Hey! You want to hear what the Objectivists have to say about Terry Schiavo!

Ask yourself, "Are they liberals or conservatives?"

You may view this message as a formatted Web page in your browser:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=Z29xUJTJ2D7NJpPISs87hA..

Dear Editor:

What are we to make of the Republican Party's crusade to
maintain Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state for as long as
possible?

Even though Terri had been in this terrible condition for fifteen
years and had no chance of recovering, Republicans wanted to keep her
in a state of living death indefinitely. Why?

Republicans claim to be motivated by a respect for the
"inherent" value of human life--even when life
is no longer worth living. And in any meaningful way, Terri was
no longer living--at least not as a human being able to think, act,
and value.

Terri Schiavo had nothing to gain from living, so it is clear that
those who wanted to keep her in a state of living death were not
concerned with her well being. They were concerned with advancing and
imposing their religious view that a person's life belongs to
God, and as such must be preserved at all costs. In this
view, suffering and misery are to be accepted and endured even
when there is no hope of improvement or happiness.

Americans must beware of the danger coming from the Religious
Right--and firmly defend their right not to be force-fed with
nutrients or religious dogmas that would keep them in a persistent
state of living death.

David Holcberg, Ayn Rand Institute
Irvine CA
(949) 222-6550 ext. 226
2121 Alton Parkway #250


Copyright (c) 2005 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved.

Liberals, but not "liberals," I say.

Yeah, that sounds like me all right.

From the Press Any Key.com name dictionary, which I found via Old Blue:

Alan

The name of Alan gives you the desire to meet and mix socially and to create congenial circumstances for everyone. However, all too often, you express yourself in a matter-of-fact or awkward way that results in your good intentions being misunderstood. If you are in sales work, you could do well because of your friendly personality, interest in people, and desire to please. You prefer situations that allow a degree of independence, but are not too demanding in work-load or responsibility. When asked, you are able to give others good advice that you would probably not follow yourself, but must guard against being too opinionated in controversial matters. While you can appear to be confident, you need the moral support and encouragement of others who give inspiration and strength. Weaknesses in health show in the senses of the head as well as in the various fluid functions of the body.

Mitch Berg and Mark Yost have an answer to the anti-gunners:

So, one week after the Red Lake massacre, while the state's landed punditry carries on its endless wailing looking for answers, Mark Yost at the PiPress goes one better; He proposes a solution:

What can we do to keep this from happening next time? How about arming security guards, as well as a handful of administrators and teachers who volunteer to be properly trained?

But Mark, savvy fella that he is, knows his market:

I can hear the gasps echoing from Mac-Groveland to Crocus Hill. But if we think any legislation is going to stop the next Jeff Weise, we're fooling ourselves. Indeed, the idea that with the right legislation and an unlimited pot of money we can take the risk out of any of life's endeavors is simply wrong...As distasteful as the idea may be to some, we need to be honest and admit that only one thing would have stopped Weise: a security guard, administrator or teacher, properly trained, and armed with a gun.

Mitch's article is titled A Pack, Not A Herd
and Yost's is Only a gun could have stopped Jeff Weise.

In case you don't want to register with the St. Paul Pioneer Press, here's a little of the Yost article:

Shotguns would be the perfect weapon. Unlike handguns, they require little or no skill. Just point and shoot. Looking at the Red Lake chronology, it's clear that a shotgun could have stopped Weise early on and saved a lot of lives.

While security guard Brun was confronting Weise at the school door, another guard, LeeAnn Grant, was alerting students. Imagine if she'd been able to lay in wait for Weise, just inside the door. It all could have stopped right there.

Same for English teacher Neva Rogers. She locked herself inside a classroom and looked on in what must have been sheer terror as Weise broke the glass, unlocked the door, walked in and shot her three times. If she'd had a shotgun and been properly trained, she could have shot him at the door and saved those five students.

And the conclusion:

Indeed, it's an exercise in futility to try to make sense out of the senseless. Things happen and often times we don't know why. Instead of crafting a bevy of new legislation — on top of the laws that already exist — our time would be better spent preparing for the next time a school security guard or teacher is confronted by an insane student.

As distasteful as the idea may be to some, we need to be honest and admit that only one thing would have stopped Weise: a security guard, administrator or teacher, properly trained, and armed with a gun.

I've been suffering a bit of the old writer's block lately

so I went over to harass that damn Democrat mulk.

The dude deserves to get some crap. He'll give it back, though. And if you give it to him you deserve some too. He's a good guy, I think.

I don't understand why he doesn't just let go and accept Libertarianism. We don't reject libertines, we just hate people who think "there oughta be a law." Which implies that there oughta be guys with guns who force people to comply with them.

Did anybody hear that John A. Rapanos has been sentenced

to 3 years of probation, a $185,000 fine and 200 hours of community service for grading 50 acres of his own property.

He needed a permit to fill the navigable waters there.

Here's the DOJ press release (2 page pdf). Dated the Ides of March, interestingly. I'd say that's appropriate, but it's not the usurper getting it in this case.

US Attorney Stephen J. Murphy thanks EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for their hard work.

I wonder if they'd recognize this statement, "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their Substance."

Have I called for tar and feathers yet this month?

Here's a Walter Williams article on the subject.

Thank God my friend Teflon Man, in Singapore,

only had to concern himself with his physical condition.

He's a good go-to guy for a personal perspective on what's happening over there.

I'm happy to have someone to care about in that part of the world, but it's a source of worry as well when the Universe seems so intent on killing us.

I was just watching PBS' take on Krakatoa. It seems that it's ready to blow its stack again at any time. Singapore seems to be in a charmed position with reference to these natural disasters, and let's pray that God keeps it that way, but I would like to see our Blog-brethren take their reporting responsibilities seriously when they happen.

Easy for me to say, from my home in suburbia on the most geologically stable place on the planet.

James Taranto, in Best of the Web, starts out with this item today:

Comiconomenclaturists for Bolton
A group of ex-diplomats have signed a letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, urging the rejection of John Bolton's nomination for ambassador to the U.N., because among other things Bolton is too pro-American.

Among the signatories, according to the Associated Press: "Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration."

Princeton, Monteagle and Spurgeon--these are their first names! As reader Doug Welty asks, what do Fauntleroy and Poindexter think?

Amen, Bro.

The commie's always want us to "follow the money." We libertarians are always wondering why their no good heirs are following Marx.

Americans my age and older will remember when

taking a road trip in the US wasn't much better than this.

Thank God for the existence of farm roads.

I wonder if some of the reason it was better was fear of Smokey and the Bandit-type cops that'd beat the hell out of you if you gave them half an excuse.

Remember the SEP field in one of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy books?

Time to put one around the Terry Schiavo case.

SEP stands for "somebody else's problem." It made things invisible, sort of.

I haven't been able to turn on the TV or radio for two weeks without hearing endless discussion of the case, and... I'm not willing to learn every side of the issue, so I don't want to comment on it. I'm not going to vote on it, and I can't do anything about it.

That's all I have to say about it. (Not entirely true, I've said a couple things at CPF's and 86 Tips.)

Can I move on now?

Larry Elder has an interesting rundown on the popularity

of America's past wars.

It defy's experpting, go read it.

Nick Coleman has it exactly right!

Mitch Berg points out this article by Coleman defending the rights of local Catholic High School, De la Salle, against the encroachments of limousine liberals:

Nicollet Islanders don't want to share

In the political lexicon, a logroller is an insider who knows how to work the system to obtain privileges. On Nicollet Island, which is a jewel in the Minneapolis park system, a small enclave of logrollers who have a sweet deal and live on public property have come together to block approval of a new athletic field for DeLaSalle High School. The logrollers like their little preserve and want to keep it to themselves.

The city established a tiny village on the 48-acre island in the 1980s, hoping to revive a blighted area. Now there are 43 vintage homes on the upstream end of the island, some that were rehabbed, others that were moved onto the island. All are on Minneapolis Park Board property, with the land leased to the homeowners for 99 years.

The leases were awarded in a lottery, but a number of them ended up in the hands of the well-connected, including a surprising number with ties to the DFL Party. Now, these proud island people are blocking approval of a football field for a 105-year-old school that also would be used by kids in Park Board programs.

The argument against a football field is ironic:

Opponents say the school should look elsewhere -- off the island -- because a field would be an improper private use of public property.

Coleman shows that he is indeed a great writer by continuing to strengthen his point. [Read the whole thing.]

There will be no "but" in this blogpost. He's got it dead right. He proves himself an old-time Minnesota liberal who retains his man-of-the-people roots here. Conservatives and libertarians can only applaud his integrity and back up his cause.

Nick

Let me show you my chief inspiration for my blog posts:

leering from the artificial wood pattern of our entertainment center:
Beelzebub!




I feel his gaze burning through my back... BORING into my heart!!... when I sit down to post.

Behold how his power possesses my daughter when she stands before him!



There is no doubt that Satan personally burned down your pet store. (I speak as a minion.)

Lord help us all!

[Thank you, Old Blue.]

Since I'm not supposed to take another dose of

Dextromethorphan today [unless I want to go this guy's route(thx Lileks)], I descended out of the haze a little before bedtime today. (I took a leftover Tessalon Pearl, instead.) Anyway, I muttered a lame excuse at the wife and snuck down to the basement to don my blogging jammies.

I ran across another Heretic, in my web-perambulations, who's giving away the store on what our real leaders are up to: judges appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the President - without the approval of the Senate.

The Repubs couldn't do it without the Dems.

That reminds me, I wonder what my old friend, Ayn Clouter, has to say about the Feds shutting down political speech?

I've just been absorbing things since Friday.

I'd like to make jokes here about juice spills, germs and dextromethorphan, but I mean the news. And the news has been disturbing.

Particularly this school shooting at Red Lake High School. The Strib's history of the Reservation doesn't suffice to explain it, I'm afraid, though I don't fault their effort. There just aren't any more details yet.

My inclination is to believe that the last sentence of the latter article provides a hint of the source of a lot of the troubles, "During the 1990s, a new generation of tribal leaders also moved toward a more open and less autocratic government than the reservation had known earlier."

Of course, the source of that autocratic government was our own Indian policies. Speaking as an American, not as a man with Indian blood.

I've mentioned that I love guns, and I hate people who misuse them. Shooting unarmed innocents is cowardly. That meme needs to spread.

I'm sicker than a canine lovefest.

The baby and I had to stay home from work today. Production suffered terribly, especially with the baby gone.

She sick too. I more or less slept on the den floor, with Aliina crawling all over me. She didn't seem to need as much rest as I did.

Right now she's got my left arm pinned to my side. I'm getting better at typing one-handed. She wants me to read her a book.

Gotta go.

This guy state's what I think about the minimum wage.

Now, is there anyone out there that doesn't understand that if I raise the minimum wage on my lowest paid employees; I must charge MORE for my product? The only people this helps are....wait for it.....NO ONE IS HELPED AT ALL!!!!!

You see, product and profit are tied together from the onset. In order for me to make a profit, people have to be willing to buy my product at the price I have to set to stay in business. And the cycle continues.....

Now, on the wage receiving end, it's like this. If minimum wage is raised, every single product in the country gets more expensive. Duh. That means that the people that were making minimum wage wind up with a net gain of zero. Think about it. This presents a major problem. The people that were making more than minimum wage are left with a negative net gain. THEIR SALARY IS WORTH LESS! Get it?

Minimum wage earners for the most part are younger workers that are NOT supporting a family of four people. You know this. All you have to do is THINK. I know that you really believe that raising the minimum wage helps people, but dammit, it doesn't.

Not his whole post. RTWT. There's enough vehemence here to cover anything else I might say, so I'll just let this stand.

God Bless George W. Bush.

I'm deeply pleased with his speech the other day.
I didn't know how pleased, until I read this. Hugh Hewitt read it on the air, but sometimes it doesn't seem like he gets to the root of things with his analyses.

The highlight of the speech was this remarkable passage, strategically placed near the end:

"Americans, of all people, should not be surprised by freedom's power. A nation founded on the universal claim of individual rights should not be surprised when other people claim those rights."
...
Terminology is important. The term "individual rights," as it gets more use and acceptance, orients people to the individualist frame of reference, rescuing social-political thought from collectivist practice of thinking in terms of community, race, or family.

But more than that, Bush has now stated that America was founded upon individual rights. In an age in which intellectuals vilify America as the most violent, racist, imperialist nation in history, it takes courage to proudly assert that America was founded upon the principle of rights. Making that point means something; it takes a stand.

I'm also pleased with the appointments of John Bolton to the UN and Wolfowitz to the World Bank.

Here's a 'graph on Bolton from that link:

As part of the Republican Party's legal team, headed by former Secretary of State Baker, Bolton's boss during the George H.W. Bush administration, Bolton put his hard-ball approach to partisan politics to work. In a complimentary article on Bolton, the Wall Street Journal in July 2002 reported that Bolton's "most memorable moment came after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, when Mr. Bolton strode into a Tallahassee library, where the count was still going on, and declared: 'I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote'."

I rather prefer what Mark Steyn said. Whoops. Can't find it.

There's a great article in the Asia Times on Wolfowitz. The first half is all con, the second half seems pretty positive. They probably hoped you'd get bored by then.

This is supposed to be an objection:

Wolfowitz is an architect of many of the post-invasion policies in Iraq, including privatization, deregulation and commodification of social services and public goods, along with plans to end subsidies that sustain millions of Iraqi citizens. "Wolfowitz's role in promoting economic changes in Iraq and elsewhere suggest he would work to push the bank to focus even more on imposing the so-called 'structural adjustment' policies like forced privatization and indiscriminate trade liberalization, policies which have failed to create growth and have exacerbated poverty across the globe," said Neil Watkins, national coordinator for the anti-debt campaigning group Jubilee USA Network

Failed, eh? I don't see most of the globe trying them.

These 50 Years Is Enough Network people actually seem pretty sharp:

"Paul Wolfowitz is the most controversial choice Bush could have made," said Njoki Njoroge Njehu, director of the 50 Years Is Enough Network. "As the most prominent advocate of imposing the US's will on the world, this appointment signals to developing countries that the US is just as serious about imposing its will on borrowers from the World Bank as on the countries of the Middle East," she added.

I fear that too, though I agree that some principles are worth fighting for. Mostly the matters enumerated by Neil Watkins above. The reason the World Bank and the IMF have been ineffective is that they loan money to governments, which, when they aren't run by tyrants and oligarchs (read kleptocrats) are run by people who think that money is evil and don't understand how to use it. Money has to be invested in production.

I'm also given to understand that exporters in the US lobby hard to see that money come back to American producers and an awful lot of Americans think this is a good thing. It's giving them a fish rather than teaching them to fish.

It's a subsidy which acts just like all subsidies, warping consumption patterns from needs to goofy fads and fashions that can change with the wind direction. (That's sort of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle.) Then the note comes due and a bunch of people who've become experts at consuming our stuff and lost their expertise at producing their own stuff have to pay up. And they can't. They have nothing to sell... except themselves, maybe. This is not an improvement in their condition and harms our relations with them.

I don't like to see people defaulting on loans or failing to pay their debts, but the bank that loans money out to bad credit risks (like tyrannical governments - "But they promised they'd change!") gets what it deserves when they go bankrupt.

A little farther down, a positive tone:

But some economists argue against his lack of experience in development and poverty issues. "His term as ambassador to Indonesia taught him a lot about development," said Peter Timmer, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington. "My personal sense is he got the idea of what a liberal Muslim society would look like by working in Indonesia. I honestly think he is going to surprise people and turn out to be quite effective," said Timmer, who worked as a development economist in Indonesia while Wolfowitz was ambassador, and later served on academic committees with him.

And a little flip from this bunch, 50 Years Is Enough Network, that I like:

But some longtime critics of the bank see a silver lining to the controversial nomination. "If confirmed, we would no longer have to work so hard to convince people that the World Bank is an instrument of US foreign and economic policy," said Soren Ambrose, senior policy analyst with the 50 Years Is Enough Network. "Wolfowitz has no experience in development, just a fierce ideological dedication to hardcore neo-liberal economics and US domination. In other words, between exposing the true dangers of the lack of democracy at the World Bank and putting the most visible symbol of US imperialism in the most prominent position in international development, President Bush will accomplish more in de-legitimizing the World Bank than any other single action ever could," said Ambrose.

No guarantee that that's not his goal. Or a positive possibility if Wolfowitz can't turn things around there.

Kind of like my year in MPIRG.

I live an easy canoe portage west of the Mississippi.

My loved ones think I'm nuts, and I think they're all wimps, but mostly I live in such a way as not to trouble them. Unrewarding as that is.

It's a mile and a half to the nearest canoe landing.

The wife insists that we drive. I'm going to have to start sneaking out before sunrise on Saturdays.

In the summer, I mean. It's about 20° out now and we're expecting a real live snowstorm tomorrow night, so I don't think I'll try it this weekend.

Oh, crap! I need to get the canoe licensed.

They don't require that in Wisconsin, which reminds me of that guy who wants to get cats delisted as a protected species in Wisconsin. I think his activities have primarily serve as a notice to Cheesehead hunters that it's actually illegal to shoot feral cats in that state. News to me. It's not in Minnesota, and I never heard such a thing when I was growing up in Wisconsin.

