This should get the Iranian's attention. Cheney says good stuff here, within the context of two carrier strike groups (a fair bit of firepower, I must say), but will they listen?

I doubt it. We already have sufficient reason to use those carriers, and haven't, so why should Iran worry about such saber rattling now? Bush isn't just lame, he's castrated.

A quickie for tonight, and a comment. The DT is likely to evolve, and in addition to the two new items just added, I'll not promise to keep the Daily Topic to a single one. There might be multiple topics in a given day, or in odd cases not a single one. But, I digress.

This story struck me as fascinating, not for the fact that some significant number of soldiers in Iraq support their own efforts as valid and important. That's no surprise. Rather, it strikes me for what it says about the mainstream media, although that, too, is no surprise.

Power Line says it best, and so I won't be redundant. Just read it.

As a test, I've checked out Digg.com to see what's #1 (at app. 9:10pm PST). Interestingly, it's a story about Kevin Rose, founder of Digg. That's too narcissistic to count, I think, and even somewhat perverted, and so I'm selecting #2.

At 2778 Diggs (which I'm assuming makes it rather popular), the #2 most popular story is about impeaching Bush. What a shocker.

Not much to say here, really, except that it's almost poetic that such a story presents itself for the inaugural Daily Topic Digg report. I don't like Bush myself, but an impeachment, in today's day and age, is about as partisan as it can get. I haven't read the story, and I won't, because I can guess what it's all about. "Bush lied, people died," or something like that, I wager.

Note: I'm assuming that the number of Diggs will increase over time, and that an article's ranking will change. And, a promise: I'm going to select the articles in as random a fashion as possible, defined as whenever I get an opportunity to post a report. I will not wait for a Leftist story to percolate to the top; if I'm wrong in my hypothesis, and Digg isn't a bellwhether for the Leftist leanings of the IT industry, then I'll stop wasting my time.

Two new regular items will be kicked off soon for the ol' DT. First, I'll be scouring the 'net for celebrities who do not attack America, industry, business, Bush, Cheney, or anyone else not closely affliated with the Left. Second, I'll be selecting the top Digg.com story (at whatever time I have a chance to select it, and so there will be some pseudo-randomness to it) and evaluating it for whether it's political and, if it is, in which direction it bends.

So, keep an eye out for them (oh ye non-existent readers)...

Well, it's been awhile. The "Daily Topic" has been anything but. It's not been daily, nor has it been particularly topical. However, given a recent sea-change in my employment situation, I'm going to devote more time to this blog and make a run at the whole full-time writer gig. The worst that can happen is I'll fail miserably and my family will end up out on the street.

Let's hope not, shall we?

I need to invest some additional time in the topic of "free" municipal WiFi. A few of the possible principles involved:

1. Will such networks turn into government-granted monopolies along the lines of cable TV and telecom? It's possible, perhaps even likely, particularly as terms such as "public utility" continue to be attached to the concept

2. It definitely provides a "free" (in some cases, tax-supported) service that will be good enough, I predict, for a significant slice of the market, thus reducing the incentive for creating the next generation of ubiquitous broadband Internet access.

Again, though, this topic requires more thought. It bugs me on a fundamental level; I'll need to do some digging before I can identify precisely why...

What the Hell is "quantum information"? Is the universe really organized into something akin to the bits I'm using now to write this post? If so, are there bytes to go along with it?

The more I read about quantum physics (as a layman), the more I find it to be the result of mysticism making its nasty way into science. It's all manipulation of mathematics that have nothing to do with reality, and indeed in many cases seems a direct attempt to do away with reality itself as something involving identity and causality.

The sad thing is, it's so difficult to delve into and make sense of, because it's so twisted. I'd say, "Who cares?", except we all should. Today's physics is tomorrows most basic technological advances, and if it's built on vapor...

Well, here I am again, having let days go by without posting to the Daily Topic. I should change the blog's title to "A Topic Every Now and Then." That would be more honest and, perhaps, more sustainable given my schedule. It would also relieve me of the pressure of writing something every day.

Of course, that's the point, and so I'm going to maintain the title and recommit myself to posting something on a daily basis. And, currently, this blog hasn't been read by a single soul other than myself, as far as I know, and so fretting over my consistency borders on the pathological.

So, one more try. Let's see if we can do something this time...

Update: Just read the post. Actually, it's been almost two months since I last posted, not merely days. Meaning, I suck. The positive is: I have nowhere to go but up.

This article on Slate posits the question, "Do the Poor Deserve Life Support?" Consider what this question presumes.

First, there must be some universal equation by which a person is measured against a material good (in this case life support) to which a person might have access. This equation necessarily has some moral component, given the use of the word "deserve," that measures a person based on some criteria tied to a person's economic status--it's implicit in the question that a poor person might not have a moral right to something by virtue of his economic status.

Second, there's someone with the authority (perhaps the responsibility) to make such a determination, which is, whether or not a given person should be given access, in this case, to life support. This someone must be other than the person himself, because otherwise the question is simply nonsensical.

The article itself discusses the poor with the assumption that something will be done for them. That is, the question isn't really whether or not money will be spent on the poor, but rather how such necessarily economic decisions should be made. There's some consideration of how the poor would spend such money, or perhaps what the preferences of the poor might be--perhaps spending money on insurance for life support wouldn't meet any particular poor person's daily considerations, e.g., no poor person would spend the money on such insurance if he needed shoes.

