Professor Bainbrige offers a look at the concepts of liberty over oneself and one's property are joined. How can one truly exercise one rights over one's self, if one is denied the fruits of their labor. Hillary Clinton had a howler on this line recently, and it shows the attitude that makes it clear to me why Democrats can not be judged as fit defenders of liberty. To say that the government should disproportionately tax the wealthy is to say that a person outside of yourself has the right to say that you have enough and have no right to what they judge to be your excess. If that doesn't scare you, then you haven't really seen the danger a big government becomes.
Link via Instapundit.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
F the Undecideds
I just finished reading through Roger L. Simon's blog today and found myself nodding along with this piece regarding the crafting of the Republicam Party platform. Most particularly is the renewed call for a ban on same sex unions. Yet another reminder of why I can't vote for Bush.
On the other hand, I don't even recall hearing anything about a platform coming out of the DNC. Looking at Kerry's wishlist, I can't go that way either.
The first comment on the post drives home my feelings on the whole election quite well:
Update: I just realized that I hadn't finished this one yet. Sorry.
Anyway, with the dwindling pool of undecideds, I don't think that either party can count on turning enough to their side to swing the election out of the courts. The only way for one side or the other to win is to energize their bases and demoralize the others. As if I didn't already have enough reason to wish it was November.
On the other hand, I don't even recall hearing anything about a platform coming out of the DNC. Looking at Kerry's wishlist, I can't go that way either.
The first comment on the post drives home my feelings on the whole election quite well:
Maybe we can capture one of the two parties, or maybe one will be so fractured it will die and be replaced by a new one, but for the near future us fiscal conservative, socially liberal hawks don't have a home.
Update: I just realized that I hadn't finished this one yet. Sorry.
Anyway, with the dwindling pool of undecideds, I don't think that either party can count on turning enough to their side to swing the election out of the courts. The only way for one side or the other to win is to energize their bases and demoralize the others. As if I didn't already have enough reason to wish it was November.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Materials in Movies
Thank you, Virginia for providing this lik to The Reel Thing: One Editor's List of Great Material Moments in the Movies. I admit that I got a kick out of Flubber and Star Trek's transparent aluminum. As with any list, there must be quibbles about what was and was not on the list. The number 1 of the list, Theremin doesn't reach the threshold of materials goodness that I would want for a list such as this.
I do give kudos to the author for including The Graduate on the list. I have often referred to that line in describing Materials Science.
What should have been on the list, leaving aside thermodynamic concerns much the way Flubber does, is The Core. I might give the author a break in that the movie required more suspension of disbelief than a John Edwards (the medium, not the VP candidate) performance. The material that the deep-earth delving Daedalus was made of supposedly turned the ambient heat and pressure into energy for maintaining structural integrity was named Unobtainium. Too cool, even if laughable.
I do give kudos to the author for including The Graduate on the list. I have often referred to that line in describing Materials Science.
What should have been on the list, leaving aside thermodynamic concerns much the way Flubber does, is The Core. I might give the author a break in that the movie required more suspension of disbelief than a John Edwards (the medium, not the VP candidate) performance. The material that the deep-earth delving Daedalus was made of supposedly turned the ambient heat and pressure into energy for maintaining structural integrity was named Unobtainium. Too cool, even if laughable.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Last Thoughts on the Olympics
I just watched the gold medal men's volleyball match where Brazil defeated Italy 3-1. A few thoughts crossed my mind while watching:
1. Both indoor and beach volleyball gave the best examples of world class athleticism out of all of the Olympics.
2. Obviously the Italian coach did not sweat as much as the Brazilian coach. Otherwise, that natty suit the Italian coach wore would have collapsed under its own weight.
3. A Brazilian player by the name of Heller? I wonder what his Granddaddy did during the War.
Goodbye, Athens. Despite the doomsayers (myself included), and pending the Closing Ceremonies, you did a hell of a job.
