|
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Ending the cycles of preventative reaction
Via Glenn Reynolds (who sees a tipoff in the "candlelight vigils"), Rand Simberg skewers one of the most idiotic arguments I have yet heard against armed self defense. Anti-gun activists have found a convenient poster boy for their cause -- one John Woods, described as "a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he knew there were gunned down." Woods says he thought about getting a gun, then rejected the idea, for reasons I find incomprehensible: There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.If the "idea" that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible, then what could possibly explain the fact that shootings stop when the gunman is finally shot? reactive, not preventative? Whatever can he mean? That it is wrong to react? Are the two mutually exclusive? Isn't it self-apparent that a reaction (say, shooting the shooter) can also be preventative? And is not what he would call "prevention" (in the form of gun control) also reactive in nature? Why isn't it "reactive" to fight against bills that would allow concealed carry? I'm having trouble understanding how this false dichotomy assists anyone's understanding in any way. Perhaps I'm being reactive, though. Were I more preventative, I'd go attend a candlelight vigil. posted by Eric at 11:12 AM | Comments (12)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, March 30, 2009
Joe Biden's Daughter Snorting Cocaine?
A friend of Joe Biden's daughter claims to have video of her snorting cocaine. The daughter's name is Ashley. The video is for sale. The New York Post and Radar online reported that lawyers representing the seller claimed that the footage was of Ashley Biden, 27, a social worker, at a party and initially wanted $2 million for the tape. They described the seller as a "friend" of Miss Biden.There will be no war on Ashley Biden. You can count on it. The Drug War is for the little people. You have to wonder though what kind of friend would do such a thing? Maybe it was Ashley's friend Heather. "On the tape a man cuts up five lines of what is said to be cocaine," Radar online reported.A dollar bill for snorting cocaine? It looks like the recession is hurting all segments of the American market. Hard. It is difficult to imagine any self respecting user of Bolivian Marching Powder using anything smaller than a twenty in good times. There was no immediate response to the allegations from Mr Biden, his daughter or the White House.An anonymous and totally unreliable source has reported that President "I Snorted" is reputed to have said when he got the news, "Damn, why wasn't I informed there was a party going on?" The party was said to have taken place in Wilmington, Delaware and the lawyer said that Miss Biden's boyfriend was there and clearly identifiable on the tape.Charges were dropped. As I said. The Drug War is for the little people. For the connected there is a "get out of jail free" card. Two arrests and no convictions. And shouting at a policeman? Depending on the neighborhood that can be a capital crime with summary justice administered to the miscreant. In this case it seems it was the officer who dodged the bullet. Shooting a Senator's daughter would definitely be a very bad career move. And if "Drug War" Joe was VP at the time it would have been worse. One thing is for sure. If the drug laws were enforced fairly the drug war would be ended in short order. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Yes, but is it hypocrisy?
Drudge links a press release which reconfirms some old news -- the radical animal rights group PETA euthanizes thousands of animals: According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.I see a problem in calling PETA "hypocritical," though. The organization has long been on record as opposing all pet ownership, which it believes to be morally wrong. (PETA has a particularly bizarre obsession with pit bulls, and their goal for the breed has long been total extermination. Yes, PETA wants to kill Coco. In the name of "ethics.") Moreover, PETA's official position on euthanasia is that it's morally right: As difficult as it may be for us to accept, euthanasia (when carried out by veterinarians or trained shelter professionals with a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital) is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave an uncaring world.While I might be inclined to agree in the abstract, I think PETA defines "unwanted" as meaning unwanted by PETA for purposes of adoption. Logically, if they a) oppose pet ownership;then killing them becomes a moral duty. Twisted by my standards (because I support pet ownership), but hardly an act of hypocrisy. posted by Eric at 09:11 AM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0) Sunday, March 29, 2009
What did they expect?
The murders of four police officers in Oakland, California by a wanted parole violator with a long record has generated predictable reactions. Naturally, there are calls for more gun control, like this plea for passage of a renewed ban on "assault weapons." (California already has a draconian ban on "assault weapons" as well as strict laws making it a crime for an ex felon to be in possession of any gun. Advocates of tougher laws can't seem to get it through their heads that laws are lost on lawless people.) Another approach is to advance arguments like this that ex-felons are "desperate" -- so employers must be made to hire them. If you think this view is laughable (or hard core leftist fringe), think again. Oakland's current Mayor Ron Dellums ran and was elected on such a platform. Many cities are busily implementing policies which amount to affirmative action hiring for felons, and there have been legislative attempts to make "discrimination" against people with criminal records illegal. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter pushed a plan promoting the hiring of felons, and President Obama is described as sympathetic to their plight. I realize that no rule is right all the time, but isn't it possible that not all of these felons are good people? I mean, what if some of them are just downright bad? Or is that not considered possible by the John Lennon Imagine crowd? The problem here for me is that there's nothing to debate. Some people think that there are bad people who should be locked up, while others don't think there is such a thing as a bad person, and that prison is immoral. (In the words of the prison abolition group "Critical Resistance" the idea is to end "society's use of prisons and policing as an answer to social problems." Sorry, but if someone wants to break into my house to rob me, that is not merely a "social problem.") Oakland's deliberate policy of not making arrests has only caused crime to go up. My reaction (then and now) is along the lines of "What did they expect?" There's no real room for rational argument, though, between people who think the evil actions of an evil individual are society's fault and those who think it is the blame and fault lie with the individual wrongdoer. Something like this happens, and it only causes them to re-emphasize and re-assert their beliefs. Maybe a threshold question could be along the lines of whether there are bad people in the world. posted by Eric at 11:29 AM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
Zero Gravity Diet for a healthy (non) planet
I stumbled across a video in which "Expedition Six NASA ISS Science Officer Don Pettit demonstrates how the International Space Station crew prepares and eats snacks" -- one of which is honey and peanut butter. "You mix peanut butter and honey, and man, it doesn't get any better than that!"
He also notes that because of the properties of the mix, it does many neat things in zero gravity, but I was so intrigued by his endorsement of the taste that I went to the kitchen and tried it. It's highly addictive, so I hope it's good for me. posted by Eric at 08:51 AM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0)
Primarily A Source Of Cash
Hizballah has set up shop in Mexico and a few points south. It seems they are interested in taking advantage of a business opportunity. Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say.So let me see if I get this. Through the magic of prohibition we are paying criminals and terrorists tens of billions of dollars every year to breach our borders. The brilliance of a policy like that can't be underestimated especially when sold as a protective measure. Protect from what? The free availability of illegal drugs. Which are in fact freely available. It is about as whack as believing socialism can work for large nations. Or believing in gun prohibition. A lot of my 2nd Amendment friends tell me that gun prohibition can never work. And they are right. Unfortunately a lot of them don't seem to be able to generalize. Where were we? Oh yeah. Smugglers. And Hizballah. While Hezbollah appears to view the U.S. primarily as a source of cash - and there have been no confirmed Hezbollah attacks within the U.S. - the group's growing ties with Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrisome at a time when a war against and among Mexican narco-traffickers has killed 7,000 people in the past year and is destabilizing Mexico along the U.S. border.Primarily a source of cash. For now. You have to hand it to a policy that finances our enemies in Afghanistan and Mexico and supports criminals in America. And especially that it is sold as a protection racket. "If you don't support drug prohibition your kids will have easy access to drugs and all become addicts." Except that currently pot is easier for kids to get than beer. Say didn't we have beer prohibition at one time? Yes we did. And wasn't one of the reasons we ended it was that kids were coming to school drunk? Yes it was. Have we learned anything from the alcohol prohibition experience? Look at the evidence. H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 12:22 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Saturday, March 28, 2009
Industrial Production
America has an industrial strength system for producing criminals. Senator Jim Webb is not happy about it. America's criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace. Its irregularities and inequities cut against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness. Our failure to address this problem has caused the nation's prisons to burst their seams with massive overcrowding, even as our neighborhoods have become more dangerous. We are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives.Let me see, 2.3 million divided by 71,000 is about a factor of 32. So we have 32 times as many prisoners per capita as Japan does. The disparity seems excessive. Senator Webb agrees. The United States has by far the world's highest incarceration rate. With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000. In addition, more than 5 million people who recently left jail remain under "correctional supervision," which includes parole, probation, and other community sanctions. All told, about one in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, in jail, or on supervised release. This all comes at a very high price to taxpayers: Local, state, and federal spending on corrections adds up to about $68 billion a year.In these days of trillion dollar budgets $68 billion dollars doesn't seem like a whole lot. But consider this: $68 billion is enough money to completely fund experiments on every type of fusion device known to man until there is a functioning net power generator. That includes things like ITER (which is already way over budget), Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) which is a very low budget operation, Cold Fusion which is not well understood, and a host of other schemes and devices. Then we take the $68 billion we are going to spend next year and put it into wind power research, the following year liquid fuels, another year energy storage, etc. So what am I saying? That the "investments" in the prison industrial complex are not giving us a good rate of return compared to some alternatives. Senator Webb then goes into the why of it. Over the past two decades, we have been incarcerating more and more people for nonviolent crimes and for acts that are driven by mental illness or drug dependence. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 16% of the adult inmates in American prisons and jails--which means more than 350,000 of those locked up--suffer from mental illness, and the percentage in juvenile custody is even higher. Our correctional institutions are also heavily populated by the "criminally ill," including inmates who suffer from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and hepatitis.The "criminally ill" include not only those who come to prison with an illness but also those who have contracted their conditions in prison. And what is the heart of incarceration mania? Drug offenders, most of them passive users or minor dealers, are swamping our prisons. According to data supplied to Congress' Joint Economic Committee, those imprisoned for drug offenses rose from 10% of the inmate population to approximately 33% between 1984 and 2002. Experts estimate that this increase accounts for about half of the dramatic escalation in the total number imprisoned over that period. Yet locking up more of these offenders has done nothing to break up the power of the multibillion-dollar illegal drug trade. Nor has it brought about a reduction in the amounts of the more dangerous drugs--such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines--that are reaching our citizens.It is almost like we have figured out how to reimpliment Jim Crow without mentioning race at all. We just tell our police: arrest the drug offenders. You know who (wink, nod) - those people. Stay out of Beverly Hills which is full of fine upstanding citizens who can cause a lot of political heat and focus on Compton where we can handle things our way. So it doesn't have to be Jim Crow by design. It could be Jim Crow as an emergent property of the system. It is still Jim Crow. H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 07:33 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) Friday, March 27, 2009
We need to crack down on selfish people!
Reflecting on the merging of government with big business and the "too big to fail" meme, Jonah Goldberg recalls a vintage if chilling Hillarism: Hillary Clinton's health-care plan required working with large corporations and other firms. It was little guys for whom she had nothing but contempt. When warned her plan would crush smaller businesses, she shrugged, "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."A rather odd definition of "save," don't you think? No doubt she saw (and sees) small business recalcitrance to being ruined as selfish and stubborn. Of course such was her logic then. This is now: "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border . . . causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians."Since when are "we" chargeable with smuggling by Mexicans (many of whom are in the government)? Certainly, it's our job to defend our own country against invaders, but if foreign countries can't control what goes on in their countries, they have no right to demand that Americans lose the right to buy guns (clearly the goal here). Are we approaching a time when self-defense will be condemned as "selfish." Would anyone say that I'm responsible for auto theft because I own cars? Well, yes, some would, but the thinking is so illogical that no serious person would take it seriously. Yet Hillary is carrying the same logic one stage further, as if she said that American car ownership is the cause of international auto smuggling rings. What a relief it was to find some simple relief in this Ayn Rand interview that Dr. Helen linked yesterday:
In addition to saying "If you made it yourself,....Why shouldn't you keep it, you made it," Rand discusses and condemns altruism (which lies at the root of the idea that criminals are victims, victims are culpable, that kulak types who refuse to collectivize are evil, and the state is beneficent). How did the altruists manage to win? posted by Eric at 10:11 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
Keep An Eye On Polywell
Agora Financials has something interesting to say about Polywell Fusion. "Polywell fusion technology could be the biggest monkey wrench in the history of markets," writes our technology adviser Patrick Cox. If you're unfamiliar (we certainly were), fusion is often tagged as one potential "fuel of the future." Instead of splitting atoms, like the nuclear fission we use today, it fuses them.Yep. I do take issue with one point. I think energy at 1% of today's cost is a long ways into the future if it ever comes. However, estimates of 10% of current costs are certainly reasonable with initial production units coming in at 50% of current electrical energy costs. All of which assumes it will work. Which is so far unproven. However, the work the US Navy is doing could provide the proof - one way or the other. More money (a few tens of millions) would give us the answer faster. If the answer is positive a net power producer test reactor at a cost of $100 million or so (engineering, fabrication, tests) would be in order. If that worked out we could go ahead on an electrical power generating unit and production facilities at a probable investment cost of $1 billion. However, a billion in investment money would not be hard to raise at that point. Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 03:47 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) posted by Simon at 01:11 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0) Thursday, March 26, 2009
mad over madenism
It came as amazing news to me, but via Clayton Cramer I learned something interesting: we are still making stuff in America (besides worthless mortgages). I lost the circular level that I use for manufacturing ScopeRoller caster assemblies, so I had to buy a new one. I found a Empire Bullseye Circular Level at Home Depot for a bit under $3.That is incredibly cool. I can't tell you how many times in my recent 3 month remodeling job in California I bought defective junk from China. It seems that nearly everything now is made in China, which wouldn't be so bad except when the things aren't made well. The worst thing is when public safety is involved. While I was in the San Francisco Bay Area, I read that the construction of the replacement portion of the Bay Bridge's new eastern span is being farmed out to China. Apparently, it no longer makes sense to have the pieces fabricated here; I could live with that, but what annoyed me to no end was to read this detailed report that an American engineering company discovered defective welds in the replacement bridge sections "as many as 65 percent of the more than 30 welded panel sections .. examined" were defective. Instead of sending them back or demanding additional testing, Caltrans got rid of the engineering company. (01-25) 16:51 PST -- Construction of the tower portion of the Bay Bridge's new eastern span is running months behind schedule, amid questions over whether key portions being made at a Chinese steel plant are defective.Hey wait a second. The Bay Bridge was built in 1937, and yes, a section did fall down in the 1989 quake, and had to be replaced. (I was on the bridge during the whole ordeal, and considered myself lucky to get off of it.) But earthquakes do not occur according to schedules you can look up on a timetable. To be hurried into ignoring a known potential danger right now because of an uncertain future danger strikes me as questionable logic. (And how far does the logic go? Because there's a big hurry, will just any old replacement do? Not that I'd expect logic from lefties who on the one hand scream about saving jobs for Americans, while on the other implementing policies which make it impossible for American companies to compete with China. Or "animal rights" activists who applied so much pressure to American drug and cosmetic companies that they stopped all domestic animal testing and farmed most of it out to a country which has zero concern about animal cruelty. I'm just glad to read that a few American companies still make things here. This is hardly a call for protectionism. Only a naif would demand that every last item be MADE IN THE USA like this charming box of staples from the early 1950s: Note that it even has reinforced metal corners! My mom never went through all the staples, and she died in 1999, so I inherited her "stash" of staples. The box is half full and at the rate I go through them, it will probably outlive me. Have to say, it is charming, and it brings out my "they sure don't make things like the used to!" codger side. Today, even "MADE IN USA" is sometimes open to question. While I was in California, I had trouble with a sticky screw on a no-hub coupling I bought at a local Ace Hardware. Note the label (and you can see where the screw did not want to pull out): Pretty straightforward, according to the label. But look at the screw clamps themselves: It's all too easy for me to pronounce the company dishonest. Is it? What if they're allowed to put two Chinese-made things together to form a finished product? Who "made" "it"? According to the FTC, whether the phrase "made in USA" is deceptive depends on the percentage of total manufacturing costs: It will not be considered a deceptive practice for a marketer to make an unqualified U.S. origin claim if, at the time it makes the claim, the marketer possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence that: (1) U.S. manufacturing costs constitute 75% of the total manufacturing costs for the product; and (2) the product was last substantially transformed in the United States.So if 75% of ACE's cost was to pay Americans to simply stick the rubber sleeve inside its clamp, it's "made in the USA." Then there's this: It will not be considered a deceptive practice for a marketer to make an unqualified U.S. origin claim if, at the time it makes the claim, the marketer possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence that: (1) the product was last substantially transformed in the United States; and (2) all significant inputs into the final product were last substantially transformed in the United States.I guess "all significant inputs into the final product" could mean deciding how to label and display the product. posted by Eric at 05:07 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Some Euros Have A Spine
Now if only we had a few more like him in the US. H/T National Review Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:37 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Amy Needs Some Readers
I just learned from Dr. Helen that Amy Alkon "The Advice Goddess" needs some readers. You can start here. If you want to do more, Amy has a book Free Advice. Read it. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 03:52 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Reds Are In Charge
A nice graphic to go with my previous post Four Times As Much. The graphic was originally done by The Washington Post. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 07:56 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Four Times As Much
It seems that the Government of Mr. Obama has plans to run up a debt four times as big as George Bush did. President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.Fortunately that is based on optimistic projections. If more a pessimistic scenario emerges in fact the debt run up will be higher. And that does not even factor in the fact that the Fed is printing money to buy T Bills. Thank the Maker we elected the Smartest President Ever™. Because just think of the mess we would be in had we elected another dummy like Bush. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 03:23 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Just checking in
Hey everybody, I'm still alive but I've been offline for an extended period, and I just wanted readers to know that while I've been unable to blog since last Thursday, the current crisis is almost under control, and hopefully I will be back to something resembling blogging this weekend. I miss the blog, and all of you. Stay tuned. posted by Eric at 03:47 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, March 23, 2009
A New Hope: Cold Fusion
Cold fusion is back in the news. If cold fusion can be made to work, it could power the world cheaply on a virtually limitless supply of seawater. But scientists don't even know if it's possible.That is very interesting. So far all the cold fusion guys have been able to do is to create low grade heat. Good enough for warming your coffee. Not good enough to boil water. In any case understanding what is going on will probably be useful one way or another. I like this fusion method when it comes to generating mass quantities of energy: Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration? Cross Posted at Power and Control Welcome Instapundit readers posted by Simon at 08:40 PM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Next Bubble
You can see it coming. The next big bubble. Marijuana. Why do I say that? Because there are courses available at Marijuana University on how to profit from the coming boom in quasi legal marijuana. Under a microscope, it's easy to tell really good marijuana from schwag. Look for trichomes. On the best pot, they cluster, thick and crystalline, indicators of potency. If you're training to become a professional pot dealer, as I was last fall, it's important to be able to pick out the good stuff. Your livelihood will depend on it. Fortunately, I had expert instruction, along with strains of varying quality to examine for my pedagogical benefit. Ranked from best to worst, they were Blueberry, Grand Daddy Purple, and Mango. Appraising them was, truth be told, slightly nerve-racking, since the assignment was sprung as a sort of pop quiz. It was part of an advanced seminar on growing and selling marijuana in which I had enrolled at the Los Angeles campus of Oaksterdam University, a new trade school founded in Oakland and devoted to the booming business of growing and dispensing medical marijuana. Or, as we liked to call it around campus, "cannabusiness."And what happens when the government stops propping up prices with prohibition? Marijuana with a current value of $6,000 a pound will go down to the price of hot house vegetables. A few dollars a pound. At most. Where will that leave those with a fair amount of cash invested in a grow op? Busted with unsalable assets. Just the way all bubbles end. Oh. Yeah. I forgot to mention that the California State Government is proposing a $1,600 a lb tax on marijuana. That should provide an economic floor and keep the black market more or less intact. H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas
posted by Simon at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Sunday, March 22, 2009
Their Motto Is "Don't Tread On Me"
Goddamn, well I declare, have you seen the like? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 11:54 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Grassley Fights Grass
This is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley criticized the Obama administration Thursday for moving to loosen restrictions on medical marijuana.When even former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey comes out for legalization of marijuana for adults you can tell the Republican Party is out of step with the nation. Depending on the survey between 55% and 85% of Americans favor medical marijuana. When medical marijuana is on the ballot it almost invariably does well. In fact it is so popular that some state legislatures are passing laws. On top of that Grassley is passing out discredited bromides like "mother's milk leads to harder drugs". Actually mother's milk contains marijuana analogs. It has a soothing effect on babies and makes them want to eat (well drink) more. In tests with mice - babies that didn't get their full quota of marijuana analogs didn't do well. Uh. Where was I? Distracted by breastfeeding mothers I fear. So why is the Republican Senator denying the will of the people? I was under the impression that politics was all about winning elections, but it is entirely possible that I have a mistaken view of the process. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:53 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) Saturday, March 21, 2009
Torture Or Cosmetology?
Some people think this is torture. Last week, the Daily News reported that the board had introduced a proposal to ban genital waxing in New Jersey's spas and salons, something the board claimed was already illegal but never spelled out in the regulations.I can just see it now: "Talk or we will pull your pubic hairs out. Painfully." With the response "But that is torture." Followed by the counter: "Nope. Legal cosmetology in New Jersey. People pay to have this done. We are giving it to you for free." I swear. If someone threatened to wax me I might just talk. But there are markets to consider. People (women especially) pay to have this done. Has any one considered the market for people who would like to watch the procedure? And what woman wouldn't like to receive a bikini wax certificate for her birthday, anniversary, or that special holiday for lovers - Valentine's Day? And for do it yourselfers there is a NSFW video. Seriously. It is an actual instructional video. You have to imagine the good parts. And the screaming. And that is not all. You can buy the products used in the instructional video at Amazon. Torture or Cosmetology? Well this is America. You can have both for the same low price. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:57 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
A Picture is Worth A Trillion Dollars
A picture is worth 1,000 words sometimes. Sometimes it is worth a trillion dollars. This one could be worth even more if it explains global temperatures better than the IPPC's computer extrapolations. This graph is the work of Syun-Ichi Akasofu who has a few words on climate. Akasofu is one of the 400 scientists listed in a report issued by the Republican minority of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 who were said to dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming.And that is not even counting the solar guys who think that we may be entering an era of very low sunspot activity which may lead through mechanisms not fully understood to a Maunder Minimum type ice age. What ever happens we are sure going to learn a lot. One thing we do know for sure about politicians. They prefer to never let a crisis go to waste. Real or imagined. Makes no difference. If they could get people to fear ghosts they would raise a tax on exorcisms. H/T seedload at Talk Polywell Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:00 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
No Accident
guy on internet had something interesting to say in response to Welfare For The Rich. All consumption-based tax credits are "for the rich," or at least the not-poor. You have to buy them, while whatever poor people buy a disproportionate lot of gets "sin" taxed at above the highest marginal income-tax rate.I'm beginning to see a pattern. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 01:56 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Friday, March 20, 2009
More Welfare For The Rich
It looks like we not only have Welfare for the Rich. We have another case of the same welfare. Want a $50,000 electric sports car? Have we got a deal for you. When Tesla formally announced the Model S Sedan last June, the MSRP bandied was about $60,000 for the all-electric sedan. In its newsletter today, Tesla has confirmed that the "anticipated base price" for the Model S will be $57,400. With a federal tax credit of $7,500 available, however, the Model S should cost just $49,900. Details on what's included in the base version of the Model S should be available at the vehicle's official unveiling next week.What a great deal. For a bailed out banker. Or a Fannie Mae executive. I think this whole deal is supposed to work on the trickle down theory. First the rich get the cars and then when they become used cars the rest of us have a chance. Now I believe in trickle down myself. If it weren't for used cars I wouldn't have a car. But please. Couldn't we do it without subsidies? H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 06:39 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) Thursday, March 19, 2009
Welfare For The Rich
Are you in the market for a new car this year? I thought not. But if you are Mr. Obama has a deal for you. Los Angeles (myFOXla.com) - President Barack Obama announced today in Pomona that his administration will help put a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015 and offer $7,500 tax credits for people who buy them.And what is the challenge? Producing a hybrid at a low enough cost so that you at least break even on the gasoline saved vs. the added cost. And what will a $7,500 subsidy for those who can afford a new car do? It will maintain the price differential between a hybrid and a conventional vehicle at $7,500. Now this might be viable if it was something like $7,500 the first year and $6,500 the second, etc. down to zero. The same thing we should be doing to wind subsidies. However, I see nothing like that in the plan. There is in the plan $1 billion dollars (only a billion? is that significant?) to upgrade the electrical grid. If that goes into R & D to develop components for HVDC transmission, or carbon nanotube conductors and high power transistors, or the Smart Grid initiative we might actually get something useful for the money. OTOH if they are just going out and buying stuff it will not help much at all. Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration? Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:29 PM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
Hello Walls
It seems the Most Inexperienced President Ever™ is having one or two problems with his first two months in office. For all his articulateness and gift for oratory, this president seems to be spending his time in the Oval Office walking into walls. He has botched up more things in two months in office than most presidents manage over two terms, amply illustrating the campaign charge that his inexperience equipped him for next to nothing.I don't know about hyper inflation but, I'm (sadly) pretty confident we are in for a bout of inflation at rates above 10% a year. A lot of folks are now claiming that the Obama in Office is not the Obama they voted for. Americans have elected an inexperienced, Chicago machine politician with a lot of crooked pals, to the Presidency based on vague promises of hope and change. Well a lot of us saw this coming and tried to warn the rest of you. Three Years 10 months and 1 day to go. About 46 more months. How much worse can it get? Unfortunately we have 46 more months to find out. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 03:06 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
From the bottom, looking up
When things reach that stage when they really can't get any worse, they can start looking better. In the case of Detroit (a city most people have written off as hopeless), houses can be had for almost nothing. That's because the city is falling apart and city services are poor to nonexistent. So if you call the cops, they might not come at all. The schools are so bad that sending your kids to school in Detroit constitutes child abuse. But still, a house is a house. It's a roof over your head. Sure, you might need dogs, guns, and home schooling, but to be able to get your own house for nearly nothing has a certain irresistible appeal. (After all, considering how much it costs to build a house, Detroit houses are seriously undervalued.) Little wonder that artists from around the world are now discovering Detroit: ...northeast Detroit has virtues Carmel never had -- among them $100 houses, one of which is being purchased by two Chicago artists, Jon Brumit and Sarah Wagner.As to the locals, they don't seem too perturbed by the fact that outsiders are buying abandoned and worthless properties: Locals seem relieved that someone is buying abandoned properties. Of Cope and Reichert, who have made a point of getting to know families nearby, longtime resident Mohammed Mehid says, "They're good neighbors. One-hundred percent!"Well, why not? Just as when you reach the South Pole, all directions are North, when things are at absolute bottom, there isn't any way to go but up. (Of course, the existence of basically free houses makes me wonder about the phenomenon called "homelessness," but that's another issue.) posted by Eric at 09:57 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, March 18, 2009
R.I.P. Popcorn Sutton
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Famed Appalachian moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton, whose incorrigible bootlegging ways were as out of step with modern times as his hillbilly beard and overalls, took his own life rather than go to prison for making white lightning, his widow says.I realize laws are laws, but I still think it's a shame. I saw him on that History Channel Hillbilly documentary, and found myself loving him. Basically, making liquor without a license is a tax violation. I wonder how Popcorn's relatives feel about the head "revenuer" not paying his taxes. Here's a video of Popcorn doing his thing, as his ancestors did for centuries: Try as I might, I find it hard to see the old guy as the type of threat to society who needs to be incarcerated. posted by Eric at 07:41 PM | Comments (12)
| TrackBacks (0)
Ideology and creativity
Reflecting on CPAC, Andrew Ian Dodge touches on one of my pet peeves, which is the stubborn inability of creative types to be allowed to think (and say) what they think without repercussions: One thing that came up quite often in chatting with people outside my two "comfort" groups was the movement's dearth of musicians and writers, best crystallized after a fellow attendee described me as a "Ted Nugent conservative." In fact, at one reception I was asked point blank why the movement did not have many people from the entertainment world in its number. This was at least better put than the usual "all creative types are leftists" rants, which I hear often. The answer -- if you ask anyone outside the country/gospel music scene -- is quite simple: it's a matter of professional survival. There are many "closet" conservatives in the music business and even in Hollywood who don't dare out themselves for fear of curtailing their careers.This is also true in journalism, academia, and even in many places in the business world. For some people, the "closet" even intrudes into personal and family matters; how many conservatives and rightish people felt obliged to censor themselves at parties and family reunions when Bush bashing was in full bloom? This is not merely a matter of career and/or economic survival. In general, the left does a great job with shaming people. Non-leftists are systematically made to fear ostracism. If you're on the right to any degree (and have even the slightest tendency to be embarrassed by criticism), you will feel it. Whether it rises to the level of a career threat or not, no one likes being called evil, racist, sexist, or un-cool. Little wonder people join groups, and surround themselves with people who think alike. It's a form of self defense. However, it can be equally stultifying where it comes to being able to think and speak independently, because when groups form (especially groups based on coalition), the loudest voices dominate, and there's no shortage of people on the right who demand ideological correctness almost in imitation of the political correctness tyranny on the left. Perhaps they're compensating for being beaten down, but this drives creative types nuts, and it's a major reason they remain more comfortable either going along with the left, or else just being proudly and smugly apolitical. I hang out with lots of creative people, and plenty will ridicule and condemn political correctness, and leftism in general. But if you talk about "conservatives," or "the right wing" and ugly stereotypes immediately come to mind. Much of this results from leftist stereotyping of the opposition, but some results from the simple fact that the most visible and outspoken rightists they're likely to encounter are, well, the most visible and outspoken. Like it or not, members of the WorldNetDaily Ann Coulter cheering squad brigades are not likely to win over free-thinking creative types -- no matter how disgusted they are with the stultifying forces of PC It's tough to overcome that, which is why I'm delighted to see a resource like Pajamas Media and honored to help out when I can. I like Dodge's conclusion: So stop bemoaning the fact that there are not more creative types who are keen to be seen as conservatives. Start by supporting the ones you do know and help them with their careers. The left has managed to do so. Why oh why can't we?Sometimes you have to start small. It can begin with the recognition that there's nothing creative about political correctness. posted by Eric at 10:50 AM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
A New Black Market
It its attempt to turn the USA into the USSR, Congress is proposing to outlaw legal farmer's markets. What this will do is force anyone who produces food of any kind, and then transports it to a different location for sale, to register with a new federal agency called the "Food Safety Administration." Even growers who sell just fruit and/or vegetables at farmers markets would not only have to register, but they would be subject inspections by federal agents of their property and all records related to food production. The frequency of these inspections will be determined by the whim of the Food Safety Administration. Mandatory "safety" records would have to be kept. Anyone who fails to register and comply with all of this nonsense could be facing a fine of up to $1,000,000 per violation.Funny thing is that not even the USSR was this stupid. Private sales of food were all that stood between many people in the Soviet Union and starvation. The private plots on State Farms kept the Soviets going for forty years. In America we will be limited to what we can produce ourselves or what the food cartel provides. This is just another small step down the road to a fascist state. We are mesmerized by ownership of property when the real question these days is control. That was the argument between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1941. Is the optimum socialist state based on ownership or control? Obviously the ownership socialists have lost out to the control socialists. It turns out control is better because it is easier to evade the rules. Being unable to cheat the rules or bribe some one to evade them adds a lot of friction to an economy. Of course control socialism inevitably leads to cartelization. Because big companies can scrape up more loose cash to influence the controllers. Can the government keep the economy within its authorized channels? With the black market in America making up between 20% and 40% of the domestic economy, I don't see how. That does not mean they won't make further efforts to try. However, we have to recognize that our economy was effectively nationalized with the Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn and recently confirmed in Gonzales v. Raich. It seems that Progressives Rewrote the Constitution and now we are in a situation that is getting Progressively Worse. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:38 AM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Distinctions keep getting blurrier
Because of inconvenient (and very time-consuming) personal business, I was nowhere near a computer I could use yesterday. Ironic, because I was surrounded by computers I could not use. (Like the old expression "water water everywhere and not a drop to drink"...) Returned home in the middle of the night, and dragged myself to bed without blogging. "To bed without blogging" sounds like a punishment, and maybe it was. It sometimes bothers me that there are so many things I don't write about, but then, there's a fine line between thoughts I consider worth sharing and personal trivia not fit for publication. Blogging sometimes resembles a form of exhibitionism. Yet because of its self censoring nature, it's only as exhibitionistic as the individual exhibitionist. I'm kind of a prude, even though I don't like to hold back about things a lot of people would remain silent about. Silence is a relative thing, and it is sometimes a dignified thing. George W. Bush said that Barack Obama "deserves my silence," and in that respect, he shows himself more dignified than his successor, who is blaming everything on Bush. The latter plans to write a book too: Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.I don't know what I would have done. It's a lot easier for me to sound off about responsibilities I don't have than responsibilities I do have. In this regard, I'm of two minds about the huge AIG bonus payouts which are creating a storm of controversy. The Obama administration claims no one knew: Sources in the Obama administration Tuesday said that despite previous media reports administration officials did not know until a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13.I guess it's too much to expect the administration to read news reports. Naturally, the taxpayers are outraged, and AIG officials are getting hate mail and death threats: Washington: A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group (AIG) on Monday. Hired guards stood watch outside the Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.I'm sure it will. Just wait till the names and addresses of all those greedy execs hit the Net! Here's why I'm of two minds about this. The bonuses are obviously AIG's legal obligation, and if the company were simply allowed to fail (as it should have been), then they'd be treated like other corporate obligations according to normal legal process. But since the government stepped in, the bonuses have been transformed into taxpayer dollars. That's a very bad idea. The lines have become hopelessly blurred between "public" and "private." Doubtless the communitarians are delighted. (How easy it is these days to be a libertarian!) MORE: In a great PJM piece (titled "Contributions to Obama Campaign Track Bailout Money") Bob Owens explains how AIG is bailing out foreign banks with tax dollars, while the Obama hopes trhe railing against "evil" will distract people "from his own far more costly executive abuses": And of course, the re-distributor-in-chief hopes you won't notice where much of the rest of the AIG bailout cash is being spent.Read it and weep. (I'd hate to think the free market is destroying itself for profit....) posted by Eric at 09:54 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Knock Yourself Out
It seems our most esteemed Drug War General, Barry McCaffrey, is no longer towing the Government line on marijuana at least. He in effect says legalize it for adults. Also note why he couldn't say it before. He was muzzled by government. I wonder if our new Drug Czar will have the same problem? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 11:28 AM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
Goin' to the dogs
You know things are really bad when even your dog is affected by the economic crisis. Seriously. However, Coco's favorite food is fried chicken, and she enjoyed seeing this new product from Germany: She thinks it looks finger-lickin good! posted by Eric at 09:00 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, March 16, 2009
"That's our money."
Is it really? Although I wish their numbers were in the millions, naturally I'm delighted to see the Tea Party demonstrations attracting crowds numbering in the thousands. A remark by one demonstrator particularly caught my attention: Tea party supporters say their reasons for demonstrating on Fountain Square are simple.That's our money. In those three simple words, he summed up the whole problem in a nutshell. Not just the problem with the goverment, but the problem with the citizenry. The fact that it's our money is so basic as to not require explanation, much less extended commentary. We all know that, and I mean everyone, from left to right. Certainly every reader of this blog knows that the money the government spends comes from the taxpayers. So why bother to remark the obvious? Because for reasons that elude me, a large number of people do not understand that the government is simply not a huge, magical, money-producing pot. Nor is it a blank check. The worst thing about this is that many of the people who do not seem to understand this are intelligent and educated people who ought to know better. People who learned in school that the goverment derives its revenue from taxpayers, but who still think the government is a giant magical money pot. People who know that taxes are deducted from their paycheck, yet who somehow (through an inexplicable and irrational thought process) simply don't think it's their money. If I could understand the precise mechanism of how seemingly rational and thinking people can both know something and not know it at the same time, I could probably make millions. Or murder millions; Stalin famously observed that one man dead is a tragedy, a million men dead a statistic. The same principle is implicated with money. A guy who haggles over a couple of dollars will look the other way as the government automatically deducts thousands -- because he doesn't think the money is "his." Yet he knows it is, because he knows he earned it. Shrinks would call it denial, maybe cognitive dissonance. In the case of not knowing where the government gets its money, it's collective denial. People accept it because it happens to everyone else. (Yean, well, except those who make the rules....) If the government were to single out only one employee in ten for tax withholding, that would be seen as unfair. Not because of the tax withholding, but because people want to be treated equally. Yet that doesn't go far enough towards explaining the inexplicable. True, the fact that something happens to everybody makes it seem fair, but what explains the bizarre misperception that your money is not yours? The collective human mind is terrifying in its infinite capacity for denial. Which is why saying "That's our money!" is not as obvious as it seems. The fact is there are millions who would apparently say (with a straight face), "No, it's not our money!" And there are millions more who would say, "No, it's not your money; it's our money!" At the risk of sounding as if I'm endorsing the irrational, perhaps I should reemphasize what I've said in a number of posts: Your money is not yours! posted by Eric at 10:13 AM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0) Sunday, March 15, 2009
As Western Civilization "progresses"....
Via a helpful email, I learned that an actual vampire has been unearthed in Venice: By Daniel Flynn ROME (Reuters) - Italian researchers believe they have found the remains of a female "vampire" in Venice, buried with a brick jammed between her jaws to prevent her feeding on victims of a plague which swept the city in the 16th century.Myth? Really? Can it be denied that the brick in the mouth was an effective deterrent? After all, isn't the scientific evidence undeniable that the vampire woman has not feasted on anyone since the 16th Century? Surely, photographs don't lie. Of course, that was back in the unenlightened days of superstitious practices. However, I also learned that in modern South Africa today, lesbians are being systematically subjected to brutal rape (the idea being that rape somehow cures lesbianism) while the government turns a blind eye: Lesbians living in South Africa are being raped by men who believe it will 'cure' them of their sexual orientation, a report has revealed.(Via Glenn Reynolds, who seems skeptical about the effectiveness of such a cruel superstition.) As to why treating rape as a hate crime would be more effective than simply treating it as a brutal crime of violence, I'm not sure. Is raping someone you hate worse than raping someone you don't hate? And why wouldn't some of the rapists claim they "love" the lesbians so much that they want to "help" them? Not that I'm trying to make a comparison between 16th Century treatment of vampires and current day South African practices, but it's all very confusing. For example, actual witch-hunts are not only alive and well in South Africa, they're said to be on the rise: Every year, many alleged witches are persecuted and burnt at the stake. Witch-hunts claim thousands of lives every year, especially in countries such as Cameroon, Kenya, Congo, Sierra Leone and South Africa.Westerners put an end to such practices in the Enlightenment Era. But Western progress is bad. We have no right to judge other cultures. Seriously. In California there's even serious discussion of a "cultural defense" to criminal prosecutions. In the name of being "progressive," of course. Hmmm.... Maybe South Africans who burn witches and rape lesbians should move to California. (Who knows? They might even be able to seek "asylum"!) posted by Eric at 02:18 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
Not A Believer
I just found out that I don't believe in GOD. And I can tell you that I couldn't be happier. Of course I'd like to see Republicans get a spine. Every time they want to spend like drunken sailors all they have to do is say: "but I'm against abortion". And the Republican faithful say "well um, OK, I guess, maybe" and the big spenders get a pass. That is how we got Mike "Food Police" Huckabee in the primaries. He didn't stand for anything that could be considered Republican except "you know where I stand on abortion". And naturally the Democrats take the opposite tack. "I'm for abortion, pay no attention to the earmarks for my contributors." All this attention to the plumbing. While the bastards steal us blind. H/T Volokh Conspiracy comments. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 01:34 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Perfect One
Obama is NOT Jesus. Jesus knew how to put a cabinet together. I guess that's the difference between the two Messiahs. Obama spends and Jesus saves. Followers of The One will find The Story of O very helpful for the New Age. You will be abused and you will love it. Somewhere in Chicago, a community is missing its organizer. Some of the above was stolen from these comments. Some I just made up myself. H/T Eric at Classical Values. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 01:32 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
When selfishness is evil
The "GOING JOHN GALT" movement is catching on, and attracting a lot of media attention -- including Stephen Colbert's comedy show. As a general rule, I'd say that once comedians start working a topic into their routines, that's a sign that its time has come. So, the phenomenon of GOING JOHN GALT has "arrived." In light of the Colbert routine, Dr. Helen (who has done more to publicize the movement than any blogger I can think of) asks an excellent question: It strikes me as odd that if you work and make money, you're a selfish bastard and if you stop working hard and making money, you're a selfish bastard. Which is it?To a socialist, the answer is both. Socialists believe in class war, and if you belong to the money-making class, you are greedy, exploitative, and evil. This explains why for hardline Marxists like Stalin it wasn't enough to dispossess the Kulaks; they were still selfish, because they were selfish by birth -- as if selfishness was hard-wired into ther their genes. Killing them was thus the logical answer. In 1928 Stalin began attacking kulaks for not supplying enough food for industrial workers. He also advocated the setting up of collective farms. The proposal involved small farmers joining forces to form large-scale units. In this way, it was argued, they would be in a position to afford the latest machinery. Stalin believed this policy would lead to increased production. However, the peasants liked farming their own land and were reluctant to form themselves into state collectives.Hmmm... I realize the literary character had not yet been created, but all that foot-dragging by recalcitrant Kulaks sounds suspiciously John Galtish to me. As to the kulaks who survived, they later faced new persecution as "ex-kulaks": A new wave of persecution, this time against "ex-kulaks," was started in 1937. It was part of the Great Purge, after the NKVD Order no. 00447. Those deemed ex-kulaks had only two options: death sentence or labour camps.Seen this way, the Ayers/Weather Underground proposal to kill 25 million Americans makes perfect sense. Let's hope the government never declares war on selfishness. MORE: A commenter caught me in a dreadful error. I called Stephen Colbert John Colbert. Error corrected. posted by Eric at 12:26 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Impending distraction?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (probably the most left wing justice on the U.S. Supreme Court) has pancreatic cancer, and she is hinting that there will be a vacancy on the court soon: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.For anyone with pancreatic cancer, living several more years is highly unlikely. It's considered the deadliest of all forms of cancer, with only 5% of patients living five years. I don't share Ginsburg's judicial philosophy, of course, but I feel very sorry for her. I think we can expect a vacancy in the next few months. If not weeks; why would someone in her position make a cryptic remark like that unless resignation is imminent? It's tough to imagine Barack Obama appointing anyone further to the left than Ginsburg, though, so I doubt her departure will make much of a difference in practice. But the political struggle and debate over her successor will certainly provide a distraction -- for both sides. posted by Eric at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Saturday, March 14, 2009
It's not the economy, stupid! Nor is it the recession....
It's secession! Bob Owens looks at what I think boils down to a very old American debate (whether there's a right to secession), and notices that some overwrought comments by actor Chuck Norris have led a plethora of lefties to label Norris a "terrorist," and even make Timothy McVeigh comparisons: The left-wing blogosphere preferred not to address the weightier issue of what constitutes a totalitarian government in Norris' article. Nor did they seek to offer an alternative redress for the apparently sizable minority of the population that is presently feeling disenfranchised. Instead, they predictably went for the lowest of low-hanging fruit, hammering Norris -- and justifiably so -- for the wince-worthy use of the phrase "thousands of cell groups" to describe viewing parties being organized to watch a special episode of Glenn Beck's television show.No surprise there. If Bush can be Hitler, Beck and Norris can easily be McVeigh. Here's the Kos writer in question, demanding a debate over secession, portraying Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee as secessionist sympathizers: The Republicans' most recent vice presidential candidate has a history of dalliances with a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union. If she runs for president, it's quite possible that her main rival for the votes of the far right of the GOP electorate--which of course may have enough votes to chose their next nominee--could be a guy--Mike Huckabee--whose most prominent supporter is suggesting that Texas should consider seceding from the Union.(Um, before I'm hailed before a Senate subcommittee, am I allowed to ask whether the Democratic Party was the party of the Woodrow Wilson and the Ku Klux Klan?)* I like the phrase "anyone giving succor or encouragement to those who advocate secession." Might this include those who voted for Sarah Palin? How about those who support the Tea Party movement? After all, doesn't the name derive from the Boston Tea Party, and wasn't that advocative of secession from Britain? Whether there is a right to secede is certainly open to debate. I'm living in Michigan, and I'm not sure that secession would be a good idea. Certainly not at the present time. But discussing whether it's a good idea -- even saying it might be -- is hardly terrorism. Nor does it constitute advocating the overthrow of the United States government by violence (as some of the Kossack commenters suggest). One of the best divide-and-conquer tactics is to try to shift the argument and get people to take sides on an issue which is not before them. I don't think secession is imminent, nor do I think the Tea Party movement (most likely the intended target of this latest divide-and-conquer scheme) is secessionist. It's a protest movement. However, I think the people involved might become distracted, disheartened, and radicalized by the secessionist meme, thus delighting both the Kossacks and the WorldNetDaily crowd. While the issue of secession is not before us, trying to shift the debate this way is a great way to mischaracterize much of the opposition, and best of all, it provides a great distraction from genuinely serious issues which are before us. Perhaps that's the whole idea. They won't stuff secessionism in my mouth. *And of course the party of Bull Connor... (How could I forget that?) More here about Wilson. posted by Eric at 11:29 AM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Bloom Is Off The Rose
The honeymoon that any new President generally gets (typically 100 days) is over. About 40 days early. Bad news for The One. President Obama's honeymoon is beginning to fade.It is always possible that people don't understand the connection because there is none. Or worse because the proposed solutions will make things worse. Democrats from states racked by recession say Obama needs to produce an uptick by August or face unpleasant consequences. Others say that there is more time, but that voters need to see improvement by the middle of next year.The economy will quite possibly be coming back by August however, employment usually lags the economy by one to three years. That can't be good for Democrats. Especially if the recent rise of Wall Street is not really a leading indicator but just another dead cat bounce. Mr. Obama has some convincing to do. It is not just Wall Street and Main Street. Now it is his own party. Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.Yeah. How about those deficits. There is at least one Republican who is not happy with Mr. Obama's budget. Only one? Well a lot actually. But this one is important because he can run the numbers. It was obvious to most Capitol Hill insiders why President Obama wanted Republican Judd Gregg as a member of his cabinet: He's one of the sharpest money-minds in Congress.You know. That reflects a significant portion of what Main Street thinks. Ace of Spades is looking at Main Street and quotes some interesting reports. It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.Well so far he is still in plus territory. Good for him. He is no where near Democrat Congress territory. Yet. Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.Now those are some astounding numbers. And 69% are worried about the role of the government in the US economy? Where were they during the election when Mr. Obama was making all his promises to intervene in banking, energy, and health care. What? Mr. McCain was making similar promises? Never mind. Maybe next time we can get a Republican to run on the Republican ticket. Of course things could have been worse for the Republicans. We could have had Huckabee and the food police. Now there was one socialist I could not believe in. In fact I couldn't believe he was a Republican. Well, as I said previously, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are not necessarily convergent. In fact they seem to be divergent and that divergence appears to be tearing the Republicans apart. Good. The Republicans have to decide if they are the moral socialist party or the fiscal conservative party. A good place to start that is to ask yourself: which is the bigger tent? Which will be the bigger tent given demographic trends? I could answer the question for you but I prefer to let you do your own research and come to your own conclusions. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 07:46 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Where Do These Kids Come From?
In the aftermath of the substantial Democratic victory in last November's election, Republicans nationwide are reported to be doing a great deal of "soul searching." Indeed they should. After all, times are not looking good for the Republican Party. Former President Bush left office with record-low support, and both houses of Congress, along with the White House, are now solidly Democratic. Michael Steele, a former lieutenant governor and recently elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, attributed the Republican loss in the last election to a lack of understanding of what the party stood for. In his words, "We didn't have anything to say to the American people other than, 'We're not Democrats.'"Mr. Steele was not being entirely correct. What he should have said is that the Republicans want to go slowly towards government control of the economy and the Democrats want to go fast. Saxby Chambliss, the newly re-elected Republican senator from Georgia, has echoed Steele, calling on the party to return to its principles.Ah. Yes. Social policy. Isn't social the root of socialism. Yes it is. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against social relations. I'm against them at the point of a government gun. What I call moral socialism. Which brings us to the inherent contradictions between the two elements of the party. This clash in policy positions is the result of two distinct sets of political principles. In the past, both sides coexisted in an uneasy alliance, but over time the disagreements between them have become too great to reconcile. This is unsurprising: the two sets of political principles are grounded in two opposing ethical systems.I think the idea Jesus had about the separation of private morality from governance is the correct guiding principle. We seem to have a lot of Christians in America and very few followers of Jesus. I think Jesus said render unto Cesar. I don't recall him saying become Cesar. Did you know that the word czar comes from the word Cesar? And yet Bill Bennett our first Drug Czar is supposed to be a hell of a Christian. In fact he wrote a book, The BOOK OF VIRTUES, explaining how we can become more virtuous. I wonder if becoming a dictator (Cesar) is what he had in mind? The first years of President Obama's administration provide the Republican Party with an opportunity to redefine itself. To do so, Republicans first need to decide what they stand for. They can become the party that promotes individual rights, small government, and capitalism, or they can become an ever more theocratic, intrusive, and socialist party.So even the author of this article is calling the Christianist elements of the party socialist. Good. It is catching on. Now do I want to drive the Christianists out of the party? Of course not. I'd like to see them welcomed as long as they are willing to give up their moral socialism. And let me add that there is nothing wrong with socialism as long as people who want to practice it do it on their own dime. What I object to is having it enforced with government guns. In any case it may not matter what I think should be done. The moral socialist in the Republican Party are a dying breed. I wish them well in their next life as long as they leave me alone in this one. Which is why I'm a member of the leave us alone coalition. And we even have our own flag too. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 05:27 AM | Comments (13)
| TrackBacks (0) Friday, March 13, 2009
Full of Awe
Frank J. Fleming thinks the problem with Barack Obama may be that he is too awesome: ...I am an enlightened individual who fully understands and appreciates President Obama (pbuh), but can we expect the same from other countries with non-Obama leaders? Those people have never produced a person like Obama, not to mention elected him, so it is natural for them to be scared and intimidated by someone so beyond their understanding. To them, meeting Obama must be like encountering Jesus riding a dinosaur -- both reassuring and intimidating at the same time. It's natural they'll be confused.As usual, Frank is right. The British clods just don't get it. The guy is just too awesome. I mean, take this totally awesome DVD collection. If someone gave me a DVD collection like, I'd be like, awed. Totally. As it is, I'm so awed that I'm ashamed to admit that there are two films in the collection that I have not seen -- The Searchers, and The General (although I don't know whether the latter is the 1927 or the 1998 version. Considering that the earlier one involves the Confederate Army and the later one the IRA, I suspect it's the earlier one.) The outcome of all of this is that I've just added The Searchers to my Netflix queue. I'd like to add The General too, but I need to know which one! How personally awesome can things get? posted by Eric at 12:15 PM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
Blame the law abiding!
In another predictable development, the gun grabbers have seized upon the Alabama shooting incident as a pretext to demand a return to the "assault weapon" ban: Gun-control activists have renewed calls for the federal government to reinstate a ban on so-called assault weapons in the wake of Tuesday's deadly shooting rampage in Alabama.Of course, the gun grab movement is unwittingly helping at least one segment of the economy -- gun sales: Gun sales have soared in the months since the presidential election, due in part to fears among gun owners that President Barack Obama intends to ban assault weapons, or guns that can fire rounds more quickly than standard weapons.And in what I consider the height of political opportunism (see M. Simon's post), the Obama adminstration has been systematically trying to capitalize on the Mexican drug cartel/border situation to push for gun control. Last month, Clayton Cramer did a great job of explaining why making this connection is wrong (the Mexican Army being the most likely source of the guns), and concluded, ...if Mexico really has a problem with guns coming across the border, perhaps they could work on securing the border. We'll help. That will stop the inflow of illegal drugs and aliens at the same time. Can you see why this isn't going to happen?And as Cramer also points out, Mexico refuses to furnish the serial numbers of the guns it claims come from the United States. Aside from being based on a dishonest argument, the idea of taking guns away from Americans because they wind up in the hands of Mexican criminal gangs is profoundly immoral. Where it comes to guns, the Obama administration's goal is clearly to penalize the law abiding for the acts of criminals. Little wonder people in the U.S. are facing an ammo shortage. Blaming the law abiding is hardly "shange." It's an old and tired routine. posted by Eric at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Dinner party deployment
In a remarkable coincidence, the day after I wrote about the dinner party elite, I see this report that Barack Obama is assiduously courting them: While publicly identifying with the nation's have-nots, the Obama administration has been cultivating the Beltway social elite behind the scenes.I'm sure they were, but they're all part of the dinner party elite. Anyone but the Tea Party types. The latter can cling bitterly to their guns and religion. UPDATE: Pam Meister savors the irony: Rich people are to be reviled, according to Obama's rhetoric, except when it comes to his bank account and his social life. I think I get it now. That explains the Wednesday cocktail parties, Obama's penchant for $100 per serving Wagyu steak, and cranking up the taxpayer-funded thermostat in the Oval Office -- thus inspiring my newest nickname for him, Tropical Barry. In three delicious flavors: Marxist Berry Red, Eco-Fraud Green, and Kool Menthol. posted by Eric at 10:36 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Experiments In Government
A floating city off the coast of San Francisco may sound like science fiction, but it could be reality in the not-too-distant future.That is very interesting. But it is not the most interesting part of the plan. According to the plans, the floating cities would not only look different from their land-based counterparts, but they might operate differently, too.Now that sounds very libertarian to me. And being of a libertarian persuasion myself I find the whole idea very appealing. In the late 1880s people were lamenting the closing of the American frontier. This could portend the opening of a new American frontier. I wonder if they have considered the need for a Navy for protection from pirates? And what will they do for power? Too bad they can't buy a Bussard Fusion Reactor off the shelf. Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained You can learn even more about the project at The Seasteading Institute. And if you want to read a science fiction story about floating cities may I suggest A Floating City by Jules Verne. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:13 AM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0) Thursday, March 12, 2009
Guns And Drugs
The Democrats are going to use prohibition induced violence to take away our gun rights. Because only criminals should be allowed to have guns or drugs. I have been saying for several decades that drug prohibition would lead to gun prohibition. Way to go Conservatives. Because like you know. Prohibition works. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:53 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
A Lack Of Modesty
People who yearn for old-fashioned public decency might be surprised to talk to historian Angela McShane-Jones at the University of Warwick. In her studies of 17th-century ballads--cheaply printed popular songs bought and sold like today's CDs--she found that the accompanying illustrations (above) often contained images of bare-breasted women. The perception of the bosom was quite different at the time, she says: "You see busty women representing innocence just as often as fallen ladies. And women of the court clearly had no modesty about showing their nipples."It seems to me that knowing obscenity when you see it is very dependent on the age you live in. Me? I look forward to the return of the purity in dress styles so prevalent in Oliver Cromwell's time. Of course the American Bikini is not a bad substitute. We get not only breasts but bare arms, legs, and midriffs as well. Not to mention the occasional camel toe. So there are compensations. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:38 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Does power breed arrogance, or do the arrogant seek power?
In a piece asking whether voting matters anymore, Jeff Pope discusses political arrogance: Political arrogance is far more dangerous than social arrogance. In civil society arrogance is the simple disdain for others due to class, wealth, education, or breeding. It is a trait that America, being egalitarian from its founding, strongly rejects. Political arrogance, however, is a much more virulent strain of the disease because it transforms a politician from a person having an appreciation of being first elected to a position of power into one who believes power naturally comes to him or her because they are uniquely worthy of it. To those who see themselves in this way, the vote of the people does not indicate a preference for a type of governance; nor is it an expression of the general will on specific issues. Rather, electoral victory is an affirmation of their special status as the worthy leaders of the populace at large and an implied acceptance by the voters to be led in whatever direction they deem fit. To the arrogant politician the voter wants me, not someone to represent them and their views. Think Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Kerry, Dodd, Durbin, etc.What has long fascinated me as a observer of human behavior and culture is that arrogance is a mindset generally accompanied by deep insecurity. There's a sense of entitlement to power, but an underlying, all-encompassing fear of a loss of that power. Consequently, where it comes to preserving that power, arrogant people tend to stick together -- even if they are on opposite sides of the fence. That's why in political terms I trust the Tea Party people a lot more than what Will Collier (linked by Glenn Reynolds yesterday) called (appropriately) the "dinner party" people. The latter group suffer from a sense of entitlement to power, because they're closely associated with it. Because they hang out and hobnob with the powerful, they start to imagine that they, too, are powerful -- the way people who hang out with famous celebrities start to think that they, too, are famous. Or ought to be. When this happens to journalists, it can affect their ability to be objective, and the result is the fawning sycophantic behavior that so nauseates the Tea Party people. While it's a bit beyond this post, there's a group of people I have discussed repeatedly which suffers from a worse form of arrogance than elected officials -- the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, academicians, Ph.D. policy wonks and the like who believe they should have a divine right to tell people what to do. While it's bad enough to be ruled by arrogant elected officials, rule by the unelected arrogant class is intolerable. It's the essence of tyranny. But perhaps there's hope for the dinner party conservatives. Sooner or later, they might wake up and realize that there's a new dinner party, to which they're not invited. But will they deign to have tea with the common folk? Or will they imagine that they'll still be included among the elite if they "behave"? A secondary question is whether the new arrogant class deign to throw a few crumbs to those they've displaced. I guess the rest of us will have to stay tuned. Whether power breeds arrogance or the arrogant seek power (or a combination of both), I don't know. Has it ever been settled whether we live in an aristocracy or a meritocracy? Or has the distinction been erased? Obama's Ivy League appointments have refueled a longstanding debate. posted by Eric at 11:06 AM | Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dalinian Republican prophesies?
(Some irrational illustrations) In his analysis of how the Rush Limbaugh controversy is dividing the GOP, Rick Moran makes the following observation: The right is in Dante's ninth circle of hell, condemned to be encased in solid ice with only their heads showing, with those positioned next to each other forced to gnaw on their neighbors' necks for sustenance.Without getting into a detailed discussion of the merits of Rick's argument (although I also worry about divide-and-conquer strategies), I have to say that I was immediately reminded of one my favorite Dalí illustrations of Dante's Inferno, titled "Gianni Schicchi's Bite": The text says nothing about Limbaugh, though, but describes Schicchi as a "madman" who "gnaws the other in his raving." Not to get too Dalinian over the GOP, but there's also "News of the Lower Depths of Hell" -- in which an elephant-like figure devours a woman. Of course, from a purely rational perspective, just as Schicchi cannot represent Limbaugh or his GOP enemies, the elephant cannot represent the GOP. Nor can the woman represent Sarah Palin or any other female Republican. Dalí did these illustrations back in the 1950s. Back when all was well and everyone* liked Ike. So much for my rational disclaimers. As to the irrational and the superstitious, such dark lurking things are intended for entertainment value only, and should never stand in the way of logic and reason. * Well not quite everyone. And I don't refer solely to Democrats or liberals. Some "conservatives" believed President Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." I'm sure some still do. (Similarly outlandish things were said about McCain.) posted by Eric at 01:25 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Remembering Madrid
Lest we forget that today is the fifth anniversary of the Madrid terror attacks, José Guardia has posted a memorial. José says that "sometimes it's almost impossible to find the words, so this is what I could to as a tribute for the 5th anniversary of the Madrid terror attacks." Remember those who died in Madrid on March 11, 2004. (Lest anyone forget, their murderers want to do the same thing to every one of us, and they will if they can.) posted by Eric at 10:38 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Assigning blame
The big news last night and today is the report of a man who killed his mother, burned down her house with her inside, then went on a shooting spree. No one seems to know why, but I expect a lot of people will be blaming the gun. Alabama State Trooper John Reese told "Good Morning America" this morning. "We are still unclear of what caused the incident."Commenters here and at Daily Kos are pointing out that the gun has been described as "fully automatic." If it was a fully automatic weapon, there are numerous existing laws which make them almost impossible to obtain legally, and of course converting a legal semi-auto to full-auto is highly illegal (and requires considerable expertise). The man was certainly a murderer and a gunman, but he was also an arsonist. The fire he started could have spread and killed just as many people as whatever weapon he used. This was another awful crime spree, but I don't see why people focus on the means used by the criminals. In light of reports that the target of the man's wrath was a metal company which laid him off, it would make about as much sense to blame the economy. I blame the guy who did this, and secondarily if turned out he was another of the numerous mental patients who don't get adequate treatment, I might also be inclined to blame the mental health system. But the one common denominator I've seen in nearly every shooting case is that it's just not emotionally satisfying for people to blame the individual who did it. Nor is it politically satisfying. So whatever happens, I expect this to result in another push to reinstate the useless and illogical "assault weapons" ban. UPDATE: It now appears that the shooter (Michael McLendon) had been employed as a police officer and had multiple guns: Armed with two assault rifles, a shotgun and a .38-calibre handgun, McLendon then headed for his grandmother's house 12 miles away in Samson.Automatic fire? If that's true, then he might have had a genuine assault weapon. posted by Eric at 10:25 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
A Lack Of Trust
Milton Friedman's Free to Choose is an excellent book that explains in simple language his philosophy and how he came by it. Here is a page of links to other Milton Friedman videos and articles. H/T Atlas Shrugs Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 08:37 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
The New Gospel Of Liberty
The old time religion is declining in America. When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.The article goes on to discuss the changes and delves into the numbers. One point in the article particularly got my attention. ("Nones" in the survey are those who claimed no religion) South Carolina also exemplifies the Protestant faiths' shrinking share of the national religion "pie." The state has more Catholics (10%, up from 6% in 1990) and the percentage of Nones has more than tripled, from 3% to 10%. The share of Protestants is 73%, down from 88% in 1990.I think this bodes ill for the Republican party unless it becomes less faith based and more liberty oriented. Something I have been saying for quite some time and especially post the 2008 election. Moral socialism is not the big seller it once was. The Christian Science Monitor is even more apocalyptic. We are on the verge - within 10 years - of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.This bodes ill for the Republicans, a party that is rather closely identified with evangelicals. The Monitor delves into why this is happening. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.Culture wars. I have a different name for it. Mentioned above. Moral socialism. The idea that government should tell people how to live. That idea is losing popularity. With the collapse of the drug war (even Pat Buchanan - a vigorous culture warrior - is now against it) will accelerate that trend. I do think a war on Christianity is a bad idea though. Just as the Christian's war on seculars was a bad idea. However, karma. Or in more Christian terms: you reap what you sow. The author of the article makes another point that will directly affect politics. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.And what about the culture war? Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before - a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate.I think it is pretty safe to say that the culture war is very near over in America and the culture warriors have lost. Just as the drug warriors have lost the drug war. These things happen when better ideas come along. It is not the first time. Around 2000 year ago a small Jewish sect came along and its culture supplanted the Jewish culture of the time and went on to become a world culture. So much so that Jews are now more Christian than Jewish. Not so much in terms of worship but in terms of culture. The Judaism of 2000 years ago is gone. It is probably not coming back. And finally back to politics. The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society."Very good. Government impositions are rarely universally popular. Especially in a country as religiously diverse as America. The emphasis has to be where it should have been all along. Living the godly life. Which fits in more with the American ideal of the individual as supreme. This should come as no surprise to students of American history. America was founded not only on the basis of economic revolt but also on the basis of religious revolt as the DVD Gospel of Liberty clearly shows. If the Republican Party adopts a New Gospel of Liberty I think its fortunes will revive and it will find not just a temporary burst of energy but also a long term foundation that will serve it far into the future. Let the Tea Parties commence. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 07:06 AM | Comments (22)
| TrackBacks (0)
I'm in bitches
TuringScan: InitClock00:00:00:00:00.01 InitInitInstructInit<>1. SetNum(Numb[?])TransL8:1337 ReInitVar42:CuzYTsezWNot[!]:{Meta}Re:Fish,"KThxLolz" ... ... (...) You like watching him... don't you? IT,Instruction(Mark,value:="0"); References, set? "Running Out?":=Not likely Absurdity Inference Initiated... Commence... Bitches. (Take that any way you please; amusingly, all of them (possible ways) are intentionally offensive). The older you get, the more capable you are of noticing how ridiculously silly seeming the fast conversational cut directing in overwrought action films can be. Or maybe that's just the dopamine re-uptake inhibitors talking. Nope, it's just the time lapse decaying-for-the-insides thing. Democrats are species motivated. Genes are selfish after all. Four dimensional space is actually relatively easy to conceptualize. No, I'm not referring to time as a fourth dimension. That's cool sounding and all, and in a physics context actually correct, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about physical space. Not conceptual physical space, but the actual space you and I within reside. Conceptualizing a fourth dimension existing in our space is easy... all you need is an analogy: A rubber brick. If you get it, discontinue consumption; else, follow: Have you ever had a dream which you were so sure was real What if you were unable to wake from that dream How would you know the difference between the real world and the dream world One dimension: a line. Resident along that line: a point. What does that point see as a two dimensional square wanders through its domain? It seems a line segment. A triangle living in two dimensional space gazes down the length of the plane which is its alpha and omega. A sphere drifting through the aether traverses the plane. What does the triangle observe? A sphere? No, that would require three dimensional concepts. The triangle observes a circle. A circle is a two dimensional perception of a sphere. Now on to the fourth dimension: how does a three dimensional object such as, for instance, yourself, living in a three dimensional space, perceive a four dimensional object's trajectory through space? Imagine the general area you currently occupy. Imagine a roughly (huge) brick shaped space around that. That's the rubber brick. Now bend it. You, living on the inside of the brick, perceive no change. But an object external to it would realize that your whole space was bent. That direction of your bending would be the fourth dimension. A four dimensinoal object passing through that space would appear to curve. It would look, in point of fact, like something responding to gravity. And there's your bingo moment, if you actually made it this far (yes, this is all, sadly, accurate). An object passing in a straight line through the galaxy goes near the Earth. Its passage turns in a little, responding to the gravitational tug of the planet's enormous mass. The first law: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. So why does the object curve in its trajectory without violating the law? Easy. It nerve curved. Its path described a straight line the entire time. Its just that it was passing through a four dimensional space, and you, sad three dimensional object that you are, failed to tail fins. posted by Cosmic Drunk at 04:35 AM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Watch me on PJTV!
Earlier I appeared on PJTV's Roundtable, which you can watch absolutely free by clicking this link. I was honored to be on with Ed Driscoll and Rick Moran, and I'm just delighted that PJTV featured the post I wrote earlier: "The Obama Two Step." If the above link doesn't work, just go to PJTV and scroll down till you see "The President's 50th Day and The Dems Brand New Bag: Scheie, Driscoll, & Moran" and a picture of yours truly. So check it out! posted by Eric at 10:34 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
September 30, 1999
Even the New York Times was sounding the warning. Nine and a half years ago. In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.Yep. Nation Wide. In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.Bail Outs? Did they say bail outs? How unpatriotic can they get? Ah. Well. If only there had been more regulation. If only. I can tell you one thing for sure: that the whole financial mess proves capitalism doesn't work. When it is controlled by government. Cross Posted at Power and Control Welcome Instapundit readers. You might also like The New Gospel of Liberty posted by Simon at 06:34 PM | Comments (22)
| TrackBacks (0)
the airbrushing of the airbrushing
I'm surprised at Dave Weigel (a guy I usually respect, who's a Contributing Editor of Reason Magazine -- to which I am a loyal subscriber). Surprised and annoyed, and I'll explain why. After citing Glenn Reynolds' link to a Gateway Pundit story linking a WorldNetDaily report, Weigel says this in an update to a story titled "Editing Libel Out of Wikipedia = Vandalism": See, here's why I post about this stuff. Two hours after my write-up, Instapundit links Gateway Pundit with the headline "Still airbrushing Obama's Wikipedia page." And thus, a false story from a conspiracy web site gets promoted by a mainstream author and law professor.Since when does a mere link to a post become a "promotion" of a "false story" which is not even linked? If Glenn's idea was to "promote" a story from a conspiracy web site, then why wouldn't he link the story from the conspiracy web site? And why would he also link Weigel's criticism of the post he did link? Why does only the former link constitute "promoting"? I need to know, for I clicked on both links. Does this mean Glenn promotes contradictory posts, or is some hidden mechanism at work, known only to a few? Might this be a form of "passive aggressive" "promotion"? Should someone ask Andrew Sullivan? FWIW, I don't think Glenn promoted any conspiracy theory at all, much less the one from WorldNetDaily of which Weigel complains. Like Weigel I am deeply distrustful of the site, and as regular readers know I have criticized WND in this blog on countless occasions (as I did yesterday). But I do try to be careful before I say things that aren't true. Yes, even about WorldNetDaily. And I don't think it's fair to impute something that WND says to someone who didn't say it. I'll start with the partial quote from Gateway Pundit on which Weigel bases his accusations: Communist tyrany (sic) Joseph Stalin routinely air-brushed his enemies out of photographs.Weigel then calls the above a lie, pointing out that there is another Wiki page on the Ayers relationship: The Ayers comment is a lie: Wikipedia maintains a comprehensive page on the Ayers-Obama relationship.But Gateway Pundit did not state that there was no Wikipedia page on the Ayers-Obama relationship; only that there was nothing about it on the Obama page. In fact, here's very first sentence in Gateway Pundit's post: Wikipedia scrubs Obama's entry clean of any critical information that may taint your view of Dear Leader.And scrub the entry they do -- for reasons explained and debated here in the discussion page. So that makes it abundantly clear the Gateway Pundit statement that Weigel characterizes as a lie -- that Wikipedia "airbrushes any controversial information about Dear Leader from its webpage" (my emphasis) is substantially true, but more importantly, that Gateway Pundit was talking about the Obama entry page! What's up with the partial quote, anyway? If he's going to accuse someone of lying, can't Weigel do better than Dowdify the quote he's using as "evidence"? I think that under the circumstances, editing out the previous sentence is pretty darned crass, and a lot of people would say it borders on outright demagoguery. Which is why I said I was surprised. I mean, really. If you're going to accuse people of lying about airbrushing, shouldn't you be careful not to airbrush out something that goes to the heart of what they actually said about airbrushing? This is in no way a defense of WorldNetDaily's misleading article, which can certainly be read as implying that the entirety of Wikipedia allows no mention of Ayers-Obama, or Wright-Obama, or the Obama birth certificate claims. In fact Wikipedia does have entries discussing these things. But Gateway Pundit never lied and said it didn't. Nor did Glenn Reynolds, who said, STILL AIRBRUSHING Obama's Wikipedia page.Since when is a link to a post which contains a link to a WorldNetDaily a promotion of a WorldNetDaily story? I'm not seeing promotion. Not even passive aggressive promotion. But I might be wrong. If linking does constitute "promotion," then I'd like to know why Glenn (by linking Weigel) is promoting the airbrushing of the airbrushing! UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post. Except now I'm confused. Considering that he has linked this post, isn't he now promoting the promoting of the promoting? A warm welcome to all! posted by Eric at 01:44 PM | Comments (9)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Obama Two Step?
While there's no way to ascertain for sure whether Barack Obama's disastrous economic policies are malevolent or incompetent, I found it interesting that yesterday he went out of his way to deny being a socialist (by pleading that he thought it was all a joke): "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday.Blame the Republicans? For socialism? If that isn't the final insult, I don't know what is. To add to my puzzlement, today I see a piece from Clive Crook, titled "Why Obama's left leaning is no tactical feint": On this page last week I argued that Barack Obama's first budget showed him to be more of a left-leaning liberal than I and many others - sceptics and admirers alike - had previously supposed. People I respect have accused me of going off the deep end about this, or of neglecting Mr Obama's tactical finesse, or both.Well, if he is playing a "shrewder game," he hides it well. However, regardless of whether any of this is deliberate or incompetent, one thing is certain: Barack Obama is a shrewd enough politician to know how to use whatever mess results to his political advantage. And if he can position himself to the "right" of the "socialist" Republicans, it will have the effect of making his conservative critics look ridiculous. What the latter ought to worry about is that if he really did manage to perform a policy shift to the right (along the lines of actual Reaganomics), it might just lift the economy out of the doldrums -- with Obama getting all the credit. So perhaps we'll see a new dance routine: A feint to the left, then a feint to the right. The neat thing about way the dance works, is that it really doesn't matter which way is malevolent and which way is incompetent, because each side considers the other to be both. (Besides, malevolence can be incompetent, just as incompetence can be malevolent!) posted by Eric at 11:19 AM | Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, March 9, 2009
Third party takeover?
From Bob Krumm, a dire warning: Never in my lifetime have I seen the nation as ripe for a third-party takeover as it is now. But if President Obama and the Democratic Congress further propel the economy down a rat hole, the party that emerges might not be the kind we want. There would be just enough truth in the charge for a demagogue to portray the shambles as the fault of those who took sub-prime mortgages they knowingly couldn't afford and the bankers who greedily lent them the money. In other words, minorities and Jews. This could become very ugly, very quickly.Yes, it could. The right third party, though, might be just the ticket. OTOH, it might be another Ross Perot debacle, guaranteeing little more than the reelection of Barack Obama (who has an automatic lock on a large segment of the electorate, no matter how unpopular he is with the rest). Were I him, I'd be thinking about a longterm strategy of divide-and-conquer. posted by Eric at 03:19 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Pat Buchanan - Legalize Drugs
My friends when Pat Buchanan says legalize drugs, political support for the drug war has collapsed. How does one win a drug war when millions of Americans who use recreational drugs are financing the cartels bribing, murdering and beheading to win the war and keep self-indulgent Americans supplied with drugs?Is Pat happy about it? No. But he says we have to make the best of some bad choices. Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border?I have to admit that Pat Buchanan is the last person I thought would come out in favor of legalizing drugs. Now I saw the Mexico situation coming twenty years ago when narco States started their inexorable march north. People said I was crazy. Well here we are. What Pat fails to get is that the march of the narco States does not end with Mexico. Guess what country is North of Mexico? In any case glad to have you aboard Pat. Better late than never. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:59 AM | Comments (13)
| TrackBacks (0)
The end is near! But will I be included?
To FDR's famous "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," I'd offer an amendment: "We have nothing to get hysterical about but hysteria itself." This morning, Drudge linked a "news" report from WorldNetDaily (where else?) which is little more than a regurgitation of a minister's repeated claims that the end is near. Excerpt: AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE - EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US.There's a lot more, of course. A lot of people are predicting a lot of things these days, presumably because they sincerely believe them, but (at least in the case of most dire economic predictions), they offer some purported evidence in support of their warnings. Wilkerson offers nothing, other than his status as a minister and authorship decades ago of "The Cross and the Switchblade." I read the book as homework for a Sacred Studies class when I was a kid, and I enjoyed it. I also read Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" (along with "Silent Spring") as homework for a Biology class. I'm in my mid 50s and I've been waiting for the predicted End of the World for most of my life. I have come to the conclusion that the World will outlast me, and that I won't be a witness to its much-predicted End. (Sob.) Apparently to some people that just isn't fair. UPDATE: Breathing causes Global Warming. No seriously. AFTERTHOUGHT: Might there be a direct relationship between hysteria and cynicism? In my case at least, the more overwrought appeals to hysteria I heard that never came true, the more cynical I became. Perhaps that explains why hucksters of all stripes spend so much time trying to overcome or decry "cynicism." (It's probably a basic principle of salesmanship too, but that's another topic....) posted by Eric at 09:14 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Sunday, March 8, 2009
Having Doubts
Mr. Obama is big into alternative energy. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. However, even his supporters have doubts about his energy plans. I like Barack Obama but I have doubts about his presidency when I hear him saying that the US will "double the amount of energy that comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term." He should know that that's not possible. But instead, during his State of the Union speech, he proclaimed that we'll reach that goal in three years, not four.I have my doubts too. There is a limit to the amount of intermittent energy sources the electrical grid can absorb. Some think it is ten percent. Some of the more optimistic folks think it is twenty percent. No way is it anywhere near 100%. Our biggest wind resource is the upper Mid West. There is no where near enough transmission capacity to bring that resource to the loads in the lower Mid West and the coasts. And there is no way that transmission capacity can be built in three years when the permits haven't even been applied for. And that does not even include the NIMBYs and the Ultra Greens who will fight additions to the grid tooth and nail. Evidently neither Mr. Obama nor his new Energy Secretary have run the numbers. That is no way to do engineering. Or as many of us like to say: Hope is not a plan. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 08:30 PM | Comments (12)
| TrackBacks (0)
Libertarianism is exhausting
I received a couple of emails from libertarianish readers which not only fit the general theme of this blog, but which might shed some light on the state of libertarianism today. I'll start with one from Bill Goodwin (Editor of FreedomPolitics.com), who links I'll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.That's not bad. Considering what's been happening in the age of the Great Bailout and Big Government on a scale never seen before, I don't think there's ever been a more frustrating time to be a libertarian. If only libertarians could take a cue from the Obama administration mantra, and "never waste a good crisis." Seriously, if the current metastasization of big government doesn't constitute a crisis from a libertarian standpoint, then what will? Bear in mind that big government does not necessarily mean federal government so much as it means intrusive government. In that sense, big government means thinking globally and acting locally. An example comes from reader Michael Thomas, who sent a link about asset seizures run amok and opines, I have always felt that federal and state, asset siezure laws were unconstitutional on due process grounds but this is ridiculousBoy is it ever. Towns like Tenaha, Texas are using the asset forfeiture statutes to commit legal theft: TENAHA -- A two-decade-old state law that grants authorities the power to seize property used in crimes is wielded by some agencies against people who never are charged with -- much less convicted of -- criminal activity.This is the sort of thing I associate with Mexico and other corrupt Third World countries, and people ought to be more outraged that it's going on here. Where's the outrage? Libertarians are of course always outraged. And always exhausted. (And I think they've been exhausted a lot longer than Barack Obama....) But how outraged is outraged? And how outraged can you get? (Like the old "this time, we're really outraged!" joke...) However, isn't there a bright side in all of this? It strikes me that if libertarians can live with "a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance," and if Nietzsche was right in his assessment that "what does not kill me makes me stronger," then maybe libertarians will develop superhuman abilities. And maybe also along Nietzchean lines, they'll, you know, become ubermensch. Is that asking too much? If someone has to rule the world, why not those who have the greatest disdain for rulers? And if libertarians don't want to rule (which most of them don't), then they can rule by preventing rule. Implement the government that governs best by governing least. posted by Eric at 05:35 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Saturday, March 7, 2009
"racist extortions" (and YouTube hits)
I don't generally write about things with which I am not fully conversant, and I haven't been in Michigan long enough to consider myself an expert on Detroit. For starters, I still haven't been there. I spent three months here in Ann Arbor, then three months in California, and I've only been back for a couple of weeks. Still, I am doing my best to keep up with area news, and I do subscribe to the Detroit Free Press. While most people think of Detroit as a troubled city which is home to a troubled auto industry, what was on the front page of yesterday's paper hammered home the fact that Detroit is also home to a very troubled, very dysfunctional, city government. So troubled and so dysfunctional that I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that is the government of Detroit that is either the cause of many of its problems and/or the roadblock to any solutions. I might not have bothered to write about the current shenanigans in Detroit, but then I saw that the story also made the Wall Street Journal, so a little background is in order. Detroit's convention center is called the Cobo Center, and because it is in a dire state of repair (collapsing floors and stuff like that), unless something is done fast it stands to lose a huge amount of business, including possibly the Detroit Auto Show. So the state has tried to pull together to save it, with the state and regional governments cobbling together a deal to buy and renovate it. The plan, however, displeases some of the members of the Detroit City Council, which voted to reject the deal. Their veto was overridden by Mayor Ken Cockrel, so now he and everyone else are being accused of "racism": Cobo Hall, site of the auto show since 1988, is 49 years old, cramped, leaky and in desperate need of repair. The struggling city needs Cobo as an economic engine, but doesn't have the money to fund a renovation. The $288 million expansion and renovation plan, signed earlier this year by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, was the result of years of wrangling between the city, the suburbs and the state. It would pay Detroit $20 million to transfer control of Cobo to a five-member regional board, while eliminating $15 million in annual operating expenses from the city's books.Racist extortions? Bear in mind that the surrounding counties aren't happy with the burden in the first place: "But not everybody outside of Detroit is happy about taking on Cobo," Jackson said. "And the city feels like something is being taken away from them. We have to get past this impasse somehow."In other words, it would be an immense gain all around for Detroit. Wondering how any of this is racism? Read the story from yesterday's paper that inspired this extended post: ...what started with a veto by the mayor ended with strong charges of racism against a majority black city and a promise to meet the mayor in court next week.Gee, who'd have guessed that? What I'd really like to know is precisely how Mayor Cockrel became a "European ruler," but I guess I'll never know. This all prompted Free Press columnist Rochelle Riley to say, "It's time that Detroit City Council meetings stop becoming YouTube hits."It came as surprising news to me that for these past months I've been living just a stone's throw from a city which is entertaining enough to succeed on YouTube! To make it on YouTube, they must be good. And sure enough, they are. Check this wild scene out -- in which Councilmember Monica Conyers interrupts Ken Cockrel and then calls him "Shrek." I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but it's a shame this once thriving city has become such a pathetic joke. For those who want a serious view of the latest flap, a concerned Detroit resident (in a video titled "What's wrong with Detroit?") says "I'm so tired of defending the indefensible," and argues that the voters "need to be a lot more educated about the people who represent us." I've never heard of this guy (his name is Mr. Spann), but he makes a good argument, and his sincerity and civic-mindedness are obvious. If more Detroiters thought that way, the city might make some progress. posted by Eric at 10:03 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Coming Crack Up
I'm not talking about the economy. That is already done for. I'm talking about Obama's coming crack up. A commenter at Gateway Pundit makes an interesting observation. He thinks we're all idiots who will swoon over him for eight straight years. Even so, he's starting to have a kind of permanent sheen of flop sweat and the beginnings of fear gnaw at him. The British will never forget that he was the first American president to refuse to take questions from their reporters.Which just reinforces something I was reading the other day. The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.We will get a consolation prize. Medical marijuana which is good for PTSD will be legal and you will be able to grow your own. Because you certainly won't be able to afford to buy it. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 06:06 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Outsmarted By The Rubes
Stuart Taylor has a column up about how he was fooled by Obama's rhetoric. Having praised President Obama's job performance in two recent columns, it is with regret that I now worry that he may be deepening what looks more and more like a depression and may engineer so much spending, debt, and government control of the economy as to leave most Americans permanently less prosperous and less free.The thing is that he was warned by the rubes: Joe the Plumber, (God forbid) Sarah Palin, and a raft of not so elite bloggers. Peter Robinson in Forbes gets it. A couple of implications here are worth noting. The first is that a deep, recurring pattern of American life has asserted itself yet again: the cluelessness of the elite.And of course the most important thing for any stage magician is that despite the fact that the audience knows that it is all fakery and illusion they want to believe any way. The nice thing about stage magic is that you pay once for the show and then it is over. We are going to be paying for this bit of governmental magic for generations to come. But look at the bright side. We are going to be able to teach our kids how socialism works up close and personal. We will also be learning just how big of a black market a country like the USA can sustain. H/T Instapundit who also tried to warn our elites during the election season and who was frequently mocked for the effort. Not to mention all the folks who assured me that the fact that Obama spent 20 years in the Church of Hate and who's family politics were Communist to the core didn't mean nothin. Despite the fact that I went to an elite school myself I wasn't taken in. To what do I credit that fact? The years I spent hanging out with outlaw bikers. Living with men who will slit your throat for a false move brings a certain amount of realism to one's life. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 06:02 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Competitive Bidding
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me." The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me." The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?" The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence." "Done!" replies the government official. And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work. From the comments at Knox News Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 05:58 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
taking the surreal more seriously
I haven't written about my favorite artist, Salvador Dalí, in quite some time. But I see that vintage Dalí YouTube videos continue to appear, and I thought this one was wonderful. The title is "Salvador Dali with silver ink." Certainly the above is not political in nature, although I'm sure a PostModernist would find no shortage of things to politicize. Dalí considered himself to be a Monarchist and an Anarchist, and is said to have coined the term "Anarcho-Monarchist." Anyway, for those who want something more blatantly political, here's the political Dalí! posted by Eric at 11:11 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Friday, March 6, 2009
At last! A sign of recovery!
The DC Examiner's Chief Political Correspondent Byron York has just asked Rush Limbaugh if he had "any numbers he could share on just what effect the increased visibility has had on his business." According to Limbaugh, the numbers are "through the roof" -- which prompted the following economic observation from York: ...the most decisive economic stimulus produced by the Obama administration so far has been at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.Well, the economic recovery had to start someplace! posted by Eric at 11:47 AM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
In the tank to end the war
I realize this is a departure from the culture war, but I am facing a war nevertheless. A potentially deadly fish versus turtle war. Normally, the latter eat the former, but in the case of my demented (and nearly outgrown) tank, the fish (a pair of demented Flowerhorn cichlids -- "an abomination to the hobby") are growing too fast, terrorizing the tank, and need to be separated. So I found a used 35 gallon hexagonal aquarium which is 20 1/4" wide x 23 1/4" wide x 25" high. It came with no base, but I found a somewhat tacky office table (in two pieces) that I want to modify. In a marvelous coincidence, the table base (made of heavy wood covered by finished sheet metal) is 20 1/4" wide by 28" high, and the aquarium edges rest on six places around the circle. However, the above arrangement is not as solid or secure as would be a flat wooden base supporting the entire tank. (Bear in mind that 35 gallons of water weigh nearly 300 lbs. -- and that's in addition to the weight of the tank.) The table has an enormous, fake wood formica style top 5 feet wide. Obviously, that is far too big, so I will have to cut it to size. But what size? How should I do this without making it look even more tacky than it is? I thought of several things. 1. Using the table base as is (with only partial support around the bottom of the tank); 2. Tracing the aquarium shape onto the table top and cutting out a piece for the bottom, then trimming around the edges; 3. Cutting a 60 degree pie section from the middle of the table, then trimming off the back triangle. (This would produce two rounded triangle "shelves" on each side, plus support for the aquarium. The front edge would be rounded, finished, and water impervious, although it might look peculiar.) 4. Making the thing look like a giant bolt, by painting it silver, with threads around the base and an enlarged hexagonal wooden top painted to look like a giant bolt head. 5. Gluing bamboo (or half bamboo) around the base. 6. Painting a Tiki pole design on the base. In the latter regard, tacky is the whole idea, and tacky designs abound: How's this for an anti-war think tank? Isn't the best defense a good offense? Or should I go back to the drawing board? Your thoughts are appreciated. posted by Eric at 09:12 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0) Thursday, March 5, 2009
Self loathing is not limited to humans!
