Monday, October 16, 2006
They're mad as hell
The South Florida (can you imagine?) Sun-Sentinal reports that Atheist groups are on the rise.
Just another sign that the Apocalypse must be imminent.
Just another sign that the Apocalypse must be imminent.
What's wrong with this reasoning?
Tim Harford, in an otherwise worthwhile article about the economic realities of charity, seriously drops the logical ball when he writes:
"Even the way we choose to dole out cash betrays our true motives. Someone with $100 to give away and a world full of worthy causes should choose the worthiest and write the check. We don't. Instead, we give $5 for a LiveStrong bracelet, pledge $25 to Save the Children, another $25 to AIDS research, and so on. But $25 is not going to find a cure for AIDS. Either it's the best cause and deserves the entire $100, or it's not and some other cause does. The scattershot approach simply proves that we're more interested in feeling good than doing good.
Many people are unconvinced by this argument...because they are used to diversifying their financial investments (a bit of Google stock and a bit of Exxon, too) and varying their choices (vanilla ice cream AND bananas). But those instincts are selfish: They are not intended to benefit both Google and Exxon, nor both the ice-cream company and the banana growers. With charity, the logic is different, and a truly selfless donor would bite the bullet and put his entire donation behind one cause. That we find that so hard to imagine is just one more indication of how hard it is for us to think ourselves into a truly selfless view of the world.
How many logical flaws can you find in this reasoning? I count at least three:
1. The argument assumes that there is such a thing as a "best choice" when it comes to charity, and of course there isn't. The value of the work done by charitable orgnizations is incommensurate. How do you compare the value of an organization that works to save the oceans with one that works to save the rain forests or find a cure for cancer?
2. Even assuming that there is such a thing as a single best choice, the argument assumes that you know what the best choice is with absolute certainty. If you knew which stock would perform best there would be no need for diversification. Likewise, because you can't know which charity is "best" diversification makes sense to hedge against that uncertainty.
3. Even if you assume that there is a best choice and you know what it is, the argument assumes that the incremental value of money is constant. In other words, the argument assumes that the giving of money does not change the relative ranking of organizations. But of course that's not true because of the law of diminshing returns. At some point the relative effectiveness (and hence value) of additional resources begins to decline.
There are probably others. It's a shame that the editorial staff at Slate, which is usually pretty good about filtering out complete bogosity, dropped the ball so hard in this case.
"Even the way we choose to dole out cash betrays our true motives. Someone with $100 to give away and a world full of worthy causes should choose the worthiest and write the check. We don't. Instead, we give $5 for a LiveStrong bracelet, pledge $25 to Save the Children, another $25 to AIDS research, and so on. But $25 is not going to find a cure for AIDS. Either it's the best cause and deserves the entire $100, or it's not and some other cause does. The scattershot approach simply proves that we're more interested in feeling good than doing good.
Many people are unconvinced by this argument...because they are used to diversifying their financial investments (a bit of Google stock and a bit of Exxon, too) and varying their choices (vanilla ice cream AND bananas). But those instincts are selfish: They are not intended to benefit both Google and Exxon, nor both the ice-cream company and the banana growers. With charity, the logic is different, and a truly selfless donor would bite the bullet and put his entire donation behind one cause. That we find that so hard to imagine is just one more indication of how hard it is for us to think ourselves into a truly selfless view of the world.
How many logical flaws can you find in this reasoning? I count at least three:
1. The argument assumes that there is such a thing as a "best choice" when it comes to charity, and of course there isn't. The value of the work done by charitable orgnizations is incommensurate. How do you compare the value of an organization that works to save the oceans with one that works to save the rain forests or find a cure for cancer?
2. Even assuming that there is such a thing as a single best choice, the argument assumes that you know what the best choice is with absolute certainty. If you knew which stock would perform best there would be no need for diversification. Likewise, because you can't know which charity is "best" diversification makes sense to hedge against that uncertainty.
3. Even if you assume that there is a best choice and you know what it is, the argument assumes that the incremental value of money is constant. In other words, the argument assumes that the giving of money does not change the relative ranking of organizations. But of course that's not true because of the law of diminshing returns. At some point the relative effectiveness (and hence value) of additional resources begins to decline.
There are probably others. It's a shame that the editorial staff at Slate, which is usually pretty good about filtering out complete bogosity, dropped the ball so hard in this case.
Friday, October 13, 2006
The whirlwind tour
After more than a week on the road I finally have a moment to come up for air. We started the day in Ocracoke, North Carolina, at the very end of the Outer Banks. It's a beautiful place, a wonderful admixture of sea and continent, and, as a bonus, the site of the Wright Brother's first flight is on the way. We left at 1:00. It was 78 degrees.
About 400 miles and one cold front later we're in Winston-Salem and there's a frost advisory for the evening. We were on the road about eight hours (including one forty-minute ferry ride), a sustained speed that would have been a fantasy just 100 years ago. For $106 we have a very nice room in a La Quinta inn (complete with free high-speed Internet). For $54 plus tip we got a fine meal for two, which included three martinis and a very fine apple cobbler (with ice cream). What a great country.
This is literally the first free block of time I've had since we started this trip on the 4th. I've had five or ten minutes here and there, but this is my first free hour. It's been an amazing trip. The weather has ranged from 80 degrees and sunny to pouring rain and nearly freezing temperatures (fortunately not at the same time). We've gone from New York (population 8 million) to Ocracoke (population under 800). We crossed the Cheapeake Bay bridge-tunnel, a 17-mile long span that is one of the engineering wonders of the world (worth a detour IMHO). I shot three hours of additional footage for my film. Michael had his Social Security appeal hearing two days ago. You'll have to wait for the movie to find out what happened. :-)
Two days ago we were saddened to learn about the plane crash in New York. We had already left the city, but a number of our friends called to make sure it wasn't us. I fly an SR22, and the plane that crashed was an SR20. I have no idea what happened, except that it was pretty clearly pilot error. The most plausible theory I've heard is that they were trying to make a U-turn to avoid controlled airspace and underestimated how much room it would take. But regardless of anything else there is no escaping the fact that to hit that apartment building they had to be flying way too low. I feel sorry for the pilots and their families (and fans) but I'm a bit angry with them too. They made a stupid avoidable mistake and caused a lot of people a lot of grief.
Tomorrow we head in to Tennessee which is our last stop before we head home on Thursday. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up regular blogging again after that.
G'night!
About 400 miles and one cold front later we're in Winston-Salem and there's a frost advisory for the evening. We were on the road about eight hours (including one forty-minute ferry ride), a sustained speed that would have been a fantasy just 100 years ago. For $106 we have a very nice room in a La Quinta inn (complete with free high-speed Internet). For $54 plus tip we got a fine meal for two, which included three martinis and a very fine apple cobbler (with ice cream). What a great country.
This is literally the first free block of time I've had since we started this trip on the 4th. I've had five or ten minutes here and there, but this is my first free hour. It's been an amazing trip. The weather has ranged from 80 degrees and sunny to pouring rain and nearly freezing temperatures (fortunately not at the same time). We've gone from New York (population 8 million) to Ocracoke (population under 800). We crossed the Cheapeake Bay bridge-tunnel, a 17-mile long span that is one of the engineering wonders of the world (worth a detour IMHO). I shot three hours of additional footage for my film. Michael had his Social Security appeal hearing two days ago. You'll have to wait for the movie to find out what happened. :-)
Two days ago we were saddened to learn about the plane crash in New York. We had already left the city, but a number of our friends called to make sure it wasn't us. I fly an SR22, and the plane that crashed was an SR20. I have no idea what happened, except that it was pretty clearly pilot error. The most plausible theory I've heard is that they were trying to make a U-turn to avoid controlled airspace and underestimated how much room it would take. But regardless of anything else there is no escaping the fact that to hit that apartment building they had to be flying way too low. I feel sorry for the pilots and their families (and fans) but I'm a bit angry with them too. They made a stupid avoidable mistake and caused a lot of people a lot of grief.
Tomorrow we head in to Tennessee which is our last stop before we head home on Thursday. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up regular blogging again after that.
G'night!
Inside the mind of a fundie
Dogemperor gives a valuable glimpse inside the mind of a dominionist from someone who's actually been there.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Your tax dollars at work
Speaking of morally reprehensible uses of taxpayer dollars, the Pentagon is going to spend $20M of your money to celebrate how well things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know about you, but I can think of more effective ways to deploy that capital. (Of course, at the Pentagon $20M isn't capital, it's petty cash.)
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
If it quacks like a fascist...
Gene Callahan writes:
My fellow Americans, it's official now: We live in a fascist nation.
Worthwhile reading.
My fellow Americans, it's official now: We live in a fascist nation.
Worthwhile reading.
When all else fails...
What do the Republicans do when a member of their party goes down in screaming flames? Why they lie about it of course.
I gotta hand it to them, though: Fox news really has honed deception to a fine art. On the one hand, the lie preserved plausible deniability that it was just an honest mistake (although it's quite a coincidence that the one time they make this particular mistake it works to their advantage) and on the other hand it was likely very effective. There is no doubt in my mind that there are now tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the country who think Mark Foley is a democrat. (Hey, if you believe the earth was created in six days you can believe anything.)
But aside from having no respect for the truth (or the Constitution) I'm sure the Republicans are all honorable men.
I gotta hand it to them, though: Fox news really has honed deception to a fine art. On the one hand, the lie preserved plausible deniability that it was just an honest mistake (although it's quite a coincidence that the one time they make this particular mistake it works to their advantage) and on the other hand it was likely very effective. There is no doubt in my mind that there are now tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the country who think Mark Foley is a democrat. (Hey, if you believe the earth was created in six days you can believe anything.)
But aside from having no respect for the truth (or the Constitution) I'm sure the Republicans are all honorable men.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Gone fishin'
Since I've picked up a lot of new readers lately as a result of the geek myths post I thought I'd mention that I'm going to be going on a trip, and so my blogging will be light for a while. But I'll be back, and I'll do my best to keep posting while I'm on the road.
Thanks to everyone who posted comments. It's nice to know someone's out there.
Peace.
Thanks to everyone who posted comments. It's nice to know someone's out there.
Peace.
Now I get it
tmansnclar posted a comment in response to my earlier post that has really rocked my worldview:
While I support YOUR right to have an abortion, I don't want my taxes to pay for it.
Those of you watching my rss feed could watch my thinking on this issue evolve in real time as I posted and then deleted three different responses. The first one was:
This is not an unreasonable position, but it leads down a slippery slope. Should I be able to opt of paying my taxes for the military if I'm a pacifist?
But this, of course, misses the point because there is universal consensus that maintaining some kind of military is necessary. The disagreements are only over how big it should be and what it should be used for. So it's a false analogy. I then went with:
This is not an unreasonable position. I would support the elimination of taxpayer funded abortions as part of a compromise.
I struggled with this for a while because I really believe poor women should have access to abortions, but I've got this wicked libertarian streak in me, and I just couldn't come up with any principled justification for maintaining taxpayer-funded abortions except that I wanted them.
And then it hit me: there is no justification. Taxpayer-funded abortions are wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. If we liberals are going to argue that the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy then we'd bloody well better keep it private. But we don't. We want to put the government's gun to everyone's head and force them to support it financially. It's not so different from the Republican torture bill. We use the government's power to force people to support activities that they find morally reprehensible. So I get it. I understand now, for the first time, on a visceral level, why people vote Republican (or anti-Democrat). There's the little matter of the repeal of habeus corpus that still tilts the evilness scale in favor of the Republicans, but that is not a big comfort to me at the moment.
Gosh, can it really be that simple? If the Dems repudiated taxpayer-funded abortions would that tilt the balance back in their favor? I wonder if this is even on their radar.
To anyone I may have offended by my previous ranting about how evil the Republicans are, I apologize. I get it now. I still think the Republicans are evil, but I no longer think that voting for them is morally unjustifiable.
Shit. Now what do I do?
While I support YOUR right to have an abortion, I don't want my taxes to pay for it.
Those of you watching my rss feed could watch my thinking on this issue evolve in real time as I posted and then deleted three different responses. The first one was:
This is not an unreasonable position, but it leads down a slippery slope. Should I be able to opt of paying my taxes for the military if I'm a pacifist?
But this, of course, misses the point because there is universal consensus that maintaining some kind of military is necessary. The disagreements are only over how big it should be and what it should be used for. So it's a false analogy. I then went with:
This is not an unreasonable position. I would support the elimination of taxpayer funded abortions as part of a compromise.
I struggled with this for a while because I really believe poor women should have access to abortions, but I've got this wicked libertarian streak in me, and I just couldn't come up with any principled justification for maintaining taxpayer-funded abortions except that I wanted them.
And then it hit me: there is no justification. Taxpayer-funded abortions are wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. If we liberals are going to argue that the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy then we'd bloody well better keep it private. But we don't. We want to put the government's gun to everyone's head and force them to support it financially. It's not so different from the Republican torture bill. We use the government's power to force people to support activities that they find morally reprehensible. So I get it. I understand now, for the first time, on a visceral level, why people vote Republican (or anti-Democrat). There's the little matter of the repeal of habeus corpus that still tilts the evilness scale in favor of the Republicans, but that is not a big comfort to me at the moment.
Gosh, can it really be that simple? If the Dems repudiated taxpayer-funded abortions would that tilt the balance back in their favor? I wonder if this is even on their radar.
To anyone I may have offended by my previous ranting about how evil the Republicans are, I apologize. I get it now. I still think the Republicans are evil, but I no longer think that voting for them is morally unjustifiable.
Shit. Now what do I do?
Monday, October 02, 2006
Republicans oppose the nanny state? Wanna bet?
To help promote individual freedom and personal responsibility, and as part of their never-ending struggle against Democratic efforts to institute a "Nanny State", the Republicans have banned on-line gambling.
A picture is worth...
I commissioned this political cartoon because I have no artistic talent and this is a sentiment that can only be communicated in pictures. (Click on the image for a full-size version.)
Drawn by Jacki Randall
Drawn by Jacki Randall
Why I bash Democrats
OK, I guess I'd better put my money where my mouth is if I'm going to claim to be an equal opportunity basher.
In what way has the power of the Federal government spiralled out of control so much? (Pre Patriot Act)
The war on drugs started long before George Bush. Restrictions on the ownership of firearms in blatant violation of the 2nd amendment started long before George Bush. (I'm all for limiting ownership of weapons -- I don't think individuals should be allowed to own nukes for example -- but the right way to do that is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it.)
I could go on and on. Both parties have been complicit in the slow evisceration of the Constitution, although the Democrats at least seem to be a little queasy about it whereas the Republicans seem to me to be utterly shameless, even gleeful about it.
(One of the first things the Republicans did when they took Congress back in the 90's was repeal the 55 MPH speed limit. I thought that was terrific, and for a brief moment I thought that having the Repubs in charge might not be such a bad thing. Alas, it's been pretty much downhill from there.)
When have Democrats actively supported legislation criminalizing "not being politically correct"
I spoke too hastily here. The Dems don't want to throw you in jail, they just want to marginalize you if you don't toe their intellectual party line. If you're gay or black or poor or Muslim even (gasp!) an atheist then you're welcome. If you're a Christian then you can still come in, but they'll ask you to check your faith at the door. If you dare suggest that, say, the teacher's union might be doing more harm than good, or that working to reduce the number of abortions (in ways other than threatening to throw people in prison) then you're out.
And yet, you still are reluctant to vote Democratic?
Not at all under the circumstances. But I might be if they were in charge again.
You cannot bring yourself to say that "I admire that many Democratic Senators finally have the balls to stand up to the rape of the Constitution." Why not?
I'm glad some of them have finally found their spine. Where have they been all this time? Where were they when the first Patriot act was rammed down our throats? Where were they when Dubya first wanted to invade Iraq? (It was clear even at the time that the intelligence on WMDs was suspect. There were U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. If, as we claimed, we knew exactly where they were, why not just send the inspectors there to find the smoking gun?) And, most importantly, how are they going to fix the mess we're in? Throwing the Republicans out is only half the battle. Once that's done someone has to clean up the mess they've made. We're in a pickle, and how we got here doesn't matter. The fact is we're in and no one, Republican or Democrat, has a credible plan for getting us out. (My plan? Admit we fucked up and ask the world to forgive us. It's not a great plan, but it's better than anything else I've heard.)
They say the same things you do.
No, they don't. They utter tired old plattitudes about the gap between the rich and the poor and a woman's right to choose and they completely miss the fact that some people really believe in their heart of hearts that a woman should no more have a right to choose to kill a fetus than she should have to choose to kill a Jew. I think those people are completely and utterly wrong, but the difference between me and the Dems is that I acknowledge and respect a person's right to believe it. The Democrats do not.
Everything you describe as believing in is what mainstream Democrats believe in too. The Republican propaganda is successful at convincing you otherwise.
No, it's not Republican propaganda, it's the Democrat's incompetence. If these things are what Democrats really believe then they have utterly failed to communicate that to me, and I am the most receptive audience they can ever hope to find. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of truth to the right-wing charges that the Democrats are a bunch of elitist snobs who don't give a damn about what people outside their clique really think. And I come to this position not from watching Fox News, but from hanging out with Democrats.
So a pox on both their houses. But this November I think it's really important to vote Democratic because if the Republicans keep control of Congress (especially if it's the result of another stolen election) I fear that American democracy may never recover.
In what way has the power of the Federal government spiralled out of control so much? (Pre Patriot Act)
The war on drugs started long before George Bush. Restrictions on the ownership of firearms in blatant violation of the 2nd amendment started long before George Bush. (I'm all for limiting ownership of weapons -- I don't think individuals should be allowed to own nukes for example -- but the right way to do that is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it.)
I could go on and on. Both parties have been complicit in the slow evisceration of the Constitution, although the Democrats at least seem to be a little queasy about it whereas the Republicans seem to me to be utterly shameless, even gleeful about it.
(One of the first things the Republicans did when they took Congress back in the 90's was repeal the 55 MPH speed limit. I thought that was terrific, and for a brief moment I thought that having the Repubs in charge might not be such a bad thing. Alas, it's been pretty much downhill from there.)
When have Democrats actively supported legislation criminalizing "not being politically correct"
I spoke too hastily here. The Dems don't want to throw you in jail, they just want to marginalize you if you don't toe their intellectual party line. If you're gay or black or poor or Muslim even (gasp!) an atheist then you're welcome. If you're a Christian then you can still come in, but they'll ask you to check your faith at the door. If you dare suggest that, say, the teacher's union might be doing more harm than good, or that working to reduce the number of abortions (in ways other than threatening to throw people in prison) then you're out.
And yet, you still are reluctant to vote Democratic?
Not at all under the circumstances. But I might be if they were in charge again.
You cannot bring yourself to say that "I admire that many Democratic Senators finally have the balls to stand up to the rape of the Constitution." Why not?
I'm glad some of them have finally found their spine. Where have they been all this time? Where were they when the first Patriot act was rammed down our throats? Where were they when Dubya first wanted to invade Iraq? (It was clear even at the time that the intelligence on WMDs was suspect. There were U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. If, as we claimed, we knew exactly where they were, why not just send the inspectors there to find the smoking gun?) And, most importantly, how are they going to fix the mess we're in? Throwing the Republicans out is only half the battle. Once that's done someone has to clean up the mess they've made. We're in a pickle, and how we got here doesn't matter. The fact is we're in and no one, Republican or Democrat, has a credible plan for getting us out. (My plan? Admit we fucked up and ask the world to forgive us. It's not a great plan, but it's better than anything else I've heard.)
They say the same things you do.
No, they don't. They utter tired old plattitudes about the gap between the rich and the poor and a woman's right to choose and they completely miss the fact that some people really believe in their heart of hearts that a woman should no more have a right to choose to kill a fetus than she should have to choose to kill a Jew. I think those people are completely and utterly wrong, but the difference between me and the Dems is that I acknowledge and respect a person's right to believe it. The Democrats do not.
Everything you describe as believing in is what mainstream Democrats believe in too. The Republican propaganda is successful at convincing you otherwise.
No, it's not Republican propaganda, it's the Democrat's incompetence. If these things are what Democrats really believe then they have utterly failed to communicate that to me, and I am the most receptive audience they can ever hope to find. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of truth to the right-wing charges that the Democrats are a bunch of elitist snobs who don't give a damn about what people outside their clique really think. And I come to this position not from watching Fox News, but from hanging out with Democrats.
So a pox on both their houses. But this November I think it's really important to vote Democratic because if the Republicans keep control of Congress (especially if it's the result of another stolen election) I fear that American democracy may never recover.
Why I bash Republicans
Incredibly Fat Man wrote this comment in response to my last post. I thought it deserved a considered reply:
" most people are pretty dumb (look at how many people vote Republican ;-)"
Most people vote anti-democrat (and therefore republican) because they're tired of psudeo-intellectual democrats telling them they're stupid if they feel differently on an issue.
Well, that particular bash was intended to be humorous. For the record, most people who vote Republican are not dumb (although I think many of them are ignorant). In fact, one could make the argument (and I sometimes do) that the Democrats (i.e. the people who actually run the party, not the people who vote for the party) are dumber than the Republicans because they fail to recognize that people vote Republican for reasons other than stupidity. (As you might imagine, this sentiment doesn't go over very well among my Democrat friends. That's one of the reasons I'm feel pretty confident that my position is correct: I seem to offend both sides more or less equally.)
By the way, there's an excellent book about this called The Left Hand of God which I highly recommend.
This elitism is (in my opinion) the reason the democrats keep getting their asses handed to them. Calling folks stupid is a poor way to get them on your side.
That's true. Calling them traitors does seem to work better from a PR point of view.
There, I feel better now. For the record, let me tell you where I stand politically:
1. I believe in small (but not non-existent) government. I think the size and power of the federal government has spiralled wildly out of control and it needs to be seriously reeled in.
2. I believe in fiscal responsibility. We are on a wild spending binge on our children's credit card. It has to stop.
3. I believe in personal freedom. I think people should be able to say what they want, write what they want, think what they want, worship whomever or whatever they want, eat what they want, smoke what they want, marry whom they want.
4. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. If you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, don't come bitching to me (or the government). No one put a gun to your head and forced you to inhale. You did that to yourself.
5. I believe in free enterprise. The function of government is to provide a level playing field, not to bail out companies or individuals who make poor choices or get unlucky. (I do think that we ought to provide a social safety net, but I think we should do this purely out of self-interest, not as a matter of principle. I think most people don't like seeing their fellow humans living on the street, and the best way to deal with that problem is to make sure everyone has at least one other viable option.)
Except for the marry-whoever-you-want bit I kind of sound like a Republican, don't I? So why do I bash on the Republicans so hard?
It's very simple: if you look at what the Republicans actually do as opposed to what they say they are almost exact opposites. Republicans say they are for small government, but in the last 50 years the government has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but the federal budget deficit has grown more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. (The correlation is quite striking:
Back in the Carter administration the deficit held more or less steady (and this was during an era of rampant inflation). Then during Reagan and Bush I the deficit grew almost monotonically. Then Clinton came into office and the deficit shrank. And we all know what happened after that.
The Republicans say they are for personal freedom, but the fact of the matter is that they want to use the force of government to constrain your life just as much as the Democrats do, they just want to constrain it in different ways. The Democrats want to throw you in jail if you're not politically correct, and the Republicans want to throw you in jail if you want to smoke pot (even medicinally) or have an abortion (even if you've been raped) or burn the flag.
Republicans say they are for personal responsibility. There are so many examples of Republican hypocrisy on this issue that I hardly know where to begin. Well, let's start with the weasel-in-chief who takes no responsibility for 9/11, no responsibility for the mess in Iraq (according to Dubya everything is just hunky-dory and he hasn't made any mistakes). Let's go on to Dennis Hastert, who let a child molestor go unmolested through the halls of Congress. (They didn't do anything about it because they'd be accused of gay-bashing? Oh give me a break. Even if that were true, why should the prospect of a false accusation of gay-bashing stop you from doing what is so clearly the right thing?)
The Republicans say they are for free enterprise, but in fact they are rife with corruption, giving out billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to the vice-president's former company.
And as if that weren't enough, the Republicans say they are patriots, but then they pass laws that undermine the very bedrock that this country is supposed to stand on: the rule of law, Habeus Corpus, separation of powers, judicial review, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, paper and possessions from unreasonable searches and siezures. They say they are for freedom, but it is quite clear that there is an influential faction of the Republican party that believes that the United States was founded not as a secular democracy, but as a Christian theocracy, and wants to return to those halcyon days. George the First once said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." He said that despite the fact that the Constitution very clearly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office" including, one presumes, citizenship. I bash Republicans because they believe in second-class citizenship (or worse) for atheists (that's me), gays (that's many of my friends), people of color, people without means (those are my brothers and sisters). I bash Republicans because they believe that there are witches -- oh, sorry, -- terrorists against whom we can only defend ourselves by giving George Bush the unilateral and unreviewable power to imprison and torture them. I bash Republicans because they want to take us back to the dark ages. I bash Republicans because they want to make me "secure".
I don't want to be secure. I want to be free.
I bash Republicans not because I love the Democrats. I think the Democrats are a bunch of self-important morons who can't see beyond their ivory tower. I bash the Republicans because they are a clear and present danger to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. I bash them because as a citizen of the U.S. I am bound to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If the Democrats ever control all three branches of government I'll probably be bashing them.
" most people are pretty dumb (look at how many people vote Republican ;-)"
Most people vote anti-democrat (and therefore republican) because they're tired of psudeo-intellectual democrats telling them they're stupid if they feel differently on an issue.
Well, that particular bash was intended to be humorous. For the record, most people who vote Republican are not dumb (although I think many of them are ignorant). In fact, one could make the argument (and I sometimes do) that the Democrats (i.e. the people who actually run the party, not the people who vote for the party) are dumber than the Republicans because they fail to recognize that people vote Republican for reasons other than stupidity. (As you might imagine, this sentiment doesn't go over very well among my Democrat friends. That's one of the reasons I'm feel pretty confident that my position is correct: I seem to offend both sides more or less equally.)
By the way, there's an excellent book about this called The Left Hand of God which I highly recommend.
This elitism is (in my opinion) the reason the democrats keep getting their asses handed to them. Calling folks stupid is a poor way to get them on your side.
That's true. Calling them traitors does seem to work better from a PR point of view.
There, I feel better now. For the record, let me tell you where I stand politically:
1. I believe in small (but not non-existent) government. I think the size and power of the federal government has spiralled wildly out of control and it needs to be seriously reeled in.
2. I believe in fiscal responsibility. We are on a wild spending binge on our children's credit card. It has to stop.
3. I believe in personal freedom. I think people should be able to say what they want, write what they want, think what they want, worship whomever or whatever they want, eat what they want, smoke what they want, marry whom they want.
4. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. If you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, don't come bitching to me (or the government). No one put a gun to your head and forced you to inhale. You did that to yourself.
5. I believe in free enterprise. The function of government is to provide a level playing field, not to bail out companies or individuals who make poor choices or get unlucky. (I do think that we ought to provide a social safety net, but I think we should do this purely out of self-interest, not as a matter of principle. I think most people don't like seeing their fellow humans living on the street, and the best way to deal with that problem is to make sure everyone has at least one other viable option.)
Except for the marry-whoever-you-want bit I kind of sound like a Republican, don't I? So why do I bash on the Republicans so hard?
It's very simple: if you look at what the Republicans actually do as opposed to what they say they are almost exact opposites. Republicans say they are for small government, but in the last 50 years the government has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but the federal budget deficit has grown more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. (The correlation is quite striking:
Back in the Carter administration the deficit held more or less steady (and this was during an era of rampant inflation). Then during Reagan and Bush I the deficit grew almost monotonically. Then Clinton came into office and the deficit shrank. And we all know what happened after that.
The Republicans say they are for personal freedom, but the fact of the matter is that they want to use the force of government to constrain your life just as much as the Democrats do, they just want to constrain it in different ways. The Democrats want to throw you in jail if you're not politically correct, and the Republicans want to throw you in jail if you want to smoke pot (even medicinally) or have an abortion (even if you've been raped) or burn the flag.
Republicans say they are for personal responsibility. There are so many examples of Republican hypocrisy on this issue that I hardly know where to begin. Well, let's start with the weasel-in-chief who takes no responsibility for 9/11, no responsibility for the mess in Iraq (according to Dubya everything is just hunky-dory and he hasn't made any mistakes). Let's go on to Dennis Hastert, who let a child molestor go unmolested through the halls of Congress. (They didn't do anything about it because they'd be accused of gay-bashing? Oh give me a break. Even if that were true, why should the prospect of a false accusation of gay-bashing stop you from doing what is so clearly the right thing?)
The Republicans say they are for free enterprise, but in fact they are rife with corruption, giving out billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to the vice-president's former company.
And as if that weren't enough, the Republicans say they are patriots, but then they pass laws that undermine the very bedrock that this country is supposed to stand on: the rule of law, Habeus Corpus, separation of powers, judicial review, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, paper and possessions from unreasonable searches and siezures. They say they are for freedom, but it is quite clear that there is an influential faction of the Republican party that believes that the United States was founded not as a secular democracy, but as a Christian theocracy, and wants to return to those halcyon days. George the First once said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." He said that despite the fact that the Constitution very clearly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office" including, one presumes, citizenship. I bash Republicans because they believe in second-class citizenship (or worse) for atheists (that's me), gays (that's many of my friends), people of color, people without means (those are my brothers and sisters). I bash Republicans because they believe that there are witches -- oh, sorry, -- terrorists against whom we can only defend ourselves by giving George Bush the unilateral and unreviewable power to imprison and torture them. I bash Republicans because they want to take us back to the dark ages. I bash Republicans because they want to make me "secure".
I don't want to be secure. I want to be free.
I bash Republicans not because I love the Democrats. I think the Democrats are a bunch of self-important morons who can't see beyond their ivory tower. I bash the Republicans because they are a clear and present danger to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. I bash them because as a citizen of the U.S. I am bound to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If the Democrats ever control all three branches of government I'll probably be bashing them.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Top ten geek business myths
Since I've started my new career as a venture capitalist I have become keenly aware of some of the classic mistakes that geeks make when trying to raise money for a new business. Instead of writing the same comments over and over again I thought I'd try to summarize some of the mistakes that people -- especially smart people -- make when they decide to try to turn their bright ideas into money. Here then is my top-ten list of geek business myths:
Myth #1: A brilliant idea will make you rich.
Reality: A brilliant idea is neither necessary nor sufficient for a successful business, although all else being equal it can't hurt. Microsoft is probably the canonical example of a successful business, and it has never had a single brilliant idea in its entire history. (To the contrary, Microsoft has achieved success largely by seeking out and destroying other people's brilliant ideas.) Google was based on a couple of brilliant ideas (Page rank, text-only ads, massive parallel implementation on cheap hardware) but none of those ideas were original with Larry or Sergey. This is not to say that Larry, Sergey and Bill are not bright guys -- all three of them are sharper than I can ever hope to be. But the idea that any of them woke up one day with an inspiration and coasted the rest of the way to riches is a myth.
Myth #2: If you build it they will come.
There is a grain of truth to this myth. There have been examples of businesses that just built a product, cast it upon the ether(net), and achieved success. (Google is the canonical example.) But for every Google there are ten examples of companies that had killer products that didn't sell for one reason or another. My favorite example of this is the first company I tried to start back in 1993. It was called FlowNet, and it was a new design for a high speed local area network. It ran at 500Mb/s in a time when 10 Mb/s ethernet was the norm. For more than five years, FlowNet had the best price/performance ratio of any available network. On top of that, FlowNet had built-in quality-of-service guarantees for streaming video. If FlowNet had taken over the world your streaming video would be working a lot better today than it does.
But despite the fact that on a technical level FlowNet blew everything else out of the water it was an abysmal failure as a business. We never sold a single unit. The full story of why FlowNet failed would take me far afield, but if I had to sum it up in a nutshell the reason it didn't sell was very simple: it wasn't Ethernet. And if we'd done our homework and market research we could have known that this would be, if not a show-stopper at least a significant obstacle. And we would have known it before we spent tens of thousands of dollars of our own money on patent attorneys and prototypes.
Myth #3: Someone will steal your idea if you don't protect it.
Reality: No one gives a damn about your idea until you actually succeed and by then it's too late. Even on the off chance that you do manage to stumble across someone who is as excited about your idea as you are, if they have any brains they will join you rather than try to beat you. (And if they don't have any brains then it doesn't matter what they do.)
Patent protection does serve one useful purpose: it can make investors feel warm and fuzzy, especially naive investors. But I strongly recommend that you do your own patent filings. It's not hard to do once you learn how (get the Nolo Press book "Patent it Yourself"). You'll do a better job than most patent attorneys and save yourself a lot of money.
Myth #4: What you think matters.
Reality: It matters not one whit that you and all your buddies think that your idea is the greatest thing since sliced pizza (unless, of course, your buddies are rich enough to be the customer base for your business). What matters is what your customers think. It is natural to assume that if you and your buddies think your idea is cool that millions of other people out there will think it's cool too, and sometimes it works out that way, but usually not. The reason is that if you are smart enough to have a brilliant idea then you (and most likely your buddies) are different from everyone else. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but the sad fact of the matter is that compared to you, most people are pretty dumb (look at how many people vote Republican ;-) and they care about dumb things. (I just heard about a new clothing store in Pasadena that has lines around the block. A clothing store!) If you cater only to people who care about the things that you care about then your customer base will be pretty small.
Myth #5: Financial models are bogus.
As with myth #2 there is a grain of truth here. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, prophecy is a lost art. There is no way to know for sure how much money your business is going to make, or how much it will cost to get to market. The reason for doing financial models is to do a reality check and convince yourself that making a return on investment is even a plausible possibility. If you run the numbers and find out that in order to reach break-even you need a customer base that is ten times larger than the currently known market for your product then you should probably rethink things. As Dwight Eisenhower said: plans are useless, but planning is indispensible.
This myth is the basis for one of the most classic mistakes that geeks make when pitching their ideas. They will say things like "Even if we only capture 1% of the market we'll make big bucks." Statements like that are a dead giveaway that you haven't done your homework to find out what your customers actually want. You may as well say: there's a good chance that only 1 customer in 100 will buy our product (and frankly, we're not even sure about that). Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know.
Reality: You've been in denial about this your whole life. You were either brought up to believe that being smart mattered, or you just didn't believe your mother when she told you that getting along with the other kids was more important than getting straight A's.
The truth is, who you know matters more than what you know. This is not to say that being smart and knowledgable is useless. Knowing "what" is often an effective means of getting introduced to the right "whos". But ultimately, the people you know and trust (and more importantly who trust you) matter more than the factual knowledge you may have at your immediate disposal. And there is a sound reason for this: business decisions are horrifically complicated. No one person can possibly amass all the knowledge and experience required to make a broad range of such decisions on their own, so effective business people delegate much of their decision-making to other people. And when they choose who to delegate to, their first pick is always people they know and trust.
Ironically, C programmers understand this much better than Lisp programmers. One of the ironies of the programming world is that using Lisp is vastly more productive than using pretty much any other programming language, but successful businesses based on Lisp are quite rare. The reason for this, I think, is that Lisp allows you to be so productive that a single person can get things done without having to work together with anyone else, and so Lisp programmers never develop the social skills needed to work effectively as a member of a team. A C programmer, by contrast, can't do anything useful except as a member of a team. So although programming in C hobbles you in some ways, it forces you to form groups whose net effectiveness is greater than the sum of their parts, and who collectively can stomp on all the individual Lisp programmers out there, even though one-on-one a Lisper can run rings around a C programmer.
Myth #7: A Ph.D. means something.
Reality: The only thing a Ph.D. means is that you're not a moron, and you're willing to put up with the bullshit it takes to slog your way through a Ph.D. program somewhere. Empirically, having a Ph.D. is negatively correlated with business success. This is because the reward structure in academia is almost the exact opposite of what it is in business. In academia, what your peers think matters. In business, it's what your customers think that matters, and your customers are (almost certainly) not your peers.
[UPDATE: this is not to say that getting a Ph.D. is useless. You can learn a lot of useful stuff by getting a Ph.D. But it's the knowledge and experience that you gain by going through the process that is potentially valuable (for business endeavors), not the degree itself.]
Myth #8: I need $5 million to start my business
Reality: Unless you're building hardware (in which case you should definitely rethink what you're doing) you most likely don't need any startup capital at all. Paul Graham has written extensively about this so I won't belabor it too much, except to say this: you don't need much startup capital, but what you do need is a willingness to work your buns off. You have to bring your brilliant idea to fruition yourself; no one else will do it for you, and no one will give you the money to hire someone to do it for you. The reason is very simple: if you don't believe in the commercial potential of your idea enough to give up your evenings and weekends to own a bigger chunk of it, why should anyone else believe in it enough to put their hard-earned money at risk?
Myth #9: The idea is the most important part of my business plan.
Reality: The idea is very nearly irrelevant. What matters is 1) who are your customers? 2) Why will they buy what you're selling? (Note that the reason for this could very well be something like, "Because I'm famous and I have a huge fan base and they will buy sacks of stale dog shit if it has my name on it." But in your case it will more likely be, "Because we have a great product that blows the competition out of the water.") 3) Who is on your team? and 4) What are the risks?
Myth #10: Having no competition is a good thing.
Reality: If you have no competition the most likely reason for that is that there's no money to be made. There are six billion people on this planet, and it's very unlikely that every last of them will have left a lucrative market niche completely unexploited.
The good news is that it is very likely that your competition sucks. The vast majority of businesses are not run very well. They make shoddy products. They treat their customers and their employees like shit. It's not hard to find market opportunities where you can go in and kick the competition's ass. You don't want no competition, what you want is bad competition. And there's plenty of that out there.
Special bonus myth (free with your paid subscription): After the IPO I'll be happy.
If you don't enjoy the process of starting a business then you will probably not succeed. It's just too much work, and it will suck you dry if you're not having fun doing it. Even if you get filthy stinking rich you will just have more time to look back across the years you wasted being miserable and nursing your acid reflux. The charm of expensive cars and whatnot wears off quickly. There's only one kind of happiness that money can buy, and that is the opportunity to be on the other side of the table when some bright kid comes along with a brilliant idea for a business.
All these myths can be neatly summarized in a pithy slogan: it's the customer, stupid. Success in business is not about having a brilliant idea. Bright ideas are a dime a dozen. Business is about taking a bright idea and assembling a team that can turn that idea into a product and bring that product to customers who want to buy it. It's that simple. And that complicated.
Good luck.
Copyright (c) 2006 by the author. All rights reserved.
Myth #1: A brilliant idea will make you rich.
Reality: A brilliant idea is neither necessary nor sufficient for a successful business, although all else being equal it can't hurt. Microsoft is probably the canonical example of a successful business, and it has never had a single brilliant idea in its entire history. (To the contrary, Microsoft has achieved success largely by seeking out and destroying other people's brilliant ideas.) Google was based on a couple of brilliant ideas (Page rank, text-only ads, massive parallel implementation on cheap hardware) but none of those ideas were original with Larry or Sergey. This is not to say that Larry, Sergey and Bill are not bright guys -- all three of them are sharper than I can ever hope to be. But the idea that any of them woke up one day with an inspiration and coasted the rest of the way to riches is a myth.
Myth #2: If you build it they will come.
There is a grain of truth to this myth. There have been examples of businesses that just built a product, cast it upon the ether(net), and achieved success. (Google is the canonical example.) But for every Google there are ten examples of companies that had killer products that didn't sell for one reason or another. My favorite example of this is the first company I tried to start back in 1993. It was called FlowNet, and it was a new design for a high speed local area network. It ran at 500Mb/s in a time when 10 Mb/s ethernet was the norm. For more than five years, FlowNet had the best price/performance ratio of any available network. On top of that, FlowNet had built-in quality-of-service guarantees for streaming video. If FlowNet had taken over the world your streaming video would be working a lot better today than it does.
But despite the fact that on a technical level FlowNet blew everything else out of the water it was an abysmal failure as a business. We never sold a single unit. The full story of why FlowNet failed would take me far afield, but if I had to sum it up in a nutshell the reason it didn't sell was very simple: it wasn't Ethernet. And if we'd done our homework and market research we could have known that this would be, if not a show-stopper at least a significant obstacle. And we would have known it before we spent tens of thousands of dollars of our own money on patent attorneys and prototypes.
Myth #3: Someone will steal your idea if you don't protect it.
Reality: No one gives a damn about your idea until you actually succeed and by then it's too late. Even on the off chance that you do manage to stumble across someone who is as excited about your idea as you are, if they have any brains they will join you rather than try to beat you. (And if they don't have any brains then it doesn't matter what they do.)
Patent protection does serve one useful purpose: it can make investors feel warm and fuzzy, especially naive investors. But I strongly recommend that you do your own patent filings. It's not hard to do once you learn how (get the Nolo Press book "Patent it Yourself"). You'll do a better job than most patent attorneys and save yourself a lot of money.
Myth #4: What you think matters.
Reality: It matters not one whit that you and all your buddies think that your idea is the greatest thing since sliced pizza (unless, of course, your buddies are rich enough to be the customer base for your business). What matters is what your customers think. It is natural to assume that if you and your buddies think your idea is cool that millions of other people out there will think it's cool too, and sometimes it works out that way, but usually not. The reason is that if you are smart enough to have a brilliant idea then you (and most likely your buddies) are different from everyone else. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but the sad fact of the matter is that compared to you, most people are pretty dumb (look at how many people vote Republican ;-) and they care about dumb things. (I just heard about a new clothing store in Pasadena that has lines around the block. A clothing store!) If you cater only to people who care about the things that you care about then your customer base will be pretty small.
Myth #5: Financial models are bogus.
As with myth #2 there is a grain of truth here. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, prophecy is a lost art. There is no way to know for sure how much money your business is going to make, or how much it will cost to get to market. The reason for doing financial models is to do a reality check and convince yourself that making a return on investment is even a plausible possibility. If you run the numbers and find out that in order to reach break-even you need a customer base that is ten times larger than the currently known market for your product then you should probably rethink things. As Dwight Eisenhower said: plans are useless, but planning is indispensible.
This myth is the basis for one of the most classic mistakes that geeks make when pitching their ideas. They will say things like "Even if we only capture 1% of the market we'll make big bucks." Statements like that are a dead giveaway that you haven't done your homework to find out what your customers actually want. You may as well say: there's a good chance that only 1 customer in 100 will buy our product (and frankly, we're not even sure about that). Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know.
Reality: You've been in denial about this your whole life. You were either brought up to believe that being smart mattered, or you just didn't believe your mother when she told you that getting along with the other kids was more important than getting straight A's.
The truth is, who you know matters more than what you know. This is not to say that being smart and knowledgable is useless. Knowing "what" is often an effective means of getting introduced to the right "whos". But ultimately, the people you know and trust (and more importantly who trust you) matter more than the factual knowledge you may have at your immediate disposal. And there is a sound reason for this: business decisions are horrifically complicated. No one person can possibly amass all the knowledge and experience required to make a broad range of such decisions on their own, so effective business people delegate much of their decision-making to other people. And when they choose who to delegate to, their first pick is always people they know and trust.