1. Both indoor and beach volleyball gave the best examples of world class athleticism out of all of the Olympics.
2. Obviously the Italian coach did not sweat as much as the Brazilian coach. Otherwise, that natty suit the Italian coach wore would have collapsed under its own weight.
3. A Brazilian player by the name of Heller? I wonder what his Granddaddy did during the War.
Goodbye, Athens. Despite the doomsayers (myself included), and pending the Closing Ceremonies, you did a hell of a job.
Where's the Love?
Via Instapundit are a pair of articles discussing the reaction of the main stream media to the way that blogs are forcing the issue of the Swift Vets for Truth allegations into the media's consciousness. For the most part, it is nothing but kvetching about how they are not allowed to denigrate the Swift Vets and let the story die.
What strikes me is that there are none of the "attaboys" that were showered on the blogosphere that there were when bloggers did the parsing of Trent Lott's words at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. You'd think that their take is entirely dependant on which bull is getting gored.
What strikes me is that there are none of the "attaboys" that were showered on the blogosphere that there were when bloggers did the parsing of Trent Lott's words at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. You'd think that their take is entirely dependant on which bull is getting gored.
Friday, August 27, 2004
What Is the Guy Supposed to Do?
The BBC has uncorked another brilliant observation about President Bush's true motives. Regarding his given the Central Intelligence Director power to be central in directing intelligence.
Before they got to this detail, however, the BBC let us know what was really important.
I think I have the rule straight here. Anything the President does to show that he is doing his job in the time leading up to Election Day is merely a political ploy to convince people that he is doing his job. If he were truly above using his office for political gain, then he should do nothing.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that the government doing nothing is the right course of action in virtually all circumstances. Defending our country against terrorist, however, is the exception that fits nicely in the void left by the "virtually".
He said one executive order would give acting CIA Director John McLaughlin "interim" authority to perform many of the functions of a proposed intelligence tsar in overseeing 15 intelligence agencies.
Before they got to this detail, however, the BBC let us know what was really important.
But correspondents note there is also a political angle to the timing of the executive orders, which do not need Congressional approval to be implemented.
It is no coincidence that Mr Bush will sign the presidential orders on the eve of a Republican Party convention in New York where national security will be a key issue, the BBC's Nick Childs in Washington says.
I think I have the rule straight here. Anything the President does to show that he is doing his job in the time leading up to Election Day is merely a political ploy to convince people that he is doing his job. If he were truly above using his office for political gain, then he should do nothing.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that the government doing nothing is the right course of action in virtually all circumstances. Defending our country against terrorist, however, is the exception that fits nicely in the void left by the "virtually".
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
My World Has Gone Upside Down
You mean that there is a topic in which I have to admire Dick Cheney's position?
Glad to see that someone in the Bush Administration gets it.
Link via Virginia Postrel
The issue arose at a campaign town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, when a woman in the audience asked an unusually pointed question: "I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?"
The vice president was candid in his response. "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said. "We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them."
The statement marked the first time Cheney has publicly addressed the fact that his daughter Mary — who helps run his campaign — is gay, although she has been open about it.
"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone," he added.
Glad to see that someone in the Bush Administration gets it.
Link via Virginia Postrel
Taking Pride in Arguing Poorly
Evidently I'm not the only one wanting more content in my news coverage and politics. As I started to read this article from Daily Kos by Trapper John, I was starting to feel optimistic that I might get to read some good discussion on the topic of the change in overtime rules.
Unfortunately, it seems that Trapper John is not in the least bit interested in having a discussion.
Merely citing that a position is held by a group you agree with and opposed by those you don't does not mean that the debate is over. I can just as easily say that the AFL-CIO leadership has a vested interest in keeping its members's incomes as high as possible, damn the macro-economic consequences. Therefore, such an irresponsible group is not a reliable source of information, and its position can be reasonably excluded from my figuring. I could, but I won't. I would rather look at their data and determine which of the competing economic models put forth will most likely reflect reality. Too bad there isn't a way to do a blind taste test of theory.
