Tag Archives | Thank You Please May I Have Another

Minimax

If you hear that a movie’s being presented in IMAX format, would you assume that it was going to be on a really huge screen?

Well, guess what: turns out IMAX is just a brand name and not necessarily a description – so fans are being suckered into shelling out extra cash to see movies on screens that are called “IMAX” but are only slightly larger than a regular screen. (Conical hat tip to AICN.)

Here’s a size comparison of standard IMAX screens versus the new tinyfied verisons:

IMAX size comparison

Spread the word – ’cause IMAX really deserves to take a financial hit over this.


For Great Justice! or, Bob Barr Wants You to Stop Worrying and Trust the Government

Bob Barr, last year’s (ho ho ha ha) “Libertarian” candidate for president, is dismayed that the American people are losing their trust in government. Yes, you read that right.

Big Brother BarrBarr is particularly upset that “the U.S. Department of Justice is among the least trusted of federal agencies. … Nearly four times more Americans found the Postal Service worthy of their trust than they did Justice. ”

Why is that such a bad thing? Barr explains:

Confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to operate according to high standards of fairness is essential to upholding the rule of law in America. Lack of trust in government erodes the ability of the Justice Department to successfully prosecute important cases, including those involving corruption in government. If the citizenry lacks trust in law enforcement, especially at the federal level, they will be more hesitant to bring information to the government’s attention. If the average citizen perceives top government officials as thumbing their noses at the law, those citizens may feel emboldened to themselves violate the laws.

Okay, so Barr’s reasons for thinking it’s a bad thing are all reasons for real libertarians to think it’s a good thing. The Justice Department is the enemy; libertarians don’t want to make it easier for the Justice Department to “prosecute important cases.” Nor are libertarians eager to see citizens “bring information to the government’s attention”; a culture in which people are constantly informing on their neighbours is not one conducive to liberty. The attitude that Barr complains about, of skepticism and disrespect toward the established laws, is just the sort of attitude libertarians seek to foster.

It may be objected: aren’t many of the established laws just? and aren’t many of the crimes the Justice Department prosecutes genuine invasions of person or property that violate natural law?

Sure. But that’s going to be true of just about any legal system. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, ordinary citizens were for the most part forbidden to kill, rob, defraud, and assault one another; many of the crimes prosecuted even under those regimes were no doubt genuine crimes that deserved to be prosecuted. But that’s no argument for saying that it would have been bad to inculcate a culture of distrust toward government under such regimes.

Admittedly, our Department of Justice can’t yet get away with as much as the legal authorities in those countries could. But take a look through the links in the “What We Do” sidebar at the right side of the handy-dandy DOJ website and see what by their own admission they are already empowered to do: these are the folks who enforce such liberty-destroying policies as drug prohibition, gun control, immigration restrictions, tax laws, antitrust laws, obscenity laws, intellectual property laws, the PATRIOT Act, and a host of economic regulations mostly designed to make it harder for small businesses to compete with bigger, richer ones (e.g., the American Disabilities Act). They’re also the folks who run our horrific prison system.

So they also prosecute some genuine bad guys? Who gives a damn? We could do that without them. The real problem is that people aren’t yet distrustful enough of the Justice Department.


Plumbing the Depths

Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher famously said the following two stupid things:

People don’t understand the dictionary – it’s called queer. ‘Queer’ means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that.

I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.

It’s my impression – after an admittedly unscientific survey conducted with but a cursitory eye – that the tv media have been more exercised over the first quotation, and the blogosphere more exercised over the second. Since the second quotation is even more idiotic and dickish than the first, this doesn’t speak well for the tv media.


No Doubt the Danes Also Sought Significant Quantities of Uranium from Africa

While surfing for something else, I came across a reference to a battle I’d never heard of. Did you know that the English Navy bombarded Copenhagen just over two centuries ago for, as far as I can tell, no bloody reason whatsoever? Details here.

Thomas Erskine’s quoted line “if hell did not exist before, Providence would create it now to punish ministers for that damnable measure” pretty much sums it up. (Erskine seems to have been a good guy in other respects as well.)


Tea and Sympathy

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

Justin D.’s been nagging me to blog about the Tea Parties, so here’s my two pence:

Whichever party is out of power always begins to emphasise its libertarian-sounding side in order to divert anti-government sentiment toward support of that party rather than toward genuine radical opposition to the entire establishment.

By the same token, the party that’s in power employs alarmist rhetoric about the other side’s supposed anti-government radicalism in order to drum up support for its own policies.

mad tea partyThus events like the Tea Parties serve the interests of both parties; people with libertarian leanings get diverted into supporting one half of the bipartisan duopoly, the antistate message getting diluted by mixture with (in this case) right-wing statist crap about war and immigration and the Kulturkampf. Those turned off by this creepy right-wing stew get diverted into supporting the other half of the bipartisan duopoly, with any libertarian sentiments likewise getting diluted into (in this case) left-wing statist crap about gun control and the need to impose regulation on some imaginary laissez-faire economy. And so the whole power structure ends up being reinforced.

I saw this game under Clinton, I saw (almost) everyone switch teams under Bush, and now they’re all switching back again. And so we get Republican pundits and politicians suddenly howling about Obama’s fascism when they’ve never supported anything but fascism in their entire lives; and on the other side we get Democrats ridiculing the very sorts of concerns about oppression and civil liberties violations that they pretended to take seriously under Dubya’s reign.

Is it worth libertarians’ and/or anarchists’ while to participate in such events? Sure; because while the voices at the podium tend to be statist apparatchiks, the crowds will tend to be a mixture of statist yahoos and genuinely libertarian-leaning folks, and outreach to the latter is always worth a try – in Kierkegaard’s words, “to split up the crowd, or to talk to it, not to form a crowd, but so that one or another individual might go home from the assembly and become a single individual.” But of course the organisers of such events are on the lookout for us and always do their best to try to narrow the boundaries of discussion.


Amazon Goes Straight

Amazon.com recently started tagging gay-themed books as “adult,” meaning they’re removed from sales rankings and don’t show up in general searches. (Conical hat tip to Neil Gaiman.)

According to Amazon management, it was a glitch.

According to Amazon employees, it wasn’t a glitch.

At times like these it’s worth remembering that there are other places to buy books online besides Amazon ….


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes