Very nicely put.

Intriguing and worth reading.

  David F. Noble, by the way, is the genuine article. He is also a bit nuts.

  Nonetheless, he's an outstanding scholar, very careful and insightful, with genuinely unique ideas (some of which I think are harebrained, but that's an unavoidable consequence of the capcaity for original thought), and probably one of the most dilligent and careful researchers in recent history.

  The case of his tenure at MIT is particularly relevant, because it was denied under rather similar circumstances to those currently surrounding Norman Finkelstein. David won some kind of judgement against MIT (it was a procedural thing, though, obviously the court couldn't rule on the substance of his tenure denial, or lack thereof), which is unlikely to happen in Norman's case, but Norman is hardly the only US scholar to be punished for the excellent quality of his scholarship.

  Anyone who is interested in fixing this country would do well to understand what is wrong with it - Forces of Production: A worker's history of industrial automation - is a must-read for anyone who is serious about fixing this country.

Firstly, to clarify my original point: I don't think their natural rights were necessarily violated. HOWEVER, it is definitely *a free speech issue* that must be considered, and carefully considered. A blanket statement that free speech is never an issue in commercial media is completely unjustified.

  Shows are cancelled all the time:

  If they are cancelled because they do not have an audience, that is legitimate.

  If they are cancelled because of pressure from advertizers, that is censorship. Thus, Don Imus was censored.

  Let us start from basic principles.

  You have a natural right to communicate with your fellow citizens to the limit of technological and economic feasability, in a market of ideas. If the government artificially raises (or lowers, through subsidy) the cost of such communications, those who benefit from those restrictions or subsidies are answerable to the public interest.

  The FCC officially recognizes this, although their enforcement is a pathetic joke thanks to the lobbying power of the corporate media.

  This is not a socialist statement: you have the right to participate equally in the marketplace of ideas, which is a market (market market market), from those who produce content, to their audiences (market!). MARKET! If the government meddles in this market in such a way that equal participation becomes impossible, that is a violation of our natural rights. Recall that a true market must have an effectively infinite number of participants, with a low barrier of entry or new participants.

  The fact that 90% of supposed free market liberals do not seem to believe this reveals the depths of cynicism to which they have sunk - to an adherent of liberal philosophy, the above statement should not be (MARKET!) controversial.

  Why does XM radio exist? *Completely distinct* from the government charter of the institution itself, you have a government charter for the entire business model - they couldn't stay in business if the government didn't actively prevent other people from decoding the incoming satellite signals without paying some kind of government imposed fee.

  Another basic assertion that should not be non-controversial to liberals: government licenses and privileges (including every kind of intellectual property) is *not* property, and no property rights attach to the person who owns it. If you get a government license of any sort, it is supposed to be in the public interest, and you do *not* have a *natural right* to do whatever you want with the associated government privileges.

  The same is far more true for terrestrial radio, which doesn't just depend on a copyrighted (or whatever) decoding key, but on the government actively intervening to prevent ordinary citizens from setting up "pirate" radio systems, even in unlicensed spectra.

  This is in *no sense* a requirement of the underlying technology - when I was a teenager in California I helped put together pirate radio stations.

  I think that covers all relevant responses to my original post.

Two unrelated topics (seemingly...)

  Am I the only person who thinks this news photo looks photoshopped?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/14/world/14cnd_mideast-600.jpg

  On the republican candidates (semi-serious contenders only, at least for VP, which is why I'm not mentioning Ron Paul):
In general, the differences between the Republican candidates are far wider than the ones between the leading dems. Mainly, this is because the dems are not seriously considering running anyone other than a centrist. The same cannot be said for the Republicans. Sorted in increasing order of reprehensibility.

Chuck Hagel - Was the only one of them I could've tolerated. Ah well: http://www.ktvu.com/politics/13314504/detail.html

  If he runs as an independent it'll probably be a 50:50 spoiler (like Ross Perot), but I think is more likely to help dems than to hurt them - even if merely be changing the emphasis of the discourse. Which might very well be his plan. He'd be about as bad as Eisenhower and, on reflection, we could do worse. Specifically, we could have any of these other people.

Mike Huckabee - Is *almost* tolerable. He's plenty socially conservative - he's not a firebrand, but that is not his problem. He's not rapacious enough for the powerful and under-discussed "corrupt cigar-chomping businessman" wing of the party, which is immensely powerful. Also, he seems decent and genuine rather than sleazy and republicans don't trust people like that. Since I don't think the President really has much influence over social policy, an *actually christian* conservative wouldn't be so bad.

Rudy Giuliani - Is not nearly as strong in the general election as people seem to think, but in any case, he won't be nominated - that's pretty clear at this point. It's very nice that he doesn't want to put all the homosexuals in camps, but the president has very little power to enforce a social agenda anyway. A civil liberties agenda is a different matter - and Rudy has an *awful* record on civil liberties as mayor of New York. As a rule, I don't regard gun control as a civil liberties issue - but for Rudy, it is: he wants to take away your guns so we can have a police state. He'd be about as bad as Bush Sr. The following people would be worse.

John McCain - I'll grant that he does have some degree of human decency - the fact that this draws so much attention says something about our lackluster political environment, rather than anything good about McCain. The latest round of ass-kissing to the extreme right is shameful, but hey, you can tell he's ashamed of it. But that's a problem: the religious right wants someone like Romney, who can kiss their asses and feel no remorse. McCain would make a terrible president because he's a fool - which is not the same as being stupid - but anyway he won't win the nomination.

Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback - Are quite reactionary, in a classical sense. They'd be about as bad as Reagan. The following people would be worse.

Mitt Romney - Is a scum-bag (my family lives in Mass), with poor demographics, an embarassingly inconsistent record, and negative charisma. I hope the Repubs nominate him because he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Yes, I'm serious, this guy is worse than Sam Brownback.

Newt Gingrich - *Is* a serious contender - not because anyone would vote for him, but because he might come out as a compromise candidate from a tied convention (to face Gore, nominated the same way). He'd be about as bad as Nixon, but it's a moot point, because here's the plan:
  * Republicans nominate Gingrich.
  * Democrats nominate Ficus.
  * Ficus wins in a landslide.
  * We give up and go home, switching over to a parliamentary proportional system.

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter - Would be worse than Nixon. If there were any republicans to the right of these guys, I'd say they'd be worse than Hitler. These guys are serious contenders for VP, because of their ability to mobilize the base, especially for a candidate weak on ultra-right-wing credentials.

Firstly, tactical considerations.
  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could either of them win, it's true (especially if the Pachyderms nominate Romney or someone equally unappealing.) However, to nominate either is an unacceptable risk, Obama because he's black and Hillary because no-one likes her. We *must* get the Republicans out of the white house; any risk of failure is too high.
  Edwards is likable. It doesn't even matter if he isn't qualified, or if he's a pretty boy (which people actually like), or a trial lawyer (focus group results: no one cares), or any of his other supposed weaknesses.
  The Republicans would inevitably *attempt* to attack him for running in spite of his wife's cancer. Even knowing that it's a huge tactical mistake, they would still do it. It'd backfire spectacularly.
  Nothing but upsides to this guy.

  For my money, Obama would make a devastatingly good running mate. All those closet rascists would *love* to see an affable, empathetic white southerner with a black sidekick. They'd be frickin' thrilled.

  Secondly, policy considerations.
  Okay, the state of American politics is so bad that most people don't even *know* the policy differences (such as they are) between the main candidates. They don't amount to much.
  However, among those who have a chance of being nominated (so not Gravel or Kucinich) Edwards has made the best policy statements. Obama is one of those people who seldom *says* much of anything, and Hillary is to the right of her husband, who was practically a Republican, on the bread-and-butter issues I care about.

A business - including especially a joint stock corporation - is nothing but a small government. In the case of a joint stock corporation, this is literally true - they are created with a constitution by a writ of one or another "real" government.

  Some forms of anarchist thinking maintain that such institutions should be demolished entirely. This is not the position of anarcho-syndicalist thinkers, which is:

  * Any institution, if it controls resources or wields power of any kind, is a form of government.
  * The restrictions which liberal thinking places on governments should be applied to all such institutions.
  * If their existence cannot be justified, they should be demolished.
  * If their existence can be justified, they should be democratic in nature, and be forced to respect fundamental human rights.
      - Stockholders in General Motors have no more right to make decisions for General Motors than someone who holds a US Treasury Note has a right to make public policy.
      - This does not involve the abrogation of private property (which is generally recognized as a natural right), but there is no concept of stock. You can own a physical object, but not an institution (or an idea, for that matter.)
      - The institution cannot fire you because the governance of that istitution (even if properly democratic) does not like you or does not like what you say. Any punitive action against an employee must be justified.
  * The material interests of the community are a justification. Therefore, it is legitimate for institutions to engage in economic activity (provided that the gain in efficiency is great enough to justify the inevitable loss of some personal freedom, which is a judgement call), and to provide for community needs which require the coordinated action of multiple people.

  The other key philosophical assertion of anarcho-syndicalism is that it is consonant with the inherent moral nature of human beings; it is intended to be a codification of the better aspects of human nature, and derived from (rather than imposing itself on), that nature.

  Anarcho-syndicalism is generally a gradualist form of anarchism, rather than a revolutionary one. Actions which elevate the power of individuals, which weaken illegitimate institutions, which force existing institutions to respond to the public will (becoming more democratic, even if not formally so) or which strengthen individual rights are seen as steps towards achieving a just society within existing frameworks.

