SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
Mexico’s Congress Legalizes Drugs for Personal Use .
Apr 28th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Mexico’s Con­gress Legal­izes Drugs for Per­sonal Use. Mexico’s Con­gress approved a bill Fri­day decrim­i­nal­iz­ing pos­ses­sion of small amounts of mar­i­juana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for per­sonal use

My PC laptop (which runs Radio) failed last Thursday, so I sent it in for repair and got it back yesterday.
Apr 27th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

My PC lap­top (which runs Radio) failed last Thurs­day, so I sent it in for repair and got it back yes­ter­day. It lasted con­sid­er­ably longer than my Mac lap­tops, and it has a three year war­ranty, so I’m happy with the qual­ity rel­a­tive to the Macs. Still, it would be nice if a portable com­puter could actu­ally be ported around with­out failing.

I’ll Take “Swords” for 600, Alex .
Apr 19th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

I’ll Take “Swords” for 600, Alex. Tacoma wants to ban them:bq. For more than a year now, Tacoma city offi­cials have qui­etly strug­gled to find a way to reg­u­late the sale of ancient weapons.

Swords. Throw­ing stars. Dag­gers. Knives. Crossbows.

Medieval stuff that freaks out aver­age law-abiding citizen-types when they see it for sale at the cor­ner store along­side candy bars and gum.

So far, the attempt has pro­duced lit­tle in the way of results. Stanch­ing the sale of drug para­pher­na­lia proved easier.

The chal­lenge for the city’s lawyers is fig­ur­ing out how to update Tacoma’s “dan­ger­ous weapons” ordi­nance to stop a con­ve­nience store from sell­ing a giant col­lectible sword, but not also make it ille­gal for Fred Meyer to sell a bread knife.

The city might end up adopt­ing an ordi­nance that addresses swords and other weapons, but leaves out knives.The funny thing is, the coun­cil admits that this is purely sym­bolic. The entire effort to ban the con­ve­nience store swords is due to the fact that some peo­ple are “alarmed” by them. The swords they’re aim­ing to ban are too cheap to effec­tively be used as a weapon (a bread knife would be more effec­tive), and the num­ber of “sword” attacks in the area hasn’t gone up as a result of their sud­den avail­abil­ity at the 7–11.

Track­Back (0) | [The Agi­ta­tor]

I actu­ally have a real sword. It’s not the kind of thing you’ll ever see for sale in a con­ve­nience store. Real swords are quite expen­sive (mine cost as much as a good pis­tol) and very hard to use. I have some idea how a sword is sup­posed to be used, but I don’t actu­ally know how to use mine. For some ran­dom per­son who’s seen Conan the Bar­bar­ian too many times, he’d prob­a­bly do more dam­age with a base­ball bat.

Fitzgerald probe: Sen.
Apr 18th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Fitzger­ald probe: Sen. Clin­ton with­drew stolen funds from Grenada bank. Tom Flocco — have your grain of salt ready. If true, how­ever, this could put Bill & Hillary Clin­ton and Bush Senior in prison for a long, long time. I won’t hold my breath. [email]

Quote:

Spe­cial Coun­sel Patrick Fitzger­ald is in pos­ses­sion of filmed evi­dence allegedly show­ing Sen­a­tor Hillary Clin­ton enter­ing Bank Crozier in the British ter­ri­tory of Grenada dur­ing early 2003 for the pur­pose of with­draw­ing stolen and laun­dered U.S. Trea­sury funds for alleged per­sonal use after pre­sent­ing the bank with CIA code num­bers in her capac­ity as a U.S. sen­a­tor, CIA oper­a­tive and wife of a for­mer pres­i­dent, accord­ing to a team of intel­li­gence sources.

[End the War on Free­dom — Links and Com­men­tary from my Crypto-Anarcho-Libertarian Per­spec­tive]

One of the things I’ve noticed about con­spir­acy the­o­rists is that they’re amaz­ingly igno­rant, which leads them to make claims that include obvi­ously wrong infor­ma­tion. For exam­ple, Grenada is an inde­pen­dent nation, not a British ter­ri­tory, as any­one who was watch­ing the news in the 1980s would know. Surely it wouldn’t have been too hard for who­ever made up this story to look up an actual British ter­ri­tory with a rep­u­ta­tion for inter­na­tional banking?

Deniable File System .
Apr 18th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Deni­able File Sys­tem. Some years ago I did some design work on some­thing I called a Deni­able File Sys­tem. The basic idea was the fact that the exis­tence of cipher­text can in itself be incrim­i­nat­ing, regard­less of whether or not any­one can decrypt it. I wanted to cre­ate a file sys­tem that was deni­able: where encrypted files looked like ran­dom noise, and where it was impos­si­ble to prove either the exis­tence or non-existence of encrypted files.

