February 2009

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

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

-John F. Kennedy

January 30, 2006

No Filibuster

Samuel Alito again inches closer to confirmation:

The U.S. Senate has voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, clearing the way for his likely confirmation Tuesday.

If the Democrats had any confidence in their ability to win the Senate in the 2006 elections, they would have filibustered Alito and forced the Republican hand. But it seems they are wisely saving the filibuster issue for the next nominee - the one to replace John Paul Stevens. We speculate the elderly Justice Stevens will retire (or be poisoned) before the end of Bush's term. And you thought we had heard the end of the "nuclear option" vs "constitutional option" debate, and the (un)importance of Roe vs Wade.

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

January 29, 2006

Let Them Build Their Fences

On December 16th, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill that would upgrade illegal immigration to a felony. It would also make it a crime to employ or aid undocumented migrants. And it would authorize “physical infrastructure enhancements” - a fence hundreds of miles long, separating Mexico from the United States of America.

The fence has been a hot issue. Immigration itself is a hot issue, but there really is no getting around the facts of it (there is a supply in Mexico and a demand in the USA - it will happen one way or another).

However, there are ways of getting around a fence. Or over one, or under one. Hasn't Congress seen Shawshank Redemption? Or Hogan's Heroes?

MEXICAN officials have discovered the deepest tunnel ever gouged under the US border, equipped with electricity and ventilation and concealing two tonnes of cannabis. The scale of the tunnel — the 21st discovered in more than four years — stunned authorities, who said that the passageway revealed the lengths to which smugglers would go to evade detection. The underground smuggling route began near the airport in Tijuana, Mexico, and ended 2,400ft (720m) away in a warehouse in San Diego in the US...

Full story here. So, how much would this fence cost, anyway? How high would it be? And, um, how DEEP would the fence be? That's what I need to know.

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

January 28, 2006

Tiananmen Squared != Google

According to these images found on Google China, Tiananmen Square seems like such a nice place to visit, or stage a protest. Contrast this with the uncensored version here.

Contrast some other image search key words like liberty, freedom, capitalism, democracy, and so forth. It's like trying to find a conservative audiobook on iTunes.

Communism. God love it. Let's give it another try here in America. [Slaps Noam Chomsky]

Looks like it's time to dust off Yahoo as my engine of choice, once again.

Hat tip to Junkyard Blog, Michelle Malkin, and Wanderlust (for the image).

Previous: Google's Subpoena

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

January 26, 2006

Redistribution of Wealth

We in the United States of America oppose the redistribution of wealth by the government; after all... we are not Communists.

So, what percentage of the US federal budget goes to the redistribution of wealth? What percentage of US GDP is redistributed?

Captain Capitalism knows. As is usually the case, he has some beautiful graphs to help spell it out. There really is no excuse for not following the link and checking this out.

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

US Army and the Death Penalty

By what rules should the United States military play when it comes to executions of servicemembers on death row? How often does this even come up? The US Army has long held Leavenworth as its only site for carrying out death sentences, but recent changes to the rules make other sites usable. Some worry about the Army carrying out executions in places far from the public eye, but is that a worry?

NPR's John Hendren had a nice report on this a couple of days ago. It's an interesting story. Check it out here.

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

January 25, 2006

Gulf War Syndrome 15 years later

Fifteen years ago this month, the first Gulf War began. Shortly thereafter, US troops began experiencing a "mystery illness" that still has not been identified - just labeled. Roughly a quarter of deployed vets complained of the symptoms that came to be known as "chronic multisymptom illness" (CMI). Listen here to a story that aired on NPR last week on the fact that veterans still show symptoms, and scientists still can't figure out exactly what or why.

As the story notes, many critics have claimed that "Gulf War Syndrome" is not real - they attributed it to war time stress. In November, an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology noted:

CMI continues to be substantially more prevalent among deployed veterans than among nondeployed veterans 10 years after Gulf War I, but it manifests similarly in both groups. It is likely to be a common, persistent problem among veterans returning from the current Gulf War.

But troops serving in Iraq today are not experiencing the same problems after all, despite the greater level of stress in this deployment (longer period, multiple tours of duty, higher casualty rate, insurgent attacks, etc.). There is of course disagreement about why this is the case, but hopefully we will find out.
Listen to Joseph Shapiro's follow-up story on NPR here.

UPDATE: I am not exactly sure what to make of this:

Veterans of the first Persian Gulf War suffering from medically unexplained fatigue associated with Gulf War Syndrome may have a genetic predisposition for developing the condition, geneticists at the University at Buffalo have found.

If true, this is fascinating research with huge implications.

Their research, involving healthy veterans and veterans with severe and chronic fatigue, as well as non-veterans with chronic fatigue syndrome, showed that affected veterans, in comparison with healthy controls, had an increased frequency of a nonbeneficial genetic variant in a gene involved in the production of angiotension-converting-enzyme (ACE), an enzyme important in the control of blood pressure and electrolyte balance.
Unexpectedly, the nonbeneficial variant was less common among non-veterans with symptoms identical to those of Gulf War Syndrome, indicating that the genetic variant rendered the carriers more susceptible to triggers present in the Gulf-War environment.
Results were reported in the July issue of Muscle and Nerve.

The PI is Georgirene Vladutiu, Ph.D., UB professor of pediatrics, neurology and pathology. She also directs the Robert Guthrie Biochemical Genetics Laboratory at the Women and Children's Hospital of Buffalo and specializes in the laboratory diagnosis of metabolic muscle diseases.
A couple of comments from her:

"Soldiers serving now are exposed to different environmental triggers. In addition, our sample is small. We need to prove or disprove these findings in a larger group of veterans from different theaters of war."

"If the results show a specific association only in veterans of the first Gulf War, then there was likely an environmental factor, such as one or more chemical exposures that, combined with variations in the ACE gene, predisposed certain individuals to the development of medically unexplained chronic fatigue."

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

January 24, 2006

Roe V Wade doesn't matter

Last July, I wrote about replacing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

All I know for certain is that we have spoken for years in this country about Roe v. Wade as the litmus test for the court appointments. Would this person uphold it or overturn it? But should this particular litmus test matter?

As Samuel Alito inches closer to SCOTUS (clearing the US Senate Committee on a party line vote today), I encourage pro-choice readers to read why it isn't that big of a deal.

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

Congress, Corruption, and a Solution

The GOP is taking a beating on this corruption issue. And rightly so - they betrayed the trust of... um... whoever it was in this country that used to trust Congress. Everybody is on their case, including themselves. The candidates for House Majority Leader have weighed in on the issue, and are trying to distance themselves from Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff (see Congress for Sale at QandO). That's awfully hard for most representatives to do, because they are personal friends and relatives and coworkers of the lobbyists. Some members of Congress are married to lobbyists. How is the public supposed to see that relationship?

NPR's Andrea Seabrook notes the Abramoff scandal is just part of a "wider, deeper scandal in Congress":

Those high-profile relationships between big-money lobbyists and congressional leaders have trained public hawkeyes on other instances of quid pro quo -- or the appearance thereof...
The snowball effect has begun. All kinds of relationships members have with lobbyists are under pressure now in ways they have not been since the Republicans seized control of Congress in 1994. Back then, after 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House, one of the GOP's big issues was integrity in office. After a dozen years in power, they find themselves defending their own record on the same issue.

In other words, the problem isn't because of the party in power. The problem is the power itself.

I direct you to an excellent article on the topic by James Ridgeway of the Village Voice:

The proposals for the reform of lobbying announced last week by both parties are window dressing for this year's midterm elections. The measures have nothing to do with reform and should have the overall effect of making people only more angry at the corruption on Capitol Hill.

Absolutely. Ridgeway then goes on to point out the problem with earmarks - the power of a single representative to engage in quid pro quo. Without the power to earmark, it would be useless for a lobbyist to pocket a lone representative on an issue, or a small group. And it wouldn't make sense to stuff their coffers, because they couldn't deliver anything by themselves.

If you are unfamiliar with earmarks, there is a lot of good literature popping up out there. Try listening to this NPR story. But sit down for it unless you are a union member or a card carrying communist. And remember that if you shout at your computer, the people in the audio file cannot actually hear you.

John Fund noted in the WSJ that earmarks

...are often last-minute additions to conference reports that were never considered in the original bills passed by either the House or Senate. They can thus avoid competitive bidding, performance standards or even disclosure of the direct recipient.

To me, it is unbelievable that representatives are defending this. In the United States of America, that is. These guys sound like the villains in an after school special, but it's real.
Fund:

Sens. Tom Coburn and John McCain now plan to challenge every hidden earmark. "If we aren't told who is asking for it, who benefits and its justification, we'll move to strike it," Mr. Coburn told me. He expects many earmarks to be quietly withdrawn rather than face such scrutiny.

Jon Henke at Q and O refers to this as "Sunlight!", but he is right when he says

that's just a stop-gap measure. If the Coburn/McCain challenge works, we ought to institutionalize the sunlight. Yes, I'm referring again to Line Item Budgeting.

Something has to be done. If the right solution is not enacted, the wrong one will be. For example, Ridgeway's article concludes that

The only serious recourse for reform would be a constitutional amendment banning private money from elections and making them completely publicly financed.

That sounds like a proposal that would actually get a lot of support. Be warned.

See Representative Ron Paul's take here:

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

January 21, 2006

Google's Subpoena

Some good points brought up by Kip:

--Google has not been accused of any crime whatsoever; neither have those whose searches would be turned over to the government. --The purpose of the subpoena is related to a law that the Supreme Court has already found unconstitutional. --If the federal government wants to know what sites (e.g., pornography) come up from web searches, they could, um, try searching Google themselves.

from Defcon:Blog:

So now it's clear: They want the data, the information, the aggregates and the individuals. Let's not make it any easier for them, by say, asking them to provide us with internet service.

(He is referring to the issue of "free" WiFi, considered here from the standpoint of government monopoly, and here from the point that there is no such thing as a free wifi. At the local level, it's all about scoring political points.)

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

Dragging Brown Sludge into the Sunlight

I was wary of the blog Brown Sludge from the get-go. The author (Mac) has a pic of himself reading Exporting America by Lou Dobbs. Bad sign. The book should have the subtitle, "A xenophobic failure to comprehend macroeconomics".

Professor Don Boudreaux has made some excellent observations about Lou Dobbs before:

A rhetoric strategy used by opponents of free trade is to describe the things that domestic consumers buy from abroad as superfluities -- cheap, pathetic, contemptible indulgences that consumers selfishly gobble up from foreign producers and, in the process, damage the domestic economy.

(Trinkets and Trade, Oct 30 '05)
and,

There’s a positive correlation between someone’s vigor in protesting international trade and that person’s ignorance of definitions, facts, history, and analyses.

(Dobbs on Deficits, Jan 30 '05)

These apply to Lou Dobbs, certainly. They also apply to Mac. He was first brought to my attention by Rammage last week, when Brown Sludge attacked Michelle Malkin for her support of Capitalism and its giants - WalMart in particular.

I’d like to ask her when we on the Right stopped being the party of the individual – and the individual’s rights – and became the party of the corporation – and corporatism? When did we become the party of corporate greed?

Rammage recognizes a Zero-Sum collectivist when he reads one.

Now, I'm not exactly a disciple of Malkin, and I take shots at "The Right" myself. But I just had to comment on Mac's mischaracterization of WalMart's business practices. WalMart doesn't put competitors out of business - the customers do. Even Hollywood got that one right.
Mac engaged me in a little conversation, but I was left feeling unsatisfied when he didn't publish my last comment. Oh well, no harm done... it's his blog, after all. But when Rammage suggested that the conversation might actually make a good entry here at AtlasBlogged, I agreed.

UPDATE: see bottom of article.

The original article can be found here at the blog Brown Sludge. The comments section is as follws, unedited:

Wulf Says:
January 14th, 2006 at 7:22 am
She knows that the first thing Big Box Mart does when it enters a community is set to work shuttering every small and independent business on Mainstreet.

They would be arrested if they did that. You are not allowed to just walk up to somebody else’s private property and nail shutters over the doors and windows.

Oh, wait - did you mean that they immediately set to work having such a wide selection and such low prices that mom and pop can’t compete? I agree, they do that - and that’s capitalism. THE CONSUMER then has to make the decision: What is more important? Wide selection and low prices at one stop? Or supporting mom and pop?

Why should I choose to go to 7 different mom and pop stores for my shopping needs, pay more money than I would at WalMart at each one? Oil change, groceries, clothes, electronics, I can get it all!

Incidentally, I do choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart, but I am curious to see if you know why I would do that. It isn’t because I hate them, or because they allegedly bully their employees into working off the clock, or any of that other stuff. And it certainly isn’t because of Michelle Malkin.

Mac Says:
January 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
It’s all about greed.

Your greed.

Your greed to save a few pennies and a little time drives you to shop at a place that will send virtually every cent you give them to an out of town headquarters and impoverish your own neighborhood.

