A Libertarian Challenge

Ron Paul's running for president and Nick Gillespie's interview on Bill Moyer's Journal got me thinking about libertarianism again.

My (perhaps naive) belief is that libertarians are naive in their belief that a libertarian system of government would keep large corporations from polluting the environment and abusing workers.

If we look back over history we can see innumerable cases of corporations doing horrible things to the working class. Monsanto spewing PCBs into the local environment and coal mining companies trapping workers in peonage/truck systems (e.g. follow this link and search for "Colorado miners") .

The historical correction for these abuses has been government regulation (e.g. EPA regulations, labor laws). Sure, the current system is riddled problems but nobody can deny that corporations get away with much less than they did 100-150 years ago.

My challenge to libertarians is for you to explain how libertarian policies would do a better job of preventing these corporate crimes against the public than the traditional approach of government regulation.

What is the point?

Various news sources have reported

The White House wanted them to be “interviewed,” in private, with no transcript and no oath. That was in March. .

What, pray tell, is the point of having interviews if there is no transcript (everything said can be denied like this "uh, I don't remember saying that" or "uh, that is not what I said"). And why would they insist that the testimony not be given under oath unless they are planning to lie lie lie? How can anyone spin this positively? It is absolutely ridiculous.

The administration is essentially saying "we'll talk with you tell you what ever you want to hear as long as we can't be prosecuted for lying and we can later deny anything we tell you."

How can the 28% who still support Bush hear this and not be appalled?

We are not talking about a blow job here, we are talking about subverting the constitution. "The firings are unethical but not illegal" you say? If that is true then why did Monica Goodling (a lawyer who presumably understands the 5th amendment) refused to testify on the subject citing the 5th amendment? Doesn't that, at the very least, demand an investigation with open hearings and all testimony under oath?

In other News, James Comey has made it clear that Alberto Gonzoles lied or, at the very least, mislead congress.

Bill Moyers is back!

One of my most esteemed heros these days is Bill Moyers. He retired from doing his PBS show NOW with Bill Moyers in 2004 but has recently returned to PBS television with Bill Moyer's Journal. Mr Moyers is a religious man (he has a bachelors in divinity and was ordained as a minister) but he champions the principles of separation of church and state and religious diversity (including a respect for secularists).

I highly recommend you read a speech Moyers gave to the National Conference for Media Reform. If you are too impatient to read, watch or listen to the entire speech here are a few of my favorite quotes from the speech (with some emphasis added by me):

...

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.

...

I told our producers and correspondents that in our field reporting our job was to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. This was all the more imperative in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. America could be entering a long war against an elusive and stateless enemy with no definable measure of victory and no limit to its duration, cost or foreboding fear.

...

I came to see that “news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.” In my documentaries – whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton’s fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry’s long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

...

The point of the story is something only a handful of our team, including my wife and partner Judith Davidson Moyers, and I knew at the time — that the success of NOW’s journalism was creating a backlash in Washington.

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That’s because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don’t want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can’t be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn’t, God forbid.

...

“I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven’t thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

“Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart’s affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

“So what’s this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag’s been hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration’s patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao’s little red book on every official’s desk, omnipresent and unread.

“But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They’re in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

“So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it’s not un-American to think that war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.”

One of the first guests on the new Bill Moyers Journal was Jon Stewart (another hero of mine and a hero to many others I'm sure).

Even if Moyers had not adapted to the internet it would still be a blessing to have his show available through the traditional medium of broadcast TV. Luckily for us though video, audio, complete transcripts and blog postings with audience feedback are available.

How can someone take the 5th ...

When no crime has been committed? Monica Goodling of the Gonzales' Department of Justice has refused to testify before congress regarding the firing of US attorneys citing the 5th amendment right that prevents a person from incriminating them self. We keep hearing from various quarters (even from anti-Bush pundits) that, while the firing of the attorneys may have been unprecedented and unethical, it was not criminal.

There are a few possible explanations:

• Goodling is incompetent and consequently doesn't understand either the 5th or what constitutes criminal conduct (not likely).
• Goodling knows that crimes have been committed. Not legal but slimy ethical violations which don't afford protection under the 5th amendment but actual crimes.
  
• Goodling knows no crime has been committed and is invoking the 5th amendment under false pretenses.

