« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

March 31, 2006

ARI’s Irrationality on Middle East Politics, Cont’d.

The ARI’s David Holcberg again vents his one-sided myopic, hypocritical and thoroughly irrational views about aiding one group or one state over another.

I zinged him just the other day for supporting Zionist based State terror but in the next breath condemning the same behavior from Islamist ethno-nationalist State entities or groups.

Today’s irrational screed from ARI and penned by Holcberg praises Canada for ending aid to the Palestinian Authority because of the electoral victory of Hamas. I wonder if Holcberg and ARI now call for Canada to end aid to Israel too? I mean hell Dave; the Likud is a terror organization that has assassinated, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and dispossessed far many more people than Hamas ever has.

Seeing that the two State entities (Israel and PA), their ruling ethno-nationalist political parties (Likud and Hamas), and their style of governance (rule by gun) are virtually identical why the favoritism toward Israel and the hostility toward Hamas? This false dichotomy is especially perverse coming from the ARI given what Ms. Rand wrote about the dangers of statism.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 04:18 PM | Comments (0)

GOP Advocates Returning to Slavery in Order to Curb Immigration

CNN.com has a story today titled "Republicans: 'Let prisoners pick the fruits'". To wit: Use the prisoners in America's numerous and abundent jails and prisons for the scut work that most Americans won't deign to consider. (Especially for minimum wage.)

Then we wouldn’t need all those pesky immigrants say the GOP.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2006

Detroit Terror Prosecutor Indicted

This tin-pot thug personally threatened to put me in jail and take my kids away when I refused to answer his questions (both in his office and before a federal grand jury) and remained silent. Twice.

Too bad for him that his whole Gestapo-like act has now come crashing down around him. My brothers had to physically prevent me from showing up at this bastard’s arraignment for fear I’d be arrested. (Good call on that too, Rashad!)

See ‘ya in court Mr. C!

Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)

Pissed Off Congresswoman Punches Cop

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (Democrat of Georgia) didn’t deign to show ID or go through the metal detection portal when entering the Capitol the other day. And when a Capitol Police officer tried to stop her she cracked him.

Now imagine, if you can, what’d happen if some ordinary citizen did that? (Hmmm…pepper sprayed, tasered, beat to shit, perhaps even shot? They'd definitely be arrested though.) I thought one of the planks in the much bally-hooed GOP Contract with America back in ’94 was making the same fookin’ laws that apply to us peons applicable to members of Congress as well? Hmmm..where’s Newt when we need him?

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2006

Democracy in the American Empire

We are reminded by all war supporters that we should forget about the WMD (and other) lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq because the U.S. has "liberated" the Iraqi people and brought "freedom" and "democracy" to them. In fact, elections in Iraq have become one of the primary arguments that the war was successful.

The problem, of course, is that free elections in Islamic countries tend to bring Islamic governments into power, and that is something that the American Empire will not tolerate. Therefore, in keeping with our government's pledge to allow the Iraqis to choose their own government via the democratic process, "President George W. Bush has made it clear that he does not want Ibrahim al-Jaafari to remain prime minister of Iraq," reports the U.K. Independent.

"Mr. Bush," writes Patrick Cockburn, "has written to the Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shi'ite Alliance asking him to nominate somebody else for the post. 'The Americans are very firm about this," said a senior official. 'They don't want Jaafari at any price.'"

There you have it: the Iraqis can have "democracy" as long as they choose leaders that the emperor likes.

(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:15 AM | Comments (1)

March 28, 2006

Hamas v. Likud – Mirror Images of Racism and Irrationality

The anti-Arab racists at the Ayn Rand Institute excoriate the EU for giving aid to the Palestinian Authority because they have aided in "terror" against Israel. O brother! Self-defense against an illegal occupier and oppressor is now terrorism per se? ARI spokesman David Holcberg thinks (and says) so in his ARI Op-Ed piece I just read in my email inbox.

To wit:
"The election of Hamas--an Islamic terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel--is another demonstration that the Palestinians deserve no aid, or sympathy. What they deserve is to suffer the consequences of electing terrorists to rule them"

Try this on for size Mr. Holcberg (as in "if the shoe fits.." & etc):

The election of Likud--a Zionist terrorist group committed to the destruction of the Palestinian community--is another demonstration that the Jews deserve no aid, or sympathy. What they deserve is to suffer the consequences of electing terrorists to rule them."

The ARI and the followers of Objectivism emphasize the need for rationality in the thought process for "man to live as man" on the Earth. What does it say about their way of seeing things that the very way that their press release is written that it can be so easily reversed and still read true? What would Ms. Rand say? I hate to think sometimes.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:52 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2006

Los Angeles Investigating Alleged Patient Dumping

“Several hospitals have acknowledged", says the LA Times, "that they put some discharged indigent patients with nowhere else to go into taxicabs headed to the area because it offers a chance for getting services and shelter. Los Angeles police also are investigating whether other law enforcement agencies dump people without anywhere else to go downtown.”

This happens all the time in Ann Arbor. The city or local do-gooders build yet another shelter and soon afterwards the cops from nearby cities load up their street people, drifters, and other undesirables and drive them over to Ann Arbor and dump them. Problem solved!

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:51 AM | Comments (1)

US Gov Hires Chinese Company to Scan Cargo for Nukes and Bio-Weapons

Try explaining that decision to the Dubai Ports-World people, eh? Where’s your “security concerns” now Democrats? Free trade my ass.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:25 AM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2006

Getting Our Money's Worth Out of the CIA

According to Agence France Presse:

Iraq's foreign minister under Saddam Hussein spied for the CIA before the US-led invasion in 2003 in return for a 100,000 dollar payment, a US television station reported.

In September 2002, Iraq's top diplomat Naji Sabri traded information on Hussein's alleged weapons program for cash in a French-sponsored New York City hotel room meeting, NBC reported, citing intelligence sources. . . .

During the cloak-and-dagger meeting, Sabri told the CIA's middleman that Saddam possessed chemical weapons and wanted a nuclear bomb but needed much more time to build one than the CIA estimate of several months to a year.

He also denied Saddam had any biological weapons.

Sabri's tips were thought to be more accurate than the CIA's own guesses on Saddam's arsenal, NBC said.

So our government paid $100,000 for information on Saddam's alleged WMD and then simply ignored the information they received because it didn't fit into the already established fairy tale. Nice going, guys.

Apparently Get Smart was much closer to the truth than any of us ever imagined, except that Maxwell Smart always managed to nab the bad guys in the end.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)

The Emperor Speaks

How many of us said, before the invasion of Iraq had even begun, that once the U.S. entered the country it was never going to leave? Turns out we were right.

Asked when all U.S. forces would finally pull out of Iraq, Bush told a White House news conference: "That will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

That means the earliest all our troops could be out of Iraq is January, 2009. If the history of other U.S. interventions is any guide (think Korea, Germany, and Japan), we'll still have troops there in 2059.

Oh, yes. There's no civil war, either.

Bush dismissed comments from former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that sectarian violence constituted civil war, saying it was a good sign that an attack a month ago on a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra failed to spark all-out conflict.

I guess the 50 to 60 people who are dying daily in sectarian fighting, as former CIA asset Allawi asserted, do not constitute a civil war. Nor does a combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom constitute water, if Bush says it doesn't.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)

Whiny Kids in Daycare Grow Up to Be Conservatives!

A UC Berkeley professor and his wife did a “study” of Berkeley daycare centers in the 1960’s and are now saying that the whiny kids became social and political conservatives and the even-tempered ones became good “liberals”.

However if you read through the details of this “study” you see the flaws in it right away. But go ahead and read it anyhow, because it’s good intellectual exercise.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2006

Auto, Home, Life, and Terrorism Insurance?

You know things are going well in Iraq when people start buying terrorism insurance at exorbitant rates. Then again, there's a reason for that, as one 23-year-old client, who paid the equivalent of $90 for his policy, said: "Am I worth only five million dinars [about $3,500]? It is not a solution. But Iraqis can be attacked by anyone, just walking on the street: Americans, insurgents, the Iraqi Army."

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:51 PM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2006

What Is the Tragedy of the Iraq War?

What is the tragedy of the Iraq invasion, according to Tim Hames of the Times of London?

A. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and Brits have died.
B. The result of the invasion is a civil war pitting Sunnis against Shiites.
C. There will be no more invasions of foreign countries anytime soon.

The correct answer is C. As Hames writes:

The tragedy of what went wrong in Iraq, therefore, is that the failure to locate WMD has made action against Iran or North Korea far harder to advance to Western public opinion. . . .

The final tragedy is that while many will prosper within Iraq over the next three years, the price of inept peacetime policies between 2003 and 2005 is that there will be no more Iraqs in the foreseeable future. To that extent, the Stop the War coalition, assisted, ironically, by the Pentagon, will be satisfied.

To Hames this means that all of the wonderful things the U.S. and U.K. have done for Iraq will not be extended to Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other Evil Incarnates. Too bad. I'm sure the citizens of those countries will be disappointed to learn that they will not be losing houses, neighbors, and loved ones to American "smart" bombs.

To those of us who believe that "one death is too many"--as Rush Limbaugh derisively described antiwar folks today just before bringing the Hames piece to his listeners' attention--it's excellent news. We can only hope that Hames's analysis is correct even as we disagree with his opinion that more war is what the world needs.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)

V for Vendetta, the screenplay

You can read it here.

Posted by George F. Smith at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 19, 2006

We Know "What's in Your Wallet!"

Slashdot.org reports that some credit card processing software may store more of your info than is needed for the transaction, so beware, eh?

"Visa has sent out a warning to customers" says the article, "stating that some card processing software may keep customer data even after a transaction is complete. The setup, two versions of a software made by Fujitsu Transaction Solutions, is used by such companies as Best Buy, OfficeMax, and Staples.” [emphasis mine]

Yikes!

For a while now I have kept in my wallet pre-paid Mastercards and Amex traveler’s checks for my use when privacy is an issue. Now I am not under any illusions that my privacy qua privacy (“privacy as privacy”) is complete; the government with their laws and regulations and their willing lackeys in corporate America can easily find out who I am. However it does give me a fair amount of insulation and anonymity from corporate and commercial snoops, hackers, thieves, and data miners.

Going this route is a little more costly and time consuming but it is a price I am willing to pay. And then there is always cash. But cash has its own issues too. Who wants the temptation and risk of carrying around large amounts of cash that can get lost or stolen or set you up for a mugging or robbery?

Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)

So burn me!

A few days ago I got a phone call from one of these public opinion survey companies. The general elections, held in September, are drawing nearer so there is a great demand for knowing what people think and what questions tend to be interesting. Even more important is how people think they will vote, and that was the purpose of the phone call (I think).

After causing a lot of trouble for the person asking the question, such as saying I cannot rate the importance of policy A compared to policy B (“totally opposed to both” doesn’t exist as an alternative), she asked the question: “If the general elections were held today, who would you vote for?” I don’t know why they keep calling me, since they always find my answers disturbing.

So what do I reply to that question? I simply tell the truth, that’s the best thing to do. So I told her “I don’t vote.” That always makes them a little bit confused, and they ask again: “but if you were to vote, who would you vote for?” So I reply again, “I don’t vote, and that’s a matter of principle.”

Since this is the most important question to them, they need an answer. But they also need an answer that fits in their (very limited) poll documentation software. So they try again, and I tell them one more time that I do not vote because I am convinced voting is evil and that I could never ever act to support politicians who only want to rule my life and steal my property.

They usually answer: “Oh…”

I don’t think they have a clue what I’m talking about, but some of these callers are pretty good at pretending. But it all comes crashing down with their next question, and they always ask it: “So I’ll just check the box for ‘don’t know’ then…?” That really clarifies that they have no clue, doesn’t it?

My response is always: “No, you can’t do that – I do know, and I have chosen not to vote.” This means trouble, their software will only accepts one of the parties, “don’t know” and sometimes “blank votes.” But it doesn’t matter how many alternatives they have to choose from, I still don’t fit. And since they have already asked me if they can check the “don’t know” box, and I said no, they have no idea what to do.

This is when I try a joke, but they are under too much strain to find it funny. “Don’t you have a check box for people who don’t vote because they consider it an act of evil?” They usually don’t respond, but stay quite for a while longer. Eventually they will have to do something, they can’t just stay quite or hang up. Some of them simply decide to skip this question and go on with the rest of the questions. Others make a note that this strange person didn’t fit their template, so perhaps he shouldn’t be called (or options for strange people be added to the software).

The problem here is not that I don’t follow standards. That kind of information is what they are trying to figure out – that’s the reason for calling. All responses are good responses when what you’re doing is to survey what people think. You cannot avoid some people because they don’t fit your system – doing so would totally undermine the purpose of doing these surveys.

The problem is the person deciding what alternatives there ought to be. He has a very limited view of the world and cannot understand why anyone would consciously abstain from voting. That is a problem, especially when considering what democracy (to most people) is all about: making choices. Making a choice not to vote is as “democratic” as voting for the biggest party. But they cannot see this, it seems they don’t understand their own system.

Democracy is not merely a political system; it is more of a religion nowadays. And what do we do with heretics? We ignore them. Or put them in jail. Or burn them.

Posted by Per Bylund at 07:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 18, 2006

It's Never Too Late to Admit You Were Wrong or Crow About Being Right!

Reason has a pretty good survey article polling some paleo-con, libertarian, and independent intellectuals about their views on the Iraq war three years after its start. Some names? Christopher Hitchens, Wendy McElroy, Tom Palmer, David Friedman, Tim Cavanaugh, Charles Murray, William A. Niskanen and some others of equal stature.

My two cents:

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?
No, I always opposed this war. I said at the time that invading and occupying Iraq would turn the country into a California-sized jumbo version of the (pre-Israeli withdrawal) Gaza strip. And it seems I was right.

2. Have you changed your position?
Yes. I am even more opposed to this aggressive act of racism and revenge than I was originally. But who could foresee that the Bush administration would be a “perfect storm-style” combination of incompetence, hubris, arrogance and bad luck.

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?
Get the fook out ASAP! Iraq will prolly devolve into a three autonomous or even wholly independent nation-states though. But then these regions always were separate entities held together by force anyway.

Just as in the (former) nation-state of Yugoslavia, Iraq is a political construct that was cobbled together in the foreign ministries of Europe in the early 20th century and is made up of disparate and distinct ethnic and religious groups: Shia and Sunni Muslim Arabs, and the Kurds.

These groups have no real sense of national identity and would likely have gone their separate ways a long time ago were it not for the iron rule of Saddam holding them together with force. With Saddam’s iron fist removed they would naturally tend to go their separate ways. (Just as Yugoslavia’s ethnic and religious groupings did after the USSR and Marshall Tito both died.)

Posted by Ali Massoud at 02:06 PM | Comments (0)

Off-topic, but FUNKY!

Now this is just weird.

Those nutty French! Always looking for a new shellfish recipe!

Posted by Patrick Yancey at 12:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 15, 2006

correction on "Good Times For Pimps"

Root-striker Bob’s Kaercher was more than a bit chagrined today to open his e-mail inbox and find a message from S-T-R reader Tom Osborne regarding Bob’s piece “Good Times For Pimps,” posted on today’s edition of Strike-the-Root:

“Hattie McDaniel's character in ‘Gone With the Wind’ wasn't the one who uttered the classic line ‘I don't know nothin' about birthin' babies’--that was uttered by Butterfly McQueen, who played a little girl in the film. Mammy, on the other hand, was wise and compassionate, and essentially the moral fiber of the O'Hara family (despite being a slave).”

Bob said he realized that Mr. Osborne was correct as soon as he saw Butterfly McQueen’s name, and feels especially embarrassed considering that he is himself an actor and admitted “film buff.” He would like to thank Mr. Osborne for pointing out this mistake, and vows to be much more careful with the factual details of his articles in the future.

However, Bob says he still stands by the point he was trying to illustrate, which was this: “Black Americans who at that time (circa 1939-40), as a matter of either local law or company policy, were forced to sit in the rear of movie theaters were not somehow liberated from racial bigotry by virtue of a black actress winning an Oscar. The premise of George Clooney's praising the Academy for awarding McDaniel smacks of the same racial collectivism that we're supposed to believe Hollywood liberals oppose. Clooney’s apparent obliviousness to this created the condescending tone of his acceptance speech.”

Bob says the next time he references a classic American movie in one of his pieces, he’ll be sure to make a quick trip to the video store to refresh his memory first.

Posted by Rob at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 14, 2006

When It's Okay for a Politician to Fraternize with a Smut Peddler

Remember the outrage (and knowing laughter) from the Right that one of Bill Clinton's defenders was Larry Flynt?

Well, our fine Christian, family-values president is attending yet another dinner at which porn star Mary Carey will be a guest, invited by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Naturally, after this was reported at WorldNetDaily, readers were outraged . . . at WND for reporting it in the fashion that they did, not at the president for making fools of his supporters.

Wrote Ken Ryland:

I really resent the way you have headlined this article ["Porn starlet Mary Carey to dine with Bush again"]. You make it appear that President Bush issued a formal invitation to this porn star to dine with him. This is the kind of journalism that has caused me to detest the mainstream media. Don't do the same thing!

It is only by reading the article that one realizes that President Bush has nothing to do with the list of invitees. He is coming as an invited guest, as is this porn star. Blame the Republican organization that invited her. Don't blame the president.

Apparently Mr. Ryland thinks the nominal head of the GOP couldn't have told the NRCC to politely disinvite Miss Carey. Of course, that could mean a loss of major bucks to the GOP (Carey and her business partner gave $5,000 to the NRCC last year), so it's clear why Mr. Bush did not do so.

On the other hand, Alan Edwards, another reader, obviously not outraged, had the best quip:

I would ask what a nice girl like that is doing with all those traitors, liars and war-mongering mass murders?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 13, 2006

All In the Family

A new TV program is coming to the airwaves to remind us sheep how valuable the State is to us by repressing all those nuts & kooks out there.

"All In the Family – [A] Bizarre love quadrangle binds a Mormon businessman and his three wives." It is the story of a Mormon foursome-style group marriage and what a bad and immoral idea it is, and the couragous DA and cops who try to bust the family up.

My take? If these folks have a living arrangement that is voluntary, makes ‘em happy, and they aren’t harming anyone else, then WTF?

As a religion I think Mormonism is beyond strange, (even for Christianity, too) but so what? It isn’t for me to judge them in that way.

I see this marital foursome as a family trying to live out their lives in a way that makes sense to them. And, as humans exist in a condition of natural liberty, they have the right to try to as well. Who is to say they’re wrong? Who is harmed? Why must the State intervene in a private arrangement? No valid responses come to mind here. (And no “moral relativism” arguments from the peanut gallery either, please.)

Posted by Ali Massoud at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)

Coached Witnesses for the Prosecution

So the feds have been coaching witnesses in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, eh? Does this surprise anyone?

Just imagine how much less fair the military trials at Guantanamo are if this stuff goes on here in civilian courts.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2006

"Ali you hypocrite!"

I was denounced as a hypocrite recently because I view "adult" content on TV, DVD rentals, and the Internet. (Adult in the sense of "not for kids", not porn). And so I was slandered as a hypocrite because, in the opinion of my critic, "free speech is for all! Even for kids. Who are you to censor anyone?".

Well now. I'll have to ponder this view. However in the meantime I am not gonna let somebody else's arbitrary notion of philosophic purity stand in the way of my being a good parent.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:21 PM | Comments (2)

Anti-Humanitarian Aid

The moral case for ending assistance to dictatorships. This article nicely complements something I said here a few days ago.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2006

Picking a Fight with a Faith 1.3 billion Strong

Picking a fight with a faith that is 1.3 billion strong is a bad idea. Not just for moral reasons (IE- the Golden Rule, eh?), but practical ones as well. Who but a nutjob or a fool would knowingly kick a hornet's nest and not expect to get stung? No less a xenophobe than Pat Buchanan endoses this view in a good article in his American Conservative zine.

I highly recommend some of you anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and outright racists who have emailed me this week look into Buchanan's article before you display your hatred and ignorance to me any further.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2006

Reinventing the Wheel...and Then Patenting It

From Wired.com:
“Today, that same caveman [who invented the wheel] would've filed a patent and demanded licensing payments from anyone else who wanted to roll things on logs or other cylindrical objects.”

And he’d win his case too.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:01 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2006

Madness to Their METHod

The Patriot Act is all about fighting terrorism--right?

Apparently, then, terrorists have a lot of colds and allergies because, as the AP reports:

Besides terrorism, the bill takes aim at the production of methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that cannot be manufactured without a key ingredient of everyday cold and allergy medicines. The bill would impose new limits next month for how much relief a person can buy over the counter.

And beginning Sept. 30, it'll take a flash of ID to buy that medication.

Now it's bad enough that they are doing this supposedly to crack down on domestic meth labs, something the federal government has no business doing anyway, but what's worse is that it doesn't do anything to solve the problem (although it does inconvenience people simply wanting to stock up for allergy season).

Oklahoma provides evidence that driving out meth labs doesn't mean getting rid of meth. Oklahoma's meth lab seizures have fallen 90 percent since April 2004, when it became the first state to ban over-the-counter sales of everyday cold and allergy medications.

At the same time, seizures of smokeable Mexican meth known as "crystal ice" rose nearly fivefold, from 384 cases in the 15 months before the law to 1,875 since.

"We're going to see trafficking by Mexican cartel organizations, on a much larger scale," [Sgt. Jason] Grellner [of the Franklin County, Mo., Narcotics Enforcement Unit] said.

So if the argument is that terrorists make money from selling meth, the feds have just made the risks, and therefore the potential profits, that much higher, making it that much more likely that terrorists will go into the drug business and will sell the more potent and dangerous Mexican stuff.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:03 AM | Comments (1)

March 06, 2006

You Won't See This on Fox News

From eminent Root Striker Scott LeGear this note:

"I have just watched the following from Al Jazeera. You must take a
couple of minutes to watch this woman. She is very brave and, if the
translation into English is correct, she is very eloquent. This sort of defense of the right of people to believe what they want and for a
secular society needs to be heard in the Islamic world and in the US as well (the last two outposts of fundamentalism). You will applaud her.

I understand the link may not be up for more than a few days so don't
delay. "

And so without further ado here is the link for what Scott was referring to. I recommend it highly.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 04:47 PM | Comments (2)

March 05, 2006

No Cash? God Takes Electronic Payments

Places of worship are delicately introducing Sunday collections in cyberspace. Sheesh. Now I’ve heard it all.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)

March 04, 2006

Zimbabwe is Running Out of Wheat

"Zimbabwe [is] 'Running Out of Wheat'", bleats the headline from the BBC webpage and then goes on to quote the usual suspects about the need for emergency foreign aid to avert starvation. To which I say, oh hell no!

If the bleeding hearts at Oxfam, Amnesty International, the World Bank, and Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and Bono all truly wanna help Zimbabwe’s poor, send no more money or food to the government of that failed state. Send the anti-government resistance and opposition political groups guns, ammo, and explosives instead.

After a few years or so of regrettable, but apparently necessary warfare, dictator Mugabe and his crew will either be in exile or dead. And Zimbabwe can go back to being a prosperous agricultural economy as they were before the days of democratic misrule.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2006

Corporate Socialism Redux

Philosopher & lawyer Arnold Kling writes very persuasively that US patent law, as it is currently practiced, actually discourages invention and innovation.

The original purpose of patents and copyrights was for the state to grant a temporary monopoly to writers and inventors to maximize their financial gain from their work in order to encourage new work in the arts and sciences. That was the noble intent of it all anyhow (Tell that to the people at RIM, eh?)

Patents and copyrights are today purely statist legal constructs that should be seriously reconsidered. “Intellectual property” indeed.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:39 AM | Comments (2)