May 23, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
Good stuff from Opinion Journal:
"Gulag" is the Russian acronym made famous by Alexander Solzhenitsyn to describe the vast network of Soviet slave labor camps in which millions died. It is thus one more sign of the moral degradation of Amnesty International that the pressure group is now calling the U.S. detention facility for Taliban and al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time." [...] It's old news that Amnesty International is a highly politicized pressure group, but these latest accusations amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda. A "human rights" group that can't distinguish between Stalin's death camps and detention centers for terrorists who kill civilians can't be taken seriously.
May 22, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From The Telegraph: White farmers reject Mugabe plea to return (hat tip Tom Pechinski):White farmers evicted by Robert Mugabe's government have reacted with contempt to an offer that they should return to Zimbabwe to take part in "joint ventures" with those who brutalised them and stole their land.
Gideon Gono, the governor of the country's central bank, suggested the idea last Thursday as a possible solution to Zimbabwe's economic crisis. ...
During the evictions, some white farmers were murdered and many others were beaten and their families abused. The evictions prompted the collapse of the agriculture sector, the traditional engine of the economy.
Those who took over the farms had no specialist knowledge - and most farmland now lies uncultivated. The machinery has been stolen, buildings have been plundered and the former workers are starving. ...
One tobacco and cattle farmer, who was forced off his property by armed squatters in 2000, said: "He can't be serious. My house has been burnt down, my fields destroyed and he wants to invite me back?
"There has to be a proper return to respect for property rights. We need facts, not words and a legal framework. No one's going to go back on the basis of this."
For a couple of our past Mugabe cartoons, see here and here. Gateway Pundit has more.May 21, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From Von Mises' Socialism:
The world inclines to Socialism because the great majority of people want it. They want it because they believe that Socialism will guarantee a higher standard of living. The loss of this conviction would signify the end of Socialism. (462)
It is true the world still inclines for socialism--even though they believe that it will not guarantee a higher standard of living. The reason is despite the fact they know that socialism does not work in practice (economically); they still believe it is the right thing to do in theory (morally).May 20, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--Over the last century, the government has used antitrust law to prosecute and punish some of the most productive individuals and companies in history. It has subjected companies like Standard Oil, General Electric and Microsoft to endless trials, massive fines and destructive breakups--on charges that they harmed competitors and helpless customers by engaging in so-called anticompetitive behavior.
In his controversial new book, The Abolition of Antitrust, Dr. Gary Hull, director of the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace at Duke University, and his co-writers present a sustained economic, historical, moral and legal broadside against the federal statutes known as antitrust.
These scholars of American economic history argue that the targets of antitrust are not criminals but victims, whose much-reviled power is in fact neither coercive nor destructive. They argue that the only "crime" of these phenomenal producers is their life-giving powers to produce products that appeal to millions of customers. Antitrust law, they argue, is fundamentally unjust: it throttles, punishes and sacrifices America's best producers for the sake of those whose only talent is to get the political power needed to destroy the truly productive.
The authors conclude that the evil is not merely in some specific case or application of antitrust, but inherent in the law as such. Antitrust, they maintain, cannot be "fixed" or redeemed, and for the sake of justice and America's prosperity, must be abolished.***
On Tuesday, May 24, the Ayn Rand Institute Lecture Series 2005 Presents:Antitrust Is Immoral By Gary Hull. Over the last century, the government has used antitrust law to prosecute and punish some of the most productive and innovative companies in history. It has subjected companies like Standard Oil, General Electric and Microsoft to endless trials, massive fines and destructive breakups—on charges that they harm worthy competitors and helpless customers by engaging in so-called anticompetitive behavior. In this provocative lecture, Dr. Gary Hull, director of the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace at Duke University, argues that the targets of antitrust are not criminals but victims. Their much-reviled monopoly power is not coercive or destructive; it is the life-giving power to produce products that are incredibly appealing to customers and far superior to those of laggard competitors. Antitrust law, argues Dr. Hull, is fundamentally unjust: it throttles, punishes and sacrifices America's best producers for the sake of their inferiors. This evil is not merely in any specific case or application of antitrust, but inherent in the law, as such. Antitrust cannot be "fixed" or redeemed. It must be abolished.
THIS EVENT IS FREE TO THE PUBLIC. LOCATION and DETAILS: Tuesday, May 24, 2005. Hyatt Regency Irvine, 17900 Jamboree Road (at the 405 Freeway), Irvine, California 92614. Bookstore opens: 6:30 PM. Presentation: 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM. Q & A: 8:30 PM to 9:30 PMMay 18, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From MSNBC:
It's a terrible design. It was designed by an egghead architect who really doesn't have a lot of experience of designing something like this. And it's just a terrible design. [...] I mean, the worst of all, it's a skeletal building. And you know, if you look at it, what is it really? It's a 60-story building with a skeleton on top of it because you've got 40 or 50 stories with nothing in between. And it's a disgusting design that we're going to have to live with for many, many years in New York, and actually in the world, because New York City is so international. And it doesn't represent what we want to have represented.
What I want to see built is the World Trade Centers stronger and maybe a story taller. And that's what everybody wants. [...] We should have the World Trade Center bigger and better. [...] It's really a shame. We have a great opportunity. And, you know the terrorists win. If we build this job the way it is, the terrorists win. If we rebuild the World Trade Center, but a story taller and stronger, then we win.
Recommended Reading:
Rebuilding the WTC: Anything Less Is Suicide by Sherri R. Tracinski
All of Manhattan is sacred ground--not because people died there, but because its bridges and skyscrapers are monuments to human life. They are monuments to the human aspiration to build and to create. This is what was attacked on September 11: our wealth, our success, the global reach of our commerce and culture. The best way to commemorate those achievements is through a new skyscraper, bigger, better, and more beautiful than the ones we have lost.
Reflecting America: World Trade Center Memorial Should Celebrate America's Producers by Diane Durante
The people who worked at the World Trade Center (WTC) were all productive people: they were there to do a job and earn money. They died on September 11 because they symbolized that productivity, not just to millions around the world who aspire to live like Americans, but also to the terrorists who despise all that America stands for.May 18, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
In commenting on a National Review article by Paul Marshall, Robert Spencer reminds us what the Newsweek Koran desecration story is really about (hat tip Tom Pechinski):There is no excusing Newsweek's irresponsibility in publishing an explosive story that was false. [...] The bigger story here, and the gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur'an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder. Note the total absence of moral judgment in Marshall's piece, except that which he directs toward Newsweek. His argument is this: Newsweek should have known that this story would lead to deaths. Therefore, they shouldn't have printed it. But he says nothing whatsoever about a culture that condones -- celebrates -- wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.
And as Robert Tracinski at TIA Daily noted earlier this week:The real story is the West's attempt to appease the Islamic fanatics by accepting their demand that the Koran be treated as an untouchable "holy book" -- leading the absurd climax of Newsweek reporting damage to a *book* in an article about the alleged abuse of *humans*.
