Fighting proxy wars against the Soviets was one thing. The alternative was, perhaps, total destruction, on both sides. But fighting a proxy war with Iran?

This is getting embarassing. I blame the Left, of course, in part, but Bush and the Republican party are just as culpable.

If we finished things with Iran and Syria, the problem in Iraq would go away. And both the Democrats and the Republicans know this. Hell, they can't not know it. Not if they're at all competent. Either way, a curse on both of them.

As usual, Cox and Forkum are right on the money. This time, it's about Jimmy Carter and his ludicrous assertions (and his subsequent backpedaling is embarrassing).

If you're interested in smart, timely discussions on a variety of technology (and other) topics, visit Jerry Pournelle's site. A long-time contributor at Byte (both in print and on-line), a prolific science fiction writer, and someone long involved in the aerospace industries, he provides a unique and interesting perspective. I don't always agree with him, but he's truly well-informed and intelligent, and that counts for something.

Give a visit. I doubt that you'll be disappointed.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 7384 Diggs: it's back! Yes, the same story about the cancer cure that "Big Pharma" won't touch is again highly Digged. Same comments, too.

Normally I find REALTECHNEWS.com to be a largely uncontroversial site for general technology news. Or, at least, I've never noticed them being particularly so. But, this piece bothered me, in two ways. First, I'm not sure af the story's point; is it in favor of MySpace giving up the sex offender information (not sure how one can be against it), ambivalent about it, or is it saying that such an attempt is merely worthless?

Ultimately, what left me with a bad taste was the "hehe" at the end. Really, I don't find the issue of sex offenders and their access to ever minors a laughing matter.

As I write this, I'm enjoying a freshly brewed cup of French Roast, made in my Keurig coffemaker. It's relatively expensive (compared to regular coffee, but not to Starbucks), but it's tasty and convenient.

I bought my maker at Costco, my favorite store. As usual, they have a great price on the unit I bought, which includes a good supply of coffee (thus making their price even more impressive). Note that Costco changes their inventory quite often, and so that link might not work forever.

All in all, highly recommended.*

*In case anyone's wondering, I don't work for and am not compensated by either company. But, if they want to sponsor this site, I'll be happy to put up some ads. I'll never take money to lie about a product, but if it's something I like, I'm game.

This corroberates my earlier post about Fair Use. Thanks to Ars Technica.

The Fujitsu FMV-U8240 UMPC looks nice. This does away with one of my concerns with the UMPC, which is the typicall smallish or non-existent physical keyboard. I'm sure I could type on this one. Now, I'm only left with the sure-to-blind-me screen--1024X600 on a 5.6" LCD would likely give me migraines. Still, it would be nice for taking written (and perhaps voice) memos while on the run.

And here's a story that show's Russia's predilection toward dictatorship and mayhem won't necessarily end with the deaths of the last Soviet-era leadership. An entirely new generation of oppression is being created right under our very noses, and I fear it won't end well.

I continue to believe that Russia is the greater threat to long-term American security, and this story about Russian spies makes me feel no better.

The oil economy won't last forever. Dubai should remember this. I mean, these are some crazy cool skyscrapers, but how will they pay for such things when the oil money runs out?

More Starcraft II info, specifically some nifty-looking in-game videos. I can't wait for this thing. Of course, I probably don't have a system that will play it like this (my fastest system is an Acer 8204 with an ATI X1600 Mobility GPU, which I'm sure will be inadequate), and so I better start saving up.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4118 Diggs, is anti-Bush. My own anecdotal information would show that the #1 Digg isn't often of a political nature, at least not recently (or since I started this blog). And so, I can't make that particular claim.

This one's pretty bad, though. The story linked is an opinion piece that doesn't make sense in the context of the presidential directive it references. The piece even quotes the directive, as follows:

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

And also:

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I highly doubt that offering up the Executive Branch as the "leader" of the government (during catastrophies or otherwise) would be considered unconstitutional. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is the definition of the Executive Branch (i.e., the branch that executes the law). In fact, if this directive is guilty of anything, it would appear to be redundancy.

My question is: did the 4118 Digg readers who Dugg this story actually read it and think about it? Or was their Digg just a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory anti-Bush headline?

When Israel defends herself, sometimes innocent people are killed. This is unavoidable in war, and if Israel should be faulted for anything it's for being too careful. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict would probably be over by now, with both sides living in peace, had Israel been allowed to simply win the war and get it over with.

