Author: VD

Could Microsoft be behind a smear campaign aimed at Linux? If not Microsoft, then who? Let’s look at the continued attacks against Linux. The media is peppered with them. When one starts to die down, another one crops up. While every single one of these assertions is laughable, the never-ending barrage of anti-Linux propaganda has got to take its toll on potential users. Here are a few of the accusations you might find in articles planted here and there in the media:

Linux is not at all secure and poses a major security risk.

Linux is not cheap. Despite being free, it actually costs more to implement and maintain.

Linux is prone to hackers and viruses, because the code is easily available.

Linus Torvalds didn’t write Linux; it is in fact a compendium of old code that was cobbled together.

Linux is next to impossible to support, because no one company is responsible for it.

As there are no profits to be made from distributing or supporting Linux, it must die from eventual neglect.

Much of Linux is stolen proprietary code, and you could be liable if you use it. Furthermore, SCO will sue you if you use it.

Clearly, Mr. Dvorak is a paranoid wearer of tinfoil hats. I find it interesting that people are so willing to believe in the evil intent of Microsoft – not that I disagree, being a quasi-religious Fedora/Opera/OpenOffice non-user of Microsoft products – but are, on the other hand, always eager to absolve the Federal government of any like prediliction for the Dark Side of the Force.

This strikes me as being more than a bit backward.

A libertarian posts at Michael Badnarik’s blog:

Something Vox doesn’t necessarily point out is that while Mr. Badnarik is *personally* pro-life, he recognizes that there is significant controversy surrounding when “life” begins (at conception? at birth? at some point in between?), so the state can not legislate against abortion, since a fetus is not unarguably a “human life”.

Who doesn’t recognize that “there is significant controversy when ‘life’ begins”. I mean, if it could be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that life began at 3 days, 18 minutes after conception, I wouldn’t have any problem with abortions performed before then. But that’s not the case, and is unlikely to ever be the case.

This libertarian’s sloppy thinking has it exactly backward. The states not only CAN legislate against abortion, they MUST legislate against abortion since a “fetus”, or unborn child, is ARGUABLY a human life. The Libertarian Party’s platform is simply outdated on this issue, reflecting the reasonable but inappropriate application of its anti-government intervention philosophy made around the time of the party’s founding in 1971.

One reason I appreciate Michael Badnarik is that he has reached his pro-life position through the genuine application of libertarian logic. This promises well for his leadership, not of the country, most likely, but of helping the Libertarian Party find its way to the proper libertarian position on abortion as well as leading the party to a position of greater intellectual influence in the nation.

In any case, even with its outdated pro-choice platform, the Libertarian Party is committed to returning the issue to the States, where it belongs, and will end federal funding for the abominable practice, which is more than the supposedly pro-life Republicans have done.

You know George Bush is in serious trouble when lifetime Republican stalwarts are beginning to turn their back on him. Joseph Farah is a genuine independent. Ilana Mercer and I are outspoken libertarians. We didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 or his father before him. But Tom Ambrose, the Commentary Editor at WorldNetDaily, has always been a strong Republican. That makes these words all the more incredible:

Let’s be real: There is no longer any substantial difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The GOP now even actively supports pro-homosexual and pro-abortion politicians. Enough is enough!

Religious conservatives comprise some 30 to 40 percent of the Republican Party. Rather than supporting spineless, highly compromised GOP phonies, why not work for something worthwhile such as the Constitution Party’s political platform?

For me, the bottom line is this: I do not want to stand before God one day and tell Him I enabled evil to continue unchecked because I was afraid to do the right thing and, consequently, caved in to what was expedient. No matter what happens, God is still sovereign, but at least I can say I stood against the evil now engulfing the United States. Will you be able to say that?

Much respect, Tom, much respect. I have a feeling that the Libertarian and Constitution Party’s vote totals are going to surprise everyone this fall. This assumes, of course, that there IS going to be an election.

People often ask me why I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and why I prefer the Libertarian Party, despite the one significant flaw in its platform, over the Constitution Party. The answer is simple. Government is a two-edged sword, and attempting to use it for good purpose always backfires in the end. Only the Libertarian Party has the proper distrust and distaste for the dangerous and often deadly institution.

Conservatives are rightly alarmed about homogamy, or “gay marriage”. But as they are stupidly wont to do, they have again turned to a government solution, which is ironic as it is only government involvement in marriage – often regarding things that conservatives laud as supporting marriage – that has allowed this situation to come about. I don’t actually mind the concept of a Defense of Marriage Amendment, I simply consider it useless; since the courts freely ignore most of the other amendments there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t simply contort the language to ignore this proposed amendment too.

Now, James Dobson is without question a wise man when it comes to children and relationships, but he is a short-sighted and clueless observer of government. For, as he states in support of the rapidly dissolving Amendment:

Dobson says another “phony excuse” is that marriage is a state issue. “Every legislator must surely know, however, that it would create chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in the United States,” Dobson wrote in his letter.

Experienced observers of American politics will recognize this as the same argument that is used to justify every expansion of central state power. It has been used to justify every intrusion on State sovereignty. Indeed, it has been used to force most of the cultural policies that Dobson rightly deplores down American throats.

I like and respect James Dobson. But as a wiser man than Dobson once said: “those who live by the sword will die by the sword. If conservatives wish to preserve marriage, they will have to take a libertarian approach and remove government entirely from the sanctioning, licensing and recognizing of the institution.

A Denver police officer likely mistook a soda can for a weapon before shooting and killing a 63-year-old man in his bed, Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Monday…. The shooting comes weeks after the city and police announced reforms to the department’s use-of-force policy in the wake of controversy surrounding police shootings.

I’m sure they’ll announce some more reforms soon. Here’s a suggestion: how about not shooting anyone in freaking bed!

