I’m just askin’, because that seems to be the way this current Administration operates. They "interrogated" two whistleblowers who were trying to stop a company from selling arms to Iraqi insurgents. Y’know, those guys who are killing our guys.
In a previous post, I said Bush "is killing us all". I was taken to task for it.
I guess the commenter has a point; Bush isn’t killing us all. Just 4000 so far, and gagging, demoting, and "interrogating" those who call him out or don’t toe the party line.
But he is certainly spying on us all. I sure feel safer. I’ll be thinking of that next time I take my shoes off in the airport security line, and when I’m forced to dump my water bottle because of the War on Liquids.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Phil, it’s horrible. And it will have no effect whatsoever on the Republican faithful. They will hide behind, “Well, the Democrats are just as bad.” Which, even if I granted that (I don’t) it is irrelevant anyway. THIS is the bunch of devils in charge.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
There’s that, and there’s also Bush’s latest dribbling gibberish about how badly he wants a war with Iran. So badly, in fact, that he’s using the same damn script he used for Iraq.
Now, I don’t think Bush is killing us all, but just about every intelligence estimate seems to show that Bush really wants to. How else can you explain some of those decisions he’s made?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Dan, I am sad to say the only explanation I can think of that makes sense is the billions of dollars being made over there by Bush and Cheney’s friends.
We’ll never know for sure, because the Republicans don’t care and the Democrats, while perhaps not as corrupt, are too spineless.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
The next president’s first act should be to hand this administration’s officials over to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal. It’s no wonder GWB is looking to live in Paraguay after he leaves office — he’s fearing extradition at some point in the future.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I’m hoping this administration was just an overblown social experiment. As in “This is what happens when you endow a WASP with Redneck traits and make him the leader of the free world.”
August 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
No, you’re only allowed to torture people until they agree to say things that you *do* like.
It’s interesting to live under a group of people who if put on a fair trial in a Neuremburgh situation would probably be declared guilty. And yet, they’re still going to work every day, in the USA.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Bush is prosecuting his war without a significant mandate:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
We have two years left. Let’s hope we can make it without entering another catastrophic war.
Let’s hope we get election machines that work.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
“Let’s hope we get election machines that work.”
And let’s hope the democrats can come up with a candidate who is better than just the lesser of two evils.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:05 am
TSFrost
Choices in a democracy are *always* about choosing between lesser evils. The Good, The True, and The Beautiful are aspects of aesthetics and moral philosophy; they have nothing to with politics, have never had anything to do with politics, and will never have anything to do with politics. The sooner the spoiled American electorate (not singling you out here, btw) accepts this, the sooner they’ll stop treating politics as an exercise in moral purity.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
I don’t know if you are legally allowed to torture people you don’t like. I suspect not.
You could try playing a loop recording of “Tie a Yellow Ribbon ‘Round the Old Oak Tree” to them. I suspect that that would be classed as mental (if not aural) torture though.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Is this just what you get whenever you make torture routine, or do you also have to classify dissent as treason? I want to say that it is not my country doing these things, but it is. How can I be proud to be an American?
I swear I’d trade my life for the sight of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the dock at the Hague.
It puts me in mind of a line I heard Garrison Keillor deliver, which ran something like this: “I was devastated to hear of his death. For years, the only thing keeping me alive was the hope of seeing him hanged.”
August 29th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Sounds like a nasty story, but it seems to be based on the words of that Vance guy only. After he has spoken with lawyers. It may be true, and then it’s horrible, but there might also be something else going on, that he has no interest in disclosing.
It would not be the first time that a news article causes an outrage, while later it turns out that things didn’t quite happen the way a person alleged or a reporter understood. Of course by that time public interest has long faded.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:19 am
I would gladly dump a bottle of water to help ensure a safe flight. I also think the lighter should stay banned…you can’t smoke on the flight anyway, just check it with your bag at the counter.
It mentions other countries don’t ban these things, but I don’t think other countries are hated by terrorist’s to the degree we are.
I understand not liking/agreeing with Bush on a ton of issues. I don’t agree with most everything he does! But I do agree with him on one issue, Terrorists need to be dealt with. If you don’t agree with that, I wouldn’t mind hearing that argument
People here in Iraq want two things. They want the terrorists gone and they want the U.S. gone, they make no excuses about it, and we fully understand their position (”We” being the U.S. military). They wanted three things, but we removed Saddam from power, so now they are down to two left, and they need us here to help against the terrorists.
