Pejman Yousefzadeh, who runs this fine blog, has a new article at TechCentralStation in which he challenges libertarians to do one of two things:

• Develop a coherent theory of international relations that debunks the prevailing realist theory and supports the libertarian minimalist/non-interventionist foreign policy prescriptions.
• Alternatively, explain how "libertarian minimalism can somehow be consistent with the Hobbesian realist outlook."

Notice that Yousefzadeh is posing a rather different challenge than the one that’s typically posed by libertarians who advocate a "muscular foreign policy," such as Ryan Sager and the "neolibertarians" at QandO. The others generally want libertarians to rethink their policy prescriptions. Yousefzadeh argues that libertarians first have to think about a theory of nation-state behavior that can serve as the underpinning for their policy prescriptions.

Yousefzadeh’s argument is analogous to saying about economics that you need to think about and understand the nature of human action and interaction before you begin prescribing economic policies.

I hope he’s right when he says:

I hope to see a comprehensive attempt at a rebuttal of realist theory by the libertarian minimalist school. It will take the debate over the intellectual rigor of realism to a whole new level, and it will allow libertarians in general — and libertarian minimalists in particular — to find their own voices on foreign policy. Happily, it would appear that serious libertarians have started this dialogue. Let’s hope it continues and that more people join in. Serious foreign policy thinkers — whether or not they are libertarians — will benefit mightily if they do.

I certainly think that some serious effort in this direction will serve the LP better than having its presidential candidate commemorate 9/11 by mourning the victims of US aggression. Asshat.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Some time ago, I got an EBT CT scan of my heart and lungs. It showed moderate calcification, an indicator of arterial plaque levels. I also had total cholesterol of 212. Not good.

Those were a couple of the reasons I finally quit smoking last December. I’ve also been trying to reduce the bad fats in my diet, both by changing foods and by preventing their absorption. More recently, I’ve begun exercising more and taking Sytrinol.

Blood test a couple of weeks ago showed improvement. My total cholesterol is down to 191, while the HDL (good) remained at 55. Triglycerides are down, too. But the LDL (bad) is still at 130, and my doctor would like to get it below 100. So he wants to put me on Lipitor. I’m a bit reluctant to risk the side effects — I can think of more enjoyable ways to damage my liver, thank you.

I’ve told him I’d like to give the Sytrinol, exercise, etc., a few more months. But maybe I should ask him about this alternative. 😉

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin posted about the "hate-filled, liberal knick-knacks and apparel items" on sale at Cafe Press, including a whole line of "Kill Bush" merchandise.

Today, when you folllow her link to Cafe Press (by clicking one of the merchandise images). you’re redirected to this page, which informs you that:

The "Kill Bush" products have been removed from CafePress.com.
…
Hate related materials are in violation of our terms of service and are prohibited from being sold through CafePress.com. CafePress.com is an automated service, and as such, products are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that merchandise that is in violation of our terms of service is removed from our site.

I suspect that they heard from a few people, which hastened the "ongoing" review process.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Captain Ed is on fire over a NY Times op-ed by Kofi Annan about Sudan. Read the whole thing, but here’s a tasty sample from his conclusion:

The last person to lecture the US, the West, and the world on accountability should be Kofi Annan. Had he any shred of honor, he long ago would have resigned his post in the face of the collapse of his credibility on this point alone. The editorial board of the New York Times should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this abomination on its pages, and its tacit endorsement of Annan as global scold should cement its reputation as a clueless, inept, and outrageously biased media outlet which has no further credibility to speak on international affairs.

Kofi is concerned that "donor countries" (i.e., nations whose citizens have been left free enough to produce wealth that can then be redistributed via the UN) don’t always fulfill their aid pledges. "But hungry people cannot eat pledges," he notes.

Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why doesn’t he put his son Kojo and, oh, maybe a trusted associate like Benon Sevan in charge of an agency to ensure that all the promised aid reaches the Sudan. That would work, wouldn’t it?

And to stop the Janjaweed rapes in Darfur, he could bring in the peacekeepers who’ve been serving in the Congo, couldn’t he?

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

A few days ago, David Aitken linked to a Kevin Drum post about Peak Oil. I’ll give Drum this much: he’s more restrained, cautious, and honest than Jane Bryant Quinn, whose breathless Newsweek/MSNBC column from last August apparently triggered Drum’s "short primer" (no link to her; she doesn’t deserve it).

Drum acknowledges that today’s chief proponent of the supposedly impending Hubbert peak, Colin Campbell, has "been making peak oil predictions for a long time, and his predictions are pretty much always the same: we will hit a peak in 3-4 years." 

The problem with this theory, as with all "resource crisis" theories, is that it misunderstands the very nature of resources. Resources aren’t something that humans find and use up, we create them. As we advance our science and technology, we "discover" resources that we didn’t know existed or didn’t previously view as resources.

One of these days, I’ll write more on this topic. In the meantime, if this and other prophecies of doom and gloom bother you, there’s no better antidote than a Julian Simon book, and April is the right time to buy.  

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Well, I finally transferred the accumulated pictures from my CF card to the PC, and they include a few shots of Sunday’s "2005 blizzard," as the Denver media have christened it.

Out on the eastern plains, it was a real blizzard. But here in Denver, it was just a heavy, wet snowstorm with moderate winds (~25 mph). The total accumulation was about 12-15 inches in my part of town.

Here’s my deck:

Here’s my Pathfinder in front of the house (it’s still snowing hard at this point):

But, really, it was no big deal. A measly foot of snow. Barely over the top of my Sorels.

You want a real blizzard? Here’s my Pathfinder after the 2003 blizzard:

UPDATE: Yes, the white mound in front of the Pathfinder contains the same red Nissan sedan that you see in front of it in the 2005 photo.

And here’s a yardstick stuck into my front yard after the 2003 blizzard:

Now that was some serious snow!

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

I guess I missed the announcement on the Nightly News and the headlines in the papers: the FCC has conceded that "the Scarcity Rationale for regulating traditional broadcasting is no longer valid." And none of the alternative rationales for regulation hold up, either.

Adam Thierer at Technology Liberation Front had the story back on March 17. He links to and summarizes the "stunning new white paper" (PDF here) by FCC attorney John Beresford.

OK, technically, this isn’t the official position of the FCC: "The views and professional opinions … are those of the author, or authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of…" blah blah blah

Nonetheless, in a Republican administration full of "hard-right ideologues," as the left keeps screaming, shouldn’t someone at the FCC now be preparing a transition plan for implementing spectrum allocation via property rights and dismantling the FCC? Hmm?

I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath.  

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

GeekWithA.45 gives a standing O to There Are No Barbarians At the Gates. I rise to join him, although it makes typing difficult. Here’s a sample:

Violence and brutality are as much a part of humanity as intelligence and socialization. It is the universal drive of civilization to contain these instincts, to redirect them into more productive channels, to convince people to live within a set of rules. But no matter how civilized, no society has eliminated them, nor will one. The society that forgets this is the society that falls to the barbarian hordes. The society that accepts this, and nurtures the warrior spirit away from barbarism and into the defense of the right is the society that rises to glory.

… I devoutly hope to never see true violence, and I have so far managed to avoid even bar fights. I want to be the absolute last line of defense for me and mine, behind every person my tax money has hired to keep my community safe. But no amount of wanting will mean that I am not that last line of defense, and I need, I deserve, I demand the right to be that last line.

Bravo! Read the whole thing. Pass it on to your friends. And don’t forget to check out the comments; there are some good ones. I like Gordon Fink’s zinger about gun-controllers and pacifists (emphasis added):

They believe that if only they could eliminate the “tools of violence” (guns, knives, etc.) and teach non-violent conflict resolution (like that practiced on three out of four planes on Sept. 11th), then the world would be a better, more peaceful place.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Instapundit has a funny quote from the latest Mark Steyn column (speaking of people who can turn a phrase!). Steyn tears the CIA a new one. Here’s my favorite:

Even before the latest budget-bloating ”reforms,” the U.S. government was spending $30 billion annually on intelligence, and in return its intelligence agencies got everything wrong. British and French intelligence also get a lot of things wrong, but they get them wrong on far smaller budgets.

And then:

What’s startling about the glimpses we get of CIA operations — that red-hot presidential briefing from August 2001, Joseph C. Wilson IV’s non-fact-finding mission to Niger — is how generalized it all is: Anybody who watches cable news or reads an occasional foreign paper would know as much.

As they say, read the whole thing. And drop by Instapundit, too — I’m sure Glenn would appreciate the traffic spike. 🙂

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Is there anyone better able to turn a phrase than Lileks? On my way home, listening to Hugh Hewitt, I heard Lileks respond to Sen. McCain’s statement that "the Senate is different" as follows (I’m paraphrasing, but it’s close):

It’s the only place in the world where an intellect like Daniel Patrick Moynihan is paid the same as Barbara Boxer.

UPDATE: Radio Blogger has Lileks’ remarks here. I had the money quote close enough.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Hi, I’m Richard G. Combs. I’m a technical writer in Denver, CO. Divorced and forty-mumble-teen years old. Opinionated as all get-out.

Politically, I’m a libertarian, and in the past, I’ve been quite active in the LP as an activist, candidate, chapter chair, and state board member. But unlike the LP leadership (and maybe most of the membership), I:

• Don’t believe that Osama and friends would leave us alone if we just minded our own business and let them kill Jews.
• Do believe that, whether we like it or not, we’re engaged in a war. That war was started by an Islamofascist movement as bent on world domination as the Nazis and Communists — and in some ways, more dangerous.

I suppose that makes me something of a "neolibertarian" or "imperialist libertarian" — although I don’t entirely agree with the latter group’s foreign policy goals. 

I think the US gov’t has the right to act against what Donovan calls "arbitrary states," but it doesn’t have an obligation to "enforce the basic rights of every individual on the planet" — only those of Americans. If we act against a tyrannical state, as in Iraq, to the benefit of the citizens of that state, as in Iraq, it must be primarily because our own long-term interests are at stake, as in Iraq.

I’m sure I’ll be revisiting this issue…

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

"It’s my opinion and it’s very true."

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed