Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Japanese Want the US Out

Read about it here in the DailyMail.co.uk. Here's a excerpt:
Thousands of protesters from across Japan marched today in Tokyo to protest against U.S. military presence on Okinawa, while a Cabinet minister said she would fight to get rid of a marine base Washington considers crucial.

Some 47,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan, with more than half on the southern island of Okinawa.

Residents have complained for years about noise, pollution and crime around the bases.

A Tale Of Two Speeches

Friday, January 29, 2010

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Despite Rejecting Government Help, Ford Pulls In $2.7 Billion In Profit Last Year

Read about it here.
DEARBORN, Mich. — Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy court, clawed its way to a $2.7 billion profit in 2009 and expects to stay in the black in 2010. It was the automaker's first annual profit in four years.

Ford's full-year revenue of $118.3 billion fell nearly 20 percent from 2008, but the Dearborn-based automaker benefited from cost-cutting, a $696 million profit in its credit arm and popular cars and trucks like the Ford Fusion midsize sedan and Ford Escape small SUV. It gained market share in North and South America and Europe, despite the worst U.S. sales climate in 30 years.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Me Want iPad

Medina on State Sovereignty



Debra Medina was Ron Paul's Texas field director during the 2008 presidential campaign and is currently running for governor in Texas. After the last debate, her poll numbers among republican primary voters jumped from 4% to 12%. She's running against incumbent Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Employer In UK Told She Cannot Discriminate Against Unreliable Workers

From the article at the DailyMail.co.uk:
So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.
Is this where we're heading?

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Friday, January 22, 2010

Quote - Frank Zappa

"The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
Frank Zappa, 1977

Quote - St. Augustine

“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a vast scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?

A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of `kingdom,’ which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity.

For it was a witty and a truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, `What is your idea, in infesting the sea?’ And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, `The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.”
St. Augustine, The City of God

William Grigg in reference to this quote and a recent comment by Bill Clinton on LewRockwell.com:
Displaying uncharacteristic concision — and most likely without conscious intent — Bill Clinton offered a splendid summary of Augustine’s insight, updated for contemporary affairs.

During an interview published in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine (which, like Foreign Affairs, is a journal written by and for the Power Elite, in which they extol their own supposed wisdom and goodness), Clinton helpfully defines terrorism as “killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.”

By reverse-engineering this definition we learn that “killing and robbery and coercion” carried out with “state authority” isn’t terrorism; it’s public policy. We can also infer that the “war on terror” is not meant to bring an end to such violence, but rather intended to bring it within the compass of proper “authority.” That matter, in turn, is defined to suit the interests of whatever robber band happens to be dominant in global affairs.

The consistently insightful Chris Floyd, who brought this quote to my attention, adds another key element to the equation:

“Only those states which by their cheerful acceptance of America’s benevolent guidance and abiding friendship have proven themselves worthy can legitimately exercise their authority to kill, rob and coerce. All others must forbear – or else be branded `rogue states,’ purveyors of `state terror,’ which in turn makes them eligible for `the path of action.’”

"According to a George Mason University Study, George W. Bush presided over the largest dollar increase in regulatory spending in decades"



@ 2:02: "According to a George Mason University Study, George W. Bush presided over the largest dollar increase in regulatory spending in decardes".

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Friday, January 15, 2010

Monday, January 11, 2010

20 to 30 Years of Global Cooling?


(For anyone who doesn't know, England is in the middle of a BIG FREEZE and that satellite image is real; not like the photo-shopped images Al Gore puts on the front of his books.)

You can read about the climate scientists who predict a 20 to 30 year period of global cooling here at The Daily Mail.

Here's the intro:
Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

Fleet Foxes

Really enjoying this band right now; loving the vocals.



Friday, January 8, 2010

One Happy-Face Cookie Maker Sues Another Happy-Face Cookie Maker

This is the problem with government recognizing Intellectual Property as actual Property.

