Elsewhere on Google Blogspot, Instapundit’s prettier, smarter half, Dr Helen, tells us Why I Like Donald Trump. She has very sensible reasons, of course, but I have one caveat.
As much as I dislike politicians, their Statism and their arrogance, they actually do have job skills. They build consensus, lead legislative and partisan rebellions and attacks, and generally politick and maintain diplomatic relations with people they want dead. They also have to establish and maintain a relationship with large groups in their political base. I have not yet seen Donald Trump do any of these things, but if he starts displaying these skills in public, I will willingly vote for him.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Net Neutrality: Threat or Menace? Part II
ETA: Part I here.
From last year, a notice on regulating the Internet. Henry “Socialism with a Human Face” Waxman (D-CA) was trying to get Republicans down with his Net neutrality bill, which contained God knows how many unspeakable traps for the future of conservatives and classical Liberals alike. This was a classic shakedown, using the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) illegal threats to regulate Internet speech as cover.
Why is Net neutrality bad? Net neutrality comes in two forms, the Greater and the Lesser.
So, that is the Greater argument on Net neutrality. It’s a little technical, and a little corporate lawyerly, but there it is. The only problem with Net neutrality is that the politicians want to lie to us about a fake threat to make themselves seem more important.
In the Declaration of Independence, this was called “the Insolence of office.”
The Lesser argument is the argument of so-called Free Speech, and comes in two parts. ISPs tend to use software packages to set up home computers, these frequently set up your browser home page. AT&T has a partnership with Yahoo!: the latter provides and administers email accounts and provides the newspaper-like home pages for Web browsers. (Please note, these home pages can be changed at any time.) Almost all Americans are so inured to advertising that this is barely noticed.
However, the corporations are limited in what they can offer. It has to be pretty bland, lest they annoy their paying customers. My dad, a person who regards his computer in much the same way most Americans regards Europe, as barely-reliable allies, managed to change his home page (to something equally as bland, heh).
But if the government starts setting standards, we run into a corruption and rent-seeking problem, where the limits on possible home pages will be jiggered to certain sites. Home page providers will be incentivized to buy politicians to keep their content legal and acceptable. Sadly, money will be the least of the dirty goods offered in exchange. Content will also be neutered and emasculated, lest it upset the Would Be Powers That Be in the crappiest school district in the United States.
(Washington, D.C., you dumb lefties.)
As Friedrich A. Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom, the power of, say, fathers over their children is fairly large, but it also has a time limit and various traditional limits. But if the State (or the Feds) usurps this power, they wield the combined power of a hundred million fathers as a united tool — or weapon.
Bad. Very bad. But it gets worse.
See, the alternate definition of Net neutrality is the prevention of ISPs from blocking traffic to various websites. But again we must, per Frédéric Bastiat (or Penn Gillette), look not at the seen, but the unseen. No government law will protect access to child porn or such; it is impossible. Therefore, the law that demands that ISPs not block traffic to some websites will protect those ISPs that block traffic to others, ipso facto.
There is no reason pass Net neutrality, unless it is to create an industry standard for latency for traffic sensitive to lag. The rest is rent-seeking and politico-criminal shakedowns.
So there.
From last year, a notice on regulating the Internet. Henry “Socialism with a Human Face” Waxman (D-CA) was trying to get Republicans down with his Net neutrality bill, which contained God knows how many unspeakable traps for the future of conservatives and classical Liberals alike. This was a classic shakedown, using the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) illegal threats to regulate Internet speech as cover.
Why is Net neutrality bad? Net neutrality comes in two forms, the Greater and the Lesser.
- Greater Net neutrality is the attempt to make charging for network latency illegal, or at least regulated.
- Proponents say this is lovely because evil ISPs (Internet Service Providers, like dial-up, DSL and broadband, and did we mention they’re CORPORATE!?!) want to feed you laggy packets to destroy your EverCrack accomplishments (a-hem) and make your YouTube Caturday vids shudder.
- Of course, the idea of charging latency to end users is ridiculous.
- It would be impossible to track latency on packets from 1,000,000,000 computers.
- This is for the computers at YouTube, Netflix, &c. Big corporate customers with easily identifiable packets.
- Why should they not be charged for latency?
- Don’t they get charged for bandwidth? How is bandwidth any different than latency or setting a maximum lost packets Service Level Agreement?
- How do the ISPs expect to get away with making latency worse for their big corporate clients?
- They don’t.
- In fact, latency advisory bits are in the TCP/IP protocol and have been since the early ’80s.
- The real problem with latency is making all ISPs and Internet backbones support them to a certain level.
- See, since they outlawed “collusion,” any industry-wide agreement must have political support.
- Which is why corporations give lots of money to politicians,
- Who are very busy fondling underaged pages and don’t want to take time out to work on legislation for some stupid industry,
- Just because it creates or enables thousands of jobs in their state or district.
- They have lives, you know.
- So they demand money from the corporations.
- Which would not be too bad, really,
- As the corporations have the dough,
- But the politicians insists that they are “protecting” us from the evil corporations,
- When in reality the politicians just did the corporations a service for a huge fee,
- Which makes sense seeing as how most of them are lawyers and they’re used to acting this way.
- But the lies the politicians tell us cause the rest of us to live in fear, either from corporations or politicians.
So, that is the Greater argument on Net neutrality. It’s a little technical, and a little corporate lawyerly, but there it is. The only problem with Net neutrality is that the politicians want to lie to us about a fake threat to make themselves seem more important.
In the Declaration of Independence, this was called “the Insolence of office.”
The Lesser argument is the argument of so-called Free Speech, and comes in two parts. ISPs tend to use software packages to set up home computers, these frequently set up your browser home page. AT&T has a partnership with Yahoo!: the latter provides and administers email accounts and provides the newspaper-like home pages for Web browsers. (Please note, these home pages can be changed at any time.) Almost all Americans are so inured to advertising that this is barely noticed.
However, the corporations are limited in what they can offer. It has to be pretty bland, lest they annoy their paying customers. My dad, a person who regards his computer in much the same way most Americans regards Europe, as barely-reliable allies, managed to change his home page (to something equally as bland, heh).
But if the government starts setting standards, we run into a corruption and rent-seeking problem, where the limits on possible home pages will be jiggered to certain sites. Home page providers will be incentivized to buy politicians to keep their content legal and acceptable. Sadly, money will be the least of the dirty goods offered in exchange. Content will also be neutered and emasculated, lest it upset the Would Be Powers That Be in the crappiest school district in the United States.
(Washington, D.C., you dumb lefties.)
As Friedrich A. Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom, the power of, say, fathers over their children is fairly large, but it also has a time limit and various traditional limits. But if the State (or the Feds) usurps this power, they wield the combined power of a hundred million fathers as a united tool — or weapon.
Bad. Very bad. But it gets worse.
See, the alternate definition of Net neutrality is the prevention of ISPs from blocking traffic to various websites. But again we must, per Frédéric Bastiat (or Penn Gillette), look not at the seen, but the unseen. No government law will protect access to child porn or such; it is impossible. Therefore, the law that demands that ISPs not block traffic to some websites will protect those ISPs that block traffic to others, ipso facto.
There is no reason pass Net neutrality, unless it is to create an industry standard for latency for traffic sensitive to lag. The rest is rent-seeking and politico-criminal shakedowns.
So there.
The Donald hits a popular vein
Yes, Obama should publish his real birth certificate. But he won’t. And this is why (50/50):
None of these things really matter.
Long story short, because Adolf Hitler was staatlos in Germany after renouncing his Austrian citizenship, stateless people are seen are problematic, so everyone is “assigned” a nation by the UN. Now, even before this, the U.S. was in the habit of accepting people back: think of it as an international hygienic protocol. So if his mom did renounce, the U.S. would likely have accepted her back anyway. But it would be immediately contested and, ultimately, come down to nothing more than a judge’s opinion as to whether the light bulb really wanted to renounce its nationality.
Finally, if his birth certificate really does say Muslim, and if we accept that the Rev. Wright’s church is… nominally… Christian, then he is an apostate, a religious unperson, a legitimate assassination target in most of the Middle East. Now, while we might cheer W when he said, “Bring it on,” we must be clear that Obama is no Bush and not likely to weather such a storm well. For the peace of mind of the American nation, and our foreign policy, I hereby approve of the CIA breaking into the Hawai’ian Hall of Records, scratching out “Muslim” and substituting “Christian.”
So there.
- His birthplace is outside of the United States. And so what? So is McCain’s. Obama is the son of an American mother and so he is an American citizen. But what if Mummy renounced her citizenship in her revolutionary fervor? This is actually kind of hard to do now, the United Nations Declaration is against it. (Haha! Sorry, just a sec…)
- His birth certificate says, “Muslim.”
None of these things really matter.
Long story short, because Adolf Hitler was staatlos in Germany after renouncing his Austrian citizenship, stateless people are seen are problematic, so everyone is “assigned” a nation by the UN. Now, even before this, the U.S. was in the habit of accepting people back: think of it as an international hygienic protocol. So if his mom did renounce, the U.S. would likely have accepted her back anyway. But it would be immediately contested and, ultimately, come down to nothing more than a judge’s opinion as to whether the light bulb really wanted to renounce its nationality.
