|
An update since the previous "Korea War Warning" post - the BBC reports that the US has warned North Korea about moving their spent fuel rods:
The White House has warned North Korea against moving to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium by reprocessing nuclear fuel rods.
Such a step would be a "provocative action... intended to intimidate and blackmail the international community", said spokesman Ari Fleischer.
The New York Times is reporting that North Korea is now transporting spent nuclear fuel to its plutonium reprocessing plant. If not stopped in the next month or so, North Korea could produce a number of nuclear weapons - enough that they could (and probably would) sell some to terrorists!
Thus the US may be forced to destroy the plant with air strikes, and do it within the next month or two.
Fortunately the plant is above ground. Unfortunately, North Korea holds 20,000,000 people in the Seoul area of South Korea hostage, and can also send chemical weapons loaded missiles into Japan's population centers.
Should North Korea miscalculate and launch such an attack, the United States would have no choice but to immolate North Korea with nuclear weapons.
It is probably no accident that the classified National Security Presidential Directive 17 was just leaked. It formally authorizes the use of nuclear weapons as a response to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the US or its allies. While most articles are interpreting this in light of the Iraq situation, the use of nukes is far more likely if the Korean situation spins out of control.
Likewise, one should note that recent force deployments from San Diego could go to either Korea or the Persian Gulf.
Folks, this could get very hairy, very quickly!
For miscellaneous facts about nuclear weapons and radiation, check this summary.
According to Fred Barnes on Fox News:
We need the French for the coming war so they can teach the Iraqi's how to surrender.
Now, lest I be viewed as anti-French, let me comment that I really loved French food during the time I lived in Paris. When it comes to food, the French are the best. When it comes to world affairs... well.... The French are to world affairs as the British are to cooking!
CBS MarketWatch headlines "Ads rushing out of Limbaugh show." Certainly might be a worthy subject (were it true)... but a reading of the piece reveals the author to be a left wing ideologue. Clearly he would love for Limbaugh to be taken down a notch.
Read on....
A few choice tidbits... Without irony or quotes, he call Rush "the king of reactionary talk radio." Reactionary? Is that an objective journalististic term? Reactionary is a Marxist code word for "bad guy."
Then we have his quote from an organizer of the protest:""Don't call me anti-American. I served this country."
Gee, that's nice. So did I... but it hardly adds to the discourse - and of course Rush didn't call that guy an anti-american anyway!
Reacting to a statement from Limbaugh's syndicator, we find "The audience number is likely exaggerated."
Then we hear about an aill-fated right wing attack on NYPD blue (one of my favorite shows), with the phrase "Christian Right" (as it normally is used) replaced by: "Christian" right, seeming to imply that the Christian right isn't really Christian. Oh yeah?
Most telling, we find:"What makes this attempt particularly interesting is that progressives typically eschew ad boycotts both for free speech reasons and because it is a favorite technique of their ideological opponents.
Really, now? "Progressives" more or less invented the boycott. And they have been trying periodic advertiser boycotts against Rush for many years.
The good news, of course, is that these intellectual gnats will once more be swatted down by Rush, with half his brain tied behind his back!
Just now on Fox News, General McInerney asserted that France and Germany will always resist an attack on Iraq to cover up the records showing their "complicity" with Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program.
Thus, our putative allies have been helping Iraq with its WMD program, and they don't want the world to find out. Their posturing about multilateralism and extended inspections are just a cynical delaying tactic to cover up their crimes.
As William Quick points out, Hillary is attacking Bush for not doing enough to protect America. This is a continuation of the democratic tactics first pointed out by this blog just after the election. The New York Post has also picked up on this theme.
A couple of important points need to be made in this regard:
First, the Bush administration has actually done a lot to improve our security. Have they done enough? Perhaps not. But those who believe we are no more safe have not looked at things from the point of view of the terrorists.
The terrorists have lost their operational bases. Many are dead or in custody being interrogated and revealing their secrets. The US is re on alert. We have a massive anti-bioterrorism effort cranking up. Americans will no longer let terrorists hijack their aircraft - we learn fast! Our critical facilities are being guarded more closely. Our skies have many more armed fighters available for interdiction, and we do not hesitate to use them. Our allies (even the squishy ones like the French) are arresting terrorists that they previously ignored. Governments which previously supported the terrorists with impunity are gone (Taliban), scared to death or actively cooperating with us.
Second, there is no way to stop terrorists completely. There will be more terrorist attacks in the US. Hillary and others are amoral opportunists who seek political advantage from this. One wonders if, in her tiny little black heart, Hillary is anxiously awaiting the next attack.
Could a Phoenix eco-terrorist have contributed to the 9-11 attacks? Three of the terrorists trained in Phoenix, and the pilot of the Pentagon aircraft lived there. A Phoenix FBI agent warned about terrorist training at local flying schools. Unfortunately in 2001, the "Preserve Arsonist" was torching houses on the edge of the scenic Phoenix mountain preserve. The entire Phoenix FBI anti-terrorism squad was distracted trying to catch the him. Without that distraction, would they have stopped 9-11? We will never know.
The next time somebody tells you that eco-terrorism doesn't hurt anyone (they just burn buildings, blah blah blah)... remind them of this.
According to England's Times Online,
"FARMERS throughout the country have 90 days to put a toy in every pigsty or face up to three months in jail."
The Eurocracy has decreed that pigs are to get "environmental enrichment" via "manipulable material."
