Friday, February 29, 2008

Programming Entrepreneurial Kids

Now comes Troy Dunn, discussing his new book Young Bucks: How to Raise a Future Millionaire on The Glenn and Helen Show. I listened to the podcast this morning while walking the dog.

Mr. Dunn believes that parents should teach their kids entrepreneurship rather than giving them allowances. To teach kids to manage money, they actually have to earn it. If you give them money, the kids aren't managing their money, they're really only managing some of your money.

Troy, Glenn and Helen discussed several excellent ways kids can earn money. Some examples from memory:
  1. Troy's 8-year-old son sells cookies at public events like high school ball games. He has learned to take $8 to the grocery store, buy ingredients like oatmeal and cocoa, turn those ingredients into no-bake cookies, package them in ziplock bags with little labels, and walk up and down the stands selling them. He easily makes $50 every time he does this.
  2. Troy's 6-year-old son picks up pine cones from neighbors' yards. They live in a southern US state like Florida where yard mowing is a year-round activity. Professional mowers don't like pine cones because they chew up mowing blades. So Troy walks with his son over to the neighbors' houses where his son gathers the pine cones in his wagon. Troy keeps an eye on his son while going through his Blackberry e-mail. His son earns $20-30 per lawn.
  3. A mother complained to Troy that her 12-year old daughter was spending all her time on MySpace. Troy suggested that the daughter offer to "baby sit" the MySpace pages for local businesses. The daughter sets up the MySpace page for each local business and updates it with pictures and text they e-mail her. This 12-year-old girl has eleven local businesses paying her $100/month for this service. Everyone wins--the daughter still spends all her free time on MySpace, but the mother loves it because the daughter is earning over $1000 per month!
What excellent software to inculcate in children! Rather than training kids to expect parental handouts, they learn the rewards associated with work, risk, effort, and sales. I've added Young Bucks to my Amazon Wish List.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Armed... and Dangerous?

About seven years ago I carried a concealed handgun for the first time. An essay I wrote about that experience was published at the Keep and Bear Arms website.

Here's that essay in full, as I wrote it in 2001.

Armed… and Dangerous?

It’s 10:00 PM. My wife and I are stopped at a gas station along I-65 between Chicago and Indianapolis. While she goes in to use the restroom I walk to the back of the hatchback and open it. Nervously looking around, I’m reassured that nobody is looking at me. I quietly open the gun case and remove my Makarov .380 pistol and slide in a clip of ammunition, all the while keeping my hands below the level of the car windows. Trying to control my breath, I slide the now-loaded handgun into my Bianchi Top Secret fanny pack holster. Strapping it around my waist I sense everything around me in great detail—the slight breeze, the sound of traffic on the Interstate, and the sweet/pungent smell of gasoline vapor. I walk quickly back to my car and sit in the drivers seat, waiting for my wife to return, all the while shaking from the adrenaline rush of the past three minutes.

So why was I so nervously strapping on heat along an Indiana highway? Me, the son of a minister and nurse, now 33 years old, married, and without so much as a traffic citation in my police record? A computer networking engineer/researcher who works at a government research laboratory?

While I was growing up my parents refused to buy their three children (all sons) toy guns of any sort, and forbade so much as pointing fingers at each other and saying “bang you’re dead.” Instead, they promised us that when we were old enough we could have real guns. One of my favorite memories of that time was when Dad took me out of elementary school for a day to spend with him. Part of the day we spent together was at a gravel pit, he teaching me to shoot his single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.

Somehow I don’t think my parents were quite ready when, in 7th grade, I came home from my after-school job (fixing tires) with a Ruger Mini-14 rifle the owner gave me in lieu of a month’s wages. They were sort of trapped by their earlier promises and didn’t complain much.

I was already used to carrying a potential weapon. Hunting knives in belt holsters were the fashion for grade school boys in rural Alaska. I routinely drove a snowmobile to school, with enough tools on hand to fix the head gasket if it blew (again). The hunting knife on my belt was just another tool.

Fast-forward a few years. I’ve finished grade school, high school, and college. I’ve gotten a job and married. I have applied for and received an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card so I can bring my Mini-14 into our new Illinois home. I start going to the shooting range for fun, and end up buying a Makarov. I put about 200 rounds downrange with the Makarov every week or so.

Then I learn that Texas allows non-residents to get concealed handgun permits. I look over the requirements and realize that I qualify. When on a business trip to Dallas I take the required class, with the written and shooting test. I also apply for and receive a Florida concealed handgun permit, using the certificate from the Dallas class as proof of training. Both of these states required fingerprinting and an FBI background check.

Every year my extended family meets in Georgia for a vacation. My route to Georgia goes through Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. My research convinces me that all of these states recognize the Florida concealed handgun permit. Now I have to decide: do I really believe in the citizen’s right to carry a weapon? If so, do I trust myself to do so? Why would I do such a thing, anyway?

I was surprised at a few things during the time I was carrying a weapon on vacation.

Nobody I came in contact with seemed to care. That may seem obvious, because the weapon was concealed, but somehow I expected people to have x-ray vision, see the pistol, and scream in terror for the police.

By the end of the vacation I was as used to putting the Makarov in my fanny pack as I was putting the cell phone on my belt. The extra weight wasn’t even noticeable given the wallet, digital camera, flashlight, cell phone, and Leatherman tool that I already carry everywhere.

I never needed to use the “self defense tool”. This is the fifth year we’ve vacationed to the same place. Like every other year, we had good time and weren’t victimized by any criminals—or bears. But given the stories I’ve read about armed citizens resisting attacks, it was a relief to learn that the attacks don’t automatically come your way when you’re prepared to resist them!

I was able to see strangers as people, rather than potential threats. Somehow I didn’t feel the need to worry that the big, scary guy buying gas was going to ask me for money or worse. So when I looked across the parking lot I just saw people going about their daily lives—people who deserved my respect and courtesy.

Going through the mental preparation to carry a handgun for self-defense has led me to do a lot of thinking. Here are some thoughts along the way:

It’s no longer safe for me to get truly angry with people. When you have weapons readily available—and know how to use them—you need to realize that your unchecked emotions might have serious, permanent consequences! Also, when people know that I own and carry weapons, they may be more easily frightened of any (seemingly) erratic or out-of-control behavior.

Being a teetotaler already is good. Consuming alcohol while carrying a weapon is very much a bad idea.

If I ever start feeling depressed, it’s important for me to see a doctor or counselor. That’s obviously the right thing to do anyway, but a depressive episode could be fatal to someone with weapons around.

As a citizen of the United States, whose government is founded on the principle of the consent of the people, it is my responsibility to be politically aware and to vote. I may be naïve, but I figure that if the government respects my right to a weapon then the government is more likely to respect my other rights as a citizen. I learn the names of my local, state and national representatives, and communicate with them as I see fit. I join state and national political associations, and donate money to them as I can.

This leads to another reason I decided to get a permit and carry a concealed weapon. I know where my ethical and moral frameworks come from, and believe that society (the people all around) can trust me to responsibly carry a weapon. I also know that the right to keep and bear arms is continually under attack. By exercising my right to keep and bear arms, and doing so within the framework of the law, I am increasing (by one) the number of people who safely and responsibly do so. This strengthens the arguments of statisticians and other policy experts who fight on our behalf for this right.

Many otherwise trivial criminal offenses can lead to much graver consequences when a gun is involved, or can lead to lifelong loss of my right to keep and bear arms. Thus, I put forth an additional, special effort to observe the law. I really do try to come to a full stop at a stop sign, observe the speed limit, and pay my taxes.

Many stories I read about people who have engaged in combat with the government have gone out of their way to attract the attention of law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and/or have fallen prey to sting operations. Objectively speaking, these people may have the truth and right on their side. But the actions that got these people into their situations are often on the hairy edge of legality, and their speech can be nothing short of incendiary. Again, I want to be a person who is unambiguously responsible and law-abiding. At this time I see no need to gamble with my life, liberty, or property to prove a point about my natural or constitutional rights.

It has taken me quite a while to get up the courage to let people know that I’m a gun owner and enthusiast. The first time I put a Sturm, Ruger & Company sticker on my laptop computer, or wore a gun logo shirt in public, was very scary. I was afraid that even these low-key statements would cost me professional credibility.

In reality I had nothing to fear. I’ve been able to connect with colleagues who I never would have guessed enjoyed the shooting sports. Eric S. Raymond has been a big encouragement. A vocal, visible, and respected advocate of Open Source, he routinely arranges trips to shooting ranges from technical conferences.

When a school shooting occurs and is reported in the media, some of my colleagues inevitably talk it around our virtual water cooler. Within the past year I’ve begun to feel safe enough to speak up and suggest that guns aren’t necessarily the problem, and that banning the guns won’t even help to stop the violence. There are other, deeper problems in our society causing these tragedies.

