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

The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

-Thomas Hobbes

February 28, 2006

Boycotting the Ivy League

"Something is very wrong at our elite universities" says John Fund over at the Opinion Journal. He goes on to say in his article Jihadi Turns Bulldog that:

Last week Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard when it became clear he would lose a no-confidence vote held by politically correct faculty members furious at his efforts to allow ROTC on campus, his opposition to a drive to have Harvard divest itself of corporate investments in Israel, and his efforts to make professors work harder. Now Yale is giving a first-class education to an erstwhile high official in one of the most evil regimes of the latter half of the 20th century--the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

The something that is very wrong with our elite universities is institutionalized Leftism. No mystery here. The American Left has held a monopoly on the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia throughout most of my conscious life. What we have seen since the Nineties, however, is a slow but measurable release of the stranglehold of Leftism in MSM and Hollywood. But Leftism remains firmly entrenched in American universities and grade schools. It seems that not a week goes by without reading a story such as this.

Armed with tenure, the Ivy League elite Leftists, especially, wield an untouchable swagger. To be fair to Harvard, Alan Dershowitz does that say that the Larry Summers resignation debacle was spearheaded by a vocal few who represent:

[...] only one component of Harvard University and is hardly representative of widespread attitudes on the campus toward Summers. The graduate faculties, the students, and the alumni generally supported Summers for his many accomplishments. [Those responsible include] some of the most radical, hard-left elements within Harvard's diverse constituencies.

Okay fine. But how do we put a end to this instituitionalized - and subsidized - Leftism? How does the free market weed out these most 'radical, hard-left elements,' or at the very least, start to ensure more intellectual diversity at our elite institutions?

For the majority of my career I will be in a position to hire engineers, managers, and, some day, maybe even directors. I see no other solution to this problem than to place universities such as Harvard and Yale on an "Unhirable List," until that time that these institutions stop inculcating a homogenized, group-think education. If enough people in hiring positions begin to make a conscientious decision not to hire from the Ivy Leagues, then the market will eventually correct itself, even if it must be at at the temporary expense of hurting the presumably majority of students who want nothing to do with their professors' politically correct extremism.

My company has taught me to cherish diversity above all else. What better way to celebrate diversity than to only recruit from colleges that offer intellectual diversity?

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

Calling out Kip

I was reading Kip's take on all of this fuss over Dubai and our port security, and it got me thinking.

I'm on record as saying the flap over DP World acquiring P&O is not something we should take seriously. In a previous article on the topic, I asked that if any readers have a really good argument against the purchase of P&O by a frim from Dubai, to please let me know. Nobody has taken me up on it, and in fact the only comment is one that highlights the hypocritical nature of the whole controversy. I don't find this surprising, since we are a relatively small blog. That and the fact that there really is no security issue.

So, what are the real issues?

First of all, a lawyer for Eller and Company (the Miami firm that sued to have the deal blocked) says that even if the sale is not a security threat, there's a widespread perception that it could be. And that could scare away customers and hurt business. (see here) In other words, for Eller and Company, this is all about PR. They don't want the public to hold it against them that they are doing business with Arabs. Is that a legitimate reason for all of the fuss? This is what sends Senators running to the cameras? Because this doesn't look good for Eller and Company?

The second issue would be comments like Kip's:

Put the "national security" concerns aside for a moment -- what about the human rights concerns?

Fair enough. Kip has some legitimate concerns about how free the Emirates are. The fact that they are "emirates" (princedoms) says a lot. Kip lists a litany of offenses that I do in fact find egregious. And it would be worthwhile for us to try to infuse the ideals of liberty and justice in Dubai and in every other place on this planet where they are not held in the highest regard. But the US government does not have an embargo against the UAE, and we engage in other trade with Dubai. It is good to be concerned about the issues Kip discusses, but this is not a legitimate reason to block the P&O deal. In the absence of issues of national security, there is no difference between this deal and any other exchange.

Kip is part of a Pundit Roundtable over at Willisms;

I oppose the transaction for a very simple reason. We should not be doing port business with the UAE government because we shouldn't be doing any business with the UAE government.

The best way to advance human rights is not to isolate ourselves from nations who do not live up to our standards, and we would not want to see other nations enact that sort of policy toward the USA. This is simple nationalism and high isolationism, and it stands in the way of the free exchange of ideas and goods that Americans are supposed to believe in. Human rights are not brought about by trade embargoes (Cuba?), and I feel that Kip's argument would lead logically to a refusal to do trade with the UAE.

That would not be a good thing.

Our government is neither obligated nor justified in stopping business deals because of the human rights record of the nation that is home to one of the parties. Among other reasons, there is no obvious place to draw the line. For example, Kip notes that homosexuality is punishable by death in UAE. This is clearly the opposite end of the spectrum from my own libertarian view of how the government should treat homosexuality. But what level of human rights would the UAE need to attain before Kip's objections were withdrawn? If homosexuality were punishable only by prison? Flogging? Would homosexuality have to be completely unpunishable? That certainly brings up a question of whether the United States itself would be acceptable, since same-sex couples are punished by our government financially, and gay servicemembers are punished for nothing more than being gay.

The decision of whether to participate in trade with a company from UAE or owned by the UAE is one that should be made by each of us according to our own conscience. Let the Cokes and Nikes flow to the far corners of the Earth. Let our dollars go there as well, in exchange for Persian rugs and Cuban cigars* that are currently not permitted to me, because you (or Kip) object to some country's policies and you think you know how best to change those policies.

I like Kip's blog, A Stitch in Haste, and I usually agree with his analysis of a situation. And I am flattered that he likes our blog. But the libertarian in me will not let me agree with the take that he and many others have taken on the Dubai ports. (Among the others is Michelle Malkin, who is upset that the UAE boycotts Israel and apparently has blocked her site. Again, not admirable but where is the security issue?) The collectivist commentary from the left does not surprise me, but that coming from the right does. So I am calling Kip out on this, in hopes of changing his mind.

For the record, the human rights cause demands action, but not an authoritarian, isolationist blocking of business deals.

There are a few other issues being discussed on the port deal. For example, The MSM harped today on an unclassified internal memo by the Coast Guard that didn't actually say much of anything. Headlines read "Coast Guard warned of port deal intel gaps", but of course the actual story is a bit less exciting.

There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential [for assets owned by DP World or P&O] to support terrorist operations,

(see here)

That sounds serious. Except, the USCG says it isn't. (Malkin is among those who lept before looking on this one) Taking a few lines from an unclassified document and reading them out of context is a bad way to evaluate security threats. It would be wise to point to the gaps in port security that exist whether the DP World deal goes through or not. But that is a totally separate issue, and it should have nothing to do with allowing this deal to go forward.

One more thing to note; A good point from Media Matters:

An article in The New York Times misrepresented the reasons cited by "Democrats and some Republicans" for criticizing the recent agreement to transfer control of terminals at ports in six U.S. cities to Dubai Ports World. In fact, members of Congress from both parties have accused the administration of flouting the law, which requires a 45-day investigation when the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government and the deal could affect national security.

Media Matters then goes on to paint Bush domestic security adviser Frances Townsend and NYT reporter David E. Sanger as trying to mislead the public on the whole affair. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the Bush Administration would try to hide a disagreement in interpretation of the law, by asking the American people if they agree with decisions that are racist against Arabs. After all, the average American probably thinks even less of Arabs than they do of government lawyers. But the point still stands; Lawmakers have demanded an investigation, not a blocking of the deal. I'll give them credit for that much. I suspect they will get their 45 days. The deal will probably go through in the end, but the flail surrounding it will probably not project an image of America that is very pro-liberty and pro-justice.

* "Don't think of it as supporting their economy. Think of it as burning their crops." - Kinky Friedman to Bill Clinton

Update: Kip is also taking heat from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of..., who says:

So Kip is right in pointing out the weakness in human rights in UAE, but I’m not sure that punishing them economically is the right course of action. I would also like to point out that if all Middle East countries raised their standards to those of the UAE it would be a vast improvement; so holding them up as an example for their neighbors is not necessarily a bad thing.

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not the lease of several piers at US ports is in the national security interests or not but I think it is a mistake to overlook the incentives that such a deal would create. I don’t believe that having an Arab country with a financial stake in US security is a terrible thing to encourage.

Kip addresses a couple of the arguments in the post (see the comments section), but does not seem to be swayed on the general principle. Hopefully he will expand on this at some point.

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

February 25, 2006

Photo Caption Contest

Photo Caption Contest time! I have a personal like for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. I disagree with him on many issues, but I just love his straightforward manner and his lack of patience with stupid questions from the press.

But let's make fun of him anyway. Come on, look at that picture and come up with something!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Dubai and the Security of our Ports

I had no intention of writing about the sale of P&O ports management company to a Dubai firm. I really didn't. It just seems so cut and dried - there is absolutely no issue here, and there shouldn't be, and I don't understand what besides ignorance and xenophobia could convince a person otherwise.

But this is just too delicious not to share.

NPR's Adam Davidson:

I cannot think of another story I have ever covered, where what seems to be the facts are so far away from the public debate.

Click here to hear the whole report where Davidson absolutely embarasses and fisks Senators Schumer, Frist, Clinton, and Menedez, along with several House members. Davidson is actually laughing derisively during the report... because it is so, um, laughable. None of the Congressional offices contacted by Davidson were able to put him in contact with a single port security expert who backed their position. Not one!

Of course, NPR is just a mouthpiece of the White House (see previous), so maybe we would do better to get a perspective from outside our own borders. The Economist is a British based paper. Good old Great Britain, they're an ally of ours, so we can trust them. What do they say?

On February 13th, DP World, a ports operator owned by the government of Dubai, a small but economically ambitious member of the United Arab Emirates, paid $6.8 billion to acquire P&O, a British firm which runs a global network of maritime terminals. With P&O came six American ports—Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, New Jersey and New York...

To his credit, George Bush has risen above such populism, reasserting his free-trade principles by promising to veto any legislation that tries to block the takeover. Mr Bush's problem is that, with the exception of Jimmy Carter and John McCain, no prominent politician seems inclined to speak out on his side. With mid-term elections looming in November, Congress may well find enough votes to override the presidential veto...

Underneath all the posturing is one legitimate worry: ports are one of America's weak spots when it comes to national security. Only 5% of the containers that bring 2 billion tonnes of freight to the ports each year are inspected on arrival. That is up from 2% before September 11th 2001, but is still worryingly low. Weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled in and, if the ports themselves were targets, closures or even interruptions would disrupt the global supply chain, says William Daly of Control Risks, a consultancy. This would mean potentially huge consequences for the American and world economies.

But will letting DP World operate there really make a material difference to that risk? Nobody denies that Dubai, though pro-western, is a notoriously porous place, with blind eyes reputedly turned to shipments of drugs and arms. A.Q. Khan's Pakistani nuclear-smuggling network, for instance, was hidden behind a Dubai front. But that does not mean DP World is unfit. It is a globally respected firm with an American chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, and an American-educated chairman. When Mr Bush nominated an American manager from DP World to a ports post in the Department of Transport last month, nobody objected (though they are complaining now). The company will not own the American ports and it has no incentive to run them badly. Just as under P&O, American coast guards, customs and immigration people will remain fully responsible for security.

The United Arab Emirates is a member of America's Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect cargo in foreign ports before it leaves for America. The employees will continue to be unionised (and presumably patriotic) American citizens. Any Arab employees whom DP World ships in will be subject to American visa approval, no easy matter nowadays.

Alas, America's politicians seem to be in no mood to discuss this issue rationally. So much easier, and more popular, to base policy on the prejudice that every Arab is a potential terrorist.

I'm sure none of this matters to those who are opposed to the sale. But I think it's a real shame. I've been to Dubai, and it was one of the best experiences of my six years in the United States Navy. They were very pro-modernization, with beautiful architecture, huge malls, and a traditional Gold Souk that was an amazing marketplace with fantastic deals and pro-American passers-by. You should see the place. I can't wait to go back.

If you are unmoved, and you have a really good argument against the purchase of P&O by a frim from Dubai, let me know. And you might want to drop a line to Senators Schumer, Frist, Clinton, and Menedez. Because right now they are grasping at straws.

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

Virginia Keeps Smoking

From the Virginia Pilot:

A proposal to ban smoking in Virginia's restaurants and other public places has been snuffed out.

Frankly, I found it troubling that the ban was considered at all. The fact that it made it as far as it did is evidence that even in the Old Dominion, there are some who are trying to trample the rights of the individual to determine whether to allow the use of a legal substance on their privately owned commercial property. Like our commenter Goose in a previous post, some here in Virginia feel that if you offer your services to the public, it is suddenly acceptable - nay, a moral imperative - for the government to interfere with the parameters of the transaction.

Individuals cannot be trusted to engage in personal or financial intercourse without having a collectivist hold their hands.

"Why do you need a law to protect people when people can protect themselves by not going in" restaurants that allow smoking, said Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax.

Exactly. This is no different from my feelings on private schools, by the way - expressed in the comments section at Right on the Left Coast. This is not a matter of equal opportunities, it is a matter of equal outcomes. And we all know that line of thinking, don't we?

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

February 23, 2006

Hillary Clinton Opposes Jihad

The video and some transcripts of it are making the rounds on the blogosphere. I was directed to find it at Michelle Malkin, no surprise. You can see it here.

CLINTON: Suppose that you were meeting today to decide who got the vouchers. First parent comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher. Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send, you know, my child to the Jewish Day School. Great here's your voucher! Next parent who comes says, "I want to send my child to the private school that I've already dreamed of sending my child to.' Fine. Here's your voucher. Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist.' You say, 'Wait a minute. You can't send...we're not giving a voucher for that.' And the parent says, 'Well, the way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. And therefore, you gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, gave it to a secular private parent. Under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'
Suppose the next parent comes and says 'I want to send my child to the School of...the Jihad.' Wait a minute! We're not going to send a child with taxpayers dollars to the School of Jihad. 'Well, you gave it to the Catholics, gave it to the Jews, gave it to the private secular people. You're gonna tell me I can't? I'm a taxpayer. Under the Constitution.'

Now, tell me how we're going to make those choices.

The fact of the matter is that this argument - as compelling as some would like to think it is - boils down to a matter of elitism. Wealthy people can choose to send their children to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School, or the Jewish Day School, or the school of the Church of the White Supremacist, or the School of the Jihad (nice ring to that one). But poor parents cannot. How could a Democrat with presidental aspirations ever be making this statement?

The answer is the NEA, of course. The NEA hates vouchers, because they threaten the monopoly we public school teachers currently have and are desperately trying to hold. There's a union, dammit. A union that votes and whose financial support any Democrat with presidential aspirations would clearly need. That is all there is to it.

Incidentally, one of the regular commenters at QandO sets up a nice strawman about how Senator Clinton is just trying to enforce a law that prohibits schools from advocating violence against our nation, and it gets knocked down repeatedly. As I read the comments, it occurred to me that there probably are a lot of people who hear her comments, figure it sounds reasonable (I'm against Jihad, too!), and don't understand why a libertarian minded person would have a problem with it. Thankfully, McQ is patient and tries to explain it again... and again...

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

The Sudoku Craze

I’ll admit it. I’m hooked. Something to do to pass time while I travel I suppose. All I know is, I don’t know whether to thank or slap the person responsible for introducing this to me. The way Sudoku caught fire last year in the States, and everywhere else in the world apparently, resistance would’ve been futile.

According to Wikipedia:

The puzzle was designed anonymously by Howard Garns, a 74-year-old retired architect and freelance puzzle constructor, and first published in 1979. Although likely inspired by the Latin square invention of Leonhard Euler, Garns added a third dimension (the regional restriction) to the mathematical construct and (unlike Euler) presented the creation as a puzzle, providing a partially-completed grid and requiring the solver to fill in the rest. The puzzle was first published in New York by the specialist puzzle publisher Dell Magazines in its magazine Dell Pencil Puzzles and Word Games, under the title Number Place (which we can only assume Garns named it).
The puzzle was introduced in Japan by Nikoli in the paper Monthly Nikolist in April 1984 as Suuji wa dokushin ni kagiru, which can be translated as "the numbers must be single" or "the numbers must occur only once" literally means "single; celibate; unmarried"). The puzzle was named by Kaji Maki, the president of Nikoli. At a later date, the name was abbreviated to Sudoku, pronounced SUE-dough-coo; sū = number, doku = single); it is a common practice in Japanese to take only the first kanji of compound words to form a shorter version. In 1986, Nikoli introduced two innovations which guaranteed the popularity of the puzzle: the number of givens was restricted to no more than 32 and puzzles became "symmetrical" (meaning the givens were distributed in rotationally symmetric cells). It is now published in mainstream Japanese periodicals, such as the Asahi Shimbun. Within Japan, Nikoli still holds the trademark for the name Sudoku; other publications in Japan use alternative names.

Now that I got the history out of the way let me explain the phenomenon. It started in November 2004 in “The Times” in Britain after Wayne Gould created a program to develop the puzzles quickly. It caught like wild fire from there, eventually reaching the States in May 2005 when the “New York Post” first published it. Now almost every city’s newspaper features the puzzle. I noticed it began being published in the Continental Airlines in-flight magazine last month as well. The question is, is it a fad? Or is Sudoku here to stay?

A friend of mine thinks it is a phase. Then again, he can complete the USA Today crossword puzzle every day whereas I’m lucky to get 1/3 of it done (I’m really not that strong in vocabulary). He claims, “It’s reached its peak. People will get tired of the lack of variety in the puzzles.” Maybe so. But maybe he’s just jealous that the puzzle is infringing on his precious crossword space in the paper. I don’t know for sure.

I think it is going to be around for quite awhile. Why? Because it is a logic puzzle. The people (like me) that are not linguists can look at this and solve it. You don’t have to know the dictionary nor the silly little puns that these crossword publishers like to use. If you can write the numbers one through nine, you can solve this puzzle. Granted some may take longer to solve, but they can be done. So from me to you…happy solving!

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2006

A Letter to Councilmember Phil Andrews

Dear Montgomery County Maryland Councilman Andrews,

Recently a fellow Montgomery County, District 3, neighbor told me that you routinely walk our neighborhood to discuss issues with your constituents. I will assume that, since my neighbor is a registered Democrat and I am not, that is the reason that you have never knocked on my door. This is unfortunate, because my wife and I would very much like to engage you in discussion about your policies towards this county.

However, if you were to, hypothetically, ever call upon any of your non-Democrat constituents of District 3, here are some questions that I have for you:

Since your first agendum on your "Championed Initiatives" bio is to "make all Montgomery County restaurants smoke-free," let me start here. Forgetting for a moment all of the arguments about restaurant employees' health and the dangers of second-hand smoke, do you realize that you have outlawed me from opening a bar that caters to smokers, with me being the proprietor and sole employee? If I have a legal product to sell, and I have someone who wants to buy that product, do you believe the county government genuinely has jurisdiction in preventing me from doing so? Actually, let me take a different direction with this question. Is your main issue with smoking in restaurants the fact that the employees are forced to inhale second-hand smoke, thereby threatening their health? If so, how do the annual deaths of say, roadside construction workers, vary with the annual death rates of restaurant employees and lung cancer? If the former is more, will you fight as ardently for the elimination of roadside working crews?
Montgomery County has some of the most stringent liquor and Blue Laws in the country. The county completely controls all supply and distribution of beer, wine, and liquor, and is now making headway in eliminating the privately-owned stores to become the exclusive retailer, as well. In addition, since beer/wine and liquor and food products are forced to be sold in separate stores, if someone wanted to drink a gin and tonic with a lime, he or she would have to visit three separate stores (and of course, grocery stores are forbidden from selling anything alcoholic). The Democratic Party, as we both know, stands for personal freedoms above all else. The Democratic Party, furthermore, is progressive in its secularism. So certainly these liquor restrictions are not in place as anachronistic Blue Laws, but rather, for economic reasons. My question to you is: do you feel the county government should have any jurisdiction in going into business as Montgomery County's sole alcohol supplier, distributor, and retailer for the purposes of economic gains? That is to say, what reason can you provide to justify why the local government controls all alcohol sales but not for other products such as cigarettes, firearms, iPods, etc.? Do you feel that the citizens of Montgomery County are being best served by the existence of the Montgomery County Liquor Control?
Our county, upon whose council you sit, has purchased the former home of the slave that served as Harriet Beecher Stowe's model in her novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Historic preservation such as this is a wonderful thing, as undoubtedly everyone agrees. However, leaving aside the one million dollar price tag on behalf of the citizen's tax dollar, do you feel that it's the business of the county to engage in historic preservation, especially considering the many private institutions dedicated to doing so? And in fact, if private monies were unable to be obtained for purchasing this landmark, is this not perhaps an indicator of public apathy towards the purchase? If the general public is apathetic to this project, does the county sincerely believe they will be able to turn a profit from this site?
The Strathmore. For years now Montgomery County has been spending money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe outlet mall. I will cover many of the more egregious examples - such as the tens of millions of dollars spent on indoor swimming pool complexes for the wealthy - in Atlas Blogged in the future. But perhaps the largest slap-in-the-face purchase of late has been the Strathmore. This 100 million dollar music hall was half-funded by Montgomery County. Question: While the middle class of this county has been struggling to meet the barrage of various taxes at all levels of government, including the outrageously high county property taxes which make retiring here in the county all but impossible, how do you sleep at night knowing that musical concerts are being subsidized for the rich on the backs of your tax base? Are you feeding a lot of the poor at the BSO concerts at Strathmore? Or has there been an opera-revival among the proletariat here in Montgomery County to which you alone are privy?
You have been one of the biggest opponents of the Inter-County Connector (ICC) highway that would connect northern Montgomery County to I-95 north of the beltway. Just out of curiosity, and leaving all of the environmental nonsense aside, is one of the reasons that you do not want to see this highway completed because you and your councilmembers do not want to see Montgomery County opened up to the largely black community of Prince Georges County, Maryland? I know that you are unable to answer this in a public forum, so if you can just give me a wink and a nod when you come knocking on my door, I'll understand that the ICC obstruction that the institutionalized white liberalism here in the county already has its hands full with the burgeoning Latino population, and cannot handle another minority without affecting the quality of life for the Strathmore-going North Potomac and Silver Spring residents.
Montgomery County and its I-270 corridor had at least a twenty year head start on Northern Virginia and its Dulles Corridor. Does it ever embarrass you that Northern Virginia, despite being developed many years after Montgomery County, has blown past us in jobs, companies, technology, infrastructure, and community? Can you offer me some reasons why you suspect that Northern Virginia has succeeded so well where Maryland has failed so miserably? For example: The company for which I work has offices in both Maryland and Virginia. While looking to do volunteer work for the community, I was surprised to find that the volunteer opportunities in NoVa outnumber the opportunities here in Montgomery County by about 10-1. Why do you suppose that is? (See next bullet)
Montgomery County, despite being a suburb of the capital of the free world, has been and always will be a bedroom community thanks to local government ineptitude. My family has lived here for 40 years, and in that time, a sense of community has never developed. Due to the outrageous taxation and ridiculously abundant lawmaking, most families with whom I am familiar are like mine, biding our time building our careers, waiting for the day to come where we pack up and move to a non-socialist state. What do you suppose will happen to your tax-base when your middle class moves out in droves?
Finally, Montgomery County and you seem to be actively pursuing a collectivist and socialistic agenda. Is this something that you can publicly admit so that it can be openly discussed and debated in a public forum? Are you personally opposed to capitalism and free market, and would you prefer all businesses be run by the county? If we could guarantee that no Montgomery County laws would ever be broken if we adopted a "nanny state" mentality, is this worth, in your opinion, the personal freedoms that would be sacrificed?

I'm sure I'll have many, many more questions by the time you do get around to visiting my house. Stop by and share a Montgomery County Liquor Control Board-approved beer with me some time, and we'll talk.

Sincerely, Rammage-

p.s. - For all my complaining about taxes, the real reason that my wife and I are chomping at the bit to get out of this county and state is so that we can have wine from various vineyards in the U.S. delivered to our home without committing a felony. How petty, ridiculous, and controlling can a government be?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (21) | TrackBack (1)

What is the Value of Algebra?

You will never need to know algebra.

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post writes an open letter to a high school dropout named Gabriela:

The L.A. school district now requires all students to pass a year of algebra and a year of geometry in order to graduate. This is something new for Los Angeles (although 17 states require it) and it is the sort of vaunted education reform that is supposed to close the science and math gap and make the U.S. more competitive. All it seems to do, though, is ruin the lives of countless kids. In L.A., more kids drop out of school on account of algebra than any other subject. I can hardly blame them.

Oh, no. Is this guy really going to tell students that one of the subjects we most need to improve in our schools is useless? Why would he do that?

Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column... Gabriela, sooner or later someone's going to tell you that algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers. Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not.

I am almost at a loss for words. The hubris is so thick that it seems like sarcasm... but there is no follow-through. It is not sarcasm. He is serious. He thinks that he never uses algebra. He thinks that it ruins lives to tell students that they have to learn it in order to get a high school diploma.

Part of me really wants to get worked up over this. I'd like to ask Mr. Cohen if he feels any differently about literature, because his column reminds me of those people who drag their child into the bookstore and demand the books that are assigned by the school, and then stare in horror as the books are delivered. "Oh my GOD! She has to read that whole thing? Look at the size of that book, and it looks so boring! What the hell does she need to read this for? Augh!"

But part of me is too tired for Mr. Cohen and his kind. Good for you, Mr. Cohen. There is nothing so satisfying as the casual dismissal of things you do not like, is there? I am sure it makes you feel like Peter Pan to tell the students of this nation that they are wasting their lives away in the persuit of education. But even in this dismissal of learning, Cohen may have taught the careful reader a lesson: One need know nothing more than how to type, in order to get a job as a journalist.

This article is cross-posted at WulfTheTeacher, as are most of my science or education posts.

Mr. Cohen is addressed by many other bloggers out there, including Dave Ex Machina, who failed trigonometry and got a degree in English, only to later rediscover math and pursue (abortedly?) a career as a math teacher. He says;

Don’t listen to Richard Cohen, who failed at something and now wants you to fail as well, so that he can be justified in hating and fearing that which he wasn’t good at. He doesn’t care about your well-being, he simply wants to justify his own beliefs. Don’t let him or anyone else convince you to close a door in your life for no good reason.

A great point. Personally, I failed calculus in high school and differential equations in college. I pursued a degree in history for two years before realizing that I missed science classes. I now teach physics and I feel that the two biggest problems in math and science education are:
1) PR
2) teachers who never struggled with the subject or who never admit they struggled with the subject.

