I Agree: We Have to "Stay the Course"

Well, I've finally come around to the point of view that says the US and UK must "stay the course" in Iraq, whether or not the invasion was justified in the first place, because otherwise Iraq might become a country full of violence and chaos.

My English Diet

I have eaten more packaged sandwiches since September than I had in the preceding 45 years.

Conservative?

The Conservative Party recently sent a flyer to my house promising that, in contrast to Labour, its candidates would deliver: "Less talk, more action."

Isn't that, well, the exact opposite of conservatism?

A little more stoicism would make the world a lot better place

So, there's that guy, Hoppe, who has managed to rally several hundred libertarians around him in support, charged with the most horrendous crime in all of our "secular society" (more on that another time), the refusal to be politically correct.

These libertarians have spent much time discussing our insulted student, Mr. Knight, on the Internet and much of the talk is brutal. But I think Mr. Knight is judged too harshly, for he believes what he believes precisely because he has come to adulthood in a culture which worships freedom from insult, a world that is populated with sheep who actually pay the Wolf, the State, to keep watch over them. Mr. Knight did the only thing he knows how to do, the thing he has seemingly been taught is acceptable to do his entire life: to use authority to force others to shut up. He actually believes that he shouldn't have to hear ideas of which he disapproves. There are several problems with this, not the least of which is the evidence confronting us that the University has failed abysmally to provide Mr. Knight with anything approaching an education or even a correct understanding of what it means to BE educated. Unfortunately, Mr. Knight fails especially to understand that his chosen method of redress is a totalitarian nightmare.

(But what does it matter, anyway? Right now, our government is blowing up the arms and legs of Iraqi children who are witnessing the execution of their own parents by soldiers who tomorrow will themselves be maimed for life. So, how did I get from the inside of a college classroom to war? Because it is all part and parcel of a world gone mad. We are doomed.)

The Friendly TSA

Just to keep it real with the anarchists out there (after my post siding with Gene the Sellout), let me tell what happened with my dealings with the Transportation Safety Administration (I think that's what the abbrevation is for)...

Last time I flew, I couldn't use electronic check-in. The airline employees at the counter (both ways) had to take my license and make a phone call before giving me my tickets. The first time, they wrote down the 800 number for the TSA and told me I'd have to call or else this would happen every time I flew. So I needed to call to take care of it. (The lady added, "It will take a while.")

So finally I called, was on hold for not too long (about five minutes), and then got an African American woman in her thirties I think. (I tell you about demographics merely so you can "hear" her scold me in a moment.) Our dialogue:

TSA: Hello my name is ______ how can I help you?

Bob: Yeah, I just had a flight and couldn't use electronic check-in, I'm on some list, and they told me to call you.

TSA: Can I have your name? ... Home address? ... Home telephone? ... Date of birth?

Bob: Uh, can I ask what this is for?

TSA (annoyed): Sir, you called us. I need this information to process.--

Bob: Right, but I called you because I'm on your list and they told me I had to call you.

TSA: Sir, we need to get your information so we can send you the packet to your home address. Then when you fill it out and we process it, we can verify that you are not the person on our list, and then you will be able to fly without delays. This will take about 40 [maybe 45, I forget--RPM] days. If you have to fly before then, I suggest you book your tickets with your full name.

------

Anyway, that's what happened. So I guess the reason I could fly when the airline personnel called (which I thought was pointless at the time--"Oh phew, the would-be terrorist would never do anything after a phone call!") was that they confirmed that Robert [middle name] Murphy, at home address blah blah, wasn't the person on the list. (The actual R. Murphy on the list is apparently some anarchist who writes crazy economics articles for Mises.org.)

But isn't this a neat way for the government to get tabs on everybody? Just randomly throw names on a list, so anyone with similar names has to send all their info to the government before he or she can fly without an extra layer of molestation? (And I mean that in the generic sense, of course.)

One last thing: Last time my wife and son flew, they carefully searched him (he's three months old). And his name's not Mustapha, in case you're curious.

Gene the Sellout

I was quite amused by Mr. Fuller's tsk-tsking of Gene's reaction to his (Gene's) mugging. (Please read his analyis to assure yourself that I am not mischaracterizing his post.) He quotes Gene saying that the cops sincerely wanted to catch the guy and then says, "Yeah right." He then goes on to ask if they had done routine follow-up (sketch artist, etc.) and says "I doubt it." Then to prove that he is right, and apparently to justify his rhetorical quesion, "And Gene calls himself an anarchist?", Fuller relates an anecdote from Chicago. Gene then responded in the commentary and pointed out that Fuller's a priori deduction was completely wrong in the case of the bobbies, and then Fuller apologized.

Heh heh, got you there at the end. Of course Fuller didn't apologize, he explained that he was going on his own experience from Chicago (and that's why he wondered whether Gene knew how to interpret the desires of others across an ocean) and then ended with, "I am also curious as to how you think a private police force would have handled the situation. The same, better or worse?"

Let me go out on a limb (since we're not afraid to speculate on the motivations and thoughts of others) and say, "Yes, Mr. Fuller, Gene thinks private police would have done a much better job. He calls himself an anarchist, after all."

Incidentally, for those who like to psychoanalyze, let me admit that I'm touchy about this stuff. I myself had to quit visiting a certain forum (that shall remain nameless) when I just couldn't handle daily criticisms from anarchists who were oh-so-much purer than I was.

A final thought: Not everyone who works for the State is a minion of Satan. It is entirely consistent for someone to claim that "the police officers who interviewed me wanted to catch the guy" and "the police force is no good at catching criminals." Yes, we anarchists should never allow politicians' speeches or police slogans on their cars convince us of their good intentions, but we should also not lose sight of the phenomenon of unintended consequences. I.e. the institutional forces governing an agency that holds a monopoly on force will lead to gross corruption and ineptitude of the type Fuller described (and I believe his story, btw), even if the average cop is a decent guy.

The thing that is so horrible, sad, and yet hopeful about the State is that it takes people who have good intentions (in the beginning) and turns them into agents for evil. (And when I say "hopeful" I mean that there is hope if we could just get most of these people to see the light; if it really were true that every single government employee were as cynical and evil as Fuller believes, there would be no hope at all.) No, I don't deny that many despicable people are attracted to the State, but I think it does its own to create them.

"The Worst Get on Top," as Hayek explained, but getting there makes them worse still. I bet George W. was really cool to hang out with back when he was doing blow in college. But make him the most powerful man in human history and tell him that God expects great things from him, and look what happens.

Two Views Down Strand

Stolen Sperm?

Woman accused of using man's sperm received in oral sex to get herself pregnant. Surprised father sues. Court says sperm is gift. Hee HEEEEEE!!!! How much lower can we sink?

My Neighborhood

My friend Vicky and her son at the off license.


My Turkish dry cleaners.


Two of my housemates, Gui and Kotaro, hide from the paparazzi's intrusive camera.


My friend Mick, from Cork, Ireland, hard at work.


Looking down the high road in Colindale.


Kwamye, from Ghana, at the local phone shop/call center/Internet cafe.


The crew at New Jersey Fried Chicken -- the notorious "Slovakian chicken girl" is the one on the left.

Important Considerations on TP

From Glen Whitman.

St. Augustine on Biblical Literalism

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics (i.e. astronomy etc.); and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation ... the shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scriptures are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

(From http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/lucas/lecture.html#_ftn12)

You Just Can't Make Some People Happy

Despite turning my mugging into a lesson arguing against the state, some bloggers feel I failed as an anarchist in that post. For example, Raymond Fuller is so disgusted with it that he writes, "And Gene calls himself an anarchist?"

He continues: "Did the police ask Gene to sit with a sketch artist? Did they call the cell phone company to trace any calls that were made from Gene's cell phone. I doubt it."

You doubt it, Raymond, but in fact they did both of those things.

Like a Crow on a Toolshed...

When I lived in Connecticut, I once heard a ruckus in the backyard. I looked out my window to see a crow standing on the roof of my toolshed. In the trees surrounding him were five grackles. The crow could only face one of them at a time. Whichever way he looked, the grackle who was directly behind him would leave his perch and swoop in at the crow. The crow would hop around and change his orientation to face that assailant. As soon as he did so, the approaching grackle would pull out of his dive, while the grackle who was now behind the crow would swoop in towards him.

After several minutes of this, the crow took off from the roof. All five grackles followed him, harassing him, no doubt, until he was out of their territory. Is there a "Driving off Crows" School were they go to learn that sort of tactic?