This turns out to be a very hard prob­lem for a whole lot of rea­sons, and I never pur­sued the project. But I just dis­cov­ered a file sys­tem that seems to meet all of my design cri­te­ria — Rub­ber­hose:

bq. Rub­ber­hose trans­par­ently and deni­ably encrypts disk data, min­imis­ing the effec­tive­ness of war­rants, coer­sive inter­ro­ga­tions and other com­pul­sive mechan­ims, such as U.K RIP leg­is­la­tion. Rub­ber­hose dif­fers from con­ven­tional disk encryp­tion sys­tems in that it has an advanced mod­u­lar archi­tec­ture, self-test suite, is more secure, portable, utilises infor­ma­tion hid­ing (steganog­ra­phy / deni­able cryp­tog­ra­phy), works with any file sys­tem and has source freely available.

The devil really is in the details with some­thing like this, and I would hes­i­tate to use this in places where it really mat­ters with­out some exten­sive review. But I’m pleased to see that some­one is work­ing on this problem.

Next request: A deni­able file sys­tem that fits on a USB token, and leaves no trace on the machine it’s plugged into. [Schneier on Secu­rity]

This looks promis­ing. Cur­rently it’s only avail­able for Unix, but sup­pos­edly the authors are plan­ning a Win­dows port.

Doctorow: The novel Heinlein would have written about GW Bush’s America .
Apr 18th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Doc­torow: The novel Hein­lein would have writ­ten about GW Bush’s Amer­ica. In review­ing John Varley’s new novel Red Light­ning, Cory Doc­torow gets in his usual slams against the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion while spout­ing the canards regard­ing Hein­lein and reveals that he never really read any of the Old Man’s novels.

Read­ing Heinlein’s nov­els finds a strong streak of anti­au­thor­i­tar­i­an­ism in most of his pro­tag­o­nists, thinly veiled warn­ings regard­ing invest­ing the state with too much power, and an acknowl­edg­ment that it’s up to indi­vid­u­als to con­tain the power of that gov­ern­ment. Hardly the stuff of right wing pol­i­tics as defined today.

Try­ing to peg Hein­lein to some arbi­trary Left-Right polit­i­cal axis is an exer­cise doomed to fail­ure, as well as the mark of a lazy intel­lect. Shoddy work, and hardly in char­ac­ter for a writer I respect as much as Mr. Doc­torow.
[code: theWeb­Socket;]

After read­ing Cory Doctorow’s review, I’m left with the impres­sion that Mr. Hawkins didn’t. Here’s what he has to say on Heinlein:

bq. Hein­lein was an ide­o­log­i­cal lib­er­tar­ian. You could call his pol­i­tics right wing, and they were, on many of the left-right axes. But Hein­lein never would have sat still for the Patriot Act and the daily and deep incur­sions on lib­er­ties that have come to char­ac­terise life in Amer­ica and increas­ingly Britain and other parts of the world. He never would have accepted that you had to take away free­dom to save liberty.

As some­one who is an “ide­o­log­i­cal lib­er­tar­ian” and has read Heinlein’s books, this seems pretty obvi­ous to me. It’s pretty well known to lib­er­tar­i­ans that peo­ple who iden­tify them­selves as pro­gres­sives regard lib­er­tar­i­ans as “right wing,” just as peo­ple who iden­tify them­selves as con­ser­v­a­tives regard lib­er­tar­i­ans as “left wing.” It’s also pretty obvi­ous from his writ­ing that Hein­lein would react just as Doc­torow thinks he would.

News: Symantec hit with $1 billion tax bill .
Apr 18th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

News: Syman­tec hit with $1 bil­lion tax bill. The IRS has billed Syman­tec $1 bil­lion in back taxes. [Mac­world]

bq. The IRS claims that both Syman­tec and Ver­i­tas Soft­ware Corp. under-priced intel­lec­tual prop­erty the two com­pa­nies licensed to their Irish sub­sidiaries, said Syman­tec spokes­woman Genevieve Halde­man. Both Syman­tec and Ver­i­tas, which was pur­chased by Syman­tec in 2005, set up the Irish sub­sidiaries for the pur­pose of doing busi­ness out­side of the U.S., she said.

Clearly who­ever is respon­si­ble for mak­ing cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions hasn’t been doing a good job.

NRO: In Search of Chivalry .
Apr 17th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

NRO: In Search of Chivalry. Car­rie Lukas won­ders about chivalry in the age of fem­i­nism, and com­mits a fun­da­men­tal error:

bq. Gen­tle­manly con­duct isn’t about women at all. It’s about men and their sense of them­selves. Paul Ander­son con­tin­ues to say that he would give up his seat to some­one truly in need, such as the elderly, preg­nant women, and the dis­abled. But that’s not gen­tle­manly, that’s just humane.

Non­sense. Chivalry is not about a man’s sense of self. Chivalry is about sur­vival — not indi­vid­ual sur­vival, but rather that of the species. The acts of the men on the Titanic — plac­ing the sur­vival of women and chil­dren before their own — is evo­lu­tion in action.

Soci­eties that for­get that sim­ple premise are doomed.
[code: theWeb­Socket;]

They’re both wrong. Chivalry is about a bunch of inbred morons charg­ing across a muddy field towards a defen­sive posi­tion held by 5,000 longbowmen.

& the Football As amazing as it is, there is no question that a certain political segment of our country really is in full-on war-mongering mode"> Lucy, Charlie Brown & the Football As amazing as it is, there is no question that a certain political segment of our country really is in full-on war-mongering mode
Apr 17th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Lucy, Char­lie Brown & the Foot­ball As amaz­ing as it is, there is no ques­tion that a cer­tain polit­i­cal seg­ment of our coun­try really is in full-on war-mongering mode with regard to Iran. What’s most star­tling about it is that they are not even attempt­ing to do any­thing dif­fer­ently. It’s all exactly the same.

Thus, we have Weekly Stan­dard and National Review prat­tling on about all sorts of scary sto­ries show­ing that Iran is an uncon­tain­able dan­ger (invari­ably as a result of hos­tile over­tures towards Israel, but that doesn’t seem to mat­ter, just like it didn’t last time); we have New Repub­lic pub­lish­ing a cover story, com­plete with all-too-familiar car­toons show­ing demonic Iran­ian lead­ers, which enable peo­ple like Jonah Gold­berg, on sim­plis­tic script, to recite: “Don’t let any­one tell you that it’s the Amer­i­can right which is try­ing to “demo­nize” Ahmadine­jad” (yes, what a reveal­ing shock it is that even The New Repub­lic has jumped on the War-Against-Iran craze);

But what is really most alarm­ing — although, I know, it shouldn’t be sur­pris­ing at all — is that the Amer­i­can media seems not just will­ing, but tongue-waggingly pleased, to be exploited and used again, in the best tra­di­tion of Pravda, as the prin­ci­pal mech­a­nism for ven­er­at­ing gov­ern­men­tal claim as though they con­sti­tute “news,” with­out even pre­tend­ing to sub­ject those claims to the slight­est bit of skep­ti­cism or scrutiny. This Wash­ing­ton Post arti­cle by John Pom­fret, enti­tled “Iran Has Raised Efforts to Obtain U.S. Arms Ille­gally, Offi­cial Says,” is really a museum-worth model for the type of mind­lessly trust­wor­thy “journalism“which con­vinced most Amer­i­cans that Sad­dam had WMDs (and even that he per­son­ally par­tic­i­pated in the plan­ning of the 9/11 attacks), which, in turn, led us right into the inva­sion of Iraq.

The arti­cle is long and gives the appear­ance of being detailed and sub­stan­tive, but in real­ity, it does noth­ing but slav­ishly print the uncor­rob­o­rated state­ments of Bush offi­cials claim­ing that Iran is engaged in all sorts of nefar­i­ous weapons-procuring activ­i­ties, and has inten­si­fied (!) these activ­i­ties of late. Thus, we “learn”:

bq. The Iran­ian gov­ern­ment has inten­si­fied efforts to ille­gally obtain weapons tech­nol­ogy from the United States, con­tract­ing with deal­ers across the coun­try for spare parts to main­tain its aging American-made air force planes, its mis­sile forces and its alleged nuclear weapons pro­gram, accord­ing to fed­eral law enforce­ment authorities.

Over the past two years, arms deal­ers have exported or attempted to export to Iran exper­i­men­tal air­craft; machines used for mea­sur­ing the strength of steel, which is crit­i­cal in the devel­op­ment of nuclear weapons; assem­bly kits for F-14 Tom­cat fighter jets; and a range of com­po­nents used in mis­sile sys­tems and fighter-jet engines.

Iran’s weapons acqui­si­tion pro­gram is becom­ing more orga­nized,” said Stephen Bogni, act­ing chief of the Arms and Strate­gic Tech­nol­ogy Inves­ti­ga­tions Unit of U.S. Immi­gra­tion and Cus­toms Enforce­ment (ICE). “They are look­ing for more var­ied and sophis­ti­cated tech­nol­ogy. Night-vision equip­ment, unmanned air­craft, mis­sile tech­nol­ogy” and weapons of mass destruction.

