Thursday, July 24, 2003

Flying without ID. Up until 1995, you didn't need to show any form of identification when you got on a plane.  You could just step up, hand your ticket over, and hop right on the plane.  That seems almost inconceivable now -- where is the security in that?  Doesn't that mean that just about anybody can get on a plane?  Clearly we can't have that. Today I was thinking about it, as I am sure many other people have.  And my conclusion is this: I cannot for the life of me figure out how showing identification before boarding a plane generates any additional security.  Before I get into the details, I want to note that I felt distinctly uncomfortable as I thought this.  My immediate thought was, no way would I get on that plane!  At least, that's how I felt for the first 30 seconds.  But people did this all the time, for 40 years, without any trouble.  Yes, the occasional plane was hijacked, but I doubt identification had anything to do with it. Showing identification helps with only two problems -- the detection of a difference between the person the ticket is issued for and the person who actually shows up, and watchlists.  Virtually everyone on the planet has a valid identification of some kind.  Bad people (truly bad people) are almost certainly going to have fake identification of one sort or another.  To deny that this is true is foolish.  Or, as in the case of the 9/11 hijackers, they just use their own names.  It is quite certain that the 9/11 perpetrators showed their identification as they boarded the plane. A watchlist can help in some ways, but once again it's so easily defeated by a fake id that there is little point.  Let's keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of teenagers across this country with fake IDs.  Do you really believe that a serious international terrorist would be unable to obtain one? At some point we need to grow tired of "showing our papers" each time we wish to live our lives.  It is doubly important in that we gain nothing by showing them. 11:55:53 PM    comment []

Creeping Fascism. Steve says: " Libertarians talk about the ratchet effect, where once an invasion of our liberty is in place, it never goes away. In this manner, we slowly stagger towards totalitarian oblivion. I don't think this is really true. In many cases, repressive laws have been removed - especially after both world wars. The experience of the civil rights movement flies in the face of this. For every patriot act, there is a EFF and a hundred other organizations fighting against it. In the society we have, it is so easy to organize to oppose the actions of our government. These two forces will oppose each other, and I think in the end will cancel each other out. " Ultimately it's all about the balance.  It's the same thing as an ecosystem -- each part serves to counteract the other.  Somehow the whole thing holds together.  The question is, can the system come apart?  In the environment and in our political system I believe we are truly faced with the systemic question.  Will the system survive the stresses we place upon it? On the environmental front, we have a hundred years of progressive desicration, and the pace is accelerating.  There are so many people, so many needs, so many desires...they cannot all be satisfied, they will not all be satisfied.  The collective attitude is ostrich and sand.  No disaster has yet befallen us, and therefore none ever will.  The earth is resilient.  Hey -- one volcano crams more greenhouse gases into the air than what we emit from our unnecessary tailpipes.  And I can't even deny that's true.  It is. In politics, the system is beginning to break apart.  Our politicians are becoming more and more disconnected from reality, approving budgets and laws that make no sense.  There is no sense of higher purpose, and truly none is to be found.  As a nation we approach the brink. Our glorious leaders tell us not to worry.  The deficit is manageable.  The environment is manageable.  World opinion is manageable.  That may be so.  But it may also not be so.  In this black and white world we leave the leadership no room to move.  We demand they choose sides, like kids lined up in a playground.  Shirts or skins.  The real question that we do not wish to face is, what chance do we want to take? On the environment: Let's say there's an 85% chance the conservatives are right, and a 15% chance the environmentalists are right.  The downside if the conservatives are right is that we have a small reduction in economic growth.  The downside is the environmentalists are right is the heat death of the whole fucking planet. On the deficit: Tax cuts may or may not produce a small increase in the GDP, and the resulting higher taxes might allow us to continue the services we're accustomed to.  Give'em 85% again.  The downside on that is pretty intense -- the collapse of the entire US economy as the currency and government converge in a death spiral.  We already know exactly how this works -- just have a look at any number of banana republic governments whose leadership has deficit-spent their country into oblivion.  Do you really believe that we can just muddle along on these issues?  Do you really believe that there just can't be a downside, that nothing can and ever will befall this country?  After all, nothing ever has. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, massive deficits, a declining economy, the decay of the political system -- all of these elements are creating the perfect storm.  Start looking for shelter. 11:40:52 PM    comment []

Currently Cool. It's my point form list of stuff I think you should know about.  Mostly because this is stuff I know about, or think that I do. Rule-driven, pattern-driven systems Flyweight object storage in Java Distributed value spaces Piccolo and 2.5d UI Hibernate Get busy.  11:10:07 PM    comment []

Silence. We fill the silence with our insecurities. Sometimes I drive To run from all my demons Sometimes I drive So I can be alone Sometimes I drive To see the world in a different light Sometimes I drive For no reason at all Assemblage 23. 10:59:46 PM    comment []

Consider the Negative. Bill Kristol: " Are we not even a little safer now that the Taliban and Hussein are gone, many al Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed, governments such as Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's are at least partly hampering al Qaeda's efforts instead of blithely colluding with them, the opposition in Iran is stronger, our defense and intelligence budgets are up and, for that matter, Milosevic is gone and the Balkans are at peace (to mention something for which the Clinton administration deserves credit but that had not happened by July 1999)? " Taliban gone -- good (as long as they actually are gone).  Hussein gone -- is he, yet?  What I know is that we just killed his two sons.  I'd say that means the gloves are off.  If the guy has any means left, he's going to use them. The thing is, Bill isn't considering the negative effects of Bush's policies.  The rest of the world has a serious problem with the way the US is behaving.  Kyoto, Iraq, trade -- you name it.  We have squandered any goodwill we got because of 9/11.  Bush's steps have polarize an us vs. them mentality here in America, and brought together forces against us in the wider world. There has to be a better way.  The Bush line is essentially that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.  They've broken a crapload of eggs, and we better see some results. 1:36:12 PM    comment []

Now We're Up to 42 Words. Bush:  "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Today's report on 9/11:  The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned. Let's see.  That's 16 words from on the uranium mess, and 26 here.  That makes 42 words that shouldn't have been there! No evidence connecting Hussein to 9/11 or terrorists.  Hmm...so where did this line in the SOTU come from?  Was it...POLICY DRIVEN?  Heaven forbid!  I wonder what we're going to find out next. 9:41:02 AM    comment []