Thoughts

Video is through the link. http://www.collateralmurder.com/
I think it is hard to justify the latter half of the video, where they shoot up the van evacuating wounded. However, I do feel like the arrows identifying the two journalists are more of a play on emotion than reliable identification - especially after the shooting starts.

How about the role of Wikileaks in this whole thing? They somehow obtained the video, used supercomputers in Iceland to unencrypt the whole thing. Meanwhile, various governments were shadowing them and allegedly threatening them.

Lastly, this kind of gun-camera footage, the advent of drone aircraft, remote control war. What are the effects of the (for lack of a better term) video-game-ization of warfare?

Is liberty an inherently social concept?

So I've been enjoying the Cato Unbound blog lately. It's basically just a forum for debate between conservatives but they really hash out issues I care about. There's been a good one on Ayn Rand recently (here) and a neat one on whether or not college is worth it (here).

Today, I've been reading the current issue for debate, the nature of Freedom/Liberty. I particularly like a sub-debate going on about whether or not Liberty is a social construct. I.E. you don't have liberty if you live alone because liberty depends on your relationship to other people. (Ok, I'm kind of taking my own interpretation of it - call it a straw man if you want).

I'd argue that you have absolute liberty in that situation, but that it is largely meaningless as a value without a society present. Lots of things would be meaningless on an isolated desert island - gold bars, i-pad, lifetime supply of toner. The hypothetical doesn't really help us figure out the concept much.

If you're up for some good old intellectual procrastination, give it a read.

So, Healthcare

Alright, I've not seen enough of the bill to really grasp everything its doing, but, it looks rather moderate. Here's a summary from CBS, its way too basic for a 1k+ page document but I think thats all we are going to see for a little while. The details will come out as parts of the plans are implemented. However, I think I'd rather talk about the political implications of the bill than the bill itself.

First and foremost, and I cannot overstate the importance of this point, Congress has now created a precedent. The United States Government is now responsible for providing health care to its citizens. Regardless of the degree of coverage, commitment, cost etc., Congress has made general health care the Government's business from here on out. The only wild card is a potential unconstitutional ruling by SCOTUS but I hear that's a long shot.

Second, and what I really want to talk about, is the Republicans. (As usual. They're kind of a Miltonic Satan figure in my mind - so damned interesting and quite enticing.) Although they are loathe to admit it, the GOP operated under an obstructionist mentality. Their goal was to prevent the passage of the bill. while they certainly made it hard for the Democrats, ultimately they failed. So what now? Many Republicans are already moving toward a policy of Repeal. They want to overturn the bill should they win majorities in Congress. But what are their chances of winning? Ask Republican sources and they say strong - Americans hate the bill, it was passed undemocratically, they will vote enough Dems out to regain control in a second Conservative revolution. Two points: 1. was the public really that mad about the bill? 2. could anger about the bill be maintained until November? I think the answer to both questions is 'no'. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a platform based around repealing legislation is going to alienate the party further from the middle. (Perhaps that's the goal. I am not entirely unconvinced that most republicans just want to cement their own political office and never leave DC. The way to do that is to capture all the most right-wing seats and play on their constituents fears and paranoia. Moderates be damned.[They won't vote GOP anyway{double parentheses? really?}]) The other reason the GOP is not likely to sweep this November is a wonderfully powerful new argument the Democrats get to make now: Republicans want to kill you, your family, and your friends. That's right, any opposition to a Democrat means taking away health care, which is a substantially different position than opposition to giving health care. And, its only going to get harder to oppose as the new services start going into effect. Taking away something people expect to have will piss them off. Good luck running against health care post 2014.

So, what a smart Republican party would do is drop this whole mess right now. Find ways to support health care in a critical way. Argue for improvements and market oriented reforms. Either way, the populace will not be keen on a Repeal or obstructionist platform much longer. Its time to adapt to a changed situation or die out as the older, more partisan electorate that put you in office dies out. Survival means cooperation right now. Win local races on local issues, rebuild your base by being good at what the Democrats are bad at - efficiency, supporting business, free trade, national security. And for the love of Pete, move a little left on issues you previously championed (some call this bill Romneycare afterall). If there's one thing the Democrats know how to do its f-up. Hell, this bill took long enough as it was and they had a supermajority. They do not step in line, they do not support party measures. That's a strength but also a weakness. They'll screw something up, but you have to be there in a form capable of stepping into the gap they leave. If the GOP is so far right and so far gone that even a scandal will not convince voters to vote for you, well its your own damned fault.
 

More on China's approach to things

A good post countering the opinion that China presents some kind of intrinsic challenge to the US. It also hold to my view that China is merely acting to improve its global economic standing - not to create some evil empire.

The so called "Hardest Logic Puzzle of all Time"

Two guardians watch over a fork in the road. One path leads to safety, the other to a grisly death. One of the guardian is a knight, meaning that he always tells the truth. The other is a knave, meaning that he always lies, answering “yes” to questions whose correct answer is “no”, and vice versa. You do not know which guardian is a knight and which is a knave. With a single question, how will you find the safe path?

Texas messes with textbooks

So the Texas BOE has adopted a new series of social studies standards that give a really "Glenn Beck" version of history and society. Here's a few awesome quotes from an AP article:

"As part of the new curriculum, the elected board — made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others — rejected an attempt to ensure that children learn why the U.S. was founded on the principle of religious freedom.

But, it agreed to strengthen nods to Christianity by adding references to "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas.

They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class and agreed to require economics students to "analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."


However the really scary part is this: "Decisions by the board — long led by the social conservatives who have advocated ideas such as teaching more about the weaknesses of evolutionary theory — affects textbook content nationwide because Texas is one of publishers' biggest clients."

Marc Thiessen on with John Stewart

For about the first 6-7 minutes I think this is one of the better interview/guest segments TDS has had in a little while. After that, he moves into argument mode and it becomes kinda one sided. I feel like Stewart does his best when he sticks to questions and well planned lines of thought - when he lets his guests have enough rope to hang themselves with. Part 1.