It happens, occassionally

I am as shocked as you are, but I just read a great Op-ed in the NY Times. Thomas Friedman occasionally comes out with a well-reasoned op-ed that has a terrific point. In this op-ed, 30 Little Turtles, Friedman defends globalization. His essential point is that by outsourcing low-wage, call-center jobs to countries like India and Pakistan, we are improving the world.

His best example is when he goes through the comments of several of the Indians in this training center. They want to be entrepenuers, they are learning self-confidence and independence. They admire Bill Gates. And Then he writes:

I was in Ramallah, on the West Bank, talking to three young Palestinian men, also in their 20's, one of whom was studying engineering. Their hero was Yasir Arafat. They talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and they each nodded when one of them said they were all "suicide bombers in waiting."

Friedman's ultimate point is that through allowing globalization and a free market (my words, not his), " we make not only a more prosperous world, but a safer world for our own 20-year-olds. "

Good News

I received some excellent news today: I was admitted in to the Ph.d program at ASU to complete my doctorate in philosophy. This is very exciting!

Marriage Amendment

Foxnews: Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.

President Bush said Tuesday that the Constitution must be amended to bar gay marriage because he said the nation must defend "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

1) I don't think marriage is the "most fundamental institution of civilization." I'm not sure what I'd say was, but this is not my primary objection to this movement for an amendment.



2) I see no need to give the federal goverment, or any more local government, any further power to ban consenting actions between adults. I don't think the government should be in the business of dealing with marriage anyway. This is is private matter and the government's role should just be enforcing aspects of the union between individuals. E.g. a contract enforcer.



I just don't get why this is such a big deal. Two people love each other and want to committ to each other -- why should the particular form of their sex and gender matter?

Go Pats!!!!!

Once again, I am trying to get into this blogging thing. In that spirit, I've changed the template on the site. I am just using one of the templates that blogger supplies.

I am also starting to do some blogging at The Altasphere as well.

In praise of price gauging.

Phoenix is in the middle of a gas crisis. Reminiscent of the 70's embargo, there are lines 20-30 cars deep at gases that have gas. Most stations don't even have gas.

The problem is a pipeline breaking down north of Tucson. The pipeline has been repaired, but we are waiting on the Feds to approve testing on the repairs. So currently the gas is being trucked in. Apparently there aren't enough trucks to fill everyone up.

Anyway, the prices have gone up to almost 2.15, even 2.50, a gallon. I am not psyched about paying such high prices, but the higher they go, the quicker the crisis will be over.

Of course the state officials have all said they will investigate and prosecute and price gauging. This is silly. Let the stations gauge and charge as much as they get. This will have the effect of bringing more gas to the market (suppliers in search of profit). And it will also curb peoples driving resulting in more gas available.

Bring on the gauging and end the gas crisis.

The blackout has past, but the commentary on continues to flow. One of the main bits of comments floating around is this idea that the blackout was the result of deregulation. This really bugs me. There was no deregulation in the '65 or '77 blackout. It's not as if a fully regulated system is able to prevent such a massive blackout, so its really disingenous to claim that this blackout was a result of deregulation.

I think, one might make the argument that this shows that deregulation and privatization of the electric system is even more needed.

Let's remember that while there has been some deregulation, it is hardly a free-market system. The federal and state government still controls many if not most of the aspects of the generation and distribution of electricity.

The infrastructure of the power system has not been upgraded primarily because of the high cost and lack of investment in this part of the system. Why is it like that? Because this part of the system is, if I understand it correctly, still heavily regulated and the profit margin in this area is very small and so investers aren't willing to put their money there.

There is also a tragedy of the commons here with everyone wanting the upgrades, but no one thinks they should foot the full bill for it and everyone using the system and trying to get as much out of as possible.

In a free system, I think, black outs would less common because of more competition and more investment in infrastructure.

Check out this link for more information on the black out:
Reason Public Policy Institute: Blackout Resource Center

More information on privatization of the electric system:
Electricity Competition Center

It is rather interesting to me that many of the top figures in the PLO are calling for Abbas's release. What is there motivation? What do they see they can gain from his release? What could they gain from asking that a known terrorist be given immunity?

The claim that Oslo legally gives Abbas immunity is a bit of a stretch. Read the Oslo Accords. The section dealing with immunity says this:

Palestinians from abroad whose entry into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is approved pursuant to this Agreement, and to whom the provisions of this Article are applicable, will not be prosecuted for offenses committed prior to September 13, 1993.

Abbas, I understand, was allowed to enter the West Bank a number of years ago. But who ever wrote those left it too open -- one of the many problems of documents between Israelis and Arabs.

But given that this is an accord between Israel and the PLO, it is a reasonable interpretation to think that the prosecuter in question here would be Israel. After all, it wouldn't be reasonable to think that some Palestinian who detectives just recently found to be responsible for a (non-terror related) murder in Romania in August 1993 couldn't be tried for his crime in Romania.

Certainly, Oslo says that Israel can't prosecute Abbas, but it doesn't say that Italy or the US can't. The fact that the US was a witness to the Oslo Accords is a rather weak legal basis for saying that the US must release Abbas.

Which brings me back to my original question. Why argue for this guys release on such flimsy legal reasoning?

I just finished reading Bernard Lewis' I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go To Hell from the May issue of The Atlantic. Interesting, but nothing really new, if you read his stuff. Very similar to his new book Crisis in Islam which, I think, was an expansion of an Atlantic article. These guy knows how to market his stuff!