I only hope it will make the pigs taste better!
What next? Stress counselors for potatos?
(Keywords: smallpox, Henderson, USSR, biological warfare, Iraq, North Korea)
Smallpox was eradicated to make soviet weapons more deadly!
This is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from recent evidence about the smallpox eradication effort. More precisely, the Soviet contribution to smallpox eradication, which was crucial to the effort, was motivated by their biological weapons goals.
Read on...
Long before any other nation, the USSR pushed for an international smallpox eradication effort. It eventually succeeded.
The resulting program was run by the World Health Organization - lead by a crusading American doctor named Donald Henderson (who is now an advisor to the US Government at the Johns Hopkins Centter for Civilian Biodefense Studies). Much of the vaccine and many of the workers helping Henderson came from the USSR - not typically a charitable nation!
Henderson and most of his people were motivated by the noble goal of reducing human suffering through controlling (and eventually eradicating) smallpox. They performed a heroic job, working long hours for years in terrible and dangerous conditions. Unfortunately, some of their fellow workers, provided by the USSR, helped with a more sinister goal.
Since the fall of the USSR, we have learned several disturbing facts:
The conclusion from these facts is inescapable: the USSR successfully pushed to make the world population vulnerable to smallpox, in order to make their own weapons more effective!
Writing for the CDC, Henderson himself draws a slightly more politically correct conclusion:
However, as reported by the former deputy director of the Russian Bioweapons Program, officials of the former Soviet Union took notice of the world's decision in 1980 to cease smallpox vaccination, and in the atmosphere of the cold war, they embarked on an ambitious plan to produce smallpox virus in large quantities and use it as a weapon. At least two other laboratories in the former Soviet Union are now reported to maintain smallpox virus, and one may have the capacity to produce the virus in tons at least monthly. Moreover, Russian biologists, like physicists and chemists, may have left Russia to sell their services to rogue governments.
.......................
Note: much of this information comes from two defectors who left the weapons programs in the late '80s and early 90's. These defectors and their revelations were keep highly secret (even from US health officials) for years after they left.
One, now known as Ken Alibek, has written a book on the subject, is an advisor or biological weapons issues, and is an occasional guest on american news television shows. Since their defections, American scientists have visited some of the (now Russian) facilities and verified their assertions. Other facilities are still off limits to foreigners.
Note: I will post a couple of reading references here shortly.
While much attention has been paid to nuclear and chemical weapons, the biggest terrorist threat to the United States is biological. It is not surprising that the government says little about this, because at this time there is not much we can do about it.
Read on....
Biological weapons - specifically contagious biological agents - are the only weapons that can be used by small numbers of terrorists to attack the entire country (or world).
A nuclear weapon is a horrible thing, but is very hard to make and deploy, and limited in the destruction it can cause (for details, see this summary). Radiological dispersion devices are even less destructive, and would achieve their main effect by inflaming the irrational radiation paranoia firmly established in the west.
Likewise, chemical weapons are powerful and deadly, but are even more limited in the geographical extent of their damage - they only affect those who are directly exposed. The same applies to non-contagious or slightly contagious biological weapons (botulin toxin, anthrax, ricin).
Unfortunately, contagious biological agents "just keep on giving." Unless they are contained, they eventually spread to the entire population. The most dangerous known such agent today is smallpox (variola major). Smallpox kills 20-40% of those infected. It has no treatment - it is a virus and no drugs are known to be effective against it (although modern antivirals *may* have some effect). It is easily genetically modified to be more virulent (for example, Russian scientists published a scientific paper showing the addition the gene for an Ebola toxin). Because there are many kinds of pox viruses in nature, kits for adding genes to pox viruses are available for a few thousand dollars!
The Soviet Union produced enormous quantities of smallpox and deployed it on ICBM warheads targeted at the US. Even today they have failed to adequately account for the agents and prevent access to certain facilities which, in the past, produced biological agents.
An outbreak of smallpox occurred in Iraq after the Baath Party (Saddam's political organization) had taken control, and it is extremely likely that some samples were preserved (it used to be common practice for medical organizations to keep smallpox samples frozen in refrigerators). Furthermore, tens of thousands of scientists and technicians were trained in the USSR in the weaponization of smallpox, and many of these are now out of work.
The North Korean government (DPRK) was in power long before wild smallpox was eradicated. It is thus reasonable to assume that they also have the smallpox virus and have weaponized it. There is also credible evidence that the USSR provided smallpox to the DPRK.
The big question today is whether Iraq will attempt to use smallpox as a "doomsday weapon." We cannot allow ourselves to be deterred by that possibility, but we have to recognize the risk. The next few months may be far more "interesting" (in the Chinese proverb sense of the word) than we can imagine!
As so eloquently put in the National Review Online, we are in a war because our people have been attacked!
Yet today the media elite, their Democratic allies, and the silly Europeans have already forgotten. We don't hear a word about the need to cleanse the world of terrorists and the dictators who support and arm them!
We don't hear of our sacred duty to the dead of 9-11 - our duty to root out and destroy every vestige of Islamist terror, and the concomitant need to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. At best, we hear cynical complaints that our internal defenses are not enough - as if we could ever secure this great and free country against individual terrorists! The left refuses to recognize that offense is the only defense in this matter!
Instead, we here proceduralist and legalist mumblings about only one forthcoming battle in our war: Iraq.
Click below for the full article....
Defanging Iraq is obviously an important act - Iraq has already demonstrated its willingness to cause mass casualties in the US. The hand-wringers forget that Iraq was implicated in the first World Trade Center attack. They also fail to inform the public that chemical weapons were used in that attack!
That's right. Iraq attacked US civilians in 1993 with a chemical weapon! The WTC bomb contained a large amount of cyanide. Only the intense heat of the blast, which destroyed the cyanide prevented tens of thousands of death in the first attack. Iraq was involved in that attack, as it was in the attempt to assassinate Bush I - a clear act of war.
Importantly, defanging Iraq is only the first act of our war. Replacing Saddam will not solve our terrorism problems. In fact, at first it may increase them. But we must do it - Saddam is a clear and present danger, and his removal will not only end the danger from Iraq, but will also send a clear message to the other facilitators of terror in the world.
To the left, however, the purpose of our war, and the facts of the wider war itself have been submerged. More important in their minds are legalisms and protocols, and of course they just can't help but respond to their habitual view that we are the oppressors and it's about money and imperialism.
It's all about oil, they say!
Tell that to the dead of 9-11!
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, a bastion of conservativism, published an article by Democrat John Breaux advocating major changes to make Health Insurance more available. The recommendations pretty much follow those described on this blog last November.
Now Anne Wilson has a post on her blog that eloquently describes the impact of the problem... but misses any reasonable solution. This is addressed in the extended discussion reached by the link below.
Her blog is certainly a refreshing addition to conservative commentary. Her observation on media treatment of Scott Ritter's sexual escapades is right on the mark!
For more on health insurance, click the following link...
Anne Wilson's approach is to simply abolish health insurance, and rely on savings. Unfortunately, this will never work. Insurance exists in order to socialize (oohhh - a dirty word) risk - that is, to allow people to protect themselves against unpredictable events by paying in advance for their share of the risk.
Anne's "cure" is impractical and anti-capitalist. Why should anybody work and earn and acquire assets that are likely to be taken away at the first major illness of old age? Capitalism works by addressing risks, not ignoring them.
Her assertion that prices will come down to reasonable levels is unsupportable. A major part of the high cost is simply real, inelastic demand. People will certainly shop around for ordinary care, which will reduce some costs, but for lifesaving care they will spend the money if they must!
But the good news is that conservatives are starting to advance beyond the (usually correct) "market will solve the problem" mantra, and seriously examine this difficult issue for the first time.
The "Old Europe" countries of Germany, France, Luxembourg and Belgium insist that the United States deal with the Iraq problem only through the United Nations. The credulous US press takes them at their word and duly reports how our "unilateralism" is upsetting our "allies."
Rarely mentioned is the role of the UN in the recent Serbian war. Europe asked the United States to intervene militarily to save them from a troubling problem. While it has slipped the memory of many, the United States' war against Serbia was was not a United Nations action. Nevertheless, the Europeans approved of our use of violence... in fact, they practically begged us to intervene. They couldn't do it themselves - even against the rump state of Serbia!
Also contrary to popular memory, this was hardly a simple humanitarian act. After all, Europe had simply watched as thousands were butchered in Bosnia and Croatia (not to mention Rwanda). Only when the problem threatened a refugee exodus and instability near Europe did they act. Then they were quite happy to use military violence, not diplomacy to solve their problem. Today, with the United States already the victim of a mass casualty attack, and Iraq the proven posessor and user of weapons of mass destruction, Europe insists on "more time" for diplomacy to work - as if 12 years isn't enough!
So what do the Europeans really mean by their attitude toward the Iraq situation? Their words mean only one thing: "We don't want you to go to war, and you should obey us." They are frustrated that this time they can't tame the tiger they so happily unleashed only a few years ago!
Taken in this light, it is clear that their pious rumblings are nothing more than the whines of a geriatric who can no longer take part in the action. They care nothing about multilateralism when *their* interests are at stake, but when *our* country has been viciously attacked, they obstruct. They cower. They bluster. They beg. But they add nothing.
The European elite has lost its ability to command world events, which is appropriate given their fecklessness in the face of clear danger. Shame is all they deserve for their attempt to stop the one country with both the moral clarity and the military power to respond to 21st century terrorism and WMD blackmail!
Some of the loonier left anti-America... err... anti-war crowd are heading to Iraq to volunteer as human shields. Never mind that Saddam already has millions of human shields... but to the left it's the thought, not the effect that counts!
Hopefully this trend will continue and expand. If our bombs don't kill them, Saddam will, and blame it on us. In any case, the sanity level of the world will be increased by their sacrifice.
Go to it, loons! I am waiting to hear your chants on Al Jazeera...
To the rhythm of Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh
Sa Sa Sa Saddam
We'll Protect You
From the Bomb!
Sa Sa Sa Saddam
We'll be blown
To Kingdom Come!
Go Turkeys!
It isn't every day that we can see some of our least liked folks go at each other, but here is a fine example, as reported by the Phoenix New Times.
Read on for more about the love lives of turtles and cheerleaders...
The greater Phoenix area has been trying for a while to waste our tax dollars on a new football stadium for our wealthy team owner, Bill Bidwell.
First, the lunatics who run Tempe won the stadium site. They started building it in the landing path of Phoenix's Sky Harbor airport! Since Tempe hates the airport (and Phoenix), this was only natural - logical even. Unfortunately for them, the FAA woke up in time and nixed the idea.
