Al Gore, Friend of the Animals

Al Gore is out to save the environment again. From Mary Katharine Ham's Townhall.com blog:

After Live Earth produced the carbon emissions of a small country in order to discourage carbon emissions, Gore has moved onto eating endangered species to encourage their preservation, I guess. Don't ask questions. He's a visionary:

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.

The species is currently managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources, the body which introduced a catch and trade documentation scheme as an attempt to tackle illegal poaching of this species.

The story comes from the Humane Society.

Apparently, endangered fish taste better than abundant ones. I guess that makes sense, if no one liked them, no one would catch them . . . and they wouldn't be endangered, right?

What to Look for When Shopping for a Laptop

Vendor:

• Dell, HP/Compaq, Toshiba, Lenovo (IBM), Acer
  

Processor:

• The speed isn't as important now as it used to be. The most capable are:
• Intel Core 2 Duo (the Core Duo is older but still good).
• AMD Turion 64 X2.

RAM: (Memory)

• 1 GB at least (Windows Vista needs this much)
• 2GB is better. Get all the memory you can afford.

Hard Drive:

• 60 - 100 GB will be the best price/size ratio.
• 120 GB if it’s not much more.

Optical/CD/DVD Drive:

• DVD writer - reads and writes both CDs and DVDs (still a bit pricey on laptops). The terminology is confusing here, there are many formats (DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW are the basics. There are also dual layer versions of each of these). The ideal drive reads and writes single and dual layer versions of all of the above.
• CD-RW/DVD - reads DVDs and reads/writes CDs (most common drive in budget models).

Networking:

• Ethernet (standard on most all laptops) - regular cable network.
• Wireless - look for built-in 802.11b/g (or a/b/g) - again pretty standard. You may see 802.11n on some newer machines - this works too.
• Modem - pretty standard.

Screen:

• 15.4 in. is the most common. Most new notebooks are widescreen.
• 14 - 17 inches are common.

Operating System:

• Most will come with Windows Vista. Avoid Vista Home Basic. Vista Business is very good all around.
• If you want Media Center features (movies, music, etc) get Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate.

Battery:

• This varies a lot. 1 hour is poor, 4 hours is good. 2 - 3 hours is typical.
• Some offer high capacity batteries ~6 hours.
• You can find car/airplane adapters if needed.

Miscellaneous:

• Make sure there is a PC Card slot if you'll need one (for Sprint card, etc.).
• Look for 3 or more USB ports. Some also have Media Card readers (for digital camera cards).
• Tablet PCs are available, the screen folds over the keyboard to be used like a pad of paper.

Good Immigration Argument

Maybe illegal immigration isn't ALL bad. . .

The Real Media Divide

This article puts into words several amorphous thought that have been floating around in my head for a while.

Everyone talks about the huge divide in our society, how everything is polarized, left and right, liberal and conservative, etc. But I think this article makes an excellent point. The left-right divide isn't the real issue, it is simply magnified by the News/Entertainment divide.

Most people are not news junkies. They are smart, and they pay attention to what is important, but they don't follow every nuance of every breaking story 24/7. Others (like me) DO follow everything.

The article points out that the huge increase in information availability in recent years -- with expanded adoption of cable, satellite and the internet has allowed nearly everyone to find sites or stations that they enjoy. Naturally the news junkies gravitate to Fox News and CNN, Rush and NPR, and those who aren't obsessed with news follow their interests elsewhere. The news junkies, being the loudest, magnify any difference to the level of a fundamental disagreement -- when in reality the two sides agree on goals, and just differ on methods. (that's a theme for another post).

In effect this has created a new "specialization" -- you could call them "news junkies." They (I should say we), use their own jargon, and spend a lot of time discussing highly involved issues online, by radio call-in, and in our own specialized journals (National Review, the New Republic, etc). Meanwhile the world outside goes on, and most people just can't spare the time and effort to become experts in our field.

We (news junkies) are a little like physicists -- one may vehemently insist that the "the Large Hadron Collider WILL be able to produce the Higgs boson!", while the other retorts, "it will NOT, dang it! the energies in question just aren't sufficient - IDIOT!" Pretty soon, there's fisticuffs in the lab, and it's all downhill from there.

Meanwhile, normal people watching this are either asleep, or calling for the nice young men in the clean white coats to come and take the physicists away to a happy home with nice soft walls. (yes, Dr. Jones, there'll be Higgs bosons there, nice ones, happy ones! . . . of course you can talk to them. . . Just come on . . . get in the van . . . that's it . . . )

I'm sure there are people dialing right now to get us news junkies some help before it's too late. (as long as the padded room gets National Review, I'm good).

;-)

Healthcare, Michael Moore, and American Exceptionalism

Pretty beefy title, huh?

The National Review has an article on Moore's new movie "Sicko." the article gets at the heart of what really bothers Moore and other liberals about Americans. That we believe in self-reliance and generally "live and let live."

This attitude stems from the nearly universal idea we have that America is different from other countries, that it is special, and better than other countries. This makes us stubbornly resistant to socialist rantings

America has a deep-seated individualistic value system that, coupled with the lack of European-style class conflict, inhibited the rise of social democracy here. As one historian has put it, if you were to set out to design a society hostile to collectivism, “one could not have done much better than to implement the social development that has, mostly unplanned, constituted America.”

This exceptionalism has its downsides — our high rates of violence, for one — but it also has created a extraordinarily dynamic and open society that can adjust to and thrive in the globalized economy in a way that sclerotic social democracies can’t.

So, three cheers for the red, white and blue, and . . .

Feminism losing ground?

The National Organization of Women is probably gathered in an emergency session today to deal with this new survey of mothers.

The Pew Research Center survey, being released today, found that only 21 percent of working mothers with children younger than 18 viewed full-time work as the best arrangement, down from 32 percent in 1997. Sixty percent of the working mothers said a part-time job would be best, up from 48 percent 10 years ago. And 19 percent said not working at all would be ideal — roughly the same as in 1997.

The survey also found a shift in preferences among stay-at-home mothers. Only 16 percent of them said their ideal situation would be to work full time outside the home, down from 24 percent in 1997. Conversely, 48 percent now say that not working at all outside the home is the best arrangement, up from 39 percent who felt that way in 1997. . . Cary Funk, a Pew researcher on the survey, said the trend reflected women's latest thoughts on the ideal arrangement for their children.

Apparently, not all modern women want to be workaholics. Oddly enough, many women believe that it would be better for their children if mom were at home either full or part time. . . huh . . . go figure. The really interesting part is the huge change in responses since 1997. Today, 33% fewer working mothers think full-time work is ideal than thought so 10 years ago. 25% more think part-time work would be best. That's a huge shift in a very short time. These aren't all new women entering the workforce with new ideas either. Many of the same women surveyed now were working in 1997. Many of these mothers are probably working in order to make ends meet rather than because they want to, given the cost of living "the good life" today.

Mothers who actually raise their children seem to be happier too. Today 33% fewer full-time moms want to be full-time workers outside the home than 10 years ago. Now 20% more full-time moms think they are doing what's best for their children than thought so in 1997. Almost half think that their being at home is best. (makes one wonder why the other half are at home, doesn't it?)

I can only guess at why opinions have changed so much. Maybe it's all the violence in schools, all the stupid internet videos of kids fighting, beating people, taking drugs, etc. maybe 9/11 changed the way we view families. Whatever the cause, opinions are changing. The economy doesn't help mothers realize their desires, however. As the article points out, the mothers' views don't reflect the reality.

According to the latest federal figures, 70.5 percent of American women with children younger than 18 work outside the home — including 60 percent of mothers with children younger than 3. And the newly emerging preference for part-time work doesn't mesh with current reality: Three-quarters of the working mothers have full-time jobs.

But, at least there seems to be a growing sense that children cannot raise themselves, and when others raise your kids, you may not like the way they turn out. And maybe, just maybe, there is a new generation of baby boomers' kids who missed having mom at home growing up, and don't want to cause their own children the same regret. And maybe people are starting to accept that men and women don't have to want the same things to lead worthwhile, productive lives.

Climate Change: Part I

I have a lot of thoughts on climate change. Most of them are politically incorrect. This article neatly summarizes the main reason not to panic because average temperatures are getting a little warmer.

News Flash! - this isn't the first time this has happened. It isn't even the first time in recorded history. People have been dealing with climate change forever. Our generation is not unique or special in that regard. We're just arrogant enough to assume that everything we face is unprecedented and grave. We are also the first generation that can really cause some damage if our attempts to "correct" the climate fail.

Some people are talking about dumping iron in the ocean to fight global warming. That will probably cause more problems than it will solve. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, we should assess the possible impact of the warming, and then simply adapt. If the ancient Greeks could adapt, we should have no problems.

As the article points out, this history doesn't mean we aren't impacting the climate. It doesn't mean we shouldn't find ways to pollute less. But, it does mean that mankind has survived this before and to destroy our economy to try to stop what may be unstoppable is not the rational thing to do.

Not very well-travelled, am I?

Monument to Victims of Communism

"We dedicate this memorial because we have an obligation to thosewho died, to acknowledge their lives and honor their memory. The Czech writer Milan Kundera once described the struggle against Communism as "the struggle of memory against forgetting." Communist regimes did more than take their victims' lives; they sought to steal their humanity and erase their memory. With this memorial, we restore their humanity and we reclaim their memory. With this memorial, we say of Communism's innocent and anonymous victims, these men and women lived and they shall not be forgotten." -- George W. Bush, June 12, 2007

Today in Washington, President Bush dedicated a memorial to the victims of communism. Fittingly, today is also the 20th anniversary of one of President Reagan's most famous speeches in which he stood in front of the Berlin Wall and said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The monument is a statue in the style of the one erected in Tienanmen Square in Beijing in 1989. Communist Chinese military units later destroyed it while driving tanks over the assembled peaceful protesters. Hundreds were killed.

Communism doesn't get the same bad rap that other brutal ideologies do. Maybe it's because we fought no great war to end it as we did against the Nazis. Or maybe it's because we never had to face it in our own country as we did slavery.

Anyone sickened by the atrocities of the holocaust (about 6 million Jews killed) should be simply horrified at the destruction wrought by communism. Communist atrocities weren't aimed at only one group of people. they weren't confined to only one country, and they have been occurring for 90 years now. In China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam these atrocities continue. By a conservative estimate the victims of Communism include:

65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million (and counting) in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in communist Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.

In short, communism, an evil ideology unlike any the world has seen, is responsible for the slaughter of more than 94 million human beings. It tops all plagues, natural disasters, crime, and other political ideologies, probably combined. -- Cal Thomas

Other estimates put the total at closer to 150 million.

May they rest in peace.

A Few Good Articles

I read a lot of political philosophy every day. But, rarely do I find a group of articles like this that all seem to mesh together so well. All three speak of the decline of traditional morality and families, and the consequences of that.

First, why Republican presidential candidates should be talking about families more.

Next, what adolescents and intellectuals have in common.

Last, this article really hits the nail on the head. It talks about why people on the "left" find public anger and profanity acceptable. for example, why are there so many "Buck Fush" bumper stickers?

The answer is that parts of the left have little or no belief in the concept of "decency" as traditionally understood by Western civilization. They tend to dismiss such notions as bourgeois anachronisms; they place great value on individuals expressing themselves; and they view self-censorship as a form of fascism.

This latter reason is important: The '60s redefined narcissism as idealism. The individual's feelings became sacrosanct.

That is why the self-esteem movement -- the idea that how an individual feels about himself is far more important than what he actually accomplishes -- arose from the left.

And that is why you almost never hear a conservative say "I am offended" when reacting to a liberal speaker or writer, but it is quite commonplace for a liberal to use those words in reacting to someone from the right.

"Make love not war" was another example of placing one's feelings above other values. That is why it is a very good thing for the world that the previous generation, the one that fought Hitler, didn't believe in making love rather than war.

I told you this blog was random!