Ironically, C programmers understand this much better than Lisp programmers. One of the ironies of the programming world is that using Lisp is vastly more productive than using pretty much any other programming language, but successful businesses based on Lisp are quite rare. The reason for this, I think, is that Lisp allows you to be so productive that a single person can get things done without having to work together with anyone else, and so Lisp programmers never develop the social skills needed to work effectively as a member of a team. A C programmer, by contrast, can't do anything useful except as a member of a team. So although programming in C hobbles you in some ways, it forces you to form groups whose net effectiveness is greater than the sum of their parts, and who collectively can stomp on all the individual Lisp programmers out there, even though one-on-one a Lisper can run rings around a C programmer.
Myth #7: A Ph.D. means something.
Reality: The only thing a Ph.D. means is that you're not a moron, and you're willing to put up with the bullshit it takes to slog your way through a Ph.D. program somewhere. Empirically, having a Ph.D. is negatively correlated with business success. This is because the reward structure in academia is almost the exact opposite of what it is in business. In academia, what your peers think matters. In business, it's what your customers think that matters, and your customers are (almost certainly) not your peers.
[UPDATE: this is not to say that getting a Ph.D. is useless. You can learn a lot of useful stuff by getting a Ph.D. But it's the knowledge and experience that you gain by going through the process that is potentially valuable (for business endeavors), not the degree itself.]
Myth #8: I need $5 million to start my business
Reality: Unless you're building hardware (in which case you should definitely rethink what you're doing) you most likely don't need any startup capital at all. Paul Graham has written extensively about this so I won't belabor it too much, except to say this: you don't need much startup capital, but what you do need is a willingness to work your buns off. You have to bring your brilliant idea to fruition yourself; no one else will do it for you, and no one will give you the money to hire someone to do it for you. The reason is very simple: if you don't believe in the commercial potential of your idea enough to give up your evenings and weekends to own a bigger chunk of it, why should anyone else believe in it enough to put their hard-earned money at risk?
Myth #9: The idea is the most important part of my business plan.
Reality: The idea is very nearly irrelevant. What matters is 1) who are your customers? 2) Why will they buy what you're selling? (Note that the reason for this could very well be something like, "Because I'm famous and I have a huge fan base and they will buy sacks of stale dog shit if it has my name on it." But in your case it will more likely be, "Because we have a great product that blows the competition out of the water.") 3) Who is on your team? and 4) What are the risks?
Myth #10: Having no competition is a good thing.
Reality: If you have no competition the most likely reason for that is that there's no money to be made. There are six billion people on this planet, and it's very unlikely that every last of them will have left a lucrative market niche completely unexploited.
The good news is that it is very likely that your competition sucks. The vast majority of businesses are not run very well. They make shoddy products. They treat their customers and their employees like shit. It's not hard to find market opportunities where you can go in and kick the competition's ass. You don't want no competition, what you want is bad competition. And there's plenty of that out there.
Special bonus myth (free with your paid subscription): After the IPO I'll be happy.
If you don't enjoy the process of starting a business then you will probably not succeed. It's just too much work, and it will suck you dry if you're not having fun doing it. Even if you get filthy stinking rich you will just have more time to look back across the years you wasted being miserable and nursing your acid reflux. The charm of expensive cars and whatnot wears off quickly. There's only one kind of happiness that money can buy, and that is the opportunity to be on the other side of the table when some bright kid comes along with a brilliant idea for a business.
All these myths can be neatly summarized in a pithy slogan: it's the customer, stupid. Success in business is not about having a brilliant idea. Bright ideas are a dime a dozen. Business is about taking a bright idea and assembling a team that can turn that idea into a product and bring that product to customers who want to buy it. It's that simple. And that complicated.
Good luck.
Copyright (c) 2006 by the author. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Water-boarding 101
All you people who are still thinking about voting Republican this fall, this is what you're voting for. Do you really think this is the way to win hearts and minds?
I understand the mindset of those who think that voting for Democrats is voting for the equally unthinkable slaughter of innocent babies. But get this through your thick skulls people: the difference between these two situations is that not everyone agrees that a fetus is a baby. It's fine for you to believe it. Don't have an abortion. Use your right to free speech to try to convince others to not have abortions. More power to you. The fewer abortions there are the better off the world will be. But you do not have a right to use force-- you may not bomb abortion clinics, you may not shoot doctors, you may not use the government's power to imprison people -- to impose your beliefs upon others. That is what terrorists do. We don't do that. That is what makes us the good guys.
You right-wingnuts have no idea what the opposite extreme on abortion looks like because no one believes in the opposite extreme. The opposite extreme from illegal abortion is not legal abortion, it is forced abortion, an extreme from which every sane person rightly recoils. Voting for someone who condones torture in order to avoid voting for someone who wants to make abortion legal is no less abhorrent. These are not terrorists we are torturing, they are terror suspects and they are human beings. And many of them are innocent. And if you vote Republican this November their blood will be on your hands. May God forgive you.
I understand the mindset of those who think that voting for Democrats is voting for the equally unthinkable slaughter of innocent babies. But get this through your thick skulls people: the difference between these two situations is that not everyone agrees that a fetus is a baby. It's fine for you to believe it. Don't have an abortion. Use your right to free speech to try to convince others to not have abortions. More power to you. The fewer abortions there are the better off the world will be. But you do not have a right to use force-- you may not bomb abortion clinics, you may not shoot doctors, you may not use the government's power to imprison people -- to impose your beliefs upon others. That is what terrorists do. We don't do that. That is what makes us the good guys.
You right-wingnuts have no idea what the opposite extreme on abortion looks like because no one believes in the opposite extreme. The opposite extreme from illegal abortion is not legal abortion, it is forced abortion, an extreme from which every sane person rightly recoils. Voting for someone who condones torture in order to avoid voting for someone who wants to make abortion legal is no less abhorrent. These are not terrorists we are torturing, they are terror suspects and they are human beings. And many of them are innocent. And if you vote Republican this November their blood will be on your hands. May God forgive you.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
A puzzlement indeed
Another deep question from Trent "Mr. Sensitivity" Lott:
"Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
"Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
Slouching towards Nuremberg
Now that Habeus Corpus has been suspended and George Bush has the power to indefinitely detain and torture anyone he deems to be an "enemy combatant" the next logical step is to obtain official sanction for the idea that anyone who opposes him is in fact an enemy combatant.
What? You say that will never happen? Wanna bet?
Attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights claim that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.'
...
The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq.
What? You say that will never happen? Wanna bet?
Attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights claim that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.'
...
The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Who would Jesus torture?
One of the hallmarks of Germany's slide into Nazism is that there was considerable disagreement among Germans at the time over exactly what was going on. Even among German Jews there were those who famously predicted that things couldn't possibly ever get that bad. Even at the end so many Germans were in denial about the reality of the situation that the Allies very wisely forced German civilians to walk through the newly liberated concentration camps to see the piles of bodies with their own eyes so that there could never be any doubt about what had happened.
Sadly, it appears that Americans are not so different. Although George Bush's approval ratings are at historic lows, there are still tens of millions who support him, and therefore tens of millions of us who support the now-legalized torture of human beings who have never even been charged let alone convicted of any crime. We have descended into the darkest depths of barbarism, where people are whisked away by darkness to secret places merely because they have been denounced by accusers unknown.
But it's OK because they are witches -- er, I mean Jews -- er, I mean terrorists. It's OK because when the Jews -- er, I mean terrorists -- are gone, then we will be Safe.
I can barely muster words under the crushing weight of irony and meta-irony in this situation. We have Muslims rioting in the streets to protest against people who dare point out that Muslims riot in the streets. We have Christians forming the bedrock of support for a government that kidnaps and tortures to make the world Safe for Democracy. And we have both sides seeing the other irony with 20/20 clarity, but utterly blind to their own.
Time to stop the madness.
By voting to legalize torture the Republican party utterly abandoned any claim they might have had to the moral high ground. Torture is never justified. Not ever. The old canard about the ticking bomb scenario is utter hogwash. It is nothing more than a thin veneer of rationalization to cover up our fear and bloodlust. Sure, if you knew that this person had the information and if you knew that the only way to obtain it was by torture and if you could be certain that the information was accurate and if you knew that the information would allow you to save multitudes then there's an argument. But the fact of the matter is you can never know these things. You can only suspect them. And suspicion does not justify torture. Ever.
The United States of America has been torturing people illegally for some time now, and is now going to continue torturing people with full legal sanction. At the moment the moral weight of this decision rests on the shoulders of the legislators who voted to legalize torture. But after November that will no longer be true. This November the People will speak, and ignorance is no longer an excuse. A vote for a Republican is a vote for legalized torture. After November the blood of the innocent victims (there have already been documented cases of torture of innocents, and there will certainly be more) will be on our hands. If the Republicans win this November and you voted for them, the blood of the innocents will be on your hands. And when, years or decades from now, when we wake from this collective nightmare and the victors, whoever they may ultimately be, force us to make the long walk through the camps to see the bodies, you will not be able to wring your hands and say, as many Germans did, "I didn't know. I didn't know."
