Thursday, May 17, 2007

This MSNBC story talks about Israel's attack on Hamas in answer to their repeated rocket attacks against Israel. But, the subhead says, "10 killed in Gaza airstrikes as Israeli forces step into Hamas-Fatah conflict."

So which is it? Was Israel "step(ping) into the Hamas-Fatah conflict" or was it responding to Hamas rocket attacks?
Some people take this as a negative. I see it as a testament to our incredible productivity.
I didn't like the guy either, but does Boing Boing respond this harshly when a Leftist dies?
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3964 Diggs, is a story about two "chatbots" (applications that are written to, well, chat) that "talk" to each other. Neither pass the Turing Test, I think. This conversation, called "existential" by some, seems rather like a bit of nonsense to me.
At first blush, this story about a toddler receiving a gun permit in Illinois seems like a funny little story about the incompetence of government. On further reflection, though, it makes an important point.

The Left would argue that it's a symptom of the insidiousness of America's "gun culture" that such a permit would be issued. After all, as the Illinois State Police say in the story, "There is nothing in the FOID Act or any of the rules that says anything about age restrictions." And so, the Left might say, here we have a 10-month-old child receiving a gun permit! Imagine the havoc to be wreaked by a child with a shotgun!

However, the more important point is: the permit application was completed and submitted by the boy's father. One would imagine that this same father would take responsibility for the child's actions, and that the child would, in fact, never have an opportunity to use the weapon without the father's direct involvement.

Is this story really about the issue of gun control, or is it about parental responsibility? If this child actually got his hands on the gun, would it be the State's responsibility or the father's? The Columbine killers, even at their ages, didn't exist in a vacuum.
Here's a fairly in-depth discussion of intellectual property that makes some sense of a very complex issue. It's essentially an expanded version of my shorter discussion a few days ago that made the point that, contrary to another argument I linked, the essential nature of intellectual property isn't its "scarcity (or lack thereof) but rather the fact that it must be produced by someone. I covered it in more detail in the comments.
Ed Cline (a fine writer and philosopher) discusses the concept of "hate crimes" in depth. This is an important topic, and Mr. Cline does a great job of discussing it in terms of fundamentals.

A must read.
Celebrity Report: This is a great interview with Jon Voight, where he discusses the Left, the war on terror, and his support for a strong America. Some excerpts:

You recently visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed. What were your impressions?
I was deeply impressed by them. Most I spoke to were young people, around 20 years old. And they were really very eloquent, very positive, very respectful. You have to be proud of the children we're turning out from looking at this group of people. For me, I would much rather hear from these guys than the people who are presenting the news on television on a daily basis.

As in the more general war on terror?
The war on terror is real. People would have you believe it's not real. This is not Vietnam. This particular situation is not the same wherein we can walk away and just leave destruction behind us. No, we can't. Anyone who has paid attention to what [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad is saying, what all the mullahs are saying in this country and in England, and in all of the Arab world, this is serious—they're calling for the destruction of America and all democracy and that's what's going on. We could lose this war.

That's just the beginning; there's much more good stuff there. Well worth the read.