Of course Iran is suddenly identifying American "spy rings." It's not like our efforts at espionage are a secret, or anything.

Are the Chinese smart enough to be using economics, with the ancillary military benefit derived from infusions of American cash, to prepare for a future conflict with the United States? I don't know, but I think it's possible. If so, then our only hope (given the ineptitude of our current leadership) is that the Chinese people will come to recognize the benefits of a free society the more China interacts economically with the West.

It that's possible, then destroying free trade won't be the answer. Which is why it's precisely what our leaders are most likely to do.

I don't know if people appreciate this sort of thing as much as they should. I mean, these are pictures from another planet. And that, in less than a century since such things were merely science fiction.

Here's a story about a home-schooled girl winning a national competition. Statistically, it's meaningless--she might simply be a very, very smart young lady. And, I'm not one to home school my kids--I'd make a horrible teacher. My wife, on the other hand, is a great teacher, and so if she decided to educate either of our children, then I certainly wouldn't complain.


That would be the deeper point here, of course. The quality of education comes down to the teachers and the methods, both of which can be quite variable from one school (and system) to another.

Public, i.e., government-controlled, schools are necessarily run from a political perspective, as opposed to responding to competitive pressures. Parents have no real say in how their children are educated in public schools; the idea that "all politics are local" breaks down when schools must meet State- and Federal-mandated standards that are completely divorced from the local community. And, public schools are funded regardless of how well or poorly they educate their students, and in fact there seems to be an inverse relationship--the worse the school, the more money it receives, as if money itself is the sole determinant of educational quality.



Contrast this with a private school, which competes against both public and other private schools for funds, which are paid directly by a student's parents. Certainly, factors other than educational quality influence the success of a private school--religious, ethical, social, and other factors also weigh in. However, there can be no doubt that a private school that provided poor educational outcome wouldn't last long.

To bring things back to the story linked above, home schooling is no guarantee of success--again, I would be a terrible, if well-intentioned, home school teacher. Rather, it's the underlying philosophy and methods of teaching that matters. Removing education from the public sphere is the only way to ensure that competition, and not political expediency, determines how well our students are educated.

It would seem that the only culture Leftists are comfortable ridiculing is Christian culture. I'm not fond of Christianity either, but I find that compulsion quite telling.

What's next? Is Boing Boing going to publicize methods for bribing police officers to look the other way when one wants to commit a robbery? Or, how to avoid DNA tests when committing a rape?

This particular "HOWTO" is innocuous and, likely, stupid, but Boing Boing's predilection for publishing tips on breaking the law is disturbing.

Celebrity Alert: It's unfortunate that Bruce Willis has been associated (hopefully, unwillingly) with the conspiracy movement. I do remember him saying something about JFK, but hell, that assassination probably WAS a conspiracy of some sort. The only question is, whose? My bet would be on Castro. Whatever, though; at this point, it's not a question I'm too interested in.

But, back to Bruce. Is he on the road to whackiness? I hope not; my Celebrity Reports have been pretty thin lately.

I've long believed that Bill Clinton's real crime wasn't his shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his providing missile technology to China. Given the issue of Chinese campaign contributions at around the same time, one has reason to suspect that the Lewinsky affair was merely a smokescreen to obscure the real controversy.

Now, consider this story about a recent Pentagon report, "Is China Developing a Preemptive Strategy?" This is a frightening report in the context of a still-Communist nation with very real concerns about access to energy and material resources. Granted, it should likely be more frightening to Russia, a more historically important enemy of China, than America, with which China has such strong economic ties.

Even then, though, China's military build out is a serious concern, because such a conflict couldn't help but have repercussions for America. And while China may never directly confront the US, it might certainly seek global advantages that impact on our interests. Technology such as that provided by the Clinton Administration can only benefit China in any geopolitical struggle.