Now you know.
Sadly, it appears that Americans are not so different. Although George Bush's approval ratings are at historic lows, there are still tens of millions who support him, and therefore tens of millions of us who support the now-legalized torture of human beings who have never even been charged let alone convicted of any crime. We have descended into the darkest depths of barbarism, where people are whisked away by darkness to secret places merely because they have been denounced by accusers unknown.
But it's OK because they are witches -- er, I mean Jews -- er, I mean terrorists. It's OK because when the Jews -- er, I mean terrorists -- are gone, then we will be Safe.
I can barely muster words under the crushing weight of irony and meta-irony in this situation. We have Muslims rioting in the streets to protest against people who dare point out that Muslims riot in the streets. We have Christians forming the bedrock of support for a government that kidnaps and tortures to make the world Safe for Democracy. And we have both sides seeing the other irony with 20/20 clarity, but utterly blind to their own.
Time to stop the madness.
By voting to legalize torture the Republican party utterly abandoned any claim they might have had to the moral high ground. Torture is never justified. Not ever. The old canard about the ticking bomb scenario is utter hogwash. It is nothing more than a thin veneer of rationalization to cover up our fear and bloodlust. Sure, if you knew that this person had the information and if you knew that the only way to obtain it was by torture and if you could be certain that the information was accurate and if you knew that the information would allow you to save multitudes then there's an argument. But the fact of the matter is you can never know these things. You can only suspect them. And suspicion does not justify torture. Ever.
The United States of America has been torturing people illegally for some time now, and is now going to continue torturing people with full legal sanction. At the moment the moral weight of this decision rests on the shoulders of the legislators who voted to legalize torture. But after November that will no longer be true. This November the People will speak, and ignorance is no longer an excuse. A vote for a Republican is a vote for legalized torture. After November the blood of the innocent victims (there have already been documented cases of torture of innocents, and there will certainly be more) will be on our hands. If the Republicans win this November and you voted for them, the blood of the innocents will be on your hands. And when, years or decades from now, when we wake from this collective nightmare and the victors, whoever they may ultimately be, force us to make the long walk through the camps to see the bodies, you will not be able to wring your hands and say, as many Germans did, "I didn't know. I didn't know."
Now you know.
So that would be a "yes"?
Watch George Bush's non-response to the question of whether Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said that Bush held no meetings on Bin Laden before 9/11. (I especially like the part where he says, "We have to deal with threats before they materialize." Irony is just lost on this man.)
It's a miracle!
You have to look closely, but sure enough, the image of Jesus has appeared on a dog's rear end.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
It doesn't get any clearer than this
The history of the right-wing approach to terrorism is laden with irony, but none starker or easier to understand than this.
[Link is dead but still available though the wayback machine]
Found this rich little gem in the comments section:
"No, Bill, it was supposed to be ALBANIA, not AFGHANISTAN you were supposed to bomb, don't you remember? You didn't read the script very well!"
[Link is dead but still available though the wayback machine]
Found this rich little gem in the comments section:
"No, Bill, it was supposed to be ALBANIA, not AFGHANISTAN you were supposed to bomb, don't you remember? You didn't read the script very well!"
What more can I say?
Phil Rockstroh tells it like it is far above my poor power to add or detract.
"Corporate “reality” is all about “perception management". Hence, a corporate, utterly commodified, life usurps, exploits and diminishes not only the outer environment -- but our internal ones as well. How could one not play off the other and visa versa? How can one spend all day in a so-called "work environment," spending a large percentage of one's life beneath florescent lights, with sweatshop-cobbled shoes touching industrial carpeting, and bodies supported by bland, utilitarian office furniture -- then return, by way of a hideous, dangerous freeway, home to some ugly suburb or exurb -- all the while having one's senses incessantly inundated with commercial imagery calculated to manipulate -- hypnotize one, actually -- into a particular way of viewing the world, and not become subject to the sort of psychic pathology that is pandemic among the populace of the empire."
"Corporate “reality” is all about “perception management". Hence, a corporate, utterly commodified, life usurps, exploits and diminishes not only the outer environment -- but our internal ones as well. How could one not play off the other and visa versa? How can one spend all day in a so-called "work environment," spending a large percentage of one's life beneath florescent lights, with sweatshop-cobbled shoes touching industrial carpeting, and bodies supported by bland, utilitarian office furniture -- then return, by way of a hideous, dangerous freeway, home to some ugly suburb or exurb -- all the while having one's senses incessantly inundated with commercial imagery calculated to manipulate -- hypnotize one, actually -- into a particular way of viewing the world, and not become subject to the sort of psychic pathology that is pandemic among the populace of the empire."
Beware the ides of October
The signs that George Bush is going to attack Iran are everywhere.
If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Gary Hart.
Oh, God, I think I'll just go throw myself off a bridge now.
If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Gary Hart.
Oh, God, I think I'll just go throw myself off a bridge now.
More than a little scary
Stumbled on a little quiz to see if you can tell the difference between expensive modern art and paintings done by children.
What scared me was that I actually did well on the quiz. This rocked my worldview, which includes the belief that moden art is a game whose object is to con people into paying outrageous amounts of money for random crap. (Money is only the secondary objective. The real point is the laughs you get at the buyer's expense at the secret artist beer-bash following the auction.)
I think (hope?) that the quiz wasn't well constructed. The positive examples were mainly by very famous artists with very distinctive styles. It's not hard even for an amateur like me to spot a Picasso or a Pollack. I think they would have made the point better if they had picked less canonical paintings.
Oh, I also think Stanislav Shpanin has a bright career ahead of him. You heard it here first.
What scared me was that I actually did well on the quiz. This rocked my worldview, which includes the belief that moden art is a game whose object is to con people into paying outrageous amounts of money for random crap. (Money is only the secondary objective. The real point is the laughs you get at the buyer's expense at the secret artist beer-bash following the auction.)
I think (hope?) that the quiz wasn't well constructed. The positive examples were mainly by very famous artists with very distinctive styles. It's not hard even for an amateur like me to spot a Picasso or a Pollack. I think they would have made the point better if they had picked less canonical paintings.
Oh, I also think Stanislav Shpanin has a bright career ahead of him. You heard it here first.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Well at leat there's... never mind
Even with all the things going wrong in Iraq at least we can say we made things better by getting rid of a brutal dictator. Right?
Wrong:
"Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says."
Wrong:
"Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says."
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Downfall
It only takes a moment to figure out why the American people are taking the Iraq war so much more calmly than they did Viet Nam: no draft this time. Well, that approach may be coming to an end.
So let's take stock: On September 11, 2001, 2973 people were killed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
The death toll of American dead in Iraq reached 2974 just about five years later.
We have abandoned the most cherished principles our country was founded on by imprisoning 14,000 "enemy combatants" without a trial, without any opportunity to defend themselves, without any reason to believe that they are a threat to us except that someone may have denounced them, very likely under torture. And the President is trying to strongarm Congress into making all this retroactively legal before the next election.
George Bush still says that the war in Iraq was justified because "Saddam was a threat" despite the fact that it is now clear that he had no WMD's and no contacts with Al Qaeda. Saddam may have been a threat, but to the Kurds and the Iranians -- not to us. (The Iranians, meanwhile, are taking advantage of the newfound security we've provided them by eliminating Saddam to develop nuclear weapons. How this can be considered progress is beyond me. But I digress.)
The Tailban are making a comeback in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda recruiting is more robust than ever (and not entirely without justification). Iraq is coming apart at the seams. And amidst the chaos we still hear the rallying cry of "Stay the course. Don't cut and run."
I can't help but be reminded of the story of the final days of another political leader who used legally questionable tactics to launch unprovoked attacks on other countries, and who in the end could not (or would not) face reality. I can't help but be reminded also of part of a poem by Tim Powers (writing as William Ashbless):
...They move in dark, old places of the world
Like mariners, once healthy and clear-eyed
Who, when their ship was holed, could not admit
Ruin and the necessity of flight,
But chose instead to ride their cherished wreck
Down into darkness...
It is clear now that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld will ride their cherished wreck of a foreign policy down into the very depths of hell. Like fanatics throughout history, nothing -- no amount of blood or death or disaster -- will dissuade them from their convictions that they (and only they) are righteous. The only question that remains is whether the American people will go along for the ride.
We'll know the answer in about two months.
So let's take stock: On September 11, 2001, 2973 people were killed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
The death toll of American dead in Iraq reached 2974 just about five years later.
We have abandoned the most cherished principles our country was founded on by imprisoning 14,000 "enemy combatants" without a trial, without any opportunity to defend themselves, without any reason to believe that they are a threat to us except that someone may have denounced them, very likely under torture. And the President is trying to strongarm Congress into making all this retroactively legal before the next election.
George Bush still says that the war in Iraq was justified because "Saddam was a threat" despite the fact that it is now clear that he had no WMD's and no contacts with Al Qaeda. Saddam may have been a threat, but to the Kurds and the Iranians -- not to us. (The Iranians, meanwhile, are taking advantage of the newfound security we've provided them by eliminating Saddam to develop nuclear weapons. How this can be considered progress is beyond me. But I digress.)
The Tailban are making a comeback in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda recruiting is more robust than ever (and not entirely without justification). Iraq is coming apart at the seams. And amidst the chaos we still hear the rallying cry of "Stay the course. Don't cut and run."
I can't help but be reminded of the story of the final days of another political leader who used legally questionable tactics to launch unprovoked attacks on other countries, and who in the end could not (or would not) face reality. I can't help but be reminded also of part of a poem by Tim Powers (writing as William Ashbless):
...They move in dark, old places of the world
Like mariners, once healthy and clear-eyed
Who, when their ship was holed, could not admit
Ruin and the necessity of flight,
But chose instead to ride their cherished wreck
Down into darkness...
It is clear now that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld will ride their cherished wreck of a foreign policy down into the very depths of hell. Like fanatics throughout history, nothing -- no amount of blood or death or disaster -- will dissuade them from their convictions that they (and only they) are righteous. The only question that remains is whether the American people will go along for the ride.
We'll know the answer in about two months.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
What a relief
Rummy sez that the U.S. is still able to start a new war despite being bogged down in Iraq.
Gee, I'll sure sleep better at night knowing that.
Gee, I'll sure sleep better at night knowing that.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Now he tells us
Dubya, in a rare moment of candor, has finally admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Of course, Bush apologists will claim that he never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Strictly speaking, that's true. George Bush never uttered the words, "We should attack Saddam Hussein because he aided and abetted the 9/11 hijackers." The argument was that he might aid and abet some terrorists some day. But one can lie by omission as well. Supporting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was a major change in policy that happened almost immediately after 9/11. It is natural to draw the conclusion that 9/11 had something to do with that change in policy. If you're asking the country to go to war, then failing to make clear that the country you propose to attack had "nothing" to do with the reason that policy is suddently being changed is, at best, a sin of omission.
It is amazing to me that the apologists can still breathe with their heads buried so deeply up their [ahem!]... in the sand. It should certainly be clear by now that Iraq could not have done us any harm, and so attacking them on those grounds was, at best, a collossal mistake. But it's actually even worse than that. There is no coherent policy that can justify the invastion of Iraq. 9/11? Bush just admitted Iraq had "nothing" to do with it. WMDs that could fall into the hands of terrorists? He didn't have any, and the only reason we didn't know it is that we didn't do our homework. A pre-emptive strike against fundamentalist Islamic fasism? Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. And the only reason he was in power is that we put him there to help check the rise of Islamicists in Iran. Indeed, our invasion of Iraq has emboldened and strengthened Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, Lebanon, and even in Iraq.
The goal of stopping the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is a noble one. But to believe that Bush Administration policies are advancing that goal requires an almost complete disconnect from reality. It is exactly the same sort of disconnect that is required in order to believe that martyrdom is noble. The most supreme irony of this entire situation is the inability of the two sides to see that in the respect that maters most they are in fact exactly alike.
Of course, Bush apologists will claim that he never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Strictly speaking, that's true. George Bush never uttered the words, "We should attack Saddam Hussein because he aided and abetted the 9/11 hijackers." The argument was that he might aid and abet some terrorists some day. But one can lie by omission as well. Supporting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was a major change in policy that happened almost immediately after 9/11. It is natural to draw the conclusion that 9/11 had something to do with that change in policy. If you're asking the country to go to war, then failing to make clear that the country you propose to attack had "nothing" to do with the reason that policy is suddently being changed is, at best, a sin of omission.
It is amazing to me that the apologists can still breathe with their heads buried so deeply up their [ahem!]... in the sand. It should certainly be clear by now that Iraq could not have done us any harm, and so attacking them on those grounds was, at best, a collossal mistake. But it's actually even worse than that. There is no coherent policy that can justify the invastion of Iraq. 9/11? Bush just admitted Iraq had "nothing" to do with it. WMDs that could fall into the hands of terrorists? He didn't have any, and the only reason we didn't know it is that we didn't do our homework. A pre-emptive strike against fundamentalist Islamic fasism? Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. And the only reason he was in power is that we put him there to help check the rise of Islamicists in Iran. Indeed, our invasion of Iraq has emboldened and strengthened Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, Lebanon, and even in Iraq.
The goal of stopping the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is a noble one. But to believe that Bush Administration policies are advancing that goal requires an almost complete disconnect from reality. It is exactly the same sort of disconnect that is required in order to believe that martyrdom is noble. The most supreme irony of this entire situation is the inability of the two sides to see that in the respect that maters most they are in fact exactly alike.
Now this is getting creepy
I swear to God that I had not seen this when I wrote the last line of my previous post.
Carrying too much cash is a crime
Further evidence that the war on drugs is completely out of control, the police confiscated $124,000 in cash from a man on the grounds that it was drug money. But the only evidence that it was drug money was the cash itself. No drugs were found, nor was there any evidence that the man was engaged in any illegal activity. The seizure was upheld by the eight circuit, overturning a lower court ruling. the majority opinion states that "Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Next I suppose they'll be throwing people in jail for having shifty eyes.
Next I suppose they'll be throwing people in jail for having shifty eyes.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
No wonder the Chinese are kicking our butts
From BBC NEWS:
"Apple Computer has said a report of labour conditions at its iPod plant in China found workers did more than 60 hours a week a third of the time.
Staff making the world's most popular MP3 player also worked more than six consecutive days 25% of the time.
Apple said the hours were 'excessive' and said its supplier would now be enforcing a 'normal' 60-hour week."
I also had occasion to spend the evening with someone who works at the port of Los Angeles who told me that freight container traffic has increased 40% over the last two years. That's a mind-boggling rate of growth, but what he told me next really made my jaw hit the floor: once a container enters the U.S. it never leaves! It's cheaper for the Chinese to manufacture a new container than it is to ship an empty container back!
I wonder where all the containers end up. There must be quite a stack of them now. At least a few of them are being made into buildings. Maybe this is the answer to our homeless problem?
"Apple Computer has said a report of labour conditions at its iPod plant in China found workers did more than 60 hours a week a third of the time.
Staff making the world's most popular MP3 player also worked more than six consecutive days 25% of the time.
Apple said the hours were 'excessive' and said its supplier would now be enforcing a 'normal' 60-hour week."
I also had occasion to spend the evening with someone who works at the port of Los Angeles who told me that freight container traffic has increased 40% over the last two years. That's a mind-boggling rate of growth, but what he told me next really made my jaw hit the floor: once a container enters the U.S. it never leaves! It's cheaper for the Chinese to manufacture a new container than it is to ship an empty container back!
I wonder where all the containers end up. There must be quite a stack of them now. At least a few of them are being made into buildings. Maybe this is the answer to our homeless problem?
Thursday, August 17, 2006
How indeed?
George Bush asked a mother who lost a son in Iraq, How do you know his life would have been good?
Funny how he never thinks to ask this question about frozen embryos.
Funny how he never thinks to ask this question about frozen embryos.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Security as Kabuki Theatre
Perry Metzger talks about why blowing up planes with liquid explosives probably wouldn't work.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Two down, eight to go
The first and ninth having been safely dispatched, the neocons are starting to go to work on the Fourth Amendment.
In other news...
We interrupt this blog to bring you word that ten thousand people died yesteday because they didn't have access to clean water. Another ten thousand will die today. Another ten thousand will die tomorrow. And the day after that. And the day after that.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled war on terror.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled war on terror.
Careful what you wish for
Ever wish you could put an end to world hunger? Yes? Then I guess this is all your fault.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Crazy news roundup
An Alaska Airlines flight was evacuated on landing at Los Angeles International Airport on Monday after the flight crew became suspicious of a toy found on board.
A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders. The contentious passport photo
Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.
Who would have thought that it would be on the Republicans' watch that we'd see all this runaway paranoia and political correctness? Not me. Nope.
A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders. The contentious passport photo
Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.
Who would have thought that it would be on the Republicans' watch that we'd see all this runaway paranoia and political correctness? Not me. Nope.
Nuf sed
On August 15, 2006 21:30 EST the United States will have been at war in Iraq longer than it was at war with Germany in World War II.
And we wonder why they hate us
I challenge anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that we're still the Good Guys after reading this.
We imprisoned and tortured a person whom we knew to be innocent of any crime for five years. Then when a court finally ordered him to be released we try to imprison him again because he overstayed his visa!
And we wonder why the world hates us?
We imprisoned and tortured a person whom we knew to be innocent of any crime for five years. Then when a court finally ordered him to be released we try to imprison him again because he overstayed his visa!
And we wonder why the world hates us?
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)