Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:January:01 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35508 Activity:insanely high
1/1     Randoids go berserk, disagree with tsunami aid. (Ayn Rand Institute)
        Money sentence is the one about how "most" of the victims were hurt
        through "no fault of their own."
        \_ Ah, yes, the age old question of governmental aid. The fallacy of
           the article, like most of Objectivism, is its failure to acknowledge
           interdependency, much like the failure of it's diametric opposite,
           Communism, albeit in a different manner. Complex social systems
           rarely break down into over-arching theories of what should and
           should not be done. But it does raise an interesting issue, when
           should aid be given and when should it not? If someone disagrees
           with an agenda and questions its efficacy, shouldn't we take time
           to consider it rather than outright rejecting it? It appears
           that the left and the right are both ramming things down their
           respective throats without evern considering the other side...
        \_ Like all libertarians, they are right wing shills: take a look
           at their essays on Iraq from the 90's when Clinton was in power, and
           then what they have to say when Bush is in power.  They use the
           same rhetoric about how "our leaders lack moral certainty," but
           the message is clear: Republican good, Democrat bad.
           Libertarians: Republicans, only more pompous, and with more lies.
           \_ This is flat wrong, which explains why you don't provide URLs.
              Among libertarians many faults is a tendendcy to be overly
              isolationist (politically).  As with the vast majority of the
              libertarian ideal, it is absolutely wrong in theory, but since
              society is so far gone in the opposite direction, the policy
              implications are mostly correct.
              Libertarians, particularly the libertarian party, have been among
              the most outspoken opponents of the war in IRAQ and this Bush
              administration in general.  I don't know what The Ayn Rand Inst.
              has to say and don't care.  She is an idiot and her followers are
              worse.  All groups have their fanatic/moronic fringe, and when
              you are a fringe group to begin with, well ...
              \_ The URL to back up what I said is simply the OP's URL.  I
                 clicked around and read their essays on various subjects.
                 They sounded exactly identical to our loudest local
                 libertarian here on the motd.  I hope I am wrong about
                 libertarians at large.  Do you want to point me to what
                 you consider to be a representative libertarian
                 \-For "respectable" academic Libertarianism, see
                   R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. --psb
                   \_ Thanks! I'll check that out.
           \_ 1st, The left-right dichotomy is lame (see other threads).
              2nd, going with it anyway, the greens are shills for the left
              much more than libertarians are shills for the right.  As i've
              said before: Libertarians gloat when they take votes away from
              Republicans.  Contrast this to Nader supporters.  Libs under-
              stand that one corporate bought, pandering, fear-mongering
              aristocrat from one faction of The Party is effectively the same
              as the other.
           \_ While Randroids are libertarians, they represent libertarianism
              about as well as the PETA folk represent Evironmentalism.
                I.e. not at all.
        \- As with racist and bigots, this seems to be one of those cases
           where I want to see them "talk more" and undermine themselves and
           reveal themselves for what the are. A good essay is "The Procedural
           Republic and the Unencumbered Self". It is avail from JSTOR. BTW,
           "randoid" has been deprecated in favor of "Randroid".
                     \- re: "all libertarians ..." i think there is a
                        respectable academic argument to be made by
                        libertaianism.  however i think many libertarians
                        outside academia are "accidental libertarians"
                        ... meaning they are really not interested in where
                        the philosophical arguments take them, but the cleve
                        to a philosophy which seems more respectable than
                        simple Hedonism to justify [sic] being the way they
                        are [selfish hedonists]. i think the philosophical
                        sophistication totem pole looks something like this:
                        hedonists [people who say things like "i need to be
                        true to myself"], then randroids ["altruism is
                        corrupting"], then libertarians ["contractualism" is
                        a pretty powerful argument]. there are a few
                        reasonable libertarians ... like by best friend, who
                        is one of the most considerate persons i know ... but
                        they are generally not "libertarians unius libri".
                        This is sort of a funny story about the Academic
                        Libertarian-in-Chief: ... one
                        Berkeley people can relate to. ok tnx.
                        \_ I am a little confused by the (lack of) distinction.
                           Hedonism is a moral commitment, libertarianism a
                           political one.  Related to be sure, but not the
                           same.  Are you saying it's unsophisticated to be
                           concerned with political philosophy?  I think
                           adopting a position to see where it takes you
                           is quite a bit more phony than adopting one you
                           actually believe in (because of how you are).
                           Life is not a rhetoric class.  -- ilyas
                           \-what is phony is shopping around for a
                             justification that sounds better than
                             "do whatever you want and take whatever you
                             can get" whent that is what you believe.
                             some people answer the question "what do we owe
                             one another?" with "whatever!" [in the sarcastic
                             sense of "i dont care to talk about this"], some
                             with "nothing." and still other with "nothing,
                             because...". what i am saying is the reasoning
                             in many people's case is an appendage adopted
                             for the sake of form, not truly to explain why
                             you have arrived at a particular place. BUSHCO
                             didnt invade iraq to free the iraqi people,
                             although it's convenient to trot out. on the
                             flip side, meaning you dont get moral credit
                             for someting done out of inclination rather than
                             duty, as sondheim writes "nice is different than
                             \_ Partha, you are projecting.  People who are
                                hedonists tend to view selfishness as a
                                virtue, not a vice in need of justification.
                                Whether you get credit for something done
                                out of inclination or out of dity depends on
                                your ethics.  Not everyone's a Kantian.
                                  -- ilyas
                             \_ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just
                                curious: why *do* you think BUSHCO invaded
                                Iraq, exactly?
                                \- i think they believed in WMD. I think they
                                   were wrong. i think they should have been
                                   fired for being wrong. i think they are
                                   incapable of admitting it. i think thier
                                   reputation in history should have been in
                                   \_ No, believing in WMD (which i agree they
                                      did) is just like believing that tax cuts
                                      for the wealthy are the right thing for
                                      the economy.  They believe it because it
                                      justifies what they want to do.  WHY they
                                      wanted to invade IRAQ is because it was
                                      an untennable situation with a leader who
                                      hated america growing in power while his
                                      country(and the world) suffered due to
                                      sanctions that we couldn't/wouldn't lift.
                                      The only people benifiting from the sitch
                                      was the UN and
                                      thoze embezzling from their program(s).
                                      It was a bad situation and many leaders
                                      in the bush admin felt it was a giant
                                      loose end that they wanted to tie up.
                                      They just grossly underestimated the
                                      aftermath of occupation (as historically
                                      countries have). -phuqm
                                      \- another value of non-anon posting is
                                         it's either to figure out who is
                                         not worth talking to. you cant compare
                                         facts [existence of WMDs] and values
                                         [progressive taxation] and theories
                                         [what econ effects of policy X will
                                         be]. --psb
                                          \_ I wasn't comparing facts with
                                            values, i was comparing MOTIVATIONS
                                            and rationalization.  Politicians
                                            wanted to cut taxes on those that
                                            contributed to their campaigns, so
                                            when some Academics came along and
                                            told them that was what was good for
                                            the country, they were quickly able
                                            to believe that.  When (other) pols
                                            wanted to invade Iraq and the intel.
                                            community said Iraq had, or soon
                                            would have WMD, they found it very
                                            easy to believe. -phuqm
                                            easy to believe. To paraphrase and
                                            distort: "The facticity of a
                                            proposition has little to do with
                                            it's believability." -phuqm
                                            \_ Apostrophe abuse! Three demerits!
                                                \_ ugg, fixed. -phuqm
                                                   \_ Demerits retracted.
                                      \_ I somehow doubt that last bit.
                                         Everyone else was talking about the
                                         aftermath problems. They chose to
                                         simply ignore that because it would
                                         provide support for opposition. The
                                         whole war was done this way: build up
                                         troops without a war, oh now we have
                                         to fight, it would look stupid to
                                         withdraw all those troops, oh look
                                         things are fucked up, well we can't
                                         cut and run, you have to give us a lot
                                         more money, sorry bout that, support
                                         our troops and all, etc.
                                \_  -tom
2005/1/1-2 [Reference/Celebration] UID:35509 Activity:high
1/1     Happy new year, you rabble.
        \_ Keep an iron fist around the coinage and the courts, let the
           rabble have the rest.
           \_ Remember what happened to Shaddam.
              \_ It was his own fault for ignoring the warning given by the
                 Guild.  If he had killed the upstart Atreides heir when he
                 had the chance, none of this would have happened.
                 \_ Please.  He was doomed the moment he got in bed (literally)
                    with the Sisterhood.
2005/1/1-2 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:35510 Activity:high
12/31   Uh, is it me, or it seems that the spammers are getting better and
        getting through spamassassin, a lot more frequently in the past
        few weeks?
        \_ ifile
           \_ Alas, no.  Most of the things I have getting through SA are
              dictionary attacks that fuck the Bayesian net.  Ifile, which
              _only_ depends on this will do even worse.
              \_ Using the two in combination gives near perfect results.
                 \_ What does ifile do that the SA Bayesian code doesn't?
                    \_ Not sure, but I'm not having any problems with spam.
                       The one thing I can claim is that the ifile database
                       is vastly smaller on disk than SA; currently it's
                       < 300Kb.
2005/1/1-2 [Science/Disaster] UID:35511 Activity:high
1/1     10-year-old saves vacationers in Thailand.  Only minutes warning
        \_ thanks for that.  sad news though, because so many should have
           had similar knowledge and saved themselves.  another story is
           a gypsy group saved because they remembered their elder lore
           that "when the sea goes out, it comes back suddenly and in
           the same amount" so they fled uphill.  a worse shame is that
           a Thai official warned of the tsunami risk in 1997 and got
           sacked because it was considered an alarmist threat to the
           tourism and real estate industry.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:January:01 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>