Via an email, I learned of this video of "a leg trying to steal a bone," and sure enough, that is what the poor dog thinks is going on:
Fortunately, Coco (who did not like the video) would never do anything so dumb as snarl at her own leg. Otherwise, I'd be very worried. posted by Eric at 01:15 PM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
On matters of taste there can be lots of disagreement
This debate between Stephen Green and Will Wilkinson on "liberaltarianism" fascinated me. The philosophy is explained here by the latter, and dissected (maybe even deconstructed) here by Stephen. At the heart of liberaltarianism is antiwarism, and as an advocate of strong national self-defense, I side with Stephen on this debate for that reason alone. But now that the war has been largely won, and the economy has tanked, economic issues are on the front burner, and in that regard, there doesn't seem to be a major divergence between liberaltarianism and libertarianism. Nor does there seem to be much difference on social issues. Yet, there's more to this than ideology. I noticed that Green and Wilkinson both acknowledged that young people just plain don't like social conservatism. That's an easy thing for people who get caught up in ideological debates to forget. I don't like social conservatism either, but I'm just one vote, and I can get so hung up discussing the particulars of what I think is right or wrong that I forget political pragmatism. In politics, right and wrong are subordinated to winning. If people don't like something, they will not vote for it. This is especially true where it comes to personalities. Just because I was able to see past Sarah Palin's social conservatism (and I could see that it did not prevent her from having an attractively libertarian record), doesn't mean there weren't lots of people who got so caught up in matters of taste that they lost sight of all objectivity. Thus, while it mattered very little to me whether she attended religious services where nuts were speaking in tongues (or listening to admitted witch hunters), for a lot of people, that kind of stuff is scary as hell. And it may be the sort of thing that leads to electoral defeat. Similarly, just because I can overlook my disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, and the fact that I don't especially like his personality, that does not mean others can. Especially the young. The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh's name in a survey and found that many Americans just don't like him.If those numbers are accurate, they would confirm the reality that social conservatism is extremely unpopular with young people. If enough of them vote, it may be ballot box poison. Of course, everything is so unsettled right now that it may be a good time to do absolutely nothing. The national polling numbers are almost schizophrenic. From the Real Clear Politics Poll Averages President Obama Job ApprovalDoes this mean the majority of voters believe that it's OK for the country to be on the wrong track? I don't think they'd admit to such a thing. Maybe it's just collective cognitive dissonance, grounded in superficial likes and dislikes, the way people like Obama, and don't like Rush. Or maybe the Obama euphoria hasn't yet worn off, so the nation is still having an Obama Rush. Give them time. I've long believed that traditionally, the Democrats win by promising an endless supply of goodies to everyone, while the Republicans are seen as the party of belt-tightening and restraint. The party of dessert versus the party of "eat this bad tasting food -- it's good for you!" While the Democrats have not been able to fully reverse these traditional roles, to a far greater extent they have been able to portray the Republicans not as belt-tighteners, but as wild profligates, and for the first time the Democrats are now poised to usurp the "eat this bad tasting food -- it's good for you!" role. Except what the Democrats are now saying boils down to "Freedom is not good for you!" If the voters get past their Obama Rush cognitive dissonance, the Republicans might be in a position to offer a more pleasant-tasting dessert. MORE: Now that Obama adminstration scoldings are being likened to "Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah Winfrey lecturing us on how to stay slim," I'm feeling inexplicably reassured. Some desserts are just! posted by Eric at 10:22 AM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
It Gets Progressively Worse
I'm reading No Quarter for a change and I came across a "Progressive" who is unhappy with Obama. Remember how we (meaning, progressives, liberals, Democrats, fair-minded people) got really upset when the Republican majority used all kinds of tricks to get their way? It made us mad. But now, Obama is thinking of using a little procedural trick that would only require 50 votes to get his energy and health care bills passed. Here's some more information on this procedure:Take this to heart my Progressive friend: Obama is the most Progressive of Progressives.Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills. He plans to soak (some of) the rich. Carbon taxes will drive energy costs up. And he promises a Civilian Corps (SS) to keep ordinary citizens on the straight and narrow. Perhaps it is time to rethink your commitment to the Progressive Philosophy. After all the Austrian Corporal was as progressive as they come. And we know how that ended. Or perhaps the Progressive History of the USSR might interest you. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom explains why progressive politics always ends badly. He wrote it in 1944 when the trajectory was still fresh. Obama is not an aberration. He is the inevitable end result of Progressive Thought. There is no New Socialist Man. There are just the same greedy bastards. Bad enough in business: but at least there you can set them against each other (you know - competition). The Maker help us when the greedy bastards get unchecked government power. And we now have the smoothest talking "progressive" greedy bastard we have seen in a long time as head of government with a Congress filled mostly with his minions. Enjoy. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, March 4, 2009 posted by Simon at 01:17 PM | Comments (10)
| TrackBacks (0)
Keeping track of the feeding cycle
In an interesting PJM piece, Adam Graham observes that "the war on Rush is a proxy war on movement conservatives," and I agree. It's a proxy war against all conservative opposition to Barack Obama, and I say this as a non-fan of Limbaugh. I also think that the war against the Tea Party movement is a proxy war on the growing libertarian opposition to Barack Obama. (In the latter regard, I should point out that the only reason I haven't taken my money from the evil, CATO-funding Koch family is because they haven't sent it yet! Of course, if they did, then according to the lefties' logic, every word I utter would instantly become insincere astroturf speech or something.) Whether any of this means that the business-as-usual GOP party regulars are being left alone for the time being (provided they don't rock the boat), who knows? I don't know how many of them are defending Rush Limbaugh (much less the Tea Party movement) but it all inclines me to remember Winston Churchill's maxim: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last.Being a lowly small-l-libertarian blogger, I don't have time to worry about such things. Besides, I'm too small to be worth eating, and there are too many mouths to feed! posted by Eric at 10:08 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) posted by Simon at 06:18 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
A Destructive Agenda
I was sure Obama's election coupled with his agenda would lead to a failure that would be obvious to the majority of Americans within six months of his inauguration. It has taken less than six weeks. I read an anecdote some where today about a guy who was checking out his purchases at a grocery store and the cashier out of the blue opened up on Obama. Six people in line. Nobody had said anything about politics and the clerk just opened up out of the blue (heh). If Obama has already lost the grocery clerks he and his party are in for a very rough ride over the next four and maybe forty years. The time may be already here when people start looking back on the inept Bush administration with a sense of wistful nostalgia (OK. I cop to redundancy - it was for emphasis). Many thought - no one could be worse than Bush. We are definitely putting that one to the test. So far it looks to me like Bush is coming out on top. Six weeks. Here are some pictures of voters expressing their remorse. I especially liked the black guy with a sign which expresses something I have been saying for a while about the "historic" election. Funny thing is that Obama's rise is mirrored by the stock market fall. What is Obama's ace in the hole in all of this? It is unlikely that the stock market will go below zero. Which, I am sure is a comforting thought for President ∅. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 06:04 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Advertise your innocence!
Well, I suppose this was inevitable. (There's a similar sticker on Ebay with Palin's name added.) But if you don't quite fancy the campaignish look, Cafe Press offers plenty of other models to choose from. Like this:
Not to be outdone, Amazon has a slightly slicker version: I'm not much of a fan of gloating, or saying "I TOLD YOU SO!" But I have to say, it didn't take as long as it usually does for these items to appear. posted by Eric at 08:34 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Are you all aTwitter?
I'm wondering how many readers out there use Twitter, and of those of you who do, whom do you follow? I notice that Barack Obama and Stephen Colbert haven't tweeted in quite awhile. Karl Rove, our former paymaster, is sure to note exactly when and how often he'll be appearing on FOX News. I, for one, am following Julius Caesar and Larry David. Who should I be following, and why? posted by Dennis at 04:31 PM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0)
You Were Warned
It looks like Obama fever is starting to wane. At least that is what the anecdotal evidence from Larry Kudlow would indicate. Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters -- especially hedge-fund types who voted for "change" -- are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner. There is a growing sense of buyer's remorse. Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?Yes we can. As you well know I was warning people of the dangers of an Obama administration all through the election season. But Americans had the fever. The "elect a black man to the Presidency" historical fever. We went through that in Illinois with Carol Mosely Braun. And some of us in Illinois learned our lesson. Now the rest of the nation will get a chance to learn their lesson. The answer I always got to the warning was "how bad could he be?" We are about to get Three more years 10 more months 2 more weeks and 2 more days to find out. It ain't going to be pretty. Let us hope (heh) that this is a lesson that will last a lifetime for those who made the mistake. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:22 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Santelli And The Traders
It is rather obvious that this is not a music video. Despite the fact that images of naked and semi-naked women are involved. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:18 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Latest entry in the national routine
Via an email, I learned about a fascinating incident in which a woman called 911 because a McDonalds restaurant had run out of Chicken McNuggets: ARCH 3--Angered that her local McDonald's was out of Chicken McNuggets, a Florida woman called 911 three times to report the fast food "emergency." Latreasa Goodman, 27, last Saturday called police to complain that a cashier--citing a McDonald's all sales are final policy--would not give her a refund. When cops responded to the restaurant, Goodman told them, "This is an emergency. If I would have known they didn't have McNuggets, I wouldn't have given my money, and now she wants to give me a McDouble, but I don't want one." Goodman noted, "I called 911 because I couldn't get a refund, and I wanted my McNuggets," according to the below Fort Pierce Police Department report. That logic, however, did not keep cops from citing Goodman for misusing the 911 system. Even after being issued a misdemeanor citation, Goodman contended, "this is an emergency, my McNuggets are an emergency."The story also notes that another man had called 911 to complain about his displeasure with a Burger King combo meal. Depending on how stoned the employees are, my local burrito joint has been known to short me on the meat -- one time after I had already hit the tipjar! I didn't think that was an emergency, but that only reveals my cultural biases. I was not raised to think of my incidental desires as needs -- much less as akin to life and death matters. Silly me. While this woman's conduct in calling 911 would seem indefensible by most people's standards, there are a lot of "emergencies" that aren't emergencies at all. Not only are hospital emergency rooms often used for routine health care (forcing those with emergencies to stand in line), but so are ambulances. Unharmed but litigious people will often demand ambulances when they are in ordinary fender-bender accidents, simply because they know it will make the case look better to an attorney. This reminds me of the time a friend was leaving a Philadelphia parking lot and a woman suddenly slammed herself against the front of his car and screamed that she'd been "hit." Through pure luck, a police officer witnessed the whole thing, and told the woman she was out of luck, but she remained adamant, and demanded an ambulance. (And believe it or not, that cop was required by department policy to call her an ambulance, simply because she demanded it. Fortunately for my friend, she never sued, probably because no lawyer was sleazy enough to take her case.) The word "emergency" is almost as misused as the words "war" or "crisis." Things are so bad that as Mark Steyn observed recently, this country is living in a "permanent state of routine emergency." Steyn isn't kidding. While so many different types of problems have been called emergencies that I couldn't list them all, here are a few selected, um, nuggets: Is it so much to ask that a Chicken McNuggets shortage be included in the national routine? And if it isn't an emergency, I think it's only fair that we at least call it a crisis. After all, we wouldn't want to damage anyone's self esteem. posted by Eric at 02:15 PM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0)
Browsing in the marketplace of ideas
The hard-hitting Geert Wilder film "Fitna" is a classic example of the kind of opinionated advocacy which Americans take for granted as protected free speech. Agree with Wilder's point of view or not, the ability to see it is what the First Amendment guarantees. Right? So what's the big deal about letting people see it? For anyone who's Internet-savvy, it's not all that big of a deal to find. Michelle Malkin has posted it here, it's on YouTube in multiple segments, and it can be downloaded in .wmv format here. Or you can download a burnable iso file here. Being a collector of important cultural artifacts (as well as a somewhat lazy person), it occurred to me that I might be able to buy it online. No such luck. Amazon does not list any such DVD for sale. As to Ebay, while you might think of it as a place where anything is sold, you can't even search for it. No seriously. Unless I am crazy or my computer has some sort of Ebay-search-infecting virus, every time I enter the word "fitna" the Ebay machine changes it to "fiona." Same with "Fitna DVD." Anyone know what's up with that? I've been using Ebay for a decade, and I've never seen this. It's one thing not to allow people to sell what they call "forbidden items," but changing search words is ridiculous. Why not just tell me "your search revealed 0 items" as it does when I search for "liberal assclown" or "puppyblender"? Beyond that, even if we assume "Fitna" is little more than anti-Islamic propaganda (and therefore "hate speech"), why is Ebay allowing Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to be sold? Or that infamous Czarist forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Or of course, another Mideast best-seller, Henry Ford's "The International Jew." You'd almost think someone is against competition. posted by Eric at 11:28 AM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
Obamanomics in a nutshell
I'm not much of a fan of Rush Limbaugh (see yesterday's post), but when he gets it right he gets it right. And he sure got it right yesterday in his explanation of what's been baffling so many people: The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.The problem with many ordinary Americans (including well educated, well informed liberals I know) is that they assume the president and his administration are acting in good faith, and cannot understand why so many "mistakes" are being made. Mistakes? Really? Except for a growing minority of "Tea Party" types, I think the American people are being far too naive. I almost said they're not cynical enough, but Barack Obama is very fond of criticizing what he calls "cynicism" so I'll say they're not realistic enough. Jeff Seidel writes for the embattled Detroit Free Press, and like many Obama voters these days, he's scratching his head. Yesterday (in a column titled "Help! I'm suffering from Obama overload!") he noted that the economy is in a dire state of collapse, but instead of focusing on that, Obama is being treated by the focusing classes as a rock star (with endlessly obsessive magazine cover adulation, politicians acting like groupies, etc.) I voted for Barack Obama. He's smart and focused and talented. He is, as they used to describe quarterback Joe Montana, cooler than the other side of the pillow.Etc. I guess I have a horrible admission to make too. I developed Obama Fatigue before he was elected. The best way to avoid the symptoms it is not to turn on the TV except to watch old movies, and avert my eyes from the Hollywood magazines at the supermarket checkout stand. Because I know what it feels like to be let down, I can't help pity guys like Jeff Seidel, who is obviously not alone. However, his reaction is illustrative of the difference between ordinary liberals and hard core socialists. The former (trusting sorts, generally) either believe -- or especially want to believe -- that socialistic programs can be made to work. The latter know full well that socialism does not work, and that therefore its failure is their success. What they most fear right now is the type of realism they like to characterize as "cynicism." Whether the cultural phenomenon called "Obamamania" is intended as a deliberate (dare I say "cynical"?) distraction is something I cannot prove, so I should probably leave it to the conspiracy theorists For now, though, I think it's safe to say that Obama fatigue is not a paranoid conspiracy theory..... MORE: Looking at the stock market freefall, Roger L. Simon asks a good question: "is the media mentally ill?" I am not alone. Almost everyone is feeling this pain. Even, of course, the mainstream media, a large number of whom are losing their jobs and almost all of whom are seeing their savings vanish (unless they were smart enough to stay out of the market). But almost none of them are saying anything critical of Obama's policies which, obviously, the stock market - conventionally the predictor of our economy - thinks are dead wrong.What if there's a direct relationship between the market freefall and the loudness of the hosannas? The lower market gets, the louder the hosannas become? Being loudly and sanctimoniously right means never having to admit to being wrong. MORE: "Too loud to be wrong" has a nice ring, eh? (Sounds almost like "too big to fail"...) MORE: Mickey Kaus reacts to a remarkable admission from Obama officialdom ("I'd rather live with a debt than have people go without health care") with a And here I almost believed Obama's health care plans were all about lowering costs and getting the budget under control.Via Glenn Reynolds who says "That's for rubes." Hmmm.... I think it would take a rube to believe that the goal was all about improving the health care system... On the bright side, maybe we're in for a rube awakening! UPDATE: More here on Barack Obama's intentional destruction of the economy: Why would Obama inflict these destructive policies while the economy is collapsing? Simple. Each step strengthens the role of government in people's lives.Via Glenn Reynolds, who adds, The other possibility, of course, is that he's clueless. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, and after the Geithner/Daschle/Richardson/Killefer/Carrion/Kirk problems, incompetence is looking like the strong horse.I hope that's right, even though I don't normally find incompetence especially reassuring. posted by Eric at 08:52 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, March 2, 2009
The turtle and the cat
Normally I don't go in for cutesiness, but this is so cute I thought I'd share it. If only there were an Aesop's fable to go with it... Of course, as anyone who uses Google probably knows, today is Dr. Seuss's 105th birthday. (Which makes me feel old, as I grew up thinking of him as belonging to my dad's generation.) posted by Eric at 10:29 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
The ongoing war on rot
Reviewing Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech, John Hawkins warns the conservative movement that losing the next election might be more devastating than what has already happened: Conservatives have better solutions than either the left or the moderates in our own party can come up with -- ready to go, ready to improve the lives of Americans -- but very few people on the right are promoting those ideas.Forgive me for sounding cynical, but I see more than a hint of of a subtext there, and naturally, I find myself wondering whether John Hawkins revealed what's a sort of third rail issue for the Republicans. Let's face it, right now, no matter what "side" anyone is on, the GOP is still in a losing streak phase, and the mood of the party is dominated by doom-and-gloom, fatalistic thinking. So I'm wondering about something. If continued losses in the next election are seen as inevitable, might the game become one not of winning, but of who gets positioned to lose next? Seen this way, it's not so much of whose turn it is to win, but whose turn it is to lose. A game of musical chairs -- in which the "loser" nominee ends up taking the blame, and ultimately whoever did not win nomination gets in position as the ultimate "winner" the next time around. Social conservatives would want to have a RINO or libertarian lose so they could play "I TOLD YOU SO!", while libertarians could do the same thing if social conservatives lose. I've noticed that people are already trying to analyze the last election this way, but it isn't so neat and tidy, because there's no consensus on which side "caused" the loss. Was it the RINO side (epitomized by McCain)? Or was it the conservatives and Sarah Palin? Personally, I don't think any Republican could have won the last election, because the amazing timing of the economic crash dovetailed perfectly with Bush fatigue, but that won't stop the "sides" from pointing the finger at each other. I'm not here to live up to anyone's label or standards, and whether I'm considered a "real" conservative, a "real" libertarian, or a contemptible RINO -- that stuff is for other people to worry about, and it should not influence what I think, or why I think it. Labels are annoyances. So are party platforms, obligatory talking points, and demands that I agree with certain ideas and principles or else not be "real" enough. I don't know to what extent Rush Limbaugh is in charge of the GOP (or "conservatism"), but because he's at the center of John Hawkins' analysis and many people respect him, I'd like to look at something else he was quoted as saying, which Hawkins properly describes as "punishingly effective criticism of the Democratic Party": (T)ake a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government.Excellent. I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that analysis, with one exception. I don't think the answer to the question "What's the longest war in American history?" is "the War on Poverty." It's the War on Drugs, dammit. Drug war and the accompanying hysteria date back to the turn of the 19th Century, and it led directly to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, the failings of which led to tougher laws and more Hearst-fueled hysteria in the 20s, then to the Reefer Madness hysteria, Harry J. Anslinger and his witch hunts, outrageous persecution of addicts and physicians alike, and finally, the formation of a truly malignant federal agency (the DEA). The worse the problem got, the louder grew the demand for ever harsher laws, and ever more prisons to put people for the dubious crime of self harm. I'll spare readers a long rant about the rank stupidity and (IMO) downright evil nature of the drug war, but you all know I consider it a war on freedom. I don't blame Republicans any more than the Democrats, for both parties have perpetuated it, for it obviously suits the common needs of people who want power. Of all people, I would think that Rush Limbaugh would have come out against the Drug War by now. But no; the last time I turned his show on, he was railing against a California proposal to legalize marijuana so it could generate tax revenue. Here's what he said: Do you know what the largest crop in California is? What is the largest crop in California? Brian? Marijuana is exactly right. No, and listen to the numbers. And I'll tell you why this is important, because the state of California has got this $42 billion budget deficit, and the assembly realizes they're getting no tax money for it. They're considering decriminalizing it for the purpose -- this is how it all happens. This is how you get rotten socialist economic policies, which lead to the cultural rot of a society....I don't use marijuana, but some of the most talented and creative people I know do, and it increases their productivity. I do not consider it "cultural rot." Nor does it cause "rot" on a personal level anywhere near the rot caused by alcohol. But what business of anyone is it? Rush Limbaugh's? Why? His drug habit was not my business, so how does someone's marijuana use become his? As to how "rotten socialist economic policies" "lead to the cultural rot of a society," I think that argument is better applied to the welfare state than marijuana. Rotten socialist economic policies did not create the demand for California marijuana; they only fuel the government's need for new sources of revenue. The demand for marijuana will be there whether the state is run by socialists or capitalists, whether the state taxes it or not. I think Rush assumes that legalization and taxation will somehow increase demand (or that increased supply will translate into increased demand), and that this increased supply and demand constitute "cultural rot" brought on by socialism. By the same reasoning then, the end of America's War on Alcohol (accomplished by legalization and taxation) must have brought on cultural rot, along with all the rotten livers and brains... FWIW, I think wars on freedom waged by a country that purports to be free constitute cultural rot. If that makes me a detestable RINO, so be it. posted by Eric at 10:01 AM | Comments (10)
| TrackBacks (0)
Climate Action
Big protests in our nations capitol. It seems that Congress runs on a coal fired power plant and that the Greenines are going to be out in force today to shut it down. Now this is not a bad thing. Congress should be the first to live by the policies it intends to impose on the rest of us. One minor little problem. The Gore effect. Some where between 5 and 10 inches of snow are expected in Washington today. You can keep an eye on the snow and the frozen protesters at Capitol Cam. Note: the average temperature in DC on 2 March is 51°F. Here is today's forecast for DC courtesy of Watts Up With That: Snow in the morning...Then snow likely in the afternoon. Snow May be heavy at Times in the morning. Total snow accumulation of 8 to 12 inches. Windy. Near steady temperature in the mid 20s. North winds 20 to 30 mph. Chance of snow near 100 percent.I did like the Stalinist Realism of the poster advertising the event. However, they do not seem to be able to compete with the plans of the Maker. Delicious isn't it? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 09:49 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0) Sunday, March 1, 2009
Does zero intolerance lead to zero tolerance?
What is free speech? I tend towards a very broad view of what should be protected, but the exact parameters of free speech never cease to intrigue me. Is religious speech so different from political speech that it should be afforded a different type of protection? If so, why? Should religious speech be more protected than political speech, or vice versa? What about "offensive" speech? I'm offended by Marxist drivel, and by statements deriding the rights of man. Should I be able to sue? The other day I discussed the distinction (one I'm not sure should exist, except it does) with someone who opined that in the United States, people are more horrified by extreme intolerance of religious viewpoints than by extreme intolerance of political viewpoints, and she stated that in particular, Americans are more horrified by people being killed over their religious views than by people being killed over their political views. When I ventured that fortunately, neither type of killing happens very often in the UD, she said that Americans are more horrified by religion-based killings in other countries than by political killings, and I've been mulling it over. As an American cultural phenomenon, is this true? Are we, say, more horrified by a tyrannical regime which murders people for their religious views than we would be if the same regime murders the political opposition? If so, is it because of the constitutional traditions, or is it because religion is seen as analogous to being accident of birth, like race, whereas politics is seen as a matter of opinion? But aren't both matters of conscience, and equally worthy of human rights protection? Should one be more protected than the other? And what about that troubling nexus between politics and religion? Sorry if I'm seeing more questions than answers. While it's easy to pat ourselves on the back because few Americans are murdered for their religious or political views, and while we are lucky to have a deeply ingrained belief in free speech (along with a Constitution protecting both), I've long been troubled by the fact that there is a practical distinction -- in both a legal and cultural sense -- between religious speech and political speech. This distinction seems to have arisen out of the Establishment Clause, the intent of which was to keep government out of religion. Obviously, keeping the government out of religion is a very wise thing, and the founders were quite aware of the dangers of the theocratic state. However, as the government entangled itself in more and more aspects of people's lives, religious disentanglement became ever trickier. In particular, once the government became the guarantor of education and education became compulsory, then anything smacking of religious education became taboo. This ultimately led to a strange anomaly where students and teachers were allowed to voice political opinions, but not religious opinions, in effect meaning that political speech is more protected than religious speech. Should such a distinction have ever been made? Enter the recent notion of different treatment for so-called "offensive speech." For the life of me, I cannot understand why I should be less (or more) entitled to be offended by, say, Communism than fundamentalist Islam. There are a lot of things I find offensive, but the rule I grew up with was that offensive views have a right to be voiced whether I like them or not. Like many schools and universities, the Los Angeles City College has some sort of code prohibiting "offensive" speech. Recently, a student there was apparently called a "fascist bastard" by a professor for voicing his religious opposition to gay marriage in a public speaking class. The professor also threatened to get him expelled, and the student has sued. From an LA Times editorial: When a dispute between a teacher and a student ends up in court, at least one of the parties involved deserves detention. Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College who is suing the Community College District, says he was bullied by the teacher of his public-speaking course after he delivered a speech that included his religious views about marriage.Yes they have. The legal claim is discussed here by the outfit that filed the suit: Last week, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit on Jonathan Lopez's behalf against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District, including Professor Matteson, citing the professor's clear violation of the student's First Amendment protections.Well, shame on that professor for using his power (which was the power of the state) to stifle free speech. But I'm wondering whether it would have made any difference had the student been an atheist who believed same sex marriage would be bad for society. I also think it's very doubtful that this professor would have behaved the same way had the student been a Muslim voicing a Koran-based view of same sex marriage. Selective censorship aside, what I don't see is how it makes any difference whether a point of view is driven by religion, by a particular religion, or by no religion at all. I think it's a big mistake to prohibit "offensive" speech, because there is absolutely no way to define it. This could easily lead to people becoming so thin-skinned as to consider any disagreement on almost any issue to be offensive. And once that happens, once tolerance is replaced by zero tolerance, people may find themselves more likely to kill each other over their views, not less. Does this mean that people have a right to insult each other? If a student delivers a diatribe against "sodomy," and people who are into such practices are offended (as the professor was here), don't they also have as much right to be offensive? If we put aside the power imbalance inherent in the student/professor relationship, what about the simple right to offend? Is a religious opinion that someone is an abominable sodomite more protected than a political opinion that someone a fascist bastard? Is a religious opinion that some races are inferior to others more protected than a political opinion that some races are inferior? Is a religious opinion that some religions are inferior to others more protected than a political opinion that some religions are inferior? None of it strikes me as worth getting killed over. My worry is that once the state draws a line over certain things that can't be said, people will be more -- not less -- likely to think that certain opinions merit death. posted by Eric at 12:12 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
Banning Mercury
The Obama Administration is working on a treaty to cut mercury pollution. The Obama administration has reversed years of U.S. policy by calling for a treaty to cut mercury pollution, which it described as the world's gravest chemical problem.Ah. Another attack on coal fired electrical generation. And no plans to ramp up a replacement for their base load generating capacity. Mercury is also widely used in chemical production and small-scale mining.And an attack on the chemical industry to boot. Although I must say that keeping it from small scale miners might be a good idea. While substitutes exist for almost all industrial processes that require mercury, more than 50 percent of mercury emissions come from coal-fueled power plants, complicating efforts to regulate it in countries that rely on coal for power.If mercury exports are baned where will we get the mercury needed for CFL light bulbs? How will we be able to import those bulbs? If we want to produce those bulbs in the US where will the mercury come from? And what does the Obama administration intend to do about volcanoes? Natural sources such as volcanoes are responsible for approximately half of atmospheric mercury emissions.And that is not even the best of it. Integrated circuits are dependent on gold wires to connect the chips to the package they are housed in. And mercury is critical to the extraction of gold from the ore. The three largest point sources for mercury emissions in the U.S. are the three largest gold mines.You know it appears that Mr. Obama and his cohorts are flying blind. Instead of doing research on replacements for mercury in various industrial processes they are just going to ban it and hope for the best. I particularly like this view of the situation by Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:39 AM | Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0) |
|
February 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Ending the cycles of preventative reaction
Joe Biden's Daughter Snorting Cocaine? Yes, but is it hypocrisy? What did they expect? Zero Gravity Diet for a healthy (non) planet Primarily A Source Of Cash Industrial Production We need to crack down on selfish people! Keep An Eye On Polywell Stimunism
Links
Site Credits
|
|