February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

-Thomas Jefferson

December 30, 2005

CAFTA to launch

The US has admitted it will miss its 1 January target date to implement the controversial Cafta free trade pact with six Central American nations...The US is now looking to write Cafta into law for 1 February or 1 March.

Wait, don't panic. It's okay. Publius Pundit explains what's up, and has a bunch of back articles on the topic if you are interested in digging through their archives (you should be visiting that site daily anyway!)

Also see our previous here for practical reasons why CAFTA is not bad for the USA (in case you don't subscribe to our ideological belief that free trade is good in and of itself).

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

December 29, 2005

O Canadian Utopia!

"Canada blames U.S. for exporting gun violence"

Well, what else is new? Everyone already knows that the U.S. is the root of all evils in the world. Why not blame it for gun violence, too.

Of course, Michael Moore may have to alter the premise of his Bowling for Columbine movie. Here is a great story on the Canadian utopia from Bowling for Truth.

Jennifer at Garfield Ridge to Canada: "Eat me."

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

December 23, 2005

NPR is Clearly Biased to the Left Right?

I admit it - I haven't been listening to NPR in the last couple of weeks, and I have no idea what's going on there. But I am having a hard time buying that it has gone right-wing since I went on vacation. Yet that's exactly what MediaMatters.org is claiming, based on comments by NPR ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin.

Now, it is true that if we take two of Mr Dvorkin's comments and place them in a vacuum for comparison, he appears to contradict himself.
Dec 14:

NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think.

Dec 19:

I will state it again: I believe NPR relies too much on think tanks in general and on conservative think tanks.

I am a regular listener, the last two weeks or so notwithstanding. I have no idea how objective listeners could think that NPR leans on conservative think tanks - the key word being objective. Most likely, the think tanks in question are simply farther to the right than the complaining members of the NPR audience. This will be easy to fix - let's just fire off some letters to Mr Dvorkin complaining that the tanks are to the left of Atlas Blogged and its readers, and the whole thing will balance out.
But what about Mr Dvorkin contradicting himself? Well, let's take a look at his comments with a slightly different boldfaced emphasis than did MediaMatters.org...

Mr Dvorkin first says that NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think, and goes on in that same column to spell out a conservative think tank bias of "Right 239, Left 141". Evidently this is not as much of a rightward lean as the audience thought. In addition, Mr Dvorkin's December 14 column spells out reasons why there might be an imbalance in think tank quotes - for example, an inherent bias in the story itself. NPR Pentagon Correspondent John Hendren spells it out in particular with reference to a report on November 30 about the Department of Defense planting pro-U.S. stories in Iraqi newspapers.

using a lone conservative was not merely justifiable in the story, it was necessary for balance. Out of four sources whose voices were heard in that story, two were critical of the military's policy of planting news stories in Iraqi papers, and a third was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking about Iraq's "free media" before news of the program was disclosed. To neglect a point of view of a significant segment of the public, and certainly a significant segment of defense analysts, would slant the story.

Back to Mr Dvorkin:

So I'm with the listeners who complain about NPR’s decision not to more fully identify the think tanks. For many, the lack of a political context can sound too much like "inside-the-Beltway" reporting and I agree. NPR also needs to be consistent about how think tanks are identified; too often conservative institutions are identified as such but liberal ones are not.
More importantly, NPR needs to make sure that it is presenting an appropriate range of ideas and not just from one side of the debate.

Now to the column on the 19th:

So, for those who missed it, I will state it again: I believe NPR relies too much on think tanks in general and on conservative think tanks in particular -- especially when it comes to economics, and defense policy issues. NPR must make sure there is a better balance between liberal and conservative experts in these partisan and contentious areas.

As expected, this is all about context. Taken out of context, these two comments are nearly identical. Kept in context, they actually make sense.

MediaMatters further blinds the horse by failing to recognize Mr Dvorkin's overall theme on Dec 19; Some listeners complain about everything. The conservatives complain about Terry Gross. The liberals complain about quoting the Cato institute in economic pieces. Atlas Blogged complains about this all being funded by the government. You can't please everybody.

Others blogging on this topic include Life, Liberty, and Property fisks the numbers (and has a great name), K Marx The Spot (you have to see this)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Zero Sum

On Thursday of this week, Professor Boudreaux of George Mason University had an opinion piece on the Pittsburg Live website (associated with the Pittsburg Tribune). In the piece, he lays out an explanation of how wealthy the average American actually is by more objective standards than just in comparison with the Joneses down the street.

My students think me mad. "I'm not rich; I'm middle-class,"... Fortunately, though, to be middle-class in America today means to be superrich by historical standards.

He is not apologetic, and does not bemoan our wealth and try to make the reader (or his students) feel guilty for our wealth (like my economics prof did), and he explains the cause for this great wealth we enjoy. It is refreshing, frankly, to read a piece describing our luxury and comfort from a non-primitivist standpoint. But neither does Prof. Boudreaux's piece argue for more technological progress. The focus of this piece is the reason why we are so wealthy.

What caused this great wealth explosion? The most common answer is technology. This answer is wrong.

What Prof. Boudreaux does not sufficiently explain is that it is a misunderstanding of technology that causes people to give the wrong answer. Technology is not the cause of wealth; Technology is wealth.

An excellent example of how people misunderstand technology's place in the discussion of wealth can be seen in the comment section that follow the blog article Twelve Myths at Cafe Hayek (Yes, Prof. Boudreaux writes for Cafe Hayek... you thought you recognized that name, didn't you?) But the most important post in that comment section is the one made by Coyote:

Gotta add a big one, the one that is close to number one on my list (of economics myths):
Economics and wealth are zero-sum. If someone gets rich, someone of necesity must be getting poorer.

(Coyote gets into more detai about this on his own blog, where he takes abuse from readers who don't like his economics.)

The zero-sum concept is an easy one, but a wrong one. It is easy because it is how the world seems to work when we first look at it on the surface. Momma has some cookies for the kids. Johnny takes too many and now the rest of us have fewer. Johnny is cookie-wealthy and the rest of us hate him. He tells us to shut up and be happy we have any cookies at all - starving kids in China don't.

Johnny is like Bill Gates, right?

The thing is, that's not how the world really works. Look at all of the material wealth in the world - the cars, the plumbing, the computers, the shoes, the medicine, the Robogrips (Christmas hint), etc. If Johnny's greater wealth means the rest of us are more poor, ask yourself this question: Who had all of this incredible wealth 2,000 years ago? The Egyptians? The Aztecs? The Chinese?

Nobody did. The wealth had to be created over the years, not distributed. The reason I have indoor plumbing and hopefully a Robogrip is not because we have redistributed the wealth of the Pharohs. It is because people want technological advances to make their work easier, and to make their lives safer, and to make their families healthier, and to make their leisure last longer. Technology begets technology, but it doesn't make anybody wealthy without the ability to use a free market to distribute it in fair trade (a point missed by those at Cafe Hayek's comments page who cite the printing press example).

Basic economics teaches that free and fair trade is mutually advantageous. But how can both parties be advanced in a zero-sum game? They cannot - throw out your Oreo way of thinking.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2005

Tony Dungy's Son Found Dead

I promise you I'm not a Colts fan, but I had to make a quick comment on this. For those of you who haven't heard, James Dungy, the son of Colts head coach Tony Dungy, was found dead in his apartment. He was 18 years old. The cause of death is still pending an autopsy. The head coach flew down to Tampa to take care of things.

Here's my question...and please don't consider me heartless, I'm just a "sportswriter." Will this affect the Colts in a negative way in their drive for a Super Bowl Trophy? I would think that this could help them. A way for the players to play for their coach just a little bit harder on every play to try and ease the pain a bit with success on the field. To give him his first trophy, and the first one ever to a black head coach. It's a shame that his son won't be able to share the moment with him though.

