Scary

I'm left with the impression there is a fervent desire to discredit or diminish the vast evidence of human-caused global warming. People will latch onto any remote excuse to deny a scientific conclusion. Bet they're the same people who say things like "Nonsense, what do those doctors know? Smoking's not bad for me."

Can we afford to be this nonchalant?

Welcome to the blogroll Geoff

I've long been looking for another conservative site to balance out my somewhat lopsided blogroll. Now as it happens, my criteria in selecing blogs for the blogroll are pretty stringent. In short to add a site, it has to be one that has either added value to my life, or entertains me enough that I want to check it regularly. Very few conservative blogs do that for me. And so I was actively looking for a conservative blog that pleased me. In the inbred manner that is the internet, I started on one of my favorite sites and worked down Tigerhawk's lengthy blogroll. I found this site: Faith, Beer and Other things that interest Geoff. Immediately this blog stands out as something I might enjoy. I don't talk about it much, (Catholics tend to be more private about religion), but faith certainly doesn't bother me. I LOVE beer. Then, when I found out Geoff was a local and also likes one of my favorite bars, I thought: this is a sure thing. A few weeks later I'm thinking I might have missed the mark a little in terms of commonality. Geoff writes (emphasis added):

As I said before, scientists may not make the best thinkers, but they are smart. And since I haven't detected their ability to either correctly grasp either Intelligent Design theory nor the nature of evolutionary science, I want to figure out why.

Honest to God, that made my day. It warms my heart to see that posited with such clarity. He has a point though. It's not like you have to be Einstein to get ID and evolution. I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist. I mean...fuck it. You know what I mean.

I'm hooked. It's going on the blogroll.

UPDATE: Since I was e-mailed questioning my mental health... No, I don't agree with the excerpts I block quoted. My cognitive apostacy goes only so far.

But anyone who can make those statements with such abject sincerity has an interesting world view. So open your mind and entertain other people's views now and again. If you do, you just might find their views entertain you.

Bioterrorism and Bioethics

The point of my last post was not so much to discount the modern terrorist phenomenon as to point out that we need to come to terms with it and combat it rationally. The use of airplanes and bombs is dramatic, but in the end those have limited destructive potential. However, the idea that terrorists might get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is pretty disturbing. We should have people and policies aimed at preventing terror in general, but especially in those areas. I don’t think 9/11 “changed everything”, but it was a hell of a wake-up call.

To anyone interested in bioterrorism policy, I recommend this editorial in Genetic Engineering News. (Careful, as with most prose written by scientists, it gets dry. Of course, so do I.) A few excerpts:

The misuse of biological research is increasingly becoming a prominent policy concern. In addition to the biosafety and biosecurity regulations currently in place to oversee biological research, it is now argued that measures are also needed to prevent the techniques developed and knowledge generated from being misused.

The discussions on codes can be traced to a November 2001 White House statement endorsing a solid framework for bioscientists in the form of a code of ethical conduct that would have universal recognition.

This was reiterated shortly thereafter by John Bolton, the then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, at the Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, who said, a professional code of conduct for scientists
working with pathogenic microorganisms [is critical and timely].

It’s a rare day, but I agree with John Bolton. The libertarian in me hates the idea of licensing or tracking people, but there should be a way of identifying those with the requisite skills to produce chemical or biological weapons. Locksmiths get bonded because they carry around lockpicks, yet we have no way of knowing who routinely work with viruses.

By itself, a code doesn’t accomplish too much. A code of ethics is unlikely to deter terrorists, but a code of conduct might make people think a little more carefully about the research they publish. For example:

This could then be supplemented by a review of experiments involving biological agents that raise concern about their potential for misuse. The report identified seven experiments of concern, including those that would enhance the virulence of a pathogen and demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffective. The review of experiments would be added on to the already established NIH system for reviewing recombinant DNA experiments through local institutional biosafety committees.

Despite urban myth, I don’t think you can actually download plans for a nuclear weapon from the internet. Even if you could, you certainly couldn’t build it because it takes a whole lot of resources to make a nuke. The genetic blueprints for most viruses, however are accessible, and a virus could be manufactured for less money than it takes to send 4 guys to flight school. Then there’s the paper on how to render a vaccine ineffective. That particular paper is notorious. The authors might as well have titled it “How to circumvent the immune system…just thought everyone should know.” It’s fast in the running for least responsible thing ever published.

I think this is an issue worth following. Osama’s new tape alludes to new attacks "They are in the planning stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete." A bomb attack is sucky, but I’d sooner see 1000 of them than one suicidal terrorist sneezing immune-system-evading smallpox into salad bars.

Anyway, I’ll keep you posted if anyone asks me to sign an ethics code.

9/11 changed everything - except it didn't

Still weak when they should be strong.

Evidently Democrats are flustered about how to deal with Republicans on issues of national security. Specifically, they don't want to confront Republicans with illegally monitoring phone conversations because they think people will side with their valiant Republican protectors. What a bunch of pussies. But they may be right, because this country is turning into a bunch of scared-y cat reactionaries. Ready. Fire. Aim. We've been this way ever since 9/11 changed everything.

Naturally the threat of terrorism still exists. Future terrorist strikes are more a matter of when than if. And let's be realistic: the terrorists are smart and resourceful. They went 3 for 4 on 9/11. Given the thousands of ways to cause chaos, death, and destruction, they will be very hard to fight. This battle is not likely to end for decades, and we will take casualties.

But here's a different perspective: 9/11 didn't change everything. It didn't change who we are, and it didn't change what we stand for. The terrorist attacks caused 2,972 deaths and we are all sorry for that. However, we have a great nation. As mercenary and callous as it sounds, 2,972 deaths doesn't "change everything". In 2001 we lost 42,443 lives in auto accidents and it didn't "change everything". Of course those people didn't have their lives intentionally cut short. The 20,308 people murdered in 2001 did, but we're only interested in about 3000 of those. In terms of loss-of-life, car accidents are most tragic, but then 9/11 also destroyed billions in infrastructure and commerce...is that why we attach such import to it? Hmm, well Rita destroyed most of a city, but that didn't "change everything".

What "changed everything" is that we learned there are some monstrous people out there who mean us harm. And naturally we turned to some bold figures who promised to "get the terrorists" and "keep us safe". There's nothing wrong with either of those sentiments. Retaliation and prevention are exactly how we should respond. But there is such a thing as taking things too far. Pre-emptive wars with countries unassociated with the offenders are a bit extreme, and the encroachment of privacy and civil liberties by the Patriot Act is excessive. And then when you reach the point where your government is no longer following the law, and you as a citizen are ok with that, you've gone way too far.

Maybe you think it's ok for the government to spy on you without a warrant. Maybe you trust the President enough that you don't think he should have any oversight from Congress or the judiciary. Maybe you're so afraid of terrorists that you no longer believe in trivial things like the Bill of Rights or Law. You're entitled to your opinion, but think about this:

1. The goal of terrorism is to make people respond through fear. How do you suppose they feel when we credit them with "changing everything"? How do they feel when we voluntarily curtail our rights? How do they feel when we consolidate power in the executive and make our government look more like theirs? I'll tell you how they feel. Proud of beating us.
2. A lot of people worked really hard to bring us both a Bill of Rights and a system of checks and balances (aka stable democracy). These have weathered sterner challenges in America's history, and we aren't living up to the standards of our forefathers as we part with them.
3. America is bigger than a few buildings, or even a city. We won the cold war and emerged as the most economically and culturally dominant (best!) country on the planet. We used to stare down the barrel of mutually assured annihilation everyday before breakfast. The terrorists have nothing on that. It's time we applied some of our greatness to defeating terrorism. And I'm not talking about wars, tanks or sanctions, I'm talking about intrinsic greatness. We need only be greater than them. Each of us with freedom, opportunity, and the power to shape our destiny. That's how we won the Cold War...with free speech and personal liberties. The terrorists fear our way of life because no culture has ever proved so pervasive. They fear their daughters will go to college or wear bikinis. They fear Jack Daniels and MTV. They fear us as we are, because unless they succeed in changing us we will win. They cannot compete with our greatness, unless we change.

What "changed everything" is that we learned there are some monstrous people out there who mean us harm. Fine. We've had some time to let that idea sink in. We've chosen some people to try to stop them and some others to try to get them before they get us. We work on it, like we work on a cure for any other cancer. (Cancers incidentally killed 554,000 in 2001) It's time to stop letting it rule our lives. New rule: excepting victims' loved ones, anyone who claims "9/11 changed everything" is a giant pussy.

Maybe the next terrorist strike comes today or maybe it comes in 10 years. Maybe it strikes New York or DC or El Paso or rural Kansas. When it comes it will again test our merit. I hope when that day comes we have a leader who takes appropriate action without blowing things out of proportion. I don't want to hear how the acts of scoundrels "changed everything". I want to hear that we are America, and our greatness, courage, and values are untouchable.

Scalia's constitutional dedication.

Conservative judges say commerce clause gives federal government the right to prohibit assisted suicide:

Ashcroft vs Oregon, dissenting opinion by A. Scalia

(Side note to those who care: Roberts signed on w Scalia, and Thomas wrote his own dissent.)

The Court's decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, ans it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police powers of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality-for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. See Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 321-323 (1913); Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, 356 (1903). Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible.

No doubt liberal legal types will jump Scalia’s shit for that paragraph. I know next to nothing about the law and less about conservative/liberal schisms therein. However, it sounds to me like Scalia is voting to allow a Federal power grab from the States on the flimsy pretext that although not Constitutionally permissible, we’ve done shit kinda remotely like this before.

Scalia: Strict Constructionalist and States’ Rights Champion (but only when convenient).

Working on MLK day...

No offense to Dr. King, but I have a dream too. I call it graduation.

Phillyblogging: Where to eat

Eating is possibly what Philidelphians do best. Today I'm making a trip to my favorite Mexican joint, Taqiera la Veracruzana. If you're local to Philly, follow the link to Messy and Picky's website for lots of restaurant tips.

Al-Qaeda who's who

Ever find it hard to keep track of those shadowy terrorists cause they all have ratty beards and funny names? Maybe it's just me. Well, until the fuckers put out an org chart, this will have to do. Now someone explain when to use al-Qaeda and when to use al-Qaida.

Music Mash-up

Maybe you like Greenday and Oasis. If so, you'll love this.

Ten Libertarian questions

If it shows up at both Freedom Democrats and at Right-Thinking, it must be good. With due tribute to Reason, here's 10 questions.

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

My answers:
1. No. Some oversight required.
2. Hell no. More than some oversight required.
3. No.
4. Maybe. It's is possible for a journalist to committ treason. I advocate we exercise that thing we have...you know, the law.
5. Yes. If war is ever a proper course of action within a State's rights (see Just War theory) then assassination is too. That having been said, you can't go killing everyone willy-nilly, it too requires just criteria: something like a Just Assassination Doctrine. Now that I've claimed this right for the US, who holds it? I believe (in a parallel to war), Congress (or some subset of it) makes the determination, and of course the Executive executes it.
6. No. For one, torture is not a tool. Spying is permissable only when the courts rule that public safety warrants the personal intrusion.
7. Of course not.
8. Not ordinarily. Exceptions to situations where criminals are driving tanks or hijacking planes.
9. Yes, but simply for efficiency reasons. It is ridiculous to not have one already.
10. Nothing should be kept from Congress and none from the courts. As for the people, "a higher percentage" depends on where we are now. I doubt it.

Planning scientific experiments

Sometimes I read things like this:

We estimate that for a 6-finger protein recognizing an 18 bp target site, the cloning can be performed in about two weeks or less by a skilled molecular biologist, especially if the two 3-finger subsites are cloned in parallel and assembled in the final step.

As a chemical engineering grad student, what I really want to know is how long does it take an unskilled molecular biologist? Guess we'll find out.

Lanky's Biden-style Questioning

Confession time. I find the whole Alito thing tremendously boring. (2nd confession, this will be a long post with little point, bail now!) I haven't seen any of the hearings except for 5 minutes of the Daily Show...and I found that boring too. One interesting thing that has come of it is Alito's ties to "Concerned Alumni of Princeton". Various people have purported CAP is a sexist or racism entity, and others have purported it isn't. That's not the part I found interesting.

What's interesting is that Princeton and Yale didn't admit women as undergrads until 1969. That really blew my mind. In deference to Tigerhawk, I'll agree that they are private institutions and as such should be allowed to admit whomever they want, but to me it's unimaginable for any institution that strives to be the best to rule out half of the population. And that's just the first of a dozen reasons I would argue against it. Anyway, 37 years ago Princeton and Yale decided that women were ok after all, hundreds of years after their respective inceptions, and 50 years after women got the right to vote.

Compare that with Cornell, where women were included almost from the get-go. (the school opened in 1867 and women were admitted in 1870) The wikipedia entry on Cornell is pretty interesting. Evidently old man Cornell was a bleeding heart liberal. He wrote "My greatest care now is how to spend this large income to do the greatest good to those who are properly dependent on me, to the poor and to posterity." And thus was born a school with the motto "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study." I always hated that motto when I was at Cornell. It has none of the scholarly vim and vigor of lux et vertitas. As a motto it's too long, dry, boring, and in English. And yet, I'm now realizing, that back in Cornell's day that is a pretty radical statement. Fifty years before women had the right to vote, there's Cornell saying they should not only be able to attend, but to find instruction in any study. Regarding the trustees, Cornell's charter stated that "at no time shall a majority thereof be of any one religious sect, or of no religious sect." (Which is curiously discriminatory, but again, private institutions are allowed to choose whomever they want for trustees) Says Cornell "I hope we have laid the foundation of an institution which shall combine practical with liberal education. ... I believe we have made the beginning of an institution which will prove highly beneficial to the poor young men and the poor young women of our country."

How do you suppose Cornell got along with the President of Princeton back then...not too well is my bet. And finally, no talk of Cornell University's origins would be fair without including the sentiments of the academic founder, Andrew White. He had visions for Cornell that stemmed from his complaints with academia "too much reciting by rote and too little real intercourse." (Yeah, admitting women wasn't a hard sell for him.)

I spent four years bored by Cornell's motto, because his vision has become true. People have become equals, there are more academic freedoms, and to a larger extent universities are more accessible to the needy. Imagine if that were your legacy. To be so visionary, that hundreds of years later your ideas are considered routine and what was formerly routine is unimaginable.

So if you've read this rambling prose that jumps from tangent to tangent in a way that would make Joe Biden run dry at the mouth, well God bless your patience (I would have bailed a while ago). And thus concludes my homage to the Alito nonsense. I find the hearings to be long, dry, and boring (though thankfully in English) . I think there is "too much reciting by rote and too little real intercourse." And I hope there is more meaning to these events than I currently ascribe. Since Alito's chances look good, I pray that he has the foresight to look to the future with a quarter of the enlightenment of a certain 19th century luminary. Failing that, I'll settle for "light and truth". Failing that, I'll settle for just "truth". But given the circumstances, we're probably going to get stuck with "Under God's power he flourishes."

Worst poll of the new year

I'm calling bullshit on this stupid poll.

Jan. 9, 2006 — Six in 10 Americans plan to follow the Senate confirmation hearings that start today for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and his supporters continue to outnumber his opponents by about a 2-1 margin.

