Right to Opine

Wonder why some of us refuse to watch CNN? Hacks like Christiane Amanpour, who deliberately misstate the facts in order to push a liberal agenda. Here, for example, she insists that the water torture of the Khmer Rouge—which resulted in thousands of murders—is identical to the waterboarding employed by the CIA under Bush (starts around 4:15). Regardless of where you stand on waterboarding, the methods of the CIA and the Khmer Rouge aren’t even similar (except in their use of water) much less identical. She may be correct in abhorring waterboarding, but that doesn’t justify the quite intentional falsification she employs. She’s entitled to her own opinion. She’s not entitled to her own facts. That’s simply propaganda, not journalism.

An 82-year-old woman was stabbed 9 times in London Monday while walking home from shopping. How is she supposed to defend herself against such an attack by a man much younger and stronger? In the UK she can’t, as she’s not allowed to own a handgun for self-defense. Another victim of senseless gun control laws.

The BBC reports that a man with two pistols shot another man in the leg in a London restaurant. We all know, however, that this could not possibly have happened because private ownership of handguns is illegal in England.

How is an elderly man expected to defend himself when he is attacked by three much younger, much stronger thugs? In the UK, he can’t. This poor man was savegely beaten and stabbed to death because he couldn’t legally own a handgun even for the purpose of self defense within his own home.

The attack was captured on a hidden camera installed after Mr Baker had previously been attacked.

Security cameras do not stop violent crimes. Guns often do. Another senseless victim of insane gun control laws.

The European (Socialist) Union has decided to fine Intel Corp. for roughly $1.5 billion for “antitrust” activities. (No, I’m not going to provide easy links this time. Look it up.) This is problematic to traditional Americans on a number of levels.

Anti-trust and -monopoly laws were enacted in order to protect consumers against companies that garnered a corner on a market and then raised their prices. Yes, I italicized and bolded that word. For a number of years I was a big critic of Intel, not because of their success, but because they tried to cover up the mathematical issues with the first generations of their Pentium processors. (Said cover ups are well documented on the web if you do a little homework.) In recent years, however, Intel has done consumers a great benefit by providing processors which provide greater processing power with less electric power consumption at a lower cost.

Reread that last sentence. More power. Less electricity. Fewer $$ out of my wallet. Where, exactly, is the harm to consumers? Do you really understand that the average American company can now construct (out of off-the-shelf components) a computer that would rival the power of a multi-million dollar Cray supercomputer of just 10 years ago at a fraction of the cost? Intel is entirely responsible for that.

Disclaimer: I’m currently employed as a factory automation software engineer by a French/Italian semiconductor manufacturer who stands to benefit if Intel is punitively fined by the EU.

Back to that italicized, bolded word: raised. The fact is that as Intel has made their processors more powerful and simultaneously power-efficient (i.e., more miles less gas). If, in the process, they had garnered a corner on the market and raised prices, there might conceivably be a legal argument that they had violated some anti-trust laws. The fact is, however, that as Intel has made its processors more attractive for technological reasons, they have simultaneously made them cheaper. No matter how loudly AMD may scream that Intel is a monopoly (or whatever) the truth is that Intel has made its processors better and less expensive. (Are there specific applications for which AMD processors are better? Sure. But in general, Intel CPUs are cheaper for the same power.)

Second disclaimer: I’m a long-time Macintosh fan and have both an Intel-powered laptop and an old IBM/Motorola-powered G5 tower. My older G5 machine is used to perform video and audio processes that the current Intel CPUs still don’t match (Apple and Intel propaganda notwithstanding). The Intel laptop is used for the easy, daily stuff (where most consumers live) like email and FaceBook.

So let’s count it up. I’m a Mac fan who works for a company that would benefit from a big Intel fine. Not exactly a good profile for a defender of Intel, eh? But that’s what I am. Intel stands for everything that the lefties in Europe hate & that I love. Performance. Power. Low cost. Hyundai is going to beat BMW & Chrysler/GM/Ford in America for that very reason (they own that trifecta).

Aaargh! I got away from the main point again. The bolded, italicized word was, “raised.” The truth is that, wherever you live on this planet, Intel has made it possible for you to do things with your personal computer (whether you use Windows, Linux or OS X) that you could not have imagined doing just 10 years ago at a fraction of the cost. The only issue this raises is the opportunities for “the rest of us”.

Punish that at your peril.

At a speech in the West Bank today, the Pope demonstrated his apparent lack of comprehension of the current Israel-vs-everyone-else situation. Let’s look at this piece bit-by-bit. After passing through the border barriers,

he expressed regret over Israel’s construction of the separation barrier

That barrier is there because Palestinians seem intent on using terrorism as their primary method of negotiation.

In Bethlehem, he offered a prayer for Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza.

When Palestinians stop the whole human-walking-bomb thing, I bet Israel will consider that request. Until then, don’t count on Jehovah’s (or Yahweh’s) intervention.

[H]e also urged young Palestinians to “have the courage to resist any temptation to resort to acts of violence or terrorism.”

Hey Benedict, how about growing a pair and talking to Iran and Syria about stopping their support for Palestinian terrorism?

At the Aida refugee camp, the pope said it was understandable that Palestinians feel frustrated.

“Their legitimate aspirations for permanent homes, for an independent Palestinian state, remain unfilled.”

Except that he’s wrong here. It’s not understandable. Walking into a shopping center or elementary school with bombs strapped to your body will get you a pretty negative response in any civilized country. Truth is (if you’re willing to do your homework) Palestinians are treated rather well if they relocate just a few miles east and live in Israel than if they stay on the West Bank and support the terrorists. (Pretty much like black Americans moving south and being treated better in Tennessee or Alabama than in my home city of St. Louis, where my relatives feel no shame at calling them “niggers” routinely.)

“In a world where more and more borders are being opened up … it is tragic to see walls still being erected,” Benedict said. “How earnestly we pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused this wall to be built.”

I’ve just about reached my breaking point with this one. Those borders are there because certain Palestinians insist on their right to blow up innocent Israeli children to make a long-dead political point. You want to see the walls torn down? Stop killing kids. Monsignor Benedict, how about praying that Palestinians will get a #$(*&^!% clue! That would end it.

A two-year-old was killed when he strayed onto the tracks of a roller coaster. While I don’t have all of the facts and certainly can’t completely exonerate the park’s administrators, I must quote the Showmen’s Guild’s representative here:

The HSE [Health & Safety Executive] will look at where the child’s parents were in this incident and we will do our own investigation.

Indeed.

You have to give the French credit when it’s due. And under their new President, that’s a lot more often than before. A trio of pirate attack boats mistook a French warship for an easy target. I got the giggles just wondering what went through their minds as they came under fire from a helicopter and French troops, who took them into custody.

How do you repel pirates? Fire back. Seems too simple, no? My only criticism is the choice of weapons:

A team of Israeli guards hired by the vessel’s owners immediately began firing back with pistols and spraying the attackers with fire hoses.

The security team should have been armed with, at the least, Uzis or similar compact submachine guns. They were, however, effective.

Ignoring the obvious, the “head of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme” offered this gem:

“There are a number of other methods which can be used to deter the pirates, having weapons on board is dangerous because it raises the stakes for the pirates,” he said.

“There is a far higher risk that a crew member of a merchant vessel, or a passenger, could die if the pirates feel they must fight harder to win the ship.”

Or they might, um, give up and look for an easier target.

Mexican authorities have arrested a woman in possession of an anti-aircraft gun, grenades and a grenade launcher. Not surprisingly, the article eventually gets around to the usual lefty bashing of America’s lax gun laws being responsible for arming the Mexican drug cartels. You can be sure that the AA gun, grenades, and launcher weren’t purchased in a gun shop here and smuggled across the border. Weapons of that type simply aren’t available in stores. So where did they come from?

Authorities did not release any other details about the gun, including its make, where it was manufactured, or where it was sold.

But of course. We can blame America for smuggled small arms, but can’t identify the origin of heavy weapons. Guess what? If the drug cartels can get their hands on arms like these, it really doesn’t even matter if we completely seal our border with Mexico—they’ll get their small arms elsewhere. The real problem is a dysfunctional Mexican government and until that fact becomes a regular headline, and is dealt with, the cartel violence isn’t going to end.