Where the Thirld-World Nations Have No Name

Introducing the new head of the World Bank.

a great loophole for the state

There's a lot of debate going around about the Kansas state attorney general's demand to see medical files from women who were given late term abortions. I really have no interest in debating abortion but I heard a very interesting defense of the AG from Judge Andrew Napolitano on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. I can only hope I misheard him say, "If you are a crime victim, you lose your right to privacy." Exactly what magical thing happens to a crime victim that they deserve to be twice victimized? Of course, some people will say "the defense of the child trumps" privacy and that's fine. That's a legitimate opinion but Judge Napolitano made a blanket statement about being a victim of crime not a perpetrator. If somebody steals my bike, can the state come to my house and ransack my lingerie drawer? If someone paints graffiti on my van, should the police come over and see what books I like to read? If my purse is snatched, should the Florida AG have a camera installed in my bathroom. If the state makes it illegal to eat oranges and I do anyway, do they have the right to find out what's in my bank account? Of course, not. You may not have a right to privacy, but the neither does the state have the right to inspect your life MORE than they do your neighbor's because you were victimized. A criminal yes but a crime victim? It only gives them more incentive to make everything illegal so they can control everyone's life. With each new law, they'll have two more people to hassle, the criminal and the victim.

If There Were No State...

My friend Tim Swanson alerted me to to a commentary on my mugging post in which the author declares, amongst other things:

"I was a bit surprised that Callahan said 'the state did nothing to either prevent or redress the attack'. While it may be true that the State was not able to prevent this attack or even capture the culprits, the presence of a police force certainly decreases the number of attacks on whole. There would be more muggings if the police did not exist, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are the most efficient protection service either."

Skarbek's comment is odd in a number of ways. First of all, I didn't say, "The state has never prevented any attack on me" -- I said it did nothing to prevent that attack on me. Secondly, if the state police are not the most the efficient protection force, then their monopolization of protection services, effectively shutting out other, more effective private protection services, will obviously increase, not decrease, the number of attacks. Skarbek may mean that there are fewer muggings than if there were no government police and no other protection service took their place, but so what?

You're not in the army now

So I hear from a friend who enlisted in the US Army to become an infantryman. He details some of the crazy physical training. One of my fovorites is how as new recruits for basic training they are run around and around a dirt track for miles and miles after of course hundreds each of assorted pushups, crawls etc. finaly there is a break for lunch with a time limit. Then immediately out to run and run. Naturally as crippling effects of the grueling chore led to vomitting by all at various times during the run. The rule was no puking on the track. If you puked on the track you got a welcome break to be forced to roll around in your goop. As there were no breaks to relieve bladders or bowels, many garments were soiled. The soiling continued during lectures, puddles under many. No, don't raise your hand and ask to be excused.
Another favorite of mine was the incident related regarding chow line. As our soldier explained at his level of training he was not allowed to take the little cups of syrup for his pancakes. He attempted the mission of attaining a syrup. Thought he was in the clear. He explained an ominous feeling before the drill seargent screamed "what is this?" leading to the cup of syrup firmly slammed into his forehead.
So many memories, so little time. Our blog-boy Gene knows this man as I do. Danny A. He was tossed out on a medical. Circulation, blood pressure, heart stuff.
In a drunken, despondent condition when I saw him as he related that he never even got to toss live grenades. I guess tossing his cookies wasn't enough.

Dead Show

My friend and fellow blogger, TT Tom, went to see The Dead (essentially the Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia -- he must have been the one who was grateful) at Jones Beach. Now, TT Tom has a thing about sitting in his own seat at a concert, sporting event, etc. Or, perhaps it's better to say a thing abut not sitting in it. So we were shifting seats every 15 minutes throughout the first set, but always up in the mezzanine, since our tickets wouldn't give us access to the floor.

Just before the set break, it began to rain. Tom said to me, "Let's head out toward the exit gate. Someone older and weaker than we are will leave because of the rain, and we can ask them for their floor stubs."

So I stood in the rain for about 10 minutes while Tom accosted people near the exit gate to see if they were leaving. After watching the futility of his efforts, I walked up to him and said, "Face it, Tom, there's no one here older and weaker than we are."

We went back into the stadium to watch the second set from the mezzanine.

The Secular Benefits of Tithing

Just so you don't think I deal exlusively in potty humor, let me share with you my thoughts on the secular benefits of tithing (i.e. giving ten percent of your income to the church). If you feel you have a religious duty to regularly given ten percent of your income, then it forces you to keep a budget so that you know what your income is in any given time period. And that's the first step toward financial discipline.

Once my wife and I got meticulous about tithing (we had been moving etc. and it took a while for us to really buckle down--she took over when I was clearly not up to the challenge and did everything in Excel) we had all sorts of money left over every month, whereas previously we had been eating Ramen at the end of every pay cycle. (Not quite, but almost.) And part of it could be divine rewards, but I don't think our income went up all that much. I think it must just be that we were previously spending all kinds of money on odd things here and there because we didn't formulate an official budget every month.

In Deep ****

True story: I was at school (my secret identity is a mild-mannered college professor) and had to go see a man about a toilet. So I get in there and walk into my favorite stall. (There are only two, and the other one is a handicapped one with the seat that makes your legs dangle.)

Much to my horror, the moment I got in I realized that the prior occupant had left me a large present. I marveled at the monstrosity for a few moments, and then was about to head for the adjacent stall (with the Olympic high-dive seat) when--gasp--I heard the bathroom door open.

Consider my dilemma: If I walked out, that student may have also noticed the present, and then told everyone that Dr. Murphy leaves gifts in the student men's room. So I couldn't leave the stall.

I tried flushing away the present, and realized why the donor had left it for all to see: It didn't want to visit the sewer! Now I was really in trouble. Even if I waited for the student to leave, he might have been suspicious at the guy standing in the stall (with the door closed) and flushing, and then staying in there for 3 minutes or whatever. And then he could have come back to investigate after I left. So I clearly couldn't leave.

Fortunately, after several attempts the agitation and solvency of the water allowed for the gradual elimination of the present. I was able to see the man as originally intended, and hopefully no rumors were started on that fateful afternoon.

Oh, I just love pith!

The absolute best T-shirt I have seen since "Egrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention."



You can find it here.

Economizing on Cogitation

There are all sorts of reasons that human beings can increase knowledge (however we define that) through society. A huge one is division of labor; rather than everyone trying to make advances in medicine, physics, economics, etc., people specialize and this is far more productive.

But there's another aspect to it that I haven't seen stressed before. Let me illustrate it with a little thought experiment: Suppose Gene Callahan, me, and 98 other people with "deep thoughts" are locked in a room. (Let's hope it's a big room with plenty of toilets.) Now we want to come up with a way to leave the room after 2000 minutes, such that everyone is as smart as possible. Finally, suppose that in the beginning we are all equally knowledgeable and intelligent. (Yes, I shall be humble for this hypothetical scenario.)

As above, one way would be for each person just to think on his or her own for the allotted time. But suppose instead, each person picks a different problem, and then thinks about it for 1000 minutes with the goal of exploring different possible solutions, identifying "dead ends," and coming up with ways to best summarize these musings to everyone else in the room.

Then, in the remaining 1000 minutes, each of the 100 people gives a ten minute summary of his or her work to the group. In a sense, each speaker would be "saving" everyone else 1000 minutes of thought in exchange for listening 10 minutes. And notice that that isn't merely where the economies come in: it also has to do with the fact that each speaker is providing that "saving" for ninety-nine other people.

I think this captures (part of) what happens in the academic community. When a genius like Einstein "sees something," he publishes it and then everybody else can start working on problems with the new head start. General relativity isn't that intrinsically difficult; by now undergrads at good schools can learn it.

This is even more apparent in philosophy and economics. When somebody dreams up a great argument (e.g. Bastiat's "Petition of the Candlemakers"), it frees up everybody else's time; they don't have to agonize over the complicated issue so much when someone makes it crystal clear. So somebody like Mises doesn't need to worry about free trade; he can go ahead and solve the problem of the subjective valuation of money units.

Airline Innovation

On a recent trip to San Jose State University (to give a talk to Ben Powell's seminar), I finally figured out what the deal is with airlines putting a "group number" on your ticket. The way I remember the progression, a long time ago ("long time" for my age, of course) they would board first class, then it was a free-for-all.

Then they started boarding by row number. This was a little better; in theory you could board from the back of the plane to the front, to reduce the amount of jostling and waiting. (Inexplicably, though, I seem to recall many flights where they boarded from the front first...)

