Dean's World — Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Boundaries and Us

by Celia Farber on July 30, 2010

An open question to friends of Dean’s World: How has a technology changed your sense of boundaries, yourself in the world, with other people, who you thought you were?

Or has it? Tell me how a technological development altered a boundary in you, for good or ill. This is for a magazine article, a think piece, and my editor said it was perfectly fine for me to throw this question out. Nobody will be quoted without expressed permission.

I recall, for example, a discussion about the dilemma of witnessing a colleague’s wife (possibly) doing something unspeakable with a man not her husband. Stuff like that. How did that end by the way?

The question is: Have we lost our boundaries altogether, as a society? *

* That’s one of those annoying magazine cover questions that has no real answer.

*Update*: Bumped by Dean because it probably got lost in the kerfuffle on other stuff.

{ 3 comments }

Obama’s Katrina: Did Admin Policies/Incompetence Cause The Oil Spill?

by Dave Price on July 30, 2010

in Politics

It sure looks that way. Ed Morrissey cites a Center for Public Integrity report that finds the Coast Guard, whose budget was slashed by a third under Obama, so badly botched the response to the explosion (not even following their own guidelines for such responses) that their actions probably caused the rig to sink, which in turn caused the leak.

No wonder they’ve been wanting to “keep their boot on BP’s throat.” They can’t blame Bush for this.

But don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll do a great job running the country’s health care system.

{ 0 comments }

Let’s Kill Dean! (Or, Who Has More Talent, You Or The Misogynist Coward?)

by Dean Esmay on July 29, 2010

in Best Discussions,HIV & AIDS,Politics,Science,humor

You have to laugh when anonymous cowards on the internet slime people and then run and hide, don’t you? People are so very brave when they can cower behind their monitor screens. Here’s the newest case here on Dean’s World:

A testicle-less cultist who will only reveal himself as “BSE” created this thinly-disguised death threat against Dean’s World contributor Celia Farber. I recently linked it, not particularly prominently but in the comments to another thread, to illustrate just how gross and venal some people can be. Practically within minutes, the perp showed up in the thread. Anonymously of course, but tracing him makes it look likely that he is who he says he is. The dispatch operation over at “AIDS Truth” is obviously very efficient.

What a laugh. Of course “he” is too cowardly to sign his fingerpaints or answer any questions. Said kindergarten-level work has, though, helped expose just how unprofessional, and, really, deep down afraid certain so-called “researchers” are when journalists dare write about scientists and other people they don’t like. Case in point, John P. Moore and Jeanne Bergman, AIDS “scientists,” who used this creepy art to illustrate a hateful screed directed at Celia (see the bottom of this page with the death-cultist’s fingerpaints).

This entire unprofessional temper tantrum was approvingly linked by this group, of which the authors are prominent members. (“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly,” says John P. Moore, distinguished scientist.) If the scientific community in general wants to know how the most embarrassing members of their profession behave, they need look no further than these pompous, well-funded clowns.

Let me be clear: this cowardly, juvenile, threatening behavior is of course free expression. I’d die to defend these cretins’ right to publish whatever they want. This disgusting little wanker and the people who associate themselves with him can masturbate onto paper and call it art all they want. I still call it dishonorable cowardice because this venal little thug won’t sign his gross fingerpaints, won’t answer questions, and because these people pretty clearly endorse someone anonymously terrorizing women and then running away and hiding. What’s next from them, a bullet to the neck of any journalist they don’t like? A blackjack to the base of the skull to a reporter who looks at them funny? (Again, according to them, “[t]his IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly…”)

In response to this juvenile, crayon-fisted garbage, I now issue a Dean’s World challenge:

Let’s Kill Dean!

The challenge: Who can do better than this talent-less misogynist hack? Here’s a photo you can work with:

(Click the image to get the full-size version. I know, I know, I’m hideous, just work with me here.)

To kick things off, I’ve done a few of my own that are hackish, amateurish, and much better than the cowardly “BSE” did of Celia if you ask me:

This is the real Dean for the world to see! Mothers, hide your children! Men, hide your sheep!

Dean's well-deserved punishment!

I know some of you guys can do even better. I’d like to see Dean shot, stabbed, hung, or otherwise mutilated. Special prize for the most creative effort: a front-page post on whatever you want, written by yours truly, and an autographed copy with personalized inscription of Methuselah’s Daughter (on sale now at a summer discount!). If you have a submission just leave me a comment here and I’ll email you how to get it to me, and I’ll put your submission on the front page. Regular commenters are free to argue which ones they like best, with the final judge being Celia. Contest ends in two weeks.

Maybe even BSE will make one. I’d consider it a high honor to be in the company of his victims.

I can’t wait. Come on people, let’s Kill Dean!

{ 67 comments }

Literary Bleg

by Eric Rall on July 29, 2010

in Politics

In the Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce, there’s an extended quote from a work called The Lunarian Astonished published by Pfeiffer & Co., Boston in 1803. From the quote (below), it appears to concern a visitor from the Moon learning about American governence (and perhaps society as well, since at the rate it’s covering ground it would be an exceedingly short book if it only concerned government).

I’ve looked for the book several times, and I’ve come up completely dry in libraries, on Google Books, and on Google in general. All I can find is hundreds of different versions of the Devil’s Dictionary. Is the book lost in the mists of time? Did Bierce make it up? Or is it out there somewhere, and I simply haven’t looked hard enough?

LUNARIAN: Then when your Congress has passed a law it goes
      directly to the Supreme Court in order that it may at once be
      known whether it is constitutional?
TERRESTRIAN: O no; it does not require the approval of the
      Supreme Court until having perhaps been enforced for many
      years somebody objects to its operation against himself — I
      mean his client. The President, if he approves it, begins to
      execute it at once.
LUNARIAN: Ah, the executive power is a part of the legislative.
      Do your policemen also have to approve the local ordinances
      that they enforce?
TERRESTRIAN: Not yet — at least not in their character of
      constables. Generally speaking, though, all laws require the
      approval of those whom they are intended to restrain.
LUNARIAN: I see. The death warrant is not valid until signed by
      the murderer.
TERRESTRIAN: My friend, you put it too strongly; we are not so
      consistent.
LUNARIAN: But this system of maintaining an expensive judicial
      machinery to pass upon the validity of laws only after they
      have long been executed, and then only when brought before the
      court by some private person — does it not cause great
      confusion?
TERRESTRIAN: It does.
LUNARIAN: Why then should not your laws, previously to being
      executed, be validated, not by the signature of your
      President, but by that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
      Court?
TERRESTRIAN: There is no precedent for any such course.
LUNARIAN: Precedent. What is that?
TERRESTRIAN: It has been defined by five hundred lawyers in three
      volumes each. So how can any one know?

{ 5 comments }

The Shirley Charade

by Dave Price on July 28, 2010

in Politics

Great summary of recent events from the DC Trawler:

The joke was on everyone as the Sherrod chainsaw howled to life. She announced that Fox News was just using her as a “pawn” to “take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.” She dragged out the wheezy old canard that all opposition to the policies of our glorious Leader Of Color are due to racism. And the true motivation of Andrew Breitbart? Why, nothing less than the reinstitution of slavery. Once Shirley Sherrod is out of the way, there will be nothing to stop Breitbart from using his giant mechanical spider to kidnap the President and reboot the Confederacy.

I was always a fan of the spider.

What Sherrod says during the remaining fourteen minutes of her celebrity is doing a lot more damage than anything she said on that videotape. Moral of the story: do your homework before you stick a glow-in-the-dark statue of someone to your dashboard. I have a suspicion the only figure in the Sherrod saga who took the time to understand her, or even read the full transcript of her speech, was Andrew Breitbart.

Indeed. Desite all the shrieks of “Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!” mortared at Breitbart from the left, he turned out to be right not to apologize, and every time Sherrod opens her mouth she confirms it.

UPDATE: The original Breitbart story, which I don’t think I’ve linked till now, has some words that ring especially true in the aftermath:

But the new media will not be silenced. It will not allow for the main stream media to propagate hateful and hurtful lies in order to save the Democratic Party from the toxic choices it has made over the past few years. And by bringing up race, and demanding a zero tolerance of racism, the left, and the NAACP in particular, has opened itself up for scrutiny.

Judging from the hate levelled at Breitbart since, the gander doesn’t seem to like the goose treatment.

{ 48 comments }

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

by Eric Rall on July 28, 2010

in Law and Morality,Politics

Over the past several years, there’s been a movement quietly picking up steam to fundamentally change the way Presidents are elected, from the current system of statewide elections choosing slates of electors pledged to candidates into a national popular vote system. Normally, you’d expect such a change would require a constitutional amendment, but the Constitution gives states blanket discretion in how they choose their electors. The proposed mechanism is for a bunch of states (totalling at least 270 EV) to get together and agree to appoint electors pledged to elect the winner of the national popular vote. The movement’s getting a bit of press the last few days, since it appears Massachusetts is about to sign on (joining Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Illinois, and Hawaii).

In my mind, there are three questions surrounding this proposal:

Would a national popular vote be preferable to the current system? I doubt it, but I’ll save that argument for a different post.
Is it technically legal: can the states change the mechanism for electing the President via insterstate compact? Almost certainly.
Leaving aside Question 1, should states where the legislature favors abolishing the electoral college sign on, or should they refrain and instead call for a constitutional amendment (the constitution permits states to petition Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, and requires Congress to call the convention if enough states so petition)?

I believe the answer to question 3 is no. While the constitution explicitly grants states plenary authority to set whatever procedure they want to select electors (contrained only by later amendments, most notably the various voting rights amendments that limit the ability of states to disenfrancise citizens from voting in any elections that are held, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment which has been interpretted to require votes within a state to be counted evenly according to a uniform standard), I doubt very much that anyone involved in the authoring or ratification of the amendment thought is plausible that any state would set a procedure for choosing electors that didn’t hinge on elections within that state (either direct popular elections of Presidential electors at-large or by district, or appointment by the state legislature). Indeed, since the Electoral College was part of a compromise to protect the ability of small states to defend their interests against a coalition of a few large states, I think it very likely that the national popular vote interstate compact would have been explicitly disallowed had any of the founders thought of it.

There’s also the philosophical question of whether it’s right for a minority of states representing (approximately) a simple majority of the population to fundamentally change the nature of our system for electing a President. When considering this question, especially if you support abolishing the Electoral College, bear in mind that if the procedure is legitimate on this question, it’s legitimate on other questions as well. The Constitution gives plenary power to the states to pick any method to choose electors, and “plenary” is a very strong word. Instead of appointing electors pledged to the winner of the national popular vote, the rule could be any of the following:

All electors are appointed pledged to a candidate selected by random drawing.
All electors are appointed by the incumbant President.
All electors are appointed pledged to vote for the heir by male-preference primogeniture (subject to the Constitutional requirements of the Presidency) of George Washington as President, and to the next in line as Vice President, effectively turning the Presidency into a heriditary monarchy.

Naturally, these are all very bad and very unpopular rules, while electing the President by national popular vote is arguable a good idea and is certainly rather popular. But what they have in common is that they’re radical changes in how we pick the President, which could be implemented through a simple-majority process that circumvents the intentionally-difficult process of amending the Constitution.

Update: To clarify, the examples of other policies that could theoretically be implemented through an interstate compact concerning allocation of electoral votes is intended purely to prompt deeper consideration of the legitimacy of the process, not to claim that there’s any particular likelihood that adoption the NPVIC would lead to a monarchist interstate compact a century or two down the road.

However, there’s one potentially plausible category of interstate compacts we should legitimately be worried about is a large subset of state agreeing to cast their votes as a block according to the combined popular vote of the states in the block, effectively disenfrancising states outside the block.

{ 13 comments }

WordPress Question

by Dean Esmay on July 28, 2010

in Blogs and Blogging,Misc Personal

Back before we moved to WordPress, we had an option on the sidebar of the site where you could look up past posts by categories. Well we still categorize most posts here, but I recently noticed there doesn’t seem to be any easy way to search on those categories. I especially want people easily able to find posts categorized as “Best Discussions” and “Best of Our Contributors.”

Does anyone know how to add something to the sidebar to let people see posts marked by any specific category, so people can find our best discussions, find our best contributed articles, etc.? I’m just not a WordPress expert.

{ 9 comments }

Peter Duesberg’s Detailed Story (through 2005) As Told To Harper’s

by Celia Farber on July 27, 2010

in Best of Dean's World Contributors,Politics

This article provides details about many of the questions that have arisen here, about Peter Duesberg’s efforts to obtain funding to test his AIDS causation models, etc.

The Passion of Peter Duesberg–original (PDF form)

It was commissioned in 2004 by Harper’s, and slated for publication in 2005, but was later truncated and folded into a longer article published in 2006.

*Update by Dean*: Coda added by secondary author removed from PDF by original author’s request and approval. No further edits, above link is the original document.

{ 49 comments }

Shameless Plug

by John Eddy on July 27, 2010

in Fiction,Unrestrained ego

So, Lulu.com has decided to have a sale and I’m going to be all capitalist and see if I can take advantage. You can get your copy of the infamous novel Methuselah’s Daughter at a %15 discount by going to Lulu.com before August 15th and using the coupon code BEACHREAD305.

[Bumped]
How can you resist something that has a recommendation like this?

If I recall correctly it contained everything a good summer read should have. Romance, action, sex, power, slavery, genocide, serial murders, cannibalism and a world-class defense of tobacco and scotch…

{ 5 comments }

Tax Treatment of Estates

by Eric Rall on July 26, 2010

in Economics,Politics

Megan McArdle writes about why we tax estates rather than taxing inheritances. Taxing estates has a major double-taxation problem (generally, the wealth composing the estate was taxed as income as it was accumulated), a progressivity problem when a large estate is distributed in the form of many small bequests, a disincentive to long-term savings, and a very large deadweight loss in that it often forces a large portion of the estate (with large subjective value to both the deceased and the heirs) to be liquidated to pay the tax.

The last problem is well-illustrated by the recent death of George Steinbrenner. Restoring the New York Yankees to greatness was his life’s work. Sure, he made money in the process, but he never hesitated to pour that money back into the team, to spend whatever it took to give the team the best chance it could have for another championship. Since he died this year, he was able to pass it on intact to his sons, who presumably share his vision and values. But had he died next year instead, majority ownership of the team would have had to be sold to pay the death tax.

McArdle’s post concentrates on the second objection to taxing estates, by noting that an inheritence tax would address that problem but only at the cost of imposing other problems. Of the three problems she highlights, the third is actually the same as the Steinbrenner problem with taxing estates, but more severe. But the first of her three problems with an inheritence tax points to a better alternative to either, one that addresses the problems with either an estate tax or an inheritence tax.

When property is inherited, the capital gains basis is “stepped up”, or reset to the market value at the time of death, rather than the normal capital gains basis of the purchase price of the asset. This is done for two reasons. First, to partially compensate for the steeply progressive estate tax that is typically levied. Second, to save the heir the extreme difficulty of deducing what their ancestors paid for a piece of property when it was orginially acquired.

I’d deal with the issue the other way around. Rather than taxing at time of death and stepping up the capital gains basis, I would instead levy no special tax on estates or inheritences and step the capital gains basis down to zero. After all, the heir paid nothing for the property he inherited. That way, nothing needs be sold to pay the tax, but when the heir does sell the inherited property, he pays capital gains tax on the entire proceeds. Cash and cash equivilents would simply be taxed as capital gains the year the inheritence takes place.

{ 5 comments }

Rescued from the Dustbin of Linguistics

by Eric Rall on July 26, 2010

in Blogs and Blogging,Linguistics,Popular culture

Ace has an interesting post musing on how internet culture has not only created new words (for example, “fail” and “win” as nouns), but also revived archaic words into active use. “Daresay” is his example of the latter, and he’s struggling to think of others. He suspects cross-pollination from British writers, reviving words that are archaic in American English but merely formal or staid in British English.

“Beclown” is my favorite word that blogging has revived, and one that cannot be attributed directly to improved communication across the pond. Instead, I’d attribute this to blogging revitalizing the usefulness of the word. Blogging gives a great many people an opportunity to beclown ourselves, as well as giving others a platform from which to point out autobeclownings.

Overall, I’d attribute the revitalization of old words to the fact that internet communications in general and blogging in particular have handed a wide-reaching broadcast medium to nerds and geeks. The marked use of archaic words was already a well-established feature of geek culture long before the internet (e.g. “Defenestrate”), and the internet has merely given us a forum through which to spread this.

{ 14 comments }

An AIDS-Specialist Physician Speaks

by Dean Esmay on July 24, 2010

in HIV & AIDS,Science

*Update* Here’s a lot more from Koehnlein:

The rest of Koehnlein’s 2009 presentation is here and here and finally, here.

One of the things I notice is that, consistently, people like Koehnlein are painted as nutjobs, cranks, pseudoscientists, or, occasionally, just plain evil. Yet when you read what they say and listen to them, they have pretty much none of the markers of being such people. That’s usually a red flag for me that there’s something very wrong going on. When your scientific opponents can’t just be wrong in your eyes, but have to be evil or deranged, what does that say?

{ 5 comments }

Q&A with Park 51

by Aziz Poonawalla on July 24, 2010

in Politics

I guess this is sort of journalistic, but IANAJ. Still: I asked 10 pointed questions to the lead developer of the Park 51 project (also known innaccurately as the “Ground Zero Mosque” in NYC). and he replied. very satisfactorily.

{ 45 comments }

Weekend Music/Open Thread

by Dean Esmay on July 23, 2010

in Etc.

Ah, Stewie Griffin, the unheralded musical genius of our era!

So what are you up to? Got any cool tuneage to share?

{ 15 comments }

Surely A Charade

by Dave Price on July 23, 2010

in Politics

Shirley Sherrod says this about Andrew Breitbart:

On Andrew Breitbart: I know I’ve gotten past black versus white. He’s probably the person who’s never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it.
I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again.

Well, that doesn’t sound much like the post-racial enlightened uniter the MSM has packaged her as, but I’m confident this seemingly damning quote is also perfectly innocuous “in context,” no doubt part of an inspiring story in which she learns to overcome hyperbolic accusations of yearning for America’s days of slavery, and focuses on the things that bring us together as Americans.

And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president, you know. He would go after me. I don’t think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president.

Well, anyone who thought she was obsessed with race certainly ought to apologize.

“It’s not so much about white…” (catches herself, says), “It IS about white and black.”

I know I’m inspired.

Something else that’s been underplayed in all this is that it’s extremely unlikely Sherrod was canned because of anything anyone on the right said; I mean, come on, this is the Obama administration. That decision was almost certainly precipitated by the NAACP’s denunciation of Sherrod — and remember, the NAACP always had the full tape, as it was their event.

UPDATE: Glenn has more, including this from Jonah Goldberg: “Shirley Sherrod, who didn’t know who Andrew Breitbart was 72 hours ago, now knows him well enough to say that he wants to put all blacks back into slavery. If I were David Axelrod, I’d be calling this woman and beg her to stop talking.”

No kidding. Every time she opens her mouth, we get a little more “context.”

And remember — the Obama admin now owns Shirley Sherrod. There’s no way for them to look good on this anymore. If they fired her, then apologized and offered her a promotion, then found out she was someone whose wildly inflammatory accusations make Reverend Jeremiah Wright look like the soul of racial unity and reasonable dialogue… the already oil-drenched competence myth is now taking a slash to the jugular.

{ 38 comments }

pc upgrade confusion

by Aziz Poonawalla on July 23, 2010

in technology

I’m having some issues figuring out my next upgrade path, and could use some techie advice here. help!