Of course, all the cats I saw in the woods growing up were ours. Between our cats and the giant German Shepard, Sunshine, there was absolutely nothing to hunt within a half mile of our house in NW WI. Not grouse, not squirrels, not rabbits, not deer... and even the bears stayed away. Sunshine was about 110-120#. [50-55 kg, for those of you who use that system. Does anybody know what that is in stone?]

I used to wander those woods with my .22, or Mom's 12-gauge, double-barrel shotgun, or Dad's .30-30 Winchester. [I got the necessary licenses; the rangers were out there too.] Once in a while a grouse or pheasant would scare the hell out of me, but it seemed that I was always carrying the wrong weapon. I mean, the .22's no good for birds. I never saw anything big, so the .30-30 was just generally useless (and it's too small for bear, so you just pray that you don't see any of them - and that license is too expensive for a kid anyway), and, as I said, the cats and dog chased away anything you'd want to bring down with buckshot.

So, I never became a hunter, really. Although, I enjoy wandering around the woods holding a powerful weapon. Where I grew up, it was the only way to take a walk outside during deer season; and you'd better not forget to wear your blaze orange.

The blaze orange will keep the smart people from shootin' at ya, and you have the rifle to stop the dumb people from shootin' at ya.

Generally, we laid low during deer season.

Amen, Insty!

Jack Kemp: Scumbag?

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

I shook the man's hand when he visited Duluth, stumping for Rudy Boschwitz (who lost to Wellstone in 1986). He was quite the rising star at the time.

Putting yourself on the payroll (so to speak, through some very roundabout machinations) of one of the most virulent anti-Americans in the world is unforgivable.

We have a festival here called "Taste of Minnesota"

It's not all about Lutefisk and Lefse, though those can be found there, or even, from our southern regions, bratwurst and beer, which I highly recommend. Finnish cuisine, boiled ring bologna and jello salad don't even make a showing. [Nor do they deserve to.]

We also have one of the largest Hmong communities in the world (including even Cambodia), who make truly fantastic springrolls, with some of the hottest sauce on the planet. And we have a large Mexican community, and I don't have to tell anyone in the know about the great food they produce.

We took in a Mexican friend of my stepson's, who was recently deported until she got her paperwork in order - which she did, and she's back - who would cook us the most wonderful meals. [Molé, chocolate sauce, isn't worth trying for the average Scandahoovian, nor is...uh, I'm choking on the name for cow intestines, as well as the memory of the flavor, or lack thereof. But everything else is worth stuffing yourself on.]

But...

I can't offer you any of that.

What I can offer is a taste of Wisconsin politics in the form of a post from Lance Burri:

Sauk County, Wisconsin, runs its own old folks' home – the Sauk County Health Care Center (SCHCC). It's a pricey business, and some of us think, maybe, we should let the private sector handle it. Others disagree.

On one side is a county supervisor who looked at facts to reach her conclusion. On the other side, another supervisor, who calls it "unforgivable" if we don't rely on emotion, instead.

Which one do you want in charge of your tax money?

Read the whole thing. The guy's awesome.

800,000 Lebanese can't be wrong!

This guy's got some things to say

that need to be heard and discussed: Strategy Revolutions.

Baaa - dump! It will attack and devour anything.

Baaa - dump!

It is as if Dagon created the devil and gave him a jawbone.

Baaa - dump!

No pomo's fantasies of evil can compare with the reality of...

Ba-dump! Ba-dump! Ba-dump! Ba-dump!

Ba-da-DAAAHHHH!!

The Jawbone of an Ass!!

(Sound of Philistines screaming in agony and terror!)

[Reference: The Monster That Ate Hollywood - PBS.]

gotta make sure I'm on the right blog before I shut off Blogger comments and hit "publish"

Greetings this Holiday Season!

Tomorrow is the Ides of March. Celebrate with a glass of red wine and a reading of the last act of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Wednesday is St. Urho's Day. All Finns will be found wearing purple and spearing grasshoppers, should they be living where grasshoppers may be found.

Most Finns are in Florida by now, but those of us left in Northern States and Nordic countries will be pulling bags of them [us=Finns/ them=grasshoppers], saved for the occasion, out of the freezer. Thawing is not necessary. Just fork 'em and throw 'em over your shoulder. Don't forget the requisite incantation, though I will. It's lame.

Grasshopper effigies are also beaten with sticks. Anybody know the Finnish word for pinata?

Some question whether St. Urho's Day is the day before or the day after St. Patrick's Day. The answer is to be found in the fact that St. Urho was created out of whole cloth 50 years ago as an expression of a wave of Finnish chauvinism ("soovinisema" in Finnish--prove me wrong!) - which, of course, came late to the New World - therefore the celebration must be held the day before.

And you all know what to do on St. Patrick's Day. I'm part Irish too.

Anybody know the Finnish for "Always after me Lucky Charms!"

The Advocates for Self-Government biweekly newsletter,

Liberator Online, alerted me to this article (and this website):

Underwater bike ride to launch students' eight-week crime spree

Gerard Seenan
Saturday February 26, 2005
The Guardian

As US coast-to-coast crimewaves go, it is not in the league of Bonnie and Clyde. It lacks both violence and avarice and is further hindered by an overabundance of pre-publicity.
Undeterred, a couple of students from Cornwall are intent on making American criminal history by spending their summer breaking as many US laws as possible.

Starting in the liberal state of California, they hope to evade the attention of local police officers when they ride a bike in a swimming pool and curse on a crazy-golf course.

In the far more conservative - and landlocked - state of Utah, they will risk the penitentiary when they hire a boat and attempt to go whale-hunting.

Etc. Let's hope it doesn't end like Thelma and Louise.

And let's get to work to repeal some of this BS, eh?

Can anybody tell the difference

between the way this thing says what I said and the way I said it?

Thanks t'mah buddy, Lance,
ah find thet thar's a real, live politician sayin' whut ah's hankerin' t'hear on Social Security refo'm, dawgone it.

