Archives for November 2005

I think Cathy Young does a decent job, here, of sorting through the steaming piles of bullshit that represent the left’s case against and the right’s case for the war in Iraq. You should take the few minutes to read it regardless of what side you’re on.

Of course, the charge that the Bush administration manipulated
intelligence data either is true, or isn’t true. There’s no such thing
as an unpatriotic fact.

And here’s the reason I hate this kind
of debate. To have a truly informed opinion on this topic would
probably take months of meticulous research, and probably some
specialized knowledge as well. That means most people commenting on the
issue tend to form their opinion based on selective information and
based, at least in part, on their political biases. It’s just a little
too convenient that nearly everyone who opposes the war thinks the Bush
administration cooked the intelligence, and nearly everyone who
supports it thinks that’s a cynical lie.

Yea, I’m generally for it, but only because killing primitives whose religion includes killing me to gain favor with their delusionally imagined god is a moral imperative. I said it way back at the beginning: the WMD-justification for war was stupid load of crap. Defending it, to this day, is moronic and makes Bush look like an imbecile. Then again, all politicians look like imbeciles, to me.

(Tipped off by: Hit & Run)

“Whenever Merck was up there [on the witness stand], it was like wah, wah, wah,” juror John Ostrom told The Wall Street Journal, imitating the drone of Charlie Brown’s teacher after dunning Merck & Co. for $253 million in damages. He was describing his own reason for finding that Merck’s Vioxx had killed a 59-year-old man, even though the trial established that the man had died of unrelated causes.

Ostrom’s fellow jurors don’t seem much cleverer. Marsha Robbins prayed to be made forewoman, and in an irrefutable proof of God’s bounty ended up getting the position uncontested. Lorraine Blas noted in her questionnaire that she’s a fan of The Oprah Winfrey Show, and when plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier in his closing arguments suggested a guilty verdict might land the jury a spot on Oprah’s show, Blas, rather than being creeped out by this used car salesman’s trick, laughed and enjoyed the lawyer’s attention. And consider juror/medical genius Matthew Pallardy, who, despite evidence to the contrary, “kind of figured” the victim suffered from a Vioxx-related blood clot, “even if it went away real quick.”

The irony, here, is that this example of injustice in the form of gross incompetence and dereliction of a sworn oath is actually justice in action. It’s reality’s backlash against a culture that has come to promote frivolous, incurious, immature, unintellectual, and hedonist mediocrity. I see it virtually everywhere I look, nowadays.

At home, school, and even at work, we’re raising and sanctioning generations of the uninteresting, the shallow, and the moronic.

One way or another, you and I are going to pay for it.

When reality comes home to roost, it’s the purest form of justice because it’s perfectly Objective. Do you grasp the implications? This is justice at essentially a metaphysical level. You’ll pay because you’re a human being and so much of what’s going on is an abject rejection of all the principles necessary to live a human being’s life. That’s bound to effect you regardless of your own personal exercise of rationaliity and mature good sense.

On a related but different note with current personal undertones, I often ponder what I can do in this life to have some small effect, as well as to retain some measure of self-respect and integrity. I’ve argued many times for doing one’s best to go along and get along in order to have the most successful, happy, and fulfilled one-and-only life you can have (you’re welcome to delude yourself, but such delusions serve only to diminish the value of your one-and-only life).

What it’s really come down to, for me, time and time again, is to pursue an ideal of living with an extreme sense of justice. That means, ideally: a very careful exercise of mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. And, ideally: all come at a very stiff and inflexible price. The truth is, life is too short to waste it on bullshit all the time. I’m tired of being party to a moronic, "don’t-worry-be-happy" culture of perpetual and instantaneous forgiveness of any and every wrong with virtually no limit and no serious permanent repercussions.

OK, here’s the deal: go read what Kyle Bennett did to some thieves, and then imagine had he called "the authorities" to help him out.

Here’s what I imagine. Rather than justice having been rendered in total, by now, Kyle is still sitting there with the guys who’ve got to "file their report" (in order to justify their budget: use it or lose it, y’know?), and they’re still stuck on the part where the thieves hotlinked the image feed off Kyle’s own site. "Ok, ok, now…lemme go over this again…ok, ok, how’d you say that works, again?"

The announcement by GM to eliminate a whopping 30,000 jobs delivers a good opportunity for a lesson in causes & effects. Since you’re very unlikely to receive any sort of accurate assignment of same anywhere in the major media, let’s give it a bit of a go here, shall we?

Of course, you’re going to hear the standard inversion of cause and effect. You’re going to "learn," because the labor unions are going to make sure you do, that the "reason" for the dire straits in which U.S. automakers find themselves is due to competition from Japan and Korea. And it’s true, except that this "unbeatable" competition isn’t a cause, it’s an effect.

In the same article I linked above, they talk all around the real cause, bringing up and implying all sorts of causes that are not causes at all, but effects. The primary practical cause (principle causes are philosophic in nature) is contained right within the article, but is not identified as such.

The UAW responded to Wagoner’s announcement with an angry statement to the media indicating it would push to keep furloughed workers on GM’s payrolls for the duration of its current labor contract, which expires in 2007.

That could mean that laid off workers would continue to receive most of their pay and benefits, with the plant closings providing little immediate savings to GM.

"The UAW-represented workers impacted by today’s action are protected by our job security program as well as other provisions and protections of the UAW-GM National Agreement," the union said in its statement.

Big surprise. It reminds me of the Monty Python bit where the knight progressively gets limbs cut off but keeps on talking smack like he’s still in contention. You know, the communists of the USSR obstinately pushed against reality right up to the end of their political tenure, by which I mean that communism is still alive ideologically. To wit: environmentalism and labor unions:

He [Karl Marx] used the LTV to support a very different political argument than Locke’s, clarifying the Ricardian socialists’ contributions: in his view, landowners are exploitative because only labor adds value to the product.

(emphasis, mine)

Anyway, there is some cause for celebration. America’s most deeply and perniciously communist element, the labor union, may be on its way out as far as the private sector goes.  As a percentage or the workforce, private-sector union membership is at its lowest point in over 100 years — and declining.

I’m not happy to see people lose their jobs, of course. But I’m always happy, however, to see someone come face-to-face with a reality they have willfully ignored or been innocently ignorant of. Whether willful or innocent, remaining unapprised of the reality of things never does anyone any good, long term.

Message to the willfully ignorant: told you so, you dumbshit morons. Message to the blissful: ’bout time you woke up. You all, and you all alone are responsible for your own lot in life. A guaranteed income for life without capital that you’ve created or inherited, that continues to work for you is a complete fantasy. It’s only made possible by stealing the capital output and income of others. Of course, we dance all around the coldness of that particular reality with all sorts of euphemisms like "social security," "medicare," and such.

Well, every collision into the brick wall of reality, is, in reality, an advance.

I like to report on good service I receive whenever I can. As I’ve blogged, we recently sold our home. One of the motivating factors was to use some of the profits to invest in other real estate.

Phoenix, AZ, happens to be the hottest appreciating market in the country, right now, and even though the run-up in prices in the last year precludes positive rental cash flow (unless you go in with lots of equity), appreciation should far outstrip the outlay I’ll have over the next three years, which is my anticipated holding period.

So, I contacted my friend Greg Swann, of Bloodhound Realty. Told him I wanted three rentals, but not just any rentals. I wanted relatively new houses, stucco, tile roofs, in nice suburban neighborhoods. In short, I want houses that will attract the cream of the crop in tenants and command market rental rates, even though I may set the price slightly below just to rent them quick. We’ll see.

I also told Greg that I did not want to travel to Phoenix — not now, not ever! (not really) No, I just want to be able to do everything remotely.

I’m happy to report that he runs a fantastic turnkey operation for out-of-state investors. First, he referred me to a loan professional who specializes in investor loans. Then, Greg searched out 16 prospective properties and took lots of photos of each. He then recommended three, and, because I’m smart, I went with his recommendation 100%.

This one, this one, and this one.

