April 30, 2003

Amelie, here's some articles you might be interested in: Suppose there was treachery More French speculation Sub-space crystal ball Clash of cultures Battlefield Europe The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris Farewell, France France is Almost Finished Extreme Solutions Germany goes unilateralist Saddam ploy costs Schroder poll lead German American Relations As for the much-commented-on gap between the rich and poor in the U.S., I think the real sticking point is not how big the gap is, but how well-off the average person is. There's a quip: "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." There is a lot of truth in this, and I think it really illustrates the point that equality of wealth is not necessarily a positive thing. It is better, surely, to have a small minority to have X+1 dollars and the rest to have X dollars than for everyone to simply have X dollars. However, this latter situation is not what happens under a wealth-redistribution scheme in any case, because not only will the small minority not have X+1 dollars, society would be deprived of whatever innovation they had that enabled them to acquire +1 dollar, and so everyone else would have X-1 (this analysis is not making any pretensions to qualitativeness, of course) dollars instead of the X they would have had if the innovation had taken place. Furthermore, wealth redistribution and the tax collection and enforcement apparatus is invariably a cumbersome bureaucracy that sucks up a fair amount of resources itself, so put everyone at X-2. Then you have to factor in the people that won't work as hard, or not at all, due to the feeling of entitlement generated by the wealth redistribution (the 'free rider' problem), which not only deprives society of their productive work, but creates an actual drain on the society's resources, so X-4. In this way (and these are by no means the only problems with socialist wealth redistribution schemes), everyone becomes less wealthy as a result of the attempt to seek equality of wealth. I agree, though, that there is much to be admired in the social freedom of the Nordic democracies, as well as European countries such as the Netherlands, and that the situations that exist in Scandinavia are likely peculiar to the circumstances found there and would not be reproducible in a large, diverse country such as the U.S. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

i don't think there's a best place to live in the world,the best is just where you identify yourself considering the nordic democracies...they usually are the kind of perfect countries everybody's dream about, big middle class, almost no poverty, no crimes and violence I 've been to Finland, I admire this country but I could not live there for the simple reason that......it's just boring......highest suicide rate in europe!! unfortunately human nature needs problems and shit to be happy !! it's sad.....and I admit it myself too! when nothing happens........we just get bored and we kill ourself.. :) BUT the good point is ( and I'm jealous about it) is that they are far more advanced SOCially speaking than us......total sexual freedom, total gender equality ( they have women president) no taboos, no religious pressure, etc........they live in the 21st century SOuthern europe is behind but the US is very far.........religious pressure, diabolisation (does this word exist??) of alcool and soft drugs, sexual taboos, sexism, racism, people get married in college!! etc...etc;;.. So it's also an example that highest GDP per capita is also not a criteria of happiness..... it's very true that you guys are very rich........(i just saw at the bookstore how many shits you can buy :) but you have also an important gap between the rich and the poor ....do'nt you think that a little bit of social policies will make this gap smaller?? i don't think it's normal that sthg like 80% of the US wealth is owned by the 5% richest. I think canada is a good example,life there is not like in NOrway or Finland, they have diversity, a good middle class too....it's just impossible to do that in the US cause you are 300 million they are 20 million. they also don't have a big place in the world and the fact that they don't import gas which make them totally independant from the rest of the world; thus ranteth amelie at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

i don't think schr�der and Chirac have deflected anger onto foreigners.....the "anti-americaniSM" in france has always been there , for more than a century, chirac , on the contrary really tried to calm down people's views about americans for this war..if you read the french press....the critics (not attacks) are only directed towards the government...and I can't say the same for the american press, who used stuffs as "france is antisemite, always loose wars, blablabla......and other bullshits, which surprised me cause it's usually the French who always critique the americans....i just don't understand their actual Hate (and it's really hate) , because it's simply unsual !! I haven't found any good analysis on that..if you find sthg, just tell me... but I think you're right about Bush's fears...... I just wonder if you think this tax cut is gonna increase the economy ? the richest gonna get everything?? how can it create jobs?? thus ranteth amelie at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've noted that the UN ranks several countries above the U.S. in terms of 'quality of life.' As I recall, the top-ranked country was Norway, which, to judge by the attitudes of my Norwegian friends toward their home country, certainly seems accurate. However, it seems to me that this would be hard to measure in any kind of objective fashion. What is 'quality of life?' Doesn't it vary from person to person, just what makes them happy? There are some obvious markers for it - such as per capita GDP (where I believe the U.S. is the highest) or average life expectancy at birth (Japan takes the cake here) - but beyond these, the judgments become murkier and more subjective. For instance, one obvious question pops to mind: is the country with the highest quality of life necessarily also the best country to live in? Depends on who you are. Canada, like Amelie said, has a heavily regulated capitalist system combined with extensive social protections, such as the universal health care that liberals in this country clamor for so loudly. (It is telling, I think, that a friend of mine with a serious, debilitating, chronic neurological disease regularly curses what socialized medicine we do have in the U.S., while all the people I've heard wistfully dreaming of such a system have all been perfectly healthy. As Harry Browne was fond of saying, if you don't trust the government to deliver the mail on time, do you really want to trust it with your health?) You see this sort of system in Europe, as well, and socialists in this country are particularly fond of pointing to the Nordic democracies (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) as examples of socialist successes, and what we should strive for for our own country. I disagree. I think Bill Whittle said it best: Despite the reams and rolls of evidence, there remains a committed, fanatical cadre of people who find the idea of a Benevolent State so compelling, so seductive, that they refuse to give it up in the face of any mountain of evidence to the contrary. They point to halfway states like Sweden, which, on the face of things, seem halfway awful by many standards. A lower GDP than Alabama or Mississippi - the poorest states in the opposing camp. But this isn't just about filthy lucre. The culture produces what? Abba, and Volvo. Loved the first, not a fan of the second. There is little invention, almost no outstanding contributions to science, technology, music or the arts -- although Bergman was terrific. It is a safe, decent place where everything is taken care of. It reminds me, in fact, of a very large retirement home. This is exactly what many people want the world to become: a retirement home. And this is really the crux of the matter, I think. I feel obliged to add that the Nordic democracies are not really socialist, which is why they can remain decent and free, if static. They have relatively high tax rates and some of the trappings of a socialist system (such as universal health care), but they are, as Bill says, really just halfway socialist states. They are still fundamentally capitalist, and in fact, the World Heritage Foundation ranked their economies as some of the freest in the world (particularly Denmark's). But the trappings that exist, and exist throughout Europe, are stifling, and the proof is in the pudding, as they say. How many Nobel prizes in the last 50 years have been won by Americans, and how many by all the countries of Europe, by all the rest of the world? What place on Earth has the strongest entrepreneurial tradition, and what place on Earth has the highest per capita GDP? Is it a coincidence that those two places are the same? Why is there a worldwide brain-drain in the direction of the U.S., instead of Europe or China or Japan? thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Republicans are doing the same thing that Chirac and Schroeder and Roh Moo-hyun and a whole host of other politicians have been doing: they're attempting to stifle domestic criticism by deflecting anger onto foreigners. I think Bush is scared to death that he's going to go down like his father did: people like his foreign policy but the economy's in a slump, and he's taking the heat for it. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

sorry WHAT do you think about the tax cut? thus ranteth amelie at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some guy from the Republicans made a commercial on Tv to support the Bush's Tax cut policy basically, it says : bush was right on the war then you see a pic of chirac and it says "although the opposition of our "so-called' allies" then it's "so bush he's right about the tax cut" then you see a pic od G. Voinovitch. with a french flag in the background and it says "despite of what some so called republicans think" conclusion: what's wrong with the Rep in this country? Why Voinovitch, who support a smaller tax cut ONLY, is suddendly French? WHy this obession on the French? I gonna start to think there's sthg sexual between us Why people are so much humlilated when they disagree in this country?? WHy do you think of the Tax cut of Bush? thus ranteth amelie at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Clark Lindsey has written up a summary of the 2003 Space Access Society conference: Real hardware is getting built, real honest-to-God rocket vehicles will soon start flying to high altitudes, and people are going to spend real money for rides for themselves and for their payloads. It will be many years before the startups reach the orbital highway but they have found the on-ramp and just need to keep moving along it one small step at a time. Indeed. Momentum does seem to be (finally) building. Read the whole thing! thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Scott, what level of autonomy would be required for you to describe property as 'private?' This is certainly an important distinction, but I sense that it is also largely arbitrary. Should I be permitted to construct a nuclear missile silo in my backyard? A lab that produces anthrax and sarin? You say that private property is only owned nominally because of government restrictions on that property, but property is defended by the government. The reason you can be assured that your property will not be appropriated by squatters or taken over by thugs is because the courts and the police exist to defend it. So, what is the line that divides 'real' from 'nominal' property ownership? thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Man's environment is no longer nature. With the advent of mercantilism the environment of man evolved to a system created by his own reasoning, the economy. The goals of individual firms within the industries of the economy counter one another to create a network of checks and balances. Just as any other environment, the economy cannot exist in delicate balance while ignorant individuals, whom are not indigenous, lay false claim to the domain of businessmen based on the 'goodwill' of their foolish constituents. My dear cheese-eater, there are a few things you must understand: 1) Socialism is a general term and has varying degrees--from the current United States system to the late USSR's system. Communism can best be described as Marxian socialism containing two distinct stages of development. The first stage in Marx's theory is the eradication of private property and the formation of a patriarchal government to assume ownership of the acquired property. The second stage in the communist revolution is the eradication of all government and state, unfortunately this never happens. We have witnessed two types of governments--and a score of others but for the sake of the current argument there mention is not necessary--that have arisen from this process: social democracy and communism (not Marxian communism). A social democracy is a society at the first stage of the Marxian socialist revolution, although it may not be apparent. Private property is only owned nominally: a person "owns" a piece of property but due to government regulation and high taxes usage is restricted. Property, therefore, is not private. Granted, the citizens have some decision in who is elected, subsequently, an indirect impact on the level of regulation. This is still not enough autonomy to describe property as private. The connotative communism is a system ruled by an autocratic regime. One party has ownership over all property, losing all ideas of private. 2) The previous argument explains how the scenario about the communal farmers is indeed socialism, although to a greater extreme than you agree with. The point was not the idea of communal living but rather the tragic flaw in any society containing social programs, the free-rider. 3) We are not discussing socio-economic systems. We both move towards the same goal, a better functioning society. The true matter at hand is our views on humanity. I am insulted by the fact that you would compare me on any level with an anarchist. I support a society not of "responsible individuals" but that allows for those that are most able--a word that is a discussion in itself--to thrive. Those that do not put forth an effort do not function well in a true capitalist system. Social mobility is possible in any system if ones intentions are profound enough. Any form of socialist system allows for those less fortunate to rely on those that are more fortunate. The government of a society should not decide who deserves compensation based solely on the idea that they are less fortunate. It is not human nature I have faith in and it is not humanity that I am concerned with. In a laissez faire capitalist system some poeple will be "fucked," but only if they allow themselves to be. An individual should not be protected from there own lack of cognition. thus ranteth Scott Phauks at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

sorry for the typing and grammar mistakes... thus ranteth amelie at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ok thanx appleby for your nice lesson on communism but I'm not a communist., although I know you would like me to be one :) Social democraties are not based on assistance, because they remain a capitalist countries, there're still problems, but the high level of misery and uneducation in the US is also a good example of a lack of social policies in this country. Just take a look at your nothern neighbor Canada, they can combine the american ecomomic system with a good social policy........and that's why they always be in front of the US in the Human Development index of the UN or as one of the most comfortable country to live in. You remind me of one of my friend, who is litterally opposed to you (he's an anarchist) you both have good ideas, a vision of the world where the human being, a responsible individual, would give the best part of him to contribute to the society.....it's both wonderful (even if you have different ideas on how to reach this thing).........but you both have a great confidence in the human nature.....and I think there're always be people who rely on the others, (for the anarchist pojnt of you) or people who will fuck the others (for the laissez faire point of view) And I think total freedom, although I think you have to go to that direction for happiness can not exist considering these circumstances and in both cases you need rules to force people contributing to the society BUT also to prevent them to fuck the other ones.... i don't think you'll understand me, my explaination is pretty bad...anyway george, I agree with your abortion stuff i just want to say that in that calif. case, people usually forget to mention that the fetus was 8 months, which means able to live outside the body of his mom, which I think makes him a human being Then I don't know if I will consider it as a double murder, since the baby is still unborn but I would certainly make the sentence more severe. this case has actually anything to do with abortion and poeple's opinion on it. last remark : I also wonder why it's usually always men who are mostly against abortion........??? they will never be concerned. geo thus ranteth amelie at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Scientific American reports that a strain of apparently cancer-immune mice has been serendipitously generated by Zheng Cui's group at Wake Forest. SciAm says that the report was online at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website, although a cursory search didn't turn the paper up, meaning that it hasn't been uploaded yet or I need to look again tomorrow when I'm actually awake... Update (8:05 PM): Found the original paper. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ABORTION: A MIDDLE GROUND?

One of the more appalling things about the abortion debate in the United States is how a huge number of apparently unrelated issues have a way of being sucked into it, and thereby becoming enormously and completely unnecessarily politicized as a result. One recent, and particularly blatant, example of this is the Laci Peterson case, where the State of California charges that a pregnant woman was murdered by her husband and dumped in a lake. The state has charged the husband, Scott Peterson, with a double murder. Pro-choice groups immediately (and quite loudly) denounced this as something that could give political ammunition to pro-life lobbyists, while pro-life advocates were busy making pious noises about how this "underscores the need to enact laws that would clearly criminalize the killing of a fetus." Assholes, all of 'em. I think the abortion debate is idiotic because it's enormously polarizing and, by the terms with which the two sides define their positions, completely unresolvable. The question that both sides have made the centerpiece of the abortion debate is: "When does life begin?", a question which, of course, does not have any clear answer, because it depends entirely on how you define 'life,' which is more or less an arbitrary distinction, particularly with regards to a fetus. Furthermore, surely both sides of the debate have realized that frothing-at-the-mouth rhetorical battles over this question solve exactly nothing, except to further polarize the debate and by that virtue alone, make it still more difficult to find a satisfactory resolution. What the hell's the point of it, then? Well, there might not be a resolution, but there are definitely some well-guarded sandboxes. Assholes, like I said. But I think that if people were to step back, and let themselves look at the issue dispassionately, realistic solutions begin to show themselves. I think there's three points that everyone can agree on: 1. Even if your opinion is that abortion should remain legal, or is not murder, or if you believe that control over one's own body extends to a fetus within it, it must be conceded that abortion is essentially bad. If you are not actually killing a person, by aborting a fetus you are eliminating an entity that will ultimately become a person. This might not be murder, but it's surely a bad thing. 2. A person has the right to control their own body. Regardless whether or not you believe that the fetus is a 'part of the mother' in the relevant sense, this is surely a right that everyone has. 3. If abortion was made illegal, it would not stop anyone from having abortions. Furthermore, it would endanger the lives of many women because abortions would no longer be safe. A fetus, it is my understanding, after a certain point, can survive if separated from the mother's body, if given an appropriate artificial environment. I think this contains an answer which might be acceptable to both sides of the debate, because it leads to the recognition that 'pregnancy termination' does not necessarily have to equate to 'abortion': Allow abortions in the current way to be performed up until the fetus can live outside the mother. After that point, abortions are no longer permitted, but the pregnancy can still be terminated and the fetus cared for artificially. On its face, this seems to satisfy points 1 and 2, which are the real sticking points, and this will become an even better solution once the technology becomes available to artificially care for a fetus from the moment of conception. This solution respects both 1, the recognition that eliminating a fetus is bad, and ought to be avoided if at all possible, while at the same time respecting 2, the right of women to control their own bodies (that is, not to have to 'host' the fetus involuntarily), which is surely the most fundamental of rights. There is still the unfortunate point that fetuses that have not reached the critical point will not be able to be saved, but the primary (and loudest) concern of the pro-life crowd has always been 'late-term/partial-birth' abortions, where the fetus is recognizably human, and this solution provides for those concerns, leaving (I would guess) only the most hardcore anti-abortionist still opposed, meaning that, at the very least, this as a political solution would resolve the furious deadlock on the issue, and allow other issues, like embryonic stem cell research, to be discussed with a clear public mind. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 1:01 AM | Permalink |

Ten people are given a plot of land and are to share the rewards equally. If all work at full capacity they will each recieve 10 bushels of grain. Assuming ideal weather conditions and that most people do not work at full capacity we will say each person reaps 9 bushels after the first season. Some of the workers become slovenly: one worker decides to work half days, another to not work at all, while the remaining continue at there normal pace. The second season each person now recieves 7.7 bushels. Three more farmers begin to work half days and the remaining five cannot maintain the land properly, leaving 25% of the crop lost. The third season each recieves 4.0 bushels. Due to the low output most of the grain is consumed and little is saved for replanting. The fourth season the land can only produce at half capacity... This is socialism... That's right my favorite cheese-eater surrender monkey, your favored ideology is flawed by the free rider--the frog that wants the fly without the work. Don't get me wrong, i am open to ideas also. I just have to look at things pragmatically, and socialism just does not measure up in the realm of cognition. I won't hold it against you though... well, not too much. The backbone of society is private property not people, institutions not collectivism, productivity not charity. Society owes nothing to the individual; however, as an integral part of a complex system of social interaction, the individual has a duty to contribute to society. An individual's contribution is measured by their capacity to strive for maximizing personal productivity through utilization of their own time and effort. To ask for the assistance of others without providing adequate compensation is a disservice to the organizations and institutions that allow society to continue. thus ranteth Scott Phauks at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 29, 2003

Prostitution is illegal, but you can still hire "escort services"... thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

i've just learned that prostitution was illegal in the United States!! i'm surprised....this country gets more bizarre everyday....... thus ranteth amelie at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've done the political compass test guess what appleby??? i'm a socialist bastard... :) actually left libertarian : left : about - 6, liberterian : about - 8 i'm kinda close to Ghandi, which I think is pretty cool :) I'm not very surprised actually.......but I'm a smart liberal opened to every suggestions from my dear enron- friendly laissez-faire pals.... :) thus ranteth amelie at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am Amelie. I am French. Suck it. thus ranteth amelie at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kellen Smith has been suckered into joining happily joined our merry little gang of bloggers. (If we had a theme song, I'd play it, but since we don't, I'll just sort of hum tunelessly in welcome.) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bill Whittle has a new essay up. (I'm not sure if I like it as well as his previous effort, but in this case, worse than his previous effort is dryer than the sea...) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 27, 2003

I bullied James and Scott into taking the the Political Compass test: James came up as -1.62 on the left/right economic axis and -1.49 on the authoritarian/libertarian axis. (Someone who's not an extremist! Dear God, I didn't even know these kinds of people used the Internet...) Scott came up as 9.12 on the left/right economic axis and -2.21 on the authoritarian/libertarian axis, meaning that he's an extreme laissez-faire capitalist and moderately libertarian. Since I came up as moderately laissez-faire capitalist and extreme libertarian, this makes us interesting complements. Or at least it would, if either James or Scott would ever write anything... (Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, has entered the commercial space race. Apparently he's also aiming for the suborbital tourism market, and he's got a $1.7 billion fortune to aim with. As a commenter splutters, "What the hell happened? Did someone declare a second space race and I missed the memo? The X-prize has been around a while, but in the last few weeks I've read of four separate previously-secret ventures to get people into space cheaply." Yes, things seem to be finally coming to a head... (Hat tip: Slashdot.) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 26, 2003