13 days left on the deployment!!
August 29th, 2007 at 2:42 am
And yet people think I’m some sort of nutcase when I espouse even the slightest libertarian ideals.
>>> And let’s hope the democrats can come up with
>>> a candidate who is better than just the lesser of
>>> two evils.
Obama supported nuclear power in one of the debates. It would have beeen nice to hear him say something specific like, “We should get serious about the new generation of breeder reactor designs and change the laws to allow the spent fuel to be recycled instead of wasted” but we have to take what scraps we can get.
Other than that, I can think of nothing positive. It’s the usual crop of “Oh, let mommy/daddy take care of you!” Just the same old tiresome crap. I can’t even listen to political speeches anymore because they make me want to go out and randomly stab twenty people for continuing to vote for useless sacks of garbage like this.
I used to think the Objectivists were too extremist, but I feel closer to them with every passing day. Maybe I’ll join the Ayn Rand Institute or something.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Well, you previous posters can vote and choose, we all over the world not the US just suffer the results. i.e. about the war of liquids, if US laws rule every international flight, why not everybody around the world can vote who does those rules?
You, my US friends, have a problem in this, but also have the key to solve it. We foreigners (from Spain here) just are waiting for you waking up.
To Murff: other countries have or had larger and older terrorism problems than the US. The point is than one american dead sounds louder than 50 people in Sri Lanka. International terrorism hates all, and hits everywhere. About your last paragraph, Iraq people never wanted three things, most of them wanted one: Sadam removed. US ocuppation and terrorism came later.
Better my first post in this nice blog were about astronomy, but I’ve been flying a lot this summer and I can’t stand been “suspicious by default” at airports. Do you know what a safety control is with a 9 month baby and his bagage with you?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Yes, Phil, you can, if they are IDists.
You have my executive order.
>>> just are waiting for you waking up.
We’re quite awake, but thanks for caring. Solved that whole Euskadi Ta Askatasuna thing yet? How are migrants rights shaping up in Ceuta and Melilla?
>>> Do you know what a safety control is
>>> with a 9 month baby and his bagage with you?
No, what? Do we get to hear the punchline?
Ah, I’m just teasing. I’m an insomniac and very tired.
No hard feelings Mr. Qwfwq. Hey, is that an Aragonian name?
—–
Completely off topic, but you folks have to read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/
August 29th, 2007 at 5:31 am
The interesting thing with the electronic communication surveillance story is that as usual U.S authorities don’t give a s… on my rights as a non U.S. citiziens.
Non U.S. citiziens can be tortured, spyed, kidnapped……., whatever.
When will the U.S. elector learn the foreign policy of the guy they vote in DOES have an impact on them also?.
What do you think is the reason the United States became a target? I am sure the answer has to do a lot with the way U.S foreign policy was made since the start of the cold war.
I say this without any anger. I just say it should matter to you what your Government is doing.
After the last election I was talking to an American business friend of mine living in Maine. He voted Bush. I asked: Why that? (I knew from before he did not support the Bush Iraq policy).
Then he listed several weaknesses of the democratic candidate and his agenda and pointed out for that domestic reasons it had to be Bush.
Andre
August 29th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Torture? Have teal-colored octopi force feed them brussels sprouts while listening to rap music. That’s a very bad nightmare that I had once.
Or, do the worst torture of all- don’t let them watch Star Wars. EVER!
August 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am
A view from the outside
In this Canadian’s opinion, TS Frost has it entirely correct. The last two American elections have been the Democrats to lose. All they had to do was field a reasonable candidate.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Re Paul
I would be curious as to what Mr. Pauls’ idea is of a “reasonable candidate.”
August 29th, 2007 at 6:36 am
@KaiYeves:
Whats so bad about brussels sprouts? Imagine hard boiled eggs.
Andre
August 29th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I LIKE hard-boiled eggs, Andre. I love spinach with my steak and I’m even fine with eating broccoli, but brussels sprouts are the one vegetable that I LOATH!
Oh, wait, do you mean hard-boiled OCTOPUS EGGS? Yeah, that would be really, really nasty!
But still, denying them Star Wars is the worst torture of all!
