Homer's Thoughts

I am Dilbert

2009-04-02T07:42:00.002-05:00

Requirements meeting with the business outtake:
Techie: One of the problems is that it will take too much space…
Business Mgr looking at the projector screen: Well, can't you save it in a smaller font?..

I wonder if this dialog is straight out of Dilbert.

Two reactions

2008-07-16T08:56:00.004-05:00

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer

Hezbollah handed over two black coffins Wednesday with the bodies of two Israeli soldiers and Israel prepared to set free a notorious attacker… Samir Kantar and four other Lebanese prisoners. ...In addition to the five prisoners, Israel also has agreed to release the bodies of 199 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters killed over the years.

In the dead of night on April 22, 1979, Kantar and three other gunmen made their way in a rubber dinghy from Lebanon to the sleepy Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, 5 miles south of the Lebanese border. There, in a hail of gunfire and exploding grenades, they killed a policeman who stumbled upon them, then burst into the apartment of Danny Haran, herding him and his 4-year-old daughter outside at gunpoint to the beach below, where they were killed.

An Israeli court found that Kantar shot Danny Haran in front of his child, then smashed her head with his rifle butt.

Haran's wife, Smadar, who had fled into a crawl space in the family apartment with her 2-year-old daughter, accidentally smothered the child with her hand while trying to stifle her cries.
…
A giant red carpet was rolled out along a road next to the seashore on the Lebanese side of the border, next to dozens of yellow Hezbollah flags whipping in the breeze.
Hezbollah supporters set up a makeshift stage in the coastal town of Naqoura, where a brass band awaited the returning prisoners. On the platform stood a large photograph of a weeping Israeli woman. A nearby sign read, "Israel is shedding tears of pain."

Is it possible that Israeli solders killed unarmed parents before their children's eyes, and then smashed the children's skulls with their rifle butts?.. Well, for the sake of impartiality and considering the hypothetical nature of the question, I wanted to say – yes. But this is the advantage of the written word – one has time to consider and correct his folly. – So, No! But how do I know? Have I met all Israelis? – No (hell, I've never even been there). What I do, know is that Jews don't celebrate death; not even death of their enemies. During the Passover Seder even the deaths of Egyptians, who enslaved Jews for centuries, are mourned; it is said that the happiness of freedom is not complete because lives were sacrificed for it. Or in the words of Golda Meir: "We do not rejoice in victories. We rejoice when a new kind of cotton is grown and when strawberries bloom in Israel."

Could it be possible that under some unfathomable circumstances an Israeli committed such an atrocity? – Perhaps. Under no circumstances, however, would he be considered a hero, or would such brutality be applauded. What kind of mind, what kind of soul gloats over a mother's tears for her son and lionizes a cold-blooded child murderer? – Perhaps someone who has been hurt and made to suffer beyond human comprehension. Someone who has lost the emotional and moral point of reference; someone who has been driven to insanity. Perhaps. But not an entire people! Not as a matter of policy! The fact that the inhumanity of this act even has to be pointed out defeats any reason for doing so.

In my limited experience of participating in the dialogues with two firmly opposed parties, I have always found it essential to discover some common ground; something that both parties can agree on, and hopefully build upon. What can you agree on with the people who say, "Death is good! Life (yours, and mine if that's what it takes) should be no more?" What is more basic than affirmation of life? There's a fundamental discrepancy between the views of existence by Israelis and their neighbors. At this point, I can't help but say that those who celebrate death should be invited to their own party.

Spitzer - Devil Incarnate

2008-03-13T09:19:00.000-05:00

I don't know much about Eliot Spitzer. I recall seeing him in the news in relation to some high profile cases, and him promising to clean up the Wall Street. In the recent days, he's become a household name due to his scandalous exposure as "Client number 9" of a high-end "gentlemen's club", and the subsequent resignation of his governorship. These events were accompanied by an unusually high degree of schadenfreude and hand-wringing over Spitzer's immorality, lack of character, disregard for the law, etc., etc.

Clearly, he broke the law; a governor and a former prosecutor – more is expected out of him, and he's certainly supposed to know better. Should he have resigned? – Personally, I don't think so, but it's debatable. What pissed me off in this whole thing (I should probably rename this blog something like "occasional ramblings of an angry man") is the fervor with which the right has attacked not only him personally, but also took this opportunity to trash his entire public career. Eliot Spitzer went after corrupt businessmen, and investigated (be it rather vigorously) the stalwarts of American business. He didn't preach morality, nor was he known for advocating family values. Reading Sowell's op-ed in the National Review, I was informed not only that what Spitzer did is completely "in character for someone with the hubris that comes with the ability to misuse his power" (which I would argue is everyone with any power), but that it was not unlike Vick's involvement with illegal dog fighting or Leona Helmsley's tax evasion. How the fuck is it anywhere remotely similar?! Again, hiring a hooker – dog fighting – tax evasion. Prostitution IS a victimless crime, regardless of what the pundits say about its impact on the fabric of society or the family. It is, was, and will always be present in all societies. Outlawing it as stupid and ineffective as outlawing alcohol or trying to prevent masturbation by adolescent boys. Dog fighting? – in the very least it's cruel, and there are obvious victims. Tax evasion? – stealing from the people of the U.S.

With all due respect to Mr. Sowell, cruelty and dishonesty is nowhere near common horniness on the scale of morality (at least not on mine). You wanna say that he broke the law and should resign – fair enough. But don't make him into a vengeful monster whose entire career was driven by a god complex. If weren't able to show how he "ruined innocent lives" before he hired a hooker, please spare the charade now, it insults my intelligence.

"Having children alters the brain"

2007-06-12T07:30:00.000-05:00

Damn it! They never tell you this shit BEFORE!..

…when young mouse pups are separated from their mothers, they start making high-pitched noises at around 65 kilohertz…

Behavioural studies have found that mother mice show twice as much interest in these distress calls than in a simple 20 kHz tone when these sounds are played through different speakers.

Male mice that had fathered multiple litters also displayed a similar interest in the youngster's distress calls.

Really? Are you sure they don't broadcast football on the same frequency?

In contrast, virgin females paid equal attention to both types of sounds, while bachelor males paid no attention to either noise.

I could've told you that.

The brain recordings revealed that nerve activity peaked fastest in the maternal mice… Furthermore, the auditory cells fired off more coordinated nerve signals in mother mice than in virgins.

I gotta let my wife know about this upside.

by Roxanne Khamsi
NewScientist.com

The International Tracing Service (WWII) archive

2007-05-18T09:39:00.000-05:00

This is one of a few reasons why I remain unapologetically pro-Israeli.

Let cancer put the fear of God in them!

2007-05-14T12:59:00.000-05:00

From NewScientist.com:

US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls

Plans to vaccinate young girls against the sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer have been blocked in several US states by conservative groups, who say that doing so would encourage promiscuity.

Advocates of the vaccine point out that the jabs work against human papillomavirus (HPV) - which causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer - and are safe.

The latest data from a large clinical trial of Merck's cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, found it offered 100% protection against cervical, vulval and vaginal diseases, caused by HPV (types 6, 11, 16 and 18) and 98% protection against advanced pre-cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18 (New England Journal of Medicine: vol 356, p1915).
After around three years of the four-year trial, almost all girls who received the vaccine before being exposed to HPV 16 or 18 appear to be protected...One word - wow! They'd rather see their daughters die than allow for a possibility of suggestion about premarital sex. Just how screwed up must one be?

One word - wow! They'd rather see their daughters die than allow for a possibility of suggestion about premarital sex. Just how screwed up must one be?

Reg. Sharpton vs. Romney

2007-05-11T11:37:00.000-05:00

What to make of the reverend's remarks?.. I have two points. One (and I believe I said something similar in regard to the Pope's remarks about Islam), why is anyone surprised? That's what really surprises me. Sharpton is an evangelical, a born-again, a fundamentalist, well, you get the picture. By definition, he takes Bible literally, and believes that only those who are born again (in the way that evangelicals interpret it) go to heaven. Romney is a Mormon. Whatever Mormonism is, one thing is certain, it's not an evangelical denomination, nor is it a part of "main stream" Christianity. Why, why is anyone surprised that Sharpton doesn't accept it as simply "yet another path to the mountain top"? If he did, he'd be out of a job. It's literally against his religion.

Regarding Romney… It's an interesting situation. Yes, I think that anyone should be free to practice his religion and not be afraid of being persecuted or discriminated against. That much is true; true in most instances, anyway. But let me give you an example: my wife has a very, very distant relative, who holds a few quaint beliefs: there are tiny people living in some underground cities on Earth; ground coffee is poisoned by the government to keep the U.S. population in check; and I'm sure he has some other gems. He certainly has a right to these beliefs. And as long as he's not applying for a job at Starbucks or the city sanitation department, he doesn't have anything to worry about. However, if you were a coffee house manager, would you hire him? – Not likely, and rightly so. The point is, not all beliefs were created equal. In my opinion, Mormonism is more or less on par with the tiny men living underground. Yes, yes, it's his right to practice his faith. However, it's my right, nay – responsibility, not to suspend my judgment regarding his ability to think critically. And anyone who's even remotely familiar with the basic tenets of Mormonism (with the notable exception of Mormons themselves) would agree that they read like a fun medley of Greek mythology and science fiction (with emphasis on fiction).

Romney is right in his statement that "we elect a person to lead the nation not based on what church they go to, but based on their values and their vision.", but incomplete. That person's ability to think critically without suspending his judgment when it conflicts with reality is a key quality that most would seek in a presidential candidate. And Mormonism just doesn't pass this test (I'll admit that as far as I'm concerned, no orthodoxy does).

Of cats & meat

2006-11-21T19:29:00.000-06:00

Periodically, I come across posts that attempt to shed some light or whitewash (since I’ve never read the Koran I really don’t know which one it is) Koran’s attitude toward women. The beautiful, the poetic, the condescending, the argumentative, all of them seem to agree on one thing: Koran’s view of women is loving, progressive, and respectful. Men?.. I guess it’s a given that the Allah is cool with them, since I’ve never heard a man touting the delights afforded to him by Koran (except for the 70 virgins, who might turn out to be raisins). My view of Islam is shaped entirely by what its holy men preach and practice. The stories from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Islamic states about women being condemned to stoning for being raped are, sadly, commonplace. This voice of feminism comes to us from Australia (The Sydney Morning Herald), hardly an Islamic stronghold:
Sheik al Hilaly's remarks were made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month. …
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Muslim headscarf), no problem would have occurred."In this colorful simile, the uncovered meat represents “scantily dressed women”, and carnivorous cats are featured as men. "Who is this man, so utterly ignorant of the humanistic ideal that is real Islam?" you ask. “[Sheik Hilaly is] regarded by much of the Islamic community as the mufti [a Muslim scholar who interprets the sharia] of Australia.” Surely, Muslims of a civilized western nation wouldn’t stand for such vitiating umbrage? Wrong again. They asked the sheik to abstain from preaching for several months, and… nope, nothing else.
Loving, progressive, respectful.

Poor people to poor neighborhoods!

2006-11-02T16:31:00.000-06:00

Poor people die sooner when living in higher-income neighborhoods than in poorer ones, a new report concludes. Researchers analyzed 17 years' worth of data on thousands of people from four mid-size northern California cities to determine the death rates among different socioeconomic groups residing in the same neighborhoods.

In neighborhoods with a top median income of $47,000, 19 of every 1,000 poor women had died after 17 years, compared with 11 per 1,000 in neighborhoods that had a top median income of $38,600; men fared similarly. Both groups tended to die from the same chronic diseases, and the pattern remained even after accounting for age, obesity, blood pressure and smoking status, the group reports in a paper to be published in the December American Journal of Public Health.
ScientificAmerican.com, Oct. 31, 2006

In a related story, the Republican leadership has proudly announced that they have heard and heeded the criticism from their liberal colleagues on such topics as healthcare, housing, quality of life for the low-income individuals, and the issue of social fairness in our society. In an attempt to extend the longevity of life for the more vulnerable segment of the population, the proposed legislature will enable landlords not only to refuse housing to applicants attempting to move to better neighborhoods, but also to evict the current tenants if the landlord feels that the tenants are “bringing the place down.” Other causes for refusal include the following:

funny (or not funny enough) accents
oversized jewelry and/or neon trimming on the automobile
lack of a trust fund
consumption of wine-coolers
possession of a Men’s Warehouse suit
income level lower than the landlord’s cat allowance
scurvy
a discount card from Family Dollar stores

In a closed press conference with the Homeless Herald, and the Newark Times, a spokesman for the White House has said that this community-focused piece of legislature also underscores the administration’s commitment to the scientific theory, which served as an impetus for this groundbreaking social policy.

A curtsy before barbarians

2006-09-27T11:53:00.000-05:00

This episode reminded me of the inhabitants of Leningrad during the 900 day blockade in WWII. Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony was written and performed there. After long days of backbreaking work of erecting the barricades or double shifts at the factories, in the besieged and bombarded city, in unfathomable conditions, literally fainting from starvation, the citizens came to the symphony. In that, they preserved their hope, their humanity, and their pride. It was also a way to send their fecund "Fuck you!" to the enemy.
Compare that to Miss Harms' choice.

Why Bush won't ask Rummy to resign

2006-09-26T12:30:00.000-05:00

The wisest elder was dying in a remote Armenian village. Other elders have gathered around his deathbed, and seeing how the end is near, decided to ask him for his final advice to them, “What will you leave us with?” The wise man drew his last breath, said, “Protect the Jews!”, and died. The elders were bewildered by his statement. They sat around trying to decipher what that meant and why he said it, but couldn’t find any meaningful explanation. Finally, they decided to seek counsel of another very old and wise Armenian, who lived far from them. They made their arduous journey to the wise man, and asked him to explain, “Tell, oh wise elder, why did our elder told us to, ‘Protect the Jews!’?” – “Oh, he was wise indeed”, said the elder. “For when they’ll finish with the Jews, they’ll start with us.

Those Wacky Hungarians

2006-09-19T13:48:00.000-05:00

In an unsuccessful interview with "Fictitious Daily News" Mr. Gyurcsany, the current president of Hungary, said that he's preparing for a long and prosperous career in politics. "Honesty is the best policy!.. On top of it, do you know of any other president with balls as big as mine?!" At that point he pulled down his zipper and exposed a duplex of enormous testicles. According to our special correspondent, they looked healthy but somewhat unnatural. Just at that moment, a crowd of rioters had broken into his palace, and attempted to enter the room. Panicking, Mr. Gyurcsany had jammed the zipper, and had caught his prized possession on a rusty nail in an unfortunate attempt to flee his residence.

Meat of the Matter

2006-09-19T08:46:00.000-05:00

My first reaction to this was to write some acrid remark and remind the rabbi that there are still Darfur, Sudan, and world poverty out there. Hand wringing and agonizing over geese seems misguided at best. Then I got curious about the rabbi and the synagogue. I've actually met the guy, and have been to that shul a few times a number of years ago. Not for me (then again, no shul is). Turns out the rabbi didn't just rally for the rights of overfed geese. They collect funds for Darfur, Sudan, Chad and some other places that I never heard of.

I'm an unapologetic carnivore. Just yesterday I chowed down on some beef tar-tar - one doesn't get more carnivorous than that. I like goose and duck liver. I like sweet breads, kidneys, beef tongue, pig's feet, and other "yucky" things. I grew up in a culture where vegetarians were about as common and normal as nudists. My background and habits don't predispose me to questioning meat consumption (not to mention that my wife would divorce me and my children would never speak to me again if I turned vegetarian). However, those who have ever looked into the general process of meat production, or foie gras in particular, will likely be put off meat products for at least a day. The undeniable truth is - animals suffer (the extent is debatable), and are killed to accommodate our dietary preferences. The site of it is far from appetizing. And while I doubt I'll ever become a vegetarian, I cannot simply dismiss those who urge us to abstain from meat based on their moral convictions either. In the end, I guess it's just another thing swept under the proverbial, and much treaded upon rug.

(I can't believe I just wrote this)

Beware of the Presbyterians!

2006-09-18T16:37:00.000-05:00

And another one from WaPo:

However, the group [Council on American-Islamic Relations] said some post-Sept. 11 policy initiatives -- including the "infamous" Patriot Act, as the group described the law in announcing the report on its Web site -- have unfairly focused on Muslims. "Muslims take the brunt of it…"

I wholeheartedly agree! It’s high time we did something about Zoroastrians and Presbyterians. How long will we continue to ignore their explosive violence, and militant aspirations?!

The Great Literator

2006-09-18T15:50:00.000-05:00

Our illustrious leader was at a literacy conference in NYC (reported by Washington Post):
"…the goals of this country are to help those who feel hopeless; the goals of this country are to spread liberty; the goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace."
"…One way to defeat hopelessness is through literacy, is to giving people the fantastic hope that comes by being able to read and realize dreams."

The president concluded the conference by saying that he too, intends to master the "subject-verb agreement" part of his native tongue, as well as to share with us the techniques he uses to achieve his Zen-like clarity of mind.

From Bad to Worse

2006-09-18T08:58:00.000-05:00

And so it goes from bad to worse. Frankly, I didn't think much of the Pope's remarks regarding Islam for a couple of reasons. One, he happened to be right this time. Two, since when does anyone expect tolerance and pluralistic acceptance from the Catholic Pope? No, really, tell me, when was that a hallmark of the Catholic Church? That's right - never. This however, is one of the few issues that can be extended by generalizations without being compromised by inevitable exceptions. This is a religious head talking!.. Talking about another religion! Um… on what acid trip does anyone expect him to be anything but critical? The best one can hope for is "diplomatic". And he wasn't. So? At least it was ballsy. Not too many folks these days dare to speak the truth about Islam and majority of it followers. By sheer lucky accident, the usual religious bigotry yielded two unexpected and fine smelling fruits: truth, and courage. But no, they had to go and squash them in an obsequious (and completely false! - common, everyone knows it) nod to the religious tolerance.

9/11 Reflection and Rage by Dyre

2006-09-12T09:45:00.000-05:00

Dyre Portents: 9/11 Reflection and Rage

Well said, Dyre42!
Tip my hat to you.

It's the parents' fault!

2006-08-30T07:39:00.000-05:00

The 7-year-old girl died at Lincolnwood's Todd Hall School because the teachers were umm... busy?

They're, of course, only teachers, not doctors; how could they possibly know there was anything wrong with her?

Multiple times that April morning she told teachers she felt bad -- and signs of her illness were glaring, according to a negligence lawsuit her family filed Tuesday.

She couldn't stand up. She was having trouble breathing, suffering chest and stomach pain, and had urinated on herself.

She was shuttled from gym class to her classroom to the office, handed off from teacher to teacher, repeatedly sent down hallways unescorted... left alone in an office bathroom, where she remained for up to 15 minutes, until school officials found she'd collapsed...
Paramedics were then called, but Katina was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Here's the full article.

I've always said that I can't understand this kind of things. I can't understand the teachers who allow their students to graduate from HS without being able to read; and I sure as hell don't understand not giving a flying fuck about the 1st grader on the verge of death! The 1st grader! What the fuck?! I have a few friends whose wives are teachers in Chicago, and they keep telling me, "There's nothing we can do... It's all about the atmosphere at home,.. It's all about the environment..." I have a feeling I'll be enlightened as to how this is not the school's fault either.