In a country that barely pulls in a 6 in 10 voter turnout for presidential elections, you want to tell be that 6 in 10 are going to be listening to senators drone on at these talks? Bullshit. The superbowl draws 50 million to 100 million viewers (vs US population of nearly 300 million)...and Alito ain't the superbowl.

When spin goes bad...

Liberal bloggers are getting a kick out of the administration's attempt to distance itself from the Tom Delay scandals.

Even before DeLay's announcement that he would abdicate his leadership post, top Bush advisers tell TIME, the President's inner circle always treated DeLay as a necessary burden. He may have had an unmatched grip on the House and Washington lobbyists, but DeLay is not the kind of guy—in background and temperament—the President feels comfortable with. Of the former exterminator, a Republican close to the President's inner circle says, "They have always seen him as beneath them, more blue collar. He's seen as a useful servant, not someone you would want to vacation with."

The joke is that 1: this doesn't make the Pres look any better, 2: stabs Delay in the back pretty hard, and 3: is fairly insulting to the blue-collar types who voted for the Pres, but aren't slimy like Delay. Bad spin. To be fair though, those spin-docs pricked the best analogy on their list. Here's a few other choies:

They have always seen him as beneath them...Like the chick you'll hook up with at a frat party, but kick out of bed the next morning...Like a gay child who you tell not to hug you while campaigning...Like that imigrant housekeeper you'll buy drugs from, but not pay over minimum wage... See? Their spin sounds better than mine...that's why they get paid the big bucks.

And then there's my personal favorite: Like the intern you'll finger with a cigar, and later explain that you only did it because you could. Ouch.

Abusive Nepotism

So my threshold for news that outrages me has gone way up. Bush's 17 recess appointments should score in there. Especially the one where he gives a juicy job to the husband of the chief defense witness in Karl Rove's leak investigation.

Or maybe especially the three on election reform. Maybe the others are yet more damaging. I'm not outraged, but I am losing the happy Christmas vibe. Bad. Bad. I gotta stop reading news.

Naked Science

I had cause today to google "naked DNA integration" (i won't bore with details). Google found what I was looking for (doesn't it always?), but as I was reading a very dry scientific paper, I noticed 2 buttons at the top of the screen. One simply said DNA and the other simply said naked. Evidently you can push the button to take you to the next instance of the word. Still, sitting there at work with a button on the top of the browser that said "naked"was kinda wierd.

Password Security BS

Of all the stupid BS... Every few months I need to set a new password on one of the dozen systems that require me to memorize a password. And this new password requires not just a seven-digit alphanumeric code, now I have to add a symbol to it as well. 'Cause you know...if I did the normal 7 digit password, hackers would know there's only 62 possibilities at 7 positions.

And then (if they knew for sure that I used the minimum number of characters) there's only 3,522,000,000,000 potential passwords... and that's way too easy to hack? I believe the system is set up to only allow 3 password failures and then you're locked out for 30 minutes. So an automated program would be able to crack my password within 67 million years.

Or if you want a different way of looking at it, guessing a random password on a single try is roughly the same as hitting the lotto in twice in a row with only 5 tickets for each.

Here's a thought. Hackers aren't getting in because the search space is too small. They're getting in because people choose passwords that are guessable, or on lists of known passwords. So let's define the problem. It's not that the currently available passwords are insufficiently diverse, it's that people are chosing foolish passwords. The logical solution? Don't have people choose. I'd rather the system admins just assign a random 5 digit sequence than go through this assinine game with stupid new rules every few months. Yeah, I might have to write it down somewhere, and it probably makes more work for the administrators (cause everyone will forget passwords). While 5 digits is less secure than 7 (dropping the search time to only 17,000 years in the above scenario) you're probably safe if you reassign new passwords every decade or so...

Anyway this "fix" is just a silly band-aid. People will still choose bad passwords, and sooner or later these new passwords will show up on password lists. So the users have changed passwords from "chocolate" or "ch0c0late" to "ch0c0late$". Consider me not impressed. And mildly irked.