The Canadian Republic

"I'm A Meat Eater. It's An Ethical Thing."

2009-07-25T09:21:00.004-04:00

Turning the tables on vegetarians.

H/t Diana

Nature vs. Nurture: A False Dichotomy

2009-07-24T10:55:00.003-04:00

One often encounters in the study of psychology the claim that human actions are the product of two (and only two) competing forces: nature and nurture. On the one hand, proponents of the nature view suggest that human beings are reacting primarily to the contents of their genetic structure. In this perspective, genes tell you everything you need to know about a person. Conversely, the nurture view suggests that human beings cannot operate beyond their upbringing and environment and that it is, in fact, these external forces that are responsible for our actions.

Both perspectives obfuscate the requirement of individual responsibility by ignoring the fact of volition.

Human decision-making is a fundamentally volitional process. Men cannot act on instinct; every action begins in a man’s mind and is deliberately chosen. The genetic structure of an individual provides certain influences – or factors – that must be taken into account in the ultimate decision to act in a certain way. For example, a strong genetic propensity towards diabetes might lead an individual to treat sugars in a way that one without such a propensity would not. However, a propensity towards diabetes does not produce automatic action; it merely provides the individual with an important factor to consider when reaching a decision to act.

Nurture cannot provide us with automatic action either. External stimuli are facts of reality to be perceived, evaluated, and considered in the process of decision-making. And they certainly do exert themselves upon us. But conceptual organisms cannot respond to these stimuli mechanically. In the same way as with genetic predispositions, humans must integrate these environmental factors into the overall structure of their thought process. Consequently, the fact of volition remains essential.

Those who point to individuals with relatively poor brain functioning as examples of the primacy of nature are missing the point. Differences of intelligence among individuals are differences of degree and not of kind. As such, these individuals are still fundamentally volitional organisms who require a process of thought for all their decisions.

The nurture advocates, in my estimation, are slightly closer to the mark. Education, indoctrination, and conditioning in a child’s formative period can affect his psychology and psycho-epistemology in incredibly profound ways. To a certain extent, genetic forces can direct a person’s growth and cognitive processes as well. However, the fundamental fact of volition remains unaltered. All influences in a person’s life are merely that: influences. The responsibility for weighing those factors against the facts of reality and of choosing one possible course of action among all the available alternatives rests solely – and must rest solely – on the individual.

This is the crucial fact that is ignored in the nature vs. nurture literature and is the source of this false dichotomy.

On Those "Lefty, Liberal, Multicultural Appeasement Monkeys"

2009-07-24T08:02:00.002-04:00

"Apologists For Evil" by Pat Condell

H/t Raph

Reason Or Emotionalism: There Is No Middle Ground

2009-07-23T19:17:00.005-04:00

A friend recently asked me whether it is possible to be ‘too rational.’ The following is a portion of my response:

Here's my first concern about the question: what could possibly be involved in being too (which I take to mean 'overly') logical? What would that look like? If characteristic 'x' exists in a person to a degree beyond that which is conducive to their happiness, we say that the person is 'too x' (e.g. 'too fat,' 'too aggressive,' or 'too pessimistic'). Happiness is the state of consciousness that arises from the realization of one's values. However, logic is a human being's only means of organizing perceptual data, i.e. our only way of learning about existence. Evidently, then, the pursuit of our own happiness requires learning about all different aspects of the world around us - what are the relevant facts? do these facts tell us anything about how we should act in the future? what does that mean our values should be? how ought we to pursue those values once we've identified them? etc, etc, etc. Consequently, a process of thought (to wit: a chain of reasoning) is a necessary condition for our happiness. And the more efficacious our process of thought, the better able we are to pursue and realize our values!

To put the point differently: the strict application of logic could not possibly endanger our well-being since it exists in a proportional relationship with it. If we think rationally, we can identify the facts of the world, determine our values, pursue those values effectively, and achieve our own good in our own way.

