Archive for February, 2003

Family of electrocuted thief gets $75,000

8 years ago

Check this out: Family of electrocuted thief gets $75,000
I have no pity for the crook, but might there be an argument that the booby trap posed a danger to police, firefighters, etc? I think not — the clearly posted signs warned them, and if that means that they have to let the place burn down, its the bar managers responsibility. If the signs weren’t posted, then I think there is an argument for reasonable expectation of being able to enter a building to prevent crime/fires in a city.

Random clips from the news…

8 years ago

in General

Story 1: If antiwar protesters succeed

Story 2:

In Brooklyn, N.Y., Ron Dixon and his family were jolted awake by a noise early one morning.

There was a stranger in the house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son’s room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, and said to the man, “What are you doing in my house?”

Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him, and so he shot him twice.

The intruder survived. He’s a career criminal who’s been arrested 19 times. He’s now being held in New York’s Rikers Island jail.

Dixon has also been arrested and charged with “criminal possession of a weapon.” He’s threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.

Prosecutors want to put him in Riker’s Island – the same jail where the burglar was sent. Head prosecutor Charles Hynes wouldn’t talk to 20/20 but said of Dixon’s case, “You get caught with a [unlicensed] gun in Brooklyn, you’re going to do jail time.”

Dixon will fight that in court March 11.

At the same time that New York Gov. George Pataki, to save money, plans to let criminals out of jail, prosecutors are trying to put Ron Dixon in? When the career criminal, who was in Dixon’s house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time. But Dixon has to go to jail?

Book review of “Atlas Shrugged”

8 years ago

in General

Check out the (very brief) book review of Atlas Shrugged I wrote for my OAC class:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Thus, the hero of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged chooses sides in an epic struggle for man’s soul – not in heaven, but on earth. The central plot of Atlas Shrugged is a mystery story: as Dagny Taggard, a successful railroad executive, watches the entrepreneurs and inventors of her society disappear one by one, she seeks to discover the source of the scourge that is destroying her world. She witnesses the consequences of the ethics of altruism and collectivism as her society descends into socialism, productive men are turned into slaves, and mooching beggars into her masters.

Throughout the novel, Ayn Rand presents clear examples of her philosophy in action through strong heroes and treacherous villains who demonstrate the importance of philosophy and the consequences of moral and immoral lives. Her characters ask and answer numerous important questions such as “Is reality independent of our minds or is it shaped by them? What is the result of basing our actions on emotions and what happens when we base them on reason? Why are so many successful individuals hated for their success? Should love be free or must it be earned? What is the proper role of government?” However, the most influential question Atlas Shrugged answered for me was “what kind of life must a man lead to achieve a state of guiltless happiness?”

The influence of Atlas Shrugged on my life has been so profound that I am still learning new applications of the philosophy Ayn Rand presented every day. This book is for everyone who has ever questioned the ethics of altruism and asked “what is the purpose of my life?”

Check out the shirts I

8 years ago

in General

Check out the shirts I designed for the Objectivist Club.
Sample:

I got criticized by several people for being “insensitive,” “offensive” and “negative” with my design. I replied “Please explain what you find offensive about the phrase “irrationality will not be tolerated” and what kind of people you think will be offended by that.”

Comments?

Who’s funding the peaceniks?

8 years ago

in General

Ever notice how the media never mentions what groups are behind the protests? They make it seem like the protesters spontaneously come together in a collective orgy of anti-war sentiment, but as this WSJ editorial points out(subscription required, see one of the peacnik sites for their own list of backers), the case is far from it. Many leftist, environmentalist and plain Marxist groups are actually fueling this “popular movement.” Here are some of the financiers (Saddam must have chosen to remain anonymous):

Anti-Capitalist Convergence
Americans for Social Justice
Black Radical Congress
Code Pink for Peace
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Disarm
Ecological Options Network (EON
Green Party of the United States
US Peace Council
Greenpeace
House of The Goddess Center for Pagan Wombyn [sic - lol!]
International Socialist Organization
War Resisters League [gee, sound familiar?]
Socialist Party USA
Palestine Right to Return Coalition
Pride At Work, AFL-CIO
Nukewatch

and so on…see any trend here?

more stupid tricks by the peaceniks

8 years ago

in General

…and force us to march in the streets to support Saddam’s regime!

