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

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-Ronald Reagan

July 31, 2006

Quick Note on Mel Gibson

Studio executives, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter, were divided on how Gibson's behavior would affect his career. One noted that people have short memories, including filmmakers who might want to profit from Gibson's star power.

Filmgoers, too, could overlook much if the film is perceived as worthwhile.

"Usually it comes down to the marketing of the movie and does the average person want to see the film," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations.

(story here)

So what he’s saying is… Mel Gibson’s career is dependent on whether the average person wants to see his films?

Really?

Doesn’t that seem rather arbitrary?

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

July 30, 2006

I Can't Live on this Salary!

I find that most editorial cartoons are really good at communicating a really bad point. Usually, it is that so-and-so is stupid. I am not sure that this one by Etta Hulme is any different in that respect, but I find it very interesting. I hope it can spark some conversation - I'd like to hear some opinions on it. Is there a fair point being made? Talk to me.

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

July 28, 2006

But Why do the Ants Speak English?

According to Washington Post movie reviewer Stephen Hunter, the movie The Ant Bully is both good and bad.

The way in which the movie is good is that it an allegory that shows us that God is just a bully, and communism is beautiful. Good luck with selling that in the red states.

The bad news, according to Hunter, is that the movie is an allegory against American wars and imperialism. The United States of America is a bumbling exterminator. That’s right, an exterminator. Let it sink in.

I am yet again fascinated that Hollywood and movie reviewers are able to seem at odds with one another, and manage to be both sides out of touch with most Americans. It is, frankly, artful.

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

July 27, 2006

Evidence of Critical Thinking in our Schools

Three teenagers in Ellicott City, Maryland were busted with marijuana gumballs. They probably would have gotten away with it, if they would have treated them like gumballs - but a teacher saw the kids acting suspiciously with them, so they got caught. Still, that was a really good idea. Even the retired DEA agent who spoke to The Baltimore Examiner had to admit that.

When it comes to drug dealing, you're only limited by your imagination.

Would that it were so.

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

An Annual Event

How do you know when the Tour de France is officially over?

When the winner is accused of doping. It's been a tradition for more than a century.

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

July 26, 2006

Republicans Would Never Do That

Amy Ridenour chalks up one more dig on the self-styled party of small government...

Don't worry, Ms. Schuett. One day we'll have a Republican Congress, and left-wing pork like this will end.

It would be really funny, if so many small government advocates weren't locked into supporting the GOP regardless of the return. The difference between a reliable voter and a stooge is... what, exactly?

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

I Love You Too Cecilia Lucas

Iowahawk has scored yet another world exclusive, the reply to UC Berkeley grad student Cecilia Lucas' poignant love poem to Hezbollah, penned by a Hezbollah resistance fighter smitten by Ms. Lucas's charms: I Love You Too, Cecilia Lucas.

[Actually, I'm testing "Digg's" auto-blogging feature. And I couldn't think of a better test subject than Iowahawk's masterpiece. Here's to hoping that Cecilia Lucas enjoys her fifteen minutes of Frisch-esque fame. -ed.]

[Update: My Digg auto-blogging test has failed miserably, and I cannot find anything yet on the web advising how to get this feature to work correctly with Movable Type 3.31. Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.]

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

July 25, 2006

What, Exactly, in Proportion?

This AP article on the current situation in Lebanon spells out very clearly what the biggest problem will be in trying to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. And it has nothing to do with a lack of effort on the part of the United States or the U.N.

Mideast observers say Hezbollah only has to remain standing — not beat Israel — to emerge victorious in Arab eyes.

Exactly so. The terrorist organization has been using more advanced technology than ever before in this recent round of violence, striking with Syrian-made and Iranian-made rockets that have the range to hit the port city of Haifa and possibly as far as Tel-Aviv. They also struck an Israeli warship off the coast of Beirut – a surprising capability. This means that the question of proportional response is not a simple matter of comparing body counts. Neither is it as simple as comparing body counts as a percentage of total population, as Newt Gingrich has. Not only is Gingrich getting flamed by the left for the comparison (“Does one Israeli really equal 47 Americans?”), but it simply isn’t the way the Israeli military or politicians will look at the situation, because the number of dead civilians is not the best metric by which to determine when Israel has gone far enough. With nearly 400 dead in Lebanon and over 100 dead in Gaza, it would be easy to say that Israel’s response has been disproportionate – they’ve only suffered a few dozen casualties. But the Israeli military will measure their casualties against the number of Hezbollah guerillas, and that number is very low, possibly still under 100. Between that and the inability thus far of Israeli strikes to lessen the frequency of rocket attacks, the current offensive must be measured as not yet effective by Israeli generals. So long as that is the case, Israel cannot pull back without being seen as losing this conflict.

More importantly, the Israeli response to the July 12th cross-border raid will be measured by Israeli politicians against only one thing: the threat of future attacks from Hezbollah. Having engaged the enemy, Israel cannot now afford to back out of Lebanon prior to severely weakening Hezbollah. The total destruction or even disarming of the organization is an unrealistic goal, but for some time Hezbollah has felt free to antagonize and attack without fear of reprisal. How could Israel retaliate? While no state agent would risk starting a war with Israel (because the danger of losing territory and civilian lives), Hezbollah is not a state, and it has neither territory nor civilians to lose. Thus, Israel cannot measure their success or failure in terms of square miles conquered or civilians killed. It is a false metric.

Back to the AP story:

Israel might want to use a cease-fire to achieve its strategic goals. But a cease-fire that leaves Hezbollah's fighting ability intact could, in the eyes of many Israelis, cause irreparable damage to Israel's deterrent posture and hand a major victory to archenemy Iran, Hezbollah's prime supporter.

Again, exactly so. If Israel withdraws from this conflict while Hezbollah still has the capability to launch cross-border raids or lob rockets into Haifa, they become extremely vulnerable not only to future attacks from Hezbollah but from other terrorist groups as well. And for Hezbollah’s part, they cannot afford to back down without losing political influence in Lebanon and making sponsor-state Iran lose face.

We all know that a long-term peace between the two sides is impossible, but how do we go back to the way it was a few months ago? We cannot - ever. That’s the whole point that Hezbollah is making with each rocket, and it is important that the world recognize this when judging the situation.

Update 18:30 EST - I wish I had thought to mention this earlier, but the terrorist groups will, of course, pick now as the best time to ask for peace. After all, Israel looks bad with the average television viewer who sees the bombed out buildings and hears about the civilians who have been displaced or killed, but Hezbollah has not yet suffered much. Offer a truce, knowing that Israel cannot accept it for reasons outlined above. The media will carry the offer, and its rejection. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the last couple of days. Jay at StopTheACLU says that the terrorists are only making such an offer because they are losing. On the contrary. The offer is pure show, because they aren't really losing yet. Now, with the offer rejected, Hezbollah is saying that Israel is overreacting to the capture of just two soldiers, and the terrorists vow to fire rockets even farther into Israeli territory.
All the terrorists have to do now is keep their heads down, lob a few rockets now and again, and let the Israelis continue to kill Lebanese civilians and UN observers. So far, they couldn't have scripted this better themselves.

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

July 21, 2006

Anthropomorphizing the Weather

Accuweather’s Katrina Voss makes an interesting observation:

Oddly, modern technology may have rejuvenated the primeval practice of anthropomorphizing weather.

Some cultural habits are so hard to kick.

I don’t really have anything to add on this topic. I just found the naming of hurricanes to be a fascinating way to bring a train of thought around to the fact that life in a technological age does not in any way require us to be more rational than our ancient forbears.

The Accuweather blogs are a good read if you like meteorology - which we do. (thanks, R*)

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

July 18, 2006

Exceeding Infinity

As a scientist and technophile, I am all about the research into and application of alternative energy sources. Those who know me will not be surprised that I am on record here, here, and especially here saying what shouldn’t need to be said – that finding alternative energy sources is beyond the proper purview of our government, and should be dealt with by the market, even if that means that some investors get rich (horrors!).

As a scientist and proponent of alternative energy sources, it really drives me nuts to see some of the things people have to say about the topic. For example, Michael Kanellos, Editor at large for CNET News, covered the comments of Rice University chemistry professor and Nobel laureate Richard Smalley in 2004. Dr. Smalley of course calls for more government money to be spent on energy sources. I wish Kanellos had quoted Smalley more extensively, so I would know exactly where to lay blame over some of the comments in the article, such as:

If the government doesn't start funding energy research, future generations might end up living in dark, nanotech scientist says.

…and…

Wind, wave and hydrothermal power have mostly been tapped.

tapped? TAPPED?

I can’t believe that such a statement would have to be refuted, but if it must be, then consider what the U.S. Department of Energy has to say on the subject (emphasis mine):

Sources of renewable energy are either continuously resupplied by the sun or tap inexhaustible resources. They include solar, geothermal, biomass, wind, and hydropower resources.

Specifically if you click on the link for geothermal, you get the following (again, emphasis mine):

In the United States, most geothermal resources are concentrated in the West, but geothermal heat pumps can be used nearly anywhere.

The use of wave power and oceanic thermal gradients is so undeveloped that it doesn’t even get mentioned in the DoE page above.

Not only are these resources far from “tapped” in the way the word is used in the CNET article, the technologies for harnessing these resources are constantly becoming more efficient and affordable.

What was Mr. Kanellos thinking? Did he simply report accurately what Dr. Smalley actually said? If so, he is still guilty of not looking into the facts of the situation. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt in some way, but I don’t see how I can. The nature and potential of renewable resources is covered in elementary, middle, and high school. It’s easy to look up. It’s even common sense – how could solar power or wind power be “tapped”?

And I haven't even touched the ridiculous scare-mongering suggestion that our children will not know electricity if we don't do something.

Suggestions? I might have to file this one under “inexplicable” until I hear from Mr. Kanellos on the matter. Perhaps he has already clarified these remarks somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

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

Blair's Embarrassment

British papers are upset with the way Prime Minister Tony Blair came off in yesterday’s incident in St. Petersburg, when he and President Bush had a casual conversation that got picked up by a microphone they hadn’t realized was on.

But they weren't upset with the same colorful colloquialism that the US press picked up on.

While Americans have focused on Bush’s bar room strategery of “what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over,” the British press is more upset by Mr Bush hailing the Prime Minister as "Yo, Blair."

The Daily Mirror likened Mr Blair to a trusted counselor of Mr Bush… or perhaps his poodle.

Will Mr Blair have to make a show of opposing Mr Bush in some way, in order to prove that he is his own man? I think he’s too smart to fall for that – the papers would mock that anyway, so what’s the point? This whole thing wouldn’t be that big a deal… except of course now it is being run in every nation on Earth (example: Islam OnLine). Still, no need to worry. International politics would never be about saving face.

A transcript of their (gasp) uncensored gossip is here if you like. It's sweet like honey!

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

Katrina-Related Euthanasia

There were a lot of misleading and inaccurate media reports about Hurricane Katrina, and I was warned by friends that the story of euthanasia of Memorial Medical Center was probably a part of it. It was not a widely carried story, but it’s back in the news today when three people who worked at the hospital (a doctor and two nurses) were arrested and charged with second degree murder.

We’ll see how this develops.
12:25 Update: The New York Times is reporting the names of the three arrested, as well as a statement from the company that runs the hospital.

(our previous on this here and here)

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

July 17, 2006

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Jon Henke at QandO has fleshed out an email conversation into an open question for the blogosphere:

is there a clear, bright line between when civil obedience/disobedience is proper and when Revolution/violence directed against the State is proper?

It is interesting to see that the response has focused primarily on the question of a modern popular revolution in this country, as opposed to struggle and violence on an individual level. Commenters on Jon’s post took the tack of discussing a popular rebellion, as did Dale and McQ in this week's QandO podcast.

But that's not what interests me most.

Incidentally, Dale was absolutely correct in what he said about Dave Schuler of “The Glittering Eye”. Democracy is one of the worst protections of individual liberties. As we have all heard, democracy is two wolves and a sheep making dinner plans.

I don’t know Dave Schuler, but I suspect that he would say that his use of the phrase liberal democracy somehow keeps Dale’s and McQ’s criticisms from being germane. But the principles and laws that are supposed to keep our rights inalienable (even in a democratic society) are violated by our own government. So, now what? As far as I am concerned, Schuler has basically re-stated the original question without answering it - and carried it to his own blog for a similar discussion.

Tyler Cowen and Radley Balko have also discussed the issue in recent weeks, but there too it is a discussion that has more to do with raising an army than with an individual who is facing oppression.

Billy Beck eventually weighed in at QandO, and I was looking forward to his two cents - mostly because I was originally considering the question from a personal standpoint, and I suspected he would as well. (If you don't know Billy Beck, you should check out his blog. I like him, but I can't promise you will. I think I can promise that you will find him very interesting.)

When I emailed Henke on the subject, I was thinking about the broader principles involved in violence toward agents of the state when an individual’s rights and freedoms are encroached upon unjustly – something that would apply to people around the world, under any type of government, at a personal level. No matter how oppressive a regime, there are situations where citizens are face-to-face with agents of the state, and are in a position to submit or fight. How far will they be pushed? It of course depends on how much freedom they are accustomed to.

I hadn’t meant to test the waters of armed rebellion – I am well aware of the non-violent channels available to me if I don’t like the seat belt law or the income tax, and I have no desire to try to raise an army anyway. Odds are about zero that there will be any armed insurrection of Americans civilians against the police and military, or of any kind of armed civil war… especially in my lifetime.

And while I hope it never comes about, I am sure there is a much greater chance that someday I will have to decide how to respond to an agent of the state who is directly and personally depriving me of some of my rights and freedoms. That’s closer to the question I have been pondering. I don't know what Thomas Jefferson would do. But I think it is good to give it thought.

p.s. - (The podcast also includes a great story about Mike Wallace and a USMC Colonel that relates very well to the furor over photographer Joao Silva.)

p.p.s. - I was surprised that in the whole extended conversation, there was no mention of the boiling frog or Pastor Martin Niemöller.

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

July 15, 2006

Can You Tell Me How to Get...

Kofi%26friends.jpg
I don't know if you realize this, but Sesame Street is worldwide. It runs in over 120 different countries - including those in the Middle East. And it might be doing us some good over there. Amid all of the fighting and the killing, little Semitic children are being exposed to a message that may slip into their homes somewhat innocuously – like Jewish and Arab muppets who like each other.

Chorus: That’s stupid.

You think?

The show has always been about reaching children with some kind of Message; the most obvious is not to judge others by their outward appearance – this pops up in nearly every episode. Some of the decisions and rumors have been rather controversial, because of the Message the kids would get from the show. Think back; the death of Mr. Hooper, perpetual rumors of Ernie being gay, or terminally ill, and of course the introduction of a character with HIV. Hell, even the fact that adults on the show can see Snuffleupagus ever since 1985 is enough to get some people hot under the collar.

Well, the State Department takes it seriously. Officials feel that the show helps teach American values to children who otherwise might never know what the USA stands for. This is why the US government (and to some extent the EU) subsidizes Sesame Street productions around the globe

Says Charlotte Beers, undersecretary of State for public diplomacy, "people we need to talk to do not even know the basics about us. They are taught to distrust our every motive. Such distortions, married to a lack of knowledge, is a deadly cocktail. Engaging, teaching common values are preventive medicine". So, the answer is Sesame Street. "The children are glued to the set. They are learning English, they are learning about American values."

And they are learning how to count. Don’t forget that.

Now, before you accuse me of being just like the New York Times in giving away our secret propaganda tactics, keep in mind that the people who actually make the show are not necessarily on board with this.

However, the Children's Television Workshop has told BBC News Online that it does not accept that it is an exporter of so-called American values. Even a policy for foreign licensing decided back in 1969 stipulated that non-US versions of the show reflect the morals and traditions of the host nation.

"We don't set out in any way to push American or western values. That's not our mission at all," says Beatrice Chow, spokeswoman for Sesame Street's foreign co-productions.

"There are universal values that we encourage, such as sharing, co-operation, respect and understanding. But we see what the needs are of the specific country where the show is being broadcast - such as in South Africa where we introduced an HIV-positive character because of the Aids problem there."

It all sounds so collectivist when you put it that way. But there is nothing wrong with sharing and cooperation, respect and understanding. These are not the values of my enemies and opponents. Right?

As the head of Sesame Street’s foreign projects told the BBC back in 2003;

…we also wanted to build into the Israeli version the diversity that exists within Israel - in fact the two human hosts on the show, one is an Israel Jew, one is an Israeli Arab.

There are places where there are different stages of conflict, and you can be in a stage where there is armed conflict, where social lessons can be done in a certain way.

Then there are times of reconciliation, when you can be more overt about connecting people or concepts.

If you have rolled your eyes through this entire post, then you have missed the point. Sesame Street is not a panacea. The feel-good fiction does not protect from rockets or take back bullets. But consider what else the boys and girls of Jerusalem and Beirut could be watching. It is an attempt to plant something other than hatred into the minds of the next generation. Bravo.

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

July 14, 2006

Wie the Golfing - Part II

It’s been exactly a year since my first post on Atlas Blogged. Maybe I can make this an annual tradition, writing about Michelle Wie. If you need a reference, click here. She’s at it again.

In my post last year, Michelle Wie was competing in the Amateur Public Links tournament which if she won, would’ve gotten her an invitation to The Masters.

This year, she was invited to play in the John Deere Classic, a PGA Tour event being held in Illinois this week. Today was the first round. She shot 6-over par, which put her a scant 13 (yes, 13) strokes off the lead. Only two players scored worse than her, out of 153. It would take a miracle for her to overcome the deficit and make the cut on Friday.

