:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 ::

It's the morning of the 24th and I'm done writing for a few days. There are still a few articles and essays I wanted to post but I'll wait until I come back. I'll leave you with the lyrics from the best Christmas song ever - Stevie Wonder's 'One Little Christmas Tree.'

"One Little Christmas Tree"

One little Christmas tree was standing alone
Waiting for someone to come by
One little Christmas tree that never had grown
Cried as he looked up to the sky
Oh please Mr Father tree, the tallest of all
I'm so afraid and alone
Could one little Christmas tree so tiny and small
Light up someone's home
'cause
One little Christmas tree can light up a home
So one little child can find a toy
One little Christmas tree can light up a home
So one little heart can find some joy
One little angel who was riding a star
Cried as she looked down at the tree
Oh please Mr Father tree wherever you are
May I give him the star you gave to me
Then in the heavens came a voice from afar
A voice that was heard throughout the world
Go down little angel girl and give him your star
Tonight he'll light the world
'cause
One little Christmas tree can light up the world
So those who are lost may find their way
One little Christmas tree can light up the world
So all men may see you on Christmas Day

MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL!!!

:: Scot 5:40 AM [+] :: ::
...

Tom Hanks pulls no punches with the moon landing conspiracy theorists:

'We live in a society where there is no law in making money in the promulgation of ignorance or, in some cases, stupidity,' Hanks said. 'You can go as relatively quasi-harmless as saying no one went to the moon. But you also can say that the Holocaust never happened.'

Well put, but no match for Buzz Aldrin punching an antagonist in the face last fall (for which he was thankfully acquitted).

:: Scot 4:40 PM [+] :: ::
...

Joe Strummer dead at 50.

He deserved to live a lot longer than this.

:: Scot 4:22 PM [+] :: ::
...

Mark Steyn has a few Christmas observations:

Merry Christmas. There, I've said it. Which is more than the Royal Canadian Mint is willing to do. Its ad campaign for this "holiday season" uses a certain familiar tune, which has been so imperceptibly altered that only the most alert will notice it: On the first day of giving/ My true love gave to me.

There follows some specimen of the Mint's ghastly tat - presentation sets of hideously designed commemorative coins to which Her Majesty has unaccountably lent her head. Second verse: On the second day of giving. Can you spot the subtle change?

The 12 Days Of Christmas has had the offensive word removed and been transformed into The 12 Days Of Giving, which sounds like it might be some ancient communal Abenaki tribal ritual lost in the mists of time, where everyone stands around swapping beaver pelts and virgin daughters, rather than some lame white-bread exclusionary fundamentalist racist thing like Christmas.

The reason they're using the song is because it's a well-known Christmas song, but at the same time they've evidently figured it's not so well-known that people will notice 20 per cent of the title's gone missing.

Thus, the fine balancing act of the modern Christmas: on the one hand, it's too narrow a term and makes people uncomfortable; on the other hand, it's a hugely popular cash bonanza and we want our piece of it. One or other halves of this equation cannot be true, but public institutions go to great lengths to pretend it's so.

:: Scot 4:13 PM [+] :: ::
...

When you go and vote for Little Green Football's Idiotarian of the Year, be sure to select NOAM CHOMSKY with all the votes you get. He's only in third place, far behind Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore.

:: Scot 4:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

The axis of whistleblowers Coleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins have been named Time's persons of the year. Shaking up the FBI and big business was no small task. Superstar blogger Paul Martin ("Sometimes I'll write about politics. Sometimes I'll write about what I'm up to. I'll try my best to keep it interesting. But no guarantees.") was named Canadian newsmaker of the year. I wonder if his blog will make even this sound boring.

:: Scot 4:05 PM [+] :: ::
...

I always enjoy someone taking a jab at something I'm fond of - whether it be music, TV shows, or news sites. I get a little concerned however when my tastes are in part held responsible for the erosion of society. In an essay titled Fantasy is the opium of the ignorant and the indolent, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto sways his audience from chuckle to raised eyebrow with this suggestion:

Our fantasy fixation is worrying. Fantasy doesn’t just feed on the imagination: it drains it. Virtuality erodes reality. Students who sweat over Elvish and Klingon will never dream in Chinese or Greek. Kids know more about the battles of Aragorn than of Alexander, the life of Harry Potter than the life of Harry VIII. Fantasy endangers history, some say: realism is on the way to extinction, shrinking from the syllabus, extruded from bookshops, de-accessioned from libraries.

Fears like these, however, misrepresent the rise of fantasy. The demise of history and the retreat of realism are not the results of fantasy’s popularity, but its causes. Unmindful of our real roots, we reconstruct an imperfectly imagined antiquity. The fault lies with historians, who have done their best to make the true past boring. Similarly, writers of realistic fiction increasingly address each other, or the prize-awarding committees, instead of the public.

Meanwhile, we recoil from history because we are afraid of its lessons: it teaches us that we have made no moral or intellectual progress for thousands of years and have grown most in our capacity to do ill. We flee to fantasy in recoil from truth. We are suckered by make-believe because we have lost touch with the majesty of myth. Instead of the past, we fall for pastiche. For those who forget the past, it seems, are condemned to reinvent it.

The last paragraph sounds more like a description of historical revisionism than it does fantasy.

(from Bookslut)

:: Scot 3:29 PM [+] :: ::
...

Hanoi Jane Fonda doing her part in the Middle East conflict. No surprise her moral vacuousness remains - she's a hell of a lot cozier with the Palestinians than she is with the Israelis. Her multiple face lifts have held up well though.

(from Mader Blog)

:: Scot 2:08 PM [+] :: ::
...

Reason #73 why Canadians have lost faith in their leadership. In an interview with Peter Mansbridge, Jean Chretien addressed (well, not really) his stance on the speech given Thursday by Colin Powell on Iraq's weapons report. Understandable is Chretien's refusal to acknowledge that the war is already being carried out as well as the (very small) role Canada will be playing. It's hard for the PM to commit his nation to a war that isn't supposed to have started yet, and even harder for Jean to communicate this without looking like a fool.

Talking specifically about Iraq, Mansbridge asks him 'What would be the bottom line for Canada?' Chretien's reply is near gibberish:

But we said that. We always operated but in one occasion – I think we put some soldiers between Egypt and Israel, outside of the UN. We always moved with the approval of the UN. When we went to Kosovo, when we went to any other situation of peacekeeping. But Kosovo was a war. The planes were used against the Serbs and we did 10 per cent of the sorties of the military. It was under NATO but approved by the UN. That is the system. We believe in multilateral organization. It's very important for countries like Canada to be great promoters of multilateral organizations. We have only one superpower, it happens to be a friend of ours, but to maintain the equilibrium in the world it is very important that we have these multilateral organizations like the UN or others.

The end of this begins to make a little more sense. In short he's simply saying we don't have a position - the UN has our position. Mansbridge then asks him:

'Are you saying then that it has to be a UN-approved mission against Iraq, if it comes to that, before Canada would be involved?'

Maybe not Jean thinks to himself:

I cannot anticipate the result. They will go and debate that at the UN at the Security Council and we will see what they debate. I'm not to anticipate an "if and this" and "if and that."

Of course not - that might show Canada has a position. Here's the money shot from the interview. The next paragraph in Chretien's response from above comes out of nowhere:

I'm very pleased I was one of the first to say to the president, "You have to go to the UN." I remember when I talked with Tony Blair in Africa he had never said that he was to go without the UN. He never said that, but people thought he had consented. He did not. After we met, we discussed that, and the same week he went to meet with the president and he said the same thing – we have to go to the UN.

So when I met the president in Detroit on the Monday, it was not a very long discussion on that issue because he knew my position and Blair had the same position, and, of course, Chirac and the others, and he said, "Jean, we're going to the UN," and I said, "Good, that's what we wish." And you remember what he said, "Mr. Chrétien's very clear. Sometimes it's funny, he could be a good Texan." So it was not a very difficult discussion at all.

Does anyone on this planet think the conversation went anything like this? If it went down at all? I think the Christmas gift I would cherish above all others (even world peace) would be to listen in on the joking and snickering Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld must engage in just prior to or right after having to meet with this bozo.

Chretien caps off his response:

We have to see what would happen at the UN. We're not a member of the Security Council...

