Developing Intuition

My actual poker game is nowhere near the point at which this book will do me any good, but I have been reading Randy Burgess's The Ultimate Guide to Poker Tells off and on anyway. I have found his treatment of the subject far better than I expected it to be. But then people can be surprisingly rational when the prospect of making money enters the equation.

I recently started a chapter called "Become a Poker Psychic", which outlines four basic objectives at the start, one of them being to help the reader learn "to develop and trust [his] intuition". It is on this subject that the book, far from veering into superstition as some might expect, sounds like it has a good point. Burgess himself introduces the subject in this way:

We use intuition every day of our lives, whether we're conscious of it or not. When we label it as such, it sounds mysterious, but of course it's not mysterious at all, rather a basic function of the human mind.

Burgess is, of course, a poker player, not a psychologist. So he draws on others at this point. Specifically, he cites a book titled Reading People by Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, who helped select the jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson. Here is her definition.

What we call intuition is nearly always the surfacing of a submerged memory, a barely noticed event, or some combination of the two. That "feeling" doesn't come to us over the cosmic ether, but drifts up from our own subconscious. This means that all we have to do to greatly improve our intuitive abilities is to find new ways to gather information, store it, and retrieve it from our subconscious.

I think that this is almost in register with my own thoughts on the matter. However, I think the term "feeling", while it accurately describes the experience, is somewhat ambiguous here. I would say that intuition has evaluative/emotional aspects and a component of dim awareness of information not quite fully in focus.

In any event, Burgess quickly goes on to sketch out Dimitrius' three-step process of improving one's intuition (briefly: recognize intuition, figure out what it is telling you, go through the evidence later) .

So far, this all sounds reasonable, but it barely even begins to scratch the surface of what Dimitrius had to say. I am curious now about Dimitrius' book. Has anyone here read this and if so, what did you think?

-- CAV

From the Mailbag

I lost so much time proving to myself that our Dell laptop suffered a hard disk crash last night that I didn't get to as much of my email as I usually do this morning. As it turns out, there was so much good stuff there that when I did get to it at lunch, I realized that I could piece together a very nice roundup in very short order.

An Inconvenient Truth ...

... about math instruction. A friend who teaches math tipped me off to this one.

I've seen only the first few minutes of this so far, but ... I think you can trust me on this one. (HT: Michael Gold)

Update: Actually, the examples here and the criticism leveled against elementary math instruction are both even worse than I imagined possible. Ms. McDermott ends by noting such qualities (in the context of mathematics) of today's high school graduates as "inability to work alone", "heavy reliance on calculators", and "inability to think logically". So: Don't trust me. Watch it post haste and tell everyone you can about this.

Paper "Sculpture"

I am not sure this would qualify as origami, but it is still amazing what one pair of creative hands can make from one sheet of paper!


Follow the link for lots more. (HT: Adrian Hester)

Undiluted Marxism

Bill Spears emailed me a link to an entire blog -- by the author of Dissecting Leftism -- devoted to giving the public easy access to some of the more vicious quotations from Karl Marx and his early followers.

"Dictatorship is rule based directly on force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained through the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws." - V. I. Lenin (Stephan Courtois, "Conclusion," in The Black Book of Communism, ed. Stephane Courtois [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999], p741)

I appreciate the fact that he lists the source of each quotation.

Two Bloggers at "Capitalist Paradise" Site

The Inspector writes me to the effect that he has resumed blogging, but now calls his blog Night Watchman rather than Intellectual Watchman, and has recommended another blog there, Kriegsgefahrzustand: "He's a man of fewer words, but oh boy is he on the ball in terms of the latest news."

So stop by there and smell the fresh air. From the looks of his new banner, it would seem that in addition to changing his blog's name, the Inspector has passed a clean air ordinance! (Couldn't resist that one!)

In the future, look for both blogs in the sidebar.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added comment to math video.

Outdoor Monuments in the NYT

Dianne Durante's Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan: A Historical Guide has been favorably reviewed by the New York Times. You'll want to search "Outdoor Monuments" to bypass the more extensive review of the autobiography of one Nicky Barnes, a 74-year-old former dope peddler, to get to it, though.

Her guidebook is a perfect walking-tour accompaniment to help New Yorkers and visitors find, identify and better appreciate statues famous and obscure (honoring, among others, the "father of gynecology" and the general who had an unremarkable military and business career but composed taps, the bugle call).

If the above link to the review does not work, Dr. Durante quotes it in its entirety (and is offering to email copies of the scanned page to interested readers) at her blog, Forgotten Delights, which you can now reach through a link in my sidebar.

Based on her articles in The Objective Standard, I would say that it's a safe bet that the book will be well worth it -- even if you never step foot in New York. (Here are a few opening paragraphs from each of the TOS articles, "Getting More Enjoyment from Art You Love" and the fascinating "19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy".) From the first of these:

Favorite artworks play a very special role in our lives. They provide us with enjoyment and inspiration. They help us to recall important events of the past and to project our course of action in the future. They help us to relax when the time is right and to exert ourselves when appropriate. Art, in short, helps us to live and makes life more enjoyable -- which is why we value our favorite works as we do.

Given the vital role of art in our lives, it is worth asking: Are we getting the most from the art we love? Are we extracting all the pleasure we can from these wonderful works? Or are we missing something -- perhaps something crucial -- that would make them even more meaningful, more powerful, more life-serving? There is usually much more to a work of art than one can glean in a passive viewing, listening, or reading. To get the most out of a work of art, we must approach it with an active mind. In the case of a work of visual art, such as sculpture or painting, we must study its details, ask the right questions, and identify its meaning or theme. Heightened awareness gives rise to heightened enjoyment -- and the reward is well worth the effort.

The best advice I can give to those unfamiliar with the TOS articles is to subscribe.

A very close second would be to visit the blog of Forgotten Delights, where the author offers some of her insights about and presents interesting facts pertaining to the sculptures she reviews in the book. For example, in reading her entry on a statue of William Shakespeare, one learns the following:

"About the Subject" reviews New Yorkers' attitudes toward Shakespeare through the 19th century. Did you know that in 1849 twenty-two people were killed at Astor Place in riots over a certain actor's portrayal of Macbeth?

I applaud the Times for its positive review, but its apparent sense of priorities has me scratching my head -- and wanting to crack wise about whether Nicky Barnes really has stopped dealing drugs and whether the staff of the Times are customers. But I'll stop now. Instead, I'll take the page layout as an unintentional demonstration of why we so urgently need the emotional fuel of good art in this day and age. Just look at what the dominant culture would have us thinking about instead!

-- CAV

PS: I originally learned of the favorable review through HBL.

Updates

Today: Added hyperlink for book. This leads to a paperback edition, but from that page, the hardcover edition is also available.

Quick Roundup 146

Story on Alternative Minimum Tax

According to today's Houston Chronicle, one million Texans will fall prey to the Nixon-era income tax "gotcha" known as the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). First of all, that number is really staggering when one considers that the state's total population -- including children and others who will not pay taxes at all -- is about 25 million.

And then there's the following little jewel of a double standard hidden between the lines of the story:

"Taxpayers subjected to this treatment may wonder whether their government has dealt fairly with them," Nina Olson, the national taxpayer advocate at the Internal Revenue Service, said in her 2006 report to Congress. "To say the least, 'gotcha' taxation is not good for taxpayers or the tax system." [bold added]

This law discriminating against the wealthy has been on the books since Nixon and we're just now becoming concerned about it? Oh yeah. That's because the unspoken assumption is that it's perfectly "fair" to soak the rich.

It's a toss-up which part of the rest of this article is more disturbing to me: (1) that the Democrats are going to try to "fix" the AMT or (2) that at least until it has been fixed, it is an excruciating process to figure out for yourself whether you might get sucked into it.

The Blasphemy Challenge

I haven't looked into this much, but it was amusing to see John Kasich of Fox News get his panties into a wad during an interview with Brian Flemming of The Blasphemy Challenge.

Flemming sounds good enough in the interview and I will say that his site treats religion with the degree of respect it deserves, based on how it is transmitted to the young. (HT: David Veksler)

What's Left?

And speaking of religion, there is an interesting post at the Belmont Club about a book that looks worthwhile, Nick Cohen's What's Left?, whose chief strength, according to Wretchard, "lies in its portrayal of life in the Left itself". (Wretchard also calls the Left "possibly Europe's only indigenous world religion".)

He then cites the following passage:

In the early Seventies, my mother searched the supermarkets for politically reputable citrus fruit. She couldn't buy Seville oranges without indirectly subsidising General Francisco Franco, Spain's fascist dictator. Algarve oranges were no good either, because the slightly less gruesome but equally right-wing dictatorship of Antonio Salazar ruled Portugal. She boycotted the piles of Outspan from South Africa as a protest against apartheid, and although neither America nor Israel was a dictatorship, she wouldn't have Florida or Jaffa oranges in the house because she had no time for then President Richard Nixon or the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. ...

Thirty years later, I picked up my mother from my sister Natalie's house. Her children were watching a Disney film; The Jungle Book, I think. 'It's funny, Mum,' I said as we drove home, 'but I don't remember seeing any Disney when I was their age.' 'You've only just noticed? We didn't let you watch rubbish from Hollywood corporations.' ...

I come from a land where you can sell out by buying a comic. I come from the left. ...

I still remember the sense of dislocation I felt at 13 when my English teacher told me he voted Conservative. As his announcement coincided with the shock of puberty, I was unlikely to forget it. I must have understood at some level that real Conservatives lived in Britain - there was a Conservative government at the time, so logic dictated that there had to be Conservative voters. But it was incredible to learn that my teacher was one of them, when he gave every appearance of being a thoughtful and kind man. [bold added]

The moral strictures of Islam, to which so many leftists convert, must at once seem remarkably straightforward (coming from a book) and feel remarkably at home (considering that, being essentially arbitrary, they have no bearing on keeping oneself alive) to people who grew up like this.

Transcript of "Understanding Objectivism"?

I don't think I have, but if I have blogged this before, it bears blogging again. I like Software Nerd's idea of creating a transcript of the "Understanding Objectivism" course.

Alexander Marriott's New Book

Alexander Marriott is still kicking. "Contrary to reports, rumors of my blogging demise were premature. I have put together a new book of (mainly) historical essays covering a wide range of topics." He includes a Table of Contents at his blog. He is also working on a piece about reaction to Saddam Hussein's execution.

Eminent Domain Debate at The Objective Standard

Craig Biddle via email:

The audio of a remarkable debate, Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish, between Jeffrey A. Finkle and Yaron Brook, is now available at the website of TOS. The audio is free and accessible to all. Click here to listen now. [This is the permalink. --ed]

Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish

Jeffrey A. Finkle vs. Yaron Brook

The Issues: In the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some legislators are moving to place limits on the government's power to seize citizens' property for use by private enterprises. Is it appropriate under certain circumstances for the government to use eminent domain for the purpose of transferring a citizen's property to a private business -- or is this practice wrong in principle? Moreover, while the government is constitutionally authorized to take citizens' property for "public use," the question remains: Is this policy moral -- and is it practical?

Does the government have a moral right to take citizens' property under certain conditions -- or do citizens have an absolute right to their personal property? Does robust economic development require the occasional use of eminent domain -- or would economic progress be greater if property rights were upheld as truly inalienable? What are the moral issues involved in eminent domain? What are the practical issues? Are the moral and the practical necessarily at odds -- or can they be reconciled? Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will present the facts in support of their respective positions.

The Debaters: Mr. Finkle became the president and CEO of the International Economic Development Council in August 2001, following IEDC's birth through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. During that time, he oversaw the vast expansion of that organization's membership and influence, as well as strengthening its financial footing. Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel) and Closing Bell and On the Money (CNBC).

Enjoy!

-- CAV

Updates


1-31-2007: (1) Added hyperlink for What's Left?. (2) Added permalink to debate. (HT: Andy)

Chinese Militarization of Space

On the heels of last week's news reports (HT: Resident Egoist) that China successfully attacked and destroyed a satellite in outer space comes a warning of a possible "Space Pearl Harbor" in FrontPage Magazine. China hopes to achieve the capability of attacking American interests in space by the same means the Moslems are waging war against the United States now: By acting in a threatening manner and then telling our weak-willed leaders what they want to hear, namely that it's time to hold "talks".

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is right on the money in his detailed discussion of this topic.

Breaking nearly two weeks of silence, Communist China has now confirmed that it did indeed successfully attack and destroy an aging weather satellite more than 500 miles above the earth. As U.S. intelligence revealed last week, the destructive intercept was performed by a kinetic-kill vehicle (KKV) launched onboard a medium-range ballistic missile.

In making this acknowledgement, however, the Foreign Minister preposterously declared that "the test was not targeted against any country and does not pose a threat to any country." [Such a capability in the hands of a dictatorship is, by its nature, a threat to any civilized nation. --ed] The mendacity of this statement is as transparent as Beijing's military activities in the area of space control and power projection, which are cloaked in secrecy: Communist China intends to be able to deny the United States the ability to utilize outer space for vital national security, and perhaps even economic purposes.

The sudden, indisputable nature of this insight has precipitated confusion bordering on panic in Washington and other allied capitals. One predictable reaction has been to encourage a renewed push by so-called "arms-control" advocates to prohibit the "militarization of space." According to the New York Times, such an outcome was intended by Beijing. It cites Xu Guangyu, a former Chinese Army officer and an official at the government-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association: "What China is saying is, 'Let's sit down and talk.' There is a trend toward weaponization of space that no one, especially China, wants to see."

Were the United States to fall for this gambit, it would face the worst of both worlds -- at least two adversaries (Russia and China) known to have demonstrated ASAT capabilities and a wholly unverifiable prohibition on such weapons, one whose practical effect would be only to foreclose to this country (and others who adhere to their treaty obligations) capabilities essential to space control. [some bold added]

Read it all and remember this: If our leaders fail to act, as they almost certainly will, and China makes good on this threat, it will not be new-fangled technology that "left us open to attack", but old-fashioned cowardice.

The only valid premise of negotiations between governments is that both are civilized (i.e., respect individual rights). To engage in talks with an armed adversary so blatantly interested in being able to make credible threats is to engage in wishful thinking and to open oneself up to an all but inevitable betrayal.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 145

Unwanted Integration

Now that I've moved my blogging account to the new version of Blogger, which is owned by Google, I am seeing some unwanted "talking" between my Blogger account and my Gmail account when people leave comments.

Previously, I'd get an email in my inbox when someone wanted to leave a comment. After I decided whether to post it, I had a filter set up so that the posted comments would land in a separate folder. I would then delete the comment notices after I knew the comments themselves were posted. I kept the comments in the folder for future reference.

Now that I'm on New Blogger, Gmail apparently "recognizes" the stuff from Blogger now and is stringing all this together into "conversations", which is great for email correspondence, but pretty well knackers the system I'd set up for comment tracking. But for this minor inconvenience, I am very happy with New Blogger.

Chinese Year of the "Prophet" Approaches

This may be old news to some of you, but China has apparently decided to subordinate its ancient tradition of naming successive years after signs of its zodiac to the "sensibilities" of its Moslem citizens.

According to the Chinese edition of the Asia Wall Street Journal, [state-owned] CCTV issued a notice to all advertising agencies on Jan 23 that "China is a multi-ethnic country... in order to show respect to the Muslims, as instructed by the respective government unit, that CCTV will not air any ads containing images of the pig throughout 2007. This measures also applies to ads related to the Chinese New Year."

Images of the pig to be banned includes photographs, cartoons, paper cutting silhouettes, and even "Happy Year of the Pig" slogans.

In celebration of the upcoming Year of the Pig (or should that be, "The Year of the Prophet"?), I present the image of my blog's mascot at right.

This cartoon is amazing! It not only summarizes perfectly the "position", as it were, taken by the Chinese government, it also accords to Islamofascism exactly the degree of "respect" it deserves!

It is bad enough that the Chinese government does not respect the right of its citizens to freedom of speech, but for it to force its citizens into dhimmitude strikes me as a new low! (HT: Resident Egoist (story), Zombietime (image))

Counting Corpses in the LA Times

Via Arts and Letters Daily, I have learned of an atrocious article in the Los Angeles Times by one Professor David A. Bell, of Johns Hopkins University, in which he asks -- seriously -- whether we have "overreacted" to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam -- a religion held in great esteem by our "strategic partners", the Red Chinese -- on September 11, 2001.

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism. [minor format changes, my bold]

One wonders what this educated moron would say if he were victimized in some crime and the police refused to do anything about it on the grounds that it didn't hold a candle to some similar crime. "Sorry, Professor, but you only got a bloody nose and lost twenty dollars in cash. Last week, some eighty-year-old landed in the hospital and lost a bag with ten grand and a bunch of old coins. We arrested his mugger, but since nothing really happened to you by comparison, we're going to hand it over to Statistics and call it a day. To make an arrest in your situation would be to overreact."

Would Professor Bell not become indignant, not to mention worried that he might be in greater danger of similar crimes in the future thanks to this inaction? The purpose of our government is to protect individual rights, not to wait for us to get seriously-enough injured or for some minimal number of us get slaughtered before doing something about an injury or a threat. This applies equally well to foreign threats as it does to domestic ones.

We have, in fact, reacted inappropriately to the atrocities that Professor Bell dares to trivialize, but not in the way he claims. Less digging of toilets in the desert and more bombs would be appropriate, for starters. For more on what the proper response would look like, go here.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected typo and made clarification to last section.

Migration to New Blogger

As I noted in my last post today, I have finally migrated to the new version of Blogger. The transition seems to have been almost glitch-free except for one strange detail: For about the first 30 minutes or so, Google Ads no longer displayed properly in my sidebar on Firefox. Supposedly, Safari and Konqueror use the same rendering engines, so Apple users probably do see what they should. I am in the dark about the various flavors of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which I do not use, except sometimes at work.

I see no good reason for there to have been such a problem in the first place, so its sudden disappearance, while welcome, is not exactly reassuring! If anyone has trouble seeing this blog properly, please email me or leave a comment.

Since I was fooling with such things, I will list a few other changes I have made today or will make soon.

(1) New Contact Info

Returning to email for a moment, I changed the main email for my blogging recently. I attempted to notify my regular correspondents of this change, but I saw today that I missed at least one person. I am still using the old address at myway.com as a backup, so if you do not know the new address, drop me a line there.

I have also revised my contact information, for those of you who do not know my email address and wish to reach me.

(2) Automatic Backlinks (Experimental)

I am testing Blogger's "links to this post" feature. Now, if someone comments on one of my posts at his own blog, it should be possible to find out by clicking on "Backlinks" at the bottom of the post. This is basically the same functionality as "Trackback", but it is automatic.

This may also work only for other Blogspot blogs, so I will leave the Trackback feature in place for now. So far, I just want to see whether this feature works as advertised. I am undecided on whether I will keep it over the long haul.

There does seem to be a minor glitch: If you click on the word "backlinks" at the bottom of a post, you are taken to that post's page, but not to the location of the list of backlinks itself. (This should work analogously to clicking on "comments".) I do not know why this is so and welcome any hints.

(3) Blogroll Revisions

Aside from adding a photography and commentary blog, Allen's Image Adjustment, to the "Recently Added" section, I have cleaned up the blogroll. Notable changes:

• Since Myron has moved to a new blog, I have replaced Myron's Mind Meanderings with Myron's Random Thoughts.
• Likewise with Bruno. If you liked The Simplest Thing, start visiting Uncompromising Individualist.
  
• Although Paul Hsieh does not blog about Objectivism at Geek Press, I've moved him from the "Entertainers" section to "Fellow Travelers".
• The following have been moved from "Recently Added": AbbaGav and George Reisman's Blog (to "Other Friends"); The American Individualist, Bahr's House of Exuberance, Carl Svanberg, Dollars and Crosses, Noumenal Self, Objectively Speaking, Principles in Practice, Student of Objectivism, Words by Woods, and When Facing Darkness... (to "Fellow Travelers"); and finally, Benjo Blog and Oak Tree now live with the other "Retirees".

(4) New Site Feeds

If you prefer to use a feed reader to follow this blog, the migration to New Blogger changed the default site feed. You can find the new URL under "Site Feeds" in the side bar.

Also, this blog now has a comment feed.

(5) Coming Soon: New FAQ

I will probably also create a revised FAQ soon. If there's something you've wanted to know about me or my blog, now's the time to ask!

(6) In Closing

Most aspects of using New Blogger are faster or less painful (or both!) than they used to be, with the exception of the template HTML editor, which I am stuck using because I like this blog's template. That is still nasty and thus it is quite possible I have lost a link or two during the blogroll changes. If you stop by and don't see your blog listed, let me know and I'll be happy to rectify the error.

Overall, I am very pleased with New Blogger. In particular, spell checking, post publication, and the implementation of changes to the template are vastly improved. I really look forward to spending more time blogging and less time watching "progress" counters on my browser!

Yippee!

-- CAV

Yes. The GOP is this bad.

This is my first post after converting this blog to the new version of Blogger. That process is mid-stream, so you may notice glitches in the appearance of this page. When I finish or reach a stopping point with that, I will post again, to that effect.

From time to time, I have heard fellow Objectivists say that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Often, the implied sense is that it is the Republicans, because they hold themselves out as the "party of small government", who can most easily get away with expanding the welfare state. A Republican state senator from North Carolina demonstrates that fact today by calling for state censorship of films made with government "incentives" in North Carolina!

Citing the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning film Hounddog, the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.

That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted. [bold added]

The incentive in question is a tax credit that enjoyed bipartisan support before it was signed into law in 2006 by Democratic governor Mike Easley. It is touted by the North Carolina Film Council, a state agency that is supposed to promote the production of movies in the state through a "partnership" between private industry and government.

But as in any "partnership" where one side wields force, it is the side with the guns that will win any argument that comes up, as we see here. When the operating premise behind North Carolina's film "incentive" is that the tax money confiscated in the first place from the film producers is the government's to keep or give back, then it is only a matter of time before the government will decide that strings might need to be attached.

This is what we are seeing when Phil Berger -- a Republican -- calls for submission to government censors before a film can receive this "incentive". Notice that he does this even though the state isn't even actually funding the production! And notice further that he does this in a way a Democrat could not. Although he accepts the premise that the tax revenue belongs to the government (like any Democrat), he dresses his call for censorship in small-government clothing, by alleging that receipt of such an incentive is the same as forcing his constituents to fund something they do not like!

If Phil Berger were not such a huge fan of the welfare state, he would point out that these incentives are at best a baby step in the right direction, which would be the complete abolishment of involuntary taxation. He would also acknowledge that the government not only should not take property, it should not dictate its use by private parties. The film industry should neither be taxed nor should it be subject to government scrutiny of its productions as a matter of routine.

Berger could have taken this controversy as an opportunity to note that if there were no government interference (via taxation) in the film industry, there would be no question of whether the public is being made to fund something it does not approve of. Instead of making this principled stand, he does just the opposite: He uses the one form of government interference (taxation) as an excuse to call for another (censorship).

Berger ignores the fact that taxation as such is a violation of property rights while treating taxation of industry by the government as if it were a right. In doing so, he notices that the government will presumably make up for any shortfall in revenue by taxing ordinary citizens more. This, he equates with the government confiscating their money to fund activities they find objectionable. He is worse than partly right. The government shouldn't be taking anybody's money.

If Mr. Berger really were so concerned about ordinary citizens having their money stolen from them to pay for others to say things they may not like, his time and energy would be far better spent in abolishing public education, which accounts for a far larger part of the public tax burden than this tax abatement program and is far guiltier of forcing people to fund ideas which they find offensive. He would also support a truly free film industry in his state as I have already noted. This last would be a far better "incentive" than the small break from government looting his state trumpets so loudly now.

But State Senator Berger is not concerned with the economic or personal freedom of his constituents. Instead, like so many other conservatives, he has accepted the notion that we should have a conservative welfare state rather than abolishing the welfare state altogether. Unsurprisingly for a member of the political party that supports censorship of "obscenity" (which is already part of this "incentive") and works nonstop to bring about more intrusion of religion into our government, Berger is taking the opportunity to subject films made in North Carolina to higher taxes if they do not meet with government approval.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 144

Why Limit Ourselves to Iraq?

Our military has finally been authorized to kill or capture the Iranian operatives inside Iraq who have been waging war against our troops for some time now.

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive [sic] new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go. [my bold]

If Congress were sincere about its contention that Bush is not waging this war properly, it would correct Bush's myopia in this matter by declaring war on Iran.

And as for using kid gloves to avoid "escalating tensions" with the followers of a suicide cult, have we learned nothing from the atrocities of September 11, 2001? I guess that one answers itself.

Take the Poll

I'm feeling clever about the poll at the end of my last post. That's one question that won't answer itself, so click a button!

Stroke of Luck?

Sometimes, we learn important things about how the brain works when patients suffer brain damage. I haven't looked into this beyond the newspaper, but it appears that this has happened again in the case of a smoker who suffered a stroke that damaged part of his brain -- and left him unaddicted to nicotine.

"Cultural Coach" Mostly Right

When I first encountered Linda Wallace's column, which, although I do not follow it closely, I generally like, I was turned off by its title. "Cultural Coach" sounded like it might turn out to be some kind of politically-correct harangue. Instead, I have found it to be a thoughtful treatment of many of the very areas of etiquette that have been perverted by the multicultural movement (such as how to interact with people of different backgrounds from one's own).

In today's column, she discusses why people should make a genuine effort to pronounce foreign names correctly. Her point is good, but I have a problem with one of her examples.

Recently, I entered a Memphis coffee shop with a dashiki-wearing friend whose dreadlocks hang down his back. Twenty years ago, he legally changed his name to Ajanaku, which is a Nigerian name that he has defined to mean "free and wealthy people." After the drink had been prepared, the clerk called this unusual name, stumbling again and again over the pronunciation. My colleague smiled kindly and said the name slowly for her. He never passes up an opportunity to teach. The grateful clerk promised that, next time, she would get it right.

When he returned the next day, the same clerk was behind the counter. This time, her pronunciation nearly hit the mark. A dozen patrons were witness to this cultural advancement, since my friend publicly praised the clerk's resolve to provide competent and compassionate service.

Later, when I asked him about the incident, he said people frequently mispronounce his name, and often they will try to give him a nickname to make it easy on them. This practice makes him feel invisible and unappreciated. [bold added]

Her larger point is good, but Ajanaku shouldn't get off completely scott-free. He did, after all, open himself up to feeling "invisible and unappreciated" by choosing a name he knew most people would have a hard time with. (And he also raises the question from his having done so of what it is about Western culture -- my culture -- he apparently rejects or disapproves of.) This isn't quite the same thing as having an unusual name from birth.

-- CAV

Self-Assertion-Free Oil

Via Matt Drudge, I see that a service station called "Terror-Free Oil" is getting ready to open. The idea behind the business is that we should boycott oil from countries that sponsor terrorism as a means of promoting our own national security.

A moment's thought shows that this boycott is an entirely inappropriate way to deal with nations guilty of the act of war that is known as "sponsoring terrorism": The boycotted nations will just sell to other nations more desperate for oil or less worried about terrorism than we are.