August 29th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Torture, spying and imprisonment are the logical outgrowth of any government that fears for its survival. Machiavelli knew all this centuries ago. He advised, in “The Prince”, that all that was needed to keep a Prince in power, was to distract the public with a “righteous war”, usually defined as one started by some heinous act of some shadowy figure that requires the entire country to go to war for vengeance sake. Which, of course, is exactly the situation which we currently have. People will allow nearly any extreme when they are frightened, for fear really is the “mind killer”. Just remember Ben Franklins admonition, ” Any people that desire security above freedom, will have neither.”
I expect George and his cronies will get away with their crimes. For this is the Age of the American Imperium and the first American Caesars. Interesting, from a historical perspective. I bet the Chinese are having a really good laugh, considering their curse,”May you live in interesting times,,,”
Meanwhile, I’m still a member of the Space Studies Institute, hoping Dr. Bussards IEC fusion reactor proves out and we can leave this crumbling world behind,,,let the anti-intellectuals have it,,,we tried to teach them to think.
GAry 7
August 29th, 2007 at 7:50 am
There’s always the cultural torture, of course. You can torture a central european by making them drink Budweiser (the A-B variety). You can torture an englishman by making him drink Lipton tea. You can torture an american housewife by putting her in a kitchen with a stove that’s calibrated in centigrade and scales that weigh in kilograms (or, better still, in Newtons). And all of that is perfectly legal!
August 29th, 2007 at 8:28 am
> Can *I* torture people who say things I don’t like?
What makes you think you aren’t already?
August 29th, 2007 at 8:49 am
# Paulon 29 Aug 2007 at 5:53 am
A view from the outside
“In this Canadian’s opinion, TS Frost has it entirely correct. The last two American elections have been the Democrats to lose. All they had to do was field a reasonable candidate.â€
Evidently you did not know that John Kerry got over 60% of the votes and is the first presidential candidate to get over 60 million votes. You Canadians get to vote on paper. We have to use electronic voting. Walden “The Electronic ElectionFixer†O’Dell fixed the last election. On his laptop, he transfered over a dozen million votes from Kerry to Moron.
Kerry was not a very good candidate, but in contrast to the drooling moron. he looked great. I suspect that Kerry won the primary with the help of Walden “The Electronic ElectionFixer†O’Dell who wanted a weak challenger to Moron.
We need to get back to paper. Sure, paper can be altered or destroyed, but I never heard of this happening to much more than a million or so ballots at most.
He also have the 2 systemic problems of “First Past The Post†and the “Electoral Collegeâ€:
Let us suppose that 60% of the electorate wants universal healthcare while 40% are of the attide:
“¡I have mine! ¡Screw everyone else!”
Three candicates run for office. One is a Green. One is an independant. One is a Libertarian The Green and the independant support universal healthcare, while the Libertarian opposes universal healthcare. The election goes thus:
30% Green
30% Independant
40% Libertarian
Even though most support universal healthcare, because od votespliting, we do not get it. Votespliting causes “First Past The Post†to become a two-party system. The two parties become corrupt, but unseatable.
Let us suppose that we have preference voting with negative votes allowed. With all of the +1s and +2s allong with the occasional -1s from the Libertarians, either the independant or the Green will win and with all of the negative votes from the 60% of the electorate, the Libertarian will loose with a negative score.
The Electoral College is a terrible compromise. Basically, if someone looses, but the vote is close in a moderately large state, if one changes a few votes in that state, the whole state can flip. In other words, by changing less than an 100 thousand votes, one getes the effect of changing over 10 million votes. That is how Moron won in 2000. This is not just something the Republicans do; indeed, Kenedy, Democrat, used this trick to win in 1960.
Please research electronic voting for more details as to why it is bad for Democracy.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Holy mother of Batman! If China or Iran did this, there would be an international outcry and the US I’d like to think would be 1st to criticise. This stinks so much.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I’m REALLY disappointed. As soon as I read this post I checked on the major news networks and not a word popped up about this. It makes me sick to my stomach that there is no noise about this. No instead, I have to watch that mental degenerate of a president ring a bell in NOLA and hear about a some a***ole who won’t admit he wanted a little slap and tickle in the men’s room. Like I give a damn about either. I honestly expected scandal and distress, or at least a little sweat on the administration’s part. Now I just feel naive and foolish to have assumed someone would have been outraged on American media.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I hate it when you get all political, Phil
August 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Note that this story is from “Forbes”.
“Forbes”!
It seems that even many of Bush’s own kind are beginning to feel their gorges rise after six years of incompetence and treason.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I love it when you get all political, Phil.
Haven’t heard word one about the Iraqi fraud whistleblowers in YEARS. I’m not surprised to hear that honest people are hurt when the dishonest get away with murder.
Murff, I’m sorry you’re in Iraq. Our country should have focused on getting the terrorists, which means we should have stayed in Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had more to do with supporting international terrorism than Iraq did, at least before 2003. Of course, since 2003, Iraq’s been a breeding ground for terrorists. You ought to know that more than anyone. I’m sorry you’re working for such a grossly incompetent government. By the way, do you have any comments at all on the whistle-blower article??
August 29th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Speaking of the fraud in Iraq, does anyone else remember back to the beginning of the war when U. S. troops found “a large amount” of American currency in one of the buildings in Bagdad? Does anyone know what the amount was, or what happened to it?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Not sure I buy the story. And a link to Markos ‘Screw Them’ Zuniga’s site doesn’t increase respectability for me. Not positive, (it’s misquoted so often,) but I think it’s, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”, which means something different than what most people imply.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Evidently you did not know that John Kerry got over 60% of the votes and is the first presidential candidate to get over 60 million votes. You Canadians get to vote on paper. We have to use electronic voting. Walden “The Electronic ElectionFixer†O’Dell fixed the last election. On his laptop, he transfered over a dozen million votes from Kerry to Moron.
That’s quite a claim. If you have evidence of it, you should march straight to the nearest judge and file charges.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Thanks for posting this, Phil. I saw this story last Saturday (I think it was Saturday) in the Sacramento Bee, but it was in the Business section, not on the front page where I thought it belonged.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The detention of whistleblowers needs to be investigated further. It sounds disturbing, but I don’t respond to single news reports as though they were the whole story.
As to the “war on liquids”, I assume that many people who read this, who are versed in chemistry, can imagine mixing a few (liquid) chemicals that could cause a serious problem on a plane. Add some simple electronics and the picture gets worse fast.
The surprising thing to me was that it took so long to figure out that the threat existed.
Phil, You put much more time, care, and thought into your science explanation pieces than your political ones. That’s why I like the science ones more.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am
>The next president’s first act should be to hand this administration’s officials over to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal.
I am so glad that I’m not the only one thinking about this. Bush has violated the constitution so many times that he certainly should be in prison for a good chunk of the rest of his life.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I find this whistleblower story outrageous if true. It makes me wonder if the war is even genuine. What I mean is, (speculating entirely, of course) I wonder if the war in Iraq is being deliberately perpetuated by the Bush administration and/or the large contractors by selling arms to the “insurgents”. There would be a lot of money and political currency to gain from a protracted war.
Just an idea…
August 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I too would like to see the Bush administration tried for war crimes. I have fantasized about running for president and having Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld arrested and tried. I’d like it to be my first act in office, but I would want to be very well briefed on the facts before I had them arrested.
I’m enough of a skeptic to know that what I have read in the papers and seen on the TV and Internet is not complete. Nevertheless, it is a rewarding daydream.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Well, PsyberDave, I wonder that too.
What I do know is that Cheney’s “former” company Halliburton has relocated to Dubai to avoid paying US income tax…and no one (certainly not Republicans who would have had aneurysms if a Clinton buddy had done that) seems to care.
Let’s review: Halliburton hands Cheney 33 million dollars free and clear when he becomes vice-president. Then a war is started on false pretenses, and Halliburton has handed billions in “rebuilding Iraq” no-bid contracts (for the second time!); many of the contracts are for areas that were not even bombed yet when the contracts were awarded! They then relocate to Dubai to avoid paying income taxes.
Dubai.
And Republicans couldn’t care less.
Staggering.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Just 4000 so far”
Uhh… Don’t forget the now-nearly 1 million excess deaths in Iraq and several million displaced persons and refugees. He and much of our legislature are guilty–both parties. A new President isn’t going to change things much, unless he’s either Kucinich, Paul, Gore, or maybe Edwards. And I doubt any of those guys are going to be elected (and they all come with their own problems too…)
August 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Lots of companies leave the US to avoid high taxes. People do it as well.
Bolo, are you saying 685 people are dying in Iraq everyday as a direct result of this war?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
>>> Walden “The Electronic ElectionFixer†O’Dell fixed the last
>>> election. On his laptop, he transfered over a dozen million
>>> votes from Kerry to Moron.
Cite?
Seriously, this is a skeptics website. You have to back that up, and I mean real evidence, not some blogger on republicans_are_demons_org or manifestos_r_us.net
Lemme guess: you think WTC7 was detonated, right?