PEACE! …let the doves fly!

and finally,

what the protesters are REALLY about.

the peaceniks are at it again…

8 years ago

in General

Check out this photo of this weekend’s protest in Houston, from the Houston Chronicle. See the token black guy in the center? (Why else do you think the paper choose a photo of him?) That’s none other than Rob, longtime associate of Laurel and I and perhaps the most clueless philosophy major I know. Rob, I know you’re a regular reader of my blog, so let me tell you now that of all the stupid slogans you could have possibly chosen, you picked the absolute worst one. “No Blood for Oil” would have been preferable to your “The World Says NO.” The world’s opinion (as if a whole species could have one) has no bearing whatsoever on whether than opinion is right or not – something I’ve been trying to hammer into your brain for the last few years. Seriously, there are legitimate and critical questions to ask before a nation goes to war, and while I believe taking out Saddam is necessary and just action, a discussion of these issues would be a
proper thing to do. However NONE of the arguments presented by these new-age hippies have anything to do with the real questions we should be asking (is Saddam a big enough threat to the US to justify the cost of taking him out) and everything to do with typical liberal moral subjectivism, pacifism, and a general distate of western values. There’s really nothing more for me to add that I haven’t already said in my essay The anti-war protesters: what are they for?.

A day in the life of…

8 years ago

in General

Check out the photojournal of my day at A&M!

Update: here are some more photos that I didn’t get in yesterdat.

Fundies….

8 years ago

in General

A few days ago, I was feeling argumentative so I sent off a scorching rant to an editorial by “Brother Kelly Boggs” a Creationist pastor (see letter a few blogs below.) I didn’t really do it for their sake, and didn’t expect a reply, but lo and behold, not only did “Brother Kelly” send be rebuttal, but so did a member of “The Baptist Press.” The responses aren’t really worth mentioning, since they missed the point of the email. The best part though was the “biblical evidence for why we should attack Iraq” in one of the emails (apparently supporting evolution and/or atheism automatically makes you a peacenik.)
Ah, bashing religious fundies by day and liberal wackos by night – are there any sane people left in the world?

grrr

8 years ago

in General

Someone stole my bike. They didn’t just steal it, they snatched it between 6 and 8pm from outside my apartment, with me at home, the windows wide open, and my computer playing music. It was a really nice new and expensive bike too, that I had just been getting used to enjoying. I think any sentiments of what I think of the thieves or the College Station police department would be superfluous.

On a more positive note, I’ve been working on my art collection. On of the highlights is a gallery of bad art. Half of the pieces are famous examples of modern art, going for millions of dollars, and half are made by amateurs/kids/me. Which is which?

Sea lions in the NAVY….yes, real ones

8 years ago

in General

On a more positive note, Sea lions are being used to guard U.S. ships in Gulf. I think it’s kinda cool: “the animals were trained to mark people but not to kill. The mammals can dive to 1,000 feet, swim at speeds up to 25 miles per hour, as well as see and hear better under water than any human or mechanical device the military has.”

Some more thoughts on the Koreas:

8 years ago

in General

MSNBC reports that much of North Korea’s income comes from slave labor camps whose products are “filtered” through China and often ends up at U.S. markets. (I wonder if most libertarians support that as “free trade”?) North Korea has basically become one big slave labor camp — one which many people are deperately trying to escape at the punishment of death (or worse.) As anyone but a Marxist would realize, North Korea’s communist economy has been a miserable failure:

“At the end of the Korean War nearly half a century ago, incomes in the North were actually higher than in the South. Since then, average income and living standards have been falling in inverse proportion to their rise in South Korea. Now, according to CIA estimates, the average North Korean exists on roughly $1,000 a year, compared with $18,000 a year for South Koreans.”