Coach Dungy, I'm sure nothing I say will ease your pain, but I am sorry to hear the news about your son and my deepest condolences go out to you and your family. Stay strong, like the Coach you are.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 20, 2005

Barbara Boxer and John Dean Team Up

The following is a letter that was forwarded to me by a close friend who happens to be somewhere to the left of moveon.org:

Dear (name withheld), Yesterday, I issued the following release about President Bush's recent admission that he has personally authorized domestic surveillance without a court order. I sent the referenced letter to four presidential scholars, asking for their input:
Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School
Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
Susan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law Center
Michael Gerhardt, College of William and Mary School ofLaw

I hope you'll take a moment to read my statement below, and then forward this email to everyone you know. In Friendship, Barbara Boxer

Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense' December 19, 2005 Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future." Boxer's letter is as follows:
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today. On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement. This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens. Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement. Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer

I admire determination. After President Bush's comments the other night, which appealed to his base through candor and tough talk, Senator Boxer knew she had to hit back hard, appealing to her base with lunacy and tough talk - though I take this far less seriously than what the president had to say.

Incidentally, if you would like to contact Barbara Boxer for any reason other than to donate money, and you are not a citizen of California, she asks that you please don't. I remember hearing her on C-Span a few years back, saying that a US Senator is not holding a state office, but a federal office, and is responsible for the welfare of all Americans. That is an interesting justaposition of sentiments on the part of the Senator, in my opinion.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

State Funding Stem Cell Research

New Jersey has become the first state to use public money to fund human stem cell research. The state announced $5 million in grants Friday to be split among 17 projects, the New York Times reported. Only three involve human embryonic stem cells, with others studying animals or using adult stem cells... "The grants we have awarded today are based on science, not politics, and have been conceived by some of the brightest minds and best institutions in our state," acting Gov. Richard J. Codey said in a statement. "This funding will hopefully set the stage for a new era in medical treatments that will ease the suffering of millions and ultimately save lives."

(from physorg)

As a libertarian, I do not want to see this funded by the state. But in all honesty, the scientist in me is much more excited by the fact that the state is not trying to block stem cell research. In fact, my soon-to-be-ex-governor Mark Warner was complaining about Congress's anti-research stance just last week.

Congress, Warner said, has put too much emphasis on issues like the Terri Schiavo case, while blocking stem-cell research...

I would really rather not see federal money spent on this, but the current reality of scientific research on controversial issues like this one is that either the government funds it or bans it. Given that choice, which would you prefer?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Blogs Bigger Than Jesus

Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer Daniel RubinInquirer quotes Google as his source when he says blogs have become:

Bigger than Jesus. Bigger than sex.

(here)

While that is an amusing way to think of it, and I always appreciate a reference to the Beatles, I did enjoy the actual facts and figures laid out in the article.

Nine percent of American adults who surf the Web write blogs, according to Pew's Internet and American Life Project - that's 13 million people. And 27 percent of Internet users read them - 39 million Americans. That's only counting those 18 years old and up. Millions more young people post Web logs - diaries, sounding boards, screeds, commentaries that draw commentary - in places such as Xanga, LiveJournal, AOL and MySpace.

Hey Rammage, remember when our friend G-Dawg used to blog? That was great, wasn't it? Ah, the good old days...

On a similar topic, USA Today carried an article the other day on how people are using Google instead of remembering things. Speaking as a teacher who has internet access in the classroom, I can say that students had better get damned good with Google if they expect to make it in life, because they spend all of our lecture time on MySpace, posting their pictures and IMs to strangers around the world. With the computer open, the good Googlers can tell me just about anything I ask in under a minute, if it doesn't involve a calculation (give them an extra two if it does, Google does calculations you know... and unit conversions... try it!). But with the computer closed, it's no wonder why their standardized scores are dropping - they can't answer anything. I don't remember how bad the scores are at our school - why should I? I can Google it if I need to know.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Intelligent Design Finally Ruled Unscientific by Courts

"Intelligent Design" is a pretty vague concept. Its proponents feel it is scientific, despite the fact that it makes no falsifiable predictions and is therefore clearly not a scientific theory. It would get tossed out of any 4th grade science fair. Now, this doesn't make it untrue - a lot of things that would get tossed out of any 4th grade science fair still have value. But the measure of truth regarding Intelligent Design cannot be determined by science - it must be determined by faith, which means it does not belong in the curriculum. Today, a federal judge finally spelled it out for the ID camp (who will now return to the drawing board instead of "getting it" - EdWonk agrees, and wishes SCOTUS could settle it once and for all).

It is amazing to me that a court actually had to say this. Intelligent Design should never be taught in a science classroom as science, period. There is no reasonable way around this position. Having said that, I will still feel the need to bring it up in my science classroom again next year, as I have explained in the past at AtlasBlogged (Science is Not Afraid and ID in my Classroom?).

Some interesting reading on the subject can be found here (Jay W. Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez, pro-ID, interesting approach but wrong) and here (Charles Krauthammer against ID, Nail-On-The-Head Award). Both articles appeared in the Philadephia Inquirer and act as a little bit of point/counter point for the interested reader who just doesn't know where to stand.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Where There's Smoke, You're Fired

UPDATE: SEE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE

Beginning next October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.
Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs.

(full article from the Billings Gazette here)

In this day and age, there are few legal things that carry a social stigma like smoking. (Heck, I won't even give back Rammage's Cranium game until he quits.) Socially unaccepted or not, smoking is still legal... well, it's legal in your own home. The October 9, 2003 smoking ban in Montgomery County, MD is the one that is most near and dear to Atlas Blogged's own beleaguered Rammage, but there have been well-publicized bans on smoking in Florida, New York, California, Delaware, and Massachusetts (anti-smoker propaganda link here).

Simply put, these laws are authoritarian intrusions on our freedoms. Libertarian minded people should value the right of the business owners to determine for themselves whether or not smoking will be permitted, as spelled out in this article by the Cato Institute back in 2003. The government should not be involved with this decision at all.

And in the same way, smokers should not look to the government to protect them from Scott's or other employers who choose to discriminate against employees who smoke.

So what's the deal at Scotts, anyway? Why do they hate people like Rammage?

The no-smoking mandate is part of a broader effort at Scotts to control health-care costs. The company also opened a $5 million fitness and medical facility for employees.

Of course, there are some reasonable voices asking for a middle ground.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, disagrees with the new Scotts policy. His New Jersey not-for-profit organization is focused on expanding human rights in the workplace. "What you do in your own home on your own time is none of your boss' business," Maltby said. People who smoke do incur higher medical costs, Maltby said, but employers can protect themselves in other ways, such as charging smokers more to participate in company-sponsored medical plans. An increasing number of companies are doing that. In central Ohio, Cardinal Health, Children's Hospital, Gannett, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Longaberger Company are among those charging higher health-insurance premiums to smokers. Chase, one of the region's largest employers with 13,700 workers, also charges smokers higher rates for supplemental life and long-term disability insurance. To avoid the higher charges, an employee must not have smoked any cigarettes, cigars or pipes in the 12 months prior to Jan. 1 or must complete an approved stop-smoking class, spokesman Jeff Lyttle said. The extra charge applies even if the employee doesn't smoke but a dependent covered under the employee's health insurance does.

This seems much more reasonable. In fact, why not extend it to other substances as well? How would this not work with opium or cocaine?

This issue has been growing since Weyco hit the news a few months ago, which has created "a wellness program that will allow spouses who don't smoke to earn discounts on their health insurance rates."

...that discount is $80 a month, so in essence, those who smoke, or refuse to take a blood test to prove they don't, will pay almost $1,000 more a year for coverage. Weyco Council David Houston: "There are discounts for other healthy behaviors, including going to the gym for example."

"The Gym" would be a good name for a cigar bar, wouldn't it?

Others on the topic: Unrepentant Individual (Nail On The Head award, and we love them to begin with), Christopher Hannegan, Life Under the Big Top, and a bunch I didn't find interesting.

UPDATE Rammage has informed me that he no longer smokes, and I therefore will be returning his Cranium game to him the next time I see him.

UPDATE #2 Check out the comment written by MichaelW at QandO's discussion of this topic. Is he crazy? Big Tobacco can't push this info better than Michael W? I've never been involved in second-hand-smoke research, but I find it hard to believe that it's anything but unhealthy to inhale that crap. QandO's article is on something a bit more intrusive, and while I still disagree with the knee-jerk smoker's rights comments seen there, I agree with author McQ's take: how long will it be before the claim is extended to those who live in the household?
I can see a "for the children" right on the horizon.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2005

SUV-Haunted World: What Would Carl Sagan Say About Today's Environmentalism

Scientists are now saying that global warming may cause global cooling, or, in some cases, the next ice age. I find this particularly interesting that now, whether the global temperatures rise or fall, SUVs can be blamed either way. In fact, there now appears to be no way to avoid a run-away greenhouse effect or the next ice age, other than the immediate and unmitigated outlawing of all SUVs.

As someone who considers himself a big fan of scientists, the scientific method, and the epistemology of science, I am little embarrassed how, seemingly most, scientists are conducting themselves in the area of environmentalism these days. I often wonder what my scientific hero, Carl Sagan, would have written about today’s fervor over global warming and the impacts that humans are having on the earth.

I know that Sagan was an early voice in calling attention to the hole developing in the ozone layer. In one of his books, (Demon Haunted World?) Sagan even went so far to say that authors Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin, of the seminal paper on discovering the Antarctic ozone depletion, should have statues erected in their honor. Or perhaps he just said their names should be recognized by every grade school student, I don’t remember. The point is, he was quick to leap to conclusions. And generally speaking, we want our scientists to be very slow leapers.

But Carl Sagan was an exceptionally reasonable man. Despite his petty snub by the National Academy of Sciences, Sagan always impressed me by how he was continually evolving in his beliefs, and how he was capable of overcoming the homogeneous mind-set of progressive Western academia. For example, for years he had been an opponent of laboratory animal testing. However, he later admitted, after he had been diagnosed with myelodysplasia and been forced to receive a bone marrow transplant, that without the benefit of animal testing he would have died (sooner).

After Sagan’s death on December 20th, 1996, I joined a Carl Sagan email list, and enjoyed corresponding with other Sagan fans. I left the list about 4 or 5 years later, after it was overrun by leftist apostles who viewed Sagan, ironically enough, as their environmental evangelist. Minus the moonbats, I miss those Sagan list discussions, as I miss reading Sagan himself.

I often wonder what his take would be on the global warming hysteria today. No other subject seems to elicit such myopia in the scientific community, or garners such a backlash towards opposing views, as global warming [See: Dr. Bjorn Lomborg's controversial “The Environmental Skeptic.”] Standing up to anything short of global annihilation is a guarantee of censure in the collegiate circuit, or perhaps denial of membership into the National Academy of Sciences.

Would Carl Sagan be the candle in the dark today, urging caution upon scientists before jumping to conclusions about the cause of global warming? Would he be a voice of temperance in the gale of panic? I would like to believe that he'd have thrown his hands up by the time the global-warming-induced ice age talk arose. Surely he would recognize that the scientific community has played judge, jury, and executioner to the SUV, regardless – nay, in spite of – any evidence before them. Their behavior in global warming specifically and environmentalism in general, has been anything but scientific. And I don’t think Carl Sagan would have approved, regardless of what the Nobel Laureates at the NAS bloviate.

