Sigue sin funcionar y perdimos todos los posts y comentarios desde ayer. Espero que se recupere.
Me parece que llegó el momento de pasarnos definitivamente a WordPress.
Sigue sin funcionar y perdimos todos los posts y comentarios desde ayer. Espero que se recupere.
Me parece que llegó el momento de pasarnos definitivamente a WordPress.
Cuánta razón que tienen. Pero no se preocupen, esta vez, en la versión montonera, seguro que termina bien (visto en Sine Metu).
No se pierdan esta representación gráfica de todos los vuelos sobre el territorio de EEUU en un día cualquiera. Honestamente impresionante.
Parece mentira, pero hoy en día consideramos de lo más normal del mundo el hecho de tomar un avión y viajar miles de kilómetros (visto en Johan Norberg).
Como comentaba hace unos meses, creo que los argentinos deberíamos seguir con mucha atención experimentos como los de Zimbabwe. La situación de ese país africano se viene deteriorando desde hace años, pero aparentemente aumentó la velocidad del colapso. El país está viviendo una hiperinflación (visto en Instapundit).
Ya que aparentemente no aprendemos de los errores (u horrores) del pasado, tal vez nos sirva prestar atención a los resultados más extremos en el mundo real de las políticas que aplicamos en el país:
The trigger of this crisis — hyperinflation — reached an annual rate of 1,281 percent this month, and has been near or over 1,000 percent since last April. Hyperinflation has bankrupted the government, left 8 in 10 citizens destitute and decimated the country’s factories and farms.
Pay increases have so utterly failed to keep pace with price increases that some Harare workers now complain that bus fare to and from work consumes their entire salaries.
—-
Seeking to revive farm production, for example, the government sells gasoline to farmers at a bargain rate of 330 Zimbabwe dollars per liter — and farmers promptly resell it on the black market for 10 times that, leaving their fields idle.
Mr. Mugabe, who blames a Western plot against him for Zimbabwe’s problems, has rejected all calls for economic reform. The government refuses to devalue Zimbabwe’s dollar, which fetches only 5 to 10 percent of its official value on the thriving black market. As a result, foreign exchange to buy crucial imported goods like spare parts and fertilizer has effectively dried up.
—-
The central bank’s latest response to these problems, announced this week, was to declare inflation illegal. From March 1 to June 30, anyone who raises prices or wages will be arrested and punished. Only a “firm social contract” to end corruption and restructure the economy will bring an end to the crisis, said the reserve bank governor, Gideon Gono.
Muy interesante, de Reason. Yo personalmente estoy convencido de que la libertad incluye fundamentalmente la libertad de equivocarnos en nuestras elecciones:
Is social stigma a threat to liberty, or is it liberty in action?
It’s the debate that won’t die: the endless face-off between conservatives and libertarians over the tension between liberty and morality. In his foreword to the 1998 anthology Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate-much of it composed of essays from the 1950s and ’60s-editor George W. Carey described it as the main fault line dividing the two philosophies.
In Carey’s words, conservatives “believe that shared values, morals, and standards, along with accepted traditions, are necessary for the order and stability of society” and that some restrictions on individual freedom, including censorship, may be needed to preserve this social cohesion. Most libertarians, he continued, share the conservatives’ alarm about the “erosion of both public and private virtues” but regard individual liberty as the highest value and free choice as the prerequisite for true virtue.
So far, so good. But beyond rejecting moral enforcement by government, what is the libertarian view of moral and cultural standards upheld by a voluntary social consensus? Some conservatives accuse libertarians of treating all shared values or conventions with contempt.
Más para la perrada. Kirchner “advierte” a funcionarios de EEUU. Una vez más, esa especie de versión potenciada del macho latino, el Macho Argento, se impone al yanki mantequita y llorón.
Más del tema de Carlos en BlogBis.
Insisto, vivimos en una sociedad donde los gestos y los símbolos son mucho más importantes que los hechos. Y así nos va.
Jorge Oviedo sobre la grosera manipulación de las estadísticas de la Nueva Argentina. Yo creo que hace rato que el país ingresó a pleno al reino del pensamiento mágico. Con el episodio del INDEC sencillamente hemos dejado de disimular y reconocemos abiertamente que la realidad no nos interesa:
La inédita intervención política de los índices de precios puede tener como consecuencia inmediata no sólo que los datos dejen de ser confiables sino, además, que quienes son encuestados para producir estadísticas mientan, como una maniobra de defensa propia.
El Gobierno no sólo ya no garantiza el secreto estadístico, como exige la ley, sino que las oficinas de los técnicos son intervenidas y se impide el acceso a sus responsables, mientras personas ajenas revisan la información producida, que luego es sometida, como en la última medición del IPC, a una suerte de comité político, que decide qué es lo que hay que difundir.

Un clásico. Los rectores de cuatro universidades de la provincia, las de Sherbrooke, Laval, McGill y Montreal, se quejan amargamente porque no les alcanzan los fondos. Por supuesto, la exigencia es que se ponga el gobierno de la provincia – es decir, nosotros los contribuyentes – de salir a buscarlos ellos mismos ni hablar.
Si bien es cierto que la cantidad de alumnos aumentó considerablemente, yo creo que el problema está directamente relacionado al hecho de que los aranceles universitarios fueron congelados a mediados de los 90 y en la actualidad alcanzan cifras irrisorias.
Estos suelen ser los resultados de las distorsiones que genera el estado. Creo que no hace falta explicar en detalle que la manera más eficiente de fomentar el consumo de un producto es mantener el precio artificialmente bajo.
Mientras el G.K. Butterfield musita sin sentido sabe Dios que, el legislador a la derecha se encuentra completamente abstraido en hacer que los verdaderos problemas vean finalmente la luz del dia.
visto en HotAir
Más sobre la crisis del maíz en México, esta vez de Ricardo Medina Macías. No hay caso, no aprendemos más. ¡Muerte los especuladores!
Hay de calores a calores. Una cosa, por ejemplo, es el “calentamiento global”, nueva versión del cataclismo cósmico dizque causado por el progreso (la mejor recomendación que he oído para combatir ese demonio es bañarse con agua fría, como dicen que hace Al Gore), y otra cosa, muy distinta, es el calorcito antiliberal: esa sensación de amparo, como de vientre materno, que nos prometen si nos abandonamos confiados al cuidado de los bondadosos gobiernos.

Señores y señores, y por qué no lactántricos, se viene el fin de semana y, en format original, je rentre a Montréal.
A propósito de este post de Louis.
Ironically, playing around with Vista for more than a month has done what years of experience and exhortations from Mac-loving friends could not: it has converted me into a Mac fan.
Erika Jonietz, Technology Review.
Un ponderable del sistema legal americano, the junk lawsuit, no conoce límites. Ahora le toca el turno a otra industria que produce un producto sumamente dañino y peligroso: la automotriz.

Ayer tuve la oportunidad de usar por primera vez una PC nueva con Windows Vista. Yo por ahora sigo con XP, no vale la pena pagar los casi 180 pesitos para hacer el upgrade.
Parece mentira, pero aparentemente cuanto más avanzada es la versión de Windows, más se parece al Mac OS. Cada día me convenzo más de que Apple tenía el mejor producto por lejos, pero se mandaron una macana muy grande con su comercialización.
Y dale con el “calentamiento”. Insisto con lo que vengo diciendo por acá. La ciencia no es una cuestión de consensos. Una teoría es más o menos válida no porque haya mucha gente que esté de acuerdo en su validez sino porque sus postulados, las predicciones que hace, se cumplen una y otra vez independientemente de quién los estudie:
Of the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and dangerous than in fields of environmental science.
But a more ominous practice has arisen which empowers these special interests to adapt and summarize already compromised research to further fit the desired “consensus” before presenting it as fact to an eager media. This travesty of methodology is brought to you by the folks at the United Nations.

Ted Turner sobre el maravilloso paraíso terrenal de Corea del Norte. No se puede creer.
Me pregunto honestamente qué tiene que pasar, cuanta gente tiene que morir para que tanto zanguango que anda dando vuelta por ahí saque la cabeza del ano y se de cuenta de las barbaridades que defienden en su arrechura ideológica.
(Enviado por Liberty Bell Kim)
Excelente columna de Goldberg sobre el calentamiento global:
Global cooling costs too much
By Jonah Goldberg – Los Angeles Times
February 8, 2007
PUBLIC POLICY is all about trade-offs. Economists understand this better than politicians because voters want to have their cake and eat it too, and politicians think whatever is popular must also be true.
Economists understand that if we put a chicken in every pot, it might cost us an aircraft carrier or a hospital. We can build a hospital, but it might come at the expense of a little patch of forest. We can protect a wetland, but that will make a new school more expensive.
You get it already. But let me just add that in the great scheme of trade-offs in the history of humanity, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity. The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800% is unknowable, but let’s stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious). That’s still an amazing bargain. Life spans in the United States nearly doubled (from 44 to 77 years). Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.
Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I’d take the heat in a heartbeat. Of course, warming might get more expensive for us. (And we might do a lot better than 1,800% too.) There are tipping points in every sphere of life, and what cost us little in the 20th century could cost us enormously in the 21st — at least that’s what we’re told. And boy, are we told. Al Gore has a new incarnation as the host of an apocalyptic infomercial on the subject, complete with fancy renderings of New York City underwater.
Skeptics like me are heckled for calling attention to the fear-mongering that suffuses global warming activism. But the simple fact is that the activists need to hype the threat, and not just because that’s what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money — bidding starts at 1% of global GDP a year and rises quickly — they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.
Even so, the costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we’d barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that “it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century” to beat back global warming.
Thirty Kyotos! That’s going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.
A more persuasive cost-benefit analysis hinges not on prophecies of environmental doom but on geopolitics. We buy too much oil from places we shouldn’t, which makes us dependent on nasty regimes and makes those regimes nastier. Environmentalists like to claim the “energy independence” issue, but it’s not a neat fit. We could be energy independent soon enough with coal and nuclear power. But coal contributes to global warming, and nuclear power is icky. So, instead, we’re going to massively subsidize the government-brewed moonshine called ethanol. Here again, the benefits barely outweigh the costs. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as it provides, and the costs to the environment and the economy may be staggering.
Frankly, I don’t think the trade-off is worth it — yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time. Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today’s costs. What technologies? I don’t know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we’ll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden’s mouth.
The fact is we can’t afford to fix global warming right now — in part because poor countries want to get rich too. And rich countries, where the global warming debate is settled, are finding even the first of 30 Kyotos too fiscally onerous. There are no solutions in the realm of the politically possible. So why throw trillions of dollars into “remedies” that even their proponents concede won’t solve the problem?