I'm no specialist on the early ed (or any ed for that matter), but I remember that when I was in school, and a student felt sick, the teacher would take that student by the hand, and take him to the school nurse, who would call the ambulance if she found it was necessary. My teachers cared, though. Frequently, it seemed that they cared more than the students' parents. Why? They were probably raised that way. You see, it's all about the atmosphere at home.

Regarding the eeeveel, eeeveel oil companies

2006-08-28T13:17:00.000-05:00

The Q&A:

Q: Why are the prices so f*cking high?
A: The oil companies don't set the prices that you're seeing at the pump, nor do they set the prices of crude oil. The prices are set by the market, which is not controlled by anyone, just like the rest of the FREE MARKETS aren't.

The factors contributing to such high prices include increased demand (China & India) with limited capacity for production and refining, lack of spare capacity (the reason why even Venezuela and Iran can level threats against the US), unstable Middle East, taxes and government regulations, and perhaps the heaviest of all - speculation. Paper trading accounts for as much as the third of the crude's price these days. So much so, that the usual chain of physical commodity driving the paper trading has been turned upside down, and with companies like Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and other financial giants doing most of the paper trading, the prices on crude oil rise in response to heavy speculation on paper derivatives by these players, and not due to the inherent lack of supply.

Q: You're saying that the oil companies aren't deserving of the blame, but they're the ones responsible for building the refineries, increasing the capacity, and they're the ones posting record profits! Explain that!
A: Yep, they ARE the ones responsible for building the refineries. Here's a question for you: did you leave a tip for Exxon or BP eight years ago, when the price of crude was less than $20/barrel? No? Hm… How odd. I'm sure the news did, mention that they were loosing money in refining and production. Was the $.70 / gallon gasoline acceptable then? Well, guess what, refining wasn't profitable, and they didn't invest in a failing enterprise. Would you have stopped at Exxon's gas station to pay $1.50 if they explained that their gas is more expensive because they're investing in refining, which is loosing money for them at the moment, but it might pay off in the future, while Shell, across the street was selling same exact gas for half the price? No again?!. - Most perplexing.

And regarding the profits - yep, they are making good money now. In case it did not occur to you earlier, they are actually in business in order to make money (no, they're not altruists). So when the return on their investments (let me repeat that - THEIR INVESTMENTS) was negative, that was alright by you, but when the profits have started to roll in, that's not cool anymore; is that right?

Well, look at it this way, for now, building refineries and looking for more oil is a very profitable business. So more likely than not, if the prices remain reasonably high, we'll see more refining capacity and more new accessible oil fields. In time, the prices will level off. And if not, being the entrepreneurial creatures that we are, we'll find other, cheaper sources of energy (All of a sudden, the R&D for alternative fuels has become a good investment too. Then again, you might be disappointed to find out that this research, too, is done by the eeeveel, eeeveel oil companies.)

If you have other questions, objections or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask.

Brits brought it on themselves!

2006-08-17T13:40:00.000-05:00

"Yo, Brits, maybe if you considered converting to Islam, following Sharia, enshrining Quran, wearing burkas, breaking it off with the Yankees, and the Jews; who knows, maybe you'd be safer!.. Then again, maybe not. Most of you can't seem to grow decent beards."
The fucking gall! Why the West won't round up these "peacemakers" and airdrop them in Iran is completely beyond me.

Ka-Boom! and no more Basayev

2006-07-11T07:29:00.000-05:00

I'll admit, I took some guilt-free pleasure in this news. Alas, it appears that he did not suffer – a pity. Now, if only we could do the same with a few (hundred) more of these fuckers, I'd be elated.

However, for now, let’s be “cautiously optimistic”, and wait for the confirmation from the genetics lab; apparently he was “killed” a few times before

Best, but far from ideal

2006-06-26T10:00:00.000-05:00

OK, clearly, I'm not disciplined enough to keep a blog of full-fledged stories going. Then again, I do, have a fulltime job (that requires way more than 40 hours a week), and a family (to which I'm grateful for continuing to put up with my bullshit).
So, I've decided to flog some of my random thoughts (as I originally intended) out there, and see what develops.

Here's one that has been stewing on the backburner (now brace yourself, as you'll undoubtedly recognize the decaying smell of heresy): the unbridled capitalism, much like the lofty ideal of communism, or any other "pure" political system doesn't work. It doesn't work for the same reasons, too. It's the people who are the clogs of this beautifully conceived (and in fairness, best-executed) system. And people tend to fall short of the ideal. Even the best among us. Rand however, makes no provisions for such developments. Her heroes never stumble, her villains are barely human, and the weather forecasters are always right. Her heroes' austere adherence to The Ideal is inspiring alright. But it's the inspiration, whose ugly cousin used to move a son to betray his father in pursuit of the collectivist ideal. Surely, not what she had in mind.

Specifically, Rand assumes that it is the unadulterated pursuit of his/her creative expression that moves the Capitalist. And those who're hounding the money without realizing its essence will fall away on their own, taken care by the inevitably just hand of the free commerce. The reality however, can be seen on the daily news. The nauseating, Kozlowski-style excesses, Lay / Skillings claimed ignorance while bloating fat with money siphoned away from the consumers, and the list goes on and on. "The fact that the list goes on and on, is the proof that the system works! They lied, stole, cheated, pledged allegiance to Marx's ghost, and they got what they deserved!" a true Randian would say. But that's as naïve as to say that there are no crooks in the society. All the crooks are behind the bars. No, the truth of it is - a good number, perhaps even the majority of those who propel our society on its rightful pursuit of wealth, and "self-making" are not seeking the nirvana of self-realization, but a much more prosaic goal - the security and freedom that only large amounts of money can afford. Not all! Luckily, and thankfully, not all.
---

This is a somewhat uncharacteristic thought for me, since I'm generally a very enthusiastic supporter of Rand. But as I think of a society that would be based strictly on Rand's principles of laissez-fair capitalism and Natural Law, I don't see a place that would be much more desirable than the quagmire of communism or the tyranny of a benevolent dictator.

Tell me how I'm (hopefully) wrong.

A Day Without Illegal Immigrants is a good day!

2006-05-01T08:36:00.000-05:00

Let's get one thing out of the way first, I'm pro-immigration. I think it's good for the country, and for business. My support however, only extends to legal immigration. I'm vehemently opposed to the illegal one. I'm also unclear as to what's being debated when the issue of illegal immigrants is discussed. It is still against the law to enter or remain in this country without proper authorization, right? (And as laws go, this isn't a bad one, in fact, it's vital) So since when is it that law enforcement became optional?

And regarding this whole boycott thing… Heard a good question from a guy on some news show, "Are they going to boycott our emergency rooms too?" Hey, I don't mind mowing my own lawn (to be honest, I don't have one, but if I did, I wouldn't mind it), or having an American cabdriver (wouldn't it be refreshing if he actually understood what the hell I'm saying?) I have a feeling that most doctors, cops, teachers, and other professionals will be working today. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying - illegal immigrants don't matter much. This boycott is a good thing. If we as a nation find it painful, and can't do without the illegals, then we need to address it via legislature. Deciding to only legalize them would be a mistake though. It will encourage further influx of illegal immigrants, and will not address absolutely anything. They say that they perform an important role within this society, and hold jobs that most Americans don't want. Well, here's a question, once they become legal here, will they still want to work for the minimum wage or less? And if not, who is going to fill those spots? I know, I know! Other illegal immigrants. Yipppeee! Problem solved. We might have to start paying more for lettuce, and increase the wages of construction workers, but that's a different issue. Caving in to any criminal segment within a society is a stupid, stupid thing to do; but to foreign criminals?! That's just insane.

Comparing Offenses

2006-02-10T08:28:00.000-06:00

How do we evaluate the seriousness of a crime or offense committed by one person or group against another? There may be different ways, but most people would probably agree that the number of victims, and the severity of the impact on them, are major factors. Most people would undoubtedly also agree that there are few impacts more severe than loss of life.

With that in mind, let’s review how many victims lost their lives in three well-known crimes:

1. Holocaust: 6,000,000

2. September 11 attacks: 3,000

3. Mohammed cartoon: 0

The last figure, of course, does not include deaths among members of the “victim” group while they were protesting the “crime”, only victims of the “crime” itself. And lest you object that this incident was not really a crime, bear in mind that members of the Muslim community have explicitly called for the death penalty for those responsible.

Speaking of the Muslim community, let’s recall their responses to the crimes listed above:

1. Denial. The president of Iran is on record as saying it never happened. (Apparently all those Jews who claimed their friends and relatives went missing were victims of a mass psychosis.)

2. Celebration. I’ll never forget watching the CNN coverage of Palestinians dancing in the streets that day.

3. Massive riots and demonstrations, including the burning of foreign embassies.

To my decadent Western mind, none of these responses seem appropriate. In the case of the Mohammed cartoon, what was the actual impact? Printing a cartoon in Denmark didn’t kill a single person in the Muslim world. Of course, death counts are not the only measure of crime impact. Are there others in this case?

The reason most frequently cited for the Muslim prohibition on depicting Mohammed is that it would encourage idolatry. How many Muslims have so far succumbed to the seductive temptation of worshiping the turban-bomb cartoon? We can’t be sure, but I suspect a good estimate would be zero.

The ONLY impact to Muslims of a Danish newspaper legitimately exercising its freedom of the press is wounded pride, from being reminded that their religious rules do not apply to the 5 billion non-Muslims in the world. (Please see my previous post for a discussion of this point.)

How do these offenses compare? 6 million killed by a genocidal maniac. 3 thousand killed by religious fanatics. A political cartoon published in a free democracy.

You be the judge.

Notice to Muslims

2006-02-04T13:20:00.000-06:00

Your rules don’t apply to us.

