Friday, September 07, 2007
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4550 Diggs, is a link to a rant about Internet Explorer's general lack of conformance to various Internet standards. Not much to say about that.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Light Blogging Next Few Days
Just to remind, light blogging today and probably through tomorrow, at least.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4891 Diggs, is a link to Steve Job's open letter to early iPhone adapters, wherein he explains the $200 price job after two months and offers a $100 credit at the Apple store or Web site.
It's good to see a highly Dugg story that has some relevance to it. Maybe to a select few, and the Apple faithful, but still relevant.
It's good to see a highly Dugg story that has some relevance to it. Maybe to a select few, and the Apple faithful, but still relevant.
Sudanese Islamists: Don't Come to the Sudan, US!
Another piece from MEMRI, this time on Sudanese Islamic leaders warning the US not to send forces to Darfur. The reason? It is "the most beautiful place in which our sheikh, Bin Laden, can operate."
Of course, it's written in that strange, off-kilter way that most of these Islamist proclamations seem to be written. I don't write it all off to translation, either; they think differently than we do in the West, not just about religion, but about what words mean and how to use them.
Anyways, here are some quotes:
Dr. Hassan Al-'Audha, Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood: "America believes that it is the master of the world, and that all other people are its slaves, who are subordinate to it and must obey it. America believes that it owns the oil discovered in Sudan. These are not my words. [Former U.S. president] Carter declared some two years ago: 'We wanted the oil of Sudan to be used for the pleasure of the American people after 2005.'
Hmm, hadn't heard that one. And it would shock me--absolutely shock me--if Jimmy Carter had written anything like that (unless, of course, it was meant as an attack on the Bush Administration). And look at the US... we're really going after that Sudanese oil, aren't we?
Of course, that's ridiculous. It's the Chinese that are going after that oil. But we wouldn't expect an Islamist to recognize that, now would we?
Muhammad Ahmad Hajj Ahmad, Commander of the Popular Defense Forces: "Whoever talks about genocide and about [ethnic] cleansing and all that should tell us what is going on in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Throughout the history of this world, we have heard about women being raped by men. But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women, except at Abu Ghureib prison."[...]
That just cracks me up. "But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women..." There are so many off-color jokes there that I'll just leave it alone. However, this guy in one sentence manages to relegate Abu Ghureib (his spelling) to the annals of comic history.
"I don't want to go on, brothers. We have done talking. Let them do the talking - the Americans, the British, and NATO, who covet the Sudanese oil, and minerals of Darfur and Moya, and who look for uranium, and want to... By Allah, we don't care about any of this. All we want is to die for the sake of Allah. Just a bullet here - and you are gone. Let them come - by Allah, we will teach them a lesson."
I mean, this whole diatribe is remarkable for how out of touch with reality it really is. I mean, the US is not involved with Darfur in anything but a peripheral sense, and yet these yahoos talk as if we've already landed Marines there. And the funny thing is, here in the US, the Left would be quicker to attack us for not being involved.
Of course, it's written in that strange, off-kilter way that most of these Islamist proclamations seem to be written. I don't write it all off to translation, either; they think differently than we do in the West, not just about religion, but about what words mean and how to use them.
Anyways, here are some quotes:
Dr. Hassan Al-'Audha, Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood: "America believes that it is the master of the world, and that all other people are its slaves, who are subordinate to it and must obey it. America believes that it owns the oil discovered in Sudan. These are not my words. [Former U.S. president] Carter declared some two years ago: 'We wanted the oil of Sudan to be used for the pleasure of the American people after 2005.'
Hmm, hadn't heard that one. And it would shock me--absolutely shock me--if Jimmy Carter had written anything like that (unless, of course, it was meant as an attack on the Bush Administration). And look at the US... we're really going after that Sudanese oil, aren't we?
Of course, that's ridiculous. It's the Chinese that are going after that oil. But we wouldn't expect an Islamist to recognize that, now would we?
Muhammad Ahmad Hajj Ahmad, Commander of the Popular Defense Forces: "Whoever talks about genocide and about [ethnic] cleansing and all that should tell us what is going on in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Throughout the history of this world, we have heard about women being raped by men. But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women, except at Abu Ghureib prison."[...]
That just cracks me up. "But throughout history, never have we heard about men being raped by women..." There are so many off-color jokes there that I'll just leave it alone. However, this guy in one sentence manages to relegate Abu Ghureib (his spelling) to the annals of comic history.
"I don't want to go on, brothers. We have done talking. Let them do the talking - the Americans, the British, and NATO, who covet the Sudanese oil, and minerals of Darfur and Moya, and who look for uranium, and want to... By Allah, we don't care about any of this. All we want is to die for the sake of Allah. Just a bullet here - and you are gone. Let them come - by Allah, we will teach them a lesson."
I mean, this whole diatribe is remarkable for how out of touch with reality it really is. I mean, the US is not involved with Darfur in anything but a peripheral sense, and yet these yahoos talk as if we've already landed Marines there. And the funny thing is, here in the US, the Left would be quicker to attack us for not being involved.
Islamist Web Site in Minnesota Details Plans on Attacking US Bases
Deadlines still loom, but I thought I'd try to get in a few quick posts. Here's one from MEMRI, which discusses an Islamist Web site hosted in Minnesota containing a discussion on the best way to attack a US military installation.
Hopefully, this Web site has been shut down and the hosting site cautioned to keep their eye out for such stuff. Obviously, this goes beyond any rational notion of "freedom of speech" and is instead directly aimed at harming the security of the US.
We shouldn't expect such Web sites to be hosted in the US.
Hopefully, this Web site has been shut down and the hosting site cautioned to keep their eye out for such stuff. Obviously, this goes beyond any rational notion of "freedom of speech" and is instead directly aimed at harming the security of the US.
We shouldn't expect such Web sites to be hosted in the US.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Might be Some Light Blogging Next Couple of Days
Might be some light blogging over the next few days, some deadlines are looming.
Jimmy Carter's Impact on the Evolution of Iran
Here's an interesting post on Jimmy Carter's impact on the Shah of Iran and his eventual downfall to the Islamic totalitarian, terrorist-supporting government that exists today. Probably, much of this information needs to be vetted, since this isn't exactly a known resource, but it paints an interesting picture.
The gist:
In accordance with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies. The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".
The result:
When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.
Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.
Maybe a bit of a stretch, although it's compelling:
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
The gist:
In accordance with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies. The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".
The result:
When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.
Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.
Maybe a bit of a stretch, although it's compelling:
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
Jimmy Carter Thinks Middle East Debate "Unbalanced" In Favor of Israel
It's remarkable that Jimmy Carter would call for "balanced" Middle East debate, when the mainstream media does everything it can to make the Palestinians look like victims and Israel look like a brutal oppressor. I meet very few people who have a clear understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with their opinions tracking pretty much along the lines of whatever they're fed by the MSM.
The very best place to go to get an idea of how biased is the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians is Little Green Footballs. That guy has a seemingly unlimited amount of time to amass amazing amounts of information showing just how bad the coverage really is.
The very best place to go to get an idea of how biased is the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians is Little Green Footballs. That guy has a seemingly unlimited amount of time to amass amazing amounts of information showing just how bad the coverage really is.
Russia Helps Iran out of a Tough Spot
Many thanks to Russia for minimizing the impact of American and European sanctions against Iran. This time, it's in the area of Iran's aviation industry that Russia is helping a known terrorist-supporting government maintain its viability.
Some quotes:
Aviation chief Saeed Hesami said Russian planes were Iran's best option, according to IRNA, despite a string of crashes in recent years involving Russian-made aircraft that have killed hundreds of people.
"We have no option but to buy Russian planes because we have to meet the air transportation needs of the nation," Hesami was quoted as saying by IRNA. "Iran won't allow ... U.S. sanctions to ground its aviation fleet."
Actually, it looks to me like Russia won't allow US sanctions to ground Iran's aviation fleet.
And perhaps the money quote:
In 2002, Iran's transportation minister at the time, Ahmad Khorram, told parliament that Iran's air industry had reached "a crisis point" and was suffering from U.S. sanctions.
Some quotes:
Aviation chief Saeed Hesami said Russian planes were Iran's best option, according to IRNA, despite a string of crashes in recent years involving Russian-made aircraft that have killed hundreds of people.
"We have no option but to buy Russian planes because we have to meet the air transportation needs of the nation," Hesami was quoted as saying by IRNA. "Iran won't allow ... U.S. sanctions to ground its aviation fleet."
Actually, it looks to me like Russia won't allow US sanctions to ground Iran's aviation fleet.
And perhaps the money quote:
In 2002, Iran's transportation minister at the time, Ahmad Khorram, told parliament that Iran's air industry had reached "a crisis point" and was suffering from U.S. sanctions.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3968 Diggs, is about Apple's announcement of new iPods. This is tech reporting, I suppose, so kudos to Digg for getting the word out. Not that a million other sites haven't already trumpeted the news, but you can't blame Digg for trying.
And I'm actually surprised that this wasn't Dugg more. Diggsters seem to like Apple products.
And I'm actually surprised that this wasn't Dugg more. Diggsters seem to like Apple products.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Cox and Forkum on Edward's Oppressive Healthcare Scheme
Cox and Forkum on Presidential Candidate John Edward's plan to make various preventive care activities (annual physicals, mammograms, etc.) mandatory. I haven't written on this because, basically, I'm still having a hard time believing it. I mean, literally: I'm struggling to digest the idea that an American Presidential candidate could be calling for government-mandated doctor visits, and how anybody--anybody--can evade the Orwellian nature of such an idea and support it.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's the end of the slide. One needn't even go into what else might be required. Just the simple annual physical is enough to render this plan dictatorial. If Edwards were elected and this plan implemented, I do believe the Constitution would spontaneously combust.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's the end of the slide. One needn't even go into what else might be required. Just the simple annual physical is enough to render this plan dictatorial. If Edwards were elected and this plan implemented, I do believe the Constitution would spontaneously combust.
Are Our Military Networks Safe?
This Ars Technica story highlights the importance of securing our military networks. I am continuously impressed by how powerful our military is becoming through networked systems, with information flowing up from the ground troops, ships, planes, etc., to commanders, who are provided with an unprecedented level of battlefield awareness and thus control.
However, with the Chinese knocking satellites out of the sky and the seeming inability to secure a network from hacking, I wonder what will happen if this mesh of information gets disturbed. Will our military be able to continue functioning, or will it have come to rely too much on vulnerable technology?
I hope there's someone paying very close attention to this, I really do.
However, with the Chinese knocking satellites out of the sky and the seeming inability to secure a network from hacking, I wonder what will happen if this mesh of information gets disturbed. Will our military be able to continue functioning, or will it have come to rely too much on vulnerable technology?
I hope there's someone paying very close attention to this, I really do.
Ahmadinejad Continues to Sound Crazier and Crazier
And, once again, more from Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is). From AFP, some quotes:
"The Iranian nation has withstood and it will withstand intimidation. It will never bow to any intimidation in the nuclear issue and in other matters," state broadcasting quoted Khamenei as telling a group of elite students.
"Iran will defeat these drunken and arrogant powers using its artful and wise ways," he added.
And this is just literally nuts:
In a speech the day earlier he sought to justify his confidence that the United States would not attack Iran, saying the proof comes from his mathematical skills as an engineer and his faith in God.
He said he told people who believed otherwise: "I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.
"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."
Ahmadinejad has long expressed pride in his academic prowess. He has a PhD in transport engineering and planning from Tehran's Science and Technology University and is the author of several scientific papers.
The deeply religious president said his second reason was: "I believe in what God says.
Now, that last sentence would seem a little heretical to me. Shouldn't he be putting God's words above his own scientific prowess? Oops.