He's right. That honor is reserved for nations like Syria and Mexico.

...so we're not part of the debate, and we'll see what will be the result of the debate there.

Notice that it's not the debate itself that matters, it's the result of the debate. I'm sure the UN is happy to know that regardless of the outcome, Canada will be there front and center making sure everyone follows the rules that are created for the benefit of other nations.

:: Scot 12:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

North Korea just can't keep itself out of the news. They've just disabled UN nuclear surveillance equipment in yet another act of overt defiance.

Memo to China: Take care of this or we will.

Update from the New York Times. State Department spokesman Lou Fintor:

"A move to restart them would fly in the face of the international consensus that the North Korean regime must fulfill all its commitments and in particular dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program"

Good to play that international card early before the UN decides that they can't decide if a maniac sitting on an arsenal of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

"(The United States) will not enter into dialogue in response to threats or broken commitments, and we will not bargain or offer inducements for North Korea to live up to the treaties and agreements it has signed."

Sounds good to me.

:: Scot 11:48 AM [+] :: ::
...

The World According to Google. Interesting article on the world's most popular search engine.

:: Scot 2:42 PM [+] :: ::
...

Sound and Fury killed a good hour of mine the other day with this cool site on skyscrapers.

Speaking of which, here are some photos from the new World Trade Center plans.

:: Scot 2:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Did the paranoid culture of Canadian Natives contribute to Ahenakew's bout of anti-Semitism? William Johnson argues that this cultivated state of victimhood is a spawning ground for this kind of extremism. He gives a brief history:

In the 1960s, young aboriginals such as Georges Erasmus joined the Company of Young Canadians and studied Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. Mr. Erasmus, who was later to head the AFN and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, told me when I first interviewed him in Yellowknife in 1975: "Fanon's Wretched of the Earth is my bible."

For the theoreticians of decolonization, a deadly enmity exists between the colonized and the colonizers, and the colonized can only achieve health, identity, pride and efficacy by overthrowing the colonial government. In Canada, this meant asserting an inherent right to self-government.

And so we've seen a leader as intelligent and thoughtful as Matthew Coon Come, national chief of the AFN, tell the gathering of chiefs that was about to elect him in 2000: "I am not a Canadian."

In recent decades, the key to success for aboriginal politicians was "mau-mauing" the Canadian government. When Mr. Coon Come went to Durban last year for a United Nations conference on racism, he claimed that aboriginals "are faced with the threat of extinction as a result of governmental laws and actions."

Johnson astutely wonders why more hasn't been made of Ahenakew's convictions. I agree. Such egregious comments made in public warrants much more than a teary-eyed press conference apology.

:: Scot 2:31 PM [+] :: ::
...

Michael Ledeen echoes a popular blogger rally - faster, please!

:: Scot 1:56 PM [+] :: ::
...

I'm watching Powell give America's response to the Iraqi weapons report mess and he doesn't look too happy. It's gotta suck when the world's best diplomat calls you a liar and says war is highly likely.

:: Scot 1:53 PM [+] :: ::
...

I must have missed this version of Pong when I was a kid.

:: Scot 10:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

Edge has the latest in its universes series with The Ultra Early Universe by Martin Rees. Ray Kurzweil's The Intelligent Universe is still my favorite.

:: Scot 8:41 AM [+] :: ::
...

Ben Stein with 12 tips on How to Ruin American Enterprise.

:: Scot 5:59 AM [+] :: ::
...

Excellent piece from USS Clueless on the North Korea conundrum.

:: Scot 4:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

Christopher Hitchens weighs in on the right wing axis of evil - Henry Kissinger, Trent Lott, and Cardinal Law.

Mark Steyn weighs in on the same axis.

:: Scot 6:03 PM [+] :: ::
...

Andrew Sullivan has my favorite take on Presidential non-candidate Al Gore:

At this point, it's hard even to pity him. I used to admire and like Al Gore. That was in the 1980s and early 1990s when he seemed to represent a new, centrist Democratic Party. But now it's clear to anyone with a brain that these erstwhile policies did not spring from any deep conviction, but were mere tools to get him to higher office. How else to explain his new positions - resonant with the far left of the party? A classic example is his new-found attachment to a Canadian-style national health service. In the 2000 campaign he had derided his rival, Bill Bradley, for favoring similar (but not identical) plans for healthcare. So what's different now? The number of people without health insurance has gone up, but most of the problems today were perfectly visible two and a half years ago. The most plausible answer is that Gore thought it would be politically expedient to play the fiscal conservative back in 2000 against a liberal rival in the primaries. Now it's politically expedient for him to move left to win over the party base.

But moving left hasn't helped much either. Gore has deeply alienated his former friends in the centrist wing of the Democrats; and the left doesn't quite trust him. Nor should they. He has combined some of the most pathetic gambits of the far left, while having none of their conviction. A classic recent example was his claim that the Bush administration's emphasis on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was merely an electoral ploy rather than a genuine issue of national security. But Gore had always been a hawk on Saddam. The public record shows him to have been one of those in American politics most concerned with the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator. Why the sudden change of heart and mind? Again, it's hard not to think of it as naked, if stupidly short-term, politicking.

:: Scot 10:09 AM [+] :: ::
...

Yes it's true. Paul Martin, likely Canada's next Prime Minister, has started up his own blog. Before you get too excited, read a few samples:

Paul on blogs - The authors and purposes of blogs vary. A blog could be Joe Citizen — or a group of Joe Citizens — simply wanting to vent about something. Or it could contain commentary and links about what’s on the web. It could be ongoing news about a person or idea, or it could even be a photo, essay or poetry blog. Whatever the purpose, they are characterized by the fact that they are typically focused around a single subject, an underlying theme or a unifying concept, and have a high concentration of repeat visitors.

Paul on his blog - So to make a long explanation short (I'm told that Blogs work best when kept brief) I'm going to keep doing this, scratching out my thoughts and observations each week while this leadership race unfolds. Sometimes I'll write about politics. Sometimes I'll write about what I'm up to. I'll try my best to keep it interesting. But no guarantees.

A wise disclaimer.

:: Scot 9:25 AM [+] :: ::
...

Should the U.S. run propaganda through allied nations? The New York Times has a good article today on the Pentagon's latest debate.

:: Scot 5:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

Another day, another made-up syndrome. Michelle Cottle looks into Hurried Woman Syndrome - a graceless phrase identifying female stress as a disorder.

:: Scot 7:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

Banning Hezbollah 'grave mistake,' Sheik says

The Canadian government's decision to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization is a "grave mistake" and an "injustice" that will affect Canada's relations with Arabs and Muslims, the Lebanon-based group said Thursday.

"What the Canadian government did, the Canadian government will be responsible for," said Sheik Hassan Izzedine, a Hezbollah spokesman in Beirut.

BRING IT ON FUCKERS!!!

:: Scot 7:46 AM [+] :: ::
...

Pandavox has a good piece on why he supports a confrontation with Iraq (scroll up for part 2).

:: Scot 7:39 AM [+] :: ::
...

Occam's Toothbrush offers a few links on one of my favorite topics - transnational progressivism.

:: Scot 12:04 AM [+] :: ::
...

Collin May is asking for an American invasion of Canada. It's hard to disagree.

After I recently wrote a piece calling attention to the declining domestic situation in Canada coupled with its international decline, I received quite a number of e-mails. While I was gratified that many other Canadians shared my concerns, I was somewhat saddened to see that the tone of the e-mails only confirmed everything I’d written.

On the one hand were those correspondents who agreed wholeheartedly with my criticisms. But, like myself, the majority of these people no longer live in Canada, and this is the problem. My fellow expatriate Canadians wrote intelligent responses demonstrating an enlightened grasp of international affairs along with thoughtful comments regarding the needs of a modern nation. They came from Canadians now living in the United States, Europe and Asia. They all said they were deeply disappointed with Canada, its current government and the indifference of its population. Those e-mails coming from Canadians still residing in Canada who expressed support for my views, recited a litany of disgust and despair.