I’m probably unlikely to dissuade the local proponents of stricter gun control. But what I can do is clearly articulate my point of view, calmly and rationally. Pretty much everyone I work with knows my position on gun rights. They also know whom the vocal gun control advocates are. I’m satisfied when my views are available in the local “marketplace of ideas.” Some of my colleagues have even gone with me to the range.

Five days after I first strapped on heat at a gas station in Indiana, I found myself driving back towards home, heading north on I-65. At the last Indiana rest area I calmly, almost sadly, unloaded the Makarov and put it in its locked case. Driving on into Illinois I thought about this year’s failed “shall issue” concealed handgun proposal, and considered how I could influence my Illinois state representatives to enact one next year.

(Essay ends)

Life has continued since I wrote the essay. It was published in 2001, before September 11th. LovelyWife and I spent the first anniversary of 9/11 taking the Gunsite 250 Defensive Pistol class. (We also considered it our 10-year wedding anniversary gift to ourselves.) In 2004 we moved to southeastern Washington State, where the town welcome flier includes instructions for getting a concealed weapons permit alongside information on telephone service and dog licenses.

But I still like the essay as I wrote it in 2001.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Tribal Culture vs. Islamofascism

Now comes Wretchard, suggesting that:

The great strategic weakness of radical Islam is that it must rule. By definition theocracy means the subordination of the tribes to its overarching authority and the repeal of its ancient usages under the comprehensive new ideology.

Countering that:

In contrast, the great strategic strength of the United States, which may astound its critics but which nonetheless remains true is its flexibility; its freedom from the Imperial model. America doesn't care a fig who your relatives are so long as you do well and don't trouble your neighbors. It gets rich by trading with successful societies and obtains far more wealth from Japan and Europe than it ever could get from Africa. Al-Qaeda's relationship with the tribes would tend to dominance. America's structural advantage is that it could deal with others as partners.

Wretchard is keying off a pamphlet by William McAllister from the Small Wars Journal. McAllister's fascinating work contrasts the basic operating system run by Westerners versus that run by members of tribal societies like Iraq. He quotes Sun Tzu:

Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be
defeated.

...then goes on to write:

According to T.E. Lawrence, “irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge”. This assertion certainly includes counterinsurgency warfare. All intellectual endeavors therefore must start with how we think about the problem.

a. A mental model is an explanation of someone's thought process for how something works in the real world and based on culture, attitudes, emotions, values, authority, persuasion and or coercion.

b. Each soldier and Marine must recognize and appreciate the fact that we see the world based on our own unique culture, attitudes, emotions, values and authority. As a member of an expeditionary force you will encounter people and cultures that differ markedly from our own. The hardest task is to lay our cultural lenses aside and to gain an appreciation of the “others” cultural operating environment.

Software is critical! Who'da thunk it?

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Clearwater Overlook



Camera: CANON POWERSHOT A410
Taken on 2006:10:12 17:43:34
Exposure: 0.005s (1/200)
Focal Length: 5.40mm
F/Stop: f/2.800

Thursday, February 21, 2008

King David and the Rule of Law

Given Rowan Williams' failure to advocate Judeo-Christian values, let me step into the breach to explain how the Rule of Law is firmly based in Scripture.

The story is told in 2 Samuel 11 and 12.

It was springtime, the season of war. King David sent his army out to attack the Ammonites. But for some reason, he stayed home in his capital city Jerusalem. While waiting for war news, he took a walk on the roof of his palace.
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."
He's the king--the ultimate alpha male. She's gorgeous. Sleeping with gorgeous women is a perk of being king. But Uriah the Hittite was one of David's best fighters--not a man to trifle with.

So David, being a politician, decided to cover it all up. He invited Uriah back to town to report on the ongoing battle. He figured Uriah would go home, sleep with his wife, and would never suspect the kid wasn't his own. Unfortunately Uriah was too focused on the fighting, and wouldn't even go inside his house. So much for that plan.

You don't get to be king if you give up easily. So David wrote a letter, instructing his General Joab to expose Uriah in battle to Uriah would be killed. He had the gall to send this letter to Joab with Uriah himself. Joab did what he was told, Uriah died, and David married Bathsheba.

All pretty standard royal politics and intrigue--except that God did not approve. He sent Nathan the prophet to David with a story:
1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

4 "Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."
What a jerk! David reacted appropriately:
5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity."
Here's where we learn about the Rule of Law. You can see Nathan raising a finger and pointing it straight at David.
7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "
God is telling David that David has been given his position and authority. David isn't king because of some hereditary right or earned privilege. Sure, David has worked hard, but God has saved David's life several times and protected him on his journey to the throne. David owes God everything. Even though he is king of Israel, David is still subject to God's laws.

And that includes the law of cause and effect and the law of unintended consequences. David gets the message, but it's too late for the immediate consequences.
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."

Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."
This mistake cost David dearly. He and Bathsheba lost their first son. He would later lose another son, Absalom, when Absalom figured it was his turn to be king and tried to take the throne by force from his father. Absalom would be the one to sleep with David's concubines, but ultimately he would be killed running away from the losing battle.

Everyone is constrained by right and wrong, and everyone has obligations to his or her fellow humans. Nobody is above the law of the Creator. Not rulers who have reached the pinnacle of power, or even founders of world religions.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Reasonable Expectations


Duty Calls


OK, so maybe it's not the end of the world if some people still disagree with me.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Christianity = Individualism

Does Christianity say anything about Individualism versus Collectivism? I believe so.

John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
By Jesus' own words, people are not saved by their membership in a group. God did give his Son to save the world (collective), but salvation is an individual choice and belief.

Something to keep in mind when evaluating the politics of so-called religious leaders.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Oh yeah!

video

A 6:45 AM walk on a 22 degree F day. Who could ask for anything more wonderful than that?

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Japanese American Internment during WWII (Part 2)

In Part 1, I discussed the context of the decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II. Today we mostly all agree it was a bad decision, but that wasn't clear at the time. What did make it clear?

The performance of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

This unit was formed from Hawaiian residents of Japanese descent who couldn't otherwise enlist, along with volunteers from the mainland relocation/internment camps. Rather than run the risk of having Americans of Japanese descent fight their relatives in the Japanese military, the 442nd fought in North Africa and Europe.

It was the most decorated unit in U.S. military history for its size and length of service. 9,486 Purple Hearts were awarded to a unit that started with 3,000 personnel, giving an informal casualty rate of 314%. The official casualty rate was 93%, but I guess that didn't count injured people more than once.

Injuries are not the most important measure of combat unit success, of course. The men were recognized as outstanding fighters, never leaving anyone behind. Probably their most famous action was the rescue of the 1st Battalion, 141st Infrantry. The 442nd took over 800 casualties to rescue 211 soldiers from the "Lost Battalion".

Before they were inducted, more than 75% of the interned Japanese Americans on the mainland answered yes to this loyalty questionnaire question:
Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power or organization?
Their performance in the service proved they were telling the truth.

From the perspective of 60+ years later, it's easy for us to condemn General John L. DeWitt for his decisions in 1942. But he was only acting on the belief, common at the time, that people's future actions could be predicted based on external indicators like race and ancestry. The record of the 442nd proved him wrong.

About twenty years later, Martin Luther King Jr. would ask to be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. The brave men of the 442nd helped prove that it's the software--not the hardware--that really matters.

Scratch Beginnings

Just added Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream to my Amazon.com Wish List.

Last month I discussed a misguided list of so-called "privilege indicators". Scratch Beginnings is an excellent rebuttal to that list.

Adam Shepard decided to empirically test whether success is based on privilege or individual choices. He moved to a new city where he didn't know anyone. He only took $25 and the clothes on his back. He checked himself in to a homeless shelter. His goals were modest: have a place to live, a car, and $2,500 in the bank within a year. Yes, he was college educated, but he chose not to mention that to anyone.

He terminated his experiment two months shy of a year, after learning of an illness in his family. Not only had he rented an apartment and purchased a pick-up truck, he had nearly $5,000 in the bank.

At the end of an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, he says:
This isn't a "rags-to-riches million-dollar" story. This is very realistic. I truly believe, based on what I saw at the shelter ...that anyone can do that.
By any external measure, Adam Shepard gave up all his so-called "privileges" to test the American Dream. But within the constraints of the experiment, he made excellent choices: living simply, only purchasing what he could afford, and working hard. Or, put another way, he gave up all his "hardware" advantages but continued to run healthy "software".

What an wonderfully encouraging story!

Deterrence Failure

Looks like another victim disarmament zone took its toll.

As discussed before, it only takes a few armed potential victims to deter goblin attacks. Even goblins that plan on suicide can be deterred--or at least stopped before they commit harm.

If potential victims are armed, heroes like Jeanne Assam will stop them. If victims are disarmed, heroes like Liviu Librescu get killed trying to save others.

UPDATE & BUMP: via Insty comes a Newsweek interview with W. Scott Lewis of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Read the whole thing.

Closet MDF


My apologies for the radio silence. We changed Internet Service Providers, so I took the opportunity to clean up the bedroom closet where all the telephone wires terminate.

This closet is in the far corner of the house. The WiFi signal was undesirably low in the master bedroom, so I leveraged the house Cat-5 wiring to move the Access Point to the kitchen.

Is it just me, or do you think I went a little beyond the Verizon DSL Self Install Kit instructions?

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

On Leadership (Failure)

Now comes Anne Applebaum, summarizing the controversy around a recent speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

Organizations are created and sustained by people sharing a common interest. The mission of the organization is to advance that common interest. Consider how the founders of the United States articulated the mission of government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Leaders of an organization must be true to the mission. A good leader advances the interests for which the organization is created. She must continually convince the members of the organization that those interests are still relevant and important. Successful leaders cast a vision of how people can work together, making more of a difference together than each could do individually.

By this standard, Archbishop Williams fails. Rather than advocate the Enlightenment values that flow from the Judeo-Christian tradition of the very Church he heads, he says they are
not adequate to deal with the realities of complex societies: it is not enough to say that citizenship as an abstract form of equal access and equal accountability is either the basis or the entirety of social identity and personal motivation. Where this has been enforced, it has proved a weak vehicle for the life of a society and has often brought violent injustice in its wake (think of the various attempts to reduce citizenship to rational equality in the France of the 1790's or the China of the 1970's).

Archbishop Williams should resign. The leader of the Anglican Communion must be a forceful advocate of Judeo-Christian Enlightenment values, not someone seeking compromise with advocates of sharia law. If he wants to advocate a legal system where people of different faiths are treated differently under the law, let him do so as Mr. Rowan Williams, private citizen.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Choosing Not to Carry

Kevin Baker responds to a commenter, who asks:
[W]hat if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?
Earlier, I wrote (in agreement with LawDog) that carrying a weapon should be a societal obligation for the mature, responsible person. At first blush, Kevin seems to disagree:
"Most Americans," Mark, don't think about it. Many do, and weigh the odds of needing a firearm against the irritation and responsibility of actually carrying one, and decide that they like their chances. (And carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass.) I'm OK with that. It's called rational decision-making. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
But that's not Kevin's point:
Some people are...terrified of the responsibility and convinced that they are not mature and competent enough to be trusted with a firearm. I'm OK with that, too so long as they do not work to deny me the right to choose for myself.
Fortunately, the herd immunity threshold for critter deterrence is quite low. Even critters learn when their colleagues are injured or killed by armed targets. Remember: the goal isn't to kill all the critters. The goal is to deter potential critters.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Quote of the Day

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Competing Goods

Via Kim, now comes this story from the London Telegraph:
Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre [operating rooms --ed] and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.
What are these women objecting to?
...[N]ew Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".

The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.
This is a classic example of competing goods. We're not talking good versus evil, nor even shades of gray between a terrible black and a praiseworthy white. Both sides of the controversy are acting in good faith, trying to do what they believe is right.

A brain-dead bureaucrat might decide between these competing goods by simply looking to the rulebook. The rule says doctors must have bare forearms, so anyone out of compliance must leave.

But that ducks the question. After all, someone must write the rulebook. And it doesn't really help the women decide what to do about that rule.

Each person should be free to make a choice. (Yes, I'm an Individualist.) Just as ideas matter, choices have consequences. Each of the Muslim women is free to decide whether to continue her medical training or cover her arms.

Again with the etymology. The word decide comes to us from
Latin decidere, literally, to cut off, from de- + caedere to cut
When you make a decision, you are "cutting off" alternatives. If I spend $10 on lunch, I can't spend that same $10 on a music album from iTunes. When I married LovelyWife, one of the vows included the phrase "forsaking all others," meaning I was promising to not have sex with any other woman. I was publicly declaring myself "off the market"!

Medical professionals must often make decisions. This is an excellent opportunity to screen out people who can't be effective in medicine because they can't choose wisely.

I respect the struggle these women face. But eventually they must make a decision between the competing goods--and accept the consequences of that decision.

Friday, February 8, 2008

History of Western Ideas

A few years ago Hugh Hewitt recorded a most excellent 6-part interview with Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College.