You can read about it here.
Eat'n Park, a Pennsylvania bakery and restaurant chain, says it has caught Plano-based Cookies by Design selling smiley-face cookies that it says are "confusingly similar" to its own.

And it's suing.
Recognizing intellectual property is essentially guaranteeing the value of property for the alleged owner, as exemplified in this case. Eat'n Park is worried they will lose sales to Cookies by Design because they both use a happy face on their cookie. Losing sales = loss of value. Eat'n Park then takes Cookies by Design to court requesting that Cookies by Design be shut down to essentially protect the value of an attribute of Eat'n Park's product (the face with the perky smile).

Given that value of any property fluctuates bases on an endless list of factors, at what point does it make sense for government to play the role of protecting and sustaining the value of a piece of intellectual property? Never. No matter the prior investment, the origin, or the age of the innovation, the value (and therefore the intellectual property) should never be protected by government, if not for any other reason than it is impossible.

Property only exists because scarcity exists; because scarcity exists, property has value. Lets look at two different resources that are both valuable in use, but have very different values in reality: air vs. oil.

Air is very useful; in fact, so useful that if we ran out of air, humanity would cease to exist. The great thing about air is that there is an unlimited supply. Because air is unlimited, it is not scarce, and therefore has no value; it is not considered property. I cannot steal your air, I cannot use your air, I cannot sell your air.

Oil is also very useful; in fact, so useful that if we ran out of oil today, the human population could easily be cut in half due to starvation. We simply wouldn't be able to efficiently distribute food. The unfortunate thing about oil is that there is a very limited supply, and it takes time and investment to obtain. Because its limited and divisible, it can be owned, and therefore it becomes property. I can steal your oil, I can use your oil, I can sell your oil. In all cases you lose your oil; you lose property.

Ideas are like air in that they are unlimited in quantity. One person can have an idea, communicate it to another person, and then they both have same idea without the first person losing ANYTHING. Even without the communication of the idea, a million people could have the exact same idea all at once. In this case it would be indistinguishable as to who owns the idea. We look to government to make this determination, but why? Why should government have the role of labeling one person of the million as the owner of the idea while limiting the use of this idea by the other 999,999 people? In the end, isn't this protection of "intellectual property" simply a suppression of free expression which is the hallmark of any free society? Doesn't it also lead to the suppression of progress and innovation?

The perspective that one can own an idea has deep roots in our society and is not likely to change anytime soon, but every time some moron decides to sue someone for using their happy-face trademark, it should at least provoke a reconsideration of this perspective.

In the end, the protection of "intellectual property" is another example of the corporate sector mis-using government to protect themselves against entrepreneurs, small-businesses, and the little guy. That is a topic for another time.

President Of Iceland Attacked for British Stupidity



I love how the President of Iceland is attacked on the BBC for being undemocratic for forcing a public referendum before passing a law (the ultimate form of democracy).

The BBC media seem to be pretty pissed off at Iceland. Here's another video where the President of Iceland is being attacked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyAyw1aOww

I wonder, should the people of Iceland vote against the bill, will the British invade Iceland? Will they be labeled a nation harboring terrorists? Will sanctions be laid? How pissed off will the Dutch and English get?

For a little background, a private on-line bank, Icesave, went bankrupt at the height of the economic crisis. Dutch and English depositors were hardest hit. Their respective governments covered the losses of these depositors, which totaled over $5 billion.

Currently, legislation is being pushed through the Icelandic government to set stringent terms forcing the taxpayers of Iceland to payback the losses. The president, in a move that has seemed to pissed off everyone accept the citizens of Iceland, is forcing a referendum on the bill and this has gotten English and Dutch panties in a naught; probably because they know it won't pass.

In no way is Iceland's government, and the taxpayers of Iceland, responsible for the losses of a private bank. If the English and Dutch governments want to insure the deposits of a foreign bank, its their problem.

Update: This little commentary is simply to give credit where credit is due. It is in no way an endorsement of President Grimsson.

Helen Thomas: Why Do They Attack Us?

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Friday, January 1, 2010