It's that bad

I am totally disgusted. Global warming, tobacco fascism, cholesterol, alcohol puritanism, ADD, Universal allergy panic, it's all wrong and no one will listen to me. Believe nothing you read in the papers. Especially about "the environment" or tobacco Michael Fumento has pretty much nailed the passive smoking nonsense on Townhall.com:

“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”

But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General’s report, a massive 727-page door stop.

The comments on that column provide a perfect example of people talking right past each other, with some apparently not even having read the column, just seeing that it was about smoking and copy-and-pasting their decades-old rant for a grant about smoking. They don't even pretend any more. I definitely need to start smoking a pipe. Right in their faces.

'ello, 'ello

How depressing!

These guys are just as bad

I blogged about how pathetic the play seemed at the US Open, but I have been equally unimpressed lately with the sorry spectacle that is the World Cup of soccer. Is it my imagination, or is the standard of play noticeably lower than four years ago? Germany is the only team that has shown me anything, and then not much. And yes, since you ask, I will pick the Deutschies to win the whole thing. I watched the English beat Ecuador yesterday, 1-0, and boy was that a snoozer! If you had been asleep for the whole match and just woke up for Beckham's free kick goal and went back to sleep, you would have missed nothing. Even the near-goal by Ecuador was pathetic. The Ecuadorian would have scored that nine times out of ten, but dubbed around just long enough to let the diving Englishman deflect the ball just enough to hit the crossbar. Snooze.

I have yet to see any team, even the Krauts, which passes accurately and can keep control of the ball all the way down the field. Pro players at this level still don't seem to realize they have to avoid being offside. And when one side gets up by two goals, it's just dum-de-dum and kick it back to our goalkeeper and dum-de-dum for five more minutes and kick it back to our goalkeeper again. Maybe now and then a shot from fifty yards that goes twenty feet over the goal will keep everyone from going to sleep. Blah. I guess there's an analogous tactic in American football where one side gets ahead by a couple of touchdowns and then calls nothing but running plays, but even that requires the team to move down the field somewhat, now and then. And the fouls! Or, to follow Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, I should say "fouls"! How hard is it to fall down in front of someone when you've lost the ball to them? Haven't the referees had a bit of time to realize this might happen? How many players can be carried off the field on a stretcher, moaning and clutching the opposite knee to the one that was just barely touched by an opposing player, then can jump off the stretcher and run back into the game when something exciting happens before the refs, you know, catch on??

OK, so maybe this is all a setup and sooner or later I will see a good match and it will seem even better by comparison. But this World Cup will not make the fantasy of pro-soccer-in-the-US that's been touted for decades any more real or more desirable.

Birthday whisky and bacon

So why shouldn't I have a bit of single malt with my breakfast on my 58th birthday, when I'm off work? Who knows if I'll make it to my 68th? I changed the spelling of "whisky" after consulting a certain great Scotblog even though they're on a mild hiatus. My that sounds painful.

And my sister from Nigeria is coming to visit tomorrow and my older son is moving in with me next week, so things are happening. Movement clear, direction not quite so well defined.

I pity the altruist
Been reading"Beware of Pity", by Stefan Zweig, one of my favorite authors (The Buried Candelabrum, Balzac, Erasmus, etc.) So coincidentally (lot of that going around these days!) I found a discussion of pity on Noodlefood:

In the case of pity, I'm struck by the difference between his concept of pity and our modern concept thereof. In particular, notice that Aristotle holds that the object of pity must be morally good -- and thus not deserving of his fate.

So I appended a comment:

Stefan Zweig wrote an insightful novel, "Beware of Pity", wherein he differentiates two kinds (page 256, Viking Press, New York, 1939):

"One, the weak and sentimental kind, which is really no more than the heart's impatience to be rid as quickly as possible of the painful emotion aroused by the sight of another's unhappiness, that pity which is not compassion, but only an instinctive desire to fortify one's own soul against the sufferings of another; and the other, the only one that counts, the unsentimental but creative kind, which knows what it is about, and is determined to hold out, in patience and forbearance, to the very limit of its strength and even beyond. It is only when one goes on to the end, to the extreme, bitter end, only when one has an inexhaustible fund of patience, that one can help one's fellows. Only when one is prepared to sacrifice oneself in doing so - and then only!"

So Zweig neatly makes the wrong but powerful point that pity can only be purged through absolute altruism. Yet it is a natural, an understandable emotion. I imagine this "com-passion" or fellow-feeling, stems from fear that what has happened to another may happen to you, especially in the bygone (for some!) demon-haunted days. Roark's pity for Keating, therefore, is only another emotional obstacle to be overcome through reason. Rand never denied the humanity of her characters.

A realistic proposal

A sensible approach to the Mexican border problem has to deal with two realities. First, Mexicans and other immigrants with few skills and low cognitive awareness levels are coming to this country illegally because they have no or very little economic opportunity at home. Second, illegal immigration poses an unacceptable risk of economic and cultural dislocation, as well as real security threats, to the United States. I have an approach that tackles both problems.

The key is to secure the present border at the Rio Grande and west to the Pacific. This means a highly secure fence or wall, patrolled and electronically monitored 24/7/365. This is well within our capabilities. That doesn't deal, however, with the fact that it is the economic opportunity available in the United States that is attracting undesirable immigrants.

I propose the creation of an economic and security zone in northern Mexico, extending from the present border with the United States to a line joining the Gulf of Mexico shoreline to Monterrey to Chihuahua to Hermosillo and then to the Gulf of California. All of Baja California would be included in the zone. Special security and identification measures would be in effect in the zone, so that all residents would be unequivocally identified and their status clearly established. The idea will be to establish within this zone the economic and legal framework which has been so successful in making the states of the United States prosperous and attractive. This would have to include clear and effective real property and commercial transactions regulations, as well as incorruptible law enforcement and political organizations. The United States will consult with Mexico as to the nature of these changes in the present failed and fragile social framework within this area. The only real difference between this zone and the states of the United States would be that social welfare provision would remain at the level that obtains in the rest of Mexico. It is to be anticipated that economic development in this zone would be rapid and healthy. All the economic migrants who pose security and cultural risks to the United States should be able to find the opportunity they seek for legitimate economic activity in this zone. It may even turn out that this zone will be a magnet for those migrants from around the world who cannot meet the standards that legal US immigration should require. Perhaps many Mexican citizens who have immigrated illegally or legally to the United States will find this zone just as economically attractive and more culturally and linguistically comfortable than the areas in the United States where they find themselves today.

Should it become impossible to establish this zone by agreement with Mexico, it will become necessary to impose, by whatever means may be required, a border control zone, a hundred miles wide, from the present border south into Mexico. Within this zone travel will be prohibited and all existing settlements will be removed. Such a drastic measure should not be necessary, however. If Mexican immigrants only want to come to the United States to work and prosper, they will have that opportunity within their own country. Perhaps when the rest of Mexico, and eventually the rest of Latin America, observe the results that can be achieved by a rational regime of laws and a government with integrity, they too will adopt the measures prevalent in the zone. Then the border zone will no longer be necessary and men of all cultures and ethnicities can be free and prosperous in their own countries.

Update: Just to show I'm not a complete nut, there's a good article by Tom Bethell at the American Spectator about Hernando DeSoto's theories as they apply to the third world, and specifically to Mexico:

Hernando de Soto's organization was invited to Mexico and did some work on the question. He says that only 6 percent of Mexican enterprises are legal, the rest are informal. If you want yours legalized, it will take you four years with no certainty in the outcome.

This is the kind of problem that could be addressed in the economic and security zone.

Cheapest so far?

Another fare to Istanbul in the fall - but I know I can do better. What amazes me is that the fare right from Tallahassee is so little larger than the fare direct from Atlanta or New York. It's almost like they're flying me to Orlando or New York for free. Every time I think of driving to another airport I look at what I'd save and it just isn't worth it.
The only kicker in the QIXO fare is that they haven't disclosed all the taxes and fees yet, so it may not really be the cheapest. Maybe by Labor Day I'll have a fare I can live with - and fly with!