But now they board by "group number." My first theory was that it was to minimize on people boarding before their row was called, but in retrospect that's pretty dumb. Now I think I figured out what it is: People with window seats (and I think in the back of the plane) are in group 1. Then people in window seats in the middle of the plane are group 2. Then people in aisle seats in the back of the plane are group 3. Etc.

If you think about it, this (or something close to it) is a much better way to get a given number of people into their seats than the two previous techniques. So despite the TSA crap--that reminds me, apparently I'm on their "list" now and the airline has to call them every time I fly!--the airlines are still striving to improve their product. (And don't worry, I'm not a naive worshipper of big business. There was a particular airline that really annoyed me two trips ago, but I'm not sure of their name [my wife knows] so I don't want to smear them now. Needless to say, I will be exercising my consumer sovereignty by not flying them again.)

Favourite Things

Find out what MJ's favourite things are! (Yeah, that's how we spell 'favourite' over here, OK? MS Word was just carping at me for spelling the other way.)

Shout out to Elen for the link.

Iconism Gone Mad

Using word this morning, I noticed that a little red toolbox up on the toolbar had begun pulsing. Many years ago, I published on article on semiotics and GUI design arguing that there are real limitations to what can be communicated with icons. This was a great example: What, exactly, is a little, pulsing red toolbox supposed to mean? (It turns out Word had decided, in one of its frequent decisions that it's high time to interrupt my workflow, that it was the perfect moment for a "compatibility check.")

Japanese Soldiers Need Soldiers to Protect Them

Australian force sent to guard Japanese force.

Hat tip to Tex.

Smart Cards for Troops in Iraq

This is an excerpt from Tom Engelhardt's recent LRC column...

Last November, the Marines issued a newly updated Iraq Culture Smart Card, but an earlier version, from February 2004 (pdf file), is more reliable for viewing purposes as well as indicative of the thrust of the American effort in that country. In addition to its simple cartoons of "insurgent tactics" (e.g. hiding a stick of dynamite under a dead goat), the Smart Card has a number of panels devoted to essential language skills. While its unclear exactly how the card is meant to be folded, it appears that the first language panel a Marine would read (devoted to "Command and Control") contains not translations for "hello" or "thank you," but far more useful greetings like "hands up," "no talking," "do not resist," "lie on your stomach," and "do not move." Only many panels later do we get to "hello" along with other "Helpful Words/Phrases." Actually, another word shares the same line with "hello" – "weapon," of course. With sixteen full pages, the mix-and-match possibilities ("Lie on your stomach. Hello!") are plentiful.

The cards have a cautionary aspect as well, painting the Iraqi people as uniformly dishonest. If you ask a direct question, an Iraqi's first answer is likely to be "the answer they think you want to hear, rather than an honest response." Of course, that's what you're likely to get once you ask anyone, no matter how nicely, to get down on their stomach and cut down on the idle chatter. But the panels do note that pointing with fingers and the thumbs-up sign are considered offensive in Iraq, where customs are surely strange indeed. Too bad the Army folks at Abu Ghraib never got these cards. Then again, the cards say nothing about torture being taboo. But then again, you can't squeeze everything on a card, even though the Marines did manage to condense Iraq's history, from the 18th century B.C. until today, into one lone panel.

How'd THAT happen?

What's amazing to me is not that this 1792 penny recently sold for over $400,000. What is amazing is that knowledge once so common that it appeared on the lowliest of coins, that Liberty is the parent of science and industry, is now largely forgotten. People now think that all science comes from the National Science Foundation. And of course, Industry (in myriad forms) is evil, so better it shouldn't even exist at all, right?

First, Take a Deep Breath

On TV this morning, the newswoman was saying that there is a new effort in Britain to help parents control their anger. "That way," she reported, "parents can learn to calm themselves before hitting their children."

I agree: If you find yourself in a rage at your child and are tempted to hit him, it's always best to count to ten, put your mind in a meditative state, and then give the little brat a good whacking.

That Crazy London Weather

There is now a blizzard of hail falling through bright sunshine outside my window.

Strange Animals Seen in Sicilian Cliff

Hunter S. Thompson

I wish he hadn't gone and done that. I really do.

In his memory, I share my own effort at Gonzo journalism.

Julian's New Tunes

My friend Julian Velard has just released some new music -- worth checking out.

Asimov's Three Robot Laws

I just watched I, Robot, which was pretty good despite Will Smith's "I'm an American black so I can get away with being an arrogant ass" approach to comedy. It reminded me, though, that I've always thought Isaac Asimov's three laws for robots were dumb. To refresh your memory, they are:

(1) Never harm a human being, or refrain from action that would result in a human's harm.
(2) Do whatever a human being says, so long as it doesn't violate rule (1).
(3) Protect yourself, so long as it doesn't violate rules (1) or (2).

I have always thought that rules (2) and (3) should be reversed, in other words, that a robot should place its own safety above the commands of a human. Otherwise, why couldn't a 12-year-old punk kid tell my $100,000 robot to snap itself in half?

And jeez, now that I think of it, why couldn't someone tell a robot to go smash a bus (so long as it was empty at the time)? There's nothing in the rules about violating property.

I think robots in the future should be programmed to (1)' respect property rights (this satisfies Asimov's first rule), and to (2)' obey every human command consistent with rule (1)'. Should we start translating The Ethics of Liberty into machine language?

Old Testament Wrath

Since my "rebirth" in Christianity (which followed a period of what I called "devout atheism"), I have been reading from the Old Testament. My earlier conclusion was that there was some pretty outrageous stuff in these books; as one old timer put it, "The God of the O.T. was a mean s.o.b."

To make sure we understand, here's a pretty scary excerpt:

However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, the following curses will come upon you...Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you...The most gentle and sensitive woman among you--so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot--will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities. (Deuteronomy 28:15, 53-57)

So how the heck can I reconcile this stuff with my professed love for a God of infinite mercy and love? Well, for one thing, the one book Jesus cites the most is Deuteronomy, and Jesus says that our Heavenly Father is perfect. To the extent that I think Jesus' moral sense is more refined than mine (in the same way that I concede that certain artists have a better artistic sense than mine, even though it is ultimately me who has to decide on what I think is good and bad art), then I take His opinion seriously.

Beyond that, though, I had this thought: Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the Lord lays out detailed regulations for the Jews. Except for the harshness of the punishments, most of the Law seems perfectly reasonable, and conducive to their well-being. Also in this book, Moses tells of all the blessings the Lord will pour forth on those who obey the Law.

So I wonder: Could the Lord have made it so ridiculously black and white--i.e. obey Me and have untold riches, disobey Me and have disgusting curses--in order to prove the point that humans need His grace? In other words, the actual Jews did not obey, and look at all the horrible things that have befallen them since. Even if you are a skeptic, the Jews themselves (at least most) certainly believed in this stuff. So the question is, if you had been delivered from Pharaoh through miracles (or--for the skeptic--if your parents assured you that this was what happened and you believed them), why in the world would you construct a golden calf and start worshipping it??

I think the Old Testament was intended as a lesson (to future readers) on human nature, and once we realize this, God's stern warnings are more intelligible.

Army Slogans

I always thought "Be All That You Can Be" was a silly slogan. Yes yes, I know of a few young lads who came back from basic training with much more confidence in themselves and stronger upper bodies. (They also came back disillusioned because of the waste and stupidity of the actual military. And these guys aren't "political" either.) But even so, the army is the one institution that does its best to stamp out all individuality. You are only allowed to be all that you can be so long as this "being" is in strict accordance with your orders.

Anyway, I always thought that was a silly slogan. But the new one is simply Orwellian: "An Army of One." Give me a break! Are you telling me that if I went to boot camp, and started saying, "Why are we doing things this way? It seems to me that it would be much better if we did it this other way, so that's what I'm going to do from now on...", I would be encouraged?

And if it's an Army of One, why do they keep recruiting?

What Passes for Analysis Over at NRO

Cliff May writes:
"Also, as moderator, Russert should have guided the debate away from such digressions as what 'democracy' in Gaza would mean for Israeli settlers. (His argument assumes the flawed premise that democracy means majority rule – when it actually means such institutions as minority rights, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a free press, etc.)."

From YourDictionary.com:
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European roots + -krati, -cracy.]

In other words, democracy means rule by the people. Duh.

The English Cafe

I often have breakfast in my neighborhood at Cafe Anglais. Isn't this a bit of an odd name? After all, I'm in England, not France, so why would the "English Cafe" describe itself in French?

Peaceful, Democratic Iraq

As I've noted before, since the election was held, all violence in Iraq has ceased.

It's the Murder Part...

Matthew Yglesias writes, on the topic of the Bolshevik murder of the czar's family, that: "The problem, as Pipes has written elsewhere, 'is that no omelette has emerged from the slaughter.' The problem is that Bolshevik rule was an absolute disaster, not that the Czar's family was killed."

No, Matthew, the problem is that murder is wrong. It is wrong even if you get a really good government as a result.

Help!

OK, I've been trying to link to Radley Balko's blog for over a week, and I can't make it happen. The line of HTML code looks exactll like all of the other links to me, but Radley's name doesn't get underlined and clicking on it goes nowhere.

Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on? (You can view page source in your browser to see the code.)

Update: Wise reader Aaron Hartter, an old friend of ours from the Anti-State.com BBS, spotted the problem -- I had typed "herf" instead of "href" when creating the link. Thanks, Aaron.

Around Town

The view down Aldwych, looking toward LSE.


The main door of Westminster Abbey.


Oliver Cromwell contemplates urinating on a lion.


The lidless eye of Sauron.

A Symposium

Members of the philosophy of social science course at LSE gather for a pint after a taxing session of Weber, Collingwood, Durkheim, Hobbes, and Mill:

Theory of Common Descent = Science

I was listening to NPR today and there was some panel on how to teach science (to high school students, I think, but not sure). The host lobbed a question to one of the panelists, alluding to the fact that public acceptance of "evolution" (by which he meant the theory of common descent, of course) was growing. The woman informed him (sadly) that that was just a statistical blip back in 2001 (?), due to the debate in Kansas, and that now the figures are back to what they were in decades past. Why the temporary upsurge during the school board debate in Kansas? She explained that because of the media coverage, "people just thought about it more." (After all, anybody who is skeptical must not have studied it much.)

So then some other guy on the panel interjects, "I've always thought we should establish 'Creationism Hospitals.' Creationists can go there when they're sick and be prayed over. And everyone else can go to the regular hospitals."

So there you have it, folks. All of the scientists are on one side of this issue, and only non-scientists are on the other side, and to say that you doubt that humans and mushrooms share the same genetic ancestor, then that is equivalent to saying that you think medicine is useless.

Now I'm a Lying Hater (or a Hating Liar?)

In response to my latest WWII heresies, I received some constructive criticism on this blog (make sure you skim the comments). Incidentally, Anthony Gregory wrote a fantastic article about this stuff, particularly about the nonexistent German A-bomb threat.

Religious anxiety

So, which is it? Is he the lord, or the antichrist? And, just for fun, see what pops up when you click here. The debate continues...

Beatings

Responding to the post on my being mugged, reader Dave Cook writes:

"If it is any consolation, the worst beating I've ever suffered was at the hands of the police. In fact, I have a full-face photo that closely resembles yours, as the unhappy result of suggesting to a group of these thugs that an inebriated friend had not, in fact, assaulted them, but had merely drunkenly stumbled into one of them. Displeased at my response, they polished their boxing skills on my defenseless face for the better part of an half-hour despite my anguished complaints and those of my betrothed.

"Subsequent protests lodged at the police station were met with derisive laughter and an admonishment that I had gotten off 'easy.' At my trial, (I was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace, no doubt due to my loud howls of pain) the judge was critical at my plea of nolo contendre -- just due to be married, I wanted the whole sordid affair to be behind me -- the judge suggested that I had a responsibility to defend my rights when wronged. I replied that the police had a responsibility to protect and serve (as the decalcomania on the doors of their Ford Crown Victorias stated), and that I was certainly not protected, and had only been served with powerful and vigorous blows to my head and torso."

My Guest

This week, I was fortunate to be hosting the world-renowned scholar, Professor Heinrich von Oxhaumphauser, who was visting LSE. His current research is focused on the methodology of hiding behind things. So far, he has demonstrated that the thing one chooses to hide behind is most efficacious if it is:
1) Taller than the one; and
2) Wider as well.

The British philosopher Jan Lester has suggested that, in addition, the object ought to be opaque. Professor Oxhaumphauser is currently investigating that hypothesis. Here is a photo of him deep in thought:

Israel and Palestine

As is often the case, The Onion offers a more insightful analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than does any "serious" media outlet.

Big Brother Adopts

Do you ever wish you could be a police officer, but don't want to spend all that time in a pesky school? Do you like to intimidate people? Tattle on your fellow citizens? In Gulf Breeze, Fla., the police force has made this possible.