"The Iranian nation has withstood and it will withstand intimidation. It will never bow to any intimidation in the nuclear issue and in other matters," state broadcasting quoted Khamenei as telling a group of elite students.
"Iran will defeat these drunken and arrogant powers using its artful and wise ways," he added.
And this is just literally nuts:
In a speech the day earlier he sought to justify his confidence that the United States would not attack Iran, saying the proof comes from his mathematical skills as an engineer and his faith in God.
He said he told people who believed otherwise: "I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.
"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."
Ahmadinejad has long expressed pride in his academic prowess. He has a PhD in transport engineering and planning from Tehran's Science and Technology University and is the author of several scientific papers.
The deeply religious president said his second reason was: "I believe in what God says.
Now, that last sentence would seem a little heretical to me. Shouldn't he be putting God's words above his own scientific prowess? Oops.
Trouble at the Daily Kos?
Speaking of the Daily Kos, it looks like they're having a little bit o' trouble. Seems as if the founder of the site himself, Markos Moulitsas, ripped into his comrades for being gullible.
The gist from NewsBusters:
Such was the case with the posters on the favorite "progressive" blog of the MSM, the Daily Kos, when its founder, Markos Moulitsas, tore into them for being suckers because they fell for a story about a supposed imminent U.S. invasion of Iran based on the fantasies of a blogger with a history of fabulist tall tales.
Of course, the responses at the site were as to be expected. A couple of examples:
Gee, it's all a bit much and roundabout and blaming the victim, when the great god Kos and frontpagers in the know could simply disappear the troll diary, or ban the troll diarist.
...
If you knew it from the beginning then, damn it, why didn't you bring it up at the beginning? And if you didn't know it from the beginning then don't pretend that you did. And if you've got any administrative abilities, ban the person in question and just say "gosh we were taken in for a while, but we've got it now!" and be done with it.
Hee hee hee.
The gist from NewsBusters:
Such was the case with the posters on the favorite "progressive" blog of the MSM, the Daily Kos, when its founder, Markos Moulitsas, tore into them for being suckers because they fell for a story about a supposed imminent U.S. invasion of Iran based on the fantasies of a blogger with a history of fabulist tall tales.
Of course, the responses at the site were as to be expected. A couple of examples:
Gee, it's all a bit much and roundabout and blaming the victim, when the great god Kos and frontpagers in the know could simply disappear the troll diary, or ban the troll diarist.
...
If you knew it from the beginning then, damn it, why didn't you bring it up at the beginning? And if you didn't know it from the beginning then don't pretend that you did. And if you've got any administrative abilities, ban the person in question and just say "gosh we were taken in for a while, but we've got it now!" and be done with it.
Hee hee hee.
Hillary Clinton in Bed With Same Chinese as Bill
As I've said before, I believe the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" was a front for Bill Clinton's (treasonous?) provision of ballistic missile technology to China after receiving large campaign donations from the Chinese. There was the beginning of a buzz, and then WHAM! it was all Monica from then on. In my mind, this was a worse betrayal than anything we know about, including Watergate and whatever the Left wants to pin on Bush.
Now, one of the men associated with Bill Clinton's nefarious actions has been associated with Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Norman Hsu, who's recently been arrested for fraud, is known to have been involved in the transfer of missile technology. Hillary's "given back" the money, but that didn't stop her from accepting it in the first place.
Here's a quote from the Daily Kos, of all places:
Bernard L. Schwartz, who worked for the chinese shell company that the clintons gave the ballisitc missle technology to after bill clintons re-election put Norman Hsu on the Board of Trustees of the New School in N.Y
hillary clinton ear-marked 750,000 dollars to the new school recently as a pork barrel project.
Bernard L. Schwartz taught the Communist Chinese party how to build ICBM's which could make it out of the lower atmosphere.
this was one of the main reasons that china was able to destroy a satellite in space this year, touching of fears of a new arms race in space.
because of the technology that the clinton's gave to Bernard L. Schwartz, who worked with china.
Actually, I quoted that just because I'm surprised to see it on the most Leftist site on the planet. Nevertheless, poor punctuation and writing aside, this post makes the point.
Now, one of the men associated with Bill Clinton's nefarious actions has been associated with Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Norman Hsu, who's recently been arrested for fraud, is known to have been involved in the transfer of missile technology. Hillary's "given back" the money, but that didn't stop her from accepting it in the first place.
Here's a quote from the Daily Kos, of all places:
Bernard L. Schwartz, who worked for the chinese shell company that the clintons gave the ballisitc missle technology to after bill clintons re-election put Norman Hsu on the Board of Trustees of the New School in N.Y
hillary clinton ear-marked 750,000 dollars to the new school recently as a pork barrel project.
Bernard L. Schwartz taught the Communist Chinese party how to build ICBM's which could make it out of the lower atmosphere.
this was one of the main reasons that china was able to destroy a satellite in space this year, touching of fears of a new arms race in space.
because of the technology that the clinton's gave to Bernard L. Schwartz, who worked with china.
Actually, I quoted that just because I'm surprised to see it on the most Leftist site on the planet. Nevertheless, poor punctuation and writing aside, this post makes the point.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 2852 Diggs, is a link to an SNL animation about the MSM that was pulled, apparently, by NBC. I'm sure somewhere in the comments someone will complain about "censorship," even though NBC has every right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.
Anyways, slow day on Digg.
Anyways, slow day on Digg.
Monday, September 03, 2007
US Workers Most Productive
Well, this comes as no surprise. Study shows US workers most productive. And Asia is accelerating its productivity growth--which is interesting, because as its workers become more productive, China in particular will have to pay them more, which will reduce the disparity in costs between China's good and those manufactured elsewhere.
Some choice statistics and quotes:
The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
...
America’s increased productivity “has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad,” said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO’s head of employment.
...
And perhaps most amazing:
The vast differences among China’s sectors tell part of the story. Whereas a Chinese industrial worker produces $12,642 worth of output — almost eight times more than in 1980 — a laborer in the farm and fisheries sector contributes a paltry $910 to gross domestic product.
The difference is much less pronounced in the United States, where a manufacturing employee produced an unprecedented $104,606 of value in 2005. An American farm laborer, meanwhile, created $52,585 worth of output, down 10 percent from seven years ago, when U.S. agricultural productivity peaked.
Some choice statistics and quotes:
The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
...
America’s increased productivity “has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad,” said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO’s head of employment.
...
And perhaps most amazing:
The vast differences among China’s sectors tell part of the story. Whereas a Chinese industrial worker produces $12,642 worth of output — almost eight times more than in 1980 — a laborer in the farm and fisheries sector contributes a paltry $910 to gross domestic product.
The difference is much less pronounced in the United States, where a manufacturing employee produced an unprecedented $104,606 of value in 2005. An American farm laborer, meanwhile, created $52,585 worth of output, down 10 percent from seven years ago, when U.S. agricultural productivity peaked.
AT&T 1993 "You Will" Ads - Inspirational, and Probably Copyright Infringing
I'm not sure if this is copyright infringement (probably is), and I know I shouldn't link to it, but this AT&T ad from 1993 does show how much has been accomplised technologically in such a short time. I suppose, that includes being able to commit copyright infringement with millions of accomplices.
Sort of a "good news, bad news" sort of scenario.
Sort of a "good news, bad news" sort of scenario.
Ars Technical - Just a Little Hypocritical
Here, Ars Technica complains about the MPAA buying some "private" TorrentSpy e-mails to use in its case against the organization. Now, I don't remember them complaining when any other set of "private" emails have been released to show some questionable activity by companies like Microsoft, Intel, or whomever.
In fact, I can remember them being all over such emails, with no compunctions whatever.
In fact, I can remember them being all over such emails, with no compunctions whatever.
Another "Bioshock" Review - Oddly Pro-Atlas Shrugged
Here's another review of "Bioshock" that unfortunately implies that the game accurately depicts Atlas Shrugged, even while calling the book "excellent." This quote is most interesting:
BioShock is set in a crumbling underwater metropolis created by Andrew Ryan, an industrialist who felt there should be a place for the greatest minds in humanity to come together without fear of having "the sweat of their brow" taken away from them, by Washington, Moscow or by God. In its pomp, Rapture was a glorious, thriving city, taking this hidden-away section of mankind to extraordinary new heights. Key developments in technology and genetic engineering took place way ahead of the work being carried out on the surface. But then it all started to go wrong and Rapture fell apart. Sounds like a good time for the player to show up.
Up until the last two sentences, that description does sound a bit like "Galt's Gulch" from Atlas Shrugged. Since this is all the review actually says about the storyline, it's a positive review from my perspective. It's only unfortunately that the game doesn't live up to it.
BioShock is set in a crumbling underwater metropolis created by Andrew Ryan, an industrialist who felt there should be a place for the greatest minds in humanity to come together without fear of having "the sweat of their brow" taken away from them, by Washington, Moscow or by God. In its pomp, Rapture was a glorious, thriving city, taking this hidden-away section of mankind to extraordinary new heights. Key developments in technology and genetic engineering took place way ahead of the work being carried out on the surface. But then it all started to go wrong and Rapture fell apart. Sounds like a good time for the player to show up.
Up until the last two sentences, that description does sound a bit like "Galt's Gulch" from Atlas Shrugged. Since this is all the review actually says about the storyline, it's a positive review from my perspective. It's only unfortunately that the game doesn't live up to it.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4572 Diggs, is about Digg (almost?) adding a pictures section to the site. Big news in Diggland, apparently. Little news anywhere else.
Bush to Attack Iran? If Only
Here's a report from a Lefty blog referencing another Lefty blog that references a Sunday Times of London report that says, and I quote, "(T)he Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days." One can only wish.
Interestingly, the Lefty blog that's referenced had posted the following at the Daily Kos:
The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."
Now, because that was posted on the Daily Kos, I'm taking all of that to be a negative. But, if one didn't know it was posted by a Lefty, it could actually be taken to make perfect sense. After all, there's incontrovertible proof that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Hell, Iran's even admitted it, and promised that things would only get worse if Iran is attacked.
It's odd how one can take a single paragraph and, without changing a word, perceive it in two completely different ways. On the probability of Bush actually taking action against Iran, I think one only has to look at his recent actions to know that he has no plans to do so. Unless they've all been smokescreen, which would be a bit of a surprise.
Interestingly, the Lefty blog that's referenced had posted the following at the Daily Kos:
The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."
Now, because that was posted on the Daily Kos, I'm taking all of that to be a negative. But, if one didn't know it was posted by a Lefty, it could actually be taken to make perfect sense. After all, there's incontrovertible proof that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Hell, Iran's even admitted it, and promised that things would only get worse if Iran is attacked.
It's odd how one can take a single paragraph and, without changing a word, perceive it in two completely different ways. On the probability of Bush actually taking action against Iran, I think one only has to look at his recent actions to know that he has no plans to do so. Unless they've all been smokescreen, which would be a bit of a surprise.
Ahmadinejad Brags About Nuclear Success
It was only back in early August that the IAEA was touting as success the fact that Iran had "only" 2000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges in operation. They called that success, because it showed that Iran had "slowed" its activity.
Now, however, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) has pronounced that in fact, Iran has over 3000 centrifuges in operation, and is adding more every week. And he gloats over the fact that with every sanction, Iran makes another stride in its program.
As Gateway Pundit quotes, "Western experts have said that if Iran can get 3,000 centrifuges to work smoothly it would need only nine to 11 months to produce an atomic bomb."
Now, we really have two choices. One, believe that Imajihadi is speaking the truth when he says the uranium is only for peaceful purposes (even when he's been offered just that sort of uranium from other countries). Two, believe that he's lying through his teeth, as he has so often, and truly intends to build a nuclear weapon.
I say, anyone who places their money on choice number one is a fool.
Now, however, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) has pronounced that in fact, Iran has over 3000 centrifuges in operation, and is adding more every week. And he gloats over the fact that with every sanction, Iran makes another stride in its program.
As Gateway Pundit quotes, "Western experts have said that if Iran can get 3,000 centrifuges to work smoothly it would need only nine to 11 months to produce an atomic bomb."
Now, we really have two choices. One, believe that Imajihadi is speaking the truth when he says the uranium is only for peaceful purposes (even when he's been offered just that sort of uranium from other countries). Two, believe that he's lying through his teeth, as he has so often, and truly intends to build a nuclear weapon.
I say, anyone who places their money on choice number one is a fool.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Putin Youth Put to Work
It looks like the Putin Youth are being put to good use, this time against Britain. The gist:
A RUSSIAN activist expected to take over a sinister youth group with ties to the Kremlin has warned that a campaign of harassment against the British ambassador in Moscow will be resumed if he shows support for the country’s beleaguered opposition in the run-up to parliamentary elections in December.
Nikita Borovikov, 26, who is being groomed to take over Nashi, a 100,000-strong youth movement, later this year, gave a vigorous defence of a previous campaign against Anthony Brenton. The envoy was stalked for several months, an experience he called “psychological harassment bordering on violence”.
It's all just practice, I think.
A RUSSIAN activist expected to take over a sinister youth group with ties to the Kremlin has warned that a campaign of harassment against the British ambassador in Moscow will be resumed if he shows support for the country’s beleaguered opposition in the run-up to parliamentary elections in December.
Nikita Borovikov, 26, who is being groomed to take over Nashi, a 100,000-strong youth movement, later this year, gave a vigorous defence of a previous campaign against Anthony Brenton. The envoy was stalked for several months, an experience he called “psychological harassment bordering on violence”.
It's all just practice, I think.
Russia Plans Moonbase by 2032
I think Russia's being a little optimistic in planning to setup a permanent lunar base by 2032. Getting cosmonauts there by 2025, on the other hand, seems pessimistic. It's rally a rather odd juxtaposition. And overall, I think things will have changed such by then that such a goal will no longer be feasible.
But, I suppose a nation has to have goals.
But, I suppose a nation has to have goals.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2924 Diggs, is actually a link to a rather poignant photo that makes an important point about Islam.
Is Bush Planning to Bomb Iran? (An Obvious Question)
The Telegraph has laid out a long and detailed discussion of whether Bush is prepared to bomb Iran. To me, it seems just a case of contingency planning being leaked and then evaluated, which is not a bad thing in and of itself (the lead is, but not the evaluation). But, it should be remembered that such planning is on-going for nearly every conceivable possibility, and so the planning for a war with Iran would be just one of many.
It's a long piece, but worth the time. I won't quote anything here, because there's just too much to choose from. Give it a read.
It's a long piece, but worth the time. I won't quote anything here, because there's just too much to choose from. Give it a read.
Ahmadinejad Has Lost Iraq, Just as Bush Allies with Iran?
Here's an interesting take on Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) and his efforts in Iraq. The essential point of the commentary is that Imajihadi has failed in Iraq by not securing Basra, which holds 70% of Iraq's oil reserves and also maintains the port by which US troops would leave Iraq.
It's an interesting argument, and makes some sense. Read the story for yourself.
Before you do, though, note that the commentary also makes a fairly strong claim that Bush has essentially allied himself with Iran in Iraq, and backs it up with some marginally compelling evidence:
President Bush boosted his pro-Iran policy with his quick decision to release the nine Iranian officials apprehended yesterday by US forces as enemy agents. Iran has thousands, if not tens of thousands of such personnel - primarily military -- in Iraq. Presumably, Bush will now permit them to stay as allies against Muqtada al-Sadr.
Also:
In fact, President Bush took the decisive step to turn Iraq over to Iran in December 2005 when -- at the urging of Rice and Pelosi -- Bush withdrew a paltry $20 million in US funding to support the moderate parties in Iraqs national elections. At that time, Iran was funding a $100 million program to support Shiite fundamentalists, who went on to sweep the elections (see David Ignatius, Washington Post, 31 September 2007)
I hadn't read about that, but if true, it's another strike against Bush. He rails against Iran in the press, but then takes actions like this. It's entirely disappointing and discouraging.
It's an interesting argument, and makes some sense. Read the story for yourself.
Before you do, though, note that the commentary also makes a fairly strong claim that Bush has essentially allied himself with Iran in Iraq, and backs it up with some marginally compelling evidence:
President Bush boosted his pro-Iran policy with his quick decision to release the nine Iranian officials apprehended yesterday by US forces as enemy agents. Iran has thousands, if not tens of thousands of such personnel - primarily military -- in Iraq. Presumably, Bush will now permit them to stay as allies against Muqtada al-Sadr.
Also:
In fact, President Bush took the decisive step to turn Iraq over to Iran in December 2005 when -- at the urging of Rice and Pelosi -- Bush withdrew a paltry $20 million in US funding to support the moderate parties in Iraqs national elections. At that time, Iran was funding a $100 million program to support Shiite fundamentalists, who went on to sweep the elections (see David Ignatius, Washington Post, 31 September 2007)
I hadn't read about that, but if true, it's another strike against Bush. He rails against Iran in the press, but then takes actions like this. It's entirely disappointing and discouraging.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Giuliani on Healthcare
I missed this story on Giuliani, where he was speaking on health care reform in the US. I was shocked by some of his statements, the most profound of which I'll quote here. Note that when I say "profound," I mean it in the context of today's politics.
First:
To those who have followed the health care issue over the years and have learned to speak the language of health care reformers, Rudy Giuliani was saying everything wrong when he unveiled his reform plan this week.
He said that "Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself."
He said the marketplace, not the government "nanny state," needs to do the work of fixing the nation's health care problems.
He said that "We've got to solve our health care problem with American principles, not the principles of socialism."
Then there's this beauty:
But just as important as details is Giuliani's frank language: "Americans believe in free-market solutions to the challenges we face, and I believe we can reduce costs, expand access to, and improve the quality of health care by increasing competition. America's health care system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates and wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracy."
It's not often that one hears a politician talking about getting government out of something, rather than getting government into it. Giuliani just jumped a bit in my opinion.
First:
To those who have followed the health care issue over the years and have learned to speak the language of health care reformers, Rudy Giuliani was saying everything wrong when he unveiled his reform plan this week.
He said that "Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself."
He said the marketplace, not the government "nanny state," needs to do the work of fixing the nation's health care problems.
He said that "We've got to solve our health care problem with American principles, not the principles of socialism."
Then there's this beauty:
But just as important as details is Giuliani's frank language: "Americans believe in free-market solutions to the challenges we face, and I believe we can reduce costs, expand access to, and improve the quality of health care by increasing competition. America's health care system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates and wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracy."
It's not often that one hears a politician talking about getting government out of something, rather than getting government into it. Giuliani just jumped a bit in my opinion.
Celebrity Report: Ahmadinejad Green Lights Biopic
Celebrity Report: Well, it's on. Iranian President Imajihadi gives the green light to Oliver Stone's biopic of the wacko. And since that sentence wasn't entirely clear, the "wacko" I'm specifically referring to is Imajihadi.
Another Cheap Shot at Ayn Rand Thanks to "Bioshock"
I was pretty certain that the release of "Bioshock" would bring Ayn Rand and Objectivism to the forefront, and not in a positive light, and here's another story that support my contention. In one of the most disgusting descriptions of Ayn Rand I've read, at least in the fewest words, the News & Observer had this to say:
Rapture is the creation of Andrew Ryan, a crazy cutout of Ayn Rand, the pseudophilosopher who hated poor people and didn't care for much outside the realm of free market capitalism and sleeping around.
Yeesh.
Rapture is the creation of Andrew Ryan, a crazy cutout of Ayn Rand, the pseudophilosopher who hated poor people and didn't care for much outside the realm of free market capitalism and sleeping around.
Yeesh.
Bush on China - Yeesh
Bush amazes me sometimes. As President, heading into the summit of Pacific Rim leaders, I would expect him to take something of harsh stance, use his bully pulpit a bit. China has a horrible human rights record, has threatened the US with economic warfare, of a sort, has done little to control the piracy of US intellectual property, etc.
Here's the part that bothers me the most:
“As a part of our engagement with China, we have worked with (President) Hu Jintao to convince him to help convert his economy from one of savers to one of consumers, which means -- and, by the way, that takes a lot of effort and work to get in a position where you can even make those kind of constructive suggestions, which means the development of a pension system, or health care, so that people don't feel like they have to hoard their money to save for a rainy day, but in fact there's some kind of safety net that is predictable, which then would convert a Chinese person who is beginning to realize better income into a consumer,’’ the president told reporters. “And then all of a sudden you've got consumers, which provide opportunity.
Rather than calling on China to rid itself of its Communist government, embrace individual rights, and allow capitalism to work freely (thus allowing that middle class to grow on its own without government interference), he essentially says that China should simply change how it controls its people's lives. I don't think it's the lack of a "pension plan" that causes the Chinese people to hoard every dollar, I think it's the fact that they have so little control over their own lives.
Read the rest if you want, but it's all pretty much just as bad.
Here's the part that bothers me the most:
“As a part of our engagement with China, we have worked with (President) Hu Jintao to convince him to help convert his economy from one of savers to one of consumers, which means -- and, by the way, that takes a lot of effort and work to get in a position where you can even make those kind of constructive suggestions, which means the development of a pension system, or health care, so that people don't feel like they have to hoard their money to save for a rainy day, but in fact there's some kind of safety net that is predictable, which then would convert a Chinese person who is beginning to realize better income into a consumer,’’ the president told reporters. “And then all of a sudden you've got consumers, which provide opportunity.
Rather than calling on China to rid itself of its Communist government, embrace individual rights, and allow capitalism to work freely (thus allowing that middle class to grow on its own without government interference), he essentially says that China should simply change how it controls its people's lives. I don't think it's the lack of a "pension plan" that causes the Chinese people to hoard every dollar, I think it's the fact that they have so little control over their own lives.
Read the rest if you want, but it's all pretty much just as bad.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 2536 Diggs, is yet another prepubescent post, this time a link to a non-existent story about a Facebook group devoted to finding a girl's camera because she's a "Hottie."
Huh.
Huh.
Should the US Boycott the 2008 Olympics?
Here's a pretty fervent plea for boycotting the 2008 Olympics in China. It's based on a necessarily biased paper issued by the Falun Gong, and so it's hard to tell from this one blog entry alone whether things in China are as bad as stated.
Some examples:
Not only is China bankrolling Darfur’s Genocide; for more than eight years it has sought to eliminate Falun Gong, which in 1999 had an estimated 70 million practitioners in China; it has likewise abused democracy activists, lawyers, human rights defenders, religious leaders, journalists, trade unionists, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighurs, ”unofficial” church members, and political dissidents.
I've read of these particular accusations on numerous occasions, and so I would tend to give them some credibility. And, at least some in the US government agree:
All of these reports culminated, on August 3, 2007, in Congressman Rohrabacher introducing House Resolution 610 [3], aptly named because the “610 Office” in China is an extra-constitutional agency established by the former leader Jiang Zemin. It was specifically created to persecute Falun Gong and has absolute power over every level of the Communist Party and all political and judiciary systems.
Rohrabacher’s H.Res. 610 expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Government should take immediate steps to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing in August 2008 unless the Government of the People’s Republic of China stops engaging in serious human rights abuses against its citizens and stops supporting serious human rights abuses by the Governments of Sudan, Burma, and North Korea against their citizens.”
Rohrabacher proclaims, “In 1936, Nazi Germany hosted the Olympics giving Hitler a worldwide platform to showcase his fascist propaganda. It was wrong to support the Olympic venue then and it’s wrong for the United States to support this prestigious event being held in a similarly fascist regime in 2008.”
Communist China lost its bid for the 2000 Olympics because of its horrific human rights violations. Recognizing this concern, the Chinese regime explicitly promised to improve human rights [4] in order to win the 2008 Olympics Games. Its subsequent record belies its empty promise. Human rights in China have not improved; they have grievously deteriorated.
Ultimately, I think I would support such a boycott, although, like Carter's boycott in 1980, I don't think it would have much effect. And as I think about the whole thing, it strikes me how much of a free rein China receives in the mainstream media for its human rights violations vs. its economic policies and product safety issues. Hmmm.
Some examples:
Not only is China bankrolling Darfur’s Genocide; for more than eight years it has sought to eliminate Falun Gong, which in 1999 had an estimated 70 million practitioners in China; it has likewise abused democracy activists, lawyers, human rights defenders, religious leaders, journalists, trade unionists, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighurs, ”unofficial” church members, and political dissidents.
I've read of these particular accusations on numerous occasions, and so I would tend to give them some credibility. And, at least some in the US government agree:
All of these reports culminated, on August 3, 2007, in Congressman Rohrabacher introducing House Resolution 610 [3], aptly named because the “610 Office” in China is an extra-constitutional agency established by the former leader Jiang Zemin. It was specifically created to persecute Falun Gong and has absolute power over every level of the Communist Party and all political and judiciary systems.
Rohrabacher’s H.Res. 610 expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Government should take immediate steps to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing in August 2008 unless the Government of the People’s Republic of China stops engaging in serious human rights abuses against its citizens and stops supporting serious human rights abuses by the Governments of Sudan, Burma, and North Korea against their citizens.”
Rohrabacher proclaims, “In 1936, Nazi Germany hosted the Olympics giving Hitler a worldwide platform to showcase his fascist propaganda. It was wrong to support the Olympic venue then and it’s wrong for the United States to support this prestigious event being held in a similarly fascist regime in 2008.”
Communist China lost its bid for the 2000 Olympics because of its horrific human rights violations. Recognizing this concern, the Chinese regime explicitly promised to improve human rights [4] in order to win the 2008 Olympics Games. Its subsequent record belies its empty promise. Human rights in China have not improved; they have grievously deteriorated.
Ultimately, I think I would support such a boycott, although, like Carter's boycott in 1980, I don't think it would have much effect. And as I think about the whole thing, it strikes me how much of a free rein China receives in the mainstream media for its human rights violations vs. its economic policies and product safety issues. Hmmm.
Russian-Chinese Alliance Not Likely?
This Wall Street Journal blog post posits that worrying about the Russian-Chinese relationship might be a little premature. Basically, it says that Russia and China have too much not in common to form an alliance. It makes some good points, but then so do some of the commentors.
The gist:
Despite some fears in the West, China and Russia have too little in common to form a mighty Sino-Russian axis anytime soon, writes foreign-policy analyst Ian Bremmer in Slate. Some Washington observers worry they see the early signs of a military bloc in events like the two countries’ recent joint military exercises. But these small instances of cooperation shouldn’t disguise the fact that the two countries’ fundamental interests don’t mesh, says Mr. Bremmer, president of political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.
I dunno. Russia and China are a little unpredictable right now, I think. It bears watching.
The gist:
Despite some fears in the West, China and Russia have too little in common to form a mighty Sino-Russian axis anytime soon, writes foreign-policy analyst Ian Bremmer in Slate. Some Washington observers worry they see the early signs of a military bloc in events like the two countries’ recent joint military exercises. But these small instances of cooperation shouldn’t disguise the fact that the two countries’ fundamental interests don’t mesh, says Mr. Bremmer, president of political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.
I dunno. Russia and China are a little unpredictable right now, I think. It bears watching.
Friday, August 31, 2007
More Lunacy from Ahmadinejad
Here's more ranting by Iranian President Imajihadi. I swear, the guy is literally nuts. One cannot believe the things that he's saying in this news conference without being a conspiracy wacko. And he's setting foreign policy for a country that's trying attain nuclear weapons.
And, worst, we stand back and allow it to continue.
Here are some quotes:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday launched a new verbal attack against Israel, accusing Zionists of sowing conflict, publishing offensive cartoons and “lying about being Jewish.”
“Zionists are people without any religion,” Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly predicted that Israel is doomed to disappear, told a news conference in Tehran.
“They are lying about being Jewish because religion means brotherhood, friendship and respecting other divine religions,” he said.
He also said that “Zionists” were behind a cartoon in a Swedish newspaper depicting the head of the Prophet Mohammed on a dog’s body that sparked an official protest by Tehran to Stockholm.
“They do not want the Swedish government to be a friend of other nations. I strongly believe they are behind it (the cartoon). They thrive on conflict and war.
“They are an organised minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organisation,” he said.
And then the money quote:
“Anywhere they are found there is war. Anywhere where there is war they are behind it,” Ahmadinejad added.
Echoing his previous predictions about Israel’s future, the president said: “If the world is calm, people, Europeans, Germans even, will uproot them.”
And as the blog post says, you'll find all this in very few mainstream media outlets. This stuff should be front-page news, if our media really wanted the public to understand what's going on in the world.
And, worst, we stand back and allow it to continue.
Here are some quotes:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday launched a new verbal attack against Israel, accusing Zionists of sowing conflict, publishing offensive cartoons and “lying about being Jewish.”
“Zionists are people without any religion,” Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly predicted that Israel is doomed to disappear, told a news conference in Tehran.
“They are lying about being Jewish because religion means brotherhood, friendship and respecting other divine religions,” he said.
He also said that “Zionists” were behind a cartoon in a Swedish newspaper depicting the head of the Prophet Mohammed on a dog’s body that sparked an official protest by Tehran to Stockholm.
“They do not want the Swedish government to be a friend of other nations. I strongly believe they are behind it (the cartoon). They thrive on conflict and war.
“They are an organised minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organisation,” he said.
And then the money quote:
“Anywhere they are found there is war. Anywhere where there is war they are behind it,” Ahmadinejad added.
Echoing his previous predictions about Israel’s future, the president said: “If the world is calm, people, Europeans, Germans even, will uproot them.”
And as the blog post says, you'll find all this in very few mainstream media outlets. This stuff should be front-page news, if our media really wanted the public to understand what's going on in the world.
"Bioshock" Not Objectivist-Friendly
If this The Phoenix review of the upcoming game "Bioshock" is any indication, then the game is certainly not based on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, or on Atlas Shrugged. Here are some quotes that justify that comment.
First:
According to BioShock’s foundation myth, Ryan envisioned his sub-aquatic metropolis (inspired by Ayn Rand, and especially Atlas Shrugged) as the place where man could realize his potential, unfettered by the restrictions placed upon him by government and religion. He populated the city with the greatest minds the world had to offer: industrialists, doctors, artists. Rapture had room only for the productive; there was no place for the weak, the infirm, or even the mediocre commoners that Ryan considered a drain on society.
Objectivism does not suppose that a society could function without government--there has to be some entity that can protect individual rights, which is the fundamental principle upon with Objectivist politics is based. Second, Ayn Rand had nothing against "the mediocre commoners," insofar as the typical person was as productive as his or her abilities made possible and to the extent that any person did not live life as a parasite upon the more productive. And so, from the beginning, the game's premises are perversions of Objectivism, not examples of it.
Then:
What you learn pretty quickly is that the first fissure in Ryan’s master plan opened with the discovery of an element called ADAM, which allowed for genetic modification far beyond the bounds of medical science. Freed from any ethical constraints, the people of Rapture set about developing strange and perverse abilities for themselves.
Notice that part, "freed from any ethical constraints." It's an implication that Objectivism has no ethics that would guide individuals in such a situation. Of course, Objectivism does have such an ethics, and it would result in individuals making the most rational long-term decisions possible--meaning, an Objectivist would be the last person to undergo a genetic modification without considering the possible effects. Then again, it's interesting that "developing strange and perverse abilities" is, according to the review, primarily an ethical question.
Finally:
And yet, the freedom given the player is also subverted to give the game its greatest resonance: if the free will of one diminishes that of another, are they not both slaves? Andrew Ryan dreamed of a city where the great would not be constrained by the small; Rapture failed because he didn’t understand that the great rely on the small. As one character says, Ryan brought people to Rapture to be captains of industry, but they still needed someone to clean the toilets.
Again, although Objectivism does exalt the greatness of mankind, and therefore holds particular respect for those who utilize their abilities to the fullest, it does not conversely consider those without such abilities to be inferior. All Objectivism demands, morally, is that each individual strive for the highest that he can achieve, whether he's a brain surgeon or a janitor.
Objectivism in no way assumes that "the great (are) constrained by the small," except to the extent that government links a chain between them and makes slaves of the productive for the non-productive. If this review is correct, then "Bioshock" is a horrible rendition of Objectivism that will do nothing but perpetuate the negative stereotypes held by those who understand very little about the philosophy.
First:
According to BioShock’s foundation myth, Ryan envisioned his sub-aquatic metropolis (inspired by Ayn Rand, and especially Atlas Shrugged) as the place where man could realize his potential, unfettered by the restrictions placed upon him by government and religion. He populated the city with the greatest minds the world had to offer: industrialists, doctors, artists. Rapture had room only for the productive; there was no place for the weak, the infirm, or even the mediocre commoners that Ryan considered a drain on society.
Objectivism does not suppose that a society could function without government--there has to be some entity that can protect individual rights, which is the fundamental principle upon with Objectivist politics is based. Second, Ayn Rand had nothing against "the mediocre commoners," insofar as the typical person was as productive as his or her abilities made possible and to the extent that any person did not live life as a parasite upon the more productive. And so, from the beginning, the game's premises are perversions of Objectivism, not examples of it.
Then:
What you learn pretty quickly is that the first fissure in Ryan’s master plan opened with the discovery of an element called ADAM, which allowed for genetic modification far beyond the bounds of medical science. Freed from any ethical constraints, the people of Rapture set about developing strange and perverse abilities for themselves.
Notice that part, "freed from any ethical constraints." It's an implication that Objectivism has no ethics that would guide individuals in such a situation. Of course, Objectivism does have such an ethics, and it would result in individuals making the most rational long-term decisions possible--meaning, an Objectivist would be the last person to undergo a genetic modification without considering the possible effects. Then again, it's interesting that "developing strange and perverse abilities" is, according to the review, primarily an ethical question.
Finally:
And yet, the freedom given the player is also subverted to give the game its greatest resonance: if the free will of one diminishes that of another, are they not both slaves? Andrew Ryan dreamed of a city where the great would not be constrained by the small; Rapture failed because he didn’t understand that the great rely on the small. As one character says, Ryan brought people to Rapture to be captains of industry, but they still needed someone to clean the toilets.
Again, although Objectivism does exalt the greatness of mankind, and therefore holds particular respect for those who utilize their abilities to the fullest, it does not conversely consider those without such abilities to be inferior. All Objectivism demands, morally, is that each individual strive for the highest that he can achieve, whether he's a brain surgeon or a janitor.
Objectivism in no way assumes that "the great (are) constrained by the small," except to the extent that government links a chain between them and makes slaves of the productive for the non-productive. If this review is correct, then "Bioshock" is a horrible rendition of Objectivism that will do nothing but perpetuate the negative stereotypes held by those who understand very little about the philosophy.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4383 Diggs, is a link to a new way to advertise men's underwear. Again, a reversion to Digg's underlying prepubescence.
Russia Examined
Here's a nice piece in the Moscow Times that discusses the likelihood that Russian geopolitics will become even more strained in the last few months of Putin's Presidency. More than that, though, it discusses Russia's general approach to world affairs, and makes some interesting points.
A few choice quotes:
A curious pattern emerges when examining Russia's politics over the last quarter century. Fundamental changes come in eight-year cycles, and the transitions from the end of one cycle to the start of the next are accompanied by flare-ups in foreign relations.
An intense struggle for power took place from 1999 to 2000 at the end of President Boris Yeltsin's term. Those years saw the start of a second war in Chechnya, the rise of former KGB officer Putin, a corruption scandal involving members of Yeltsin's family and the Bank of New York affair -- all of which brought relations with the West to a critically low level. The situation began to stabilize only in the spring of 2000, when Putin took office and Western leaders started building bridges with the Kremlin.
...
It turned out that the West was not prepared for Moscow to assume a new, stronger position in international affairs. Up until recently, the Kremlin had been willing to compromise on most disputes with the West. But now Russia feels its own strength and is less inclined to give in to its partners' wishes.
...
Russia's ambitions and self-confidence, fed by its oil and gas euphoria, have become greater than its realistic abilities, given the global changes taking place in the modern world. Moscow's eagerness to make up for what it lost after the Soviet collapse as quickly as possible has proven stronger than a calmer, more rational calculation of what it can realistically achieve.
The West is quite disappointed after discovering a distressing fact: It really is difficult to resolve many important issues without Moscow's participation. But Russia is not interested in cooperating on someone else's terms. This stems not only from obstinacy, but also from a growing sense that Western formulas for managing global affairs are simply ineffective. From Moscow's point of view, the situation in Iraq and the turmoil in the Balkans are convincing evidence of this.
Read the whole thing. Incidentally, it says a bit about the West, as well.
A few choice quotes:
A curious pattern emerges when examining Russia's politics over the last quarter century. Fundamental changes come in eight-year cycles, and the transitions from the end of one cycle to the start of the next are accompanied by flare-ups in foreign relations.
An intense struggle for power took place from 1999 to 2000 at the end of President Boris Yeltsin's term. Those years saw the start of a second war in Chechnya, the rise of former KGB officer Putin, a corruption scandal involving members of Yeltsin's family and the Bank of New York affair -- all of which brought relations with the West to a critically low level. The situation began to stabilize only in the spring of 2000, when Putin took office and Western leaders started building bridges with the Kremlin.
...
It turned out that the West was not prepared for Moscow to assume a new, stronger position in international affairs. Up until recently, the Kremlin had been willing to compromise on most disputes with the West. But now Russia feels its own strength and is less inclined to give in to its partners' wishes.
...
Russia's ambitions and self-confidence, fed by its oil and gas euphoria, have become greater than its realistic abilities, given the global changes taking place in the modern world. Moscow's eagerness to make up for what it lost after the Soviet collapse as quickly as possible has proven stronger than a calmer, more rational calculation of what it can realistically achieve.
The West is quite disappointed after discovering a distressing fact: It really is difficult to resolve many important issues without Moscow's participation. But Russia is not interested in cooperating on someone else's terms. This stems not only from obstinacy, but also from a growing sense that Western formulas for managing global affairs are simply ineffective. From Moscow's point of view, the situation in Iraq and the turmoil in the Balkans are convincing evidence of this.
Read the whole thing. Incidentally, it says a bit about the West, as well.
Municipal Wi-Fi - On its Deathbed At Last
And, as I mentioned here and here and here, it seems that I was right. There's no business model for municipal Wi-Fi (meaning that, were any to be rolled out, they'd have to be funded by taxes), and newer technology can do the job better. The best thing is, they're failing before they had a chance to negate the newer technology, meaning that we can continue to look forward to privately-created technological advances that will make our lives easier and better.
As long as government just stays out of it.
As long as government just stays out of it.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
CNN Creates Anti-Israeli Propaganda Piece
CNN and Christiane Amanpour have apparently created a nicely misleading and deceptive anti-Israeli piece in their three-part series, "God's Warriors." Now, anyone following the history of Israel and the Israeli/Arab conflict shouldn't surprised by this piece, nor find it particularly worse than any other anti-Israeli propaganda.
Here are some quotes:
The August 21 broadcast was the first of God's Warriors, a three-part CNN series, ostensibly examining the role of people who want "God back in their daily lives, back to the seat of power." In actuality, the deeply false premise of the programs, established in the opening scene, is the equating of Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing.
Yes, again, the media insists on morally equating Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, even though it's only Islam that today not only engages in constant, on-going violence but perpetuates a culture with violence at its very roots.
AMANPOUR is similarly deceptive and manipulative in other depictions of nefarious Jewish power, respectfully interviewing both Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, and giving not the slightest hint of the gross factual errors in the charges leveled by the two controversial figures whose recent, incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked.
Carter declares absurdly that no member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel "and hope to be reelected." Amanpour does not, of course, remind him, or viewers, of the numerous members who have opposed aid to Israel and been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen representatives.
This is common anti-semitism, like what might find on any skinhead Web site. CNN might as well have used the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupational Government) monicker used by neo-Nazis.
The money quote, in this case because it's central to every anti-Israeli's misperceptions of Israeli/Arab history:
Numerous other falsehoods and distortions mar the production. Amanpour declares bizarrely that "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem "began" 60 years ago, when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn State of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues were destroyed. Thereafter, for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall and Christians had limited access to their holy sites.
One might agree or disagree with the creation of Israel, but it was a two-sided effort where the Palestinians were granted their own right to establish a state. They chose not to, instead trusting that the Arabs would push the Jews into the sea. That's the essence of the Israeli/Arab conflict, and it's not often mentioned when the poor Palestinians are being defended by individuals like Jimmy Carter.
Here are some quotes:
The August 21 broadcast was the first of God's Warriors, a three-part CNN series, ostensibly examining the role of people who want "God back in their daily lives, back to the seat of power." In actuality, the deeply false premise of the programs, established in the opening scene, is the equating of Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing.
Yes, again, the media insists on morally equating Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, even though it's only Islam that today not only engages in constant, on-going violence but perpetuates a culture with violence at its very roots.
AMANPOUR is similarly deceptive and manipulative in other depictions of nefarious Jewish power, respectfully interviewing both Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, and giving not the slightest hint of the gross factual errors in the charges leveled by the two controversial figures whose recent, incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked.
Carter declares absurdly that no member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel "and hope to be reelected." Amanpour does not, of course, remind him, or viewers, of the numerous members who have opposed aid to Israel and been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen representatives.
This is common anti-semitism, like what might find on any skinhead Web site. CNN might as well have used the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupational Government) monicker used by neo-Nazis.
The money quote, in this case because it's central to every anti-Israeli's misperceptions of Israeli/Arab history:
Numerous other falsehoods and distortions mar the production. Amanpour declares bizarrely that "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem "began" 60 years ago, when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn State of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues were destroyed. Thereafter, for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall and Christians had limited access to their holy sites.
One might agree or disagree with the creation of Israel, but it was a two-sided effort where the Palestinians were granted their own right to establish a state. They chose not to, instead trusting that the Arabs would push the Jews into the sea. That's the essence of the Israeli/Arab conflict, and it's not often mentioned when the poor Palestinians are being defended by individuals like Jimmy Carter.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2624 Diggs, is a link to an essay of sorts about how "everything (one) does is illegal." The piece actually has a ring of truth to it: as Ayn Rand said (to paraphrase), government regulation basically makes everyone a criminal.
So, here's a Digg with at least a little importance.
So, here's a Digg with at least a little importance.
Guardian Supposes that US Should Engage Russia to Solve Problems
Here's a bit of naivete from the Guardian, on how America should push for Russia's help in stablizing the Middle East. As Russia moves ever closer to outright dictatorship (or nationalistic fascism), we're supposed to "engage" them in solving all of the problems that we've created. Really, it's all just a bunch of assertions made while wearing some serious rose-colored glasses, and it's not all that meaningful for anyone who doesn't believe that appeasement is a solution.
Here's an interesting quote, though:
The Anglo-American axis must also swallow its pride and enlist the active support of Europeans, especially France, which was not the only major country to try, rightly, to pull the US back from its folly in Iraq but is also the only continental European state with a network of useful relations in the Middle East.
First, since France rid itself of its corrupt regime (you know, the one that was taking kickbacks from Saddam Hussein under the "Oil for Food" program), the US is engaging with France. Second, I see Great Britain as a European state, and so there's been European engagement all along. The author of the story shows his biases in failing to point this out.
Russia is not our friend, and has proven that it will not act with any honesty in "helping" us solve any problem. Their arms sales to Iraq directly before the war is the kind of "support" that we can expect from them.
I swear, it's like it's 1938 all over again.
Here's an interesting quote, though:
The Anglo-American axis must also swallow its pride and enlist the active support of Europeans, especially France, which was not the only major country to try, rightly, to pull the US back from its folly in Iraq but is also the only continental European state with a network of useful relations in the Middle East.
First, since France rid itself of its corrupt regime (you know, the one that was taking kickbacks from Saddam Hussein under the "Oil for Food" program), the US is engaging with France. Second, I see Great Britain as a European state, and so there's been European engagement all along. The author of the story shows his biases in failing to point this out.
Russia is not our friend, and has proven that it will not act with any honesty in "helping" us solve any problem. Their arms sales to Iraq directly before the war is the kind of "support" that we can expect from them.
I swear, it's like it's 1938 all over again.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Chevron to Drill 5 Miles Deep in Gulf of Mexico for World's Largest Oil Reserves
Here's a great story on an effort by Chevron to exploit what some consider the largest untapped oil reserves in the world, deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico. The technology is advanced and incredibly expensive, but soon Chevron will have accomplished the deepest drilling in open water.
Obviously, this is important from a national security perspective. If the oil field, dubbed "Jack," is indeed as large as believed (between 3 and 15 billion barrels), then it will significantly reduce the US's reliance on foreign oil. For those who want the US to reduce its involvement in the Middle East, this should be welcome news.
It also points out the importance of oil company profits--without them, oil companies would be unable to make these kinds of investments. Political (and most often crudely populist) efforts to curtail their profits only limits America's energy options.
Eventually, of course, technology will be developed and/or exploited (e.g., nuclear power) that will finally render fossil fuels as unecessary. Until then, it's encouraging that these sorts of efforts are underway, and we can only hope that more such efforts will be made.
Obviously, this is important from a national security perspective. If the oil field, dubbed "Jack," is indeed as large as believed (between 3 and 15 billion barrels), then it will significantly reduce the US's reliance on foreign oil. For those who want the US to reduce its involvement in the Middle East, this should be welcome news.
It also points out the importance of oil company profits--without them, oil companies would be unable to make these kinds of investments. Political (and most often crudely populist) efforts to curtail their profits only limits America's energy options.
Eventually, of course, technology will be developed and/or exploited (e.g., nuclear power) that will finally render fossil fuels as unecessary. Until then, it's encouraging that these sorts of efforts are underway, and we can only hope that more such efforts will be made.
Ahmadinejad Says Iran is "Invincible"
Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) seems pretty confident that the US won't act against him. In fact, he says, Iran is "invincible," at least insofar as the US is engaged in Iran and Afghanistan. At least, one hopes that's what he means.
Of course, Iran is the farthest thing from invincible, and if we need to act against them, we'd muster up the troops and material to do so. We could just bomb their nuclear facilities back to the stone age, if we wanted. And so, once again, Imajihadi shows himself to be rather mistaken in his premises.
Of course, Iran is the farthest thing from invincible, and if we need to act against them, we'd muster up the troops and material to do so. We could just bomb their nuclear facilities back to the stone age, if we wanted. And so, once again, Imajihadi shows himself to be rather mistaken in his premises.