Greg drafted the contracts on Friday, we signed them on Saturday morning, and by Sunday afternoon, we had firm deals on all three. Inspections are scheduled, loans are proceeding, property management will be established very soon.

All is proceeding very smoothly.

Yea, I’ve been a lousy blogger of late. Well, we finally sold, closed and moved out of the home we’ve occupied these last 6 1/2 years in San Jose, CA. Bought it as a fixer-upper in 1999 and sold for almost tripple what we paid. It was about 1500 sq. ft., 4 BR, 2 bath, and a 2-car garage.

We bought a new construction, downtown loft town-home at an insane price of almost $600 per sq. ft. (the rental properties I’m in the process of buying in Phoenix go for less than $100 per foot). The new place is about 1000 sq. ft., and though it has three covered parking spaces (I bought 2 extra spaces for only $25,000, which was discounted off the $35,000 price), no private garage to fill with crap. You do the math. Even though we got rid of tons, it still was not nearly enough.

But I’m enjoying getting rid of stuff. That’s my reward. Lightening up. Donating to Good Will and The Salvation Army is strictly because of the convenience of not having to haul it away. Yes. Dead serious. And, you should note: far more honest about such things than most. I’m not going to shit in your ears about the "satisfaction of helping people."

I’m enjoying the urban life, once again, and doubt that I will ever again live in the suburbs — provided I have choices. City and country. That’s it for me.

Guess I’ve got to get around to the topic of the post, eh? No time to blog, but I did carry on a brief email exchange. There’s an ezine I subscribe to, and the author has lately been including off-topic political stuff. Yea, commie stuff.

The ezine referred me to this, this, this, and this. No, I didn’t have time to thoroughly read all of it. I already know what it’s about. I’m certain that the NPR-style of "objective" take-down is right on track. I imagine it’s all quite "devastating" to your average moron, which status describes most people.

So, I email the author (my writing in normal text, his in italics):

Well, you can call up all the economists and get out all the slide-rules you want, but I operate from a premise of property rights and freedom of association.

I’m certain that Wal-Mart is a net benefit to society, especially when you estimate consumer savings of $100 billion per year. But you know what? It doesn’t matter, because the proper premise is not overall utility, but the ethics of rights.

I’d stick up for Wal-Mart even if they were a proved net drain. If that’s what they want to do with their property, and that’s where people want to shop, then it’s none of my business.

He responds:

I assume that you looked at what was said at the Wal-Mart sponsored conference?

You state that you operate on a premise (a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn).  Isn’t the premise the start of an argument (in the sense of a logical progression) rather than the end of the argument?

You say you are certain. Do you mean that this is an evidence based certainty?

Then you state that it doesn’t even matter if they provide a net gain or not. Wouldn’t Adam Smith find a problem with your position?

Then me, nailing the lid shut on this coffin of stupidity:

I assume that you looked at what was said at the Wal-Mart sponsored conference?

Skimmed, only. It’s just not that important to me. If they want to call in non-business people to "help" them, it’s their affair. I applaud their desire to improve their company (seems they’ve been doing it for years), and I understand the pragmatic necessity to improve their public image (since the world’s lowest prices don’t seem to be enough). After all, attacking the value producers of Wal-Mart has become an industry unto itself.

I also understand the need of parasitical types to fake a sort of creative self-esteem by attacking values created and produced by others rather than going to the much greater effort of creating and producing values themselves that people will go out of their way to pay for. As an example, look how easy it is for guys like Whisman to attack you. This has always been the basis of my defense.

You state that you operate on a premise (a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn).  Isn’t the premise the start of an argument (in the sense of a logical progression) rather than the end of the argument?

It depends. If you wish to argue my premise, be my guest, and I’ll be happy to respond. The reason I bring it up is simple: it boxes you in. Utilitarianism on the one hand, and property rights, freedom of association, and capitalism on the other are the antithesis of one-another. I like to let people know what they will fundamentally be arguing against.

You say you are certain. Do you mean that this is an evidence based certainty?

I believe the evidence, all the evidence, in full, un-manipulated context would indeed support my certainly. But, no, I’m not an expert on all the numbers.

