I wish I had gotten around to addressing this a few days ago, but didn't. Anyhow, it concerns a pet peeve of mine, this whole response from the administration to the video that supposedly (but which they now know otherwise) caused all of these protests and violence around the Middle East. First the U.S. embassy in Egypt condemned the video. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also condemned the video. And then there are the claims coming from many that respect for other religions is a cornerstone of America's democratic system.
Some people have also insinuated that the person/people who created this video are engaging in the excess of free speech, doing the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. The administration also "asked" Google to reconsider their policy of allowing the anti-Muslim video to stay up on the Internet.
Well to respond to all of this:
1) Rather than condemning the video, why didn't the administration either, or at least in addition to the condemnation, also stand up for our principle of people having a fundamental right to freedom of speech?
2) People are wrong in their claim that respect for religions is a cornerstone of American democracy. Tolerance for other religions is a cornerstone, but not respect. This becomes quite apparent in all of the ways that Christianity and Christians get mocked and offended all the time. This can range from plays to skits on comedy shows to comedians such as Bill Maher to "artists" who create "artwork" ranging from "Piss Christ" (where a cross of Jesus Christ was put into a jar of urine), a statue of Jesus covered in dung, portraying the Virgin Mary as a whore, etc...note if any Christians were to complain about any of this, they got the free speech argument.
Free speech is free speech. You are free to mock, make fun of, and criticize a person's religion as you please. The difference here though is that Christians across the world do not start rioting and killing people over minor offenses. In saying that, I am not claiming that Muslims themselves all do either. I am no expert on Islam, so I make the default judgement that most Muslims are peaceful, and it's just a portion of them that are violent. There are about 2.2 billion Muslims in the world, which means even if only five percent of them are the violent kind, that's about 110 million people. So in terms of sheer numbers, there's a sizeable enough number of the radical kind of Muslims in the world to create a lot of havoc.
3) Making the video is not the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Doing that makes people behave in a way that is not of their own free will. They think there is a danger and thus respond accordingly. Criticizing a religion, on the other hand, is far different. In that, the people who do the violence and the rioting are acting of their own free will. They are choosing to respond in the way that they are.
One could say, "Well, true, BUT you have to be a moron to not think there's a risk that such a video could cause violence." That is true, but even then, the onus is still on the people doing the rioting, not on the video maker. Any suggestions about seeking to ban making fun of Islam out of fear of the potential for violence is putting the blame on free speech as opposed to the radicals themselves who choose to act in this manner.
The other major problem is that one would have to ban any and all speech regarding Islam period. You would not be able to so much as criticize Islam, as even this can set off people doing violence. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, produced a film called "Submission" which criticzed Islam for its repression of women. he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Morrocan Muslim. And let's not even get started on the issue of cartoons, such as the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, or the cartoons by Lars Vilks. Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (one featuring a Muhummad with a bomb in his turban, apparently the most contentious), was attacked in his own home by an axe-wielding Muslim who wanted revenge (over a cartoon!).
Now when you're dealing with people this radical, who resort to rioting, murder, assassinations, bombing embassies, and so forth, over criticism and minor mockery, then the only way to (hopefully) prevent them from rioting over speech would be to ban all speech about Islam altogether. Which will be very dangerous if that ever happens, for multiple reasons, ranging from allowing radical Islam to ascend to being an ever larger threat to Western civilization to the fact that when push comes to shove, Western civilization folds on what is supposed to be one of its most cherished principles.
4) Who do the government think they are in trying to intimidate a private company into clamping down on free speech? Google is perfectly within its rights to take down a video if it feels it is violating its Terms of Service. The government is not. When the United States government, who have the power of the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department, etc..."asks" a private company to do something, there can be quite the implied threat there.
As it is, Google says that the video does not violate their Terms of Service and will be allowed to stay up. I think it would be very bad if they had folded. But Youtube has loads of videos making fun of all religions, so it would be hard for them to make the argument that the video violates their ToS as well.
It is of extreme importance that the Western world show strength in the face of these extremist Muslims. They are not going to grow to like the West for weakness, or perceived weakness. I am not saying to just blatantly insult Islam, as people's lives are on the line, but when it is criticized, and when people do happen to insult or mock it, their speech must be protected.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Three Good Things for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses
Just read a very interesting article. To summarize, the three things that will really aid companies in the near future are:
1) Very cheap data-crunching capabilities. Due to innovations such as the "Cloud" and how cheap computing is becoming (it won't be too long before the PC as we know it (big and bulky) becomes obsolete and personal computers become the equivalent of appliances), smaller and medium-sized businesses are now able to offer services and have access to capabilities that previously were only the domain of much larger companies. This will allow for the creation of whole new services altogether most likely.
2) Wireless mobile communication
3) 3D Printing Manufacturing technology - this is going to really aid smaller companies in being able to prototype very quickly and produce complex, sophisticated components that previously might have only been the domain of larger companies due to the fact that the equipment required was so expensive.
IMO, amazing to think about how this is going to really revolutionize the ability of smaller and medium-sized businesses in America to compete in the global economy.
1) Very cheap data-crunching capabilities. Due to innovations such as the "Cloud" and how cheap computing is becoming (it won't be too long before the PC as we know it (big and bulky) becomes obsolete and personal computers become the equivalent of appliances), smaller and medium-sized businesses are now able to offer services and have access to capabilities that previously were only the domain of much larger companies. This will allow for the creation of whole new services altogether most likely.
2) Wireless mobile communication
3) 3D Printing Manufacturing technology - this is going to really aid smaller companies in being able to prototype very quickly and produce complex, sophisticated components that previously might have only been the domain of larger companies due to the fact that the equipment required was so expensive.
IMO, amazing to think about how this is going to really revolutionize the ability of smaller and medium-sized businesses in America to compete in the global economy.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Obama Is No Bill Clinton
One of the themes of the Democratic National Convention was about how when Bill Clinton was president, we had a great economy, and achieved a balanced budget, and Clinton is a Democrat, and Barack Obama is a Democrat, so therefore, if you want the same types of policies we saw during the Clinton years that gave us said great economy and balanced budget, vote for Obama.
What Clinton failed to mention is that his policies were almost to the complete opposite of what we've seen from President Obama and what President Obama is proposing. Bill Clinton tried, initially, to govern as a left-wing Democrat. He signed a tax increase, pushed for government healthcare ("HillaryCare"), pushed for allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and signed the Assault Weapons Ban. This caused a backlash, and the Congress switched to being controlled by the Republicans for the first time in four decades, led by Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton then pivoted, and made the statement, "The era of Big Government is over."
His "pivot" essentially consisted of going on to govern like a conservative Republican. First on the agenda was welfare reform. Bill Clinton actually vetoed this two times, but the Republicans in Congress kept sending it back up to him until he finally signed it. To say it was controversial was an understatement. The Republicans had to use the reconciliation process to pass it (a questionable process I'd imagine as the Republicans railed over the Democrats using it to pass Obamacare), the Democratic party was very much against it, and some prominent members of the social welfare bureaucracy resigned over it (two members of HHS), saying it would be disastrous (it wasn't, as the economy being healthy, the people then went out and got jobs). It is very interesting how Bill Clinton talked about welfare reform at the DNC, as he made it sound like it was his program. It was a Republican piece of legislation that he had to be convinced to sign after multiple vetoes.
Then there was the completion of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton at first did not like NAFTA. It had been started by Ronald Reagan, but Bill ended up completing it and regarding it as one of his great accomplishments. Democrats and their various special interest groups have of course always hated the bill (unions in particular). Belief in free-trade tends to be a more right-wing thing. Both Hillary and Barack Obama ran against NAFTA in 2008.
Bill Clinton also signed a "tax cut for the rich" when he signed a capital gains tax rate cut in 1997 (the rate was reduced from 28% down to 20%). And then in 1999, he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which removed the decades-long barrier that had existed between investment banks and commercial banks.
To claim that it is Obama who has the policies similar to what we saw under Bill Clinton during the 1990s 1994-and on is engaging in a huge degree of historical revisionism I'd say. President Romney has some real low-hanging fruit here I think with which to go after the Obama campaign, and I am surprised that he hasn't made any speeches outlining just the above to crowds. It seems though that he and his campaign are doing the same things that John McCain did during his own campaign in 2008, i.e. to ignore all the low-hanging fruit that exists with which to go after President Obama. President Obama himself has most definitely not minced anything in going after Romney, doing everything they can to paint him as an evil, horrible man.
What Clinton failed to mention is that his policies were almost to the complete opposite of what we've seen from President Obama and what President Obama is proposing. Bill Clinton tried, initially, to govern as a left-wing Democrat. He signed a tax increase, pushed for government healthcare ("HillaryCare"), pushed for allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and signed the Assault Weapons Ban. This caused a backlash, and the Congress switched to being controlled by the Republicans for the first time in four decades, led by Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton then pivoted, and made the statement, "The era of Big Government is over."
His "pivot" essentially consisted of going on to govern like a conservative Republican. First on the agenda was welfare reform. Bill Clinton actually vetoed this two times, but the Republicans in Congress kept sending it back up to him until he finally signed it. To say it was controversial was an understatement. The Republicans had to use the reconciliation process to pass it (a questionable process I'd imagine as the Republicans railed over the Democrats using it to pass Obamacare), the Democratic party was very much against it, and some prominent members of the social welfare bureaucracy resigned over it (two members of HHS), saying it would be disastrous (it wasn't, as the economy being healthy, the people then went out and got jobs). It is very interesting how Bill Clinton talked about welfare reform at the DNC, as he made it sound like it was his program. It was a Republican piece of legislation that he had to be convinced to sign after multiple vetoes.
Then there was the completion of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton at first did not like NAFTA. It had been started by Ronald Reagan, but Bill ended up completing it and regarding it as one of his great accomplishments. Democrats and their various special interest groups have of course always hated the bill (unions in particular). Belief in free-trade tends to be a more right-wing thing. Both Hillary and Barack Obama ran against NAFTA in 2008.