Putin Russian Gay Icon
This is just too funny to pass up. Apparently, after posing shirtless while on a fishing expedition, Putin has become a Russian gay icon.
There's really nothing else to say.
There's really nothing else to say.
Chinese Parents-to-Be Break Law By Learning Sex of Fetus
I knew that China's population control and gender discrimination were issues, but I didn't realize they went this far. According to Wired Science, quoting the Observer, wealthier Chinese couples are getting ultrasounds to find out the sex of their baby, despite two laws on the books that ban doctors from revealing the gender during pregnancy.
That's a triple-whammy. First, the Chinese government has laws on finding out the birth of one's own child. And second, they have such laws because so many parents would abort females if they knew the sex. And all this is happening because of China's one child policy.
You gotta hand it to collectivism. It does create some of the most complex societal perversions.
That's a triple-whammy. First, the Chinese government has laws on finding out the birth of one's own child. And second, they have such laws because so many parents would abort females if they knew the sex. And all this is happening because of China's one child policy.
You gotta hand it to collectivism. It does create some of the most complex societal perversions.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 3108 Diggs, returns the site back to its pre-pubescent roots with a link to a story containing 15 tips on how to, well, please a woman.
Cox and Forkum on Iran's New Smart Bomb
Cox and Forkum do their typical job of illustrating the silliness of things. Iran has announced the development of a new "smart bomb," and promises to go into mass production. There's some doubt, of course, as to the veracity of the claim, and the fact that Iran flies old US F4 and F5 fighters makes the threat a little, well, funny.
Check it out for a chuckle.
Check it out for a chuckle.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Time Accuses Bush Motorcade of Killing Motorcycle Officer
Via Little Green Footballs, check out the headline on this Time Magazine story: "Bush Motorcade Kills Cop." I mean, come on, you've got to be kidding me. How could they possibly have come up with such a headline by accident? It's not possible.
Of course, the officer in question crashed his motorcycle, and it's not yet known what exactly happened. But what does Time mean to imply, that the motorcade drove over the unfortunate soul? On purpose, maybe?
Of course, the officer in question crashed his motorcycle, and it's not yet known what exactly happened. But what does Time mean to imply, that the motorcade drove over the unfortunate soul? On purpose, maybe?
South Korea Capitulates, Guarantees Future Kidnappings
Some people will read the headline "Taliban: Korean hostages to be released," and react with relief and, perhaps, even some subtle gratitude toward the Taliban. In reading this story, however, one finds that the Korean government gave in to some of the terrorists' demands: to withdrawal their 200 soldiers from Afghanistan, and to cease Christian missionary work in the country.
I guess there was no payment (and the story doesn't indicate if that was a Taliban requirement), and "there was no mention of releasing Taliban prisoners," which to me doesn't mean that there won't be. I'm not sure that it really matters. By giving in as they have, South Korea has now ensured that more kidnappings will take place.
Notice this quote:
The kidnapping of government officials or foreign aid workers has been used increasingly by insurgents in a bid to destabilize the Western-backed government that took power after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001.
Gee, I wonder why...
I guess there was no payment (and the story doesn't indicate if that was a Taliban requirement), and "there was no mention of releasing Taliban prisoners," which to me doesn't mean that there won't be. I'm not sure that it really matters. By giving in as they have, South Korea has now ensured that more kidnappings will take place.
Notice this quote:
The kidnapping of government officials or foreign aid workers has been used increasingly by insurgents in a bid to destabilize the Western-backed government that took power after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001.
Gee, I wonder why...
Ahmadinejad Vows to Fill Void in Iraq
I continue to be unable to fathom how Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) can continue to send fighters and munitions into Iraq to help destabilize the country, and still get away with statements like this:
“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”
It's enough to lose my lunch, which wasn't all that great to begin with.
“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”
It's enough to lose my lunch, which wasn't all that great to begin with.
Turkey Elects Devout Muslim as President
A new twist in Turkey: a devout Muslim was elected as Turkey's President. As the MSNBC story says, he has a "background in political Islam," which sounds ominous to me.
But what's most fascinating to me is that I didn't know this particular aspect of Turkey's politics: the military is strongly secular, and will resist any movement of the government toward religion. In fact, the military has replaced four governments since 1960 for being too religious. They're none too happy that a religious President has been elected.
Of course, that's the opposite of the US. Our civilian government holds power over the military, and the likelihood of such a thing happening here is almost nil. And, I'm not so much bothered by the fact that the new Turkish President is a devout Muslim, any more than I'm bothered by the fact that the US President is a devout Christian. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I'm equally bothered.
It doesn't mean, however, that Turkey will necessarily move away from secularism in government, nor that the new President has any intentions to attempt such a feat. In his own words:
“Secularism — one of the main principles of our republic — is a precondition for social peace as much as it is a liberating model for different lifestyles,” Gul said. “As long as I am in office, I will embrace all our citizens without any bias. I will preserve my impartiality with the greatest of care.”
It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out.
But what's most fascinating to me is that I didn't know this particular aspect of Turkey's politics: the military is strongly secular, and will resist any movement of the government toward religion. In fact, the military has replaced four governments since 1960 for being too religious. They're none too happy that a religious President has been elected.
Of course, that's the opposite of the US. Our civilian government holds power over the military, and the likelihood of such a thing happening here is almost nil. And, I'm not so much bothered by the fact that the new Turkish President is a devout Muslim, any more than I'm bothered by the fact that the US President is a devout Christian. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I'm equally bothered.
It doesn't mean, however, that Turkey will necessarily move away from secularism in government, nor that the new President has any intentions to attempt such a feat. In his own words:
“Secularism — one of the main principles of our republic — is a precondition for social peace as much as it is a liberating model for different lifestyles,” Gul said. “As long as I am in office, I will embrace all our citizens without any bias. I will preserve my impartiality with the greatest of care.”
It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out.
Guy Breaks Apple's EULA, Gets 350Z in Return
I saw a reference to this, and thought it was a joke. Then I found some other references, and it turns out it's true: the guy who broke at least the Apple EULA for the iPhone in unlocking it has been rewarded with three new iPhones and--get this--a Nissan 350Z.
This blatant disregard for intellectual property, contracts, etc., that seems to have taken hold of much of the IT industry does not bode well. There will be repercussions.
This blatant disregard for intellectual property, contracts, etc., that seems to have taken hold of much of the IT industry does not bode well. There will be repercussions.
Understanding Vietnam
Here's an interesting post on the Molten Thought blog about what Vietnam--and the rest of our surrenders since--have done to the perception of America in the world. He's quoting Mark Steyn, and here's the money quote:
But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is. Osama bin Laden made a bet – that, notwithstanding the T-shirt slogan, "These Colors Do Run": They ran from Vietnam, and they ran from the helicopters in the desert, and from Lebanon and Somalia – and they will run from Iraq and Afghanistan, because that is the nature of a soft, plump ersatz-superpower that coils up in the fetal position if you prick its toe. Even Republicans like Sen. John Warner seem peculiarly anxious to confirm the bin Laden characterization.
It's been said, and I believe it's true: our Islamic fundamentalist enemies only understand strength. Show them weakness, and it emboldens them. Show them strength, and they'll wilt like the cowardly fanatics they really are.
But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is. Osama bin Laden made a bet – that, notwithstanding the T-shirt slogan, "These Colors Do Run": They ran from Vietnam, and they ran from the helicopters in the desert, and from Lebanon and Somalia – and they will run from Iraq and Afghanistan, because that is the nature of a soft, plump ersatz-superpower that coils up in the fetal position if you prick its toe. Even Republicans like Sen. John Warner seem peculiarly anxious to confirm the bin Laden characterization.
It's been said, and I believe it's true: our Islamic fundamentalist enemies only understand strength. Show them weakness, and it emboldens them. Show them strength, and they'll wilt like the cowardly fanatics they really are.
France's Sarkozy Warns Russians
I knew I liked the new French President, Sarkozy. In this story, he's warning Russia to, essentially, tread lightly with how it handles its energy resources. It's a strong statement to make, but it makes sense that Sarkozy would say it: the EU is far more reliant on foreign energy sources than is the US.
The money quote:
Sarkozy, in a sweeping speech to French ambassadors outlining French foreign policy, noted that "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by playing its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality."
Sarkozy said Russia's resurgent global activity comes "while the world, particularly Europe, is hoping for an important and positive contribution from (Russia) toward settling the problems of our age."
I'll tell you, I can't think of the last time that I changed my opinion about something (in this case, France) in such short order.
The money quote:
Sarkozy, in a sweeping speech to French ambassadors outlining French foreign policy, noted that "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by playing its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality."
Sarkozy said Russia's resurgent global activity comes "while the world, particularly Europe, is hoping for an important and positive contribution from (Russia) toward settling the problems of our age."
I'll tell you, I can't think of the last time that I changed my opinion about something (in this case, France) in such short order.
Monday, August 27, 2007
China and Polution
Here's another example of what happens when a totalitarian government runs an economy. China is creating pollution at an unprecedented scale, and it's affecting more than just themselves. The same thing was true with the Soviet Union, as well, with perhaps the most striking example being the ugliness that was East Germany vs. the relative cleanliness of West Germany.
An example:
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.
But of course, this is collectivism in its purest form. The Chinese government has no problem sacrificing millions of Chinese citizens, as long as its ability to accomplish its goals is unimpeded. And remember, this is a command economy: nobody does anything or lives anywhere by choice.
An example:
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.
But of course, this is collectivism in its purest form. The Chinese government has no problem sacrificing millions of Chinese citizens, as long as its ability to accomplish its goals is unimpeded. And remember, this is a command economy: nobody does anything or lives anywhere by choice.
Today's Non-Sensical Post on Iraq
Just a reminder that a vote is not enough to make a "democracy" (God, how I hate that word). The Iraqi government gets shakier and shakier as time goes on, primarily because it was based on a vote that was bound to be biased along religious and ethnic lines and thus guaranteed to create an unworkable government.
We needed to get order established first, teach these people something about individual rights, and then perhaps try to establish a Constitutional Republic like ours. Or, something similar that would work for them. Or, just give up on the whole mess, break the country into three pieces, and let each fend for itself. At the same time, as I've said many times, we should have denied Iran, Syria, and Saudi involvement, letting Iraq develop as it might on its own.
Of course, that's a gross oversimplification. There's the oil to deal with (who gets how much of it), and Turkey wouldn't take to kindly to a Kurdish nation. And so, there look to be no good solutions, other than perhaps to place an American general in charge for awhile. Or, maybe that's what should have been done in the first place.
We needed to get order established first, teach these people something about individual rights, and then perhaps try to establish a Constitutional Republic like ours. Or, something similar that would work for them. Or, just give up on the whole mess, break the country into three pieces, and let each fend for itself. At the same time, as I've said many times, we should have denied Iran, Syria, and Saudi involvement, letting Iraq develop as it might on its own.
Of course, that's a gross oversimplification. There's the oil to deal with (who gets how much of it), and Turkey wouldn't take to kindly to a Kurdish nation. And so, there look to be no good solutions, other than perhaps to place an American general in charge for awhile. Or, maybe that's what should have been done in the first place.
Iran's Gasoline Crisis
Some things strike me as ironic, or, at least, surprisingly contradictory. Such is the case with the gasoline rationing currently underway in Iran. Although Iran exports oil, it has almost no refining capacity, and so much import is refined oil and gas.
Now, it just so happens that growth in capacity ended when the Shah was deposed, meaning that in this totalitarian state the religious leadership is likely most at fault. Of course, we have our own examples of this, and it's also government's fault: for example we have plenty of oil, only it can't be extracted because of the environmentalist lobby.
My point? Not much, really, except that government has once again proven its incompatibility and sheer incompetence with economic issues.
Now, it just so happens that growth in capacity ended when the Shah was deposed, meaning that in this totalitarian state the religious leadership is likely most at fault. Of course, we have our own examples of this, and it's also government's fault: for example we have plenty of oil, only it can't be extracted because of the environmentalist lobby.
My point? Not much, really, except that government has once again proven its incompatibility and sheer incompetence with economic issues.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5426 Diggs, is a link to a story about the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. As usual, when a legitimate news story reaches the #1 Digg spot, the comments are vehemently Leftist.
Russia: Inevitable Decline?
Here's a pretty pessimistic view on Russia's future, with which I tend to agree (which is easy, because it's all pretty much factual). There are some sobering quotes:
But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia's population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.
And on economics:
The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia's economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.
All of this does go against some of my earlier prognostications that Russia is a long-term threat. I suppose it depends on what one means by "long-term." I'd say, over the next few decades, Russia could cause some problems, but beyond that, it looks like they're in for some real problems.
Read the whole thing.
But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia's population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.
And on economics:
The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia's economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.
All of this does go against some of my earlier prognostications that Russia is a long-term threat. I suppose it depends on what one means by "long-term." I'd say, over the next few decades, Russia could cause some problems, but beyond that, it looks like they're in for some real problems.
Read the whole thing.
China and Japan in Race to Moon
This is fascinating: China and Japan are apparently in a race to the moon. I'd known about China's program, but not Japan's. I'd make light of these efforts, except the moon is likely to be of some importance as we make our way further into space. For example, there are resources on the moon that could be utilized on a manned mission to Mars.
I've fallen behind on whatever NASA's plans are in this aera.
I've fallen behind on whatever NASA's plans are in this aera.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Objective Standard on Selling Video Games to Minors
Here's a compelling argument on The Objective Standard dealing with the concept of banning the sale of "violent" video games to children. In short: it's not government's responsibility to decide what intellectual materials are available to children, it's their parents' responsibility.
The money quote:
"Parents properly want to shield their children from the gratuitous violence so common in today's video games. But we must not allow power-hungry politicians to use that desire as a pretense for usurping the rights of parents to oversee the intellectual upbringing of their children."
The money quote:
"Parents properly want to shield their children from the gratuitous violence so common in today's video games. But we must not allow power-hungry politicians to use that desire as a pretense for usurping the rights of parents to oversee the intellectual upbringing of their children."
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4042 Diggs, is a link to an obnoxious Flash intro to a quote by Miss Teen South Dakota on why 20% of Americans can't find America on a map.
It's a serious topic, handled in typical Digg fashion.
It's a serious topic, handled in typical Digg fashion.
Ex-KGB Organization Essentially Runs Russia
The Economist has posted a fascinating story on the influence of the ex-KGB, the FSB, on Russian politics. Or, perhaps, it would be better to say that it exposes how the FSB has become Russia's political structure. While the Left in the US worries over the ability for the CIA to reads its email, in Russia the CIA's equivalent is essentially the reigning power.
A quote:
Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”
The money quote:
The KGB provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression; it was a state within a state. Now, however, it has become the state itself. Apart from Mr Putin, “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB,” says Mr Kondaurov.
It all reminds me of how poorly we handled the downfall of the Soviet Union. We could have helped them build a capitalist state based on Constitutionally-protected individual rights, and could now have a powerful ally. But instead, we let them flounder, leaving them intellectually disarmed and thus unable to plot the proper path from Communism to freedom. Of all our mistakes in the last century or so, this one may perhaps be one of the costliest.
A quote:
Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”
The money quote:
The KGB provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression; it was a state within a state. Now, however, it has become the state itself. Apart from Mr Putin, “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB,” says Mr Kondaurov.
It all reminds me of how poorly we handled the downfall of the Soviet Union. We could have helped them build a capitalist state based on Constitutionally-protected individual rights, and could now have a powerful ally. But instead, we let them flounder, leaving them intellectually disarmed and thus unable to plot the proper path from Communism to freedom. Of all our mistakes in the last century or so, this one may perhaps be one of the costliest.
China Wants to Buy US Hard Drive Manufacturer
I would say, we shouldn't allow the sale of a US manufacturer of hard drives to China. Too much sensitive stuff in there, as the story says. That's a touch decision to come to, because while clearly government should prohibit the sale of any and all goods to certain clear enemies, it's not entirely clear whether China is an "enemy" of the US.
Some people, myself included, might consider them not a present threat, but a future one. To help prevent them from being a formidable future threat, I wouldn't sell them anything but low-tech consumer goods (which I'm not even sure they'd buy). I certainly wouldn't have allowed the sale of IBM's PC division to Lenovo, and I'm still bitter over Clintons sale of missile technology to China (there's a word I'd use to describe that action, but I won't).
Overall, I'd vote no to the sale. If I had a vote, that is. Which I would, incidentally, if we had a rational political system.
Some people, myself included, might consider them not a present threat, but a future one. To help prevent them from being a formidable future threat, I wouldn't sell them anything but low-tech consumer goods (which I'm not even sure they'd buy). I certainly wouldn't have allowed the sale of IBM's PC division to Lenovo, and I'm still bitter over Clintons sale of missile technology to China (there's a word I'd use to describe that action, but I won't).
Overall, I'd vote no to the sale. If I had a vote, that is. Which I would, incidentally, if we had a rational political system.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
More About Unlocked iPhones and the Legality of it All
As I mentioned in an earlier post, someone's going to get sued over unlocked iPhones. And, I believe there are plenty of legal arguments for doing so, none of which have anything to do with copyright, as the linked story suggests. I'd love to read the iPhone's EULA, which I'm guessing includes verbiage directly addressing the topic of unlocking one's phone.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Todays #1 Digg, at 3120 Diggs, resurects the whole "tilt-shifting" photographic trick, which, while interesting, doesn't need to be Dugg every few months.
Austria Joins In Against Missile Defense System
You know, when you take the European missile shield in context, that is, that it is to be comprised of 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a radar facility in the Czech Republic, it's hard to fathom how Russia or anyone else (certainly, Austria) could consider this a provocation against anyone but rogue states such as Iran.
I mean, really: how much protection would such a system represent against a Russian nuclear attack? I'd say, it would be pretty damn negligible. Which makes me wonder at what the real politics are behind the whole thing--mainly, that it has nothing to do with the system itself, but rather all to do with the pro-Western leanings of Poland and the Czechs.
I mean, really: how much protection would such a system represent against a Russian nuclear attack? I'd say, it would be pretty damn negligible. Which makes me wonder at what the real politics are behind the whole thing--mainly, that it has nothing to do with the system itself, but rather all to do with the pro-Western leanings of Poland and the Czechs.
Marine Drill Sergeant Charged with Abuse
I hope these were some really serious abuses. I can't imagine having gone through boot camp (U.S. Army) myself without having been "abused." I wouldn't have learned the things I needed to learn, which first and foremost was: when your superior tells you to move in combat, you move, without thinking about it first. Or, probably, you die.
The entire purpose of boot camp is to tear down certain aspects of a recruit's personality and build them back up to make him a good soldier. Sometimes, that requires drill sergeants to do what those in the civilian world might call "mean," or, in the case of the linked story, "abusive."
It would be a shame if the Marines were to relax the harshness of their legendary training. Because ultimately, a Marine then wouldn't be a Marine.
The entire purpose of boot camp is to tear down certain aspects of a recruit's personality and build them back up to make him a good soldier. Sometimes, that requires drill sergeants to do what those in the civilian world might call "mean," or, in the case of the linked story, "abusive."
It would be a shame if the Marines were to relax the harshness of their legendary training. Because ultimately, a Marine then wouldn't be a Marine.
Friday, August 24, 2007
A Clarification of My Politics
My earlier post about the Daily Show segment may give my readers a skewed perspective of my politics. And so, let me just say: as an Objectivist, I could probably count on the fingers of both hands the number of government actions that I've agreed with over the last few decades.
I consider our government's reach over the past, say, 80 years to be so beyond its Consitutional boundaries that the Constitution hardly matters any longer. Everything from our healthcare system, to our financial markets, to our transportation infrastructure, and much, much more is so perverted by government influence that unraveling it all would likely mean starting from scratch.
And so, I certainly don't agree with every action our government took (such as with Afghanistan) during the Cold War, except in this regard: I do believe that every or at least most actions were taken to avoid a shooting war that arguably could have ended human life as we know it. At least, our leaders believed so, and incidents like the Cuban missile crisis is one strong example. Even here, though, I believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own inevitably, and so perhaps all the geopolitical games really weren't necessary.
Just for some clarification...
I consider our government's reach over the past, say, 80 years to be so beyond its Consitutional boundaries that the Constitution hardly matters any longer. Everything from our healthcare system, to our financial markets, to our transportation infrastructure, and much, much more is so perverted by government influence that unraveling it all would likely mean starting from scratch.
And so, I certainly don't agree with every action our government took (such as with Afghanistan) during the Cold War, except in this regard: I do believe that every or at least most actions were taken to avoid a shooting war that arguably could have ended human life as we know it. At least, our leaders believed so, and incidents like the Cuban missile crisis is one strong example. Even here, though, I believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own inevitably, and so perhaps all the geopolitical games really weren't necessary.
Just for some clarification...
Clinton and Bush: 1st Term Active Duty Military Deaths
Just as a quick aside, I'll never understand this statistic:
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
During Bush's first term (for better or worse) we toppled oppressive regimes in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Clinton's first four years we... well, what exactly did we do?
Please note that I consider even a single American death a tragedy. I just think it's interesting to put things into perspective.
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
During Bush's first term (for better or worse) we toppled oppressive regimes in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Clinton's first four years we... well, what exactly did we do?
Please note that I consider even a single American death a tragedy. I just think it's interesting to put things into perspective.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4338 Diggs, is about a crack that unlocks the iPhone from AT&T. Now, as far as I can tell, creating such a crack amounts to some sort of tort, because it directly damages AT&T's agreement with Apple. AT&T and Apple probably have some cause of action against whomever created the crack. Or, maybe AT&T should sue Apple for breach of contract, since Apple wasn't able to maintain the exclusivity for which AT&T contracted.
But of course, the Diggsters don't care about any of that, because hell, by their definition, the iPhone should be free, anyways.
But of course, the Diggsters don't care about any of that, because hell, by their definition, the iPhone should be free, anyways.
Iranian Crackdown Intensifies
This story in the Economist discusses the current crackdown on the Iranian people, which goes beyond punishing dissidents and returning to the Islamic puritanism of the Revolution. I use this to support my position in this earlier post that trying to deal directly with the Iranian people would do nothing but bring down further abuse.
Daily Show Lambasts America's Involvement in the MIddle East
A friend sent me a link to this story in The Raw Story which is about a Daily Show episode titled "'America to the Rescue' in the Middle East." Now, in true Daily Show fashion, the format determines the content, which is to say, it's like a bunch of comedic soundbites wrapped into what's meant to be important political commentary.
In essence, the episode tries to draw a line from today's Iraq back through Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan--with the basic assumption being that America has been the root cause of everything that's happened in the Middle East. This timeline assumes that world events progress in a perfectly linear fashion, that all of the actors are perfectly predictable, and that each event happens in a vacuum, untouched by other events.
Of course, none of these assumptions are valid.
Our providing weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan made perfect geopolitical sense at the time, because the last thing we wanted was another Soviet puppet government in such a sensitive spot. Osama bin Laden was a nobody then, and of course we had no idea that he would one day turn his attention from Russia to the US.
At least, we couldn't have foreseen that we would place troops in Saudi Arabia, which would so anger bin Laden--which in and of itself isn't even valid, because bin Laden's thinking goes beyond Saudi Arabia. He's fighting for a return to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, only he's thinking globally. Everything else is incidental.
Also, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was one of the turning points in the downfall of what was an ideologically corrupt, expansionist enemy intent on taking over as much geography as possible. Perhaps even if we had known bin Laden's true character, we would still have proceeded as we did because, at that time, keeping Afghanistan out of Soviet hands was more important.
Next, about our providing arms to Hussein: we did so only starting in 1982, when Iran was looking more and more powerful (at least, relative to Iraq). For the period 1973 to 1990, roughly $30 billion in arms were sold to Iraq. Of that, during the period 1982 to 1988 (when American arms sales to Iraq ended), the total sold by America to Hussein was $200 million. In short, American arms sales to Iraq were negligible, with Russia, France, and China representing the bulk of the sales. This directly contradicts the point made in the Daily Show episode. (Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), via Wikipedia.)
In hindsight, of course, even $200 million was too much to sell to a government that was, two years later, to invade a neighboring country. But of course we don't make decisions in hindsight. We saw Iran about to overrun Iraq, and we made a decision to make sure that didn't happen. At the time, it was probably a good decision, and I hardly think that the 0.5% of arms that we sold Iraq (during the period 1973-1990) made much of a difference in the first Gulf War.
Finally, it might very well be possible that the Iraq War has strengthened Iran's position. Again, in hindsight that may be perfectly clear. And arguments for and against going to war with Iraq are both legion and, at this point, irrelevant. I think most people can agree that the way the war was handled was incompetent, and it's only lately that we've made any measurable progress.
But, we should also remember that Iran's position is strengthened only because we allow it to be. Iran has committed acts of war against the United States by providing arms and fighters in Iraq, acts that we have so far ignored. Had we put a halt to the influx of fighters and materials from Iran and Syria years ago, Iraq could be a stable country by now. All that is meant to show that it's been political incompetence that has strengthened Iran, and not the Iraqi war per se.
The one area where I would agree with the Daily Show is in our providing arms to Saudi Arabia. We should be doing the opposite--forcing the Saudi royal family to stop its exportation of Islamic extremism. That alone would make a significant difference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
What the Left doesn't seem to want to recognize is that, for the Islamic extremists (including Iranian President Imajihadi, or whatever is name is), this is not about geopolitics as usual. This is about a group of religious fanatics who desire to impose Islam as the world religion and to establish an Islamic caliphate.
The problem with the Daily Show's timeline is that it ignores so many other elements and singles out only those "facts" (some of which are distorted) that seem to support its position. I suppose one can only blame them for trying to cover so much in so little time. Which is part of the point of this post: that things are far more complicated than the Left (and the Right) wants to recognize, and the enemy is different than the one's we've faced in the past. For one small example, the Soviets were ideologues, but they wanted to live. Our current enemy wants to die. That makes all the difference in the world in how you deal with them.
And so, in short, while the Daily Show might make for good political humor, it's not relevant when considering past American actions or trying to determine future actions. Which is not to say that I agree with anything the Bush Administration is doing, but then my alternatives would certainly not be the same as the Left's.
In essence, the episode tries to draw a line from today's Iraq back through Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan--with the basic assumption being that America has been the root cause of everything that's happened in the Middle East. This timeline assumes that world events progress in a perfectly linear fashion, that all of the actors are perfectly predictable, and that each event happens in a vacuum, untouched by other events.
Of course, none of these assumptions are valid.
Our providing weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan made perfect geopolitical sense at the time, because the last thing we wanted was another Soviet puppet government in such a sensitive spot. Osama bin Laden was a nobody then, and of course we had no idea that he would one day turn his attention from Russia to the US.
At least, we couldn't have foreseen that we would place troops in Saudi Arabia, which would so anger bin Laden--which in and of itself isn't even valid, because bin Laden's thinking goes beyond Saudi Arabia. He's fighting for a return to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, only he's thinking globally. Everything else is incidental.
Also, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was one of the turning points in the downfall of what was an ideologically corrupt, expansionist enemy intent on taking over as much geography as possible. Perhaps even if we had known bin Laden's true character, we would still have proceeded as we did because, at that time, keeping Afghanistan out of Soviet hands was more important.
Next, about our providing arms to Hussein: we did so only starting in 1982, when Iran was looking more and more powerful (at least, relative to Iraq). For the period 1973 to 1990, roughly $30 billion in arms were sold to Iraq. Of that, during the period 1982 to 1988 (when American arms sales to Iraq ended), the total sold by America to Hussein was $200 million. In short, American arms sales to Iraq were negligible, with Russia, France, and China representing the bulk of the sales. This directly contradicts the point made in the Daily Show episode. (Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), via Wikipedia.)
In hindsight, of course, even $200 million was too much to sell to a government that was, two years later, to invade a neighboring country. But of course we don't make decisions in hindsight. We saw Iran about to overrun Iraq, and we made a decision to make sure that didn't happen. At the time, it was probably a good decision, and I hardly think that the 0.5% of arms that we sold Iraq (during the period 1973-1990) made much of a difference in the first Gulf War.
Finally, it might very well be possible that the Iraq War has strengthened Iran's position. Again, in hindsight that may be perfectly clear. And arguments for and against going to war with Iraq are both legion and, at this point, irrelevant. I think most people can agree that the way the war was handled was incompetent, and it's only lately that we've made any measurable progress.
But, we should also remember that Iran's position is strengthened only because we allow it to be. Iran has committed acts of war against the United States by providing arms and fighters in Iraq, acts that we have so far ignored. Had we put a halt to the influx of fighters and materials from Iran and Syria years ago, Iraq could be a stable country by now. All that is meant to show that it's been political incompetence that has strengthened Iran, and not the Iraqi war per se.
The one area where I would agree with the Daily Show is in our providing arms to Saudi Arabia. We should be doing the opposite--forcing the Saudi royal family to stop its exportation of Islamic extremism. That alone would make a significant difference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
What the Left doesn't seem to want to recognize is that, for the Islamic extremists (including Iranian President Imajihadi, or whatever is name is), this is not about geopolitics as usual. This is about a group of religious fanatics who desire to impose Islam as the world religion and to establish an Islamic caliphate.
The problem with the Daily Show's timeline is that it ignores so many other elements and singles out only those "facts" (some of which are distorted) that seem to support its position. I suppose one can only blame them for trying to cover so much in so little time. Which is part of the point of this post: that things are far more complicated than the Left (and the Right) wants to recognize, and the enemy is different than the one's we've faced in the past. For one small example, the Soviets were ideologues, but they wanted to live. Our current enemy wants to die. That makes all the difference in the world in how you deal with them.
And so, in short, while the Daily Show might make for good political humor, it's not relevant when considering past American actions or trying to determine future actions. Which is not to say that I agree with anything the Bush Administration is doing, but then my alternatives would certainly not be the same as the Left's.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Boeing and EU Firms to Help Russia Revitalize Airplane Industry
As we and the Europeans help Russia reestablish its civilian aeronautical industry, we're helping it reestablish its military aeronautical industry. To me, that makes little sense. For reasons why, read just about everything else about Russia nowadays.
Russian Su-24 Bombers Grounded
It would be a bit ironic if this crashed Russian Su-24 bomber were one of those that Putin wants to send on the old Soviet strategic routes. If so, they're all grounded, so that would put a little dent in Putin's plan. Unfortunately, those bombers are old "Bears" (prop-driven, to boot) pulled out of mothballs, and that probably wouldn't make it within 500 miles of American airspace if deemed a threat.
Ahmadinejad Once Again Calls for the Death of Israel
Here's a link to the MEMRI video of Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) specifically and unequivacably calling for "Death to Israel." MEMRI is not know for mistranslations, incidentally. And, according to this madman, it's not just Iran that want Israel destroyed, it's most of the world. Or, at least, it's Venezuela and North Korea, as far as one can tell.
Go watch the video. It's sickening.
Go watch the video. It's sickening.
Peace with Iran Through the Iranian People? I wish
I wish this piece in The Christian Science Monitor were possible. I really do. As much as I strongly support a massive military response to threats against America--to make future threats that much less likely--it would be wonderful if we could just appeal to the Iranian people and solve all our problems with Iran.
But, the idea that we could isolate the religious leadership, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), and the Revolutionary Guard, and that they would stand by and let it happen, is naive on a monumental scale. I imagine that the moment we started giving economic support to the Iranian people, and they responded positively to our gestures, there would be a crackdown that would make past crackdowns look like costume parties.
A relevant quote:
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers. Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector, the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
One can only imagine the Revolutionary Guard's response were they to be "marginalized."
But, the idea that we could isolate the religious leadership, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), and the Revolutionary Guard, and that they would stand by and let it happen, is naive on a monumental scale. I imagine that the moment we started giving economic support to the Iranian people, and they responded positively to our gestures, there would be a crackdown that would make past crackdowns look like costume parties.
A relevant quote:
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers. Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector, the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
One can only imagine the Revolutionary Guard's response were they to be "marginalized."
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4620 Diggs, is a link to a story about a guy who lost a job because he gave too good of an answer to a question. Personally, I think it's an urban legend, and it's a big yawner no matter which.
More on Russia's Political Mental Institutions
Here's another account of Russia's politically-motivated asylum commitments. I think the story speaks for itself:
Larisa Arap has just emerged from a 46-day imprisonment in two Russian psychiatric hospitals. Pills were forced down her throat and she received injection after injection. She doesn't know what medications they were, or whether they will cause permanent damage.
"I don't feel very well, but I have a fighting spirit," Mrs Arap said yesterday, adding that sometimes she was so drugged she could barely walk or speak[.]
She was forcibly interned, not for health reasons, but over her association with the opposition group led by former chess star Garry Kasparov, the United Civil Front. Her arrest stemmed from the publication of an article entitled "Madhouse," exposing the ghoulish practices of a Russian psychiatric hospital in the Murmansk edition of his organisation's newspaper, Dissenters' March.
As far as typical methods:
Taken to a mental ward, Mrs Arap noted that many of its occupants seemed perfectly sane. "I was surprised that among them were lots of normal people," she wrote in "Madhouse". "But how they [staff] communicated with them: They shouted, they beat them up, they put them on drips, after which people became like zombies, they raped them, carried them off in the night and returned them in the morning, tormented."
One woman was threatened with the removal of organs, Mrs Arap said. Children were told that if they didn't give massages to medics they'd receive electro-shock therapy.
Read the whole thing. It says alot about where Russia's heading.
Larisa Arap has just emerged from a 46-day imprisonment in two Russian psychiatric hospitals. Pills were forced down her throat and she received injection after injection. She doesn't know what medications they were, or whether they will cause permanent damage.
"I don't feel very well, but I have a fighting spirit," Mrs Arap said yesterday, adding that sometimes she was so drugged she could barely walk or speak[.]
She was forcibly interned, not for health reasons, but over her association with the opposition group led by former chess star Garry Kasparov, the United Civil Front. Her arrest stemmed from the publication of an article entitled "Madhouse," exposing the ghoulish practices of a Russian psychiatric hospital in the Murmansk edition of his organisation's newspaper, Dissenters' March.
As far as typical methods:
Taken to a mental ward, Mrs Arap noted that many of its occupants seemed perfectly sane. "I was surprised that among them were lots of normal people," she wrote in "Madhouse". "But how they [staff] communicated with them: They shouted, they beat them up, they put them on drips, after which people became like zombies, they raped them, carried them off in the night and returned them in the morning, tormented."
One woman was threatened with the removal of organs, Mrs Arap said. Children were told that if they didn't give massages to medics they'd receive electro-shock therapy.
Read the whole thing. It says alot about where Russia's heading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
