Falling Awake

LIBERTAS » Blog Archive » Is It Really Piracy That’s The Problem?

Dirty Harry wonders about the effect of piracy on the entertainment industry.  He starts off talking about the nose-dive of music sales, then unleashes this gem:

So, why write about this on a film website? Because piracy is rampant and everywhere. For a mere five dollars, any soon-to-be released movie can be purchased as a bootleg from an illegal alien in the Circuit City parking lot two miles from my house. Or, The Hot Little Number I Call Mrs. Harry can bring it home from work for the same price. But I don’t buy them because the quality sucks. Not the bootleg quality — the movie itself. I’m not wasting five dollars on another lousy Hollywood movie.

Nice one, DH.

Why Beauty Is Truth: A History of Symmetry - by Ian Stewart

I felt so bad about the stupid mistake I made–mixing up two books on the mathematical concept of symmetry, its history, and its usefulness in modern physics–that I had to read the other one, too.

In short, it’s a terrific book.  It covers more territory than the book I originally read–venturing deeper into the physics of the 20th and 21st centuries than Mario Livio’s “The Equation that Couldn’t Be Solved,” with more biographies of the pivotal figures involved.  “The Equation that Couldn’t Be Solved” also took a rather lengthy detour into the life of a French mathematician, Evariste Galois, which was fascinating but seemed to belong in a different book.  Galois’s final days (he was killed in a mysterious duel) are intriguing but have nothing to do with mathematics.

In my original review (where it turned out I was talking about the book by Mario Livio), I started by saying, “This is the kind of math book I like: no pages full of equations I can’t follow.”  I feel that Stewart’s book takes this too far.  I think there were not enough equations for the complexity of the math presented.  Analogies and illustrations can only take the reader so far, and I think it’s better to present some equations in the hope that they will help and with the knowledge that they may be skimmed or skipped.  Instead, I had to skim or skip some of the text when the concepts were just too difficult.

All in all though, a worthwhile book.

If you’d like to check out the proposed amendments, they’re here.

I can’t be bothered to read them closely, for the simple reason that I have no confidence that any proposal to tighten the borders will be enforced if it happens to pass.

Mark Krikorian at National Review’s the Corner feels the same way:

Some of the [White House's] fact sheet’s claims are so disingenuous as to be amusing. It says that if the amnesty bill passes, the employer fines for hiring illegals will go up. Well, that’s great, except that this administration has all but stopped fining employers, so who cares what the size of the never-issued fines are? It also says that under the Senate bill, the punishment for illegals caught re-entering the country would be more severe; again, that’s just peachy, except that U.S. Attorney offices seldom prosecute people even for the felony of re-entry after deportation — what difference would stiffer penalties make when no one is prosecuted?

I actually feel sorry for the folks at the White House press office for having to put out this sort of drivel.

Stanley Kurtz (also at the Corner) has this to say:

Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing.

I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.

Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

You can’t solve an argument by imposing a “compromise” on parties who don’t actually view it as a compromise. You can’t heal social divisions by forcing your version of a “solution” down the public’s throats. Real healing comes only when two sides reach what they themselves consider a valid compromise, or when one side wins the argument by persuading a clear majority of the validity of its case. Democracy does work, but first the Senate has got to give it a try.

The argument–put forth by the Wall Street Journal, among others–that passing this immigration bill will allow our country to “get past” the divisive issue of illegal immigration reminds me of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.  Yeah, taking social policy out of the hands of the voters really ended that debate, huh?

The President and the Senate are also emulating the European Union in their push to pass their constitution.  The voters keep rejecting the damn thing, and the politicians keep acting as if that’s a mere detail, of no real consequence.

The Corner (third time’s the charm!) also quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas on the bill.  He addresses the fact that it is absolutely impossible for the federal government to enforce the bill as it’s written.  Read it if you have the chance.  And the stomach.

I had a cavity filled today–my first one ever!  (Now I’m not perfect.)

Anyway, I’m walking home from the dentist with a face full of novocaine, and I start thinking.

What if I start a fight?  My face is numb from the tip of my nose to the right corner of my mouth.  All my upper front teeth are deadened.  I could provoke someone into punching me in the mouth, then smile and spit a tooth back at him!

But then I thought: “I’ll bet the novocaine wouldn’t improve my punching ability.”  And without a good follow-up, that tooth-spitting gimmick would sort of fall flat.

Ah, well.

By the way, I know that in the headline I should have used the subjunctive: “I wish I were a tough guy.”

But tough guys don’t use the subjunctive.  Ever.

The Company You Keep is below.

More in keeping with the post you linked from are:

Islam and the “People of the Book” or Blogging the Qur’an

Or visit the home page here.

Thanks for taking the time to check things out.  Oh, and leave comments!  (I notice you guys are good at that.)

Robert Spencer continues his series “Blogging the Qur’an” with Sura 2:75-140.

Within these verses, we learn why Islam so often appears to be a “death cult.”

Say [to the Jews]: “If the last Home, with Allah, be for you specially, and not for anyone else, then seek ye for death, if ye are sincere.” But they will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them. and Allah is well-acquainted with the wrong-doers. Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do. (Sura 2:94-96)

Here’s Mr. Spencer’s commentary:

Verses 94-96 issue a challenge: if the Jews’ claim that Paradise is reserved for them alone, why don’t they seek death, instead of being the people “most greedy for life”? This is the foundation of a jihadist taunt, as an Al-Qaeda warrior in Afghanistan put it a few years ago: “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.” The true believers long for Paradise and disdain this world.

Here we see the difference between the Judeo-Christian and the Muslim view of life. The Jew and the Christian value life. They see life as a gift from God, a gift which they may be asked to give back to Him, but not without good cause. Likewise, they hesitate to deprive anyone else of that gift. None of the many Christian martyrs ever “sought for death.” They were willing to die for their faith–but they were not suicidal.

The Muslim here is being taught to embrace death. And as for others? “Kill them all and let Allah sort them out.”

We also find the first hint of the concept of “abrogation” in the Qur’an.

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Sura 2:106)

This is the key to the whole argument over Islam as a “religion of peace.”  There are several passages in the Qur’an which seem to bear out that view.  And just as many that deny it.  Unfortunately for us non-Muslims, the bloodthirstier verses came later, and are considered to supersede the earlier, more peaceful verses.

As I’m sure Mr. Spencer will point out when we get to them.

Have you noticed the recent upswing in enforcement of our immigration laws?

• 29 illegal immigrants arrested in New Haven, CT
• Scores arrested in California immigration raids
• Feds arrest 38 in immigration sweep in Colorado and Wyoming

Now, if this sort of thing had been happening for the past three or four years, I think President Bush would have an easier time selling his immigration bill to the American public.

But it’s a good start.  No, not towards deporting 12 million people, but in making those 12 million people aware that there is a chance that they may be next.  Otherwise, why would they even apply for legal status?

So let’s see how this goes for the next several years–especially if the next president is a Democrat–and then we’ll talk again about comprehensive immigration reform.

When the sheep “Dolly” was cloned, scientists rushed to assure everyone that no one would ever clone a human being.

We’ve since learned that if scientists can do it, then all they need to come up with is a rationale.

What’s next?

British body backs inter-species clones

Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday.

The combinations would include animal eggs and the nucleus, containing the genetic material, of a human being, or human embryos that carry the genetic material of an animal, the independent advisory body said.

A cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT for short, involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell from the animal to be cloned — perhaps a skin cell, for instance.

Scientists have tried this using, for example, an egg cell from a cow and a human nucleus.

There are no laws against it in either Britain or the United states and the independent Academy said it should remain legal.

“Provided good laboratory practice is rigorously followed, research involving cytoplasmic hybrids or other inter-species embryos offers no significant safety risks over and above regular cell culture research,” said Martin Bobrow of Britain’s Wellcome Trust, who chaired the panel making the recommendations.

“We found no current scientific reasons to generate ‘true’ hybrid embryos by mixing human and animal gametes (eggs and sperm). However, given the speed of this field of research, the working group could not rule out the emergence of scientifically valid reasons in the future,” Bobrow said.

Give ‘em some time.  They’ll come up with something.

Such embryos should never, however, be implanted into either a woman or an animal, said the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Why not?  Why should these embryos be tossed out?  If you’re willing to clone human beings in order to harvest their stem cells, why be so squeamish about human-animal hybrids?  Those are the questions they’ll ask, and pretty soon those questions will seem reasonable.

And then what’s next?  I shudder to think.

Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey

He’s a “local scientist” because the paper is published in Madison, WI.  He could also be described as “the father of scientific climatology,” which is how he’s described in the article’s first sentence.

Here’s what he has to say:

“There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age,’” he said in an interview this week.

“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

“It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.”

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. “Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”

Maybe he’s being paid off?

Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

“I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that,” said Bryson.

He thinks some people may be cashing in, though:

“There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.

And it’s not something that he does regularly.

“I can’t waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do,” he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he’ll give it. “And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does.”

“There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.”

Dr. Bryson compares the theory of anthropogenic global warming to a religion in that both discipline heretics.  There is another way in which they are similar.

Religious peoples’ views are infused by religion.  They tend to see things in terms of their religion, and find meaning in the world thereby.  Here’s an example of the same phenomenon in a global-warming context:

Climate change behind Darfur killing

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

“It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought,” Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur’s land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.

With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing.

“For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,” he said.

If we could only stop global warming, we’d have heaven on earth.

Reuters caption:

“Democratic Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) shares a laugh with supporters during a town hall meeting at Charles City Elementary School in Charles City, Iowa, May 25, 2007.” 

I’m just posting this picture to show why I don’t think I’m being unfair when I liken Hillary Clinton to Hugo Chavez.

No, Clinton isn’t the one in the Che t-shirt.  But she isn’t keeping her distance either.