Unwitting(?) Corporate Shills

At the Firing Line-style debate between Ann Coulter and Mickey Kaus, audience questions were required to be sent via Twitter.

On many websites, comments can only be submitted if you have Facebook, Google+ or another social media account.

This is frustrating to me for a couple reasons.

First, Twitter, Facebook and Google are large corporations, with political agendas that are often at odds with the sites that require them. Do people realize that by requiring participation/subscription to a particular corporation's offerings they are explicitly supporting that corporation?

Second, it's very disturbing to have people frozen out of much the community of ideas because they refuse to deal with a particular corporation. I don't use Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or any other social media account. I'm opposed to the entire idea of social media -- all social media sites engage in Orwellian tracking of their users to truly astonishing degrees. I've done research professionally that bears this out. I also have nothing but contempt for Twitter's trivializing, anti-intellectual effect on public discourse. The tiny bites of text it allows are anti-communication.

I'm required to have a Google account just to host this blog, but it's not a plus account. I even feel guilty about having that, because I know Google, even without plus accounts, is a major tracker and monitor of behavior.

Must Practice My Tears of Aggrievement

Today the blog I read that I mentioned in I'm A Lost Cause had some links to supposed Craig's List sex ads at CPAC. Man, people are sometimes so mean to conservatives on this blog. I am shocked, shocked and offended!.... Oh, wait, no ... not bothered by what a bunch of random people say. They're entitled to their opinion, and I can laugh at myself (or at my fellow conservatives).

I'm A Lost Cause

Funny thing about leftists. If they disagree with what you say, they'll no longer defend to the death your right to say it. Instead they'll try to dig into your writings for completely unrelated stuff and publicly shame you and turn peoples' opinions against you.

I had a guy try that on me this week, pulling up old blog posts from this site and holding them up on an entirely unrelated site as examples of what a horrible person I am. Of course, since I'm not actually ashamed of anything I've written, it didn't faze me much.

I told him that if he wanted to continue his campaign against me, that blog isn't the place, and to post on my blog. And that's definitely the best way to go. I have a lot to say about the things he points out, but every time I respond on that blog, I'm just further worsening the atmosphere for people who could care less about our little argument. Of course, he really doesn't want to discuss anything with me. He wants to call me out in public and make me toe the line, to shut up and stop saying things he finds objectionable.

It almost -- almost worked! He replied:

I’m sure I’m going to regret this, but all right, I’ll make one comment over there saying everything I want to get off my chest.

But then, a little while later:

Actually, some people you just can’t reach, and it’d be futile of me to try. So never mind. Best thing is to just go back to skipping over comments and avoid being baited.

So, I'm incorrigible. I'm not worth the waste of his words of enlightenment. Mom's going to be so disappointed. Anyway, that's one thing I like about leftists, they're not judgmental.

By the way, what did I say that was so objectionable? Just for the record here is the most recent set. Apparently he's been doing a slow burn for the last year or so, but I'm not going to collect all that. Since this is the series that caused the blow up, it should be sufficiently horrendous to get me on the short list for history's greatest monster. I'm not including full context, because it gets really convoluted, plus, I want to focus on what I said. My words aren't likely to look better in context than they are in isolation. Italics are quotes from others:

April’s comment in the first throwaway panel about the wedding being invaded by “gypsy assassins” just made me wonder if perhaps that wasn’t the best word choice.
I think there’s a blanket excuse from being culturally sensitive toward people who are trying to kill you.

...

 If you can’t have your fictional characters speak in the [terms the] character would use, even if offensive, you can’t really do honest fiction — you can only create politically-correct fantasy worlds where, for example, people who say “gypsy” don’t exist.

...

So are you saying we should accept the Paula Dean[sic] precedent as appropriate? I dissent.

...

So you are saying that the treatment of Paula Dean[sic. Again. I suck.] was appropriate, because there is “something wrong” with her. Thanks for clarifying.

...

I thought Lenny Bruce had it all explained half a century ago. We’ve undone everything he taught.