{ 4 comments }

Other people’s information doesn’t want to be free

by Ron Coleman on July 23, 2010

in Blogs and Blogging,Economics,Legal Issues

Glenn Reynolds links to a an article in Wired about lawyer a newspaper “chain”‘s — actually, lawyer Steve Gibson’s — “new business model”: Suing bloggers who post newspaper articles, evidently more or less intact ones, on their sites. Glenn says suing bloggers “seems like a poor business plan” — mainly, of course, because most bloggers are broke, or pretty close to it.

The article also explains why these one-off claims by outfits such as the Las Vegas Review-Journal are unlikely, in the long run, unlikely to pay off. One reason is that at least the music industry, through the Recording Industry Association of America, is theoretically going for some degree of bulk in its litigation trawling against unlawful file sharing. And we did say “theoretically”: Remember, in 2008 the RIAA managed to spend about $16 million on legal fees to reel in a whopping $391,000. As the article says, “You’d have to go after a lot of people for a relatively small amount of money,” says Jonathan Band, a Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer. “That is a riskier proposition.”

So, yes, it is hard to comprehend the return on investment here.

There are other reasons this doesn’t seem to make sense. ”Defendants might be less willing to settle a lawsuit stemming from their posting of a single news article, despite the Copyright Act’s whopping damages,” says the article. But no, not quite on the “whopping damages” stuff. Contrary to myth — and to the threats routinely uttered by copyright plaintiff attorneys — statutory damages are not meant to be a windfall, as I explain at some length here. Now it is true that some juries think intellectual property infringement damages are a jackpot unrelated to actual harm — usually because judges don’t instruct them properly. But other judges in high profile cases are refusing to be part of the copyright shakedown. Thus in the recent Tannenbaum copyright case, the District Court judge reduced the jury’s damages award of $675,000 for infringement of 3o songs to $67,500, ruling that the amount awarded was unconstitutional under the Due Process clause.

Still, $67,500 is a lot of money, a lot, and still pretty darned distant from any plausible quantum of loss to the copyright owner. <Read More ..>

{ 0 comments }

Obama Turns On Key Voting Bloc

by Dave Price on July 22, 2010

in Politics

After all their support, do they really deserve this?

{ 5 comments }

Romantic Comedies Destroy Lives!

by Kevin D. on July 22, 2010

in Gender Issues

Well, maybe not “destroy,” but they do seem to setup unreasonable expectations in relationships. A new poll out of Australia “found almost half said rom-coms with their inevitable happy endings have ruined their view of an ideal relationship.

One in four Australians said they were now expected to know what their partner was thinking while one in five respondents said it made their partners expect gifts and flowers ‘just because’.

“It seems our love of rom-coms is turning us into a nation of “happy-ever-after addicts.” Yet the warm and fuzzy feeling they provide can adversely influence our view of real relationships,” said Australian relationship counselor, Gabrielle Morrissey.”

Rom-coms consistently show relationships lacking a near endless supply of “giddiness” as dysfunctional. And that the norm should contain grandiose displays of affection from one partner to the other (typically the male to the female) on a not irregular basis.

How do I know this? I am married. My wife likes rom-coms. I must watch them. I mean, I don’t hate them, in fact I enjoy many, but I notice the subtle unreasonable bar men are expected to achieve. In fact, it brings to mind something my wife said early in our relationship, with not just a little hint of disappointment in her voice: “You’re a lot more romantic in the stories you write.”

Well, no duh! In my stories my characters are limited only by my imagination. But that’s the point, it’s imaginary. It’s fantasy.

Film is a powerful medium. I adore film. I want to write them! I know how seductive they are but we need to understand that while it may have the form and feeling of real life, it lacks the substance. And that substance is boring to outsiders. It’s long hours, hard work, frustration, pain, and, if you’re lucky, bespeckled by moments of pure joy because you earned them. Film cannot capture that honestly. It may highlight these ups and down but it cannot convey the real passage of time required for these bright spots in life – so it all looks too easy. And we become judgmental and start to want what doesn’t really exist.

It’s not just that the grass seems greener on the other side. The grass has been meticulously trimmed by a team of experts, lit by professionals, and color corrected in post.

The grass you want doesn’t exist.

Deal with it.

{ 10 comments }