Quick Hitts

The massacre in Arizona is the fault of Fox News, Bill O’Riely, Glen Beck and Sara Palin according to every lefty on Facebook and various prominent idiots.  Hey, here’s a thought – why not blame it on the ONLY person responsible – the whack job who did it.

Naw, too easy.  We must blame politicians and pundits we don’t like.  Ok, I’ll play along.  Let’s blame the politicians who have made it is impossible for anyone to get elected unless they’re a Democrat or a Republican. Let’s blame those who, through gerrymandering, election laws and media manipulation game the system so thoroughly that incumbents get re-elected 95%+ of the time.  That would be, let’s see, approximately, all of them.

Political writer Claire Wolfe said, “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” She said that fifteen years ago, before the TSA,  before Real ID, before the PATRIOT act, before extraordinary rendition, before the militarization of the police, before the thousands of big and little laws and regulations that are relentlessly driving us toward becoming a police state.

We shouldn’t be surprised that some people are so incensed at the impossibility of change through established channels they resort to shooting the bastards. We should be surprised (and grateful) it doesn’t happen a lot more often.

So now the FCC is in charge of the internet, and Big Brother’s lovers are cheering.  “Big Brother has saved us from a mortal danger that we have been imagining might happen someday!”

The generic argument against government regulation should be the default position for anyone even remotely interested in liberty. Laws (and regulations are laws, although they’re slightly worse than laws because they’re put in place by unelected bureaucrats) should be the last resort, something we turn only after all other alternatives have been tried and have failed.

Net Neutrality sounds like a good idea, but then, so do most new government rules and regulations when they’re new and shiny.  It will be years before we experience all the damage the FCCs involvement has caused, and by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
This is a solution in search of a problem.  The ACLU has a page championing Net Neutrality.  They provide four examples of horrible, horrible things that prove we need it.

From their page:

1. AT&T’s jamming of a rock star’s political protest. During an August 2007 performance by the rock group Pearl Jam in Chicago, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder’s performance. The ISP, which was responsible for streaming the concert, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home.” By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied viewers the complete exclusive coverage they were promised. Although Vedder’s words contained no profanity, an AT&T spokesperson claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being exposed to “excessive profanity.” AT&T then blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor hired to screen the performance, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of Vedder’s appearance online.
2. Comcast’s throttling of online file-sharing through BitTorrent. In 2007, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable TV operator and second largest ISP, discriminated against an entire class of online activities in 2007 by using deep packet inspection to block file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella. Comcast’s actions, which were confirmed in nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press, were unrelated to network congestion, since the blocking took place at times when the network was not congested. Comcast blocked applications that are often used to trade videos — pirated content but also much legitimate content. Critics noted that Comcast hopes to sell online video itself. The FCC subsequently took action against Comcast for this abuse; Comcast stopped the throttling but also challenged the order in court and won, leading to a crisis in enforcement of network neutrality.
3. Verizon Wireless’ censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.
4. Telus’ blocking of striking workers’ web site. In 2005, the Canadian telecom, involved in a bitter labor dispute, blocked its Internet subscribers from accessing a website run by the union that was on strike against Telus.

Let’s examine each of these incidents:

#1  AT&T censored a show they sponsored.  Dumb, but not a net neutrality issue.  Nice try, but a rather desperate one.

#2 Comcast’s throttling of BitTorent traffic was a legitimate concern, a real net neutrality issue.   It’s been fought in the courts via lawsuits and rulings have gone back and forth.  They’ve stopped the practice for now.

#3 Solved via Public Outrage.  No government intervention necessary.

#4 The American Civil Liberties Union should realize that Canada is a sovereign nation, and not under U.S. jurisdiction.

So with all their resources, the ACLU could only find four instances of net neutrality violation, and only one of them was a real, legitimate problem.  (It should be noted that there is another one in the works, (which wasn’t an issue when their page was created) with Comcast again, demanding payments from a third party who is doing some streaming for Netflix.)

Here are just two alternatives that might work far better than regulation:

Make it easy for competitors.  Big businesses often clamor for rules and regulations that provide significant barriers to entry for any competition, and the Government usually gleefully complies. (“Look, we passed a law.  We did something!”)  A better approach is to remove those barriers and make it easier for competitors to punish poorly performing companies in the marketplace.  In the face of real competition Comcast, for instance, would have to change their business model (“Whenever possible, be a complete dick”) or go out of business.

Limit mergers.  When an internet provider also owns content producers there is an inherent conflict of interest, a built in incentive to give priority to their own content and/or limit access to competitor’s content.  Carriers shouldn’t be allowed to buy, or be bought by, content providers.  For those who are already owned by content providers, the very first time this happens existing anti-trust legislation should be used to force a break-up.

These are just two ideas that come to mind (and I’m not all that thrilled with the last one).  You’ve probably got better ones – please add them to the comments.

The proponents of the FCC getting their nose in the tent have all kinds of nightmare scenarios that might happen, someday, somehow, if they aren’t given control.  People who love liberty would rather wait to see if such problems occur, if they occur often enough to be a real problem, and what other solutions can be tried to resolve them.  But no, we can’t do that.  We must have Big Brother jump in and solve all our problems even when they’re not problems yet.

There are always unintended consequences to laws. Always. They’re often unpredictable. They usually make the problem worse or give rise to other, bigger problems. We have no idea just how bad this is going to get, but bear in mind the FCC is the organization that went absolutely ape-shit when a 40 year old nipple was on TV for 1.5 seconds.  And now they’re making rules for the internet.

FSM help us all.

(Alternate Title: What It Means When I say “Have A Good Day” and Exit The Debate.)

I don’t know if stupid people are becoming more plentiful or I’m just getting better at spotting them.  I suspect it’s a little of both.

I’m not talking about legitimate differences of opinion here, but sheer stupidity that cannot be overcome in the course of a normal conversation or two.  For example, I recently had the following conversation on Facebook (paraphrased) about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts:

Stupidville Resident:  We shouldn’t cut checks to the wealthy.  We had a great economy under Clinton with the higher tax rate.

Me: We’re talking about keeping existing tax rates, which will let people keep more of their *own* money.  No one is being “cut a check.”  The great economy under Clinton was the result of the internet bubble.  Note that when the bubble burst, in the last few months of his presidency, the economy began to tank, even though those tax rates were still in effect.

Stupidville Resident:  Yes, but you have to admit we had a great economy with those higher tax rates.  So writing checks to the wealthy is wrong.

I abandoned the conversation at that point.  I’d spent enough time in Stupidville.

While some Stupidville residents are barely educated and barely literate, many of them have college degrees from Stupdiville U, or an equally prestigious university.  Believing in Keynesian economics, for instance, requires a level of stupidity that can only be achieved through rigorous training.  On the flip side, if someone uses the phrase “academic elites,” with its implication that all of academia is stupid and an education is evil, you’re also dealing with a Stupidville resident.  Smarternized people might use the term “ivory tower intellectual,” but only to refer to a specific person, not the broad spectrum of educators.

Some Stupidville residents are very accomplished at hiding their residency, so you can waste a great deal of time before realizing they’re idiots.  Which, of course, can make you feel like an idiot.  One way to avoid this is by adding the Stupid Detector module to your Bullshit Meter.  The Stupid Detector is triggered by the use of specific phrases.

Here is a (woefully incomplete) list of phrases that indicate the speaker is too stupid to bother with.  Please note that like all finely tuned instruments, the Stupid Detector does have a margin of error. It must be regularly tweaked, updated, and of course, personalized.  There is a slight possibility that someone using one of these phrases isn’t really stupid.  If they use two of three of them, though, it’s very unlikely your stupid meter is malfunctioning.

Pro Abortion – I picked up Sarah Palin’s book and opened to a random page.  The first thing I read was something about the Pro Abortion movement.  It was also the last thing I read.

Faux News – This was somewhat clever and funny the first time it was used, several years ago, but now, a billion and a half uses later, it’s both stupid and trite.  Most of the people who use it insist that only Fox is biased.  All the other news organizations are completely unbiased, and harbingers of The Truth.

Evolution is Only a Theory – This has been explained literally billions of times on the internet, so there is no excuse for this level of ignorance.  The same goes with the argument that the second law of thermodynamics defies evolution.

Teabaggers – See Faux News, although the billionth use of this occurred about 36 hours after it was first uttered.

The U.S. is a Christian Nation – History is very, very clear on this subject.  It’s clear in the founding documents.  It’s clear in the voluminous writings of the founding fathers.  It’s explicitly clear in the Treaty of Tripoli.  Anyone who claims we were founded as a Christian Nation is unforgivably ignorant.

Level Playing Field – Tyrants are incapable of processing facts that contradict their agenda, and this is one of their favorite phrases. Since the field isn’t level it is up to them to level it, and dammit, they’re going to level it no matter how many people are hurt in the process.  Stupidville residents who are fond of this phrase also use variations of “for the children” extensively.

Playing the Race Card – Whenever you are wining an argument with a far-lefty, which is pitifully easy to do when debating economics, eventually they’ll call you a racist.  This gives them an easy out. Racists are bad people, so they paste that label on you in a pitiful attempt to derail the conversation.   I despise this tactic so much I made a special page to deal with it.

Fair Share – Always used to justify confiscating more money from people who have committed the unforgivable sin of having more than someone else. Someone else’s fair share is always much, much higher than that of the person using the phrase.

The _____ Agenda – Individuals have agendas.  Organizations have agendas.  But this phrase is used to claim that huge swaths of people have just one goal in mind.  It is the setup for a straw man argument.

Take, for example, “The secular progressive agenda.”  There is no connection between secularism (atheism, in this context) and progressivism (socialism).  The political bent of atheists is spread out across the left and the right in a slightly lopsided bell curve that is a bit heaver on the left.    The term “secular progressives” is simply a way to say “godless communists” without sounding like some old fart in a nursing home.

Or “The gay agenda.” This is usually used by a Stupidville residents who are afraid that once homosexuality becomes acceptable, the next step will be to make it mandatory.  Or perhaps they’re afraid they’ll be forced to stop dressing conservatively and forced to dress fabulously.  Whatever their fear, it’s stupid.

Denier – Automatically using this phrase to smear anyone who has any skepticism about AGW, even those who think it’s real but question its extent and/or the EOTWAWKI scenarios the hard-core true believers subscribe to, is stupid.  It’s also condescending and snarky, but it would be hypocritical for me to complain about that.

Historically the word was only used to describe holocaust deniers. Applying it to AGW critics was a conscious decision to lump them in with wannabe Nazis.  It can be traced to a 2007 column by Ellen Goodman, where she said, “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. ” She typed that from the villa she maintains in Stupidville, the only place where you can deny the future.

Agree to Disagree – Context is important with this one.  It’s perfectly rational to agree to disagree on matters of opinion or things that haven’t been settled yet.  But anyone who says this when presented with facts (“we’ll just have to agree to disagree on evolution,” for instance) is a waste of your time.

Capitalist Pig/Exploiting The Workers – Yes, there are some piggy capitalists, and yes, some workers are exploited.  But Stupidville residents apply this phrase to all workers and all employers.  If the employer pays $10/hour and earns $11/hour on his employees work, he’s a pig and they are exploited.  If he pays $100/hr and he earns $101/hour he’s still a pig and they’re still being exploited.  You’ve got to wonder how people this stupid manage to support themselves.  Or dress themselves.

I have an IQ of {a fantasy number} – Everyone who brags about their IQ on line is an idiot.  I’ve never seen an exception to this rule. Not once.

Multiple Exclamation Points – There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and the number of exclamation points used in a single message.  The formula is simple: Assume a base IQ of 100, then subtract five points for every double exclamation point, ten for each triple one, and all the rest of them for a sentence ending with more than three.

Admiration for Michael Moore – He’s been so thoroughly discredited, so often, that only the very very stupid can remain fans.

If You Don’t Like It, Leave The Country – This used to be exclusive to far-right idiots, but now it’s becoming common among far-left idiots as well.

