There’s some interesting discussion going on at Critical Mass and The Volokh Conspiracy regarding free speech issues, especially as they relate to speech at universities. David Bernstein argues here that there should be no state-run universities! Indeed? Who does he think is going to pick up the slack? I love the free market as much as the next man, but it doesn’t have a great track record of accommodating the little guy, except as a stepping stone to the mainstream. Government is supposed to provide a larger umbrella for its citizens, one that isn’t turned inside out by the shifting winds of economic fortune.

From BBC News: France ponders Haiti peace force, “France says it is ready to consider sending a peacekeeping force to its former colony Haiti, where civil unrest has left more than 50 people dead.”

Why ironic? Read up on Haitian history at my other blog, The Louverture Project. But also, Haiti is in the US’s back yard, yet we have to depend on France to intervene! Shame on us.

POE News brings the funny. It’s proof that Rummy more than just fighting words.

From World Press Review, we get the article UN criticises vague ‘terror’ laws

“The UN Commission on Human Rights has expressed grave concerns about rights abuses by several countries in their quest to deal with perceived security threats.”

The report specifically mentions the US and the 560 detainees still held in Guantanamo after the post-9/11 crackdown. In response, ”[US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] said their cases would be reviewed on an annual basis and that those deemed no longer a threat would be released.”

On an annual basis Is it just me, or didn’t we used to be on the side of justice for all?

Sweet! Bill Maher’s got a blog.

Cleaning out the notes I’ve collected for blog entries:

---

[1]
This was mentioned rather exhaustively in Al Franken razor-sharp book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A fair and balanced look at the right, but it popped up on Aaron Swartz: The Weblog”, so take a look at The Clinton-Gore Plan to Stop Al-Qaeda: Would 9-11 have happened?.

---

[2]

“There have been 23 elephant-like animals in history, and yet only two survive today (and we add, they’re not doing very well). Clearly, this is the mark of an all-powerful creator who is stuck on the same stupid idea and can’t figure out why the hell they keep dying off. Hmm, perhaps it’s because giant, big-eared mammals with huge, prehensile noses are ridiculous? I mean, WTF? A giant, powerful, grasping… nose? It looks like something a preschooler would make up.”

Visit UDN, Inc. to learn more about Unintelligent Design Theory.

---

[3]
On a more serious note, is natural design more intelligent than we first thought?

“According to Nature, plants seem to optimize their ‘breathing’ by conducting simple calculations through a distributed computing scheme. “Plants appear to ‘think’, according to US researchers, who say that green plants engage in a form of problem-solving computation.”

See the blog entry Do Plants Practice Grid Computing?. I hope to come back to this, as the question of whether computing is a natural process and/or vice versa is fascinating.

---

[4]
What is the internet? Essentially, it’s whatever we make of it. Yet I really like the article World of Ends (originally seen on Slashdot) for its attempt to re-focus the Web for anyone who’s forgotten just what it’s all about. I especially appreciated the authors’ rebuke of those who think that “the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.”

---

[5]
Another from Aaron Swartz, on Liberating Libertarianism. (Also see here and here) These are interesting critiques of Libertarianism. Any responses? Is Aaron being too simplistic in his views, or is he on the mark?

---

[6]
In a Financial Times article entitled With friends like these, Christopher Caldwell examines pro- and anti-American attitudes in Europe.

---

That’s it for now. I’ll try to keep up with posting more regularly.

But no promises.

From Forbes by way of MacMerc comes this Eisner gem:

CEO Michael Eisner is quoted as say [sic] of Apple CEO Steve Jobs, “He created the computer, or at least Windows, or whatever he created, and did a good job.”

Calpundit posted an entry entitled Adventures in Forensic Journalism, in which he does quite a nice job at dissecting the testimony of Bill Burkett, the prime eyewitness in the media flap over George Bush’s attendance (or non-attendance) in the National Guard.

I took issue with one small point he made, though, and I’m re-printing my comment here:

[Begin paste text]

Kevin –
Nice work, and though this is so far down the comment list that few will notice, let me take issue with one small part of your entry:

“What’s more, Conn has a distinct memory of visiting the base museum with Burkett, but when I asked him the purpose of the visit he said, “it wasn’t an anything visit.” It’s hardly plausible, howeverj, that he would have such a specific memory of a “nothing” meeting seven years later. He’d only remember it if something noteworthy happened there.

I see this kind of reasoning quite a bit and it drives me crazy. I have memories of all sorts of random things, and I forget some significant ones. Let me suggest a few reasons someone might remember a “nothing” meeting.

1. The event was a break in the daily or weekly routine at the time.
2. It was associated with someone he had a particular fondness for (or was repulsed by).
3. It was associated with another date, like a holiday, birthday, or anniversary, providing a linking memory.
4. The memory of the meeting was prompted by thinking about a chain of events relating to a particular person, time, or place. Conn could be describing what was a “nothing” meeting at the time, but when placed in the context of a string of events, the meeting became significant, or at least memorable.
5. Perhaps Conn has a remarkable memory for events. Some people apparently do have this talent.

For more about memory, try this link: http://www.memory-key.com/EverydayMemory/autobiographical_memory.htm

In short, the brain is a funny thing and its rules are complex. A simple statement like “People only remember things that have a particular significance that I, the observer, can know and describe” is probably wrong, and I would be cautious about basing conclusions on this kind of reaoning.

That said, this is hardly a linchpin of your argument, and I find the rest of what you wrote quite fair and compelling. You just hit on one of my pet peeves, you know?

[End paste text]

The following entry appeared today on Calpundit:

Kerry on the War
KERRY ON THE WAR….Via OxBlog, the Washington Post has an editorial today bemoaning John Kerry’s contradictory stances on a number of important issues. But here’s the nut:The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry’s position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted… [Calpundit]

Kevin Drum’s response to the Post is right on – its not inherently bad that someone is for one war but against the next. I post this here, though, because one of the comments sums up my feelings about Kerry exactly:

“It’s really too bad Kerry has iced up the nomination. He fills me with misgivings. In particular, his vehement criticism of President Bush now for the Iraq War and Patriot Act when he supported those moves at the time. This shows me he doesn’t have any better judgment than Bush, and that’s a pretty damn low bar.” Posted by: SUV Drivin’ Greenie at February 15, 2004 11:11 AM

Kerry voted along with a congressional majority to kick the pins out of our system of checks and balances, and to give the President a blank check to prosecute a war without further congressional review. That is anti-American and un-patriotic in my book. God help us if Kerry gets the nomination, ‘cause I really may have to stay home and not vote.

Hey, Nader, you running this year?

Sometimes I really resent the last little bit of shampoo in the bottle. I mean, I bought a new bottle, like, 3 weeks ago, and it’s just sitting there, waiting to be used. But the old shampoo refuses to die. Like the last 60 seconds of a basketball game, the last little bit of shampoo just keeps going. I want to open the new bottle, to smell its floral newness, but the old shampoo mocks me, refusing to give up the ghost. Perhaps tomorrow morning, when I’m starting to wash my hair, I’ll let my attention wander and “accidentally” squeeze out too much shampoo. Or maybe I’ll lather, rinse, and repeat more times than necessary. Something must be done. I can’t even enjoy running my fingers through my hair. That’s how much I resent the last little bit of shampoo in the bottle.