>>> Let us suppose that 60% of the electorate wants
>>> universal healthcare while 40% are of the attide:
>>> “¡I have mine! ¡Screw everyone else!â€
Ah, ideology… the land of false dichotomies built from tortured logic.
I think it was Clifford Stoll who said: “There’s two types of people in this world- those that break the world down into two types of people and those that don’t.”
>>> Let us suppose that we have preference voting
>>> with negative votes allowed.
The simplest approach is to allow a person to vote for every candidate they can stomach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
You can also do Disapproval voting.
>>> The Electoral College is a terrible compromise.
I know it’s all trendy, cool, far out, wild and right on to be down on the EC these days, but there is room for modification. For example, the “winner take all” at the state level is NOT mandated by the Constitution.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
>I would gladly dump a bottle of water to help ensure a safe flight.
Except that every bit of evidence and testing has shown that the chemical attack is used as the reason we can’t bring liquids on a plane is completely bogus. So it doesn’t make us safer. It’s just one more way to promote fear so we will remain willing sheep to our government.
>I also think the lighter should stay banned…you can’t smoke on
>the flight anyway, just check it with your bag at the counter.
You actually weren’t allowed to check it in your baggage either. As a cigar and pipe smoker I like having a triple flame torch lighter for my cigars. So it doesn’t actually matter if you are allowed to smoke on the plane or not. BTW, you can smoke on the plane on many international flights. Or at least you were a couple of years ago when I flew to England.
You can, however, now buy a DOT approved lighter case. And THAT is allowed in your luggage. Here’s one example
http://www.amazon.com/Colibri-Tranzpack-Approved-Airline-Lighter/dp/B000J0KUB0
August 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
If you’re interested in information about fraud during the 2004 Presidential election, please check out this article, written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It’s a detailed collection of evidence of fraud in voting, primarily focusing on Ohio, which was a huge battleground state.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
August 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
No, not really. It’s actually a helpful institution in our system, though it could do with some reform.
The winner-take-all system, as you mentioned, does help keep this a two-party system. But in the Presidential-Congressional system, you want that. Presidential-Congressional systems depend on majority vote most of the time, not by coalitions but by solid blocs. Multi-party Pres-Cong systems are typically unstable because they fail to maintain solid majorities. Parliamentary systems have the flexibility to deal with shifting coalitions, but Pres-Cong typically don’t.
There is the issue that an elector can vote for someone other than he/she was supposed to (and it has happened a few times), but it’s not effectively an issue for us. The reason is that electors are chosen by the parties from among the party faithful, as a reward for long-time service to the party.
The more significant issue is that it’s possible (and happened in 2000) for the candidate who won the popular vote to lose the electoral vote. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. suggested a very simple reform that would eliminate that risk without affecting the winner-take-all system: give 60 electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Wow…that’s insane…
You know, maybe it’s not such a bad thing if some people are put off by hearing about this stuff.
Does anyone really care if someone who would defend this sort of action sticks around? Does Phil care? Having Dissent is a good thing, and granted, this is an astronomy/skepticism blog, but for pete’s sake, do people really expect someone who sees some seriously messed up stuff in the world to not speak up to avoid offending the political sensibilities of a handful of internet denizens?
Sheesh.
Ok, I’m done sucking up now
August 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
That’s true! Maine, in fact, splits its electoral votes based on the popular vote. It’s the only state that does that, though, since winner-take-all is a convention that’s become well-established. But yes, it’s convention, not required.
In any case, in our current situation we have much bigger fish to fry than the Electoral College. Getting our votes back in the first place, I think, is our top priority. Go Debra Bowen! Getting the
bigENORMOUS money out of politics is #2 (like that’ll ever happen, since those in power benefit from this system. Doing something about gerrymandering might be a good #3.August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Phil, I don’t think you overreact in your disdain for the Bush junta. They have politicized science, and any person who seriously cares about the legitimacy of science should be very concerned with that.
I view those calling for silence on this issue very much the same as so called moderate christians who remain silent with regard to the march of fundamentalist extremism.
anyway, It’s your damned blog!
August 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
The liquids ban is bad risk-assessment: reacting to a potential threat without considering the actual risk. How many times has anyone ever used a liquid they brought on board to terrorize a flight, whether by burning, exploding, or causing noxious fumes? Consider last year’s liquid-explosive plot: even assuming that the plot could have succeeded (those of us versed in chemistry have our suspicions), it was foiled long before it got off the ground.
