No Right to Feel Safe

Yeah, I'm not dead yet. Or maybe I am undead, how can my readers know?

I have read something about the recent dustup in the States with Starbucks and open carry of firearms.While those who turned Starbucks into a gun parading ground were, in my opinion, silly exhibitionists adopting a counterproductive in-your-face tactic (but within their rights), I want to concentrate in fact on those who were incensed at the display of rifles.

Their most common lamentation is that those people carrying rifles violated their "right to feel safe".

Ah, really, a right to feel safe?

I could say that the right to possess and carry arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, while the right to feel safe isn't, and that would be enough.

But let's go a bit more in depth. First of all, a feeling cannot be measured objectively. We can maybe measure its relative strength between different people and situations, but it cannot be mapped onto any objective scale.

Just to make a few examples, some people feel very unsafe aboard airplanes, while most don't - and statistics tell us airplanes are a safe method of transportation.

Others feel unsafe in the presence of animals that are innocuous or present only a minimal objective threat.

Almost nobody feels unsafe while riding a car, yet vehicle accidents are a significant cause of death and injury all over the world.

A person may feel unsafe in the vicinity of a group of inner city black teenagers - and considering crime distribution among the various demographics, that would be a justified fear. Yet, such a person would easily be labelled as a racist xenophobe.

A feeling is not objective and it cannot be used as basis for legislation or regulation.

Another important point is, how actually safe are we in our everyday life?
A lot of people seem not to realize that shit happens no matter what. You may be working at a food kiosk, when a bus out of control plunges down a cliff and crushes you to death - together with dozens of unlucky passengers. Far-fetched scenario? Well, it did happen near Bogor, Indonesia. And in 1990, in Casalecchio di Reno, Italy, a training fighter jet out of control slammed into a middle school; 12 students were killed and 72 more suffered permanent lesions.

These may be extreme scenarios, but the fact is that in the modern world we constantly put our life in the hands of other people. Motorists, pilots, maintenance technicians, machine and plant operators and many more... just a slip of their attention can be enough to cause mayhem.

And even when no other people are involved... well, check the data for accidents and unintentional injuries in the USA and tell me how safe you actually are.

The whole "right to feel safe" is a nonsense, another deformed child of the postmodern world where reality is regarded as and inconvenient annoyance to be overcome.

Update: Often, those who in one sentence complain about their right to feel safe being violate, in the next one accuse armed people to be too fearful to go around unarmed. Oh the irony.

The Continuing Knox-Sollecito Trial

It seemed it was finally over, after the acquittal by the appeal court, but it ain't, the Knox-Sollecito trial is bound to continue after Italy's High Court nullified the appeal sentence.

I see some Americans are getting it wrong: the High Court did not declare that Amanda Knox is guilty; rather it declared the acquittal sentence to be null and void and ordered another appeal trial in front of a different appeal court (the one in Firenze).

The reasons for this decision are not know in detail yet (they must be published within 90 days), but it appears the High Court accepted in full the claims made by the state prosecutor - who insisted that the appeal trial was conducted properly and the court did not weigh evidence for and against fairly, with a prejudice in favor of the defendants. And, even more frighteningly, that being there no certain elements in the case, the acquittal showed a prejudice.

Prejudice for the presumption of innocence, I'd say, but obviously I'm not a prosecutor.

Yes, no new evidence or facts were presented to the High Court, only more ruminations on the same old facts and evidence.

A curious fact of Italy is that state prosecutors often cannot let go of their pet peeves and would rahter see an innocent in jail that admitting they were wrong. So, after an appeal trial demonstrates that their case is full of holes, often state try to have the sentence declared null and void by the High Court.

And despite what it may seem, this re-trial is not double jeopardy according to Italian law.

So far Meredith Know has not been asked officially to return to Italy for her re-trial, and I think she'd better do anything in her power to stay out of Italy

Ending the Welfare State

Recently I've heard a number of Americans gloating over how the chickens are coming home to roost in Europe - out of metaphor, how the massive public debts caused by years of reckless spending and ever-growing state apparatus now are too big to be ignored and are requiring drastic action to be brought back under control.

And reducing the size of the state is something I fully agree with.

Yet, it's how to do it that's open to discussion.

I'll talk about Italy because it's the place I know best. There, the state apparatus and public debt grew in a rather slow fashion from the end of the 60's to today's unsustainable levels.

