Civil Liberties

Another Day in a Floating Libertarian Paradise

mikethemadbiologist — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:06:28 +0000

Another Day in a Floating Libertarian Paradise

So there's been a bit of discussion about libertarians who want to establish a bunch of off-shore countries on floating oil-rig type platforms that would be lil' loonitarian paradises:

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

"There are quite a lot of people who think it's not possible," Thiel said at a Seasteading Institute Conference in 2009, according to Details. (His first donation was in 2008, for $500,000.) "That's a good thing. We don't need to really worry about those people very much, because since they don't think it's possible they won't take us very seriously. And they will not actually try to stop us until it's too late."

The Seasteading Institute's Patri Friedman says the group plans to launch an office park off the San Francisco coast next year, with the first full-time settlements following seven years later.

My first thought was "If a bunch of pompous rich libertarians want to go Galt and leave the U.S., well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." And I'm sure there's some entrepreneurial Somalian pirate who sees a glorious opportunity here. I think Atrios' take on the whole undertaking is exactly right:

In practice, of course, even libertarian paradises would have laws. And means for changing and enforcing those laws. And an evolving concept of just what the community wants. Ultimately I suppose some hybrid of Lord of the Flies and Gated Community in Irvine, CA, would emerge and then, you know, collapse. Maybe it's what happened to the "lost colony" of Roanoke.

Consider this conception of what one of the ~~communities~~ ~~collectives~~ paradises might look like:

(from here)

First, they live in apartment buildings. Like it or not, they'll need housing codes. For instance, can you smoke in the building? Smoke in apartment buildings, even nice ones, tends to enter other apartments. What constitutes a disturbance? One person's annoying racket is someone else's late night beautiful tuba serenade. Keep in mind, this will be a self-selected community of people who hate being told what to do. Then look at the park in the front left corner. Will dogs be allowed in it? Will owners have to clean up after the dogs? Will dogs be kept on leashes? What if people damage the grass? And let's think about the swimming pool. Will people be allowed to listen to radios while sitting next to it? Kinda annoying for the people who live surrounding the pool. Will late night cannonballs be allowed?

Then let's look at this figure:

Look at that freighter. When will it be allowed to dock? What if the business owners want early morning deliveries, but the residents don't like being woken up at 5am? (a problem familiar to any urban dweller).

While this might be nitpicky, this is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to be resolved. How will it be resolved? If there's a list of rules imposed by the founder/owner, what happens if the rules need to be changed (or added to) as will inevitably happen? Will these rules be adopted democratically?

The real question is what happens to rule breakers, or, even those who simply are on the 'losing side' of a decision. You will need some kind of enforcement mechanism to expel ~~lawbreakers~~ anti-Galtian personalities.

This all sounds kinda like gummint. AAAIIIEEE!!!

Frankly, I think they're just trying to avoid taxes.

mikethemadbiologist Sat, 08/20/2011 - 04:06

Tags

Civil Liberties

The Rule of Law

urban planning

It's like Deepwater Horizon meets Boca Estates. Faith in Thiel is all it takes. This, surely, won't be a mistake.

Not to mention the fact that these things wouldn't survive the first good gale that hit them. . . It's hard enough to set up a drilling rig in deep water, let alone a permanent island that's supposed to house dozens if not hundreds of people. Plus, where are they going to get their supplies? Most oil rigs have supply boats running to them daily or weekly, but these libertarians probably won't want to trade with the oppressive US.

Are you kidding? This is the best idea ever! Taking hundreds of petty, selfish, isolationist, arrogant, entitled, maladjusted, Galt wanna-be's and trapping them together on a fragile and precarious structure hundreds of miles from any help? It's reality TV gold! It'll be like Jersey Shore, but for engineers!

And, how are they going to finance this venture? I propose a block-buster Reality Show, complete with High (or Low) Drama, and Clashing Egos. Heck, I'd watch it, and I hate reality shows!

Someone got the wrong idea from "Bioshock."

@captainahags:

Plus, where are they going to get their supplies?

Perhaps more importantly, where are they going to put their supplies? Food, fuel and other consumables for hundreds of people for a week must take up an impressive volume of space -- space that just isn't there on an oil rig inhabited by hundreds of people.

"The engineers, scientists, mechanics, skilled craftsmen? Oh, they'll be established on the THIRD island. Which we just started building. Will have it finished any year now."

The first thing these people are going to learn is that government is an emergent form. Two, perhaps three people, can live without operating principles and some established mechanism for compromise, and force if need be, in a word: government.

It could be entertaining. Stuff a couple hundred heavily armed Galts on an artificial island with limited resources and a failing infrastructure and you have a drama. An interesting twist is that there will be an inherent conflict between the true believers who felt the call, sold everything, and moved out to the platform; and the independently wealthy people who maintain a fallback position in an established nation.

What happens when a hurricane comes along and the rig starts breaking up. Do they call in the Coast Guard? Or do they go down with their illusions.

I think that their biggest problem will come from limited space. It seems to me that many of the people who want to live a libertarian lifestyle are exurban types living on a few acres all to themselves and that they don't like neighbors poking into their business. This kind of situation would not be appealing to most of them, so it would mostly be inhabited with urban geeks. "Don't fence me in" will not go over well.
Another problem might be a male dominated sex ratio. But then, polyandry and prostitution would be OK so that might take care of some problems but introduce the need for some regulation [shudder].
And who is going to do the scutwork? And where will the necessary servants live?

You know, these guys aren't going to take a boat to get there. Too slow. They'll take a helicopter, or at least some of them will. Those things are real noisy. You want to live near a helicopter landing pad (ask the folks in James Bay, Victoria, BC, who live near the Canadian Coast Guard's helicopter pad).

It would be interesting to come back in fifty years if this went big. I suppose the result would be a mix of the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong and Hashima Island.

There is a nice overview, along with other abandoned places, here:

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/abandoned-places-in-the-world/

There are big differences. Both are on land, and both had strong economic reasons for existing. Kowloon Walled City filled gap left by international relations and was, for a good time, a functioning society and economic entity. Hashima is a tiny island that has coal and it functioned as long as the need for coal justified the maintenance of the society to mine it.

A libertarian platform stobbed into an ocean far from national boundaries has few economic or political reasons to exist and it would be primarily driven by ideology and a series of tragically misapprehended understandings of how societies function.

That said there is a lot of randomness and haunting beauty in the pictures from the walled city and Hashima Island and it would be interesting to see what the remains of a Libertarian paradise might look like.

This is the contrast that amuses me the most

seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties

looser building codes

'cause looser building codes are exactly what you want when your very existence depends on solid construction, right?

This is all assuming that more than a fraction of the citizens actually live there. I'm going with the tax dodge angle, with timeshares and PO boxes for the majority of the "residents".

I imagine it'll look more like this after awhile.

http://www.viceland.com/wp/2009/04/battleship-island-japans-rotting-met…

Jules Verne already described what's going to happen.

Art:

...a series of tragically misapprehended understandings of how societies function.

That is perhaps the best phrase I've seen to describe this sort of nonsense.

It's amazing how one can take basic and very sensible libertarian principles like, "People behave according to incentives," and, "Free markets usually produce better results than planned ones," to such an extreme that you end up crackpot proposals like this. It's almost as though these people have never actually seen a society operating.

Mike:

Then look at the park in the front left corner. Will dogs be allowed in it? Will owners have to clean up after the dogs? Will dogs be kept on leashes?

This is a Libertarian paradise. This won't be a public park. It will be privately owned and the owner will set those rules in order to maximize his profit by attracting the most customers.

Somewhere down the line, he'll probably figure out that running a grassy park is a ridiculously inefficient and unprofitable use of precious square footage on a floating platform and shut it down in favor of other more sensible uses. So you see, the park won't be a major issue.

Let them do it. Also send some cameras and broadcast their idilic life, and we'll have a terrific new reality show to have fun at, much much better than any Big Brother season.

Lenny Bruce dealt with this 50 years ago in his "How the Law Got Started" bit, AKA, "Eat, Sleep and Crap." There's a transcript of part of it here: http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24181

I would say tax dodge, but I think there are already lots of those that are much easier to do. This is a fantasy land for the "persecuted".
I think they should all go to Mexico and see how awesome it is to live without building codes and such rules. I love Mexico, and lived in Baja for years, but even in the best neighborhoods, buildings were sketchily built. And you can forget about reliable water and power. Oh, and no minimum wage! great for greedy foreigners, but awful for a nation. I almost forgot about being able to dump hazardous waster wherever you want, or put sewage int he streets or ocean- OH THE FREEDOM!

Don't they realize how dependent they would be on the rest of the world? Or do they think everyones going to play by their rules, and bring them food and such as they want it? What happens when they are invaded by some motivated thieves? I hope they don't expect our military to help them out. Talk about clueless when it comes to how society functions.

Is it wrong to hope for a massive wave or typhoon??????

( Sorry about the typos above comment. Should've previewed......)

Yeah, all people are born equal, but some are more equal than others.

Should be fun!

I don't see any wind turbines or solar panels, and you can bet there wouldn't be any because, y'know, libertarians hate the environment. So since they're far enough out to sea to be in international waters, we're talking about continuous docking of oil tankers.

Interesting to see a complete lack of any of the infrastructure required for this.

Interesting also to wonder just how many rich people are lining up to pay for the privilege of living in an oil refinery with all its attendant grime, hazards, and stinks. The "Jersey Shore" jokes were more on-point than most people probably realized.....

storage space for a few weeks' worth of supplies won't be a huge problem. aircraft carriers go to sea for longer periods of time between (at-sea) resupplies than that, with thousands of people aboard. granted that the Galt-wannabes wouldn't want to be crammed in like navy sailors, they'd also have more physical space than even a Nimitz class allows.

the huge problem will come in the impressive governmental infrastructure and support they'll need. think about their fire department, alone. most merchant navy sailors are trained in firefighting, because if a fire breaks out at sea, there's noone else to put it out. i'm assuming oil-rig workers probably are similarly trained, for all the obvious reasons. will these gazillionaires put up with regular hose-pulling practice and training? would they do any good in a real situation even if they did so train?

Don't build it like those pictures, 1st of all. 2nd, don't skimp on materials, make sound-proof walls and that's half the battle right there. In smaller communities people know their neighbors and aren't as careless and selfish as they've become today. It would be unthinkable to allow your dog to bark 24/7 if you knew all your neighbors would come to your door and MAKE you take responsibility. It's all about people willing to be responsible adults. If that's the criteria then they will absolutely succeed.

Who's going to clean those pools? And tend to those gardens? And clean those apartments? Oh well, I guess with no laws, indentured servitude can come back into style...

I presume they ARE using their own money. I wish 'em luck. If they fail, as I presume most of the experiments will, perhaps we'll learn how society in general can take those lessons and apply them to our future cities, in particular coastal cities. We certainly could use some creativity when it comes to urban planning as it is practiced now. Cheers.

Libertarianism is not against rules or laws per se, just government-supported initiation of the use of force. Saying that things remain to be resolved is kind of like creationists pointing out unsolved problems in evolution. Sure, there is a lot left to be done in terms of the exact relationship between many taxa, but that is hardly a threat to conclusions like common descent.

A voluntary system of rules (such as free market contracts) can be accepted without issue under libertarianism. Here is how it could play itself out on such a libertarian island: if you want to live there, you voluntarily sign a contract with the owner saying you will abide to the rules and if you do not you accept that you will be kicked out. Notice how getting kicked out after breaking the rules is is not the initiation of force, but merely a form of self-defense. Presumably, the island will try to be self-reliant as much as possible and kinks will be attempted to be settled by negotiations and rational discussion.

Now, I fully admit that this system might have horrible end-results. I fully admit that libertarianism may be seriously flawed. However, using the rhetorical one-liner "who will decide the housing rules?" like it is a strong case against this libertarian project is a poor argument and has about the same low level of persuasiveness as "what use is half a wing?".

kinks will be attempted to be settled by negotiations and rational discussion.

The likelihood of that happening with a bunch of sociopathic ideologues is somewhere between slim and none.

If the owner sets the rules then what you have is simply a dictatorship.

Notice how getting kicked out after breaking the rules is is not the initiation of force, but merely a form of self-defense.

This would be initiation of of force by the owner who is the de-facto government. Also who decides when the rules have been broken?

Like in the middle of the ocean, on a structure with loose building codes? What could possibly go wrong?

Emil k -

So, basically, I'd assume that there would be some sort of 'holding company', in which everyone had a share, that had responsibility for the day to day upkeep of the infrastructure, setting the various rules, making sure that contracts are adhered to and, I presume, mediating in disputes.

Sounds a lot like a government to me, but there you go.

Interestingly, if someone 'breaks their contract' by stealing from their neighbors (and getting the proceeds off-island), is the only sanction eviction?

It's not a tax dodge, it's a flat-out scam. Nobody is putting up anything like the money needed to actually build anything - just enough to keep the Seasteading Institute ticking over (on unpaid labour), so Thiel and his buddies get to play dress-up and hold important-sounding conferences in expensive locations. That is all.

Shame, really... The potential for comedy is practically unlimited.

Libertarianism is not against rules or laws per se, just government-supported initiation of the use of force.

As a matter of fact, libertarianism is certainly against irrational laws which cannot be substantiated on the basis of Reason. Libertarianism is certainly against many laws which are meant to act violent against victims of victimless crimes. Libertarianism has a rational idea of legality or illegality and a libertarian suggests rational concept about laws, laws should be morally/rationally sound and they should not be based on emotional outbursts.

I tried to make a debate about such emotionally supported by rationally challenged laws Logic of Legal or Illegal

And Romney Just Scared Liberals Into Supporting Obama

mikethemadbiologist — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:13:07 +0000

And Romney Just Scared Liberals Into Supporting Obama

Guess who Mitt Romney picked as co-chair of his "Justice Advisory Committee"? Robert Bork. Yes, this Robert Bork:

Banning Porn, Art and Science : Bork also called for shrinking the size of the First Amendment until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. "Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."

Here are some other blasts from the past:

Opposition To Civil Rights: One year before President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned whites-only lunch counters and other forms of discrimination, Bork criticized the Act as a moral abomination. "The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness."

And:

No Right To Contraception: In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that married couples have a constitutional right to use contraception -- a decision that was later extended to all couples. Bork called this decision "utterly specious" and a "time bomb."

Oh, yes:

No Constitutional Protection for Women: Bork also claimed that the Constitution does not shield women from gender discrimination. In Bork's words, "I do think the equal protection clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity."

When I lived in Virginia, I used to remark that the choice was between the de facto Republican (i.e., the Democrat) and the segregationist. Now, I get to choose between a Rockefeller Republican and a batshitloonitarian--or, worse, a craven opportunist pretending to be a a batshitloonitarian.

Ugh.

mikethemadbiologist Thu, 08/04/2011 - 06:13

Tags

Civil Liberties

Conservatives

religion

The more I see of Mittens the more I think he isn't pretending.

On the other hand, if the economy is still this bad in November 2012, chances are better than 50-50 that Obama will lose the election. For all his faults, Mitt Romney is the least insane Republican candidate thus far. Alone among Republican candidates for the nomination, he doesn't provoke the visceral fear that, for instance, the prospect of a President Palin or a President Bachmann does.

I'd hate to see a democrat like Obama losing the election without actually trying democratic ideas first.

The solution is for Obama to admit he's a Republican and run for the Republican nomination next year, leaving the Democrats to nominate an actual Democrat.

Well, at least he contradicted himself between the first two quotes.

Bork was also the guy that Nixon got to fire special prosecuter Archibald Cox after the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General both refused.
He did Nixon's dirty work nearly 40 years ago; surely he'd be perfect for any of today's republican ratbags.

I suspect he is pandering to the teabaggers. But it will still make a great political ad. Who he he advices him on judicial issues is as fair game as it gets.

Let us also not forget that he was also for healthcare before he was against it.

The solution is for Obama to admit he's a Republican and run for the Republican nomination next year, leaving the Democrats to nominate an actual Democrat.

i approve of your suggestion and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

"...I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness."

Then we can expect a swift demobilization from the Drug War?

Interesting. Bork is the only person in recent history to have failed in a bid for SCOTUS. Let's watch Romney's campaign implode as he alienates everyone except the far right...

Orac@2

On what basis would you argue that Romney is less crazy than Huntsman?

Thanks for that blast. I had forgotten what a walking brain fart Bork was.

Yes, this seems to be the emerging choice: a) Obama, who has in many key areas continued the very same policies we complained about during the Bush years, and b) and a Republican candidate who would also continue those policies, and in addition be even more regressive on many social issues. With an outside chance of c) a protest candidate with no real chance of election.

I for one would like to see a viable third party, but that isn't going to happen overnight. To make a third party means organizing, developing a coherent platform (in contrast to the Tea Party), building an infrastructure of operatives and donors, attracting candidates for elections in sympathetic districts. A third-party president with no support in Congress would get nothing done; you have to build from the bottom.

Tell party (a) that you have noted they are not worth voting for.

Party (a) isn't going to all the trouble of campaigning in the hopes of LOSING to the greater evil party (b).

If party (a) doesn't change, then you're never going to get anything other than right wing and that rightwing is going to move further and further to the right until you realise that you've been played for a sucker.

Consider the worst case: party (b) wins.

However, that won't last long. They're incompetent and even malign. This is not a stable government.

Consider the less worse: no clear winner. With both sides lacking power to push through laws, you have no different an outcome than if you voted for (a) except now you have shown that you are to be counted.

Consider the best: party (a) changes.

Voting for the lesser of two evils merely delays the day when you get the greater evil.

Do your descendants a favour: fight the growth.

Do your descendents a FAVOUR

Oh, so you're not an American? Great, you can stop presuming to know how we ought to make our voting decisions.

We American liberals actually have to live here. We and our kids and our families depend on this infrastructure, on these social services, on these government programs. So we can't always indulge in Quixotic protest votes if they actually run the risk of making our lives clearly and materially worse.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice some principles in order to keep some of them--and you learn to settle for that when the alternative is to lose EVERYTHING. We American liberals learned that in 2000, or at least, those who were paying attention did.

Worst-case scenario: party (b) wins. However, that won't last long. They're incompetent and even malign. This is not a stable government.

Meant to include this in my "you're not American" post. Because that is BEYOND a worst-case scenario--it's a catastrophe. It's supposed to be a sign of hope that we'd have a non-stable, incompetent, malign government? How are we supposed to live during the time that it does last? If we lose our jobs, will pure perfect ideals pay our utility bills?

Thanks to idiot protest votes in 2000, we had "Party B" control our entire government for 6 years. They bankrupted and destroyed our economy, at this point looking like it's for keeps. They missed all the warning signs for 9/11, and then responded to it with a frivolous war in the wrong country that destroyed our military capacity and moral standing as well.

But that "didn't last long"--it was only 6 years! When Party B lost power, all the dead were revived and the jobs came back. Right?

It's easy to be glib when it isn't your job, your family, and your friends on the line.

"Because that is BEYOND a worst-case scenario--it's a catastrophe."

TTT doesn't understand worst-case scenario.

You see a worst case scenario is bad. It can even be a catastrophe.

"Thanks to idiot protest votes in 2000, we had "Party B" control our entire government for 6 years."

So you survived *6 years*.

"They bankrupted and destroyed our economy, at this point looking like it's for keeps."

And Party (a) is continuing to do the same things party (b) did in 2000.

So you decide you have to vote party (a)???

"Sometimes you have to sacrifice some principles in order to keep some of them"

And the road to hell is paved in them.

So you survived *6 years*.

That's right, I forgot from the Skepchick-elevator thread: you have Asperger's. So, just take my word for it that the people I mentioned above who died in 9/11 and Iraq didn't survive.

Ah, so since you can't actually continue your diatribe about how bad you've had it since you HAVE survived 6 years of it and want to vote in a party that is doing the same thing again, you decide that you don't HAVE to answer because, well, um, you'll get back to us on that, won't you.

"the people I mentioned above who died in 9/11 and Iraq didn't survive"

Well, no, BY DEFINITION they didn't survive.

However, you're wanting to vote in a party that is still doing it.

This indicates that you don't mind the dead in Iraq.

The Coming Battle for the Cloud: Google+ Versus the iPad

mikethemadbiologist — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:59:39 +0000

The Coming Battle for the Cloud: Google+ Versus the iPad

In the midst of all the chatter about Google+, many people seem to have ignored what this is really about: monetizing the cloud. What Google wants to do is make easy for you to store all of your documents and files on their servers, for which they will charge a small fee and/or use your registration and user habits for marketing purposes. Vincent Wong explains:

That toolbar is pretty important:

Apple is also trying to capitalize on the cloud.

The recent 'upgrade' of iTunes which can put all of your iTunes purchases on the cloud is the most obvious effort. But the iPad with its relatively limited storage capacity is clearly an attempt to monetize the cloud (with drug dealers, the pipe and first hit is always free. Or at least cheap). 32 Gb isn't really much storage, but that doesn't matter if you're linking to the cloud. ~~Of course, I'm not sure what you're supposed to do with all of your porn.~~

Both Google's and Apple's attempts are especially insidious, since they are targeted towards people who really aren't high-end computer users. I write insidious because I think storing many things on the cloud is stupid. Not only will you end up paying for access your own files (some of which you already paid for, others that you created), but you have ceded your privacy, your stuff to a corporation. Can't imagine what could possibly to go wrong with that. It will also make government vitiation of civil liberties that much easier.

But circles are groovy. Or something.

mikethemadbiologist Tue, 07/19/2011 - 03:59

Tags

Civil Liberties

computers

Internet

"many people seem to have ignored what this is really about: monetizing the cloud."

Really? You mean it's not blindingly obvious to everyone? I mean, what is Facebook, really? A machine to collect data for marketing purposes. We knew that already. Why would anyone expect Google to be different? Or Apple?

Does anyone (who didn't already have a collection) still own porn anymore? Or has this already been outsourced to the cloud due to sheer ease of availability? It wouldn't surprise me if porn is a technology driver here as it historically has been in media.

I don't think people who use this technology are stupid, but I personally don't want anything to do with it. It takes a cost which I have full control of (storage) and places it in a paradigm of which I do not (they can get you signed up and then raise prices). Moreover you can buy literally a pair of 1 TB drives (2 for redundancy - frankly I have more and even store "off site") for $100.

The other problem is, given the less-than-secure work environments most of us suffer from these days, I don't want a service that if I am unable to pay I potentially lose data, documents, pictures, etc. I can't afford to.

That said, for corporations, provided the contracts are strong enough, this can actually be a good paradigm (Google Docs), however us little guys don't get to mark up our contracts...

The thing that gets me is that 'This is almost everything you use your computer for'. *You* maybe. Most people maybe. But not me. And it seems like every technological move recently makes things easier for that majority (which is good), but makes them hard-to-impossible for the minority of users who require actual functionality. And where it remains *possible*, you still end up having to pay a premium for it. I forsee a future where for the price of a current computer, you get the functionality of a tablet, all very streamlined and nice, but if you're a user who has actual work to do *with* the computer (rather than the 90% whose actual work is not with the computer per se, but uses the computer in a secondary role, like recording and manipulating the data associated with the work they do), you'll have to fight through interfaces *specifically designed* to hide the real functionality, and have to pay a severe mark-up to have features "unlocked"

I forsee a future where for the price of a current computer, you get the functionality of a tablet, all very streamlined and nice, but if you're a user who has actual work to do *with* the computer (rather than the 90% whose actual work is not with the computer per se, but uses the computer in a secondary role, like recording and manipulating the data associated with the work they do), you'll have to fight through interfaces *specifically designed* to hide the real functionality, and have to pay a severe mark-up to have features "unlocked"

And with all the flavors of GNU/Linux available that are becoming simpler and more friendly to use, there are readily available ways to avoid all of that. When I buy a new computer, the first thing that I do is install Linux over it, completely wiping Windows.

And, I don't expect to buy a Chrome pc in the future, either.

iCloud doesn't stream music or any other data to your device. Whenever you change a document, or buy a song, or whatever, it uploads the data to Apple's server, then downloads it to all of your other devices. So if the iCloud servers go down, or Apple shuts it down, your data doesn't disappear from your device.

So this means that you can't use iCloud to listen to music from a large library on a device with a small amount of storage. It downloads each song once, not every time you listen to it.

I have no idea what kind of security iCloud has. I can't find any public documentation on that.

what is Facebook, really? A machine to collect data for marketing purposes. We knew that already. Why would anyone expect Google to be different? Or Apple
use tor, i2p, or similar for some sites.
nyetnet for the rest. ime, 95+% of facebook pages that i bother checking are wob, so something like *.fbcdn.net/ and *.facebook.[^/]+/ belong in your killfile (hosts, adblock).

after researching and watching prices, i bought 2tb hitachi xl2000 external hdd recently, $80.
if you need touch and portability, then i guess ipad is cheaper than touch laptop. a real pc costs a little less (more if you need a display).

How a Future Feature of the iPhone Gives Civil Libertarians an Incentive to Unlock It

mikethemadbiologist — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:27 +0000

How a Future Feature of the iPhone Gives Civil Libertarians an Incentive to Unlock It

I suppose we can start referring to 'unlocked' iPhones as FreedomPhones. Why? Well, I guess you could say, "Dictatorship, there's an app for that":

The days of filming a live concert or sporting event on your iPhone may soon be a distant memory.

Apple is developing software that will sense when a smartphone user is trying to record a live event, and then switch off the device's camera.

Anybody holding up their iPhone will find it triggers infra-red sensors installed at the venue.

These sensors would then automatically instruct the iPhone to shut down its camera function, preventing [any] footage from being recorded.

Only the iPhone's camera would be temporarily disabled; other features, such as texting and making calls, would still work.

But wait, Mad Biologist, this is just about the illegal recording of private events, isn't it?

Well, how long do you think it will be before your friendly local government decides to buy some of these things and flash them around political demonstrations? Maybe add some extra 'functionality' too, like shutting down the phone entirely or Teh Twitterz.

Steve Jobs, the Mad Biologist says this as a shareholder--and therefore your fucking boss--we are not happy about this. Figure out a different solution.

mikethemadbiologist Sat, 06/25/2011 - 04:01

Tags

Civil Liberties

iPhone, uPhone, We All Like the iPhone

Or perhaps, in a nod to Ed at Dispatches, the cops start carrying these things in their cars so iphones can't be used to film their possibly illegal actions when they pull people over unnecessarily or are caught while beating someone up for no reason?

The iphone infra-red sensor is on the top of the front of the phone to the left of the ear piece. It's traditional use was to determine when the phone was near your ear so that it would shut off the touch screen and prevent accidental screen-presses. There are ways of defeating this relatively simple technology. I know infra-red doesn't penetrate though glass very well but it may be as simple as taping a piece of paper over these sensors so that they don't pick up any stray transmissions.

Jail-breaking an iphone disables a lot of features and is a fairly complicated process. I know it's fairly easy to un-do but why resort to such a drastic measure when there could possibly be a much easier solution out there?

or you could just put the phone in airplane mode, which turns off cell, 3g, and web interactions and would prevent the phone from receiving the signal.

Recently the iPhone exceeded every other brand of digital camera as the most prevalent camera, so this concern is genuine.

Crossposted from Pharyngula:

Okay, so the question is this: How would this system tell the iPhone to disable its camera? Nine chances out of ten, it'd be through some sort of pulsed-infrared system, received through the camera itself. So the only way to block that transmission is to stop infrared light from entering the camera. Doing so without blocking visible light requires some sort of filter.

So, yeah. If I still had an iPhone, I would probably jailbreak it for something like that. But I don't. (Well, I do, but it's sitting unused since I switched away from AT&T.) My primary phone is a Nexus One, and unless they build the technology into the hardware, it's not really feasible to implement in Android.

But there IS an app to secretly record police who are abusing you or others, and the cops are on notice that surveillance works two ways--for now.
Here is a situation I wrote about that could have been handled better if they had a CopRecorder app on their phone

http://fightthepolice.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/tsa-denies-having-requir…

A Quiet Casualty of TSA Paranoia: Oddball Scientific Samples

mikethemadbiologist — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:01:44 +0000

A Quiet Casualty of TSA Paranoia: Oddball Scientific Samples

While there are probably more immediate concerns when it comes to the security nanny state the U.S. erected after 2001, such as the continuing erosion of civil liberties (especially when the servant learns to love the lash), this recent article about Boston's Logan Airport security reminds me that there's been another casualty of our security paranoia:

State police say nitrates detected in a piece of checked luggage at Boston's Logan International Airport were traced to a sample of mud brought back from a river in Hong Kong.

Two gates at the American Airlines terminal were closed as a precaution on Tuesday afternoon after the nitrates were detected. The gates were reopened about an hour later after it was determined there was no danger.

State police said the mud sample was brought to Boston by a doctoral student at Hong Kong University who was participating in a research program at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

When I was a graduate student and post-doc-this was in the pre-September 11th era-I used to collect soil samples whenever I went some place interesting. I had colleagues who did the same: many Bacillus biologists used to do this, and had extensive collections of soil samples. Bacillus is a spore-forming bacterium, so the spores can survive in soil-even if it's in a jar on your lab shelf. I also had colleagues who studied Drosophila (the flies which are a model system in biology), and would collect strains while traveling. Several of the classic laboratory lines of Drosophila were gathered exactly this way.

But I can't even imagine getting these through airport security, without either being opened (and letting all the flies out...) or getting nuked.

Like I said, there are much greater losses in terms of our civil liberties, but this sucks too.

mikethemadbiologist Sat, 06/18/2011 - 04:01

Tags

ALL UR SAMPLEZ R BELONGING TO ME!

Civil Liberties

I thought soil is on the list of prohibited substances to bring to the US after foreign travel without an import permit (and the main reason US customs forms ask if you have been on a farm while traveling). It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

I hate the TSA.

The terrorists have won.

Welcome to America 2.0; not the America our founders fought so hard to create and tens of thousands have dies to protect.

My samples were probably among the first victims of post-9/11 fallout. I had made a batch of recombinant viruses for a collaborator, with the very last supplies bought with the last moneys on our last grant. Packed them with ample dry ice in a thick expanded polystyrene box, lovingly sealed it and shipped it; postmarked September 10, 2001, the last day of what now seems like a different and distant world.
Of course my little drama and its consequences are ridiculous when compared to the human loss and repercussions that last to this day and will for some time to come, but for that anxious grad student it was hard to know that his last hope of a decent publication was withering away in a hot warehouse in Kansas, under an eerily empty sky.

Um, yes, I learned in grad school (pre 9/11) that you can only bring in soil samples if they're in alcohol or something similar, so that live pathogens wouldn't be transferred to the US. Things like Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthera ramorum) *really* should drive this lesson home.

This is something the mycologists know well, and I'm a little surprised that the bacteriologists aren't as cognizant of the relevant regulations. Kudos to TSA this time.

In a related news: the cost of fedex'ing samples to the US is now cheaper than carrying them in luggage...

@heteromeles: if you pack soil samples properly and only unpack them in the lab using proper procedures, there's very little risk of releasing anything unpleasant. Much less than tourists going off into the jungle and coming back with muddy clothes and parasite eggs in their luggage.

In Rio recently TSA agents strutted around the Brazil's airport speaking English loudly causing people to stare and make disparaging and yes sometimes funny remarks about American law enforcement. They acted like buffoons. A few months ago a couple of TSA agents were arrested I felt unjustly. But the way they acted on the day I was there makes one wonder if this is a good tactic to have buffoonish American TSA agents act like they own the town.

This happened to my wife! She was going to take atmospheric samples in China, and the destination lab didn't have a sufficiently good vacuum. She ended up packing a bunch of cylinders "containing" high quality vacuum; ideally, she'd bring them to the sampling site, open them up, suck in an air sample, and close them again. Of course, if the TSA decided to check her case and opened the cylinders up, they'd be spoiled - instead of containing China air, they'd contain who knows what air. Since the metal cylinders looked a lot like a classical movie bomb, she even packed a note written on university letterhead saying "these don't contain anything dangerous, please please please don't open them, you can call this official sounding person at the university to confirm that it's legit".

Unfortunately, the TSA simply couldn't resist something that looked so obviously like what they imagine a bomb to be, so they opened up her case and opened up all the cylinders. She wasn't able to take any atmospheric samples using them.

The absolutely hilarious thing is, though, that while preparing for the trip she realized that they weren't going to be able to get any mercuric chloride at the destination lab, so in the exact same crate she packed a vial of it, safely layered in some padding and Nalgenes and things. For the unaware, mercury will eat through aluminum (that is, the stuff planes are made of) over sufficiently long periods of time, like say a flight to China.

Needless to say, the TSA left the vial of mercuric chloride - the thing that could have actually damaged the plane - alone, while fiddling with and ruining the vacuum flasks, which were harmless.

I call it "Freedom between the fences".

Rob Dillon Jr., Professor of Biology and maintainer of the Freshwater Gastropds of North America suite of webpages and so forth, recently blogged about similar issues.

http://fwgna.blogspot.com/2011/04/malacoterrorist-watch-list.html

As a Soil Science PhD student, collecting soil samples from far away places is pretty much front-and-center of what I do. For the moment, my samples all come from within my home country, Canada (mainly the High Arctic), so I have no worries about crossing borders with them. Sending frozen coolers full of samples by air cargo is expensive, but so far has been pretty much hassle-free. Were they to cross a border though, for example if I were to cooperate with colleagues in Alaska, I imagine much greater difficulties.

I've also imported soils from Australia, Sweden, and Germany (the Australian soils actually came from the Australian Antarctic Division, so I had to squeeze lots of letters into small spaces on forms), and the procedure is actually fairly straightforward and somewhat transparent. Not bringing in nasty plant diseases is an obvious goal.

The last time I went collecting in the USA (freshwater inverts, that's how I know about Dr. Dillon) in 2008 I had some attention crossing at Detroit from the USDA. Mostly I was warned to not collect any endangered species, and I was given a list of such species likely to be found in my study area. The USDA/Customs officer also warned me I might have some trouble crossing back into Canada with my specimens (preserved in ethanol and/or deep-frozen in liquid nitrogen), but in the event I had no such worries.

Is there any appeal process for when your work or possessions are ruined by idiotic security personnel, as happened to Tacroy's wife? Is there even a route for complaints?

It is nothing new that Border Control in some way messes up, and more so, if something biological is involved. The story I have was a visitor from a Southeast-Asian country bringing in seeds in the late 1970ies, under some exchange program with the USDA lab in Beltsville, MD; said seeds came in an USDA-provided container, with specific instructions, on USDA letterhead, that the USDA inspection at the border should take the container and forward it directly to their Beltsville lab. USDA inspection did take the container at the airport in Hawaii, and burned it there, ignoring the letter, as the seeds collection specialist in Beltsville learned when he called to inquire what had happened to the seeds. Fortunately the foreign visitor took it in stride (rather than causing a diplomatic incident).-- I understand that the cherry trees gracing the pool and monuments in Washington , D.C., as a gift of the Japanese government, have a similar history: apparently the first set of trees caught some pest, while being shipped across the U.S., and were burnt on arrival in Washington, DC; the second set is what we see today.--
That nitrites in a soil sample set off some alarm seems to show that either alarm has too low a threshold, or said soil is way too over-fertilized. But USDA should have caught the soil sample as such.--

Illinois Catholic Charities Prefers the Right to Hate Over 350 Foster Children

mikethemadbiologist — Sun, 29 May 2011 09:55:59 +0000

Illinois Catholic Charities Prefers the Right to Hate Over 350 Foster Children

This is disgusting:

Following up on their threat, Catholic Charities of Rockford, IL, have voluntarily ended all their adoption and foster care services rather than comply with the civil unions law that will take effect next week. In doing so, the organization terminated $7.5 million in state contracts, fired 58 workers, and likely displaced 350 foster children.

Despite claims of religious freedom, this is what it's really about:

But the decision had nothing to do with the children (who will do just fine with same-sex families) and nothing to do with religious liberty. It was a blatant choice to prefer discrimination and stigmatization of gays and lesbians over the ability to do important, charitable work.

Pro-life, from conception to birth.

mikethemadbiologist Sun, 05/29/2011 - 05:55

Tags

Civil Liberties

Conservatives

Pro-life, from conception to birth.

They pick up the game again towards the end of life, preventing people with terminal illnesses from a choice in dying on their own terms.

In between, they are not so pro-life, but pro-control.

In between, they are not so pro-life, but pro-control. FTFY.

So where are the humanistic non religious agencies ready to pick up 7.5 million in state contracts. Sounds like a good opportunity to me.

Gotta change the headline. It's not the *right* to hate that they prefer; they've had that all along. It's hatred itself they prefer to children.

Is it just me, or is that $21,428.57/child?

One caution: it's very likely (if a similar event in MA is any guide) that the decision was not made by Catholic Charities, but rather by the local diocesan hierarchy, quite possibly (as in MA) over the objection of CC's administration.

The Catholic hierarchy and advocates in this country seems, as far as I can tell, to have gone totally wingnut. As in deciding they had to press the wingnut line hook, line, and sinker. Check out this Catholic takedown on support for Ryan's "plan."

ebohlman: I didn't know that (I'm in MA), but then I haven't been following much for many years.

Boring rabble rousing.
It's not like they're all going to go "Ah well, we put a lot of time into adoption, now lets just put our feet up" - there is plenty of other voluntary and charitable work they can be getting on with while they are not able to organise adoptions the way they want.
After all, if the law said you had to do something you objected to, say discriminating against recent immigrants, would you just grin and bear it and keep on working under the new conditions? Nah, you'd be out of there like a shot - and all the people opposing you would be like "Look at how evil he is, abandoning all those adoptees when he could just obey the law and keep working with them, terrible terrible" and they would be idiotic and wrong: you would surely (being such a good person) be investing your time and money in other charitable work of which, I'm sure you agree, there is plenty.

So, tempest in a teacup. An obvious response to something they disagree with. If you care so much about the 'abandoned' people the charity was working with, then get out there and arrange your own charity. Of course, you don't care that much, you only care enough to complain that the voluntary workers chose not to continue working under the new conditions. As is their right, and as is totally moral, as it was a voluntary occupation to begin with. I collect trash from the greenbelt round here in a group, I am under no moral obligation to keep contributing, and will stop if they make a law about it that I do not agree with.

SonuÃ§ta, dedi, eÄer yasa sen olur, gÃ¶Ã§menlere karÅÄ±, ayrÄ±mcÄ±lÄ±k sÃ¶ylemek son itiraz yapmanÄ±z bir Åey vardÄ± sen sadece katlanmak ve koÅullar yeni altÄ±nda tutmaya Ã§alÄ±ÅÄ±yor? Nah, sen atÄ±Å gibi orada dÄ±ÅarÄ± ediyorum olabilir - ve olur gibi tÃ¼m muhalif insanlar "korkunÃ§ korkunÃ§ onlarÄ± Bak, birlikte Ã§alÄ±Åmaya devam olabilir sadece itaat de nasÄ±l terk kÃ¶tÃ¼, o bÃ¼tÃ¼n o adoptees olanlar ve hukuk" ve onlar yanlÄ±Å ve aptalca olur: EÄer yaptÄ±ÄÄ±nÄ±z kesinlikle iyi (olmanÄ±n bÃ¶yle bir kiÅi para ve yatÄ±rÄ±m olmak zaman) diÄer Ã§alÄ±Åma hayÄ±r, kabul ediyorum seni eminim vardÄ±r bol orada.

how come the catholic church and the American religious right nutz are sooooo obsessed with anal sex i.e gays.... yet are silent when it comes to the issue of bisexuality? don't bi's do something similar to gays when together?

The Fundamental Inconsistency of Ron Paul's Libertarianism

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 18 May 2011 09:58:38 +0000

The Fundamental Inconsistency of Ron Paul's Libertarianism

So ~~batshitloonitarian~~ libertarian Ron Paul, who isn't a racist, but just happens to adopt civil rights positions completely identical to those held by racists, has a slight problem. As Brad DeLong notes, he does believe in a very active role for government--but only on behalf of certain people (italics original; boldface mine):

When you own a hotel and bar Black people what happens is that if Black people comes in and sleep in the beds you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a bus and require Black people to sit in the back and Black people [sit] in the front you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a lunch counter and make it whites-only if Black people sit down at the lunch counter you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass.

Ron Paul's belief is that the state should assist in amplifying social and political crises and injustices whenever the propertied wish to provoke them.
Private fee-simple property is, after all, an institution established and enforced by the government. You can hardly get the government out of what is, fundamentally, the government's core business.

And if Ron Paul had had his way, the South would still be segregated. Because those who owned property in the South (along with many who didn't) liked segregation, and were more than willing to use the state to enforce those property rights (with the occasional assistance of the Klan). Paul is someone who thinks freedom and liberty start and stop with property ownership (and the more property you have, the freer you get to be).

Paul is either batshit lunatic or plain evil. And Paul is an elected GOP official, not a blogger or radio show crank.

But he's not racist. Just unfortunate in his fellow travelers.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 05/18/2011 - 05:58

Tags

Civil Liberties

Conservatives

racism

This is part and parcel of the Randroid view of the world that Ron Paul subscribes to. The only rights that matter are property rights. Those rights should be considered supreme to the exclusion of all else.

And it goes beyond even civil rights. Do you own a factory? Well then, the government has no right to make you limit the amount of pollutants your factory releases. It's your property. And if that means the water of a neighboring town is undrinkable or the air is making kids sick, that's secondary to your property rights.

Own a mine? The government has no authority to tell you to follow safety regulations. Who is the government to tell you to protect your workers from blacklung disease or a mine cave in. If they don't like the conditions they can just go work somewhere, um, else.

Have you just developed a new alloy and want to use it to make railroad tracks? The government shouldn't require to you to test it beforehand to make sure it can withstand the stress and strain. It's your metal, you know it works. You don't have to prove it to the government.

Anything else is just an infringement of your property rights and punishing your success.

Wow. This is an extremely thin analysis of his positions. Do some research on the War on Drugs, which he wants to end, and see how it is destroying the lives in inner city blacks, then come back and say he's racist.

Joe, just because Paul advocates for a policy that would help blacks does not mean he's not a racist. He wants the war on drugs to end because a)it's a waste of money and b) he probably thinks it infringes on individual liberties. I doubt in the highest that helping inner-city blacks is at all on his priority list in that respect. And either way, he has openly supported policies that would make segregation by business owners completely legal, a position which is just not right.

Joe, go back and look at paul's history of letting racists dominate his newsletters and then think about your "defense".

Ron Paul claims that no one would really instigate a racial policy at their place of business if the proprietor were given a choose of doing so, because in his view it would be like committing business suicide. That's crazy talk there. I guarantee thousands of businesses would throw signs in their windows discriminating against whatever minority the happen to dislike. They very will may loose some customers, but unfortunately they will also attract many customers with like minded views. And just like that, BANG! instant segregation. If you ever wanted to experience time travel to see what it would have been like to live 'back when', well Ron Paul will be the engineer that gives you the means to experience that dimension. For real.

What a poor analysis. All gun control proponents must be racists because gun control was originally about keeping guns out of black hands. That has similar merit.

It is not about propertied interests. Paul is simply advocating that the government should only enforce negative rights. These apply to both propertied and non propertied individuals.

has President Barack Obama been compromised ?
is he now being controlled by extortion & blackmail

Ron Paul claims that no one would really instigate a racial policy at their place of business if the proprietor were given a choose of doing so, because in his view it would be like committing business suicide.

His son Rand has made the same argument. It's completely ridiculous because we know that some businesses would engage in racial (or religious) discrimination if left to their own devices because they once did. Which is why anti-discrimination laws were enacted in the first place.

For a couple of guys who represent states like Texas and Kentucky to claim to believe otherwise requires a willful disregard for history.

But again, this is the Randroid philosophy taken to its extreme. Property rights are the only rights that matter and the sole reason for the existance of government is to protect property rights.

If Ron Paul were around in the 1860s, he'd not only be defending the right of slaveowners to keep their "property", but would insist that the federal government force the northern states to return any runaway slaves to their owners.

I watched Paul's interview with Jon Stewart and it was "property rights this, and property rights that." I couldn't even count how many times Paul said "property rights."

I wanted to shout at Stewart and get him to say to Paul "You've talked about property rights so much I'm beginning to wonder if you think there is no such think as human rights."

It's such a basic question and nobody has ever asked either Rand or Ron this question. I have the feeling the answer is "no, there are only property rights...no human rights."

"I can pump all the dirty air into the atmosphere as I want but the property called "dirty air" has more rights than the property called "your lungs."

Um. Pollution violates your rights, including your property rights. Paul believes that the problem of pollution is best solved through litigation (or something like that). I think he's wrong on that but I'm not going to beat up a strawman and then call him crazy based on it.

If racial discrimination were made legal, it would also undermine the role and value of money, because a $20 bill in the pocket of a black person would not be worth the same as a $20 bill in the pocket of a white person. Given Ron Paul's obsession with property, how does this not make his tiny little brain explode?

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul endorses, but I would add to his defense in this case. This is largely an ad hominem attack. Paul does support property rights as the keystone for individual rights. That theory may or may not be true, but it's not prima facie absurd. He has also been a consistent and long opponent of War, and the imperial machinations of the US. He opposes centralized power in all of it's forms, again right or wrong. I would also point out his larger influences have been Ludwig Von Mises, and F.A. Hayek. You may disagree with them but they're not whackos. He's more of an anarcho-capitalist than a Republican. In any case, at least he is consistent.

"This is part and parcel of the Randroid view of the world that Ron Paul subscribes to. The only rights that matter are property rights. Those rights should be considered supreme to the exclusion of all else."

It's not just the randroids. One of the fundamental ideas in meta-ethics over the past few centuries has been the notion of a "right". You gen people who will argue that murder, for instance, is wrong not because it's wrong, but because it is a violation of your *right* do, umm, not be murdered.

What is a right? It's something that you *have*. Own. Possess. This notion of a right, and this framing of all ethics in terms of rights, frames all of ethics in terms of property.

But it's nice of RP to admit that property is a societal construct, that - like taxes - it's all about "men with guns" telling you (the unpropertied) what you can and cannot do. The fundamental flaw of libertarianism is in thinking a) that it's the only one, or even the most important one and/or b) that it's an axiom not to be questioned.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how it is that at "science" blog, you lack basic Constitutional understanding, at a supposed science blog, no less. Same learning process, data logging, recorded precedence, just different topic. All the same tools of study apply so WTF is wrong with you all?

You're looking to the Fed.Gvt, the same institution that routinely tortures, murders, and genocides to be a buffer between to protect your rights? Are you all mental?

Got StockholmSyndrome much?

Why is it that all liberals intuitively get that rich assholes take over govt, & send in their lackeys to head up the very agencies that is suppose to regulate. Yet you still moronically delude FDA protects your food & health, SEC prevents Madoff, FEMA took care of Katrina, EPA trading pollution does not stop it.

Are we seeing pattern yet, geeks?

Seriously how f*cking daft do you have to be to constantly look to govt for solutions?

First off, most of you weren't even around to witness "whites only," so for the love of god, ENOUGH with the feigned empathy.

Secondly, every civil rights movement in the history of our Republic, has been the result of a grassroots moral, active minority. From abolitionists, Native American rights, to Civil Rights movement of lat 1950's to 70's, were all led by individuals who could care less that the "law" identified them as a second class citizenry. They demanded their rights, acted like FREE EQUAL Human beings, believed it, and lived it. They didn't ask govt for permission. Unlike bunch of suburban lily white elitist pseudo-intellectual whinos, for which frankly this is nothing more that a topic to pass between your Starbucks sipping.

The Govt didn't end racism or inequality. It has always been an institutionalizer of it, as the capable & the wealthy ALWAYS USE GOVT to their benefit. WHEN are you gonna finally learn that lesson?

Hey, "science"blog geniuses, under CRA, technically, ANY black business owner is equally barred from expelling ANY NeoNazi from his establishment, if open to public accommodation. Unless you don't think there's such thing as black biz owner to worry about the probability of such cases arising.

Regardless, even now, as was back then, ANY business can LAWFULLY DENY ANYONE ANY SERVICE or even entry by using broad discriminatory excuse as "disturbing the peace" or "violation of dress code." Capice?

So puhleeze, unless you've actually ran a business, had a need to upkeep a payroll and keep your eye on cashflow, like most things in life which most liberals have zero first hand experience, you haven't got a CLUE. So ENOUGH with the BS. rationale for the making yourselves seem intellectual.

Do you know what you SHOULD be all up in arms about? Your Lord oBUSHma who is currently renditioning, secret & indefinitely detaining, assassinating American citizenry, and occupying, bombing, torturing, and MURDERING innocent brown people in MidEast & Central Asia, DAILY, while raiding legal med.pot clinics, and locking up non-violent offenders for life: THE REAL racism in America TODAY.

So excuse me, if I don't really think you give two f*cks about what actually is moral, or what is truly urgent problem facing America today.

You don't care, don't deny it. Otherwise there actually would be something called a robust Leftist AntiWar Movement under the current oBUSHma regime. Just another projection of your guilt in stupidity in getting suckered by a 5yr old targeted ice cream truck jingle called "Hope & Change." So bitches, get over yourselves.

Get your priorities straight. Ron Paul's objective? While he fundamentally considers all entitlements, all foreign aid, all foreign imperialist adventures as UnConstitutional. Well because they are! His goal is, as Pres. the ONLY thing he CAN actually do is as Commander in Chief, is to RECALL ALL American forces overseas. That's 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS a year saved, which as he's said for over 20yrs, he'll ACTUALLY PUT toward tying up generations of elderly & less well to do Americans who's grown dependent on them. Not to mention, as an Austrian economist Dr.Paul considers contract law to be paramount: seniors were PROMISED it. So he'll honor it.

Do you honestly delude there's ANY politician in DC who hasn't voted to raid the entitlement funds, trusts? Grow up & STOP letting sound bites tell you what to repeat as your own thoughts. In the age of internetS, WhatTF is your excuse for still be brainwashed as if we only had 3 network channels, people!

Besides do you people have any clue that Dr. Paul has the sole distinction of NEVER EVER having raided ANY of the entitlement funds to be used toward general budget, EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS they're UnConstitutional? Simply because he believes IN PROPERTY RIGHTS & CONTRACT RIGHTS?

Honestly, you all need to do the same amount of research as you'd apply to all your other fields of study, in understanding ORIGINS of the Constitution. The Const. does not GRANT any rights, it merely CODIFIES pre-existent rights. It explicitly LIMITS the powers DELEGATED to Fed.govt by the People. Capice?

Why is property rights crucial to human liberties? Without it YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, you unevolved primates. It is what gives you the HUMAN right to privacy in actual practice. The HUMAN right to KEEP what your own labor produces is a property right. NOT to have your home or persons violated as SCOTUS recently MORONICALLY 8-1 it could. So OBVIOUSLY SCOTUS can be MORONIC UnConstitutional dopes, as Doc alluded to in a recent Tweety interview where he clarified the point about FDR packing liberal justices which culminated in 1937 statist rulings.

Honestly, as someone who has always shared much more in social values with liberals, frankly when it comes to Constitutional laws, natural rights, fundamental philosophical basis for the role of govt, and rudimentary economics, speaking to you all on the matter is like talking to a wall.

Give a little advice. Do you have any clue as to why most people actually don't like BOTH liberals and conservatives? Despite the Divide & Conquer the RulingClass has been successfully playing off, which you all are displaying how easily, stupidly you succumb to it, most Americans still maintain that "leave me the f*ck alone" heritage and instinct.

Thus, intuitively, if you are an American worth his/her salt, NO BODY likes interventionists. NO ONE likes others imposing their view on others, no matter how well intended, or how good it may for them. It's not your right, nor job, ya arrogant pricks!

Problem with both establishment Dem/GOP is that you both arrogantly delude you have the right to institutionalize stupid solutions codifying aberrant human behavior via laws for all 50 states at once, using a hijacked Federal Gvt.

THAT is why someone like Ron Paul truly appeals to the REALLY F*CKING intelligent, informed populace. The world is full of morons who don't understand jack sh*t & assume ability to type = gnosis. You wonder why so often Ron Paul supporters are called names? You may want to look in the mirror and ask yourselves, really? Are you really that informed on those particular issues that Ron Paul often makes "shocking" statements about? Look around, you think current INSANE reality is a result of sane policies by enlightened bureaucrats? Or you think we all got here because everyone listened to Ron Paul's advice. You monkeys constantly harp on how "fringe" he is. Well, which is it? How is he fringe, as according to your logic if the current insanity is result of people applying his proposed policies?

Seriously, get over yourselves.

The biggest issue we're facing today? Their empire and welfare state will BANKRUPT us all!

By then, no matter how much you monkeys want entitlements, govt checks aren't gonna buy you sh*t. Guess that's something pathetic Krugman has still yet to figure out, that Federal Reserve printing excess credit out of thin air is a direct contributor to inflation. Right now, Wall St. bankster scums are holding on to NOT-their "money." Just wait until this prolonged contraction is through & Bernanke presses the floodgates open, say hello to Weimar.

So FOCUS on REAL priority, or for the love of god, please geeks STFU. Form coalitions on issues, of just talk to yourselves. You ranting to feel good don't really help.

How long is it gonna take you to figure out that Ron and Rand Paul are the only sane ones in GOP that you SHOULD be building coalitions AGAINST the Wars/Occupations, corporatism, and FOR restoration of ALL our civil rights, because without Freedom, all this discussion is moot.

Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?

Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?

Have you taken your anti-psychotics yet, fruitcake?

What I find amusing is that hippies and libitarians hate each others guts. Yet at the heart of both ideologies is the fantasy that if governments stopped "interfering" everyone would get along just fine.

RP really does seem to be nuts at times. and doesn't/shouldn't represent "libertarianism". his positions seems to default to the social conservative status quo steeped in states rights.

that certainly doesn't seem like it advances individual liberty, nor does it seem to roll back governmental power. It just deflects it.

and don't get me started on his batshit insane gold standard garbage.

that's great he's against the wars! for sure! and he has some other good ones, too, but on the balance, at least for this citizen, the batshittery comes out on top.

As I started to fall asleep reading a tirade by someone who says he doesn't care what we think but cares enough to write us a boring essay I skipped to the end.

"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?"

I was until I started reading your post.

You are as ignorant as the Republican establishment that is bent on bringing down Dr. Paul. You're incomplete and unknowledgeable "analysis" forgets the fact that Dr. Paul believes all people of all ethnicities deserve the exact same civil rights so that all Americans have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Count yourself among the Republican hate machine that squanders American patriotism on a daily basis.

Sorry Ryan, I didn't quite catch that.

How funny that people will willingly defend a racist by claiming to know exactly what he is thinking, and that he couldn't be racist, despite his actions and evidence to the contrary.