When Hamas sends rockets into Israel, however, it is indiscriminate, and the killing of civilians vs. military is the rule rather than the exception. Here's a report on what it feels like to be on the other end of a Hamas Kassam rocket.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, China is in trouble. If this sort of thing continues, to cost of doing business with China will become unbearable. It's a net loss for everyone, but I imagine that the Chinese people will suffer most.

A fascinating story on the domestic oil industry, in the New York Times. What I find most interesting is that oil exploration seems to be down. If so, then how can anyone predict a decrease in available reserves (and by"available," I don't mean just known reserves)?

I recognize that I seem to post most often about intellectual property, and my Google ads attest to this fact. They are as of this posting, for example, both ads placed by IP lawyers. Nothing wrong with that, unless I have aspirations to make a little money from this blog.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting op ed by Mark Helprin. In it, he argues that copyright law should be extended, not limited. He's a writer, and so he doesn't touch at all on the issue of "digital rights." Unless a book has been specifically digitized into an eBook format, it's not very likely to suffer from the widespread infringement "enjoyed" by music and video.

I don't agree with Mr. Helprin, of course. Again, he's not arguing for copyright, per se, but rather assumes that copyright is valid (a legitimate assumption) and argues instead that it should last forever--or, something close to it. As Ayn Rand wrote, however:

Material property represents a static amount of wealth already produced. It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work. The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir. In a free, competitive society, no one could long retain the ownership of a factory or of a tract of land without exercising a commensurate effort.

But intellectual property cannot be consumed. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them. Consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel and on up. Apart from the impossibility of keeping such records, consider the accidental status of such descendants and the unreality of their unearned claims. - Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, Ayn Rand, 1966.

The power of her argument here is how it highlights the vital importance of the individual in creating intellectual property. Mr. Helprin focuses on the long-term economic value of the property itself without recognizing its connection to the individual who created it. Those who argue against intellectual property in general, who like to say that "ideas want to be free," are making the same essential mistake.

"Carter: Bush’s foreign policy is ‘worst in history’": wow, what a headline. It's surreal, even. The subhead is even better: "39th president says 43rd has done severe damage to U.S. reputation abroad." This, from Jimmy Carter, whose principle contribution to America's "reputation" is to have shown our great nation as morose, emasculated, and ineffective. His most recent escapades have been just as disconcerting.

For a President who nearly destroyed the United States through sheer micromanaging incompetence, Carter has some nerve attacking Bush. Of course, Bush makes for an easy target.

Producers can say anything, and often do. Michael Moore is a manipulative, disgusting, vile specimen, and hardly deserves comment. But, I'll believe that the US government is planning to "seize" his movie when I see it.

I'm not sure I like the looks of the 2008 Audi R8, but I certainly like the specs. At $134K fully loaded, it's even more "affordable" than some.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 6189 Diggs (including mine), is about the upcoming release of Blizzard's Starcraft II, the sequel to immensely popular and quite fun Starcraft. I'm looking forward to it, even if the trailer does depict a criminal released from prison as a "Marine."

I think that telecommuting is a great idea, and of course I'm not surprised at its growing popularity. Personally, I enjoy working at home. In my previous job, I drove 25 miles each way through the admittedly beautiful Malibu Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. But, it took me an hour each way, and with gas prices the way they are, close to $75/week in gas expense alone. I'm happy to have both back.

I just don't understand why Congress sees a need to get involved. If telecommuting makes sense for a particular company and employee, then they'll do it. If not, then they won't. As with all things economic, injecting government force into the equation 1) is fundamentally wrong and 2) creates the sort of artificial incentives that will ruin the concept.

Really, though, I was being facetious: I do understand why Congress will get involved. They can't help it. But that's a discussion for another post.

And, once our military commanders in Iraq are sure enough that these are the men who abducted three American soldiers, they should be summarily executed unless they are willing to provide demonstrably credible information on the "insurgency."

Should their information lead to Iran, all the better.

The issue of immigration is so complicated that I haven't yet spent the time to fully digest all of it. Perhaps the new immigration bill is good, maybe it's bad. But, I don't think that American immigration policy should give a rat's a** whether Mexicans are "wary of" it.

I welcome anyone who comes here peacefully and is willing to pay for their own existence. For a free society, infusions of productive, law-abiding people can't be a bad thing.

But, the idea that Mexicans (or anyone else) are somehow entitled to come here and work is erroneous and offensive. The fact that they can make more here than in Mexico doesn't create on their part a claim on America. Ultimately, they should be happy with whatever they get.

I'm all for modern medicine's ability to cure disease and improve our health, but this can't be healthy. I'm not a woman, but the women I know aren't really in a huge hurry to stop their periods. I'm not sure exactly what this is trying to accomplish.

I've been remiss in not yet saying to all of our military men and women around the world:

Happy Armed Forces Day!

I only wish I could do more to honor your efforts in upholding your values.

Viva la France!

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for this one... Although, I don't know if I agree with what Fred Thompson says here. I don't believe in bipartisanship, except to acknowledge that both parties are really much the same and so the only reason they're not bipartisan is because... Well, I suppose it's because they're really only fighting over how to arrange the deck chairs. Or, as Ayn Rand might have said, it's because the witch doctor and Attila the Hun don't always get along.

A truly strong Republican candidate would say, "Screw bipartisanship. Here's what we need to do, here's why we need to do it, and (insert deity here) help those who get in the way!" And, hopefully, that candidate would remember that we're supposed to have a separation of church and state, in which case I could ignore what personal religion they attest to.

At the same time, the Diggsters and others might say, "Then vote for Ron Paul! He says exactly that!" As I mentioned in an earlier post, though, Paul seems to have a laundry list of "values" that he supports, rather than a consistent philosophy. And, for good or bad, I have something inherently against populists and those who garner "grass roots" popularity, because it just seems like so much mob rule to me. I would welcome being proven wrong on this one, however.

Ultimately, I like the way Fred Thompson talks, in spite of the Southern accent. I just don't necessarily like what he says.

Update: As I re-read this post, and continue to come across more about Ron Paul, I just can't dismiss the notion that he's something of a loon. Again, I would love to be wrong here.

This is a long and, in some cases, technical piece that makes a number of important (albeit, in some cases, false) points. In it, Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing and Hal Stern of Sun discuss a number of topics around system design, privacy, pirating, etc.

A couple of interesting points:

First, Doctorow says, "...I often wonder whether trusted computing architectures that allow remote parties to enforce policy on your hardware are a good idea." It's true that it's "our hardware," but that's as far as such an idea goes. If we want that hardware to perform particular tasks, and can't write our own software for it, then we necessarily have to procure that software from someone else. Naturally, we do so (or should) according to terms that are agreeable to both of us, within the context of our varying positions.

If I have a need for a piece of software to perform a particular function, and someone else has done a good job of writing it, then in this instance the software writer has the ability to enforce a policy to which I might not otherwise agree. That is, I either agree to the policy, or I forego my ability to utilize the software. Whether enforcing this policy or not is good economic sense is for the software developer to decide--and it is he who suffers the consequences of poor decisions.

There's nothing inherently "bad" in this, no imbalance in the voluntary relationship between us--it merely reflects the difference in our abilities again in this particular context. In other contexts, the roles might be reversed, and I might have something that the developer (or someone else) really needs. Ultimately, this is just the essence of the free market, and it's eminently fair because it rewards those who are productive and effective and it punishes those who aren't.

Second, at the very end of the piece, Stern says:

"Which is the one that you're going to try to regulate? After you watch a DVD you bought off of some guy's blanket on a New York City street - and you realize that you're watching a copy of the movie made by someone with a handheld camcorder, with a guy behind him asking for more popcorn and coughing - in some cases, if you liked it, you might go out and buy the real one. That's market-expanding, even if the original content was pirated. There's a reason that bands such as the Grateful Dead and Phish encouraged bootlegs: because they reach more listeners."

Similarly, this is a meaningless point, because of course any creator of intellectual property has the right to give that property away or to ignore its theft (although, perhaps as with trademarks, if one ignores copyright infringement for long enough, one might give up the right to prosecute it at some point, but that's for a different discussion). In some cases, it might even make good economic sense. However, in a free society, it's up to the owner of intellectual property to decide the terms under which he trades his property. Anything else makes him into a slave.

Today, many people attack the major labels for taking most of the profits and leaving little for the artists, and make the claim that by doing so they abdicate their right to control the property or which they've duly negotiated. This is rubbish: any artist who signs with a major label does so voluntarily and for reasons, good or bad. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this blog, denying the validity of our own agreements is the quickest way to destroying our ability to control our own existence. If we don't like the way our agreements turn out, then we need to change their terms, not evade our responsibility for them.