I have come to the absolute, unshakeable conclusion that relationships suck. After an especially shitty experience breaking up with Sarah, this is what I've decided. And it's not just the breaking up that sucks, either. The entire relationship sucks. Relationships in general suck. Women, I have decided, have absolutely no idea what they want in a relationship: I have heard from women innumerable times how they are looking for a 'nice guy.' A 'sensitive guy.' Someone who they can 'talk to,' and who will 'understand them.' Funny thing is, I'm actually a pretty nice guy. Especially to a girl that I've just started seeing. I'm a good listener, I'm told, and I don't mind listening to girls talk about their problems. But here's the shitty part: if you're a nice guy, they'll walk all over you. It's happened in all the serious relationships I've ever been in: if you're a nice guy, in comes the attitude, the petulance, the petty sniping, and eventually, you just throw your hands up and leave. If you're a jerk, on the other hand, women get fed up and leave you. "Treat 'em like dirt and they'll stick to you like mud" is absolutely the worst advice ever given. Plus, I'm not a jerk. I don't like making people unhappy, and I get irritated when my efforts to make someone else happy encourages them to screw with my head. So what's a guy to do? Well, nothing, I guess. (Bear with me, I do have a point here...) What can a guy do? It is a sad, sad biological fact that I cannot seem to help desiring to seek out relationships with women, but I stand resolute in my unwavering committment to this particularly unhappy fact. It is nature's miserable joke that I desire to seek out something that makes me so damnably unhappy... But let me start at the beginning. (You knew this was coming...) A few days ago, Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican Senator with considerable power, volunteered his views on gay sex, of all things. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home," he pompously declared, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." He went on to note that he was quite certain there was no constitutional right to privacy, and that the government (who, unnervingly, he addressed using the pronoun 'we') really ought to have the right to control people's passions and desires, as he put it. First, the obvious: this was the most politically bone-headed comment since Trent "Segregation Forever" Lott decided it would be just a grand idea to formally endorse Strom Thurmond's segregationist Dixiecrat campaign for President, 55 years after the fact. Bush, who has been going out of his way to make the GOP seem inclusive, tolerant, appealing towards the center, for some equally bone-headed reason felt the need to go out of his way to comment on what an inclusive guy Santorum is. Well, that's good to know. He thinks gays should be locked up for having sex, but he's a real inclusive guy, you betcha. He's inclusive like Strom Thurmond was inclusive in 1948: sure he's inclusive, he just hates black people! If the Republicans keep this up, they're going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I fully intend have a long laugh at their expense when they go down in flames in 2004. Of course, that probably won't happen, either, because there's still a strong social taboo on homosexuality, and these things have a way of dying down in such circumstances. And in the long run, this is trivial idiocy at its worst: sodomy laws have never stopped anyone from having oral or anal sex, and they won't ever stop anyone from doing so. It's a completely meaningless debate, because everyone knows that it's impractical and undesirable to police people's bedrooms. (Except maybe Santorum himself. I'd applaud if he went down in flames, but he won't, because if Pennsylvania voters knew anything at all about him before, they knew he was anti-gay, and it doesn't seem to have ever hurt him.) After reading this, I sat down and thought about homosexuality. It really puzzles me how people hate homosexuals, and think that they're sinners or should go to jail or whatever. I mean, yeah, sure, it's weird. The thought of having sex with another guy is pretty gross. But then, I think getting your tongue pierced or fasting for extended periods of time or wanting to watch the obscenely ugly Rosie O'Donnell do anything at all are all pretty weird things, but I'm not going to sit here and tell these people that they're going to hell or jail or some other unpleasant place. But I think the really strange thing about people who hate homosexuals is their continued insistence that it's a choice. It isn't. A substantial genetic basis has been found for homosexuality. And anyway, who the hell would choose to be a homosexual, with all of the shit that gays have to put up with in our society (actually, just about all societies)? Since it obviously is not a choice, what the hell is the point of hating someone for it? It would be like arbitrarily declaring your undying hatred for people with green eyes. Their eye color is not under their control, so what is anyone trying to accomplish by despising them for it and criminalizing the trait? "If we make green eyes illegal, then people will stop having green eyes, because it's a choice whether or not you want your eyes to be green!" Right. Did you, at some point in the past, make a conscious decision about your eye color? Did you ever make a conscious decision about your sexuality? No? Then what makes you think anyone else did? And that's just it: they don't have a choice, any more than a person with the Huntington's gene decides to develop Huntington's disease. Consider the way a straight person seeks out relationships with women: why would it be any different for homosexuals? Is that something you can help? No, not really. And neither, presumably, can anyone else. Which is, of course, why relationships suck. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 25, 2003

The world's first hydrogen refueling station for cars and buses has been built in Iceland. (James, how on Earth did I get this before you?) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A triumphant note from Slashdot: a Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that makers of file-sharing software are not liable for illegal fileswapping that occurs via their programs, much as VCR manufacturers are not responsible for people who use their equipment to illegally tape movies. As a commenter happily crowed, I can hear the Final Fantasy battle victory music playing as I read about this! thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does this sound fair? John Ashcroft supports the indefinite detainment of illegal immigrants without just cause. Does anyone else think that this is an unreasonable conflation of illegal immigration with terrorism? thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Check out RocketForge: open-source rocketry. (As they point out, John Carmack's group is already doing this, to some extent.) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 24, 2003

A team of scientists headed by Takashi Saito have created a 'super' titanium alloy by designing the material from the bottom-up. The implications of this process for materials science is staggering. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is just hilarious. (Hat tip: dr_dna at unigolyn.com.) thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to this ecological footprint quiz, which has been soundly mocked by James Lileks, if everyone lived like me, we would need 2.4 planets to live on. Well, guess this means we're going to have to settle the Moon and Mars after all... thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 18, 2003

Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites revealed its X-Prize vehicle today: as might be expected from Rutan, the spacegoing vessel, called SpaceShipOne, is carried to a high altitude by a conventional aircraft, the White Knight, then released to make the suborbital hop. The competition continues to heat up! thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 12, 2003

A number of space-interest organizations, which seems to consist of just about every space-related group of any significance except the Planetary Society (who have always been doggedly against humans in space), have united in a call for "space settlement" as the core of our nation's space endeavors. This is good news. The American public has always been fairly enthusiastic about space; the problem has been the disorganization in the advocacy groups. The goal that basically everyone agrees on - space settlement - was shoved into the back seat in favor of particular obsessions: the Moon or Mars, propulsion types, etc. It is excellent that (most) organizations have managed to put aside their differences and unite for once; although reporting of this was minimal due to the Iraq war, there is a follow-up meeting planned in the next few months in Washington DC. It should be interesting to see if anything comes out of this. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 08, 2003

Evidence seems to be accumulating against the case for global warming. Unsurprisingly, the much-demonized but statistically sound Bjorn Lomborg looks to have gotten it right after all... thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 05, 2003

There's an interesting account of the northern (read: Kurdish) front in Iraq in the Guardian. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Steven Den Beste makes several good points about the relevance of Iraq's WMD to this war's justification. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 03, 2003

XCOR has conducted the first test firings of their new 1,800 lb. rocket engine. Small steps... thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Iraqi military is shelling a Kurdish village in the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq. Does anyone else have the sinking feeling that we're poised to sell out the Kurds, for whom getting screwed is apparently almost a tradition? thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The French are proclaiming that the the reconstruction of Iraq must be done through the UN, for the sake of 'legitimacy.' Combined with their remarks to the extent of, if this is taken back to the UN, they'll fight tooth-and-nail to keep the U.S. from having a substantial role in the recontruction process (meaning, essentially, that our soldiers would have died to enhance their prestige and fatten their coffers), I have to say, fuck these guys. Powell's got it right in standing up against these self-interested, self-aggrandizing bastards. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Steve Bennett's X-Prize bid, Starchaser Industries, has revealed its testbed for manned flights. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)