Here's a topic that might be worth discussing: While the new overtime rules might result in more people losing money than gaining money, might it not also happen that a large number of employers might take some of that money and add more employees to their payrolls? Granted this could result in an overtime double whammy, not only are people not getting paid for the overtime (been there, done that, as a salaried engineer in California) but that new people would spread out the available overtime even more. Of course, if some people are no longer getting paid for the OT, further dilution only cuts down the amount of time they are not getting paid for. Should it be true that a change in the OT rules would lead to an increase in people having jobs, it would seem rather non-progressive for those who are wealthy in employment to hoard their wealth from those who lack. "We've got ours," they seem to be saying, "And too bad for you."
Unfortunately, it seems that Trapper John is not in the least bit interested in having a discussion.
Not only did the takeaway get pushed off the front page by the SBL, but the coverage was a object lesson in the poverty of contemporary journalistic "objectivity." The AP story actually opened with the classic "some say this - some say that" line, "Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday." Please. There is no genuine debate on how the changes will affect workers. As Matt Yglesias notes, "When you have the US Chamber of Commerce saying, de facto, 'this measure will be bad for employers, but good for workers and we strongly support it,' and the AFL-CIO says, 'this will be good for employers, but bad for workers and we strongly oppose it' then the AFL-CIO has infinitely more credibility than the US Chamber of Commerce . . . When the Chamber is pretending to operating against the interests of its members, we can tell that it's analysis is worthless -- the person talking to you is either a liar or else doesn't know how to do his job."
Merely citing that a position is held by a group you agree with and opposed by those you don't does not mean that the debate is over. I can just as easily say that the AFL-CIO leadership has a vested interest in keeping its members's incomes as high as possible, damn the macro-economic consequences. Therefore, such an irresponsible group is not a reliable source of information, and its position can be reasonably excluded from my figuring. I could, but I won't. I would rather look at their data and determine which of the competing economic models put forth will most likely reflect reality. Too bad there isn't a way to do a blind taste test of theory.
Here's a topic that might be worth discussing: While the new overtime rules might result in more people losing money than gaining money, might it not also happen that a large number of employers might take some of that money and add more employees to their payrolls? Granted this could result in an overtime double whammy, not only are people not getting paid for the overtime (been there, done that, as a salaried engineer in California) but that new people would spread out the available overtime even more. Of course, if some people are no longer getting paid for the OT, further dilution only cuts down the amount of time they are not getting paid for. Should it be true that a change in the OT rules would lead to an increase in people having jobs, it would seem rather non-progressive for those who are wealthy in employment to hoard their wealth from those who lack. "We've got ours," they seem to be saying, "And too bad for you."
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
The McCain-Feingold Farce
Any strategy that is effective will be used. This is one of The Rules. It explains why there is always a black market for contraband goods. The Volokh Conspiracy attacks the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and George Bush for signing it. Their angle is that contributing to political campaigns is speach.
While I don't disagree with them on that point, I take more of the approach that few problems are ever solved with more rules. The only things that more rules accomplishes is to make the methods of infraction harder to follow. Giving money to political candidates is seen as effective in advancing one's political agenda. Therefore, people will always try to do it. The only way to clear the air is to remove the rules, and put the burden on the campaigns to account for who gives the money and where it goes.
The only rules I would suggest (I'm a Minarchist, remember) is that all donations go into one account, all expenditures come out of the same account, and all contributions shall be signed by an individual and not a "legal entity", ie corporation or PAC. The primary means of enforcing the rules will be from a net-impartial media. Net-impartial meaning that while a particular journalist may be biased to one side, there would be another journo who will pursue the other side just as vigorously. Far from perfect, but at least this way the rules breakers could be more easily spotted and smoked out by the media, which at this point is the weak link in the chain.
While I don't disagree with them on that point, I take more of the approach that few problems are ever solved with more rules. The only things that more rules accomplishes is to make the methods of infraction harder to follow. Giving money to political candidates is seen as effective in advancing one's political agenda. Therefore, people will always try to do it. The only way to clear the air is to remove the rules, and put the burden on the campaigns to account for who gives the money and where it goes.
The only rules I would suggest (I'm a Minarchist, remember) is that all donations go into one account, all expenditures come out of the same account, and all contributions shall be signed by an individual and not a "legal entity", ie corporation or PAC. The primary means of enforcing the rules will be from a net-impartial media. Net-impartial meaning that while a particular journalist may be biased to one side, there would be another journo who will pursue the other side just as vigorously. Far from perfect, but at least this way the rules breakers could be more easily spotted and smoked out by the media, which at this point is the weak link in the chain.
Tools of Arguing
I was reading this article about the Swift Vets and Kerry's and the mainstream media's response to them (Link via Instapundit). It got me to thinking about how people go about putting to rest a debate about a factual point and the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
What I came to realize is that while the motives of the accuser might give rise to questions as to the validity of the accusations, looking at the motives alone can not answer those questions. If the accuser can not deliver any evidence backing up the accusation, then yes, the motivations might be elucidating. But if there is evidence, then the motives can not be given more weight. If some Baath Party member were to come forward with a videotape showing President Bush performing unspeakable acts upon a Girl Scout, the mere fact of the Baathist's allegiance does not automatically discredit the tape.
As for the whole Swift Boat story, weight of numbers would not normally be a method of swinging weight for me. However, it was Kerry and Edwards who have been saying that you can gauge Kerry's character by the opinions of those who served with him. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have an extremely limited definition of "served with". Given that his impressiveness does not seem to extend beyond a very small circle around him, I think that those critical of him would have had the separation that virtually everyone who works for the executive branch shall have.
What I came to realize is that while the motives of the accuser might give rise to questions as to the validity of the accusations, looking at the motives alone can not answer those questions. If the accuser can not deliver any evidence backing up the accusation, then yes, the motivations might be elucidating. But if there is evidence, then the motives can not be given more weight. If some Baath Party member were to come forward with a videotape showing President Bush performing unspeakable acts upon a Girl Scout, the mere fact of the Baathist's allegiance does not automatically discredit the tape.
As for the whole Swift Boat story, weight of numbers would not normally be a method of swinging weight for me. However, it was Kerry and Edwards who have been saying that you can gauge Kerry's character by the opinions of those who served with him. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have an extremely limited definition of "served with". Given that his impressiveness does not seem to extend beyond a very small circle around him, I think that those critical of him would have had the separation that virtually everyone who works for the executive branch shall have.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Wealth of Another Type, Part I
I was thinking on the idea of there being many types of wealth beyond money. There is self-satisfaction (the coin of this blog's realm), time, family, health, power, and any other type that a person might place a value on. Any type of economic transaction involves the trading of one type for another, typically from a type in which one has a surplus to someone who would value it more. Having a job is an example: the worker exchanges some of his time for a portion of the wealth of the employer. If both sides are satisfied enough to make the deal (not necesarily so that both are entirely happy, just so that both are better off) then a fair trade has occurred.
Sometimes one can have too much wealth, typically assessed in the eyes of others, like in the case of this poor schmuck. Something like that could happen with other wealths. Imagine a case where a pharmaceutical firm is considering taking on a disease that has had a huge impact around the world, for instance, AIDS. As the company sinks more and more funds into the project, you start to hear rumblings about how important it is that everyone get the future cure or vaccine, so important that it would be immoral to leave it to those who can afford what the drug company might choose to charge for it. Some in various governments begin discussions on breaking the patent on whatever drug might be developed. As the company, the return on investment has just been eviscerated, leaving it questionable as to whether or not the cost of the development can be recouped. Not only will the company be hurt in term of current financials, it will be hurt in the work it can not accomplish in the future that would have been paid for with current profits.
If one such company should go down to such governmental schemes, any future pharmaceutical corporations will become very shy about developing products that can help a great many poor people. Unlike the diamond miner in Guinea, a drug company can choose not to look for wonderful, amazingly useful medicines.
The point I am slowly coming to is that it is possible for a person or a company to become, through happenstance or effort, wealthy in potential wealth. The diamond miner may have had a 182 carat diamond, but in that he can't get paid for it without someone else taking it from him. The drug company would be denied the freedom to convert the potential for health embodied in its discovery into money that could be used to reinvest in other projects or pay off investors. In the case of the drug company, and in many other cases of boneheaded interference, the government forces one side to accept a worse trade off than would have been agreeable to both parties, thereby skewing the results.
Keep your eyes peeled for the next installment where I will take on corporations.
Sometimes one can have too much wealth, typically assessed in the eyes of others, like in the case of this poor schmuck. Something like that could happen with other wealths. Imagine a case where a pharmaceutical firm is considering taking on a disease that has had a huge impact around the world, for instance, AIDS. As the company sinks more and more funds into the project, you start to hear rumblings about how important it is that everyone get the future cure or vaccine, so important that it would be immoral to leave it to those who can afford what the drug company might choose to charge for it. Some in various governments begin discussions on breaking the patent on whatever drug might be developed. As the company, the return on investment has just been eviscerated, leaving it questionable as to whether or not the cost of the development can be recouped. Not only will the company be hurt in term of current financials, it will be hurt in the work it can not accomplish in the future that would have been paid for with current profits.
If one such company should go down to such governmental schemes, any future pharmaceutical corporations will become very shy about developing products that can help a great many poor people. Unlike the diamond miner in Guinea, a drug company can choose not to look for wonderful, amazingly useful medicines.
The point I am slowly coming to is that it is possible for a person or a company to become, through happenstance or effort, wealthy in potential wealth. The diamond miner may have had a 182 carat diamond, but in that he can't get paid for it without someone else taking it from him. The drug company would be denied the freedom to convert the potential for health embodied in its discovery into money that could be used to reinvest in other projects or pay off investors. In the case of the drug company, and in many other cases of boneheaded interference, the government forces one side to accept a worse trade off than would have been agreeable to both parties, thereby skewing the results.
Keep your eyes peeled for the next installment where I will take on corporations.
Why Am I Not Surprised?
Svetlana Khorkina or, as I have heard her referred to, "From Russia with Smug," is now crying to the media that the fix was in for the Olympic Women's All-Around Gymnastics competition.
I watched the competition that night, so I also got to see the athlete bio piece they had done for her. I have to say that that was the first time I had seen one of those and wanted that person to lose. If ever there has been an athlete so wrapped up in themselves prior to this, I can't recall.
There is another possibility that Svetlana has yet to realize. Perhaps the fix was in, but rather than being for Carly Patterson, the judges were motivated by an Anyone-but-Khorkina sentiment.
I watched the competition that night, so I also got to see the athlete bio piece they had done for her. I have to say that that was the first time I had seen one of those and wanted that person to lose. If ever there has been an athlete so wrapped up in themselves prior to this, I can't recall.
There is another possibility that Svetlana has yet to realize. Perhaps the fix was in, but rather than being for Carly Patterson, the judges were motivated by an Anyone-but-Khorkina sentiment.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Not That I'm Crying "Double Standard"
But if George Bush had said something like this about Moveon.org, wouldn't the howls of "He's questioning our patriotism" be heard from sea to shining sea?
Maybe Kerry does have a better way to fight terrorism. He certainly seems to understand the value of fighting with a looser set of rules than he allows for his opponent.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Saturday night urged President Bush to ''stand up and stop'' what he called personal attacks on him over his combat record in Vietnam.
At a fund-raiser, Kerry said the attacks by a group of Vietnam veterans and former swift boat commanders have intensified ''because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war'' against terrorists.
''That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's why they've personally gone after me. The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it.'' Chicago Sun Times
Maybe Kerry does have a better way to fight terrorism. He certainly seems to understand the value of fighting with a looser set of rules than he allows for his opponent.
Awesome Present
My folks got back from their vacation in Kaua'i, and all I got was a calendar of half-naked beach bunnies and a really cool T-shirt. The back of the shirt bears a list of aphorisms that are supposed to illustrate the Kaua'i lifestyle. I am very impressed with my folks for getting me this shirt, because the first item on the list is identical to one of the things I've been trying to get across in this blog:
I think I might be getting through to them.