  The key differences between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism are:
* Anarcho-capitalist notions are cynically exploited by the wealthy to pursue their own agenda. 90% of articulate anarcho-capitalists in the media (e.g. the Economist) are frauds, being neither anarchists nor capitalists, being advocates of corporate power, which amounts to a return to feudalism and private government.

* Anarcho-syndicalism views taxation for purposes of providing social services as legitimate, provided that justification can be met, which in the case of social services it generally can. It should be noted that, even in the United States, a majority of the population agrees (supports socialized medicine, for example.)

* Anarcho-syndicalism does not recognize property rights in so far as they attach to ideas or institutions. Anarcho-syndicalism does not ascribe natural rights to institutions. It should be noted that some anarcho-capitalists share these ideas, but not the 90% of articulate anarcho-capitalists who are cynical liars.

* Individuals have a natural right to a stake in, and to control of, their own productive output, which must be balanced against, and generally trumps, any property rights invested in capital goods.

* Anarcho-syndicalism views wage labor, as it exists today, as little better than slavery.

I'm bored. How bored am I? I'm going to try and write a movie script based on a Neal Stephenson novel.

  Stephenson doesn't much care for the book - presumably, because it's dated, unimproving and sophomoric. OTOH, It's funny, and it's a rollicking good time.

  But, it needs to be updated.

  A few changes I have in mind:
a) Instead of eastern european terrorist janitors, we've got muslim terrorist janitors.
b) The CIA-Oil Company axis still secretly runs the school; the muslim terrorist janitors are their former clients which they brought back to the US and employed.
c) The protagonist is a 30 year-old taxi driving physics prodigy. Just looking at those demographics - of course he's an arab (albeit very secular.)

  So, right away we have some interesting tension. I'll need to go through the book again and start figuring out which scenes to keep.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/washington/14assess.html

  Requires subscription, unfortunately.

  Still, it's worth reading for the filthy, brazen lies.

He did nothing of the sort! The wikipedia article on the vicious bastard pretty well sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

  That said, Paul did do a good job of combating corruption in Africa; so, if there's no political cost involved, he can be effective. Unsurprisingly, he has blocked investigation into corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like we could expect his replacement to be any better.

  Still, on balance, he's corrupt himself, he ought to go.

Obviously I wish my family there the best - but it's a democratic society.

  There are those on the left who will tell you that the decisions made by the Israeli government have harmed Israeli security - and this is true. But the population keeps voting these butchers in, and Israel has a vibrant press - they know what they're doing.

  Not the children, obviously. Not the young people, perhaps - who are more secular and less militant than the previous generation. Certainly the situation is not hopeless. But the writing is on the wall, and the Israelis are not seizing the opportunity for a lasting peace while they still have it.

  Anyway, this is my position on the whole thing:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229289&cid=18687861

I really should avoid getting into this kind of argument.

  I don't actually enjoy making fools of people, even if they richly deserve it. (read the entire thread, it's a little complicated and may be difficult to follow.)

  I'm convinced that this pugilistic approach to discourse arises from some kind of unconscious desire to do performance art, or self-mockery, or something.

  I think that anti-arab rascism is one of the chief vehicles that is driving our capacity for violence in that part of the world. You could argue about cause and effect.

  The language of the discourse is all-to-familiar, "they hate us for no reason", they "want to destroy our way of life," they have a culture of violence and hatred (from their religion, or lack of civilization, or whatever.) It's the language of genocide and it needs to be challenged, cleary and effectively - so, not by making Pudge look stupid, which he does without our assistance and which accomplishes nothing.

  Thoughts?

I can't say I'm surprised this post got down-modded, I'd expected that.

  But you'd think whoever did it would have had the balls to mod it as "flamebait" or "troll", rather than the cowardly weasle's "overrated".

  I'd also expected something of a better debate.

Read this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213560&cid=17362976

  and, if by any chance, you think that whoever is rating it "overrated" is abusing their authority, you might point this out.

I just got back from Ohio's 15th where I was working with my Aunt's congressional campaign.

  The race is very close, she has to carry better than 55 or 60% of the remaining ballots in order to win, which given the demographics of the provisional ballots is about how well I'd expect her to do, so we'll see.

I'll be extending this as I assemble it. This is just an outline. Suggestions are appreciated.

1. Crisis in the Middle East - Disengagement is the only moral option.

2. The "Clash of Civilizations" - or, why the Right is giving Osama what he wants.

3. Justice Reduces the threat of Terror - what we learn from Northern Ireland.

4. Violence emboldens the radical element - what we learn from Lebanon in 2006.

5. The facts in Iraq - our presence is making things worse, not better.

6. The truth is important - why the powerful want to stay in Iraq.

7. How much worse it could be - the real consequences of total war with the Muslim world.

8. Justice is ours if we want it - or, how did we end Apartheid?

Ooh! A MEME! Okay, I have to rank them. Gr.... I hate doing this:
1) Live
2) New Pornographers
3) The Rolling Stones
4) REM
5) The Beatles
6) Pearl Jam
7) Dead Kennedys
8) Van Morrison
9) Peter Gabriel / Genesis
10) Sting / The Police
  Which means that I'm missing Springstein, Johnny Cash, The Allman Brothers, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Bjork, Nirvana, the Cure^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSteppenwolf,
AC-DC, They Might be Giants, I could go on. Oh, and Joe Cooker, wouldn't have thought of him but he should definitely be on the list. This is why I dislike top ten lists.

What was the first song you ever heard by 6?
Jeremy, I think.

What is your favourite album of 2?
Mass Romantic.

What is your favourite lyric that 4 has sung?
"Hey, that's me in the spotlight." (or something like that.)

How many times have you seen 5 live?
Heh. Never.

What is your favorite song by 7?
My favorite Pink Floyd song is "The Wall Pt. 2", so there. My favorite Dead Kennedys song is "Holiday in Cambodia".

What is a good memory you have involving the music of 10?
When I was four I would sing "Fortress around your heart" on the bus.

Is there a song of 3 that makes you sad?
You know, not really. I like to listen to "Paint it Black" when I'm down, but it makes me feel better, actually.

What is your favorite lyric that 2 has sung?
"You told me I could order the Moon, Babe, just as long as I shoot what I want."

What is your favorite song by 9?
I hate to be conventional, but "Solsbury Hill".

How did you get into 3?
I was probably exposed to it in the womb.

What was the first song you heard by 1?
Lightning Crashes, I believe. On MTV, just before they stopped playing music altogether.

What is your favorite song by 4?
Stand.

How many time have you seen 9 live?
I don't think I ever have, actually.

What is a good memory you have involving 2?
I found them on the internet..... nothing much comes to mind here.

Is there a song of 8 that makes you sad?
Nope.

What is your favorite album of 5?
Yellow Submarine.

What is your favorite lyric that 3 has sung?
Gah. "Goodbye, ruby tuesday, who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day, still I'm gonna miss you."

What is your favorite song of 1?
Top.

What is your favorite song of 10?
Love is the Seventh Wave

How many times have you seen 8 live?
I'm not really much for live pop music, to be honest. Live classical or jazz, sure.

What is your favorite album of 1?
Throwing Copper.

What is a great memory you have considering 9?
When I was, what, 9 or 10, I thought the video for "Big Time" was the coolest thing I'd ever seen.

What was the first song you heard by 8?
Brown Eyed Girl, maybe? I'm not sure.

What is your favorite cover by 3?
I'm going to say my favorite cover of a song *by* 3 - Devo's cover of Satisfaction. It cannot be denied.

Heh. I got a 14.

  Firstly, autism is not a real trait. It is a classification we use when discussing a family of (probably completely unrelated) traits with similar outcomes in terms of making people behave like Rainman. Even Asperger Syndrome is classified exclusively on the basis of behavior - if there is a syndrome there, we don't have a fraction of the depth of understanding needed to know what it is.

  Now, you can still make an argument that this class of autistic traits has been, or will be, selected for in the human population. In both cases, we can only speculate.

  I maintain that human beings have been selected for intellectual diversity. A tribe of humans would survive best if it had some members who were cautious, some who were bold, some who were more capable of abstract thought, some who were more sociable, and so forth. In some cases there is a tradeoff, due to the engineering limitations of the human nervous system.

  It is also possible - as is the case with Cystic Fibrosis, for example - that there are genes associated with autistic traits that have some beneficial effect when present in single copy. This is total speculation, however - our understanding of the relationship between human genetics and human intellectual diversity is shallow, at best. It is entirely possible that the spectrum of autism-like disorders are very rarely caused by genetics and mostly by environmental factors - the fact that they show some indications of heritability not withstanding (see child rearing practices below).

  At present, the majority of selective pressure on human beings is cultural. Will we wipe ourselves out as a species? That's a big one, not a genetic question.

  For individual humans, the question is becoming not "am I fit to reproduce?", or "am I rich enough to reproduce?", but "do I *want* to reproduce?"

  The obvious effect of the wide availability of birth control is that people who just want to have sex without having children are now absolutely free to do so, and they will. This may have some impact on the frequency of genes that impact, for example, the strength of parent-child bonding one way or the other.

  However, the overwhelming effect is going to be on child-rearing practices. If you have child-rearing practices that give you children who do not, in turn, want to have children - those child-rearing practices will die out. This is another form of cultural selection.