Even worse however, were the e-mails disagreeing with my position. All came from people living in Canada. They displayed, on the whole, a lack of awareness of the international scene. Similarly, their comments showed little concern for what is required in order to preserve and nurture a respectable nation. The only arguments they were able to proffer in favor of Canada consisted of sentimental sops about Canadian entertainment (such as it is), tinged with flatulent anti-Americanism which didn’t even have the self-respect to be intellectually interesting. But then what else can come from years of listening to pompous Canadian pseudo-intellectuals cum documentary stars and hideous, interminable CBC reruns of Anne of Green Gables?

:: Scot 11:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

In a review of Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, Anthony Daniels writes:

Of all the great scientists, Charles Darwin was the least obviously brilliant. He was not at all mathematical, he mastered no foreign languages, and the concepts that he originated and developed are easily graspable by someone of quite moderate intelligence. We know we could never have been Newton or Einstein; but to have been Darwin might have been within our capabilities. Did not T. H. Huxley, a man to all appearances much more brilliant than Darwin, exclaim on reading The Origin of Species, "How stupid of me not to have thought of it!"

In what, then, did Darwin's greatness lie? It is one of the virtues of Janet Browne's majesterial biography of Darwin that it makes plain the extraordinary abilities of a man who at first sight appeared rather ordinary. Chief among these was his ability to concentrate with undeviating intensity upon the study of minutiae that were beneath the notice of lesser men, minutiae that were actually of the greatest biological significance.

His genius really was an infinite capacity for taking pains. To the very end of his life, Darwin was able because of it to make highly original contributions to biological science; and although by then he had lost his faith in a deity, one senses that his veneration for humble creatures such as earthworms (the subject of his last book, and, incidentally, a best-seller) was almost religious in nature.

Darwin is rarely mentioned among history's greatest scientists, despite his unprecedented contributions to biology.

:: Scot 11:42 PM [+] :: ::
...

What happens when a jokester infiltrates groups of anti-war protesters? Napoleon Cole serves up a few laughs.

:: Scot 6:13 PM [+] :: ::
...

Interesting article in the Washington Post on the Kurds in Iraq.

:: Scot 5:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

Quote of the week:

Real friends don't let friends join the European Union.

James Bennett, writing about U.S. efforts to get Turkey admitted into the EU.

:: Scot 5:29 PM [+] :: ::
...

Terrific essay on Free Speech and Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks.

(from Light of Reason)

:: Scot 4:10 PM [+] :: ::
...

Richard Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker wrote that 'intelligent design' was little more than sneaking God through the back door. Chris Mooney, writing about the current state of the intelligent design movement, sees the same thing:

It must take guts to be a "young-Earth" creationist. After all, imagine rejecting virtually all of modern science based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Imagine opening yourself up to ridicule by insisting that Adam and Eve lived alongside the dinosaurs, Dinotopia-style, and that Noah crammed brontosauruses onto the Ark -- necessary inferences if you think the Bible is true and that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago. Sure, these views are way outside the scientific mainstream (though polls suggest nearly half of Americans may hold them). But young-Earth creationism is so rigid in its adherence to religious doctrine that there's almost a kind of perverse integrity to it.

Unfortunately, it's hard to say the same for the much more polished -- and less openly religious -- group of anti- evolutionists who have recently upstaged young-Earthers in the public eye. These "Intelligent Design" (ID) theorists, as they call themselves, are epitomized by Stephen C. Meyer, an anti-Darwinian philosopher who made the following appeal to The American Prospect: "People with liberal credentials ought to understand what we're up against. This is an entrenched establishment."

ID theorists posit that living things, due to their organizational complexity and magnificent design, simply must be the creations of some form of intelligence. Where evolutionary biologists see species evolving through a blind process of natural selection acting over millions of years, ID theorists assert that life as we know it simply could not have arisen in such a manner. Furthermore, they claim that this is a scientific observation. ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls extraterrestrials as the leading candidate.

:: Scot 3:53 PM [+] :: ::
...

Short bio on pro war sex columnist Dan Savage.

