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

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

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

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

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

"Oil for Food" money, maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate politics. I really do:

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

What will the Left do now?

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

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

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

Update (via Instapundit): Exactly.

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

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

I think that's a good thing.

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

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

The only question is, when will we start listening?

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

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

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

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

A prelude to war? One can only hope.

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

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

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

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

I'm left without words. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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