August 2003 Archives

I'm going to Missouri for a few days for Frank Williams' funeral -- my grandfather. He passed away this week at the age of 81, peacefully.

Frank Williams was a pilot, and he said that he never expected to die in bed at a ripe old age. He survived two plane crashes, and he thought that's how he'd go. His wife, my dad's mother and my grandmother, was a pilot herself and died in a plane crash when my dad was 12 years old. (My grandfather remarried to a wonderful woman, who I have always thought of as my grandmother, and who I love very much.)

My grandfather was a pretty amazing man. He was a construction contractor and invented a revolutionary kind of quick-drying cement. He was also a farmer, a rancher, and a businessman. He worked hard, with his hands and with his mind; he raised a good family.

I was never as close to him as I would have liked to have been because he lived so far away, but a couple of years ago my brother and I spent a week with him and grandma at their house outside Springfield, Missouri, and I got the chance as an adult to get to know how incredible he was. There's a difference between knowing your grandparents when you're a child and they're just a vague mental concept -- people you visit every year or so who like to show you pictures of your parents when they were young. But as an adult I could really appreciate my grandfather's years of experience, his intelligence, and the solid determination he brought to every aspect of his life.

I'll miss him, but he's encouraged me to be an awesome grandfather, if and when I have the opportunity.

SDB updates us on the status of the negotiations with North Korea. The situation sounds somewhat promising, if China is really starting to get on board with us.

The real point of no return will come this December. Without food and fuel shipments from outside, the already-widespread starvation will be greatly heightened come winter, when the mean temperature in Pyongyang is below freezing. If Kim's regime hasn't collapsed or been dismantled by then, I would put my money on a January climax.

Cruz Bustamante is running for governor of Aztlan, in California. I really hope this story hits the mainstream news, because it looks pretty devestating to me.

LOS ANGELES — California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (search), the grandson of Mexican immigrants who counts improving race relations among his biggest pursuits, refused Thursday to renounce his past ties to a little-known Hispanic organization considered by critics to be as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.

Instead, Bustamante, who is running to be governor of California, praised the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, or MEChA (search), and said he still supports it. ...

MEChA's motto is "for the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Critics say affiliation with that kind of group could spell political ruin for a white candidate and are upset that little attention has been paid to Bustamante's relationship with the group. He belonged to MEChA while attending Fresno State University in the 1970s. ...

According to the organization's constitution, "Chicanas and Chicanos must ... politicize our Raza [race] ... and struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan."

Aztlan (search) is the area that is currently the southwest United States, but Mechistas claim Aztlan is their homeland to be returned to Mexico and the group says white Americans who currently govern these areas must be removed from power.

Uh, yeah. He only moderately supports turning California over to Mexico. That's like "moderate" Nazis, "moderate" Klansmen, and "moderate" communists.

The problem isn't solely that he was a member of the organization in his youth, 30 years ago, but that he still refuses to renounce its racist, treasonous agenda even now. "Liberating Aztlan" from America is just as treasonous a goal as was held by the South before the Civil War. Is it possible that California could elect a governor who wants to secede from the Union?

I've seen Fox run some articles on the issue, but nothing on Drudge, the LA Times (big surprise), the WaPo, the NY Times... or really anywhere else. Oh right, except my beloved blogosphere! Instapundit has a couple of posts about it, and so does Clayton Cramer.

A lot of people read and linked to my recent post about the statue of Lenin in Seattle, and some of them took issue with my disgust. I'm writing this post to clarify my position on communists: I don't like 'em.

People more knowledgable about Russia than I am claim that the millions of dead that can be attributed to communism in the 20th century weren't really Lenin's fault. Fine. I don't really buy it, but I don't want to argue about it because I don't care. Lenin may have been a "moderate" communist, but in my mind that's like being a "moderate" Nazi.

I don't think Lenin was well-intentioned; he and his fellow communist revolutionaries were acting to increase their own power, at the expense of millions. But you know what? Again, I don't care. Lenin may have been a poor, misguided Father Frost. There were certainly millions of Nazis who were well-intentioned, too. Intentions count for nothing, when your actions cause massive destitution, death, and destruction.

The whole concept of communism is against everything I stand for. God, liberty, personal dignity -- all these are anathema to a communist. Communism subsumes free will to the tyranny of the group, violating the very essence of what it means to be human.

Not only that, but communism is generally merely a front for fascism. Most communist leaders are more concerned with remaking society according to their pleasure than they are with helping the proletariat. Promoting "the good of the people" is a ruse, an incredible deception designed to garner support from the masses that the communist leaders hope to dominate.

Many leftists in America (and socialists around the world) really like the idea of communism. They seem to think that although it's been an unquestionable failure every time it's been tried, the idea itself is sound. It'll work, it just needs a little more tweaking. They're wrong, and either evil or self-delusional. Yes, evil. That's a good word to describe someone who believes that utopia can be built by oppressing freedom and eliminating dissent.

To me, communists are worse than Nazis. I won't eat with a communist, I won't let a communist into my home, and I won't converse with a communist about anything other than the evil of their beliefs. I certainly wouldn't display a statue of a communist revolutionary in my city.

Everyone is marginalizing Arafat, even his own terrorists!

JERUSALEM — Yasser Arafat (search) asked militant groups Wednesday to halt attacks on Israelis, the Palestinian leader's first public attempt to restore calm following the collapse of the armed groups' unilateral truce.

But a Hamas (search) leader rejected the call, while Israel, which has tried to sideline Arafat from the peace process, dismissed it as empty rhetoric and said the army would keep rounding up terror suspects and hunting down their leaders.

That's the problem with the Palestinians: there isn't anyone in charge. It's impossible to for Israel to negotiate a "peace process" when there isn't anyone on the other wise with the authority to negotiate. If Arafat and Abbas can't control the terrorists, then there really isn't any reason to sit down and talk with them, now is there?

And that's all a part of the terrorists' plan, of course. They don't want peace without the destruction of Israel, so it's in their interests to undermine those who do want peace. If Arafat and Abbas don't have the power (military and political) to control the terrorists, then they're useless figureheads.

I guess the terrorists only like Arafat when he's his normal, evil, self.

Everyone is on the "no/yes" bandwagon now, even Gray Davis.

"He's a good, decent person," Davis said Tuesday [of Bustamante]. "He's the most qualified person on Question 2. But this election is not going to get to Question 2."

I outlined the Democrat's options 6 weeks ago, and they decided to go the amgiuous 3rd way of supporting Gray Davis and supporting a replacement; they didn't want to, but Bustamante forced them into a corner by putting his name on the ballot.

It's bizarre to me that union workers support either of the Democrats, considering that they're the ones responsible for the millions of jobs that have fled California for Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. Not to mention the fact that the Democrats are intertwined with the illegal immigrant community that steals jobs that might otherwise go to union members. Of course, the union bosses don't really have ther union members' best interests in mind; the labor unions are merely a political power tool for the Democratic elite's own ambitions.

It's hard to find data on union members' individual political affiliation, but here's a transcript from 1996 of a conversation between House Majority Whip Congressman Tom Delay of Texas and Gerry McEntee, chairman of the AFL-CIO Political Action Committee, on with Jim Leher.

REP. TOM DELAY: Well, if he would take a lesson from Ralph Reed, no one would have any problem, but--and what he's done--Mr. McEntee says is--sounds benign. But if you look at what they're actually doing, they are compelling their own rank and file members through their union dues and through taxing them to support political activities that some of them, at least 40 percent of them, do not agree with. ...

JIM LEHRER: What about the Congressman's point that 40 percent of union members disagree with the basic position that organized labor--that the AFL-CIO is taking against the Republican Congress?

MR. McENTEE: I think that's probably based upon the belief that 40 percent of our members are registered as Republicans. First of all, I believe that regardless of registration today, people vote Republican, they vote Democrat, or they vote independent, but all we are doing is providing the facts, providing the truth, providing education to the people, whether it be cuts in OSHA, the reduction in Medicare or Medicaid, we don't control any votes--

REP. DELAY: Well, there you are. The truth--

MR. McENTEE: --anymore. We're not able to do that. They have to make their own decisions which members are making each day.

I love the "we don't control any votes anymore" line from McEntee, that's priceless.

Anyway, the chairman of the AFL-CIO Political Action Committee in 1996 didn't deny the notion that 40% of union members are registered Republicans; he did some hand-waving and talked about people voting in various ways, but he didn't say "no, that's not true" or refute the assertion in any way. He merely tried to distract the audience.