In case you didn’t grasp the full significance of that statement, I’ll repeat it a bit louder:

YOUR RULES DON’T APPLY TO US.

One of the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of Western democracies is freedom of religion. Since many of you seem unfamiliar with the concept, I’ll try to explain it.

In free societies, each person has the right to decide which religion to practice, or to practice no religion at all. We respect the choice of each individual or group, but do not regard it as binding on any other individual or group. This applies to every religion, including Islam.

Although we don’t accept the forcible imposition of RELIGIOUS obligations on others, we do believe there are SOCIETAL obligations that apply to every individual, group, and country. In many cases, these societal obligations are the same as religious obligations. However, the distinction is crucial. The difference is that societal obligations are UNIVERSAL, because they emanate from our common humanity, not from a particular religious text, tradition, or prophet.

It is generally quite simple to apply this distinction in the real world. Here are two examples:

Obligation – Don’t go around indiscriminately murdering innocent men, women, and children who are not involved in your political disputes.

Source – Universal. Also a feature of many (though apparently not all) religions.

Obligation – Don’t depict the image of a certain 5^th-century religious figure.

Source – One specific religion. (By contrast, you may have noticed that depictions of a certain 1^st-century religious figure have been a central theme of Western art for centuries).

What can we see from these examples?

On the one hand, terrorism is clearly a violation of universal human obligations. If you don’t believe that, you are an uncivilized barbarian.

On the other hand, depicting Mohammed is a violation of Islamic obligations. As such, it applies only to adherents of Islam, NOT TO ANYONE ELSE. What’s so hard to understand about that?

If a Danish newspaper decides to print a picture of Mohammed in Denmark, it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If this offends you, and as a result you no longer wish to purchase Danish dairy products, that’s fine. But demanding that the people who did it be “punished” is the height of absurdity. What should they be punished for? Not being Muslim? That is, in essence, what you’re demanding.

If the French government decides that overt religious symbols are inappropriate for a public school classroom, it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If you don’t like it, open your own Islamic school, or better yet, move to the Islamic country of your choice, where the customs are more to your liking.

If a Dutch filmmaker makes a film about the oppression of women in Islamic countries, it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it! Stabbing him to death while he’s riding his bicycle does not honor and defend Islam, it makes you all look like a bunch of ignorant savages.

I recognize that some religions claim that their own particular dogmas take precedence over universal human obligations. In my opinion, this is one of the great tragedies of the last millennium, and Christians have been as guilty as Muslims. The difference is that today, when Christians attempt to insert their religion into secular affairs, they are generally seeking to ban gay marriage or have creation myths taught as science. Whereas when Muslims do it, it seems to involve flying airplanes into skyscrapers, sawing off someone’s head, or blowing themselves up on a crowded bus or train.

Please consider this fair warning that we’re not going to stand for it. Contrary to the lies of your terrorist leaders, we’re not on a crusade against Islam. If you wish to maintain a medieval society WITHIN YOUR OWN BORDERS, you have nothing to fear from us. But if you consider it your God-given duty to reach out and smite us for not being Muslims, there’s going to be trouble. You may believe that our society is decadent and corrupt, and in many ways you may be right. You may believe that your fanaticism can overcome our technology, or that you can secretly develop the technology to defeat us. But I suspect you will find that you’ve seriously underestimated the depth of our commitment to freedom and democracy.

If the conflict between our cultures continues to escalate, it won’t be because we don’t understand the proper place of Islam in the world. It will be because you don’t.

A Comment on Disclosure of Exec's Comp

2006-01-29T16:28:00.000-06:00

I didn’t make it clear that I was advocating a wiser approach for the boards of directors, not legislature. In fact, if anything, I’d get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley and other such idiocy. An entire industry of a special breed of consultants has sprung up in the wake of corporate scandals. What do they consult on? – How to properly navigate the latest round of idiotic legislature that seeks to control the activity of those who actually produce. The legislature that was created by and for the benefit of those who couldn’t make something worthy of human consumption if their lives depended on it. Everyone has heard the cliché that those who can’t do, teach. Well, these good folks do even better. They charge exorbitant amounts of money to advise corporations on how to abide by the regulations, some of which seem to have been lifted directly from Alice in Wonderland. Happy Unbirthday to ya’all!

HAMAS' Victory

2006-01-27T15:34:00.000-06:00

Enough commentary has been written on this victory of democracy without my two cents. One however (and unfortunately, I forgot where I read it), had a particularly interesting insight. It tied the results of the Palestinian's democratic elections to Bush's view of democracy. The article highlighted Bush's black-and-white perception of the world, where liberty inevitably leads to democracy (the post-nukes argument for going into Iraq). This election should hammer the last nail into the coffin of that argument, but I'm not holding my breath. (I just came across a quote by Schiller that rang so true: "With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.") And no, I don't hate saying, "I told you so." - I told you so. And I don't mind repeating myself, for any state to be democratic, and for any people to be free, THEY GOTTA WANT IT! Neither liberty nor democracy can be received as gifts, they can only be won. And neither Iraqis nor the Palestinians wanted them. Why anyone would be surprised by the results of this election is a mystery to me.

Another noteworthy aspect of this election was Kremlin's (official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs) prompt response to the will of Palestinian people. It comes to us by way of gazeta.ru:

«В Москве рассматривают выборы в палестинский законодательный совет как крупное событие на пути дальнейшей демократизации палестинского общества, создания институтов будущего государства. Мы всегда уважали и будем уважать демократический выбор палестинского народа, на основе которого предстоит формирование нового состава палестинской законодательной и исполнительной власти…”

27 ЯНВАРЯ 10:24

Roughly translated:

Moscow sees the elections of Palestinian governing body as a significant event on the path of further democratization of Palestinian society, and creation of institutions for the future state. We have always respected and will always respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people, which will serve as a basis for creation of new constituency for Palestinian legislative and executive branches.

January 27, 10:24 AM

Kremlin's blatant disregard for the fact that HAMAS is a self-avowed terrorist organization with a clearly stated objective of eliminating Israel from the face of the earth highlights Russian duplicity in dealing with terrorists, as well as their undying commitment to state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Well, as the saying goes, what's good for the goose… When the Beslan tragedy occurred, like any normal westerner, I unequivocally condemned it as an act of beastly brutality by the group that deserves to be eliminated. I also fully supported Russian efforts in quelling the Chechen rebellion and eliminating the terrorists. In light of Kremlin's statement, I have come to reconsider my position. Perhaps they're not "terrorists" after all, but freedom fighters, which deserve to have democratic elections in their pursuit of autonomy and statehood. And once they elect Basayev and his thugs, um, I mean democratically elected officials; they will be equally entitled to creation of various institutions necessary for the formation of their democratic state.

Kremlin's statement is a spit in the face of the entire western block. Their willingness to embrace an organization that can be seen as a very definition of a terrorist group is indicative of their general indifference to the issue of international terrorism, and their commitment to peace and democracy is nothing more than another cheap slogan

Disclosure Of Executives' Compensation

2006-01-26T09:18:00.000-06:00

Suddenly, everyone’s concern with executives’ pay has surfaced. It has always been a fun subject at the water coolers and union-sponsored events, but now it’s making inroads into legislature. Should executives’ compensation packages be publicly disclosed? – No. Why? Because it’s a matter of basic privacy. It is simply nobody’s (except the shareholder’s) business. Executives are entitled to the same level of privacy as anyone else. Luckily, it’s not just my opinion, it’s the law.

Having said all this, I think it’s the wrong question. The reason for this question is the apparent lack of correspondence between their pay and the company’s performance. By no means does this apply to all executives. Ellison, Gates, Jobs are some of the notable exceptions. But what about the likes of Wagoner, Ford Jr. or other executives whose companies have been consistently in the red, show complete lack of strategy, and the only way they know how to narrow the losses is by downsizing or outsourcing? Should their compensation packages be made public? – No. However poor their performance is, they’re still entitled to the same privacy as the rest of us. Additionally though, whatever that package is, it’s too much. There’s no justification for any pay increase to an executive whose company does not consistently outperform the market. Why? – If it’s unclear to you, you should not participate in this discussion.

Furthermore, executive packages should be completely restructured to reflect the difference in job requirements. They’re hired for a single purpose: make the company profitable. Um, if you’ve just agreed with this, and have nothing to add, you’re missing the same key component as the boards of directors of GM and Ford. No, they’re not hired to simply make the company profitable. Their job is to ensure that the company is profitable now AND in the long term. It’s not a subtle difference. The Wall Street is in the business of making money this quarter; next quarter they can invest elsewhere. The executive’s job is to ensure the company’s success LONG TERM (tip my hat to Costco). Their compensation packages should reflect that. I don’t understand how an executive can leave a failing company within a year or two after having stolen, I mean received, millions of dollars (and the board of directors just let them!). There are only two potential reasons for that: utter incompetence or corruption.

Here’s what I would propose: executives should be required to manage the company for a term of at least six years. During this term, their salary should be in the same range as their well-qualified professionals (engineers, accountants, etc.). A part of their salary should be put in an escrow account (let’s say 20%). They should not be allowed to make extra money off the company in any way during the first term. By the end of the first term, the company’s performance, and its strategic position should be evaluated, and based on the findings the executives should receive a percentage of the profits (I don't think anyone is going to argue about their salaries if the company is consistently profitable and growing). If the company’s health is found wanting, their escrowed salary should be reinvested back into the business (since they’re clearly not as well-qualified as they claimed). The numbers might be off, but the basic principle behind this is very sound. Executives are hired for their strategic vision and their ability to implement it. Neither one can be appropriately evaluated in the short term. Thus their compensation should be commensurate with the company’s performance over some reasonable period of time.