A large part of this debt is caused by the welfare state expenses - pensions, health care and public sector wages above all.

This means that millions of people depend on the State for their lives. Not in the sense that they sit there all day waiting for the benefit paycheck (some do, tho), but that they make a living working in the public sector, or receive the state pension, and use the public health service to treat their illnesses.

If all this spending were suddenly cut in a significant manner, there would be positive effects, yes, but also problems, big ones.

Millions of people would find themselves with no or gravely reduced income and without the possibility to pay for the medical treatment they need.

The oldest and most frail ones may simply die off; for the others there will be hard times. And for the whole of Italy: expect a massive drop of internal demand of good and services, with many business forced to close down for lack of customers.

Bank deposits would plummet as well, eaten up by the need to buy basic goods and services. Less money available for the banks to lend means credit crunch.

In short, an economic recession in a country with an already agonizing economy.

A reduction of the size of the state must occur, but gradually.

Or with a revolution, but often those leave the ground soaked in blood for too many years.

The Knox-Sollecito Trial

This is one of the issues I normally avoid, because it's nearly impossible to have a pacate and rational discussion about, and because it has been treated in a manner undignified for the seriousness of the case.

So let's set a couple of ground rules for those who may want to comment:

- No foaming at the mouth, shrieking and insults.

- No Italy Vs. USA pissing matches.

I'll state my position from the start: initially I believed that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but after some more research I became convinced that there are very reasonable doubts about their guilt.

The first problem comes with the very scenario of the killing: according to the prosecutor, it occurred during a ritualistic orgy gone bad, or in which the victim, Meredith Kercher, refused to take part. It should be noted that the prosecutor seems to have a fascination with stories of satanic/esoteric sex rituals.

This scenario is physically possible, sure, but not very credible. Much less credible than the one in which Rudy Guede, the third defendant and already convicted for the murder, raped and killed Kercher alone.

Also the evidence against these two last defendants is scarce and dubious (while it is abundant and undisputed against Guede).

There is the supposed murder weapon that doesn't match very well the wounds on the body and has not enough DNA on it for a secure identifiction; and another important piece of DNA evidence, on a bra clasp, had been recovered many days after the fact, and handled and stored improperly.

But not only the DNA evidence is dubious; there are other unclear aspects - for example the exact time the first police officers arrived at the scene.

Many - both in Italy and the USA themselves make a great deal of Knox and Sollecito's supposedly weird behaviour after being arrested, but that doesn't impress me much, especially from Knox: it is very likely that a person jailed in a foreign country for a serious crime would feel a bit off, so to speak.

And it's also very likely that a young woman with no criminal history ends up telling the police what they want to hear (regarding a fourth suspect then exonerated, Patrick Lumumba) after a long and aggressive interrogation*.

Now, did Knox and Sollecito lie about some aspects? It is very possible, either to save their butts or because they honestly remembered things differently from others.

It is possible that especially Knox is not the near-saint some depict her to be? Again, it is possible if not likely**. Oh yes, I just saw online a video of her being tipsy: big bloody deal.

But the scope of a trial is not to ascertain the defendants' sanctity, but rather to ascertain whether they committed the crimes they are accused of, or not.

Or at least it should be, because these days in both Italy and the USA character assassination seems to be the norm.

For me, at this point the correct verdict must be acquittal: we'll have to wait and see, as usual.

* A common modus operandi of Italian police and prosecutors.

** Pot-smoking is a very popular pastime of university students, as are drinking and generally having fun without thinking much.

Quotable Quote

A comment at Belmont Club:

The irony is that since all of the hubbub about police brutality the proportion of lethal killing has sky rocketed. I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s with the LAPD and believe me, you did not screw with these guys. They’d mess you up good if they had a mind to. Pisser is they had more discretion and might be apt to let you go after you learned your lesson, hell, maybe even give you a ride home. Now, it is a kinder and gentler police department and your chances of being shot dead went up around 300%.

Yes, they won't touch you with a finger until they will shoot to kill.

A True Believer Strikes Again

Who is he? Well, that Norwegian guy who detonated a car bomb in Oslo and massacred teenagers in a youth camp on a nearby islet.

I do not think that this person is crazy - certainly not crazy as in "he didn't know what he was doing". He took years and a considerable amount of money to plan, prepare and execute his attack, so he knew very well what he was doing.

So why he committed an atrocity anyway? Because, I am convinced, he is a true believer.

Not in any formally recognized ideology or religion. No, his own creed was a home-brew from many different sources and authors - which now are often being dragged through the mud. His inspirations are vast and varied, from across pretty much all the political spectrum.

But the heterogeneity and possible contradictions in his creed were not an issue; in the end the mixture was potent enough to convince himself he had a mission to complete, a mission vital for the destiny of the world - his world, at least.

And that's why he went on to kill and destroy. Because he was convinced he had to act, he had to provide a performance that would change everything and motivate others to fight for the cause as well.

And the carnage, in his vision, was necessary. Unavoidable on the way to a new and better world.

The Italy of Silvio Berlusconi

My blog-friend Kevin asked if I can provide a translation of the previous post. But I do not think that would be very interesting for foreign readers.

Rather, I'll try to provide a brief explanation of who Berlusconi is, why he rose to power and why he is at the same time so hated – to the point that serious rioting in Rome followed the government's victory in a no-confidence vote.

All the bad and weird things you have heard about Berlusconi are to a large extent true. He has parties with young prostitutes, yes. He went through a lot of shady business deals, yes. He is cunning and ruthless and his governments passed a few laws that helped him greatly with his judiciary adventures.

But the Italian people know that. In fact, all these facts and more fancyful flourish are shouted from the rooftops every day. Those who vote Berlusconi do not do so because they are misinformed, but because they still appreciate the man, at least in part.

Berlusconi is the expression of an unique social and political environment; there is no equivalent elsewhere in the world.

He is the expression of a part of the Italian society as it came to be since the end of WW2: the entrepreneurs, the artisans and traders. Which make up a majority of the middle-high class in Northern Italy.

Those are the people who struggle almost daily against restrictive laws, and even worse bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The ones who'd like less taxes, and less red tape, and less scraping and bowing in front of the local politicians only to obtain what should be theirs by right.

Berlusconi was one who overcame the odds and became rich and powerful from a rather humble start. He found ways to circumvent laws that prohibited private televisions from broadcasting all over the national territory; later he forged alliances with the politician Bettino Craxi but when his TVs where already up and running.

And Berlusconi managed AC Milan when it was one of the strongest football clubs in Europe, and won many important competitions.

Also a lot of the good things one can hear about Berlusconi are true: he is an excellent communicator, he's hospitable and entertaining (if in a lowbrow fashion) to foreign leaders; and he at least promised to cut statalism a little bit. Then he didn't deliver; that is the main reason his age is closing to an end, in my opinion.

But reducing the privileges and power of the ruling class is no easy task for anyone; despite his popularity Berlusconi did not have absolute power – far from it.

The success of Berlusconi is strictly linked to the rise of the Northern League (Lega Nord) party. That movement is also difficult to describe to foreigners: it is a nationalist party, but the nation the have in mind is not Italy; rather a poorly-defined entity composed of most of the northern regions.

In practice now Northern League is a federalist party asking for more local governance rather than a heavily centralized state; for tax money to remain where it is collected rather than to be amassed in the central coffers in Rome; for italian citizens to be given priority rather than immigrants, and for immigrants to integrate rather than Italian society to satisfy all their needs. Northern League is the main party of the mid-lower class, these days.

Some depict that party as a racist far-right movement, but that is not true; the ideology of Northern League has nothing to do with Nazism or Fascism; true racists there are few and far between – while they are common among the ranks of Forza Nuova (New Force) and other explicitly neo-fascist groups.

Now, for the opposition to Berlusconi. Those most adverse to him are generally public sector workers, students, intellectuals and members of the judiciary. And from the leftist political scene, yes.

Except for the judiciary, which is a case apart, all those categories above have something in common: they do not need to work hard, produce results and manage complex activities in order to survive. I won't call them all parasites because they are not, but it's clear that the life of an university student financed by parents and/or grants, or the life of a public-funded film director are way easier and secure than the life of a tradesman.

The judiciary is different. After the corruption scandals (complete with severe judicial abuses, but history is written by the winners so those are rarely mentioned) that brought the end of the traditional parties in the early 90's, the Italian judiciary disposed with idea of separation of power and started regarding itself as the supreme power with the right and duty to remake Italy into a Better Place. Of course, according to their own definition of it, and other opinions be damned.

The struggle between Berlusconi and the judiciary is about power, not rule of law or morality. But with a key difference between the two parties: Berlusconi is willing to let other people do as they please – at least as long as his own interests are not threatened; the judiciary instead is made of True Believers, and they allow no room for dissent.

The Italian left is in disarray. The far left is almost non-existent now; the mainstream, centre-left parties have been unable to produce a stable and charismatic leadership since 1994 and no improvement is in sight. The last center-left government was born dead, zombied around for a couple of years producing little more than a state of fiscal inquisition and fell miserably due to internal divisions and lack of a overarching strategy.

The left is still mired in ideologies from the 70's when they are recent; they keep offering the same old stuff which has produced nothing so far; yet they expect people to believe that this time it will work.

Berlusconi is running circles around the leftist leaders without any effort: one of his stupid jokes will make more headlines than the entire political program of the left.

For years, the only and entire message of the Left has been that Berlusconi and his cronies are ruining Italy and have to go – in a political sense, but some have admitted in public that they'd like to see a more physical destruction. And after that Italy will magically become a heavenly land, in which the cultural and systemic and institutional flaws will disappear leaving only the noblest Italian nature to triumph. What should happen to that tainted and wretched 50% at least of Italians who supported Berlusconi is not clear; they will either see the light or be ignored.

It is a fantasy, and many can see through right this bullshit. Berlusconi is the only one who tried to introduce at least a bit of meritocracy, to make superior instruction half-serious; to fight parasites in the public sector and to bring the judiciary back under control.
The age of Berlusconi may very well be near its end, but the left is not in the position to take power. Rather, the party poised to step in is Northern League: they are the second party at the national level and have absolute majority in vast areas of the North. And they will keep doing many of the same things this government has done, but a local rather than national level.

Now, despite twelve hundred words this post still gives only a very sketchy picture of the situation and how it came to be. Please bear with me if I didn't write a whole tome.

Hotpants Country

I have visited Singapore and I decided that Hotpants Country is a fitting nickname: the number of girls wearing tight and short shorts is huge. It can be a distraction, I tell you.

How can I describe that state, besides the abundance of exposed skin? 60% Jakarta, 30% London and 10% unique; Singapore is certainly a city where West meets East, but it is without doubt Asia.

Anyway, on a more serious side I find Singapore an interesting experiment. The city-state is what can be called and enlightened oligarchy, where concepts like freedom of expression and association are not held in the highest regard. And the ruling class is not really shy about it, they will express their opinion rather candidly.

Truth to be told, I expected Singapore to be a more uniform and regimented place; instead - at least in Geylang where I was based - there was a comforting degree of disorder on the streets and in the shops. I did not feel like living in a dictatorship. And it is probably the country I have visited with the least visible police presence.

Singapore is prosperous, safe and orderly - even more so when compared to its neighbors in Southeast Asia. I cannot bring myself to regard Singaporeans as stupid or inferior for choosing to trade some liberties for more safety and wealth.

This is, I think, in line with the evolution of my opinions about democracy. I'd take an enlightened oligarchy rather than a degenerate democracy like most of the Western ones these days.

Indirect Experience

In this post I'm going to write something critical of Americans in general. Just because I feel like it.

Americans as a rule do not have much first-hand experience of life in other countries. That is because there's enough variety of geography, climate and ways of life in the States that those who are not already xenophiles can have enough for a lifetime. But this condition of ignorance does not stop them from pontificating on how people in other countries should live their lives.

First-hand experience of another country means living there with the common people and among them, doing (more or less) what they do and (more or less) how they do it. Which is not an exhortation to “go native”; more like what is called full immersion in a different place and culture.

Experience of life in a foreign country is not visiting for a short time as tourists; that may at best give a superficial idea. Barely that, if as a tourist one does not venture much out of tourist villages or nice hotels.

Neither is being there as a member of armed forces stationed in a base (there are exceptions, tho). They spend most of the time among themselves and when they venture out is to get drunk and chase tails; the conflicts between foreign military personnel and civilians living around the bases have a long story.

But Americans still do pontificate about other countries. Europeans do that, too, but the difference is that Americans feel compelled to give their opinion loudly and anytime, whether requested or not.

When they do not have direct experience but still want to talk, they resort to indirect experience – often, books written by someone who has been there, in those faraway lands. Which in itself is not a bad thing, because knowledge recorded in writing is definitely positive. But as usual that can be taken to unhealthy extremes.

Even with the best intentions, an author cannot report every single thing, the smallest aspects and finest nuances of Life Elsewhere. Also for mere space reasons, because a 1000-page tome is not exactly handy, if you catch my drift.

Many authors, instead, have their own biases and narratives, and are prone to gloss over what does not agree with the narrative while insisting on what does. Some authors are even propagandists, and you know what it means.

I have already written about my dislike for Mark Stein, even if I think that a lot of what he writes seems true. But he depicts Europe as newly-medieval third world of misery and sufferance. Yet that is not the situation I observed with my very eyes in Europe. Maybe I have just been very lucky, but I doubt.

However, without direct experience to act as a reality check, it happens that many in the Sates think that Mark Stein(1) is 100% correct. And when I, in some online discussion, observe that things are not exactly like that, I get irritated replies like “Have you read Mark Stein?”. My retort should be that yes, I have read at least the condensed form you so kindly provided, but I found it not corresponding to observable reality.

Direct experience versus indirect experience, you see.

In any case, I have been avoiding discussion of that type for a long time now, because they go exactly nowhere and more often that not end in verbal brawling and insults.

(1) It's not a personal matter, just an author I am familiar with.

No Leader in the White House

Following the development of the Macondo Oil Spill, I have seen more or less what I expected.

The Right blaming Obama for everything except causing the disaster itself (but conspiracy theories surface here and there) and for trying to exploit it for his ends; the Left hoping for Obama to rally the nation around renewable energy, maybe even accept the peak oil view, and spank the oil companies for being naughty.

About the first point.
I have no time for conspiracy theorists, so that aspect is dealt with here and now. Blaming Obama for this disaster is as stupid as blaming Bush for the hurricane Katrina. On the other hand, the administration's response is less than brilliant. Although, some details are open to discussion: because of the massive use of dispersants, not much oil can be separated or recovered with skimmers. So, even if propmptly accepted the vessels offered by other nations may not have made any noticeable difference. But it would be nice at least to hear a cogent explanation for the refusal.

About the second point.
Nah, just go and read any of the right-wing blogs in my sidebar: there will be plenty of left-bashing there. Better leave that to the professionals.

My own point, now.
Obama is no leader.
And one should look no further than his long record of voting "present" in the Senate. See, leaders offer a vision and a path to that destination. They lead with example and with taking a stand on important issues; during a crisis they act and wait before blaming one or the other.

Ronald Reagan was a leader; Bush managed to be in the day immediately after 9/11. Obama? He's the postmodern president: he deftly marketed the hope and change image but he has no substance to back it up.

Fianlly, a few words about Peak Oil. There is no doubt that sooner or later oil will end. And it is likely that production will go through a peak. I think that we will recognize the peak only when we are past it, tho. And the Macondo Disaster does not prove much (other than screwups in deepwater drilling have gigantic consequences): a single data point does not make a statistics.

What troubles me is the quasi-religious fervor of many Peak Oil supporters. For them, that is an all-encompassing explanation, a light to shine upon the unbelievers and redeem them. They are true believers, and Peak Oil is their belief.

Courts Against Liberty

From the current news:

A 13-year-old girl who hopes to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world has had her record attempt blocked by a Dutch court.

The most scary part is this tho:

Laura Dekker will be placed under the care of social services for two months and a child psychologist will assess whether she is ready to undertake the risky voyage.

Now, I happen to think that not 14 yet is indeed a too young age for sailing solo around the world* (solo except radio, phone, internet and the like of course), but her parents should make the decision; that ought to be their right and duty. Certainly not business of a court, an emanation of the government.

The more the government and their emantions can interfere with our lives, the less free we are. It does not matter if it is For Our Own Safety or anything else; it is a reduction of liberty.

I am reading just in these days the tales of the far north by Jack London, and I smile grimly thinking that such adventures would be impossible today - at the very least, illegal in a thousand of different ways from child protection violations to health & safety issues. And so merrily we go down the slippery slope to enslavement.

* On the other hand, many years ago a young Mongol of about that age murdered his half-brother so that he could become head of the family. Later, that man became known to the world as Genghis Khan.

The Other Italy

My workload looks more like a fuckload, and there's still a household to run here. Still, tonight I got some time for blogging.

Many people from foreign countries know the Italian cities - Milan, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Rome, Naples - but those cities are now heavily cosmopolitan, less Italian and more god-knows-what. I suspect that in a few years of those cities will remain only the buildings, but the culture and the people will be gone - not evolved; erased.

