Vox Popoli

I finally got around to adding a specific Northern Alliance section… including the man who stole what should have been MY space in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Mr. Craig Westover. (I wrote a game review column there for five years and I’ve since been turned down for editorial space there by not one, but two editors in succession.)

Craig’s stuff is very good, though, and he’s probably a much better choice for the op/ed page at a mainstream newspaper since he’s got the patience to pay attention to the process details with which I can’t be bothered. That and he’s significantly less likely to inspire left-leaning pitchfork-wielding mobs of DFLers to storm Cedar Avenue looking for him.

I do find it mildly amusing that the Pioneer Press keeps importing people from out of state – inferiority complex, what inferiority complex? – but all the same it’s good to see that there’s at least one right-thinking individual spilling ink on the paper’s sacred editorial ground.

Check out his new blog and you’ll see what I mean.

More back-and-forth with JC of the Evangelical Outpost:

By claiming that drug users can “adequately function” Vox is setting the standard rather low. If that is all that libertarianism has to offer it should be no surprise that most people reject it. I also think that he (and many others) are falling for a false dichotomy between libertarianism and statist interventionism. My only contention is that it is precisely because libertarianism doesn’t care if a person is virtuous or not that it is ultimately doomed to fail. According to Christian belief, man is inherently corrupt and will not naturally choose to do good. Society either has to find a way to help develop character (my preference) or it will eventually require a form of government where the state steps in to correct the mess that people make of their lives. Libertarianism prefers not to have either which is why it is untenable. (The comments section on Vox’s post are also worth reading.)

Actually, the reference to functional drug users was not a broad-based defense of libertarianism, only a demonstration of how a part of Joe’s argument rested on a false assumption. It would be very strange to attempt to reduce the full measure of human freedom and liberty to socially functioning drug users. I also disagree that there is a false dichotomy between libertarianism and statism, as I seem them as polar opposites showing the true breadth of the political spectrum.

Neither libertarianism nor God “cares” (to use Joe’s word) if a person is virtuous or not. The authoritarian nature of conservativism shows the skull under the smile here, as with socialism, it is willing to use raw force to impel what conservatives consider to be virtuous behavior. But “to care” is obviously equal with the concept “to force” in both conservative and socialist parlance. And yet God does not behave in this manner, indeed, He refrains from using His almighty power in allowing individuals to behave how they desire and to suffer the natural consequences of their behavior.

Exactly like a libertarian.

I’ve never thought that Bush was stupid. Nor am I surprised to hear that he is almost surely more intelligent than John Kerry, who strikes me as a very average mind. According to a guy who has put far more effort into this than would ever occur to me, Bush probably has about a ten-point advantage on Johnny Clueless, 125 to 115. Average, remember, is defined as 100.

Now, these are not exactly the most formidable intellects around, but then, intellectuals don’t have the best track record when it comes to governance either. The problem is that no matter how brilliant you are, complexity will defeat you every single time. It’s humbling and frustrating. There are simply too many variables for which to account, which is why some of the brightest people are often able to reach incredibly stupid conclusions as they count out the wrong variables in a futile attempt to simplify that which cannot be simplified.

I don’t think that chant is going to survive the 2004 season, at least not at Yankee Stadium. I’m not a Red Sox fan – actually, I’m not a baseball fan – but it’s sure nice to see the Yankees go down in flames, as a $180 million payroll managed a choke of historic proportions. Congrats to the Big Man of Multiman too; here’s hoping that he collects the Cy Young that’s been eluding him so long.

It sure looks like a good sports weekend. Arsenal vs. United on Saturday followed by the Vikings asphalting the Titans on Sunday. What was that I said about Tennessee’s window of opportunity, Nate? Closed….

I’m quite pleased to announce that barring a shoddy execution of the idea, my concept for an article in the upcoming Smart Pop book on Douglas Adams has been accepted and will be appearing in it. Now, of course, I still have to actually write the thing, but that shouldn’t be too bad since I’ll probably be pressed right up against the word limit simply illustrating the point, so rife with examples are the texts.

Even better, I’m not the only one associated with this blog who will be contributing to the book… and no, Nate is not writing an article explaining that the Vogons are nothing but a metaphor for damn Yankees who ruin everything and started the war besides. At least not that I know of.

The Evangelical Outpost skips over a few things in casting a critical eye on libertarianism:

Take, for example, the “victimless crimes” of prostitution, vagrancy, or public drunkenness. Theoretically, libertarians should support the “decriminalization” of all these acts since they do not necessarily harm other people or their property. But how long could a community last if such liberty is granted free reign?