I will reiterate, I think she’s an extremely talented golfer. She may become one of the best woman golfers of all time. But right now is not that time. Why she is rushing these things is beyond me. She has done fairly well on the LPGA but has yet to make a huge impact. I could see her doing this if she felt that the LPGA was no longer a challenge. I guess it would help if should could win on that tour first.

Hey Michelle! Start winning on the LPGA and then you could attempt the PGA. For now, please stop stealing spots in the field that would go to guys who are trying to earn a living.

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

July 12, 2006

Dilbert.Blog

Usually, there is no special announcement when a blog is added to (or deleted from) our blog roll. But Dilbert.Blog by Scott Adams is different. Consider his thoughts on conspiracy theories:

My favorite conspiracy theory is the one that says the world is being run by a handful of ultra-rich capitalists, and that our elected governments are mere puppets. I sure hope it’s true. Otherwise my survival depends on hordes of clueless goobers electing competent leaders. That’s about as likely as a dog pissing the Mona Lisa into a snow bank.

The only way I can get to sleep at night is by imagining a secret cabal of highly competent puppetmasters who are handling the important decisions while our elected politicians debate flag burning and the definition of marriage.

This is so in line with my own thoughts on the subject that I am concerned he may be plagarizing me. Although I don't think I've ever put these thoughts into writing, so he is probably reading my brainwaves at night.

I realize this goes against me being an Empiricist, but there is a part of me that would love to be a conspiracy theorist. You know that would be fun. There is an answer to everything. They did it. I suppose some conspiracy groups would be more fun than others - for example, I don't think it would be as much fun to believe that the JEWS run everything. That's sinister. But the Illuminati, or Oil Executives - maybe I could come to blame them for everything.

It has to be reassuring to think that somebody is controlling it all... to believe that somebody is so powerful and prescient as to be able to manipulate the economy and the press and 9/11 and the price of gasoline without anybody knowing about it (except for my email list of pajama-clad conspiracy theorists). If only I could channel my skepticism... maybe someday.

Anyway, welcome aboard Scott Adams. Brace yourself for the AtlasBlogged-alanche.

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

July 11, 2006

Nothing so Green as Algae

How about a new technology that would reduce harmful emissions from factories – wouldn’t that be great? GreenFuel Technologies thinks they have just such a development... from a certain kind of algae.

40% less CO2; 86% less nitrous oxide.

…the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles.

"You want to do good for the environment, of course, but we're not forcing people to do it for that reason — and that's the key," says the founder of GreenFuel Technologies, in Cambridge, Mass. "We're showing them how they can help the environment and make money at the same time."

(USA Today ran this article back in January, and I just never commented on it.)

What’s that? A market solution? Without government mandating algae on all smokestacks? As should be obvious, if it is a good idea, private industry will work toward it. Sure enough,

Venture capital investments in clean technologies last year reached an all-time high of $1.6 billion in North America… In the fourth quarter of 2005 alone, green technologies or "cleantech", made up 10% of all North American venture capital investment…

In reality, cleantech is still too long-term to be a great venture capital investment (VC represents only about 3% of cleantech investment for reasons discussed here). The industry is going to use government money to get off the ground either way, and I don’t see that there is much sense in small-government libertarians fighting it. But it is becoming less and less reasonable to argue about whether or not smokestack pollutants are melting the ice shelves. We can squabble over the meaning of the word “consensus”, but the reality is that there is a demand for green technologies, and industry is moving to meet that demand. The best thing for you to do now is decide whether you want government to facilitate these investments, or over-regulate and stifle them... and advocate accordingly.

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

July 9, 2006

The Deb Frisch Debacle

(Updated)

I'm coming up on this Debbie Frisch story late, true to the "Rammage's Law of Blogosphere Inactivity" that states that the most interesting stories always break when I'm away from the computer for more than 24 hours. I have nothing much to add to this story that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseam (start here, here, and here), but I did find one morsel that I'd like to share.

This snippet, entitled "quacks@Oregon" is from Ms. Frisch's blog, written on January 22, 2005:

I used to work in the psychology department at the University of Oregon. When [they] denied me tenure, the only way I could fight it was to allege discrimination on the basis of sex and/or sexual orientation.

Well, of course. I think that goes without saying. What else could it be?

With such artful prose as this:

Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind! Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.

...It's difficult to imagine why she hasn't achieved tenure yet. The ironic part of Ms. Frisch crying she-wolf at the University of Oregon is that her comment above was made to Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein, and his two-year-old son. She should be so lucky that the law will not take her threats as seriously as if they had originated from a man made towards someone else's two-year-old daughter.

More here: "Frisched:" Unhinged Academic of the Year

Update: In retrospect, I probably should have taken the Don Boudreaux-approach in dealing with Deb Frisch -

I received today this trackback to an earlier post of mine. It’s quite hostile. And its author – one Deb Frisch – commits several mistakes.

I began to write a reply, treating her comments seriously. But after getting a few paragraphs into my reply, I decided to learn more about Ms. Frisch. So I googled her name. A few minutes of exploration convince me that any response would be futile, a waste of time.

Exactly.

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

July 5, 2006

There is No Such Thing as a Selfless Act

Micha Ghertner has posted an article at Catallarchy on the difference between cash and wealth. I found it interesting... and not just because of the main point of the article. I am especially interested in the digression into why a soldier would jump on a live grenade.

Is it conceivable that the soldier jumped on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers, not out of a sense of duty or love, but in the selfish hope that his death would result in the posthumous award of a Medal of Honor, and somehow this contribution to his legacy was his sole motivation for committing suicide?

The problem with this argument is that it presumes to know what motivated the soldier – a desire for military decoration and glory. It’s easy to get the “correct” result if one stacks the deck, and that’s what Micha has done here.

So what does motivate a sane soldier to jump on a live grenade in order to protect his fellows? How can this possibly be an action of rational self-interest?

We may reasonably assume that the soldier who would do such a thing is one who values his fellows and their collective mission - at least, I feel this is a more reasonable assumption than supposing that such a soldier is hoping for posthumous bling. This valuation of his fellows and/or their mission is the root of the seemingly selfless behavior. A soldier who was drafted and was foiled in his attempt to escape to Canada, and is now looking for his first chance to desert, is not likely to jump on a live grenade for the sake of his fellows. There is at least some degree of volunteerism in the soldier being in the situation to have to make the decision in the first place.

So, if the soldier does value his fellows and their collective mission, the question would be; How much? More than he values his own life? Is that even possible? Well, sure… I certainly submit that it is. I was taught that love means placing the well-being of another above your own (as I discussed in the comments section of a post at autoDogmatic last week). You may feel that this is a simplistic definition, or you may even disagree with it, but you can’t deny that people really do behave in this way. One can act on rational self-sacrifice. A person’s own life is not always that person’s highest value.

(I have been amazed to hear Randroids argue that this is not possible, but they can be directed back to their Scriptures for refutation. Is it not better to die free than to live in servitude? WWAD?)

Also consider that a soldier who faces the decision of whether or not to jump on the grenade is one who is actually facing a bit of a gamble. An attempt to save his own life by leaping away and diving for cover may very well cause this soldier a lifetime of guilt over the deaths of his fellows. He knows well that many never get over their guilt, even if it is misplaced. If the soldier spends the rest of his life in remorse and regret, haunted and nightmarish, then was it worth it? How much lower quality of life is one willing to accept in order to continue to breathe? Especially when an attempt to escape the grenade may still result in one’s death or severe injury?

The soldier staring down at the fresh live grenade has to calculate the odds rather quickly. But that soldier has probably already done so long before the grenade rolls to his feet. He has made a rational decision that his self-interest involves risking his life for others, or for a cause. He has weighed the things he loves and values. He is acting in his own rational self-interest. To dismiss that rational evaluation as silly, uninteresting, and pointless is demeaning to the willful sacrifice that countless people have made in the name of our way of life.

Was it a useful analogy for Micha? I don’t see that it was – the point was better made without this digression, imho. Micha is correct in saying that cash is not wealth. But most of us do value cash itself to some degree, and it’s not fair to assume that this is a generally irrational valuation. Sometimes there is a deeper meaning to a symbol – or an action – than we first realize.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)

July 3, 2006

Phil Andrews' Smoking Ban

I have a difficult time speaking rationally about my Montgomery County, Maryland, Councilman Phil Andrews, so I beg the reader's forgiveness if I throw around the words "collectivist weasel" a few times. As can be seen in my Letter to Councilmember Phil Andrews, among his "championed initiatives" is to "make all Montgomery County restaurants smoke-free," which he has succeeded in doing. In light of the current wave of smoking ban debates currently raging in the libertarian blogosphere, (e.g. see here and here) the Phil Andrews Reports to Council District 3 newsletter I received in the mail today seems apropos. He writes (emphasis is mine):

As a lead sponsor of the County's Smoke-free Restaurant law, I am proud that the law protects restaurant workers and patrons from hazardous second-hand smoke. People can breathe easy, knowing that the air is safe in the County's restaurants/bars. The law is necessary to protect the public health. Its success has encouraged several neighboring jurisdiction to join us in going smoke-free.

Meanwhile, the restaurant industry continues to thrive. Sales tax revenues of the County's restaurants rose more than 7% the first year of the law. I provided testimony to the City of Gaithersburg, the Howard and Prince George's County Councils, the District of Columbia and the General Assembly about the law's effectiveness, refuting unfounded claims of the Maryland Restaurant Association.

[Note how the words "Smoking ban" have been deliberately omitted from his statement, replaced by the much softer "smoke-free" phraseology. Very weaselly.]

Aside from getting the name of the Restaurant Association of Maryland (RAM) wrong, Phil Andrews' article is accompanied by a photo of his smug mug standing beside an overly simplistic, blown-up line graph. The graph, entitled Restaurant Sales Tax Receipts Up 7% in Montgomery County in First Year After Smoking [Ban], is laughable in its bias, showing a single, 45 degree angle line from $57.7 million to $62.1 million. No axis labeling is included, and of course, the y-axis is sufficiently incremented to show a steep slope. I'd be curious to get the opinions on this graph by such graph-o-philes as Captain Capitalism and Atlas Blogged's Wulf.

What is even more peculiar is that the graph shown in his printed newsletter is not nearly as bolstered as his online copy, found here.

Now, Mark Twain said that there were lies, damned lies, and statistics, but there's something about this graph that seems particularly disingenuous. First and foremost, this chart is based solely on Montgomery County sales tax receipts. The 7% (or 19.2%) increase statistic completely ignores the restaurant growth in the same time period. As a resident of Montgomery County, I can tell you that - particularly in the Germantown area - there seems to be a new restaurant popping up every week. Where are the sales tax figures taking into account the positive net growth of restaurants?

Second, I am highly skeptical (perhaps overly) of use of sales tax receipts as a measuring stick (vs. gross sales). In a county as tax-happy as the People's Republic of Montgomery County, I would not be surprised to see an inherent change in the taxing structure to gloss these statistics. Where I'm most suspicious (and admittedly uneducated) is the already convoluted taxing scheme that follows the county's monopoly on the supply and distribution of all alcohol sales, universally hated by all restaurants in this county. Some restaurants, due to the heavy taxation, forgo their liquor license and make do with only beer and wine. Could this be tied somehow to an artificial increase in sales tax receipts?

Phil Andrews claims that his data refutes "unfounded claims" made by the Maryland Restaurant Association [sic]. According to their website, RAM

opposes state/local restaurant and bar smoking bans because of the negative economic impact such ordinances impose on smaller independent establishments. Contrary to what smoking ban supporters say, restaurants and bars do suffer significant revenue losses as a result of smoking bans.

So which is it? Phil Andrews' graph, or the Restaurant Association of Maryland's formal position? I don't have the answers to these questions. But I would be extremely interested in getting feedback from any Montgomery County restaurant or bar owners. Has your business been hurt or helped by the county's smoking ban? Is this graph of Phil Andrews legitimate, or is it as I suspect, a public relations ploy?

On this Fourth of July - a celebration of independence from an oppressive government - I close with this quote from Radley Balko:

"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."

We have the collectivist weasels to thank for that.

Update: From WTOP -

The Restaurant Association of Maryland, which opposed the smoking ban, disputed the figures.

Melvin Thompson, the group's government relations director, said one of County Executive Douglas M. Duncan's main pitches for the law was that 77 percent of the county's restaurants were already smoke free.

"We question whether looking at the sales figures from 100 percent of the restaurants is indicative," he said. "We believe it's more accurate to look at the figures from the 23 percent that allowed smoking before the ban."

Several restaurants have closed in the meantime, Thompson said. The Anchor Inn in Wheaton, Dietel's Tavern in Silver Spring and the Montgomery Grill in Bethesda were among the eateries that failed and cited the smoking ban as the reason, he said.

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

Teachers-vs-Unions

What a sign. It is displayed on the side of a truck that is parked out front of the NEA convention in Orlando this weekend. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation had the truck done up with three different billboards that cycle over time (see the other two images here - No Means No and here - a beautiful pie chart).

The National Education Association is a pretty powerful lobbying group. That's actually how they explained to me that I should be a member. I've spoken with them every spring since I started teaching. I was very impressed this year with the ability of the NEA rep to look me in the eye and keep a straight face when answering questions like "Why is the average salary of an NEA employee roughly twice that of the average teacher salary?" (It's because they work so hard, by the way.)