"Must Read" should never be placed in a sentence along with "Al Gore." Digg readers don't understand this.

Regarding the article itself, I'll provide a synopsis: "Blah, blah, blah (hidden subtext: I'm running for President again) blah, blah, blah." The "assault on reason" is his, the Left's, and the religious Right's. The Internet won't save reason, because the Internet's dominated by irrational mob rule.

Here's a good place to start saving it, though.

Here's a call for socializing the Internet. It will never cease to amaze me how people can ignore history, or even current events. The same people who complain about governments censoring Internet access are likely in support of turning the Internet over to government, apparently because they have an uncanny ability to comparmentalize their cognitive processes.

Collectivism has demonstrated itself to be a deadly mistake. It's remarkable that this has apparently already been forgotten.

China's a mess.

Hat tip to Instapundit for this one... If Tim Ferris wants to send me a free copy of his book "The 4-Hour Workweek," I'll be happy to review it, too, although I'm skeptical (or maybe because I'm skeptical).

Of course, this blog doesn't have the readership of some others, and so I'll have to just wait patiently for the book to arrive. Are you listening, Mr. Ferris?

I may be a geek, but this is exciting news. Blizzard has announced Starcraft II, and it looks like it will continue on where the first version left off.

Cool.

One has to wonder what will happen to the left should the Democrats win the White House in 2008. Without the Republicans to hate, will they just collapse? And if Bush escapes officed unimpeached, will they self-destruct? Because at the Daily Kos, they certainly spend a good deal of their energy on the topic.

Celebrity Report: I was worried when I read the headline, "John Cusack is a Turncoat." I like Cusak as an actor, and thought, "Not him!" Then I read the story.

Whew.

Hmm: Sanctuary, billed as "The First Broadcast Caliber Online Sci-Fi Series." It doesn't have to be perfect to be interesting. I'm all for Internet media broadcasting, as long as it's of decent quality.

As opposed to Youtube, of course.

An interesting piece on global warming at Capitalist Magazine. Seems the skeptics are becoming more vocal, which is a very good thing.

More about Putin's continued crackdown on dissent. It's a good thing that Kasparov is a Putin critic, or we'd less of a face to put on the opposition--and, perhaps, less coverage.

For Windows Vista users, a decent tips and tricks site.

As usual, Scott Adams posts a particularly contentious piece on his Dilbert blog. He does this to stir up controversy, or so he's told me.

Is the only problem with Russia that they're rude? I doubt it.

I haven't thought that much about immigration, although I've been thinking about it more since I moved to Southern California. So, I don't know if the recently passed immigration bill is a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm guessing the latter, though, since it was the result of "compromise" between the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

Note: This link might require registration. It's been awhile since I first visited nytimes.com, and I might have a cookie.

Here's a bit more about Ron Paul (or, perhaps, about his supporters), from Little Green Footballs. As usual, LGF is ahead of me on things like this, but I'm new.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that Americans tend to have a very distorted view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and of geopolitical history. Here's a quick account of one small aspect about which it would be helpful if Americans understood: the Six-Day War.

One can only imagine what the Middle East would be like were Israel to have lost this war. I imagine that 9/11 might have happened even earlier.

Ouch. I wonder if I picked a bad time to try to make it as a freelancer.

This is frightening, and everyone should be talking about it. Maybe I'll Digg it, and see if it rises to the top.

Somehow, I doubt that it will.

Update, this was already Dugg, and so far stands at 39 Diggs. Pretty poor showing so far.

Allowing oneself to be utilized by the enemy is tantamount to treason. I think the mainstream media is flirting with it. Thanks to Instapundit for bringing this up.

On the one hand, I believe very strongly in self-defense, and teach my kids that should anyone try anything, it's okay to do whatever in stopping them. I this, I agree with Michelle Malkin.

On the other hand, I don't belive that our children should live their lives afraid, constantly expecting and preparing for the worst. Life is meant to be a pursuit of happiness, not fear. It's a fine line to walk, I think, and unfortunate that we need to walk it.

Thanks to Gottabemobile.com, here's a quick piece on the new Samsung Q1 Ultra. I would a UMPC: there are times when I'm out and about and need to make a note (or write a quick blog post, or defeat an evil overlord) when something like this would be mighty handy. My Treo's keyboard is just to small for anything other than a few words, I hate paper (having spent over six years consulting on how to get rid of it), and my Tablet PC's just too big to lug around everywhere I go.