[A politician tellyng yo' whut yer hankerin' t'hear?! Fry mah hide! No WAY! Fry mah hide!! Fry mah hide!]

No, not "Throw th' old varmints into th' snowbank! Fry mah hide!"

But it's not "a possum in ev'ry pot," eifer. It's bold but moderate. Moderately bold, cuss it all t' tarnation.

Just a matter of the spelling, seems to me.

Oh, here's the main site; it's called The Dialectizer.

An Excellant post and comments

on Objectivist rational self-interest at The Flights of Icarus Goodman.

Hopefully the double post from yours truly will be deleted. (I didn't say much, really.)

An Astoundingly Stupid Criminal.

Somebody I know was caught stealing car stereos. He was sentenced to three weeks of wearing an ankle bracelet.

I wonder what fleeing from and shooting at cops will add to this guy's sentence.

Sorry for not posting, the baby was sick.

Kind of sapped my time and energy.

I've also been sort of scattering my internet time and energy to the winds lately. I need to get back and focus on whatever the H--- I was thinking when I decided to enter a debate with Omni.

Okay (update), the first thing I should say about the Omni "debate," is that I was talking about her posts on Karma, particularly the one about insane people being immune to it.

Oops! I still had that URL stuck in the old Linkatron. Fits right in though. Except karma got that dork.

I meant this link.

Omni's Wednesday post, Karma vs. Stupidity, is kind of a Unification Theory between Natural Law and Karma, and more or less answers the question.

Then we get into her post on String Theory and Karma.

I missed HAC being outed as a guy.

Is that true?

More to the point, is it important?

Thanks to my buddy, Lance,

I find that there's a real, live politician saying what I want to hear on Social Security reform.

[A politician telling you what you want to hear?! No WAY!!]

No, not "Throw the old people into the snowbank!"

But it's not "a chicken in every pot," either. It's bold but moderate. Moderately bold.

I can't believe I missed these articles from FFF!

Corporatism and Socialism in America
by Anthony Gregory, Posted February 23, 2005

The introductory graphs are great:

Principled advocacy of the free market requires an understanding of the differences between genuine free enterprise and "state capitalism." Although the Left frequently exaggerates and overemphasizes the evils of corporate America, proponents of the free market often find themselves in the awkward position of defending the status quo of state capitalism, which is in fact a common adversary of the free marketer and the anti-corporate leftist, even if the latter misdiagnoses the problem and proposes the wrong solutions.

Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state - whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts - inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.

Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.

There's a great rundown of American history, including a section, "Corporatism versus liberty in the 19th century," explaining why I bristle when people think my moniker refers to the American Whig Party. (Without mentioning me personally. An oversight, I'm sure.)

And, just to whet your appetite, see why Gregory recommends the works of New Leftist Gabriel Kolko, who absolutely hates the way Libertarians use his books:

Gabriel Kolko's groundbreaking book The Triumph of Conservatism best advances this thesis of how the government expanded to accommodate, rather than curb, the interests of big business. Though a New Leftist, Kolko shows how political capitalists in every industry - from meatpacking to coal, from railroads to insurance - embraced the expanding regulatory state for their own gain - to push competitors out of the market and give government legitimacy to their companies.

The other article is

Once Again, Democracy Is Not Freedom
(and We Are Not the Government)
by Jacob G. Hornberger, February 28, 2005

Let me quote the three paragraphs I pretty much agree with:

It's not difficult to see how our American ancestors felt about democracy. They considered it so bad that they enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from it.

After all, carefully read the Bill of Rights. You'll notice something interesting: It doesn't give people rights at all. Instead, it protects us from democracy.

The popular refrain, "We are the government," is false too. After all, if we are the government, then why does the Bill of Rights protect those of us in the private sector from those in the government sector?

Sadly, I don't think the rest of the article well supports the title. I wish it did. I'm sure Hornberger has written something better on this subject.

The citation of the Bill of Rights is essential to understanding what he's getting at here. Let's see if I can summarize it for you.

The Bill of Rights proclaims that the U. S. Government will actively defend your right to

Speak against the government and prevailing opinion
Print such thoughts
Assemble to discuss them
Petition the government about them
Practice orthodox or heretical religious beliefs (provided they don't breach the equal rights of others to the same)
Bear arms for self and communal defense
Maintain private property (many provisions - I'll elaborate later; protection of "persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" gets a long way into it)
Trial by jury
The right to remain silent in the face of the authorities
And
Things the Founders didn't think of, but that Nature is later found to require
Things your state thought of that other states didn't.

Hornberger spends too much space attacking Bush. Liberals will agree with the attacks, conservatives won't - except for the Buchananites.

Update: FEE (unapologetic FEElosophers, to use Kirkpatrick Sale's smart-assed term) to the rescue! From

Democracy's Road to Tyranny
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - May 1988
by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Pondering the question of "Who should rule," the democrat gives his answer: "the majority of politically equal citizens, either in person or through their representatives." In other words, equality and majority rule are the two fundamental principles of democracy. A democracy may be either liberal or illiberal.

Genuine liberalism is the answer to an entirely different question: How should government be exercised? The answer it provides is: regardless of who rules, government must be carried out in such a way that each person enjoys the greatest amount of freedom, compatible with the common good. This means that an absolute monarchy could be liberal (but hardly democratic) and a democracy could be totalitarian, illiberal, and tyrannical, with a majority brutally persecuting minorities. (We are, of course, using the term "liberal" in the globally accepted version and not in the American sense, which since the New Deal has been totally perverted.)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn holds not merely the honorific "von" but also the title "Ritter," or Knight. Take that as you wish.

Did anyone notice this, from Victor Davis Hanson?

Question: Western culture has over millennia created a particularly deadly and effective fighting force (the point you expanded upon in "Carnage and Culture"). Do you think we are likely to meet our match in the near future?

Hanson: Only if someone else follows the Western paradigm better than we do—and thus has a freer society, more transparency, a freer economy, more stable democratic government, a greater devotion to merit and openness of views and ideas, etc.; but I don't see that happening quite yet.

The other scenario that a China or the Arab world, like the Ottomans of old, can cherry-pick Western technology and add its veneer to their own unfree societies to defeat us with our weaponry and their numbers and fanaticism, doesn't have a lot of historical precedent. The key is not 'them,' but us—to what degree will we continue to value freedom, invest rather than merely spend, and pass on stern values not just sensuality to our children?

Google this phrase:

lifting weights in case I ever have to get all kung-fu on someone's non-tipping ass

I leave off the quote marks to make it easier.

No, it's not LibertyBob, but good guess.

Give up?

"Non-tipping" gives it away.
Knowing her, what do you think when you see the title "Blog it like it's Hot"?

Omni, your theory isn't handling the anomalies.

Rock Hudson was widely acknowledged as a man's man. [Sorry, bad joke (though, one of the most masculine men I know, a former blacksmith in the mines up north, admits to having said exactly that before the news came out), but] Look at Cary Grant, you don't consider that an unrealistic standard to achieve?

Thank God for Spencer Tracy!

Of course, mentioning him only brings up Katherine Hepburn... Mmm. Katherine Hepburn. Most men don't achieve her level of competence, confidence or looks.

How'd she end up with him?
___

I've heard that Stalin died in his bed while doctors who were perfectly capable of curing him debated the wisdom of doing so in the next room. And wisely decided to prolong their debate instead.

Karma...

I've noticed that my kind acts seem to multiply and come back to me, as do my unkind acts. When I'm patient and polite on the highway, in particular, I notice that others seem to be as well, and the opposite happens when I'm impatient and rude.

I mentioned that my prayers seem to come true. I'm not sure how that works, but your theory of Karma seems to shed some light on it. You'd think that a loving God would just automatically give people what they need to live happy, productive lives, yet it actually seems that people whom I remember to ask God to bless do better than people I forget to bless.

I can't think of anyone in particular that I could use as an example. Well, my mother... I tend to take her for granted. There's no need to pray for her. Of course God's taking care of her, right? Well, that attitude has led to her being near bedridden. She's getting better very slowly now, but now I remember to pray for her.

That's actually a rather extreme example, and an unforeseeable one that I don't feel as guilty about as the preceding paragraph might imply. There are myriads of people to pray for, and I'm just one guy. I won't say I'm new to the idea of praying without ceasing, but I've received but little guidance. [My own fault.] Perhaps it is up to me to add this bit of wisdom to the world. My life goes so much better since I've begun to do two things: 1. I think "God bless you" whenever I look someone in the eye, and 2. I remember a prayer that I say whenever I remember it (circular, yes) that God will bless everyone whose name I remember.

I've been thinking about writing a book on "prayer for atheists," but this is about as much insight as I've come up with.

The Comments on my Feb. 23 post.

Alan,

I arrived at * = the letter i immediately. I was surprised you beat around the bush (pun intended). But I suppose that backed your point about not getting la*d for being obtuse.

TTM
The Teflon Man | 02.24.05 - 8:27 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that's blogging, baby.
Todd | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 10:27 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you.

Great point TTM.
Old Whig | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 10:47 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Heh. I thought it was R, so I was like woohoo! recipe blogging! *sigh*

Was a good story sir. My boys had been reading my Cosmopolitan mags. (had, past tense, I don't buy it anymore) Wonder if Redbook has recipes...
Deb S. | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 4:49 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think they do, but not a ton of 'em.
Old Whig | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 5:38 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe you said "Adipose Tissue." You are such a nerd. Next time you should work in "Triglyceride" and "Ethyl-t-butyl ether" just to excite me.

A great post, but now I think you should do the COUNTERPOINT--"Obtuseness CANNOT keep you from getting la*d".

I know you're the king of Point/Counterpoint.

xo
J
Jackie | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 10:44 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obtuseness can keep you from getting a lad? Al!! I knew you were a Libertarian, but...
Steve of G.J.'s | 02.24.05 - 11:17 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(grin) I like...

When is it (what age) that kids realise just what it was that there parents did...

Oh, along a similar vein. We had our "Halberg Sports Awards" last night.

One of the speakers was Danyon Loader who won NZ two Olympic swimming gold medals a few years back. In his speech he remarked that he had been swimming for a long time. In fact he could remember going for a swim with Dad and going home with mum...

Well, I thought it was funny...
probligo | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 4:46 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a link to that speech, Prob?

Steve, I thought about using the * as a null, but I'm not passionate about the Rhythm Method.
Old Whig | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 10:58 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

obtuseness equals fertility
tif | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 1:23 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I sympathize, Al.
There have been numerous examples of women, whom I knew as girls in junior high and high school, who later told me they had crushes on me way back then and they couldn't figure out why I never asked them out.

Of course, I prefer the word "oblivious".
LibertyBob | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 2:39 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oblivious" might be a better word.

I have to consciously make a decision to engage in a...uh... such things. I don't get how anyone could just fall into the sack with someone without understanding what's up.

"One thing led to another" just doesn't make any sense to me. I know the goal when I make the first move.

This is more of an objection to Jackie's remarks than anything else.

Of course, stupidity is not a guaranteed protection. But it "worked" for me.
Old Whig | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 12:19 am | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I happened to catch an episode of the show "Crossing Jordan" a month or two ago. The phrase they used was, "...and one thing led to a mother".
I laughed my ass off. (Fun with weight loss)
LibertyBob | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 6:33 pm | #

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish I'd seen that, LB. I still have a few pounds to go before I reach the level my wife has a picture of when I, while living at the Grand Canyon, was stricken by both a passion for walking and poverty.

Oh, and also an addiction to nicotine that overpowered my desire to eat.
Old Whig | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 10:35 pm | #

I just got an email from Isabel Paterson!

From beyond the grave! Isn't the Internet wonderful?

ΟΝLlΝE RΧ

ΗΥDR0C0D0ΝΕ 3O × 5OOmg 0nIy $7O 0rder
\/lC0DlΝ 3O × 75Omg 0nIy $IIO 0rder
\/lΑGRΑ IO × IOOmg 0nIy $7O 0rder
\/ΑLlUΜ 3O × IOmg 0nIy $7O 0rder
ClΑLlS IO × 2Omg 0nIy $7O 0rder


\/iew Οnline CataIog


No thanks
parentageabstinentcarreltransshipped
centipedeimpatientpresidential

How the mighty have fallen!

Seriously, you bastards are treadin' on sacred ground. Knock it the f*** off!

Isabel Paterson

A quote from Hans-Herman Hoppe

that I think would be fun to debate.

...[A]ll compulsory wealth or income redistribution, regardless of the criteria on which it is based, involves taking from some—the havers of something—and giving it to others—the non-havers of something. Accordingly, the incentive to be a haver is reduced, and the incentive to be a non-haver increased. What the haver has is characteristically something considered "good," and what the non-haver does not have is something "bad" or a deficiency. Indeed, this is the very idea underlying any redistribution: some have too much good stuff and others not enough. The result of every redistribution is that one will thereby produce less good and increasingly more bad, less perfection and more deficiencies. By subsidizing with tax funds (with funds taken from others) people who are poor, more poverty (bad) will be created. By subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment (bad) will be created. By subsidizing unwed mothers, there will be more unwed mothers and more illegitimate births (bad), etc.

I doubt that my wife, a former debate coach (and debater, lest you doubt--if you've had any experience with high school coaching assignments, you might), and current teacher of pregnant teens, would find anything here to argue with.

Her experience turned her from a Democrat to a Republican. I'm still working on the next step to Libertarian.

How hard am I working on it, you ask?

Well, not very.

The Mises Institute is celebrating Molinari's birthday today.

As Wikipedia put it, "Throughout his life…Molinari defended peace, free trade, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and liberty in all its forms, and opposed slavery, colonialism, mercantilism, protectionism, imperialism, nationalism, corporatism, economic interventionism, government control of arts and education, and all restraints on liberty."

Sounds like my kinda guy.
A quote:

"…men who obtained power…were incessantly compelled to enlarge…the functions of the State. Ever occupied with…the maintenance of their own power, further charged with a multiplicity of incongruous functions, modern governments can with difficulty fulfill their task. This is the real explanation of the grossly inadequate performance of their first duty—protection of life and property of the individual."

And check out the references:

Gustave de Molinari, "The Production of Security"
Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow
David Hart, "Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition," Journal of Libertarian Studies
David Hart, "Gustave de Molinari; Life and Works," which also contains links to other electronic resources about or by Molinari, including in the original French.
Murray Rothbard on Molinari
The Molinari Institute

Consumed by the Spirit of Irreverence as I am

I'd like to point out that my religion has three bibles. There's The Bible, which, if you believe in it, is destined to get top billing. Next comes Atlas Shrugged, followed by Human Action.

God, Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises.

Not an obvious troika. Rand and Mises, sure, but they were both atheists and Rand was quite militant about it. I'm making no friends at CapMag or ARI by admitting that I place the Bible above her. I'm sure that even the kids at The Objectivist Center are turning their backs on me as you read this.

I say, "Relax! If you're right, this BS will wither away in good time." I don't think religion can be defeated in head to head debate. If it's wrong, history will bypass it. But, as Omni said, my experience says there's something there. My prayers often seem to work.

And don't forget how much I enjoy The Wisdom of China and India, by Lin Yutang.

I've talked plenty about the first two recently. I don't think I've ever posted an extended quote from Human Action.

I have The Scholars' Edition. Page 14:

On Happiness

In colloquial speech we call a man "happy" who has succeeded in attaining his ends. A more adequate description of his state would be that he is happier than he was before. There is however no valid objection to a usage that defines human action as the striving for happiness.

But we must avoid current misunderstandings. The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man's desire. There is no standard of greater or lesser satisfaction other than individual judgments of value, different for various people and for the same people at various times. What makes a man feel uneasy and less uneasy is established by him from the standard of his own will and judgment, from his personal and subjective valuation. Nobody is in a position to decree what should make a fellow man happier.

To establish this fact does not refer in any way to the antitheses of egoism and altruism, of materialism and idealism, of individualism and collectivism, of atheism and religion. There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants. There are people who desire nothing else than the satisfaction of their appetites for sexual intercourse, food, drinks, fine homes, and other material things. But other men care more for the satisfactions commonly called "higher" and "ideal." There are individuals eager to adjust their actions to the requirements of social cooperation; there are; on the other hand, refractory people who defy the rules of social life. There are people for whom the ultimate goal of the earthly pilgrimage is the preparation for a life of bliss. There are other people who do not believe in the teachings of any religion and do not allow their actions to be influenced by them.

Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at. It is a science of means, not of ends. It applies the term happiness in a purely formal sense. In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man's unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological. It does not imply any statement about the state of affairs from which man expects happiness.

The idea that the incentive of human activity is always some uneasiness and its aim always to remove such uneasiness as far as possible, that is to make the acting men feel happier, is the essence of the teachings of Eudaemonism and Hedonism. Epicurean [Greek - aparaeia] is that state of perfect happiness and contentment at which all human activity aims without ever wholly attaining it. In the face of the grandeur of this cognition it is of little avail only that many representatives of this philosophy failed to recognize the purely formal character of the notions pain and pleasure and gave them a material and carnal meaning. The theological, mystical, and other schools of a heteronomous ethic did not shake the core of Epicureanism because they could not raise any other objection than its neglect of the "higher" and "nobler" pleasures. It is true that the writings of many earlier champions of Eudaemonism, Hedonism, and Utilitarianism are in some points open to misinterpretation. But the language of modern philosophers and still more that of the modern economists is so precise and straightforward that no misinterpretation can possibly occur.