You are absolutely free to shop anywhere you like for any reason you like, and you can tell yourself that your being “frugal” or are taking your finances “seriously” - but when you actively choose to give your money to an out of town corporation who is actively working to destroy locally owned and independent businesses in your community - many of which are owned by people who live in and contribute to your community - you are contributing to the destruction of your own community.

It’s good that you don’t feel guilty about that. Many people don’t.

But there is a growing contingent of people who do (yes, even Republicans), and who are working to make sure that local, independent businesses get their business - even if it costs a few pennies more here and there - because they are wise enough to understand that there is no “value” in destroying your own community.

And every penny you give to a large corporate Big Box store instead of your local or independently owned retailer leaves your community instead of enriching it - and it’s a penny you’re taking away from retailers and their employees who live and work and contribute directly to your community.
I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.

“Capitalism” implies competition - and when there is only one source for goods and jobs you no longer have a “free market” you have what’s called a MONOPOLY.

Here are a couple of links to help you on your way

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/capitalism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/monopoly

A quick aside - many of America’s Founding Fathers thought the idea of monopolistic corporations so odious that they originally tried to include wordage in the Bill of Rights banning them outright.

Wulf Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pm

It’s all about greed. Your greed.
When I choose to shop at WalMart, it is about my greed, yes. I can buy the same products for less. In fewer stops. I save time and money - frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.

I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.
Wow, that’s quite some hubris you’ve got there. The need to talk down to readers/commenters comes from where, exactly? Thanks for the pointless links and the unnecessary insults - I am well aware of what capitalism is (and why it is good), and what a monopoly is (tip: WalMart is not one). Since you seem to appreciate links, try this one:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/12/monopolies_and.php

Also, I think you have misunderstood my question to you. I will try once more - I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart. Do you know why?

Mac Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pm

I apologize if you felt “talked down to”.

I perceive your original post to be more than a little antagonistic - so… you reap what you sow.

“frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.”

You do realize that Gordon Gekko’s speech was meant as a satire, don’t you??

At least your honest about your motivations - or lack thereof.

In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.

And as for the nice article (very well written by the way) that tries to make that case that greed begets innovation… well… you don’t have to be Fellini to see though that old canard.

The idea that corporate greed drives innovation is what I call a “Rush Limbaugh” argument. Long on rhetoric - and extraordinarily short on substance. It does no such thing - and my exact point in all this is that it’s because of ideas like this that Right is losing ideological strength with it’s core Conservative base - and allowing us to be painted as the Party of Corporate Greed instead of the Party of the Individual - and Individual Rights.

From where I sit you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

At once ranting on about how proud you are of your patronization of an institution that hurts your community and quite proud of your greed - and at the same time trying to explain to me why you “support some mom and pop stores” over WalMart.

Please… feel free to enlighten me as to your reasons…

Wulf Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.
I don’t agree.
Incidentally, I grew up in a rural town where mom and pop were more of a virtual monopoly than WalMart is today. The mom and pop grocery store is struggling, because they charged a lot of money. WalMart is in the next town over and people have increased their standard of living because of it. Family and friends from these rural towns buy things at WalMart that simply were not available within an hour’s drive previously. This makes WalMart good, as far as those rural towns are concerned. And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?

I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind. You simply called it a canard, but you seem to have missed the point of the Economist article - that the canard is the idea that it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market.

Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but many of their former employees are better off, as are their customers. In reality, there are no fewer pennies staying in town than there used to be. In fact, the community can gain overall - it is not a zero-sum game, and just because WalMart shareholders made billions of dollars does not mean the rest of us in the world are worse off. It sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics, and do not like capitalism at its core - you want a managed economy, and maybe you would like to call it capitalism for some reason. If that’s the case, we disagree at too deep a level to be solved here, I am sure.

So, why do I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart? Greed. Greed - the Virtue of Selfishness - is not just about money. For some products/services, I want higher quality goods than WalMart carries. For some products/services, I want an atmosphere of greater comfort and leisure. For a few products/services, I just value the friendship of mom and pop enough to shell out a little extra in order to see them and ask about the kids and be happy about the visit. Consumers don’t want low prices - they want more bang for their buck. I don’t pay mom and pop more for a gallon of milk than WalMart charges, but I will pay them more for a haircut, or a pair of pants that don’t just fit, they fit perfectly. The fact is, mom and pop stores are surviving all around the globe, next to WalMart, because they reinvent themselves as higher quality establishments where you can purchase luxury with all of the money you saved.

…at WalMart.

Mac Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 11:04 pm

“And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?”

Apocryphal stories are of little value. Anyone who believes that Big Box stores “increases the standard of living” of anyone with their cheap Chinese made goods and their destruction of communities is well… beyond the reach of reason frankly.

I think your comment pretty much removes all doubt about that.

“I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind”

Uhm… dude… it was your argument - and the entire point of the Economist’s article you asked me to read.

He argues (and you support him) in the article that “it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market”. Then you turn around and argue with me for saying basically the same thing here. Seems a little schizophrenic to me.

“Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but…” [QFE]

Both sides of your mouth - Left Side says “you don’t really show it to be true” / Right side admits you know full well that “mom and pop are hurt” then you start with the rationalizations. Sorry… but your guilt is your problem.

“sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics” Oh dear. Regurgitated Rush Limbaugh. /gag. Let me help you here. I’m not for zero sum economics. I think there is plenty of wealth to go around. I’d just prefer to support the individuals (read: mine, my neighbors, my family, and my communities) right to that wealth.

That’s the TRUE Conservative’s bottom line. Individual rights. Not corporate greed.

You even go on to admit in your final paragraph that when you need Quality - you seek out Mom and Pop. Again - that schizophrenic both sides of your mouth thing.

As I said… your post kind of stands as testimony to itself. LOL.

I’d like to finish this entire ‘debate’ with you - since you’ve borrowed your name from an author and philosopher whom I’ve studied at length and who I have a great respect for - by cautioning you that you’ve done her (and yourself) a great disservice.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “The Virtue Of Selfishness” and “The Utopia of Greed” was directed at the INDIVIDUAL. Her entire body of work and the entire crux of the Randian hero was his INDIVIDUALITY and his fight against a COLLECTIVE mind set.

There are few more collectivist and anti-capitalist (in the real sense) ideals than that of unbridled corporatism - and their dependence on government handouts and friendly legislation purchased from a greedy and over sized government.

Chew on that for a little bit.

Let me know what you spit out.

end of thread

What I "spit out" after that does not appear on Mac's site - he appears to have deleted it, which is the whole point of my dragging the conversation out into the sunlight over here. Mac has missed several points, and I'd like to point them out.