Of course, in practice, whether or not a person has access to any material good is certainly determined by their economic status. A wealthier person has access to more material goods than a poorer person. In a truly free society, whether or not a poor person had access to and would purchase any particular good would be determined by his own productive efforts and by his own decisions.

What's truly disturbing about this article, then, is not that it lacks compassion in considering something so important as life support on economic grounds, which would be the common complaint. Rather, it's disturbing that poor people, or any people, should be considered by others according to such criteria.

My answer to the question would be, "The poor deserve whatever they can buy," which is to say, whatever their productive efforts allow them to trade for with others.

It's entirely implausible, of course, but check this out. If current theories in longevity bear fruit, we'll not only live a long, long time, but we'll be able to go just about anywhere. I figure, if someone is alive and in decent health in 25 years, he'll be enjoying life for centuries.

I'm not in favor of the Iraq war, likely for different reasons than many. But, how can anyone oppose the war in consideration of the "insurgency," when it's capable of acts like this? Were I a Leftist, I would be forced by virtue of common decency to just keep my trap shut about the whole thing.

Welcome to 2006. Due to a number of personal and professional events, most of which would bore the socks off of any rational person, the "Daily" Topic was anything but in 2005. I'm going to make an effort to make it so in 2006, though. We'll see.

Happy New Year!

As usual, these guys say it better than I can. In general, though, the thing that kills me is this: what's the difference between 1999 and 2000? The answer: nothing. 2000 has no more significance than 1999. To the brave men and women fighting in Iraq, of course, and as it should be to all Americans, there's no difference between one and 2000.

Someone, please, tell me why the federal government is dictating (let alone subsidizing) a migration to digital TV.

Anyone?

The UN, Saddam, and Al Qaida, all nice and cozy... It doesn't surprise me a bit. This is a complicated read, and shows how convoluted is international financing in general and money laundering specifically. It also points out that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a necessary action, in spite of the Left's rabid and disingenuous disapproval.

Now, the nation-building business is a little more suspect.

Everyone who makes a purchase at Wal-Mart does so voluntarily. Everyone who works there does so of their own free will. The only potentially coercive element in Wal-Mart's business practices are the various "packages" put together by state and local governments to entice Wal-Mart to build stores, which are paid for by taxpayers (and, that's very presumptive on my part; I actually don't know if any such packages are routinely extended).

Anyone who attacks Wal-Mart for paying low wages, utilizing part-time employees, not offering healthcare benefits, driving out smaller businesses, etc., etc. is attacking the very essence of a free society. That is, they attack the ability for individuals to make decisions for themselves--to shop at Wal-Mart and to work there. In doing so, they attack the concept of individual rights at its roots.

One of the more specious arguments against Wal-Mart is that, by not offering healthcare benefits, they push workers into public healthcare. It's fascinating how it is only in this context that so many people discuss the fact that such healthcare is paid for by the rest of us; usually, this fact is ignored when the same folks call for expanding government-provided benefits like healthcare. Of course, in a truly free society, everyone would be responsible for their own healthcare, but such a discussion is beyond the scope of today's post.

A more valid argument could be levied against Wal-Mart for its practice of purchasing so many producs from China. Even this, though, isn't clearly negative. First, the economic impact for the US is positive--we're able to purchase goods at much lower prices, thus freeing up resources for spending in other areas. Second, ultimately, such trade chips away at communism, and improves the standard of living of the Chinese people. Eventually, Chinese wages will rise as their economic conditions improve and their expectations increase, and China will no longer be competing purely on the basis of lower wages.

The attacks against Wal-Mart are a fascinating look into the Left's attack on capitalism in general. Unfortunately, such attacks seem to be getting more common and more aggressive. The Left seems to be more confident for some reason, and that concerns me a bit.

One fascinating aspect of such Internet phenomenons as blogging and podcasting is how blogs and podcasts are consumed by discussions about blogging and podcasting. At least, so it seems to me, and it seems true of some of the more popular examples in both genres.

Over time, I suppose things will settle down, and the content will matter more than the media. I certainly hope so, because frankly I grow weary of hearing, from bloggers and podcasters, how important blogging and podcasting is supposed to be.

I wonder if there was this much discussion when the horse and buggy made way for the automobile. I suppose there wasn't, simply because blogging and podcasting didn't exist then.

If anyone doubts that environmentalism is a collectivist ploy to dispose of capitalism in favor of primitive collectives, or maybe that they're really that anti-human, this should shore things up a bit. It may seem a stretch to some, but how else can one account for attacks on wind power as ecologically destructive? Today, they're upset that some birds are killed; next, it'll be microbes.

After all, who are we humans to hold ourselves as more important than bacteria?

If the UN gains control of the Internet, we can expect our little experiment in instant communications to die an ignoble death. Nice and pithy, this explains why.

Also, it's ironic that the UN would express concern that the US would abuse its power (not having done so in 35 years) in maintaining control over such aspects of the Internet infrastructure as the root DNS, when already many UN members manipulate the Internet inside their borders for political reasons. Consider that China and Iran belong to the working group calling for UN control, two nations that have demonstrated numerous times in the past their abiding love for freedom.

The US created the Internet, and the rest of the world has gone along for the ride for decades now. Let's leave it that way.

Here's one of the more intelligent discussions I've read in awhile on the war on terror. I'm not sure yet whether I agree with it 100%, but it seems to make a good deal of sense.