I wrote a column about the very movement behind this development awhile back and elaborated upon this point at length:

[T]his boycott, if we carried it out, would completely backfire. The U.S. would no longer be able to avail itself of crude oil which, even at its current prices, is a bargain compared to the less-economical sources of energy we would have to use instead. This will harm our economy by increasing the cost of anything that requires energy. And although we will no longer be "funding terrorism" through the money we pay for oil, other countries, like China and India, will happily purchase Middle Eastern oil instead. This means that funding for terrorism will, at the very best, be slightly reduced without the demand of the United States to support high crude oil prices -- and that's only if OPEC fails to ensure prices it finds satisfactory.

In other words, we are being called upon to re-live the Carter Era with a twist: In addition to imposing government controls on the economy and wasting tax money on projects already declared profitless by the private sector, we would impose an "Arab Oil Embargo" on ourselves. [bold added]

The movement includes an organization called "Terror-Free Oil" and advocates government sponsorship of alternative fuels as a means of implementing this boycott.

Interestingly, a professor interviewed in the article makes a profound integration about this ultimately ineffective marketing ploy:

"From a business perspective, it's kind of a neat way to differentiate yourself from the competition. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what we in environmental economics refer to as eco-labeling. Like, when you purchase a can of tuna with a symbol that there was no harm to dolphins to catch the tuna," [Chris] Decker said. [my bold]

I completely agree, but from a psychological perspective. This is very much the same thing. In both cases, we see people attempting to substitute a sort of feel-good pseudo self-esteem -- obtained by performing a prescribed ritual -- for the genuine self-esteem (and actual selfish benefit) that would come from taking the time to consider what one's own self-interest actually requires and then doing it.

Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute outlines several more viable options at our disposal for dealing with terror-sponsoring states:

The solution is not to punish ourselves by renouncing oil--but to punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression.

As the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has many options at its disposal.

One means of ending the Iranian and Saudi threat would be to issue an ultimatum to these regimes: cease all anti-American aggression immediately, or be destroyed. Many, witnessing the Iraqi quagmire, might scoff at this option. But such a course is eminently practical if America's unsurpassed military forces are committed to the task, not of "rebuilding" or "liberating" these states, but of making their inhabitants fear threatening America ever again.

Another means of addressing the threat would be to remove Middle Eastern oil fields from Iranian and Saudi control, put them in the hands of private companies, and then employ surveillance and troops to secure that oil supply. Contrary to popular assumption, Middle Eastern dictatorships have no right to their nationalized oil fields, which should be private property--the property of individuals who work to find and extract the oil.

Still another option might be a comprehensive, all-out embargo by the United States and its allies to starve the leader of the enemy, Iran, until the regime crumbles and the Islamic totalitarians lose their will to fight. [bold added]

The title of his column -- which should be read in full -- summarizes this very well as follows: "Keep Our 'Addiction' to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion".

The only gas station I would boycott, were I a resident of Omaha, Nebraska, would be Terror-Free Oil -- because I am serious about ending state sponsorship of terrorism.

In closing, since the news article has a poll (which doesn't include "boycott" as a choice), I thought I would hold a poll of my own. (Scroll down.) Aside from this being a stupid idea, the name "Terror-Free Oil" is cumbersome. In addition to bringing up several viable alternatives to this worthless boycott, I have thought up a few names that not only do a better job of conveying the actual nature of Terror-Free Oil, but are a bit better on the ears. Choose the one you like best or suggest another in the comments!

-- CAV

Let's rename "Terror-Free Oil"!
	Dhimmico
	French Petroleum
	White Standard Oil
	Runoco
	Shill
	Something else. (Please leave a comment.)
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Quick Roundup 143

Fond of Founders

Nick Provenzo has just visited Founders College and likes what he sees.

Over the weekend I visited Berry Hill, the antebellum plantation which will serve as the future home for Founders College. I do not think enough has been said about just how tremendous a location this is for this school; it is simply a place without many equals in higher education today. I have visited most of great homes of Virginia in the past, and the Berry Hill manor house alone easily ranks among them, while the richness of larger grounds serve to amplify the beauty of the property in ways that are absolutely breathtaking. [redundant link dropped]

In a followup post in the near future, he plans to discuss how Founders plans to provide a solid education for its students, based on what he has learned from one of its newly-hired faculty members.

The State of the Sacrifice

Myrhaf has posted a lengthy critique of President Bush's recent State of the Union Address, something I had no desire to go through. No surprises there. This pretty much essentializes it:

On health care, [Bush] says, "When it comes to healthcare, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children and we will meet those responsibilities."

Now, how can Republicans be horrified by the Democrats' socialized medicine schemes but ignore this? If the government takes care of the elderly, the disabled and poor children, then the principle of free market health care is gone and the road is paved for socialized medicine. Once you expand the state to cover the weakest, then the next to weakest look like they deserve it too and sooner or later America's health care looks like Canada's. The Republicans will get us to Hillarycare, just not as fast as Hillary would have done it. [slight reformatting, my bold]

A commenter by the name of "Madmax" also adds the following astute appraisal of the Republicans' idea of warfare:

I got the impression that many Conservatives liked this SOTU because Bush refused to back down on Iraq. It really is a no-win [scenario] in that Conservatives cling to our current Iraq policy because they see [withdrawal] as a victory for the Dems. But Conservatives will not consider total war as a legitimate option (there might be some rare exceptions to this). There just is no awareness on the part of the Conservatives for an egoistic approach to war. So it looks like quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan are all we are going to get.

This would also, by the way, pretty well sum up what is wrong with Hugh Hewitt's grassroots effort (HT: Glenn Reynolds and Varifrank) to threaten withdrawal of support for any Republican who helps pass any, "resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged" [bold added].

What of the notion of criticizing this "surge" for the right reason, as I recently did?

In any war, including the one of which the conflict in Iraq is but a part, the two basic options are to fight or to surrender. In the context of Iraq, where we find ourselves now whether one agrees or disagrees we should have gone there in the first place, there are several viable options that would constitute continuing to fight the broader war -- even including a withdrawal from all or parts of Iraq premised on the notion that our forces could be better used elsewhere.

Were a group of Republican senators to object to the surge on similar grounds, would Hugh Hewitt withdraw his support from them? If one of the virtues of representative government is that it allows public debate over the best course of action, then Hugh Hewitt clearly fails to grasp or appreciate that fact.

As Alex Epstein recently put it,

One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq -- or to add 20,000 troops to that course -- is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.

...

One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.

Does Hewitt want to prevent someone from his own party stating this truth so plainly? If so, he has "learned the wrong lesson" on the war worse than I ever imagined any Republican could. At one point, I had supported the Republicans because I feared that a Democrat victory would cause them to think America favored surrender. That would be bad enough, but this is worse!

The Republicans lost in part because Bush's course is so flawed that unless it changes, it will prove worse than not fighting at all. (It will fail to defeat Islamofascism and it will discredit the idea of waging war in the process. For more on how we ought to fight, see John Lewis's comparison of this war with World War II.) The last thing we need to do is to discourage open debate among the Republicans over how we ought to fight this war!

Myrhaf also provides a good answer to another commenter who supports President Bush's foolish desire for the government to prop up the alternative fuels industry.