Indefinitely. Prostitution, vagrancy and public drunkenness have existed in every society in human history. In some they have been illegal, in many they have not. The idea that the United States will become less socially functional if victimless crimes are no longer criminal acts is massively contradicted by the history of Prohibition and The War on Drugs.

This is the heart of Wilson’s “Broken Window theory” of crime: At the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.

In a similar fashion, the breakdown of community standards does not break down all at once. Rather each “broken window” of virtuous behavior (recreational use of drugs, for example) leads to more “window-breaking” until the community lacks the “virtue” necessary to govern itself and requires a higher level (the state) to step in.

Libertarians, of course, are primarily from the middle to upper classes of society. They are not affected by such behavior precisely because the police maintain a level of order and discipline within their communities. If, however, they had to live with such activity on a day-to-day basis, they would likely revise what was considered “arbitrary” and what is considered “spontaneous.”

EO’s argument here is manifestly absurd, as illegal drug usage is arguably as high in the more civilized suburbs as it is in the inner city. The idea that most drug users function quite adequately in society is difficult for some to accept, but it is true nonetheless as a majority of adult Americans have more than a little experience with such illicit activities. Clearly, it is not the law that is maintaining the social order. Such illegal activity may not be virtuous, but it is clearly not socially destructive either; indeed, it is far less socially destructive than the attempts to stamp it out.

There is no moral difference between the high class escort and the street strawberry or between the crackhead and the Wall Street coke sniffer, but the effects on society at large are perceived entirely differently. EO will have to look elsewhere to identify the cause for this dichotomy, as moral virtue never stems from the state.

From the Neal Stephenson interview on Slashdot:

4) In a fight between you and William Gibson, who would win?

You don’t have to settle for mere idle speculation. Let me tell you how it came out on the three occasions when we did fight.

The first time was a year or two after SNOW CRASH came out. I was doing a reading/signing at White Dwarf Books in Vancouver. Gibson stopped by to say hello and extended his hand as if to shake. But I remembered something Bruce Sterling had told me. For, at the time, Sterling and I had formed a pact to fight Gibson. Gibson had been regrown in a vat from scraps of DNA after Sterling had crashed an LNG tanker into Gibson’s Stealth pleasure barge in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. During the regeneration process, telescoping Carbonite stilettos had been incorporated into Gibson’s arms. Remembering this in the nick of time, I grabbed the signing table and flipped it up between us. Of course the Carbonite stilettos pierced it as if it were cork board, but this spoiled his aim long enough for me to whip my wakizashi out from between my shoulder blades and swing at his head. He deflected the blow with a force blast that sprained my wrist. The falling table knocked over a space heater and set fire to the store. Everyone else fled. Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. Slowly I gained the upper hand, for, on defense, his Praying Mantis style was no match for my Flying Cloud technique. But I lost him behind a cloud of smoke. Then I had to get out of the place. The streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle.

The second time was a few years later when Gibson came through Seattle on his IDORU tour. Between doing some drive-by signings at local bookstores, he came and devastated my quarter of the city. I had been in a trance for seven days and seven nights and was unaware of these goings-on, but he came to me in a vision and taunted me, and left a message on my cellphone. That evening he was doing a reading at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus. Swathed in black, I climbed to the top of the hall, mesmerized his snipers, sliced a hole in the roof using a plasma cutter, let myself into the catwalks above the stage, and then leapt down upon him from forty feet above. But I had forgotten that he had once studied in the same monastery as I, and knew all of my techniques. He rolled away at the last moment. I struck only the lectern, smashing it to kindling. Snatching up one jagged shard of oak I adopted the Mountain Tiger position just as you would expect. He pulled off his wireless mike and began to whirl it around his head. From there, the fight proceeded along predictable lines. As a stalemate developed we began to resort more and more to the use of pure energy, modulated by Red Lotus incantations of the third Sung group, which eventually to the collapse of the building’s roof and the loss of eight hundred lives. But as they were only peasants, we did not care.

Our third fight occurred at the Peace Arch on the U.S./Canadian border between Seattle and Vancouver. Gibson wished to retire from that sort of lifestyle that required ceaseless training in the martial arts and sleeping outdoors under the rain. He only wished to sit in his garden brushing out novels on rice paper. But honor dictated that he must fight me for a third time first. Of course the Peace Arch did not remain standing for long. Before long my sword arm hung useless at my side. One of my psi blasts kicked up a large divot of earth and rubble, uncovering a silver metallic object, hitherto buried, that seemed to have been crafted by an industrial designer. It was a nitro-veridian device that had been buried there by Sterling. We were able to fly clear before it detonated. The blast caused a seismic rupture that split off a sizable part of Canada and created what we now know as Vancouver Island. This was the last fight between me and Gibson. For both of us, by studying certain ancient prophecies, had independently arrived at the same conclusion, namely that Sterling’s professed interest in industrial design was a mere cover for work in superweapons. Gibson and I formed a pact to fight Sterling. So far we have made little headway in seeking out his lair of brushed steel and white LEDs, because I had a dentist appointment and Gibson had to attend a writers’ conference, but keep an eye on Slashdot for any further developments.

And this is why they don’t interview science fiction writers on television….

Bill O’Reilly’s attorney in the talk show host’s sexual harassment lawsuit says he wants O’Reilly’s accuser to “put up or shut up.”

Ronald Green says O’Reilly’s accuser, Fox News Channel producer Andrea Mackris, should reveal whatever proof she has, including any recordings, of alleged sexually charged conversations between herself and O’Reilly.

“Let me say first that we don’t know if there have been recordings. We’re the ones who have gone to court to tell Andrea Mackris and her lawyers to put up or shut up, not leak selected segments of conversations which may or may not have taken place,” Green said on ABC News’ “Good Morning America.”

They don’t know if there have been recordings or not????? That’s an interesting position. I can state for a fact that there are no recordings of me speaking in a sexually suggestive manner to Andrea Mackris. Why can’t Bill O’Reilly or his lawyer do the same?

UPDATE

Bill O’Reilly accuser turned down $2 million to make her sexual harassment complaint disappear, sources told the Daily News. Lawyers for Fox News had proposed the $2 million settlement to Andrea Mackris and her lawyer Benedict Morelli, sources at Fox told The News. The negotiations took place days before Mackris filed her suit. But Mackris and Morelli thumbed their noses at the money, the sources said, and suggested that $60 million was a more appropriate starting point. “When Benedict Morelli demanded $60 million, that was the end of any discussion, period and absolutely,” said a Fox spokesman…. O’Reilly’s lawyer Ronald Green said there was never a firm $2 million offer.

Oh, that’s why.

Noted Tax Historian’s Book Declares U.S. Income Tax as Direct Tax is in Violation of Long-established U.S. Supreme Court Mandates

TALLAHASEEE, FL — John Garrison, prominent tax law historian and legal specialist at Florida’s Office of the Attorney General, today announced that the income tax is being erroneously enforced on employees as a direct tax rather than as the excise mandated by the Sixteenth Constitutional Amendment. The current enforcement as a direct tax is costing working Americans thousands of improperly collected tax dollars over the course of their lifetime. Garrison is currently writing about his findings in his book “The New Income Tax Scandal” which he is co-authoring with Brian Stabley, J.D., an Assistant Attorney General at Florida’s Office of the Attorney General.

“‘The New Income Tax Scandal’ is about the corruption that lies at the heart of the tax system,” said Garrison. “As a result of my legal case against the IRS in 2000, the IRS now privately concedes that, in 1915, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific that an income tax is an excise tax, and that it is to be enforced as such. An excise is not a direct tax on property, but an indirect tax.”

“The critical difference is that a collection of income tax as an excise allows for the deduction of all living expenses since they are seen as necessary for the maintenance and conservation of one’s income producing property, one’s labor. With a direct tax, this is not possible. Given this, it appears that up to my legal case, the IRS had been operating as if it had no awareness of the Sixteenth Amendment’s intent.”

“Clearly,” concludes Garrison, “this revelation has enormous political and economic implications for every American employee and it is my hope that my book will compel policy makers to right this obvious injury to American workers.”

I imagine that would help explain this.

“This is illogical,” says Chuckles.

Let’s examine that claim.

1. George Bush should be credited for there being no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. (Even though there probably has been at least one successful and one unsuccessful one that the President did not stop.)

2. However, if there is a successful attack in the United States, George Bush should not be held responsible because he couldn’t have prevented it.

That’s obviously illogical. Either he can prevent them or he can’t. Which is it?

Also, numerous terrorist attacks that are not insurgency-related have taken place around the world since the two invasions. Spain, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt just to name four. Therefore, the absence of attacks in the USA cannot be wholly laid to the conquest and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.