Should this go badly for us, we'll have Bill Clinton to thank, at least in part. The Republican Party will also be culpable, given their asinine pursuit of impeachment around Clinton's diddling of Monica Lewinsky. Ultimately, one is left to wonder whether the Republicans simply chose the lesser of two evils over which to pursue impeachment--and why.

This story about Chinese brutality in enforcing family planning laws reminds me of this quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (it's Hank Reardon, if you're curious): "If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

I can't wait for this: the Golden Dragon eCigarette. There are 400 million smokers in China (!), an so it's no surprise that they've come up with this.

I'll swap out my nicotine gum in a heartbeat.

This is purty: the Intel Mobile Metro Notebook. Thin is in.

I wonder how comfortable it is for high-speed typing, though. I need a good keyboard more than I need a sliver of a notebook. Could this thing be lost in a stack of papers?

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5272 Diggs, is... well... a #1 Digg. Not much to say, except that one could probably write a doctoral thesis on the collective pathology that is Digg. Or, about how trivial is that little "digg it" button and therefore how meaningless Digg really is as a general indication of even base popularity.

Boing Boing so wants this to be true. And, it might be, for all I know. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate politics and politicians. They're all crooks, as far as I'm concerned (or, maybe, just most of them), on both sides of the aisle.

What I would like to see is a single site that pulls together all of the shenanigans of the last few elections. I'll bet there's plenty of blame to go around. And all of it, because our government has usurped powers over the economy and our private lives that were never intended.

South Korea might be okay with this, but I doubt that Japan's very keen on it. At some point, Japan is going to act, I think. They're the only nation on the planet that's ever experienced atomic weapons first-hand, and I doubt that they're in a hurry for another taste.

One couldn't ask for a more congruous subhead than this one: "Al-Sadr delivers fiery anti-U.S. sermon; deaths of 6 U.S. soldiers announced."

As part of the Iraq spending bill (WTF?!?), Congress has passed the "Entry-Level Jobs Reduction Plan."

More here. Have I mentioned that I hate politics?

As usual, Cox and Forkum are right on.

Sometimes, I'm amazed that companies manage to do business at all in today's regulatory environment. There's literally no aspect of business that isn't regulated, often in contradictory terms (both within and between government agencies). Ayn Rand's position that such regulation is meant to create criminals out of everyone is becoming ever more obviously true.

Why is the cost to purchase Windows a "tax," as in this Ars Technica story? Does Ars Technical really consider Microsoft's market position equivalent to government power?

Apparently so. Sigh.

This is how the loonies* at the Daily Kos treat their own.

Nice.

*Except, they're not simply loonies. They subscribe to a philosophy where such behavior is not only acceptable, it's expected. It's the worst sort of mob rule; one can easily imagine these people working themselves into a collective frenzy and tearing someone apart. They're violent both on-line and in person, as evidenced by any Leftist rally. Ideas mean nothing to them, ultimately; they'll talk only up until they fail to get what they want. Then, it's time to pull out the rifles and make things happen.

Aliens taking core samples, maybe?

If we don't need to build a missile shield in Europe, then why are the Russians talking about creating a "sword" that can pierce it? I'm not privy to high-level strategy, of course, and so I don't know whether it's true that the shield is being built to defend against rogue states like Iran and North Korea. I'm guessing that given today's technology, it probably is true. A shield to protect against a handful of medium-range missiles is one thing; a shield to protect against hundreds or thousands of ICBM's is another.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to tell whether this is merely typical Russian bellicosity, or if it should be taken at face value. If the latter, then it's a very thinly veiled threat, and indicates that Russia dislikes the missile shield precisly because it limits some future option that they'd like to retain.

Overall, to me, it sounds a lot like a return to the days of Soviet expansionism.

A great resource from the Ayn Rand Institute: a fair number of audiorecordings of Ayn Rand's lectures, interviews, etc. One doesn't very often hear someone speak with such philosophical precision.

This link will get you there, but you'll need to register first. Very much worth a visit.

As usual, a very nice piece from Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute. This one is about recent "say on pay" legislation, which seeks to subvert free market corporate governance.

Worth a read.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3735 Diggs, is a story about a creationist winning a science fair. As an atheist, I too find this ridiculous. I wonder, though, how many Diggs were just Left vs. Right.

Any lingering doubts I might have had that large (or at least influential) swatches of the IT industry are Left-leaning are erased by this story: "Apple's Jobs urges Gore to run for President."

The money quote: "We have dug ourselves into a 20-foot hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder."

A condition of Japan's surrender in WWII was that they reject the Emperor as divine ruler. We should require the same in Iraq. So long as Iraq remains governed by religious factions (and, by proxy, by Iran), it will be just as much of a threat to American interests as was Hussein's Iraq.

Maybe even worse.

Our new ally, the French. No, seriously. It's better than nothing.

Then again, maybe it's not: "diplomatic efforts," sanctions, and anything but direct removal of the Iranian government--which has committed enough acts of war against us to have warranted destruction many times over--simply gives Iran more time to implement its strategy.

I remember getting into a discussion with an Indiana University American lit professor about Ayn Rand, and being insulted in the process. She was a Leftist, of course, who, in addition to hating Ayn Rand, believed that American business was evil for failing to produce the same lines of shoes for her freakishly small feet.* My grade, which prior to this discussion had been a high A, suddenly dropped to a low C. Without a single paper having been submitted. Something about an "entire body of work."

That was 20 years ago. I can only imagine what the environment is like today, after eight years of Clinton and almost eight years of Bush. If you want to know more, sign up for a local screening here. I did.

Edit: I forgot to mention: this is a link to Indoctrinate U., which looks like a fascinating documentary on the topic of higher education anti-dissent.

*They really were freakishly small. I'd say she was probably somewhere in the top one percentile of people with very small feet, meaning that any shoe company that tooled their factories to make a full line of shoes for her would soon go out of business. Such crass business concerns were beneath her, though, because she was talking about her right to whatever shoes she wanted!

I disagree. Los Angeleans are pretty bad, as well.

"Oil for Food" money, maybe?

I hate to pick on the French, since they've since elected someone who's at least pro-American, but this, in the context of the war in Iraq, is interesting.

A single American life lost for any reason other than an individual's decision to fight for his values is one too many. This post by Gateway Pundit makes an important point, but only in a purely political context--more American military servicemembers lost their lives under Clinton than so far under Bush--but from an ethical perspective, the point is moot.

Both Clinton and Bush ignored the real enemy, Iran, and have spent American blood in altruistic orgies of self-effacing sacrifice. In those terms, both are equally evil, whether one sent 7500 Americans to their deaths or "only" 3824.

One can only hope that this isn't an isolated trend: "Europeans back plan to profile mosques."

This is like finding needles in a haystack, but only if one ignores that needles have a nature. Treating them like hay means failing to apply tools like metal detectors to the task.

One example [U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff] cited is the case in June 2003 of an agent at Chicago's O'Hare airport who, unsatisfied with a foreign traveler's responses, refused entry and sent him back to where he had come from _ first taking his fingerprints.

Those fingerprints, according to Chertoff, turned up later on the steering wheel of a suicide truck bomb detonated in Iraq.

Better that he blow himself up over there than over here.

I hate politics. I really do:

Similarly, the Democrats’ vow to end the “culture of corruption” in Congress has proven to be empty campaign rhetoric. Only two Democrats joined 187 Republicans on Wednesday in supporting an unsuccessful motion to discipline Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for violating an ethics rules approved by the House in January. Murtha crossed the line when he threatened to bar spending sought by two Republicans who questioned earmarks in his home district.

What will the Left do now?

Unless they're committing fraud or using force, Google can't be "evil." That is, unless your premise is that Google exists for your benefit and not their own. Only then can you suppose that by acting toward their own self-interest, by building businesses that make them money, they're somehow committing an evil act.

