how to become invisible

Some scientists think that cloaking devices that provide invisibility are technically possible:

Forget Harry Potter and his "invisibility cloak" -- theoretical physicists in the UK and US have proposed a clever way of making objects invisible. It would involve surrounding the object by a "metamaterial" -- a type of composite material that has unusual electromagnetic properties. According to the researchers, light rays incident on the material would be bent around the object, only to emerge on the other side in exactly the same direction as they began. Although the work is only theoretical, the researchers reckon that materials invisible to radio waves could be produced within five years.

It seems like an awfully complex solution to the problem. Wouldn't it be much easier to find a volcano, some gold and a blacksmith with some seriously wicked magical skills?

the internet, campaign finance regulation and the first amendment

If Thomas Paine were publishing today, would he be publishing Common Sense and The Crisis as pamphlets or as blogs? If he was publishing on the internet as a blogger, would he run into trouble with the Federal Election Commission?

This post says that the FEC may eventually place restrictions on "political web sites", including blogs. To me, this kind of regulation is clearly unconstitutional--isn't political blogging precisely the kind of public political speech that the first amendment is supposed to protect? Is there any precedent that would support the FEC if it goes forward with applying campaign finance regulations to bloggers?

love according to nerds

My favorite econ blogger on love:

The thesis is simple, and almost everyone disagrees with it upon first hearing. The symmetry thesis: A given person likes (loves) you as much as you like (love) him or her...Perhaps we like other people for their intrinsic qualities less than we pretend. Mostly we like people for liking (loving) us.

Interesting idea. If this thesis is true, then romantic relationships should tend to be self-reinforcing, growing stronger over time. Does the prevalence of divorce disprove the thesis? Or does the prevalence of divorce suggest that real love is often not at the foundation of modern marriages?

illegal immigration--the real solution

Richard Posner points out the real solution to illegal immigration problems:

Once something is identified as a problem, Americans, not being fatalists, insist that there be a solution. But there is only one worthwhile solution to this particular problem, and it is one over which Americans have little control. The solution is for Mexico and the other poor countries from which illegal immigrants come to become rich. As soon as per capita income in a country reaches about a third of the American level, immigration from that country dries up. Emigration is very costly emotionally as well as financially, given language and other barriers to a smooth transition to a new country, and so is frequent only when there are enormous wealth disparities between one's homeland and a rich country like the United States. The more one worries about illegal immigrants, the more one should favor policies designed to bring about greater global income equality.

I find it ironic that so many people are both vehemently opposed to free trade agreements like NAFTA as well as being determined to eliminate illegal immigration. One of the best mechanisms we have for lifting up the Mexican economy is to integrate that economy more tightly with our own. Granted, free trade is no panacea, but it at least opens up opportunities for Mexico to grow her economy.

Or, let's just annex Mexico.

The Da Vinci Code: an alternate ending (UPDATED)

Robert Langdon: "So, you're the last living decendent of Christ?"

Sophie Neveu: "Yeah, I guess so... What should I do now?"

Robert Langdon: "Well, it seems to me that the most important thing is to make sure that the bloodline continues."

Sophie Neveu:

Robert Langdon: "You know, biological clocks, and so forth."

Sophie Neveu:

Robert Langdon: "Speaking of which, I'd be more than happy to take one for the team, as it were."

-----
Update:

Sophie Neveu: "So, I can't walk on water, but I can call down fire from heaven. The sequel ought to be very interesting..."

know your enemy

Baseball Crank takes a look at how Al Qaeda views the war in Iraq:

in assessing both our progress in this war and how close we are to accomplishing our objectives, we need to step back sometimes and see how things look from the other side. As it happens, CENTCOM released today English translations of documents captured from Zarqawi's Al Qaeda-in-Iraq ("AQIZ") that were captured in an April 16 raid. Coming on the heels of Gen. Barry McCaffery's assessment (see here and here) of the war from the US perspective, it's interesting to see almost a complete mirror image of the strengths and weaknesses of the other side and the lessons we can draw therefrom in determining how to sufficiently demoralize the enemy to bring about a decision by the other side to throw in the towel and move its resources elsewhere

The captured documents reveal that Al Qaeda has essentially given up on military victory, instead foccusing on

a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them.

His conclusion:

This is such an obvious point that it's amazing it needs to be repeated: the United States can only be defeated by bad press.

Fortunately for Al Qaeda, our press is pretty bad. I'm sure if political pressure leads to a premature withdrawal from Iraq and a bloody fracturing of the nascent Iraqi government, members of our press corps will sleep easy at night in the knowledge that their negativity had nothing to do with the unpleasant consequences.

Protein Wisdom

I've added Jeff Goldstein's Protein Wisdom to my blogroll. He's sometimes profane, often profound, frequently funny and always bizarre. Or he's all four at once.

His thoughts on the constitution prompted me to make the addition.

I must say, the steamed dumpling has a point, there at the end.

billy madison

If bankruptcy judges get to do this, I want to be a bankruptcy judge. It's the funniest footnote since footnote four.

via Ace of Spades

I be back

Ok, so it's been a long while. I've been a bit busy, and when I'm busy I tend to prioritize my reading over my writing.

Speaking of reading, read this. If there's one thing that everybody needs to learn about economics, it's that the conventional wisdom is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're hearing a liberal spouting the Democratic party line or a conservative spouting the Republican party line--either way, it's a pretty good bet that what you're hearing is flawed logic. Our politicians love to take credit for good economic news and shift blame for bad news, but the dirty little secret is that politicians have precious little ability to control the overall state of the economy.

What can they control? They can make sure that government isn't spending more money than it is taking in. They can break down (or erect) regulatory barriers to trade. That's about it. Conservatives have been marginally better than liberals in regards to trade regulation, but both sides of the aisle are having problems grasping the concept that budgets are supposed to be balanced.

Anyway, read the whole thing--I like seeing everybody's ox get gored.

I'll give you something to worry about

Mark Steyn:

What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep.

So Steyn does his best to wake us up. Looking for a really depressing way to start the new year? Need something to worry about? Try reading this: Mark Steyn on Cultural Death by Demographics. If you can slog your way through to the end of that one, tackle this as well: James Lileks on Mark Steyn on Cultural Death by Demographics. Here's the short version, excerpted from Steyn's article:

When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is.

What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant?

The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, "Racism!" To fret about what proportion of the population is "white" is grotesque and inappropriate. But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Not good.

I'm not joking--that truly was the short version. I would elaborate on Steyn's view of the problem, but there's not much left to say.

On the other hand, there's plenty to say about how best to solve the problem. I'm in the middle of reading Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett isn't writing about the demographic issues that Steyn identifies, but I think his analysis of America's current foreign policy challenges may be useful in understanding how to defuse Steyn's demographic time-bomb. As the Amazon.com review states, "Barnett calls globalization 'this country’s gift to history' and explains why its wide dissemination is critical to the security of not only America but the entire world." If we can't out-breed the enemies of our culture, our only hope is to export our culture faster than they can export their excess populations. Globalization is our Trojan horse. Or possibly it's our Trojan rabbit. I suppose we'll know if it was a horse or a rabbit in half a century or so...