There are many types of wealth, money is just one of them.
I think I might be getting through to them.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
In Case You Haven't Heard the News
Venomous Kate is back online.
Just thought I should pass it along. She is one of the reasons I got off my metaphorical duff and started this blog. If you were were one of the people who was missing her, you might want to be careful with the entry entitled "Oh, My Aching Ass". Whether or not it strays into the land of Too Much Information is strictly a matter of personal taste.
Just thought I should pass it along. She is one of the reasons I got off my metaphorical duff and started this blog. If you were were one of the people who was missing her, you might want to be careful with the entry entitled "Oh, My Aching Ass". Whether or not it strays into the land of Too Much Information is strictly a matter of personal taste.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Do These Guys Really Want to Do This?
If I recall my Sunday School lessons, mostly held on Thursday go figure, Jesus had little patience for those who followed the letter of the law while completely missing the spirit. I believe the word Pharisaic is proper in this case where the church declared the First Communion of an 8-year-old girl invalid. Their reason: the communion wafer that she had taken was rice based as opposed to wheat based in defference to her celiac disease. If Haley Waldman were to eat even a small amount of gluten, the protein that makes wheat dough sticky, it could seriously damage her small intestine.
After all of the scandal that the Church has faced over the past years, one might think that they would be at least a little flexible rather than be "my way or the highway to hell." Unless of course the Vatican claims that God told them the He needs gluten in the wafer to achieve the miracle of transubstanciation. Somehow I would doubt that.
After all of the scandal that the Church has faced over the past years, one might think that they would be at least a little flexible rather than be "my way or the highway to hell." Unless of course the Vatican claims that God told them the He needs gluten in the wafer to achieve the miracle of transubstanciation. Somehow I would doubt that.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
You Can Thank Sam Adams for This One
All of my friends know that I have a low threshold for alcohol. I prove it with this post after one bottle of Samuel Adams. (At least I'm taking care to correct the typos, so be thankful.)
I'm all for people being happy with their bodies, and that it is entirely a person's right to change what they don't like about it. I'm also glad to see a group use persuasion rather than legislation to change peoples attitudes about themselves.
However, I'm also for the US doing what it can for those who serve in uniform. That being said, I don't really mind the military paying for surgeons to practice reconstructive techniques on willing volunteers for little to no cost. Not being female myself, I take it on authority that breasts can be as important to women as, well, you know, to a guy. So if a female soldier is wounded and maimed to the breasts, I do not think that it should be too much for the military to have surgeons who are practiced and capable to perform the reconstruction.
Now I shall spare you any further blogging as I proceed to drain one of Sammy's brothers dry.
I'm all for people being happy with their bodies, and that it is entirely a person's right to change what they don't like about it. I'm also glad to see a group use persuasion rather than legislation to change peoples attitudes about themselves.
However, I'm also for the US doing what it can for those who serve in uniform. That being said, I don't really mind the military paying for surgeons to practice reconstructive techniques on willing volunteers for little to no cost. Not being female myself, I take it on authority that breasts can be as important to women as, well, you know, to a guy. So if a female soldier is wounded and maimed to the breasts, I do not think that it should be too much for the military to have surgeons who are practiced and capable to perform the reconstruction.
Now I shall spare you any further blogging as I proceed to drain one of Sammy's brothers dry.
Bears for Kerry
It would seem that even the bears in Washington state are Democratic. This bear at least has a preference, and its not Bush er, Busch.
Link via Dave Barry
Link via Dave Barry
We Interrupt Our Blogging Day for a Disclaimer
Ted Rall is an attention seeking jerk who will say whatever he needs to say to get eyeballs turned in his direction. Ted Rall does not represent all Teds, most especially this one, and should be given no more attention than as a barometer for the barking moonbat community.
Please returning to your previously scheduled browsing. Thank you.
Please returning to your previously scheduled browsing. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)