Unfortunately, my eyes are getting old and that tiny little screen would be the death of me. And, I don't have $799 to blow. In fact, I don't have $799, period.

Update: The fine folks at Gottabemobile.com also touched on the OQO Model 2, which in addition to causing me to go blind even before I started using it, would also find me divorced due to its $1800+ pricetag.

Scientology is both funny and frightening, at the same time. They're obviously wackos, and yet they're wackos in very large numbers, and with money. You don't imagine them holed up in some gritty compound in Idaho or Utah, but rather imagine them at swank parties in glittering black buildings with walls of chrome.

From this Rolling Stone story, perhaps the defining quote (for me): "'Scientologists see themselves as possessors of doctrines and skills that can save the world, if not the galaxy,' says Stephen Kent, a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta, in Canada, who has extensively studied the group."

Thetans, unite!

My son is going to love this. Hell, I'm going to love this. I didn't grow up on the Transformers, but there's nevertheless something inherently cool about them.

Take a look.

Update: Oops. I think I originally linked to a not-so-legal site. This link's better, I think.

I don't know why they're "hacks," but this Digg story does list some interesting productivity tips, many of which I'm already using and some that I know I should be using. Worth a quick read...

Nothing better than Mac fanatics going after Ubuntu fanatics. This Digg's link isn't working for you, so I hope you have better luck. But, I can only imagine the rhetoric to be found there.

I still don't get it: Linux supports only a small subset of the hardware out there, has numerous well-documented driver issues, and requires constantly dropping to the command line to get many parts of the OS working (including, for me, wireless networking, although I'm sure the Ubuntu fanboys would blame me for that). How is it again that it's better than Windows (of any recent flavor) or OS X?

One might be tempted to accuse me of hating Digg. Nothing could be further from the truth. Digg is great when it deals with technical and purely factual information. It's not so good when it comes to opinion, because although it's great when a story like this about digital photography rises to the top, it's not so great when a story like this bubbles over.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 8788 Diggs, is cute. And that's about it.

Cox and Forkum, today's most rational cartoonists, honor the men and women of the US Armed Forces. As usual, they express things better than I could hope to do.

Let me just say: ditto!

This is nice, and reasonably priced. I'll take two.

As usual, the defender's of intellectual property rights do so using the argument of their opponents--that the real issue is "innovation," not the rights themselves. According to Ars Technica, the newly formed "Copyright Alliance" says it wants to "'balance those rights with the public good' and hopes to 'enrich our culture through incentives to create and disseminate new and innovative creative works'."

Both statements are codeword for a repudiation of individual rights, that says essentially the value of the individual is how he contributes to the betterment of society. Intellectual property won't be safe until the individual's right to control it is recognized, in principle, by its most vocal "defenders."

On a related note, I'm not surprised that Microsoft is a member of this group. The company has a long history of compromising on basic principles and sacrificing its own rights on an alter of collective guilt for its tremendous success. Bill Gates is legendary for spending billions on an effort to buy favor with those elements of society that consider him as evil for being wealthy.

If Digg and Technorati are any guides, Ron Paul is the darling of much of the activist IT world. This seems to fly in the face of my "IT is Leftist" argument, except that most of the agreement with his policies seems centered around his foreign policy views (particularly as they involved Iraq). Certainly, I can agree with his "Freedom Principles" as stated on his Web site, but his other views are typical libertarian--and I wonder why he doesn't simply join the Libertarian Party, outside of the fact that in doing so he'd be virtually assured of never winning another election.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, then Paul holds a mismash of views, in particular on social issues, and that (at this point) would be my biggest problem with him. I wonder if he has any consistent political philosophy, or just holds a laundry list of "values" as is the most important failure of today's libertarian (small "l") movement.

I'm not too sure of the veracity of this site, but if truthful, here's an interesting look into the attitudes of Vladimir Putin. I remain convinced that, second only to Islamic radicalism, Russia stands as America's most significant long-term threat.

I'm not sure where Michael Prescott remembers seeing Ayn Rand in bad light as an atheist. Her recorded public appearances are few and far apart, and I think I've seen most of them. She was a very cautious public presenter, and it was simply not in her nature to lose control of herself.

I challenge anyone to provide evidence of her representing atheism in any but the most rational light.

Celebrity Report: Dennis Miller has always struck me as a mixed bag. Sometimes I find him funny and on-point, at others, not so much. To see him describe himself as almost an Objectivist, though, is interesting and generally a positive (although I might debate him on how much of an Objectivist he really is). I didn't know he was even aware of Ayn Rand.