I love the “and weapons of mass destruc­tion” oh-so-inconspicuously tacked onto the quote at the end. The next two para­graphs begin, respec­tively, with these two phrases: “Fed­eral agents say” and “The Bush admin­is­tra­tion says,” and the rest of the arti­cle. The reporter’s sole effort to inves­ti­gate the claims? “Calls for com­ment to the Iran­ian Mis­sion to the United Nations were not returned.” Gosh, I hope he didn’t strain himself.

Of all the dys­func­tional aspects of our gov­ern­men­tal sys­tem, this is, by far, the most dan­ger­ous. This is how most jour­nal­ism works now. The Gov­ern­ment wants to implant cer­tain claims as “facts” into the pub­lic dis­course. It then con­tacts the most slav­ish reporters, promises them exclu­siv­ity, and then feeds them a bunch of highly dubi­ous claims which the reporter then duti­fully and mind­lessly pub­lishes as though it is fact, with­out any cor­rob­o­ra­tion, inves­ti­ga­tion, or any­thing else that dis­tin­guishes jour­nal­ism from other fields such as, say, gov­ern­ment pro­pa­ganda, pub­lic rela­tions, or stenography.

There are no crit­i­cal fac­ul­ties exer­cised, no inves­ti­ga­tion, no skep­ti­cism of any kind. In short, there is noth­ing adver­sar­ial between the gov­ern­ment and the media — which was sup­posed to char­ac­ter­ize how this watch­dog rela­tion­ship was sup­posed to work. The founders didn’t guar­an­tee a free press in order to ensure that it could pub­lish gov­ern­ment claims with­out inter­fer­ence. The idea was that the press would be adver­sar­ial to the Gov­ern­ment, serve as a Fourth Estate when other checks on gov­ern­ment power failed. The press has, of course, become the oppo­site — it now exists only to amplify and lend cre­dence to even the most sus­pect and manip­u­la­tive gov­ern­ment claims.

The press sim­ply does not per­form its cen­tral func­tion. In 2003, that core fail­ure led us into an inva­sion of another coun­try based on pre­tenses which turned out, in almost every respect, to be false, and clearly they have learned no lessons from that humil­i­at­ing exploita­tion. Why did we need this Post arti­cle? What is the dif­fer­ence between it and a Bush admin­is­tra­tion press release. Noth­ing. It is dif­fi­cult to be opti­mistic about much of any­thing when the longest arti­cles in our nation’s largest news­pa­pers about the most press­ing pub­lic affairs are indis­tin­guish­able — lit­er­ally — from gov­ern­ment press releases.

As for the geniuses at New Repub­lic, Weekly Stan­dard, National Review, etc., who were wrong about basi­cally every­thing when it came to Iraq – how is it pos­si­ble to be ratio­nal and do any­thing other than dis­re­gard every­thing which this exact crowd says about every­thing? But more impor­tantly, the media was fed all sorts of fic­ti­tious garbage from the Bush admin­is­tra­tion in the lead-up to the Iraq inva­sion which they gullibly pub­lished, to their eter­nal embar­rass­ment. How can they pos­si­bly not be exer­cis­ing more cau­tion this type? — Glenn Green­wald [Unclaimed Ter­ri­tory — by Glenn Green­wald]

Why should they bother chang­ing when there were no con­se­quences to them the last time?

Iraq protest officer says US behaved ‘like Nazis’ .
Apr 17th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Iraq protest offi­cer says US behaved ‘like Nazis’. Peter Graff and Shan Ross at The Scots­man — Mal­colm Kendall-Smith, a British RAF doc­tor refused to fol­low an order to deploy to Iraq. At his trial, he said that he had decided that the United States is act­ing like Nazis. [grabbe]

Quote:

Kendall-Smith made his remarks amid a series of bit­ter exchanges with David Perry, pros­e­cut­ing, at a hear­ing in Alder­shot, Hamp­shire.
“As early as 2004 I regarded the United States to be on par with Nazi Ger­many as regards its activ­i­ties in the Gulf,” Kendall-Smith told the court.
Mr Perry, ask­ing Kendall-Smith for clar­i­fi­ca­tion, said: “Are you say­ing the US is the moral equiv­a­lent of the Third Reich?“
Kendall-Smith replied: “That’s cor­rect.“
He then con­tin­ued: “I have doc­u­ments in my pos­ses­sion which sup­port my asser­tions.
“This is on the basis that ongo­ing acts of aggres­sion in Iraq, and sys­tem­at­i­cally applied war crimes, pro­vide a moral equiv­a­lent between the US and Nazi Germany.”

[End the War on Free­dom — Links and Com­men­tary from my Crypto-Anarcho-Libertarian Per­spec­tive]

Good for him. It’s nice to know that at least one man is will­ing to do what every­one in the US mil­i­tary is oblig­ated by their oath of ser­vice to do.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa
© Ken Hagler. All rights reserved.