Perhaps I don't normally make it clear that all my posts are open for debate.

This is a further development of Utilitarianism. There are some I know who should be aware that Henry Hazlitt expanded on this line of thought in The Foundations of Morality. (And see this link for a better review that I could have written.)

Hey! GigglePundit is linking both my blogs.

(Although, if I had any idea how to do it, I'd have them as separate pages of this blog. Maybe he knows how.)

I'm going to bring the links from there to here.

Whoops! That was embarassing!

If you didn't notice, I'm not gonna say anything. If you did, I'm sorry.

I had a link up that had something I can't endorse.

Since there's a big flap over the 10 Commandments

Let's play To Legislate or Not To Legislate with them. I'm not making any effort to be funny, btw, but if you want to laugh at me, go ahead.

From Bible Gateway: Deuteronomy 5 New International Version (NIV). (I prefer to do my memorization from the KJV, but since nobody speaks KJE...):

6 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Nothing to legislate there.

7 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

Nope. I don't even advocate teaching these in government schools, though banning students from carrying around copies would be wrong too.

8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I hope nobody wants to legislate that. What would the punishment be, beyond God's disfavor?

11 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

No need for vicious earthly punishment.

12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

Everybody deserves a break.

16 "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

No need for the government to step in.

17 "You shall not murder.

Yup.

18 "You shall not commit adultery.

A civil matter. Yup.

19 "You shall not steal.

Yup.

20 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Yup.

21 "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Good advice. I'd be interested in how it could be enforced as law.

So you've got four that could become Constitutional laws, two that are good general advice (that could inform specific laws), and four that are purely religious in nature.

Of course the question before the Supreme Court is should displays of them be banned from The Public Square. As examples of laws that led to the development of our laws, sure they belong in courthouses. And when fans of the Code of Hammurabi, or even Sharia want to donate their displays, they should be accepted too.

Byrd's and Dean's Over-Heated Rhetoric

I'm with the Republicans on this. We call murderous totalitarian regimes evil, the Democrats call us evil.

Hmm.

President Reagan called the old Soviet Union an "evil empire." President Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil."

Byrd with an equally weighty concern:

Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate. I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area. "What does nuclear option mean to you?" He answered, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" The people generally don't know what this is about. The nuclear option seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissable the rule.

I don't know who came up with the term "nuclear option" with reference to a change in the Senate procedural rules (which are not even legislation, btw), but I know the Republicans haven't been worried about it's use. The problem is that the filibuster is too easy these days. It's not a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario, it's an agreement not to bring up the subject that's being "filibustered." Meanwhile they go on to other business. Nobody's going all Strom Thurmond.

The world's most deliberative body needs to actually deliberate.

(For more, see Lileks, Gen.mo Duane and Hugh.

You thought I was the only one who cared about E. G. Ross?

FEE just sent me an email pairing these two articles: "[O]verall life expectancy of Americans hit a record high of 77.6 years." (Washington Times, Tuesday)

And:

"Live Long and Prosper" by Ernest G. Ross.

Ernst Georg Ross was the name his parents gave him in Austria. I was saddened by the fact that he could never run for President. He had the cowboy ethos down so well.

I consider him my I- (or e- or whatever) mentor. I'm blogging because of him and because he's gone.

The secret to weight-loss

is here.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION WOULD WEAKEN COMPUTER SECURITY, POWELL ARGUES

I wish that were Michael - or even Colin - Powell, but we'll have to settle for the Independent Institute's Benjamin Powell.

Unless it wants to shackle innovation, the government should ignore calls to regulate cybersecurity -- the protection of computer hardware, software, and networks from malicious viruses or hackers -- according to Benjamin Powell, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation.

The industry's "track record should make us skeptical that government regulation can improve security without damaging innovation," writes Powell in his new op-ed, "Don't Regulate Cyber Security."

Consumers and corporations weigh the extra cost of cybersecurity against the extra benefit. Even where third parties would be affected, markets have been providing more security each year. The financial services industry, for example, has taken the lead in promoting cybersecurity, Powell explains.

Over 85 percent of financial institutions surveyed for the latest Deloitte GLOBAL SECURITY SURVEY used intrusion-detection and -prevention software, "and most firms were experimenting with using many more advanced technologies," writes Powell. From 2003 to 2004, "63 percent of firms surveyed saw their security budgets increase while only 10 percent decreased, and nearly half of all firms increased security staffing."

Concludes Powell: "Reforms should be limited to examining negligence liability standards in situations where security breeches spill over to firms without contractual relations. Direct government regulation will raise costs against consumer wishes, delaying and limiting new products from coming to market. Market forces are better regulators of cyber security than government bureaucrats."

See "Don't Regulate Cyber Security," Benjamin Powell (2/28/05)

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/
article.asp?id=1470

Also see, "Will Strong Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" featuring David Friedman (4/24/01)
http://www.independent.org/
events/event_transcripts.asp?page=2&sort=&sd=

David Friedman (Milty's boy) is next to godliness.

(I just chopped up those URLs so they'd fit on my site. If that causes problems, that's what the deal is.)

Tom Sowell posts an essay

At Townhall illustrating a point I believe I've made:

When the propagandizing activities of educational institutions were recently criticized in this column, a defender of these institutions sent an e-mail, claiming that there was nothing wrong with pushing particular beliefs, if those beliefs were correct.

Violating my New Year's resolution to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people, I replied, asking if this man would feel all right, if he were a member of a jury, to vote after having heard only the prosecution's case or only the defendant's case.

His reply was that he would -- if the people presenting one side of the case were people he knew and trusted.

It is easily possible for people whom you love and respect to be completely wrong about something.

Very few people are Jesus Christ.

Steyn's been reading Lileks.

I don't like to say I told you so. But, actually, I do like to say I told you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so. But nevertheless I did.