As I suggest above, the question stems from a profound misunderstanding of the role that reason plays in the human cognitive process. It is, indeed, impossible on its face for a human being to be ‘too rational.’

Since I responded to the question nearly a week ago, however, I’ve queried a few acquaintances and have discovered that the mistake is far more common that I had thought. There seems to be a general impression that a bargain can be struck between reason and some other sham faculty of awareness, whether it be intuition, revelation, or a sixth sense.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff formulates the full repercussions of striking such a bargain between reason and emotionalism with characteristic clarity:

If one attempts to combine reason and emotionalism, the principle of reason cannot be his guide, the element that defines the terms of the compromise, because reason does not permit subjective feeling to have any voice in cognitive issues. Subjective feeling, therefore, which permits anyone anything he wants, must set the terms; it must be the element that decides the role and limits of reason. Thus the ruling principle of the epistemological middle-of-the-road’er is: ‘I will consult facts and obey the rules of evidence sometimes – when I feel like it.'

Reason is an absolute. And, when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, no compromise is possible between rationality and emotionalism.

The Alleged Gap Between Free Trade & Economic Embargoes

2009-07-23T11:50:00.012-04:00

A common libertarian attack on conservative foreign policy in North America consists of opposition to our government’s authority to impose economic sanctions on foreign states. Any restrictions on the potential trade partners of free citizens, advocates of this position contend, contradicts our freedom to trade value for value with other individuals while being guided by our own rational self-interest. Although I find the term to be dangerously imprecise, I will proceed by calling this perspective “libertarian isolationism” in the absence of – or in my ignorance of – a more appropriate label.

The core of libertarian isolationism is the relativistic insistence that countries against which we are not currently fighting a (“legitimate”) war are beyond the scope of our rational judgment or of our government’s mandate to interfere with. Besides implicitly equivocating between moral social structures and tyrannical ones, this perspective is tantamount to denying the existence of threats, and therefore enemies, abroad.

Those international actors whose policies are defined by the use of physical force against individuals – any individuals – of the Canadian state must be considered our enemies. This principle applies equally to threats of physical force (e.g. a state that is allied with an enemy, a state whose policy is war with our ally, or a state whose malevolent intentions regarding our country and its citizens can otherwise be established by valid evidence) as it does to actual instances of the initiation of coercion.

The principal fallacy of the isolationist view is that it drops the context of the purpose of government: the protection of individual rights from criminal infringements thereupon by both internal and external sources. A truly consistent policy of free trade forbids permitting violators or would-be violators of the basic condition required for free trade – individual liberty – to grow stronger and better equipped through trade with domestic entities.

We consider it proper to oppose the establishment of trade relationships between domestic business entities and the mafia. Why ought we to exempt foreign gangs who pose any threat whatsoever to our safety from that same standard?

Trading with enemy states represents a blatant violation of the individual rights of our people. It is of paramount importance that we do not allow isolationists to invoke freedom to criticize embargoes when the protection of liberty is the very reason that economic sanctions are justified.

Letter To Dalton McGuinty re Harmonized Sales Tax

2009-05-10T16:47:00.009-04:00

Beginning in 2010, Dalton McGuinty's government is instituting a new tax system in Ontario which involves expanding the Provincial Sales Tax to encompass thousands of new goods and services. The program is disingenuously entitled the "Harmonized Sales Tax." To express my dissent and outrage, I sent Mr. McGuinty the following letter and I encourage everyone of a like mind on this matter to send a message as well. Please feel free to borrow my letter, either in part or in whole, while making your opinion known.

Dear Mr. Dalton McGuinty,

As a politically engaged citizen of Ontario, I am pleased to offer my support for any government initiative that aims at lessening the tax and paperwork burden on the people of our province. I find it interesting that the achievement of this rational tax reform is the guise under which Ontarians are being offered the "Harmonized Sales Tax" (HST). Regrettably, the HST plan will, in reality, distend the 8% provincial tax to include innumerable products and services that are presently – and mercifully – beyond the provincial government’s reach. As a result, it is clear that the valid objective of reforming the tax system for the benefit of Ontario’s over-taxed individuals, families, and businesses is no more than a convenient pretext that has been employed by your administration to obscure the true nature of your proposed tax plan.

Like many of your government’s policies, the HST has been initiated under a smoke screen of beneficence while truly aiming at arrogating to the state an even larger portion of the wealth of Ontario’s citizens. In essence, the “harmonization” that your government has advanced is nothing more than a massive tax hike, one that will be keenly felt by Ontarians in their purchase of basic goods and services such as hydro, gasoline, and home heating fuel, as well as in important areas like legal fees, real estate charges, and the sale of used cars. Given our province’s already inordinately high tax burden, this drastic and underhanded cash grab by your government will represent a major financial challenge to Ontario’s producers and consumers alike, especially those in the middle class. Your constituents will not tolerate this state of affairs.

Mr. McGuinty, I implore you to strike down the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax. Furthermore, as the leader of Ontario’s government, I ask that you focus your efforts on what common sense, sound economics, and the lessons of history have demonstrated time and again is most conducive to the real welfare of Canadian citizens: freedom in the economic realm. I assure you that your failure to take positive action on this matter will be reflected in the results of the next provincial election.

Please follow the link to send your own message.

Eulogy For America

2009-02-24T15:18:00.001-05:00

The country that once elected leaders whose ideas upheld liberty now elects leaders whose sweet-sounding platitudes and woozy promises are all that is required, and whose actual, dangerous ideas need not be examined until after Election Day.

The country that defended property rights now seizes 40-percent of our income in a myriad of taxes imposed by all levels of government — with even larger levies on incomes, profits, investments, and savings on the horizon.

The country that championed capitalism now vilifies our industries, cripples them with regulations, seizes their profits, then declares that the free market has failed and government must take over.

The country that made possible the great industrial titans—the Henry Fords, Thomas Edisons, and others whose productive genius moved mankind forward—now thinks that government can run things better, and that government should own, operate, and finance our corporations, deciding which will survive and which will die, creating a new kind of soup kitchen where emaciated companies stand in a bread-line waiting for their bailout.

The country that protected the individual now protects polar bears, spotted owls, caribou, and the wilderness at the expense of human life.

The country that fought a revolution to end the abuse of power now elects politicians who wallow in power like hippos in mud, such as members of congressional subcommittees who hold hearings threatening the prosperity or very existence of American business firms, and then let the hearings end with little or no result when the hapless firms make sufficient contributions to the reelection campaigns of the congressmen.(*)

It is the mighty that have the farthest to fall. Most often, that fall is not precipitated by one great clash with the enemy but, as Mark Steyn explains, "by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it piecemeal."

Is it too late to slam on the emergency brakes? Observe the altruist-collectivist rhetoric of high-ranking members of the Obama administration. Or witness the moral depth of the government's representatives. Or study the soundness of the state's economic policies.

Americans are up to their necks in the quicksand of statism and the more they struggle - the more they cram their destructive 'stimulus' packages through congress and the closer they crawl to universal health care - the harder they will find it to claw back out of the mire.

Steyn's thousand trivial concessions are upon us. Tomorrow Canadians may wake up next to the world's biggest welfare state, trillions of dollars in debt and begging for the self-esteem it once deserved.

Plus Ca Change ...

2009-02-24T13:54:00.000-05:00

"These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. But, great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively as a nation we are not bound by that same limitation."(*)

Whatever you say, old man.

You call it "tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals". I call it "change we can believe in".

400,000 Murdered In Darfur ...

2009-02-24T13:21:00.000-05:00

... And British academics are boycotting Israel?

This has been a good week for the Islamic Republic of Britain. Making all the right decisions there, boys.

H/t Darcey

Quick Note About Blogging

2009-02-23T18:53:00.003-05:00

Sorry for the brief period of radio silence there. Yesterday was a day spent in transit and today I'm settling in. Posting will pick up again tomorrow.

Until then, amuse yourselves with thoughts about how terribly brave (and deeply screwed) this man is.

Brass balls.

Alannah Myles: Black Velvet

2009-02-21T21:21:00.003-05:00

In accordance with the CRTC's soon-to-be-mandated quota for Canadian content on the internet, I've been ordered by the government to submit the following song for your delectation in order to balance out the Clapton video from Thursday.

Enjoy!

Religious/Social Conservatism As Socialism?

2009-02-21T19:14:00.000-05:00

Mike Brock published an interesting article today in which he endeavoured to draw a link between left-wing government interventionist ideology and religious conservatism. This link, his article seemed to imply, was socialism.

While his argument is for the most part well-reasoned, it isn't socialism that links religious conservatism with welfarism - it's statism.

Mike Brock:

Raise your hand if you think social society should have a strong morality attenuated through law.

Socialism: Yes, socialist principles of collectivism.
Ann Coulter: Yes, based on the teachings of the Bible.
Liberalism: No, morality is not the business of the state.

Raise your hand if you think citizenship should be connected to moral systems?

Socialism: Yes, those who do not accept socialism in a socialist society should not be full members therein.
Ann Coulter: Yes, those who conform to the Christian traditions of society are fuller citizens.
Liberalism: No, plurality of belief is not only acceptable, but healthy.

Raise your hand if you think adherence to moral codes are more important than outcome?

Socialism: Yes. It is preferable to have fairness than some with more and others with less.
Ann Coulter: Yes. Traditions like marriage should be maintained irrespective of any outcome.
Liberalism: Perhaps. In so far as the adherence is to the principle of respect of others equal rights.

Is one of the purposes of policing to enforce social moral codes?

Socialism: Yes. The use of police to quell political dissension and anti-social behaviour is important.
Ann Coulter: Yes. More police! More jails! Arrest people who do drugs, and engage in perverse sexual activities!
Liberalism: Absolutely not.

This evaluation of the respective positions of religious conservatives and socialists is accurate.

Taking these areas of similarity to heart, Mr. Brock reaches the following conclusion:

Social conservatives have appropriated love for liberty, but only so far as economics goes. They want lower taxes and less government services, but they want strong laws, stronger police, more jails, and bigger militaries--which ironically, end up costing as much, if not more than the social services they detest. They support the idea of “big government” while pretended to support “small government”, through a redefining of the term “big government”.

The real thread that ties welfarism to social conservatism is the idea that the government is justified in intervening in private matters for reasons other than the prevention of direct physical harm, to wit, the violation of individual rights.

However, I'm confounded by Mr. Brock's derision for strong laws, a strong police force, good jails, and big militaries since these are precisely the institutions that the government is justified for having.

Strong laws are necessary to protect individual rights. This idea should be considered in contrast to the existence of unjust laws, the extent of a law's 'justness' to be determined by employing the standard of protecting individual freedom. Violations of this standard can be witnessed in the words of opponents of homosexual marriage and the legalization of drugs. Having strong laws simply means effectively guarding the rights of our citizens and, in this way, is perfectly consonant with liberalism and freedom. Moreover, a strong police force is crucial to the defence of rights in the same way that a strong military is essential to the defence of these rights from threats from abroad.

Accordingly, Mr. Brock's comments reveal what I believe to be a particularly harmful streak in the libertarian movement: the identification of any government as bad government. Evidently, this perspective has roots in anarchism. In reality, limited government is necessary for protecting individuals from coercion. There are three legitimate government functions: protection from domestic rights-abusers through a robust police force, protection from rights-abusers abroad through a strong military, and the administration of just laws through a judiciary. Any actions taken by the government which exceed these legitimate roles can be properly identified as statist.