There's another Italy, that few foreigners know. The Italy of the miriad of villages and hamlets scattered around the lowlands of the north, and the mountains and valleys.

Only a few of those villages miss more than one of these things: a church, a bar and a post office.

The church these days is often empty, yet almost never abandoned: the people still care about the campanile - belltower, symbol of the place and land visible from afar - enough to keep it in good conditions.

The bar is the centre of the social life. Much like a pub in the english countryside, it is where anyone can be seen sooner or later. Only seldom those bars are new and shiny and cool; most of the time they are watering holes for the locals, old and worn and barely meeting the stringent regulations of these days. In one case, far up in the mountains, I saw the owner ironing clothes in a corner while some customers were having a breakfast of pancetta, bread and white wine.

The post office works as public service and another aggregation point - it's where the elderly (because these days the majority of citizens of villages are elderly) can get their pension check and discuss of the latest news of the place. While repairing printers or other devices I've heard talking of cows and barns and fields, and births and deaths - and maybe I've seen a slight increase in births. And people just seeing each other, enjoying the chance of leaving home for a while.

Not all is so nice in villages; the main problem is a state of mind so conservative to become backward and closed to anything different. And yet... racist violence seems to be more an urban than rural problem. Countryside people may be closed and diffident towards strangers, but once one is accepted as a member of the community, there are little problems. Or that's what I have observed.

And when the choice is between urbanites and hillbillies... I know where I stand.

Importance of the Urban Heat Island

That cities are often warmer than the surrounding rural areas is a well-known fact. How important is this effect on the global temperature trends, is the object of heated debate.

The skeptic side contends that the UHI effect constitutes an important part of the warming observed in recent times; the counter-arguments are that the UHI effect is minuscule, or it has been accounted for, or that even if cities are warmer than rural areas the long-term trends are not affected.

The argument that UHI has been accounted for is probably the weakest: the methods use to correct for it vary from the horrible homogeneization used by GISS, to a simple increase of the uncertainty associated with temperature data as done by CRU and NOAA. Moreover, it is hard to account for something of unknown magnitude: the UHI for each urban station ought to be measured before it can be filtered out.

The other two counter-arguments are in fact interlocked, and part of a more general issue: it seems to me that both sides are often forgetting a fundamental detail, that it is not sufficient to consider the magnitude of UHI at one single point in time, but its temporal evolution must be considered.

I think that the magnitude of UHI will reach a plateau when an area sufficiently large around a weather station is completely urbanized, and not change much with subsequent expansion of the urban area. Then again, all types of urbanization are the same? The coal-powered cities of the late 800's have the same microclimate of modern cities with their glass and steel highrises?

The UHI effect is most important for stations that start rural then become engulfed in expanding towns.

Also, this issue is connected to the microsite effects - the effects of the temperature sensor type, enclosure and immediate surroundings.

The temperature record of a station should be compared with station metadata (type, location, surroundings) and distribution of urban areas around the station in order to correct for the various effects influencing temperature and hopefully isolating the signal due to global (or at least regional) climate changes.

John Goetz was able to plot the temperature record for the station of Burlington, Vermont and add markers for the historically known station moves and other changes, and found that temperature trends changed dramatically in sign and magnitude for each period of time.

Correlating temperature records and metadata for each station would be a monumental work even with the will to do so, but in the field of climate science reliance on abstruse statistical techniques and mathematical models seems to have priority over experimental and field work. Moreover, for many stations metadata are missing or insufficient for this kind of comparison.

This leaves us with the question, it is possible to extract a meaningful signal from the surface temperature records we have now?

In Which I Occasionally Embrace Political Activism

The Emperor says:

But other than that (breaking the law, ed.), every last bit of smearing, lying, finger-pointing etc. will be the order of the day, on top of all of the true claims against him I can find, and they’re already piling up deep and high. Nothing will be too low, every slightest rumor will be picked up and broadcast with a spin that would make David Axelrod blush, and it will be a relentless barrage from the day he takes office ’till the day he leaves it. And I will enjoy every second of it. I will willfully and gleefully sabotage every single thing that he tries to achieve in any way that I can and when he fails, I’ll put all of the blame on him.

Him and his leftist brownshirt goons will get a heaping helping of the same bullshit that they’ve been flinging at us for the last 8 years, and they will get it with interest and then some. See how he likes it.

See, I am seriously worried, even from this other side of the Atlantic, by certain facts about Barack Obama. He's seen as a saintly, almost messianic figure, he who'll change America into a better place, accepted as peer by the international community, where the power of the state will be used to redistribute wealth, and where all races - except those whites who don't repent for the sins of their race - will proportionally share power, and the government will be your friend and help you from cradle to grave, even saving the fools from the consequences of their folly.

It looks more like a nightmare than a dream to me, even more so if I consider that America is today the only place left where a man can be minimally free in the true sense of the word (there are other places where life is good, but not as free).

Alas, despite the facade of working for a better America, more just and humane and pacific, it's the hard left - those who most support Obama, rather than the Clinton wing - that indulges in murderous fantasies and falls prey of a rabid, unhinged rage against their opponents.

I only wish death - or would like to deliver it myself - to a small number of truly barbarous and irredeemeable evildoers; to even my bitter political adversaries I wish no ill (well, I admit that a stubborn case of prostathitis is tempting, tho). And I surely am not of the peace-and-love kind.

I hoped the derangement was going to end with the Bush administration, and initially McCain didn't have to face it. But Sarah Palin became the new target of an even more furious and vile form of hatred - all because she's a gender apostate.

In any case, Michelle Malkin has a not pretty but instructive display of leftist rage - and these are not quotes susceptible of a "I say, you say" situation. No, it's actual videos and stickers and posters and all that.

In the meanwhile, Jeff Goldstein is simply fuming. Apart the (not so) occasional lies and distortions and hypocrisy of some Obama supporters, he is afraid that President Obama would mark the success of the grand plan, started by Gramsci, to take power by infiltration, slow erosion and indoctrination rather than armed revolution. And there's a good chance he is right.

Even many in the Italian media have accepted unquestioningly the Obama narrative, thus abdicating from their supposed role of suppliers of facts and informations, becoming accomplices in the struggle for control of the narrative, and ultimately of thought. And that has me fuming too.

The scariest part of 1984 is not the so popular telescreens, but Newspeak - control of the narrative on the biggest scale.

Yes Cameras Will Save Us

Or maybe not. From Singapore, a place where civic virtue seems to be more developed that, say, the UK or Italy:

There were 3,148 [bus lane offences, ed.] in July and 2,349 in August, going by Land Transport authority (LTA) figures, which exclude offences captured on cameras on board buses.

Both figures are higher than the 1,619 offences in June, when the number plunged 40 per cent from May's count of 2,677 infringements.

Back then, some bus drivers linked the dip to the implementation of the cameras mounted on buses, but if there was a deterrent effect, it looks like it has worn off.

The deterrent effect may have worn off? Who'd have ever thought?

Allowed But Regulated

A libertarian point for the legalization of at least some drugs is that prohibition isn't really working well, so it's better to try and reduce damage with legalization and regulation of the drugs. The usual counterpoint is "We should also legalize homicide, then?"*.

But thinking about the issue, I realize that in most countries homicide (as in, the killing of another human) is in fact allowed but strictly regulated.

In general, homicide is only legal in self-defense (some backward jurisdictions also allow homicide for "honor" reasons), even if the circumstances where lethal force can be used vary substantially.
Also, most jurisdictions differentiate between cases of deliberate and accidental homicide, and allow for the killing of fetuses - which some people regard as homicide. I am not aware of any place where homicide is absolutely prohibited.

After all, "We should also legalize homicide, then?" isn't much of a counterpoint.

* Murder is unlawful killing, so if it's legal it cannot be murder.

On the Finnish School Killing

A Finnish high school student ran amok and killed 10 other students of his college before committing suicide, all with the assistance of a Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol.

Leaving aside the human interest side of the story, let's crunch some numbers first. The CIA Worl Fact Book gives Finland's population as 5 245 000 people in July 2008; BBC gives the number of legally-owned firearms as 1 600 000 - making for around 0.3 guns per capita (nice ratio), or a firearms for every 3 people.

The number of gun owners can only be estimated, but I suppose that some people will own more than one firearm, so a reasonable estimate is of one million (legal) gun owners, or something like 15-20% of the populacetion.

Considered that two people freaked out and committed mass-murder within the last year, it can be concluded that Finnish gun owners are quite well-behaved, with only one in roughly 500 000 at risk of committing mass-murder. On the other hand, try to suggest that if 1 out 1000 people belonging to any non-white ethnic group are mass-murderers, there may be a problem with that group's culture, and see how the liberals sharpen their knives.

How easy (or difficult) is to legally own a firearm in Finland? I don't know the language so I cannot read the original laws, but the Global Peace Index* website has a scale of "Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction": on a scale of increasing ease, Finland is rated 2, while the USA is rated 3 (Italy is rated 3 too... on what kind of basis?). Firearms in Finland thus seem to be under pretty tight control.

In a follow-up BBC piece, it is stated that:

Police admit they interviewed Saari on Monday in connection with three videos that were posted on the YouTube website last week.

One of the videos shows a young man firing a pistol before pointing the weapon at the camera and declaring in English "you will die next".

But no action was taken by the authorities to confiscate Saari's legally held pistol or to hold him into custody.

Probably because in Finland the cops cannot take someone into custody or confiscate his belongings if he has not committed a crime. I know that it can be shocking for Brits, accustomed to a system where one can be arrested for only uttering politically incorrect words, but that's how it is supposed to be in free countries.

The revelation that should make many - the BBC folks in the first place - think hard, comes at the end of the same article:

Young people can own and use a firearm in Finland at 15 years of age if they have parental consent.

There are around 1.6 million guns registered in the country, making per-capita gun ownership among the highest in the world.

Gun crime is rare in Finland although shooting is very popular - mainly due to widespread hunting in the country's extensive forests and sub-Arctic wilderness.

So in three pragraphs it is said that Finnish can start using guns at young age; the population is quite heavily armed and sport shooting and hunting are very popular... yet gun crime is rare. If it were true that a high number of guns and exposition to "gun culture" increases gun crime, Finland ought to be a very violent place. Instead, it is classified as one of the most 10 peaceful countries in the world (again, the GPI sets the level of violent crime for Finland at 1; it's 1 also for the USA but 3 for Italy).

The government of Finland appears intentioned to tighten gun control, but it's yet another case of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. The school shooter apparently has been planning the massacre since 2002: tighter gun control can really stop someone with such a determination to cause death and mayhem? But as usual, it will make life harder for the many law-abiding gun owners (if most of them took up political activism, at some 20% that fraction of the population there's a good chance tighter gun control laws would not pass).

* I have criticized the GPI in the past, but it's more about the interpretation of the various indexes than the numbers themselves. In any case, numbers obtained with a consistent methodology are suitable for comparative purposes.

Update: There is a point I want to clarify. The police officers who questioned Saari probably did everything according to laws and procedures (but it's not impossible that they were lazy or incompetent, in fact); it is also obvious that they failed to notice the young man's disturbed mental state. And taking guns away from mad people is completely legitimate. Also, the article has been slightly modified after initial publication.

Tendentious Tripe

While the tripes I cooked the other day was good, albeit quite a lot of work for my stomach, this other kind of tripe is no good:

Scientific experts agree that the Earth’s climate is changing. Climate change, more commonly known as global warming, is caused by the emission of heat trapping gases produced by vehicles, power plants, industrial processes and deforestation.

I already discussed the difference between the different terms that this paragraph treats as synonyms, but I'm still amazed at the amount of dishonesty and tendentiousness that can be packed in a couple of sentences.

September Eleven

Writing commemorative posts is not my strongest suit.

The best way to commemorate 9/11 and those who diesd that day is to keep fighting, with words and deeds, until the perpetrators of the attacks are utterly defeated and their plans thwarted.

Yet Another Minor Irritant

IMDB now features parental guides for movies (here's the rather long one for Sin City), where all the questionable scenes and situations are listed for the parents.

But something that bugs me is the category "Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking". See, I grew up in those blessed time before alcohol turned back into al-ghul (the demon) and before we realized that tobacco industry CEOs signed a deal with the Devil in order to get little kids hooked on nicotine.

In other words, I grew up with the idea that smoking was quite a normal thing to do - and not just because movies: I could see people smoking in the streets and many other places.
Same goes for drinking: people were shown drinking in movies because people drink in real life. People are also shown getting drunk, and most often doing stupid things while intoxicated (which I think is a good lesson as long as it doesn't become preaching).

And look at me, I don't smoke and... well, at weekends my alcohol level tends to be a bit higher than suggested, but I am no alcoholic at all.