Do you know this bird?

A few weeks ago, I noticed a little bird nursing two eggs on a palm tree two feet outside my window, and I decided to try to take a few snapshots of the chicks. Although I’ve seen it clean and feed the baby chicks, whenever I approach the nest on the porch to take some pictures, the mamma bird immediately covers the chicks with her wing and gives me "the stare" until I feel like a tresspasser on my own porch. I took some photos anyway, which you may see here. Update: I liked up the bird, and it’s a white-winged dove.
bird with chicks

My mom and sister are

My mom and sister are currently on vacation in Israel, visiting my grandmother and many other relatives. With that in mind, I found the following post from James Lileks to be an eloquent summary of my current thoughts on the "peace process":

The top-of-the-hour radio news played today’s news just as you’d expect – everything shoved through the tit-for-tat template. Israel attempts to take out a terror leader; Hamas “responds” with a bombing. As if they’re equal. As if targeting the car that ferries around some murderous SOB is the same as sending a blissed-out teenager to blow nails and screws through the flesh of afternoon commuters so he can bury himself in the heaving bosom of the heavenly whorehouse. Cycle of violence, don’t you know.

They don’t have helicopters, we’re told, so they use suicide bombers. If they had helicopters, they would have strafed the bus and everyone waiting at the corner. Give them a nation where Hamas runs unchecked, and they’ll have helicopters. They won’t be Apaches. The bill of sale will be calculated in Euros and the manual written in French. By then the excuse for the terror won’t be oppression; it’ll be "the legacy of oppression." Sometimes I swear the mainstream media won’t take a look at the Palestinian’s horrid death-cult subculture until we learn that a suicide bomber played "Doom" at an Internet cafe for five minutes. And then they’ll blame Intel.

Also, check out today’s Cox and Forkum

LTE: Regarding Monopolies

I had to cut short a letter to the editor I wrote about monopolies, but if you want to read some common misconceptions about monopolies, you can do so here here:

June 12, 2003

Regarding Monopolies

(In response to a letter)

Robert presents a number of common misconceptions about monopolies. He correctly points that natural monopolies may arise in certain industries because of economies of scale. However, it is important to keep in mind that the returns from increasing size decrease rapidly as the complexity of any given bureaucracy increase. Like many government agencies, large bureaucracies in business can also grow non-responsive to consumer trends, resist efforts to change, foster corruption and waste, and perhaps most importantly, grow stagnant because they fail to innovate. The major difference between public and private bureaucracies is that the invisible hand of the market quickly punishes companies that grow too large for their own good, and rewards small and innovative startups that are able to move quickly, and take the big risks necessary to take advantage of innovations.

Companies like Microsoft and IBM must constantly try to maximize efficiency and spent massive amounts of funds on research to stay ahead in their markets. Microsoft may well have a “natural” monopoly on the Operating System market – but if it fails to constantly improve its products, foresee new trends, and keep its prices down, competitors will quickly eat up its market – and many will argue that competitors like Linux are in the process of doing just that. Furthermore, the fact that Apple and Unix-based operating systems have formed a small but solid niche immune to any “undercutting” efforts by Microsoft – no thanks to the Antitrust Dept. — clearly undermines your argument that abusive monopolists can simply wish competitors out of existence. In any market where there is a monopoly, small competitors are always waiting for the first slipup to jump into the market.

Unfortunately, the major barrier to competition and sustainer of monopolies is not private companies but the government. Cox Communication – your example of a “bad” monopoly, is only able to maintain it because the FCC makes it illegal for new competitors to enter the market without essentially bribing politicians into giving them a license (permission) to do business. On the local level, Cox has made deals with cities (like BCS) giving them a legal monopoly over the local market.

Rather than increasing competition, the Antitrust Department is actually used as a tool by jealous competitors to force better and more efficient companies to compete in the courts rather than in the market. The only constant of the arbitrary rules used by the DOJ is that any successful business can be punished at any time for just about anything. When companies charge prices lower than their competitors, they are accused of “predatory behavior,” when they charge prices that are higher, they are fined for “gouging,” and when they match their competitions, they are accused of “collusion.”

You suggest that the government should nationalize the communications market just like it nationalized the roads. You forget that like all other monopolies that only exist because of a politicians favor, this would form yet another gang that fines and imprisons inventors and entrepreneurs who try to introduce cheaper and better products. Imagine if the government got involved in the software market in the early 90’s — I’d probably be typing this letter on an old typewriter rather than a sleek, cheap, and fast new computer.

JIHAD IN THE PRESENT TIME

Take a look at "JIHAD IN THE PRESENT TIME," an "essay" found on a mainstream Pakistani Islamic website. The writer asks:

Has jihad now become binding on every Muslim?

…and provides the answer:

Until Islam as a Way of Life dominates the whole of the world and until Allah’s Law is enforced everywhere in the world, it is binding and incumbent upon the Muslims to fight on against the disbelievers

Every Muslim is bound to continue fighting against the disbelievers as long as they in any part of the world have power and strength enough to persecute the Muslims and as long as a person desiring to accept Islam is reluctant to do so jut because he fears to be persecuted and tortured by the disbelieves and it he somehow enters the fold of Islam, he becomes a target of their (i.e. the disbelievers’) oppression.

The object of Jihad in this case is the Indian army in Kashmir, but the essay provides a large number of quotes and commentary from the Qur’an which you may judge for yourself. The writer is a leader within the Hizbul Mujahideen, a quasi-military outfit sanctioned by the Pakistani government. (Thanks to BOL for the link.)

Which party does this list of proposed policies describe?

  • "Special rights" for certain races/cultures/ethnicities
  • Censorship and arbitrary imprisonment of non-crimes such as sexism, "heterocentrism", "ableism" etc.
  • Arbitrary redistribution of wealth on the basis of wealth, race, success, etc
  • "Reasonable" slave-reparations plan
  • State-worship replacing God-worship (note: I don’t condone either)
  • Extensive gun control and confiscation from "suspect" groups
  • Nationalized child care, health care, and education, and social security for the retired
  • Rational thinking replaced by mass brainwashing in public institutions
  • Arbitrary court system dominated by politics rather than legal code
  • Belief that race, class, and society fix the essential traits of every person.
  • Many other policies that sacrifice individuals for "society" and the "common good"

Seems like the usual liberal agenda, right? Replace "slave" by "Jew" and "heterocentrism" by "homocentrism" and you have platform of the National Socialist Workers (NAZI) Party.

(This blog inspired by "an extremist homophobic Republican nazi" on the Hobbes forum.)

"Drug cartels thrive in US national parks"

The CSMonitor reports that "Drug cartels thrive in US national parks." The blame is placed solely on the druggies, but do you think this would happen if the park land was privately owned or growing weeds was legal? When the government places a very profitable (and harmless) industry outside the law, what else can it expect but the Prohibition all over again? Well, at least public land is finally being put to a productive use.

New Saddam's in Circulation

A brief lesson in central banking: after a number of sources reported that the Saddam’s dinar is gaining against the dollar, the new Iraqi government is printing new dinars — complete with a photo of the deposed dictator on the front. Why? The dinar gained value against the dollar after the fall of the old regime becuase people thought no more would be printed. Printing massive amounts of currency is a favorite means of goverments to finance their Statist schemes, and an end to the old currency meant that the amount of dinars in the economy would be more or less fixed, increasing it’s utility as a currency. However, Iraqi bureaucrats wouldn’t let the demise of the dinar’s namesake stop such an easy and tempting source of revenue, so it looks like the printing presses will keep on rolling. Even if a new currency replaces the old Saddam dinar, it may still prove to be more popular (and valuable) if the people have reason to mistrust the soundness of the currency, just as the pre-1991 "Swiss dinar" is much more valuable than the Saddam dinar now.