Friday, May 30. 2008
 Mark Steyn and his book America Alone published by Maclean's face a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal next week. The issue is "hate speech" involving Moslems. This is all about defending Western values (eg free speech). Belmont reports on Steyn's speech in Vancouver - a quote:
Steyn's insight -- that the War on Terror is essentially the consequence of a Western disease (ed: multiculturalism) that manifests itself in the newly found power of medieval madmen -- is the key point. All September 11, Iraq, Afghanistan have done is focus attention on a silent struggle that has been going on within Western culture for last hundred years. It is the ideational counterpart of violent struggles of the 20th century. The men who we remember on Memorial Day only buried the physical corpus of totalitarianism. It remains for us, in the twenty first century, to lay its ghost to rest. Can we do it without restarting the violence of the last hundred years? Perhaps. But can we do it without a mental and legal struggle. Definitely not. And so Mark Steyn continues in defiance of the thought police. Because that's the kind of guy he is.
In an opinion piece in Maclean's last month, Steyn attacked the "totalitarianism" of the Human Rights Commissions, noting: It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.
 He goes on to say:
Ah, but that's the Good Totalitarianism. What about the Bad Totalitarianism? You know, the one everybody disapproves of: Nazism. Isn't it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, "hateful words" led to "unspeakable crimes"? This argument is offered routinely: if only there'd been "reasonable limits on the expression of hatred" 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented. There's just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such "reasonable limits." Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, put it: "Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."
My humble opinion? Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. Steyn's book contained none that I am aware of, but he did present unpleasant truths about the Islamization of the West. Regardless, I am in favor of protecting speech, even hateful and insulting speech: poor manners are not a matter for law, and it's difficult to have any opinion without offending somebody, just as Canada's hate speech laws deeply offend me. Cliche: The solution to speech is more speech. Photo on top: A young librarian searching the stacks for Steyn's dangerous book. (Theo)
Wednesday, May 28. 2008
Old Gorilla v. Young Gorilla: Viacom is suing YouTube owner Google for copyright infringements. (Thanks, reader.) I know nothing about copyright law, but it would seem to me that different sorts of internet ISPs and sites present different sorts of legal complications, eg whether commercial or non-commercial, whether a site is a billboard, or whether the use is innocent or educational. For example, the Liquid Kelp image posted earlier today may be a copyrighted image (I have no idea whether it is), but its appearance here consists of an unpaid advertisement for which the company would surely be grateful. A case might be made that posting major chunks of news or commentary from a newspaper, magazine or other website constitutes a copyright violation, even with attribution. However, much interesting stuff, the provenance of which is unknown and indeterminable, rockets around the internet via email and websites and ends up on posts - jokes, images, stories, videos, hoaxes, lies, quotes, etc. Who knows who produces and sends out all that fun stuff into cyberspace? Nobody, except the first person who emailed it, created it, or posted it. Blogs and other websites present interesting new areas for law to romp and play in. It's the wild West. Nobody violates a copyright malevolently, or without attribution if known. I did find the following quote at this interesting site for bloggers: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC § 512, creates a "safe harbor" immunity from copyright liability for service providers who "respond expeditiously" to notices claiming that they are hosting or linking to infringing material. The DMCA does not make ISPs liable if they do not remove content, but gives them a strong incentive to take the content down. That in turn gives those who want your material removed from the Net a strong incentive to make claims of copyright infringement.
Editor's comment: Any original material clearly identifiable as being produced by us at Maggie's Farm is not copyrighted at all. Not even Creative Commons: our original stuff is free for the borrowing, stealing, or linking. However, we appreciate and expect attribution just as we offer attribution to others whenever we are able to: "Do unto others..." "Fair use" and "public domain" get complicated when we are talking about email and websites. Our general disclaimer is that we are a non-commercial amateur site, and cannot always determine where some content or images originated. If asked, we will gladly and respectfully take down, link, or attribute any copyrighted material which we have innocently, educationally, or unknowingly posted or linked.
From the already-famous Packer piece, The Fall of Conservatism, in The New Yorker: Political tactics have a way of outliving their ability to respond to the felt needs and aspirations of the electorate: Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being like Herbert Hoover well into the nineteen-seventies; Republicans will no doubt accuse Democrats of being out of touch with real Americans long after George W. Bush retires to Crawford, Texas. But the 2006 and 2008 elections are the hinge on which America is entering a new political era. This will be true whether or not John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, wins in November. He and his likely Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, “both embody a post-polarized, or anti-polarized, style of politics,” the Times columnist David Brooks told me. “McCain, crucially, missed the sixties, and in some ways he’s a pre-sixties figure. He and Obama don’t resonate with the sixties at all.” The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces.
I happen to think that reports of Conservatism's death are highly exaggerated. The age-old message of free people and free markets is a winner in America, when delivered the right way - and when Conservatives have the right political "hooks" to hang it on. It's always harder to find those hooks when you live in the White House, and George Bush never figured out how to use his bully pulpit to inspire and to energize anybody except our wonderful soldiers. Bill Clinton, slippery as he is, knew how to give the impression that he was interested in folks' lives - and everybody, except for our most red-blooded and energetic citizens - wants his life to be easier with less worries (and seems quite willing to let somebody else pay for it). So, if you want to be a Conservative politician, you have to do the same thing - demonstrate your interest, but by reminding people of their opportunities and their precious gift of freedom. Otherwise, the panderers and the lefties will just jump into the vacuum and try to buy their votes and their freedom with the half of your income that they take from you. As shown in the recent European elections (and the next one, in the UK), whenever you give Leftists enough rope, they hang themselves with their statist, nannyist, anti-traditional and totalitarian excesses. James Joyner has a superb commentary on the Packer essay, And Rick Moran has an interesting and immensely well-informed What ails Conservatism?, which adds some history to Packer's somewhat ahistorical view. As Rick says: I’ve got news for Mr. Packer; American politics has always been an “ugly, unredeemed business.” To actually believe that the politics of fear, of division, or deliberately appealing to racial differences and divisions is something invented by Nixon and the Republicans is absurd. In fact, I could argue that politics today is cleaner, more uplifting, less personal than the battle royales of elections past. Examine some of the post Civil War elections during the Gilded Age and you will find not only outright lies being circulated in newspapers owned by both parties but rank appeals to racism, a nauseating, virulent strain of populism that threatened violence against the middle class, and a frank discussion of the inferiorities found in various immigrant groups. And always, lurking in the background of the anti-immigrant message was the eternal Jew and his “control” of banks and money lending.
I would just like to remind everybody that such essays were written about Socialism and Liberals just a few years ago. Plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose. Politics is an ugly business. We citizens have to cling to the eternal verities - including God and our guns.
Sunday, May 25. 2008
 What is getting planted this weekend, besides a ton of basil (and I think I need much more) in the veggie garden:
- A nice large mass of Nepeta (Catmint, not to be confused with Catnip). Photo on right. - A 20' shade border edge of Green Spice heuchera. Look how it changes color with the seasons. This variety is a very cool plant. - 20 obscure and delightful Hostas, including Love Pat. We think Hostas look best planted as "wave" plantings in the shade (never in the sun), such that, when mature, the leaves of one plant touch those of the adjacent plant and prevent weeds. For the right effect, that means mass planting of at least 5-10 of the same type, usually, unless you have a spot for a "specimen" plant. To do it right, you have to know what size the darn plant will become. Hostas come in mini, small, medium, large, and extra-large. A medium plant will be 2 1/2-3' across at maturity. An extra-large variety can be 5-6' wide at maturity if it is happy. Hostas mature fairly slowly (3-4 years, like most perennials), and if you divide them they revert and start their maturation process all over again. Best to plant them right the first time, and then leave them alone forever except for some fertilizer in Spring and early Fall. I keep mine well-mulched - most easily done when they first emerge, but before the leaves unfold. Once they unfold, it's tough to do. Do I enrich the soil when I plant them? You bet I do. The old rule is a $50 hole for a $5 plant (unless it's a herb sort of thing that likes bad soil): twice as deep and twice as wide as you feel like digging. Big hole, soil mixed with humus or manure, and peat moss. Plenty of water the first year. And 6" of mulch (not that ugly and ineffective cedar chip crap) unless weeding gives you pleasure.
Thursday, May 22. 2008
 Scientology is a cult. Scientology is a cult. Scientology is a cult.
Furthermore, I think Scientology is a non-serious wierdo cult for unbalanced nuts, derived from lousy science fiction paperbacks and one which, I have heard, has a knack for emptying the bank accounts of vulnerable souls. Arrest me! In London, Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology a "cult." I'll bet he wishes he lived in the USA right now. Well, it's a comfort to know that London's Bobbies are on the job, finding criminals and preventing crime. Makes you appreciate living in a country with free speech, free thought, and "critical thinking," unlike Big Brother places like England and Canada. Our Revolution was not for nothing. We believe in good, genteel manners, but we also believe in speaking out, and the very notion of manners enforced by law makes us feel unmannerly and defiant. (Maybe it's an "American thing.") It's a delicate balance, but we will offer no respect to people or things we judge undeserving of it. BS is BS. On further reflection, the subtext of this story probably is that, if criticism of Scientology is permitted, then criticism of Jihadist Islam would have to be permitted too, and that might "offend" (ie they might riot) hypersensitive grievance-mongers. It's always open season on Christians, though. However, Christians can take it.
Wednesday, May 21. 2008
Over the transom: THE NEXT SURVIVOR SERIES
Six married men will be dropped on an island with one car and 3 kids each for six weeks.
Each kid will play two sports and either take music or dance classes.
There is no fast food.
Each man must take care of his 3 kids; keep his assigned house clean, correct all homework, and complete science projects, cook, do laundry, and pay a list of 'pretend' bills with not enough money.
In addition, each man will have to budget in money for groceries each week.
Each man must remember the birthdays of all their friends and relatives, and send cards out on time.
Each man must also take each child to a doctor's appointment, a dentist appointment and a haircut appointment.
He must make one unscheduled and inconvenient visit per child to the Urgent Care.
He must also make cookies or cupcakes for a social function.
Each man will be responsible for decorating his own assigned house, planting flowers outside and keeping it presentable at all times.
The men will only have access to television when the kids are asleep and all chores are done.
The men must shave their legs, wear makeup daily, adorn himself with jewelry, wear uncomfortable yet stylish shoes, keep fingernails polished and eyebrows groomed.
During one of the six weeks, the men will have to endure severe abdominal cramps, back aches, and have extreme, unexplained mood swings but never once complain or slow down from other duties. They must attend weekly school meetings, church, and find time at least once to spend the afternoon at the park or a similar setting.
They will need to read a book each night and in the morning, feed them, dress them, brush their teeth and comb their hair by 7:00 am.
A test will be given at the end of the six weeks, and each father will be required to know all of the following information: each child's birthday, height, weight, shoe size, clothes size and doctor's name. Also the child's weight at birth, length, time of birth, and length of labor, each child's favorite color, middle name, favorite snack, favorite song, favorite drink, favorite toy, biggest fear and what they want to be when they grow up.
The kids vote them off the island based on performance. The last man wins only if...he still has enough energy to be intimate with his spouse at a moment's notice.
If the last man does win, he can play the game over and over and over again for the next 18-25 years eventually earning the right to be called Mother!
 It's an election year - the time when politicians and their fellow job-seekers work their butts off trying to convince you that you have big problems and that your life is difficult - and that only they can fix that.
They want to be important and powerful. Truth is, America has essentially no serious problems. It's quite remarkable, really. We are the most prosperous nation in the world. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We are materially the best-off people in the world. We have more freedoms than anyone else in the world. We have more opportunity for everyone than anywhere else in the world. We reward effort more than anywhere else in the world. "Tolerance"? We tolerate things and people that few in the world would tolerate. We speak our mind freely, and dispute fervently. We have the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and our work ethic is the envy of every nation (except France, where they do not seem to like to work). Our blue-collar workers have two houses, $100,000 boats, and send their kids to college. Our most unfortunate have hot water, TVs, DVD players, and obesity problems. Our wealthiest are the most generous in the world. Our middle class is the salt of the earth. We are the most charitable nation on earth. We are the most conservation-minded nation in the world (or maybe on a par with England). Our educational systems educate kids who are ambitious about learning as well or better than any other nation. We go to church, and we value things greater than our our comfort and pleasure - but we rightly love the latter. We read books, news and the internets to our heart's content. We believe that every honest citizen deserves respectful behavior, and we do our damndest to provide justice for all. Our medical care is the most advanced in the world, and it takes very little effort for the most unfortunate among us to access it (via Medicaid, Medicare, and simple charity). Our only external enemies are ignorant loonies who hate almost everybody - but if they get the bomb, that would be a real problem - but one we could solve in 15 minutes if we decided to. What a great country we are blessed with.  We are at the point at which our "problems" are gripes and bitches and minor details (see my recent post on Spencer's law) rather than major structural or institutional problems. Yes, we have an illegal immigration issue - but it's because most of the world wants to come here for freedom and opportunity. So enforce the laws. Gas prices? Gimme a break. A global market issue that pols can do little about. Energy prices? Readily solved by nuke plants. The housing market? Just a healthy bust of a bubble that dinged some reckless risk-takers but which provides cheaper homes for buyers. Iraq? If we can help those folks out, it will be to our credit, and we have fine guys and gals willing to fight and die for the cause. The economy? This normal rhythmic slowdown (not even a true recession except for Wall St. banks) will sort itself out in due time.
The working poor? Everyone who works should earn a living wage, I believe, but nowadays married immigrants will send one to work at WalMart, and one to do landscaping - and they end up with a middle class income of around $35,000 - not poor, and with excellent job benefits. Racism? We have a black guy who could be our next President. Global warming? Gimme another break. Some warming would be good for everybody. Just ask a Minnesotan. So what change do people want? Don't have as much money as you want? Who does? Envy the rich folks you read about? Go work for them or sell them something, and benefit from their wealth (and in the meantime, work on your envy problems). Want life to be easeful and totally secure? Get a government job or move to France (but don't decide to try to start a business there: it's almost impossible). Freedom, like religion, is not meant to be easy and stress-free - such things are far too valuable to be easy. Freedom is messy, and freedom requires that people be grown-ups and take responsibility for their lives. In America in 2008, the only serious problems we face are the problems which our Founders intentionally handed us - the eternal problems which are our proud inheritance: maintaining freedom from the powers of our own government, and protecting our freedom from the external forces which threaten our personal freedom and our country. The former, I believe, is more of a challenge than the latter: we will, in time, always succeed in the latter when we want to. But how do you run a national campaign on that? (Unless you are Ronnie Reagan.)
Tuesday, May 20. 2008
Stumbling and Mumbling linked to a site which discusses the two Latin roots of the English word "education:" Craft (1984) noted that there are two different Latin roots of the English word "education." They are "educare," which means to train or to mold, and "educere," meaning to lead out. While the two meanings are quite different, they are both represented in the word "education." Thus, there is an etymological basis for many of the vociferous debates about education today. The opposing sides often use the same word to denote two very different concepts. One side uses education to mean the preservation and passing down of knowledge and the shaping of youths in the image of their parents. The other side sees education as preparing a new generation for the changes that are to come--readying them to create solutions to problems yet unknown.
Of course, formal education - as opposed to all of the other education life offers - has the job of both "putting stuff in" and "drawing good stuff out." But people vary widely in intelligence, talent, energy, curiosity, and ingenuity. Simon at Classical Values in Romantic Intellectualism has a fine discussion of American education, and about how PC prevents many from talking honestly about things like No Child Left Behind. (His post highlights Charles Murray's The Age of Educational Romanticism in The New Criterion). Simon concludes his post thus: "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." -- John W. Gardner, Saturday Evening Post, December 1, 1962 In other words not every man has equal intelligence. All have equal dignity if they comport themselves in a dignified manner. We owe the maintenance of our civilization (and it takes a lot of maintaining) to our plumbers and garbage men. We owe the advances to our scientists and engineers. What we must never forget is that we are all in this together. The man/woman who is respectful and contributes deserves our respect without qualification. The financial trader or the clerk at the grocery store. Let me add one final point that the article didn't make that I think is vitally important and not well addressed in many communities. Hard work can make up to a 15 IQ point difference in outcomes (sorry no link). That is one standard deviation. It is not a lot. It is however significant. You can make up for some lack of anything with extra effort. How many times do we hear of the ball player with less than stellar abilities make up for his lack by devoting more time to practice than his team mates? What works in baseball also works in school. You can punch above your weight if you work at it.
Back to the S&M piece, in which Chris Dillow wonders about the differences between the Brit private and state schools. It begins: The other day I was toiling away when I heard a series of loud bangs. "What idiot is setting off fireworks in the middle of the afternoon?" I wondered. I went out to find out. It was Oakham School's army cadets having shooting practice. Which set me thinking: isn't private schooling so good? It's education in the sense of "educere" - drawing out whatever latent talents a student has. If someone doesn't have the aptitude for academe, they are given the chance to excel at something else: the military, or music (Oakham School has a thriving music department) or sport: the school's county-standard facilities has recently helped it produce some fine cricketers. Contrast this to the Marxian view, which regards (state?) schools as means for moulding people to meet the requirements of capitalism - a view which New Labour, which regards the state as a human resources department, seems to regard not as a criticism but as a policy ideal.
 It's about the colorful and shapely foliage, not the flowers. From Bridgewood Gardens, on Why We Grow Hostas:
I'm not a botanist, I don't know the science. But I do know that hostas have some kind of chemical in them that makes people nuts. I know people who have normal size houses, with normal size back yards, normal kids and a sensible spouse, and these people grow a thousand or more different kinds of hostas. I don't know just one of these people. I know a bunch of them. These people are obviously nuts and they have only one thing in common, they've all come in contact with hostas. Obviously, there are still people who add a few hostas here and there to their gardens and leave it at that. There must be some kind of threshold you have to cross - one day you're a sensible gardener, the next day you're nuts. I think the first sign of trouble is when you say to yourself, "I wonder how many of these things I have now."  So you count your hostas and you're surprised to realize that you already have 40 different kinds. You don't remember buying that many, you never thought of yourself as a collector, it just sort of happened.
Read the whole thing about Hostaphilia. Our first post about Hostas was Hosta City. I think Hostas are OK, but it's the Mrs. who is the enthusiast and connoisseur. It takes them a year or two to get established, but after that they are tough. Few things are more pleasing or rewarding to grow in deep shade, and they are so dense that you get no weeds. Hosta Direct has a large selection. Photo on top: Hosta "Captain Kirk"
Either Obama lives in the Land of Pretty Ponies and Lovely Rainbows (or whatever that expression is) or he is indeed hostile to American interests. Yesterday he essentially proposed unilaterally disarming the American economy with his energy ideas, and he wants to cripple us with taxes. On the clip below, he proposes unilateral military disarmament - something which no foe has ever been able to do to us, but one which all of our foes and competitors - and none of our decadent friends who rely on us - would welcome. These are not the ideas of a serious adult man who seeks grave responsibilities. They sound more like the ideas of a Bennington College professor, or a California grey-haired-ponytail weed-addict. The man's disconnection from the realities of the world is sounding more and more dangerous to me. He actually makes the compulsively lying Socialist Hillary Clinton look good by comparison, and that is saying something. (h/t, Macsmind)
Monday, May 19. 2008
 We have been perhaps too preoccupied with guns over the past week. Not being knowledgeable about anything but sporting guns, we really aren't qualified to discuss handguns. All I really know is that a .22 handgun is good for targets and rats, a 9 mm isn't really all that good for much, and bigger is designed to seriously hurt people. Well, all are fun for target practice.
Self-defence and home defence? Yes, we believe in those most basic of human rights. Guns, baseball bats, whatever. A reader friend who knows everything about guns thought our readers might be interested in these inexpensive (used) German Police Sig 9mms. You can buy them refurbished, too.
 Our younger readers - younger than me, that is - might be interested in the reminiscences of the 60s by six prominent writers and commentators in City Journal.
Let me say that I was there. There is no period of time that is more wrongly romanticized, glorified, and magnified in importance. It was the lunatics trying to run the asylum, and little more. The socio-cultural story of the 60s belongs in the dustbin of history. Just one quote from Sol Stern's contribution, to tempt you: The liberal media’s misunderstanding of what the antiwar radicals were all about continued through 1968, and particularly in the commentary about the year’s two biggest explosions: in May, the student uprising at Columbia University; and in August, the violent street demonstrations at the Democratic Party’s national convention in Chicago. Tom Hayden was back in action for both events. He happened to be in New York when he heard about students’ seizing buildings and imprisoning a dean to protest Columbia’s decision to build a gymnasium in Harlem. Immediately, he rushed to the campus and joined a student “commune” barricaded in one of the buildings. Most of the Columbia student leaders were SDSers well versed in Hayden’s grand project to “bring the war back home.” The whole point was to provoke a confrontation with the New York police, the closest available surrogates for the U.S. military. In a firsthand report on the uprising for Ramparts, Hayden proudly noted that his younger disciples had scrawled on the walls of the occupied buildings an exhortation to “create two, three, many Columbias,” a play on Che Guevara’s call for “two, three, many Vietnams.” Columbia was merely another battle in the plan, and Hayden fantasized that “the U.S. must either change or send troops to occupy American campuses.”
Whether the Vietnam War was a wise idea or not (debatable, as wars usually are), the cultural news of the time was dominated by nihilists, Communists, the drug-addled, and mixed-up adolescents - all magnified by a press who found a pimply "society-rejecting," pot-smoking "hippie" more intriguing than an upright, straight-arrow kid who volunteered for the Marine Corps. The only consolation for us in the US is that the press in Europe took this BS far more seriously than ours did. Our press just wanted voyeuristic and disturbing new stories to sell magazines and newspapers. Their press wanted a Communist revolution. (They would have been quite surprised, however, if it did happen, to find that they and their friends were not in charge.) Photo: The appalling and deluded Tom Hayden - Communist, traitor.
 Columbia's Brain and Mind Symposium has archived (on online video) a wonderful and relatively non-technical series of lectures by the world's greatest neuroscientists.
These talks were presented in 2004 as a part of Columbia University's 250th Anniversary. (h/t, Neurophilosophy)
This is not my blog. I contribute things, but that's it. I'm not in charge. So I am not responsible for what is said here. I'm simply responsible for my own behavior, and to choose my friends wisely. But as my father often told me, nothing good happens in a bar after midnight; so if you choose to stay in there, whatever happens is partly your responsibility. I have sharp Internet elbows. I say outrageous things for effect from time to time. When you try to use humorous turns of phrase, it's easy to piss people off. In general, the Internet could easily be renamed: A Pigpen for Pissed off People anyway. If I woke up tomorrow and everybody's URL began with PPP instead of WWW I'd be down with that. I still say we should call a "call a spade a spade." But some people like to find offense where it isn't because they've got nothing else but outrage. They're willing to manufacture outrage to suit their crabby worthless worldview. If someone didn't care for my politics, they might take issue with the expression "call a spade a spade," for instance. They're hoping that they could wield a sort of moral Kryptonite they could use to say that any particular argument is settled, because you're obviously not even of sufficient moral stature to dispute with. Political Correctness is the attempt to end discourse by introducing extraneous moral elements that, in general, are imaginary.
But what of the flip side? What of people who claim that their right to express themselves is being impinged by PC, when in reality, no such extraneous elements are being introduced to the equation?  This image, among others, was inserted in the comments here at Maggie's, to mock the people in it. But not in just a humdrum way. They were used as a sort of intellectual club to try to beat the political opponents of the person that used the picture. It was an exponential, not just an arithmetical, extension to the insult.
The person that offered it has nothing of any merit to say about anything. If they told me the sun was rising in the East today, I'd check. If they did have anything of merit to say, they wouldn't have to resort to using a picture like that to complain about being enjoined from fantasizing about the murder of their political opponents. I must be immune to the charms of the urge to mock the mentally disabled. Because I don't see it. I see two people, in every way my equal in the eyes of the creator, looking directly into the camera -- unashamed, friendly, outgoing, sunny, and smiling. They are useful to other people. They are --get this-- happy. Contrast their demeanor with the crabby, xenophobic, greedy, unfriendly, spiteful, whining, paranoid, and anti-intellectual outlook of the person that placed it here, and the cowardly context of the original sentiment expressed. Yes, indeed, the photo depicts people who aren't "smart enough" to drink their own urine and eat Spam in their bunker while telling people on the Internet they're praying for an apocalypse that never comes so you can say "I told you so." I'll take a planet filled with people like the picture, please.
Sunday, May 18. 2008
The technical definitions of solipcism and sophistry tend to elude my memory. I study them, and a month later they slip away. "Sophistry" is of course often used as a general insult towards arguments with which one might disagree, but that usage degrades the meaning. AVI did my work for me today, on sophistry. His handy practical definition: "Sophistry is a phrase so neat you can't see the loose end that would unravel it. It's flawless, but wrong." Sleight-of-mind. One of the examples he offers is: You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Hmm, wait a minute - why can't you do both? I'll offer this one: If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Wait a minute - a glove gets to make the decision? One more: Heard from a New Zealand interviewer last week re global warming:
"It's very important for New Zealanders to try to help, even if it doesn't make a difference." It is? Futility is an essential part of the Kiwi national character? Thus sophistry is designed to defeat thought, not to provoke thought. Such assertions are designed to ward off that "Hey, wait a minute, does that make sense?" reaction. Always check the premises before discussion, even if they sound OK. Or especially if they sound OK. You can read AVI's piece here.
Saturday, May 17. 2008
 12 ga. ammo that you would not believe! (Thanks, Habu. That site is a kick.)
My only concern is the danger of that confetti load. Won't that damage the Environment? What if the confetti isn't biodegradable? Or causes Global Warming? Their other loads seem very fine, though, and intriguing in many ways. A shotgun, in fact, is a far more serious weapon than a handgun for 99% of life's possible heavy-duty problems, but is a bit more difficult to conceal. When young 'uns aren't around, I keep one loaded (12 ga. pump, buckshot) and handy, just like my ancestors in CT did. You hope you never need it, but you use it with righteous force if you ever do because I hear from Vergil that there is still room in Motel Hell for bad guys. You can get those PC t-shirts here. The wording is "Should be a convenience store, not a government agency." (Ignore "continue reading." It's a glitch.)
Continue reading "And even more Gun Fun"
Friday, May 16. 2008
 The words on this KY campaign flier read:
My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want. But I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work.
In a way, I have no big problem with those words (although how one can even attempt to discern God's use for you without tons of prayer and a worshipful heart is beyond me). However, I thought it was a big problem that Bush was inspired by his faith. Somehow this guys' wanting to do his version of God's work to me is apparently no problem. What's up with that? Doesn't this kind of thing raise urgent Church-State concerns for the Lefties? Or is he just trying to reinforce the idea that he isn't a Moslem? In my opinion, nobody has the right to claim that they are doing God's work. That is hubris. Somebody else can say it about you, though, which is a great compliment. (h/t, Insty)
Thursday, May 15. 2008
 Politics is irrational because people are only partially rational, and even less so when it comes to politics and other peoples' money. We recently linked to a piece by Stumbling, who asked:
...what role should empirical evidence have in policy-making? Here’s a theory - very little. Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) is a sham. I say so for four reasons:
You can read his reasons here. Case in point: The Polar Bear story. An entirely healthy bear population is put on the Endangered List for purely political reasons: Who wants a sound bite out there claiming "He or she refused to protect the cuddly Polar Bears."? It makes you sound heartless and evil, and nobody is going to listen to the statistics. It's about sentiment. However, many of my central beliefs about life are about sentiment too. My belief in the freedom of the individual from the power of the state and of the collective, for example, represents my emotional attachment to our Constitution, its vision, and its cultural underpinnings. To me, a self-evident truth, but some would claim that Resistance is Futile to the power of the Borg. Courage to tell the truth is rare in politicians, of course, because they have their sinecures to look after (which is rational, if cowardly). I give McCain credit for telling the truth about Ethanol, but it's going to hurt him in the corn states: they want to stay on that gravy train (which is rational on their part, if venal and ignoble). Thus people can be most rational when self-interest is directly involved, and sometimes most irrational when it is not. Image: Polar Bear with a fresh seal dinner. Cute, cuddly-looking Polar Bears are believed to kill over 40% of the cute cuddly baby seals born each year in the Arctic regions in which they dwell. They do catch adult seals, too. Polar Bears eat the skin and the blubber, and leave the rest. Editor's note: There is talk going around that the real reason the bears emerged as an issue was as a sentimental proxy issue for preventing drilling in the Arctic, comparable to the familiar "It's for the children..." The thought occurs to me - would this work as well if the bears were black? Is there a racial subtext here? Inquiring minds want to know.
Wednesday, May 14. 2008
Are wine's pleasures all in your head? What motivates the wine shopper?, by Eric Asimov in the NYT, who notes: In press accounts of two studies on wine psychology, consumers have been portrayed as dupes and twits, subject to the manipulations of marketers, critics and charlatan producers who have cloaked wine in mystique and sham sophistication in hopes of better separating the public from its money.
Is that true? I have tasted some undrinkable wines in my time, very many entirely OK table wines, and some sublime ones. Tasting a wine is like meeting a new person: put your preconceptions away and see who they are. Turning wine into an effete exercise is pure silliness. h/t, a post on the subject at Neuroanthropology. 
 Race is obviously a factor in voting, since most blacks in the US vote Dem, and over 90% of Dem primary voters are voting for Obama (which demonstrates something you could call racism but which, I think, is better described as "tribalism").
I believe that there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama in the general election, but skin color is not one of them. But is it a factor for white Dem primary voters, and for white voters in general? - Judis in TNR: The Big Race - a serious political science look at race and voting patterns - Racist Incidents. WaPo More related stuff: - If you won't join the Obamaborg, you're racist. Moonbattery - White Racist - or Right Reason? View from the Right - via Insty: TONY BLANKLEY: "Race, the yet unclosed scab that has run deep through our history, is about to be discussed as it never has been in a presidential election. . . . I would argue that the more honest the public conversation is the less virulent the private one will be, and therein lies the path to maximum civic hygiene."
Catlin (1796-1872), a Philadelphia lawyer, built his artistic career on paintings of American Indians. This Buffalo Hunt is from this Catlin website. 
This newspaper announcement is from the Smithsonian's collection of Catlin papers: 
Tuesday, May 13. 2008
 With a decade of cooling behind us and more decades coming up, your Editor has decided that it's about time to assemble a list of the catastrophic consequences of Global Cooling.
I'll get you started, but I need additions in the comments. We care, and we can make a difference just by spreading awareness of this crisis!!! Problems Attributed to the Global Cooling Crisis Rise in food prices due to reduced crop production and shorter growing seasons, leading to worldwide famine and mass starvation Destruction of citrus, avocado, mango, pepper and tomato crops Increase in road accidents due to ice and snow Icebergs closing northern ports and northern trade routes Polar bear, Reindeer, Musk Ox and Eskimo infestations of residential neighborhoods (see photo) Increase incidence of the common cold, flu, etc: the elderly, children and minorities at greatest risk
Increases in broken bones and cancer as people stay indoors and do not get their natural Vit D from the sun
Increase in fatal heart attacks due to snow shoveling Rises in oil prices due to increased need for imported oil for heating and for 4 WD vehicles Damages bathing suit industry and destroys sun-block business
Fertility rates drop as females don unsexy parkas Stormy weather: nor'easters, blizzards, Perfect Storms, etc. Sea levels fall drastically, destroying marshes, beaches, and coral reefs - and threaten to reconnect Britain with the Continent Divorce - More family conflict due to lengthened ice-fishing season - or from spending too much time together indoors Disrupts migration patterns of birds and fish - animals die and become extinct! Increased Canadian illegal immigration to FL and AZ
Moscow, Toronto, Oslo, London, Sydney, and Boston will be buried under mile-thick glaciers by 2012 Nobody to do the work Americans don't want to do as Mexicans flee back to Mexico
Northern Europeans migrate en masse to the Middle East, bringing cultural dislocation and conflict
Australians invade S. Africa to escape glaciers
Trees killed by the trillions as climate cools, forests disappear and are replaced by tundra. Atmospheric oxygen levels drop: children and minorities at greatest risk.
Help us out in the comments - anything you offer will be officially "Attributed to Global Cooling"
The well-known piece below was written by Lewis Napper in 1993. "We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other Liberal bed-wetters.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights
ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but No one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is Based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; But the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool Manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the Creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work .. don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
ARTICLE XI
You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!"
Saturday, May 10. 2008
A re-post: A few nifty finds: New York City in Pictures, with "every street and every building in NY"; NewYorkology is a site with depth and detail, with tips for visitors and residents, including the location of the Whispering Gallery in Grand Central Station, which is quite near my favorite spot in the world for oyster stew and a beer, the famous and venerable Oyster Bar & Restaurant, which, along with oysters from all ends of the earth, almost always offers the rarest and very best oyster on earth, Wellfleets , with their subtle nutty flavor derived from the Herring River which flows into the harbor of Bird Dog's favorite town on his native Cape Cod. Then there's NY Architectural images - cool building photos listed by neighborhood. Oldbars lists - with photos - some of NYC's oldest, including McSorleys, where I have both booted and rallied in youth, back before 1970 when women weren't allowed in; and, since we're on bars, there's the unique The Campbell Apartment, if you can find it; Forgotten New York is a good ramble; and the new Tenement Museum has been getting a lot of attention, but I haven't been there.
Learned from Kudlow on the radio today: Corporate business taxes in New York State and New Jersey are the highest business taxes in the world. Of course, businesses taxes are nothing more than covert taxes on everyone, from the company's employees, to the people who buy the product, to the investor: business taxes are passed on in the form of lower wages, higher prices, and slower growth. If we desire economic growth, job growth, and prosperous employees, there should be no taxes on the profits of public corporations. (Surely we could handle the resultant loss of tax accounting and tax attorney jobs, because the country is full of burgers needing flipping - and other jobs "Americans won't do.")
|