And yet the labor unions never endorse any Republicans or any Republican policies, despite the apparent fact that 40% of their membership is Republican. That's a really high number -- I'm sure it's lower in California -- but considering all the attention much smaller minorities get from both parties it's astounding that the labor unions can get away with it. And it goes to show that the union leaders aren't really concerned with representing their union members, as much as they are with maintaining their power.

Update:
I was just listening to Sean Hannity on the radio on the way back from lunch, and he had a caller who belonged to the Screen Actors Guild. She said that guild membership fees are based on income, but only the first $180,000 an actor earns is counted. Talk about regressive!

Once upon a time there was mean, fat king who loved nothing more than vast, sumptuous feasts. Lamb, veal, duck, venison, pheasant, caribou, sloth, spotted owl... the premier kitchen of the realm prepared his meals to his precise specifications, and no appetite was left unsatisfied. No, not merely unsatisfied -- unsatiated.

However, the corpulent king began to grow distressed. The bountiful banquets that once brought him such pleasure began to taste bland and boring. His chefs redoubled their efforts to find the most succulent beasts, the freshest vegetables, and the most stimulating spices -- but all of their attempts fell on tasteless buds.

The king fell into a deep depression, and refused all sustenance. His chefs tried everything to stir him from his melancholy, but even the most scrumptious sweets would drive the king to gasps and coughs. "I am a man of refined tastes," he exclaimed. "I cannot eat such filth."

Losing his expansive luster and driven to desperation, the king marshaled his fading will to live and announced a competition. "My chefs have failed me," he told his people. "Their food was not fit for sloping swine, but perhaps they will be. Consequently, there is a vacancy in my court that needs to be filled, as do I. Any man who can prepare a meal that is truly fit for a king will be lavishly rewarded."

The king's command attracted would-be chefs and were-in-fact charlatans by the cup, quart, and bushel. Day and night the aspirants toiled in the king's extravagant kitchens, presenting him with course after course of comely cookery such as the world has never known. But the king's malaise would not be dispelled, and he wasted away, surrounded by mountains of decaying delicacies.

One by one the rejected, dejected connoisseurs drifted away. Conceding defeat, they fled, fearing that they too might end up feeding the king's zoo after snatching defeat from the jaws of misery. The king despaired, but he retained one final resort. "If my enormous wealth can not buy my satisfaction," he said, "I have but one thing left to offer. If any man can gratify my culinary lusts, I'll give to him my daughter!"

The king's daughter was a beautiful young lady, who fortunately did not take after her father's gluttonous ways. Word spread quickly though the land that anyone who could renew the king's taste for life would marry the princess, and be made heir to the kingdom. Who would answer the call?

Every chef who heard the new pronouncement scoffed. "The king has eaten all there is to eat," they said. "Every animal, every plant, and every fungus has passed his palate; nothing remains to entice him from his ennui."

Every chef -- but one. One man who could not be tempted by wanton wealth, but only by the love of a kind and generous princess. "All those who have come before me," the man told the wan king, "were mere pretenders to the gastronomic throne; I am the master. If you are willing, I will prepare a savory extravaganza that is certain to satisfy."

"By all means!" the king commanded. "But how will you accomplish such a feat of a feast? Look around! I am surrounded by the comestible corpses of your predecessors."

"Fear not, O king," the confident cook replied. "I, and I alone, possess the secret ingredient that will titillate your tongue and resurrect your vanquished vigor. No no! You must sample it for yourself when I am finished. And then we will discuss the princess."

The king waited in eager anticipation while the cook prepared secretly in the kitchen. He dismissed all offers of assistance and labored alone, but his job was quickly completed. Smiling triumphantly, the cook ascended to the king's banquet room and presented his masterpiece: a delicious pie, still steaming from the oven. Without a word the king devoured the dessert -- every last crumb of crust and fleck of filling.

His plate sparkling, the king proclaimed, "I feel new life in my bones! Quickly, bake me another!"

"And my reward?" the chef inquired. The king demanded that his daughter be brought forthwith.

But the princess could not be found! In her quarters was the meager message: "I will not be fed to your ravenous maw."

"I'll give you anything! Money, power; all that I have and more! Anything you want! Sustain me, and all that I have is yours," begged the king of the cook. "Or else, I die!"

But the cook replied, "You have nothing left that I desire."

It bugs me when opponents deliberately talk past each other in an attempt to confuse listeners and avoid the real issues. It's distracting, and doesn't actually further the discussion. Of course often times the purpose of such misstatements isn't to encourage legitimate debate, but simply to generate soundbites and make indirect ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

Nowhere is this practice more prevalent than in the debate about abortion, and it's typically the pro-choice crowd that misstates the arguments of the pro-lifers. For example:

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), derided McCorvey's motion as a "sad anti-choice publicity stunt" in a June 17 statement.

"Instead of leaving private medical decisions up to a woman and her doctor, anti-choice forces want the government to decide," Michelman said in the statement. "This case shows the extreme lengths to which they will go to overturn our constitutional right to choose."

Where to begin?

1. Pro-lifers don't get away with labeling their opponents as "pro-death" or "anti-life", or even "pro-abortion".

2. Michelman states that the position of pro-life advocates is that the government should be involved in people's private medical decisions, when that isn't the crux of the matter at all. To an opponent of abortion, the critical issue is that a fetus is a human being, and as such should not be killed without a cause more substantial than mere convenience. It has nothing to do with a lack of respect for the privacy of the mother, or with a desire to interfere with her private medical decisions. To a pro-lifer, the decisions to have an abortion isn't private, because it necessarily involves another person: the unborn baby.

3. Both sides in the debate label their opponents as "extreme"; that's pretty typical for politics these days.

4. Michelman states that there is a Constitutional right to an abortion, but that's precisely the question that is at issue here. The Supreme Court created that right by its interpretation of the Constitution, and that interpretation is at the center of the controversy. To assert that such a right is guaranteed by the Constitution and to then use that right as an argument in favor of the interpretation that created the right is disingenuous and deceptive.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that we have much more biological information available than we had 30 years ago, there is no legitimate debate about the facts of abortion being held in America. The pro-choice side has little incentive to engage in actual debate as long as their position is entrenched in law; their motivation is to maintain the status quo, and they know that recent polls have shown they would lose the debate if they were forced to make substantial arguments.

If Arnold was really slick, he would turn down campaign contributions entirely. It's not like he needs a few more million dollars, and it would generate great publicity. He has said several times that he won't be beholden to special interests and that he's rich enough that he doesn't need anyone [else] to buy the election for him, so why doesn't he stand on that and make a huge issue out of it?

This SFGate article (via Rough & Tumble, and awesome source for California political news) gives us some insight into the various campaigns.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting the financial help he promised he would never need in his race for governor as California business interests poured $788,000 into his campaign committees over the weekend.

Again, why bother? That's spare change to him, and the publicity that turning away all money would generate would be incredible. Typically, rich candidates don't want to look like they're buying office by spending all their own money, but in this particular case it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante received a $321,000 contribution from one of the state's leading Indian gambling tribes and Peter Ueberroth, a Republican businessman running as an independent, raised $368,600 in the past few days.

Bustamante is owned by the gambling industry and Mexico, everyone already knows that. It's interesting that Ueberroth raised more money than the Lt. Gov., considering that he's not generally considered a major candidate.

Gov. Gray Davis, fighting to fend off the Oct. 7 recall, raised $353,000 over the weekend, including contributions from two longtime Democratic donors who had been appointed by the governor to state positions.

And then there's Davis, who gives people jobs and then takes kick-backs to fund his political career; a crooked form of re-investment, I suppose.

Unfortunately, the article barely mentions Tom McClintock. Bill Simon has already pulled out of the race, and McClintock will probably give up soon as well. Without Simon running it's conceivable that McClintock could get the plurality he needs to win, but it would still be a long-shot and staying in will increase the odds of Bustamante ceding the state to Mexico.

On the other hand, maybe it would be in the Republicans' best interests to leave the state with a Democratic governor if the alternative is a liberal Republican. If Arnold doesn't end up taking the conservative fiscal positions that are necessary to turn the state around, then the "R" next to his name will only serve to allow the Democrats to evade the blame for our dismal situation.

Bill Hobbs rightfully laments the fact that a "real journalist" referred to his blog writings but didn't provide his readers a link to Bill's original material, or even a name for the source he was citing and criticizing.

Yes, that's lame. Not only is it standard operating procedure to cite sources, but it's good form.
There are only a few reasons why a writer wouldn't want to cite a source, and none of them are very flattering. Either the writer is trying to deceive his readers, or he is supremely arrogant. (Silence, Candace.)

However, Bill shouldn't get discouraged. This current crop of journalists is a dying breed; all the journalists and writers of the future are probably maintaining blogs of their own at this very moment.

Eugene Volokh compares Hindus and homosexuals and asks why conservative Christians would (generally) be ok with Hindu school teachers but not homosexual school teachers.

I wouldn't oppose either Hindu or homosexual public school teachers (although this highlights yet another difficulty with the publicly-funded school paradigm), but I am a conservative Christian and so I can speak to what our general concerns are.

It's pretty simple really. Most parents take the sexuality of their children very seriously, and a homosexual teacher is seen as directly threatening. Not necessarily from a sexual abuse standpoint, but from a confusion and misinformation standpoint. Homosexuality isn't the only sexual issue that Christian parents have to deal with; they're also faced with teaching their children to avoid sexual promiscuity (which the world glorifies), to carefully guard their romantic emotions, and to only enter relationships with other Christians -- for starters. There are a whole host of other issues, all of which are undermined by the stereotypical homosexual. Obviously not all homosexuals are like that, but the most publically visible ones are the precise antithesis of what Christian parents want for their children. Certainly heterosexuals in our culture have similar problems, but I think you see my point.

In contrast, many Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatever, hold many of the same social values as Christians (on the surface, at least). They're against murder and theft, and in favor of helping people and doing good. The issues that are likely to come up in a school setting that relate to religion are less threatening to parents than the issue of their child's sexuality.

Eugene specifically mentioned school teachers, but let me briefly address the larger issue of adults who work with children. I work with kids (of all ages) at my church, and one thing we're very careful about is not leaving girls alone with men, or boys alone with women. That's not because we think any of our adult workers are likely to abuse a child, but we want to stay away from any possible accusation or appearance of impropriety.

Adults who work with children are often alone with them (maybe not high school teachers, but certainly camp counselors and day-care workers). What should be the guidelines for homosexuals? Should they be prohibited from being alone with boys, girls, both, neither? The question brings the sexuality issue directly to the front, and puts it right in the kids' faces. It wouldn't be acceptable for an adult man to be the cabin counselor for a bunch of 12-year-old girls, so why should it be acceptable for an adult homosexual man to be the cabin counselor for a bunch of 12-year-old boys?

The issue comes down to publicly flamboyant sterotypes and concern over the appearance of impropriety (as well as actual impropriety, as the Catholic Church has demonstrated).

American cities and states are starting to recognize "matrícula" cards issued by Mexico as valid identification for various civil purposes. This idea may not seem entirely bizarre in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, where there are a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants, but here in California where illegal immigration is actually a huge problem....

In Indianapolis, immigrants carrying the matrícula card can apply for building licenses and permits to drive taxis and operate vending carts. ...

Many bankers, merchants and politicians have also embraced the card, whose name translates to consular registration, hoping to appeal to the growing number of Hispanic consumers and voters. ...

"It makes me feel good to see the matrícula accepted in so many places," said Mr. Montes de Oca, 29, who was rejected when he tried to open a bank account last year because he lacked a Social Security number. "This makes me feel welcome."

And that's a large part of the problem: you're not welcome. It's illegal for you to be here.

Naturally, the FBI and DHS are making some noise about possible fraud and misuse by terrorists, but that's really a fringe issue in my mind. How about simply asking the government to secure our borders and enforce the law? If people want all these immigrants, then we need to have a debate and change the laws.

This month, Cincinnati followed suit. Officials say the move would be a boon to local economies, encouraging Mexican immigrants to pour money into banks and businesses. They also say immigrants with bank accounts will be less vulnerable to criminals who prey on people who carry cash or keep money at home.

Most illegal immigrants don't have money to "pour into banks and businesses"; most illegal immigrants are incredibly poor and living off government programs.

"All of us, we try to get the card," Mr. Mondragon said. "It really helps a lot."

