I’m not sure what to make of this story of the House defying Bush’s policy on federal embryonic stem cell research funding.

On one hand, I think it’s a good thing that there are many Republicans willing to take a stand for a secular, rather than religious, approach to policy.

On the other hand, I oppose federal funding for all non-defense research. I think that promising research is likely to get private funding (as we have seen with embryonic stem cell research itself). So, I actually don’t approve of this change in policy for fiscal and moral reasons (protecting property, not embryos).

Symbolically, though, I think it would be a shame for Bush to use his first veto for this cause, rather than something more worthwhile (like the bloated Highway Bill, for example).

Go read Radley Balko’s letter to The CEO of Target about its merchandising of clothing that seems to glorify “Soviet chic”.

I think Balko’s analogy to Nazism is apt. It’s not about left vs. right, it’s about totalitarian collectivism vs. individual liberty.

And, like Balko, I’m not talking about censorship. I’m talking about declining to support the obscuring of crucially important historical lessons. Communism wasn’t a noble experiment that went slightly wrong for obscure technical reasons. It was a horrible effort to crush individual wills (and lives) to support the whims of those who spoke for the collective. It was never noble.

And, I’m not opposed to joking about anything. If the Soviet chic clothing is a joke, I think it fails to convey the nature of the joke and merely helps to promote ignorance.

Anybody who thinks that the Soviet Union was a joke should visit Bryan Caplan’s Museum of Communism.

UPDATE: Apparently, Target will no longer stock the stuff because it isn’t selling. Cool.

Sorry for the lack of posts lately.

I’m in the process of transitioning from one job to another, so I’ve been a bit distracted lately.

Hopefully, I’ll have new things to post about soon.

In the meantime, you might want to check out security expert Bruce Schneier’s post about the just-passed Real ID Act. I don’t think that many serious people think that it’s a cost-effective security measure (particularly against determined terrorists), but it’s a bone for the anti-immigration crowd. What a shame.

I think that Eugene Volokh has nailed the problem with Michelle Malkin’s criticism of Laura Bush’s speech: She doesn’t make the right distinctions.

But, if you read all of Malkin’s article, you’ll also find criticism of South Park. Malkin admits to not being a fan of the show, so it’s difficult to say if she’s watched enough of it to get a good sense of what it’s about.

She complains:

I find that the characters’ foul language overwhelms any entertainment I might otherwise derive from the show’s occasional , right-leaning iconoclastic themes.

I think that if this is true (and I have my doubts), Malkin has a serious psychological handicap that she should try to overcome. She puts form over substance, and is compelled to apply prejudice where she should exercise judgment.

The simple-minded application of rigid rules does not indicate sophistication or admirable good taste. It blocks thought. This is not a good thing.

I think that South Park makes excellent use of foul language. I think that the vulgarity serves the purpose of helping the open-minded viewers get past stale conventions and focus on the situations and ideas of the show. People who can’t enjoy the journey with the kids because of language hang-ups are missing a lot, and they will find it difficult to appreciate many things in life outside of South Park, as well.

Many conservatives have too narrow a conception of what is appropriate behavior. Etiquette can be useful, but not all of life has to be treated as a formal tea-party. It’s good to be able to tolerate (and command) a wide range of expression.

I’ve blogged about this before, but I thought I should link to Radley Balko on the obesity issue again. This time he responds to a post by Mark Kleiman with some “Simple Truths” about obesity (many of which are neither simple nor true). [To be fair: it was Balko, not Kleiman, who called them “Simple”.]

Radley has been doing a great job debunking many nanny-state policy prescriptions in general, and obesity-related ones in particular.

Here’s his concluding paragraph:

Kleiman also neglects the most important point in this debate: What we eat is just about the most intimate, private decision we make. If that becomes cause for government meddling, it’s difficult to conceive of what’s left that wouldn’t be. I’d also guess that most people know by now that a greasy cheeseburger or gooey donut is bad for them. Yet they still eat them. Perhaps they’ve concluded that the enjoyment they get from good-tasting food is worth the added risk to their health, or a few extra months in the nursing home. I guess the fundamental question, then, is does a free society let people make that decision on their own, or does it implement tax, regulatory, and other punitive measures aimed at making that decision for them?

Go read Don Boudreaux’s great post over at Cafe Hayek about living in harmony with nature. Excerpt:

Pre-Columbian peoples lived simply, to be sure, but let’s stop mistaking ignorance and poverty with harmony. It’s an utter myth – we might say an urban myth – that primitive peoples lived with nature harmoniously. Nature devastated them. Nature battered them into early graves. Their ignorance of nature prevented them from achieving much material wealth. To dance to imaginary rain gods or to chant and pray for a child dying of bacterial infection is not to live harmoniously with nature; it is to live most inharmoniously. Nature is doing its thing – failing to water the crops, growing bacteria within a child’s lungs – while human beings who are as ignorant of nature as nature is of human beings, moan, chant, pray, dance, build totems, burn leaves and twigs, all in fruitless, inharmonious efforts to solve the problems.

…

It is science – rational thought, skepticism, critical inquiry – that furthers greater harmony with nature.

UPDATE: Boudreaux clarifies a few points in this follow-up post, and concludes with:

It’s time we stop defining living harmoniously as having no effect on nature. Nothing intrinsic to the concept ‘living harmoniously with nature’ requires that humans live in such a way as to leave the environment as close as possible to what it would be like if we didn’t exist.

Mark Alexander at WitNit has passed a “Book Meme” along to me. I guess it’s like a blogosphere chain letter. I would refuse to cooperate on principle, but I didn’t have anything better to write about. So…here goes:

You’re stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?

Anthem by Ayn Rand. It’s short and sweet and illustrates the supremacy of individualism over collectivism; which is probably the most important meme to spread in such an environment.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Yes. (stupid question! They should probably have added, “and if so, who?”)

The last book you bought is:

Sock by Penn Jillette. I blogged a little about it here.

The last book you read:

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell. I thought it was a pretty interesting read. I liked the anecdotes. I don’t think it helps one to know when to trust his first instincts, and I’ll probably continue to look for good explanations before making important decisions, but it’s good to remember how much of what we know is based on inexplicit knowledge.

What are you currently reading?

How Would You Move Mount Fuji? by William Poundstone. Not because I’m very interested in the value of these questions when interviewing, but because I like logic puzzles, and I’m curious about what kind of answers to impossible questions are desired.

MCAD/MCSD Visual C# .NET Certification All-in-One Exam Guide by Marj Rempel, Kenneth Lind. Just in case I decide to take more certification exams.

Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. I actually haven’t picked this up in a while, but I consider myself to still be reading it.

Five books you would take to a deserted island:

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-And Its Implications by David Deutsch

The Essential Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Extreme Survival Almanac: Everything You Need to Know to Live Through a Shipwreck, Plane Crash, or Any Outdoor Crisis Imaginable by Reid Kincaid. I can’t believe everybody didn’t pick this one!

Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons)? And Why?

I’m going to cheat here (even more than above) and not name anybody, because I don’t think it’s fair if the invitation isn’t wanted.

But, I encourage anybody who reads this, and has a blog, and wants to answer the questions to do so and let us all know about it in the comments.

I’m not going to try to pull an April Fool’s Day stunt this year.

But, many other web-based April Fool’s Day pranks are accumulating at this wikipedia web page.

Check them out.