The death of an American legend.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/28/news/companies/sears_earnings.ap/index.htm?section=money_topstories

A few weeks back, I read a blog post about catalogs (yes, it's a myspace blog, you've been warned.). The author alludes to the fact that paper catalogs are a dying trend. And this is true- a perfect business model would minimize costs as much as possible- one of those methods is to reduce waste; waste such as unused catalogs, which cost a lot more than unused bandwidth.
So companies phased out paper catalogs for more efficient internet catalogs.

This brings me to Sears. Sears was one of the first, and certainly the most prolific mail-order companies in America. Even when I was a child they boasted American made parts with lifetime guarantees (such as Craftsman tools). I even remember as a child my family and I were cleaning a house we had bought, and found an old Craftsman saw with a crack in the handle. We took it in, and got a new one, no questions asked.
This kind of policy just isn't efficient. American made parts and products are too expensive.
And as such, Sears is on it's way out. Unless (as they say) they can reduce operating/waste expenses dramatically.

It's a shame that people don't support their countries. very few investors will invest in America- instead choosing to put their money in foreign companies that have better business models, and promise better profits.
It seems that the American way of Capitalism (with the help of Globalism) has doomed the American way.

(Good) news from Gaza. Animal rights groups misplaced anger. Cold war.

I'll be commenting on three issues in one post today, though they aren't closely related.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7262089.stm
Protestors in Gaza have used a means of peaceful assembly in an attempt to effect change. This is a right that many take for granted in America, a right that is threatened by laws that label political dissenters as terrorists. We should recognize this as a demonstration of the fact that the majority of the Gaza population is peaceful, and only wants to perpetuate its own existence.
Unfortunately it is the handful of militants that get all the attention, and cause people all around the world to make sweeping generalizations of an entire population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7262951.stm
S. Africa is considering allowing the culling of elephants as a means of reducing the wild population. Animal rights groups have responded with anger, but really they shouldn't. The elephant population is already a threat to near by human populations, but if they continue to proliferate they will become a threat to themselves.
Removal of a few elephants from the population would allow the remaining elephants to live a higher quality life (since they won't have to compete for resources), in which they are less of a threat to themselves and people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7262134.stm
This is just another example of the Cold War II towards which we are headed. Instead of a nuclear arms race, perhaps we will have a race to develop equipment to better target communications sattelites? Or perhaps a competition for control of Doomsday Seeds? Whatever it is, it does not bode well for the allies of freedom- Cold Wars mean fearmongering, which means a population that willingly gives up it's rights.

In support of taser use

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23245480-662,00.html

I'm usually one to stand up against the use of tasers. In fact, it has been shown that they do not reduce the use of lethal weapons (such as guns). They are an alternative to things such as batons and mace.
Additonally, the fact that the cops missed is a testament to their poor training.

But- the cops used a nonlethal means of defending themselves and those around them from an attacker. Additionally, this method was precisely measured as opposed to the use of a baton which relies on the strength of the individual user, which varies from person to person (a 120 lb (54.4 kg) officer would deliver the same blow as a 210 lb (95.2 kg) officer when using a taser). Now, whether the precise measurement is an appropriate amount of force against a 12 year old child is debateable. But in the heat of the moment, cops may not have the time to consider all of the facets in this issue.

Government protecting the weak?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/iraqi-police-fi.html

I am a supporter of government protecting weaker individuals from more powerful individuals/organizations; it is only logical that I be in support of the institutionalization of children and the mentally handicapped- but I am not.
A better word to use would be treatment, not institutionalization. But, I can not attest to the quality of care these people will recieve.
Additionally, this action is being taken as a panacea to a larger problem- the goal is not social justice, it is prevention of policy breakdown. True, people will benefit from the fact that al-Qaeda will have less resources; but if programs were more effectively put into place to help the homeless, and mentall ill then al-Qaeda would not have had that resource in the first place.
I hope that in the last several months (the time span between the article about the orphanage and now) the condition of Iraqi institutions has greatly improved, otherwise these children and mentally handicap people will be punished simply for being victims of a social system that denies them justice.

When private companies offer public services.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam/print
Wikipedia is making headlines for not removing images of a Muslim prophet.

I have no strong opinion either way on this subject, I just want to discuss some facts, and their repercussions
Wikipedia is a private organization. It can do whatever it wants, and if you do not like it, then you are free to not use it. BUT it's so well known, it's almost like trying to take advantage of modern day networking techniques without using facebook (also a private organization)! So it seems like we are doomed to heed their demands.
BUT they are doomed to heed the demands of users, as well. Since it is a publicly funded organization it relies on donations. And if people are unsatisfied with the level of service, they can simply stop donating. Yes, my donation is a drop in the bucket. And so are the donations of the 100,000 other people that disagree with the displaying of poodles with trimmed/styled hair. And 100,001 drops can fill up a bucket! So individuals do have power to affect powerful, private organizations.
Another example of this is several years back when Jerry Springer became way to racy for a large amount of viewers. They wrote in- not to Fox, but to the people that advertised on Fox; threatening to boycott their products by the thousands. The show toned down considerably after advertisers demanded it.
So, I guess the moral of the story is that money makes the world go 'round, and if you get enough people to stop funding an organization they do not like, then the organization might just change (for the better?)

what about the wiki-police?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/11/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Google-Earth.php
So, an Israel town is now trying to sue Google over misleading information.

This is an interesting law to consider. If a libelous article is published, who is held responsible- the author, or the publisher?
What about in the context of wiki-media?

Clearly, if I publish a statement here that is inaccurate, then the onus is on me to correct any erroneous items.
Similarly, an organization such as Google is only offering a service- similar to public television, can not be held responsible for the (mis)use of the technology it offers.
However, it is up to the wiki community to affirm/deny any statements made in wiki-media. The most appropriate solution to this issue would be a civil discussion on the verifiability of any statements made.
If the statement can not be verified, it should either be marked as needing a citation, or removed. Otherwise, the statement should be cited, and the accuracy of the source verified.

The internet is public domain, but we as users can choose to contribute positively, or hide behind the veil of anonymity and incite trouble.

Health Departments.

There are various federal, and state departments that regulate threats to the public welfare. For example the U.S Departmetn of Health and Human Services, who is the "principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."
They regulate drugs, control outbreaks, provide Medicare and Medicade. All very useful things to have in our society.
One thing a Health Department should not do is infringe on our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither should they force these rights upon us. The do a good job of this by preventing pharmaceutical companies from putting out dangerous drugs, and by not forcing Medicare on anyone.
But the Mississippi Department of Health has other plans. Plans that include denying a person the happiness that he or she may obtain from gluttony. This bill proposes to revoke (or a water down) the right of individuals to make personal decisions regarding their diets.

I disagree with this bill on the same principle that justifies a person's right to have consensual sex with his or her partner knowing full well that he or she has an STD. Yes, there is a threat of being hurt from this act, but that decision does not lie in the hands of the government. It is a private matter between two people.
The act of over eating is not a danger to others, and it can no spread without the willing participation of individuals. Unlike bird flu, which I would expect a department of health to regulate.
The act of eating fatty foods may however be paralleled to drug use, in that fat can be considered a dangerous additive that should be regulated. But, (unlike say- cocaine) fat is necessary for survival (albeit in small amounts). So, instead of bubble-wrapping the world, perhaps we should educate members of society on making healthier decisions, and maybe provide incentives to places that don't serve unhealthy foods.