Randoms

Mark Steyn:

A 2,700-page law is not a "law" by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege microregulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can ever hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension.

– If hate crimes were objectively defined, most of them would be committed by blacks.

– More good reviews of Pinker

– Bryan Caplan defends your right to sell yourself into slavery. Maybe?

Christianity and leftism

– As DC gentrifies, Prince George’s County Maryland deteriorates. There’s only a few comments to the article, but the commenters seems to understand what’s going on.

Most interesting news I’ve read in a while.

– "Civilization is never quite destroyed as long as it can be remembered; we conserve by commemorating, not by collecting votes" Joseph Sobran

– Do people include costs like this when they measure the costs of illegal immigration? My guess is no.

– At Volokh, there’s a guest blogger writing about affirmative action.

. . . they found that 54% of black men at Duke who, as freshmen, had been interested in STEM fields or economics, had switched out of those fields before graduation; the comparative rate for white men was 8%. Importantly, they found that “these cross-race differences in switching patterns can be fully explained by differences in academic background.” In other words, preferences – not race – was the culprit.

Advertisements

12 Responses to Randoms

  1. Master Dogen says:

    Can’t tell if you are being facetious with your “most interesting news” comment, Foseti. But at the risk of seeming like an ass in the case you’ve already done so: be sure to follow Sailer’s advice and check the date in that NPR item!

  2. nydwracu says:

    The headline WaPo should’ve run, considering this: “Area Afflicted With Notable Lack Of Diversity Struck By Crime Wave”

  3. stephen says:

    The probability that you are an illegal immigrant given that you are uninsured and driving drunk in my city is about 100%. Both my wife and myself have been hit by one. The first one almost killed both of us.

  4. Phlebas says:

    Meanwhile, the battle for the future of internet freedom continues. Isn’t this kinda relevant to our interests? If people can be arrested for making racist gestures, then who’s to say that the wonderful free speech that we have hitherto enjoyed on the internet will survive indefinitely?

    There is a war under way for control of the Internet, and every day brings word of new clashes on a shifting and widening battlefront. Governments, corporations, criminals, anarchists—they all have their own war aims. […]

    The War for the Internet was inevitable—a time bomb built into its creation. The war grows out of tensions that came to a head as the Internet grew to serve populations far beyond those for which it was designed. Originally built to supplement the analog interactions among American soldiers and scientists who knew one another off­-line, the Internet was established on a bedrock of trust: trust that people were who they said they were, and trust that information would be handled according to existing social and legal norms. That foundation of trust crumbled as the Internet expanded. The system is now approaching a state of crisis on four main fronts.

    The first is sovereignty: by definition, a boundary-less system flouts geography and challenges the power of nation-states. The second is piracy and intellectual property: information wants to be free, as the hoary saying goes, but rights-holders want to be paid and protected. The third is privacy: online anonymity allows for creativity and political dissent, but it also gives cover to disruptive and criminal behavior—and much of what Internet users believe they do anonymously online can be tracked and tied to people’s real-world identities. The fourth is security: free access to an open Internet makes users vulnerable to various kinds of hacking, including corporate and government espionage, personal surveillance, the hijacking of Web traffic, and remote manipulation of computer-controlled military and industrial processes. […]

    Even Moss, who participates in the highest-level discussions about global Internet policy, finds himself unable to keep up with all of the efforts to control the Internet that are happening right now. […]

    The Net has given more individuals more power in a shorter period of time than any new technology in history. And unlike many other world-changing technologies, there is no institutional barrier to access. This has made it, on balance, mostly destructive of institutional authority, especially that of nation-states.

    Everyone has heard about SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and all that crap. But what about H.R. 1981, which has nothing to do with intellectual property but which has emerged, oddly enough, at just the same time as the aforementioned legislation? News like this, this and this is popping up every day.

    Confounding the issue somewhat, as the Vanity Fair article describes, is the fact that the US government wants to maintain internet freedom in hostile countries, allowing it to export revolutions, whilst simultaneously (and surreptitiously) clamping down on the freedoms of citizens living in Greater America that might threaten its own hegemony.

    Anyhow, don’t be fooled into thinking that this is just a story about “greedy corporations”. To quote again from the Vanity Fair article,

    Corporate ambitions are a huge issue, but “the real War for the Net,” Cerf believes, “is governments who want to control it, and that includes our own government.”

    • spandrell says:

      I’m the first one concerned. Any suggestions?

      There seems to be little way out. When they decide to go out to get us there’s nothing to really stop them.

      • Phlebas says:

        I assume that we have time, just not time to waste. The first priority is to start developing on the internet an efficient truth system, or the “Antiversity” as it has been named. I have been working on something which I will share with you all reasonably soon, which may or may not be a viable if very rudimentary first step in that direction.

        Subsequently, I believe that the best way to proof ourselves, or those who are serious about taking action to preserve or install responsible government in the medium future, against political censorship of the internet is to begin as soon as possible to form robust communities or cells in “meatspace”.

        But wait…I’m just recapitulating what Moldbug taught in this essay. If you haven’t read it, do so now.

      • spandrell says:

        Please do keep us posted. foseti has my email. Though I don’t know if we should even be using that. Would a russian email account help? chinese? Iranian?

      • Phlebas says:

        All that I’m saying is, if our governments could stop us educating and organising ourselves then they would. And, this drive for greater control of the internet is slowly but ominously bringing into being the “could”. If and when they do manage to hammer through the necessary legislation, in spite of the admirably fulsome protests of the young tech/anarchist crowd and teh internets in general, I don’t see that anyone is going to stop them shutting down the type of seditious sites and blogs that we currently enjoy, let alone anything resembling an Antiversity. Not when they already arrest people for making idle comments on “Twitter” and this passes without a murmur. Our saving grace for the time being is that it isn’t easy for the government to shut us down without gaining a level of control over the internet that involves them pissing off a lot of other different kinds of people.

        Therefore, let us ensure that by 2020 “La Reaction” amounts to something more organised than the blogosphere (wonderful though it is).

      • Phlebas says:

        Today’s news: hello, CISPA.

        According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.” […]

        Will CISPA pass? Nobody can say for sure, but at the moment, its passage looks likely. CISPA breezed through the House Intelligence Committee on December 1, 2011, with a bipartisan vote of 17-1. Also, as mentioned, the bill has broad support in the House, with 106 co-sponsors, 10 of whom are committee chairmen.

        As with any piece of legislation, however, nothing is certain until the president signs the bill. And if the Internet community rises up in the same way it did against SOPA and PIPA, then you will certainly see support for CISPA crumble in Congress (it is an election year, after all). That said, whether or not the Internet will react with such force remains a big “if.”

        Democracy in action! Bludgeon and harangue the people into submission with legislation they palpably don’t want! Keep on ridin’ that freedom train!

  5. Alrenous says:

    Apparently I should leave, get a new identity,and then illegally re-immigrate into my own country. It seems to offer numerous legal advantages over being a citizen.

  6. Phlebas says:

    Also on a truly random note, didn’t Americans used to be so darned optimistic about their government? Nice song, too.

  7. […] and Leftism (HT: Foseti) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. April 4, 2012 by Will […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: