Friday, April 21, 2006
"The mushroom cloud is on the way"
Islamic Thinkers Society protesters chanted outside the Israeli consulate in Manhattan.
Doesn't Israel supposedly have a large number of nuclear weapons? If so, doesn't it seem odd that these people are thrilled that some day in the future Iran might get a nuclear weapon and presumably use it immediately on Israel? As if that would result in some kind of victory, rather than 1 large smoldering glass crater in Israel and 50 large smoldering glass craters in Iran? Which of these two groups of people is showing restraint and acceptance (note the poster saying "We will never accept the existence of Israel")? Which of these groups is filled with blind hatred?
But if you look at Air Arabia [darn, they've removed the Arabic looking South Park characters on their website], you see... you see... well you just have to see it to believe it.
Israeli Zionists You shall pay! The Wrath of Allah is on its way!...and check out the poster announcing the event.
The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!
Doesn't Israel supposedly have a large number of nuclear weapons? If so, doesn't it seem odd that these people are thrilled that some day in the future Iran might get a nuclear weapon and presumably use it immediately on Israel? As if that would result in some kind of victory, rather than 1 large smoldering glass crater in Israel and 50 large smoldering glass craters in Iran? Which of these two groups of people is showing restraint and acceptance (note the poster saying "We will never accept the existence of Israel")? Which of these groups is filled with blind hatred?
No wonder they call you sons of apes and pigs because that’s what you are.Sheesh.
But if you look at Air Arabia [darn, they've removed the Arabic looking South Park characters on their website], you see... you see... well you just have to see it to believe it.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Investing in Violent Industries
Here's a question someone asked me about a potential investment:
> Do you care if the above make weapons?
> or feed the military industry?
Here's my response (modified somewhat):
Probably the best way to answer that is to say that first and foremost, I believe in free markets for all voluntary economic activity except for cases of "tragedy of the commons" where a "common resource" is used above and beyond taxes paid to the government responsible for that common resource or that, given a choice, people would prefer to allocate the common resource for some other purpose.
I live in a low-crime town with a police force which is armed and trained for deadly violence to enforce the rule of law and I pay taxes which fund the police, paying for their guns and bullets. (Thankfully I can vote and influence other voters if I disagree with the laws or the enforcement of those laws.) The alternative to this controlled violence is what I would consider to be a far worse situation with likely much more corruption, fewer property rights, fewer personal rights, and a more arbitrary and unaccountable rule. So rationally, I'm quite happy that there are profitable businesses out there which sell guns and bullets to my town's police force (and I'm also happy for the constitutional rights and rule of law which is remarkably good at keeping these deadly people from abusing their situation, considering their advantages). I have no feeling of being tainted by funding this sort of violence with my taxes or my investments. I consider being defenseless a wonderful luxury for those who mingle within a place defended by someone else, especially when that someone else is fairly accountable to the the citizens of that town (compared to say The Mafia or some tribal warlord).
In terms of the military, I can't think of a time period when I would consider the world to be better off with an unarmed US than a well armed US, taking everything into balance. I suppose there are a lot of people today who would disagree with that.
> Do you care if the above make weapons?
> or feed the military industry?
Here's my response (modified somewhat):
Probably the best way to answer that is to say that first and foremost, I believe in free markets for all voluntary economic activity except for cases of "tragedy of the commons" where a "common resource" is used above and beyond taxes paid to the government responsible for that common resource or that, given a choice, people would prefer to allocate the common resource for some other purpose.
I live in a low-crime town with a police force which is armed and trained for deadly violence to enforce the rule of law and I pay taxes which fund the police, paying for their guns and bullets. (Thankfully I can vote and influence other voters if I disagree with the laws or the enforcement of those laws.) The alternative to this controlled violence is what I would consider to be a far worse situation with likely much more corruption, fewer property rights, fewer personal rights, and a more arbitrary and unaccountable rule. So rationally, I'm quite happy that there are profitable businesses out there which sell guns and bullets to my town's police force (and I'm also happy for the constitutional rights and rule of law which is remarkably good at keeping these deadly people from abusing their situation, considering their advantages). I have no feeling of being tainted by funding this sort of violence with my taxes or my investments. I consider being defenseless a wonderful luxury for those who mingle within a place defended by someone else, especially when that someone else is fairly accountable to the the citizens of that town (compared to say The Mafia or some tribal warlord).
In terms of the military, I can't think of a time period when I would consider the world to be better off with an unarmed US than a well armed US, taking everything into balance. I suppose there are a lot of people today who would disagree with that.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The Euston Manifesto
Yesterday a principled, rational statement appeared in the blogosphere from the political left. While I don't agree with it fully, boy am I glad to see something like this!! The Euston Manifesto is a very welcome breath of fresh air. Here is my point-by-point views of its details:
Preamble
Yeah, it's fine, although I think it might be a narrow-minded mistake to present the document as being belonging to the Left.
Statement of Principles
1) For democracy
I wish this had more emphasis against "rule by the elite". Nearly every two-bit dictator or ruling elite starts out seeing themselves as a true representative of the people, but then through a slow process, becomes the oppressor of new ideas and new leadership.
The key thing is that the government is controlled by the people and not vice versa. There will always be times when people get comfortable as the ruling class only to be tossed out by the populace, and when that happens, they view it as some sort of dangerous coup. Hogwash!
When the Palistinians elected Hamas, I viewed that as a good result because 1) we can now see the true face of these people, 2) they will have to accept the responsibility for their actions, 3) nothing is better for getting people to accept reality than having them eat their own cooking, having to live under the rule of their heros.
2) No apology for tyranny
Finally!
3) Human rights for all
Finally we see someone point out the double standards that are routinely applied. They add even more to this in the Elaborations section.
4) Equality
This has a lot of emphasis on "democratic" trade unions, which have been anything but democratic lately. I would argue that a better defense of workers' interests is a fair and open marketplace for employment coupled with strong government regulations of workplace safety and such.
I strongly agree with the rights of children and protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse. If the world saw a large global movement against these things in an apolitical manner, a lot of things would get better.
5) Development for freedom
I strongly disagree with the statement about the expansion of global markets and free trade not being allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world. Sorry, but if you want my money to go to work in your country, you're going to have to protect my property rights.That includes the right to economic benefits of the capital I've put at risk in your country. If you want to bark up the correct tree, then create a set of fair laws regarding labor, consumers, and especially property rights and enforce them rigorously. People have no frickin idea how terrible it is when capitalists put huge amounts of money into a country only to have it nationalized or stolen by some other official means.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism
The USA has consistently done more good in the world than most everyone else. That statement probably shocks a lot of people, but I stand by it. The world has relied on the USA to do its dirty work: fighting the Soviets for decades and now fighting Islamofascists who are most definitely already at war with us. There is a terrible irresponsibility in the world today that points to its military as being evil while gladly living in the bubble of peace that their military provides. It's no different than claiming the butchers who slaughter cows are somehow horrible people yet the people who eat hamburgers are above it all. The people living in the bubble of peace believe that what they experience is normal. It's not. The normal state of things is a gigantic ugly power grab. The USA must exist within that power grab world and do a great deal of work to maintain the bubble of peace that exists over the USA and Europe. It's about time that Europe woke up to that fact.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it was a classic Sun Tzu move. We were already at war there. The Islamofascists were obviously going to do hit-and-run attacks on the West while remaining hidden. When your enemy is hiding like that, seizing a place where they must respond (a time and place of your own choosing) is necessary. What better than to overthrow a horrible dictator that no one wants in place (except the recipients of oil-for-food bribes), a dictator that we are already at war against, and a location in the home region of our overall enemy. The Islamofascists were forced to invade Iraq to chase after us. They did. They're losing and they're slowly losing the support of the people of Iraq and of the Arabs and Muslims in general because they're killing their own people. I could go on and on about the root causes of Islamofascism (oppression, not poverty), the best method of attacking those root causes (self-rule for all), and the best means of fighting the Islamofascists that are here now (straight out of Sun Tzu and all the modern military strategy books).
It's very easy to point to some event and frame it in such a way as to make the US look bad. But if you do the same thing for other countries, they look just as bad or usually worse. Some of the areas where I think we've done harm is when we violate our own principles, such as in agricultural protectionism.
It's very odd that at the time when the US is finally learning to oppose bad dictators and idealistically embrace democracy (even when that results in electing people we truly despise), that people are so irrationally against the US. What we're finding out is that in many cases, the people so vocally against us are the ones making shady deals with ugly dictators. The roles are reversing.
7) For a two-state solution
Historically, when one group conquers another, they do it with a vengence and they take the spoils. We definitely see that with Arabs slaughtering fellow Muslims in a grotesque genocide in Darfur. The Israelis kept land that they conquered after being attacked by their neighbors multiple times. They've bent over backwards to make other people happy in following a one-sided peace process for decades. They've made multiple generous offers to those with grievances. But that's not good enough. Those people want the Israelis to play nice so that they can drive the Israelis into the sea and "wipe Israel off the map".
My advice is to face reality (if you don't like what I'm writing, then you should definitely read what's at the other end of that link).
But I believe in people overall even when they behave badly. I'm all for a two-state solution. Give the Palistinians a state and then hold them accountable when rockets fly over into Israel (as they have been lately). Here's a clue: if you keep on trying to declare war, eventually the other guys might actually accept your offer.
8) Against racism
I would like to see this section come right out and say that we should just ignore people's race altogether. Within the US, every "despised" group of people has had to prove themselves in the court of popular opinion against prejudice and bigotry. The Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc. have done this. It's an uphill battle and maybe it's unfair. But I refuse to accept bigotry and preferential treatment behind some ideal of "equal outcomes". If popular opinion says that you're group has some negative aspect, it's up to your group to prove them wrong.
9) United against terror
Finally! I'd also like to see this oppose journalists who work closely with terrorists.
10) A new internationalism
This is excellent in that it defines the cases where a country forfeits its sovereignty. But I fear that this could open the door to opportunistic colonization, such as in Lebanon by Syria.
I'd like to see something about how the UN is now a totally corrupt and ineffective organization. I honestly don't see any other alternatives because an international body like that is always going to be unaccountable. The EU is heading in the same direction.
11) A critical openness
Finally!
12) Historical truth
Finally! It's about time to admit that Communism was a murderous disaster.
13) Freedom of ideas
Yes!
14) Open source
I've worked with open source software and proprietary software for many years. I agree that there's a lot of truth in what they say. I'm a patent inventor myself (with only one patent granted, shared with several others), I believe that a lot of patents should never have been granted. Open source is a way of doing things that is very successful and I have great hopes for it in the future. But some areas must continue to have property rights when they require huge costs of invention yet can be easily used by others who didn't do the work.
15) A precious heritage
Excellent!
Elaborations
Yes, millions are in poverty, but poverty has become a political problem and not an economic problem. In the world today, it's very easy to make the required changes to allow capitalists to employ the labor of any given country and pay those people a competitive wage based on their productivity. Should any group of capitalists attempt to exploit those people, an open system allows other capitalists to step in and offer better terms.
I can't even begin to say how happy I am to read this:
UPDATE: I signed it. I'd sign it in my own blood if they'd let me.
UPDATE: Here is a good article about "Eurabia".
Preamble
Yeah, it's fine, although I think it might be a narrow-minded mistake to present the document as being belonging to the Left.
Statement of Principles
1) For democracy
I wish this had more emphasis against "rule by the elite". Nearly every two-bit dictator or ruling elite starts out seeing themselves as a true representative of the people, but then through a slow process, becomes the oppressor of new ideas and new leadership.
The key thing is that the government is controlled by the people and not vice versa. There will always be times when people get comfortable as the ruling class only to be tossed out by the populace, and when that happens, they view it as some sort of dangerous coup. Hogwash!
When the Palistinians elected Hamas, I viewed that as a good result because 1) we can now see the true face of these people, 2) they will have to accept the responsibility for their actions, 3) nothing is better for getting people to accept reality than having them eat their own cooking, having to live under the rule of their heros.
2) No apology for tyranny
Finally!
3) Human rights for all
Finally we see someone point out the double standards that are routinely applied. They add even more to this in the Elaborations section.
4) Equality
This has a lot of emphasis on "democratic" trade unions, which have been anything but democratic lately. I would argue that a better defense of workers' interests is a fair and open marketplace for employment coupled with strong government regulations of workplace safety and such.
I strongly agree with the rights of children and protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse. If the world saw a large global movement against these things in an apolitical manner, a lot of things would get better.
5) Development for freedom
I strongly disagree with the statement about the expansion of global markets and free trade not being allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world. Sorry, but if you want my money to go to work in your country, you're going to have to protect my property rights.That includes the right to economic benefits of the capital I've put at risk in your country. If you want to bark up the correct tree, then create a set of fair laws regarding labor, consumers, and especially property rights and enforce them rigorously. People have no frickin idea how terrible it is when capitalists put huge amounts of money into a country only to have it nationalized or stolen by some other official means.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism
The USA has consistently done more good in the world than most everyone else. That statement probably shocks a lot of people, but I stand by it. The world has relied on the USA to do its dirty work: fighting the Soviets for decades and now fighting Islamofascists who are most definitely already at war with us. There is a terrible irresponsibility in the world today that points to its military as being evil while gladly living in the bubble of peace that their military provides. It's no different than claiming the butchers who slaughter cows are somehow horrible people yet the people who eat hamburgers are above it all. The people living in the bubble of peace believe that what they experience is normal. It's not. The normal state of things is a gigantic ugly power grab. The USA must exist within that power grab world and do a great deal of work to maintain the bubble of peace that exists over the USA and Europe. It's about time that Europe woke up to that fact.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it was a classic Sun Tzu move. We were already at war there. The Islamofascists were obviously going to do hit-and-run attacks on the West while remaining hidden. When your enemy is hiding like that, seizing a place where they must respond (a time and place of your own choosing) is necessary. What better than to overthrow a horrible dictator that no one wants in place (except the recipients of oil-for-food bribes), a dictator that we are already at war against, and a location in the home region of our overall enemy. The Islamofascists were forced to invade Iraq to chase after us. They did. They're losing and they're slowly losing the support of the people of Iraq and of the Arabs and Muslims in general because they're killing their own people. I could go on and on about the root causes of Islamofascism (oppression, not poverty), the best method of attacking those root causes (self-rule for all), and the best means of fighting the Islamofascists that are here now (straight out of Sun Tzu and all the modern military strategy books).
It's very easy to point to some event and frame it in such a way as to make the US look bad. But if you do the same thing for other countries, they look just as bad or usually worse. Some of the areas where I think we've done harm is when we violate our own principles, such as in agricultural protectionism.
It's very odd that at the time when the US is finally learning to oppose bad dictators and idealistically embrace democracy (even when that results in electing people we truly despise), that people are so irrationally against the US. What we're finding out is that in many cases, the people so vocally against us are the ones making shady deals with ugly dictators. The roles are reversing.
7) For a two-state solution
Historically, when one group conquers another, they do it with a vengence and they take the spoils. We definitely see that with Arabs slaughtering fellow Muslims in a grotesque genocide in Darfur. The Israelis kept land that they conquered after being attacked by their neighbors multiple times. They've bent over backwards to make other people happy in following a one-sided peace process for decades. They've made multiple generous offers to those with grievances. But that's not good enough. Those people want the Israelis to play nice so that they can drive the Israelis into the sea and "wipe Israel off the map".
My advice is to face reality (if you don't like what I'm writing, then you should definitely read what's at the other end of that link).
But I believe in people overall even when they behave badly. I'm all for a two-state solution. Give the Palistinians a state and then hold them accountable when rockets fly over into Israel (as they have been lately). Here's a clue: if you keep on trying to declare war, eventually the other guys might actually accept your offer.
8) Against racism
I would like to see this section come right out and say that we should just ignore people's race altogether. Within the US, every "despised" group of people has had to prove themselves in the court of popular opinion against prejudice and bigotry. The Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc. have done this. It's an uphill battle and maybe it's unfair. But I refuse to accept bigotry and preferential treatment behind some ideal of "equal outcomes". If popular opinion says that you're group has some negative aspect, it's up to your group to prove them wrong.
9) United against terror
Finally! I'd also like to see this oppose journalists who work closely with terrorists.
10) A new internationalism
This is excellent in that it defines the cases where a country forfeits its sovereignty. But I fear that this could open the door to opportunistic colonization, such as in Lebanon by Syria.
I'd like to see something about how the UN is now a totally corrupt and ineffective organization. I honestly don't see any other alternatives because an international body like that is always going to be unaccountable. The EU is heading in the same direction.
11) A critical openness
Finally!
12) Historical truth
Finally! It's about time to admit that Communism was a murderous disaster.
13) Freedom of ideas
Yes!
14) Open source
I've worked with open source software and proprietary software for many years. I agree that there's a lot of truth in what they say. I'm a patent inventor myself (with only one patent granted, shared with several others), I believe that a lot of patents should never have been granted. Open source is a way of doing things that is very successful and I have great hopes for it in the future. But some areas must continue to have property rights when they require huge costs of invention yet can be easily used by others who didn't do the work.
15) A precious heritage
Excellent!
Elaborations
Yes, millions are in poverty, but poverty has become a political problem and not an economic problem. In the world today, it's very easy to make the required changes to allow capitalists to employ the labor of any given country and pay those people a competitive wage based on their productivity. Should any group of capitalists attempt to exploit those people, an open system allows other capitalists to step in and offer better terms.
I can't even begin to say how happy I am to read this:
The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.I would have liked to see freedom of religion made more clear.
UPDATE: I signed it. I'd sign it in my own blood if they'd let me.
UPDATE: Here is a good article about "Eurabia".
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The New Marie Antoinettes
Student protesters in France are so infuriated at having their lifetime employment guarantee age moved forward from 24 years old to 26 years old that they can't contain themselves. They've rushed into the streets in protest.
Of course these are the kids in the elite schools who will land the best jobs. The peasants will be stuck with staggering unemployment and employers unlikely to risk giving a lifetime job to some questionable person. Let them eat cake.
While potential immigrants to the US patiently wait for the chance to move to the US, the illegals jump to the head of the line and scoop up jobs paying far better than they can get in their corrupt and inefficient homeland. And are they grateful about the opportunity? No, they march around claiming this is their land. They, the Spaniards, couquered it fair-and-square a zillion years ago. But forget about the fact that the country that's still being run by those Spaniard descendants is a crappy place that they feel the need to escape from. Glenn Reynolds thinks we should go ahead and annex Mexico.
Cynthia McKinney wants to be above the law. So when a security officer tries multiple times to stop her, since she's not wearing an ID pin, she strikes the officer with a cellphone and then has the gall to complain about it later, surrounded by various royalists of the day. Classic Marie Antoinette.
People who would never shop at Wal*Mart protest loudly against the highly successful retailer. Why? Because Wal*Mart crushes the local royalty who run the inefficient, un-responsive little stores out in the middle of nowhere that had lived without competition for so long. When Wal*Mart moves in, it's run by the people, for the people. It achieves what the Communists could only dream of. The people employed by Wal*Mart are the same kinds of people who shop at Wal*Mart who are the people you'll never see protesting against Wal*Mart.
Islamist terrorists want to tell the rest of the world what it can and can't say, what we can and can't do. They won't be happy unless they are our rulers.
