« October 2004 | Main | April 2005 »
November 11, 2004
Fight Evil with...Evil?
This morning's rant began as radio-induced rage on my way in to work. You see radio personality Bill O'Reilly was ranting at the way liberals in general and the Los Angeles Times in specific are attacking the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.
Well, I only caught one of the reasons the LA Times is attacking him before Bill's absurdity caused me to switch from radio to the CD of The Incredibles soundtrack sitting in my CD player.
Apparently Mr. Gonzales holds a "hard line" against terrorism. So far that sounds fabulous. However, apparently this "hard line" includes statements that suspected terrorists arrested in Afghanistan are not subject to the protections provided in the Geneva Convention.
On the air, Mr. O'Reilly quoted the LA Times piece Gonzales is a Disastrous Choics:
Gonzales wrote a memo in early 2002 arguing that suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan were not subject to protections under the Geneva Convention. He called the convention's particulars "quaint,"
(source: LA Times, no URL, registration required).
Bill O'Reilly said that someone wearing civillian clothes is not deserving of the special treatment provided for enemy soldiers in combat situations. Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you are entitled to your opinion. However, here's mine:
As I have explained previously I believe that the terrorists we face are truly Evil. I believe that we are doing the right thing arresting these terrorists and dismantling the terror network. However, before we deny these people the protections of the Geneva Convention... let's ask: what exactly are those protections?
I haven't read the full text of the convention, but here is a quote from Article III, Section 1. This is the key point of the Geneva Convention (ethical treatment of prisoners of war).
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
(source: Jewish Virtual Library).
So, all the Geneva Convention would grant is essentially freedom from torture, access to medical treatment, and the right to a trial.
Now, the Geneva Convention may, in a strictly legal sense, not apply to suspected terrorists. However, it really ought not be a treaty that restrains us from torturing people. It should not be a treaty that forces us to treat the wounded. It should definitely not be a mere piece of paper that requires that the accused are given a fair and public trial, regardless of what horrors they are accused of.
It should be the moral principles upon which this country was founded and continues to operate that require of us all these things. If it is only our contractual obligations that prevent us from torturing the accused, how, precisely, are we any less Evil than those we fight.
Some people like to Fight Fire with Fire. 9 out of 10 firefighters agree, Water works better than Fire at fighting Fire. Apparently some people, including the new head of the justice department, want to Fight Evil with Evil. I think that's despicable.
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)
November 09, 2004
That Foxy Flame
Today FireFox 1.0 Released. This fact has been noted in many places around the internet, including Slashdot.
One of the more interesting places, however, was on the Mises Economics Blog. As happens to all topics on the Mises blog, the release of FireFox became a discussion of economics — specifically, this time, about monopolies...
You see, Microsoft's Internet Explorer has enjoyed between 94% and 97% market share for the past several years. Many were quick to cry foul — Microsoft obviously was exploiting its monopoly power to force us all to use their terrible browser, thus eliminating all competition in the browser market! How Evil!
Well, it didn't turn out quite like that, did it. Turns out, Internet Explorer was vastly superior to most of the alternatives, and it was free. At the time Netscape Navigator — the major competitor — cost $29.99 (or maybe $29.95, but either way NOT FREE).
Why would anyone, especially a non tech-savvy individual, go buy a piece of software that would only serve to replace an at-least-as-good product that they already had (properly configured even).
Enter FireFox: In the last several months, more and more people have been saying "switch to FireFox, it's more secure."
Guess what... for the first time since version 3.0, Internet explorer is losing marketshare! They've fallen to just below 92% in recent weeks, and this was before the first production release of the browser.
Why has Microsoft been suffering these losses? Does FireFox bundle itself with the Mozilla Proprietary Operating System? Has Microsoft given up on its Operating System market? I don't think so. People have just discovered what appears to be a superior product. They no longer desire the Microsoft product, and so have taken steps to pick up another product that is at least as free as the Microsoft one.
And it didn't take any big DoJ lawsuit to make it happen either.
— The Shelanman.
Posted by andrew at 04:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Fine Line...
Yesterday on Garthnakdot, Garthnak wrote a little political rant about the differences he percieves between Libertarians/Classical Liberals and pretty much everybody else.