But, any guesses on my part towards Sagan’s stance on today’s environmentalist movement are just that: guesses. I really don’t know what he’d say. But the lesson that I have learned since Carl Sagan’s departure is a sad one: the scientific community that I came to know and love is just as susceptible to the political whims and pressures as any other group, perhaps even moreso because of their shackles to government grants.

In the end, all I know for certain is that the earth’s climate will likely rise, fall, or stay the same. And, undoubtedly, SUVs will be to blame.

Previous: Environmentalists are Primitivists in Faux Sheep's Clothing

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 10, 2005

the 22 Greatest Scientific Breakthroughs of the 20th century

In his new book, "The Discoveries," novelist and physicist Alan Lightman offers his list of the 22 greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century, devoting a chapter to each and reprinting the scientific papers in which they were presented. The list of 22 is provided here by the Boston Globe, or you can expand this article with the link three lines down...

So... what are the odds we manage to teach all of this stuff to our children before awarding them diplomas? I may have found a specific goal for this year's classes.

1. THE QUANTUM - Max Planck (1900)
2. HORMONES - William Bayliss and Ernest Starling (1902)
3. THE PARTICLE NATURE OF LIGHT - Albert Einstein (1905)
4. SPECIAL RELATIVITY - Albert Einstein (1905)
5. THE NUCLEUS OF THE ATOM - Ernest Rutherford (1911)
6. THE SIZE OF THE COSMOS - Henrietta Leavitt (1912)
7. THE ARRANGEMENT OF ATOMS IN SOLID MATTER - W. Friedrich, P. Knipping, and M. von Laue (1912)
8. THE QUANTUM ATOM - Niels Bohr (1913)
9. THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NERVES - Otto Loewi (1921)
10. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE - Werner Heisenberg (1927)
11. THE CHEMICAL BOND - Linus Pauling (1928)
12. THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE - Edwin Hubble (1929)
13. ANTIBIOTICS - Alexander Fleming (1929)
14. THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF ENERGY IN LIVING ORGANISMS - Hans Krebs and W. A. Johnson (1937)
15. NUCLEAR FISSION - Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann (1939); and Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch (1939)
16. THE MOVABILITY OF GENES - Barbara McClintock (1948)
17. THE STRUCTURE OF DNA - James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick (1953); and Rosalind E. Franklin and R. G. Gosling (1953)
18. THE STRUCTURE OF PROTEINS - Max F. Perutz, M. G. Rossmann, Ann F. Cullis, Hilary Muirhead, Georg Will, and A. C. T. North (1960)
19. RADIO WAVES FROM THE BIG BANG - Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson (1965); and Robert H. Dicke, P. James E. Peebles, Peter G. Roll, and David T. Wilkinson (1965)
20. A UNIFIED THEORY OF FORCES - Steven Weinberg (1967)
21. QUARKS - M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, H. W. Kendall, E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. DeStaebler, J. Drees, L. W. Mo, and R. E. Taylor (1969)
22. THE CREATION OF ALTERED FORMS OF LIFE - David A. Jackson, Robert H. Symons, and Paul Berg (1972)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 7, 2005

A Day that will Live in Infamy

So, what did you do today? Was it worth the sacrifice?

I have an uncle who enlisted in the navy on December 8, 1941. He spent the next few years risking life and limb in order to serve the righteous cause. He, like many others, fought for the freedoms that are enjoyed by this nation, that so many in history have been deprived of. He, like many others, had moments when he nearly died.

He just recently celebrated his 80th birthday. He never spoke with anyone about what he went through, until 1993 when I asked to interview him for a college history course I took on World War II. It was a difficult experience for us both, and I am extremely glad I had the chance to hear his story. Millions of people died in that war, and cannot tell their stories. Thousands of our servicemembers died on this Day of Infamy, and cannot tell their stories to their children, grandchildren, or nephews who are taking college courses.

My uncle told me that every day, he asks himself whether he had done anything more with the day than they would have. Was it worth the sacrifice? I find the question too difficult for daily contemplation, but today I will think about it, and the freedoms we enjoy because of those sacrifices.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 6, 2005

The Richmond City School Board's Johnson

News from Richmond, Virginia::

Stephen B. Johnson resigned as Richmond School Board chairman Monday night after reports last week that his profile appeared on an explicit dating Web site.

(full story here)

The bare-chested photos have since been removed, but had been posted in the gay section of manhunt.net. Johnson's photo was reportedly not explicit in nature, but the text describing him was reportedly very graphic. Richmond.com and the school board seem to be taking a very tolerant approach to this issue - after all, is a man not free to do what he likes in his private life? He has broken no law, endangered no child, and done absolutely nothing wrong. Deborah Jewell-Sherman, superintendent of city schools, led the school board and meeting audience in giving Johnson a standing ovation last night, and thanked him for his service on the school board, which will continue despite this incident. How can this behavior be bad enough to warrant his resignation as chairman of the school board, but acceptable enough that he should stay on the board in any capacity.

Board member Carol A.O. Wolf, District 3, said Johnson demonstrated true leadership when he decided to voluntarily resign as chairman of the school board.
"He is a good man and a great soul," she said. "He will continue to fight to make things right for the children of Richmond . . . A lesser man would have been undone by this invasion of privacy. He deserves respect for being willing to admit error and to keep working to make our schools better."

Invasion of privacy? Ms. Wolf does not seem to agree with what Doinkicarus and I had to say here. How is it a privacy issue if the man posts pictures of himself on the internet? Remember, these are the people responsible for the education of the children of Richmond - and they don't seem to understand the difference between public and private!

Also, I will keep these comments in mind the next time I see that a teacher is found to be posting images and information on an explicit gay singles website. I am curious to know whether Richmond.com and the school board will show the same level of understanding then. I await the standing ovation that teacher will receive - anything less would be the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I have nothing against Mr. Johnson, and it certainly does not bother me if he is gay, but his decision to post this type of singles ad was so ill-advised as to be worrisome. Would you want someone this foolish holding such power over the schooling of your children? What are those children to make of the example he is setting here? This is a member of their School Board!

Not everyone is taking the example Johnson sets so lightly. Richmond Morning Show host Jimmy Barrett asks, "Is Stephen Johnson right when he says the Times-Dispatch article about him is a cheap shot?" (at Newsradio 1140 AM)

Last night's Richmond School Board meeting was a Stephen Johnson lovefest as employees lined up to defend his actions and accuse the Richmond Times-Dispatch of running a smear job on the embattled school board member. Johnson himself called the article that outed his presence on a pornographic gay dating website "a cheap shot." The impression you get is that it was done strictly for political reasons. That somehow Richmonders do not have a right to know about this "private" part of Stephen Johnson's life. OK, I'll grant you that he wasn't involved in child pornography but this website does cast doubts about his decision making abilities and would be unsavory for any school official to be involved with. Interestingly enough, we did find out from school board member George Braxton that this would not present a job problem for ANY school employee, teachers and principals included....That's a scary thought! The overall opinion expressed by many other Richmond school employees seems to be 'everyone makes mistakes' and 'Mr. Johnson did no wrong.' A liberal urban school agenda? Or are they right? Cheap shot? Or public service? That's our Question of the Day.

84% of respondents say Johnson is wrong, and voters have every right to know what kind of man he is. Normally, I really don't care for talk-show callers or on-line polls, but I think this is in such stark contrast to the opinions expressed by the school board members that it merits some thought. Again, this is the example he set for teachers and students - we all now know this is completely acceptable behavior in Richmond, VA.

At least we are clear on that.

Interesting commentary on this issue at the following sites:
Richmond Magazine Blog tears into the Richmond Times Dispatch for its own hypocrisy in this case.
Once More into the Breach with the same thoughts I have, but more succinctly.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 4, 2005

Monopolies and Innovation

Competition is what drives change...not monopoly. Thus spaketh Libertarian Jason, in the comments section of Rammage's Voting GOP article.

This is conventional wisdom. But you might be surprised about how accurate it is. Last May, the Economist ran an article about how the reverse is surprisingly true - I will post excerpts, but the full article can be found here (subscription required). If you do not have a subscription and would like to see the whole thing, ask me nicely in the comments section and I will email it. [Try to get that kind of friendly service from Michelle Malkin or Daily Kos!]

Economists long ago pointed out why it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market. In essence, the trouble with monopolists is that they can set prices almost as they please. Unlike in competitive industries, a monopolist's price, in the jargon, can be way above the marginal cost of production. Worse, immunity to competition makes a monopolist fat and lazy. It needn't worry too much about keeping customers happy. Worse still, if a company has no fear of competition, why should it bother creating new and better products?
Despite this, compelling evidence that monopolists stifle innovation is harder to come by than simple theory suggests. Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist, pointed out many years ago that established firms play a big role in innovation. In modern times, it appears that many product innovations, in industries from razor blades to software, are made by companies that have a dominant share of the market. Most mainstream economists, however, have had difficulty explaining why this might be so.

One possibility might be that the empirical connection between market share and innovation is spurious: might big firms innovate more simply because they are big, not because they are dominant? A paper published a few years ago... did much to resolve this empirical question. In a detailed analysis of British manufacturing firms, it found that higher market shares do go with higher investment in research and development, which in turn is likely to lead to greater innovation. Still, the question remains: why does it happen?

Note to Jason the Libertarian - it would seem that political parties do not engage in research and development, so this may not be germaine to our earlier conversation. But is this so different from the polling and other methods employed by the Democrats or Republicans? Political parties try to supply what the voter wants, and they spend a lot of time and money figuring out what that is. It's not so different.

A new paper by Federico Etro, of the University of Milan, aims to resolve the paradox. He sets out a model in which a market leader has a greater incentive than any other firm to keep innovating and thus stay on top. Blessed with scale and market knowledge, it is better placed than potential rivals to commit itself to financing innovations. Oddly--paradoxically, if you like--in fighting to maintain its monopoly it acts more competitively than firms in markets in which there is no obviously dominant player.

Doesn't this imply that the Democrats and Republicans must be innovative parties in order to maintain their control of American politics? That's exactly what it means. The Republicans no longer have abolition as their primary plank. Democrats are no longer anti-Federalist in their aims. They adapt in order to maintain their superiority over other parties.

The most important requirement for this result is a lack of barriers to entry: these might include, for example, big capital outlays to fund the building of new laboratories, or regulatory or licensingvrestrictions that make it hard for new firms to threaten an incumbent. If there are no such barriers, a monopolist will have an excellent reason to innovate before any potential competitor comes up with the next new thing. It stands to lose its current, bloated profits if it does not; it stands to gain plenty from continued market dominance if it does.

Here we have a mix - there are huge barriers to entry for third parties in this country. Thus, in some ways, the GOP and Democrats have an easy time playing off of one another and not worrying about the "threat" from the Green Party, Reform Party, LP, etc. However, there is no barrier to entry in the parties themselves. They are more vulnerable in this sense than any corporation. What effect would a million libertarians have on the GOP? Or on the Democrats?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 3, 2005

What Privacy in Public?

You privacy minded people, answer me this: What exactly is privacy, and what are the limits of a citizen's right to privacy? If you don't feel like discussing the issue, at least read this story about a gay student who was suspended for making out at school, and who now has been given the go-ahead by a federal judge to proceed with a lawsuit charging that her privacy rights were violated when the principal called home and informed her mother what had led to the suspension.

But in a larger, more general sense, what claim of privacy do you feel is your right? Is your privacy violated in some way if you are followed, photographed, or recorded in public? Why is it illegal to record a telephone call without informing the recorded party? Do you believe in a right to e-nonymity?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)