Bill Clinton also signed a "tax cut for the rich" when he signed a capital gains tax rate cut in 1997 (the rate was reduced from 28% down to 20%). And then in 1999, he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which removed the decades-long barrier that had existed between investment banks and commercial banks.
To claim that it is Obama who has the policies similar to what we saw under Bill Clinton during the 1990s 1994-and on is engaging in a huge degree of historical revisionism I'd say. President Romney has some real low-hanging fruit here I think with which to go after the Obama campaign, and I am surprised that he hasn't made any speeches outlining just the above to crowds. It seems though that he and his campaign are doing the same things that John McCain did during his own campaign in 2008, i.e. to ignore all the low-hanging fruit that exists with which to go after President Obama. President Obama himself has most definitely not minced anything in going after Romney, doing everything they can to paint him as an evil, horrible man.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
They Know So Much That Isn't So
Ronald Reagan once said, "The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're wrong, it's that they know so much that isn't so." The Democratic National Convention was a textbook case of this I think. It seems all Democrats, and especially the major ones, all have no idea what the Republican party, conservatism, or the right-wing in general actually stands for.
Bill Clinton in his speech said that with this election, Americans have a choice: choosing between a "We're in it together" society, which the Democrats support, or a "You're on your own society," which the Republicans supposedly support. The problem with this whole view is that it assumes that government and society, government and community, are one and the same. To them, you are either for big government programs and thus a society where we care about one another, or you are against big government, and thus by default, support a society where it's just a straight "every person for themself" type of system, where no one helps anyone else. It never occurs to these Democrats that one can very much be for a society where people care for one another, care about their community, do charitable work and giving, etc...but believe in limited government (and do all this without big government). It doesn't occur to them that society and government, that society and community, are not the same thing. To them, government is at the center of our national life, a core part of our being citizens.
But yet, it's what the Democrats believe. Nancy Pelosi said in a speech that Republicans want to take away our clean air and clean water. Barney Frank, Julian Castro, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama (in his "You didn't build that" speech) all have made the case that we as a society have to care about one another and we can't just be a society where everyone is on their own. They literally have no concept of what conservatism, or the right-wing in general, is about. Conservatism is very much about community and helping one's fellow human. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, conservatism is about the family, the community, the church, charity, etc...one doesn't need government for these things.
It is sad that the Democratic party still has not bothered to learn what the Republican party or conservatism or the right in general believes in. One can very much understand the arguments of the political right, but just say that they disagree with them. Instead though, the Democratic party adheres to what is a giant strawman of a belief about conservatism.
I am rather surprised that Bill Clinton sank himself to saying that in his DNC speech, as I think he knows better. This is a man who is a Rhodes scholar and who the late, great free-market economist Milton Friedman said was one of the two most brilliant presidents he ever worked with (the other brilliant one being Nixon). So I think Bill Clinton knows what conservatism and the right-wing really are about. My mother (yep!) said she thinks Bill is playing nice for the Democratic party because his daughter, Chelsea, is making her first forays into politics now and in order to get anywhere, she is going to need the Democratic party's help. Also Hillary may be thinking of making a run for the Presidency in 2016, so she'll need the party's help as well.
Bill Clinton in his speech said that with this election, Americans have a choice: choosing between a "We're in it together" society, which the Democrats support, or a "You're on your own society," which the Republicans supposedly support. The problem with this whole view is that it assumes that government and society, government and community, are one and the same. To them, you are either for big government programs and thus a society where we care about one another, or you are against big government, and thus by default, support a society where it's just a straight "every person for themself" type of system, where no one helps anyone else. It never occurs to these Democrats that one can very much be for a society where people care for one another, care about their community, do charitable work and giving, etc...but believe in limited government (and do all this without big government). It doesn't occur to them that society and government, that society and community, are not the same thing. To them, government is at the center of our national life, a core part of our being citizens.
But yet, it's what the Democrats believe. Nancy Pelosi said in a speech that Republicans want to take away our clean air and clean water. Barney Frank, Julian Castro, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama (in his "You didn't build that" speech) all have made the case that we as a society have to care about one another and we can't just be a society where everyone is on their own. They literally have no concept of what conservatism, or the right-wing in general, is about. Conservatism is very much about community and helping one's fellow human. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, conservatism is about the family, the community, the church, charity, etc...one doesn't need government for these things.
It is sad that the Democratic party still has not bothered to learn what the Republican party or conservatism or the right in general believes in. One can very much understand the arguments of the political right, but just say that they disagree with them. Instead though, the Democratic party adheres to what is a giant strawman of a belief about conservatism.
I am rather surprised that Bill Clinton sank himself to saying that in his DNC speech, as I think he knows better. This is a man who is a Rhodes scholar and who the late, great free-market economist Milton Friedman said was one of the two most brilliant presidents he ever worked with (the other brilliant one being Nixon). So I think Bill Clinton knows what conservatism and the right-wing really are about. My mother (yep!) said she thinks Bill is playing nice for the Democratic party because his daughter, Chelsea, is making her first forays into politics now and in order to get anywhere, she is going to need the Democratic party's help. Also Hillary may be thinking of making a run for the Presidency in 2016, so she'll need the party's help as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)