Is there a loophole here? Is it legally acceptable to claim that you thought there was 1 in 1000 chance that you are criminally liable and use this claim as a basis for taking the 5th?

Any way you slice it something is foul in Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice.

Quote of the Day

In a harsh condemnation of the U.S. mismanagement of Iraq, former Iraqi government minister Ali Allawi writes, "The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order."

Election 2008

I have seen the future of US leadership and the future is Barack Obama.



Well I hope it is anyways. There are a variety of compelling reasons why Obama may not win the 2008 presidential election

• he lacks political experience
• he is black (clearly no southerner nostalgic for days of Jim Crow is going to vote for him)
  
• his intelligence will alienate the simpletons who voted for Bush and are fond of aphorisms like the terrorist hate us because we are free
  

Despite all of these reasons why Obama will fail to win the election I have never been so excited about a presidential candidate as I am about Obama.

We all know that being atheist is political suicide so it is no surprise to find out that Obama is a devout Christian. What is a surprise is to hear him speak about atheists (he uses the term secularist) without denigrating them. I am a devout atheist and I find it frustrating that my beliefs are not just marginalized but frequently denigrated by those with strong faith in Christianity. Barack Obama is a man who truly understands the tolerant and inclusive motivation behind separation of church and state!

I urge you to listen to his podcasts (most are 5 to 7 minutes long) and decide for yourself what you think of the man. For me, I've decided that this is the man I want to be my country's next president. If, after hearing him speak and reading about his position on the issues, you decide that he is the best choice for president then please make a campaign donation.

Because I feel strongly that Barack Obama is the best man for the job of U.S. president I signed up for a recurring monthly donation to the Obama presidential campaign. Even if he loses the general election (or even the primary election) the country will gain much from having a well funded Obama campaign participate in a debate of the issues facing our country.

Color or Black and White?

Color or Black and White?
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

The same photo in black and white. What do you think of the color, contrast and brightness of these photos?

Color or Black and White?

Color or Black and White?
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

a color photo of my Go board...

The whole shebang

The whole shebang
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

This is all of the Go stuff (books, go boards, stones) I have amassed and kept over the years. I bought my first Go set circa 1988.

To be or not to be ...

To be or not to be ...
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

My nephew Christian contemplating existence

Houdini

Houdini
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

My sister went out to the back yard to smoke and found houdini here had gotten himself stuck in the patio table.

Goth training

IMG_1444
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

I'm studying to be a dark brooding goth guy. In addition to dying my hair black, painting my face white and dressing in black I'm also spending a lot of time in grave yards to connect with my inner mortality.

UPDATE: I got an F on this gothic homework assignment because I forgot to desaturate the picture to black and white (DOH).

Canon 50mm F1.8 II

IMG_1265_1
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

blah blah blah

Man's Best Friend

Man's Best Friend
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

The human face is a bit washed out here because when I turn the brightness down I lose detail on the dog.

I look forward to eventually learning how to use GIMP (I haven't bought photoshop yet) so I can fix problems like this. (blending 2 copies of an image using a transparency mask -- I know the general principle but the details of how to generate the desired mask are not clear)

All processing was done with DPP

Breakfast Time at Zachary's

Zachary's
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

Z's is one of our regular breakfast stops. If you drop in for a bite I highly recommend the 'Junior Mess' or, for the truly famished, 'Mike's Mess'.

Who are the people in the picture? I don't know...

First steps

First steps
Originally uploaded by funkyj.

I've had my 350D for less than a week. I still barely know how to use the thing (beyond treating it as an overpriced point and shoot).

I shot this in RAW mode, cropped it and converted to JPEG (no manipulation in DPP).

Evil Doers

I have a new blog called Evil Doers.

This blog was born out of a conversation with an acquaintance of mine I shall call "Pat".

In this conversation I made the hyperbolic claim that "Walmart would gladly render the entire continent of Africa uninhabitable by polluting it with plutonium if this would greatly increase their share holder value". I explained that this wasn't a literal truth (Walmart is not in the plutonium disposal business) but was meant to represent the fact that corporations regularly and knowingly make choices that result in human rights abuses (including torture and murder) and horrific damage to the environment. Pat objected to this characterization of powerful corporations and asked me to back up my claim with specific examples.

Evil Doers is my attempt to provide these specific examples. It is a laborious task to document even a single case with a moderate level of detail so I will add entries to Evil Doers slowly.

Here is a bit more clarification on my viewpoint.

• large corporations are powerful.
• The consequence of an entities actions are in proportion to the power they wield. The powerful are capable of both greater good and greater evil than the weak.
  
• Powerful entities have a greater ability to insulate themselves from the responsibility of their actions.
  

The phrase "power corrupts" does not mean that every corporation or person that is placed in a position where they can wield power without accountability will behave badly. What it means is that if you consistently put people in positions where they wield power without being held accountable you are guaranteed that someone will eventually abuse their power. The greater the power and the less the accountability the higher the probability of abuse.

Corporations have a greater tendency to evil than ordinary individuals because large corporations are far more powerful and have greater means to avoid accountability than an ordinary individual. Consequently we must treat large corporations (and other powerful entities) with much greater suspicion that we treat our neighbors.

"Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon" -- Alan Perlis

I'm reading Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, which MIT Press has kindly made available on line. Here is a tasty nibblet from the preface to the first edition:

Our design of this introductory computer-science subject reflects two major concerns. First, we want to establish the idea that a computer language is not just a way of getting a computer to perform operations but rather that it is a novel formal medium for expressing ideas about methodology. Thus, programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. Second, we believe that the essential material to be addressed by a subject at this level is not the syntax of particular programming-language constructs, nor clever algorithms for computing particular functions efficiently, nor even the mathematical analysis of algorithms and the foundations of computing, but rather the techniques used to control the intellectual complexity of large software systems.

As a hobby I've been learning Common Lisp. Several folks in the comp.lang.lisp newsgroup have recommended SICP to folks who desire to improve their knowledge of the theoretical underpinnings of Lisp, so here I am.

It all started when someone in c.l.l asked "why does lisp need the 'apply' function?". As an exploration of this question I attempted the impossible task of implementing Lisp's 'apply' using Common Lisp macros and the 'funcall' function. If you resort to also using the 'eval' function then it is possible to define 'apply'. Of course having to resort to calling 'eval' is a terrible price to pay. This is why Lisp defines 'apply' as a primative. (it is trivial to define 'funcall' in terms of 'apply' -- you don't even need to use macros much less 'eval'. To wit: "(defun funcall (fn &rest arg) (apply fn rest))").

BTW, for you folks who don't know Lisp, Lisp macros are very powerful. The macro system provided by the C language preprocessor is nothing compared to lisp macros. Lisp macros are more powerful than C++ templates. If you haven't studied Lisp it is hard to conceive what Lisp macros are capable of.

little red book

little red book
Originally uploaded by davebarber.

Hey everybody, I just discovered this wonderful book of wisdom!

I highly recommend you (and all your friends) request this book via interlibrary loan.

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
[...]
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
(read the rest of the story at SouthCoastToday)

I gotta run now, I'm off to the library to request a copy of Mao's most excellent little red book.

2005 Dec 24 Update:
Apparently this story is a hoax. damn, I requested my little red book for nothing.

Hey Dubya, nice job keeping an eye on those "terrorists"

I feel much safer knowing that those radical militant quakers and dangerous anti-nuke activists are being spied on.

Earlier this week NBC News exposed the existence of a secret Pentagon database to track intelligence gathered inside the United States. The database including information on dozens of anti-war protests and rallies particularly actions targeting military recruiting.

The list included: counter-military recruiting meetings held at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Forth, Florida. Anti-nuclear protests staged in Nebraska on the 50th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki. An anti-war protest organized by military families outside Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And a rally in San Diego to support war resister Pablo Parades. The Pentagon database described all of these events as threats. (continue the article at Democracy Now)

Good thing we're going to renew Patriot Act. I feel safer knowing that, when some crazed anti-war protester plans to set off a dirty bomb in Chicago, the military will be there to nip it in the bud. Yes, we should definitely take the advice of Georgy, Rummy and Dick and trust our government. Yep, those old post-Nixon restrictions on domestic surveillance are definitely antiquated.

What with all the dangerous war protestors, Quakers, anti-nuclear loonies and radical militant librarians we should probably just cut to the chase and bypass the Patriot Act by delcaring martial law until the War on Terrorism has been completely won (tm). The only way to protect our freedom is to destroy it.

Hopefully this seditious blog entry will be redacted by party censors soon seeing as how I'm probably blabbing state secrets by restating publicly accessible information.