The Token Reader

Thought Surveillance Agency

2006-08-17T00:12:00.000-07:00

That's what the TSA wishes their abbreviation stood for apparently. Both fortunately and unfortunately, their goals are (at least currently) pseudoscientific pipe dreams. Via Scaramouche, we find that the TSA wants to start polygraphing everyone before letting them through security. To shamelessly reappropriate Wolfgang Pauli's infamous remark, it's so bad it's not even wrong. I don't even know where to begin with why such a system is a bad idea. So let's just start at the top of this disorganized mess of a WSJ article:

With one hand inserted into a sensor that monitors physical responses, the travelers used the other hand to answer questions on a touch screen about their plans. A machine measured biometric responses -- blood pressure, pulse and sweat levels -- that then were analyzed by software. The idea was to ferret out U.S. officials who were carrying out carefully constructed but make-believe terrorist missions.

Oh, yeah, that's going to work great for testing and calibrating a system designed to catch actual terrorists. 'Cause everyone knows a TSA employee running a security test will have the same kind of psychological response to the prospect of being caught as will a terrorist. I'm sorry, but "stupid" doesn't even begin to describe that assumption. (In all seriousness, sometimes what seems silly at first can be true, so I'm willing to be empirically convinced that this is a valid inference. But just assuming it is downright retarded.) Continuing:

The trial of the Israeli-developed system represents an effort by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to determine whether technology can spot passengers who have "hostile intent."

So basically, they want to know if you have "hate in [your] heart" when you get on a plane to, say, visit family that you hate or go on a business trip to meet with that sombitch David Nelson. Now on to the buzzwords:

In effect, the screening system attempts to mechanize Israel's vaunted airport-security process by using algorithms, artificial-intelligence software and polygraph principles.

Here's a handy-dandy translation guide. "Algorithms" = "computer program". "Artificial-intelligence software" = "marketing bullshit that means no such thing (yet)". And "polygraph principles" = "pseudoscience, intimidation, and wishful thinking". We're not even halfway done yet:

The test alone signals a push for new ways to combat terrorists using technology. Authorities are convinced that beyond hunting for weapons and dangerous liquids brought on board airliners, the battle for security lies in identifying dangerous passengers.

Wow, what brilliant insight by the authorities. Who would have ever thought that stopping terrorists might involve trying to, you know, identify terrorists? As to the bit of techno-worship, technology is a tool like any other. Or rather, a "tool" is just "technology" that's been around a long time.

The method isn't intended to catch specific lies, says Shabtai Shoval, chief executive of Suspect Detection Systems, the start-up business behind the technology dubbed Cogito. "What we are looking for are patterns of behavior that indicate something all terrorists have: the fear of being caught," he says.

Using polygraphs for something other than catching specific lies is when they're at they're absolute worst, at least according to reputable sources like the National Academies of Sciences (the full executive summary is available free here). The short version is, the less precise the questions the less clear it is to what exactly you are measuring a response. I'll come back to this in a bit. Just keep in mind Mr. Shoval's statement that they are looking for "fear of being caught," i.e., nervousness.

Security specialists say such technology can enhance, but not replace, existing detection machines and procedures.

Finally, some sanity! But it doesn't last long:

Some independent experts who are familiar with Mr. Shoval's product say that while his technology isn't yet mature, it has potential. "You can't replicate the Israeli system exactly, but if you can incorporate its philosophy, this technology can be one element of a better solution," says Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, chief executive of Asero Worldwide consulting firm and a former senior official in Israel's security service.

Let's skip over whether "the Israeli system" is desirable, since any mention of Israel is bound to piss someone off. Instead, let's focus on the fact that for an "independent expert" they talk to the CEO of a company that is in part a security technology marketing firm. From ASERO Worldwide's mission statement:

Helping market emerging companies producing innovative technologies whose potential has not yet been realized in the homeland security market and providing a consultancy service to the venture capital market oriented specifically to the homeland security sector.

Yeah, real impartial. ASERO also refers to APCO Worldwide, the propaganda firm that brought us TASSC (and probably Steve Milloy, based on his astroturf organization's co-location with TASSC before they collapsed), as a "partner." Just sayin'. Back to the article:

To date, the TSA has more confidence in people than machines to detect suspicious behavior. A small program now is using screening officers to watch travelers for suspicious behavior. "It may be the only thing I know of that favors the human solution instead of technology," says TSA chief Kip Hawley.

Kip must have a really depressing sex life.

Here is the Cogito concept: A passenger enters the booth, swipes his passport and responds in his choice of language to 15 to 20 questions generated by factors such as the location, and personal attributes like nationality, gender and age. The process takes as much as five minutes, after which the passenger is either cleared or interviewed further by a security officer.

At the heart of the system is proprietary software that draws on Israel's extensive field experience with suicide bombers and security-related interrogations. The system aims to test the responses to words, in many languages, that trigger psycho-physiological responses among people with terrorist intent.

Don't you just love how "proprietary" is so often said like it's a good thing? "Proprietary" means you don't know shit about what it really does, like with Diebold and ES&S voting machines. As to what it's looking for, just how the hell do you determine what words evoke those responses in terrorists but not in other people?

The technology isn't geared toward detecting general nervousness: Mr. Shoval says terrorists often are trained to be cool and to conceal stress.

Remember how I told you to keep in mind that this is supposed to detect "fear of getting caught"? I suppose you could parse that as being distinct from general nervousness, but I'll just let you ponder how Mr. Shoval's explanation isn't supposed to apply to his earlier statement.

Unlike a standard lie detector, the technology analyzes a person's answers not only in relation to his other responses but also those of a broader peer group determined by a range of security considerations. "We can recognize patterns for people with hostile agendas based on research with Palestinians, Israelis, Americans and other nationalities in Israel," Mr. Shoval says. "We haven't tried it with Chinese or Iraqis yet." In theory, the Cogito machine could be customized for specific cultures, and questions could be tailored to intelligence about a specific threat.

Call me cynical, but I just know the customization would be shamelessly misused, especially behind the cloak of "proprietary software."

The biggest challenge in commercializing Cogito is reducing false results that either implicate innocent travelers or let bad guys slip through.

Right, because what's important isn't whether it works but whether it's commercially successful.

Mr. Shoval's company has conducted about 10 trials in Israel, including tests in which control groups were given terrorist missions and tried to beat the system. In the latest Israeli trial, the system caught 85% of the role-acting terrorists, meaning that 15% got through, and incorrectly identified 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats, according to corporate marketing materials.

And this has what to do with its reliability in catching actual terrorists or distinguishing them from the general population?

The company's goal is to prove it can catch at least 90% of potential saboteurs -- a 10% false-negative rate -- while inconveniencing just 4% of innocent travelers.

Okay, math time. What percentage of people "caught" by the system would actually be terrorists, even generously granting these numbers? Well, let's make the very generous (to Mr. Shoval) assumption that 1 in 100,000 people boarding planes in the US are terrorists (that's a ridiculously high 600+ a month based on these BTS statistics). Crunching the numbers, that's roughly 540 terrorists flagged each month, compared to 2,400,000 innocent people. So about 1 in 4500 people flagged by the system (or 0.02%) would actually be terrorists -- if it works as well as the company would like. Fewer terrorists makes these numbers even worse. Oh, yes, and 60 terrorists would still get through.

Even though his expertise is in human observation, U.S. behavior-recognition expert Dr. Ekman says projects like Cogito deserve a shot. He expects technology to advance even further, to devices like lasers that measure people's vital signs from a distance. Within a year, he predicts, such technology will be able to tell whether someone's "blood pressure or heart rate is significantly higher than the last 10 people" who entered an airport.

That's it, we are now officially living in a Philip K. Dick novel.

What takes precedence over blogging?

2006-07-30T23:12:00.000-07:00

How about this:

Your Token Reader has been indisposed for the past few weeks, busy depriving himself of sleep observing RS Ophiuchi. Admittedly, it's nothing special to look at, but in my defense I think I have good reasons to obsess over it instead of blogging, eating, or sleeping. Specifically:

it's a cataclysmic variable star that explodes in a thermonuclear nova every 20 years or so, most recently this past February
it's an overlapping binary system, with the white dwarf so close to the red giant that they share an atmosphere
it's building toward a type Ia supernova only 2000 light-years away (don't worry, it won't kill us)
the red giant in the system will probably eventually become a Mira variable that will expand and contract to only periodically dump matter on the white dwarf
it is very under-studied so far (IMHO), so there is still a lot to discover about it
it just plain rocks (no cite needed as this is self-evident)

There, now doesn't that sound more appealing than reading about Hezbollah doing the same old shit, Israel going on a glennocidal 'roid rage, and Congress ganging up on young girls in abusive families?

Why I Love The Bay Area

2006-07-05T23:17:00.000-07:00

Because you can get microbrews at the 7-11.

That is all.

Independence Day Patriotic 10

2006-07-04T20:42:00.000-07:00

Wingnuts might disagree with my characterization, but real patriotism isn't blind nationalism, it's working to better the country, uphold its (theoretical) ideals, and fight against the people fucking it up. Admittedly, the list is somewhat limited in variety, since I'm only including music on my iPod:

Dead Kennedys - "Stars and Stripes of Corruption"
A Perfect Circle - "Freedom of Choice"
Anti-Flag - "911 for Peace"
Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Fortunate Son"
Pennywise - "Land of the Free?"
Radiohead - "2 + 2 = 5"
Bad Religion - "You Are (The Government)"
System of a Down - "Boom!"
Pink Floyd - "The Fletcher Memorial Home"
Nine Inch Nails - "The Hand That Feeds"

Bonus spoken word -- "Die for Oil, Sucker":

And an updated version (sadly cut off at the beginning):

Posting for Peace

2006-07-04T17:47:00.000-07:00

Too often, I believe, peace is defined in terms of the absence of something. The absence of war, the absence of violence, the absence of hostility. But this is deeply unsatisfying. War and violence are obviously things to avoid, but why is peace something worth working toward? Just what does peace mean?

Peace means the freedom to live your life.

Peace means harmony with your fellow human beings.

Peace means young men and women learning or building families instead of fighting and dying.

Peace means understanding each other's differences.

Peace means more resources to solve the world's problems.

Peace means empathy, compassion, and humanity.

And above all, peace means hope for the future.

Fireworks!

2006-07-04T17:25:00.000-07:00

Screw the fireworks shows tonight, this is some real Fourth of July pyromania:

Case In Point On Official Prayer

2006-07-03T16:08:00.000-07:00

As though right on cue, here's a concrete example of exactly what is so harmful about official prayer (h/t Pharyngula and Seeing The Forest):

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from "state-sponsored religion."

The behavior of the Indian River School District board suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless.

The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an "environment of religious exclusion" and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.

I'm sure Matt will tell us that this is harmless and anyone who fights against it is (or at least looks like) some kind of extremist, since, after all, if you can get so riled up about something so minor, you must be on the fringe. Of course, it should be obvious what an outrage this actually is. And if that didn't get your attention, maybe the death threats and eliminationist rhetoric will:

On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.

The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."

A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state."

A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.

The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north."

In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby. [emphasis added]

As Ed Brayton observes, "If even 10% of the allegations in this case are correct, it's one of the most outrageous cases I've ever seen." This is exactly why religion needs to be kept entirely out of government; not only is it oppressive in its own right, but it approves - even encourages - lynch-mob intimidation in the wider community.

See also Bartholomew's Notes On Religion for some background.

This is a Christian blog now?

2006-07-03T08:20:00.000-07:00

Well, no, not really, but I was very amused by this Technorati trackback:

A pity it looks like they've since removed the link. I guess they figured the dick joke was a little un-Christian. (True fact: I found the location of that passage by thumbing through my dog-eared and underlined paper Bible. Some heathen I am.)

I don't know weather to laugh or cry

2006-07-02T21:42:00.000-07:00

Actually, I'm pretty sure "curl up in a corner and bang my head against the wall while drinking heavily" is the most appropriate response to this (h/t Sadly, No!):

So, to recap - America is currently at war and its enemies are domestic liberals and The New York Times. This war was started by Al Gore and Jimmy Carter when they opposed the invasion of Iraq. The New York Times is allied with Al Qaeda and their latest plot against America is to provide their terrorist friends with a roadmap to the vacation homes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld so that they can be assassinated. That is what is being reported today by three of the largest "conservative" blogs on the Internet, along with Horowitz, the leader of the conservative effort to wipe out anti-conservative bias on college campuses.

Teh funny, no? More like teh scary:

Another upstanding, patriotic blogger -- after linking to the blog which posted the address of the Times photographer -- has now posted this:
So, in the school of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.

Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?

Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the golden ring.
He's urging people to find the names and addresses of New York Times editors and reporters in order to "hunt them down and do America a favor." And he said that right after he posted the link to the address of the Times photographer. And this is just the beginning of this syndrome, not the end.

Open incitement to terrorism like this scares the bejesus out of me, because as history has shown, they will act on it. And make no mistake, Malkin, Assrocket, and Horowitz know exactly what they're doing (Horowitz in particular -- he's always been a pro-terrorist authoritarian, with political affiliations depending on who is most friendly to this) in agitating the less weasly fascists (if the jackboot fits...) toward open instigation of violence. True, I can't help but be amused at how the trolls in Greenwald's comments (especially the aptly-named "dipshit") go far beyond his jokes and show that they are truly beyond satire (good for a few hearty laughs is dipshit's 'observation' that "With all Clinton's blabbering about how bad the USA is anytime he goes overseas, do you think Al-Qaeda has him in their sights? [links obviously added]"). But that does nothing to make this any less frightening.

UPDATE (23:11): Okay, one more thing. I really can't let this bullshit from Clay-Eating White Trash (credit to Retardeau Montablan for the moniker) go unremarked:

Disclosing national secrets is a criminal offense. The AG and the US Attorneys should not only consider charges, but file charges against the individuals who participated in the publication of stories - the government employees that told the reporters, the reporters, the editors, and even Pinch himself. [emphasis added]

Like hell it is. The US, thank "Bob", doesn't have an Official Secrets Act (yet):

There is no such law called the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.

And it's a good thing, too. The NBC story "made it sound as if we already had an Official Secrets Act in this country," leaker par excellence Daniel Ellsberg told Secrecy News.

A congressional measure to legislate a generalized statutory prohibition against unauthorized disclosures of any classified information was vetoed by President Clinton on November 4, 2000 in response to widespread opposition from media outlets, civil liberties organizations and others.

But the misapprehension persists.

I wonder why that might be. Dana Priest gets it, and it's glorious watching her verbally bitch-slap Bill Bennet over this on Press The Meat. William Safire (!) comparing the Bush Administration and their allies like Bennet (especially Peter King) to King George II is just the icing on the cake.

Matthew Yglesias: Wanker of the Day

2006-06-30T00:32:00.000-07:00

Well, he did ask for it:

At the risk of being made the wanker of the day, I thought Nathan Newman made several good points about Barak Obama. To make a more general point, while I appreciate blogospheric concern about re-enforcing conservative talking points, at the same time it's obviously the case that liberals aren't going to be able to improve either our electoral performance or our policy performance if people aren't going to be allowed to criticize what they see as broad tendencies in progressive politics. To make a more specific point, on the particular issue of allowing prayer or other religious gestures in official facilities and at official events, I tend to agree with what Obama is saying here -- that liberals should ease up on this. [emphasis added]

You know, for a philosopher by training, that is some really sloppy fucking thinking. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that there's a world of difference between "in official facilities" and "at official events," especially with the later clarification that, yes, he really does mean officially led and directed prayer.

OK, so Matt churned out some bone-stupid wankery in between his usually sharp wonkery; what else is new? Gotta keep up those contrarian and moderate credentials after all. I could just leave this at some snark, but for the benefit of those of you who grew up completely isolated from society (or were born yesterday), I'll point out just why his assertion that there is "no harm" in this is so hopelessly, stupidly, mind-numbingly wrong.

Let's start with the most clear-cut case of direct harm: schools. School is an official event children are required to attend*, so there is no opt-out cop-out here. Now, to avoid being accused of a straw man (who am I kidding, nobody reads this), let's say instead of an unconstitutional-since-the-50s forced mass prayer in class, it's at the pep rally (which, let me assure you from experience, is often just as mandatory as class). So you shamble on down there, sit down, and the principal leads the whole school in a ~~non-denominational~~ ~~Judeo-Christian~~ ~~Christian~~ Protestant prayer (credit where credit is due: Matt did at least recognize "non-denominational" prayer for what it is). Say you're an atheist, or that you're Muslim or Jewish or Wiccan. What is the clear, unambiguous message the government is now officially sending you? That you don't belong, that you're not a full member of society, that there's something wrong with your beliefs. Wait, you know what? Someone said the meaning of this far better than I ever could:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

And this takes us directly to how it is injurious when officially sanctioned in any capacity: it sends the clear message, exactly the message desired by those promoting this, to all Americans that part of being American is being Christian (specifically, Protestant). Therefore, if you aren't Christian, you aren't really a "true" American. It's officially sanctioned bigotry and marginalization of religious minorities, nothing less.

I really can't see why this is so hard for some people to grep. Same goes for the distinction between officially led/sanctioned prayer and use of official facilities (assuming the facilities are available on a neutral basis -- and I don't just mean religiously neutral). I think a lot of people just deliberately ignore the bleeding obvious, or don't give a shit. One tangential observation about a common defense of officially mandated prayer and other obvious violations of the Establishment Clause, specifically the argument that it's simply a recognition of our country having an overwhelming Protestant majority and so it simply reflects the people: there is some definite fascist thinking lurking in there. I am talking not about Nazi thinking, but Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism:

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

That spells out the motivation. Here's the thinking behind it being alright because it reflects the People:

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. [emphasis added]

The theme, of course, is that the People are monolithic, that the Will of the People and that of one of the people must be the same, or at least cannot (must not) differ in important ways. The exact same argument for official prayer or "one nation, under god"/"In God We Trust" applies (almost) equally well to this Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one white, homophobic nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The only thing that doesn't perfectly analogize is the racial component, since you really can't be coerced to change your race like you can be coerced to (publicly) change what you believe or who you love (though you can't be coerced to truly change either). And you've got to admit, this version really shows how farcical the ending is.

As for Obama, from what I read of his speech, he didn't say anything quite as stupid as Yglesias, and did stick to use of official facilities. However, if he is strictly speaking about that, he's using a right-wing fundamentalist talking point to demagogue against a liberal straw-man. A small part of an otherwise generally good speech, but still. And a lot of what he said also had a strong Manichean (in the original sense of the term) feel to it. So, to paraphrase George Carlin, "Fuck Barak Obama! Fuck him with a big rubber dick. Then break it off and beat him with the rest of it."

*Please, no one spout bullshit about private schools or homeschooling -- most parents don't have near the resources for either.

Glad I didn't promise anything...

2006-05-23T16:48:00.000-07:00

What can I say? Real life got in the way of blogging. I should be able to get back into things for most of the summer, though, once I settle back down in the Bay Area. In the meantime, here are some pictures from my deliberately extended drive back from Walla².

How thoughtful of CalTrans to let us know

Squaw "Creek" Falls, near Sisters, OR

The view from the top, sitting right next to the falls

The Metolius River, and why I love having an SLR

No, you aren't overlooking the stream those falls are from -- they come straight out of the hillside

For those who know me, and therefore would never believe it, here's proof that I started my hike at 7AM

Update (5/28): Flikr images were broken. Now they're fixed... I hope.

Here I come back from the dead

2006-03-29T17:35:00.000-08:00

I have been a bad, bad blogger going on an unannounced two-month hiatus. What can I say, I was temporarily driven into unholy madness by my occult studies here at Miskatonic U. Posting will be irregular and infrequent, and I'm not promising anything in case I get distracted again (very likely), but I'm at least kinda sorta back. Besides, I owe y'all for not blogging over spring break, so even though I said no promises, I just might have to blog about Juan Cole's lecture here next week.

Gulf War (II) Syndrome

2006-01-26T17:45:00.000-08:00

Your Token Reader spent this afternoon wandering the depths of Miskatonic University's occult building, searching for the fabled Necronomicon. Though he has yet to find that unholy tome, he did stumble upon knowledge nearly as disturbing: a three-month-old issue of Science News (vol. 168, no. 17) that has mysteriously remained (to this reader's knowledge) unremarked-upon, perhaps because it has driven all previous readers into shrill, unholy madness. This cursed booklet told of a parasitic disease afflicting wounded Iraq (and Afghanistan) war veterans, a disease that had spread to kill some who were never overseas. Here, without further comment, is the tale of this war's Gulf War Syndrome (though I take no responsibility for insanity that may follow, and if the AAAS complains I'll take it down):

BIOMEDICINE
Iraq war casualties often complicated

Hundreds of injured soldiers returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan harbor an unusual bacterium that complicates their wound healing and may be spreading to other patients in hospitals where the soldiers are treated, a new study shows. Moreover, the microbe seems to be lingering in soldiers, cropping up during rehabilitation care recieved months after they have returned to the United States.
Paul M. Scott, a physician at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, Md., and his colleagues isolated the bacterium, called Acinetobacter baumannii, from 148 wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan between November 2002 and September 2003. Since then, more than 100 additional wounded combatants have been diagnosed with A. baumannii.
Many of the A. baumannii strains found in these soldiers don't match those occurring naturally in Iraqi soil, Scott notes. Their origins are "murky," he says.
A. baumannii can cause pneumonia and infect the urinary tract and blood, says Walter E. Stamm, a physician at the University of Washington in Seattle and president of the Infectious Disease Society of America.
The infection also slows wound healing. It responds to antibiotic treatment, and none of the combat casualties so far has died from the infection. However, 18 people in the United States and Germany who weren't in active service but were being treated in the same hospitals as the wounded soldiers who have also been found to be infected with A. baumannii. Five of these other patients have died, Scott says.
Richard O. Oehler, a physician at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital in Tampa, Fla., reports that seven of the nine wounded soldiers admitted there for rehabilitation between June 2004 and January 2005 harbored A. baumannii strains that were resistant to certain commonly used antibiotics. One soldier has died, and the others have recovered.
"This is an unusual bacterium that has not been seen frequently as a cause of disease in U.S. hospitals," Stamm says. "Once it's introduced into a hospital, it can be difficult to get rid of." —N.S.

Busy, busy, busy

2006-01-19T11:33:00.000-08:00

Not the blog. I'm just really busy now, so the Token Reader will probably only be blogging on a weekly basis or so. Nothing this past weekend, since I was off getting burried head-first up to my ankles in snow under a pile of a half dozen people (sled accident). You can see the aftermath here:

I survived the Oregon Trail!

2006-01-12T23:39:00.000-08:00

And that's about the best I can say. All I'm gonna tell you is that I will NEVER complain about the roads or the weather anywhere in California ever again. That and I have a small vocabulary lesson for y'all:

White-knuckle driving: n. 1. Extreme, potentially fatal driving conditions with no opportunities to pull over and stop. 2. Driving I-5 through Oregon at night in rain so hard you want to crank the windshield wipers up to 11, near-freezing temperatures, and winding mountains with potholes bigger than wheels (no joke) and three-trailer trucks to dodge. (See 1)

On the plus side, gas in Oregon was only around $2.20 a gallon and full-serve is required by law there. Plus, I think I got some nice pictures from along the Columbia River. As long as I didn't screw them up too bad (I'm still getting used to my new SLR) I'll post some once I get them developed.

Oh, yeah, one other thing. There really ought to be a law of nature preventing hangovers without the requisite intoxication, but apparently there isn't. I woke up yesterday with what may have been my worst hangover ever, and I hadn't had a drop of alcohol (or a toke of pot, or anything else) for two days. It seems a 12-hour drive from San Francisco to Portland will do that. Fair warning for anyone thinking about repeating my stupidity.

Not to say "I told you so," but...

2006-01-07T14:18:00.000-08:00

I told you so:

Not only will a future administration have to kill human space exploration when it becomes clear we're pissing away billions of dollars for no good reason, but in the meantime they're going to have to pretend they aren't just charging it to the national debt, and that means delaying, scaling back, or abandoning useful parts of the space program.

In fact, it turns out I was far too generous to Preznit Spaceman. I never considered the possibility that the spending boondoggle of Bush's manned mission to Mars would also provide a convenient excuse to kill inconvenient research. Alas:

Triana was never able to overcome its roots. NASA has quietly terminated what may have been its most important science mission. Critics of programs to limit emissions argue that climate change is caused by solar variation, not by atmospheric changes. There is one unambiguous way to tell: locate an observatory at L-1, the neutral-gravity point between Earth and Sun. It would have a continuous view of the sunlit face of Earth in one direction, and the Sun in the other, thus constantly monitoring Earth's albedo. Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa Maria who was first to sight the New World (WN 24 Jul 98) . But Triana's importance to climate research, perhaps Earths biggest challenge, was not recognized until later. With urging from the National Academy, it was finished in 2001 and given a new name. It was still waiting to be launched when Columbia crashed. By then we had a new President and a new "vision." It was put on hold. The official reason for killing it is "competing priorities." The priority is to replace Gore's vision of the world with the Bush vision of sending people back to the moon. We should all weep.

Friday Random 10

2006-01-06T19:08:00.000-08:00

The Offspring - "Americana"
The Clash - "Red Angel Dragnet"
King Missile - "The Sandbox"
Bad Religion - "I Want to Conquer the World"
Bad Religion - "I Love My Computer"
NOFX - "American Errorist (I Hate Hate Haters)"
Tool - "Reflection"
Morphine - "Thursday"
Pennywise - "Now I Know"
Nine Inch Nails - "Just Like You Imagined"

Administrative Notes

2006-01-05T21:43:00.000-08:00

I've had a bit of catching up to do on blog maintainance, and now I've finally gotten around to it. First, the BARBARians were getting restless, so I finally added some new recruits I had failed to include thus far. Apologies on the delay to:

Two other bloggy additions:

I've been reading the indespensible firedoglake for quite some time, but never added them to my blogroll until now; shame on me.
John Gorenfeld is no longer updating Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon?, but still has great stuff at his not-really-a-blog website; I have updated the blogroll accordingly.

Finally, I've added Cryptome to the reference section, as their information on spying, counterintelligence, and privacy has proven invaluable in contextualizing the transformation of the NSA into secret police. Besides, their information on cryptography is nice to have around, and you've got to love a website that posts pictures of Darth Cheney's "undisclosed location."

I never realized dilithium was that kind of crystal

2006-01-05T21:10:00.000-08:00

With so many insignificant things taking our attention -- illegal domestic spying, corruption that would make Boss Tweed wretch with disgust, and the perpetually worsening Charlie Foxtrot that is Iraq -- I'd like to take a few moments to deal with issues that really matter:

Crackpots. New Agers. Quantum mysticism. Sadly, I'm not talking about What the #$*! Do We Know!? No, instead I'm referring to the latest stupid waste of money by the US Air Force and NASA. Put down those drinks, y'all, 'cause this is spit-take-worthy craziness that, ignoring the cost difference, puts Star Wars to shame.

Via /., it looks like the USAF and NASA have teamed up to combine the Air Farce's Project Stargate and antimatter bombs with NASA's perpetual motion machine into one unholy bundle of wastefulness and credulity: a hyperspace engine.

Now, before I get into just why this is so ridiculous, I should note that the idea of a warp drive is theoretically sound based on our current understanding of physics. The Alcubierre warp drive is the most prominent example, and others are mostly variants on the same concept. I should also say that nobody would be more thrilled than me if someone invented an actual working warp drive; I'd probably die of happiness with a big smile on my face and a soiled pair of underpants. The basic principle is simple: bypass the universal speed limit of the speed of light by not moving at all, but instead shrinking space in front of you and expanding it behind. These warp drives have difficulties of their own, such as requiring either more energy than is contained in the known universe or some source of exotic matter, but they aren't just pulled out of someone's ass.

Not so with this one. This warp drive depends on Heim theory, the completely unsupported claims of Burkhard Heim, a Nazi weapons scientist cum reclusive GUT physicist cum New Age icon. Heim actually didn't publish his theory in a scientific journal, but rather published in a book through a notorious New Age clearinghouse, Resch Verlag. Despite this, his theory actually was consistent with experimental results in particle physics for many years. The key word here, however, is "was." As measurements of particle properties have become more precise in recent decades, experimental results have diverged from Heim's predictions (unless you fudge the value and/or behavior of Newton's gravitational constant). Additionally, this leaves out the complete lack of any evidence for new particles his theory predicts, the chimerical "gravito-photon" and an electrically neutral electron, both of which would be well within the energy reach of modern experimental devices if they existed. On top of that, Heim theory is just plain wrong -- wildly wrong -- in light of more recent astrophysical discoveries, especially magnetars, which would have to be completely different if Heim's failed electrogravitics described our universe. Not so coincidentally, as Heim's claims got further from reality, they grew in prominence and support among crackpots of all stripes, especially New Agers and UFO enthusiasts (read the whole perpetual motion link above for a good example).

So then why the hell are we spending money on this nonsense? And why are USAF brass and NASA management actually buying the claim that they can have a working warp drive in five years? Simple: the 'gee-wiz' factor. It just sounds so cool, so why would they want to listen to the naysayers who babble about stuff like experimental evidence? This is doubly true when the people in charge can't tell the difference between science and science fiction, and won't listen to experts who can. After all, these guys sound all science-y and use lots of big words and complicated equations; if some other nerdy types say it's wrong, well, who's to say who's right? Balance and all that.

We now return to your irregularly scheduled programming.

Happy New Year

2006-01-04T00:29:00.000-08:00

A few days late, but happy new year anyway. I suppose I should have a few resolutions, so I have some empty promises to break in the next few weeks. Here goes:

Restrain my schadenfreude as I watch Abramoffapalooza unfold
Blog a bit more consistently
Start learning some language other than English (HTML and C++ don't count)
Get a 3.5+ GPA (minimum for honor roll)

Now, that last one might baffle some BARBARians, since you all know I'm just a slacker with too much time on my hands. But, as some of you may be aware, starting next week the Token Reader will be studying the occult at Miskatonic University in scenic R'lyeh. (Okay, not really, but I did get in to [redacted] College and will be studying astrophysics.)

One minor note of no particular interest... Other BARBARians who failed to attend Drinking Liberally tonight missed out on a real treat: legendary Moonie-hunter John Gorenfeld was in attendance. You may (or may not -- your loss) be familiar with his articles on Rev. Moon's influence in Washington, D.C., beyond the Moonie Times and UPI, particularly Bad Moon on the Rise and Hail to the Moon King (be sure to watch the video). Of course, being a physics geek, your Token Reader must confess to being partial to "Bleep" of Faith, his comprehensive and entertaining takedown of the cult-financed quantum mysticism flick What the #$*! Do We Know!?

No Coup Necessary

2005-12-27T18:09:00.000-08:00

Reading Kung Fu Monkey today, I found John's depressingly funny post Al-Quaker, in which he spells out a useful heuristic:

Good general rule: as soon as you have the military doing anything non-military, you have screwed up.

This reminds me of the Parameters (journal of the Army War College) paper I told some of you BARBARians I would post a link to, but apparently never got around to it. So, for your masochistic reading enjoyment, here it is: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. John's rule reminds me of this because one of Lt.Col. Dunlap's main points in that paper was that when the military begins doing non-military jobs (policing, drug interdiction, reconstruction, etc.), something has gone seriously awry and it will only lead to more serious problems down the road. What's particularly depressing upon re-reading that paper after the domestic spying (secret police by any other name) revelations is that the dystopia depicted (as the author emphasizes, merely a literary device) requires no military coup; as Paul Bigioni notes (via Buck at Bad Attitudes), we're well on our way there, led, as Germany and Italy were, by business, not the military.

Small reminder on the paper: it was written in 13 years ago, so any dates later than 1992 mentioned in it are extrapolations or refer to plans/suggestions/etc., not statements of fact (i.e., not all of them came to pass or didn't happen at the time stated).

How do you say "whitewash" in Russian?

2005-12-26T12:10:00.000-08:00

Just a small reminder that "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes," is not a uniquely American way of adding insult to injury: 'No mistakes', Beslan report says

In case you don't remember, here's the short version:

Chechen terrorists take a bunch of children hostage.
Russian military decides killing terrorists is more important than rescuing hostages.
Russian military pumps chemical weapons (probably fentanyl) into the school, enough to incapacitate any adults in there, which is also obviously enough to kill (by respiratory failure) most of the children. Hundreds die at the hands of their supposed rescuers. Many probably could have been saved using Narcan if doctors knew about the fentanyl, but the military, to cover their asses, wouldn't say what they used.
Paliamentary inquiry charitably finds that the military was incompetent.
Russian authorities investigate themselves, unsurprisingly find that nothing went wrong. (Why am I reminded of China Miéville's post on Hurricane Katrina, "Everything has gone according to plan"?)

Ho Ho Ho, Happy Hannukkah

2005-12-25T15:37:00.000-08:00

I have something to tell Bill "Falafel Factor" O'Reilly: you're right, there is a War on ~~Saturnalia~~ Christmas. As you constantly remind us, there is a massive conspiracy of liberal secular communist Jews, led by Jon Stewart, intent on destroying the ~~pagan solstice celebration~~ baby Jesus' birthday.

But, Mr. O'Reilly, you underestimate the deviousness of The International Jew. Why should we eliminate Christmas when we can take all the good parts? After all, presents are fun. Getting drunk and Xeroxing our butts is fun, at least if we don't get caught. Highly flammable trees wrapped in damaged electrical wires are fun. And pigging out is not only fun, it's downright Jew-y. So we have presents, we have parties, and we pig out around the Hannukkah Bush. My Jewish grandfather even used to dress up as Santa every year. (One time the Rabbi stopped by right as he was walking down the stairs in his Santa suit. After a few moments of awkward silence, he quipped "ho ho ho, Happy Hannukkah, Rabbi.")

So I'll tell you what, ~~Grinch~~ Bill. I had, as usual, a very Merry Christmas: a great dinner last night, lots of rum cut with a little egg nog, and even fun opening presents around the Hannukkah Bush. But since I did this, and I'm one of them Christmas-hating liberal secular Jews, that must not be very Christian or Christmas-y. So, since a Christian Christmas is so important to you, how about we (sane people -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, atheist, whatever) keep all these heathen debaucheries, and you can preserve the parts you find so important. Just picture it: while we're eating, drinking, and being merry, you can arrange a cheap plastic manger built for Wal-Mart by enslaved Indonesian children, you can listen to carols as vapid as they are sappy, and you can watch sacchrine made-for-TV movies about some version of Jesus' birth not found anywhere in the Bible. Oh, yes, and you can snap "bah, humbug," at anyone who wishes you a Happy Holiday. I doubt Jesus would approve, but to each his own.

