Über die Freiheit / de libertate

In response to a line in the Daily Telegraph (”One recent party was said to have involved a Vogue model, three prostitutes, a male gigolo and a trilingual bisexual.”), “Melvyn Quince” had this to say:

What on earth, I wondered, was the relevance of the bisexual participant’s ability to conduct business in three languages? I would have thought it was rather difficult to speak even one language when one’s mouth is full (and I am told that at events of the sort Lord Laidlaw enjoyed, one could hardly be said to be participating fully if one didn’t have one’s mouth full). Are trilingual bisexuals well known to be in special demand among devotees of the lesbian/bondage scene? Are there perhaps special agencies where earls and dukes go to rent them? Or do they post advertisements in the “Personal Services” section of free newspapers? “Versatile male, trilingual (English/Spanish/German) and bisexual (French/Greek), seeks generous House of Lords member for party work in Monaco area…”

Beware of professors with pseudonyms.

If they think throwing a pie at someone is funny. The posts in the comments are also illuminating about current trends in leftist thinking: Friedman supported war –> Assault is justified. Brilliant!

The better response would have been to charge headlong into them tackling them and performing a citizens arrest, filing charges, then suing them for the cost of drycleaning and emotional distress. I hope they get expelled.

Here is Daniel Drezner’s reaction.

Then read this saga about two self-loathing rich people who can’t figure out who to give their money to. (See here for the original story.)

The saddest aspect, apart from their complete disdain for the capitalism that has made them and millions others better off, is how ‘Michael’ states, “I want to give it away only in the U.S. — I can’t stand these people who give money overseas when we need it at home.” Self-loathing and and an oblivious idiot.

In another brilliant example of zero tolerance school administrators:

Colin Saltry and Joey Daniel say they skipped gym class on Monday to rush over to a diner where Sen. Barack Obama’s motorcade had just pulled in for an impromptu breakfast stop.

The two met Obama, and they say he even signed excuse slips for them to show their teachers. That didn’t work. Saltry and Daniel got one-day suspensions for leaving school grounds, and Saltry has been ordered to resign as senior class president. [My Way]

So let me get this straight, the punishment for skipping school is being forced to skip school. Am I missing something?

In his review of Ben Stein’s pro-creationism movie Expelled, Dave Berg has this to say:

The film’s endeavor is to respond to one simple question: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”

Big science doesn’t like that question because they can’t answer it. Underneath their antagonism toward explanations that suggest an intelligent cause, lies a fundamental egoism. Science wants to deny any evidence of a supreme being precisely because it wants to be a supreme being. Moreover, representatives of big science in the film are unsettlingly snippy, suggesting that they feel threatened by rival opinions, rather than assured of their own. [Emphasis added.]

Huh?

I think I’ve found what explains it.

Dave Berg is a senior segment producer at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

I would suggest that all vehicles come equipped with a pair of these whistles (obtainable at most hardware stores for less than $10) and ensure our highways are safer for motorists and animals. Truck drivers would no longer need to mount battering rams on their vehicles to do battle with deer. Highways would become safer for both animals and drivers. After all, they have as much right to the land as we do. [Leader-Post]

Do not listen to this man. Deer whistles do next to nothing.

The manufacturers claim that two European studies proved that the whistles work. Not so. They were initially tried in Europe about 25 years ago but research did not prove them to be successful. Now they are being sold in the United States with European claims. The study from Finland, which the advertisers refer to, states that from all of the experiments conducted “it was unsure that the animals were not disturbed by the approach itself, so that the whistle sound was the only disturbing factor.” The second study from Switzerland concludes that the whistling sound, which is well within the human hearing range, is so weak that it is overlaid by the noise of the moving vehicle. A scientific advisory panel from the World Society for the Protection of Animals states, after extensive review, that there is no known data “that shows that such devices can actually stop an animal crossing the road, which is the main purpose of the device.” [Washington State University]

Scheifele, an animal bioacoustics and audiology expert, wanted to know more about the devices, so he and his research team scientifically tested their effectiveness.

[…]

Following the directions on each package, the team mounted the devices onto a car’s front bumper. Using a road closed to the public, they drove the car at speeds ranging from 30 to 45 miles per hour while recording sound and data.

“We tested them strictly from an acoustical point of view,” explains Scheifele. He found that the whistles typically produce a signal either at a frequency of 3 kilohertz (kHz) or 12 kHz. Both, as it turns out, are problematic.

