You have to love the naievity of politicians. Sometimes they are just so cute that all you can do is laugh at them. Of course, this same "endearing cuddliness" is also exactly the reason why they should not have anywhere close to the levels of power they believe they have, but that is a different matter entirely. Actually, it's this matter, that we are going to laugh at - I mean discuss today.
Andy Burnham, who is identified as something called a "culture secretary" in the United Kingdom, has stated a desire for the UK government to tighten controls over the internet, reining in a chaos that was actively designed to be outside of government control. To make matters even more amusing, Mr. Burnham intends to get together with President-elect Obama and work toward making it a transatlantic operation. Apparently Mr. Burnham does not believe that Mr. Obama - America's first black President taking over during a financial crisis that is scaring the hell out of the rest of the world - has enough on his plate.
You might be wondering why I find this so amusing. Doesn't every new administration claim that they are going to make the internet a safer place? Of course they do and it is always in the name of "making it safer for children", that favorite magic phrase that is supposed to automatically confer propriety and unassailability to any proposed plan. The problem is that the plan itself is utterly impossible. The internet cannot be made safer except by the act of actively hunting down those who use it for illegal purposes, a process that both America and the UK already follow. The fact that much of the illegal activity takes place in countries where neither America nor the UK has any say in the matter does not make the task any easier.
The reason I am laughing is because the proposal being discussed is to use a movie-style ratings system on all English language websites and to have that ratings system administered by individual service providers. Apparently Mr. Burnham is unaware that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of three times as many websites on the internet as there are people on the planet. Would anyone like to even consider retroactively rating all of those websites? Add in the simple matter that it takes less than five minutes to establish a basic website and it is pretty easy to see that the logistics alone make this a task that would send Hercules fleeing in tears.
Not only are their billions of websites, there is not exactly any shortage of service providers. I would actually consider paying good money to watch the attempt to get even a representative sampling of them into one room to hash out how they are going to administer this ratings system. That would be the comedic event of the year, at the very least.
Let's make matters even more complicated, shall we? What qualifies as an individual website? Is it everything under a single domain name? Everything under a particular subdomain? Is this blog one website or are the individual articles each their own website? With the possibilities that exist to this question, who would have the authority to decide? Who would even want the headache of deciding?
There is, however, ample reason for not laughing. The fact that this task is impossible does not guarantee that the politicians won't try it. The fact that even suggesting the idea is proof that Andy Burnham shouldn't have anything to do with internet regulation does not mean that he won't. Those of you in the UK who might read this would do well to take note. We, in America, got the unmitigated disaster that is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act precicely because people who knew nothing about digital technology or copyrights still thought it was a good idea to write sweeping new regulation covering those fields.
Attempting to rate the internet makes about as much sense as attempting to rope the wind but absurdity has never stopped politicians. Unfortunately, it is we who end up having to live with the messes these idiots create. Imagine what would happen to today's global economy if there were suddenly major internet disruption because of monkeeing politicians. Keep that nightmare in mind if you hear any of your politicians discussing this idea.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
You Can't Memorialize Freedom With Theft
Coming back to check on what's happening with the world after spending Christmas with my family, one of the first items that caught my attention was a very un-Christmas item indeed. Plans are in motion to construct a memorial in Pennsylvania to those who died on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that was hijacked on 9-11 and was presumed to be headed for Washington DC before the passengers took matters into their own hands and caused the plane to crash into Pennsylvania farmland. Negotiations are still underway with Svonavec Inc., which owns a large chunk of land in the proposed memorial area, including the location of the actual crash site but The Families of Flight 93, an organization representing those families who lost loved ones on the doomed plane, is urging President Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to just take the land. The National Parks Service, who will actually be building the memorial, has already said that it will use eminent domain if all else fails.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who lost loved ones on 9-11, but my sympathy does not stretch so far as to forgive wrong-headed activities. Eminent Domain is possibly the single most controversial power held by any government and using it for anything other than absolutely necessary reasons is just asking for trouble. Using it to build a memorial taints the memorial before ground has even been broken.
This is even more true in this particular case. The people who died on Flight 93 died fighting against the terrorists. They were not just victims. They were, in a very active sense, heroes. They died defending their land against those who would do us harm. In what way is it even possible to believe that taking someone else's land would be the right and proper way to memorialize these people?
Svonavec Inc. treasurer Mike Svonavec has claimed that NPS has not done enough to negotiate a deal. Patrick White, vice president of The Families of Flight 93, has claimed that Svonavec has been unwilling to negotiate. This sounds like both sides have a long way to go in normal channel negotiations. At any rate, no one should be even close to talking about eminent domain.
I understand that those who want the memorial are feeling pressure to break ground soon in order to have the memorial ready in time for the 2011 anniversary, but being in a hurry does not cancel rights of property ownership. If you are really feeling that anxious then I would recommend that you spend more time at the bargaining table and less time writing letters to outgoing presidents.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who lost loved ones on 9-11, but my sympathy does not stretch so far as to forgive wrong-headed activities. Eminent Domain is possibly the single most controversial power held by any government and using it for anything other than absolutely necessary reasons is just asking for trouble. Using it to build a memorial taints the memorial before ground has even been broken.
This is even more true in this particular case. The people who died on Flight 93 died fighting against the terrorists. They were not just victims. They were, in a very active sense, heroes. They died defending their land against those who would do us harm. In what way is it even possible to believe that taking someone else's land would be the right and proper way to memorialize these people?
Svonavec Inc. treasurer Mike Svonavec has claimed that NPS has not done enough to negotiate a deal. Patrick White, vice president of The Families of Flight 93, has claimed that Svonavec has been unwilling to negotiate. This sounds like both sides have a long way to go in normal channel negotiations. At any rate, no one should be even close to talking about eminent domain.
I understand that those who want the memorial are feeling pressure to break ground soon in order to have the memorial ready in time for the 2011 anniversary, but being in a hurry does not cancel rights of property ownership. If you are really feeling that anxious then I would recommend that you spend more time at the bargaining table and less time writing letters to outgoing presidents.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tis The Season
Many of you probably think I'm going to make some sarcastic comment about holiday shoppers or something like that, but I'm not. We all know I could - I certainly could, and that's as close as I'm going to get - but I won't do so today. Not on Christmas Eve. If I were going to make that post, I would have done so a few days ago.
Today I am here for one reason and one reason only: to wish everyone out there a very merry Christmas. For this small time, I will break my own rule and pretend reality. We can all pretend, briefly, that all is well with the world and simply enjoy the time.
I sincerely hope that all truly is well with you and yours and, once again, Merry Christmas.
Today I am here for one reason and one reason only: to wish everyone out there a very merry Christmas. For this small time, I will break my own rule and pretend reality. We can all pretend, briefly, that all is well with the world and simply enjoy the time.
I sincerely hope that all truly is well with you and yours and, once again, Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A Fantasy Budget
Imagine that you were sitting around the dining room table working on the family budget and discovered a $42 billion shortfall. Okay, so you're not likely to see that particular number while doing the family budget, but imagine finding that you're going to be flat broke, completely out of money in just two months. What would you do? What steps would you take to try to keep your family solvent?
Well, if you were part of the California state government what you would apparently do is point the finger at everyone else and then decide to do nothing at all for another month and just rely on IOUs to pay your bills. Of course, if you tried to use IOUs to pay your bills, you would get notices from those bill collectors saying, in essence, "yes, you do and we're shutting off service until you pay them."
I'm trying hard to comprehend this. California is usually looked at as the leader among progressive governments in the west. They're the role model. And they're rich! One of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. There are more mansions packed into twenty square miles of California than most states have from border to border. They are one of the global capitols of entertainment.
And they can't pay their bills. Maybe we should send a few housewives to Sacramento to give classes on budget balancing.
If you or I were faced with this situation, we would probably try to find a second job. Of course, there are only so many jobs and so many hours in the day so the feasibility of this plan is limited. Failing an extra income, it would be time to sit down with the red pen and start slashing out unnecessary items from the budget. Yes, cable television would be nice but eating is so much more important, so see you later TV. The mortgage takes priority over steak and caviar, so we'll be eating sandwiches and ground beef. The children have to have shoes and coats so we'll forego the designer labels and expensive haircuts.
That's how those of us who live in the real world deal with budgets every day. We would somehow have to get politicians to understand the difference between need and really really want, but most of them used to have real world lives. Didn't they?
Well, if you were part of the California state government what you would apparently do is point the finger at everyone else and then decide to do nothing at all for another month and just rely on IOUs to pay your bills. Of course, if you tried to use IOUs to pay your bills, you would get notices from those bill collectors saying, in essence, "yes, you do and we're shutting off service until you pay them."
I'm trying hard to comprehend this. California is usually looked at as the leader among progressive governments in the west. They're the role model. And they're rich! One of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. There are more mansions packed into twenty square miles of California than most states have from border to border. They are one of the global capitols of entertainment.
And they can't pay their bills. Maybe we should send a few housewives to Sacramento to give classes on budget balancing.
If you or I were faced with this situation, we would probably try to find a second job. Of course, there are only so many jobs and so many hours in the day so the feasibility of this plan is limited. Failing an extra income, it would be time to sit down with the red pen and start slashing out unnecessary items from the budget. Yes, cable television would be nice but eating is so much more important, so see you later TV. The mortgage takes priority over steak and caviar, so we'll be eating sandwiches and ground beef. The children have to have shoes and coats so we'll forego the designer labels and expensive haircuts.
That's how those of us who live in the real world deal with budgets every day. We would somehow have to get politicians to understand the difference between need and really really want, but most of them used to have real world lives. Didn't they?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Taking Things A Bit Too Far
Iraq war veteran Kevin Murray, with the support of the Thomas More Law Center and on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, has filed a lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve claiming that the recent federal bailout of the American International Group is helping promote Shariah law. The reason for this claim is that AIG will be offering Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries. For those who do not know, Shariah is the legal application of the Islamic religion.
Now I must say, there are plenty of reasons to be grumpy about the AIG bailout and there are more than plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about the applications of Shariah law, but this particular lawsuit is stretching things just a bit. AIG is not converting to all takaful policies nor is it requiring anyone to buy takaful policies. It is only offering them as an option to those who want them. It seems to me that, rather than being an establishment or even an endorcement of religion, this is exactly what the First Amendment's religion clause is all about: allowing open and equal access to various religious groups.
It is a long road from this to England's recent decision to allow Shariah law to have a say in certain civil courts. I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep an eye on things to make certain there isn't any encroachment, but there is a difference between guarding against abuse and outright paranoia.
To be honest, though, I do not actually believe that paranoia has anything to do with this one. The Thomas More Law Center is a non-profit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values. Anyone care to place any bets on what their agenda is in this?
This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at discrimination and it shouldn't fly here any better than it would were the religion involved Christianity. Most legal scholars seem to be of the opinion that it won't since the prevailing opinion is that what AIG is doing is an open access business policy and not an establishment or endorcement of religion. The fact that it won't fly, however, does not mean that the Thomas More Law Center shouldn't be slapped down for trying. In fact, the people who should be slapping the hardest are those Christians who are concerned about religious freedoms.
I cannot state often enough or emphatically enough, you cannot defend liberty by removing it from someone else. Every time you aprove of the removal of one liberty, you set a precedent for the removal of others. If you give government the power to curtail liberties in one field, you are giving them the power to curtail liberties in all fields. Once the rule is established, it takes no effort at all to change the word "Islam" to "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Buddhist" or pick your flavor.
Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows that I am not a fan of Islam. I am fully aware of the dangerous tendencies inherent in that religion. I am also aware, however, that there are many Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to those dangerous tendencies, just as there were many Christians who were not psychotic murderers during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Pick your battles, but pick them wisely lest the battle you pick wind up being against yourself.
Now I must say, there are plenty of reasons to be grumpy about the AIG bailout and there are more than plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about the applications of Shariah law, but this particular lawsuit is stretching things just a bit. AIG is not converting to all takaful policies nor is it requiring anyone to buy takaful policies. It is only offering them as an option to those who want them. It seems to me that, rather than being an establishment or even an endorcement of religion, this is exactly what the First Amendment's religion clause is all about: allowing open and equal access to various religious groups.