Here's a piece from one of his latest replies:

So Saudi money may have financed the 9/11 attacks. Can we go ahead and invade Saudi Arabia now and get it over with, please? If we're serious about halting the spread of Islamo-fascism, I think we should fight the problem at its source - or sources, plural, I should say. America's dependence on oil enriches the Saudis, who turn around and spend the money - our money! - promoting fanatical hatred of the United States all over the world. Here's a thought, Mr. President: Let's shitcan the tax cuts for the super-wealthy and invest the money in alternative fuels, wind and solar power, and the development of affordable electric cars. This won't stop Islamo-fascism, of course. We're still going to have to fight these bastards; unlike some of my lefty pals, I'm all for fighting the bastards. But I don't think it makes much sense to fight Islamo-fascism and finance it at the same time.

:: Scot 1:44 PM [+] :: ::
...

Canadians go to Baghdad as 'human shields'

Oh boy. Who ever thought we'd get a two for one deal in a war with Iraq? The idea of toppling Saddam as well as sifting chaff from the Canadian genepool is a complete win-win.

:: Scot 1:32 PM [+] :: ::
...

Philip Berger, Jeff Rose, and Clayton Ruby depart from the Canadian anti-Semitic left:

For decades, the three of us have been active in progressive causes in Canada. Now, an increasingly vocal part of the Canadian left has, over the issue of Israel and Palestine, made our position untenable. We are being asked to choose between our support for Israel and our credentials as leftists.

This covert test of loyalty provides for no nuance, little context, relative silence on the historic persecution of Jews and insufficient recognition of Israel's right to protect its citizens from deadly attacks. Similar tests of fidelity have been imposed on Jews in centuries past when they have been called on to declare their allegiance to a secular or religious authority -- forfeiting their identity as Jews.

We won't be bound by this invidious choice. Neither will we shirk our responsibility to criticize Israeli policies when it's deserved. Along with many others, we've called for a suspension of settlement expansion. We've called for a negotiated end to occupation and the establishment of a democratic independent Palestinian state to exist side by side with Israel, with security for both states.

But the singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic.

The infamous non-governmental organization forum at the UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban last year produced a climax of international hostility to Israel. Hatred rained down on Jewish delegates, and anti-Semites didn't even refer to the differentiation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, which in the past provided them with moral cover.

The forum established a new permissiveness for anti-Jewish expression, whether on the streets at antiglobalization demonstrations, at polite social functions or in college classrooms. In Canada, "Death to the Jews" has now been chanted at Palestinian-organized protests and coins have been tossed at Jewish students, raising the old canard of Jewish usury. Just this week, the Concordia University Student Union moved to freeze the budget of the campus chapter of Hillel, the international Jewish student group, and suspended its right to set up campus information tables.

Meanwhile, a vocal part of the Canadian left has persisted in making the artificial distinction between Israel and Zionism, on one hand, and Jewish identity on the other. For the vast majority of Jews -- leftists and others -- Israel, Jews, Zionism and Judaism are inextricably bound and not so conveniently separable by terminological sleight of hand. The Jewishness of Israel is central, not irrelevant, to the debate on the Mideast.

:: Scot 1:13 PM [+] :: ::
...

The U.S.S. Enterprise - made of lego!

:: Scot 11:06 PM [+] :: ::
...

Nato asked to take its place in the wings

The United States has formally asked Nato to examine options for supporting roles it could play in a war in Iraq, alliance officials said yesterday.

What about the galley?

:: Scot 11:00 PM [+] :: ::
...

You knew something like this was only a matter of time.

:: Scot 9:37 PM [+] :: ::
...

Backroom support of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani illegitimocracies. Why the Democrats waste their time whining about Iraq when they have this ace is a mystery.

More on the Saudis here, here, here, here, here, and here.

:: Scot 9:27 PM [+] :: ::
...

Oswald with another freaky offering.

:: Scot 5:40 PM [+] :: ::
...

A gadgets guide the way it should be - in a blog. Gizmodo has articles and commentary on some incredible toys and technology - courtesy of Peter Rojas and Nick Denton.

:: Scot 1:55 PM [+] :: ::
...

Walter Williams revisits political correctness:

There're lots of terms used in ways that have great emotional worth but little analytical value. Take the term discrimination. When selecting a wife, some 43 years ago, not every woman was given an equal opportunity. I discriminated against white, Chinese and Japanese women, not to mention criminal women.