Russia’s March toward Freedom

2006-01-17T10:52:00.000-06:00

Excerpts translated from www.gazeta.ru:

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, under mysterious circumstances, has signed a scandalous law regarding non-governmental agencies. Although Putin made the decision on January 10, Kremlin has made it public only today - right after the departure of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, from Russia.
…
In summarizing the new law, Gazeta said the following: Russian Registration (a government institution) will track activities of foreign and Russian non-government organizations. Under this law, chapters and filial offices of foreign organizations will have to register (with RR). Besides the registration, affiliates of the foreign non-commercial organizations will have to disclose to RR their planned activities, as well as the amounts of financing, and other agencies, with which they intend to cooperate on the territory of Russia. The infusions of foreign financing and the goals they seek to achieve, will have to be disclosed by Russian organizations as well as the foreign.

Ah, sweet, sweet, liberty

2006-01-16T10:51:00.000-06:00

Palestinians at war as blood feuds follow Israeli pullout

Law and order has collapsed in Gaza ahead of elections this month. Powerful clans, suddenly without a common enemy to unite them, are killing each other and seeking to sweep aside the heirs of Arafat, condemned as weak and corrupt.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that “the law and order has collapsed”. It implies that at some point there was law and order in place. The only law and order that was ever in place there was maintained by some form of a civilized society (Britons or the Israelis). But the zoo-keeper is gone now. They wanted “freedom, independence, and the right for self-determination”. Had they told the Israelis what they wanted it for, they would’ve pulled out earlier.

The clan wars are the most visible sign of the disintegration of the Palestinian political and social order in the narrow, hemmed-in urban crush that is Gaza. As Palestine's politicians prepare to go to the polls on 25 January, their supporting groups are also preparing for a political war. And rival factions of the armed groups that confronted the Israeli army and the Jewish settlers before their withdrawal six months ago are in conflict with each other and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). On top of that, a spate of kidnappings of foreigners, motivated by petty local complaints, has drawn attention to Gaza's slow collapse.

Wait, wait… Till now, they tearfully used to say, that it was the evil Israelis that drove them to terrorism, and therefore, their vile acts were justified. Now what? The neighbor’s stereo is too loud?

It is the family wars that best underline the escalating sense of crisis. Guns and bombs, not the courts and police, have become the medium for restitution. Nasser Shabbat, a community leader in Beit Hanoun, blames the authority for the conditions spawning the violence.

I find absolutely nothing surprising there, except for maybe one thing: they’re not blaming the Israelis (yet). On the other hand, nobody is rushing to take responsibility for any of it either, so I guess the world still makes sense.

But more complex issues are at work. Since the Israeli withdrawal ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the unity of rival groups against the occupation has collapsed, and the young former fighters have turned their violence within. In the Kamal Edwan hospital … one gunman was killed in an intensive care unit by rival fighters.

“… I've told staff, if they think there is a risk of fighting, to leave them to kill each other outside.”

No comment necessary.

'This will never end,' says one who called himself Abu Nahed. 'The weak will be hit by the strong, because there is no one to protect them.'

Hm… I think I recall reading something similar to this before… Oh, yes, in my Biology classes. Darwin! Right, that’s how it works in the animal kingdom.

Respect Australian values or leave: Costello

2006-01-12T18:03:00.000-06:00

Generally, I’m not given to just pasting almost entire articles, but in this case, there isn’t much more I can add. Except perhaps, I wish somebody around here would grow some balls (and common sense) like Mr. Howard’s.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm
Broadcast: 23/08/2005

Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia".

Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured.

His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well."

So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening.

Peter Costello, thanks for joining us.

PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony.

TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?

PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.

TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.

TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.

TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.

PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.

TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?

PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.

TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.

TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.

TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Forcibly?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Let's move on. You made a speech at the weekend in which you warned that Australia could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism or Australia's interests at least could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism in the world. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I think there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Australia. It's not just in Australia. It there's anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world and to some degree it may be less in Australia than in countries like France or in parts of the Arab world. But I don't believe we can be complacent about it. It is a real strand of public opinion and I think we ought to engage it and discuss it. The point I'm trying to make is we in Australia have no reason to be anti-American; that where American power has been exercised, such as in the World War II, it was exercised in the defence of Australia, not the attack of Australia. By and large, American power, which is exercised in defence of democracy and in individual liberty, is supportive of Australia in its interests and not a threat to it.

TONY JONES: You said to Laurie Oakes on Sunday that anti-Americanism can easily morph into anti-Westernism and effectively that could threaten our interests. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, we've seen with some terrorist attacks already that Western places are targets. Not necessarily because there are Australians present, but because in the terrorist mind there are Westerners present, whether they be Americans or Britons or Australians.

TONY JONES: This is to do with anti-Americanism?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, anti-Westernism, and terrorists don't particularly distinguish when they're setting off bombs, can hit Australians as much as it can hit Americans or it can hit Britons.

TONY JONES: But this is anti-Americanism morphing into a broader anti-Western feeling which could affect Australian interests. Is that what you are saying?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, there have been occasions when Australians have been hit by terrorist incidents where people haven't distinguished between whether it's Americans or Britons or Australians. There is a strand of terrorist thinking that says that anybody who is a Westerner is a legitimate target.

TONY JONES: But the core of it is anti-American from what you are saying? The logic of what you are saying is pretty clear.

PETER COSTELLO: In some terrorist minds, if you're hitting a Westerner, you're hitting a legitimate target. The point I want to make is that because we're Westerners, in the minds of some terrorists we can be targets. So it's in our interests to defend the values of the West and it's in our interests to explain our policy. It's in America's interests to defend its own image and I would urge it to do so and I would also say to Australia's security -

TONY JONES: You seem to be suggesting that anti-Americanism is in fact a dangerous thing for Australians.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, it is in a security sense because the US is Australia's principal defence partner. When I say there is a danger of anti-Americanism in Australia amongst Australians, what I'm saying is, particularly amongst younger Australians, if they don't understand the events of 1942 when the US was the principal ally defending Australia and without which we wouldn't have been able to defend the islands to our near north, if they don't understand that, they may not understand what the importance of the American alliance is to the defence of Australia and our strategic interests.

TONY JONES: I don't want to keep coming back to this necessarily, but you've made the point quite clearly that anti-Americanism can morph into anti-Westernism and that threatens our interests. It threatens our interest, does it, because we could, like Americans, as a result of anti-Americanism become terrorist targets?

PETER COSTELLO: We have become terrorist targets because we are perceived to be Western. We've become terrorist targets because we are perceived to stand for a whole lot of values, which in the terrorist mind they oppose. Australians became terrorists in Bali not because of anything Australia did, but because in Bali they were perceived to be Westerners and in a sick terrorist mind that makes you a target.

TONY JONES: Right. Given that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably the leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, does that make us, as an ally of the Americans, a greater target for terrorists?

PETER COSTELLO: I don't think it's the principle cause at all. I think if you want to look for perceived areas of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it was around a lot before Iraq. It's been around for a very long time, Tony, and most of it, I believe -

TONY JONES: I'm talking about what's happening right now. We're seeing it even in the lead-up to the Islamic summit we've been having in Canberra. What we are hearing is young Australian Muslims are particularly angry with the
American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

PETER COSTELLO: No, I couldn't disagree with you more profoundly. There was substantial hostility to the US in the Arab world long before Iraq. Whether it's over perceived injustices to Islam, whether it's over the Palestinian issue, whether it's over support for Israel. Most of these things, and I don't believe justify hostility at all, but it's been there long before Iraq. Let me tell you this, Tony - you are profoundly wrong if you thought hostility to the United States started in 2003. It was around a long before that.
...

Alito

2006-01-12T17:35:00.000-06:00

I'll admit right off the bat, I haven't been following it too closely; that is to say, I've seen less than two hours of the hearings and read a few articles on the subject. So far, the most controversial subjects seem to be his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, his view of Roe vs. Wade, and his support of anauthorized wiretaps.

Whether or not he was an active member of C.A.P., one thing is certain: his views today are different from those expressed by C.A.P. members 25 years ago. It would've been better if he belonged to the Habitat for Humanity, but as "sins" go, it's not a mortal one. Nobody is going to mistake him for a flaming liberal, but it doesn't look like he's got a white hooded robe in the closet either. If however, more recent evidence of him espousing such views should surface, it would be a whole different matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by my memberships in some organizations over the last 25 years (if nothing else, I'd have to be committed for a severe bi-polar disorder with equally severe delusions). My current views would be misrepresented 100% by that information. (Those who know me will know exactly what I mean.)

According to usatoday.com, "Alito, then 35, said he was especially 'proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.'"
Roe vs. Wade is a legitimate concern, though. Alito refuses to say whether he would recognize it as an established law of the land. And treating it "with respect" is a far cry from recognizing it as a law. Clearly, there are other, more important, considerations for the Supreme Court nominee, but as issues go, this is pivotal for a lot of people in this country. Its importance stems not only from the subject it addresses, but from the symbolic value it has acquired over time. It has come to represent liberal and humanist advancements in this country, along with the abolition of slavery, and equal rights. Judge Alito's track record on opposing abortions by overturning Roe is a considerably greater detractor from his qualifications, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm unequivocally pro-choice.)

Alito also supported unauthorized wiretaps on Americans, and blanket immunity for attorney general when he acts in the interests of national security. (AP 12/23/05 16:47 PST Washington)

While I support his stance on racial and ethnic quotas, his views do, seem to create a very conservative and statist pattern. A pattern that would undoubtedly further the erosion of American civil liberties while strengthening the Office of the President, and the government in general. Personally, I would prefer to see a candidate with a more centrist set of views, and one not as eager to step over the Constitution.