Speaking of which, ...

Alternative Fuels as Alternatives to Prosperity

Galileo goes into somewhat morbid detail about how government encouragement of the alternative fuel industry can harm the economy.

The "Canada of Operating Systems"

Isaac Schrodinger points to this unsurprising assessment of Microsoft Windows Vista, which includes the following gem: "Vista sound less like a 'wow moment' than a passable bore -- the Canada of operating systems."

I'd call Linux the "Israel of Operating Systems": Small (in terms of number of users and disk space requirements) and powerful -- but crippled by leftism.

Martin's Back

Martin Lindeskog has been blogging a bit more often lately, so do stop by to catch up if you haven't visited Ego in awhile. In his latest post, he announces the arrival of space tourism to Sweden.

-- CAV

A New World (Short-) Order!

Cripes! Now we're supposed to walk on eggshells with regard to the feelings of short-order cooks?

A leading restaurant association has called for the cancellation of a TV commercial featuring Britney Spears' estranged husband, Kevin Federline, as a failed rap star working in a fast-food eatery.

...

[T]he National Restaurant Association's Chief Executive Steven Anderson has written to Nationwide saying the ad leaves the impression that working in a restaurant is demeaning and unpleasant and asking the commercial to be dumped.

"An ad such as this would be a strong and a direct insult to the 12.8 million Americans who work in the restaurant industry," wrote Anderson, head of the association that represents 935,000 U.S. restaurants. "Developing creative concepts that accomplish the marketing strategies for a product should not require denigrating another industry." [bold added]

Earth to Mr. Anderson: Most of those jobs are demeaning and unpleasant, which is why most of them are held by kids until they complete their educations and move on to something else. When I was young, I did my time in the fast food industry and it was in no small part the knowledge that I would be moving on fairly quickly that made the monotonous, grimy, low-paying, dead-end work bearable. And no, I would not have felt "insulted" by the Kevin Federline ad. In fact, I would have laughed about it.

There is nothing wrong with working in fast food. It is honest work. But since most such jobs below management require so little mental effort, they are, by nature, more of an introduction to employment or maybe a stopgap measure than an actual career. This is why the idea of a commercial showing a failed rapper there is funny: Barring horrendous misfortune, choice, or some very unusual circumstance, the only way an adult his age will end up working such a job is through a comical degree of foolishness.

There is a difference between taking a crappy job while you're paying your dues and taking a crappy job because you didn't. I would dare say that the vast majority of fast-food workers are bright enough to realize this. Steven Anderson should try giving them a little more credit.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 142

Al Gore (Predictably) Chickens Out

Be sure to read all about (via HBL) the Jyllands-Posten (Yes. That Danish newspaper.) interview of Al Gore by "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg that never happened. Not only does this speak volumes about Gore, but the article brings up hard questions about some of his outrageous claims and goals.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20? [bold added]

Perhaps Heidi "Lysenko" Cullen would be willing to help Al Gore "get the facts out" about global warming by honoring her recent invitation to global warming skeptics to appear on her television show.

She should start by hosting this interview, no holds barred. She could even get a longer time slot for the interview and -- since she is obviously so concerned about making a buck off global warming -- she could have her studio done up with chain-link fencing, allowing her to bill the extravaganza as a cage match between Al Gore and Bjorn Lomborg.

Somehow, I doubt even that much will happen.

Businesses Less Brave than Gore

Galileo blogged yesterday about corporate capitulation to global warming hysteria.

[T]he automobile manufacturers favor controls on the utilities and oil companies, and the oil companies favor controls on the automobile manufacturers and utilities. The utilities just want to make sure all sectors of the economy face controls, so that their industry is not singled out.

Here is a blatant example of how the imposition of government force in the economy has far-reaching and very undesirable effects. In fact, it would be in the best interests of all of these companies to unite against global warming legislation. But since the government can regulate any of them basically at will, it is easy for the advocates of global warming hysteria to break their ranks. It's a simple case of arguments versus threats.

"Democracy" in Mississippi

My socially-conservative home state has just made California look like a bastion of capitalism by successfully threatening the insurance industry with lawsuits and criminal investigations unless they covered flooding damage that was not included in policies of homes destroyed by the storm surge of Hurricane Katrina along its coast in 2005.

For State Farm, the nation's largest home insurer and the biggest in Mississippi, the settlement allows for "a just, speedy and efficient resolution," as a spokesman, Phil Supple, put it.

It would also remove a major public relations headache. While State Farm and the other insurers may have had some strong legal arguments, they have been widely perceived as uncaring. In many cases, residents whose houses were reduced to concrete slab foundations received just a few thousand dollars in payments. Some received nothing.

Under the settlement, 300 homeowners who lost everything will receive their full insurance coverage. Mississippi officials said 1,000 others would receive at least half, with the opportunity to negotiate for more.

...

State Farm got a vivid picture of the hostility toward it in the first jury trial a little more than a week ago. [U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter Jr.] abruptly declared that State Farm had failed to prove its case and the jury quickly came back with a decision requiring it pay $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple in Biloxi who lost everything in the storm. The judge also awarded the couple the full value of their insurance policy -- $223,000. State Farm had maintained it owed them nothing. [bold added]

The whole state seems to have rejected a long-term sine qua non for its eventual recovery, rule of law, in favor of the short-range expedient of rifling the assets of a large corporation. The sentence in bold says it all: The populace there is overwhelmingly unable to appreciate the importance of rule of law, so public whim trumped the fact that agreements had been made between consenting parties.

On top of this, the kind of devastation unleashed by Katrina was hardly unprecedented. Camille did much the same thing with its storm surge in 1969. Why did anybody in this lawsuit not hold policies that covered flood damage? And if such policies weren't available, why did these people build on that coast? And why should anyone else assume their risk? In short, why should State Farm (or anyone else who has money) "care" about people whom nobody forced to build on the Gulf Coast?

Until more people ask questions like these more often, anyone with money is subject to be robbed of it for the sake of those who do not have it, even if through their own fault.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Corrected two typos and added some clarifications to Katrina section. (2) Added hyperlink and HT to story on Al Gore.

Lynching the First

The mayor of a small town in the Houston area has decided that protecting freedom of speech is less important than making sure nobody is offended when the word "nigger" is uttered in a certain tone and in a certain context.

Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley wants offensive use of the "n-word" to be punishable by a fine of up to $500 in his town.

"It's not a particular problem in Brazoria," Corley said, "but it's a national problem."

Corley said he got the idea while watching two black ministers talking on television about how offensive that word is. "I just think it would be great if this little town of Brazoria, with 2,800 people, leads the way in fighting against this offensive language," said Corley.

He said if the ordinance passes, he may ask for it to be expanded to include other racial slurs.

He believes Brazoria would be the first place in the country where the racial slur would be outlawed. But at least one legal expert said Monday that such an ordinance may not stand up in court.

The ordinance wouldn't forbid anyone from saying the word, Corley said, but would outlaw using the word in an offensive or aggressive manner. Violators would be charged with disturbing the peace, he said.

"It would be up to somebody who was offended to file a complaint, like any other disturbance complaint," he said.

The person charged would appear before a municipal judge and be liable for a fine of up to $500, he said.

The mayor, who is white, seems so busy pandering that he has forgotten entirely about the existence of individual rights and the First Amendment, not to mention how such a ban could spread like a cancer once it is passed and applied to other, similar words.

Fortunately, one of Brazoria's poor, defenseless black inhabitants does have the sense to grasp these issues.

As for people who use the racial slur, [the Rev. Melvin] Johnson, who is black and a lifelong resident of Brazoria said, "they have a constitutional right to be stupid."

He said the proposal singles out the actions of one racial group (whites) against another racial group (blacks). He said he's drawn up a list of at least 40 different words that are offensive to African-Americans. "There are words that are offensive to Hispanics, Asians and whites as well," he said. [bold added]

As an aside, note that Johnson shows the appropriate emotional reaction -- somewhere between mild annoyance and contempt -- for someone who uses racial epithets to insult others.

The article notes that the ordinance would not likely stand up in court if passed, and that, "the use of offensive language is protected by the First Amendment. The only possible exception ... [being] if the use of the language is connected with a hate crime." [my bold]

The article, unfortunately and entirely by accident, shows the real problem by failing to treat the existence of the hate crimes legislation already on the books as anything out of the ordinary.

As I have discussed in detail before, hate crimes legislation is wrong because it results in prosecuting certain crimes more vigorously than others, based on the beliefs of the criminal.

Punishing someone for his beliefs in addition to his actual crime is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what the government should be doing. For example, if someone gets ten years for a crime and has two more added on because he is "guilty" of a "hate crime," he's being jailed two years for his ideas by the government.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in our Constitution because government regulation of speech would prevent the open exchange of ideas. But if we criminalize ideas themselves, the guarantee of freedom of speech becomes meaningless. The American Revolution was fought not primarily with the sword, but with the pen. The writings of such men as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were instrumental in providing the theoretical framework for our form of government as well as convincing others to fight off tyranny. Our life, liberty, and happiness were won through, and depend upon, a free, open exchange of ideas.

As one self-described "secular conservative" pundit might put it: The good news is that we probably are not yet about to see individual words being banned; the bad news is that some beliefs are already punishable by law under certain circumstances.

So this silly scheme of Brazoria's will probably fail -- this time. But until the larger debate is moved from how to use the law to criminalize thought to how to use it to protect rights again, there really is no good news.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 141

Businesses Jump onto Green Bandwagon Hearse

In a prime example of why pragmatism (the notion that there are no principles to guide action other than doing what "works" at the moment) is impractical, businesses are jumping onto the global warming bandwagon. From The Economist comes the following almost unbearable reading.

For a country that is often cast as evil incarnate when it comes to the environment, America has amassed an impressive array of green credentials of late. Even the National Football League plans to offset the greenhouse gases generated by this year's Super Bowl in February. The day before George Bush was due to use the state-of-the-union message to unveil his latest environmental measures, some of America's biggest firms made their move. On Monday January 22nd, ten big corporations, including General Electric, Alcoa, DuPont and Duke Energy, in cahoots with leading environmental groups, called for measures to combat global warming. [bold added]

This is happening at the state level, too. Via HBL comes this story on businesses kowtowing to a dictatorial green measure enacted by Governor Schwartzenkennedy:

[R.E.] Zalesky and other business executives from electric utilities, alternative fuel developers and even a San Francisco taxi cooperative applauded Schwarzenegger as he signed an executive order to make California the first government in the world to set a comprehensive standard for regulating the amount of carbon dioxide in transportation fuels.

The order is a key component of last year's global warming law, which seeks to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 25% by 2020.

Environmental activists continue to strongly support the initiative. But the enthusiasm for the governor's action by the oil industry is in sharp contrast to its groans about last year's landmark legislation.

"My guess is they're sick of being on the losing end in opposition to the governor and Legislature," said Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club. "They want to get on board the bandwagon." [Harry Binswanger aptly calls this a "hearse". --ed]

You will note that Schwartenkennedy wants to reduce emissions by "only" 25% by 2020. A green coalition from the previous story wants to achieve a 30% reduction during a similar time frame. I guess that 5% difference and the "free market" disguise are about what it means to be a conservative these days. (This is why I will take pains to make damn sure no one mistakes me for a conservative from now on. I am a radical capitalist.)

No more than appeasement of a foreign foe will result in his defeat, will voluntarily sticking one's neck through the regulatory noose save one's business. And as for the capitalist form -- a "market" for emission credits -- of some of these regulations, I was right on the money ages ago:

Yeah, and back in the days of the slave trade, people bought and sold other people in "markets".

Just because the government creates a "market" by permitting the wholesale violation of rights (liberty in the case of slavery or property in this case) does not mean that it is promoting capitalism.

It is bad enough that Schwartzenegger falls for environmentalism. It is worse that he thinks this particular implementation of the Green agenda is somehow a pro-capitalist idea.

This is a direct assault on our standard of living -- and the profitability of these businesses -- and yet they are not even pretending to fight it. If I weren't affected, I would call this "popcorn time" since these businesses are going to get what they deserve. Sadly, though, we're also poised to get what they deserve -- in the form of less protection our rights and the resulting weakened economy.

California

So where was I this weekend and Monday? Sunny SoCal. My wife had an interview for a medical residency there Monday, so we took the occasion to visit her sister in Los Angeles.

I lived near San Francisco briefly near the end of my naval service over a decade ago. California is beautiful and pleasant, but I found it very odd then and I find it very odd now. The culture is not just saturated with environmentalism and health fad hectoring, it drips with it. You just about cannot even open your eyes (and look at a man-made object) without seeing this. Look at a bus, see a proclamation that it runs on "clean-burning" natural gas.

We had brunch with the in-laws at a place near Hollywood called Hugo's. (Their motto is, "We believe in sustainability." Hmmm: That sounds familiar!) After my recent reading of Joe Queenan's Balsamic Dreams, their menu had me laughing out loud. I was sorely tempted to order a cup of "free-range, organic, steel-cut coffee breast", but I maintained my self-control. Instead, I just ordered a plain coffee and was ready to "explain" that I'm from Texas.

During the trip, I also learned that parts of Los Angeles have rent control laws similar to those in New York. My sister-in-law recently purchased a property she plans to renovate and subdivide. Unfortunately, these rent control laws prevent her from increasing the rents to her tenants by more than 3% per year. As a result, she will have to evict the tenants she has in order to be able to afford to improve her own property. On top of that, she will have to pay thousands of dollars per tenant to do so besides whatever legal wrangling and red tape there is. Whose property is this, anyway?

A welcome respite from this blue-state madness came in the form of a brief lunch with Don Watkins, who is now the third person I have had the pleasure of meeting through blogging. If you blog and live over there, you could be the next to hear from me out of the blue shortly before we visit LA again.