You say, "Williams, that kind of discrimination is OK because it's harmless!" That's untrue. When I married, other women were harmed. The only way that I couldn't have harmed other women was to be a man that only one woman would want. Sometimes, I'm tempted by the ideals of equal opportunity and non-discrimination, but Mrs. Williams insists otherwise. Discrimination simply means the act of choice.

Speaking of Mrs. Williams, early in our marriage she used to angrily charge, "You're using me Walter!" I'd tell her that of course I was using her. After all, who in their right mind would marry a person for whom they had no use? In fact, another way of looking at the problem of people who can't find marriage partners is that they can't find somebody to use them. One never wants to be useless.

How about the expression, "It's not right to profit from the misfortune of others." That's utter nonsense that's easily revealed if we ask: Should there be a law against profiting from the misfortune of others? I'm guessing that auto collision shop owners are not saddened by predictions of ice storms. Neither are orthopedic physicians when people break a limb in a skiing accident. I profit from the fact that students are ignorant of economics. So should we have a law banning profiting from the misfortune of others?

(S)ometimes it makes sense to use sex and race stereotypes. If I'm faced with choosing among people who could become soldiers and succeed in a 20-mile forced march carrying 60 pounds of equipment, I'd assign a higher likelihood that men would succeed more so than women. Or, choosing among the general population who is more likely to be able to slam-dunk a basketball, I'd choose a black over a white and surely men over women. If I were guessing the race of an American most likely to win a Nobel Prize in science, I'd select a Jew over any other ethnic group. In none of these cases is there necessarily a causal relationship, but there's surely an associative one. Moreover, pre-judging and stereotyping doesn't necessarily make one a sexist or racist.

:: Scot 1:18 PM [+] :: ::
...

One of the smartest thing I've read in the Toronto Star. Rosie Dimanno links the Jewish plight and our current war:

It's impossible to disentangle the war against the Jews from the larger Islamist war against the West. Assuredly, the misery of Palestinians was not what motivated the terrorist agenda of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden, preoccupied with routing America's presence in the Arab world, militarily and culturally, paid only passing lip service to the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories. At some point, they became a postscript to his anti-Western, anti-American screeds. But others quickly linked the micro-terrorism to the macro-terrorism, as if to invest Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist networks to a more palatable cause. And in this they've been rather successful, with a rationalizing argument that offers endemic Islamic grievances on the one hand and Israeli truculence on the other. It is a sham of an argument, illogical at its core, but repeat a lie often enough and it will become the lingua franca of terrorism.

Israel, as it has learned from history, cannot depend on any other nation, any other alliance of nations, not even its great and steadfast friend America, to fight its battles, ensure its security or avenge its dead. In the same way Mossad tracked down and eliminated the freed perpetrators of the Munich Massacre in 1972, its counter-terrorist experts will likely, insofar as they are able, track down and eliminate those who committed Thursday's vile attacks. But this is a new generation of global terrorism and Israel's enemies — like the West's enemies — no longer stand out in a crowd. In many parts of the world, they are the crowd. Islamist pretenders, fomenting hatred in the masses, have made sure of that. And they are like cockroaches, scurrying out of the geopolitical cracks — in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in East Africa, in the Philippines, in Indonesia, even in America and Canada.

They kill Jews. They kill Americans. They kill Australians who had the temerity to push rampaging Indonesian paramilitaries out of East Timor, a predominantly Catholic fledgling state. They kill Kenyan dancers and civil employees. They kill French engineers. They blow up skyscrapers and bring down airplanes. They do all this with Allah's name on their lips.

And some day, I fear they'll come for you.

:: Scot 1:24 AM [+] :: ::
...

Malaysia Sees Australia Strike As War Act

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said a pre-emptive strike by Australia against terrorists in Malaysia would be viewed as an act of war, while Australia tried to reassure its Asian neighbors on Tuesday.

The Malaysian leader was responding to a statement Sunday by Prime Minister John Howard that Australia could launch pre-emptive strikes against suspected terrorists if they were plotting attacks against his country or countrymen.

Easy tiger. You've done a good job keeping Malaysia out of the news for the past year. Don't blow it now.

:: Scot 12:46 AM [+] :: ::
...

Armed and Dangerous has more on Karl Zinsmeister's essay.

:: Scot 12:41 AM [+] :: ::
...