Are these really one problem, stated two different ways?

Another blogger on the topic is Hodges Lab, whose reaction sounds very, very familiar:

Regardless of how he tries to frame it, he really is defending ignorance by defending walking out on education. This makes me wonder how Cohen would react to an engineer telling young students that they don't have learn to communicate effectively in order to get a job.

One is tempted to think that Cohen's article is an attempt at over-the-top satire, like suggesting for the starving to eat their own children. But even after re-reading it twice, I don't think it is...

Posted by Wulf | Comments (8) | TrackBack (1)

February 18, 2006

Science and the Government

Part of the problem with government funded science is that money is the rudder of scientific research. If scientific research is funded by a private individual, organization, or corporation, then the aims of the research are plain, and scientists know ahead of time what they are in for. But with government funding, researchers often believe that they should be given free rein to seek "truth", and the public believes that their findings represent "truth", and often fail to view the findings with the skepticism that true science demands.
Furthermore, the findings of these scientists do not belong to them individually, and accusations of silencing by the government are not hard to find - especially when research is begun under one administration and ends under another. And, in some cases, those accusations might be true... and that might or might not be done with good reason, which makes the situation even more mucked up. The whole enterprise of science becomes a political battleground - something that irks scientists who feel entitled to the funding and the findings.

Consider NASA's budgetary balancing act. The agency is being asked to retire the shuttle fleet and bring on a new generation of launch vehicle over the next decade (see previous), and in order to afford doing so, they are cutting funds to other projects. From the Hampton Roads Daily Press:

Leaders of the House Science Committee launched a bipartisan assault on President Bush's proposed budget for NASA on Thursday, saying the plan makes troubling cuts in aeronautics and science programs to finance a manned mission to the moon and Mars.

Two years after Bush announced his plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020, the initiative is triggering wrenching changes within NASA that are raising alarms in Congress.

NASA's 2007 budget calls for a 30.4 percent increase in space exploration systems over the current year's spending level. Much of that money would go to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle to replace the aging fleet of space shuttles.

But to finance that increase with relatively little new money next year, NASA would have to cut spending on aeronautics research by 18 percent. Langley Research Center in Hampton, which specializes in aeronautics, is expecting a budget cut of about $50 million next year.

While science programs would get a modest funding boost of 1.5 percent next year, lawmakers complained that a new five-year plan calls for a $3.1 billion cut compared with last year's projections. The magnitude of that cut, aides said, could affect things as varied as the Mars robotic exploration programs, advanced telescopes to find planets around distant stars, and programs to observe phenomena such as black holes.

"I am extremely uneasy about this budget, and I am in a quandary at this point about what to do about it," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., the committee chairman, who summoned NASA Administrator Michael Griffin to Capitol Hill to discuss the spending plan.

"This budget is bad for space science, worse for earth science and perhaps even worse still for aeronautics."

We are apparently of the belief that space science would not exist if it were not for NASA, and a cut in NASA science expenditures will lead us back to the dark ages. The answer, I suppose, is more funding - because government spending isn't yet enough, right?

From the Charlottesville Observer:

We're glad concerned NASA scientists and officials have decided to speak out. And we hope President Bush and his political advisers learn a lesson from this whole, ugly affair: Trying to muzzle scientists whose findings are politically inconvenient is a terrible idea. And it usually doesn't work, either.

This is true, but this also assumes that the muzzling is wholly a matter of dirty politicians trying to impose religion over Truth. That is not a safe generalization, even if you believe it to be the case here.

The AP reports that the House Science Committee on Thursday demanded more transparency and scientific openness. It is a noble demand, but it is simply unrealistic. The immediate issue is very offensive; a NASA PR officer resigned...

...after he was accused of trying to limit reporters' access to a noted NASA climate scientist and insisting that a Web designer insert the word "theory" with any mention of the Big Bang.

But not every issue of scientific openness or censorship will be this cut and dry, and government would be well served to stick to research that has direct and legitimate use by government agencies, most notably the military.

To emphasize my point, I direct readers to this article: NASA and NOAA Open Science Policies Not Matched at EPA.

Despite public concerns about Bush administration political interference with science, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media, according to an agency email released Thursday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national association of government workers in natural science agencies.

The scientists quoted in this article sound very reasonable - how come NASA and NOAA scientists are told to engage the public in open dialogue, but EPA scientists have to go through their PR department? But the fact of the matter is that every interview that starts with "I work at the EPA..." is one that purports (implicitly or explicitly) to be an official statement of the agency, the government, and the scientific community. The agency is absolutely correct to have a level of oversight in this - the most liberal policy should be one of uncensored access to EPA scientists, but with the agency made fully aware of all interviews and speeches, and able to denounce, deny, or fire the scientist, depending on the content of the comments. It is wholly inappropriate to allow individual scientists (who after all have political agendas of their own) to represent an agency and the people of the United States, without any supervision.

(This article is cross-posted at WulfTheTeacher)

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

Microsoft bullied by EU

When I heard the reports last month that Microsoft had opened up the source code of its Windows Server OS (hoping to avoid a possible 2 million euro per day fine from a 2004 court decision), my first thought was that Microsoft had been absolutely bullied by the government, and as with any bully, the EU would only be encouraged to go for more.
"We have now come to the conclusion that the only way to be certain of satisfying the Commission's demands is to go beyond the 2004 Decision and offer a license to the source code of the Windows server operating system," said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith. That license to the source code can now be given to any software developer who tells the EU they need it in order to make their software work better with the Windows OS. What about Microsoft's intellectual property rights? Well, screw them, they're a big old mean corporation. Right?

It isn't enough for the bully. Today, Microsoft is in the news again. I did a search of the news nets and found Brussels Journal right at the top, and they have also noted that the EU tactics are familiar to the schoolyard. Over the last six months or so, Brussels Journal has become my favorite for news about Europe, behind only the Economist. From Brussels Journal's article on Microsoft:

The EU Commission swiftly reminded the media and Microsoft that it is the European Commission’s responsibility, and not Microsoft’s, to decide whether it was in compliance. So the EU prosecutor is simultaneously adopting the roles of the judge and jury. In the light of the Commission’s anti-trust and competition policy so far, one can be pretty sure that it will still refuse to acknowledge compliance.
The saddest thing in all this is that European consumers are the real victims of the European Commission’s crusade against companies that serve their customers well.

Well said, Chresten Anderson. And readers, if you think Microsoft is evil, don't use them. It really, really, really is that simple.

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

February 17, 2006

Bryant Gumbel Can't Ski

On a recent edition of "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel," Bryant finished his show, as he always does, with a parting thought. The topic that he choose for this show? The Winter Olympics. Unfortunately Bryant chose to make his final statement about race, and did so in a most ingorant manner. For those of you that missed his comments (and I am sure that since only about 12 people actually watch that show, this does not surprise me) I will share with you what he said.

Wisdom from Bryant Gumble:

"And finally tonight the Winter Games. Count me among those that don't like 'em and won't watch 'em. In fact, I figure when Thomas Paine said, "These are the times that try men's souls", he must have been talking about the start of another Winter Olympics. Because they are so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like try not to be incredulous when someone tries to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of Blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something's not really a sport if a psuedo-athlete waits in what's called a "kiss and cry area" while some panel of subjective judges decides who won. And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sports writers pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon, and all those other events they don't understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it, these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan to fill space and sell time during the dreary days of February. So, if only to hasten the arrival of the day they're done, and we can move on to March Madness, for God's sake, let the Games begin."

Now please take a really good look at what he said. I will save you the trouble looking up the word "paucity" by translating it to read "lack of". Bryant has a problem with the Winter Olympics because there are not enough black people in it. Period. And then to compare it to a GOP convention was just too classic. I am assuming that Bryant also hates Hockey, NASCAR, The America's Cup, and Golf. If it weren't for Tiger Woods, then Golf would have a huge paucity indeed.

Now think for a moment about this. What if Rush Limbaugh came on the air on one of his shows and said something like "I am not a fan of the NBA because there are just not enough white people in it. Going to an NBA game is like going to a Democratic Convention. Or worse, it is just like driving down an inner-city street late at night."

Could you imagine the uproar that would hit if Rush (or any other white person) said this? People around the world would actually forget about cartoons for a minute to take time to burn down everything that Rush owns.

Bryant, I do submit to you that there is a paucity of blacks in the Winter Olympics. Discussing the socio-economic factors as to why this is would really not be worth the effort. What you are doing sir, by making this comment, is cheapening to the 10th degree what those kids are accomplishing while performing in the Winter Olympics. When was the last time you saw your toes, let alone were able to perform any athletic endeavor? Do you realize the years of training, of hard work, and of sacrifice most of them make just to get to that point? Do you have any clue as to how much these events mean to them and to their countries?

Now if Bryant had just come out and said he didn't like the Winter Olympics because he didn't get them and didn't appeal to him, so be it. But to play the race card as a reason not to like them is just plain wrong. This is America Bryant, and you can watch whatever you want, and I highly encourage you to do so. However, please don't belittle those that have worked their whole lives for these Winter Olympics just because the color of their skin does not match yours.

The EtherZone opened a forum on it: Bryant Gumbel's racist remarks

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

February 15, 2006

Has Bush Derangement Syndrome Infected the LP?

Take a look at the following headlines:

"Bush Evades Constitutional, Legal Constraints to Violate Americans’ Privacy"

"President Bush is Taking America in the Wrong Direction"

"White House Stonewalling Hurricane Katrina Investigation"

"Vice President Cheney Not a Straight Shooter"

Are these the latest ravings of moonbats on Eschaton? The front page of the Daily Kos? No, they're not even headlines in the NY Times. Rather, they are all headlines on the main website of the Libertarian Party.

Every time I get gung-ho about finally taking the plunge and joining the Libertarian Party, a few minutes of perusing their website reminds me that their members still largely consist of disgruntled Democrats whose party wasn't moving fast enough on the drug legalization issue. As a white, male, software engineer falling smack dab in the middle of the libertarian demographic, I appreciate the fact that the LP takes for granted that they have my vote. But by devoting their website to Bush-bashing, the LP convinces me to stay registered as a Republican until the grown-ups can take over running their offices.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the scrutiny of an administration as spend-happy as this one. And, indeed, this blog has been plenty critical of the Bush Administration (see here). But it was the Katrina article on the LP website that inspired this post.

If I'm on a libertarian website, about the only thing that I would expect to see written on Katrina is how poorly the local government responded to the disaster, and even more importantly, how the federal government had no jurisdiction in usurping the state National Guard. (More here) Instead, the LP article chooses to engage in the same old he said/she said hissyfitting that can be found anywhere left of the Blogosphere's prime meridian. Is the news of the White House stonewalling the Hurricane Katrina investigation helping to promote and educate libertarian ideals, or helping to recruit would-be Libertarian Party voters?

Well, at least not in my case. Not until the Libertarian Party can show me they're cured of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

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

A Challenge for Conservative Bloggers

What is this map? Would you believe it is a color-coded display of the international reaction to the Danish Cartoons? Take a look... the red shows countries who have officially denounced the publisher of the cartoons, the yellow shows where riots have occurred. The light blue is where it has been seen as bad form, and the cartoons have not been published. The royal blue is where the cartoons have been published in the name of freedom in the face of religious oppression. And the dark blue is Canada.

Okay, that's not what this map really is. So what is it?

In actuality, this map is how the world responds to homosexuality. Click on it if you cannot read the legend. It says that the dark blue is where same-sex marriage is legal. The royal blue allows same-sex unions. In the light blue, it is not illegal to be gay, but you can't get married or anything like that. Large penalties in the yellow nations, and the death penalty in the red zones.

So, where do you stand? Do you believe in the freedom to stand up to religious strictures and ~~publish cartoons~~ be treated equally before the law, regardless of what lies between your lovers legs? Or are you maybe more the yellow-nation type? Or do you just wish it would all go away? Many people say they don't care if their neighbor is gay, just so long as it is kept ~~in the closet~~ private. But this is hardly a compelling argument for the continued insistence that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman. In fact, I have never heard a compelling argument for that continued insistence. Be careful, conservatives! Your only reasoning here is based on 1) religious law, or 2) "for the children".

Besides the fact that it is not true that children need a heterosexual pair of parents in order to turn out okay, it is in general an argument that conservatives mock when used by liberals on other issues (like smoking bans, gun bans, seat belt laws, etc.).

Some conservatives may try to sidestep and make this an issue of states rights. A majority of U.S. states have adopted Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But fearing that these laws will not be upheld as constitutional in the state courts, religious activists have opted to push amendments to their state constitutions.

Here in Virginia, there is an amendment due for this November's ballot. I caught a piece by NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty this morning regarding the situation (available here). She quotes State Sen. Steve Newman, a Republican;

We're speaking directly to the federal courts, and saying, 'States have a right to define what marriage is for each individual state'

If you would like to know what is going on in your state, click on this interactive map:

Of course, it may be that none of this will be enough to stomp out equality before the law. Whenever something is fought out at the state level, it quickly makes its way to the federal level. I totally agree with Kip, Esquire, who writes:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has announced his intention to hold a vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment, a/k/a the Federal Marriage Amendment, in June (i.e., just in time to make it an election issue). I think that's wonderful. I want senators to go on the record, forever, on the issue of same-sex marriage. I want to see Republicans forced to stand up and declare, openly and unequivocally, that yes, they do think constitutionalizing bigotry is a good idea. I want to see Democrats forced to stand up and stop selling gays out and, for once, vote they way they keep promising to vote.

The problem is, this won't likely benefit the gay community. From Barbara Bradley Hagerty's piece;

Kareem Crayton, who teaches law and political science at the University of Southern California, says the marriage amendments stoked up the culture wars, impassioned the Christian conservative base... and may have played a major role in re-electing President Bush, especially in battleground states like Ohio.
"I think it had an effect on the intensity that voters had for showing up," he says. "So in Ohio, for example, where polling lines were extremely long, you were more likely to stay out in the rain and wait for your time to vote, if you thought this was a major issue and you couldn't just let it pass."

Seth Kilbourn of the Human Rights Campaign talks the personal liberty line for this issue;

"We need to make the case for why marriage for same-sex couples is good, why it is the true measure of equal treatment under the law. That will improve the vote."
If the message is equality, he says, the medium is personal stories.

But even Mr. Kilbourn doesn't have much optimism for this fall. This is a long-term issue, and it will only be longer still if conservatives and libertarians continue to stand against personal liberty. Do you believe that our government serves us best by basing its treatment of a man on the sex of his lover? Do you believe it is desirable that we in this nation continue to enshrine religious sensibilities over freedom?

I challenge the conservatives who stand in favor of personal freedoms to reevaluate the way they view the issue of gay marriage.

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

February 14, 2006

That's So Brokeback

One of my administrators gave me the scoop on a nearby high school that made the Richmond Times-Dispatch today:

Parents and other interested spectators will have to do the cheering for the Douglas Freeman boys basketball team at tonight's Colonial District basketball tournament quarterfinal.
Freeman's principal, Dr. Edward Pruden Jr., has banned all students from the Rebels' game against visiting Maggie Walker Governor's School. The Rebels won the district regular-season title and are the top seeds in the tournament. The ban doesn't affect Maggie Walker students...
The ban is punishment for an inappropriate cheer during last Friday's home game against archrival Mills Godwin.

Their inappropriate cheer that went unreported in the T-D? Some Freeman students singled out a Godwin player and referred to him as "Brokeback Bobby" all night. The school was concerned about proper public decorum, sexual harassment lawsuits, and general sportsmanship.

Um, especially that part about the lawsuits.

Pruden has expressed in the past that he wants the students to cheer for Freeman and not against the opposition, and especially not to single out an individual player. "We were shocked he banned students from a home game," said Laura Rothenberg, a senior who has been a part of the cheering section for four years. "It has made us step back and see that Dr. Pruden took it to heart and was offended. Once everyone cools down, we can accept the fact that it was inappropriate and come around and start with new momentum."

Pruden has expressed in the past that he wants the students to cheer for Freeman and not against the opposition, and especially not to single out an individual player.

The ban covers one game. The district tournament continues at Douglas Freeman with the semifinals tomorrow night and the final Friday. Freeman, as the district champion, already has earned a berth in next week's Central Region tournament and will have a home game Feb. 21.

But it's not just an issue at high schools, as fans of the Gonzaga basketball team have been in the news lately for the exact same thing. The response there?

...the faculty advisers for the Kennel Club booster group urged students to avoid "inappropriate chants"...

There is no ban of the entire student body. There is open discussion on campus of what is appropriate and what is not. High school students are not too young to be treated the same way. As one of my openly gay students noted to me today, teenagers are more offended about not being treated as mature individuals, and having the entire student body punished for the actions of a few, than by the chanting of words that are used as slang throughout the school anyway.

"That principal is so... brokeback!" he said with an ironic smile as he swept out of the room.

These kids know what is right and what is wrong. It is just that they sometimes need to be reminded of it, and told that wrong behavior will not be tolerated. They don't need to be summarily barred from a school event just so the administration can cover their butts.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Reduced to a Caption Contest

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Saddam Hussein is now on a hunger strike. This news is lower on the American radar than the fact that the Vice President waited 22 hours to tell the media that he didn't kill anybody.

So let's see what you've got. Give us your best caption for this image... I think it is just begging for a good one.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

February 12, 2006

Eat the Rich

Below are some humorous snippets from P.J. O'Rourke's treatise on economics, Eat the Rich. Incidentally, this book will be included in my "Top 10 Books That I Wish My Liberal Friends Would Read" list. P.J. O'Rourke excels in this book at proving his basic premise: America....it doesn't suck.

On socialism in Sweden, or "Good Socialism":

According to the Swedish Institute's booklet On Sweden, 'The overall aims of the social welfare system are to redistribute income more evenly over each individual's life cycle, narrow the gaps between social classes, and provide everyone with a broad selection of public services.' An American reads that sentence and hears, 'We're putting half your allowance in the bank because you'll no doubt want to buy some Rage Against the Machine CDs and a skateboard when you're eighty.'

On socialism in Cuba, or "Bad Socialism":

Much work had been done, however, painting the propaganda slogans. SOCIALISM OR DEATH appeared on almost every overpass. What if the U.S. government had slogans all over the place? I tried to come up with a viable campaign. My suggestion, AMERICA—IT DOESN'T SUCK.

On brotherly love in Russia:

[...] a socialist society seems to produce solidarity among people. It does so in Sweden. And it does so in Cuba, even if that is a solidarity of suffering and anger. Socialism, however at odds with economic sense, engenders brotherhood.

Or so I was thinking as I arrived in the Siberian city of Irkutsk. The twentysomething Intourist guide who met me at the airport certainly seemed a younger-brother type. Ivor was affable, outgoing, and....

'You'll notice there are no niggers here,' said this product of socialist childhood and schooling.

On Russian fitness:

The World Bank estimated that one-third of Russia's population had an income below the minimum sustenance level; One out of three people was keeling over from hunger. This wasn't happening. Indeed, three out of three Russians could use some time on a StairMaster.

The conditions of a sleeper car on a four-day journey to Siberia:

You can stretch out on these bunks in comfort if you answered the casting call for Tattoo on Fantasy Island. The compartment window does not open, and there's no fan or other form of ventilation, and no window shade. In the summer in southern Siberia, the sun shines eighteen hours a day. If your compartment is on the south side of the train, as mine was, you can use it to bake pies. A few of the windows in the corridor do open, and some relief can be had by sticking your head out and letting your jaw hang open in the breeze. I saw most of Siberia the way your dog sees I-95.

[...] I'd brought my own food along, too, purchased in Irkutsk's Martha Stewart grocery. And when the train made its brief stops, I could go to the market stalls that lines the station platforms and buy fresh bread, homemade pickles, smoked fish, and—even in Ust'-Urluk, on the frontier of Outer Mongolia—Pepsi. I also bought carbonated Russian mineral water. This tastes like Spic-and-Span but I could shake the bottles and use my thumb to direct squirts of household-cleaner-type liquid at the cockroaches eating Hong Kong tea biscuits under my bunk.

