Scots not so strait-laced anymore.

Fascinating special section in the Scotsman about Edinburgh's apparently booming sex industry. Features on different aspects of it, and news on recent legal changes.





States investigating national brokerages.

The New York Times reports on how individual states are proceeding in their investigations of various firms. I knew they were doing this, but didn't realize how they'd divided it all up.


But the SEC and other federal groups are pushing everyone to agree to one simple settlement, so as to end it and let them get back to business-as-usual. You have to be suspicious of any plan the firms themselves support. Such a settlement would pretty much hide each firms' individual crimes behind this general "everybody does it" generalization, and, most especially, stop most attempts to find specific individuals guilty of criminal offenses.


Ah, the feds are advising the firms on the easiest way to get out of this. Our tax dollars at work. Basically the feds want to keep it entirely a civil matter. This wasn't really theft, and they aren't really criminals. Just honest businessmen who may have made some bad business decisions. That also allows them to keep most of the money. Oh, some fines. But nothing like what they stole. And no one goes to jail.

October 18, 2002

English rabbi may face heresy charges.

The so-called chief Rabbi of England, Jonathan Sacks, is under fire from orthodox rabbis for writing a book, The Dignity of Difference, in which he suggests that Jews may be able to learn from people of other faiths, and that Judaism may not be "perfect." The book has recently been serialized in the Guardian, who report on demands that he withdraw the book from publication.


I can't believe this. Censorship may be a traditional part of Christian and Islamic thought, but it has never been a Jewish practice. And I didn't even know that there was such a thing as Jewish heresy. Or a Jewish "court." It's very frightening that they were able to force him to publicly recant, and that their ideology seems so clearly black and white. Do most European Jews share this view? Maybe they do. Maybe it's the flip side of the virulent anti-Semitism still so widespread there.

I say so-called "chief Rabbi" because Jews have never ever had any organized clerical hierarchy. There never has been any Jewish "church" or formal organization. I, like most Jews, don't recognize the authority of the so-called chief rabbis, either in England or in Israel, and in fact think that their attempt to place themselves in control directly contradicts what I've always understood to be some basic tenets of Judaism.

Folks who aren't Jewish may not understand this. But the majority of Jews in the world, including in Israel, England and the U.S., are what they refer to as "Reform" or "Conservative," and don't recognize the authority of the orthodox at all. Personally, I think they're crazed fundamentalists, as dangerous as the Islamic or Christian ones. The article's suggestion that this would be taken seriously around the world is pretty off base.

* After fifty years of being Jewish and hanging out with Jewish folks, I can assure you that they aren't "perfect." No disrespect intended I'm sure, but not even close. :) I know a great joke that illustrates this almost perfectly, but unfortunately this is a family blog and I can't tell it.



And do they have pajamas in space?

After I inquired whether or not they're doing it in space, it occurred to me to wonder whether or not they have pajamas in space. And what about lingerie? In fact, how do they sleep in space at all? Do they even have beds? I guess they have to strap themselves in or something.

Sorry if I seem too concerned with sleeping arrangements up there. I know as a good citizen I should be more concerned with whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but frankly this seems much more interesting.

And what about dreams? Are dreams any different in space, while sleeping in free fall? I'm not sure I've ever heard anything on the subject. Except in science fiction of course, which is just one giant space dream.



Thanks to Wikipedia, a public encyclopedia.

Got the Irish terms for their government from the ever-better Wikipedia, a user created encyclopedia I recently stumbled on. It's a great idea. Any user can edit any page. No article on a topic yet? Then write one. See a typo, misspelling or other error? Correct it on the spot. Here's the entry for Ireland. And Sinn Fein means "Ourselves Alone." I didn't know that.

I really should look up the HTML-entities for the Irish characters in the Gaelic words below. Is being lazy a good excuse? Oh well, I'll fix it soon.



More on European enlargement.

An article about enlarging the EU in the Economist perfectly illustrates the elitist attitude the European leadership is taking. Amazing arrogance. The language used displays an incredible contempt for Irish voters, and apparently for the rest of the people in Europe. Check these examples out (emphasis mine).


The "right way", "see the light" (echoes of a religious, messianic fervor here, reminiscent of American "manifest destiny") and "get the message." Why don't they just go all out and say it's "evil" to be against the EU?

The statement that "every EU member except Ireland" has ratified the treaty gives the impression that all of the other nations strongly support it and that only the Irish are against it. Actually, the statement, "Every EU member that has had the option of voting for it has rejected it," would be more accurate.

What's even more abominable is the clearly expressed intention of the elite to simply go ahead with their plans, regardless of the vote. They'll just find another way to do it, the people be damned. Call the lawyers! I guess they're the ones running things anyway.



The technical term for people who go around make incredibly expensive and complicated plans involving the lives of hundreds of millions of people without having any backup plan or strategy is "incompetent." Just the fact that they do this is a rather strong argument for NOT increasing the power of the folks in charge.

The suggestion that the Irish parliament would vote to go ahead to do it anyway after two negative votes is absolutely hysterical. Two no votes, and every politician in Ireland will jump on the bandwagon. But supposing they do. What happens if, after the politicians that did that are naturally voted out of office, the next parliament votes to repeal it

I think I detect some English superiority here: the Irish parliament is commonly referred to as the "Dail" (short for Dail Eireann, actually just the House of Representatives), which along with the Seanad Eireann (Senate) form the Oireachtas. Not the "Parliament," unless you're under the impression that England still owns and runs Ireland. But even after 80 years, the old English money at the Economist can't bring themselves to say the word.

Another example of the arrogance is their assumption that the problem is that the Irish voters just don't understand what's going on. They simplistically report that there are just two reasons the Irish may vote against it, the attitude seeming to be that those silly peasants just don't appreciate larger concerns.


Don't understand the part about how they can be part of a common union, while simultaneously not being part of that union. The Irish reluctance is quite understandable. This is a major step, it definitely involves surrendering at least some sovereignty and neutrality, and should only be done if everything is clear, and a very strong consensus has been formed to do it. Basically, the EU leaders seem to be saying that we'll just have to work things out later, make up the policies as we go.

Suggesting that the EU can have a defense force while individual nations remain neutral is obviously absurd. How does that work? Do Irish soldiers in an EU army get to pick and choose where they serve? Or is it the government that does the picking and choosing? Imagine if the people in an U.S. state voted that they didn't want anybody from their state serving in Iraq.

And pretending this won't dilute Irish influence is also silly. Of course it will. They'll go from having 1/15th of the vote to 1/25th. No question about it. They'll be less than one percent of the total population. That's really where the folks at the Economist are missing the boat. Maybe the Irish simply don't _want_ to be part of that big a union. Even if it's for their own long term benefit. Why is it that the powers-that-be can't seem to grasp this essential part of democracy: the voters don't have to give reasons for what they do, and they have the right to do anything at all, even if it's utterly stupid and ridiculous. People like to run their own lives, even if they screw them up.

Enlargement may be a good idea, but clearly they don't feel "comfortable" with it. So what's the rush? Ah, maybe the need for politicians to increase and maintain power, and for Corporate Europe to acquire more markets. The only "problem" here is that the EU went ahead and committed itself without checking with anybody first. And what's saddest is that their desire to force a larger Europe before its time could possibly derail the whole thing.



Ireland and the EU.

A lot of talk about the Irish vote on whether to expand the European Union. Most of it seems to be making this an "Irish" issue, focusing on what the EU's done for Ireland and such. But really the only reason the focus is on Ireland is because Ireland is the only country where the people are able to vote on it. I'd bet my bottom dollar that if all of the countries voted, there'd be at least one other who'd vote no.

What this issue really illuminates is just how undemocratic the EU really is at this point, and that many people have serious doubts about the direction it's taking. And of how much contempt for the voters the leadership clearly has. The Irish already voted against this. To come back and ask them to vote again, just because the leadership (read "the rich"), didn't like the results is incredibly insulting, and profoundly elitist and undemocratic. If I was Irish and voted 'Yes' the first time, I'd definitely vote 'No' for that reason alone.

They claim it's because of a low turnout, but that doesn't seem to apply in any other case. Personally, I don't feel that any vote should be valid unless at least 50% of the eligible (eligible, not registered) voters participate. But that's not the rule, and until it is they should stick to standard practice.

I've always (and still am) a strong supporter of the European Union, and in fact would welcome a strong Europe as a counterweight to America, if nothing else. But this trend is extremely disturbing. And I'm absolutely amazed that everyone in the EU doesn't get to vote on something this big, with such major long-term implications. I guess this would also apply to the people in the nations applying to join.

This lack of democracy, basically the retention of the power of the very, very old ancien regime that has been messing Europe up for centuries, affects other things as well. While I'm a strong supporter of international courts, and of international government in general, that's only if they're run by democratically elected people.

Bush objects to the International War Crimes court because he's opposed to the rule of law; I'm opposed to it because there are no established rules or processes for selecting the judges, no legislation enacted by any democratically elected legislature for them to enforce, and so on. In the US all judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials. That's not the way they do it in Europe, at least not in most countries. (As far as I know.) Surprisingly and unfortunately.

While I'm on the subject, I have to say I don't think the enlargement is a good idea. Not for the current members, and especially not for the new ones. I'd rather see two smaller but more focused unions. And I think the Eastern European countries are in a much stronger position than they think they are. For one thing, they're greatly underestimating the possible income from tourism and the arts, infinitely more important in the 21st economy than farming. But mostly, as an American, I can assure you that bigger does NOT necessarily guarantee better. As far as I can see it's just more expensive. If I were them I'd form my own union, use the Euro without paying for it, and play Russia and the EU off against each other.

October 17, 2002

Doing it in space?

Been avidly following the course of construction on the space station. I'm interested in all aspects of it, but having both an incredibly curious mind and an incurably filthy one, I can't help but wonder exactly what's been going on up there. I mean, there have been men and women living for extended periods of time in an extremely confined space, and in a situation where there simply isn't much else to do. So...

I mean, I don't want to pry into anyone's private life or anything. But it seems to me that the first sex in space is a major historical event, and, well, inquiring minds want to know. Has it happened yet? What's it like to do it in freefall?

Many people wonder if space tourism is ever going to really take off. I think it will, and the number one reason will be the desire of people to experience what this is like. Imagine doing it while actually floating in air. Goodness. My prediction is that this is going to be the number one 21st century recreational activity, and that it will become the standard honeymoon destination. You heard it here.

I also have to wonder why the tabloids, media and everyone else seems to avoid discussing this issue. I've never heard it discussed on Star Trek or any other space show. Nothing. Curious. :)



British hypocrisy at work.

The Moscow Times reports that the British and Americans harassing the Ukrainians for selling Iraq an early warning system.


But the Guardian reports, in an article mostly on an encounter between Prince Andrew and some Iraqis at a Jordanian arms show, that the British themselves don't seem to have any qualms about selling weapons to pretty much anyone, terrorists or otherwise.


A force for stability, huh? "Delighted???" Seems to indicate that the main reason the Americans and British are against other folks selling arms to the Iraqis and other countries in the Middle East, is not that they don't want arms going there. No, it's just that they want the market for themselves.

I'll put this in bold so that it's clear: The British and the Americans are continuing to sell arms to virtually all of the countries in the Middle East, even as we prepare to go to war with them. Personally, I'd object to even letting them just _look_ at the weapons, since one can learn a lot from that.



Hydrogen based cars take another step.

The Guardian reports on a demonstration by Ford Europe of a new model hydrogen car.


Still a long way from production models, but a mark of the continuing development. Along with a hydrogen-based engine itself, there remains a lot of work in the mass production of the hydrogen itself. But it's clear now that the technology works. The rest is just details. :)

October 16, 2002

Javascript and DHTML goodies.

Stumbled on a wonderful site by Angus Turnbull, while looking for Javascript menu scripts. One of the best implementations of those I've seen yet (they actually work, for one thing), along with all sorts of other stuff. Very slick stuff by someone who obviously knows what they're doing. And all free for the taking. And even some humor to go along with it.



.Joni Mitchell calls music industry a "cesspool"

The BBC reports that in a recent interview with Rolling Stone she said that she is "ashamed" of being part of the industry, and goes to far as to say that she may never record again. At least not if it means signing any more contracts with the monsters.


Unbelievable. If a star of her magnitude can't get honest treatment from them, then who can? She also accuses Geffen Records of never paying her any royalties when she was part of that label. They claim, as always, that her advances were always greater than she was owed. But that then leads to the question of the competence of the music management itself: if they can't make money on a Joni Mitchell record, then how good does something have to be before they can? If they weren't making money then why did they keep putting out the records?

I remember years ago when James Garner sued the company that produced "The Rockford Files" for never paying him any royalties. The company claimed that tho the show was on for five years, it never made any money. And Garner wondered why, if that was so, they kept renewing it. Given that it was (and is) pretty much a network policy to cancel any show that doesn't make money.



Woody Harrelson says no to war with Iraq.

The actor/activist, currently working in London, writes the Guardian about the reasons for his opposition to the war, and to the Bush administration in general. A very well-written and cogent series of arguments.





Apple announces fourth quarter results.

"Apple shipped 734 thousand Macintosh(R) units during the quarter, down 14 percent from the year-ago quarter."

New York Times article here. That works out to just under three million a year. Is that enough to warrant developing for OSX?



Questionable projections of computer sales.

Some interesting predictions about the industry overall in an article from CBS Marketwatch on Apple's expectations in coming quarters.


Seems to be quite a gap between current and future estimates, based, as far as I can see, on the assumption that there's to be substantial economic recovery shortly. Basically wishful thinking. Certainly the June forecasts were way, way off the mark, less than a quarter of what was predicted only about 100 days ago. I think they'll be lucky to just hold even, much less increase.

Computer sales are not just going to come back: it will require confronting the serious problems facing the industry, most especially Microsoft's and Apple's monopolies. These are very definitely making it impossible for new technology to develop. I, for instance, would be developing an absolutely killer ebook program for Windows, except that Microsoft's giving theirs away for free. How do you compete with that? Is anyone going to invest in that situation.

Say, whatever happened to that Microsoft anti-trust thing? Proceeding along with due speed I suppose. Goodness, this thing is going to outlast both the boom and the recession, and probably Bush as well as Clinton. "Justice delayed is justice denied." Can't people realize that it's this uncertainty and dishonesty that's devastating the tech economy? You can't invest in this atmosphere.

You have to have a set of rules. They can be bad rules, they can be slanted towards the corporations, they can be unfair, but whatever they are they have to enforce them. This is why we pay our taxes, this is what the government is FOR.



Motorola selling its PowerPC division?

The New York Times reports that Motorola stock plummeted more than 20 percent on a very bad third quarter. And, most important for the Mac, there are rumors that they may sell their semiconductor business, which presumably includes the PowerPC.


This sure would be major news in the Mac world if it happens. Heck, losing a major semiconductor business to the Europeans, would be a very big deal for the US at large. Especially one of the most technologically advanced ones.

Everybody's been talking about OSX while ignoring this ever-growing crater at the foundation of it all. At the moment OSX runs only on machines with Motorola chips, and Apple is the only purchaser of those chips. Given the tech downturn I just don't see how they can continue to produce these on a cost-efficient basis.

IBM also makes PowerPC chips, and has recently announced new advances in them, but whether they're prepared to meet all of Apple's demands is highly questionable. That would amount to a major new investment at a time when, as they say, the chips are down. (Sorry ;))

October 15, 2002

Corporate profit reports are just fantasy.

Mathew Ingram in the Globe and Mail comments on the financial realities behind the so-called profits declared this week by companies such as GM and Citigroup.


Basically, not a thing has changed since the dot-com crash. Companies still reporting paper profits as though they were real, and the markets (and apparently even the general public) just buying it as always.



America's for-profit armies.

The New York Times reports on the growing use of mercenaries by the American military, which has now become the wholesale contracting of private armies from Fortune 500 American corporations.





Al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah.

Many details on the connection between Al-Qaida (as the British spell it) and Jemaah Islamiyah, the group allegedly responsible for the nightclub bombing in Bali, in this Guardian article:


Not exactly sure how much of this I really believe. I certainly don't think it's anywhere as cut and dried as this article seems to make it, nor do I believe that al-Qaida is that well structured and organized. Important to remember that while it may be convenient to report this as a single organization, in reality there are many, many groups, representing many different peoples with divergent views and goals. They may be allied in some ways, at some times, in some places, but certainly not everywhere.

And to suggest that all of these, apparently millions of people if this is as widespread as is claimed, are "evil", and that all those they attack are "good" is absurd and simplistic.

With the active help of the so-called "Western" powers, the Indonesian government has been terrorizing its citizens for decades. There are few places with a poorer human rights record, or more government-sponsored terrorism than Indonesia. If it was a "communist" country like China it would be widely reported. But because it gives free reign to capitalism, it's simply ignored. Same old story.



Library of Alexandria reopens after 1500 years.

The Library of Alexandria reopens an amazing 1500 years after it was burned down. I know reconstruction after an accident can take a little time, but this is ridiculous. I guess it shows that you just gotta stick at things, and eventually you (or your distant descendants) may actually get there.

October 14, 2002

Bush's Harken past will not go away.

This story has been widely reported, but can't be publicized enough.


And this is the man we're depending on to clean up corporate America? Ha, what a joke. And note that you have to go to Australia to find honest reporting on this.



What is heck is "listeria"?

Story via Yahoo about the massive meat recall by Pilgrim's Pride, and of the Bush administration's role in allowing the meat industry to continue to ship dangerous products, that are widely known to be killing people.


Makes you wonder which side the USDA is on. All blame can't fall on the Republicans though. This was a recall of chicken and turkey products, Pilgrim's Pride being the second largest shipper of these after Tyson Foods, headquartered in Arkansas, and Bill Clinton's long-time number one corporate supporter. Not surprising that they would deny the deaths and illnesses. More people in the US die every year from salmonella and e-coli than died on 911, yet it's hardly ever reported or discussed. Chicken "strips", "nuggets" and such have skyrocketed during the 90s, along with warning labels on chicken, and countless cases of disease. But I haven't heard of listeria before.

I wonder what the reaction would be if it was reported that terrorists had poisoned 20-something million pounds of meat?



Questionable assumptions about the impact of war and deflation on the global economy.

Read another article, this one in the Guardian stating that war in Iraq will cause problems in the global economy. As always, this is mostly based on assuming that future events will be the same as former ones, in this case, attributing earlier recessions to fluctuations in oil prices caused by uncertainty in the Middle East.

This may have been true before, but there's one factor that doesn't seem to be considered. Namely, that the technology for alternative energy sources has taken an enormous leap forward in the last ten years, and that, unlike previous times, it is now a viable alternative to oil. So it's entirely possible that any serious, lasting disruptions in the world's oil supply may not result in an economic slowdown, but rather in a boom propelled by a new generation of alternative energy start-ups. Of course, this is dependent, at least to a certain degree, on market forces being allowed to operate. That is, if oil prices start to rise, governments not attempting to control them but rather to let them rise enough to encourage alternative sources to compete. And once they begin to compete, allowing them to continue to grow as they become more and more self-sufficient. And it's unlikely this will happen given the degree and extent to which the US government (and others) are interwoven with the oil industry.

Another questionable assumption in this article is that deflation is an economic problem. "Deflation is a much bigger threat to the west than Saddam will ever be..." Huh??? It may be of course, but I don't think that's as automatic as many economists seem to think. Deflation is basically a rich man's disease. I mean, it affects everyone, but mostly it affects those who have quantities of money that could decline in value. For most of us, defaltion means things are cheaper, which is usually a good thing. I mean, when I go to the store and find things have come down in prices, I'm hardly ever upset. :)

And yet another questionable assumption in this article is that the health of the global economy is still tied to the health of the American (and European) economies. Again, based mostly on the premise that because something was true in the past it will be true in the future. But I feel that the weaknesses in these areas could just as well encourage other economies, not harm them. For instance, the decline in the economic value and power of American corporations in the last year, has made it possible, for the first time in a long time, for companies from other countries to compete. And more importantly, to be seen as just as good a potential investment, if not better, than American corporations.

As always, the "West" (whatever that is) likes to think that's what's good for them, is good for the world. A convenient assumption, but one that is simply no longer so. And these reports of a "global recession" are simply not true. In point of fact, the global economy has continued to grow during the last few years, as it has every year since the end of World War II. It's just that the growth is now being generated by countries such as India, China and Russia, as well as by smaller countries such as Ireland, Finland and so on, all of whom are still doing rather well.



More futile efforts to block the future.

The NY Times reports that Vietnam is now requiring permission for new web sites, at least for "businesses and organizations", however that's defined. That's a first, I think. At least, I haven't heard of any other governments doing this, certainly not so openly and directly. The US government requires internet radio sites to get permission from the government and pay fees in order to exercise their civil rights, which is essentially the same thing, but of course, when Americans do it it's called "business", not censorship.


Anyway, it amazes me that governments continue to think that they can do this. China's attempt to block Google only lasted a few weeks, and so on. But it's a frightening trend.

---

End of entries. ( page top )   ( column top )