Speedkill

Wulfgar has ably ridiculed the hysterical reactions of some to the missing Egyptian students. I just wanted to make a couple of points.

1. They are not the right age for Al Qaeda suicide terrorists. They’re late teens, early 20s. Al Qaeda terrorists are late 20s.
2. Egypt has produced only 2 out of 48(ish) Al Qaeda terrorists.
3. The chance of them being terrorists is slim to none. The FBI has taken the proper steps. Hysterics are not warranted.

I do think one explanation of their disappearance has been falsified, however. As you may recall (from a Chronicle article that has since disappeared into the bowels of their building just down the street from here),

Rather than a case of international intrigue, this may well be a case of the Big Apple offering greater temptations than the Big Sky.

“I think these students decided they wanted to use their time in other ways, connected to being in New York, rather than Montana,” Norm Peterson, MSU’s vice provost for international education, said Monday.

Although Montanans may think of MSU as a great mecca, its fame as a wonderful, euphoric place to live and study “has not reached audiences around the world,” Peterson said.

“We fight an image problem all the time,” he said. “It may be one of the things that happened.”

One of them has apparently turned up in Minnesota. If they didn’t think Montana was cool enough, why would they go to Minnesota?

Think logically, people.

No surprise there, eh? Here’s a bit from the E-brief:

Repealing The Death Tax Is Important To Montana Farmers And Small Businesses

…

“Only 30 Percent Of Family Businesses Make It To The Second Generation And 13 Percent Survive To The Third.” (Op/Ed, Dick Patten, “Estate Tax Hurts Family Businesses,” Seattle Post – Intelligencer, July 28, 2005)

This is the only real statistic in the section. The other points are quotes from people saying the estate tax is bad, but without any evidence.

It’s an interesting statistic, isn’t it? What does it have to do with the estate tax? Nothing. No one has been able to find a small business or family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes. Very few even pay any estate taxes. The MT GOP is trying to insinuate that the estate tax is somehow responsible for this stat, but that’s all they can do. It’s bullshit and they know it.

In this hysterical screed from The Daily Inter Lake, there’s a confusing passage:

Now, before anyone accuses me of locking the hospital doors and letting people die on the street, let me explain myself. I do believe in charity. I do not believe in entitlements. Charity helps to bring us closer together; entitlements drive us further apart.

It is a good thing for the government or a church or an individual to help someone in need, but it is a bad thing to let people expect that every time they get in trouble, there is going to be someone there to bail them out. That is not called charity; it is called enabling.

I don’t understand the distinction here. Private charity doesn’t create a sense of entitlement, but government charity does? I see no functional difference. I’m no expert, but I don’t think, say, privately owned soup kitchens, tend to toss people out on the street for repeat visits. Even if there is that difference, it doesn’t seem to be an inherent difference between government and private programs. Surely a government-run entitlement program can be geared towards short term help and not just endlessly hand out money. So doesn’t his objection really only work against the design of certain government programs, rather than government programs themselves?

Also, is anyone else tired of people launching into rants against socialism when they see government spending? For crying out loud, “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need” is a bit different from helping out the less fortunate through government. Social programs aren’t intended to completely equalize our society. They’re an attempt to offset to some degree disadvantages faced by segments of our society. It’s a fact of our existence that we don’t all have the same chances in life. Is it so bad to want to give those who lack some of those chances a boost? Bad enough to conjure up images of one of the vilest regimes in our history? We’re not talking forced equality, we’re talking about leveling the playing field to a certain degree. Note the word degree.’ Some inequalities are fine. If you work harder, you get farther. That’s a good thing. Having government run social programs doesn’t mean doing away with that.

There also seems to be a lack of arguments against socialism (or whatever the person is describing as socialism) in these rants. It looks like a scare tactic. When it’s not scary enough, they say communism. Oh no, it’s socialism! Run for the hills! Color me unimpressed.

If you want to argue that government can’t do certain things as well as the private sector, fine. If you want to argue that this is generally the case, good for you. I’m not unsympathetic to that point of view. But calm down, stop the hysterics over one little word, and make an argument. We’ll all be better for it.

(via MTPolitics)

Bottled water is glorified tap water, but buying it in America doesn’t cause water shortages in India. It’s bottled in several places and you get water from a source in the U.S.

Having high school students read Girl, Interrupted is equivalent to having them read Playboy. I understand immature high school students, but immature parents?

Proselytizing four year-olds? What’s the world coming to?

I’m a bit unsure about this port thing. Off the top of my head, it seems like it’d be easier for a member of al-Qaeda to infiltrate that company, but is it? Deserves some debate. There have already been accusations of racism, so we may not get much of a debate.

“Dissent from Darwin” reaches 500. There are an awful lot of engineers (no offense) on it. I prefer Steves, myself.

Matt and Wulfgar have put up posts answering a questionnaire for Democrats posted over at Rabid Sanity. I thought I might give it a shot as well.

1. What is going right with our country right now? This question is necessary because if we all agree on what is working, we won’t have to reinvent the wheel and waste time.

Generally, things are going fine. Our system of government is works well enough, civil liberties are generally respected, most people are getting by, etc. I don’t think there’s really a need to agree on what’s working, as there are fewer things that aren’t, so fleshing them out is easier and less time consuming.

2. What are the top three issues that need to be addressed in order of priority. You can’t say everything, because then nothing is a priority.

1. Our current war on terror strategy. This includes things like the war in Iraq, the Patriot act, the NSA spying conundrum, etc. Iraq is obviously the biggest part of this. It’s costing us trillions and has rolled back some of the gains made by the war in Afghanistan (which could have been prosecuted better in places, but we can’t underestimate the value of depriving al Qaeda of essentially their own country). A lot of blood has been shed already there, with the potential for more. The potential for success (defined as a stable and democratic regime) seems low, but I still have some hope left. At home, civil liberties are being sacrificed in the name of the Patriot act (as a caveat, the whole act is not bad, but has quite a few worrying provisions) and warrant-less wiretaps.

2. Our national discourse. I’m young, so I can’t really say if it’s always been like this, but our national discourse is pathetic. The media is a major part of this. Being more concerned with making money than informing us, they put vacuous pundits on television to scream at each other and demonize the other side. When they aren’t doing that, they’re doing pointless horserace coverage or engaging in unenlightening he said-she said reporting. Don’t get me wrong, there are good reporters (print, mostly), but we’re steeped in these worthless human interest stories and mind-numbing pundit shows that get us nowhere. To get more, we can turn to ideological opinion magazines, but the content is uneven. It’s not all the media’s fault, though. There’s obviously a market for this crap. Too many people just don’t care. Voter turnout is pathetic. How many people can name their Congressional representatives? The people that do vote have problems as well. Rather than voting based on policy, they’re swayed by looks, emotion, or appeals to a shared faith. Some think their religion is a sound basis for policy. Perhaps worse, some lazily vote for whatever party they decided they were a part of long ago. No one’s perfect, but it’s not that hard to educate yourself. It’s not that hard to learn about how politicians manipulate voters and try to correct for it. Then there are the partisans of both sides. Godless hippies who hate America vs. corrupt corporate fatcats bent on turning this country into a theocracy? I don’t think so. Oh, but I can’t blame the people who have turned off politics for doing so. Look at who they have to vote for. Politicians who care about their special interest checks more than the people they serve. Cynical manipulations of the voting public. The belief that they should intervene in private family tragedies. Principle thrown to the wind to get elected (or the misguided belief that it will get them elected). This is something of a catch all, but it’s all related and it’s something we need to fix (of course, I don’t have the answers).

3. Health care. I hesitate to put this here because I have recurring philosophical questions about this side of liberalism. Still, our current system is bloated and inefficient. It works for the rich, but leaves out the poor. Whether this means getting government completely out of it or moving to a system of universal government care, I’m not entirely sure. Something has to change.

3. We have been fighting the War on Poverty for 40 years. Have we made any progress? A follow up; What is working, and what isn’t working?

I’d say we have. As Wulfgar pointed out, our definition of poverty is much higher than third world definitions. That’s excellent. We still have many homeless and others who are struggling. I honestly don’t have strong opinions here. Things like unemployment insurance, welfare, etc are good programs, but they won’t pull people out of poverty on their own. I’m still unsure of exactly how much help we should give to people, but I think helping people who want to make a better life is a noble goal.

4. Is terrorism (as identified with Osama bin Laden) a threat to this country? What should we do about it if it is, and if it is not, why not?

In the sense that it could cost us a significant number of lives, yes. I can’t recommend Dying to Win enough. I think we have solutions, but they’re not simple to carry out. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia and stop pointless ventures like the one in Iraq. To do this, we need to be energy independent. The current generation of al Qaeda isn’t going to be swayed by those remedies, but it’s creating more terrorists that’s our biggest problem. Like Matt said, keeping them away from more destructive weaponry than commercial aircraft is a priority. It’s also pretty clear that we need to engage the people of the Middle East and explain ourselves better. Debate, not propaganda, can help them understand us and hopefully get them on our side.

5. Are there any Republican programs that you agree with? If so, which ones?

Opposition to gun control and affirmative action are generally Republican ideas and I agree with those to a certain degree.

So, there we have it. For all I write about religion on here, you might think I put something to do with that in my top three issues. Science policy, too. Certainly I think secularizing our political discourse is good and that fits in number 2. Global warming and science policy in general are probably number 4.

So apparently some gang member was executed and some other guy got the death penalty for protecting himself against (apparently) unannounced police officers.

The second case seems quite obviously a travesty, but I’m a bit more ambivalent about the first one. I’m anti-death penalty for the simple reason that killing someone is irrevocable and our justice system isn’t even close to perfect. We can release people from prison, we can’t resurrect them (unless you believe WND). Morally, I don’t know. I haven’t seen any reasoned arguments (of course, I haven’t made an effort to look) either way. At times it seems to me that state-sponsored killing is a bit barbaric. At others, taking a life seems to invalidate any claim to deserving life yourself. Still, I don’t really care. Actually, every time I think that I immediately decide that life and death is something I have to care about.

So then, did “Tookie” deserve to die? I don’t know. I can’t help but find the movement to save him a bit odd. I guess you need high visibility protests to gain support for your cause, but I can’t see why Williams deserves to live more than anyone else on death row. That’s probably a good indication that I’d be a terrible leader of any sort of political organization.

Another thing I find absolutely bizarre about the death penalty is that it seems to cost more than sending someone to prison for life. It looks like several states have studying the issue and come to that conclusion. Of course, you can someone taking the opposite side of just about anything, so we have this site accusing death penalty opponents of being frauds and liars on that issue. It’s awfully counter-intuitive that executing someone would cost more, but the explanations do make sense. I was thinking it was simply inefficiency in the system, but it looks like the safeguards we’ve built in are the main cause. Obviously we don’t want to rid ourselves of those.

Is this post going anywhere? Nope. I finished studying (in the sense that I mentioned a couple posts ago) and I needed to write something.

If you haven’t been reading Neiwert’s evisceration of Malkin’s newest book, you should be.

I just wanted to point out one thing that relates back to the Salon article in the previous post:

The “conservative movement” of 2005 is nothing less than the ascendancy of the old right-wing John Birch Society mentality: the paranoia, the demonization, the wild-eyed … unhingedness.

As I briefly mentioned, the “war on Christmas” has appeared in JBS paranoia:

In 1959, the recently formed John Birch Society issued an urgent alert: Christmas was under attack. In a JBS pamphlet titled “There Goes Christmas?!” a writer named Hubert Kregeloh warned, “One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas — to denude the event of its religious meaning.” The central front in this perfidious assault was American department stores, where the “Godless UN” was scheming to replace religious decorations with internationalist celebrations of universal brotherhood.

“The UN fanatics launched their assault on Christmas in 1958, but too late to get very far before the holy day was at hand,” the pamphlet explained. “They are already busy, however, at this very moment, on efforts to poison the 1959 Christmas season with their high-pressure propaganda. What they now want to put over on the American people is simply this: Department stores throughout the country are to utilize UN symbols and emblems as Christmas decorations.”

While I’m not suggesting that this is the direct root of the current “war on Christmas” nonsense, it illustrates Dave’s point. The mentality is the same and it can lead to the same ideas. We’re pretty much there on the UN (Bolton’s comments, for instance), as well.

So then, no more blogging until next Monday, probably. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

I thought this was interesting:

Passports to get RFID chip implants

Sweeping new State Department regulations issued Tuesday say that passports issued after that time will have tiny radio frequency ID (RFID) chips that can transmit personal information including the name, nationality, sex, date of birth, place of birth and digitized photograph of the passport holder. Eventually, the government contemplates adding additional digitized data such as “fingerprints or iris scans.”

…

In regulations published Tuesday, the State Department claims it has addressed privacy concerns. The chipped passports “will not permit ‘tracking’ of individuals,” the department said. “It will only permit governmental authorities to know that an individual has arrived at a port of entry–which governmental authorities already know from presentation of non-electronic passports–with greater assurance that the person who presents the passport is the legitimate holder of the passport.”

To address Americans’ concerns about ID theft, the Bush administration said the new passports will be outfitted with “antiskimming material” in the front cover to “mitigate” the threat of the information being surreptitiously scanned from afar. It’s not clear, though, how well the technique will work against high-powered readers that have been demonstrated to read RFID chips from about 160 feet away.

Safe enough? Later we find out that if the cover’s open, there’s not much protection:

Privacy advocates told CNET News.com that the anti-skimming device was a decent start. But if the cover of the passport happens to be open, all bets are off, said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate who founded the site RFIDkills.com. “They’ve built little baby radio stations into peoples’ passports and covered it with concrete,” he said, “but when the little hatch is open, you can still hear the music.”

Still, that doesn’t sound like a huge issue. There’s also some, apparently sketchy, encryption:

In addition, the passports will use “Basic Access Control,” a reference to storing a pair of secret cryptographic keys in the chip inside. The concept is simple: The RFID chip disgorges its contents only after a reader successfully authenticates itself as being authorized to receive that information.

Computer scientists, however, have criticized that encryption method as flawed. In a recent paper (PDF here), RSA Laboratories’ Ari Juels, and University of California’s David Molnar and David Wagner, warned that the design of the encryption keys is insufficiently secure. They said that the use of a “single fixed key” for the lifetime of the e-passport creates a vulnerability.

It’s not airtight, but is it good enough anyway? I can’t say that I have the answer, but it doesn’t look like a cause for hysteria.

Moorcat, over at his new blog, has a couple of interesting posts on drugs and legalization. Go check ‘em out.

As a side note (and a bout of blogger self-importance), Moorcat joins the tradition of linking to my blog as Speed Kill, rather than Speedkill. He’s in good company, as the people who have done that are invariably quite intelligent.

Miers’s qualifications are piling up (via Balloon Juice):

The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting.”

No one can remember this happening before, according to the article. That’s not all, either. She’s had her DC law license suspended twice for not paying dues on time. Miers is supposed to be meticulous, remember.

Does this mean she maybe could be more qualified for the job? Pfaehler is looking like an even more ridiculous hack than before. The life of a member of the Montana GOP, I suppose.