On the economy of Tanzania:

Man was born into a state of nature, and nature, I'm sad to report, is woefully underdeveloped in an economic sense. The wildlife herds were sad reminders that there are only two ways to obtain a thing; either agree upon a price for it or take it by butting heads. Wildebeest must depend on the latter method. Due to lack of pockets, wildebeest cannot carry cash or credit cards. Among animals, only marsupials have pockets, and then just to keep their young inside. And there are various difficulties, practical and theoretical, with an economic system based on inch-long blind and hairless kangaroos.

[...] Wildebeest also sleep, but not peacefully. A significant minority of creatures on the African veldt aren't grazers or browsers, or members of PETA.

Still in Tanzania:

[...] Maasai [tribe] cuisine is nothing but, basically, gravy. It would be food suicide for any other people and may cause even the Maasai a certain amount of indigestion. They call Europeans iloredaa enjekat, 'those who confine their farts with clothing.'

In Tanzania's capital:

In Dar [es Salaam], as knowing travelers call it, I was met by a driver named Nzezele (pronounced 'Nzezele'). [...] Buses and taxis bear pictures of Bob Marley. Pedestrians wear T-shirts emblazoned with Rastafarian slogans. BACK TO AFRICA is—confoundingly—a popular slogan in Tanzania.

A quote from John Cowperthwaite, the British officer given credit for Hong Kong's laissez-faire economic success:

[...] in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.

On the notion of the U.S. opening its doors to Hong Kongese emigrants after the handover to Red China:

Imagine 6.5 million savvy, hardworking citizens-to-be with a great cuisine. What a blessing for America. And how we would hate them. Pat Buchanan would hate their race. The AFL-CIO would hate their wage rate. The NAACP would hate their failure to fail as a minority. And Al Gore would hate 6.5 million campaign contributors who didn't have to sneak pro-free-trade money to the Democratic National Committee anymore but could go right into polling booths and vote Republican.

In summation:

The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, etc. Fair enough. But then there's the Tenth Commandment: 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.'

Here are God's basic rules about how we should live, a very brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts, and right at the end of it is, 'Don't envy your buddy's cow.'

What is that doing in there? Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose, as one of them, jealousy about the livestock next door? And yet, think about how important to the well-being of a community this Commandment is. If you want a donkey, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't bitch about what the people across the street have. Go get your own.

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to egalitarians, to people obsessed with fairness, to American presidential candidates in the year 2000—to everyone who believes that wealth should be redistributed. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell."

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

The Popularity and Influence of Blogs

Do your friends read your blog? Do all of your friends read your blog? Do you sometimes feel as though the entire world is reading your blog?

We at AtlasBlogged never feel that way, either. Now we know why.

Gallup's annual Lifestyle survey, conducted Dec. 5-8, 2005, finds only 9% of Internet users saying they frequently read blogs, another 11% read them occasionally, 13% say they rarely read them, while 66% never read them.

(emphasis mine, because I find it amazing!)

We really shouldn't be surprised... this week alone I spoke with a half dozen educated, well-read friends who had not seen the Muhammed Cartoons, and had no idea how to find them. Some people just don't visit the blogosphere, and are content to get their news from NPR, CNN, and GoogleNews, though I cannot imagine why.

What I do find surprising is the finding that these numbers are almost identical to last year - the number of people reading blogs in the United States does not appear to be growing.

In a blatant attempt to impress the graph-loving Captain Capitalism, I am including this bar graph, which I found at the story I linked earlier (okay, here):

Commentary from Gallup:

To put blog readership in context, the December survey found that checking online for news and weather is done regularly by 72% of Web users. Fifty-two percent regularly shop online, 40% pay bills, and 28% play games. At 20%, blog reading is on par with downloading music and participating in online auctions such as eBay...
It is important to note it's not just blog readership that suffers from anemic growth: Americans' likelihood of doing most of the other online activities has not changed over the past two years. As reported in a Feb. 6, 2005, Gallup news article, of the nine activities measured in December 2003, the only notable differences are modest increases in the percentages using the Internet for making travel arrangements and paying bills, and a slight decline in the percentage using instant messaging.
Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who use the Internet to any degree has not changed during the past three years -- roughly 75% of U.S. adults say they use the Internet on at least some occasions.

The story also notes that readership is skewed to the younger generation, who might only be visiting My Space or something like that. Not that I want to sound like a blog snob, but come on.

Obviously, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. Michelle Malkin might not have the same viewer numbers as the TV show Survivor, but she and other powerful bloggers are able to get the ear of policy makers, and blogs are able to steer the coverage on some news stories. Gallup recognizes this:

Of course many bloggers will argue that the influence of blogs is immeasurably greater than their readership statistics would suggest because of the disproportionate influence they have on opinion leaders, political insiders, and modern news media. That may be true, just as it may also be true that, by providing a competitive and handy marketplace for discount and used goods, online auctions such as eBay -- used regularly by only about a quarter of Web users -- are making a mark on the broader worlds of e-commerce and retail shopping.

I think they just compared AtlasBlogged with eBay.

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

Darwin Was Not an Atheist

In recent days, there has been much talk of how important it is for moderate Muslims to step up and denounce the extremists who have made hay of the now-infamous Danish cartoons. Of course, this is good advice for moderates on every issue, because conflicts are only made worse when it is left to extremists to define the debate.

For example, it is important for Christians in the United States to weigh in on the questions of Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Darwinism. It is not appropriate to allow this issue to be shaped by the zealots. Good news was reported in the Chicago Tribune today toward that end:

Nearly 450 Christian churches around the country plan to celebrate the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin on Sunday with programs and sermons intended to emphasize that his theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science... "Evolution Sunday" has drawn participation from a variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches...

I have written previously about the fact that most Christians can find their faith compatible with Darwin's theories. I have also urged scientists not to fear discussions of Creationism or Intelligent Design, so long as they are not taught as science.

Today's events evolved (ba-dump-bump) from The Clergy Letter Project, begun by Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.

Since its inception in 2004, the project has drawn 10,000 Christian clerics to sign a letter that concludes, "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

Says Zimmerman:

The first part was to demonstrate to the American public that the shrill fundamentalist voices that were demanding that people had to choose between religion and science were simply wrong. The second part was to demonstrate that those fundamentalist leaders that keep standing up and shouting that you can't accept modern science were not speaking for the majority of Christian leaders in this country.

If the silent majority would speak up and express itself in the face of zealots and extremists, I strongly believe that most issues of religion conflicting with secular values would dry up. Bravo to Dr. Zimmerman, and all of the clerics who participated in the letter or in today's programs.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin.

Posted by Wulf |