Author: VD

Char gets pensive:

Interesting — the construct “free will” here and in the Tolstoy story above, the opposite or lack of free will. The contrast makes some food for thought. I enjoy your web site and thanks for allowing visitors.

I don’t see that Tolstoy is NECESSARILY anti-free will in the quotidian details of life – shall I have yogurt or cereal for breakfast – so much as he is intent on puncturing the illusion of free will with regards to the individuals who stand at the cusp of great events. True, if one had to pin him down to one camp or the other, I suspect he would likely side with the omniderigents, but that’s largely irrelevant with regards to the matter with which he is concerned. Tolstoy is clearly wrestling with the What, not the How much less the Why.

J did well, although it shouldn’t have been very difficult to ascertain where I am going tomorrow as both Tolstoy and Elliott Waves were both mentioned recently on the sidebar of the blog.

There is appearently some connection between EWT which holds that markets are not moved by individual events but mass psychology, and Tolstoy who believed that history/sociology is not moved by individual actions but by the sum of countless forces acting upon mass society.

There is indeed such a connection, although I’ll leave the matter for tomorrow’s discussion. But I was quite surprised by Gary’s comment, as he picked up on an insight that I, too, had reached.

“War and Peace”, for example, is not a novel. It’s an arguement presented in the guise of a novel. It was the only way Tolstoy could present characters thoughts prior to actions and show how they often contradict, thus how no one is in ultimate control of himself but move through “unconscience action”.

The depths of truth can be illustrated at times by the most unlikely sources. Consider the case of the recently divorced and currently affianced Miss Spears. Here is a young woman more attractive than the norm – not significantly so, but that is part of her appeal to the masses – who has amassed a remarkable amount of fame and fortune in her short time on the planet. Even what would, to the casual observer such as myself, appear to be a complete lack of talent beyond the choreographed rump-shaking that your average pole dancer could approximate with ease, has not prevented her from becoming a top-tier star.

A few weeks ago, Matt Drudge brought our attention to the sad story of Miss Spears’ first husband, a childhood friend, who, despite being handicapped by an apparent intelligence barely on the north side of a rock, appears to be a genuinely decent human being. According to his telling – and we have no reason to disbelieve him – it was not his wife who wished to end the marriage but her parents, advisors, employees and assorted hangers-on, all of whom are financially dependent upon the Britney Spears industry. Obviously, they felt that at 22, the industry would be more profitable were it not distracted by the blessed state of matrimony.

There is a saying: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. The Spears’ profiteers succeeded in breaking up the marriage, as the humble Mr. Alexander was not about to stand in the way of his old friend’s business. But Miss Spears has that sort of youthfully lush figure which not only indicates today a woman who will likely endure a long battle against caloric intake, but in days of yore was seen as a woman ready to breed.

As Miss Spears was no sooner wrested from the large, but harmless clutches of her ex-husband than she managed to fall “in love” with a useless male specimen of the sort known as a “dancer”, it would seem that the industry was indeed more interested in her natural instinct to find a mate and propagate the species than maximizing her future profit potential. The biological imperative trumps the financial mandate, it seems. One imagines that Britney Spears Incorporated is not only ruefully wishing that it had been wise enough to leave the industry to its own devices in matters romantic, but is collectively wincing as it calculates what it will eventually cost to remove this parasitical gigolo. If the parasite is as ruthlessly self-seeking as it appears to be – it takes a stone cold squid to abandon not one, but two children, and their mother – it will require some expensive financial surgery indeed.

I found it amusing that on the very same day that Britney Spears Inc. was threatening to sue the New York Post for claiming that she had been drinking whiskey in a picture it published a few weeks ago, (for the same reason that CourtneyLove is not often used to endorse teen products), the U.K. Sun published several photos of her publicly groping the aforementioned useless specimen in an R-rated manner. One wonders if B.S.I. will soon release a press release explaining that Miss Spears was only attempting to determine what brand of underwear her fiance was wearing, and that in her innocence of male intimates, she did not realize that the tag generally goes in the back.

Let me assure the gentle reader, there is indeed a point to this vaguely salacious pop cultural gossip. For if a young woman cannot be controlled by her parents and those closest to her, even when her financial best interest manifestly depends on her accession to such control, no human can be reliably controlled by anyone, much less the decrees of a distant government. Humans cannot be controlled! Not in their best interest, not in their long-term interests, and certainly not in the interests of their self-anointed masters. Not for long, anyhow.

This is the great tragedy of the Platonists. Regardless of what current ideological excuse is currently justifying their mastery, the Platonist will always end up betraying it, as, in frustration, he turns lethal force on those he once thought only to guide and help. For all the empty-eyed, gum-chewing, udder-engorged resemblance that the average teen mall rat bears to domesticated ungulates, she cannot be herded! What God has given to even the least of those created in His image – free will – no mere mortal may hope to take away.

Here’s another one for the precognitive-minded. Next week’s column conflates the work of a Russian novelist and a contrarian form of technical analysis. No one managed to score last week – a few hapless post-column assertions notwithstanding – so I’m curious to see if anyone can do better this week.

Kyle Williams writes on WND:

Yet, for some conservatives, choosing a candidate isn’t limited to George W. Bush and John Kerry. Because President Bush has betrayed conservatives on various social and fiscal issues, the conservative base is divided and hasn’t rallied around Bush like it did four years ago. This leaves some conservatives wondering whether or not they should jump ship for a third-party candidate like Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka or even the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik. Meanwhile, the rest of the conservative/Republican camp is griping that a vote for a third-party candidate will do nothing but help John Kerry.

In reality, they’re right. A vote for a third-party candidate may be a stand for ideals, and it may send a message to the GOP, but it won’t do much good. There aren’t enough conservatives who will vote third party to scare GOP officials, but there are just enough third-party voters that it may help John Kerry. Yes, a vote for Michael Peroutka is a wasted vote. It’s hard to say whether a third-party candidate will ever be viable, but it’s obvious that no third-party nominee has a shot at the presidency in this election cycle.

Therefore, conservatives need to look at the priorities. What’s important? If we truly care about appointing conservative judges, then we can’t have John Kerry in office. If we truly care about the economy, then we can’t have Kerry in office. If we care about the War on Terrorism, then we can’t have Kerry in office. If we truly care about cutting taxes, then we can’t have Kerry in office.

The only viable alternative is President Bush. He’s not a conservative, true. He has betrayed conservative principles and has taken actions that would make a liberal proud, but he’s the man when it comes to the economy, taxes, war on terrorism and, most importantly, the judicial branch.

This column could be cited as a persuasive argument against homeschool, if only the public schools still taught logic. But in an case, let’s follow young Mr. William’s advice to look at the priorities:

1) “If we truly care about appointing conservative judges….” George Bush hasn’t managed to get any conservative judges through a Republican House and Senate. Perhaps if conservatives are satisfied with mere appointments, one could construct a case on this basis for Bush. But, as conservatives are more likely concerned with seating conservative judges, not merely seeing them appointed and rejected, Bush’s first term should suffice to demonstrate that this is not an adequate reason to vote for him. Whether he truly wishes to seat such judges or not is unimportant, the fact of the matter is that he hasn’t and he won’t. Still, the president’s work to retain Arlen Spectre as the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee suggests that he does not truly wish to see conservative judges on the bench.

2) “If we truly care about the economy….” George Bush has engaged in unrestrained Keynesian expansion, using tax cuts and increased government spending in combination with massively easy monetary policy in order to postpone the inevitable post-boom bust. This never works long and only exacerbates the eventual bust, the next (third) wave of which has already begun. It’s no secret that George Bush is an economic illiterate, but so are his economic advisors, who are using outdated economic models repeatedly proven to be disastrous failures.

3) “If we care about the War on Terrorism….” Right, undeclared and extra-Constitutional war on method and a Commander-in-chief who’s afraid to name the enemy or attack his strongholds. No thanks.

4) “If we truly care about cutting taxes….” This is the one viable point. If you’re a one-issue voter, by all means, vote for George Bush on this basis. But it may be wise to keep in mind, he’s not doing it on principle, he’s doing it because he’s desperately trying to increase liquidity and get you spending in order to bring up the C component of GDP… and his concomitant inflationary fiscal policy in collaboration with Greenspan’s inflationary monetary policy has the net result of lowering your discretionary buying power even as more money goes into your pocket. 2 percent more money doesn’t buy 18 percent more gold, or 40 percent more gasoline.

And then, there’s the open admission that George Bush is no conservative. So, why should conservatives support a non-conservative? Right, because he’s the lesser of two evils. I should point out that as a Christian libertarian, I believe in free will, so I fully expect people to decide to support evil on a regular basis, using a wide variety of rationalizations. All I ask is that conservatives remember that this is indeed a choice they are making, that no one is forcing them to knowingly support that which they believe to be wrong.

Bill defends the President:

Vox, the military tribunal thing was and is tricky. The people we’re holding are not prisoners of war (no uniform, no command structure, and they target civilians) so according to the Geneva convention (which they didn’t sign) we could just shoot them after a proper military trial. However, Bush and co. realized that this would be a PR nightmare.

And after the Lynn Stewart incident (the mother of the Patriot Act), we realize we couldn’t give them a regular trial either. So they came up with the military tribunal thing. What other option did Bush have, turn them over to the Syrians for a trial? This is pretty far outside regular jurisprudence. Clintoons infamous Executive Orders were obviously self-serving, it wasn’t like he was simply trying to solve a problem and protect America’s interests.

This defense is illustrative. Bill suggests that the administration had two legal choices. Shoot them or turn them over to someone else. First, handing them over to a third party can’t be equated to releasing them, as implied here. Neither the Northern Alliance nor the Iraqi allies are reported to be squeamish about rough justice for their enemies.

Second, even this defense demonsrates that the president is more concerned about PR than he is about the law. So, his advisors cook up a stupid and legally questionable scheme, then try to defend it as if their motives are not tawdry politics, but a matter of national defense. Of course, if it was that serious, they’d have been executed in accordance with the Geneva Convention already; the real problem is that it’s difficult to take prisoners once no quarter has been declared. And, it threatens to turn into a PR disaster anyhow. You would think that some day, the Republicans will learn that since the press is not on their side anyhow, they might as well do the right thing and get roasted for it instead of doing the wrong and more dangeous thing and getting roasted for that.

Although others may have done so, I have never stated that Bush is worse than Clinton in his repeated attempts to abuse the legal system, only that his actions are opening the door for the next Clinton to be worse. Bill sounds like a typical leftist here, arguing that it is the intentions behind the attempted abuse that are relevant, whereas it is truly only the precedents being set that matter. The ignoble nature of the present administration was clear in its use of Guantanamo Bay, which, like Echelon, is a shining example of how the Federal government always attempts to circumvent the laws designed expressly to hobble the exercise of its power.

Republican defenders of the president will no doubt continue to excuse his every action, however indefensible, under the guise of “we are at war”. This is nothing new, it has been done on behalf of every wartime administration of either party. But I will have little sympathy when those same Republicans shriek in outrage when the next Democratic president abuses these new techniques for circumventing the limits on executive branch power, conveniently forgetting their own role in creating the monster.

INDC: The primitive paranormal beliefs of moonbats are quite interesting; most seem to have the unshakeable belief that they can channel the will of genocidal dictators. Very strange.

Jeff Goldstein: Um, Hitler would’ve made you into a lampshade, you Gypsy treehumper.

INDC: Commissar, where are you going? Commissar? Commissar?

The Commissar: Must ask why she neglects Stalin.

INDC: Alright, then. At least he’ll blend in.

Ah, yeah. Nothing like watching the freaks come out in daylight. I think my favorite was the apocryphal message of the quote from a classic science fiction novel. It’s inspired me to attend to the Democratic convention wearing a white robe and holding up a sign that says: “Grok the fullness”. If that don’t larn ’em, nothing will.

LIMBAUGH 4.8 SHARE [WABC] SMASHES ‘AIR AMERICA’ 1.7 SHARE [WLIB] IN ALL LISTENERS [12+]… ‘AIR AMERICA’ FADES MONTH TO MONTH: 2.2 SHARE APRIL DEBUT, 1.7 SHARE IN MAY, 1.2 SHARE IN JUNE…

I’d take more pleasure in watching this ongoing car crash if I hadn’t known it was inevitable from the start. It must kill Al Franken inside to know that he’s getting his head handed to him by someone he regards as his inferior. The iron law of supply and demand dictates that all liberal media will be brutally raped in the media every time there is a head-to-head competition. We’ve seen it on a large scale with Fox vs. CNN, we’ve seen it on a small scale with WND vs. Salon and now we’re seeing it play out on the airwaves.

As the Sports Guy says, it’s too bad you can’t bet on these things.

From Inside the Beltway:

The White House cracked down on a popular pair of Los Angeles radio hosts who grew irritated with Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchison for not cracking down on illegal aliens who’ve flooded southern California.

“John and Ken,” heard over radio station KFI, initially applauded U.S. Border Patrol sweeps in and around Los Angeles that rounded up more than 400 of the estimated 2 million illegal immigrants who cost California taxpayers billions of dollars. But after Mr. Hutchison recently scaled down the sweep — posting the agents closer to the Mexican border — the radio pair broadcasted and posted his telephone number in Washington, causing the White House phone system to be jammed by thousands of calls. The White House has now contacted the duo and demanded they cease and desist such antics.

Antics… such as facilitating the public’s ability to contact the appointed official directly responsible for a policy of which it does not approve. Yes, this is certainly an administration that believes in government by, of, and for the people, isn’t it.

You would think that the fact that thousands of people disapprove of Mr. Hutchison’s change in policy might be taken into account. But the masters always hate it when they can’t rule over their serfs in peace and quiet.

I should also mention that the Zodiac is a Scott Summit design. To see more of his work, visit www.summitid.com. His other PDA credits include the AlphaSmart Dana and 2000, the Stowaway XT keyboard, and the never-released Palm Pilot Razor design that preceded the Palm V.

I’m not in the market for an ebook reader myself, since I need the Dana’s keyboard, but the Zodiac Tapwave would have to be it, if I were. I find it interesting to know that the same guy who designed the excellent Alphasmart Dana also designed the Tapwave. Like the Dana, it has two SD slots, which would allow you to pack in more than 4,000 Palm-format ebooks without touching the device’s system RAM. Now, if they ported the original Wing Commander to it, or MAME, well, I might have to reconsider… it is a gaming platform, after all.

Nice work, Mr. Summit.