North Korea’s fanaticism however, hasn’t diminished:

“Refugees who were picked up in China just trying to make a living are likely to get six months’ imprisonment in North Korea, but there is no crime worse than wanting to defect to South Korea.
“It is the severest crime,” said one of the refugees who escaped last year through a foreign embassy in Beijing and did not want his name used. “Surely they will be executed. Or even if they are not shot, they will be sent to a political prison, and they will have to suffer there all the rest of their lifetimes, and they will die there.”

“Food Aid Said Diverted to N.Korea Military “

8 years ago

in Politics

Regular readers of my blogger will know what I think of the groups that send aid to North Korea: they are guiltier of causing mass starvation and supporting genocidal regime than Kim Jong Il himself. If it were up to me, I would have those “humanitarians” sent to die in the labor camps with the rest of the peasants whose torture and slavery they are perpetuating.

The fact is, that without the massive material and diplomatic aid (of which US provides 68%) from the quasi-free nations of the world, North Korea would have collapsed long ago. If any more proof is needed that the sanction of the free world is keeping North Korea’s regime afloat, Reuters news reported today that food aid is being diverted to the military instead of the starving peasants. Well, DUH! You don’t to be a UN bureaucrat to figure that out. In a decisive condemnation of North Korea’s actions, Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. food agencies said “We don’t like that. The food is not designed for that. The food is aimed especially at women and children — people who are hurting.” Wow, thanks for clearing that up, Tony.

Meanwhile, Kim continues playing world leader like a fiddle to get his way, by threatening to build nukes, start a war, etc if concessions aren’t made. (I’m not sure if the “non aggression” treaty North Korea is pushing for means that the U.S. will standby if the Kim attacks the South, or that we’ll sell him arms to better attack the U.S.)

Meanwhile, the bloodsuckers at the UN keeping leeching more money from the productive men in America to support more and more despotic dictatorships abroad. “I can’t remember in my experience of working in the humanitarian field when we have had so many crises at one time” says Mr. Hall, Leech #1. Perhaps it’s time for a little self-examination.

“Open letter to Brother Kelly Boggs, Pastor”

8 years ago

in Middle East/Terrorism

(This is in reply to Circumstantial evidence.)

Greetings,

Far be it from me to attack an argument for a war with Iraq, but your piece did not use the terms “theory,” “evidence,” and most importantly, “belief” properly. The proper approach to determining facts, whether it is the theory of evolution or Saddam’s possession of WMD’s is to apply the scientific process in order to reach conclusions — not relying on “faith” or “refusing to believe” something.

In general, the proper method of reaching conclusions is by induction — making observations about a large number of instances (concrete examples) and then forming a hypothesis (abstract idea) based on those observations. Based on the hypothesis, we make predictions about what the concretes should be, and once again apply that hypothesis to numerous concretes. If the predictions hold, one formulates a theory, if not, one tries another hypothesis. Given enough correct hypotheses, one forms a scientific model, and if the model is supported by a significant body of evidence, one forms a scientific theory.

Why do I bring this up? Well, the fact is that the great majority of people do not understand how this process works, and do not apply it to the various junk-science out there today. Take the common phrase regarding evolution: “it’s only a theory.” Well, so are the facts that the earth is round, revolves around the sun, and that volcanoes are not caused by angry gods. Like all knowledge, these facts are conclusions reached by forming conclusions (theories) based on observations. The distinction between facts and theories is important to recognize. As Stephen J. Gould explains: “facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.”

This fact has important implications for some of the “pseudo-sciences” out there, like creationism and environmentalism. The difference between these pseudo-scientists and real scientists is that they pervert the scientific method by rejecting the need for evidence. No argument will sway their position because their beliefs rest on faith, not evidence. For creationists, the Bible is the absolute authority, and all scientific evidence to contrary is rejected or ignored. For environmentalists, their interpretation of what is bad for man (technology) is an absolute — ignoring that it is in fact often the lack thereof that causes more suffering. Because no amount of evidence will convince someone who holds his beliefs on faith, we can reject their claims as soundly (and on the same basis) as the flat-earthers.

Please consider this next time you say “It’s only a theory!”

Sincerely,
–David Veksler