I’ve come across something pretty cool–favicons. This is an icon that replaces the default Microsoft Explorer “e” in the address bar of Interent Explorer next to the URL. For examples of some nice ones, see: FoxNews, Amazon.com, Google, and Slate. If you have trouble seeing the icon, try “dragging” it with your mouse to a blank space in the address bar, and “drop” it there; doing this once or twice usually makes it show up. Favicons only display when using Internet Explorer 5.x and above; for more info on how to see Favicons that are not appearing, see this Webmonkey page. I just downloaded the new Internet Explorer 6, which also handles them well. For more information on favicons, see the Webmonkey icons tutorial; to design your own, see Favicon.com; and for samples, see Favicons.com. My new favicon () was prepared by Favicon.com; they will design one for you for $75.
A few comments in the wake of the terrorist attacks on America (and see my recent article, New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal). Given the attitude of hysteria and simpleminded accusations of treason hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the official government line, let me preface this by saying that I’m not a pacifist. The terrorists and any governments or individuals or groups that supported, aided and abetted them, deserve to be put out of our misery, ruthlessly exterminated (see my article Punishment and Proportionality). There is no justification for their attacks, especially on innocent civilians. They committed unspeakable evil, and have shown themselves to be savage animals.
Because the government monopolizes defense and policing services, we have little choice but to use the U.S. military to pursue the terrorists, if they are to be pursued at all. However, we should be cautious endorsing government action to pursue and punish these miserable animals. We must keep in mind that the actions of these criminals do not justify our taking innocent lives abroad, which would only serve to generate even more hatred of America and thus more terrorists and American deaths. And we must be wary of the federal government using this as an excuse to expand its power and extend its reach over the lives of foreigners and citizens, as it invariably does. Any government action should be focused on the actual perpetrators and their collaborators. (We should also explore private solutions, such as the encouraging development of a private $1billion bounty fund apparently being raised to hire mercenaries to kill or capture terrorists.)
Any government retaliation should be limited in scope and in duration. After the perpetrators are dealt with, we should also take a good, close look at our foreign policy to see what sensible, sound adjustments should be made. For example, a more isolationist foreign policy is bound to be cheaper for us and also less likely to stir up additional hatred and enemies. I, for one, do not think foreign interests are worth thousands of American lives.
Incidentally, some good columns on the attacks, from a paleo perspective, have appeared over the last few days at LewRockwell.com; see also AntiWar.com, and Wendy McElroy’s FoxNews/iFeminist columns; also Wendy’s Just War article. Two of the best are: the superb article is Jacob Hornberger’s The War on Terrorism; and Congressman Ron Paul’s Sept. 25 Speech to the House of Representatives.
Interesting, nicely-opinionated article: An Engineer’s View of Venture Capitalists. But it has fallacious statements such as: “VCs don’t appreciate that the electronics revolution is built on the backs and brains of engineers, not of executives. … The engineers are the creators of wealth; the VCs are the beneficiaries.” This of course ignores the fundamental nature of capitalism as being driven by entrepreneurs and capitalists. The wealth is created by joint activity of workers and capitalist-entrepreneurs and, one could argue, primarily by the latter, but in any event their role can’t be denied, and so a statement implying that the engineers alone “create” the wealth is flawed. As is a statement such as “The engineers building the future deserve a fair equity share in the value they create; today they don’t get one.” Of course they do; what’s fair is what happens on a free market. Fairness is defined by process not result. But an interesting piece nonetheless.
Arrived today in Provincetown, Mass. (another link). Here for a few days visiting brother et al.
Last weekend in Miami to attend Fernando’s wedding. Very cool city. South Beach is interesting, and Key Biscayne is very nice.
Recent movies: Pearl Harbor and A.I. Pearl Harbor was better than I thought it would be; pretty enjoyable. A.I., well, it’s got interesting parts, but it’s pretty much a mess. Good recent rental: Proof of Life.
I’m in Baton Rouge for the weekend. Braving flash floods/storms in both Houston and BR… Meantime, two good recent articles: Stock Market Scams by Christopher Mayer, and The Idiot’s Guide to Energy, by Don Feder.
I have to admit: after various episodes of being a fan of Rush (the band), Rush (the talk show host), Howard Stern (when I lived in Philly), and a very brief interest in The Greaseman (and I won’t admit to an obsession with Blind Date), and even Dr. Laura, of late I’ve been enjoying The Phil Hendrie Show on AM radio in Houston. Hilarious, at its best (which is not always).
Local copy of: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?: Yes, Insight magazine, May 21, 2001 (reading of and discussion of this piece by hosts at Free Talk Live, 8/31/07 show; audio is here [starts around 5:25]) (Web archive version of the article.)
symposium
Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?
Yes: They are a burden to marketplace transactions and discourage business startups.
By Ilana Mercer and N. Stephan Kinsella
Property and liberty are intricately linked. In fact property, not representative government or majority rule, exemplifies freedom. Property is a sphere in which the individual can be free of government; the historical role of private property as countervailing to the power of the state cannot be overstated. Equally strong is the relationship between strong private-property rights and prosperity. If nothing else, the dismal economic failure of socialism has demonstrated what transpires when private ownership of the means of production is abolished. [continue reading…]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (27.3MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Welcome to my web site. I recently launched it (May 2001) and plan to continue updating it. I was lucky to find web wizard P.J. Doland to help me get set up. If you have any suggestions for content or format, or any other comments or questions, email me.















Recent Comments