Then you state that it doesn’t even matter if they provide a net gain or not. Wouldn’t Adam Smith find a problem with your position?

Overlooking the fallacy of a call to authority, no, I don’t think so. Smith, like a lot of economists who favor capitalism, seem to feel that they have to make utilitarian or consequentialist arguments in order to gain support for their ideas. But such approaches invert cause & effect. Holding, improving, and working property to build and re-invest capital is what technologically advanced human beings do when they are free to pursue their own ends for their own sake. So, natural human freedom is the cause. Benefits for those who join in and participate is the effect.

One is always wise to check one’s premises.

Now, note the flippancy of the response, below. I’ve been doing this for years, folks, and I know defeat when I see it. It’s not important that I won, of course, but that by introducing premises, I chose the battleground of the debate and he didn’t have the stomach for it.

One is always wise to check one’s premises.

My point exactly.

Holding, improving, and working property to build and re-invest capital is what technologically advanced human beings do when they are free to pursue their own ends for their own sake.

It’s also true of ants and bees. 🙂

A smiley is also a dead giveaway. Now for the kill, and the final whimpers.

One is always wise to check one’s premises.

My point exactly.

OK, so what are your premises? I’ve stated mine, which basically sum up to: freedom.

Holding, improving, and working property to build and re-invest capital is what technologically advanced human beings do when they are free to pursue their own ends for their own sake.

It’s also true of ants and bees. 🙂

Well, no it’s not. Not by a long shot. What I describe is a consequence of knowledge combined with freedom of varying degree. Knowledge is non-instinctual and held in conceptual form. Ants and bees don’t rise above the level of percepts.

Moreover, "pursuing their own ends for their own sake" is precisely what ants and bees do not do. They operate as collectives. Each individual derives it’s "right" to exist on the basis of its contribution to the whole (it’s not unalienable). It’s rather how I see the operating premise of the opponents of Wal-Mart in particular, and leftist political ideology in general.

With no escape, the only thing to do is further blur the distinctions between conscious, value-producing, purposive living and dogs crapping in the woods.

Premises?

How human individuals and groupings behave can best be found out by doing empirical research.

Bees, ants, animals in general and humans have a lot in common.

It’s all so "scientific," you see. Empirical & all. Dogs find a place and take a crap. Humans find a place and take a crap. Ergo…

This is the level of intellectual rigor you get from the commie left. "We’re more the same than different." Well, maybe so, but:

Bees, ants, animals in general and humans have a lot in common.

So do diamonds and carbon. Profundity is in the differences.

TypePad, the company that runs both the servers and the continuously updated and improved server-side software that runs this blog, have been having growing pains. There have been service issues: sluggish performance and the occasional short-term outage. Nothing amounting to incompetence, that I can detect. I’d have no tolerance or patience for that.

They’ve sent out a communication or two about it, asking for patience. Now this:

Compensation for this less than stellar performance

We are all aware that you pay for TypePad and expect to receive superior
service and performance in return. At times last month, we did not provide that
type of experience to all our customers and apologies are not good enough.

We also know that some customers have been more heavily impacted than others.
If you often use the service on weekdays between 7:00 am and 1:00 pm Pacific
Time you may have experienced one or even many periods when you had problems
with TypePad’s speed and responsiveness. If you use the service at other times,
you may not have experienced any problems at all. After wrestling with these
facts and wanting to be fair to all our users we have decided that the only
option is to allow you to choose how Six Apart should compensate you.

By default, you will receive a credit for 15 free days of TypePad
service. To get this credit you don’t have to do anything; we will just
credit your account.

That said, we recognize that customers have had different experiences with
the service, so we want to give you the opportunity to choose more, or even less
compensation. If you click the link below, you’ll get a screen that offers you
the following choices:

• While the performance issues caused me some inconvenience I mainly found the
  service acceptable last month.
  Give me 15 free days of TypePad.

• The performance issues made it very difficult for me to use the service on
  multiple occasions during the month.
  Give me 30 free days of TypePad.

• The performance issues affected me greatly, making my experience unacceptable
  for most of the month.
  Give me 45 free days of TypePad.

• I really wasn’t affected and feel I got the great service I paid for last
  month.
  Thank you for the offer, but please don’t credit my account.

Pretty stand-up, eh? I’d complained a couple of times, so I felt perfectly justified in taking the 30-day credit.

Like I said in my last entry, I’ve been in San Fran all week. Last night, Friday, I headed out for one of my favorite regular joints, the Daily Grill, just off Union Square. I’m staying on the other side of the square, right atop the Stockton Tunnel. The square’s packed this Friday night in a sea of crimson & gold: USC is up for today’s game with the Cal Bears. I mean: USC is up. There are thousands of people — everywhere.

I admire those students for their carefree attitude, clearly obvious and all around. Enjoy it, kids. You’ll have plenty of time to grind through the reality of life and know evil. Get it while you can.

Because of the crowd, I had to sip my Maker’s Mark Manhattan (up, of course) while standing. But I scoped out a few seats at the bar and one opened up soon enough. Wasn’t long before I found myself chatting with a 60ish gentleman and his wife.

Brits, they are, on holiday. He’s a retired British Army Officer (I was a US Navy Officer), then a cop for a time. He was proud to tell me that he was a cop that carried a gun. If you don’t know, that’s rare in the UK. It didn’t take long for me to determine that he was one of those good, honest cops who knows that his only role is to deal with what he called "scum." Definitely not the kind of guy who was going to be building a career by hassling regular folks for jaywalking, speeding or smoking a joint.

Yea, we talked about the war. He laughed when I paraphrased my friend Billy Beck in talking about the imperative to kill "dirt-scratching, fourteenth-century throwbacks who think they can buy a ticket to paradise by turning in your hide and mine." Says he: "you mean scum." Yep.

So, we talked for a bit, before their table was ready and we parted. There was that brief moment of eye contact, where two human beings acknowledge and pay respect to one-another, and that almost imperceptible ‘nod’ is an understanding of what true evil is and how it must be dealt with. Few people even understand it, much less risk their lives to fight it.

It was their third trip, in all, to America. Just before we parted, we talked of the "European Union." He said that he’d far prefer the UK to become the 51st state.

I’m in San Francisco for the week, since Saturday night. Mostly business, and the days are full. Other than that, both our house that we sold and the new loft we purchased close this week, and we move Sunday morning — right after I get back Saturday night.

Alors, just too little time to blog. I would like to get something out regarding France, since I lived there for two years and  parle le langue. I’ve an observation or two.

Later.

Yep, the lucky stars were definitely out for this group of football spectators. How would you like to have a plane crash only two or three feet behind where you’re standing, and by the time you have any clue as to what’s going on, it’s over?

Go and click on the "Video" link right under the photo. It requires IE. Firefox doesn’t work.

They show it once in real motion, and then in slow motion. In the slow motion footage, notice the delayed reaction of the spectators.

Matt Welch lays out just exactly why I will never, EVER again in my life get worked up over a political election. Besides, it’s a lot more fun sitting on the sidelines. Ever go to a party, not feel like drinking, and watch everyone else drink — and then dance? While you’re stone-cold sober? Yep, that’s what the political scene is like, for me.

I admit it. I was stupid. I just thought that firing the Governor of the most populous state in the US was so way cool. It ought to be way easier to fire holders of political office, and it ought to be something that happens at least every week or so, at all levels.

Anyway, I would have preferred the very fiscally conservative Tom McClintock to kick Gray Davis’ ass right out of Sacramento. Tom has some integrity. As a California Senator, he has never voted against his stated principles — which are conservative — and that says something, for a politician.

But I really thought Arnold had the horsepower and will to really shake things up, regardless of the political cost. Perhaps there’s a lot more to that connection to the commie Kennedys.

What probably happened, though, is that he got sucked in, just like they all do. Does anyone think that the decrepit California Republican Party organization gave one hoot about California and whether Schwarzenegger could turn it around? Don’t be naïve. The Party elite saw him as their ticket back to political power and prestige in California (dream on). Think their support and continued support didn’t and doesn’t come with any strings?

All politicians are whores.