Before we are able to coherently defend liberty, we must identify what constitutes a violation of our rights. Leftism - the partial or complete state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - is a prime example of illegitimate government control. Social conservatism - the substantial centralized control over social affairs - is guilty of the same violation of liberty for the same reasons.

Mike Brock claims that welfarism and social conservatism are two sides of the same coin and, to a certain extent, this is accurate. However, that coin has not been minted with the material of socialism, which is merely another name for the left-wing ideology of intervention in the marketplace. The two sides are connected by the idea of statism and this should be the real enemy for lovers of liberty on the left and on the right.

Identifying the enemy is the first step to conquering him.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

2009-02-21T16:58:00.006-05:00

The following is a simple and clear explanation of the credit crisis in the shape of a visual guide. Jonathan Jarvis walks you through every step of the problem, from sub-prime mortgages to the economic recession end state.

Says Kalim Kassam:

This attractive video, a thesis project of art student Jonathan Jarvis, provides an impressively clear explanation of the credit crisis, tracing it's origins in low interest rates through interwoven homeowners, mortgage markets, investors, and complex financial instruments.

Though the story it tells is quite accurate, the video doesn't attempt to put forward a full causal explanation linking together all the elements; if you're looking for a hint about the wherefores, keep your eye on the market-distorting effects of easy money and loose credit during the boom period.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Draft Peter Schiff For Senate

2009-02-21T15:44:00.004-05:00

Web-savvy Libertarians in California have launched a nationwide movement to draft a New Haven-born celebrity pundit to take on Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. Their first big test comes Saturday.

The pundit is Peter Schiff. He has been a fixture bashing the federal bank bailout and stimulus efforts on national TV news (FOXNews, CNBC, CNN) panels because of his early predictions of the Wall Street meltdown. He published a prescient book in 2007 called Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse. “The man who saw it all before everybody saw it,” as Fox anchor Liz Claman introduced him.

Schiff, who now runs a Darien stock brokerage firm, served as an economic adviser to Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose candidacy was elevated by a then-unprecedented grassroots Internet effort. [...]

The campaign has an online “headquarters” and assorted rallying cries, including: “Stop the Bailouts.” “Stop the stimulus!” It has Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter presences, too — even though Schiff insisted in an interview that he has had nothing to do with the effort and would almost definitely not heed a call to actually run. That’s right. Almost definitely.

“Want Peter to run? Pledge! Show him we’ve got his back,” proclaims the home page for an affiliated site coordinating a “Moneybomb” for this Saturday. A “moneybomb” means supporters are hoping to raise an eye-popping pile of pledges in one day to show serious support for a Schiff candidacy — the way a one-day moneybomb propelled Ron Paul’s candidacy a year ago with a record haul.

In some ways the effort mirrors the early drive to find a candidate to challenge Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2006, only this time from the right, not the left. In 2006, activists from across the country who supported challenger Ned Lamont poured money and cultivated volunteers through left-leaning national websites like Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. The campaign was national from the start, born at the netroots.*

I'm currently in the process of reading Schiff's 2007 book "Crash-Proof: How To Profit From The Coming Economic Collapse" which was mentioned in the above blurb. So far it has been excellent. I recommend picking it up to anybody who has money in the stock market and has taken a hit or simply wants to hear Alan Greenspan get taken apart. Although Schiff's book does focus on the American economy, its implications for Canada are clear and his discussion of the global economy is helpful as well.

Here's the main video that has been enlisted towards the end of earning money for Schiff's "moneybomb".

Moment of Zen For Dog-Lovers

2009-02-20T19:24:00.004-05:00

(*) Got a busy night of family-related obligations and general relaxation ahead of me so posting will be a bit light.

Everybody enjoy their Friday!

A Word To The Monetary Inflation Skeptics

2009-02-20T16:51:00.004-05:00

"Screwed."

Devaluing our money like it's going out of style.

Hey, remember when the value of money was objective? Sweet, sweet memories of a gold standard.

H/t Unambiguously Ambidextrous

Variations On A Theme Of Witchcraft

2009-02-20T15:07:00.006-05:00

Thank God we're living in the Age of Reason, no?

Nigeria:

America:

These are the absurd and terrible roads down which faith makes us travel. Billions upon billions of human beings on Earth prefer to place their whims above the evidence of reality. It is under this flag of whim-worship that the worst atrocities of human history have been perpetrated.

In light of the fuss that was made over the Pastor Wright controversy, I thought I would shed a little light onto the religious influences of the "rising star" of the Republican Party.

Wait a minute. A year ago she was the unheard of Governor of Alaska and this year she is the heir apparent to the throne of the GOP?

Maybe Palin's a witch!

H/t Brasscheck TV

Eric Clapton: I'm Tore Down

2009-02-19T21:03:00.002-05:00

Here's a little insight into what's been spinning around my head this evening.

Does it get any better than that?

Weekly Round-Up Of Tips & Links

2009-02-19T19:26:00.003-05:00

Um. So the "weekly" part of this post's title is a blatant untruth. As it turns out, I'm going to subject you folks to a link dump every damn time that my Firefox browser gets cluttered up with tabs. Mmmkay?

As always, keep those tips coming (canadian.republic@hotmail.com) and my apologies if I don't always respond right away.

This week in the world:

YouTube: Video of a shrimp running on a treadmill with the Benny Hill theme playing. No, seriously. Worth your time.
George F. Will: Re: stimulus - "Never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little."
Maggie's Farm: "How government legal threats created the sub-prime mortgage market."
ShopFlick: Wondering what to get Fort for his birthday?
The List Universe: Ten books that screwed up the world.
YouTube: Video of Tenacious D's "Tribute". Very funny.

The Big O Visits Iowa - No, Ottawa

2009-02-19T18:04:00.006-05:00

Hopey One Kenobi made the long trek from D.C. to Canada's seat of power today but his visit didn't go quite as planned.

President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper just started their joint news conference, the first such dual podium event for the new president.

The newness is showing - the president began his remarks with, "It's a great pleasure to be here in Iowa - Ottawa."

Obama says "it's great to be" pretty much anywhere he goes. Iowa was a key battleground state, but also the Jan. 4, 2008 caucus was his first win during the Democratic primary election. It swung his way in November, and a Downtown Des Moines rally on Halloween was one of his last campaign stops before winning the presidency.

Flubbing the name of a location has happened to many politicians, and has happened to the president before.*

Via Gateway Pundit:

"Maybe he thought he was in one of the northern 57 states?"

Combine this flub with his previous shout out to the "President of Canada" and I'm starting to think he doesn't care about us quite as much as our apparent obsession with him merits.

And, at the end of the day, we'll still adore him. There's something very romantic about unrequited love.

Does that answer your question, Jarrett?

Stephen Harper On Wolf Blitzer's 'The Situation Room'

2009-02-19T16:57:00.001-05:00

A very good performance, I think. I was most impressed by his tactfully implicit threat to Obama about the 'Buy American' clause of their porkulus package - a clause that is gone but definitely not forgotten. Also, Harper hit the point about the potential costs of protectionism for the global economy quite well when he said that there is no surer way to turn a recession into a depression than to pursue protectionism given our current state of financial affairs.

All in all, he earned an 'A-' grade. The minus is in there because I'm still a little sore with him over the budget. Only time will heal that wound.

Exit Question: Is it absolutely crucial that he begins every goddamn sentence with "Well, look..."?

H/t Lance

"Do Not Regulate The Internet. At All."

2009-02-19T15:39:00.005-05:00

Big Blue Wave:

The CRTC is having hearings today on the possibility of forcing internet service providers to provide Canadian content on-line.

As far as I'm concerned, this is outrageous.

There should be no CRTC regulation of the internet.

Period.

WRITE THE CRTC.

Now is the time to speak up VERY LOUDLY to make it known that you absolutely, positively oppose this measure.

This is a follow-up to my post a few days ago condemning the CRTC's new foray into the regulation of the internet.

To let your opinion be known, contact the CRTC online. Suzanne recommends the following short and sweet comment: "Do not regulate the internet. At all."

Sounds good to me.

It'll take you less than a minute so please let the CRTC know that Canadian citizens will not permit any regulation of the internet.

Canadian Public Education At Its Best: Calgary Board of Education Edition

2009-02-19T15:18:00.007-05:00

Aims of public education:

The editor of this webpage was as confused as he was illiterate.

If it doesn't demonstrate the aims of public education, then it certainly demonstrates its results.

H/t Alice The Camel (who has changed to a wordpress blog so update your bookmarks accordingly)

Mathematicians Discover Largest Number Possible: "Stimulus"

2009-02-19T15:04:00.003-05:00

An international mathematics research team announced today that they had discovered a new integer that surpasses any previously known value "by a totally mindblowing shitload." Project director Yujin Xiao of Stanford University said the theoretical number, dubbed a "stimulus," could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and Chicago asphalt contracting.

"Unlike previous large numbers like the Googleplex or the Bazillionty, the Stimulus has no static numerical definition," said Xiao. "It keeps growing and growing, compounding factorially, eating up all zeros in its path. It moves freely across Cartesian dimensions and has the power to make any other number irrational."

Jean-Luc Brossard, a researcher with the European consortium CERN, said the number is so staggeringly large that it is difficult for even mathematicians to grasp, let alone lay people.

"The number itself is incomprehensible by human minds, and can only be theoretically understood in a fractional parallel universe which we refer to as the DC dimension," said Brossard. "The best way to understand a stimulus is to imagine a dollar sign followed by a packed string of hexidecimal nanodigits, wound into a triple helix, woven into a dodecahedron, and stacked on top of one another. Now imagine you were a black hole on the far edge of the universe, trying to escape the stimulus at 30 times the speed of light. The stimulus would still catch up to you and ram your black hole with such furious, repeated force that it would cause your entire reality itself to collapse."

President Obama must be proud to have contributed to such an historic discovery.

Via Iowahawk

"It's Pure F*cking Cowardice"

2009-02-19T14:26:00.002-05:00

It has long been understood that one of the stickiest problems for any invasionary effort or regime change is the transition from control by the occupying power to control by domestic forces.

Accordingly, some reasonable concerns have been raised about whether the Iraqi police are prepared for this transition. Reports indicate that many members of their police force are lazy and corrupt. Lazy because they are unwilling to do their jobs by protecting Iraqi citizens and engaging in actual altercations with insurgents and corrupt because, allegedly, many of them have ties to the militia which pits them against American soldiers and raises serious questions about conflicting loyalties.

The following is a video of an American soldier yelling at the members of an Iraqi police battalion, calling them out on their cowardice and duplicity. Cussing, cussing, cussing. Definitely not safe for work. But it's completely satisfying and highly recommended.

Choice moments:

"You want everything from me. You want weapons and ammunition. You want fuel, you want trucks. But you're too f*cking pussy to go three kilometers down the road and go get the people who are tearing this f*cking town apart. It's pure f*cking cowardice."

"You want to fix your image? This group right here - f*ck your stupid checkpoints, they're worthless. Get together, get all your weapons, and start marching south towards the river. I guarantee you'll get into a gun fight and I guarantee you'll f*ck some people up. Get down there and kick some ass."

He does get quite liberal with his use of female rhetoric with the intention of being insulting but it's not too much worse than you'd hear in the average hockey arena. Unfortunately, misogynistic expressions seem to be part and parcel of military-speak (and hockey-speak). I'm sure that the American soldier in this video loves women. And respects them. For their brains.

H/t Jonah Goldberg