And the award for Creative Use of Quotation Marks in 2005 goes to...

2005-12-23T22:02:00.000-08:00

... the BBC, for their recent headline:

Sailors 'die' after rebel clash

They only get this award, however, because Marie Jon' is disqualified in perpetuity due to a clear lack of understanding of how these inverted comma things are supposed to work. If anyone thinks someone else is more deserving, chime in, but I think this is hard to beat.

Happy Happy Joy Joy!

2005-12-23T18:04:00.000-08:00

I finally, finally, FINALLY got my internet connection working. Why'd it take so long? You try running ethernet cable through leaking walls in a storm. (Ironically, the problem leaks came from the holes drilled for the cable I use to connect.) So I'm back... again. Just in time to let everyone know I won't be able to make it to the next BARBARian Bash, or any others for a while -- it's kind of a long commute to Oakland from Washington.
That's right, my other reason for singing the Ren & Stimpy song is that your Token Reader somehow convinced a college to accept him (how? search me). So as of January 7^th, The Token Reader will no longer be a Bay Area blog, at least geographically. I say "geographically" because no matter where I live, the Bay Area will always be my home, and "The City" will always be San Francisco, you bastards.
With those administrative notes out of the way, let me just wish you all a Merry Fucking Christmas, a (C)Happy (C)Hannukkah, a belated Spaced-out Solstice, an Orgasmic Saturnalia, a Groovy Kwanzaa, a Drunken New Year, and above all else, a Disappointing Festivus.

Yes On Measure A

2005-11-07T20:42:00.000-08:00

Nobody outside San Mateo county is going to care about this, but what the hell. If you happen to live here, vote yes on Measure A. Measure A is a bond measure to pay for continuing improvements of the San Mateo community colleges (College of San Mateo, Cañada College, and Skyline College) in the form of construction and renovation - exactly the sort of investment bond measures are supposed to pay for. A lot of buildings at the community colleges, especially the labs and libraries, are sorely in need of expansion and improvement. Plus, the curriculum has expanded quite a bit over the past decade or so, especially in regards to biotech and, more recently, forensics. And it's a bargain, too: $468 million in bonds translates into (according to the "tax rate statement" from the voters' guide) about $12 per $100,000 of property value in property taxes. Of course, if this doesn't convince you, maybe you can vote yes on Measure A just to spite Libertarian Party nutcase Jack Hickey and his shameless (not to mention irrelevant) exploitation of Katrina in his argument against Measure A. Or, if you prefer, to spite his chutzpa (and that of "taxpayer" Bill Henderson) at claiming it will destroy the private sector when Art Levinson (CEO, Genentech) has signed on in support. One final note: props to my state Assembly representative, Gene Mullin, and Senator, Jackie Speier, for supporting Measure A.

I'm not dead yet

2005-11-07T20:15:00.000-08:00

I feel fine, I feel happyyyyyyy! I just wish I could say the same about my internet connection, which has been deader than W's approval rating for the past <checks watch> six days, and will be touch-and-go until at least Wednesday. Which is just perfect, since the Token Reader will be in Washington (the state where beastiality is legal, not the city to go to for tuleremia) from Thursday through Sunday. At least I got a chance to find out just how productive I can be when I can't even read blogs, let alone blog myself. Speaking of which, I'll take this opportunity to plug Slackware Linux, the first distro I've found that will install with my SATA RAID array (I installed it this past weekend). The fact that it's very UNIX-like and is named after the highest sacrament of the Church of Subgenius are just nice bonuses.

Friday Random 10

2005-10-28T20:25:00.000-07:00

Too busy for even this last week, but at least I figured out what's wrong with the iTunes shuffle - it just inserts another song between any two consecutive tracks from the same artist. Bheh! Stupid. Anyway, here's this week's:

The Dead Milkmen - "Right Wing Pigeons"
Green Day - "When I Come Around"
Bad Religion - "Operation Rescue"
Beck - "Broken Train"
Dead Kennedys - "Buzzbomb From Pasadena"
Rage Against The Machine - "Down Rodeo"
Tool - "Lateralus"
Pink Floyd - "The Great Gig In The Sky"
M.C. Hawking - "The Dozens"
Bad Religion - "The Handshake"

Some things in life are priceless

2005-10-28T19:36:00.000-07:00

For everything else, there's ol' Saint Fitz.
1 obstruction of justice: 10 years in federal pound me in the ass prison
2 false statements: 5 years each
2 instances of perjury: 5 years each
Watching the Bush malAdministation start pushing people overboard to keep the ship from sinking: priceless

Hey, Brother Christian

2005-10-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

I know I'm really late to the party here, but I can't miss an opportunity to comment on Paperwight's outstanding post on religious progressives. I'm basically in complete agreement, but the post, and the ensuing discussion, reminded me of a few tangentially related points. In no particular order:

Religious progressives: truce?
Please? I may be a positive atheist for just about any definition of "god" you might use, but I don't have a problem with other people having religious beliefs as long as they harness them in a productive way and don't force them on me (or anyone else). By "truce" I don't mean stopping disagreement - disagreement and debate are good. So I'll keep saying why I think you're mistaken, and by all means you keep saying why you think I'm mistaken. But can you at least stop accusing me of hostility toward religious people? And I'll continue to refrain from calling all religious people stupid. (However, I reserve the right to call stupidity stupid, like Jesus in a cassarole or the Virgin Mary in a dirty window. Or, for that matter, Lenin in a shower curtain.) Deal?

Delusions of persecution: not just for wingnuts anymore
I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but I've noticed a similarity between the accusations of liberal hate from the wingnuts and now the accusations of general anti-religious "bigotry"¹ among progressives. For the wingnuts, they can't find politicians or political commentators sufficiently hateful, so they find some guy with a website, or just some random comment somewhere on The Internets™; if they get really lucky, they find an assistant professor of ethnic studies. Now I'm seeing accusations of widespread anti-religious hate by progressives based on a few idiots at dKos. Riiiiiiight... Call me back when you can do better than the wingnuts. AFAIK, there is only one prominent political commentator who is openly hostile to religion, and the drink-soaked former trotskyist popinjay is anything but progressive.

There really is hostility to religion
At least, progressive and moderate religion, and the hostility comes from the fundamentalists (who I stubbornly refuse to call "evangelicals" - the two are not the same). I'd think this is rather obvious, but apparently it needs to be said. To fundamentalists, you're either one of them, or you're against them, and so they've made war with sane religious people. And being the media-savvy con artists that they are, they've managed to get the media to go along with them, shutting out sane religious voices while getting respectful coverage of Jerry Falwell blabbing about how the Rapture is upon us (I really saw that on CNN a couple weeks ago). Unfortunately, I don't know what the solution is, since trying to be just as loud would eliminate some of the things I like most about religious progressives. Specifically, that they don't wear their religion on their sleeve or interject it into every little thing, no matter how unrelated, but instead treat it as a personal choice that they can use to enrich their own lives (not a cudgel to beat others with).

The enemy of secularism is theocracy, not religion
I would hope this is one of the progressive values religious and non-religious progressives could agree on. What ever happened to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)?

Purely religious justifications for government policy are inherently anti-democratic
Look, I have no problem with people basing their positions in part on their religions, or even arguing that those who share their beliefs should come to the same conclusions. I don't even have a problem with religious people saying that there are lessons anyone can learn from their beliefs - there's good stuff (and bad stuff) in just about any religion you care to pick. But using exclusively religious justifications in public policy is theocratic, and purely religious justifications in public debate are antithetical to liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is largely based on informed concensus, which means you should be able to justify your positions in terms anyone can accept even if they don't agree with the conclusions. So feel free to sell your positions as Truth, but also justify them with truth - that is, in terms of common experience that anyone can recognize as a cogent argument without sharing your religious assumptions.

"Religion" is such an incoherent word
Try defining religion. Really, try it. Be sure to include atheistic (godless) religions like Zen Buddhism. You'll also want to exclude non-religious supernatural beliefs. Not so easy, is it? This unstated "I know it when I see it" definition makes it really hard to say much about religion in general, so I won't say religion is inherently irrational. There are, however, a couple lines I draw, beyond which I consider a person's decision-making to be dangerously compromised:

"God speaks to me": this should be a no-brainer. I don't care if $DIETY told you to buy everyone a pony, tomorrow the command might be to kill children. If you say "well, I'd never do that," then you're making your decisions on another (dare I say secular?) basis.
Miracles: I'm not sure whether it's the irrationality or the narcissism of this that gets to me more. Maybe I just think it's irrational because I find dualism to be incoherent, but even ignoring that, it's very dangerous to believe you can avert certain disaster just by hoping enough ("clap louder!"). This also includes IDiocy and creationism (but not theistic evolution, something I obviously think is wrong, but not bone-stupid - compatibalism is fine by me).

And that's about it. There's plenty that rubs me the wrong way, to be sure (claims of "revelation" being a superior source of morality to empathy and claims that religion promotes humility come to mind), but what ever happened to being able to work with people you don't completely agree with on everything? I mean, there is probably only one person in the world who completely agrees with me on everything - me - and I'd bet that's true for everyone who isn't a mindless follower of The Church of the Blessed Codpiece or some similar cult of personality. Movements are formed around areas of agreement and concensus. Is it really that hard?

Does all this make me an "anti-religious bigot"? I don't know, decide for yourself.

¹ I actually think this is a category error. Religions are ideas, or perhaps ideologies, so I don't see how one can be "bigoted" against them. It's possible to be an ignorant fuckwit mindlessly opposed to a given religion, just like it's possible to be mindlessly opposed to communism or libertarianism or anything in between. But I think "bigoted" only makes sense when referring to hatred based on immutable or circumstantial properties of an individual.

PWN3D!

2005-10-17T17:23:00.000-07:00

With everything going wrong in the world (see: Bush, Iraq, Pakistan quake, Cheney, Katrina, typhoons, Rumsfeld, &c.), it's nice to get some good news every once in a while. Which is why it pleases me to no end to see that Jack Thompson got totally pwn3d by his own publicity-grubbing stunt. For those not following along with this tempest-in-a-teapot (albeit a very entertaining one), here's the short version:

1. Who is Jack Thompson? Tim Buckley of CTRL+ALT+DEL really says all you need to know when he calls Thompson "a bible-whipped attention whore with one foot in the nursing home." If you really must know more, he's a lawyer (the kind who gives bad lawyers a bad name) who blames all violence on video games. His bullying, lying, demagoguery, and baseless legal threats are so extreme that the anti-game crusaders at the National Institute on Media and the Family have demanded he stop implying they agree with him. If you're wondering who Senators are listening to when they demagogue on video games, this is him, the guy who went after The Sims 2.

2. So Jack writes a suggestion for a very violent video game where he goes on a murderous rampage against video game companies and their executives' families, along with a promise that he would donate $10,000 to the charity of Take-Two CEO Paul Eibeler's choice if anyone actually makes the game.

3. Gabe at Penny Arcade has some fun e-mailing Jack about this. However, he made the mistake of including his phone number at the bottom, resulting in this:
4. Lots of gamers quickly make mods, flash games, and text adventures to fit Jack's violent fantasies. See: Defamation of Character: A Jack Thompson Murder Simulator (GTA: San Andreas mod), Zork Thompson V1.0 (flash-based text adventure parody of Jack's fantasies), and A Modest Video Game Proposal (HTML-based text adventure of the same name as Jack's screed).

5. Just as Tycho predicted, Jack claims the games are insufficient, then cries "satire" and backs out of his promise to donate to charity.

6. The best part: Gabe and Tycho donate $10,000 to the Entertainment Software Association Foundation... in Jack Thompson's name!

You, too, will meet the secret police

2005-10-15T19:31:00.000-07:00

They just call themselves the Secret Service:

"Halfway through my afternoon class, the assistant principal got me out of class and took me to the office conference room," [civics teacher Selina Jarvis] says. "Two men from the Secret Service were there. They asked me what I knew about the student. I told them he was a great kid, that he was in the homecoming court, and that he'd never been in any trouble."

Then they got down to his poster.

"They asked me, didn't I think that it was suspicious," she recalls. "I said no, it was a Bill of Rights project!"

At the end of the meeting, they told her the incident "would be interpreted by the U.S. attorney, who would decide whether the student could be indicted," she says.

But don't worry, they aren't working alone to root out subversive, anti-American ideas like free speech. They have lots of help from Dear Leader's loyal, patriotic subjects at Wal-Mart (in case you didn't have enough reasons to hate that corporation):

According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent. But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service. On Tuesday, September 20, the Secret Service came to Currituck High.

This is just another example of how dissent is now considered extremely suspect, especially public disapproval of Dear Leader. Veteran opposes the war and tells students that recruiters lie (BREAKING NEWS: water is wet!)? Kick his ass and drag him to jail. High school student doodles his disapproval of Dear Leader's fascist tendencies and warmongering? Confiscate the art and "investigate" him for threats against the pResident. Artist photoshops pictures of Bush and guns? "Encourage" him to censor himself. Of course, they stick mostly to thuggish intimidation, but every fascist pig has to start somewhere. (Wal-Mart incident via BoingBoing. Everything else via memory, bookmarks, and my trusty Google chip.)

Friday Random 10

2005-10-14T23:48:00.000-07:00

No Norb-style commentary or "coolness rating," since I'm totally unqualified for either. I'll just say that judging by all the clumping, the iTunes "Smart Shuffle" setting is teh sux.

Bad Religion - "Drastic Actions"
Dead Kennedys - "Stealing People's Mail"
Pearl Jam - "Once"
Dead Kennedys - "Straight A's"
Harvey Danger - "Moral Centralia"
Tool - "Ænema"
Bush - "Little Things"
Tool - "Cesàro Summability"
Talking Heads - "Memories Can't Wait"
The Offspring - "We Are One"

No Public Scatology

2005-10-14T21:33:00.000-07:00

But snarky questions are most welcome. Bob Park is looking for questions Harriet Miers should be asked in confirmation hearings:

For example: do all physical events result from earlier physical events, or can they be caused by clasping your hands, bowing your head, and wishing? Send your suggestions to What's New. WN will print the best of them.

I've got a few. Should legal evidence be verifiable and open to challenge, or is faith-based evidence okay? If Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me to kill someone, does that make it justifiable homicide? Hypothetical: evidence presented disagrees with a compilation of ancient, often conflicting fairy tales; does the book trump the evidence? If so, does that mean Ashton Kucher is God?

Arrrrrr!

2005-10-14T19:03:00.000-07:00

Yar, thar be yer food aid, ye scurvy landlubbers:

Somali pirates free hijacked ship
Pirates in Somalia have freed a UN-chartered ship carrying food aid, two days after hijacking it from the southern port of Merka.

Avast! Maybe havin' th' extra pirates around t' stop th' global warmin' might be worth it. But that be some lousy piratin' if those bilge rats not be keepin' th' booty.

(No need to tell me what a bad person I am for finding this funny - I already know.)

You keep using that word

2005-10-13T20:11:00.000-07:00

I do not think it means what you think it means:

The idea that a non-state actor could seriously threaten our national security was virtually inconceivable 50-plus years ago.

(From the confirmation hearing of John "Death Squads" Negroponte for DNI, via Secrecy News.) In all seriousness, Pat Roberts is full of shit here, but what else is new. 59 years ago, in the FAS book One World Or None, physicist Edward Condon had an essay, "The New Technique of Private War," in which he explained how nuclear arms provide individual saboteurs (what we would now call terrorists) with as much destructive potential as whole countries. True, most of the discussion was in terms of countries using sabotage against each other, but the basic point - that national armies were no longer needed to inflict mass destruction and small groups of individuals could now accomplish that - clearly recognized the same realities, even without buzzwords like "non-state actor[s]." And even one of Dr. Condon's examples of past sabotage in WWII is structurally (morally is a whole 'nother issue) not very different from some modern terrorism: a non-govermental rebellion with loose ties to (and some support from) countries opposed to their enemy (in this case, the Norwegian underground's sabotage of the heavy water production at Rjukan.) "Non-state" terrorism isn't some super-modern novelty, it's just a convenient rhetorical bludgeon to, somewhat fittingly, justify the kind of police state Condon warned would be both tempting and ineffective.

Mickey Mouse, Suicidal Failure

2005-10-11T14:39:00.000-07:00

This has to be fake, it's just too perfect. Still, I can't resist passing it along: Mickey Mouse trying to kill himself.
Found at The Onion A.V. Club, which apparently has a blog now.

Shorter Ted Stevens

2005-10-11T14:31:00.000-07:00

Setting rules would prevent us from scapegoating soldiers, and we need to torture (suspected) terrorists 'cause they play dirty... not that we're torturing anyone or would even consider it, of course.

Bonus Whaaaa..? moment:

I have some memory from World War II in China when I witnessed some of our people--I was just a pilot, but I was conveying some of these people from place to place who had been tortured, and I can tell you they were brutally treated by the Chinese when we were taking these people from place to place and they had prisoners. Some of them were not Chinese. They were prisoners obviously of Japan. We had freed some of them, and they were--I have memory that those who were freed were still the responsibility of the United States.

Can anyone tell me WTF this is doing in the middle of Stevens' rambling? It seems to make even less sense and be even less relevant in context. (It's about 2/3 of the way down page S11064, if you're interested.)

WORK?!

2005-10-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Yeah, work. Busy, busy, busy. Deadlines on my transfer applications are all less than a month away, so I've been writing application essays instead of what I should be writing - blog posts. Don't worry, I should be blogging up a storm again by mid-November. For now, expect my posting to be stop-and-go. That is, "stop" when I'm cramming for the latest deadline and "go," ironically, when I have writers' block.

Won't Someone Think Of The Children?

2005-10-09T14:17:00.000-07:00

So, right after solving the pressing issue of paparazzi (OT: the day before Der Governator signed the anti-papparazi law, someone actually told me his signing an anti-phishing law was an example of why we need to elect "ordinary people" like Schwarzeneggar, since we all know you don't get much more ordinary than movie stars married to Kennedys) Der Gropenführer decides to sign a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. How ironic. And this is really, really stupid. Even if there were good evidence that playing violent games leads to violent behavior - and every time I've seen it announced, it turns out to be something trivial, like already-violent individuals showing increased brain activity in regions associated with anger when they play violent games - is this really the sort of thing that should be enforced by law? Should it be illegal for a 17-year-old who works part-time to spend his own money on Half-Life 2 unless he gets mommy and daddy to buy it for him? And who decides what's too violent for 'the children'?
Some games will be obvious, like Doom 3. But is Halo too violent? Not clear, since you don't (or at least aren't supposed to) harm humans in it. What about Beyond Good And Evil? That might be even more tricky, and the argument wouldn't center around violence but instead realism and target audience. Are games like Splinter Cell okay because you only fight 'bad guys'? Is Deus Ex okay because you can get through the entire game without firing a shot if you really try? It looks like whether a given RPG can be sold to children going to depend on what your enemies are. Graphics quality? If graphics don't matter, I guess Super Mario Bros. would be a violent video game, and don't even get me started on the bloodbaths of Duck Doom Deluxe and Trogdor!! And what about games like Civilization III, where you can nuke whole continents on a whim if you feel like it? Is that okay because the violence is just numbers? Then what about Rise of Nations? And on it goes...
What pisses me off the most about this, though, is that this law was passed overwhelmingly by the Democrats in the state legislature. Look, chickenshits (that means you, Mullin, and it goes double for bill author Leland Yee): this is part of the right-wing plan to rigidly enshrine a very specific family structure and morality into law (since they must clearly think it can't survive without state assistance), which is itself part of their 'culture war', and YOU'RE FIGHTING ON THEIR SIDE HERE!!! Idiots. Whether parents think it's okay for their kids to play a given game should be up to them, not a bunch of retrograde prudes with nothing better to do than play violent games and watch porn... to decide what needs to be ~~banned~~ restricted, of course. Yes, some people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy; they're insane. A lot like Democratic politicians who think they should run to the right on 'values'.

God told me to...

2005-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

... ~~skin you alive~~ invade Iraq. So now Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian official who reported Bush's "God told me to invade" remark, is saying it wasn't literal. (Why change the story now? Good question. Maybe if I ever finish reading this CRS report I'll have an answer.) Well, whoop-dee-freaking-doo. Neither "God told him," nor "God guided him," are at all functionally different from insanity. If someone isn't making descisions on their own and is instead relying on amorphous impulses they think are coming from somewhere else - doesn't matter if it's "God," "Cthulhu," or the chip they think the CIA put in their brain - they're insane. Forget fiscal sanity - can we get some just plain, ordinary sanity in out government?

Technical Difficulties

2005-10-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

A small bit of bad news in space exploration: the Hayabusa probe just lost its second reaction wheel. Basically, the craft had three gyroscopes rotating in perpendicular directions to keep it stable around each axis of rotation, and now it's down to one. Fortunately, it's almost done mapping it's target asteroid, but it might not be able to return samples back to Earth as planned. Failure would be a shame, but I think this actually points out some of the advantages of unmanned space exploration. After all, the worst that could happen is we don't get the samples and lose an expensive spacecraft; if it were a manned mission (and fat chance pulling that off on an asteroid anytime soon) critical system failures could very easily be fatal.

Defining Success Downward

2005-10-04T14:14:00.000-07:00

No, this isn't a post about Iraq. It's about the V-22 Osprey, the tilt-rotor combat transport aircraft that has already become infamous for fatal crashes during training. Via Michael Froomkin, I see that POGO has a recent report (warning: non-searchable PDF) on the V-22's shortcomings by acting Director of Operational Test and Evaluation David Duma. One of the most notable observations is that one of the initial requirements for the project, autorotation, was dropped when they found the V-22 didn't meet that requirement. POGO summarizes:

Can't Autorotate. One of the more significant formal V-22 military requirements was that the aircraft be able to land safely in helicopter mode without power, a procedure known as autorotation. But after the Marines discovered that the aircraft can not autorotate like most helicopters, it dropped this requirement, claiming such an emergency had a "low probability of occurrence." The autorotation or soft-landing requirement is one that helicopter pilots claim has saved lives on numerous occasions. But even on those rare occasions when power is lost, the new DOT&E report flatly concludes "emergency landings after sudden dual engine failure in the conversion/VTOL (vertical short takeoff and landing) mode below 1,600 feet above the ground are not likely to be survivable."

Maybe I'm just weird, but it seems to me that the aircraft should be fit to the requirements, not vice versa. The official report goes into more detail, including the reason for the 1,600 foot cutoff (all typos and emphasis mine):

While a V-22 has never experienced a sudden engine failure, flight test and engineering analysis indicate that the V-22 is not capable of autorotation to a safe landing.
...
In the event of either a sudden dual-engine failure, or a single failure of one engine coupled with a failure of the interconnecting drive train when the nacelles are [at] less than 60 degrees [from parallel to the wings], the recommended emergency procedure is to tilt the nacelles down, attain the best glide speed, and flare to a survivable landing. To convert the nacelles from 60 to 0 degrees requires about eight seconds and the aircraft must be above ground level by at least 1,600 feet in order to complete the conversion prior to impact. Impact-attenuating seats and other survivability features can provide protection for passengers when failure occurs below 100 feet above the ground. Pilots practice the procedure in the simulator because of unacceptable risks in flight.

Emergency landing profiles following sudden dual-engine failure with the nacelles at 60 degrees or higher are more problematic. While the likelihood of such an occurance is mitigated by system design, a portion of assault missions will be accomplished by this mode of flying, e.g., carrying external loads and vertical takeoff and landing in tactical zones. Dependent on altitude, the aircraft manual directs conversions to aircraft mode or autorotation.

Notice a little disconnect there? Now, I'm by no means an expert on this, but it seems to me that defining success downward is a tacit admission of failure.

I should add, perhaps, that this is simply the shortcoming that caught my eye. Others, such as POGO, have criticized the program more for the V-22's vulnerability to VRS during descent, which caused the fatal Osprey crash in April 2000. Reading the official report, it appears they have at least partially addressed that issue by implementing a cockpit alarm to warn when the aircraft is maneuvering in a way that leaves it vulnerable to VRS. But Michael Froomkin says really all you can about the V-22's ongoing vulnerability when operating in dusty conditions: whaaaa..? This is even more bizarre in light of one of their chosen training exercises, a re-enactment of Operation Eagle Claw. For the sake of completeness, they did actually manage to meet a previously-disregarded project requirement, survivability in "medium-threat environments". And it sure works better than any missile defense fantasies.

2005 Nobel Prize in Physics

2005-10-04T12:08:00.000-07:00

Now that University of Colorado-Boulder physicist John L. Hall has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for... contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique," can everyone stop dissing CU? That means you, freepers. Kthx.

Bioweapons III

2005-10-02T18:44:00.000-07:00

I swear, I had no idea I would be blogging so much about biological warfare, but it's become impossible to avoid. First was stockpiling of anthrax at Dugway Proving Grounds, followed by nuclear "agent defeat" warheads. Now, via Sadly, No!, it looks like someone decided to release a BW agent at the Washington, D.C., protests. Hope you have your tinfoil hats ready.

The bacterium detected by the CDC, francisella tularensis, though naturally occurring in rodents (hence the disease name "rabbit fever"), is an extremely well-known bioweapons agent. For instance, the US Air Force handbook on operations in a CB warfare environment lists it right between plague and smallpox, and states that it has a 30% fatality rate when untreated. SAB-TR-97-01 (warning: 358 page PDF) list it as "[p]rime for agent of mass destruction or mass illness when employed under suitable conditions." Even Pravda on the Potomac notes in their article that the US tested it as a BW agent in the 1960s. Now, if you were developing biological weapons and wanted to test infection rates without arousing suspicion in the form of a local epidemic, what better way than infecting a few people at a large event from which they will be leaving to the far corners of the country, using an agent that is not usually transmittable from human-to-human? Also, protesters are certainly considered expendable at best to the current administration, and as I noted in my first BW post, it's not like there isn't a history of clandestine tests of bioweapons on US civilian populations.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this was a bioweapons attack by the government. But it certainly is suspicious enough to look like it might have been a test. Why would the CDC let this become publicly known, then? Well, since they're a non-military part of the government, they would be out of the loop. Besides, the long delay in announcing it - coincidentally just longer than the incubation period - suggests that maybe someone up high wanted them to keep it quiet long enough for them to be able to say that there were no identified cases of infection (if doctors don't know to look for it, how will they identify it?). And since tularensis responds to a broad range of common antibiotics, specific identification of the bacterium isn't necessary for treatment. It would be easy enough for someone to hush it up without arousing suspicion; they could just claim they don't want to start a panic.

Anyway, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now. The problem is there are a lot of reasons not to simply dismiss this as a coincidence, including detection at so many locations all on the same day, the precedent of tests on American civilian populations, not many people would actually need to know to carry out such a test, and the fact that tularensis is not typically found in the D.C. area. I think it was Molly Ivins who said "the thing I hate most about the Bushies is that they make me feel like a paranoid conspiracy theorist."

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!

2005-10-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

Via /., I've found the best thing in Lovecraftian horror since that picture posted at Crooked Timber: a silent movie version of The Call of Cthulhu! Unfortunately, it appears they didn't get Paul Krugman to play Cthulhu. Ah, well... you can't have everything.

Irony Detectors

2005-10-01T11:44:00.000-07:00

That's what police desperately need instead of "lie detectors" (which, I should note, don't work). It seems that Cody Cobb was interrogated by police and accused of being a terrorist for hilariously mocking a stupid fundamentalist. Apparently, the cops seem to think that if anyone is stupid enough to not get Swiftian satire, it makes whatever you wrote a criminal threat. And just how stupid do you need to be to not get that this is a joke, even without seeing the original it satirizes (line-by-line, even):

I realize many of you will not like or even agree with what I am about to say, but rest assured if you delete this email Jesus will frown on you.

The reason I walked out of class today is because I am a Christian. Zealously so. And after Friday's performance by "Dr." Patton I had prepared myself to do just that very thing if my beliefs were once again attacked by logic and reason and scientific claims that can be proven. Sure enough they were, so I left.

I don't know if anyone else has been deeply offended by some of the things "Dr." Patton has said, but my guess is yes because of the usual make-up of Baylor Students (70% Christian, 20% Adamantly Christian, 5% Fundamentalist Christians, 4% Fingers-In-The-Ears-La-La-La-La-I-Can't-Hear-You Christians, and Me.) I've been thinking about what I should do in response – I can't very well let my faith be trampled upon and I have no intention of doing so, but as a student who accidentally signed up for a science course instead of the seminary I'm not given a lot of options.

According to the bible, "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) I feel strongly that "Dr." Patton's heretical teachings in the voodoo field of neuroscience constitutes witchcraft. Therefore, next Wednesday before lecture, I call on my fellow Christians to gather rope and kindling so that we may burn "Dr." Patton at the stake. It is my firm belief that we must set fire to ALL heretics who seek to destory our most cherished Christian beliefs. This may be crazy or irrational, but it is the only recourse I have that might actually accomplish something. Sure, I could boycott class all semester, but who else aside from me would care?

Have we really reached the point where humor is criminalized? BTW, read the whole thing - the police interrogation is even more hilarious, though only because it all turned out alright in the end. (Via Unscrewing The Inscrutable)

Friday Non-Random 10: Sorrow And Regret

2005-09-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

I got friends who are in prison
Friends who are dead
I'm gonna tell you something that I've often said
You know these things that happen
That's just the way it's supposed to be
And I can't help but wonder
Don't you know it coulda been me
-- Social Distortion, "It Coulda Been Me"

Sorry for such a depressing post. I was going to do Friday Random 10 this week, but instead I'm going to post 10 not-so-random songs I'm listening to in my usual way of coming to terms with shocking news. I won't insist on boring you with the details, but the words quoted from the song above are accurate. I'm just going to ramble a bit, probably incoherently, so feel free to ignore me here.

Oh well, things crumble to an end
Hell, we all die in the end
-- Dead Kennedys, "Dead End"

Beyond the sorrow of finding out that someone you know is gone, even if you haven't had contact with them in years, the surreal shock of it is overwhelming. It may be numbing at first, but once the reality sinks in, every bit of unrelated regret comes to the surface with it. You really do realize that it could have been you, and with that remember - no, feel - every choice you ever made that you would have done differently. Maybe the feeling is so strong simply because no-one is supposed to die so young. Maybe it's because I realize that this is all there is. No-one 'goes on to a better place', nor do they get a second chance; for them, it's like they never existed. It certainly isn't because I've never had to come to terms with something like this before - I have, though in the past it's left me just plain numb. But still, it's a forceful reminder that you have to make the best of each and every day, because you never know when your time will be up.

See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart
And it's all
Right where it belongs
-- Nine Inch Nails, "Right Where It Belongs"

Of course, I know I am far from alone in this experience, and far from being the most affected. A while back, paperwight noted that "understanding that your grief and loss is the same grief and loss that every other person feels is one of the truths at the heart of real morality." I hate to make this at all political, and really, it shouldn't be that such an observation is controversial, but this really brings home the enormity of the loss experienced by so many over the last few years. Hundreds of soldiers just as young have died, leaving behind friends and family; probably tens of thousands of others still younger have had their lives cut short, no less real simply because they aren't American. Who knows how many have died just because they were poor, something that happens so frequently one must be desensitized to it simply to remain sane - a desensitization that endangers one's humanity. I actually feel guilty now listing all of these individuals as numbers. Even pictures of the fallen quickly blend together, while each and every one was an individual with hopes and dreams and plans for the future, with friends and family and even long-estranged acquaintances who are deeply affected by their loss.

We see you try
We see you fail
Some things never change
We hear you cry
We hear you wail
We steal that smile from your face
-- Soundgarden, "Head Down"

Anyway, I'm sure nobody is interested in reading more of my self-indulgent existentialist angst, so here's the non-random 10:

Social Distortion - "It Coulda Been Me"
Dead Kennedys - "Dead End"
Bad Religion - "To Another Abyss"
Metallica and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra - "No Leaf Clover"
Pearl Jam - "Deep"
Soundgarden - "Head Down"
Pink Floyd - "Sorrow"
Nine Inch Nails - "Right Where It Belongs"
Soundgarden - "The Day I Tried To Live"
Bad Religion - "Slumber"

I'm not good at giving morals
And I don't fear the consequence
If life makes you scared and bitter
At least it's not for very long
-- Bad Religion, "Slumber"

Germ Bombs Redux

2005-09-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

In my previous post about stockpiling of anthrax and bioweapons production equipment at Dugway Proving Grounds, I was remiss in failing to note one of the excuses offered: testing of "agent defeat warheads." Now, via The Poor Man, I'm reminded that these warheads might be the real reason for bioweapons production. Lest you think this might make everything a-ok, the military name for these warheads is RNEP: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. That's right, nuclear bunker busters. This would explain why the Pentagon wants a ton of anthrax at a weapons testing ground in the middle of nowhere. The frightening thing is that nukes are the most innocent explanation; they could be using the anthrax as a target and working on biowarfare weaponization, so this is certainly not an improvement. In fact, the RNEPs are worse than useless (click through to PDF) and the given justifications for their use bogus according to the Federation of American Scientists (emphasis added):

Attacking "hard and deeply buried" targets is the chief justification for developing new capabilities for nuclear weapons or even a new generation of nuclear weapons. The proposed Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and possible future nuclear weapons are specifically designed to destroy underground facilities. This paper very briefly examines the concept of how and why nuclear earth penetrating weapons would be used, a possible countermeasure, and the consequences of their use. We find that attacking underground targets with nuclear weapons is conceptually unsound, countermeasures are available, and the consequences of an attack would be grave.
...
When evaluating any new military system, we have to ask: what military problem it is meant to solve, what are the different ways of solving that problem, and how does this proposed system compare to alternative approaches? When applying these questions to nuclear earth penetrators, it quickly becomes apparent that the problem used to justify them is contrived and implausible. The problem is contrived because it is artificially constrained to make nuclear earth penetrators appear to be the only solution. The problem is implausible because it assumes a cooperative enemy, it assumes knowledge we cannot have, and it ignores deadly consequences.

Keep in mind, also, that despite popular belief, even among many opponents of RNEPs, these are not small nukes:

Much of the public debate, and many nuclear advocates, confuses earth penetrators with the Administration's discussion of research on "small" nuclear weapons. (Keeping in mind, that on nuclear scales, the definition of "small" is the equivalent of ten million pounds of TNT, or one third the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, or thousands of times larger than the Oklahoma City bomb.) The proposed nuclear earth penetrators are large nuclear bombs. Small nuclear weapons would not be able to destroy deep targets.

And in case you don't feel like reading through 30 pages of wonky, technical national security discussion (no, I didn't just read this today -- the paper came out in April), here's why "agent defeat" is an excuse, not a justification:

A good statement of a military requirement specifies the desired outcome but not how best to accomplish it. The "deep target problem" should be presented as a requirement to neutralize a particular type of threat. Neutralization could be accomplished, for example, by isolating the facility. But an additional constraint that is essential to justify nuclear earth penetrators is that the deep facility must be destroyed, not merely isolated. To know that a deep underground facility even exits, intelligence will have to detect at least one of the entrances. Yet attacking and sealing up the entrances, something that can be done with precision conventional munitions, presumably is not adequate. "Functional defeat," that is, cutting off the electrical power, the cooling, the communication links, and the water, fuel, and air supply is, for some reason, not adequate. It is difficult to imagine a real situation in which this condition obtains, but this assumption is essential if nuclear weapons are to be deemed essential. One reason presented for target destruction is that the facility might contain dangerous chemical or biological weapons: if a cache of such weapons were attacked with conventional weapons, the chemical or biological agents might be spread around, harming the surrounding civilian population, whereas the heat of a nuclear explosion would supposedly destroy the agents. This scenario does not apply to deeply buried targets because neither the nuclear weapon nor the nuclear fireball penetrate very far into rock; a shockwave does and that shockwave might crush the walls of a tunnel but will not produce enough heat to destroy anything. This sort of attack would be effective only against chemical or biological weapons stored on the surface or only shallowly buried.

So why are we developing these nukes when they won't work for the stated purpose, conventional bombs can neutralize underground bunkers by sealing the entrances, and an enemy can use countermeasures as simple as digging deeper? Simple: Rummy want to SMASH!

[UPDATE (10:43): Oh, yeah. About Brad DeLong's defense of Bill Bennet that The Editors linked to in that post... what Dr. Laniac said.]

Plausible Deniability

2005-09-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Two items from yesterday (both via Secrecy News) explain just how those at the top of our government have maintained plausible deniability of torture, ensuring that American soldiers will carry out their wishes to commit war crimes while distancing themselves enough to hang those soldiers out to dry. First is a powerful (but I believe ultimately futile) letter to John McCain from Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne Division:

While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

So they let the troops know what was desired (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more) but would never actually come out and say it, and sure as hell weren't going to make the mistake of putting such orders in writing. Captain Fishback has a few choice words for sadistic monsters who use the NABA excuse:

Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Second is FMI 3-63.6 which is supposedly a clarification of Army doctrine (and, to be fair, it does at least say that from now on those in charge are responsible), but reads more like an excuse for why nobody up top could be held accountable before (warning: PDF):

Several of the investigations into detainee operations in Iraq identified a lack of clear command and control of detainee operations. Overall responsibility for detainee operations (both detention and interrogation of detainees) never came together under one person, short of the joint force commander himself, until assignment of MG Miller in April 2004. Additionally, roles and responsibilities of those involved in detainee operations were not clearly defined, and the command and control of, and relationship between, elements conducting detainee operations at a given echelon or location were not unmistakably established.

The updated Field Manual looks promising at first, but careful reading is required. When scrutinized, much of it falls apart. For instance, in fn. 1, it states:

Within this document, the terms "humanely treating" and "humane treatment" include compliance with all applicable
aspects of the Geneva Conventions.

The document goes on to stipulate that detainees are to be treated humanely. Good, right? Sadly, if you read to the end, under the glossary definition of "detainee operations" you will find that the first footnote is effectively inoperative (emphasis added):

operations that keep selected individuals in custody to control their activity and possibly to gain intelligence. Detainee operations extend from the point of capture to the time of release from military control. These operations ensure humane treatment, protection, custody, evacuation, administration, and interrogation of detainees is in accordance with international law and US policy. (This is an interim definition. When revised, FM 3-19.40 will establish the Army definition.)

How much do you want to bet the revised definition will ignore the Geneva Conventions as "quaint"?

I really wish those in charge would listen to Captain Fishback, but seeing as we have a sadist for president and that John McCain only cares about image, I doubt anything will change.

Security Through Transparency

2005-09-29T18:55:00.000-07:00

I'll just come right out and say it: I am not opposed to electronic voting systems. The problem is that corporations making them have motivation to rig the results, and with proprietary software, they can hide behind 'intellectual property' to cover up their fraud. It is not impossible to make electronic voting secure and reliable, though. A wonderfully simple solution is open source code. Of course, that's just part of it, but it's a step in the right direction. A secure, dependable, and inexpensive solution might work something like this (there are other ways to do it):

An off-the-shelf computer, selected from some random government insitution (say, schools), is booted directly from read-only media running open source software and never connected to a network. It is, however, connected to a printer. With open source software on read-only media, the inner workings are publicly known and the lack of a network connection prevents remote tampering.
When someone casts a vote, their result is recorded to a removable device (e.g., an external hard disk) that cannot be removed until voting is complete (by, e.g., physically locking it in place). Additionally, their vote is printed (with no identifying information) for verification.
Once the voter has verified the recorded vote is correct, the paper is passed through a scanner into the ballot box, where a similar computer, connected only to the scanner, records their vote. The voter may verify this result.
When all voting is complete, there are three verified votes to compare: the original electronic vote (with any potential tampering publicly known), the voter-verified paper ballot, and the doubly-verified central electronic vote.

I hope I explained that clearly, and anyway, as I said, it can be done other ways. But the important points are transparency, anonymity, and voter verification. Fellow BARBARians will be pleased to learn that California appears to be leading the way in creating such a system to follow the letter of the HAVA while disobeying the spirit (rigging elections):

CA Sec. of State Forming Panel to Investigate Open Source Software for Elections

California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson is forming a panel to investigate using open source software in elections. He has invited OVC president Alan Dechert to be on the panel, and has asked for Dechert's input on who should be on the panel.
Many people, including Charlene Woodcock, have written to Secretary McPherson asking him to meet with OVC. In a letter to Charlene dated SEP 21, 2005 [], McPherson wrote:
My staff has met with Alan Dechert of the Open Voting Consortium and continues to communicate with him on this subject. My office will be appointing a task force consisting of experts such as Mr. Dechert to conduct a study of Open Source Code and provide it to the Legislature. We have also asked him to recommend participants on our panel that will study open source code for voting systems.
Engineer extraordinaire, Amy Pearl and OVC co-founder, Board Secretary, Professor Arthur Keller also attended the July meeting (referred to in McPherson's letter). Amy and Arthur deserve much of the credit for bringing the Secretary of State's office around.
In to Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg, McPherson referred to the "committee" he was forming. The exact nature of this "committee," "task force," or "panel," has not quite been determined. We expect this to involve public hearings.
Among the many illustrious individuals indicating they want to participate in the panel (and whose names Dechert submitted) are Bruce Perens and Brian Behlendorf. Behlendorf started Apache -- open source free software on which 70 percent of the web sites on the Internet are running.
This all started when OVC supporter Richard Dawson drafted a resolution and gave it to his representative in the State Assembly (Jackie Goldberg). Goldberg introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution 242 (ACR 242). OVC supporters helped to get the resolution passed in the State Legislature over some industry opposition. Alan Dechert testified in favor of it before the Senate Elections Committee on AUG 11, 2004.
As a State Senator at the time, McPherson voted for it -- one of few Republicans that did so.
The report could form the philosophical basis for our Open Voting bill and could also provide the justification for getting HAVA funding for voting system Research and Development. OVC is asking that the CA State Government hire the University of California to do this work. McPherson has also made public statements indicating that he is in favor of this. A recent article in the Oakland Tribune says, "McPherson proposes pooling federal voting-reform money for several states and devoting it to research on the best way to verify electronic voting."
With any luck at all, California will show the way to get Open Voting instituted across the U.S.!

Bruce McPherson deserves credit here for being a pro-democracy Republican. I should also add that I'm pleased to see my CA Assembly representative, Gene Mullin, co-authored ACR 242. Found via /., where you'll witness the depressing spectacle of libertarians decrying this as "unamerican" since there's no room for corporate profiteering. Of course, this just illustrates why I'm often puzzled by the libertarian affinity for FOSS, since Free Software is fundamentally anarcho-syndicalist (left-wing anarchist) in nature. You'd think the term "copyleft" would make that obvious enough for even the slowest of them.

A Momentary Lapse Of Reason?

2005-09-28T20:18:00.000-07:00

As you may have heard, NASA Administrator Michael "no relation to Peter" Griffin said that the space shuttle "was not the right path." When I read this, I thought it was a sign of sanity at NASA. Was it?

Sadly, No! Though Griffin says a few things that needed to be acknowledged by someone at NASA, such as the wastefulness of the ISS and the uselessness of its low orbit, he clearly couches this apparent criticism in terms to promote Bush's poison pill Mars plan. How else does one read this?

"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
...
Only now is the nation's space program getting back on track, Griffin said. He announced last week that NASA aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018 in a spacecraft that would look like the Apollo capsule.

I will admit that it's better for the cuts to come from the $500-million-per-launch space shuttle and the tin can floating around only a couple hundred miles above us than from actual science and exploration, but this is a sales pitch, NASA's version of "NEW! IMPROVED!"

The Bugman Goeth

2005-09-28T13:43:00.000-07:00

Tom Delay has been indicted! And there was much rejoicing... yay. Ponies for everyone! According to the WaPo, he could end up in the slammer for this, though admittedly not "federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison." (Via Majikthise, who has links to great coverage by other bloggers, including Bob Brigham at the Swing State Project and Chris Bowers at MyDD. Sam Rosenfeld discusses just who the GOP might replace him with. Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged points out that gerrymandering effectively prevents this from hurting the GOP in Texas.)

Up Is Down, Black Is White, Drunk Is Sober

2005-09-27T13:16:00.000-07:00

Via The Poor Man, Sully the Pooh quotes the drink-soaked former-Trotskyist popinjay thusly (emphasis added):

"Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women’s struggle"? Don’t make me laugh."

Look, Hitch, I know it can be hard to keep track of things when you start drinking before you even wake up in the morning, but can you at least try to make a little sense? Here's what the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has to say about their struggle:

RAWA joins with the rest of the civilized world in remembering the innocent lives lost on September 11th, as well as all those others lost to terrorism and oppression throughout the world. It is with great sadness that RAWA sees other people experiencing the pain that the women, children and men of Afghanistan have long suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists.

For ten long years the people of Afghanistan -Afghan women in particular- have been crushed and brutalized, first under the chains and atrocities of the "Northern Alliance" fundamentalists, then under those of the Taliban. During all this period, the governments of the Western powers were bent on finding ways to "work with" these criminals. These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to "work with" the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment.

Immediately after the September 11 tragedy the US military might moved into action to punish its erstwhile hirelings. A captive, bleeding, devastated, hungry, pauperized, drought-stricken and ill-starred Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion by the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry ever created in human history. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives in the September 11 atrocity, were taken. Even joyous wedding gatherings were not spared. The Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda support were toppled without any significant dent in their human combat resources. What was not done away with was the sinister shadow of terrorist threat over the whole world and its alter ego, fundamentalist terrorism.

Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism have been eradicated in Afghanistan. There is neither peace nor stability in this tormented country, nor has there been any relief from the scourges of extreme pauperization, prostitution, and wanton plunder. Women feel much more insecure than in the past. The bitter fact that even the personal security of the President of the country cannot be maintained without recourse to foreign bodyguards and the recent terrorist acts in our country speak eloquent volumes about the chaotic and terrorist-ridden situation of the country. Why is it so? Why has the thunderous uproar in the aftermath of September 11 resulted in nothing? For the following reasons which RAWA has reiterated time and again:

For the people of Afghanistan, it is "out of the frying pan, into the fire". Instead of the Taliban terrorists, Jihadi terrorists of the "Northern Alliance" have been installed in power. The Jihadi and the Taliban fundamentalists share a common ideology; their differences are the usual differences between brethren-in-creed.

For the past more or less twenty years, Osama bin Laden has had Afghan fundamentalists on his payroll and has been paying their leaders considerable stipends. He and Mullah Omar, together with a band of followers equipped with the necessary communication resources, can live for many years under the protection of different fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue to plot against the people of Afghanistan and the rest of humankind.

The Taliban and the al-Qaeda phenomena, as manifestations of an ideology and a political culture infesting an Islamic country, could only have been uprooted by a popular insurrection and the strengthening and coming to power of secular democratic forces. Such a purge cannot be effected solely with the physical elimination of the likes of Osama and Mullah Omar.

The "Northern Alliance" can never sincerely want the total elimination of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda, as such elimination would mean the end of the raison d'être of the backing and support extended to them by foreign forces presently dominant in the country. This was the rationale behind RAWA's slogan for the overthrow of the Taliban and al-Qaeda through popular insurrection. Unfortunately, before such popular insurrection could come about, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forfeited their positions to the "brethren of the 'Northern Alliance'" without suffering any crippling decimation.

With their second occupation of Kabul, the "Northern Alliance" thwarted any hopes for a radical, meaningful change. They are themselves now the source and root of insecurity, the disgraceful police atmosphere of the Loya Jirga, rampant terrorism, gagging of democracy, atrocious violations of human rights, mounting pauperization, prostitution and corruption, the flourishing of poppy cultivation, failure of beginning to reconstruct, and a host of further unlisted evils, too many to enumerate.

Of course, read the rest. And Hitch, go see a proctologist -- you need your head examined. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go throw up (again) in disgust at what my country has been doing for the past four years, and at the fact that Hitch dares call himself a humanist.

Tell Me, Who's The Real Patriot?

2005-09-26T20:31:00.000-07:00

This post should be entirely redundant, but I figure if even Buck Batard has been out of the loop on this, it can't be said enough: Smedley Butler was the Greatest. American. Patriot. EVER! Twice earned the Medal of Honor; vocal leftist opponent of fascism, war profiteering, and military adventurism; retired rather than play nice with Moussolini; almost single-handedly stopped the Whitehouse Putsch; wrote the book War Is A Racket. He was indeed one of the people with the guts to work for some real change. Of course, the Fighting Quaker must be spinning in his grave now, considering what the modern Republican Party is (he ran for Congress as a Republican) and the fact that the military base named after him is overseas. I swear, if General Butler were alive today, he'd be getting arrested right alongside Cindy Sheehan (also via Buck at Bad Attitudes).

[UPDATE (20:55): changed Whitehouse Putsch link to a more thorough synopsis. More on that here and here.]

Heresy!

2005-09-26T17:33:00.000-07:00

mrgumby2u at ItLooksLikeThis passes along a great quiz: to which circle of Dante's Inferno will you be banished? Of course, I knew ahead of time I'd get the same result: Dis!

Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis

You approach Satan's wretched city where you behold a wide plain surrounded by iron walls. Before you are fields full of distress and torment terrible. Burning tombs are littered about the landscape. Inside these flaming sepulchers suffer the heretics, failing to believe in God and the afterlife, who make themselves audible by doleful sighs. You will join the wicked that lie here, and will be offered no respite. The three infernal Furies stained with blood, with limbs of women and hair of serpents, dwell in this circle of Hell.

God is dead
And no-one cares
If there is a Hell
I'll see you there
-- Nine Inch Nails, "Heresy"

(BTW, there must be something wrong with that test, since changing only one answer I was somewhat ambivalent about to begin with lands me square in Limbo.)

Manufacturing Germ Bombs Again

2005-09-25T13:18:00.000-07:00

And I rather doubt that anyone (beyond a few policy wonks and those on the political fringes) will even care:

THE US military wants to buy large quantities of anthrax, in a controversial move that is likely to raise questions over its commitment to treaties designed to limit the spread of biological weapons.
...
One "biological services" contract specifies: "The company must have the ability and be willing to grow Bacillus anthracis Sterne strain at 1500-litre quantities." Other contracts are for fermentation equipment for producing 3000-litre batches of an unspecified biological agent, and sheep carcasses to test the efficiency of an incinerator for the disposal of infected livestock.

Now, why would they need to dispose of infected sheep? Maybe to avoid getting caught again:

In March 1968, 6,400 sheep were found dead after grazing in south Skull Valley, an area just outside Dugway's boundaries. When examined, the sheep were found to have been poisoned by a deadly nerve agent called VX. The incident, coinciding with the birth of the environmental movement and anti-Vietnam protests, created an uproar in Utah and internationally.

Oh, and let's not forget, "Saddam gassed his own people":

Cities were unwittingly used as laboratories to test aerosolization and dispersal methods; Aspergillus fumigatus, B. subtilis var. globigii, and Serratia marcescens were used as simulants and released during experiments in New York City, San Francisco, and other sites. Concerns regarding potential public health hazards of simulant studies were raised after an outbreak of nosocomial S. marcescens (formerly Chromobacterium prodigiosum) urinary tract infections at Stanford University Hospital between September 1950 and February 1951, following covert experiments using S. marcescens as a simulant in San Francisco. A report from the Centers for Disease Control completed in 1977 found no association between reported morbidity and mortality from pneumonia and influenza and local simulant experiments.

A series of field tests took place under the auspices of the Biological Laboratories from 1943 to the mid-1960s:

* In one such test, travelers at Washington National Airport were subjected to a harmless bacterium. Traps were placed throughout the facility to capture the bacterium as it flowed in the air. Laboratory personnel, dressed as travelers carrying brief cases, walked the corridors and without detection sprayed the bacterium into the atmosphere.
* In the New York Subway, a light bulb filled with the same harmless bacterium was dropped on the tracks. The organism spread throughout the system within 20 minutes. Traps and monitoring devices showed the amount of organism--if it were one of the predictable, dangerous organisms, could have killed thousands of persons. No one was injured or became ill as a result of the test.
* In San Francisco, a U.S. Navy ship, equipped with spray devices operated by Fort Detrick personnel, sprayed serratia marcescens, a non-pathogenic microorganism that is easily detected, while the ship plied the San Francisco Bay. It spread more than 30 miles to monitoring stations.
* A jet aircraft equipped with spray devices, flew a course near Victoria, Texas, and the harmless particles were monitored in the Florida Keys.

Returning to the New Scientist article:

Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern.

"It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online," says Alan Pearson, programme director for biological and chemical weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "If one can grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames strain, which is quite lethal."

The US renounced biological weapons in 1969, but small quantities of lethal anthrax were still being produced at Dugway as recently as 1998.

Of course, though the Army doesn't even bother coming up with an excuse ("they refused to say what it will be used for"), New Scientist tries to be 'fair' by mentioning that it could be used for defensive research, e.g., decontamination, protection, etc. Only one problem - the Army already has a facility for that, USAMRIID. The difference is that research at USAMRIID isn't classified and involves civilian researchers, so there is only so much they can do without the public discovering it, even under the cover of 'sensitive-but-not-classified' research. And for what it's worth, it isn't only lefty peaceniks who are worried about this escalation of biowarfare R&D; both the former Deputy Director of USAMRIID and Nixon's ambassador to the Biological Weapons Convention talks co-authored a paper for the Federation of American Scientists, Biodefense Crossing the Line (warning: PDF, but it's only 4 pages). The problem, of course, is that almost nobody will hear about this, since WWWA has more important news to cover. The money quote:

The rapidity of elaboration of American biodefense programs, their ambition and administrative aggressiveness, and the degree to which they push against the prohibitions of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), are startling.
The production and stockpiling of biological-weapons agents are not the only criteria by which an offensive biological weapons (BW) program is defined. They are only such a program's most obvious terminal expressions. Taken together, many of the activities detailed above -- most particularly the "Store, Stabilize, Package, Disperse" sequence and the "Computational modeling of feasibility, methods, and scale of production" item -- may constitute development in the guise of threat assessment, and they certainly will be interpreted that way. Development is prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention.
...
On April 28, 2004, at the conclusion of a year's review, the Bush administration disclosed details of the new National Biodefense Directive. Among them, reportedly, was that "the US intelligence community is under orders to carry out studies examining the types of genetically engineered 'bugs' terrorists could be working on to mount an attack." Surely, the "intelligence community" is the least appropriate place in the US government to "carry out" such work -- and the most likely to lack adequate oversight. And does a program of this design bear any relation to the realistic level of threat presented by non-state actor "bioterrorists"? Recently declassified documents demonstrate that the US intelligence community possesses evidence demonstrating that interested terrorist groups -- al Qaeda among them -- still have no capability to work with classical BW agents and certainly cannot engineer agents genetically.

So, is Colin Powell going to call for regime change? (New Scientist article via the apostropher)

Blast Off To Nowhere

2005-09-24T12:25:00.000-07:00

Once again, Shrub sticks someone else with the bill to clean up his mess:

THIS week NASA described plans to return astronauts to the Moon in 2018 at a cost of $104 billion. That's nine years after President Bush leaves office. Starting from scratch in 1961, President Kennedy's commitment to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth was realized in just eight years. What is going on?

The boy king wants to play spaceman, the grand vizier wants more money, and nobody wants to be left holding the ball when the treasury is empty, of course. Bob Park continues:

George W. Bush seems driven to complete his father's unfinished business in space, as in Iraq. But much has changed. The cold war, which provided the initial motivation for our space program, is long gone. And technological progress has superseded human space exploration. Remotely controlled instruments have become natural extensions of frail human bodies.

...

The benefits we enjoy from the space program - weather satellites, communications satellites and global positioning - come from robotic spacecraft. Few scientists are calling for a human mission to the Moon or Mars. Human space exploration is essentially over. It is too expensive and provides too little return. But politicians know that the American public identifies progress in space with human astronauts.

The Bush administration's solution is to create an impossibly expensive and pointless program for some other administration to cancel, thus bearing the blame for ending human space exploration. The return to the moon is not a noble quest. It is a poison pill.

If anything, I think Park understates the extent to which this will hinder NASA's ability to do anything useful. Not only will a future administration have to kill human space exploration when it becomes clear we're pissing away billions of dollars for no good reason, but in the meantime they're going to have to pretend they aren't just charging it to the national debt, and that means delaying, scaling back, or abandoning useful parts of the space program. Already, the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's replacement, has been delayed and scaled back to give more pork to Northrop-Grumman and TRW (that's the same TRW that falsified the results of tests on their missile defense targeting system). Ironically, though a mission to Mars would allegedly be for exploration, the first programs to get the axe would probably be those for actual exploration: the Origins program. We've already seen a likely refusal to extend support for the Voyager missions, right as Voyager I reaches the outer boundary of the solar system, gathering information we'll never otherwise get our hands on without another 25-year wait. Sure, human space exploration has the 'coolness' factor, but it seems abundantly clear all that will happen is NASA will pay for Haliburton's drilling R&D and we'll end up with a bunch of half-built rockets that go no further than the test pad. Besides, even if Park is wrong (a big if, I think) about this being a poison pill in effect, if not intent, is one trip to Mars really worth 30 times a telescope that can watch the first stars forming?

Downsizing

2005-09-23T19:17:00.000-07:00

Who was it last night at the bar who suggested, er, 'downsizing' as the appropriate sacrifice to fix the deficit? Looks like you were on the same page as the Bush Administration.

I'm baaaaaaack!

2005-09-23T12:25:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, my brain is lagging behind a bit. So until I get the gears turning again (physics this afternoon will probably give me a swift kickstart), I got nothin'. Well, not quite... I noticed that Generik recently put together a few playlists appropriate for BushCo, forcing me to buy more music on iTunes. (Love the Talking Heads version, BTW.) But there's just a tiny omission (from both the post and comments): Bad Religion. So, here goes (I'm leaving out The Empire Strikes First, since I'd think songs specifically about Bush are cheating)...

Bad Religion version:
1. Bad Religion
2. White Trash (2nd Generation)
3. Voice of God Is Government
4. Part III
5. Flat Earth Society
6. Operation Rescue
7. Heaven Is Falling
8. Atomic Garden
9. Fertile Crescent
10. The State of the End of the Millenium Address

See, this is why you need me around.

Republicans: 'Our tax reform is sure to be unpopular'

2004-12-28T17:04:00.000-08:00

At least, that the message I get from their decision to kick tax "reform" down the road to late 2006 (warning: evil, soul-sucking "free registration" required; use BugMeNot):

Wholesale changes to the tax code that just weeks ago were identified as a Bush administration goal by the end of 2005 are being pushed back for at least another year.

Unless they know their tax "reform" would kill them in midterm elections, I see no reason for them to postpone the changes. This seems likely when you look at what's included in even their least drastic plan, "Option 5":

eliminates the top two tax brackets
makes employee health insurance taxable
"immediate write-off for business plant and equipment purchases[, which] could reduce the tax burden on profitable companies so much that they would end up receiving tax refunds"
eliminates deduction of state and local taxes
taxes "most Social Security benefits" as income

They could sell the elimination of the 35% and 28% brackets as going together with the elimination of the AMT and call it a middle class tax cut, but taxing health insurance, making tax rates on highly profitable corporations effectively negative, taxing people on their state and local taxes, and cutting Social Security benefits are all going to be hard to market.

If you still have money left...

2004-12-26T22:53:00.000-08:00

... after the holidays and donating phone cards and other necessities to wounded soldiers, even just a few dollars, you might consider giving to any one of several relief organizations to help those affected by the tsunamis. (via Brad DeLong)

Late, as Always

2004-12-26T16:05:00.000-08:00

I said I'd have part three of my extended rant on the decline of democracy for you on Christmas and, well, I lied. I blame Big Media Matt for pointing out a paper that has prompted an extensive rewrite. For now, I'll waste some time with filler.
Over at Pharyngula, Dr. Myers passes along a strange-but-tempting idea:

go up to your browsers address bar, type a single letter, and note what URL pops up first in the autofill. Repeat for each letter of the alphabet. Supposedly, this will reveal something about who you are.

Alright, I'll take a crack at it:

A - Atrios
B - BoingBoing
C - Chris C Mooney
D - Daily Howler
E - Wikipedia
F - Fafblog
G - Google (Firefox version)
H - Homestarrunner
I - It Looks Like This
J - Brad DeLong
K - Festivus
L - Brian Leiter
M - Majikthise
N - NeverWinter Vault modules (shut up!)
O - Respectful Insolence
P - Pharyngula
Q - Qubit.org (no relation, just inspiration)
R - The Rude Pundit
S - The King of Zembla
T - The Onion
U - Unfogged
V - The Volokh Conspiracy
W - William Gibson
X - Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv mirror (xxx.lanl.gov)
Y - Matthew Yglesias
Z - ZNet

Time to Update the Body Count Conversion Rate

2004-12-26T15:38:00.000-08:00

Apparently, "500 drowned Bengladeshis" don't warrant the same coverage as "1 snipered American" anymore. Tsunamis from the strongest earthquake in 40 years have killed over 11,000 people in southeast Asia and what's the coverage on cable news? I just turned on CNN to see a brief blurb about it used for a cheerful lead-in for some crap about a duck getting frozen to a pond. (Paraphrase of the AnchorBot2000, said with a broad smile: "in [don't remember the place], a different kind of disaster was averted when rescuers freed a duck from a frozen pond.") CNN Sunday had a respectable amount of coverage (the first 15 minutes of a one hour show), but they spent almost half of it on one American quasi-celebrity (they claim Nick Berkus is kinda-sorta famous, but I had never heard the name before) vacationing in Sri Lanka. As you might figure, FAUX News spent about two minutes on the tsunami before moving on to something they consider more important. (It's Sunday, so CNBC is infomercials and MSNBC is news-free.) Suggested new ratio: 1 stranded American quasi-celebrity = 3 drowned American tourists = 22 drowned Japanese tourists = 11,000 drowned residents of southeast Asia.

Merry December'ween Eve!

2004-12-24T19:36:00.000-08:00

Merry December'ween, everybody! If you need any last-minute gifts, remember: Bubs' concession stand is open all night. If, however, you want some serious reflections on this time of year, you're in the wrong place; try It Looks Like This. Don't forget to get up early tomorrow (or just stay up all night) to catch Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn all visible at once from Earth.

Hydrogen and Stupidity, Together at Last

2004-12-24T00:55:00.000-08:00

In the quest for alternatives to fossil fuels and ways to slow global warming, many have latched on to hydrogen fuel cells. At first glance, they seem wonderful: the only immediate byproduct is water vapor, the fuel source (hydrogen) is the most abundant element in the universe, they're even quiet. But, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the devil is in the details:

Auto-industry ads depict hydrogen cars as the vehicular route to clean, blue skies.

President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are among their biggest champions.

That should be a clue right there that something is fishy.

The politicians' enthusiasm for the technology -- a leading proposal to solve global warming -- is shared by many scientists.

But reality could prove more complex, some critics say. Among the problems detailed at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco last week:

-- Hydrogen is a very "leaky" gas that could escape from cars and hydrogen plants into the atmosphere. This could set off chemical transformations that generate greenhouse gases that contribute to atmospheric warming.

It could also worsen ozone layer depletion. Bob Park observes that "hydrogen leakage could gobble up ozone faster than CFCs." (more below)

-- The extraction of hydrogen for cars from methane, which is currently the richest available source of hydrogen, will generate carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas.

Actually, if anything, that's quite an understatement. As Bob Park notes, "95% of the hydrogen currently produced in the United States comes from steam methane reforming, which belches CO₂ and does nothing to promote energy independence." And just who would profit from this? Why, "oil companies are gearing up to generate [hydrogen] from methane."

-- Hydrogen can also be extracted from ordinary water via a process called electrolysis. However, using current technology, mass electrolysis of water would require intense sources of energy. If those energy sources burn fossil fuels, they, too, would generate greenhouse gases.

There's also the tricky little issue of thermodynamics. If the hydrogen is made through electrolysis, it's generated by separating water into oxygen and hydrogen (2H₂O + energy -> 2H₂ + O₂). Then to generate power in a fuel cell, the hydrogen binds with available oxygen (2H₂ + O₂ -> 2H₂O + energy). Anyone who claims this 'produces' energy, rather than acting as a kind of chemical battery, is selling you a perpetual motion machine. In fact, some Congressional energy bills rejected the First Law (probably) and Second Law (definitely) of thermodynamics. It's really quite simple if you always remember Ginsberg's theorem:

You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Of course, that doesn't make it pointless, it just means a lot of the hype is blown out of proportion:

"I'm supportive of research and development, but we are at least two decades away from (deploying) the vehicles on a mass level," said MIT-educated physicist Joseph J. Romm, a former U.S. Department of Energy official, in an interview. Romm's book, "The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate," was published earlier this year by Island Press.

"Americans are very much believers in technology and optimism, and yet when you look at the compelling details" about hydrogen cars, Romm said, "it doesn't make bloody much sense."

Economically, hydrogen devices remain highly unattractive: "Fuel cells are very expensive," Romm said. "The demonstration vehicles all cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Aside from the greenhouse gases produced in steam methane reforming or whatever power generation (coal, natural gas, garbage, etc.) is used, however, it appears to be mostly safe. I use so many caveats because molecular hydrogen isn't quite as inert as it is often portrayed (note: by "inert" I mean 'chemically nonreactive' not 'nonflammable'):

Atmospheric scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure out how Earth's atmosphere would be affected by leaked hydrogen from cars, hydrogen gas stations, delivery trucks and hydrogen production plants. Unfortunately, the politicians aren't necessarily getting the best scientific advice on the atmospheric issue, said Professor Michael J. Prather of UC Irvine at the geophysics conference on the atmospheric impact of hydrogen cars.

A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report on "The Hydrogen Economy" was prepared by "economists and engineers, remarkably lacking any atmospheric scientist or biogeochemists who understand the natural (atmospheric) cycle of H₂," said Prather, a professor of Earth system science and former editor-in- chief of Geophysical Research Letters. "It is surprising that all of these groups examining a hydrogen economy are secure in the belief that H₂ is a pure fuel, safe and harmless to the environment," although studies suggest otherwise.

One problem is that hydrogen leaked into the atmosphere binds with oxygen molecules, forming water vapor and clouds. A change in cloud abundance in some regions might alter the local temperature and climate -- for example, the climate might warm if the clouds trap heat like blankets, or the climate might cool if they reflect sunlight back into space.

"The widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells ... would cause stratospheric cooling, enhancement of the heterogeneous chemistry that destroys ozone, an increase in noctilucent clouds, and changes in tropospheric (lower-atmosphere) chemistry and atmosphere-biosphere interactions," scientists from Caltech and Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena proposed in the journal Science in 2003. Noctilucent clouds are eerie high-altitude clouds whose abundance, some scientists suspect, is influenced by climate change.

There's also some discussion of hydrogen production by electrolysis used in conjunction with alternative energy sources, such as wind power. I think this is a reasonable long-term idea, as long as we don't delude ourselves into thinking the hydrogen is an energy source - barring the discovery of a hydrogen well, it's a storage method. The potential environmental problems of hydrogen itself are also worth addressing, but (a) we have a couple decades before widespread use is even feasible during which we can study the potential effects; and (b) we already know the effects from fossil fuels are very negative and ongoing. So hydrogen power isn't something to be afraid of or to avoid, but it's often hopelessly oversold to the detriment of genuine progress on energy independence and environmental protection.

You're A Disappointment!

2004-12-23T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Festivus lights are all aglow.
I thought that you should know,
I am very disappointed in you.
Happy Festivus! (Shamelessly pilfered from Katherine Willis.)

We can't have Festivus without the traditional airing of grievances, but that would take hours (where to begin?), so here's a few of the less obvious ones:

Comcast - for unreliable cable Internet access
Billmon - for not blogging anymore
NASA - for diverting their resources away from research and exploration and toward going to Mars, bitches!
CERN - for not extending operation of the LEP (though I can understand the decision)
Caltech - for having Michael Crichton deliver a screed basically like his new book as an alleged science lecture
id - for making Doom 3 too dark to see. Seriously, it's only playable in the dead of night.
my upstairs neighbors - for apparently taking large, bounding leaps across their apartment rather than walking

Microsoft also makes the list and is bad enough to warrant their own poem:

If your compy reads the floppy when you hit the Windows key
And the disk drives are all missing from the screen and menu tree
And the registry is messy, filled with broken enter-ies
Then there's really just two outcomes: it can crash or it can freeze!

May you all have a dysfunctional Festivus!

Time-Travelling Insurgents

2004-12-23T12:47:00.000-08:00

General Richard Meyers seems to think that the Iraqi insurgency has developed a time machine to fight us by attacking us in the past:

This attack [in Mosul], of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11, the same type of insurgents who attacked in Beirut, the same insurgents who -- type of insurgents who attacked the Cole, Khobar Towers, and the list goes on.

So there you have it, folks: according to Gen. Meyers, we caused 9/11 by invading Iraq. (Via The 18½ Minute Gap)

"I don't remember you looking quite so much like Mr. Peanut made from olive pits."

2004-12-22T19:36:00.000-08:00

So what the hell is this thing, anyway? And why the hell am I using it for a portrait? It's a stylized version of something called a penguin diagram, a class of Feynman path used in quantum chromodynamics (not to be confused with Quantum Christodynamics). As for why I'm using it as a portrait... Read the story behind it, as told by John Ellis, the physicist who coined the term, and all will become clear (or not):

Mary K. (Gaillard), Dimitri (Nanopoulos) and I first got interested in what are now called penguin diagrams while we were studying CP violation in the Standard Model in 1976... The penguin name came in 1977, as follows.
In the spring of 1977, Mike Chanowitz, Mary K and I wrote a paper on GUTs predicting the b quark mass before it was found. When it was found a few weeks later, Mary K, Dimitri, Serge Rudaz and I immediately started working on its phenomenology. That summer, there was a student at CERN, Melissa Franklin who is now an experimentalist at Harvard. One evening, she, I and Serge went to a pub, and she and I started a game of darts. We made a bet that if I lost I had to put the word penguin into my next paper. She actually left the darts game before the end, and was replaced by Serge, who beat me. Nevertheless, I felt obligated to carry out the conditions of the bet.
For some time, it was not clear to me how to get the word into this b quark paper that we were writing at the time. Then, one evening, after working at CERN, I stopped on my way back to my apartment to visit some friends living in Meyrin where I smoked some illegal substance. Later, when I got back to my apartment and continued working on our paper, I had a sudden flash that the famous diagrams look like penguins. So we put the name into our paper, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Exerpted from the ITEP 1995 Lectures in Particle Physics (hep-ph/9510397)

Mangled Thoughts, Indeed

2004-12-22T18:53:00.000-08:00

For anyone who hasn't been following along, in between stalking John Lott and defending the Lancet's Iraq study from warbloggers who didn't even read it, Tim Lambert has been having a lot of fun smacking down ~~resident troll~~ Lavosier Group fellow Louis Hissink's dumb arguments against global warming. Now, there are a lot of dumb arguments out there, especially from astroturf operations like Tech Central Station and, uh, the Lavosier Group, but Louis takes it to a whole new level. Claims that temperature is not a physical quantity or that there is no such thing as an average temperature are too modest for him. So, first he disproved the existence of seasons and day-night temperature variations. But that wasn't enough. No, now Louis informs us that stars and planets are invisible without a telescope:

the Holy See seemed to need to recalibrate the calendar, and in Medieval times, no one was observing the heavens for the simple fact that telescopes had not yet been invented.

And that's just the beginning. What does that have to do with global warming anyway? Well, Hissink is a true believer in Velikovsky's Biblical astronomy and claims it disproves global warming. Lambert pretty well covers the rest, but there's some he missed, probably because it's just too stupid to even bother with. Hissink claims that "the Sun stopped in the midday," but denies that this means the Earth stopped rotating. Is Louis a geocentrist? I wouldn't put it past him. For a prize of the total value of everything Louis has ever written (or nothing, whichever is more), see if you can spot the disconnect... Louis:

the Biblical authors noted... that the Sun stopped in the midday.

vs. Louis:

The problem is that records are somewhat sparse for this period [prior to the renaissance], so it very difficult to work out precisely what was going on.

[UPDATE(12/23): In comments, Tim Lambert (holy crap!) points out that Louis actually has used the "temperature isn't a physical quatity" claim. See comments on this post (search for "Hissink").]

New and Improved Blogroll

2004-12-21T19:43:00.000-08:00

As you've probably noticed, I've been fiddling with the sidebar, and especially the blogroll and links, like I've got a bad case of OCD and way too much coffee. So I'd like to take the time to point out two major additions to the blogroll: Belisarius, and Chuck's other home, Bad Attitudes. I just found these blogs today when he dropped in to comments on yesterday's lengthy rant (go. read. seriously, it's probably better than the rant itself.), and they're both already on my daily reading list. Be sure not to miss Reality-Based Model Switchers while you're there. Hell, you can't go ten lines without bumping into something good.

(Oh, yeah... I also made a few minor tweaks like adding some fishwraps and putting in a new category for paperless media. Like I said, minor stuff.)

It's the End of the World as We Know It, Part II

2004-12-21T19:07:00.000-08:00

Previously on The Token Reader:

The daily grind continues the same as before; wouldn't life have changed drastically if American democracy really died, or even was on its deathbed?

One expects that to be true, but is this expectation rational or merely wishful thinking, perhaps even a kind of exceptionalism ("it can't happen here"). This brings me to the second article I mentioned in my first post, Dining With the Rhinos, by Joe Bageant (found via The Leiter Reports - sould have been found via the King of Zembla).

The title of Bageant's essay refers to Rhinoceros, a play by Eugene Ionesco about the transformation of society from free to totalitarian - the transformation of society from a collection of individuals to an unthinking herd of rhinos. Even without elaborating further, the imagery is disturbingly familiar, though, like a rhinoceros in the living room, none dare speak of it. But, for a moment, let's return to the initial question:

After all, nothing appears much different since the November elections. We get up in the morning and everything is the same as when we went to bed. We still have our jobs and the mortgage still comes due on the first of the month. Television is as bad as ever. Yet, something has changed. One keeps one's opinions more to one's self these days. There is something in the air they cannot quite put their finger on, and if one cannot name the beast, well then, it's best not to comment on it lest people think you are starting to fray at the edges, becoming aberrant. And besides, in looking around, nobody else seems overly upset except a few aberrant types on the Internet.

In that short passage, Bageant captures exactly the "something in the air," the sense that dissent is no longer safe, as though you have to either stampede with the herd or get trampled underfoot. Now, I don't know about you other "aberrant types on the Internet," but while I speak almost as freely as the Rude Pundit (without the hilarious rudeness, alas) here, I'm usually quite a bit more careful in the meat world. What do I mean by "careful"? I mean that I've learned to wear my FAUX News and GYWO t-shirts only in agreeable company and to keep them hidden in most public places unless I want someone walking up to me and trying to start a fight (yes, physically) again. (There was even that time someone in an SUV - of course - tried to run me off the road after seeing my rather tame bumper stickers - and yes, I know that's why based on how it happened.) I mean that I can't say anything remotely approaching this in most settings for fear of being labeled an anti-American communist, an acceptable target for violence. (Think I'm paranoid? That's what I called my mother when she complained that putting those bumper stickers on my car was an invitation to be attacked.) But there are always crazies and bullies in any society, so why does this matter? This couldn't be real fascism, could it?

Hard cases such as myself, and the readers of websites like this one, have railed and ranted about the rise of the rhinos for some time now. But to be honest, I sometimes doubt myself, just like those middle-of-the-road liberals. Like theirs, my senses do not perceive much physical change. I get up and brush my teeth and every day is the same as the day before. I look over at my sleeping wife, who is untroubled by any of the impending political specters that so often haunt me. And I wonder, am I nuts? Have I finally fallen off the precipice over which I have so long stared? After all, the dog still chews the corner of the carpet if I don't keep an eye on him. Are not these the things of ordinary earthly life? Maybe I should be paying more attention to the mundane stuff, which any reflective person knows constitutes most of living.

Then that national creepiness, the distant rumble of the herd, rattles me again.

At a time when our government is telling us to 'watch what we say' and the (now-retired) Attorney General equates dissent with high treason (make no mistake, Ashcroft deliberately used the wording from the Constitutional definition of treason), such intimidation is, together, bigger than its sum, and the bully bigger than the wannabe dictators next door. In fact, the individuals no longer matter, for:

the stampede itself is what it is all about. It is the stampede, the mindless charging off together that causes the metamorphosis of people into rhinos.

Somewhere, some hate radio goon is directing the herd, himself part of the mindless stampede, a cog in the machinery of fascism.
"But," you object (must... resist... copying... Fafnir), "it can't happen here. We're a nation with a long, proud tradition of individualism; some herd of rhinos might form, but they would never be able to assimilate most of the population!" Sadly, Ionesco dealt with the same exceptionalist argument when the play was first performed:

Americans at the time, 1959, saw Rhinoceros as a play about their favorite theme, individualism. Ionesco tried to tell critics that it was a play "not merely against conformism but mainly about totalitarianism," and that the very notion of a government or state proclaiming individualism as one of its national virtues is in itself absurd. To which U.S. critics replied that totalitarianism cannot happen here because America is a nation of individualists, thus proving Ionesco's point.

Another time, I might have been comforted by the assumption that protest and civil disobedience could stem the tide. Bageant, however, gives just enough hope to that pipe dream before dashing it on the rocks:

Dissent? We wish! Judging from the run-of-the-mill American liberals I see here in the Washington, DC area, liberals think voting Democratic, giving fifty bucks to the ACLU and dropping down at the National Mall once a year to observe someone else's protest is enough to maintain their credentials.

Nevertheless, some very ordinary middle class liberals are finally feeling like Berenger. Starting to feel that creepy sense of alienation (the kind that we American lefties have become used to), catching a whiff of what smells like approaching totalitarianism. This has been very hard for white-collar liberals who pride themselves on balanced judgment and restraint from political excess. But ever since the suspect skin-of-the-teeth election of George Bush, I have been able to coax honest confessions of fear out of at least a few mainstream Democrats around the company water cooler. These are the Toyota and Volvo driving liberals whose most adventurous move in any given week may be parking one space over from their usual spot in the company parking lot. (That this daring move always draws comment should give you some idea of the quiet desperation of publishing work in this country.) A few of these meek liberals are starting to smell the fear, catch the scent of the herd.

Sounds hopeful, right? Alas:

Calling weird, weird is very hard for educated liberals. Most have nice lives, either in the middle class or perhaps living comfortably amid less affluent but intelligent and artistic circles. Others are middle class educators and such, raising families among decent open-minded friends in a community of like souls. Of course some do smell the fear. But they think that if they remain invisible and deny any such thoughts they will escape the trampling of the herd.

Then, too, acknowledging that we have devolved into a one-party rhinoid system, the party of business, but with two wings, Dem and GOP, would put the average American liberal in the position of having to take action. Or not. And let's face the truth about modern middle class American liberalsthey are a rather gutless lot who would not take to the streets no matter how bad things get. That is all but impossible when your house is on a good street and your kids' college fund is in place, even if it took a second mortgage to pay for it. Denial is easier, as was proved when the so-called American left failed to rise up when the 2000 elections were rigged, something which doesn't even fly in the Ukraine these days, as was proved by its massive protest of similar elections there. Yet I must admit, to stand up in the face of a rhino herd takes a lot of ass. Maybe denial buys enough time to get the kids through school and the mortgage paid off before the rhinos tear up the lawn. Denial can sometimes work, but only if you are buying time for yourself.

That last sentence especially gave me pause because that kind of denial is the same logic as the denial that we have to do something about global warming, waning oil supplies, or economic self-destruction. This common 'logic of denial' shared by rhinos and nominal liberals, I believe, makes them quite vulnerable to the stampede mentality, perhaps, when push comes to shove, more apt to join in than stand against it. Fortunately, Bageant identifies the root impulse driving the American rhino, which he very aptly terms "Southern meanness," (or "conservative meanness") a phenomenon most liberals fail to recognize let alone express.

Okay. Just how mean are we talking about? Blind stupid mean. Meaner than a goddamn sack of snakes. Here is a sample of standard rhino conversation, which I have clipped from the local online forum so as to be completely accurate in quoting them. But these quotes are from the very same people who say the very same things night after night at King Harry's and actually believe what they say. I remind you that these are some of the better sort of rhinos in this town, rhinos who own businesses, professional rhinos, etc. You do not want to meet the real wooly boogers.

* Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? They do not live here and they do not count!

* The United States will be forced to engage in tactical low yield nuclear attacks, in particular against Iran & North Korea.

* I support the complete destruction of Arab/Muslim culture and nationality. The complete destruction of their capitol cities and money centers. Then we will see how long they taunt us.

* Put an end to all this stupid political correctness crap and then simply beat some sense into those who don't comply. The hell with what the euro tribal councils whine.

And my personal favorite rhinism of all:

* If Americans stand together and quit questioning themselves so much, we can rule the world. But all this liberal whining is ruining American business here and abroad.

And we're fed this rhinisms day in and day out by our pathetic excuse for a free press. So where does that leave us? Are we hopeless, doomed to become like Berenger, a hideous abomination of humanity among a stampeding herd of rhinos? Or is there something we can do about this creeping fascism? Before saying that I'm blowing things out of proportion, perhaps you should read Bageant's closing words:

If as is claimed, American politics are a pendulum, then that swing has been a mighty damned short one of late, somewhere between corporate feudalism abroad, and a domestic form in which rhinos happily play video games and watch football while their kids charge around on the ever expanding rhino empire's wars for oil and turf and more slave labor.

Call me hyperbolic if you want, paranoid even. But millions of people with swollen bellies around the planet are nodding yes, along with all those unemployed youths in Fallujah, and Mindanao, and Bolivia, loading AK clips, in anticipation of bagging an American rhino.

[NOTE: This was originally supposed to end somewhere around here - and to be a single post, to boot - but that kinda didn't work out. I don't want to leave y'all thinking I'm a total pessimist, so I'm mulling over some ideas on what to do about this... situation... and will probably have a Part III as a Christmas present to everyone.]

[UPDATE(21:05): added the rhino pic. Thanks, Scaramouche!]

[UPDATE(12/23): Added the link to the King of Zembla. Sorry for missing your post, Most Benevolent Despot.]

Happy Saturnalia

2004-12-21T16:08:00.000-08:00

(obviously NSFW)
Found via comments to Slacktivist's version of Krauthammer's column. And since you're headed over there already, Left Behind is back!

The further I get in this book, the more Buck reminds me of Arthur Dent from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker series. The main difference being that Arthur, at least, realized that he was a confused and selfish man overwhelmed by the absurd events unfolding around him. And Buck, unlike Arthur, really is a jerk, a total kneebiter.

It's the End of the World as We Know It, Part I

2004-12-20T20:13:00.000-08:00

To separate fake CHRISTIANs from the genuine crusaders, Medium Lobster asks the important questions in life:

The end of the world:
1. Will be slower and more painful than I can possibly imagine.
2. Will be a vast disappointment.
3. Must be hastened by strict adherence to a collection of ancient inscrutable animal prophecies.
4. Has already happened.

I laughed... until I thought about it reworded this way:

The end of American democracy:
1. Will be slower and more painful than I can possibly imagine.
2. Will be a vast disappointment.
3. Must be hastened by strict adherence to a collection of ancient inscrutable animal prophecies.
4. Has already happened.

It reminded me of the perpetual (under Bush) discussion of the state of American democracy and the various protofascistic forces dismantling it. In most of these discussions, it seems to be assumed that those answering (3) will only be able to make (1) come true in, at worst, years (though I've noticed Orcinus revising his timeline to be more pessimistic the longer Bush is in power). However, two articles I read recently lead me to believe that (4) can't be entirely ruled out. Is it possible that, while the legal institutions of democracy are still there, there's no 'there' there? Have we become a "managed democracy"?

Ordinarily, even I wouldn't be cynical enough to seriously answer "yes," but I've noticed that everytime I think I might be too cynical, it turns out I'm not cynical enough. Furthermore, two articles on this topic have gotten me thinking on the subject, and now think it might be more accurate to say we need to "reclaim" democracy rather than "defend" it. The first is from the latest issue of Free Inquiry magazine by SUNY philosopher Paul Kurtz, who asks the question Is America a Post-democratic Society? What does he mean by this?

We need to ask: are we already in a post-democratic stage? Is it still possible to stem this tide and restore American democracy? In my optimistic mood, my response in the short- and mid-run is “Yes, we can,” but we face enormous political battles. In the long run, we need to embark upon a New Enlightenment, defending reason, science, free inquiry, and nonreligious ethical alternatives—if there is still time to do so.

In my pessimistic mood, I recognize yet another source of danger to democratic institutions. It is virtually impossible for any one nation-state (democratic or nondemocratic) to solve its economic, cultural, social, and environmental problems alone. Neither France nor Germany, China nor Brazil, Britain nor the United States is capable of dealing with these problems in isolation from their impact on others in the world. For the problems we face are planetary in scope. The Europeans have discovered this truth, and they are working hard to strengthen new European institutions—a European Parliament and a new Constitution—and of course the World Court.

Only the present leadership of America stands in haughty isolation, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the World Court or to abide by treaties; only the United States has abandoned the principle of collective security and the United Nations; only the United States assumes for itself the role of policeman to the world. Possessing a preponderance of weapons of mass destruction, it seeks to impose its will on others. Incredibly, among the major powers only the United States is fixated on a premodern theological worldview. Whether a future Democratic administration could change this trend is at this point questionable—unless there is a genuine realignment of the centers of power in the United States.

Before reaching this conclusion, Kurtz defines the preconditions for a functional democracy - political, economic, and social - and explains how four major trends in American society actively undermine them. Most of you are probably familiar with these trends and how they individually undermine free society, but seeing them all together makes me think Kurtz had it right with his pessimistic conclusion. First is plutocracy - "government of, for, and by the wealthy class in society":

Between the booms of the 1920s and the 1980s came the New Deal and the Great Society, a time of great strides toward equality. Average workers after World War II improved their economic standing dramatically. These gains now seem to have been curtailed, even reversed, especially since the Reagan years. For more than two decades, we have been deluged by the libertarian mantra: that government is evil, that regulations and taxation have stifled the free market, that welfare is abused and needs to be drastically reduced, and that the amassing of wealth is the basic American virtue. A form of plutomania has overcome us, as, for example, during the speculative stock-market bubble of the 1990s. Many Americans considered this period of exponential growth to be sanctified by God. I have called the reigning sacred cow “Evangelical Capitalism.”

This, Kurtz explains, not only undermines economic and social democracy, but also weakens political democracy. It takes money to run for office - lots of money - so only the rich or those financed by the rich can attain national office (or prominent state office). There is nothing new about this; however, the problem is made far worse when the fraction of the population capable of running or ~~buying~~ contributing to a candidate shrinks, as is happening now. He who cuts the checks dictates policy, regardless of party (cf. DLC, Lieberman). As Kurtz writes:

Undoubtedly, Democrats are more amenable to social-welfare policies than are Republicans. Yet both parties bear responsibility for the present crisis... All too few radical reforms are enacted by our legislative system, because the plutocrats control it and they assiduously protect their interests—with all too few notable exceptions. In one sense, the heated debates between candidates serve as a cover, for the basic interests of those who control the country are very rarely in contention.

In other words, DC pwn3d by plutocrats! The "hereditary aristocracy" buying its greed-driven policies (e.g., repeal of the estate tax), unfortunately, is not isolated, but instead closely related to the growth of mega-corporations (but you already knew that), the second anti-democratic trend Kurtz analyzes. As corporations grow in power, they not only concentrate wealth, but begin to dictate government policy directly. After all, if they don't like a country's policies, they can just go somewhere else and take the jobs with them. This gives corporations the upper hand in almost all government-corporate interactions, leading to perverse policies (I swear, the assonance wasn't intentional), such as a tax structure where:

From 1996 to 2000, 63 percent of U.S. corporations paid no taxes at all, while 94 percent paid taxes equal to less than 5 percent of their net income.

Ouch! Kurtz even convincingly (IMHO) ties this trend to American imperialism due to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of and the sense of triumphalism and invulnerability a large, technologically advance military engenders. However, the primary force behind jingoism is the next trend: media consolidation. (Yes, Simbaud, the Fairness Doctrine is mentioned.) Kurtz explains that the key threat is that mass media mostly consists of official, scripted 'conventional wisdom' (i.e., propaganda), and that this goes beyond FAUX News and the Bush administration 'public diplomacy' (i.e., propaganda):

Today, the public square has been inundated by mass communications media, which all too often drown out dissenting viewpoints. Secularists and humanists opposed totalitarian societies, because the ministries of propaganda spewed forth the official party line and squelched opposing viewpoints. We are surely not at that point yet, but a kind of iron curtain is closing American society; a quasi-official propaganda line is too often the only one heard. For example: it is widely held that capital punishment is the only way to deal with murderers; that violence is the most effective response to evil; that long prison sentences are necessary for drug dealers and heavy users; that government is wasteful; that the free market is the only way to get anything done; that we need to privatize everything and judge all services by the bottom line; that we should consider those who possess great wealth to be role models (e.g. Donald Trump); and that self-righteous chauvinistic nationalistic patriotism, which venerates God, country, and the flag, is the only posture to assume, ad nauseam!

Something Kurtz does not touch on, but I believe is closely related, in both effect (misinforming the public) and motivation (promoting policies, based on cynical self-interest, that nobody would support if they knew the truth), is the increasing government secrecy. Secret laws, secret regulations, secret lists, secret meetings, secret prisons, secret trials... that, I believe, is the iron curtain descending upon America. Kurtz frequently mentions the importance of government transparency, but, perhaps due to space constraints, does not delve into the memory hole to elaborate on how this is being directly attacked. Perhaps this is because he considers it derivative: the mass media only care about money, so they won't pry; the "quasi-propaganda" tells everyone that, well, the government has to keep some secrets, so mind your own damn business; the plutocrats and corporatists want to cover up their shady deals... And the farther they go with secrecy, the more the populace becomes desensitized; I'd say that by now we're at least knuckle-deep within the borderline. But I digress.
Finally, we get to the "moral values" crowd: theocracy. Though this is the single trend that most drives me up the wall - or perhaps because of this - I really don't have much to say here, since it's all old news. However, you still might find it interesting since it discusses the issue from an explicitly secular humanist perspective - a perspective that reveals double-standards taken for granted, 'even' among liberals:

Positively, Democrats in the Congress have opposed [the faith-based initiatives], though regrettably most Democratic politicians have expressed their piety in public (including Mr. Kerry) and almost none has been willing to admit any nonreligious identity.

Kurtz isn't complaining that Kerry is religious - what he means is that politicians are expected to trumpet their piety from the ~~pulpit~~ stage, but any politician who declared that he does not tie himself to a particular religion and thus feels no need to push any personal beliefs on anyone would be dead (politically, though I wouldn't rule out assassination). Most (but not all - cf. Obama) public displays of religion from politicians reek of exclusion to anyone without "faith". For instance, when Kerry gave his speech at the DNC and emphasized "faith" as a shared value that ties Americans together, I wanted to wretch. Even though I knew it was probably a political calculation to include that, I rather clearly got the message "no athiests allowed." In fact, the tacit point to most "Democrats need to get religion" articles I've read is that Democrats need to pick secularists for their Sister Souljah Moment. Joe "there's no freedom from religion" Lieberman must be happy as a clam on Prozac.

So where does this leave us? Is it hopeless? Kurtz believes there is hope, but that it will require not only hard work, but radical changes, both nationally and globally, in a way that fits nicely with John's conclusion about George Packer's essay in the New Yorker, Invasion vs. Persuasion:

every person on the planet should be considered to have equal dignity and value. Thus we should do what we can to defend and extend democracy to every country and region of the world, on a decentralized basis. But we also need uniquely to build new, viable democratic institutions on the planetary level. In my view, this is the daring new frontier for democracy in the twenty-first century.

Thus, the battleground is not simply to restore democracy in the United States, but more importantly to expand democratic institutions on the global scale. If this noble goal is to be achieved, we need to overcome intolerant xenophobic, racist, ethnic, nationalistic, and religious prejudices. We need to vigorously criticize religious fundamentalism on all sides with courage and determination. We need to define and defend planetary ethics, to strive to build a new democratic humanistic civilization based on shared human rights and values. This battle both at home and on the planetary scale is awesome, but we have no viable option but to strive to bring it about.

Still, is such a drastic, global restructuring necessary? The daily grind continues the same as before; wouldn't life have changed drastically if American democracy really died, or even was on its deathbed?

Tomorrow (or the next day, depending on how long it takes): The Rhinoceros in the Living Room.

[UPDATE(21:06): cleaned up some typos and editing wierdness.]

Not likely to be aired in this country - ever

2004-12-19T20:01:00.000-08:00

Bible is 'lies and spin,' says C4

'Sensationalist' film sparks anger among church groups

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday December 19, 2004
The Observer

It's the season for Channel 4 to cause controversy. Each year the channel strives to whip up a furore surrounding its programming on Christmas Day. If it is not trying to break the record for the most f-words (2002), it's asking Ali G to present an alternative Queen's speech (1999).

Now it has attracted anger from Christian groups over its plans to screen a documentary which dismisses some parts of the Bible as untrue and attacks others as being a 'masterwork of spin'.

I can't imagine anything like that being broadcast in the US - no network would stand up to the Christofascists' cries of "anti-Christian bigotry." Who would present such a program, anyway?

They have also expressed concerns about the presenter, Dr Robert Beckford, a reader in theology at Birmingham University.

Well, he must be one of those "anti-Christian bigots," right?

In the new documentary, Beckford, a committed pentecostal Christian, describes a journey he made to some of Christianity's holiest places to help him uncover the provenance of the Bible. He calls his conclusion an 'earth-shattering experience' and one that made him doubt some of his most basic Christian beliefs.

Here are a few of the things this pentacostal Christian has to say about the Bible:

Of the Old Testament, Beckford declares: 'The so-called law of Moses turns out to be the work of many human hands. What I once thought was the word of God was now beginning to sound like something out of Stalin's Russia.'

He produces archaeological evidence to suggest the Bible's claims that the kingdoms of David and Solomon dominated the 10th century BC were wrong, an error that raises profound claims about the genesis of Christianity.

He declares the New Testament a 'masterwork of spin written by people who were nowhere near the events they describe, all gathered by powerful editors who kept out ideas they did not like'.

The story of the nativity is also doubted. Beckford argues that Matthew added the story to fulfil a prophecy made in the Old Testament.

And anyone who's seen either The Power of Myth or Snatch knows that last one involved an amusing mistranslation, too.

There is also a (sadly) unsurprising interview with Richard Land:

One of the most revealing moments comes when Beckford visits the US state of Georgia to talk to President Bush's spiritual adviser, baptist minister Richard Land. Land dismisses as 'rubbish' suggestions that the Bible is inaccurate and cannot be the basis for political decisions. 'When you stand in judgment of scripture, that is a theology of death,' says Land, who has called for Iraq to be 'flooded' with US troops.

To Beckford such views are deeply alarming. 'This was what surprised me most about my journey, discovering how dangerous this fundamentalism can be,' he said.

I suppose it could be surprising to someone who doesn't live in a society where such nuttiness is considered normal. Part of the reason it isn't marginalized in the mainstream discourse, I believe, is exemplified by the next sentence in the article:

But Hilborn said: 'People have these wrong perceptions. To see evangelicals as literalists is not true. It's a multifarious movement; you have to give a much more nuanced interpretation.'

Notice the bait-and-switch? Beckford was addressing fundamentalism, which, by definition, involves literalism. The fundies like to cloak themselves in the more respectable term 'evangelicals', which, strictly speaking, means those who try to convince others of the truth of their theological beliefs, including entirely reasonable people (say, Slacktivist). I've basically given up fighting the subversion of language, however, since it seems mostly futile.

Must be a slow week in academia

2004-12-19T16:57:00.000-08:00

I, Plaintiff
Via /. is an utterly surreal article in Legal Affairs about granting legal rights to AI computers:

To Bernstein, all that the plaintiff's counsel had demonstrated was that BINA48 could simulate consciousness (perhaps more effectively than many 1-800 operators) but she had failed to show that a computer could "actually cross the line between inanimate objects and human beings."

To me, Mr. Bernstein has not even demonstrated the ability to simulate consciousness by engaging in such solipsism. Really, I see no distinction between Mr. Bernstein's position and the hypothetical "what if everyone else isn't really conscious but are merely simulacra" beyond the fact that there are no self-aware machines yet. I will agree that Turing tests are largely pointless, however, but that's because humans often fail them (sometimes in hilarious ways), not because computers can 'fake it'.

A precious case from Middle Earth
Via BoingBoing, the British Medical Journal has a psychiatric analysis of Gollum:

Several differential diagnoses need to be considered, and we should exclude organic causes for his symptoms. A space occupying lesion such as a brain tumour is unlikely as his symptoms are long standing. Gollum's diet is extremely limited, consisting only of raw fish. Vitamin B-12 deficiency may cause irritability, delusions, and paranoia. His reduced appetite and loss of hair and weight may be associated with iron deficiency anaemia. He is hypervigilant and does not seem to need much sleep. This, accompanied by his bulging eyes and weight loss, suggests hyperthyroidism. Gollum's dislike of sunlight may be due to the photosensitivity of porphyria. Attacks may be induced by starvation and accompanied by paranoid psychosis.

In the end, however, they settle on schizoid personality disorder.

Bush Wins "Person of the Year"... Again!

2004-12-19T15:45:00.000-08:00

Just like Stalin! And, hey, Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeni in '79, so maybe Bush does deserve it.

Actually, it's supposed to merely be for the most influential person of the year, and I suppose I could agree Bush deserves that - what other "Person of the Year" has exhibited such skill at destroying his own country and destabilizing the world? (Yes, yes, Hitler and Stalin, but aren't you just a little tired of the "well, he's not as bad as [insert villain here]" defense?) Of course, the problem is that they usually turn the issue into a hagiography. For instance, whose ass did they pull this wording from (emphasis added):

For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively)

Uhm, yeah... Yeah, of course I remember Dubya hunkered down in his foxhole shouting "bring 'em on" to all those terrah-ists as he shot 'em dead with his own SAW!

If that doesn't leave you depressed enough, check out their article about blogs: they give InstaIgnorance 'credit' for keeping the Swift Boat Veterans ~~for~~ Against the Truth lies alive. I just hope I never run into one of these people who writes articles about blogs; the tone is always so patronizing I can't help but picture them grabbing a fistful of cheek and babbling "oh, da cute little blogger."

Where'd the comments go?

2004-12-18T19:13:00.000-08:00

Don't worry, they're still there, just click through the permalinks for the old comments. I didn't think to set up HaloScan before I started posting, so now I'm switching the comment system and adding trackbacks (who am I kidding?). I'll probably be tweaking the blog a bit more for a while, so beware of broken links and shifting formats. (Amusing thing I discovered writing this: Blogger spellcheck doesn't know the word "blog" or even "Blogger". Go figure.)

"You're hypocrites! All of you!"

2004-12-18T18:24:00.000-08:00

Via TalkLeft is an all-too-common example of fundamentalists peddling the Bible "like giving out laundry detergent and America Online." This normally wouldn't even be worth mentioning, but an aside about the reaction from the local Jewish community caught my attention:

From Temple Shalom's perspective, there is a more disturbing consideration: respect for that which is holy. For many Jews, putting Bibles in plastic sacks and then throwing them on the ground is desecrating God's word. "We don't even put our Bibles on the floor," [Temple Shalom administrator Marty] Simon noted. "If a car runs over it, or it falls into the gutter, that's desecration; it's the name of God."

I think that's an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought of before. In fact, if anything Mr. Simon understates the issue. I was raised Jewish and can remember from Synagague that even dropping a prayer book was considered disrespectful - if you dropped it you had to (go ahead and laugh, goyim) kiss it when you picked it up. And that was just the prayer book - the Torah isn't even removed from its ark except for services. Funny how the Bible is treated with more respect by Jews than the fundamentalists pushing it on them. (Obscure Rowan Atkinson joke: "Christians? Do we have any Christians here? Ah, yes, I'm sorry: the Jews were right.")
And one other random thought: if it's 'God's word' and 'infallible', what's with the local versions?

thanks to the International Bible Society, Colorado Springs now has its own customized Bible.

They even have the Bay Area on their target list:

Colorado Springs is merely the first city where the International Bible Society plans to distribute the New Testament inside daily newspapers. Jackson said the group is currently in discussions with the Denver Post to distribute a Denver version; Seattle, Nashville and Santa Rosa, Calif. are also high priorities.

I have to wonder what changes/additions they'll make to the Seattle one. The lyrics to "Jesus Christ Pose"?

A Very Cthulhu Christmas

2004-12-18T16:37:00.000-08:00

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn

(Via Pharyngula)

Say, how are things going in Afghanistan?

2004-12-18T16:19:00.000-08:00

Not too good, apparently. I thought we at least had Kabul under control, but alas:

Afghan troops have stormed the main jail in the capital, Kabul, after an escape bid by inmates escalated into a day-long siege that left several dead.

Well, a prison break is no big deal, right?

Witnesses said soldiers fired rocket-propelled grenades as they entered to retake control of the prison.
...
The... inmates held out for several hours, taking pot shots at the 200 police and armed militia who had surrounded the compound.

Oh. Maybe they still managed to end it without too much bloodshed.

At least nine people were killed during the day's violence.

{sigh} Oddly, this might actually be of interest to the freepers, since at least one (the wording is ambiguous) of their heroes is/are locked up in that prison:

Among Pul-e-Charki prisoners currently is the American vigilante Jonathan Idema, who was jailed with two other Americans for up to 10 years for torturing Afghans and running their own private prison.

The Emperor Norton I Bridge

2004-12-17T18:12:00.000-08:00

Hey, it's not like anyone pays attention to bridge names anyway. Might as well have some fun with it. (Wikipedia entry for "His Imperial Majesty Norton I, by the Grace of God, Emperor of the United States, and Protector of Mexico")

Missile Defense and Patriot Missiles

2004-12-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

With the latest in a long line of failures of the missile defense program, the Gulf War (I) myth that wouldn't die has reared its ugly head again. That's right - the claim that Patriot missiles intercepted SCUDs is still being used to hype missile defense, over a decade after MIT physicist Ted Postol sank that then-pro-SDI argument. Unfortunately, the Patriot missiles were better at shooting down friendly aircraft and attracting anti-SAM missiles. But that doesn't matter - it's an excuse to give money to defense contractors. Star Wars, brilliant pebbles, antimatter bombs, the CIA's 'remote viewing' experiments... It doesn't matter how stupid it is; if it can line their pockets, it will get ~~done~~ funded.

[Update (12/18): slightly re-worded.]

The 2004 Bad Science Awards

2004-12-17T00:03:00.000-08:00

I guess I picked a good day to start blogging. In The Guardian, Ben Goldacre presents the Bad Science Awards, ranging from silly to, well, just read it:

Bad Science product of the year... Durex Performa were in a slightly different category of bad, meaning "evil": a new condom with a special cream in the teat "to help control climax and prolong sexual excitement for longer lasting lovemaking". The magic ingredient was benzocaine, a local anaesthetic, which made the judges' tongues go numb. We didn't even think about trying it on our genitals.

(Via /.)