According to the laws of the land, Michael Vick committed a felony and served his time. Therefore, the government has no right to restrict him from doing as he pleases. However the NFL, as a private organization, does have the right to determine who can or cannot play. There have been rumblings by the league about perhaps suspending Vick further, to send a message about the values it (the league) upholds.
Dog loving has long been a part of American culture, as is football, and so there is a large influential faction of NFL fans who would prefer that Vick never plays again. Rabid dog lovers tend to view Vick's crime as tantamount to murder, without really understanding what that would mean. These same people do not necessarily hold the view that all animals ought to be treated with ethics (the PETA segment is only a small part of the anti-Vick sentiment). They readily consume meat products, and benefit from animal experimentation on primates (which are higher intellectually than dogs), and aren't really calling for all hunters to be rounded up and sent to prison. Essentially, they view dogs, specifically, as a species that ought to be protected by human society.
Now the community of sports/NFL fans consist of more than just this segment of society. Many of us, myself included, believe that no matter the severity of Vick's dog-abusing escapades, the fact remains that he harmed no human being. We may find his actions repulsive, but we understand that the only species that deserves ethical treatment is Homo Sapiens, for a very specific reason: humans have the reasoning ability to distinguish right from wrong. A lion, for example, kills gazelles in the cruelest of ways, but we do not hold the lion responsible for its transgressions. Humans have the right to determine, for themselves, how they treat members of other species.. it is not really a societal prerogative. If you love dogs as pets, you have the right to treat YOUR dog with compassion and love, but not the right to demand that Michael Vick do the same. You have the right to criticize him, and not be his friend, but not the right to stop him from earning a living. Michael Vick deserves to play again, because he committed no real crime against his fellow men, but rather violated a law imposed by those who misunderstand the concepts of ethics and human liberty.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
- racial profiling by American cops
While I disagree with President Obama's move of inviting Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates to "have a beer" at the White House, he could not be more correct then when he pointed out "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." I believe that this is the natural outcome of placing too much power in the hands of the police, and why every law passed must really be thought over. Obama's approach is to attempt to change the culture of America through his inspirational words. Cultural changes like this, however, take a long time. Certainly Obama has the perfect opportunity and oratorical abilities to catalyze this change, but no matter how valiant President Obama's effort, and I support it entirely, this will be an accomplishment which will be a long time coming.
However, it is unfair for individual African Americans, and other minorities, to wait for the culture of America to change. The solution, therefore, should be to reduce the power of the police force; to make it much more difficult for individually police officers to act on their personal bigotry and racism. This must be done in two ways. First, as a branch of government, the police should have a federal legal obligation to video tape every encounter. Even if a cop has to "let someone go," because he didn't start his tape recorder, this obligation should still hold. The endless stream of youtube videos documenting the bigotry of American cops is disgusting, and it needs to be resolved now, not in 10 years. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the discriminatory laws which for example penalize the possession of "crack" far more than the possession of cocaine, must be repealed. It is these types of laws which are terribly unfair, and are responsible for much of the disproportional action of police with regards to race. President Obama has indicated that this is in his agenda, and I hope he is able to succeed.
Racial profiling is a practice which is thoroughly anathema to the values of the Declaration, as has been pointed out by great Americans from Jefferson, to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas, to Martin Luther King and now Barack Obama. To those who claim that in practice, racial profiling is necessary to reduce crime, I would respond that practicality is no excuse for bigotry. The costs of racial profiling (hurt feelings and a dereliction of American values) far outweigh any possible benefit.
However, it is unfair for individual African Americans, and other minorities, to wait for the culture of America to change. The solution, therefore, should be to reduce the power of the police force; to make it much more difficult for individually police officers to act on their personal bigotry and racism. This must be done in two ways. First, as a branch of government, the police should have a federal legal obligation to video tape every encounter. Even if a cop has to "let someone go," because he didn't start his tape recorder, this obligation should still hold. The endless stream of youtube videos documenting the bigotry of American cops is disgusting, and it needs to be resolved now, not in 10 years. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the discriminatory laws which for example penalize the possession of "crack" far more than the possession of cocaine, must be repealed. It is these types of laws which are terribly unfair, and are responsible for much of the disproportional action of police with regards to race. President Obama has indicated that this is in his agenda, and I hope he is able to succeed.
Racial profiling is a practice which is thoroughly anathema to the values of the Declaration, as has been pointed out by great Americans from Jefferson, to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas, to Martin Luther King and now Barack Obama. To those who claim that in practice, racial profiling is necessary to reduce crime, I would respond that practicality is no excuse for bigotry. The costs of racial profiling (hurt feelings and a dereliction of American values) far outweigh any possible benefit.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
- Obama's cheap political stunts
Obama's political tactics are often compared to Lincoln's: his fanboys in the mainstream media claim that he appeals to the "better angels of our nature," as Lincoln sought to do. However reality indicates otherwise. Obama's handling of the Gates-Crowley affair smacks of his trademark cheap political maneuvering.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
+ bama's political tactics are often compared to Li...
Obama's political tactics are often compared to Lincoln's: his fanboys in the mainstream media claim that he appeals to the "better angels of our nature," as Lincoln sought to do. However reality indicates otherwise. Obama's handling of the Gates-Crowley affair smacks of his trademark cheap political maneuvering.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
+ American Exceptionalism
American Exceptionalism (the theory that the United States holds a special place among nations and hence a special right to act without the approval of the rest of the world) is as old as the country itself. While some identify it with excessive nationalism, ignorance of world events or even religious bigotry, it actually derives from revolutionary Jeffersonian ideals of individual liberty. In this respect, it is the opposite of nationalism, the antithesis of ignorance, and the inversion of bigotry.
Essentially, the US is not meant to be a nation of PEOPLE in the sense that other nations are: it is a nation of IDEAS, specifically the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own goals and achievements, and that this right exists BEYOND governmental authority, and ABOVE any mere "societal" objectives. These concepts are as clear as can be in the Declaration: "All men are created equal.. with certain inalienable rights." Notice that it does not say "All Americans...". They are further solidified in the Bill of Rights: "shall make NO law restricting the freedom of speech.. etc." While, for example, the Indian Constitution makes an exception for "the greater interests of the nation", the American constitution obvious clear that the "nation's" interests are to be subservient to individual interests.
Jefferson hoped that the United States would act as the catalyst for the formation of an "empire of liberty." This is not, as many whiners on the Left would have you believe, meant to be a military empire, but an empire in which the individual rights of all men would triumph over the tyrannical impulse of government. It is, therefore, the American prerogative to realize this dream, not merely for those living within our borders, but for every human being across the globe. It is a mandate, therefore, not to respect the wishes of other nations and their governments, but rather the rights of each individual within those nations. If even a single Iraqi, Sudanese or Tibetan is deprived of those rights, the United States has the revolutionary duty to free him from bondage and to protect him from future slavery; it matters not if the rest of his countrymen, or the "United Nations" disapprove.
Essentially, the US is not meant to be a nation of PEOPLE in the sense that other nations are: it is a nation of IDEAS, specifically the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own goals and achievements, and that this right exists BEYOND governmental authority, and ABOVE any mere "societal" objectives. These concepts are as clear as can be in the Declaration: "All men are created equal.. with certain inalienable rights." Notice that it does not say "All Americans...". They are further solidified in the Bill of Rights: "shall make NO law restricting the freedom of speech.. etc." While, for example, the Indian Constitution makes an exception for "the greater interests of the nation", the American constitution obvious clear that the "nation's" interests are to be subservient to individual interests.
Jefferson hoped that the United States would act as the catalyst for the formation of an "empire of liberty." This is not, as many whiners on the Left would have you believe, meant to be a military empire, but an empire in which the individual rights of all men would triumph over the tyrannical impulse of government. It is, therefore, the American prerogative to realize this dream, not merely for those living within our borders, but for every human being across the globe. It is a mandate, therefore, not to respect the wishes of other nations and their governments, but rather the rights of each individual within those nations. If even a single Iraqi, Sudanese or Tibetan is deprived of those rights, the United States has the revolutionary duty to free him from bondage and to protect him from future slavery; it matters not if the rest of his countrymen, or the "United Nations" disapprove.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
- startups require government money to succeed
It is possible that in a particular sector like life-sciences, or space exploration startups without strong financial backing (including government funding) might not get off the ground. However the vast majority of successful startups, including companies in these high risk sectors, have made it on their own, or with the backing of small time investors. The majority of internet companies (google, facebook, twitter) all started out with little or no private funding, and certainly no government funding. Going back further, the same can be said of the earlier IT companies like Microsoft, Apple etc. Even further, the Wright Brothers beat the world to human flight without any external funding whatsoever. This is especially remarkable since governments around the world were simultaneously funding various ventures to accomplish the same goal. Clearly government funding, or even funding at all, is not essential for startup success. It seems to me that entrepreneurial drive and individual brilliance are much more necessary requirements.