The website Teachers-vs-Union appears to be advocating simply that teachers be given the choice of whether to join the NEA. Since I work in a Right-to-Work state, they aren't talking about me. People sometimes forget (or never knew) that membership in the NEA is not forced on teachers in every state – though they are in most cases. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (here);

Roughly two-thirds of K-12 public school teachers nationwide, including union members and nonmembers alike, are forced to accept an "exclusive" teacher union agent as their spokesman in contract negotiations.

And in many union-stronghold school districts, either the mammoth, 2.6 million-member National Education Association (NEA) union or the equally power-crazed, 1.2 million-member, AFL-CIO-backed American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union wields monopoly control not just over teachers, but also over other school employees, including teaching aides, nurses, guidance counselors, librarians, bus drivers, and even principals.

I love the language - nothing says objective and non-partisan like the use of the phrase "power-crazed". But when they're opposing the NEA, they're still going to be the good guys. Consider:

Union officers attending the NEA's summer 2000 convention passed a resolution acknowledging that union policy "opposes providing additional compensation" for hard-to-fill teaching positions in critical subject areas like math and science. The NEA brass also snubbed talented, hard-working teachers in all subject areas by declaring their categorical opposition to "any . . . system of compensation based on an evaluation of the education employee's performance."

Of course we should pay more to fill positions that are hard to fill. Supply and demand! Why do brain surgeons make more than grocery baggers? The same reason that hard-to-fill teaching positions should be paid more than those positions that are easy to fill.

(Oh, Wulf, you’re just saying that because you teach in a hard-to-fill position! Um, no… if my goal here was to make more money, I’d be leaving teaching for private industry. I mean, I’d love a raise – who wouldn’t? I am just saying that my argument here is not based on having a dog in the fight. If I were that type, I wouldn’t be a teacher to begin with.)

Personally, I don’t like national unions of any kind. When the NEA advocates federal policy, it is highly unlikely to represent most of its members accurately. Despite the lefty stereotype, teachers are pretty evenly split along party lines, as much as the rest of America (see that beautiful pie chart again). The NEA buys itself trouble by advocating positions that are not directly related to education and teacher contracts. How representative of NEA members was it really, when the union took a stand to support gay marriage? I mean, I’m all for it, but there is no reason to believe that most teachers are, or that they want their union dues to go toward any advocacy either way on the issue.

The farther afield the NEA strays, the more they look to be partisan hacks whose time is spent making excuses for their own existence and expansion – wasting money and clout that could be benefiting children instead of the NEA staff. I highly doubt I am the only teacher to make the connection – especially with that billboard truck parked right outside the national convention.

Thanks to Cato@Liberty for sharing the initial story.

For more on Right to Work laws, see here.

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

Is NASA An Industrial Subsidy In Disguise?

With regard to the NASA budget, Kip Esquire of A Stitch in Haste yesterday brought up a post from the archives, noting that "one of the stickier wickets for some libertarians is the issue of government-funded space exploration."

This is an issue which Rammage and I have discussed many times (in person and in email - don't bother searching). I would like to point readers to an excellent point/counterpoint discussion, here. Enjoy!

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

July 2, 2006

Aristotle, for Consideration

The man who is isolated --who is unable to share in society-- or who has no need to share because he is self-sufficient -- is no part of the polis, and thus must be either a beast or a god. There is therefore a natural impulse in all men towards an association of this sort. But the man who first constructed such an association was none the less the greatest of benefactors. Man, when perfected, is the best of all animals; but if he be isolated from law and justice he is the worst of all. Injustice is all the graver when it is armed injustice; and man is furnished from birth with weapons which are intended to serve the purposes of wisdom and goodness, but which may be used in preference for opposite ends. That is why, if he be without goodness [of mind and character], he is a most unholy and savage being, and worse than all others in the indulgence of lust and gluttony. The virtue of justice belongs to the city; for justice is an ordering of the political association, and the virtue of justice consists in the determination of what is just.

(Politics I, 1, 14)

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

July 1, 2006

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Sean Lynch at Catallarchy says Smoking Bans Aren’t *that* Un-Libertarian...

I'd love to know where our readers come down on this. Personally, I think this comment is a great point, and I have long said that this represents the reason libertarianism is doomed to eventual permanent defeat. Sigh.

Also weighing in on the children angle is Hammer of Truth. Both blogs were responding to Bill Ferguson's article Smoking around children is criminal.

One more: Radley Balko at The Agitator says Seems to me that smoking bans are a pretty fundamental, litmus-test libertarian issue.

Yes! We've finally got a litmus test!

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