Whale of a tail

A story on Samizdata about the fishy goings on at the World non-Whaling Conference led me to hook up with this burger saga about whaleburgers. This is one of the reasons I want to go to Japan - so I can eat some good cetacean. So let's look at a package tour:

Package details
Price details
Total: $1,746.55
Included:

* Items selected, taxes, & fees for flight.

Flight: 1 roundtrip ticket flight
7:00 am Depart Tallahassee (TLH)
Arrive Tokyo (NRT) 3:00 pm tip+1 day Tue 24-Oct
Duration: 19hr 0mn
United United United 3588 operated by US /US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-PSA AIRLINES -- US22383588 / United 2265 operated by US AIRWAYS -- US9262265 / 881
Connect in Charlotte (CLT), Chicago (ORD)
3:20 pm Depart Tokyo (NRT)
Arrive Tallahassee (TLH) 6:49 pm Tue 31-Oct
Duration: 16hr 29mn
United United 884 / 432 / United 3480 operated by US /US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-PSA AIRLINES -- US22693480
Connect in Chicago (ORD), Charlotte (CLT)
Choose a different flight for this package.
Hotel: 1 room for 6 nights hotel
More lodging info
Shinbashi Atagoyama Tokyu Inn
2.0-star Tokyo, Japan
# This 14-story high-rise, located in downtown Tokyo, is less than two km (one mile) from the Imperial Palace.

# Refrigerators come in all ... More lodging info
Check-in: Wed 25-Oct-06 Check-out: Tue 31-Oct-06
Room options Price
Std Single - Annex Main Wing Sale! Included
Std Twin - Annex Main Wing Sale! + $23.55 per night
Choose a different hotel for this package.

Hey, not bad, but I'll probably have to get another flight to Sapporo to get the advertised whaleburger. I'll settle for a Tokyo version.

And of course I couldn't resist the chance for a good comment:

It's just a fluke, that's all. Whale "meets" with my approval! It may seem fishy, but I wouldn't beef about a whaleburger. See whale? Se(a) - food! Now don't blubber, get to the meat of the matter. You have to loin there's a lot at steak here. Stop spouting off and being such a blowhard!

I always hope this sort of thing causes a pun-demonium. Or at least a pun-demic.

These guys are ... terrible!

Just finished watching the US Open golf tournament. I don't think there was one birdie in the last six holes among the top leaders. It was drives in the rough, in the sand, in a garbage can, in the corporate tent - and that was only Phil Mickelson! And the iron play wasn't any better. The putting made one think these so-called professionals had never seen a fairly complex green before. A good college player could have won today. I kept wishing Tiger was playing, because I knew he would have won by fifteen strokes. Then I remembered he didn't even make the cut, with two successive 76's on Thursday and Friday! Then I also remembered John Daly, not the most successful golfer, if perhaps the most obnoxious, saying that he lost $55 million dollars gambling. When someone pointed out he hadn't won any more than $15 million in twenty years on the Tour he explained all the other ways a golfer could get money. I guess I'm in the wrong business. I wonder if a fat 58-year-old can take a few lessons and go on tour and win an easy million or two and then retire. How hard could it be?

OK, I'm glad Ogilvy the Aussie won, but really - he didn't win, the others lost. I watch to see men win by making great shots, not to see someone back into the trophy because the leader double-bogeys the last hole. Disgusting

Compared to what?

I am getting mighty disgusted by all these articles yammering on about how much the liberation of Iraq has hurt the President's political standing. I have to ask, "Compared to what?" Compared to if he hadn't done anything, if Saddam was still in there killing thousands every month, threatening his neighbors, moving confidently forward on his nuclear program? What's that you say, he didn't have a nuclear program? Sure. Once the inspectors left for good and the no-fly zones were dismantled - or does someone think they would have been continued forever? - Saddam's scientists would have dug up all the machinery buried in their back yards, brought back all the stuff from Syria and continued on their merry way. And today we'd be facing a nuclearized Iraq under Saddam. And, as I mentioned before, Libya's nuclear program would still be active. And in response Iran would certainly have moved well towards nuclearization. And on the War on Terror front, with no Iraq liberation, all those "insurgents" would have flooded into Afghanistan. And how long would the "multilateral" force there have lasted?

So sometimes in life there are no really good choices. But doing nothing about Saddam was not an option. Here's a retroactive prediction: If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, he would never have been re-elected in 2004. By now the situation would have been very bad in Afghanistan and there would have been multiple large terrorist attacks here at home - maybe even in Tallahassee! Things would have been bad enough that the public would have considered John Kerry a better choice. Hard as that may be to believe. And if this president can help Iraq become a viable polity, he will go a long way to soothing my anger at him over immigration and overspending and the war on drugs. I'll still be mad at him, but I'll probably still vote Republican. Considering the alternative.

Forget South America

OK, so forget South America. What do they have down there I want to see, anyway? I admit the main attraction in BA was steak. But I won't beef about giving that up. Now on to Turkey (Oops. Link appears to be broken) in the fall. I've been wanting to go to Turkey for a long time, since I read a book about Trebizond and started dreaming. Sure it's now called Trabzon, but it's still the former terminus of the Silk Road to China and a former Greek city-state and on the Black Sea. It's got a Russian bazaar and it's only twenty miles inland to a Byzantine monastery that looks like something out of Indiana Jones or an H. Rider Haggard novel.

Travel blogging

Ever since spending a week in Paris in April with my two older kids, I've just been crazy about travel planning. So many countries, so little time and money. One example that drives me crazy came up last week. I looked at a flight to Buenos Aires. South America in the summer seemed like a smart idea, right? Southern Hemisphere winter is a good break from Tallahassee in August. So I found a flight from Tallahassee to BA, via Miami and Santiago, Chile, for about $954. Not bad. Then I started thinking. Chile sounds pretty good. And since it's on the way to BA, if in a roundabout way, it should be cheaper, right? Well, that's not the way it works in airline world. I searched the same database, on the same dates, same everything, but Tallahassee to Santiago only. What came back was a trip via Atlanta this time, but for more than the price for the ticket through Santiago to BA! OK, so, clever me, I think I'll buy the BA ticket and get off in Santiago, right? Oops. But how do I get back? You can see how this is driving me crazy. Will they let me on the plane coming back from BA? Do I really want to take that chance? Can I get a stopover in Santiago? What is the factor that makes it cheaper to fly all the way to BA than to stop at Santiago? Demand?

Update:And look at this from Aerolineas Argentinas. $920! But I do have to get to Miami. So why is this so much cheaper? Or am I missing something?

Randi - Snarky?

James Randi's in good form today, slapping around defenseless psychics:

When you say psychic, many people have an image of an old woman in a gown with a crystal ball. They don't associate themselves with that.

Randi: Then what image should we conjure up – pun intended – Simon? A middle-aged opportunist with no other means of support, who has attended the College of Psychic Studies and learned how easily he/she can make a living by delivering bad guesses and generalities to vulnerable persons who really need some help and attention to make their lives temporarily seem easier, but will settle for any scam?

Sounds about right to me. The shock of recognition will pass. Substitute "law school" for "the College of Psychic Studies" and you have a description of my life!

Economics and immigration

Steve Sailer reports on the VDARE blog about a plan to charge immigrants $2000 to immigrate:

And, two polls conducted by the Pew Hispanic Trust showed that over 40% of Mexicans say they would immigrate to America if it were legal. And, just about anybody could borrow $2,000 based on their future earnings in America.

So $2000 isn't the right price. But that got me thinking. What is the right price? $1 million? $10 million? Because there's got to be a market clearing price, right? Hey, I almost sounded like an economist there. But really. How much is it worth to a willing buyer to be able to live and work in the USA? Or, to put it another way, how much would the USA have to get to deal with the costs and risks of another immigrant? I wonder if Sailer has considered that. But maybe he thinks that no price is enough. Since the government controls (HA!) immigration, the government would get the money. And the taxpayers, not the government, would have to put up with the dislocations caused by the immigrants. However. The US does have a product to offer - a good investment climate, relative social peace, prosperity, opportunity. It must be worth a certain amount of money to foreigners who don't enjoy these things. I'm going to post this and then look up something on the INS (sorry, ICE or something) website about "treaty investors". This question may already have been answered.

Update: OK, I think I've got it, but it's disappointing:

(2) Treaty investor. An alien, if otherwise admissible, may be classified as a nonimmigrant treaty investor (E-2) under the provision of section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Act if the alien:


(i) Has invested or is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital in a bona fide enterprise in the United States, as distinct from a relatively small amount of capital in a marginal enterprise solely for the purpose of earning a living;


(ii) Is seeking entry solely to develop and direct the enterprise; and


(iii) Intends to depart the United States upon the expiration or termination of treaty investor (E-2) status.

Looks like it doesn't really confer resident status. And it doesn't define what a "substantial amount" of money is. But if you have enough money to invest here you can come in and keep an eye on it. It's called an E-2 visa. I'd look for cases, but I'm too lazy right now. I have to check up on whether Tiger's going to make the cut in the US Open. Doesn't look too good. He's at +10 after 14. Sigh.
Update to Update: +12 in the clubhouse. No cut line yet. And the leader is someone named Steve Stricker I've never heard of. Golf is one weird game.

No wage, José!

In a Chequerboard post about the minimum wage even Pejman gets a little snarky:

And to support an increase in the minimum wage is to be on the side of the angels? Right?

So I had to leave a supportive comment, dragging in the immigration issue:

I've always found it strange that the strongest supporters of the minimum wage tend to be those who also support the rights of illegal aliens to work in this country. Don't they realize that employers take on low-skilled, generally uneducated illegal alien workers so they can pay them less than the minimum wage, or, at any rate, less than "documented" workers? Seems like a simple connection to make.

Another question comes to mind - how can illegals get Social Security credit for jobs which violate the minimum wage laws AND, conceivably, the hours and conditions of employment laws AND the immigration laws? Gee, you would think the government would want to discourage people from breaking all those laws, not pay them for doing so.

He's ... different

The lefties gang up on Jeff Goldstein to hilarious effect:

Jeff: Do you have a response to this essay about your writing?
http://sadelyno.com/archives/002902.html

I suggest you read it (or have your therapist read it). It is quite enlightening.

By the way: why haven’t you finished your MA or PhD yet?
Posted by dartmouth prof

and

So, I saw this post about at SadlyNo. Instead of taking Klonopin to mask your personal problems, how about some honest reflection or some professional psychological care?

I don’t intend this as an attack; I just read some of the things you wrote, and to be honest, if you only said half of them, you come off as man desperately in need of help. I realize you’ll mock, attack, or ignore me, but seriously - find help.

The return fire is worth a read, but cover your keyboard first.
Oh, yes and I did contribute a little teeny bit at the very end (so far):

Wait a minute. You mean Jeff’s NOT crazy???!!! I’m going away.

Of course, I'm not really. Going away, I mean. That was just a joke.

Tears for the murdering clowns

Tears come to my eyes to read this swissinfo article about internecine strife in "Palestine":

Gunmen set fire to the Palestinian prime minister's office on Monday as clashes escalated between his Islamist Hamas followers and President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.
***
In the southern Gaza confrontation, Hamas gunmen fired rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank rockets at the local headquarters of the Preventive Security Service, witnesses said.

Five people were wounded in the clash in the town of Rafah, which followed the killing earlier in the day of a gunman from a Hamas paramilitary unit.

I've got an idea! Why not split the West Bank and Gaza up into two states, one controlled by Fatah, one by Hamas? Then everyone could live in peace, right? We could call it the "three-state solution". Wait a minute. Some of Southern Lebanon is occupied by Hezbollah. OK - the "four-state solution". But then there's the "Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade". Oh, dear, we've run out of land. Let's see. How about Madagascar? Or didn't Stalin have a little place in mind out in Siberia, on the Amur River, for one of his minorities? The Evrey Avtonomichesski Respublik or something. Hmm. What does "Evrey" mean? Anyway, there should be lots of room out there. And we can all rest assured in the knowledge it was all Bush's fault if it goes wrong.

Just War

An excellent article in the American Thinker on just war theory swam into my gaze. It's by Don Crawford, a radio talk show host I'd never heard of before. A sample:

The cause in Iraq was unquestionably just due to Saddam’s continuing efforts to:

• attack our pilots who enforced his agreement to air restrictions that ended the ’91 Gulf War;

• torture to death in the most horrific manner an average of 300 innocent Iraqis a day;

• pay suicide bombers world-wide to attack innocent men, women, and children;

• aggressively develop WMD’s;

• have the highest echelon of his military run at least four training camps where virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world including al Qaeda were trained how to make and implement WMD and other terrorist attacks against the west; the cause was indisputably just.

He lays it all out. His litany of the reasons behind the Iraq liberation led me to think about the current standoff with Iran on nuclear weapons development and how that situation would be different if Saddam were still in power. That horrible prospect stimulated me to send him this email:

Don:

Great article in the American Thinker about just war theory and the Iraq liberation. You lay everything out clearly and comprehensively. In the matter of justification for deposing Saddam, does anyone really think that Saddam was not on the road to developing nuclear weapons? Without the US pressure, all he had to do was wait out the ridiculous UN and the EUnuchs. Once the inspectors gave up and left, he would be back on track in weeks. And if that had happened, we wouldn't have just Iran to deal with today, we would be facing two near-nuclearized powers in the Middle East. And without the example of the Iraqi deposition, Libya would probably not have given up its program, either. So there could easily be three powers going down that road. And given the rivalry between Iraq and Iran reflected by the war in the Eighties that cost a million dead, the conclusion is unavoidable that Saddam's progress toward nuclearization would have pushed Iran even more quickly in that direction.
So by following his instinct to protect America, George Bush has significantly lessened the threat from nuclear proliferation and the unbearable prospect that a terrorist group might get their hands on a working nuke. This is an historic achievement. I only hope I see it recognized in my lifetime!

Kudos again,

Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida

Ann Coulter is God(dess)

At least, she must be a minor deity to me. I always find myself worshipping her and defending her against all threats. Even against Pejman's histrionics:

Won't Ann Coulter just go away? We'd all be so much better off if she did.

And those of a commenter:

Coulter's caustic columns are examples of how outrageous rhetoric will obfuscate substance and logic.

Since Ann was talking about the 9/11 widows who have used their husbands' deaths to spread collectivist propaganda, how could I not defend her? So I did:

Odd. I thought Coulter made her point exactly and emphatically. And she got loads of attention for it. And why was it wrong to call these women irrational and vindictive when that is exactly what they were? By not letting them get away with irrational vindictiveness because they had suffered grievous losses, Coulter honored those bereaved who didn't lurch into idiocy and claim an "absolute moral authority" to which even the most grievous loss would not entitle them.

How is their behavior any different from that of the odious Mother Sheehan? Does anyone really want to defend her? Is the concept of the reverse ad hominem argument carrying all before it, so that a statement made by someone seen as noble or victimized (or both) is unquestionable no matter how loony and vicious it may be?

Anti-intellectualism rears its ignorant head

I really never thought I'd read a Samizdata comment like this:

"Oops - dictated, not written. Mohammed was illiterate."
As was Socrates. Surely you aren't suggest that ability to draw shapes with a pen correlates with quality of thought, are you?

What an insight! The ability to write (which kind of goes along with the ability to read) is irrelevant to one's ideas. So I got a bit snarky:

"Surely you aren't suggest that ability to draw shapes with a pen correlates with quality of thought, are you?"

No, of course not. The ability to read (and write) couldn't possibly affect the sophistication of a man's thought. Never having read a book shouldn't mean a man is less knowledgeable about the real world or less able to express himself than anyone else. All of those other books either conflict with the Koran and are therefore lies or agree with it and are therefore unnecessary.

Right?

I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. I find it a bit hard to believe that Socrates was illiterate. I'll have to confirm that for myself. Someday.