His basic point is that the Libertarian believes that the primary function of Government is to serve the [will of the] people. I certainly remember being taught that this was the purpose of government.
Not everybody sees things this way. Many people today apparently believe that one of the purposes of government is to encourage the following of certain "moral values." Many of these people reminded us to vote for George W. Bush because of his strong stance on moral prinicples and values.
Garthnak points out that serving the interests of the State — especially when they coincide with those of the people of the State, is a noble and honorable thing to do. That said, mandatory service of the State... well... you can read his thoughts
As I am still in the appropriate age group, the occasional comment about the military draft gets my full attention. But many people — especially those who served previously seem to think that it is my duty to serve... I have spoken with a number of people who believe that everybody should be obligated to join the Army.
Why should I join the Army? Because I should learn what it means to be an American, or what it means to be Free, or how wonderful this great country is, or some other such nonsense. The only valid reason I can think of for someone to serve would be: They believe strongly in the necessity of the conflict and have the desire to participate.
However, the way our current military is set up causes great difficulties here. Suppose, for instance, that I decided that the current fight in Iraq was so crucial to the freedom of this country that I felt a need to contribute. Well, first I must sign number of contracts that strip me of all but a few of my personal rights.
I would become, for all intents and purposes, property of the U.S. Army. Not that I am saying that battles should be run by committee... but... after a soldier's commitment is up, he is free... unless the government decides that they want to keep them longer. You lose your right to a jury trial — its a military court for you now...
This means that should the Iraq war be ended, and the government should entangle itself in a less worthwhile battle, they could force me to support it. How is that fair?
I know I've run over a few different topics here, but the basic idea is this: I agree with Garthnak — it is the purpose of the government to serve the people, it should never be mandatory for a person to serve the Government. If that means I'm a Libertarian, so be it.
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 07, 2004
Post-Election Ruminations
Today it is my turn to be demystified. About the reasons behind the Kerry campaigns continuing statements about reinstating the draft....
Five days ago the United States re-elected President George W. Bush to a second term in office. If this is still news to you, please promptly remove your head from the sand.
The purpose of today's rumblings has little to do with the election itself, however. My all-time favorite author Orson Scott Card recently wrote an article entitled Emotions, the Draft, UnBush, Black Voters, and Local Candidates, giving his final thoughts about the War on Terror prior to last week's election.
Card got his wish, Bush was re-elected, but that is not the interesting part...
Do you remember all the rumblings about Bush re-instituting the draft if he were re-elected? Since I am most definitely in the draftable demographic, my head came up sharply at every news story that mentioned the draft.
I am infinitely thankful for each of the millions of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and for all the work that they do to help keep America, and the world, free. I do not, however, have much interest in joining their ranks -- especially against my will.
Card claims that while Bush would not institute the draft, Kerry's policies would require it. Why? Card explains that under Kerry enlistments would decrease; He makes a comparison to Nixon and the Vietnam war... apparently, he once told a college professor that he would not serve in Vietnam if he could help it. Why not?
"Because we've already decided to lose. Why should I risk my life for that?" Nixon had been elected partly on the basis of a promise to get out of Vietnam. Having made that promise, he was no longer capable of negotiating a peace with the North Vietnamese that differed in any significant way from our complete surrender.
While I'm not convinced that Kerry would have instituted the draft, I find Card's essay thought-provoking as usual. I frequently disagree with him, but his War Watch essays are always well thought out.
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 09:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Incredible Edible... Err...
Friday evening a bunch of friends and I saw the new Disney/Pixar film, The Incredibles. I'm generally not a movie person, but the trailers were interesting, and hey, most of my friends would be there, so I went.
The Incredibles is the story of what happens to a family of superheros when the world decides that "It is time that their secret identity became... their only identity."
What follows is a hilarious and extremely fun rendition of a superhero story, where the "supers," as they are called, must join together to fight the forces of... er.. pig-headedness.
Pixar has done it again folks. The Incredibles is a fabulous movie. Go see it.
Very Strongly Recommended
4.5 out of 5 stars
Go See It!
Posted by andrew at 09:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack