Thursday, April 12, 2007
FIRM Website and Blog
Pursuant to a comment on yesterday's post on socialized medicine, I am repeating the postscript I added to it here.
If you are concerned about fighting socialized medicine, and especially if you are a physician from Colorado, you may find the Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) website -- which also hosts the primary location for the letter -- to be of interest. Also check its blog for updates here or in my sidebar.The main website of FIRM, which can be reached through its blog, is now also available directly from the upper right of my page of links.
Jihadists, Useful Idiots to Protest Panel Discussion
Via Student of Objectivism, it seems that a communist outfit that calls itself the "UCLA Civil Dissent Network" is preparing to raise a stink about the fact that Daniel Pipes is scheduled to appear in tonight's panel discussion at UCLA ("Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West") with Wafa Sultan and Yaron Brook.
By clicking on the image, you can read the three quotes from Daniel Pipes that "tolstoy.la" finds so incriminating.
All three are merely statements of fact, and ought to be taken very seriously, given the steady stream of anti-semitic propaganda put out on broadcasts and in textbooks by the "Palestinian" "Authority", the well-known calls for the destruction of Israel (that alternate with Holocaust denials) by the President of Iran, and the frequent threats (called "invitations") directed at Westerners from totalitarian Moslems the world over to convert to their death cult.
Good LTE on Climate Change
Via HBL, I learned of a very good letter to the editor in reply to an article in the Hamilton Spectator on global warming. I was especially impressed with the closing.
MacIsaac's article was an echo of the Old Left, which had respect for industry and economic progress.This gets to the heart of the whole global warming crusade, which is: to use predictions of disaster to simultaneously panic people into accepting central economic planning and distract them from the fact that this entire political agenda has already been tried and found disastrous.
However, he still commits the same fallacy that plagued that dead ideological movement which is that the "greater good" can be achieved through an agency of central planning. Just as central planning failed to feed the population of Soviet Russia, as it fails to provide the average Cuban with an air-conditioner, and as it failed the population of New Orleans pre- and post-Katrina, it will fail in saving us from any potential climate catastrophe.
"Get your CRAP ... together!"
Software Nerd and I ponder the direction that Warren Chisum's crusade to save young couples from themselves will take when the "fiscal conservatives" get wind of it.
In the meantime, commenter Dismuke digs up some more dirt on Warren Chisum.
[Chisum] distributed to other Texas lawmakers an anti-evolution pamphlet written by some Georgia state legislator that linked to and made favorable mention of this website which claims that the sun revolves around the earth. The site is definitely good for a few laughs. When he was confronted by the the media about it and some of the anti-Semitic comments on it, Chisum backed down and claimed that he had not visited the website when he distributed the pamphlet and apologized.Yes. And this is an outstanding example of why we should be fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the government to interfere in our daily lives: Because such power means in practice that we can easily end up taking orders from the likes of Warren Chisum (or worse).
THIS is the fellow who wants to butt into everybody's marriage - in a state which happens to contain some of the largest and most successful metropolitan areas in the country.
Urbanism and Local Politics
Dismuke also had some interesting things to say on urbanism and local politics that I hadn't thought of when I replied to a comment by Vigilis on the subject. Dismuke's comments start here.
Galileo makes a very interesting point in his latest post, in which he writes about government regulators who mandate the use of new technologies that are in the process of becoming new industry standards anyway.
The regulator claims credit for a product she did not invent, one which private automobile manufacturers were going to implement anyway. The regulator stole the spotlight from the engineers and automobile executives who, acting out of self-interest, were making their product better by making it safer.I would add that this also makes it impossible for some who do not want a given feature to avoid it. (GB talks about automobile safety features, for example. His discussion reminds me, incidentally, of this interesting take on some of these.)
In addition, while I am not completely up to speed on whether the incandescent bulb is in the process of being "naturally" (largely) replaced by newer, more energy-efficient alternatives, the recent proposals to ban incandescents in California and Australia strike me as possible other examples of regulatory braggadocio, but with the added element of "package-dealing" a pet moral crusade to the new technology. In other words, we are seeing the government not merely stealing credit for a new invention and ramming it down our throats -- but also using said invention for the purpose of spreading propaganda the inventor may not agree with at all.
Today: Minor edits.