“Cleanliness” advocate

2006-01-11T10:59:00.000-06:00

Hamza wanted "caliph in the White House": UK court

Me? Dirty?! Hey! I shower at least once a day, damn it! Blasphemous? I'll give you that. But that's not even my worst offense against the Allah, and already I'm good to go? Awww. At least give me a chance to fully implicate myself. Wouldn't it make my death even more enjoyable to Allah? I guess his followers are benevolent like that, and are willing to overlook the rest.
On a slightly different topic, I have to say, I disagree with the Brits' decision to try the venerable sheik, Hamza, in court. Why cast the pearls before… the sheik? (not like he can pick 'em up, anyway. ha-ha. I'm a cruel bustard, too.) Deport him, instead (it's cheaper), and have him knocked off shortly thereafter (still cheaper). He'll be enjoying his virgins, and I won't have to be so self-conscious about my hygiene.

Afghanistan's Progress

2006-01-05T13:58:00.000-06:00

"Yes, yes, education IS a terrible thing. Next thing you know, Allah has to make room for astronomy. And to top it off, for women (of all creatures)! Tsk-tsk-tsk. More beheadings, definitely more beheadings. Yep, that's the way to go. Lemme get my mule and my yataghan, and let's go behead someone smart."

Meanwhile, back at the farm… "People of Afghanistan are entering the new age of Democracy!.."

Civilization at its peak

2005-12-28T16:13:00.000-06:00

Being a part of a minority, I too appreciate and support the spirit of pluralism and open-mindedness. I’m afraid my open-mindedness about other cultures and customs has its limits though. It’s become less and less acceptable to criticize other “cultures”. Well, as should be evident from my previous posts, I don’t give a rat’s ass.

With that, what the fuck kind of a culture is that?! Not only did he kill his step-daughter (niece), but figured, let’s add three more for a good measure; or just in case. Go ahead and tell me how it’s a different culture, and it requires understanding, acceptance, and chanting together. A culture that habitually lets such atrocities go on cannot, and should not be understood. God forbid our police should develop “an understanding” for honor killings (and isn’t it an oxymoron?). Feel like slaughtering a couple of kids to set an example? Here’s an idea: go hang yourself in a public square (that WOULD constitute an honor killing).

We’ve had our own wackjobs who suddenly become vessels of God or Satan, and must do their biddings (strangely, it’s never, picking up garbage, annoying telemarketers, or reading to the blind), but it’s not “cultural”, just insane and evil. And it’s treated and recognized by everyone as such. With fundamentalist Muslims, it’s cultural, or they put it, “a family dispute”. As cultural “issues” go, this one disqualifies them from being considered a civilization altogether.

Hardly a day goes by without seeing a rep from some Muslim association for promoting cultural understanding (or some other shit like that) point out how their fellow Americans are not being very understanding or downright hostile. Here’s another idea (I’m full of them today), get in touch with your brethren in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other “Stans”, and find out what the fuck is going on there, why it’s going on, and what you can do to stop it. Then get back to us. And for god’s sake, if you disapprove of these kinds of things, get on the fucking tube and tell that to everyone (at least as frequently as you condemn Israel for killing known terrorists); maybe then we won’t associate you with terrorist-supporting charities and defenders of rights for suspected terrorists.

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-22T09:39:00.000-06:00

A lot of interesting stuff is going on lately, alas, not nearly enough time to talk and think about it all. Here's an easy subject to pontificate on - "Merry Christmas!"
A historic update: this country was founded by people of Christian heritage. They may have been not very cosmopolitan or politically correct by today's standards, but they were the ones who brought Western civilization to these shores. And since most of them were Christians, they celebrated Christmas (it follows nicely, doesn't it?). To this day, majority of the inhabitants of this land continue with this tradition. Given all this, on what grounds would anyone object to being wished a Merry Christmas?

I'm Jewish. About as secular as they come. I think Hanukah trumps Christmas easy - we have eight (8 !) days of presents and no fat men abusing endangered species or extorting cookies and milk. Yet, it never even occurred to me to get upset because someone wished me a Merry Christmas. That's just insane! Sometimes I'll respond with Happy Hanukah instead, or Happy Kwanza (I'm also trying to find out what the season's greeting used by Druids is. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of coming up with my own Druid greeting - Merry Bush Day. - Just saying that, warms my cockles.)

Anyway, keeping in the spirit of things, God Bless, Happy Hanukah, and Merry Christmas to you all!

And to those who found this offensive - fuck off!

Iranian Pres. speaks again

2005-12-15T09:35:00.000-06:00

Iranian president is quickly becoming the most frequently commented upon topic of this blog. After giving some thought on what response would be appropriate, I've decided to stick with mature, and well-thought out approach. With that, I must confess that reading about Mr. Ahmadinejad's views leaves me with the heavy feeling of regret and a flicker of hope. I regret that the Israelis didn't bomb the entire Iran into the Stone Age (oh, wait, hm… ok, bad choice, they never really progressed much beyond that), into oblivion; and I hope that this grave error will be remedied in my lifetime.

Some would say that this kind of sentiments only ignite more hatred, mistrust, and violence. And they would be right. At the same time, how would you expect the Israelis to react to such statements? They've done their best in attempting to negotiate. They've shown great restraint in dealing Palestinian terrorists, Iran and the likes. But these folks just simply don't get it.

Negotiation and peaceful resolution is always the preferred way of addressing conflicts among civilized people. But one doesn't negotiate with rabid dogs or Islamic fundamentalists.

Political correctness run amok

2005-12-09T10:14:00.000-06:00

The good folks in the PC capital of the universe, San Francisco, are at it again. Did you see their police chief (a woman of Asian extraction) on TV, talking about the satirical video some of her officers made? To hear the venom dripping from her voice as she pronounced words like "shameful" and "despicable", you would have thought that they were Klan members or card-carrying Nazis.

All they did was put together a humorous video that makes light of situations they deal with every day in their jobs, which must be rather stressful. People do things like that. It's normal. It helps make unpleasant situations more bearable. There's even a phrase for it - "gallows humor".

I must admit I have not seen the video itself. But I assume it was probably in poor taste. It may even have been offensive to certain groups who were never intended to see it, such as the "transgendered community". But as the suspended-without-pay group's lawyer so aptly pointed out, Chris Rock earns millions of dollars for doing exactly the same thing. Apparently that's OK, since he's a black comedian working in the safety of nightclubs and TV studios, not a white cop risking his life for peanuts in a rough neighborhood. Liberals are always going on about fairness - I don't think that's especially fair.

However, the mayor's spokesman sees it differently. He says "Perhaps Mr. Horowitz is the kind of lawyer who thinks that a white police officer running over a black woman is something to laugh at. We think he stands alone." I would agree with him, if the officer had REALLY run over a black woman, or any other citizen. But shouldn't people in California, of all places, understand that everything they see on film isn't real? If you're going to take such a literal, puritanical view, don't you need to shut down the movie studios too, or at least restrict them to politically correct "documentaries" like Michael Moore's?

Beyond that, I have a question for the humorless PC gestapo - if you treat cops who committed a lighthearted indiscretion as though they were axe murderers, what do you do when someone does something really bad? Whatever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime? And how many of the people thirsting for the blood of these PC-challenged public servants are among the crowd lobbying the governor to spare the life of Stanley "Tookie" Wilson, the gang leader convicted of four brutal murders?

It's enough to make me glad I live in a red state. Lighten up, already!

Univ. Prof bullied by fundies

2005-12-08T10:29:00.000-06:00

I wonder just how this thing started...

John: "Hey, Pete, dija hea 'bout dis smartass teacher at U of K?! He's calling our inte… herr.. hm.. inteligent desine a mifology or somethn!" Pete: "That bustard!" John: "Let's go bash his head in!" Pete: "Should we pray about it first?" John: "Neh!" Pete: "What's a miphology?" John: "it's bad." Pete: "let's go set this smarty pants straight!" "God bless America!"

The inescapable fact...

2005-11-29T12:28:00.000-06:00

Cool article on Iraq by Brian Whitaker of the Guardian.
Without the histrionic posturing, it offers a sober and insightful perspective on the war in Iraq. The entire article is very interesting and thought-provoking, but here are the last two paragraphs:

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

The thing that never fails to ignite my temper is a blithe disregard for reality. I find myself befuddled by having to prove the obvious, or that which will be obvious tomorrow, but meanwhile has a theoretical chance of a benign outcome.

A lot of people (though not enough) were right about W, and his abilities. In the end, all of us voted one way or the other, frequently basing the decision on the candidates stance on one or just a couple of specific issues.And to this end, I wanted to make a couple of points:

1. Intellectual ability matters! His faith or the quality of his relationship with the Almighty cannot be measured. His IQ, on the other hand, can. And yes, I suggest that that alone shouldve disqualified him from the presidency (below average should be unacceptable THIS should be an amendment to the Constitution. - Hey, let him take the test and prove me wrong.) There a LOT of people that cast their votes for him based on what he DOESNT support (just think of the litany of liberal causeshere). Reason, as an ethical and economic value, is grossly underrated. Reason, not faith, machismo, hatred, or fear shouldve been the guiding principle.

2. Consider pure facts. (Yes, there is such a thing, contrary to what you mightve come to believe watching FOX.) The simplest illustration of the point is the way military records of Bush and Kerry were examined. We dont know (and at this point, will never fully know) just how well they served. The only things that are beyond dispute are the mere facts. One served in active combat, the other one didnt. Its a naked, stark fact. All the commentary in the world isnt worth 5% the actual value of this simple FACT.

Reason and Facts instead of faith and beliefs... wouldn't that be refreshing.

Rand on "the barometer of a society's virtue"

2005-11-27T12:03:00.000-06:00

"When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsionwhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed."

OK, it's no surprise I'm a fan of Rand, right? You know what attracted me first to Rands ideas? They have the same feeling as the words "The emperor has no clothes!" in that old tail. Nobody had uttered them before, but everyone thought it was the case. But now that theyre in the air, and the truth is plastered on the world, there's no escaping it. Kind of like the law of gravity. It was there all along, only Newton pointed to it, described it, and named it.

Part Deux

2005-11-11T11:06:00.000-06:00

Chicago Tribune, 11/10/05
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0511100303nov10,1,1658818.story

“A Muslim civil rights group demanded an apology Wednesday from U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for remarks he made condoning discrimination against some Arabs.”
…
“Kirk, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer, [said]… I'm not threatened by people from China. I'm not even threatened by people from Mexico. I just know where the threat is from. It's from a unique place, and I think it's OK to recognize that.”
…
In a letter faxed Wednesday to Kirk's office, Yaser Tabbara, director of the Muslim civil rights group, wrote that he was shocked by the comments.

’It's one thing for me to hear it from Joe Schmoe on the street and deal with it as an ignorant attitude and give that person the benefit of the doubt," Tabbara said. "It's another, and 100 times more disturbing and dangerous, to hear something like that spewed out of the mouth of a public figure, a political representative who represents a constituency of Americans. This, to me, is a manifestation of ... a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude.’”

First, why does Mr. Tabbara think that it’s rather common and acceptable for “Joe Schmoe” to be ignorant? Right off the bat, this strikes me as an insolent discriminatory comment. Second, while Mr. Tabbara throws around terms like, “ignorant” and “malicious, bigoted attitude” with authoritative insouciance (I learned this term at the peak of my education, at the 6th grade of parochial school); he fails to substantiate his views.
“…to hear something like that spewed…” Something like what?!! Kirk’s observation is based on hard facts. Mr. Tabbara’s dismay, on the other hand, is based on nothing more than… hm, nope, I guess it’s just on nothing.

And one more thing, why did it take months before there was a single fatwa issued against Bin Laden by any imams in the U.S.? I’d like to find out exactly what this enlightened Muslim civil rights group (isn’t it an oxymoron?) has done to aid the fight against terrorism. Or even, to simply further democracy in their neck of the woods.

In conclusion, I’d like to mention a Russian proverb that is rather fitting for this situation. “Don’t blame the mirror for the ugly face.”

On racial profiling

2005-11-11T09:54:00.000-06:00

I’m so sick and tired of hearing why and how racial profiling is bad. Primarily because the arguments are so goddamn stupid, that I’m not sure whether I should get a tissue for the idiot, since he’s bound to start drooling any second, or to humor him, and actually try to reason.

Do you fish? I used to. Generally, when I went fishing, I’d look at the river, and spot a couple of places where the fish is more likely to be. And usually I was right. When I wasn’t, I’d try other spots, and would stick with the ones that worked. I can also look at the neighborhood and say how likely it is to find a crack dealer there. Isn’t that ingenious of me? - Not really. While I do find the necessity of explaining how it’s done rather ludicrous, this is where the obsession with political correctness has gotten us.

Here’s why it’s good and absolutely necessary to conduct racial profiling. – How many whites were there among the terrorists of 9/11, London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jordan? How many blacks? Anyone from the Midwest? No, huh? (gotta say it, it pisses me off to no end when I see some security guard waving his magic wand over some 80-year old lady from Wisconsin. Does anyone sincerely believe she might be concealing something other than her annoyance?!) “But does that mean that there couldn’t be one from Cuba or Midwest?” – is a typical response. Yes, actually, for all practical purposes, it does. All of them were Muslims, and most, of Arabic origins. In 9/11 most were Saudis. Absolute majority of the terrorists in the U.S. so far, have been Muslims from the Middle East. Since most of the terrorists seem to come from there, it seems only logical to focus more efforts on screening people from that region. Could it be any more self-evident? “Do most terrorists come from there?!. What about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? Were they also Saudis?!” – Got me there. Are there domestic wackjobs? Yes! White supremacists, disgruntled postal workers, depressed teenagers, self-appointed defenders of the disenfranchised, etc. HOWEVER, if we look at the proportion of Arab Muslims (or to be more inclusive, the good folks hailing from terrorist-producing states) to the general population of the U.S. it will be less than 10% (I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it’s more than that, probably much less). The same slice of population however would comprise well over 60% of terrorists in the U.S. So the benefit of focusing on this slice of the population is humongous.

“But if we start focusing on Arabs, the real terrorists will then coerce or bribe a Mongolian man or a Midwestern woman into carrying out the next attack. And thanks to your disregard of these groups as potential suspects, you’ll have missed them.” (Or something to that extent.) First, nobody suggests that everyone else besides Arab Muslims just waltzes into the plane or goes buying TNT unquestioned. Second, good luck to them trying to recruit an 80-year old Midwestern woman for such a mission. Third, when that happens, we’ll adjust the tactics. Trying to recruit potential terrorists outside of their “comfort” zone is a difficult and dangerous undertaking for them. Therefore it is also rather unlikely. Meanwhile, if we DID, focus on Arab Muslims or militant Muslims (call them whatever you want, we all know whom I’m talking about), our chances of preventing more attacks would be increased tremendously.

Those who oppose racial profiling, do so on the grounds of it being “racial”. And these days, anything “racial” is just unacceptable and undemocratic. Sickle cell anemia tends to afflict people of African origins considerably more than any other. Should we start screening others too, since we’re clearly selecting them based on their race? What about Tay-Sachs disease? Most (but NOT ALL) of the afflicted are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin. That’s a pretty specific group of population as well. Generally, they’re the only ones screened for it. Isn’t it a discriminatory practice then? Yes it is. In as much as discrimination means discernment, it is. And this discernment happens to be based on ethnic and geographic origins. I’d love to hear the argument for why we should make the Tay-Sachs screening tests for everyone.

And lastly, I don’t think that even those who say that racial profiling is a form of discrimination and should be illegal believe it themselves. To those who do, I say put your money where your mouth is. If you’re genuinely convinced that the chances of the next major terror act (or let’s take two out of three next ones) being perpetrated by a non-Muslim from a country that has NOT been identified as a terrorist-producing region are equal or greater than that they will be, let’s make a bet. If the next two out of three major terrorist acts are committed by individuals that fall into my “evil stereotype”, you pay me $100. If not, I pay you $100. If you believe what you say, why not make an easy hundred bucks off of an ignorant idiot like me.

Where are his manners?!

2005-11-09T09:23:00.000-06:00

WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801683_pf.html

France. "…his [Sarkozy's, who's the interior minister] attempts to reach out to Muslim and immigrant communities have foundered amid rage over his undiplomatic references to marauding youth as 'scum.'"

According to WaPo it all started "when two teenage boys from the northern suburbs of Paris [leapt] into a power substation on Oct. 27 while trying to dodge police at a checkpoint, according to their parents… [and] were electrocuted."

13 Nights of rioting, looting, and burning down property. Perhaps "scum" was too harsh. Naughty? Misbehaving? Maybe unseemly?.. But "scum"?! After all, they haven't killed anyone. Clearly, Monsieur Sarkozy needs to learn some good manners. Tsk-tsk-tsk, what a shame.

"Bring it on!"

2005-10-28T15:25:00.000-05:00

Iranian President’s remarks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5376901,00.html

Never thought I'd resort to quoting our illustrious president, but for once, his asinine response is the most rational one: "Bring it on!" Generally, I'm not a warmonger, but when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't believe that negotiation is possible. Isn't it just plain fucking obvious that they're not willing to negotiate?! Seriously, who in his right mind can possibly think after these kinds of statements that Arabs are genuinely interested in reaching a peaceful solution? Please, somebody tell me. And it's been like this since 1948. They threaten continuously, they act on their threats (luckily, unsuccessfully), and they threaten again. After which time exactly are we supposed to take these threats seriously?

A friend of mine has suggested that it's only "political posturing by radical barbarian". Most likely, he's right. But time is not on our side. If this is only a precursor of the things to come, then I hope to read about some spectacular air strikes in that region very soon. This is no longer a tyrant who usurped power unlawfully. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, and supported by his people; therefore Iranians fully share the responsibility with their leader. Hitler was elected too. - Sometimes, entire countries, entire people make wrong choices. Ahmadinejad was a wrong choice. But it was their bed to make. I suggest it's time for them to lay in it.

Boycott Disney’s Movies!

2005-10-20T09:30:00.000-05:00

Once again, Disney has crossed the line of good taste and morality with their provocative name for the old story about a bloodhound puppy and a fox kit. In a clear attempt at linguistic sabotage of our children they have concocted a name that is almost impossible not to transform into some unholy utterance. “The Fox and the Hound”? What kind of sick individual would come up with that? I fear for the innocence of my 3-year old daughter who’s been most politely requesting to see “The Fucking Hound” over and over.

Where’s Dr. Dobson when you need him?

It’s the Principle

2005-10-13T11:55:00.000-05:00

Why God vs. Man? Why even the question? The image of a snooty, joint puffing, gay, socialist intellectual from Brooklyn (wait, that’s from Annie Hall!) has been mocked by both sides. Thinking in general, has not been considered a virtue here for a while. Getting back… God vs. Man… what in the hell does it have to do with… and insert the issue you’re particularly keen on discussing. Abortion or gay rights? - Easy. Centralized healthcare? Not so much (effective laying of the hands would come in useful though).
- Let’s look at what everyone seems to agree upon, lack of a cohesive, powerful message on the Dems side, that we as a people, could rally behind. In a nutshell, responses include, “Bullshit!..” followed by the list of reasonable stands on important issues, reframing of the issues, “Down with the establishment!” and “Let’s form a party of the reasonable middle.” Calls to “return to our core values!” etc. All these only call attention to the symptoms. Applying rouge to a gangrenous leg is not going to address the “it doesn’t look so good” problem.

Say what you will, but faith, God, and the Bible have at least one great thing going for them: they provide structural cohesion that is centering, unifying, and self-supporting. That alone enables the Right to speak with one voice (more or less). Rallying around a principle is infinitely more effective than rallying around its implications. Focusing on implications automatically fractures the view. It’s only natural that we all have different ‘hot buttons’ and see some issues differently. The principle. If we can define, find, articulate, whatever, that principle, we at least have a chance to be united, be driven, and be passionate. It’s easier to overlook some of the differences if theres’s a common core, a shared vision, in light of which, the differences matter less. Issues?.. They matter. The ideas for their proper resolutions however, will never give us the intellectual and moral integrity necessary to take on the Divine Ordinance crew.

Filthy Wall

2005-09-30T12:32:00.000-05:00

I haven’t blogged for a while because I’ve been very busy. Fine, I’ve been very lazy, satisfied?

Looking at the number of noteworthy events, it’s hardly fair to say that there is nothing to write about, and yet, that’s how I generally feel. “What?!” you might exclaim in dismay. Hold your horses, I’ll explain.

Iraq? – You can only say so much about it. It was a lie that blossomed into a spectacular failure, the fruit of which we’re yet to see. I’ll even go out on the limb here and say that it’s impossible to win there. Why? Because nobody has defined in any concrete terms what would constitute a victory (and our goals seem to be changing rather regularly). Meanwhile, it sucks out cash better than a Dyson. Which brings us to the small issue of national debt.

I’ve seen a lot of comparisons of Bush’s economic policies to those of Reagan. And indeed, there are some similarities, - both spent like sailors on leave on causes that were dubious at best. But here’s the key difference, while Reagan increased the national debt by 260%, the economy grew by an annual rate of 3.8% and by the end of Reagan’s term, the economy was almost one-third larger than when he took office. Under Bush? - The comparison leaves me craving a Prozac and a bottle of Stoli. Yes, I’m aware of the view that even under Reagan the economy wasn’t exactly fantastic, and whatever positive momentum it did have, was at the expense of the future. - Fine. It only strengthens the argument: Bush can’t create a good economy even with this gargantuan spending. In other words, there’s absolutely no way in hell that he would be able to do anything for our economy (sorry, anything good for our economy).

So, his foreign affairs seem to mimic closely the behavior of a silverback during mating season, and his domestic policies are… hm… I’m nonplussed… Horrendous? Appalling? Treasonous? - Too many choices, so take your pick.

Well, what else is there? What else would be a good measure of presidential success? - Crisis resolution is one. New Orleans - another theatrical failure. Perhaps we should skip this one. I’m afraid I’ll appear prejudiced against Mr. Bush. I’m not. (I have a visceral aversion to him strictly out of objective reasons.)

The spirit of the country? Perhaps he has united the country, and the nation rallied behind him in support? - No, not so much. In fact, quite the opposite. The country hasn’t been as divided since the civil war.

I can’t find a single noteworthy improvement in the U.S. for which the entire country should be grateful to him. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there aren’t any, and I hope that somebody would point out a few.

It reminds me of an old Hasidic tail about the Rebbe. - A Jew from another sect came to visit him, and proceeded to excoriate the Rebbe’s followers for what appeared to him, as various transgressions. As the visitor was speaking, the Rebbe got up and drew a small black dot on the wall behind him. And when his guest finished berating, the Rebbe pointed behind him and asked, “What do you see there?” “A black dot,” answered the visitor. “Why don’t you notice the white wall,” said the Rebbe.

The wall behind Bush is covered in soot. It’s easier to point out the white spots than to pontificate about the dirt. And his coterie has done a great job of that.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. – Andre Gide

2005-01-28T13:22:00.000-06:00

If one were to look at my posts here, he would probably conclude that I’m a staunched liberal Democrat. - One would be wrong (it’s just that at the moment, Bush has succeeded at pissing me off considerably more than any democrat ever had). I actually don’t associate myself with any political party, and can’t quite understand those who do. I suspect it stems from my definition of “party association.” When I hear someone say, “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat”, I see that person taking a shortcut to elaborating his political, religious, social and philosophical views, usually without having done adequate research on where that party stands on all the specific issues or having defined his own personal opinions on the subject. It seems as though one is getting a “ready-made, no assembly required” package of strong opinions and beliefs, with the added bonus of the satiated sense of belonging to a well-formed, well-researched, and well-spoken (with some notable exceptions) body of like-minded individuals. Not surprisingly, almost all people I met that vote based on the party affiliation of the candidate, while sharing that candidate’s positions on issues, are unable to substantiate most of them (I guess, most of the party affiliates don’t bother opening the aforementioned package.)

I’m certain that there are a number of Republicans as well as Democrats that would accuse me of unjustly labeling them as lazy ignoramuses, for they have done their research, and pondered the issues at length. To those of them who are not politicians, have actually done that, and still find their views perfectly aligned with either one of the parties, to those eleven of them, – please accept my apologies.

As for me, I doubt that I’ll ever find a party whose goal is to seek the truth instead of trying to convince everyone around them that they’re the sole possessors of it. (To top it off, I’m a confessed flip-flopper - I tend to change my mind when I find out that I am wrong.)

"Look at how many of us there are!", said my father-in-law.

2005-01-27T08:43:00.000-06:00

As I visited my in-laws on the post-election weekend, I found my father-in-law watching his favorite news network - Fox. He had a content half-smile on his face that reflected the wisdom of having the more traditional and more popular opinions. Unlike Fox’s commentators, he didn’t gloat visibly; perhaps out of sympathy for us, the losers. At some point however, he pointed to the TV, and exclaimed, “Look at how many of us there are!” I put aside a shot-glass of tsuika (Romanian plum brandy, my poison of choice that happened to second as an analgesic at the moment), and saw a predominantly red map of the U.S. with a few blue border and costal states. “Could that be right?” I thought. Technically, it was right. But as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” And luckily, these details have been eloquently and laconically described by Amba of the “AmbivaBlog” (I highly recommend it) at:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com

And if you’d rather go straight to the horse’s mouth, here’s the link to the maps and cartograms showing how the votes were really distributed (definitely worth a look):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/

On inaugural address

2005-01-20T13:17:00.000-06:00

This time, Bush was actually elected President. An unfortunate, and for many, tragic turn of events. Here are a few comments on his inaugural address:

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. – Thank God! If they were, our duties would be short, awkward, and resemble those of a prepubescent teenager.

…After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet… – Good choice of words on the speechwriter’s part. Note, the U.S. didn’t feel compelled (or perhaps powerful enough) to invade the U.S.S.R or any of its close allies. And yet, “the shipwreck of communism” occurred. Few would argue that Stalin or Brezhnev were better individuals, more benevolent rulers, or held democracy and human rights in higher esteem than Saddam; but apparently, invasions were deemed unnecessary. Communism fell as a result of its irresolvable internal inconsistencies. And even after that, Russia continues to falter on the path of democracy. But hey, let’s invade a sovereign (be it a third world) nation that has never known anything even resembling a democracy, and poses less of a direct threat than N. Korea, China, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., and just “set up” a democratic rule of law (we have seen numerous examples where such a plan worked out splendidly, haven’t we?)

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. – Amen to that! Unfortunately, it appears that Bush is equating “the force of human freedom” with that of the U.S. armed forces.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. – When the global power was distributed nearly equally between the members of the Warsaw’s Pact and NATO, the democracy and liberty prospered in the U.S.; but now, when more and more countries adopt democracy, our own internal political structure is becoming more dependent “on the success of liberty in other lands.” Earlier in that sentence he also mentioned, oh so rare, common sense.

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell. Interestingly, one doesn’t even have to contextualize Russell’s thought to realize what recent events and foreign policies it so deftly describes.

Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. – Unless of course, we find some particular flavor of self-government unpalatable. In that case we’ll promptly invade that nation (with the best of intentions), set up our own dictatorship (but for the briefest of times), and attempt to install a democratic government (within a nation that is nowhere near the realization of value of democracy) through creation of an inept, marionette government that we’ll have to support for years to come at our expense, and at the expense of our soldier’s lives. (Here, demagogues like Coulter would spout something about the price of liberty or the imminence of threat [improvable, of course].)

…Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. – Bullshit! Pursuing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. Advancing them created Vietnam.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture... – I guess, I’m unclear on President’s definition of “seek and support.” It appears awfully similar to “use as an excuse to overthrow the current government to advance our interests.”

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. – No kidding?!. This is when I grew speechless. In a single breath, he admitted knowing the immoral, criminal nature of his actions, and defiantly chose to stand by them. From there he proceeded to “clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation…” basically by shaking his fist at half of the world.

Statements like “because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom” are altogether outside of a moderately educated, thinking person’s comprehension. What is he talking about?! It sounds great though.

I smiled sadly, as I recognized the similarities between:

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character. and some speeches I read from the late 1930s and early 40s.

“America has need of idealism and courage…” As a rule, idealism, courage, and patriotism have always been touted by violent paupers, looters and cowards. Those who are free, healthy, employed and well-fed are rarely in need of courage and idealism. Their reality embodies their ideals, and since they deal in intellect and common sense they have little use for courage. Their patriotism is manifested in exercising their freedoms.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. – In what America does he live? (forgive the stupid question.) Millions are “laboring on the edge of subsistence” in our country. And under his first term that number has increased as it only had during the days of Great Depression. Middle class, the foundation of this country, has been dwindling steadily under his astute leadership. What else can he offer besides “idealism and courage” to those who are loosing their livelihoods, health, and the life itself?

I’m saddened and disappointed by the outcome of last presidential election. I do, believe, however that the truth of universal principles becomes more obvious over time; and as such it will reveal the erroneousness of this election and the beastly vileness of the elected.