The hearing range of white-tailed deer, the most common species in the United States, is between 2 kHz and 6 kHz, so the animal is not capable of hearing the 12 kHz signal.

Although deer may be able to hear the 3 kHz signal, it is only 3 decibels louder than the road noise created by the car, so the signal is buried. Scheifele points out that the situation would be worse with additional traffic in the area or if the wind was blowing.

[…] 

But even if deer can hear the electronic signal, the UConn scientist questions how one alerts rather than startles the animal. This is where animal behavior comes into play.

“Think about the metaphor ‘deer in the headlights’,” says Scheifele. “It is used to conjure up an image of someone who is confused or frightened. When deer sense something unusual, we do not know for sure how they are going to react.”

Will they freeze in their tracks, run off, or charge towards the sound? Their behavior is related to the “fight-or-flight response”. According to scientific literature on the subject, there is an amount of space in which an animal feels safe, but once that boundary is violated, the animal’s reaction is unpredictable. Its response will depend on a number of factors, including age, sex, type of enemy, and surroundings.

“All in all, the air-fed whistles do not make sense to me acoustically, ” states Scheifele. [University of Connecticut]

A handful of Saskatoon city councilors have personal interests in the tightening local market for rental accommodations — a circumstance that’s prompted some condo conversion opponents to question the motives behind their recent decisions.

 

I call that a big conflict of interest,” said Martin Been, a tenant of the downtown Milroy Apartments who has taken the city to court over council’s approval of a developer’s plan to renovate and sell most of the building as high-end condos. [Leader-Post]

I have a modicum of sympathy for these people. It’s a pain the ass to find a new apartment, especially in a tight rental market. As for this conflict of interest, sure, but it’s irrelevant. But what about Mikey? As a tenant of an apartment about to be converted he’s got a conflict of interest as well. Both parties interests are involved, why should his be placed above the apartment owners?

The real issue at stake is whether the government should have any say whatsoever on condo conversions. Apartments are private property so the owners should be able to do whatever they want. Whether the citizens or councilors want it or not it is irrelevant.

The real issue here is ridiculous zoning laws which prevent new apartments from being built. Likewise cities have backward incentives which promote useless ”downtown revitalization” rather than  encouraging developers to create new apartments blocks in relevant areas. Zoning laws also prevent homeowners from renting out basement suites and such. Allowing individuals to do so would not only help the rental market, but also it would assist in the payment of increasing mortgages due to the rising house prices.

After all, this debate, which came in the flurry of all the tabloid journalism of the past several weeks, was the most-watched of the 2008 presidential campaign.  The public got what it wanted. [Marginal Revolution]

Remember the Barack Obama delegate from Carpentersville who was asked to step down because she told neighbor kids they shouldn’t be climbing a tree like “monkeys?” Obama’s campaign reversed itself and says she can stay on. Ring up one point for the Common Sense team.

In the meantime, one of my readers wants to know why we still call a certain piece of playground equipment “Monkey Bars.” If we can’t say kids are like monkeys when they’re climbing trees, how can we possibly tell them to play on something called “Monkey Bars?” [Richard Roeper]

Yesterday at church we had a god-awful [see what I did there!] sermon by a missionary. It’s quite taxing to repeatedly sit through these illogical sermons while remaining silent.

On one hand much of his message was encouraging. Through his education and training he has been able to help the people Africa as well as the homeless in downtown Vancouver.

Christian Paternalism

What ruined all of this good will was his conclusion to all of his work with the African people. This work was not good enough in itself; rather it was a mutual relationship he attempted to explain. “When I told them this” he said, “they didn’t get it, but I told them we need you.” Well of course they didn’t get it, it doesn’t make a darn bit of sense.

It is this paternalistic thinking which encouraged colonialism. Humans are fully capable of helping other humans without purporting to “need” them.

Christian Exceptionalism

At another point the good Reverend attempted to explain the superiority of the Christian system. He explained that in this village there was a Muslim woman who was attempting to help an orphanage out, but within Islam this is “unheard of”. This ignores the fact that within Islam there is a hearty tradition of helping others.

Leaving that aside it also implies that human’s need written book of morals in order to help others. Presumably atheists must do nothing!

God Causes Good but not Bad

What is with Christian’s natural propensity to assume that all good works are God’s doing, while all bad works are God’s inaction? Should not it be either that God directly causes everything, or he is Voltaire’s clockmaker god, who started the world and steps back?

The speaker also told a (wholly inappropriate, private) story about his son. Apparently the son has had learning difficulties and a medical condition which left him with mental difficulties but had, over time, reached some level of normalcy. Recently, however, he tells us that his son was threatened in some manner by a group of people on a bus and this had undone years of progress. After this event he called a psychiatrist he knew through the homeless shelter who, through genuine kindness and compassion, dropped what he was doing and assisted his son after this traumatic event. What does he credit for this? God, of course.

But who is the cause of the threat in the first place? Who allowed the threat to happen?

Human’s Failed Nature

This is directly related to the notion of original sin, something no theologian or pastor has ever properly and convincingly argued for.

Original sin, or total depravity, as the Calvinists like to call it, is the central basis for Christian’s understanding of nature and their application of morality. It is probably the most offensive overarching theological belief that Christian’s hold.

God, being omniscient, knew when it created the world that Adam and Eve would sin. Thus, by logical deduction, God knew that he was going to create an evil world before it started. (Isn’t it inefficient to add the extra step?) So God, in essence, knowingly created a world in which the vast majority of people over historical time would be condemned to hell.

That is sadistic.

Worthless without God

There is a common reflection, at least within the Evangelical tradition with which I am most familiar, that without God there is no meaning in life. As one teenage girl said during her a recent service, “God, without you we know there is no meaning in life.” I somewhat understand this view. Without an afterlife, what is the point? At the same time it is so easy to turn around. If all we have is our human lives that means it is much more important.

Being a humanist recognizes that the human brain has the capacity to learn compassion and generosity without the threat of sadistic torture (i.e. Hell). Which would you prefer: A gift from someone you know who was compelled at the threat of violence or a gift from someone who rationally and coolly discerned that you were worth befriending and thus worthy of a gift? Biology and human evolution explain why humans can be good.

God is extortion.

Evil

This week I learned of some sad news. A good family friend, who had been amazingly kind to my grandmother especially in her final years, just lost his only child in a senseless and seemingly random murder. This comes only a couple years after losing his wife to cancer.

If I’m to take Rob Bell and other Christian apologists at their word, this is supposed to be a learning experience. God is pretty twisted if he uses pain and suffering to prove that he’s still around. In every trial god is still present, they tell us. As the bible says, God “will never leave you nor forsake you.” Perhaps I’m working on a different definition of “forsake” but allowing the multitude of evil in the world seems a lot like being forsaken.

A reader of Andrew Sullivan sums up my view,

If God is all powerful, why would he let a wonderful, miraculous, beloved young person die in such an awful, hideous, careless, poisonous way?  If He knew and didn’t stop it, he is evil.  If he knew and couldn’t stop it, he is not God, in that there are limits to his power.

I’ve experienced my share of sad moments in life but even when I professed to be a believing Christian I never experienced what Christians like to call “God’s presence”. God has never revealed himself to me. Humans have revealed themselves to me, but never God. Thus I believe that humans are more reliable than God. I believe that this presence is a psychological trick which brings comfort to people in times of trouble. This, perhaps, is the best argument for religion. Religion provides escape from reality.

I’ve spent a lot of time exploring theodicy (“the problem of evil”) and I don’t intend to make an amateur argument dismissive of their claims, but has there ever really been a rational argument which explains it?

Godless

What, then, is one to take from this? I believe that the only option is to reject god and even church. A tight knit group of family and friends provides the support that people need. Even the social aspect of church is poisoned by God.

[N]ature is not bountiful. If it were, human history would be one of prosperity and long, healthy lives rather than one of oppressive poverty and short, miserable lives.  Nature is miserly.  The bounty that Mr. Kennedy presumes comes from nature is, in fact, the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets - and now threatened by the mindless worship of nature. [Cafe Hayek]

Joyeuses Pâques

Bonjour,

Je vous informe être en vacances jusqu’au Jeudi 24 Avril 2008 au soir.

Je me ferai un plaisir de vous répondre dés mon retour.

Emilie.

Translated it means: “Happy Easer: Hello,  I will be on vacation until Thursday evening, April 24, 2008. I will be glad to respond as soon as I return. Emilie.”

First I’ve never gotten a spam message from France before (orange.fr) and I never get spam messages with absolutely no indication what they are trying to sell etc. So they’re either looking for active email addresses to respond or Emilie is looking for friends.

Perhaps I should respond “Ayez de bonnes vacances”.

I’ve been saying for a while now that Obama’s ideas are what is making him popular, rather than his supposed dynamic speaking ability. At a recent post at Cafe Hayek Russ Roberts is discussing someone who “made the observation that if Bill [Clinton] can make that much money as a post-Presidency speaker, imagine how much Barack Obama might make speaking after his Presidential term. After all, Barack is a better speaker than Bill.”

On the onset I’m not even sure that I’d argue that Obama is a better speaker than Clinton. Clinton, I think, though perhaps less as of late than in the past, is a good engaging speaker who is able to connect with his crowds. Ultimately, Roberts argues that it is Hillary’s run for the presidency that has netted the Clinton’s their sizable wealth as of late but “[u]nless Michelle Obama runs for office after the two terms of Barack, I doubt Barack will earn quite as much as Bill.”

That might be true, I don’t know, but it won’t be for the reasons he argues. I don’t buy it that Clinton is successful as a speaker because of Hillary. Bill came to Regina to speak a few years back and I don’t believe the sold out talk had anything to do with Hillary. Canadians just like Bill. Canadians even like Obama above Hillary.

Most of all, however, I really like this paragraph from the comments:

Bill Clinton connects with people on an emotional level. Barack Obama is intelligent, and eloquent but he is as warm as an atomiton. One appeals to the emotional centres of the limbic brain and the other to the pre-frontal cortex. The success of Barack has been such that he will doubtless be in demand as a speaker but he will never have what Bill’s got.

While I’d say that Obama does connect emotionally to many, it’s most certainly his intellect that comes across.

I stumbled upon Free Dominion, ”The Voice of Principled Conservatism” (also named in the lawsuit, see below) and I found it enlightening. Here is a sample of principled thought:

On an article discussing a gay cemetary in Copenhagen:

They bury them ass up so their buddies can ‘drop in for a cold one’!!

On an article discussing “McDonald’s [sic] Joins the Gay Agenda”

New Signs Going Up Soon:“BEND OVER 1 BILLION SERVED”

Gives new meaning to the product ‘McNuggets’, maybe they can introduce ‘Big Bouncy McNuggets’What next the McHomo sandwich ? [2 limpy pieces of limpy lettuce, coddling a fish stick].

On a article about public sex:

The damn queers have taken over.

On an article about Geert Wilder’s anti-Islam film:

Its long overdue that we take all our prisoners in Gitmo, saw off their heads and film it for the entire Moslem world to see. Start with that little Canadian bastard. Actually invite Chavez and Mahmoud to the UN, round them up and do the same.

On an article about mental health and sexual orientation:

Translation:“You don’t have to be crazy to be a butt buddy, but it helps.”

On an article about the anti-gay remarks by the OK representative:

Finally, someone who has told the truth about the homo agenda and homos threat to the country.

What a woman.

On an article about Svend Robinson:

It’s a mental illness. They can run but they can’t hide. They’re not complete in the brain department. They need help which can only be provided in an institutionalized environment with strong medication and severe rules to manage the weakness and mental impulses which own them.They need our help and compassion. We have a humanitarian obligation to provide it in a controlled setting.

On Barak Obama supporting of civil unions:

There is no evil he will not condone and “bully” into law.I bet he can’t wait to do something about that silly PBA ban so that he can rack up more dead babies.

On an article about Rev. Wright and Obama:

This muslim can run but he can’t hide.

On an article about liberalism:

Two words: Pierre Trudeau.He destroyed Canada and got away with it. The little Nazi sympathizer from Montreal did what Hitler could not do, …. destroy Canada.

On Obama’s race/religion speech:

 ‘I have an excuse for racism…..one day there will be no whites or jews in america…….and Michelle and I will rule as enlightened despots….I have a dream…..’

On an article about the homeless in Ottawa:

We really need some concentration camps for these people.

On an article about an anti-war protest:

I agree. Aim at that pig Sheehan, and put the sow out of her misery.

See here.

On one hand I just laugh because Kate is a hateful, ignorant person. On the other hand the lawsuit, like the commission, is a sham and an abuse of law.

Will Wilkinson reports on the chart making the rounds lately.

For all of the talk that business majors do you’d think they’d actually have something to back it up with. Additionally if you follow the other links that Wilkinson points out history does pretty darn well. Fourth in Verbal Reasoning and Analytical Writing and eighth on the average LSAT scores. Compared with business students, history does very well.

Overall, I’d rather be poor than a business major.

Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine and Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use fame posts this excellent commentary on tobacco taxation:

The ABC affiliate in Albany reports that Gov. David Paterson and state legislative leaders have agreed on a $1.25-a-pack increase in New York’s cigarette tax, making it $2.75. That will give New York the highest state cigarette tax in the country, surpassing New Jersey’s rate of $2.57 a pack. Smokers who buy cigarettes in New York City pay an additional $1.50 a pack, so they will be shelling out $4.25 in state and city taxes, plus the 39-cent federal tax, for a total of $4.64 a pack.  They also have to pay sales tax, which in New York City is 8.38 percent. So a pack of cigarettes that would cost, say, $4 without taxes will cost New Yorkers more than $9, most of which will go into city, state, and federal coffers. In other words, the government will be taxing a product disproportionately consumed by poor people at an effective rate of more than 100 percent, reaping bigger profits than anyone else from a business it simultaneously condemns as the foremost threat to public health. It can get away with this punitive levy because the people it’s bleeding are an unpopular minority with little political influence. And what do we call this policy? Progressive.

I wonder how this compares to Saskatchewan.

Oh, fuck it. Damn kids don’t need to learn how to write. They can txt msg thr way thru life. [TheAgitator.com]

I read this letter (”How the police ‘effectively forced me to break the law’”) to the editor with interest. Perhaps it is her legal training, but that was one of the worst narrative flows I’ve ever read. Sheesh.

Even then I find her analysis of the situation odd. She claims, as the title states, that she was forced to break the law. Unfortunately I’m not sure that the law is on her side. The Saskatchewan Fire Prevention Act states,

Inspection of buildings, structures or premises
    18(1) For the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Act, the regulations or
    any order made pursuant to this Act, any fire inspector may, at any reasonable
    time, enter and inspect any building, structure or premises.

I suppose a lawyer could argue that  “any reasonable time” requires notice, but it certainly doesn’t say that explictly, thus it would seem discretion is in the hands of the inspector.

As for her statement that “The police effectively have forced me to break the law!”, it’s just not so. The Act also states that,

(7) A fire inspector may apply without notice to a justice of the peace or a judge of
    the provincial court for a warrant to be issued pursuant to this section where a
    person:
          (a) refuses to permit the fire inspector to enter on land or into any building,
          structure or premises to carry out any of the activities mentioned in
          subsection (2); or
          (b)    fails to produce any documents or property pursuant to clause (2)(e).
    (8) A justice of the peace or judge of the provincial court may issue a warrant
    where the justice of the peace or judge of the provincial court is satisfied by oath
    that the fire inspector believes on reasonable grounds that there is a contravention
    of this Act, the regulations or an order made pursuant to this Act.

     (9) A warrant issued pursuant to this section authorizes the person named in the
     warrant to enter the place named in the warrant and any premises connected with
     that place to:
          (a) examine the place and connected premises;
          (b) carry out the activities described in subsection (2); and
          (c) search for and seize and take possession of any books, records and
          documents.
     (10) Every peace officer is under a duty to assist the fire inspector in enforcing a
     warrant issued pursuant to this section.
     (11) While a fire inspector is carrying out his or her powers under this section, no
     person shall:
          (a) fail to comply with any reasonable request of the fire inspector;
          (b) knowingly make any false or misleading statement to the fire inspector;
          (c) unless authorized by the fire inspector, remove, alter or interfere in any
          way with anything seized, detained or removed by the fire inspector; or
          (d)   obstruct or interfere with the fire inspector.

Thus they’re not forcing you to break the law, they’re following it. The police and inspectors are allowed to enter the premises as they see fit. That doesnt mean it’s a good law, but it’s still the law.

Finally, does it not seem odd that the her ”key for the other apartment no longer fits.” Do landlords usually allow people to change the locks on their rental properties?

Much less can be said about the woman who turned on her heel and began swearing and yelling at him when he politely asked her if she could please move a little because she’d stood right in front of his grandmother, who is wheelchair-bound. This woman’s “behind” was at eye level of his grandmother and she’d asked my son to ask the woman to move.

She turned on him like a wild animal — snarling and snapping and screamed obscenities and threats. I heard the most outrageous statements. She called him “Disrespectful” and screamed in his face, “Who [hell] do you think you are, you little bas[tard]?”

I grabbed my son and said loud enough so she could hear, “When an adult is disrespecting you, you do not have to give them the respect of standing there hearing them out. Just walk away, because some adults have forgotten how to be human — instead they act like angry animals.” My poor son. [Leader-Post]

Your son is also made poorer by not teaching him to stand up for himself. The proper response is either a) tell the woman off in stronger language or b) kick her in the box.