The world is being pushed around by a bunch of royal-wannabes. Some are bloodthirsty, some of bureaucratic, some want a monopoly for their inefficient business, but they all share one thing: they want to tell us what to do. They want special privileges and they don't want voluntary and free economic and social activity.
Of course these are the kids in the elite schools who will land the best jobs. The peasants will be stuck with staggering unemployment and employers unlikely to risk giving a lifetime job to some questionable person. Let them eat cake.
While potential immigrants to the US patiently wait for the chance to move to the US, the illegals jump to the head of the line and scoop up jobs paying far better than they can get in their corrupt and inefficient homeland. And are they grateful about the opportunity? No, they march around claiming this is their land. They, the Spaniards, couquered it fair-and-square a zillion years ago. But forget about the fact that the country that's still being run by those Spaniard descendants is a crappy place that they feel the need to escape from. Glenn Reynolds thinks we should go ahead and annex Mexico.
And I suspect that if the Reconquista advocates somehow did get their way, and the Southwest United States became a new Northern Mexico, we'd soon have illegal immigrants crossing over into Kansas and Oklahoma for opportunity, because the Mexican political culture would have ruined things in Arizona and Texas just like it's already ruined them further south.But they don't care about all that. They want to re-conquer California and grab all the stuff that Californians have created. The Reconquistadors don't want to create something good in their homeland, nor do they want to work their way up the social ladder like the rest of us do. They just want to grab what others have and let them eat cake.
Cynthia McKinney wants to be above the law. So when a security officer tries multiple times to stop her, since she's not wearing an ID pin, she strikes the officer with a cellphone and then has the gall to complain about it later, surrounded by various royalists of the day. Classic Marie Antoinette.
People who would never shop at Wal*Mart protest loudly against the highly successful retailer. Why? Because Wal*Mart crushes the local royalty who run the inefficient, un-responsive little stores out in the middle of nowhere that had lived without competition for so long. When Wal*Mart moves in, it's run by the people, for the people. It achieves what the Communists could only dream of. The people employed by Wal*Mart are the same kinds of people who shop at Wal*Mart who are the people you'll never see protesting against Wal*Mart.
Islamist terrorists want to tell the rest of the world what it can and can't say, what we can and can't do. They won't be happy unless they are our rulers.
The world is being pushed around by a bunch of royal-wannabes. Some are bloodthirsty, some of bureaucratic, some want a monopoly for their inefficient business, but they all share one thing: they want to tell us what to do. They want special privileges and they don't want voluntary and free economic and social activity.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
I guess I must have forgotten to send a check
I received an odd e-mail:
Dear Mr. [my name was here],I'll have to remember to send them twice as much next year.
Thank you for your gift of $0.00 to Vanderbilt University through the Vanderbilt Fund. Your gift will help provide vital resources during the coming year and also counts for our Shape the Future campaign. You will receive a tax receipt once your gift has been processed on your .
I invite you to visit Vanderbilt's website, [URL removed] to learn more about the impact of your gift and to find ways to stay in touch with the University and fellow alumni and friends.
Through your gift, you ensure Vanderbilt remains an outstanding place to receive a quality education.
Many thanks,
[some guy's name]
Executive Director, Vanderbilt Fund
============================
Remember! If you or your spouse works for a matching gift company, your gift may be doubled or tripled! Visit your human resources office to obtain a matching gift form and send it to the address below.
============================
Vanderbilt University
Vanderbilt Fund Office
VU Station B 357727
2301 Vanderbilt Place
Nashville, TN 37235-7727
1-866-882-3863
[their email address]
To be removed from this recipient list, please
unsubscribe by going to [URL removed]
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
They stole their writers from The Onion
From the Lebanon Daily Star
(hat tip Wall St Journal)
True, the Palestinian suicide bombers and drive-by submachine gunners and ambush snipers did target non-combatants by design, killing infants, pregnant women, and the elderly. And true, some Palestinians celebrated the intentional killings and many if not most justified them, not least by telling themselves and the world that there were no Israeli non-combatants. The elderly and the pregnant, after all, had once been in the army, and the infant would, one day, go.