Go home! That would really help me a lot. At least you don't live in California.

I'm not uncompassionate; I'm sure living in Mexico sucks. But the current situation is an economic disaster, and the burden is falling primarily on the taxpayers of California, New Mexico, and Texas. If our nation wants to allow unlimited immigration from Mexico, then let's pass a law to legalize it. Let's spread the burden around evenly, and divert federal tax dollars to the states that have to pay the heaviest costs.

(Link via Drudge.)

Chris Noble over at The Noble Pundit has functionally agrees with my position on the usefulness of education, but takes issue with my foundational explanation (after saying a bunch of nice stuff about me).

He then continues on to assert that man is inherently evil and that we are so because we are selfish (among other reasons). I disagree.

For a long time, I have believed that man was inherently good. We didn't always act on our goodness, but by and large, we were good. I've spent the last three or four days trying to reconcile man's goodness with his actions and have actually, to an extent, readjusted my position. Man isn't born pure and then corrupted. No, man is born in a neutral state (tabula rasa) and everything from there on is acquired by a form of education or conditioning.

The idea that a human mind is born as a "blank slate" onto which anything can be written by the pen of experience was first advanced by one of my favorite philosophers, John Locke. However, modern cognitive psychology does not support such a belief, and Steven Pinker recently published a quite convincing refutation of the theory, titled "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature". (Pinker is also a brilliant linguist; although he is a disciple of Chomsky, he does not appear to share Chomsky's socialist/communist politics. In "The Blank Slate" Pinker condemns the horrendous application of the blank slate concept by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.)

There is no denying that environmental factors influence human psychological development, but that development does not occur in a biological vacuum; human brains are inherently wired for certain behaviors that do not vary under any set of controls (such as language). Pinker elaborates in great detail, and although I do not concur with all of his materialist beliefs I still highly recommend the book. For more on "The Blank Slate", please refer to this entry on Everything2.

Chris then goes on to describe a sort of "social evolution".

One of the underlying assumptions of this position is that the basics of being human - those first things we learn after we're born - are subject to Darwinian evolution. Traits that are good for mankind, like societies, religion, conscience, and laws will expand and evolve. Traits that are bad, like racism, murder, and theft will eventually wither away to near extinction (I'm not crazy enough to believe that they will ever die off entirely).

However, social evolution is quite a controversial subject, and there is no scientific support for Chris' assertions that racism, murder, and theft are bad from a survival standpoint. There are a great many circumstances in which racism, murder, theft, rape, deception, psychosis, and many other despicable behaviors are quite beneficial to an individual and his genes. Consider the animal world that is ungoverned by culture, and you will see instances of all of these. One of the most fascinating problems in artificial intelligence is explaining how culture can work to suppress these clearly beneficial strategies. I have mentioned a few papers on the topic previously, but no one has yet devised a sustainable scenario that explains the suppression of cultural free-riders. (The issue is quite complicated, because those individuals who act to punish free-riders incur a cost to do so that isn't distributed back to the society as a whole -- creating meta-free-riders.)

Chris then goes on to discuss the many benefits of selfishness.

Capitalism has been far and away the closest to the ideal economic system that has ever been devised by mankind. It does more to provide for our needs than any of the other variations of control economies have. Capitalism is based on people selling what other people want. But why do some people sell their time, their labor, or their resources to others?

Because they're selfish. They think that whatever the buyer is offering, be it cows and chickens in the ancient barter systems or cash in the modern economy, is worth more than the item that their selling. They want to possess the most possible value because it will give them the best standard of living. They don't care a whit about the other party involved; they're acting on pure selfish, hoarding motives.

He's quite right. As all of my readers should know, I'm an ardent capitalist. However, I think Chris misses the underlying issue: capitalism is the most efficient economic form precisely because humanity is selfish; capitalism balances my selfishness against yours.

However, if no one were selfish, capitalism and competition would be a waste. If everyone could be trusted to function altruistically, the ideal structure for society would be either anarchy (assuming broad information flow) or benevolent dictatorship. A society of altruistic anarchists could certainly out-produce a society of selfish capitalists, but as the old joke goes: "A smart blond and the tooth fairy are walking down the street, and they see a penny. Who picks it up? The tooth fairy, because the smart blond doesn't exist." Immediate families often operate as altruistic anarchies -- and they function quite efficiently -- but the structure doesn't scale, due to selfishness.

So although I agree with Chris that capitalism is the best we can do, that best is predicated on humanity's selfishness and inherent evil.

And freedom is best protected by those who are reasonable and selfish about their freedom. For a reasonable and selfish person will understand that to protect the most individual freedom, it is necessary to have equitable rules for all.

Be selfish for the common good.

Freedom would be best protected by an altruistic society, but unfortunately that don't exist and never will -- because we're evil.

How many outsiders are aware of the giant statue of Lenin standing in Seattle's Fremont Square? As the author of this 2001 article notes:

Imagine a statue in Westlake Plaza of Hitler, who stoked ethnic and class hatred to inspire extermination of six million Jews. Unthinkable. Yet, under the insidious, value-neutral rubric of "provocative art," Seattle proudly displays a larger-than-life sculpture of a man equally abhorrent. ...

Respected historians agree Lenin laid the ideological groundwork for 50 million to 100 million murders in the name of 20th-century Communism. Still, some local media observers have suggested our Lenin is cloaked in "ambiguity" and the statue deserves a pass because he inspired solidarity among our Wobblies in their heyday, or because a democracy-promoting fragment of the Berlin Wall has been considered for installation nearby.

Dirty commies.

Candace says (among other things) that this is the biggest Lenin statue left in the world, and if that's the case maybe it's in the right place.

Update:
Some people have asked for my "Just Say No to Commies" image that pops up occasionally, and here it is.

Update 2:
But what do I really think about communists?

I think the deal with the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is getting kinda silly.

"What this federal judge [Thomson] has said is that we cannot acknowledge God," Moore told Fox News earlier Friday. "My battle is not with the justices of the court, my colleagues, my battle is with the federal government, who has come in and told us how to think, who we can believe in."

Not exactly. The judge said you had the move the monument to a less public area. I don't agree with his reasoning or his conclusion, but he certainly didn't tell you what to think or who to believe in.

On Friday, about 100 protesters moved from the steps of the judicial building to a sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse, where Thompson works. Some ripped to pieces and burned a copy of Thompson's ruling. Demonstrators also held a mock trial, in which Thompson was charged with breaking the law of God.

"We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law," said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

God's law to do what? Display the Ten Commandments in front of all courthouses? The melodrama really isn't convincing anyone; I guarantee it.

Thompson's order gave the option of moving the monument to Moore's office. But Khan said she asked Moore during a deposition about moving it to his office and he said the monument was too heavy.

That's just amusing, because I understand the monument is quite large.

An organizer of pro-Moore demonstrations, Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, said Friday the demonstrations will continue.

He said five protesters will kneel in front of each of two exits from the building to keep the monument from coming out.

"Our message is clear. We are going to peacefully block the way if they try to move it," Mahoney said.

Well, that's in the best civil-disobedience tradition (which I don't particularly approve of, in general).

One of the demonstrators, retired Birmingham school teacher Murray Phillips, said she knows the monument will probably be gone from the rotunda soon.

"I'm upset, but I'm not surprised. At least I am going to be able to say to my grandchildren that at least I tried to do something," Phillips said.

This is the problem. You tried to do something that was obviously going to be completely ineffectual. Not only was it ineffectual, but it's making you (and me, and God) look silly. Now, I happen to agree with the protesters' position: I don't think the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment should be interpreted (through the 14th Amendment) as forbidding state governments from establishing religion. The 14th Amendment does project the Free Exercise Clause onto the states, but it's not clear that the Establishment Clause fits into the same framework. Nevertheless, that's the law.

We need to ask ourselves: what are these protesters trying to accomplish? They are pushing symbolism over substance. Just as the Moonies want to get rid of crosses in an effort to promote "religious unity", these Christians want to erect (or maintain) a monument to promote Christianity. In both cases, however, they've got the cart before the horse.

Putting up a monument to the Ten Commandments isn't going to convince anyone of anything. It's not going to lead anyone to Christ. It will only accompish two things (which are probably these protesters' true goals):
1. It will reinforce the protesters' self-righteousness, and give them a feeling of having "done something".
2. It will irritate, annoy, and rankle the non-Christians who face it.

Both of these motivations are built on pride, and neither one of them is spiritually profitable. First of all, Christians should not pursue political agendas merely to make ourselves feel good and powerful. Sure, it can be satisfying -- and that satisfaction is based on a lust for power and validation.

Secondly, irritating, annoying, and rankling non-Christians is not an effective way to show them God's love. I imagine we all know people that piss us off, and as they become more and more bothersome we tend to listen to them and care about them less and less. I'm not saying that we shouldn't stand up for what is right, but I am saying that forcing kids to pray in school or prohibiting gay people from having sex isn't going to have any spiritual benefit, for anyone.

These types of protest are a troubling waste of time and energy. The more confrontational you become, the more resistance you will face. In order to be effective ambassadors for God, we need to be subtle and enticing. Jesus never forced anyone to listen to him, and we don't need to either. On the contrary, Jesus lived under a far more oppressive government, and he made absolutely zero effort to reform it. Why? Because change begins in the heart, not in the courthouse.

The message of God's love and justice is compelling, and more often than not we Christians are responsible for its ineffectiveness. Some people will listen, and some will not, but we are not called to do any convincing or coercing. That's the Holy Spirit's job; he works on the hearts of men and women, calling them to God. We are only messengers.

According to the Mississippi Supreme Court, only the mother of an unborn child has the right to kill that child.

JACKSON, Miss. — The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade (search), held Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf. ...

Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.

"Tucker's interest is to protect and preserve the life of her unborn child, not in the exercise of her right to terminate that life which has been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court," Smith wrote.

That strikes me as a little odd. Even the pro-choicers seem to recognize the incongruity of the decision.

Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said she was troubled by the court's definition of a fetus as a "person."

"Anytime the fetus is recognizable as a person it chips away at the foundation of Roe," she said.

She's certainly correct, and I suspect that was exactly the purpose intended by some of the people behind the lawsuit. It's the same type of end-run that gun-control advocates try to pull by passing registration laws and limits on magazine capacities. I don't disagree with the decision, but I would vastly prefer it if our legal system weren't so convoluted.

I've read some strange ideas from "Christians" before, but this has got to be one of the weirdest.

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - An interfaith group founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon is spearheading an effort to have Christian ministers remove crosses from their churches, calling them a symbol of oppression and perceived superiority. Mainstream Christian leaders call the request "outrageously bigoted." ...

"We have realized that, as expressions of faith, there are certain symbols that have stood in the way," Stallings said. "The cross has served as a barrier in bringing about a true spirit of reconciliation between Jews and also between Muslims and Christians, and thus, we have sought to remove the cross from our Christian churches across America as a sign of our willingness to remove any barrier that stands in the way of us coming together as people of faith."

The real barrier that prevents Jews, Christians, and Muslims from unifying is that they hold profoundly different religious views. I don't think it's the physical crosses themselves that offend Jews and Muslims (those who are offended, anyway), it's the beliefs that the crosses symbolize. Are they proposing that the beliefs be removed for the sake of some sort of religious "unity"?

Maybe this story is just too bizarre to even bother responding to.

By popular demand, I am going to enlighten you plebeian plebs on the new-fangled way to use punctuation. I started doing it myself during junior high school, and although my teachers couldn't appreciate my brilliance I'm glad to see that it's actually catching on in some hip engineering circles. Behold!

Which of the following is correct?
1. I took my girl out to see "Oklahoma!"
2. I took my girl out to see "Oklahoma!".

If you said (1), you're living in the 90s! Maybe you didn't notice, but this is the future baby, and in the future we don't count punctuation that's part of a quote as part of the sentence that contains that quote!

This next example should help solidify the matter.
1. Did you see last night's episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
2. Did you see last night's episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"?

Sentence (1) is for losers. You're not a loser are you?

"Hey wait," you ask. "What about dialogue?" Easy as cake. As long as the whole sentence is contained in quotes, you're fine. Don't be ignorant.

What about names that start with small letters, like French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin? Only commies have names that start with small letters. Here in future America, we capitalize what we want, when we want. De Villepin? He can take it up with the UN.

In the future, we also remove extraneous periods from acronyms. Get used to it.

Update 050425:
Eugene Volokh writes about quotation marks more than 18 months later.