This is a great survey of evolution of Western, Individualist, classic Liberal thought on rights and government. Here are links to all six parts:
Each part represents an hour of Hugh's show. But since there aren't any commercials, each part only runs about 35 minutes.

Excellent. Highly recommended. I really enjoyed listening to this series while walking the dog. But more importantly, it put the various "dead white males" into context, showing how their individual contributions fit into the larger whole.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Male vs. Female Software

I'm a guy, and this speaker has me cold:

My favorite box is my "do nothing" box, just like he said!

Hegemony versus Empire

Imperialist. Hegemon. In today's American political conversation, these are bad words.

Is there a difference between an empire and a hegemony? Are they equally as bad? Is America both, either, or neither?

Let's look at the etymology of the two words. First, the word empire comes from
Middle English, from Anglo-French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare to command
On the other hand, the word hegemony comes from
Greek hēgemonia, from hēgemōn leader, from hēgeisthai to lead
Yes, it's a hardware versus software thing!

Strictly speaking, an emperor leads by force. A hegemon leads by influence. An emperor forces your hardware to comply, whereas a hegemon spreads ideas and norms that get into your software.

Arnold Kling argues that the right kind of hegemony is beneficial to all. I agree; unless people are running compatible software, disputes inevitably boil over into the physical world as violence.

So is America a hegemon? I certainly hope so. The deeply individualist founding ideals like "all men are created equal," as worked out through the American Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, are empirically (heh) the best way for groups of people to organize themselves and work together for the common good.

Is America an imperial power? Not so much. We do not exercise sovereign authority over other nations. Just one small example: a true empire would have simply appropriated the Kuwaiti oil wealth after defeating the Iraqi military. Instead, we returned that wealth to the Kuwaiti people (or at least their government).

So consider this little essay my contribution to the American Hegemony. May the best ideas and values of the American Way be spread as far and wide as possible.

Monday, February 4, 2008

The War by Ken Burns

Netflix has been delivering The War by Ken Burns. Very powerful series; shows impact of the war on people you can easily identify with.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Japanese American Internment during WWII (Part 1)

Today we all agree that it was wrong to intern US citizens and residents of Japanese heritage during World War II. But why was it wrong? More to the point, how did it happen? And what did it take for society to learn the lesson that it was a mistake?

Following Hanlon's Razor, we must not "assume malice when stupidity will suffice." Or, as Sir Bernard Ingham said,
"Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory."
The bad decision makes more sense in a historical context.

During World War I, even before the United States officially entered the war against Germany, the Germans in America committed sabotage against munitions industries. Probably the most famous example is the Black Tom explosion. On Sunday morning, 30 July 1916, a fire broke out on the Black Tom island near Jersey City. Over 2 million pounds of explosives and ammunition were involved. The explosion caused an earthquake measuring over 5.0 on the Richter scale.

The term "fifth column" had just been coined during the Spanish Civil War. Emilio Mola announced that his four military columns would be joined by a so-called fifth column of supporters inside the city. These supporters would be subverting the society under attack from the inside.

The prefatory text of Executive Order 9066 explicitly states this perceived necessity:
Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities[....]
The Niihau Incident was a real-life example of what Executive Order 9066 was trying to prevent. Native-born Japanese-Americans on this small Hawaiian island did their best to help a Japanese Navy pilot who crash-landed after attacking Pearl Harbor.

Fundamentally, this was a software versus hardware category error. U.S. authorities couldn't tell what software a person was running in his head. But they did remember that people from enemy nation ethnic groups had caused significant damage to the war efforts in the past. So the U.S. authorities decided to take action against the perceived threat by isolating people based on their Japanese looks and parentage.

There was a certain symmetry and commonality to this move. The Japanese interned Americans in the Philippines and elsewhere, for much the same reason. It was the normal thing to do under these circumstances.

It took something extraordinary to show us the injustice of this decision. Absent that extraordinary factor, we might still be hailing the wisdom of Executive Order 9066 and continue to intern suspected enemy ethnicities during wartime today. But we don't, and just about everyone rightly condemns Executive Order 9066 in retrospect. In Part 2 I will discuss the extraordinary factor that changed our minds.

RX-8 and Mount Saint Helens




Camera: CANON POWERSHOT A410
Taken on 2006:10:12 16:29:35
Exposure: 0.003s (1/400)
Focal Length: 5.40mm
F/Stop: f/4.5
0046º 9' 33.50" N 122º 5' 44.13" W