Teen (Entrepreneurial) Spirit

I saw a couple of interesting book reviews in a copy of USA Today yesterday. One of them was about teen entrepreneurs. The stories behind kids who manage to become wealthy sound compelling enough, but the book also asks "Why?"

On the one hand, this is not surprising. Many books on successful entrepreneurs will ask how they achieved their great success. And many journalists make a big deal out of asking kids about their opinions -- usually hoping they will parrot whatever leftist propaganda they're being fed in school.

On the other hand, the book looks like an interesting experiment/time capsule. Given that so many kids are told what to think rather than taught how during their educations, I wonder how many of these kids will remain successful, given some of the advice they spout out. For example, this sounds like it could have come straight from the research for Edwin Locke's article on "self-esteem" in the last Objective Standard.

Trick yourself. Self-deception is essential to maintain high self-esteem. It's okay to take more credit than you deserve, in your own mind, for successes. It's okay to think you can outwork and out-passion anyone who competes with you. Stay humble on the outside, but consider yourself unstoppable on the inside.

My take is that most of these kids were probably lucky enough to find something that they were passionate about early enough that their minds and spirits hadn't been crushed outright by the education establishment. How many of them will continue to remain happy and productive if this is typical of what they believe? There is no way to accomplish anything constructive by consistently tricking yourself.

And then, of course, as the first section of this roundup shows, the ability to achieve success in business and the ability to understand what makes it possible are not necessarily the same thing.

A ten or twenty year followup of these entrepreneurs might also be an interesting read.

The Real Pepsi Challenge

The second review was about a book detailing Pepsi's pioneering efforts in the 1940's to market to black Americans:

[Pepsi president Walter] Mack was ahead of his time in recognizing the economic power of black consumers. It wasn't until 1952, a year after Pepsi's special-markets team was broken up, that The Wall Street Journal first addressed the worth of the black market, Capparell writes.

Besides Smith's hiring in 1940, two of Mack's 13 interns that year were black. By 1948, there were 12 black people selling Pepsi nationwide from corporate headquarters.

All of this during a time when Mack's Coca-Cola counterpart, Robert Woodruff, opposed "racial mixing," both on the job and in society, writes [Stephanie] Capparell.

This is one I might add to my still-unfinished Christmas stack o' books!

When Did the "Aint's" Come Marching In?

This is kinda like the football version of "Jumped the Shark".

Well, the Saints made a game of it for awhile, and most sports pundits will say that the turning point of the NFC Championship came when Billy Cundiff missed a long field goal attempt.

That's probably right, but still: When did the Ain'ts show up? I'd say when, already in deep doo-doo, they were pinned near the end zone and passed (on fourth down, if I recall correctly). Chicago almost intercepted.

"That defender dropped the ball, though, Gus," I can almost hear you say.

Too bad that wasn't a successful play by Chicago, because da Bears would have had much worse field position if the ball had been caught! (If professional defenders are trained to not catch balls in situations like this, I am not enough of a football aficionado to know.)

When your team would be better off with its opponent making an interception, you know you're watching the Ain'ts.

Seriously, this is one talented team. They may well be back next year. And heck, if Peyton Manning can get the playoff monkey off his back, so can the Saints.

-- CAV

Light Blogging

I will be variously traveling, busy, and visiting with relatives over the next few days. I will be unlikely to post much, if at all, until this coming Tuesday night. I will also be unlikely to get to email or comments until then.

In the meantime, have a wonderful and relaxing weekend, and do explore a few of the fine blogs I have listed in my sidebar.

-- CAV

More on: Heidi Cullen

Responding to the media firestorm she has generated by calling for the revocation of the credentials of those skeptical of global warming hysteria, Heidi "Lysenko" Cullen has penned a disingenuous response titled "A Very Political Climate" -- as if massive indignation against the proposed persecution of a group of scientists is somehow itself a form of persecution!

I haven't the time to give this the fisking it deserves, but I will point out two things about it that immediately come to my mind.

First, if Heidi Cullen really were interested in the scientific debate on global warming, she would behave like the scientist she claims to be and offer evidence for her views rather than hand-waving and appeals to authority when addressing the public. And when addressing other scientists, she would not only not traffic so much with those who would forcibly silence those she disagrees with -- It was not her prior blog post alone, but what some digging it prompted revealed about her that has caused the firestorm. -- she would respect the fact that a short television debate is not an appropriate forum.

Second, Heidi Cullen has a PhD and doubtless understands that complex scientific questions such as whether global warming is happening, whether it is part of a cyclic oscillation, and whether it is due in any part to man-made causes must be hashed out within the scientific literature, and under the scrutiny of peer review. I am also sure that she realizes that this would make lousy television. All that there really would be time for would be to show some evidence for or some against her hypothesis -- or perhaps even to show that the question is not as settled as she thinks it is, as evidenced by this panic-mongering proclamation of hers.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming. [my bold]

Given that she is of the mind that anthropogenic global warming is a fact and that human lives are at stake, it is clear that Cullen's "invitation" to "global warming deniers" to "debate" on her program is less sincere than her desire to stop their "propaganda" -- before it's too late! -- and save lives. In short, she is no longer engaged in scientific debate, but political advocacy.

What we should all ask is this: If she is so sure she is correct, why is she not shooting down all the global warming fallacies rather than relying on authority? And furthermore, why does she not simply admit that she regards anthropogenic global warming as an objective danger whose solution she sees as political? Notice that she not only fails to give evidence for her views, but she characterizes her thinly-veiled political advocacy as some sort of scientific education. The simplest explanation of these two facts is that she wants to give her political agenda a scientific credibility it does not deserve.

***

Below, I provide some more links for the benefit of those who, unlike Heidi Cullen, really would like to learn about the global warming debate, not to mention the already-sad state of the scientific discourse.

1. National Review Online: "TV Weather Personalities Square Off Over Global Warming" quotes James Spann:

Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. [bold added]

So much (again) for Cullen's claim that privately-funded global warming research is inherently "biased".

2. James Spann is a Birmingham, Alabama-based meteorologist. Here is more about his contribution to the current debate.

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. ... I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global-warming hype. I know there are a few out there, but I can't find them.

This was part of his response to Cullen's desire to deprive him of credentials.

3. At the end of this post, I note that some corporate sponsors of global warming research are already withdrawing funds due to mailed threats from Democrats in Congress.

4. Here is an example of psychological warfare being waged against children by a global warming hysteric. Call me crazy, but I haven't heard of any global warming skeptics traumatizing children in a similar fashion.

If global warming is so cut-and-dried, why not persuade adults rather than frighten children?

5. And even within the mainstream of academic science, real debate about global warming is being snuffed out. Read here for how the prestigious journals, Science and Nature are stifling dissent from the orthodoxy of the global warming grant gravy train.

6. James Inhofe recently delivered a blistering rebuke of our climatological Lysenkoites. Although he's hardly a great advocate of science, he beats Cullen hands down. If Heidi Cullen really means that she wants open debate, why not broadcast this speech in its entirety and without interruption?

-- CAV