Good for him. Maybe with a little study, he can become truly consistent.

I'm usually not all that interested in electoral politics, because I find both major parties essentially bankrupt and differing only in details. Here, though, Robert Tracinski does a good job of defining what's deeply wrong with the Republican party--or at least of outlining the pernicious and profound influence of the religious Right.

One can only hope that the Republican party will truly reclaim its roots in the next election, or many people like myself will be faced with a choice between voting for a dictatorship of the loony Left, the continued deadly moralizing of the religious Right, or nobody at all.

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.

Russia is heading in the wrong direction, in so many ways. It's sad, really. America could have done so many things to help create a free state of out the ashes of Communism. Although it wasn't our responsibility, it would have certainly been in our interest, and would have required little more than some rational education to help the Russian people understand what it means to be free.

I know from personal experience that the people of the former USSR are hard-working, resourceful folk, with one major failing: they yearn for security over freedom, and will accept any dictator who promises security no matter the cost. Putin is just such a dictator, and it remains to be seen just how bad he really is.

Digg Report: It's a slow day on Digg. #1, at 2634 Diggs, is, a list of Google's various tools. On one page, yet!

Instapundit links to a story about French intervention in Africa. If some shadowy group within the US government were to do something like this, it would be plastered on the front page of newspapers around the globe as another example of why the world hates America. Al Jazeera would issue a recording of bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri using it as another example to justify 9/11 and on-going calls for America's destruction.

But it's France, and so they get a pass.

Yet another example of how media coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a cesspool of bad ideas and misreporting. As the story points out, though, this won't be corrected, but will be added to the on-going litany of lies and distortions that makes the world hate Israel.

This essay by Bernard Lewis should be required reading. The Islamists understand only one thing: strength. They're like animals in this respect (among others), which can smell fear and react to it. If we fold now, we'll pay dearly later.

The only question is, how much later?

Really, I think this listing of Google's philosophy (and, interestingly, it is a list) is, in total, rather innocuous. The part that I find interesting is #6, "You can make money without doing evil." To me, that's self-evident: I see it done every day of my life. The US economy is over $13 trillion of not doing evil.

I suppose, though, that it all depends on one's definition of "evil." And, just how significant the statement is depends entirely on one's impression of business.

I want this. I'm a sucker for American muscle cars, having grown up just a little too late to enjoy them. The Mustang, the Camaro, the GTO, the Roadrunner, etc., etc.--there's just nothing like the low rumble of a big ol' V8.

I've tried Ubuntu, and it won't connect to my wireless network. I've configured the security settings correctly, its sees the network, but it just won't connect. This is with two different routers, and I've tried both WPA and WPA2, with no luck.

As I research how to fix things in Ubuntu, I still find all sorts of references to dropping to the command line and entering various Linux arcana. It's not much of a challenge for me, really; I've made things work in Linux before. But, it's certainly not ready to replace Windows for the vast majority of the computer-using world, for whom the command line is a foreign concept.

And so, when I read articles like this about someone who's made the switch to Linux because Vista is so hard to work with, I get a bit of a chuckle. It's one thing to claim Linux works for a computer professional who doesn't work in a corporate environment; it's another thing to claim that it's easier to use than Vista for a computer novice, or that it's an acceptable option in a corporate environment that relies heavily on Microsoft server-side products.

Linux, including Ubuntu, has a long way to go before it can replace any version of Windows. Assertions to the contrary, I'm convinced, are just another form of Microsoft-bashing.

Here's a story I found on Digg about the "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007." Now, my definition of "censorship" is government prohibition of speech, and so for these to be truly "censored" would mean that government somehow stopped their publication, which didn't happen. I remember reading something about each and every one of these stories, and so if our government had tried to censor them, we have a long way to go before it achieves Orwellian proportions.

Certainly, the mainstream media didn't "censor" these stories. I find it simply impossible to believe that the AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, CBS, et. al., are pro-Bush administration, and would bury a story to protect it.

Ultimately, many (most, all? it's a bit hard to read through all of it) of the stories are typical old Leftist saws, and I find many of the sources listed here to be suspect. In other words, it's typical Digg, and just as disturbing.

This is outstanding, and pithy. Here, Fred Thompson responds to Michael Moore, apparently something about a debate challenge.

I like it.

As usual, Digg comments are fascinating in their own right. No comment necessary.

Regarding the Dugg story, it's opinion, and I'll leave it at that. Not worth the time.

Whatever works. I like it.

I remain torn on Giuliani, as I always do political candidates in our mixed economy/society, but I like his stance on a few issues. Apparently, how to stop another attack on the US is one of them.

I'm not sure which is worse, that kids were subjected to such psychological torture, or that they were told merely to hide under their desks. Can't our school administrators come up with a better answer to mass murder than instilling in our children such a passive response to evil?

I wonder how Boing Boing would respond to a Web page that offered lessons on how to rob banks and get away with it? Or homes? Or to copy their Web site and publish it? Would it be the same as their response to a Web site that offers hints on how to pirate (i.e., steal) intellectual property?

Would they link to such a page? Call it a "great little beginner's guide"? One wonders.

Here's an interesting article on Digg and other social news sites. Are they ruled by the mob? You decide.

Thanks, as usual, to Little Green Footballs for this tidbit. Here are some Daily Kos comments where they think gassing Joe Lieberman would be just dandy. I'm recording this for future reference, should there be any controversy regarding comments on this or any other site.

The Left is more virulent and deadly than anyone on to the right of them (and if anyone hasn't figured it out by now, I'm not exactly to the right or left of anyone). This serves as further proof.

The Pope is dead, long live the Pope.

One of the most common arguments used to justify the theft of intellectual property (IP) is the doctrine of "fair use." This doctrine is used, erroneously, to support the general notion that we as consumers have a right to utilize the IP that we "purchase"* however we want, such as ripping to CDs, copying to portable devices, etc. I've even seen it used to justify downloading music via P2P technology like Bittorrent, although that's clearly not within any rational person's definition of "fair use."

Just what does "fair use" mean, though? Does it provide the right to rip music to a CD, and to copy digital versions of IP to any number of devices? Does it give us the right to use software to strip off the DRM applied by any of the various vendors of digital media, such as iTunes?

According to the U.S. Copyright Office, "fair use" has a much more limited definition. It means, essentially, that one has the right to utilize parts of a copyrighted work for very specific, noncommercial uses such as research, news reporting, teaching, etc. Even then, one cannot utilize an entire work, although it's left up to the court to decide what's acceptable in any given context. Clearly, though, this definition does not allow the consumer any rights to copy a given piece of IP.

Other court decisions and case law have been used to justify copying IP, and in some cases might even be reasonable absent other considerations. For example, DVD's do get damaged, and it might seem perfectly reasonable to make backup copies. However, in reviewing a few DVD's that I've purchased, I've found that each states clearly on the label that unauthorized copying is prohibited. Therefore, my only options regarding those DVD's is to refuse to purchase them, or to abide by those terms.

In any case, I do not have a "fair use" right to copy those DVD's. Any other interpretation would appear to be an urban legend, and a dangerous one at that.

*Note that I put "purchase" in quotes, although I continue to use the word throughout the post. It's a topic for another discussion, but I believe it's more accurate to say that we license intellectual property rather than purchase it. And, we do so, in many cases, according to very specific terms. It might be that those terms need to be better communicated, as with software where the licensing terms are inside the box, but nevertheless those terms apply. Only if we destroy the concept of free, voluntary trade can we feel free to violate the terms of our own agreements.

What a shocker: Iran has increased its uranium enrichment. This is a confusing story, really a mismash of disjointed facts. Iran has improved its enrichment capabilities and violated its agreements, but probably can't sustain their efforts, unless they can, in which case something should probably be done, but nobody knows what. Pretty common stuff for the mainstream media.

The one most important fact, though, is that Iran has stated its desire to destroy Israel and the United States (and the West, and Disneyland, and women with their powerful hair), which should be enough. How they mean to do so really isn't all that important to me.

Certainly, I'm no fan of the World Bank in general, and I don't think that anyone should utilize their authority to violate the terms of their agreements. But, the story about Paul Wolfowitz and his "ethics violations" is astounding for how much press it's receiving.

What did the guy do, exactly? As far as I can tell, he put his girlfriend in a cushy job. Horrors! That's certainly front page news.

Of course, taking millions of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein in administering the "Oil for Food" program, and contributing to starvation among the Iraqi population, has hardly warranted any negative coverage of the United Nations since the story first broke years ago. Here we have verified, documented corruption of the worst kind, in an organization that threatens the very sovereignty of the United States, and there's relatively little about it in the mainstream media.

Note that I'm not saying that there was no coverage, but that the story warranted Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson, Paris Hilton coverage, and it received nothing even close to that.

This highly Digged story is interesting mainly for the comments. It's amazing how so many people are so willing to equivocate when it comes to stealing someone else's work.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 6522 Diggs (wow!) show another Digg tendency: some stories just never go away. I can remember this basic theme, "The cancer cure that (Big Pharma, the Government, Nobody) cares about" on more than a couple of occasions in reference to the drug dichloroacetate.

Certainly, I'd be as happy as anyone about a cure for cancer. But the notion that such a cure could be found and scientifically verified, and then somehow remain hidden, is ludicrous. Businesspeople aren't idiots--if they saw a cure for cancer, they'd jump all over it, because somebody would make money from it. And, they'd stop wasting as much of their money on finding other cures.

Update: I was thinking more about this, and I wonder: is this story so popular because it has some scientific importance? Or, is it popular because it plays on the Digg Leftist mentality that "big business" is somehow responsible for keeping such a medical advance from the rest of us?

I think Condi is entirely correct when she says we're not in a new Cold War with Russia. A "Cold War" implies that a "Hot War" is the alternative, and I certainly hope we're not that far gone. With the Soviet Union, the Cold War was the alternative to mutual destruction; all of the global brinksmanship, proxy wars, espionage, etc., for all of its horror, was fundamentally more attractive than a shooting war between countries with thousands of nuclear weapons.*

Rather, I think the next Cold War could be with Iran. And, while the Communists weren't rational, they still wanted to live. We can't say the same about the religious.


*I'm not equating the Soviet Union and the United States here. The USSR was fundamentally evil, the United States was not. One deserved to survive, the other did not. But, the fact was, had things devolved to a hot war, I for one don't believe that things would have gone well.

Two points struck me from this story about Microsoft's recent open letter about open source violations of its patents.

First, there's "...Microsoft's business is very much, maybe all, about legal contracts." I find this a fascinating comment, because I can't imagine what business in a free market isn't about legal contracts. Every legitimate transaction in a free society is based upon the notion of at least an implied contract between the parties. Otherwise, there would be no way to seek redress in the courts when one side is in breach.

Next is, "The contractual approach underlines a fundamental philosophical attitude about ownership: If I create it, it's mine." I struggle to imagine another attitude about ownership. Could it be, "If I don't create it, it's mine"? No, of course not. Or, "If I create it, it's not mine"? Hardly, at least in a rational society. "It doesn't matter whether or not I create it, it's still mine"? Ditto.

The issue of Microsoft's approach to combatting open source software is much more complex, and deserves its own rational treatment. Perhaps such a treatment will show up on this blog. But, the concept of "ownership" is definitely central, and these two statements are fascinating mainly in how they bring into question concepts of business and ownership that I would have imagined were self-evident.

Apparently, I was wrong.

I don't agree that Americans like a monarch. I didn't care for Bush Sr., despised Bill Clinton, can't stand Bush Jr., and might commit hari-kari if Hillary is elected, but I don't think this is a tendency toward a secret yearning for royalty.

I think it does, though, show a certain complacency (to which the article does allude). And, it shows how vitally important it is that we avoid democracy at all costs, and that we somehow reinstate the founding republican principles (the article says this, as well). Limited government is the only way to avoid allowing complacency (and today's Internet-fueld mob-rule mentality) to create an oppressive majority rule.

Hopefully this Ali Asgari guy is singing like a canary about now. If he has negative things to say about our enemies, though, I'm sure he'll have no credibility with the mainstream media.

Mr. Vice President, of course Arab "leaders" are mostly in support of stabilizing Iraq. Nobody likes a civil war, the Middle East is full of sectarian and religious conlict irrespective of America's involvement, and they'd be happy to have us spend American money and lives to clean up their messes for them.

I don't know if we have any choice but finish things in Iraq, but I hardly think that Arabian support should count in our calculations.

Celebrity Report: Bruce is at it again. Or, this might be part of the chat I previously linked. In any case, he makes the point: celebrities aren't particularly qualified to comment on current topics simply because their celebrities. In another context, I might be embarassed to make such a self-evident point, but given the penchant of actors to make inance political comments it's a point that needs to be made.

Over and over. Of course, Bruce himself could benefit from some speechwriting. Are you listening, Bruce? I'm available, and I'm affordable.