The stadium site was then changed to the agricultural area of Glendale, Arizona.
And the fun really started. An environmental consultant observed a pair of desert tortoises on the site, doing what comes naturally. These turtles (all right tortoises.. but who cares) are, of course, "protected" (as is everything around here the flies, crawls, stings or bites). But it's okay to move a few of them (not kill them, but *move* them).
Unfortunately, before they were moved, the female turtle laid 5 eggs. Now there were seven turtles, but the law says you can only move five without a permit, environmental studies, three miracles and an act of contrition to the Goddess of Environmentalism. Bad news for Bill!
At this point, Bidwell reportedly arranged to have all turtles quietly removed. Unfortunately for him, one of the cheerleaders was romantically involved with the guy who removed the turtles, and knew about this evil act. She eventually ratted him out to a Tucson environmental activist/profiteer/do-badder named Ogden Farrell.
Farrell is known for such amazing feats as transforming an amphibian into a reptile so it could be protected, thus forcing the rerouting of the San Pedro River! He also has protected notable citizens like the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, the Giant Kangaroo Rat, the Island Night Lizard, the Slender Chub and the amazingly named Pahrum Poolfish!
He reportedly received more than $1,000,000 dollars last years as an environmental whistleblower.
To his opponents, he is known as a yellow-bellied tax-sucker.
The New Times quotes Farrell: "It's time to draw a line in the sand [...] No stadium should be built until we know what happened to those tortoises. The public has a right to know. Did Bidwill and his goon separate those five babies from their mother and toss them into Tempe Town Lake? For his sake, I hope he didn't. But I wouldn't be surprised if he gave them to other NFL owners as Christmas presents."
And we wouldn't either! Nor would we be surprised if Farrell pockets another pile of change for obstructing this project!
Oh well, the Cardinals are a lousy football team anyway!
And now that you've read this far, I am sad to inform you this post was based on dispicable hoax by The New Times of Phoenix. Their usually well researched and written front page article was a fraud. As a previous subject of one of their feature stories (storm chasing) I was used to seeing accuracy in that spot.
Why The New Times would waste their credibility publishing this hoax is beyond me. Frankly, I am angered. The story was, I suppose, too perfect. The environmentalists really are as crazy as depicted in the story, and the whole stadium affair has been equally absurd.
Well.... Shame on New Times for such nonsense.
And I guess shame on me for believing that a major newspaper would fake the actual facts of the story, as opposed to only the usual selective editing bias. I'm not going to apologize for not fact checking - this is a blog, not a newspaper!
Grumble!
If more evidence is needed that Radical Environmentalism is a religion (see previous posting), it is provided in the latest in a series of attacks on Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The Skeptical Environmentalist is a result of Lomborg's belated discovery of the falsehoods and manipulations of the Environmental Movement. It is a detailed, well sourced description of their deceits and of their claims. Since it's publication, greens have been viciously attacking it.
CLICK BELOW FOR MORE...
The increasingly left wing Scientific American devoted 14 pages to its attack (reducing the amount of actual interesting content), and yet almost no facts were in dispute. Instead, ad hominem arguments and unsupported assertions of authority were the order of the day. Lomborg was only allowed one page in reply. When he initially attempted to reply on his website by listing the entire article and inserting responses on a point by point basis, he was reportedly threatened by Scientific American with a copyright lawsuit, even though his actions were valid within the "fair use" doctrine!
Now the Danish "Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" (the Inquisition) has ruled that "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." The committee cites no arguments or data supporting their ruling - only the original four articles published by Scientific American. Even more surprising, considering the attack, the book is not and is not presented as a scientific publication - the familiar peer-reviewed paper or collection of papers in scientific journals. Scientific dishonesty is a term reserved for scientists who commit fraud in their scientific publications, no those who write popular books. There is even an undisputed quote in the book of an established environmental scientist which admits to and advocates fraud in dealing with the public!
As one who has read the book, I recommend it to anyone interested in environmental issues. Not only does it expose the damning statements of leaders of major so-called environmental groups, but it also provides enormous amounts of data on the science.
So who is this anti-environmentalist wizard being burned at the stake? Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician and director (at least until now) of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute.
He was a typical poorly informed environmentalist until he heard a talk by Julian Simon which denied many of the most famous environmenalist claims. As an exercise for his students, he assigned them to research the claims and validate the statistics. Much to his and their surprise and dismay, they found that Simon was right. The claims were either exaggerated or totally without founding. From that shock and the realization that the environmentalists had been lying to him, Lomborg began a detailed and critical study of the claims of environmentalists, resulting in his book.
There is currently a campaign by a number of groups against the SUV.
The trial lawyers want you to think that SUV's are unsafe, so they can make zillions suing the automakers. The trial lawyers are major contributors to the Democratic Party.
The environmentalists want you to think that SUV's are unsafe and evil, since they hate anything that burns petroleum, and the are frightened when consumers defy them. They are major contributors to the Democratic Party and virtually control it on these issues.
Arianne Huffington wants you to think that SUV's are evil because driving them magically supports terrorism. Arrianne Huffington is a well known rich flake who lives in a mansion. She travels in gas guzzling private jets. She has purchased a television campaign arguing that SUV drivers support terrorism (she probably did it to get attention).
But someone has come up with an answer to that campaign.
Go to the following site and click the slide show numbers in order.
Click here to start.
North Korea, in its rapidly escalating campaign for US appeasement has now threatened to resume missile testing. If they test any long range missiles, the US should shoot them down!
More....
The United States Navy claims a capability for boost phase intercept of ballistic missiles by the latest Standard Missile employed on Aegis warships. This claim has been explicitely made about Korean missile launches against Japan or the US.
Now is a chance to test the system, under real world conditions, while giving the Norks something to ponder. Shooting down the missiles would demonstrate both our ability to protect against Nork weapons, and our determination. At the same time, it would not cause enough damage to North Korea to be a valid causes bellum.
And of course, if we missed... hey, the Norks likely would never know.
All we have to do is position some Aegis ships near North Korea before a test - and intelligence should be able to provide time windows. The next time the NorKs fire a missile, and ZIP, ZAP POW - a fireworks display over the Sea of Japan!
The following was posted as a response to a typical wacko-environmentalist rant on Slashdot (www.slashdot.org). But it applies fairly well to a lot of the silliness that comes out in the global warming debate...
So read on....
1998 Warning to Humanity - Meaningless
The "Warning to Humanity" top scientists had very few climatologists in its ranks, so it is utterly and completely meaningless.
The Myth that we can make Major Changes
The problem is that environmentalists assume that we *can* change, and that we can do so in a beneficial way.
So let me throw just a couple of problems at you...
Complexity of the environment
1) You say the environment is too complex for us to understand the effects we are having on it. That is true. By your logic, that means that any action we take is just as likely to be beneficial or not, considering we don't understand the consequences. So why should we choose the one that will cause massive economic dislocation, ultimately killing the millions of people who have such a marginal life right now that they can't *afford* any diminuation in the economic situation.
Kyoto makes No Effective DIfference - According to Its Proponents
2) If you look at what the real scientists say (say, for example the IPCC report - and not the politician written summary, but the real thing), you will realize that the Kyoto recommendations, which are supposed to help with global warming, will, IF THE MODELS ARE RIGHT, make such a tiny change that it will be unmeasurable 100 years into the future.
To Make a Significant Change would be a Major Economic Disaster
3) If you look at how much change is reputedly needed to make a difference (again, assuming the models are correct), you would realize that Kyoto is just a Trojan horse... a way to get us used to economic sacrifice so that the REAL changes can be done - cutbacks of 30% or more on CO2 emissions which translate, with TODAYS technology, to massive economic disaster. Such a disaster would kill tens of millions of third and fourth world citizens.
In 1910 They Thought THey Knew the Future, Too!
4)Those who want to follow some plan of change are arrogant enough to believe that they can determine how mankind will behave for the next 100 years (the normal timeline for most scientists studying the issue). They were also that arrogant in the first decade of the 20th century. They thought they had the problems of government solved. Of course, since then there were a few unanticipated events like like World War I, World War II, the rise of communism (which resulted in the worst environmental damage of any system, along with 100,000,000 murders), the invention of the computer, powered airplanes, nuclear power and bombs, quantum theory, the relativity theories, electronics, Social Security, antibiotics, modern genetics, information theory,.... But I'm sure that you believe that things like this won't happen this century, right? Or that minor things like how people really think and act won't get in the way of our punitive solutions? Pardon me if I don't take seriously those people who think they know enough to effect a solution to some vague issue (gasp, we are hurting poor mother earth), and if I am not willing to make economic sacrifices on behalf of their poorly considered ideas.
The West is Evil?
5) It is interesting that people who put out radical environmental rants tend to be anti-western. Usually this is because they haven't taken a look at how *other* societies treat the environment - which is on average with considerably less respect than we in the west do. Oh, and every one of the inventions I mentioned above... took place in the evil west.
The Myth of the Stupid Consumer
6) The "vicious cycle of consumerism" is an unintended codeword for people exercising their economic freedoms. It is usually uttered by people who are sure they are smarter than these "consumers" - people who justify their beliefs by thinking that consumers are somehow deluded into making their choices by evil capitalist advertisers.
Modern Environmentalism Encourages Fools
Finally, let me comment that the rant (that this originally responded to) is a perfect example of what I find so objectionable about modern environmentalism: it encourages illogical people with little grasp of the facts and no grasp of history to act and speak as if they knew something.
This time, it is personal! Publicly regulated utility monopolies are one of the necessary evils of our capitalist system. But, as shown in my Bureaucracy Essay, they can be just as bad as a "caring government agency." Today I was run over by QWest, my telephone "service" provider.
Then you will understand why Google returns a whopping
Modern environmentalism has the fundamental characteristics of an animist religion.
More...
Earth is Sacred; Man is Evil
A number of leading environmentalists have, in the past, stated that it would be better if a plague/war/whatever greatly reduced the population of mankind (or eliminated man). Although this is rarely stated outside of environmental councils, the viewpoint is consistent with the actions of the more extreme environmentalists, and again shows an obeisance to the earth as a religious object.
Hierarchy of Worshipped Icons
Within the range of natural objects to be worshipped is a hierarchy. For example, fur bearing animals are worshipped and protected more vigorously than mosquitos. Dolphins are more protected than sharks. An environmental extremist recently murdered a dutch political leader in the name of this worship.
Ritual Activities
Ritual activities are thought to bring benefits. For example, the eating of "organic" foods is expected to reduce disease, and is defended with the vigor of a religious fanatic rather than with science.
