The lesson that we should draw from the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that efforts to partially privatize the industry are likely to retain those elements of regulations that benefit concentrated interests in business most.
If this point is not immediately evident to you, I highly recommend you read “The Question of the Cable Monopoly“
A successful Chinese businessman was jailed earlier this year for his anti-communist statements as well as for “illegal” competition with state banks. This case is typical of the resistance state-run industries in China put up to better and more efficient private companies. The spread of private enterprises in China is creating a new class of entrepreneurs who challenge the state monopolies both economically and ideologically. The military-run state industries often respond by having the businessman sufficiently harassed or quietly disappear. While the situation is depressing in the short run, this mix of freedom and force is unstable – sooner or later, China will have an intellectual revolt and will be forced to choose capitalism or tyranny. If it chooses tyranny, it will surely look for an outside scapegoat to blame for the economic collapse that follows. This turn of events is probably the greatest threat from China to America’s security in the long run.
(Thanks, Keenan )
I’ve spent the last two days installing and playing with Windows Server 2003. It ads some much-needed features and improvements to IIS that make it a much better server OS than the Windows 2000 line. Aside from some unnecessary hardware and software compatibility issues, I have one complaint: it’s missing Microsoft’s own optimized version of Java. Is this a case of Microsoft trying to “bully” Sun? No, the missing Java is a result of a Sun lawsuit intended to force Microsoft to scuttle its superior version of Java in lieu of Sun’s because Microsoft’s implementation is “incompatible” and “obsolete.” My own experience with both versions indicates that Microsoft’s Java is better, faster, and just as compatible as Sun’s.
In the latest decision, the judge ruled that by producing a better version of Sun’s “open” standard, Microsoft was using its monopoly power to help its .Net platform. Apparently, making your competitor’s product (which MS had a license to) work better is “anti-competitive.” To his credit, he ruled that (for now) Microsoft does not have to include Sun’s inferior Java in Microsoft’s own operating systems.
Why is a company supposedly dedicated to innovation and open standards preventing others from making their own improved versions? How can Sun criticize Microsoft for being “monopolistic” while trying to force its Java into Windows and engaging in the same deals with computer manufacturers as Microsoft to bundle Java onto desktops? There are many complex licensing and technical issues here, but it is clear to me that Sun has realized that its client and server-side Java products are inferior to .Net and (like SCO) is trying to win in the courts where it has failed in innovation.
“Anatoly Chubais, chief executive of Russia’s national power monopoly Unified Energy System, called the [NYC] blackout “the biggest accident in the history of world energy systems.”
From personal experience, I can assure you that he’s wrong. (Thanks, Jaboobie )
Mural Of Nude Eve Covered With Mock Crime Scene Tape
Free speech is not the issue, Mayor Pro Tem A.H. “Buddy” Wighaman said during a break at a Monday council meeting.
“It’s nu-dity!” he blustered.
Asked if he thinks the mural lacks social value, he replied, “Did you not hear me? It’s nu-dity!“
If these hicks object this much to a biblical scene, I wonder what the penalty for secular art is…
The following article on the upcoming NEWCARD standard to replace the old PC Cards is an interesting look at the issues that must be considered when impementing a hardware standard.
Leftists (including the neo-commie Howard Dean) would love to have you believe that the Patriot Act is some sort of Nazi anti-subversion law that blows away the Bill of Rights. I will bet you good money that none of the protesters you hear about have ever read the Patriot Act, nor do they have even a remote clue what it is actually about. Even if they did know what they Patriot Act is about, they have absolutely no conception of individual rights, preventing them from making any kind of informed judgment about whether the Act will take them away. Given that a leftist’s idea of “freedom” is imprisoning gun owners and smokers while letting killers and rapists loose, promoting government-enforced racism, ignoring eco-terrorists, and stealing my money to support lazy-ass moochers, bad art, and “free” speech, I would love to see a law that wipes out the leftist notion of “civil liberties.”
No, the leftists definitely cannot be trusted to understand, much less argue whether the Patriot Act infringes on our “civil liberties.” To understand what infringes on liberty, one must first know what liberty is. Explaining this however, is something that will have to wait till after lunch. Meanwhile, check out the “Preserving Life and Liberty” site the government set up in support of the Act.
MSNBC has an interesting account of a North Korea missile factory shipment to Libya. North Korea’s major sources of income consist of foreign aid (from western nations as well as loyalist Koreans in Japan), slave labor exports to China (and often to U.S. with a “Made in China” label) – and military hardware and technology sales to dictatorships around the world. Although I am skeptical about its chances for success, North Korea’s latest quest to develop nuclear weapons is a clincher in the case to take it out. No need to send in a large US force – drop a few nukes to take out Pyongyang, and the enslaved North Koreans will take care of the rest (and be eternally grateful to us for it!)
To determine whether the Patriot Act infringes on our liberty, we must first determine what “liberty” is. Two political theorists stand out as defining the meaning of liberty: John Locke, and John Stuart Mill.
Continue reading The Patriot Act and the Politics of Liberty, Part Two
Why in the world would anyone go after the UN?
I can think of two reasons. The obvious explanation is that the Iraqi terrorists are stupid and cannot distinguish between the different foreign agencies in town — so they targeted the least-defended one. The less likely reason is that they want more UN involvement and aid to Iraq – precisely what is likely to be the outcome of the bombing. With all due respect for the dead, the bombing is the best thing that could have happened to the UN from the perspective of its supporters – it has given the UN a relevance they have been desperate for since the war started.
In other news, how many innocent civilians have to die before the “cease-fire” is officially over?
