[Previous entry: "Happy Software Freedom Day!"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Energy ruling in Iowa"]

08/29/2004 Archived Entry: "Disney's sex slips"

For those who share my taste for the slightly bizarre, I stumbled across Anomalies Unlimited last night when I should have been working. (Amazing how interesting bizarre sites become as a deadline nears!) I particularly enjoyed the Disney link which includes stills of movie frames that inserted graphic sex or nudity into various movies. E.g. "On January 8 1999, Disney announced a recall of the the 1977 home video The Rescuers because it was found, it contained an 'objectionable background image'." This site offers that image.

I have just learned that the Future of Freedom Foundation -- run by Jacob (Bumper) Hornberger -- maintains an archive of articles I've written for FFF. I wrote the essay on The Vietnam War with Iraq specifically in mind.

Leonard Peikoff of Ayn Rand Institute fame -- the fellow who is Rand's "official" intellectual heir -- intends to vote for Kerry in November. In a 19 minute statement, Peikoff explains the grounds for doing so. condemning "not only Bush, but also those who abstain from voting on the grounds that both candidates are no good." Ah well, I guess non-voters like me won't be getting a Christmas card from Leonard this year, especially since his opposition to Bush is based on the President's ardent Christianity.

I still have no idea who I prefer in the 2005 White House. My disgust with Bush is so visceral that the sound of his screechy voice makes my stomach clench...but Kerry would be no better on most of the issues. In fact, he would be worse on some, especially those involving political correctness like affirmative action and other "gender justice" policies. I expect Kerry *would* constitute an improvement in at least two areas: the separation of Church and State would not suffer erosion as it has under Bush; and, some civil liberites (e.g. of protesters) would probably be safer as I cannot imagine anyone appointed by Kerry would be the puritanical thug Ashcroft has become. As for the economy, I don't think which warm body occupyies the Oval Office makes much difference at this point. The economy for the next few years will be largely determined by policies of the past few -- policies such as deficit spending and the intimately related inflation of the money supply. Besides, the President doesn't have the same sort of power over the economy as he has over the course of foreign policy. Bush and the NeoCons created a war but they cannot create prosperity because such matters are not governed by political decrees but by principles like supply and demand, cause and effect. By contrast, foreign policy is a matter of political decree...tho' specific events and outcomes will be determined by more human factors, like unintended consequences. I don't see enough of a difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq, however, to justify excitement. What a sad statement about Kerry. Even someone who detests Bush can't generate a sparkle of enthusiasm for the man who might oust him.

Gordon P. sends along an item from the New Scientist, which reports, "For two weeks, British-based bookmaker Ladbrokes is opening a book on five separate discoveries: life on Titan, gravitational waves, the Higgs boson, cosmic ray origins and nuclear fusion." Gordon comments, The above article does not mention it, but there is an earlier precedent in the Cold Spring Harbor Betting Pool on the number of genes in the human genome. George Mason University economist Robin Hanson has long advocated that requiring scientists to _literally_ put their money where their mouths are by placing bets on scientific research proposals, claiming that it would be a more efficient method of eliciting the scientific community's opinions as to what areas of research might be the most promising ones for allocate scarce scientific resources to than the FedGov's current Peer-Reviewed Grant process, Moreover, unlike the current Peer-Reviewed grant process, it would reward the scientists who correctly guess the outcomes of the proposed experiment,instead of rewarding those who are best at politicking for their grants... I should hasten to add, Gordon is NOT a fan of federal funding to the sciences, largely due to the deleterious impact upon science.

Best to all,
mac