Perversion of Science
Science is perverted to the aims of the religion. The anti-chlorine movement is no more scientific than is "scientific creationism." It is a grossly exaggerated belief that "non-natural" chemicals are somehow evil compared to "natural" ones.
Tokens of Evil
Some objects are invested with the mantle of evil. For example, much of the environmental movement *believes* that nuclear power is evil, even though rational analysis shows that nuclear power actually could be a major weapon against environmentalism's current biggest demon: global warming. "Chemicals" are *evil*. Large automobiles are *evil* (as are their drivers).
Centralized Immortal Organizations
Many environmental organizations have taken on a life of their own (see Laws of Bureaucracy). They must continually discover and exaggerate environmental fears in order to maintain their power and get funding. Is this any different from some Americal television ministries?
Regressive and Nativist
As is typical with many fundamentalist religions, environmentalism is regressive. Its adherents want a return to a more simplistic lifestyle. They imagine that man would be better of without technology, and in the most extreme, advocate a return to the type of existence which lead to the extinction of most large mammals in the northern hemisphere at the end of the last ice age: hunter-gatherer "in tune with nature."
Environmentalism is NOT Conservationism
Environmentalist goals cannot be clearly stated in terms of benefit to man, but rather are constantly articulated in terms of "protecting the environment" or not "despoiling the earth" and similar terms.
It differs from conservationism in this regard. Conservationism seeks to preserve some natural environment in order to make it available to future generations of man. But the modern environmental movement obstructs all human material progress in the name of honoring its gods.
Environmental Spiritualism
Environmentalism is spiritual. Its worshippers experience spiritual "cleansing" by engaging in its activities. It is emotional, as indicated by the large amount of energy they devote to it and the irrationality of many of their positions. With its attendant lifestyle promises of extended and better life, and its spirituality, community and emotional relief, it replaces religion for its mostly "non religious" followers.
Utopian communism has entered the Software sphere. The Free Software movement seeks to make all software free of cost and open source - which would almost eliminate capital investment in software and force reliance on either the government or volunteers to produce this software. A move is currently underway to force the government to put all of its software under the GPL (see below) license, which is a utopian tactic that will have decidedly non-utopian consequences (which is hardly a surprise - utopianism is a cognitive disorder - see Cognitive Disorder of Progressives for a related disorder.
Introduction to Open Source
First, an introduction. The Open Source Movement is a broad social movement among software developers to produce software where the source code (the human readable - one hopes - form of the software) is available to the users, and can be modified by future users. Source code is the human produced element of software. Today, most proprietary software is provided as "binaries" or "object code" - which is a very cryptic form of the software generated by computers from the source code.
In general, Open Source provides a way for volunteer programmers to produce software that everyone can use - without the cost of marketing or even corporate structure. In some special cases (see below), profit-oriented companies also contribute open source software.
Advantages of Open Source
Open source has many good attributes. Sophisticated users of proprietary software (a small minority) are limited by not having access to the source code. Access provides the ability to diagnose and fix bugs and installation programs, and to understand the software. True Open Source also provides cross-fertilization as those who modify the software are required to contribute their changes back to the community if they distribute the software. There are number of other positive aspects that come from the Open Source community.
Disadvantages of Open Source
Open source as a general principle has only a few disadvantages.
One is that it may force revelation trade secrets that have significant value, thus inhibiting investment in using those trade secrets with such a license.
Open source results in a limited range and poor packaging of software. Open source producers only work on their interests, and the interests of programmers cover only a small part of the software arena. Furthermore, the ecology of open source overemphasizes coding to the detriment of documentation, installability, and understandability.
Open source may compromise security - although this is a matter of dispute: security experts often argue that "security through obscurity" does not add security, and open software proponents argue (often correctly) that having the source open means that security holes are more likely to be found *before* they are exploited, as more people are reading the code. However, the "security through obscurity" argument is flawed. It is really meant to counter the lazy belief that obscurity is sufficient to provide security, and to cause folks to realize that cryptographic algorithms are strongest if they have been exposed to open review. Real-world security usually combines obscurity and other techniques.
Some Good Results from Free Software and Open Source
The Free Software movement (a subset of the Open Source Movement), started by Richard Stallman, has produced some remarkably good results. The Linux operating system is the most well known example. The Apache web server is the most popular web server in the commercial web world. What could be wrong with such results?
GPL, on the other hand, is Often Bad
However, the Free Software movement strongly advocates the GPL license (one form of open source - see below), which is strongly anti-capitalist. They have an additional goal, enforced in the license: software should be free (no cost and no trade secrets or proprietary code).
GPL License
One of the most common forms of Open Source software is that produced with the GNU Public License (GPL). The GNU Public License requires anyone who distributes products based on GPL'ed software to also provide the source code, including any modifications that were made by the distributor. It is a "viral" license in that any code that is GPL'ed will always be GPL'ed, as will any derivative works. In other words, one cannot produce proprietary software under GPL or incorporating any GPL'ed code withouth providing, at no cost, the source code that was created. GPL was the invention of Richard Stallman and is the license under which Linux is released. It is the preferred license of the Free Software movement.
BSD License
Another common form of Open Source software licensing is the BSD (Berkeley) license. A BSD license allows users of the software to either redistribute the source with their modifications, or to keep the source confidential. BSD licensed software is commonly used by for-profit companies such as Microsoft and CISCO.
Note that in both cases, a company can profit from selling hardware that uses the Open Source software, but only in the BSD case can a profit be made directly by improving and then selling the software itself.
It is ironic that the BSD license provides more freedom than the Free Software movement's GNU!
Value of GPL
GPL software has a very useful place in the modern world. It is a form of computer charity to business and individuals, and it also allows a form of collaboration between software creators that leads to genuine creativity. It also provides a training ground for programmers and designers. Of course, the BSD license has these same advantages.
GPL Economy - Charity, Ego, Reputation - but NOT Capitalism
However, the effort to produce GPL software is normally unpaid. Contributors achieve their reward in terms of satisfaction of having contributed (charity), plaudits from users and other contributors (ego), and enhancement of professional reputation (indirect capital gains).
Because GPL strongly limits the rights of those who produce derivative software, it does not allow the power of capitalism to operate in a very useful manner. A company has little reason to invest in software which it is required to release for free to the entire world. Users do not have to pay for it, and competitors can get a running start against the real creator of value. Thus GPL is strongly anti-capitalist in the software world.
GPL Irony - Hardware Makers can Profit, but not Software Makers
GPL does nothing to inhibit hardware manufacturers from taking the donated efforts of the creators and making profits by basing their hardware on the usage of this free software. In fact, one of the largest hardware producers (IBM) does exactly that. IBM advertises its computers, including the largest, as platforms for (GPL'ed) Linux. Thus GPL's goals are anti-capitalist, but the only capitalists injured are those who seek to invest in software as their primary product! This is a truly silly result and is typical of applying utopian ideals to the real world.
Why Companies invest in GPL for their own Capitalistic Benefit
There are companies that invest in GPL'ed software (or software with similar licenses). Sun Microsystem supports the Apache Jakarta project. But Sun has an ulterior, closed-source motive! The Jakarta project provides the reference implementation of an important component which can only be used by Sun's proprietary, closed source Java language! Thus GPL'ed software is being used to support a very closed software environment. This was *not* a goal of GPL, but rather another non-utopian consequence of the real world.
Some companies (most notably Red Hat Software) have a business model that is based on providing services to the GPL world. Thus Red Hat Software contributes to Linux. It makes some money by selling distributions of Red Hat Linux, but anyone can get that software for free, so that profit area is limited. Only those who wish to take advantage of the added value of the documentation, support and a nice box pay for this software. Thus GPL has limited the added value that a software producer can contribute to documentation and packaging.
GPL will Never replace Proprietary Software
In contradiction to its goals, GPL software will never replace a significant portion of proprietary software. The reason is that it relies on either non-monetary rewards to its creators, or special market circumstances (such as the Sun and IBM examples) to pay creators. Thus it relies largely on the charity and vanity of programmers. This model tends to produce some very clever software, but often not very good software packages. Programmers win plaudits for clever software. They don't win plaudits for documentation. Programmers prefer to solve technical problems, rather than the more mundane issues of installation packages or business software. Programmers love to *use* open source because it is free, and programmers can figure out how to install it. Other users would prefer to pay a bit for ease of installation and better documentation.
GPL's assumption that it can replace proprietary software contains an implicit assumption that there is a limit to how many different software programs are required. It is essentially a static assumption - it denies changes in the needs for software.
It also ignores such important but mundane sofware applications, such as credit card processing, insurance processing, inventorying, embedded software (a car computer, a microwave oven controller), process control software, etc. In other words, it tends to focus on either flashy software (e.g. graphics) or infrastructural software (operating systems, web servers, etc). The reason is that this software tends to be the sort that leads to plaudits to the creators, or it supports other profit making entities that will pay for non-proprietary software (see the Sun example again).
The Danger in GPL - Government Funded or Usage of Software
The danger in GPL is the movement to force its adoption by governments. This takes two forms, both cheered by GPL advocates and many open source advocates.
By far the most dangerous movement, currently being highlighted by Microsoft, seeks to force government funded software to be released with the GPL license. This actually *restricts* the use of software compared to the current approach of public domain licensing. It means that government funded software (often the result of academic research - such as the BSD Unix operating system) can never be used in proprietary software.
If this had been the practice over the last 20 years, most of the internet software now in use would need to have been *redeveloped* by private industry, rather than adopted and improved by that industry. This is a clear case where industry (the enemy, after all, of utopian communists) would have to pay for this software, while everyone else would get it for free! It would also likely have inhibited the development of many clever products, including the Routers that form the backbone of the internet (Many Cisco routers use BSD, NOT GPL licensed software).
The other form is the effort to force governments to use *only* GPL'ed software. Some governments have already gone along with this - after all, GPL'ed software is much lower cost. Of course, in the real world governments need to use some software that simply is not available in the GPL world - such as mapping software that is only sold in proprietary form in order to protect valuable proprietary map databases. So these governments are either crippled in some ways, or (as actually happens) they have to keep making exceptions.
Furthermore, the long term effect of this approach is to reduce the capital flow from government into software development, which means that software features of primary value to government will simply not be developed.
Because ultimately governments should be responsible to their constituents, they should make the decisions on what kind of software they wish to buy based on their needs. In many cases, certain kinds of GPL'd or BSD'd or public domain software will in fact be the right case. Also, having governments pay Microsoft's monopoly rents for every desktop is not necessarily in their best interest. But like any utopian movement, the Free Software movement seeks to impose global restrictions.
And Finally, This is Endlessly Debated
This is endlessly debated on my favorite Nerd Website
The left today displays considerable antipathy towards Israel. European leftists routinely condemn Israel's attempts to defend itself - and are even starting to embargo trade with Israel. At the same time, Arab and Islamicist atrocities and blatant anti-semitism and neo-nazism are ignored or excused.
Many observers have concluded that the left's hatred of Israel is a result of a hidden (or not-so-hidden) anti-semitism.
Those observers are wrong - The Left is Not Anti-Semitic!
Israel is hated by the modern left because it is a successful society with traditional Western values.
More...
The left has not always disliked Israel. Zionism was a socialist movement, and the first country to recognize the nascent State of Israel was the USSR. The kibbutzes were a socialist way of living and raising children (and were, it turns out, disastrous and now mostly abandoned), and represented the hopes of the left (start with a blank slate, etc.... and "It takes a village to raise a child"). Israel was a state with utopian dreams. Israel was a shining hope for the old left!
But today, Israel is detested by the left. Changes in Israel and the evolution of leftist (or "progressive") ideology and emotions are to blame.
Prosperity
Israel is relatively prosperous, with a functioning capitalist and meritocratic economy (heavily burdened by defense costs and a socialist trend in its government). Israel is a religious state. Israel defends itself when required, sometimes flaunting "international" (really, European and leftist) rules and sensibilities in the process. Israel is competent - its military has been remarkably successful given the small size of the country. Israelis, for the most part, recognize the existence of evil in the world.
All of this is anathema to the left. Today's left is far more influenced by utopian Marxism than the old left.
Oppressor, not the Underdog
There is a romantic Marxist viewpoint deep in the heart of most leftists. Israel was the underdog in 1947. Israel was good.
Today's left is frightened of success - and especially frightened of relative success. Marxism leads to deeply held beliefs in the equality of results, and Israel violates that equality by being far more successful than neighboring Arab states. Thus Israel is bad.
Israel's repeated millitary successes signal that Israel is the "oppressor." After all, Israel comes out on top, and to the utopian Marxist, winners, either economically or militarily, must be oppressors. This thread of modern leftism was greatly strengthed by the radic chic of the '60s and '70s, with the worship of "daring, romantic" guerilla leaders (e.g. Che Guevara). Since Israel is no longer viewed as the underdog, Israel is bad.
Religious
Religion is anathema to the left - at least religion in a successful, westernized society. The left finds it repugnant that a modern state, founded with socialist and egalitarian ideals, is also heavily and officially religious. To the left, religion is a real danger: religion is not value neutral; it affirms the existence of evil as a force in the world; it speaks to morality in personal behavior in ways that often run counter to hedonistic desires; it fundamentally values life; it is judgemental. All of this is in stark contrast to the left, where values are relative, evil is an outmoded concept, libertinism in personal behavior is sancrosanct, life is a matter of utilitarian definition (so abortion doesn't kill, and euthanasia is a positive good).
While the left is happy to engage in judgementalism, it greatly fears being judged. Religious Muslim nations are the "underdogs" or are not successful, so they are not attacked by the left in spite of their dangerous radicalism. Since Israel is religious, westernized and succesful, Israel is bad.
Use of Violence in Self Defense
Self defense is anathema to the left - from personal self defense with firearms to national self defense by the military. The left fiercly clings to the belief that procedural remedies can solve any problem, and violence is never necessary (except in Kosovo, but that was against an enemy of the left, so that was okay). The Europeans especially want "international" quasi-governmental organizations, treaties, resolutions and protocols to be honored and used to deal with every dispute.
The left's worship of proceduralism is a result of a Leninist ideology of central planning (controlled by the elite intellectuals, of course, who are left wing); it is a fear of individual instead collective action; and in Europe it is a way to ignore Europe's military helplessness. The repeated examples of the failure of these policies (Kosovo, anyone?) is ignored. Israel defends itself, and will do so in spite of protocols and resolutions to the contrary. Thus Israel is bad.
The Recognition of Evil
The left rejects the concept of evil. After all, the left still hasn't noticed that its fundamental belief in the "blank slate" model of human develpment has been scientifically destroyed (which is not surprising - careful readers of human history long predicted that result). The modern left believes in the therapy state and the therapy world. All behavioral problems can be solved by proper indoctrination of the young or treatment of the older. Therapy can also be applied to nations - through various sacramental procedures and noble words.
Nobody is evil, except Conservatives (in the American sense of the word - liberals in the European sense) and "oppressors".
However, most Israelis know the face of evil and condemn it. They have seen their friends or their relatives murdered or cruelly injured by fragmentation bombs coated in anticoagulant chemicals. The older ones remember the Holocaust. They know, in their hearts, that evil is rampant in the world. To the left, therefore, Israel is bad.
But the Left is Not Anti-Semitic
None of these reasons are anti-semitic. The same views are held by the left towards the United States and towards conservatives. To the left, the US is bad.
It is a mistake for Jewish commentators to attribute the attitude of the left towards Israel to anti-semitism. These charges of anti-semitism tend to weaken the use of the term, and allow all too frequent anti-semites more excuses. After all, the left knows it isn't antisemitic, and being labeled as such reduces left wingers' ability to see or understand true anti-semitism.
It is aways better to truly understand one's enemy.
The Left hates Israel because of Israel's values.
A Side Note
Due to massive Islamic immigration into Europe, there may be a small amount of antisemitism, or political posturing towards and appeasment of the large number of anti-semites in social groups - but to focus on this is to ignore truly important issues.
