Comments

Comments on Today's News:

On the British Police shooting dead a suspected bomber -- Good job, too. One can get pretty much the same amount of instant, functional intel from an autopsy and a raid on a dead bomber's home as from a living, but deeply uncooperative suspect who won't give you his name or anything else.

You can get a lot more of use out of that autopsy and raid than you can from a bomber who escaped into the crowd, or who blew the crowd apart. Plus, he doesn't blow the crowd apart; and he doesn't escape to do more mayhem; and you don't have to worry about him being set free by some politician attempting to bargain with the terrorists, as all those IRA bombers were by that same British government.

Of course, if he was innocent, you killed an innocent man. This is a great moral risk, but be honest with yourself: would you rather live with the pain of having shot dead an innocent man, or the pain of having not shot dead a man who proceeded to blast apart a busload of school children? Giving that you're gambling on the two options, your choice is surely clear.

On Bob Byrd -- The Honorable Byrd has a way with words, doesn't he? "One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities... In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."

Well, OK. But the question ought not to be, 'is one's life in greater danger in an American city or an African jungle?' It ought to be, 'is one's life in greater danger in an American city or an African city?' Africa's most orderly cities compare unfavorably even to America's least orderly ones -- those few remaining outposts, like the District of Columbia, which deny the right to keep and bear arms.

And if you want to compare African jungles to the American wilderness, well, let's not even bother. Africa remains both the original human homeland, and the most perilous place on earth. This explains a lot about humans.

On New York City's bag-searches -- Terrorism is very destructive to liberty. But it doesn't have to be. I remain convinced that, before this is over, the war is going to lead to the end of the American city -- not through the detonation of WMD, but through making the places even more totally unlivable.

The economic justification for the city fades every year with the increase in telecommunications and other infrastructure. Combine that with 'just in time' transit systems, and there's no reason to have a city except for deep-water ports. Even these will mainly be necessary as distribution points for the broader society, and collection points for what remains of our manufacture-for-export industry. The manufacturer itself can easily erect a very small "company town" in one of the emptier parts of the country, using an airport or interstate to send its goods where they need to be sent. As is already the case in Savannah, there is no reason for the port city to be occupied with any major industry except the port itself. Thus, even in this case you can have a small city in terms of population performing what remains of the urban economic function.

The need to distribute goods somewhat more widely will result in a heavier use of oil prodcuts; but the increase in telecommuting will vastly decrease our current levels of consumption. My sense is that something like most of our gasoline goes into private cars driving you from home to your place of business. When a sizable part of the culture just stays home to work, that's a lot of gasoline that doesn't get used.

Why, then, should we put up with these violations of the Fourth Amendment, such as we see in NYC today? One can argue that they're necessary on mass transit systems; so why have that many people in one place? The effect of this distribution of the population is the defense of the individual and family from both terrorist and major-power (say, Chinese) threats, and not coincidentally the defense of our economic power base. Thus, it makes sense from both a personal and societal standpoint.

Move to the country. Telecommute. You'll be glad you did, and so will Uncle Sam.