First, you cannot just make a claim like "WalMart is a monopoly" and expect me to take it as an axiom. WalMart is not a monopoly, and anyone who would like me to believe otherwise should bring some proof. Mac tried to dodge that issue by saying WalMart is a virtual monopoly in a few select secret rural towns, but that's not true either. Besides the fact that Mac still hadn't offered any proof to support his claim, it happens that I am familiar with several rural WalMarts between the Carolinas and upstate NY, so I am not just basing my statements on conjecture. He rejects my "apocryphal stories", but that is awfully hypocritical for somebody who is trying to get by with no proof that WalMart is a virtual monopoly in certain unnamed secret rural towns.

Second, I don't think Mac read the Economist article. The Economist certainly does not make an argument in the article that “it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market”. They simply state that it is a long-held belief of economists that this is so - another axiom, really. They then take one aspect of that belief and pick it apart. And really, it's a great article.

Third, Mac seems to take a collectivist view of what is good or bad for a community. If mom and pop (who charge a lot and offer little selection) are shut down by consumers choosing freely to patronize a competitor, and as a result the overall community raises its standard of living, while mom and pop do not... that is good for the community. To believe that the advancement of a thousand is negated by the fact that mom and pop are hurt is a self-contradicting and collectivist way to view the prosperity of a community.

Fourth, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Honestly. Sorry, Mac - two of your "refutations" have been ad hominem anti-Rush comments, but they are sorely misplaced.

Fifth, if somebody says I’m not for zero sum economics. I think there is plenty of wealth to go around., it really shows that they have no idea what "zero-sum economics" means. Economics is not dependant on whether you are "for" or "against" zero sum economics. It simply does not exist, no matter who is "for" it. It has nothing to do with whether there is enough wealth to go around - wealth grows, Mac. If this isn't making sense (i.e. you think it's two sides of the mouth or something), I recommend any of the following: Von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, or any of these from our blogroll to your left:Cafe Hayek Blog, Captain Capitalism, or BizzyBlog, who yesterday shared the fact that More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years.
Put down the Karl Marx!

Sixth, Mac misunderstands something I spelled out very carefully in an earlier comment. For some products/services, I want higher quality goods than WalMart carries... . I don’t pay mom and pop more for a gallon of milk than WalMart charges...
There is nothing evil or inconsistent about market forces. If someone is able to offer me convenience or a better good at a lower price, they get my business. Shopping at WalMart is not an all-or-nothing proposition, unless collectivists like Mac take away the rights of individuals to choose where they will shop. Monopolies exist through government enforcement of choices, not through pure competition, and it is the failure of people to understand this principle that leads us to an irrational hatred of corporations who are "too successful".

What Mac and so many others fail to realize about WalMart and other stores is that every one of the billions of dollars WalMart has raked in over the years represents an individual who exercised his or her individual rights in the marketplace. What people like Mac want to do is limit the individuals around the world because they make different decisions and dare to have different values.

On a final note, Mac was right about a couple of things. He was right that government handouts and corporate lobbyists are a real problem. But he throws this argument at me like a toy in the Happy Meal - these have nothing to do with his initial argument that WalMart shutters "every small and independent business on Mainstreet. From the pharmacist that’s been there for 60 years – to the hardware store that’s been there for often as much as a century." In his intial article, he was right that WalMart has problems with pressuring employees to work off the clock, and the Republican Party (which he curiously refuses to call by name) is in fact "painted as being “owned and operated” by corporations and lobbyists – and it’s only going to get worse."

Maybe he should vote libertarian. Nah, the LP is a bunch of hacks - there simply is no viable political party in this nation that actually stands for smaller government and the rights of the individual. And if there was, WalMart would probably shutter them up.

UPDATE: Mac's site now includes a review of Exporting America: A xenophobic failure to comprehend macroeconomics. He takes a pot shot at AtlasBlogged, too - though not by name. You'd have to read this extended entry first to catch it. But Mac makes the mistake of assuming that if Lou Dobbs agrees with you and has an impressive resume, you and he must be right. Lou Dobbs is exactly the type of person Ayn Rand was referring to when she wrote,

There is a fundamental difference between our approach and that of capitalism's classical defenders and modern apologists. With very few exceptions, they are responsible - by defeault - for capitalism's destruction. The default consisted of their inability or unwillingness to fight the battle where it had to be fought: on moral-philosophical grounds.
No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism - and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today (1970 -ed) have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature...
By their silence... by their evasion of the clash between capitalism and altruism - it is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its moral meaning.

This is from the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. If you have never read this book, slap yourself.

Oh, and Mac... chapter 3 is titled, America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business. Or is that satire?

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

Iraqi Election Results

Shiites fall 10 short of a majority

As predicted, the Iraq election results followed along ethnic lines, with the Shiite majority gaining the most seats in results released late yesterday. (That's okay, we're kinda racist here in the USA, too. It's like a plantation, really.)

Some Sunni Arab and secular parties have complained of vote-rigging in the poll, but international monitors brought in to address the complaints gave the election process a mostly clean bill of health in a report on Thursday, clearing the way for the results to be released.

I'll keep that in mind when cruising the lefty sites I frequent.

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

January 20, 2006

Terrorists are Terrorists, no matter their cause

A federal grand jury in Eugene, Ore., has indicted 11 people on charges that they committed acts of domestic terrorism on behalf of two shadowy environmental groups, the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. The indictment... listed 65 charges, including arson, sabotage and conspiracy in attacks against government facilities, research centers and private businesses.

I am getting a kick out of the NYT calling these terrorist groups "shadowy". I don't know why. These thugs deserve to be locked away, and it looks like they will be. Assuming they are the right people - I'm always of an open mind. Defense lawyers are questioning the reliability of the informants who turned these terrorists in - that's pretty typical. But it may be a fair point, who knows? It is time for justice to run its course. So let's give them a fair trial, and then lock them away.

The director of the F.B.I., Robert S. Mueller III... said one of the bureau's "highest domestic terrorism priorities" was prosecuting people who commit crimes "in the name of animal rights or the environment."

Unbelievable. I hope they can't see any trees from their cells. And I don't believe they can be rehabilitated, any more than I would believe that of bin Laden.

"These are extremely dedicated people ideologically," siad Gary Perlstein, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Portland State University.

"They are true believers, and this is not going to deter people who are as dedicated as they are. For some, the indictment is a reason to join the cause, fight harder and destroy more property."

One last note: The three still at-large are Joseph Dibee, 38; Josephine Sunshine Overaker, 31; and Rebecca Rubin, 32.

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

Hurricanes Hate Black People

From BET news: Global Warming Could Spell Disaster For Blacks.

Is this implying that white people would be okay? Seriously? Hurricanes are racist? Well, I was once asked by a black student why hurricanes all have white-sounding names. I guess I now know.

Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups.

That's right - stand by for a Cat4 in Chicago and Detroit, because those cities have a lot of black residents. It isn't about geography - that people on the coast, regardless of color, will be disadvantaged in the event of a catastrphic storm. Nope. It's about skin color.

Says Ansje Miller, director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative:

Warmer seas mean more intense hurricanes…. You’re going to have intense flooding like we have never seen before. Katrina is really the hurricane of the future.

Putting aside the fact that she is wrong, she is a cheap sensationalist. The whole article is. That's a shame, because the vulnerable (including the poor) of all skin colors and hair colors and eye colors actually do need to be aware of their geography. If you live within a few hours drive near the US coast anywhere on the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean, from Brownsville TX to Maine, you should be prepared for hurricanes. If you cannot prepare for them, try to move. If you cannot, then have an evacuation plan. The possibility exists.

Oh, and check out your vulnerability to blizzards, earthquakes, mudslides, crime, alligator attacks, tornadoes, and other bad stuff. If you think the ocean levels might rise, then don't live near them. I mean heck, if you think Lake Erie might rise, don't live near it, either.

Even if you are white.

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

January 19, 2006

Osama bin Negotiating?

From the Economist:

Osama bin Laden allegedly warned of fresh terrorist attacks in America in an audiotape broadcast by al-Jazeera, and also announced a surprising truce in Iraq and Afghanistan to assist reconstruction efforts there.

I am picturing the insurgents asking each other, What? Do we want to honor this truce? Maybe it's a CIA attempt to trick us! Cheney says it's a ploy, but he doesn't want to jump to conclusions - probably because it just sounds so wacky.

Bin Laden warned that (al Qaeda) was preparing new attacks inside the United States. But he said al Qaeda was willing to "respond" to U.S. public opinion in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq.

At least there is some semblance of normalcy here.

UPDATE: The full text of the audiotape is printed in our extended entry, and is available at thousands of media outlets, since translation and release by the AP. I will pluck the text from Forbes.com.

Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:

My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.

I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."

Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

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

The Championship Games

It’s a wild ride to get to the Super Bowl for any NFL team. For the Panthers and the Steelers, it could literally be a wild ride. These two wild card teams have a chance to square off against each other in the Super Bowl if they can find a way to win on the road this weekend in some very tough places to play. The possibilities of a wild card team going to the big game are usually slim because it takes three straight playoff games in a row on the road to get there. Home field advantage probably means more in the NFL than any other sport.

Pittsburgh vs. Denver:
Wow…what a game this could turn out to be. If Pittsburgh can come out with the same intensity and drive they had in the first quarter against the Colts, I think they have a great shot at it. Their running games pretty much equal each other out, so it is going to come down to the passing game and whoever makes the least mistakes. Jake Plummer and Ben Roethlisberger are both inexperienced in playoff games, although Ben took the Steelers to this game last year as a rookie. Jake on the other hand has been questionable his whole career, but coming to the Broncos was the best thing for him and it almost appears as if he has turned his game around. It could go either way. With the intensity of the crowd at Invesco Field it is going to be tough for the Steelers to come back if they find themselves down early. Could you imagine if Big Ben didn’t get hurt midway through this year? The Steelers could have been a possible 2 or 3 seed instead of the 6 they are now, and been at home for this game. Either way, it’s going to be a great game. I have to give the edge to the team who has been in this game a bit more times under their current coach.
G-Dawg’s Pick: Pittsburgh

Carolina vs. Seattle:
Again…another fantastic game. The city of Seattle is just bonkers over the potential of their beloved Seahawks going to the big game for the first time in team history. Last week was their first playoff victory in eleven years. If any team were to have a home field advantage, this would be the one. Qwest field has become one of the loudest non-domed stadiums in the league. Add to the fact that the Seahawks are finally in the NFC Championship game, well…you have all the makings for a blowout. Not so fast. It has been announced that Shaun Alexander will play after suffering a concussion last week. Who knows how effective he will be or how much he can play, so he is a big question mark. Granted, the Seahawks were able to overcome it last week, but the Redskins are not the offensive powerhouse that Carolina can be. Then again, the Panthers will be without DeShaun Foster, and the possibility of being without Julius Peppers. The issue again is experience. Jake Delhomme has only one playoff loss in his career, and that was in Super Bowl XXXVIII two years ago in which he played a great game and almost won it. Matt Hasselbeck does not have playoff experience except for last week. This is a tough call, but I’m going to have to go with the home field advantage in this one, and that’s the only reason.
G-Dawg’s Pick: Seattle

Either way, Sunday should prove to be a great day to watch football. So grab your favorite beverage, fire up the grill, and don’t miss a second of it. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

*This article is the sole opinion of the author and the author is not responsible for any gambling losses that you may incur as a result of his opinion. That being said…bet big!

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2006

Notes on Iran

So Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons again. If you believe our intelligence community, of course... and doesn't it seem like everybody does? Where are all of the naysayers who think that with a little scrutiny, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs would have fallen apart? Hrm.

I find it does not help me to get stressed out. I try to find something humorous in every situation. For example, the story at Scrappleface the other day: Iran Gives $8 Million to Save ANWR Caribou. That's hysterical!
Or this one from a month ago (I've been saving it): Iran Invites U.S. to Bid on Nuclear Plant. And you thought they didn't have a sense of irony?

"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said at a news conference.

I am trying to picture the look on the face of Secretary of State Condi Rice when she first heard this. I say, take them up on it. Call that bluff! What's the worst that can happen - they let us build it? Look at the reactors in the USA - this is at least a 30 year ordeal to build a nuclear power plant. I call it "buying time". Surely there will be a revolution by then, and the theocracy ousted.

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

January 16, 2006

Women's Lib(eria)

As of yesterday, in Chile, Michelle Bachelet is the first elected female president in Latin America’s history (and has promised to make half of her cabinet women).

As of today, in Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was sworn in as Africa's first female elected head of state.

These two women may not have much in common, and their paths ahead are very different. Sirleaf will be rebuilding a state that has been ruined by more than a decade of civil wars, and that currently has more than 15,000 UN peacekeepers. Chile's security, politics, and economy are in much better shape, though Bachelet has work to do as well.

But they are examples for men and women everywhere. Women are half the planet, and it is unbelievable that it is 2006 before we saw the first ever elected female president in Latin America’s history, and Africa's first female elected head of state sworn in. I am curious to know how long before the United States becomes so progressive. I am also hopeful that it will not be done for the sake of equality, but rather because we recognize the value of the woman, whomever she may be.

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

January 15, 2006

Socialist Victory in Chile

Socialist Michelle Bachelet won Chile's presidential with 53.5 pct of the vote and a seven-point lead over her rival, according to partial results with most of the ballots counted.

(Forbes story here)

Yay. Socialism. Her opponent Sebastian Pinera was able to pinpoint the problem:

'We wanted to win this election ... we did not achieve it because a majority of people decided otherwise,

Well, that darned Democracy that we tell our kids is the pinnacle of political achievement. The thing is, of course, that the rights of the individual can be voted away in a pure democracy. That's what socialism is all about.

Let me take a moment to share a concept that is not a driving factor in the politics of Chile or, for that matter, the United States, but really lights a fire in me, personally:

It is evident that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and inalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact.

These are the words of Supreme Court Justice William Paterson in 1797. If Ayn Rand ever knocked your socks off, you should read the founding fathers.

So Michelle Bachelet, the socialist, wins the presidency of Chile. As upset as I am, I am forced to admit that this democratic election is better than when Chile was a dictatorship. And as Publius Pundit notes, she's no Hugo Chavez - check out Publius here for an interesting profile on the woman who is the new Chilean president.

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

Hurricane Katrina and the Media: Looking Back, Moving Forward

The following is an email that went out to the entire VCU community from the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs:

To the VCU Community:

It took a hurricane - not since 9/11 has the national press beenforced to confront the issues of race and class in America and in so doing, redefined the country's political landscape. At our annual Living the Dream program honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the VCU community has a unique opportunity to learn about the Katrina disaster from a panel of media professionals who will share their experiences in words, photographs and video. Their presentation will challenge us to consider how well prepared are we to take care of the most vulnerable citizens in our own community. Please join us for:
Hurricane Katrina and the Media: Looking Back, Moving Forward
Thursday, January 26, 2006
7:00 p.m.
W. E. Singleton Center for the Performing Arts

Panelists:
Eva Russo, staff photographer, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Aaron Gilchrist, co-anchor, NBC 12News Today
Gordon Hickey, special projects editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Will Sutton, visiting professor, Hampton University's Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications
Panel Moderator: Robert Holsworth, acting dean, College of Humanities and Sciences

This program is free and open to the public. Please plan to attend and encourage your colleagues, students, and friends in the community to join us.

Contrary to the beliefs of some friends who read this blog last week and have telephoned or emailed their comments, I am aware that poor people suffered and died, and I am aware that black people suffered and died. But they didn't suffer and die because they were poor, or because they were black - and these are the "reasons" the media kept giving for the death and destruction laid upon the residents of New Orleans. Kanye West was not openly ridiculed for his ridiculous comments. The Knight-Ridder findings have not overtaken the initial sensationalism as the way we think about Hurricane Katrina. In fact, I expect the words, photographs and video on the 26th to be more of the same. I am hoping to be wrong about that, but we shall see...

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

January 13, 2006

Moocher Mistake

Reuters gets a little too enthusiastic with the spellchecker...

The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday that talks with Iran to curb its nuclear program were at an impasse and Tehran should be brought before the Security Council. Iranian Foreign Minister Moocher Mistake warned that a referral would have "consequences" for the West.

(special thanks to R***, a good friend of Atlas Blogged, who explains: His name is really Manouchehr Mottaki. The story makes it much funnier than that. See the Reuters story here.)

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

January 8, 2006

When the Media is Wrong - The Sago Mine Blunder, and Almost Everything You 'Knew' About Katrina Is Wrong

When a newspaper prints something that is later found to be incorrect, it often (sometimes?) prints a retraction or correction. When everybody gets a story wrong, finger pointing is involved. We have seen quite a bit of this surrounding the story of 12 miners killed in Sago Mine in West Virginia, with the media passing the unofficial and erroneous report that all miners were alive, only to have to turn around a few hours later and inform the world that no, the story was botched, only was had survived after all. Reporters have written about how much worse the news seemed, coming that way - not just for the families but for the poor reporters and photographers.

They all tell us that the families have suffered from the error, but I have yet to see a reporter or network apologize for their part in the error. I imagine some have - I hope so - but I sure haven't seen it.

Who owes the families an apology? More importantly, who owes the public some better fact checking? Where do we go to get a retraction and correction when the entire media botches coverage of a large story, like New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina? Every newspaper, network, radio show and magazine told us that the victims of Katrina were "so poor, and they are so black" (Wolf Blitzer's words but it was the same message everywhere - see FAIR for examples).

And yet, as Barton Hinkle said in the Richmond Times-Dispatch a couple of days ago, Almost Everything You 'Knew' About Katrina Is Wrong.

Hurricane Katrina no longer is making banner headlines, but it should -- if only because so many of the original headlines turned out to have, on closer inspection, no basis in fact.

I got really worked up reading the article, but when I read the commentary at Cafe Hayek on Mr. Hinkle's article, in all honesty, I got distracted. (Cafe Hayek is such a good blog - their gems are the bright shiny objects that keep me from concentrating. Sorry.)

Back to Mr. Hinkle:

For instance, Knight-Ridder recently conducted a cross-tabulation of the location of corpses with Census-tract data from pre-Katrina New Orleans. Contrary to the almost universal impression left by early reports, the examination found that Katrina's victims were not dispropationately poor. Nor were they disproportionately black. For that matter, lack of transportation did not turn out to be a chief cause of death: "At many addresses where the dead were found," the wire service reports, "their cars remained in the driveways, flood-ruined symbols of fatal miscalculation."

(indignant emphasis mine)

Mr. Hinkle calls out the Washington Post and Newsweek for their false statements on Katrina's disproportionate devastation. I will call out my only paid news subscription - the Economist ran articles and even a cover photo that fed into the false and misleading reports that white people got out and black people drowned.
Where is the retraction? The apology to the reader?

A little more of Hinkle:

Hurricane Katrina exposed the establishment media's obsession with race and poverty, to the point of ignoring reality. Countless media outlets reported what amounts to a now entrenched urban legend -- one they invented themselves out of whole cloth. The figures demonstrating its falsity have received, by comparison, infinitesimal coverage: Fewer than two dozen newspapers carried Knight-Ridder's story about its findings. Revealingly, many of them wrote headlines to the effect that the numbers "bring surprises," or "shake beliefs," or show that "assumptions" were incorrect, or "challenge . . . assumptions." But those beliefs and assumptions did not materialize out of thin air. The initial news coverage greatly shaped them.
For too many in the media, it evidently is not enough for a massive storm to destroy a city and kill nearly a thousand people; it must do so in such a way as to permit lugubrious lectures on what Newsweek censoriously terms America's "Enduring Shame" -- "poverty, race, and class."

Okay, I will allow that some reporters and agencies are trying to expose the truth (Dave Zeeck sounds positive about it the situation), but it is not even a shadow of the divisive media frenzy that we saw rising like flood water immediately after Katrina. Selective sensationalism and the reporting of fiction as fact are simply acceptable practice - because everybody's doing it.

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

January 6, 2006

The Truth About Another Possible Terrorist Attack

For those of you who weren’t in the loop in July 2004, there was a Northwest flight from Detroit to Los Angeles that got a lot of media attention thanks to one of the passengers, Annie Jacobsen. Mrs. Jacobsen is a writer at WomensWallStreet.com. She took the initiative to go way beyond the call of duty to get to the bottom of what happened on that flight. After more than a year of investigations, nothing is still certain except for the fact that the government doesn’t want you to know everything that is happening with regards to the possibility of another terrorist attack on an airplane in the United States.

You can read her whole series “Terror in the skies, again” here. I also encourage you to read her book.

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

January 5, 2006

Angela Bradbery, Pastel Vampire

"The D.C. Council gave final approval yesterday to a broad ban on smoking in bars", reports the Washington Post, and Smokefree DC co-founder Angela Bradbery victoriously raises her arms in yet another blow to civil freedoms and free-market capitalism.

Now, the DC Council decision doesn't surprise me, as they make the New Orleans government look competent by comparison. But what really angered me about this whole story was the masturbatory gushing done by Ms. Bradbery and her ilk, who believe they are performing a noble service when, in reality, they represent a force that is slowly eroding freedoms that were taken for granted not a decade ago.

But not without a fight.

Radley Balko at the Cato Institute pleaded with the D.C. council in June, 2005, but unfortunately his argument fell on unthinking brains:

So what is this debate about? It's about freedom. It's about standing up to the healthists, those people who believe the state has not only the right, but the responsibility to police our personal lives for bad habits.
In this case, they want to trample on a business owner's property rights, on his right to reap the fruits of his investment and his labor as he sees fit, and on his right and the right of his patrons to freely associate with whom they please. Why do they want to do this? They say it's to protect the "public" from secondhand smoke. But exactly whom are they protecting?

Not the bar or restaurant owner. He could make the whole place smoke-free if he wanted.

Not the employees. They can work elsewhere. Or find a new line of work.

And certainly not the patrons. They're giving the bar or restaurant their business voluntarily.

The healthists aren't protecting anyone. What they're protecting is a "right" for themselves that they've fashioned out of whole cloth. They're fighting to get invited to the party, then make the rules once they get there. They want the so-called "right" to be self-appointed nanny, mother, rule maker, and rule enforcer for everyone else.

So what's the deal with self-appointed nanny, mother, rule maker, and rule enforcer Angela Bradbery? What led her on this crusade to protect our society from the evils of second-hand smoke? A quick Googling reveals no surprises:

She writes letters. "Whether or not one favors a smoke-free workplace law, District residents should be allowed to vote on the issue." [Which they didn't get the opportunity to do]
She passes petitions. "[Bradbery] drew up a list of 100 percent smokefree restaurants, and began distributing decals to smokefree restaurants and gathering petition signatures from residents who support smokefree workplaces. [But it's not enough that non-smokers have a list of smokefree restaurants, all people must be aligned to her way of thinking]
She makes asinine analogies. "Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work either; that's like peeing and non-peeing sections of a pool." [Because, having two pools, a peeing and non-peeing, is too difficult a concept to imagine]
She's a Media Relations Officer for Public Citizen
And, naturally, Public Citizen is an "Organization founded by Ralph Nader, public-interest watchdog organization frequently critical of corporations." Geez, what a shocker.

So, while Ms. Bradbery is out using her superior intellect to save us all from ourselves, I can now remove DC restaurants and bars from my patronage list, as I did long ago in Montgomery County.

Radley Balko concluded:
"Let's put today's events in perspective. At this moment, we're meeting in Washington, D.C., the capital of America, the country that's done more for the freedom of man than any other nation, kingdom, or state in the history of the world. And what are we discussing? A law that would ban a man from opening a business on his own property where people can come smoke a cigarette and drink a beer."

At least, until the morally righteous Angela Bradbery decides that beer also offends her delicate sensibilities.

More: Your lungs are belong to us
George Will chimes in

Update: On the bright side, at least the Spokane Anarchist will be happy with this decision. [Yes, that's not a typo, there's an anarchist blogger out there who favors smoking restrictions. Anarchy at its finest]

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

January 4, 2006

Gaza in Chaos, Sharon Replaced due to Stroke

The Isralei pullout from Gaza this past August and September has not ushered in any semblance of law and order for the Palestinians, just as we all knew it wouldn't.

Armed Palestinian militants used huge [stolen - ed] tractors to break through the border wall with Egypt on Wednesday, then shot and killed two Egyptian security troops and wounded 30 others in a riot at the Gaza crossing point, security officials said.

(story here)

On Monday, around 200 Palestinian police stormed government buildings in Rafah. Last Thursday, police caused the border crossing to be closed after they stormed it - UN monitors fled in the chaos. What might the police storm next? Gangs have engaged the police and each other in street shootouts, and armed kidnappings have been on the rise.

~~Optimists~~ Fools saw Gaza as a testing-ground for Palestinian statehood. It was also hoped that Gaza's economy would gain its feet, or at least get up on all fours from its long-prone situation. But investments are not likely with this atmosphere - neither political nor economic. Many Palestinians blame the violence on the upcoming elections, as factions jockey for position. Many also blame Israel’s prime minister Ariel Sharon - why not?

Speaking of Sharon:

Ariel Sharon suffered a massive, life-threatening stroke Wednesday and underwent lengthy surgery to drain blood from his brain after falling ill at his ranch. Powers were transferred to his deputy, Ehud Olmert.
Doctors placed Sharon on a respirator and were trying to save his life...

(emphasis mine, story here)

It is just a matter of time. Sharon is despised by most Arabs, of course, but his death will not help the drive for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As Israelis reshuffle for the upcoming March 28 vote, there are no successors in his own party who look able to defeat the other top candidates, Benjamin Netanyahu (the conservative former prime minister who recently won the Likud primaries) and Amir Peretz (Chairman of both the Labour Party and the Histadrut trade union federation).

Just what they need in that part of the world - a little more chaos.

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

January 2, 2006

Stem Cell Fraud

In the wake of the reports that a South Korean research scientist had faked his results has come a deluge of questions about scientific integrity and the value of peer review. The implication has been that peer review should have caught the fraud before publication. What good is science if it sometimes publishes things and then later takes it back?

This attitude demonstrates a misunderstanding of peer review and of science itself.

Science is not a club or a church. Science does not issue edicts or statements of truth in the way many seem to imagine. Just because a researcher has published some work does not mean that it comes with a stamp of veracity that all scientists sign on to.

BizzyBlog (and others) have come to terms with this during the course of this scandal, but have now raised a second concern (which I find completely legitimate): the effect of using taxpayer money to support researchers in uncertain scientific fields, such as stem cell research. If public money is spent without full understanding and disclosure, our public trust has been violated.

BizzyBlog's suggestion:

So the next time you hear the term “peer-reviewed,” I would substitute these words: “passed the smell test (maybe, and if the person submitting the work is ethical and conducted his/her work conscientiously and honorably).”
Given the ever-larger dollars, very often tax dollars, that are based on the reliability of scientific work, standards must be raised, even if it costs money up-front (auditors, if you will) to raise them, and even if scientists’ egos are bruised in the process.

Given that federal funds are being used I see the author's point, although I am too libertarian to support federal funds for stem cells or most other scientific research anyway. But even with federal expenditures in the field, these audits are not necessary if we all understand how science works, and what "peer review" actually means. BizzyBlog now outlines a December 30 WSJ article by Thomas Stossel, American Cancer Society Professor at Harvard Medical School and co-director of the division of hematology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who sums it up nicely:

If reporters understood that journals are magazines, not Holy Scripture, we might not be witnessing ever more onerous regulations inhibiting interactions between academic and industry science.

Also, Dr. Walter Witschey, director of the Science Museum of Virginia, has written an article (here) that hopes to explain the process of peer review for those who do not understand it. In layman's terms. I highly recomment it if you have never submitted a paper for publication in a scientific journal.

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

January 1, 2006

Submitted for your Amusement

According to Jay D. Wexler, a law professor at Boston University, Justice Antonin Scalia is 19 times as funny as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (NYT article that requires free subscription).
(Found at InTheAgora)

Transcripts of oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court have long featured the notation "[laughter]" after a successful quip from a justice or lawyer. But until October 2004, justices were not identified by name, making it impossible to construct a reliable index of judicial wit.
That has now changed...

Actually, Justice Clarence Thomas scored zero laughs - even worse than Justice Ginsburg. But Justice Thomas doesn't really count, considering that he doesn't talk. I am sure there is something funny to be said about that...

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

First Launch for Galileo Satellite Network

The public has become much more familiar with GPS over the past 10 years or so. Many of my students have it in their cars (spoiled!) though they don't know much about how it works. I am hoping to educate them on this topic in the coming month, so it is very timely that the European space project Galileo was kicked off this week.

From the Economist:

On Wednesday December 28th, the Giove-A satellite was launched into space from Kazakhstan, kicking off the biggest-ever European space project. The Galileo In-Orbit Validation Element (the acronym is also Italian for Jove, the king of the Roman gods) is a crucial first step in the roll-out of Galileo, a satellite-based navigation system. Giove-A will test several key technologies for Galileo. If all goes well, the system will be operational in 2008.

European boosters are celebrating a technological leap forward that they say will give them economic and strategic independence from America’s Global Positioning System. GPS, a project of the American military begun in the 1970s, is provided as a free service worldwide, causing some to say that the €3.6 billion ($4.3 billion) Galileo project is unnecessary... Projects like this tend to run over their estimated costs, and once the system is in place, Europe will feel bound to maintain it, whatever the cost...

Galileo is a joint project of the European Union and the European Space Agency, with backing also from China, Ukraine, Israel and India...

Though user fees will not, by themselves, pay for the project, it is hoped that Galileo will create jobs and economic growth (including tax revenues) as industries develop new services based around the satellite system. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2001 estimated that Galileo could produce a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.6 to one...

France’s president, Jacques Chirac has said that European companies could be American “vassals” without their own navigation system. For him, a grand project like Galileo accomplishes several treasured goals: creating jobs in France, reducing its reliance on America, and bringing glory to European (including French) technology.

I think it is interesting the political angle that many news reports are taking on this, with regard to the motivation of the project. An example from the Drudge Retort (the name says it all) is fairly typical of news reports I have seen:

If successful, Galileo will end Europe's reliance on the GPS system, which is ultimately controlled by the US military...

Last year, US President George Bush ordered plans for temporarily disabling GPS satellites during national crises to prevent terrorists from using the technology...

Galileo is under civilian control. The European Space Agency says it will guarantee operation at all times, except in case of "the direst emergency". It also says users would be notified of any potential satellite problems within seconds.

To me, this makes it sound like Galileo was dreamt up last year as a way to retaliate against the Americans for turning off GPS. But the fact is that a project like this is not clumped together in a few months, from concept to launch. Galileo has been in the works for years, and for several reasons. During the Clinton administration, there were already questions of why Europeans were considering a duplicate system, but the fact is that Galileo can be used in ways GPS cannot. GPS is accurate to within about 10 meters for civilians, and about 3 meters for the US government. Galileo will give accuracy to about one meter for those with free access to the system, and down to centimetres for paying commercial users. Also, GPS would need to be upgraded before it can be used for some of the applications the private sector has in mind. Boeing and Airbus have been angling for years to see the system handle “free flight” in which each aircraft finds its own route clear of other aircraft, without the middleman of radioing controllers on the ground.
As a 2003 Economist article on Galileo noted, GPS needs more spending to upgrade it to handle applications in which lives could be put at risk, such as in air traffic control. Who's going to pay for that? The same article also notes a suggestion by David Braunschvig of Foreign Affairs magazine:

the Pentagon hives off the military version and develops a separate commercial system to compete with Galileo. In an emergency, they could act as back-up for each other. At the moment, the commercial services based on free access to GPS have revenues estimated at around $12 billion, with no return to the American government.

And although it will be owned and controlled by the EU (not China, you conspiracy theorists!),

Galileo will be in part a commercial system. A concessionaire will get the right to operate the system for a fixed period in return for plunking down two-thirds of the deployment costs—around €2.2 billion.

(quoted from the Economist, 2004)

Bring on the satellites! Bring on the market!

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

Happy New Year

It is amazing how little meaning January 1 has to me these days. My entire life, it has been a big deal. I was excited to stay up late as a school child. It was one of the wildest nights of the year in college. I lamented being on watch at midnight back in the navy.

But it means nothing to me as a teacher. My new year starts just after every Labor Day. My version of "resolutions" is something I ponder all summer, and enact every fall. Nothing special is enacted for me on the first of January. I hadn't really realized that until last night.

If 1 January is a big deal to you, then I really hope it went well for you, and heralds a great new year.

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