Telling Libertarians to move to Somalia – Always the sign of a far left idiot.  If you don’t know the difference between libertarianism and anarchy, there’s this thing called Google…

Ideally, the best way to deal with The Stupid is to just discontinue the conversation – either ignore them, or say “have a good day” and move on.  I’m trying to do this more myself, but my baser nature usually gets the better of me.  Sometimes it’s just too much fun to poke these village idiots with a stick.  The key is to know you’re doing that, and not waste your time seriously trying to convince them to change their residence.  That doesn’t work, because they really like living in Stupidville. It’s comfortable, and all their friends are there.

Note: A slightly different version of this post is available as a podcast.

Quick Link: http://bit.ly/f7wSNZ

According to a new report by the US Surgeon General, smoking just one cigarette can trigger a heart attack.  Dr. Regina Benjamin also claims that even brief exposure to second hand smoke can have the same effect.  She backs up this claim with a list of hundreds of people who have had myocardial infarctions after one smoke or one whiff of SHS.

I know, I know, I’m being silly.  She doesn’t have hundreds of examples.  Or dozens.  Or one.  She’s simply continuing the long and time-honored Surgeon General’s  tradition of Making Up Shit.

For decades we’ve been told tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals.  Now  that number has magically jumped to 7,000.  Not for any reason, it just has, because she said so.  Doesn’t that sound scary?  Of course,  there are nearly 3,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee and over 10,000 chemicals in most meals.*

And once again we’re warned there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.  There are safe levels of exposure to arsenic, cyanide, strychnine, hell, everything except tobacco smoke.

Imagine the reaction if she claimed there was no safe level of exposure to campfire smoke.  She’d be laughed out of the office.

I know, I’m being silly again.  In reality it would result in  comprehensive bans on campfires.  For the childreeeeen, of course.

This has received surprisingly little press.   I’d like to think that’s because the media realized how stupid they looked in 2009 when they parroted the third hand smoke nonsense, but I doubt it.  It’s simply a matter of timing – there are just a lot of other things happening in the world right now.  Dr. B. needs to learn to spew her nonsense on slow news days.

–

*Do those numbers sound credible?  I hope so, because I just made them up.  Why should the nannies have all the fun?

One side effect of working in retail off and on is my deep hatred of Christmas carols. Most stores play an endless loop of the same ten or twelve songs until you want to stand on the counter and scream “Turn This Crap off!” This reaction is is generally frowned opon by most employers.

The songs are mostly insipid, but I’ve noticed a disturbing trend this season. They’re now playing more and more that are overwrought, over sung, full of over emoting or belted out like the singers life depended on it. They’ve taken something horrible and made it even worse.

“I’ll have a blue, blue blue blue, bleuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, bloeuoooooowwwwwwoooowwwwwooooooo, blue blue Blewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, Christmases, whehhehethout {ridiculously long pause} youooooooooooOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOoooooo.”

When shopping I don’t usually notice the canned music unless it’s something horrible, and this crap is beyond horrible. Note to retailers: If you want me to leave the store very quickly, keep playing this dreck and I’ll find a competitor with better taste. The only thing that will make me leave your store faster is playing rap.

Until now.

Imagine that you had a business with the following business model:

• The business has been in existence for over 200 years.
• Your logo and brand name is instantly recognized by approximately 100% of the people in the United States.
• You have a customer base of over a quarter of a billion people.  Nearly all of them use your service several times a week.  Many use it every business day.
• Millions of business are completely dependent on your services – they couldn’t exist without them.
• Federal law prohibits anyone from opening a competing business offering your primary service.
• Most of your buildings are paid for.  All of them are free of any property tax.
• The pension fund for your employees is handled by a different agency, so it doesn’t affect your bottom line.

Think you could run a business with that model and make a profit?  Think a well trained chimp could run a business with that model and make a profit?  Most likely.  But the government can’t.  The Post Office lost $8.5 billion dollars this year.  That’s $4.7 billion more than last year’s shortfall.

This is the same government that intends to take over health care.  They’ll do a much better job with that, because, well, because some people imagine they can.

Yeah, that’ll work.