Furthermore, it should be no surprise to anyone that Google maintains data on our searching habits. That's obvious: search is their core business, and they (and many others) make a great deal of money by serving up ads based on search criteria, Web site content, and even "personal" data (e.g., what sites we tend to visit, which pages we tend to view, etc.). Indeed, many of us rely on such data to make our Internet usage more efficient and effective.

It seems as if it's only when a company start overtly commercializing such things do people react negatively. This seems nowhere more true than in the IT industry, for reasons that I've not yet fully identified (other than the industry's geography, which is centered smack in the middle of one of the many hearts of Leftist America).

Update (via Instapundit): Exactly.

Dell will soon be selling some tailor-made systems at Wal-Mart. What is the world coming to?

Actually, I think too much is being made of Dell's decision to expand into the retail space. Although the company built itself on direct sales, there's no law (political or economic) against its changing directions. I wouldn't buy a Dell system at Wal-Mart, but then I tend to build my own desktops and source notebooks from other vendors. And, I don't really like Wal-Mart, although only because I find their customer service to be lacking--certainly, not because they're big and influential.

I think that's a good thing.

It's this kind of insane rhetoric that makes Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons different from Irael's (or any Western nation's) nuclear deterrent. One wonders whether Ahmadinejad says these things because he truly believes them, because he knows he can get away with them, and/or because he desires to show "strength" to other Middle Eastern leaders. Whatever.

The point remains that in supposing that Iran has a "right" to develop nuclear weapons because other nations possess them, the Left is as usual creating a moral equivalence between Western nations that act to defend themselves and rogue states that desire to destroy us. To say that Israel will be "uprooted," in whatever context, is tantamount to a declaration of war.

The only question is, when will we start listening?

Boing Boing bills itself as a "Directory of Wonderful Things." I disagree with that billing on general principle: Boing Boing is less often "wonderful" than it is bizarre, disdainful, irreverent, and always tending toward the loony Left.

A Boing Boing post yesterday, though, goes beyond even their typical irrational leanings to border on the treasonous. By reposting the ABC News Blog (The Blotter) post about alleged CIA "black operatons" efforts against Iran, Boing Boing is helping to put American strategy and personnel in jeopardy. The site is so hysterically anti-Bush that it does so in support of a nation that has violated every agreement it has entered into, has threatened the West with destruction, and is currently developing technologies that only make sense in the context of nuclear weapons.

I won't link to the post. If you want to find it, you'll have to search for yourself. I'm picking on Boing Boing here primarily because 1) it's a very, very popular IT site and 2) it's not overtly political. Pointing out the Daily Kos's linking to the ABC News Blog post (and I'm sure they linked to it) would be extraneous and unnecessary--one expects the Daily Kos to publish such information, because their sole purpose for existing is to bring down the current Administration.

As a "Directory for Wonderful Things," though, Boing Boing should explain where a story like this fits.

A prelude to war? One can only hope.

This story includes a picture that's worth a visit. The US Navy is an impressive organization. If Iran's not worried, then they're even more irrational than they're given credit for.

This story outlines an IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program:

The brevity of the four-page report indirectly reflected the lack of progress agency inspectors had made clearing up unresolved issues, among them; Iran’s possession of diagrams showing how to form uranium into warhead form; unexplained uranium contamination at a research facility; information on high explosives experiments that could be linked to a nuclear program and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.

"...form uranium into warhead form"? "...design of a missile re-entry vehicle"?

I'm left without words. Seriously.

I believe this is true, as a general statement: "the average high school student is an incompetent writer." I believe it, because as a father of two kids I've experienced the "quality" of the American public school system firsthand. I've also noticed a marked decrease in quality since moving to California from Illinois--the latter isn't great in this respect, but it's certainly better than the former.

Schools like the VanDamme Academy in Irvine, California are priceless. I only wish it weren't so far away.

I'm not usually into "Top X" lists, finding them often banal and unineresting. This one is no exception. Why is Google Apps Premier Edition the #1 technology of 2007 (particularly when 2007 still has a few months to go)?

You'll have to read the article to find out.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3721 Diggs, is a bit ironic (poor capitalization aside), "IRONY: Anti-Cellphone Senator Crashes while talking on CELLPHONE." Personally, I use either a Bluetooth headset or a Bluetooth handsfree connection between my Sprint Treo 650 and G35, and so such legislation doesn't really impact me personally. And in the overall scheme of government intervention into private matters, it's a fairly insignificant example.

But, it's today's #1 Digg, so have at it.

I'm not sure why it's "bleak" that the EU-Russian forum ended in conflict over human rights issues. In fact, I think it's extremely encouraging. The West and Russia should be in conflict, or else the West has abandoned the little of its principles that it currently retains.

I dislike essays about how high income earners are good for the economy because they pay taxes. When they quote Ayn Rand in this context, I like them even less. This article redeems itself somewhat by pointing out that overall economic activity would be reduced if the productive (although he uses the term "innovator," which is a non-essential) were to quit producing. But, it still focuses too much on income tax payments, which is an evil in and of itself.

I don't think that Bernard Lewis was saying this at all in his recent WSJ op-ed. The point is not that "all Muslims" are violent butchers bent on destroying the West. At no time has any group been completely single-minded in its pursuit of another group's destruction (except perhaps the Nazis, but even they were "only" one aspect of a larger militaristic German culture); there are always those who buck the trend.

Rather, the point is that today, the principal threat to Western civilization comes from within the Muslim population and from certain aspects of Islamic philosophy. The real straw man is the idea that all Muslims are the problem, and it's typically raised precisely in response to one's pointing out that, in the current milieu of atrocities being conducted around the world, Muslims of one flavor or another are at the center of most of them. Articles such as the one linked above focus on knocking down the straw man to obfuscate the reality of contemporary Muslim crimes.

The fact is, there are those Muslims, such as bin Laden, who wish to rip down the Western world and replace it with an Islamic caliphate of their creation. It matters little whether this is due to religious determinism, revenge for past geopolitical events, or pure nihilistic disdain for the modern world. The dead victim of a suicide bomber remains just as dead.

Consider current events in Iraq, in particular the attacks against Iraqi citizens that are essentially worthless militarily. If the "insurgency" were a typical one, it would be just as concerned with protecting Iraqi lives as driving out the occupying American forces. Instead, the "insurgents" target either completely random civilian victims, to create as horrendous and newsworthy an event as possible, or they target other religious sects in what must be either a smokescreen to hide their true intentions or a demonstration of their underlying religious collectivism. Few of their attacks against military targets achieve anything but to bleed American support for the war. In all cases, the ultimate goal has nothing to do with Iraq, but is to drive America out of Iraq solely to claim a victory against the Great Satan (and/or, peripherally, to give one religious sect ascendancy over the other).

Given the long-term effect on their cause, namely that a group such as al Qaida can't get away with indiscriminate killing forever before even the radical imam must denounce them eventually, there must be a reason for such behavior. The only reason that makes sense is that the al Qaida leadership believes that America is too weak in character to take the necessary steps to crush them. Our ability to crush them militarily has already been demonstrated.

And so, one must conclude that Lewis is correct in his assertion that radical Islamists understand only strength, and respond to weakness precisely as in Iraq and elsewhere. Were we to have shown true strength at the very beginning of the conflict, then perhaps Iraq and the rest of the Middle East would be at least marginally more peaceful than it is today.

Of all the episodes, Monday night's Heroes season finale seemed the most steeped in altruist dogma. That was disappointing. Otherwise (and no spoilers, other than philosophically, for those four people who haven't yet watched the episode), but it was still good television. It was surprising, emotionally charged, and action-packed. It tied up some loose ends, provided some foreshadowing for next season, and in general satisfied, while leaving plenty of good material for another season (at least).

