I’m not psychologist — and I’m certainly no Nate Silver — but instinct tells me that this is caused by what I’ll call the “complacent voter” phenomenon, something which is endemic to our society. That is, people will only vote if they believe they won’t win. As a result we have low vote counts that are heavily swayed by a fervent (and often fringe) minority.

So it may look like Idol fans want Pia back, but I’ll posit that they’re not the same fans who vote.

Remember this in 2012.

» Share on Facebook

I experienced the enhanced patdown myself, at DCA, on Tuesday. It was invasive, but not as bad as these stories.

Here’s the thing: I have a zero-tolerance policy for physical violation — hell, shaking hands can be an ordeal for me — so rationalizing something as “invasive but not bad” makes no sense whatsoever. The more I see people justifying a certain amount of physical assault (how much?) for a certain amount of security (how much?), the more hopeless I feel about our chances as a society. Put aside for a moment how the TSA’s policies came to be. Why are people so willing to accept being groped by so-called security experts making $13 dollars an hour? Are they so afraid? Will they not do the research for themselves? Do they know the odds of dying in a terrorist attack — 1 in 30 million — is roughly equivalent to the odds of contracting fatal skin cancer from just one trip through a backscatter device? (And cancer is hardly the only side effect of radiation.)

This is a human rights issue. Schneier describes airport security zones as “extra-Constitutional areas,” but the ACLU, for one, has already taken the TSA (and the DHS) to court for violations of Constitutional rights. This is hardly a shut case, which is why we must continue to resist the TSA’s “extra-Constitutional” policies by any means.

In the meantime, for me personally there is no amount of physical invasion that is tolerable, no matter how irrational our fear of explosives-wearing boogeymen.

PS: I know it’s somewhat misguided for me to lay so much blame on the populace. As is usual in these matters, the other half of the truth behind this debacle lies behind the old question: who benefits? Follow the money and you’ll find the usual politicians enriching themselves on lobbyist snacks. We should direct our outrage accordingly.

» Share on Facebook

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

There’s so much wrong with this disgusting blather that it’s difficult not to think that I’m misunderstanding it.

First of all, you are suggesting that the president go to war for political gain, and to argue otherwise is to split hairs.

Second, Iran is the greatest threat to the world? I’m not even sure that Iran is the most threatening country to the world, let alone its greatest threat. What about hunger, disease, or climate change? How about globalization, or the privatization of food and water supplies by corporations? Domestically, how about corporate personhood, plutocracy, oligarchy? And if you measure threats solely by nuclear arsenals, and a nation’s willingness to go to war, then the United States is clearly the greatest threat to the world.

Last point, there must be a logical fallacy that addresses this “greatest threat” frame. Let me put it this way: there will always be a greatest threat. There must always be a greatest threat, even if you find yourself in a sealed room with only a ferret and hedgehog. If you live in a universe where you’ve somehow managed to eliminate every viable threat down to the hangnail on your left thumb, does that mean it’s time to go to war with it? The phrase “greatest threat” is nigh meaningless.

I’m not familiar with David Broder, but he sounds like an idiot.

» Share on Facebook

» Share on Facebook

Senator Feingold’s censure resolution would hold the Bush regime accountable for its domestic spying program–which violates federal law–and for misleading the country about its existence and legality.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.
(via Senator Feingold’s site)

But this resolution–not to mention the 1st Amendment–runs afoul of Senator Allard, who feels strongly that holding President Bush accountable for violating federal law would be falling into the terrorists’ trap.

What does it say of Allard when he questions the patriotism of a Senator who would asks the Congress to live up to its responsibility? Does Allard even know what an American is?

» Share on Facebook

The projects that moved, their new code names, and the agencies that took them over haven’t previously been disclosed. Sources aware of the transfers declined to speak on the record for this story because, they said, the identities of the specific programs are classified.

Knowledge of everything is too compelling a thing to give up. After all, total awareness corrupts totally.

» Share on Facebook

Guess we learned a lesson from our stunning victory over Cuba. Meantime–and here’s the really interesting part–Khaled Meshal, head of the political bureau of Hamas, delivers a lucid address on his party’s stance on world affairs:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion “the people of the book” who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us – our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.
(via Electronic Intifada)

I never thought it would come to pass, but even Hamas makes the State Department sound like a band of petulant thugs.

» Share on Facebook

Foresman likened his agency’s role during any Internet attack to an orchestra conductor, coordinating responses from law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military and private firms. The government’s goal is a “symphony of preparedness,” Foresman said.
(via Seattle Post Intelligencer)

(via Boing Boing)

» Share on Facebook