Category: Fourth Estate

I have no idea if this is true, but it certainly reads well as a cautionary tale of modern airline security. Father and son fly from Florida to Wisconsin to pick up junker station wagon, which they then drive back down to Florida … in less time than it took them to fly in the other direction.

Forty-five minutes into the flight, practically within spitting distance of Memphis (as disgusting as that sounds), the weary pilot addressed the crowd: “Sorry folks, but we have to turn around and go back to Orlando.” It was now that the passengers understood why all the sharp objects were removed from their persons: so they wouldn’t cut their own throats right there in the aisle.

(Via Boing Boing)

A new Princeton study confirms what pretty much everyone already knew. Men think women Want It more often than they do. And the less men are Getting It, the more deluded they are about whether women are signalling that they Want It.

Of course, the ramifications of that latter aren’t determined by the study. Is it that men are so interested in Getting It, they over-perceive women Wanting It? Is it that men who are Getting It enough are less over-eager to think women Want It? Or is it that the men who are good at perceiving when women Want It end up Getting It?

(Via Blather)

For those who keep going on and on about the cruelty and barbarity of the US, its justice system, and its society, a nicely contrasting UPI article about a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Sudan for adultery.

(Via OpinionJournal)

I don’t like Michael Moore. I really don’t. He slings mud and rakes muck, and not a small part of both is unjustly done. He’s wildly off to the left. He never met a businessman he liked. He does have a great turn of phrase — but, as with Rush Limbaugh, I can only listen to (or read) about five minutes from him before I violently turn the page / click shut the window / turn off the radio. (Actually, Moore and Limbaugh have quite a bit in common, aside from being on opposite poles of that particular spectrum.)
That all having been said, this particular litany from Moore on all the connections between the President and Ken Lay / Enron is pretty damning.
(Via Doyce)

James Lileks, in the midst of a host move, ponders the changing tapestry of safety laws, whether management (human) attitudes have changed in a hundred years, and how that all applies to globalism.

No stunning answers here, but, as usual, he catches some thought trains I’m comfortable riding on.

And if you want something a bit lighter, his commentary on the hidden exercise value of playing computer games the previous day might be more to your liking.

You’re always surprised how drained you feel after a really good bout of gaming; you’ve been tensing and unclenching for an hour. This is also known as Charles Atlas’ “dynamic tension” – muscles, working against muscles! Every gamer ought to be buffed out – and under that protective layer of Dorito residue, they probably are.

The state legislature of Idaho has overridden its local term limits law, placed there by popular referendum. I say, huzzah.

Term limits have always rubbed me the wrong way. They always seemed to me to be an admission of weakness in the voting population — “Stop me before I vote for the incumbant again!” They certainly make it easier to get rid of political duds, but they also punish decent leaders, too. They make neophyte officeholders more beholden to their unelected staff, who are the only ones left who understand how things work. They effectively rob the electorate of the ability to vote for — or against — whomever they choose.

Do incumbants have an advantage? Certainly. They are better known, and have a built-in access to the media and to lobbying money.

But the electorate can still make that choice — indeed, we have to assume they can make that choice, otherwise we concede that money and media actually run elections, that the People are simply sheep who will graze where directed.

In which case term limits are kind of meaningless anyhow, and we might as well keep the devils we know than bring in new devils we don’t.

The city of Berkeley, Calif., is providing bright orange safety flags for pedestrians to carry across a couple of dangerous intersections. Not that many people are doing so, and not that there’s much indication that they actually do any good. But there are plenty of people who seem willing to steal them (half of the thousand already deployed are gone).

Berkeley will, of course, be expanding the program to other intersections, and buying more to replace the stolen ones.

(Via Blather)

When he (or she, of course) is a freedom fighter, naturally.

That’s the game that various nations have been playing at the UN for several years, during attempts to ratify an umbrella treaty on terrorism that would better unify international attempts to stop the practice.

The problem? Diplomats can’t agree on a definition. Or, digging deeper, nobody’s willing to agree on a definition that won’t implicate some group that they favor or support.

The most prominent stoppage?

The 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference insists on exempting “national liberation movements” and “resistance to foreign occupation.” They have Kashmir and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in mind.
“The UN must do its duty and differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters,” said Rizwan Khan, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani UN mission. “Isn’t that what the UN was made for, to bring peace to the world?”

The Mitchell Commission, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, defined terrorism thusly: Terrorism involves the deliberate killing and injuring of randomly selected noncombatants for political ends. It seeks to promote a political outcome by spreading terror and demoralization throughout a population.

Though both sides of the conflict accepted the definition — largely because they could level it at each other — it’s gotten nowhere in broader arenas.

The EU recently floated a definition of offenses intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country. That struck some folks as too broad — it could be used, for example, against trade union activity and globalization protests.

It’s worth recalling in this debate that a few decades back, there was another party that insisted on calling folks “freedom fighters” who were randomly killing civilians and seeking to destabilize a government. That party, of course, was Ronald Reagan, referring to the Contras in Nicaragua. We shouldn’t be too surprised that other groups today are seeking to play just the same word games to protect their own interest and agendas. Nor should that lesson be lost on our own, present-day, politicians.

Carlton Vogt, ethics columnist for InfoWorld, has some good thoughts on the Enron scandal and how it occured.

The danger in analyzing this particular scandal is that we can be misled by the obvious. There are some actions that are so egregious — the document shredding at Arthur Andersen and Enron, for example — that we may focus on them and ignore the fact that the entire system is corrupted and corrupting.
Certainly, we should hold individuals accountable for what they did wrong, and we probably will punish some, although many others will wiggle away, hiding behind the skirts of high-priced lawyers and political connections. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that they did what they did because the current system allowed it. In fact, the system encouraged it.
The system is the real culprit. The individuals involved, while still wrongdoers, were only accomplices.

What’s been really interesting about the Enron scandal is that, aside from the White House’s tapdancing routine (leavened by Bush, at the least, expressing anger over how Enron’s employees were treated), there’s been a bipartisan hue and cry over the whole thing.

My biggest concern is that, especially as it deals with accounting matters, the public’s eyes will soon glaze over, some show trials will let the main perps off, and we’ll just go back to business as usual.

Which, as Enron demonstrates, is not a good thing.

… did we really need a pre-game show full flag-waving paens to “freedom-loving Americans everywhere,” complete with football players reciting (badly) quotations from famous Americans?

Did Summerall and Madden need to have an American flag festooned behind them?

Is the Super Bowl really a patriotic event? “Gotta wave your little flag around, or else the terrorists win.”

Feh.

Another small triumph for the people of Afghanistan: they can play chess again.

When the Taliban caught Haji Shirullah, a Kabul businessman, playing chess in his office with his brother they burnt the chessboard and the pieces. “They put us in jail for two days,” he recalled with a rueful smile. “The Taliban believed chess was a form of gambling and distracted people from saying their prayers.”

Chess has always been a popular passtime in Afghanistan, and it looks to be coming back out of the woodwork — a hastily arranged chess tournament in Kabul drew far more players than had been expected.

(Via InstaPundit)

On 10 September 2001, the Secretary of Defense declared war … on Pentagon waste.

Responding to internal audits that indicated the Pentagon couldn’t account for up to 25% of its spending, or that there were some $2.3 trillion in transactions (enough for a set of $8K statuary-covering curtains for every man, woman and child in the US) that couldn’t be tracked, Rumsfeld called it “a matter of life and death.”

Until 9-11, the next day, when such unflashy reformist talk went by the wayside, and Rumsfeld and Bush began developing newer, bigger, more deficit-inducing defense budgets.

Given the current economic situation, the need to spend our money wisely — and, yes, our need to spend money on military matters — doesn’t it make sense to try to track down some of the problems with Pentagon’s accounting and money management, before we hand it additional billions of dollars?

(Via Cursor.org)

A Scottish psych experiment found that folks rated trans-gendered versions of themselves as highly attractive.

The images were doctored with “morphing” technology to show male versions of female subjects and vice-versa.

The conclusion of the scientists was that the subjects actually unconsciously saw a resemblance to their parents.

(Via Quiddity)

NASA and its International Space Station have agreed upon rules for tourists to Space Station Alpha.

The guidelines state that paying “spaceflight participants” must undergo a minimum amount of training, to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Those staying more than a few days will have to train 12 months in advance of launch. All tourists will also have to pass a medical examination, although this will be less rigorous than those for professional astronauts.
The new guidelines also mean that criminals, drug addicts and the “notoriously disgraceful” will not be allowed into space with the station partners. This is to protect the reputation of the project as well as the safety of the rest of the crew, says a NASA spokeswoman.

Though NASA opposed Dennis Tito’s $20MM trip to Mir, it has since indicated it’s willing to entertain paying tourists to the ISS.

An interesting examination of the Islamic tradition of sensual reward in the afterlife, touted as one of the motivators of suicide bombers from the Middle East.

The Islamic paradise is described in great sensual detail in the Koran and the Traditions; for instance, Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22. I shall quote the celebrated Penguin translation by NJ Dawood of sura 56 verses 12- 39: “They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds… We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…”

According to a new examination of the Koran, however, there may be, ah, trouble in paradise …

(Via Randy)

No, a new weapons technology, that looks like it will raise firing rates of weapons from the current top thousands-per-minute (on the Navy’s Phalanx system) to millions per minute.

O’Dwyer’s design does away with most of the moving parts of a conventional gun. Bullets are lined up one behind another in the barrel and separated only by propellant, which is ignited electronically. There’s nothing mechanical to break down.
“When we ignite the propellant that’s right in front, behind the leading bullet if you will, that pushes that bullet out,” O’Dwyer said. “What happens because of the nature of the invention, the bullet that’s immediately behind it, when the high pressure is applied to the nose of that bullet it actually expands and locks in the barrel. So progressively as we move down the barrel, we fire, the one behind expands and locks, and then unlocks and away it goes. It sounds simple, and in its operation it is simple, but the physics are very complex.”
The firepower is astounding. In 1/25 of a second, 180 bullets can shred a wooden door. It happens so fast, it sounds like one pop.

With the bullets already lined up in the barrel and no moving parts for loading, it’s easy to set up arrays of barrels, which lead to the incredible firing rate.

While much of the story on the page talks about other technologies, it sounds like this could be a significant advance in everything from handguns to artillery, such that the present cartridge-and-clip tech will someday seem as quaint as powder-and-shot.

(The page has the text of the story available by download. It’s worth doing, just to see some incredibly cool graphics of the system in action.)

Members of the Reformed church — which includes about two million Americans in the Dutch Reformed and certain Baptist and Presbyterian congregations — are being advised to stop going to church.

The advice itself is coming from a church elder, Harold Camping, leader of the Family Radio Network in Oakland, Calf. His position: the End Times are near (Camping already once predicted the end of the world in 1994), Satan is spreading false doctrines around increasingly apostate churches, and Good Christians will only be spiritually served by sitting at home on Sundays … and listening to his radio show.

Needless to say, pastors of congregations affected by his call are anything but amused. Especially since it’s having an impact.

Mr. Rastetter [deacon at the Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Akron, Ohio] notes that he met with 100 or so pastors two weekends ago on Long Island and asked them how many of their churches had lost members because of Mr. Camping’s crusade. “Each one raised his hand,” he says. “Some signaled they had lost a handful of members. Some signaled a couple of handfuls. Many of these churches only have 50 or so members, so when 10 people leave, that’s a major decline. And it’s getting worse.” Two churches, he added, have completely disintegrated, including Mr. Camping’s Alameda, Calif., congregation.

Meantime, the radio network’s web page, Camping notes:

“On the one hand we see churches everywhere becoming more and more apostate,” he explains in a long posting. “Yet on the other hand we see a ministry like Family Radio becoming more and more useful to the Lord in sending the true Gospel into the world.” Indeed, Mr. Camping seems to see an overarching design at work. “God, about 200 years ago, anticipating the present situation, began to make some drastic changes in the world. After almost 1,300 years of history, mankind has discovered, and begun to use, radio waves and all other electronics. . . . It is obvious that God prevented these discoveries from happening until it was God’s good pleasure to make them available to accomplish His purposes.”

His critics charge that Camping is trying to found a cult. But, of course, as false prophets and pawns of Satan and apostasy in these End Times, they would say, that, wouldn’t they.

An interesting article about how the affect of money and lobbying is less on what Congress does, than on what Congress fails to do. The Enron debacle is demonstrating this.

In 1992, at lawmakers’ urging, federal regulators exempted the budding market for “energy swaps,” pioneered by Enron, from oversight. Later, Congress relaxed oversight even further: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which passed in December 2000, included a special exemption for Enron.
In 1999, members of Congress also helped prevent regulators from cracking down on possible conflicts of interest in the accounting industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had proposed a rule that would have banned accounting firms from consulting with companies they also audit, but lawmakers threatened to slash the commission’s budget.
[…] “Some people say Enron didn’t get anything from Washington, but it got exactly what it wanted: It got no regulation,” says Celia Wexler of Common Cause, a public interest group.

A recent Gallup/USA Today poll indicates a lot of animus toward John Walker Lindh.

While 60% disagree with the DoJ decision not to charge him with treason (thus indicating a lack of understanding of the law), what I found most interesting was the breakdown in demographics.

Of those over 50, 52% thought treason charges should be filed. In contrast, in the 18-to-29 cohort — where Lindh falls — 70% thought he should be charged with treason.

It seems the “youthful mistakes” excuse is playing more strongly for the old than the young. (Though that 50+ cohort would have been teens in the late 60s, perhaps giving them a bit more sympathy for young folks adopting radical and sometimes stupid positions.)

Also interesting — women favored the treason charge more than the men; only 28% agreed with the DoJ’s charges, vs. 38% of men.

Legal analysts say the results provide a glimpse of the peril Lindh could face if he opts to go to trial before a jury of his peers.
”If I were the defense attorney, I would be reading these results and weeping,” says Michael Noone, a Catholic University law professor. ”This shows that there is a real incentive on the defense’s part to either go to trial before a judge alone, or to negotiate a plea.”

(Via OpinionJournal)

… that “nuclear” is pronounced NOO-KLEE-YER. Or even, if you’re a bit pedantic, NYOO-KLEE-YER.

Not NOO-KYOO-LER.

It’s a nucleus that’s split, not a nuculus.

Of course, Jimmy Carter, himself a nuclear engineer aboard a sub, used to say the same thing. And it bugged the hell out of me then, too.