In philosophical terms, Heroes is a mixed bag. It's good vs. evil, as it should be, but it's an odd mix of true heroes and anti-heroes. While all of the good characters "mean well," some of them are fairly Milquetoaste-esqe, in particularly Peter, who's also the most powerful character. Of course, the entire show is based on a fantasy premise, and in that sense is inherently rational, but even allowing for that it's still all over the map philosophically.

On that basis, Firefly was much better (although the followup movie, Serenity, wasn't quite up to the same standards). But, I can't say that Firefly was that much better than Heroes, as far as pure entertainment goes. Both are outstanding examples of how television can be of high quality, although Heroes certainly enjoyed a far larger following.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of Heroes, though, that separates it from most other shows is its Internet tie-ins. To fully understand the story, one must keep up with the comic book on the NBC Web site, as well as subscribe to the various text messages, phone calls, etc., that provide background information that supplements the show itself.

In this respect, Heroes might be a model for future entertainment, which will engage us on a number of levels via a variety of mediums. Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen. Entertainment is often a form of escapism for many people, and many won't embrace a show in so many different (and often time-consuming) ways. So far, the Heroes writers and producers have walked this fine line rather effectively, in that although one can enjoy a richer experience via the Internet, the show itself is good enough on its own.

In short, I'm very much looking forward to next season, which is testimony enough for me.

And so, I'm assuming from this story that Putin will "retain influence" over whatever puppet he puts in place, because he can always return to power later. He will maintain the illusion of stepping down, constitutionally, but in reality will remain in control. If that's not the definition of a true dictator, I'm not sure what is.

Good luck, America. With our current and foreseeable leadership, we're going to need it.

American businesses just can't catch a break. Consider this story about pharmaceutical companies data-mining physician prescribing practices. As usual, the typical bugaboo of patient privacy rights is used to attack drug company efforts to better understand their market--in spite of the fact that patient privacy is clearly and carefully being protected.

If government or a Leftist non-profit were to perform such research to show evil-doing on the part of drug companies, nothing would be said. Much would be made, though, of the value of such information in understanding the cost and efficacy of the heathcare industry.

Not so much, however, when private enterprise does it.

English asks, and Russia refuses. I'm glad to see that Litvinenko's death remains a priority for someone. It's doubtful that his murderer (cough, Putin?, cough) will ever be brought to justice, but it's important that Russia's slide (back) into dictatorship remains in the news.

In this Gallup Poll, Ron Paul registers a solid zero. Nada. Zilch. The opposite of something.

And so, it suggests that Internet movements are less a barometer of society's politics and more an indication of how a small handful of very vocal people can make hay. This is particularly true at sites like Technorati and Digg, where Ron Paulism is particularly virulent.

Anyone who lets politics determine their diet is a fool. Someone who let politics determine their infant's diet is an evil fool. Here's an article on why a vegan diet isn't good for anyone, let alone for developing children.

It might make sense, from a health perspective, to reduce the intake of red meat and increase the intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole wheat. Naturally, increasing the "nutritional density" of the food one eats makes sense, and veggies are very dense. But, one makes such decisions based on biology and physiology, not on politics.

These "parents" found out the hard way. As the father said, "We're vegetarians; we are against animal cruelty, so why would I be cruel to my son?" How's that for asserting moral equivalence between animals and humans?

This is pretty cool: water on Mars!

The Iranian regime doesn't need rewards to halt its nuclear ambitions. It needs to be removed from power. This op ed in the New York Times first states the obvious, that Iran is a threat, but then asserts that there's "no military solution" and that we need to offer "a clear offer of full diplomatic relations and security guarantees should Iran agree to verifiably contain its nuclear ambitions."

Is this guy channeling Jimmy Carter?

Celebrity Alert: A nice piece from Dennis Miller. Although, since he only does political stuff nowadays, for the most part, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include him in a Report. Nevertheless, decent stuff.

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.