Self-critical biography!

Here's the latest fad test. I was inspired by Murdoc Online to engage in this month's bout of self-criticism.

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (80% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Dear me, it seems I've become rather authoritarian as of late. Perhaps I might start threatening others' jobs or taking away air-soft guns. But, political views are truly passé. Perhaps I'll get in on the latest fad, health dictatorship! There's another test that foretells the date of your death based on probability. Well, that's interesting to note. Let's see when I'm due to kick the bucket.
JANUARYRY 2058 at age 74.7 of a heart attack, or a car accident.Lonelinesss came in third at thirteen per cent probability. Sadly, I have more health and vitality than the average man. Also, I've lived thirty per cent of my life, which has been wasted away in educational institutions. Good thing I have so much to show for my extensive schooling.

In any case, if I've learned anything from this, it's that I live too long and I'm a mean-head. At least I'm no Nazi. I've merely a bad case of "insensitivity."

There's little new content to add, so I shall cut short for to-night.

Lunar Livery Let-down

Back when I was a wee lad, and foolishly trusted government, I thought that space exploration was best left to the faceless bureaucracy of the state. I lived in perpetual fear of the day when a craft covered in advertisements set down in the dusty soil of Mars. I figured only government-run space programmes could provide the daring and technical skill to reach other planets, ad-free.
It seems to me, upon reflection, that the only way people are going to get to other planets is through the private sector. I've been confirmed in this view by recent events, such as the repeated grounding of the shuttle fleet. Further confirmation came in the form of NASA's new lunar exploration plan. The site is very user-friendly, and I invite all to take a look at it.
In short, after examining what I could of the proposals, I found that we're re-launching Apollo (the 1960s lunar plan), except the capsule as bigger and it takes twice as many rockets to do send one crew to the moon. Only the capsule returns to Earth, meaning it's another throwaway mission. Undoubtedly it will bring back more return than its Apollo predecessors, but that's not the issue.
The prime issue here is the lack of innovation and risk. NASA is a moribund and sclerotic institution, much like the EU or any other government agency (aside from the military, which naturally must take risks each day). Many exciting new concepts have been floated that could save money and build trans-lunar infrastructure and thus make our presence on the moon a permanent one. Yet all the government is capable of doing is attempting to make a Saturn V out of shuttle booster parts and old fuel tanks.
In order to conquer space, man is going to need to take risks and try new designs. To NASA's credit, they're financing a few truly visionary projects such as the Space Elevator. However, these plans are not proceeding like they should- technological failures, not bureaucratic inertia, should be the limiting force on space development. You certainly cannot explore a realm so dangerous as space without losses. It's a price of exploration, and one I'd personally pay. The rewards outweigh the risks by orders of magnitude.
On another note, it seems that the devilish Spaniards have decided to give out light sentences to several 9/11 conspirators, while using the opportunity to slam the US. This has brought the suggestion from many quarters that US intelligence efforts in Europe should stop cooperating with the local authorities. It sounds reasonable- US efforts get better results out of Pakistan than with many of the continental powers, who cannot even manage their own economies, let alone prosecute a war.

Fluffy Bunny

No, it's not another post about EU Commission Vice President Margot Wallström. Instead, I'd like to make note of several spurious accusations made by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada as part of his continuing conversion efforts. I'd also like to note that even the late John Paul II cannot help your case when you misspell "infinitesimal" when insulting my intelligence. Your continuing terror campaign to make me a Sad Panda shall not succeed, much like his previous efforts to cow free men to the Papist Yoke!
No posting to-day, except this note on current law regarding Parody.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has since reviewed this case. It decided that the existence of a commercial purpose does not destroy the fair use exception to copyright infringement. A four factor test must be applied.

Those four factors are:
a)the purpose and character of the new use (including the question of a commercial purpose)
b)the nature of the original work
c)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the original work as a whole
d)the effect of the new use on the market or value of the original.
The Supreme Court stated that the first factor should be more a question of whether there was a verbatim copying or whether the new use transformed the original and how extensive was the transformation. The Court of Appeals decision was based upon the rule that every commercial use is presumptively unfair. The Supreme Court rejected this rule, stating that the finding of a commercial use is only one factor in determining fair use.

There were other issues and rules expressed by the Supreme Court, but they are unrelated to the parody discussion. Suffice it to say that the parody continues to be a fair use exception to copyright infringement."

Democracy is over-rated

I briefly return, dear reader(s), courtesy of the University's un-marked Wi-Fi connection in the "bridge" area. This is one of three areas on campus with such a connection. The first is our ITS department, but mere students aren't allowed to hog up their bandwidth. The second and third areas are directly adjoining, so one is left with the impression that they only installed one Wi-Fi hotspot. Regardless, one must not denigrate them too much, for they are probably listening.
Again, I must apologise for my lack of posting, which is in turn because I have no internet access at home. However, a number of events have compelled me to make a few brief notes in this underused space.
First, I must comment on the German election. It seems that the campaign was very substantive. The CDU/CSU (the same party, but with a different name in Bavaria) focused on their leftist opponents' economic failures. The governing coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens focused on blaming George Bush for Germany's economic woes. Also, they said that Merkel was little more than an agent for Bush's policy.
As is evident from the election results, the Germans responded well to Schroeder's well-considered campaign. Schroeder's party, the SPD, dropping Merkel's party from 51% in early polls to 35%. Schroeder is attempting to build a government, as is his opponent Merkel, but at the moment very little is clear. It seems either a minority coalition will be formed and rule by presidential decree, the CDU/CSU and the SPD will have to form a "grand coalition" (imagine the difficulties of needing bipartisan support for every new law in congress), or new elections will be called. The grand coalition is ungovernable, as the SPD wants to raise taxes and the CDU/CSU wants to cut them and deregulate the economy. A minority government ruling by presidential decree seems likely if this happens. Because it rules by decree and lacks a majority, it can't be viewed as legitimate. This was what happened in the governments of Heinrich Brüning (1930-32), Franz von Papen (1932), and Kurt von Schleicher (1932-1933). All of these governments ruled solely by presidential decree because they couldn't muster enough parties in a moderate coalition because extreme parties took away many of the votes. The two principal parties then were the German Communist Party and the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Eventually, a grand coalition headed by Adolf Hitler was appointed by the president.
A similar trend is occurring here (except that there is no Hitler). Both the CDU/CSU and the SPD, the mainstream parties, are down considerably in popularity from the last election (-3.3% and -4.3% respectively). Conversely, the Left party, the PDS (formerly the East German SED party) gained almost 5% this election. SED has also made big inroads to Berlin, where they famously bulldozed the Checkpoint Charlie memorial. They've also recently proposed that the statue of Lenin that used to stand in East Berlin be returned to the city. Given the rapid decay in the German economy, and the fact that the traditional German method for dealing with bad times is no longer open, radicalism is taking its place.
The second issue is the European response to Hurricane Katrina. As one would expect from our moral superiors, European officials have blamed the United States' failure to implement statist policies. The (former) German environmental minister blamed the US failure to join the Kyoto protocol for the storm, and Margot Wallstrom claimed that the problems in New Orleans occurred because of institutional American racism.
What's that? Some people were apparently angered by our European superiors. Many of these reactionaries pointed out the recent (summer 2003) heat wave in Europe, which killed 35,000 people across Europe, thirty-five times the current death toll of Hurricane Katrina. They also claim that the "institutional racism" is just as present in Europe, and that the reason why so many African-Americans died in New Orleans was that they comprised sixty per cent of the population of that city. They also point out that other places that were swarming with crackers were also hit.
However, again we seem to be a bit confused. Remember, people who die in a manner that promotes a European cause celebre are worth more than those who do not. Besides, as we all know, old people (who were the primary victims of the 2003 heat wave) are not worth as much as martyrs for a political cause because they are a burden to society, as our progressive European masters have demonstrated time and again.
For those interested in fun, visit our Uncyclopedia Article on Wheeling Jesuit University

Katrina

Apologies for yet another absence, but my new "digs" lack an internet connection, making it rather difficult to post.
In any case, the recent debacle of Hurricane Katrina has been on everyone's mind as of late. My thoughts on this are few, but perhaps controversial. Here they are-
1)Complete failure of local responsibility. Despite receiving more federal funding for flood control than any other state, the group of New Orleans decided to use it on pork projects instead.
The mayor refused to evacuate, the governor dallied and by doing so refused to declare martial law or allow FEMA aid. Thanks to these clowns in Louisiana, the fed will undoubtedly centralise power dramatically using this disaster as licence. They should all be shot.
2)Looting. The actions of some irresponsible jerks (such as shooting at rescue helicopters) have moved the New Orleans Police to order the confiscate all civilian arms. In some parts of the city, private individuals bearing arms are the only protection against looters, as the National Guard isn't enough to stop them. The looters will hide their arms, while honest citizens will give theirs up, leaving them in the capable hands of the police department. They'll probably never get them back. Another interesting fact is that, as of yet, no one has discovered where the mayor derives this new authority to order the confiscation of arms. His major power, as far as is known, is to stop the sale of arms in the city.
Of course, the hired bodyguards of the rich do not have to give up their weapons. It seems there's a definite double standard between those who have it (such as Dianne Feinstein, who wants to ban civilian arms, but was issued a special concealed weapons permit), and those who don't (poor suckers like you and me).
3)New Orleans vs. Mississippi. New Orleans is a disaster area, but Mississippi got hit much worse. Why aren't there looters shooting people in Mississippi, or more precisely, looters brazen enough to merit non-stop news coverage? I think the answer lies in the fact that ill-educated red-staters have to shoulder a greater burden of personal responsibility than the welfare-statist New Orleans types. Some will undoubtedly point to race as the deciding factor, but Mississippi has a large black population, and they are just as well-behaved as the whites despite being in a materially poorer condition than their cousins in Orleans.
4)The Bush-bashers and entertainers. Gee, these types are now blaming the BusHitler McChimpyChump Halliburton for the poor response to the Hurricane. I hate to break it to them, but there's a little notion called "subsidiarity" that demands that those most proximal (i.e. closer) to a problem fix it first, followed by more help from outside. However, it seems ol' Dubya, despite being "Chimp Shrub," has managed to control the weather and limit federal response because there was a majority of blacks in one area hit by the disaster.
5)Media-whores. These people get worse with every disaster. My displeasure is better expressed by this fine talking squirrel.

After this hurricane, New Orleans won't be the only thing taking a pounding. Our civil liberties will certainly be hit hard under new "disaster" legislation. It's enough to make me want to pack up for Alaska with a fine PTR-91 (before they're banned, that is) and live in a cabin for the rest of my days.