Finally, if his birth certificate really does say Muslim, and if we accept that the Rev. Wright’s church is… nominally… Christian, then he is an apostate, a religious unperson, a legitimate assassination target in most of the Middle East. Now, while we might cheer W when he said, “Bring it on,” we must be clear that Obama is no Bush and not likely to weather such a storm well. For the peace of mind of the American nation, and our foreign policy, I hereby approve of the CIA breaking into the Hawai’ian Hall of Records, scratching out “Muslim” and substituting “Christian.”
So there.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
A general strike in Michigan? Yes, say teachers
A Conservative Teacher writes that teachers will try for a general strike in May. This is a little insane, but not too insane for the unions:
My sources in the MEA indicate that the MEA is preparing for a teachers strike in May and will ask that other unions also join in this strike… Michigan's striking teachers would be supported and joined by all union workers in the state of Michigan, from government employees, police, fire, and private labor unions like the UAW…Let's be prepared for the fight of our lives.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
God save us from the peaceful non-violence of the Left...
During the era of the Fairness Doctrine:
- Harry Truman was shot at by Puerto Rican separatists,
- JFK was targeted by an elderly postal worker before he was killed by a Communist,
- RFK was killed by a Jew-hating Christian Palestinian,
- MLK was killed by a George Wallace Democrat,
- Malcolm X was killed by Nation of Islam thugs,
- Richard Nixon was targeted by a Jewish would-be Black Panther,
- George Wallace was shot by a actual nutjob,
- Jerry Ford was shot at by a filthy hippie and a stupid radical,
- Finally, Ronald Reagan was shot by another actual nutjob.
- Bill Clinton saw an ex-military ex-con (convicted and imprisoned by the US Army for violent assault) subdued by the Secret Service for shooting at people on the White House lawn. Thank God, no one was harmed.
- George W. Bush, of course, lived through several assassination attempts, almost all connected with al Qaeda, except for another nutjob who tried before 9/11. Again, no one was harmed.
- Thought control: ineffective.
- Suppressing conspiracy theorists: lets them fester and explode.
- Exposing them: shrinks and humiliates them.
- Effective law enforcement: saves lives.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
“Finally, America has a black President again…”
… was the response when Barack Obama put Bill Clinton in charge again. As Fox News’ Andy Levy said, “That was the best episode of VH-1’s I Love The 90s ever!”
Ed Driscoll linked the above, noting that the above was written November 24, 2008, making Iowahawk, along with IMAO’s Frank J., who predicted the U.S. would slam an explosive warhead into Earth’s satellite, one of the few true prophets of the Internet. /bows head “May death come swiftly to their enemies.”
Jim Treacher asked, apparently watching TV with the sound off, echoing others: “Did Obama just quit?… Say what you want about Sarah Palin quitting her job, but at least she finished her own press conference.”
In “Great news: Bill Clinton apparently now president again”:
At Pajamas Media, Bryan Preston wrote:
The New York Times tells how it happened. Even MSNBC was shocked.
Thank for the heads-up from the mighty, puppy-drinking Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, in whose great, dark Shadow we all serve. And, of course, more death, more enemies. /unbows head.
p.s. National Review’s @JonahNRO Goldberg tweeted in agony, “Arrrrrgh!! I missed the whole Clinton-Obama press conference! Was busy buying an X-mas tree.” Andy Levy haughtily scorned: “Worst media-running Jew ever.”
Clinton said he was “excited and honored” by the appointment, and would work “day and night” to defeat all the key policy objectives proposed by Mr. Obama during the campaign.
Ed Driscoll linked the above, noting that the above was written November 24, 2008, making Iowahawk, along with IMAO’s Frank J., who predicted the U.S. would slam an explosive warhead into Earth’s satellite, one of the few true prophets of the Internet. /bows head “May death come swiftly to their enemies.”
Jim Treacher asked, apparently watching TV with the sound off, echoing others: “Did Obama just quit?… Say what you want about Sarah Palin quitting her job, but at least she finished her own press conference.”
In “Great news: Bill Clinton apparently now president again”:
The depressing truth: Given the alternative, it really would be great news.
I can’t do justice to what you’re about to see. The spectacle of the president bugging out of his own press conference to go to a Christmas party is weird enough, but having Clinton back at the White House podium fielding questions on the hottest domestic issue of the day shoots past deja vu and lands firmly in “am I hallucinating?” territory.
At Pajamas Media, Bryan Preston wrote:
Clinton looks quite a bit older now, true, but he also looks like he’s in charge. He handled the press as well as he ever did, which is a stark contrast to the way the current president mishandled the press — twice — earlier this week.
After Clinton ended the press conference, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan came on and asked about the “optics” of all this.
Here’s what I saw. I saw a current president who has never looked less interested in doing his job. I also saw a former president who never lost interest in doing that job.
The New York Times tells how it happened. Even MSNBC was shocked.
Thank for the heads-up from the mighty, puppy-drinking Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, in whose great, dark Shadow we all serve. And, of course, more death, more enemies. /unbows head.
p.s. National Review’s @JonahNRO Goldberg tweeted in agony, “Arrrrrgh!! I missed the whole Clinton-Obama press conference! Was busy buying an X-mas tree.” Andy Levy haughtily scorned: “Worst media-running Jew ever.”
Friday, December 10, 2010
Net Neutrality: Threat or Menace?
ETA: Part II here.
“But one expert says Net Neutrality isn’t about regulating content on the Internet or the Fairness Doctrine.” Heritage.org via Mackinac.org.
Stupid, guys. First off, we already have per-GB pricing. Every server hosting account, every home machine is tied to a tier plan, priced and measured for bandwidth. Net Neutrality is very, very late to this battle. Presently the FCC is considering the legality of per-bit pricing, as opposed to tiered service. This is a power the states have already.
Net Neutrality has two different advances: one is outlawing latency billing, the other is outlawing ISPs from blocking or rate-limiting some sites. Latency billing first: I approve of it in principle, though an ISP could abuse it. TCP/IP has a latency protocol built-in. ISPs already charge you more per GB and for GB/s. What, I’m sorry, is it in the Bible that bandwidth pricing is true and holy, but those who charge for latency shall surely die? I don't recall that bit.
Government control of site access: it would allow the U.S. government to choose which least-favored sites get to be hamstrung. In the hands of a corporation, this is a nuisance; in government, it is a menace. Basic Hayek, c’mon.
Most providers now set up a home page for you: AT&T teams with Yahoo for their consumer home page. This can easily be reset. But the government is considering ruling on legal and illegal home pages: a power the states already have and the U.S. government does not need.
Net Neutrality: a power government does not need.
“But one expert says Net Neutrality isn’t about regulating content on the Internet or the Fairness Doctrine.” Heritage.org via Mackinac.org.
Stupid, guys. First off, we already have per-GB pricing. Every server hosting account, every home machine is tied to a tier plan, priced and measured for bandwidth. Net Neutrality is very, very late to this battle. Presently the FCC is considering the legality of per-bit pricing, as opposed to tiered service. This is a power the states have already.
Net Neutrality has two different advances: one is outlawing latency billing, the other is outlawing ISPs from blocking or rate-limiting some sites. Latency billing first: I approve of it in principle, though an ISP could abuse it. TCP/IP has a latency protocol built-in. ISPs already charge you more per GB and for GB/s. What, I’m sorry, is it in the Bible that bandwidth pricing is true and holy, but those who charge for latency shall surely die? I don't recall that bit.
Government control of site access: it would allow the U.S. government to choose which least-favored sites get to be hamstrung. In the hands of a corporation, this is a nuisance; in government, it is a menace. Basic Hayek, c’mon.
Most providers now set up a home page for you: AT&T teams with Yahoo for their consumer home page. This can easily be reset. But the government is considering ruling on legal and illegal home pages: a power the states already have and the U.S. government does not need.
Net Neutrality: a power government does not need.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
The Monumental Stupidity of WackyLeaks
@daveweigel Alas, Leslie Nielsen will never get to star in my comedy about a bunch of bumbling anti-war hackers, WackyLeaks. #toosoon
Michael Ledeen of Pajamas Media is old and wise enough to have his laughs while he can about WackyLeaks, quoting Kissinger: “the only reason to write a memo is to have it leaked.” But again, still wise enough to note:
Second, the leakers should be punished violently. It has to be possible for our leaders to talk privately, both among themselves and with foreigners. If it’s all going to be leaked, candor will vanish and we will be locked into a wilderness of mirrors.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg notes James Rubin of TNR noting that, while some leaks are laudable (his and my valuation differ greatly):
… The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon which has military forces, or the Treasury Department which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading… Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy…
The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public… The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones… The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job.
Important to the Left, certainly. But why did Ledeen recommend punishment? Heather Hurlburt notes (I have greatly condensed, please read the article for the meat of it):
- Fear of candor in diplomacy,
- Middle Eastern officials are already getting more skittish about cooperating with America and the West,
- Even Russia, an infamously hard case, is getting worse,
- Historical document preservation is damaged,
- The anti-paranoia movement for classified documents is damaged,
- Again, the military is undamaged, but the diplomatic corps is pierced in its internals.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Three pictures of the U.S. Women’s Water Polo team
Being bisexual, a classical liberal, and anti-Marxist, I am neither a prude nor a Puritan. Nevertheless, I am not happy about this ESPN nude pic of the U.S. Womens’ Water Polo team. Not that it is nude, but it is simply not very good. The pose is contrived, but not well constructed, and almost everyone looks uncomfortable as hell. Now, wild fantasizing about lesbian sex in the locker room to one side (take a moment to clear your mind, I’ll wait), most of these women are straight. A bunch are likely leery of intramural relationships as well, so, straight or gay, they probably are not into the close contact. Not only is it not a good picture, but we’re also pulled out by empathizing with their discomfort when we should be celebrating with them.
We now move on to this nude pic of the team, though it may not be all the same people. The comfort level is up a lot; they aren’t all bunched together. Also, it is both more and less revealing than the other picture: some of the women are in the background, some are surrounded by bubbles. The dappled underwater light also distorts and hides. This picture is far superior.
Finally, we move onto the last team picture. I was about to call this one fully-clothed, if only in comparison to the last two, but of course they are wearing standard womens’ one-piece bathing suits; they are hardly union suits with a strategically placed hole. But the confidence here is at an all-time high. These are proud, happy people working together: a team. We get to really see faces and body language here; we see individuals. Attractive, athletic individuals, yes, but consider: not many people can project personality over their own nudity. It just doesn’t happen; it’s why Madonna was often far sexier covered up than completely nude.
(I would also like to note it bunches my favorites in the second row; they must be the linebackers in water polo, phwaaaaa! And second from left, second row... sigh.)
Finally, I would like to denounce the nude pictures… but not for nudism, or not directly. The nude pics were undoubtedly money-makers for the team; again, I have no problem with that, per se. But where money and nudity meet is a place filled with moral compromise and other hazards. I would recommend care to all involved.
We now move on to this nude pic of the team, though it may not be all the same people. The comfort level is up a lot; they aren’t all bunched together. Also, it is both more and less revealing than the other picture: some of the women are in the background, some are surrounded by bubbles. The dappled underwater light also distorts and hides. This picture is far superior.
Finally, we move onto the last team picture. I was about to call this one fully-clothed, if only in comparison to the last two, but of course they are wearing standard womens’ one-piece bathing suits; they are hardly union suits with a strategically placed hole. But the confidence here is at an all-time high. These are proud, happy people working together: a team. We get to really see faces and body language here; we see individuals. Attractive, athletic individuals, yes, but consider: not many people can project personality over their own nudity. It just doesn’t happen; it’s why Madonna was often far sexier covered up than completely nude.
(I would also like to note it bunches my favorites in the second row; they must be the linebackers in water polo, phwaaaaa! And second from left, second row... sigh.)
Finally, I would like to denounce the nude pictures… but not for nudism, or not directly. The nude pics were undoubtedly money-makers for the team; again, I have no problem with that, per se. But where money and nudity meet is a place filled with moral compromise and other hazards. I would recommend care to all involved.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Some points
I don’t have a TVTropes.org account. I had one, lost the password and now am locked out because TVT’s super-easy sign up has no recovery facility. So when I read about the Golden Mean Fallacy:
Not to mention, an attempt to place the Overton Window.
- Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity could be seen as this.
- The premise implies that both the far left and far right are full of crazies and those in the center are sane. His point is more that channels like Fox News are deliberately invoking this trope by presenting wildly extreme right wing ideas and contrasting them with relatively moderate left wing ideas, creating the impression that the truth is somewhere in the "middle"... which is actually still fairly far on the right.
Not to mention, an attempt to place the Overton Window.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sagan against the current state of AGW
Immanuel Velikovsky promulgated theories that astronomical collisions and near misses had caused various Biblical calamities and other catastrophes. Certainly, when it comes to mass extinction, he may have had something of a point. Scientists, of course, are no strangers to the herd mentality, and Velikovsky’s publishers, Macmillan, was threatened with scientific boycott.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (ep. 4) noted:
Carl Sagan in Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (ep. 4) noted:
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong, thats perfectly all right, it’s the aperture to finding out whats right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong, or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts, rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky’s ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)