Additionally, those of us versed in chemistry already know many ways someone could terrorize a flight, using common materials, which could not be prevented without truly draconian security measures. Suppose someone considers the winning entry in Bruce Schneier’s recent “movie plot contest”, smuggles some sodium metal onto a plane, then drops it into water to create hydrogen gas, spatters of hot sodium hydroxide (lye) solution, and lots of heat. As you’d expect from a movie-plot contest, the winning entry exaggerated the result: a casual sodium “bomb” probably wouldn’t bring down the plane outright. However, it would definitely scare the bejeezus out of everyone on board, hurt people who were close to the reaction, and if done in the right place, cause a nasty fire as well. That’s good enough for most terrorists.
This chemical reaction is well-known and any significant terrorist group already knows about it. It’s *much* easier than any known liquid-explosive reaction. You only need a few grams of sodium. You don’t need special training or preparation, beyond some caution in handling the sodium. It’s reactive, but it isn’t intrinsically unstable: you can transport sodium quite safely so long as water can’t reach it. X-rays don’t show it as clearly as dense metals like lead or iron. In any event, you could complicate things by putting the sodium inside something else that’s metallic, so that the presence of metal wouldn’t be suspicious. You might even be able to avoid the X-ray by “accidentally” carrying your metallic container through the metal detector, showing the security guys that it’s a mundane metallic object (like a key fob or an iPod or whatever), and continuing on your way.
Your only realistic countermeasure is banning all metals. (The entrant in Bruce Schneier’s contest suggested banning all water, but this was clearly a joke, very much in the spirit of the contest itself.) If you seriously justify banning liquids because of the mere possibility of a liquid-based explosive, you should also seriously consider banning metals because of the possibility of a metal-based fire. Does this still sound like a good thought process to follow?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Watch out, ColoRambler, Homeland Insecurity might come after you now for exposing a hole in its security–just like others have gone after people who exposed their security holes. The “blame the victim” strategy is alive and well in this country…
August 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Of course, Phil, the straight-up answer to the rhetorical question that makes the title of this blog entry is:
Only if you’re a neocon.
Specifically neocon, not just Republican. True conservatives at least have some respect for the Constitution as applied within our own borders. They may support committing atrocities abroad in the name of national self-interest, but they don’t target U.S. citizens at home. Nixon was an exception, of course, but he’s a case in point–his fellow Republicans helped bring him down because they couldn’t condone what he was doing.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Before you know it Bush will be just a bad dream. If he doesn’t get any more supreme court appointments we’ll be okay. I think Hillary will be very bad for the country though. She even voted to repeal the first amendment.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
ColoRambler-
This is the kind of reasoned debate I’ve been hoping for here in these comments. Your point about banning all metals is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. That’s OK, even driving to work has a risk involved.
This is the incident I was thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
It is pre-9/11, but it shows that the idea of ‘mixing up’ a device is not new.
Anyone in to flying naked?
Also, for the record, I think Phil kills his own scientific credibility with his hyperbolic political posts. I acknowledge that he’s probably found at least some truth in many of them. I’d find them more interesting without all the volume. As it stands now, if someone is looking for a reason to question one of his usually brilliant astronomy posts, they just need to cite one of his political ones, or even a creationism post nowadays, to call his overall objectivity into question.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Last time I checked objectivity and turning a blind eye were two different things.
Good thing the Japanese government prefers people to be “objective” when confronted with evidence of comfort women.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
# Quiet_Desperationon 29 Aug 2007 at 12:52 pm
>> Walden “The Electronic ElectionFixer†O’Dell fixed the last election. On his laptop, he transfered over a dozen million votes from Kerry to Moron.
> Cite?
I am surprized that you require a citation for this. Everyone knows that O’Dell fixed the election. I was about to put up citations, but Stephanie already did so. ¿You are ware that O’Dell promised to try to fix the election?:
“I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.â€
—
Walden O’Dell
> Seriously, this is a skeptics website. You have to back that up, and I mean real evidence, not some blogger on republicans_are_demons_org or manifestos_r_us.net
> Lemme guess: you think WTC7 was detonated, right?
No. Only idiots believe that. The thought that someone could plant tons of explosives unnoticeced is ludicrous. However, if one destroys a third of the crosssection of a building halfway up it and damages another third of the crosssection at the same level and then heat about half of the steel at that level above its softening point, the building will collapse. The impact of planes would cause the initial damage and the fire after the impact would be the source of heat.
A few simple changes might have saved the towers:
The only concrete was in the floors. The core used drywall for partitions. If the walls of the core would be reinfored concrete, the core would have sustained less initial dammage and would better withatand fire. The trusses in the floors should be I-Beams.
> The simplest approach is to allow a person to vote for every candidate they can stomach.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
> You can also do Disapproval voting.
I did not know that anyone would be interested in the subject. I have researched many systems. My favorite system is a preference system allowing negative votes — some people deserve negative votes. Here is how it would work:
Let us suppose that 3 dozen people run for office. A dozen I like, a dozen I hate, and a dozen are irrelevant. I rank those I like and those I hate. The top choice gets a dozen votes. The one I like the least gets 1 vote. The one I hate the moste gets negative doxen votes while the one I hate the least gets negative one vote. One simple adds up all of the votes. Another variant uses fractional votes.
>> The Electoral College is a terrible compromise.
> I know it’s all trendy, cool, far out, wild and right on to be down on the EC these days, but there is room for modification. For example, the “winner take all†at the state level is NOT mandated by the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned the electoral college is a bad compromise like slaves being only three fifth human.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Phil,
After a bit of soul searching and inner debate, I have decided to allow you to post any ole thing you want on this here blog. I have decided that your posts have reasonable social value and therefore, are acceptable for consumption by the general blogosphere. No, no, there’s no need for you to grovel in appreciation, you have earned my trust in you. Blog on bro…
(if i ever meet Phil, he’s gonna punch me in the head, lol)
August 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I’m not too worried. I made an offhand remark along these lines on Mr. Schneier’s blog some time ago (well before the recent movie-plot contest). I haven’t been hassled on my last couple of trips.
You do have to wonder how much grief Mr. Schneier himself gets.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Laurie D. T. Mann – The Whistleblower article is very disturbing. I’m in the USAF and we have a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse system to report things. The biggest part of that program is a direct hotline to the I.G. Office, and you can report things anon. If you reported anon. and nothing was done, I’m not actually sure where you would turn…of course, I’ve never seen things like this happening, I’m just a Jet Engine Mechanic
Thanks for feeling my pain with regards to my employeers. You have to realize that the people here don’t feel we are here because of oil or other government agendas. We see the help we provide these people on a daily basis, and we see the gratitude from the majority of the Iraqi’s. These people deserve better, and if you could see how hard most of them work, you’d be amazed. That’s another thing you don’t see on CNN, the average Iraqi going to work 12 hours a day to feed his family…and having to do it worried about car bombs and suicide attacks. He’s the real hero, because he has to do this while not wearing body armor, not driving around in an armored vehicle, and not carrying weapons to defend himself or his family. He hates the terrorists as much as we do, because they indiscriminately attack/kill anyone.
I can’t wait to get back home and see my wife and kids!! 12 days and the wheels hit the ground!
August 30th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Thank you, Murff, for what you’re doin’ there and what you’re sayin’ here.
I feel a small portion of your pain.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Where’s the astronomy? This has become a Bush bashing website.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Ken S, I always thought the Ben Franklin quote was “…to PRESERVE a little Temporary Safety…” Which can basically describe why the Old Republic fell in Star Wars. By the way, I was playing a game the other day with a friend where we asked “If Palpatine came to your door asking for a glass of water, what would you do?”
Me, I hope I’d be brave enough to hand him a cup of gasoline and run away, really fast, but I’d probably just hide in my basement and pretend I wasn’t home.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Murff & Tom – here’s a good article on liquid explosive, which is what the bans on liquids is supposedly protecting us from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
The short version – there are a few explosives that can be made by mixing together harmless, common liquids. However it’s not like the gum in Mission Impossible – mash the two halves together, 30 seconds later, BOOM!
You have to mix them together under carefully controlled conditions for a considerable period of time – it’s just not realistic that anyone could pull it off on a plane.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:51 am
i have no problem with ANY adminstration torturing our enemies. The ignorance of thinking if we treat them nice they will be nice back is a farce. Terrorists respond only to the infliction of great physical pain or death. They want nothing less then that for every person not associated with thier religion.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
It’s not about being nice so maybe they’ll be nice back. It’s a moral choice. Torture is evil. I am not evil. I do not condone the use of torture. If you do condone torture, you are no better than the terrorists – you are, in fact, a terrorist.