But anyway, if you don't know his stuff, this is an interesting comparison of Christianity and Islam and their views of history and their interaction over that history--particularly in regards to issues of toleration.

I am not good at this blogging thing. I had hoped to become a regularly blogger and babble my thoughts into cyberspace, but I just haven't been able to do it. But I will keep trying!

So I am sitting in Starbucks on Tuesday, as I often am. I am working on an upcoming philosophy course, and I have George Smith's Atheism: the Case Against God on the table. Now to be totally honest, I should say that I kind of purposely put the book in prominent view because the table next to me was occupied by two young women reading from the bible and writing letters to their neighbors. I think they were Jevohah Witnesses. I was, in retrospect, asking for trouble.

A table near the other side of the shop had a group of high school students, and they left shortly after I sat down and placed Smith's book on the table. About five mintues later, though, one of the young women that had left, tapped me on the shoulder. she handed me a brand-new King James version of the Bible. I told her that I didn't want it, and she says "I'd feel better if you had it." I told her again that I didn't want, that I didn't need it and that I would probably just leave it in Starbucks. She put it down on my table, and said "I just want you to have it." And then she left.

She had caught me off guard or I would have come up with some clever quip. Anyway, I put the book on the table next to me and went back to my work. But I noticed that the front cover had some writing inside it, in marker and not print. And so I opened it up and the woman had written: "Dear Sir, He is the true God. Read some bible passages listed. We will be praying for you. If you have any questions, call pastors name and number"

Now, I have to keep the book, it makes too great of a story. But as I thought about this, it really is kind of obnxious and rude. 1) Why should she assume that I am an atheist because I am reading a book about atheism? I could just be comfortable enough in my beliefs not to be threatened by counterarguments. 2) What business is of hers anyway?

But at least I got a great story out of it, and a free bible, to boot.

An interesting article at the Jewish World Review: Should Israel go Nazi? A bit irreverent and harsh, the article examines what the Middle East would be like if the Israelis were the oppressors that their critics claim them to be. Anti-Israel folks often use Nazi imagery to taint Israel and Jews, calling the Jews Nazis and claiming that Israel is engaged in genocide. Perlmutter asks, the historians what if? What if Israel was bent on genocide and expansion over the Middle East?

His answer: there wouldn't be any Palestinians or Arabs left. Israel would have run over everything from Bagdad and Damscus to Cairo and Tunis. There wouldn't be terrorists today because they'd be all dead. And what Arabs remained wouldn't protest and throw stones, becuase they would know that they would be rounded up and killed.

Of course, now of this has happened and it won't happen. Could Israel have militarily taken over all this territory? I doubt it, but Perlmutter's point is not this. His point is that the Israel's are actually motivated by peace and morality, not hatred and expansionity ideology. They consider the moral consequences of their actions and don't kill innocents indiscriminately or purposefully.

I got the NY Times today to read David Kelley's letter on Ayn Rand and Greenspan. A good letter, it should get the Center some much needed visibility. The original he sent to them was of course much stronger, but they edited it down.

Anyway, practically right next to David's letter is a letter about health care. This individual claims that our health care system "is not driven by common market forces" and that "is not governed by the conventional principles of economics." And this is why is should be centrally and publicly planned!!

Ironically the title NY Times gave the letter is "Health Care's Logic" Because letter displays the more common logical fallacies, his conclusion is a non sequitur and his case is circular.

First, his conclusion is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow from the premises that Health Care operates differently than other markets, that it should be centrally and publicly planned. He needs more premises that show that when a particular market functions differently than common markets that it should then be planned. (and by the way, he also needs to explain how these differences solve all the economic problems of centrally planned markets.)

Second, his case is circular because the reason that Health Care doesn't operate like other markets and according to conventional principles of economics is not that there is something different about Health Care as a market, but because health care is so heavily regulated by governments.

Entrance in to the health care field is government controled through licenses. The majority of the tools used by health care providers, (drugs, equipment, etc) are regulated by the FDA. Prices and compensation is largely regulated through medicare. And so on and so on. Of course health care doesn't operate like a other markets, it is not free to do so. The government has prevented it from operating like a market through its regulations. More government control and planning is not the answer, freeing the market from the burden of regulations is the answer.

So its started. Everyone said libertarians we crazy for arguing that once the states were done with Tobacco, they'd go after Fast Food. They said it'll never happen. they said the slippery slope wouldn't run to Fast Food.


Well. Some yahoo has filed a class action lawsuit against McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's for making him obese. He didn't know, he claims, that fast food could make you fat. Appparently it makes you stupid too.

Not that anyone is reading this...I am watching that show "The Agency." It usually is pretty decent, at least for Saturday night TV. One character actually says "No one is saying that we should end the drug war" and another, I guess the head of the CIA, said "we have a moral obligation to fight drugs" (emphasis mine)

A moral obligation? I'll never get that. I think that a case could be made that anything more than casual or recreational use of drugs is immoral, but this is because the likelihood that such abusive use is bad for the individual's life. But from where does the Government get a moral obligation to fight drugs? Its too late at night to start considering whether government can have any moral obligations, but certainly if they have any it should be to protect individual rights. And not to sound like libertarian record but whose rights are violated by drug use, even abusive drug use?

This is the first post. This is just a test so far...