolutely pro-choice or absolutely pro-life. Some of them might accept abortion only in the first six weeks of pregnancy. Others might accept all forms of abortion except partial-birth abortion. Others even go beyond opposing abortion and actually oppose the use of contraceptives.

I’m offering a scale that will assign a value to a postion on abortion — or more accurately, on life versus choice. I will call it the Life-Choice Scale. My purpose is to enumerate a range of positions so that you can decide where you stand. The scale won’t address abortion performed to save the life of a woman or to prevent severe injury or severely degraded health. I think most people agree that the need for such abortions is settled law.

The Life-Choice scale:

LC1: You believe that when children reach puberty they should start having sex and producing babies, and continue to do so without the use of contraceptives for the rest of their reproductive lives, in order to maximize the opportunity for life.

LC2: You believe that only adults should have sex, that they should use neither contraceptives nor the morning-after pill, and that all pregnancies should go full-term and result in the delivery of a live baby.

LC3: You believe that only adults should have sex, that they may use contraceptives but not the morning-after pill, and that all pregnancies should go full-term and result in the delivery of a live baby.

LC4: You believe that only adults should have sex, that they may use contraceptives and the morning-after pill, but that all pregnancies should go full-term and result in the delivery of a live baby.

LC5: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but only in the first six weeks of that pregnancy.

LC6: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but only in the first twelve weeks of that pregnancy.

LC7: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but only in the first 24 weeks of that pregnancy.

LC8: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy at any time during that pregnancy up to but not including the day of delivery.

LC9: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to have a partial-birth abortion performed, where a partial-birth abortion is the act of killing the baby before the entire baby is clear of the birth canal.

LC10: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to insert one of her baby’s legs into her vagina and then kill the baby within two weeks of her baby’s birth.

LC11: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to kill one of her offspring at any time.

LC12: You believe that a woman should be lawfully able to choose to kill one of her offspring and her offspring’s father at any time — if she knows the father and can find him.

(Modified 10/26/06:  LC2 – LC4 were changed.)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Amish in Ohio won’t be pushed to accept food stamps”:

“The state is eliminating one of the toughest jobs in the food stamp program: Pitching it to the Amish. Food stamp enrollment goals will be adjusted for counties with Amish populations to reflect the group’s philosophical opposition to accepting public assistance, according to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services.”

When I read a story like this I tend to think that the reporter missed the real story. Why are they pitching food stamps to anyone?!! They have enrollment goals?!! They have bureaucrats whose job it is to convince people they need food stamps?!! What’s wrong with just providing them to people who ask for them, after verifying that their need is real? Do the counties in Ohio compete to see who can give away the most food stamps (tax-payer dollars)?

On the other hand, if the reporter, John Horton, had overtly criticized the food stamp program’s policies he would have been editorializing instead of just reporting the news. In that light, it might have been a cleverly written news story. He presented the facts and let us notice the elephant in the living room.

“The Amish typically refuse to take government handouts; the insular community prefers to help itself from within.”

We need more communities like the Amish communities. And demented little creeps need to resist their subhuman urges to harm the Amish children. (Insular communities tend to help themselves from within better than outsular communities. Perhaps Horton isn’t all that clever after all.)

“Tim Taylor, who oversees Geauga’s Department of Job & Family Services, applauded the state for taking the “common-sense approach” and changing the policy. We want to focus on the people who want and need our help,” Taylor said. “There’s plenty to keep us busy enough.”

Taylor is a bureaucrat after my own heart. But he probably doesn’t have a bright future in the welfare business.

(via Florida Cracker)

The Associated Press reports that Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives in Orange County California, has been accused of sending a letter to illegal and legal immigrants telling them that it is illegal for them to vote. He says that a campaign staffer sent the letter without his knowledge. The letter said, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.” Quotes from the AP and my comments:

State and federal officials have been investigating the mailing for possible violations of election or civil rights law. It is illegal to use threats to try to dissuade anyone from voting.

Well, the letter is obviously trying to dissuade its recipients from voting, so they must be investigating the threat part. Or is this just another case where officials sift through the law to see if they can charge someone who offends them with a crime? As I’ve said before, officials should quickly recognize a crime when they see one. If it is not readily apparent to officials what is a crime and what is not a crime, then how are we supposed to know?

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said Friday his office will send letters to homes that received the mailing to clarify voters’ rights.

If the mailing recipients aren’t savvy enough to determine on their own if they can legally vote, then why should we be encouraging them to vote? If they are savvy, is McPherson not insulting their intelligence by holding their hand in this manner?

Many mulling around his office Friday were supporters.

It’s probably a good thing for Mr Nguyen that his supporters were mulling instead of just milling around his office. He should probably do more mulling himself — about what his staffers are doing.

You probably suspect, based on his name, that the candidate is an immigrant. Yep, from Vietnam. The article doesn’t say if the staffer sent one of the letters to his boss.

I wish people would stop pushing these ‘Get Out the Vote’ campaigns. If someone can’t generate the initiative to go vote on their own, then they probably don’t have a clue as to who they should vote for. I would rather have only those people who are familiar with the issues and the candidates doing the voting. In fact, I would rather be the only one voting.

GOTV campaigns focus mostly on convincing people to take the time to vote, not so much on convincing them to vote for a particular candidate or party. Most of them target specific demographics that are expected to vote a certain way.

Democrats spend a lot of time and money encouraging people under thirty to vote because they think a large majority of them will vote for the Democrat candidates. This is because they are either still in college or have been out only a few years and their liberal brainwashing hasn’t worn off yet. Democrats also target lower income people because they think these people will vote Democrat for the nanny-state benefits that Democrats promise.

Republicans target older and higher income people because they know that most of these people want lower taxes and greater security and believe that the Republicans are more likely to deliver that than the Democrats. Republicans don’t target blacks with pure GOTV campaigns because a huge majority of them always vote Democrat. But they do spend some time and money trying to convince them to vote Republican.

I would much rather see all the GOTV money being spent on educating the voters on the issues and what the candidates stand for and how they will vote on the issues if elected, not on browbeating the politically naive to get off their couch and go vote.

The United Kingdom’s Telegraph has an interesting article:  Multiculturalism hasn’t Worked:  Let’s Rediscover Britishness.  Looks like some of the Brits are starting to realize that ‘promoting multiculturalism’ is not such a great idea.  They see that what you get is a fractured society and a lot of conflicting beliefs and practices.  It’s time for us to rediscover Americaness.  (via Hannah)

Update: A New York Times – Middle East article, Beyond Skimpy Skirts, A Rare Debate on Identity, describes the same kind of concerns, but this time from a Muslim country concerned about the invasion of Western culture.  (via Ekawaaz)

Update:  View from the Right has a post about the Brits uneasiness with Muslims: By Baby Steps, the Brits Seem to be Getting More Serious.