I trust the general public with guns a lot more than I trust the police with guns. An armed citizenry is more effective against crime and furthermore, there has never, in the history of firearms, been a police state without an armed police.

I spoke with the Elliott Wave people about how I could add some more economic content to this blog, and they were kind enough to allow me access to their affiliate content. As those of you who actually read the economic columns know, I think Elliott Waves are a potentially useful method of understanding the patterns of the markets, and perhaps even history as well.

Just to make things clear, I have no relationship with Elliott Wave International, I do not have any financial interest in the products they are selling nor am I interested in accepting blog ads at this point in time. However, I think you’ll find that they do have an intriguing take on the financial and currency markets at what is proving to be an all-too-interesting moment in history.

Read if it interests you. Ignore it if you don’t. And, as always, caveat emptor.

Dreadpiratesnuggles shows off his math:

That’s 290 years… Ok, my bad, closer to 300 years vs. 800… So I was off by a measly 500 years! Relatively speaking, what’s the difference?

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that there’s an executive at CNBC barking at his secretary: “Get this guy on the phone! We need to give him a show now!”

Puzzled wonders:

It must be that you don’t understand our electoral system. Unless Petrouka gets -more- electoral votes than either Kerry or Bush, he will not be elected. Drawing votes away from Bush only add’s to Kerry’s margin.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think that Kerry would be a better pro-life vote, when powerful figures in his party are calling pro-lifers terrorists, and Christians a greater threat than Al-Qaeda.

Who said Kerry would be a better pro-life vote? It’s quite clear that Bush=Kerry when it comes to abortion. Neither of them will end it, neither of them will return the issue to the states, neither of them will restrict it. Even if one takes the unprincipled pragmatic approach, it makes absolutely no difference if you vote for Bush or Kerry with regards to this particular issue. Bush has a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican-nominated Supreme Court… if he has not acted, then he will not act.

Oh, sure, Bush affects to feel bad about abortion… wait a minute, so does Kerry. Okay, Kerry will allow money to go directly to fund foreign abortions, while Bush will require it to go through the United Nations first. There IS a difference!

Even a pro-abortion Libertarian would be a better pro-life vote than George Bush, as he would be willing to return the issue to the States, where it belongs.

Bill responds:

1) We’ve stopped one of the major terrorist sponsoring states in the region, and rounded up several leaders of terrorist organizations.

2) We’ve killed thousands of militant islamo-wackos, a small start, but a start. If we’d pulled out as soon as the Iraqi government had toppled Iraq would definitely be another Ashcanistan.

3) We now have a major military base in the mid-east that ain’t in Saudi.

4) We’ve removed the principal sponsor of Palestinian terrorists. Saddam was a powerful symbol for them, and provided money and training as well.

5) Just the reforms that have happened to date are putting serious pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If things continue to improve the pressure on them builds.

1) No, we haven’t. Iraq was number five, at most, behind Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Egypt. Iraq wasn’t funding anyone except the Palestinian Authority. Of course, so was he United States.

2) Afghanistan turned into Afghanistan after a decade of Soviet occupation. What makes you think Iraq won’t regardless of how long we stay there? It is estimated that 10 percent of the global Muslim population is sympathetic to the jihad. Since the Soviet butchery in Afghanistan and Chechnya hasn’t exactly proved dissuasive to this point, I don’t think a few thousand more can be considered as amounting to much.

3) As you note, we already had plenty of bases in the Middle East. Why did we need to leave our bases in Saudi Arabia? Why will the new Iraqi government, or the next Iraqi government, prove to be any more cooperative regarding our bases there? How are the new bases indicative of more protection than the old ones?

4) Total nonsense. We are personally guaranteeing the safety of the most powerful symbol of the Palestinian terrorists. We are also helping pay his salary.

5) This has nothing to do with America being safer now than five years ago.

I note that none of these addresses my point that none of our actions in Iraq has made America one iota safer from terrorist attack than before. Simply refusing to provide visas to terrorist-sponsoring countries would have accomplished more. This is neither a defensive war against the global jihad nor preparation for it, instead, the administration has weakened the national resolve for any such future conflict.

But then, I don’t expect anything but incompetence and unintended consequences from the Federal government anyhow, so I’m not exactly surprised. Tolstoy addresses this rather nicely in his section on administrators. More on that later.

That noted liberal Democrat, Paul Craig Roberts of the Creators Syndicate, is apparently less than impressed by the Senate’s ability to report on the administration’s misdeeds:

The only open question is whether President Bush was an active participant in the disinformation or was deceived like the American public. If he knowingly participated in the deception, he must be impeached. If he was deceived by his own appointees, why hasn’t he fired them? Bush’s reelection would signify that the American people lack the competence or character for self-rule.

The report from the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence proves once again that government lacks the moral integrity to conduct an investigation. The senators did not bring responsibility to any individuals for a gratuitous invasion that has generated hatred of, and insecurity for, Americans for decades to come. Instead, the senators’ report held accountable that which cannot be held accountable: “the process.”

We were told that 9/11 was due to the failures of flawed procedures. So, too, was the incorrect intelligence on Iraq, according to the Senate Select Committee. In neither case are any individuals to be held responsible. Nothing, it seems, bears any significance except for the increasingly fictional economic statistics and the bureaucratic machinery. Ideologies aside, Washington appears to be evolving into something more weirdly Soviet by the week.

As to those who are still convinced that the Iraqi occupation is making Americans safer, I have a simple question: how? If I had millions of dollars in Saudi money, a cadre of fanatical followers and connections into Russia via Chechnya and China via Ningxia Hu, the fate of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime, for good or for ill, would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on my ability to send a few young men to flight school or to plant a black market explosive device in a shipping container bound for Boston Harbor.

Think, people. Think.