It is a long road from this to England's recent decision to allow Shariah law to have a say in certain civil courts. I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep an eye on things to make certain there isn't any encroachment, but there is a difference between guarding against abuse and outright paranoia.
To be honest, though, I do not actually believe that paranoia has anything to do with this one. The Thomas More Law Center is a non-profit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values. Anyone care to place any bets on what their agenda is in this?
This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at discrimination and it shouldn't fly here any better than it would were the religion involved Christianity. Most legal scholars seem to be of the opinion that it won't since the prevailing opinion is that what AIG is doing is an open access business policy and not an establishment or endorcement of religion. The fact that it won't fly, however, does not mean that the Thomas More Law Center shouldn't be slapped down for trying. In fact, the people who should be slapping the hardest are those Christians who are concerned about religious freedoms.
I cannot state often enough or emphatically enough, you cannot defend liberty by removing it from someone else. Every time you aprove of the removal of one liberty, you set a precedent for the removal of others. If you give government the power to curtail liberties in one field, you are giving them the power to curtail liberties in all fields. Once the rule is established, it takes no effort at all to change the word "Islam" to "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Buddhist" or pick your flavor.
Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows that I am not a fan of Islam. I am fully aware of the dangerous tendencies inherent in that religion. I am also aware, however, that there are many Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to those dangerous tendencies, just as there were many Christians who were not psychotic murderers during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Pick your battles, but pick them wisely lest the battle you pick wind up being against yourself.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
What's In A Name?
Frequent readers are already aware of my annoyance with parents who saddle children with names guaranteed to make life exceptionally difficult. I think we have found a new winner in the ongoing Dumbest Names contest. Even better (worse?), we have also reached a whole new level in dumb reactions to the results of a dumb name.
Heath and Deborah Campbell, of Easton, Pennsylvania, made the news this week when a local Shoprite refused to decorate a birthday cake with the full name of their child. The name that Shoprite refused to use may ring a few bells. It was Adolf Hitler Campbell.
By all means, go back and read that sentence again just to convince yourself that it really says what you think it says.
Daddy Campbell claims that the name was chosen because of his own German heritage and because it is a name no other child would have (I can't imagine why not). He has made a big show in the media of calling for tolerance, but do you really believe that he chose this name for those reasons or that he is interested in tolerance? The Campbells have another child named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell [stress added by me]. Anyone else seeing a trend here? Did he choose that name because he liked the way it sounded?
First of all, the Campbells made a decision to put the child's full name on a birthday cake. When was the last time you attended the birthday party of a toddler and the cake had the child's full name printed on it? I don't think I have ever seen this. The logical conclusion is that they were trying to get exactly the reaction they got. Then they go to the news and make a big stink about it, claiming to want tolerance when their own naming conventions clearly demonstrate their opinions on tolerance.
They saddled this child with the name of one of the most reviled men in modern history and then made that child famous by creating a media storm where none was necessary. While they certainly have the right to name their child what they choose, I doubt anyone is believing their protestations of innocent intent. Of course, the rest of us have the right to believe that these two so-called parents are a couple of World Class Idiots for doing what they have done.
Heath and Deborah Campbell, of Easton, Pennsylvania, made the news this week when a local Shoprite refused to decorate a birthday cake with the full name of their child. The name that Shoprite refused to use may ring a few bells. It was Adolf Hitler Campbell.
By all means, go back and read that sentence again just to convince yourself that it really says what you think it says.
Daddy Campbell claims that the name was chosen because of his own German heritage and because it is a name no other child would have (I can't imagine why not). He has made a big show in the media of calling for tolerance, but do you really believe that he chose this name for those reasons or that he is interested in tolerance? The Campbells have another child named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell [stress added by me]. Anyone else seeing a trend here? Did he choose that name because he liked the way it sounded?
First of all, the Campbells made a decision to put the child's full name on a birthday cake. When was the last time you attended the birthday party of a toddler and the cake had the child's full name printed on it? I don't think I have ever seen this. The logical conclusion is that they were trying to get exactly the reaction they got. Then they go to the news and make a big stink about it, claiming to want tolerance when their own naming conventions clearly demonstrate their opinions on tolerance.
They saddled this child with the name of one of the most reviled men in modern history and then made that child famous by creating a media storm where none was necessary. While they certainly have the right to name their child what they choose, I doubt anyone is believing their protestations of innocent intent. Of course, the rest of us have the right to believe that these two so-called parents are a couple of World Class Idiots for doing what they have done.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Manners Should Be Taught Before Speech
I sometimes believe that an appalling lack of manners is my biggest complaint against the modern Left. Don't get me wrong, they have policies and beliefs I abhor. They, in fact, have policies and beliefs I would fight to the death (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) to oppose. They don't have a monopoly on that, though. The Right has just as many terrifying and tyranical beliefs. Neither side has a corner on the market of stupid ideas. The biggest difference seems to be that the Right will at least usually be polite while stabbing you in the back.
While it is true that you can wind up dead either way, the difference matters for those times when you survive.
I commented yesterday on the affair of the President and the Shoe and, despite my obvious irritation with the event, my ability to describe it in a humorous fashion should demonstrate that I can see the potential humor. Such an incident would pay a comedian for a week and I have no problem with that. The best humor comes from the absurdities in life and I definitely appreciate that.
There is a difference, however, between seeing the humor in a situation and cheering or supporting bad behavior. Bad behavior should never be tolerated. That only encourages more bad behavior. The modern Left have completely lost any concept of this rule.
Why do I say this? Take a stroll through the comments section of any site that is discussing this incident. In fact, in some cases, take a look at the sites doing the discussing. If you have any sense of decorum, what you find should disgust you.
I understand that many people dislike Bush. I would never be mistaken for Left-leaning and I dislike Bush. I completely understand that, for those on the Left, my dislike almost seems like puppy love. Disliking a person does not excuse cheering when a member of a respected profession behaves in a childish manner toward a political leader. The identities of neither the reporter nor the leader make the least difference. Childish behavior in a professional setting is inexcusable! Supporting such behavior to the detriment of your own home is a negative for which I do not even have a term.
This is your home. I have never supported the "love it or leave it" mentality and I never will. If you are unhappy with your home, work to make it better. Do not go out of your way to make it worse. If that is your mentality then it is time to apply the "leave it" idea.
The only thing worse than the ungrateful people abroad who abuse us as reward for our generosity is the ungrateful brats living right here who are too lazy and spoiled to do anything positive with their dissatisfaction. A nation of children cannot be a great nation. If you want us to be great again then grow up. You might start by applying some of the manners you should have been taught while you were still in diapers.
While it is true that you can wind up dead either way, the difference matters for those times when you survive.
I commented yesterday on the affair of the President and the Shoe and, despite my obvious irritation with the event, my ability to describe it in a humorous fashion should demonstrate that I can see the potential humor. Such an incident would pay a comedian for a week and I have no problem with that. The best humor comes from the absurdities in life and I definitely appreciate that.
There is a difference, however, between seeing the humor in a situation and cheering or supporting bad behavior. Bad behavior should never be tolerated. That only encourages more bad behavior. The modern Left have completely lost any concept of this rule.
Why do I say this? Take a stroll through the comments section of any site that is discussing this incident. In fact, in some cases, take a look at the sites doing the discussing. If you have any sense of decorum, what you find should disgust you.
I understand that many people dislike Bush. I would never be mistaken for Left-leaning and I dislike Bush. I completely understand that, for those on the Left, my dislike almost seems like puppy love. Disliking a person does not excuse cheering when a member of a respected profession behaves in a childish manner toward a political leader. The identities of neither the reporter nor the leader make the least difference. Childish behavior in a professional setting is inexcusable! Supporting such behavior to the detriment of your own home is a negative for which I do not even have a term.
This is your home. I have never supported the "love it or leave it" mentality and I never will. If you are unhappy with your home, work to make it better. Do not go out of your way to make it worse. If that is your mentality then it is time to apply the "leave it" idea.
The only thing worse than the ungrateful people abroad who abuse us as reward for our generosity is the ungrateful brats living right here who are too lazy and spoiled to do anything positive with their dissatisfaction. A nation of children cannot be a great nation. If you want us to be great again then grow up. You might start by applying some of the manners you should have been taught while you were still in diapers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)