 ...

JP “Please dear, a Roma assassin squad is crashing your wedding. You know, maybe it’s attitudes like that that drive them into the criminal underworld.”

I’m afraid it’s already too late for Wilson, Manley and me. Whatever gypsies call a fatwa has no doubt already been issued because of our insensitivity and the real-life gypsy assassins are en route.

I’m being extremely wary about any approaching caravan wagons, men in colorful vests, or women in those peasant dress outfits. I won’t go quietly!

 ...

JP: Don’t let this get around or everyone will want Gypsy Assassination Squad crashing their wedding. They’re a great live act, even if they’ve never fulfilled the promise of their first album.
Oh, my, you’re right! That’s an awesome name for a band!

...

I saw Bela Lugosi drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic’s. His hair was perfect.

...

“…flapjap syrup…” Now, listen. I’ve recently been educated about inappropriate use of ethic[sic] slurs, and I don’t want you making the same mistakes I did. You need to use more sensitive language: “Flapjapanese,” or perhaps “Flapasians.” And whatever you do, don’t mention the war!

...

Gosh, some of my favorites! Your outrage is delicious.

...

BTW, did this have something to do with gay people? I didn’t check to see if Flapasians is gay slang. Or are you projecting? What exactly do I think of gay people? I don’t actually have a problem with gay people. I make fun of lots of people on my blog. People who get offended very easily and then try shut down people who won’t toe their line, basically pretending they are victims but acting like bullies, those are a popular target.

...

Hey, it’s fine that you don’t like me or my opinions. Surprisingly, I’m growing less and less fond of you and your opinions, but on the whole I’m OK with you not having happy thoughts about me (that’s actually the point of a lot of the stuff you’ve pointed out, in context). However, this isn’t really the place to wage your campaign. Please, harangue me on my blog posts, where we can discuss things fully and not waste the time and ruin the experience of people who come here to snark on comics.

And that's all she (meaning me) wrote.

Try as I might, I just can't muster up a huge heaping load of guilt over all that.

Business Cat

My 7-year-old daughter loves Business Cat:

Business Cat just called to make sure
That we're singing from the same hymn sheet
That we're optimising, synergising our portfolio
Diversifying our assets
By investing in other kind of business pets.
...

In the future, corporate buzzwords will be the way all the hip kids are talking!

It's incredibly catchy and well-done. At the end, I had to ask her, "What's it about?"

"It's about a cat that has a business! Hahahahahaha!"

That'll do.

Conservative Pro-Immigration Mush-Headedness

I read the Volokh Conspiracy pretty regularly, but I rarely enjoy reading it. It's an important blog and is generally regarded as a conservative blog (though the fact that it has been absorbed by the Washington Post makes me question how true that assumption is). Unfortunately, it's a blog run by lawyers and is marred by the fact that its writers think like lawyers.

What I mean by that, is that the writers often concern themselves far more with what is legal, or what can be justified by precedent and case law, than what is right. As lawyers, they have a certain respect for the laws and the processes surrounding them. I view that as a liability. Law is often twisted for evil while maintaining a scrupulous attention toward legal language and precedent.

The blog also appears to be generally pro-immigration. I think this is an extension of the fact that the authors are academics, and far more caught up in ivory tower theorizing than the facts on the ground in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods like the ones in which my rental properties stand.

I consider the pro-immigration stance to be an almost comically unjustifiable position on the merits, so it causes me to have grave doubts about their intellectual honesty in other areas (pretty much the opposite of the Gell-Mann Amnesia phenomenon. I try to actively cultivate this. If you discover a source being outrageously ignorant in an area about which you are knowledgeable, you should assume until proven otherwise that they are ignorant on subjects about which you are not very knowledgeable).

An example of this is the recent article "Assessing immigration policy as if immigrants were people too". How can you take seriously an article that starts off with such an outrageous straw man assertion? Point me to the ranks of immigration opponents who don't think immigrants are people, too? They are virtually* non-existent. This is a blatant attempt to demonize the opposition by the inference that they think of immigrants as less than human. It's ridiculous and offensive.

Of course immigration opponents think immigrants are people, too. We also happen to think that, as these people are citizens of other nations, it is those nations that have primary responsibility for protecting those citizens' rights and privileges under law. If that nation is failing in its responsibilities that does not mean that all of a sudden those people become the responsibility of the U.S.

Either you support the idea that the U.S. is justified in exercising Manifest Destiny over the entire world, or you accept that much of the world population is simply neither our problem nor our responsibility, nor should it be.

Also, lets make it plainly clear, when pro-immigration forces talk about "immigrants" they really mean "illegal immigrants." Failure to be clear on the distinction is another characteristic piece of intellectual dishonesty common to pro-immigration types. Of course, many of them are also "open borders" types who believe in the ludicrous proposition that anyone should be able to choose to reside in any nation they wish at any time.

As to the illegals: people who flaunt our laws, violate our sovereign territory, and engage in persistent deception to hide their illegal status or who refuse to accept the legal consequences for it are terrible candidates for permanent residency or citizenship. They are, by definition, people who do not respect our laws. They are, by definition, criminals.

Let's state the obvious: every person in the world is a person. It makes as much sense to talk about "assessing immigration policy as if immigrants were people too" as it does to talk about "assessing anti-terrorism policy as if terrorists were people too." Yes. Terrorists are people. We know that. It's rather beside the point. What is not beside the point is that what these people are not, is citizens of our country.

The article says "For many current and potential immigrants, denying them entry or deporting them once they have arrived means consigning them to a life of poverty and oppression in Third World countries."

First, our primary source of immigrants by several orders of magnitude is Mexico. Despite popular perception, Mexico is not a third-world country. It's an advanced, industrialized nation with large government, business and education infrastructures. It uses immigration as a means of letting off steam -- exporting its malcontents and its peasants rather than addressing their needs. Consigning someone to a lifetime in Mexico is not a crime against humanity, so lets stop pretending it is.

As for immigrants from truly hellish places -- pick a random African nation -- well, Africa is filled with hundreds of millions of desperate, impoverished people. It's patently ridiculous to say that our only humane option is to give each of them a free pass to the U.S. Even if it were possible to import the entire population of Africa to the U.S., if you think doing so wouldn't destroy the U.S. as we know it, you're lying to me or to yourself.

Anyway, if we really want to bring U.S. style rights and benefits to all the downtrodden people of Africa, wouldn't it simply be more efficient to take over Africa? Start a new colonial, imperial era? That would give the downtrodden people the advantage of being able to remain in a familiar land, speak a familiar language, and give us ample space to accommodate them all. Of course, this would be terrible! First, it's part of the liberal catechism that colonialism is terrible (all the ways that perception is wrong is fodder for a different article). Second, the Africans would fight us tooth and nail. For some reason millions of them want to bring Africa to the U.S., but they're not so keen on bringing the U.S. to Africa (except when it means us sending them boatloads of food and money). I'm fine with that. Let them just stay in Africa, then, and fix it.

At a fundamental level of human dignity, each man's fate and destiny is his own. If you want a better world, you have to build it, not expect it to be handed to you on a platter.

The author's answer to this: "One can argue that the US government is not responsible for the poverty and oppression that exists in Third World countries, and therefore we have no moral obligation to let in immigrants fleeing from it. But when we restrict immigration, we do more than simply ignore poverty and oppression created by others. We actively use force to prevent immigrants from escaping those terrible conditions – even in cases where there are Americans who are perfectly willing to engage in voluntary transactions with those migrants, by hiring them for jobs or letting them rent housing."

Unless the immigrant is to become an indentured servant of the U.S. citizen that is willing to hire them or house them, it is ridiculous to assert that the mere willingness of employers and landlords to transact with immigrants negates the societal effect of immigration. A permanent immigrant impacts the public space in numerous ways, and as citizens we have a right to expect our government to prioritize current citizens over those desirous of citizenship or residency. None of what the author says in any way establishes a plausible right to immigration.

I have to admit, the original article and the one in the link above are so endlessly tiresome to me that I can barely be motivated to slog through their rationalizations. We're arguing from different first principles. My first principle is that a state exists to serve the needs of its existing citizens, to protect their rights. A state has no meaningful concern with the rights of those outside its borders. Those people are beyond its jurisdiction in both positive and negative senses. The state has no more obligation to honor the right to immigrate of foreigners than it does to honor the right to trial by jury of citizens of North Korea. Surely the citizens of North Korea have such a right. Just as surely, we're not about to go to war with North Korea to defend North Korean citizens from their own government.

Likewise with immigration, the state has an interest in defending the right of its own citizens to immigrate to other lands, and promoting treaties and international laws that facilitate this. But, it does not have an interest or obligation to promote or defend the rights of Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S. The priorities of a nation are not necessarily symmetrical.

The cold, hard fact on the ground is that if every person in the world has the right to immigrate to the U.S., then the U.S. will itself shortly cease to exist as it currently exists.

You simply cannot allow several billion people with no interest in the United States' tradition as a constitutional republic with a limited government and a presumption of liberty and autonomy of its citizens to overrun the country. The vast majority of the world's population is some combination of tribalist or socialist, and simply wants to get in to the U.S. and get as big a piece of the public pie as they can via any means they can.

I see the Somalis in Columbus, Ohio rioting over Section 8 housing slots. These are not a people who are embracing our tradition of rugged individualism. What they're embracing is our handouts. To continue to import people like that is national suicide! I refuse to even spend too much thought over pro-immigration navel-gazing when they can't even recognize that elephant standing right in front of them. I say:

Listen you over-educated bunch of academic soft-heads -- the starving masses from around the world are not rational, acadamic philosophers. They are not your friends. They don't come in peace. They don't have a reverence for your progressive pluralistic, "diverse" society. They come to consume you. Wake the hell up.

If they want a nice country, they can fight for it just like our forefathers did. On their own ground. They can't have ours.

* I say "virtually" to account for the theory that for every crackpot idea, you can find someone on the internet who supports it.

Journalists: Big Numbers Are Hard!

I only saw it today, but back in August PJ Media published an article "Is America Inching Toward A Police State?" Now, it is not the purpose of this post to evaluate whether the answer to that question is yes or no. The purpose of the article is to highlight the journalistic device of "scary big numbers!"

In article after article, you see the authors refer to some "scary big number" or other, clearly with the intent to shock. Unfortunately, in almost all cases the numbers lack context and proportionality.

I don't have anything against this particular author -- I'm even sympathetic to his thesis -- but intellectual honesty compels me to ridicule his use of "scary big numbers" when such numbers are, in fact, ridiculous.

The offending example in this article is these two short paragraphs:

Whitehead said NSA personnel told him that a new facility in Utah has a computer that downloads 1 trillion bytes of information from the Internet every month.
“The new computer they have is so powerful, it can actually download the entire content of the Library of Congress in six hours,” Whitehead said.

 Wow. One trillion bytes! That's sure a scary big number! One trillion bytes, why that's ... um ... 931 gigabytes. Smaller than the typical hard drive in a home PC. Per month, that's 31 GB per day. That's maybe 150-160 Netflix movies a day. In other words, nothing compared to a typical hour in the life of the U.S. internet.

It's such an arbitrary and laughably small number, the author is almost surely missing something. The number is either wrong, or it isn't referring to what the author thinks it's referring to.

We'll probably never know, because the author didn't know enough to be critical about the scary big number.

AT&T Pointless Privacy Protection

I talked to an AT&T rep. today to add a feature to my phone. At one point, she had to get an official acknowledgment from me before she was allowed to use my account information to discuss promotional offers with me. I said to her, "It's very ironic that you have to get special permission from me just to access my account information so you can discuss my own account with me, but you don't have to get my permission to send all my call metadata to the NSA."

Right. Now that we have that cleared up.