Friday, July 17, 2009
- anti-americanism
The following is an excerpt from a review of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, a book by supposed "scholar" Mahmood Mamdani..
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
+ US highways should be privatized
While public highways are one of the more innocuous wastes of taxpayer money, it is important to remember the fundamental moral problem with public anything: if you don't use something, why should you have to pay for it? It's easy to say its in the general interest of the nation, so individuals must make sacrifices; but to do that you have to understand what you lose with such sacrifices.. this is simply, your Freedom. Take the case of a lower middle class person, who doesn't have a car, and walks to work. In rare cases, he may take a bus which uses the public highway, but most of the time he has no need for them. Yet, a percentage of his income is used towards subsidizing Microsoft (who's employees drive the freeway to work) and General Motors (who sell more cars because there are highways). Isn't it more fair that he should use his hard earned money to fund his childrens' education, or to buy food? In almost all cases regarding "public goods", while the opposite is usually stated by the politicians selling the good, it is the rich who benefit off the backs of the poor. Surely, public highways are more "convenient" for some people, but does that give us the right to take money from those for whom it is NOT so "convenient?" With privatized freeways, the right people would be paying for highways.. those who actually use them.
+ the US assisted overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile
While this CIA backed coup is trumpeted by certin schools of thought as a perfect example of US imperialism and obnoxiousness in the modern world, they would be wise to actually learn a little about the situation before they launch into an anti-American diatribe. Although he branded himself a "socialist," he had a close relationship with the Chilean Communist party:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende. While much attention is paid to the US owned copper mines he nationalized, he held far more insidious intentions. He intended to seize all property holdings of over 80 hectares, a clear violation of individual liberty and property rights. Within time, his moronic policies led to massive hyperinflation and a collapse of the Chilean economy, a result that could have been easily predicted. Then he began requisitioning private trucks and other vehicles for use by the government. At this point, he was losing control of the country, and was starting to implement dictatorial policies and ignore the court system he was responsible for protecting.
The Declaration of Independence states that all individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which includes property rights to a large degree). When a government becomes destructive towards these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow the government and institute new protections for these rights. The Chilean government under Allende had obviously reached this point. The United States, by virtue of its founding thesis, has the obligation to assist individuals all around the world in their quest for liberty. While one may not agree with the particular action of installing Pinochet, himself a terrible dictator, but at least one who held individual rights to be of some importance, any true American (in the ideological sense) should find it difficult to take the view that Allende's anti-freedom policies should have been allowed to fully take their course.
The Declaration of Independence states that all individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which includes property rights to a large degree). When a government becomes destructive towards these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow the government and institute new protections for these rights. The Chilean government under Allende had obviously reached this point. The United States, by virtue of its founding thesis, has the obligation to assist individuals all around the world in their quest for liberty. While one may not agree with the particular action of installing Pinochet, himself a terrible dictator, but at least one who held individual rights to be of some importance, any true American (in the ideological sense) should find it difficult to take the view that Allende's anti-freedom policies should have been allowed to fully take their course.
+ private schools in developing countries serve the people better than public schools
Private schools in ANY country serve the people better, since it doesn't force people who don't have kids to pay for those who do. What if I choose not to have kids.. why should I pay because someone else wants to continue their genetic line. It's not my choice, its theirs. They should pay for the consequences of their choices.
Friday, July 10, 2009
- web sites should be culpable for illegal activities of their users
Legally speaking, it is the Users of a product service who are responsible for illegal activity conducted through it. For example, should Sears be held responsible if someone used a Sears knife to commit a murder? This extends to internet properties through the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which explicitly protects Web site owners from culpability for criminal activity perpetrated by third parties. People in general should be held responsible for their OWN actions only. Additionally, the internet is a medium in which only information can be exchanged. This makes any culpability for illegal activity a Free Speech issue as well. The 1st amendment guarantees your right to say "meet me at 6pm on the corner of 5th and Main for some dope," or to convey this message through other informational mediums. This right exists above and beyond any mere law which might criminalize the actual transfer or use of marijuana.
+ Nadyenka and her friends should join Argumentum
Someone with controversial opinions like Nadyenka has would be able to provoke lots of fiery reactions, which would be fun for her, and good for me. Once you join, you can post arguments back to facebook from http://arg.umentum.com/ or, if you prefer you can start an argument by entering:
+ something you support OR
- something you oppose
into your publisher box and then choosing "argue" from the publisher menu. Once you start, your friends can react to your arguments, and follow-up with new ones. The arguments never end at Argumentum..
+ something you support OR
- something you oppose
into your publisher box and then choosing "argue" from the publisher menu. Once you start, your friends can react to your arguments, and follow-up with new ones. The arguments never end at Argumentum..
Thursday, July 9, 2009
- if rich countries eat less, poor countries could eat more
You are making an unsupported assumption.. that reduced food demand in rich countries will increase food supply in poor ones. In fact, historical evidence demonstrates the opposite. The real trend is that as the world population (and world food demand) increases, there is actually an increase in PER CAPITA food consumption. This is surprising only if you think that food supply is a limited resource, which it is not. First, at some point in history, humans culturally evolved (through farming) the ability to produce more than enough food for individuals..allowing labor differentiation etc. This led to civilization.. and ensuing technological revolutions, which further increased per capita food production. The best way to decrease malnourishment in poor countries is NOT to re-slice the pizza, but to make a bigger one. Greater food demand in rich countries can spur technological change in food production, and therefore counterintuitively the more Jimmy eats in America, the more Obobu might one day eat in Africa.
- Darwinian natural selection fortifies cultural selective pressures
This seems a little irrelevant to your main argument. Cultural evolution is orders of magnitude more powerful than genetic evolution. For example, for Homo Sapiens to naturally evolve an affinity for Pokemon cards would take millions of years, but
through a memetic process (it was 'cool' to have them) we achieved it in months. While it seems that human culture IS leading to more robust gene drift, its more important effect is to make genetic evolution less important....The next generation will never even know what Pokemon is.. etc. The simple idea that being fat is frowned upon by a society, and this leads to lowered consumption, is sufficient.
through a memetic process (it was 'cool' to have them) we achieved it in months. While it seems that human culture IS leading to more robust gene drift, its more important effect is to make genetic evolution less important....The next generation will never even know what Pokemon is.. etc. The simple idea that being fat is frowned upon by a society, and this leads to lowered consumption, is sufficient.
- societal pressure will lower demand for food
1. Im a little confused about your example... why exactly is Timmy copying Jimmy? Memetic evolution is a selective process, so for Timmy to want to copy Jimmy there has to be an incentive. I will proceed assuming you mean that societal pressure provides an incentive for this strategy..i.e. people make fun of Jimmy for being fat.
2. You are assuming that lower food consumption is the culturally favorable strategy(i.e. being 'thin' is a cultural virtue at the moment). I dispute this, at least for males. The modern ideal for males is more of a large 'athletic' physique than a small 'thin' one or large 'obese' one. So while there is disincentive to eat tasty, but unhealthy food(bad carbs+fat), there is great incentive to eat a lot of healthy food. This 'healthy' food(protein+good carbs) is more expensive from a resource pov, and will if anything further tax food supply.
2. You are assuming that lower food consumption is the culturally favorable strategy(i.e. being 'thin' is a cultural virtue at the moment). I dispute this, at least for males. The modern ideal for males is more of a large 'athletic' physique than a small 'thin' one or large 'obese' one. So while there is disincentive to eat tasty, but unhealthy food(bad carbs+fat), there is great incentive to eat a lot of healthy food. This 'healthy' food(protein+good carbs) is more expensive from a resource pov, and will if anything further tax food supply.
- If Jimmy doesn't finish his plate he will consume less food
There are two strategies to have a clean plate after eating... finish all the food on the plate regardless of the quantity, or ask for the 'correct' amount of food before you start. Forcing Jimmy to finish his food, gives him an incentive to ask for less next time if he was over-stuffed.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
- government should fund research
While it may SEEM sensible for government to fund scientific research in the "greater interest" of society, there are several problems that arise. First, how do you define the "greater interest"? Should it really be up to a few beaurocrats in government to make this decision? When government funds research it skews the research community towards the fields which it funds. Second, sure, some funding may seem beneficial, such as curing cancer. Others its debateable. For example in a lab I worked at, DARPA was funding research into brain-machine interfaces; a technology which is quite far from having any practical use. Does it really make sense for Joe Sixpack to have to pay for my esoteric research? What will he get out of it.. It makes more sense that the Free Market drives research innovation, as it is the best predictor of what is in the "greater interest" of society at large.
Monday, July 6, 2009
- government funding for stem cell research
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
updated:
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
updated:
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
- government funding for stem cell research
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
- muslims are oppressed around the world
While not all Muslims make this claim, the major organizations who purport to represent them ( and the leftist media) do. The fact is that in most of the countries of the 'ummah,' there is terrible oppression under a tyrannical government. The claim that America has acted imperially in its middle east policy couldn't be further from the truth. In Iraq, for example, America has overthrown a psychopathic dictator who's son reveled in physically torturing the players of that countries' national soccer team. In his place, we have installed a democratic government, which though imperfect is a huge advancement over what was there. Sure, a small group of Palestinians may be under an apartheid like system, but they are in a far better situation than the Darfurians or Tibetans. Further, they have made their own situation worse by acting in a violent and irresponsible manner. How did India get rid of the British? Not by shooting rockets at innocent civilians, but by a long, concerted non-violent struggle. Even the so called atheist 'terrorist' Bhagat Singh demonstrated his commitment to human rights by throwing his tiny bomb in a place where it would make loud commotion, but injure no one. For this, he was executed.
Muslims who are 'oppressed' in their own countries have no standing to blame the US for trying to free them. Furthermore, they have no standing to pose as a cringing minority that needs special protection in countries such as the United States, which actually respect their rights as Human Beings.
Muslims who are 'oppressed' in their own countries have no standing to blame the US for trying to free them. Furthermore, they have no standing to pose as a cringing minority that needs special protection in countries such as the United States, which actually respect their rights as Human Beings.
- i am 'south asian american'
Usually PC terms for ethnicity at least denote a dominant group that might share common interests and goals. ie. 'Arab Americans', 'African Americans' etc.. It is hard to find any similarities between the regional identifications denoted by the term 'south asian.' Religion, language, political leanings, economic success.. none of them encompass 'south asians' in any meaningful way. Most importantly, the actual countries of the region (especially India and Pakistan) have geopolitical interests which are polar Opposites. While we all may be Americans first, if your a 'south asian' with any interest in your country of origin, there is no benefit in merging your political identity with those of other 'south asian' origins. I am Indian American, in the sense that my allegiances are to America and then to India. If that means that they are opposed to Pakistani interests, so be it. If that means I could care less about 'muslim oppression' so be it.
- hate speech should be banned
Obviously certain racist or sexist rhetoric is repulsive, but should it ever be banned? Who gets to decide what is repulsive? It seems to me that "hate speech" is quite often just speech that may disturb the people in charge. For certain religious groups, hate speech is anything that might disturb their little fantasy bubble (AKA faith). These groups often use the term "offensive" as if that, in and of itself, is enough to stop ME from saying it. Well, I don't particularly care what these deluded individuals think.. My right to say what I want, when I want trumps the 'right' of their piddling little egos not to be 'offended.' The first amendment guarantees me this, while it in no place mentions that terribly pathetic work "offensive."
- the constitution prohibits discrimination by private individuals
The constitution was intended to prevent the excesses of Government, not to stop individuals from discriminating against each other. No where in the constitution does it say I can't discriminate against Gaurav Bhatia because he is loud and obnoxious. If you, as a sexist, believe that male stock-brokers are superior simply due to their XY chromosome (vs a female who is in actuality a better broker ), then you have the right to be an idiot and invest with him. The free market would eliminate people like you, since you would lose your money and hence your ability to discriminate against brokers due to their gender. What is the level at wish you believe the government should act? Should it stop a homosexual from discriminating against females in their choice of a spouse? What is the objective difference between choosing a stock-broker and choosing a spouse? At least with a stock-broker you can control the amount of money you lose.. with a wife not so much. In addition, discrimination is essential for a society to function. Would you really watch the NBA if for ever player over 7 feet, every team had to pick a midget to compensate? Don't you think it would suck if you were forced to buy a Zune because some Government quota of Ipods had been met for the year? According to your logic, the free market is bad because it permits free choice, and any choice is essentially a discrimination. Would you really snuff out Freedom entirely in pursuit of some abstract notion of Equality as defined by a few elitist beaurocrats?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)