I'm gonna guess that everyone defending him is a white male.

"the fact that Dr. Paul believes all people of all ethnicities deserve the exact same civil rights"

A fact needs evidence rather than assumption.

Until then, that is merely your opinion.

'course he could be an equal-opportunities racist: ALL ethnicities, including white, are inferior if they aren't extremely wealthy like him.

Weird, isn't it. Ryan has to repeat something multiple times to make it fact.

Rather like a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Truth doesn't need embellishment. Lies demand it.

"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?

Have you taken your anti-psychotics yet, fruitcake?

Posted by: Drivebyposter | May 19, 2011 2:22 AM"

Since you seem to be oddly familiar with it, the real question is have you?

I meant your daily dosage of pro-psychotics/SSRI, because frankly any insensate imbecile who deludes mustering a kindergarten retort is a 'ha ha funny,' in the age of the internetS, as if I'll be 'OMG, you hurt my feelings, for prompting you to reveal yourself as a dumbass!' must be on one, no?

Now you can go back to staring at the inside of your rectal opening that you seem to have managed to shove your eyeballs into a state of brainwashed delight.

Observe, absorb, & learn a thing or two, or at the least if you're gonna rebut, do so with style.

Thanks for fulfilling my daily bemusement quota. Ciao, neurological invalid.

"As I started to fall asleep reading a tirade by someone who says he doesn't care what we think but cares enough to write us a boring essay I skipped to the end.

"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?"

I was until I started reading your post.

Posted by: Ender | May 19, 2011 10:42 AM"

I know, right, how dare someone "rant" against the glorious mendacity, clique of murderers, schemers & thieves, that is the current state of affairs in the District of Criminals that has long been hijacked by Wall St. banksters, wasting $Trillions annually on illegal wars, occupation, torture abroad & police state at home.

Of course you'd love it if everyone told you your unicorn vision of the universe was hunky dory.

Yes, please, for the love of God/Universe, stay asleep, oh brilliant mensch of unremarkable retort. Irrelevance? Usually not a quality missed in realm of higher human values. Please, stay that way.

Sources please? Even secondary or tertiary would be appreciated! Dr. Paul IS a statesman. Most of the others show that they are politicians by the evidence of their voting record. Gingrich voted to create a Federal Dept of Education, GATT, NAFTA. Romney created Romney-care. What Paul votes prove your point?

Once again, we see the follies of a man who simply vilifies what he does not understand. Perhaps if you actually read more about Libertarians and our views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, instead of cherry-picking racist-looking passages, you might learn something.

Ron Paulâs Double-Think about how âThe State" should be forbidden from easily mitigating Social Injustices... AND... "The State" should be REQUIRED to Amplify Social Injustices whenever shopkeepers want to provoke them is crazy enoughâ¦

But Wait! â Thereâs More Crazy Double-Think!

Ron Paul never shuts up about the evils of how our currency is constantly being devalued... BUT â As Julie Stahlhut pointed out aboveâ¦ Discrimination of minority groups devalues the currency in the pockets of the minority group.

If shopkeepers were allowed to boycott an entire race of people, it would also undermine the role and value of money, because a $20 bill in the pocket of a Black person would not be worth the same as a $20 bill in the pocket of a White person.

But why stop there with devaluing the money in the pockets of Black people?

Why not open a âWhites Onlyâ grocery store and a âBlacks Onlyâ grocery store and then charge the Black people Twice As Much for the exact same products as the Whites Only store?

Heck! â Why not go even further by paying the Black employees Half of what you pay their White counterparts working at the Whites Only store.

Through the process of boycotts, price gougingâ¦ White people could devalue the money in the pockets Black people to the point where what little money they have is almost worthless. Pay inequity could reduce their earning power to almost nothing as well. Pretty soon we could have class of indentured servants who we can force to work for slave wages.

Isn't Ron Paul's vision of "Freedom" and "Liberty" wonderful?

The Worst Way to Combat Prostitution: Make Prostitutes 'Sex Offenders'

mikethemadbiologist — Sun, 08 May 2011 09:55:18 +0000

The Worst Way to Combat Prostitution: Make Prostitutes 'Sex Offenders'

We read about "the dumbest-ass things that any state could possibly do" according to one retired New Orleans judge to prevent prostitution:

In their neighborhoods, they are sometimes taunted with dirty looks and jeers. Their pictures hang on the walls of local community centers where their children and grandchildren play. And their names and addresses are listed in newspapers and mailed out on postcards to everyone in the neighborhood.

Landing a job or even finding a landlord willing to give them a place to stay is a challenge.

These women wear a scarlet letter -- rather, 11 letters -- spelled out on their driver's licenses in bright orange text: SEX OFFENDER.

They aren't child molesters or pedophiles. Most are poor, hard-luck black women in New Orleans who agreed to exchange oral or anal sex for money. In doing so they violated the latest version of Louisiana's 206-year-old Crime Against Nature law, which carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and registration as a sex offender.

Opponents of the law say it is discriminatory and targets poor women and the gay and transgendered community who engage in what they call "survival sex."

Yes, desperate women trying to survive are treated as if they were kiddie rapists.

I realize there's a long-standing belief in this country that if you give someone who's down and out a couple more beatings, she will magically reform herslef. But how are these women ever supposed to go clean if they want to? This simply cements them into the sex industry underclass:

"As a result of our law, not only have we punished them for the mere saying of words, we've punished them to an extent greater than if they actually performed the sex act in public," said Calvin Johnson, a retired Orleans Parish criminal district judge, who said that during a 17-year career he found the law unconstitutional on three separate instances only to be overruled by the state Supreme Court each time. "We've punished them to the extent of a felony and made them a sex offender. We have 'X'-ed them out of social benefits, out of jobs, out of neighborhoods, out of housing, which has an adverse effect on society."

Keep in mind, these women are being labelled sex offenders simply for talking about oral or anal sex ('vaginal' prostitution is a misdemeanor offense). And this is what these women are subjected to--by the state:

Once on the sex offender registry, their state identification cards, driver's licenses and, in some cases, license plates are stamped with the words "Sex Offender".

They must send out postcards to every single neighbor -- in a one-mile radius in rural communities, three-fourths of a mile in the city -- and must foot the bill for postage. Employers, even at places like fast-food joints, shy away from employing sex offenders. Landlords are weary of associating their addresses with sex offenders. And as the federal report noted, most agencies and in-treatment rehabilitation programs do not accept sex offenders.

This is not helping. Many prostitutes are combating drug addiction problems--and now they legally can't get treatment for their addiction. And this won't help combat the spread of sexually transmitted diseases if they are driven further underground.

Yesterday, on the Boston Common, I watched part of the Slut Walk rally, which is an important anti-rape statement.

But who will speak for these women?

mikethemadbiologist Sun, 05/08/2011 - 05:55

Tags

This simply cements them into the sex industry underclass

The system is working as intended.

Because officially ostracizing the exploited and disadvantaged has always been the best way to combat crime...

I'm reminded of the publisher's preface to the first edition of Victor Hugho's "Les Miserables":

"So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation which, in the midst of civilization, artificially creates a hell on earth...so long as the three problems of the century--the degradation of man by the exploitation of his labor, the ruin of woman by starvation, and the atrophy of childhood by physical and spiritual night--are not solved; so long as...social asphyxia shall be possible...so long as ignorance and misery remain on Earth, there shall be a need for books such as this."

Given that one of the central characters in that story was forced into prostitution so that she could feed her child after she was fired from her job for being an unwed mother (the father left her while she was pregnant)...this quote seems both quite topical here and sadly relevant to the culture wars we are fighting to this day.

It is a sad reality that if Fantine had lived in 21st century America, unless she were lucky enough to have a compassionate employer or live in a state where she could have easily obtained an abortion (had she so chosen), her story would have had a similarly tragic ending.

Food for thought.

Possibly even worse is the way in which many trafficed women in the UK are treated as criminals rather than victims when caught by the UK Border Agency. There is an appalling case recently documented in the Guardian, where one poor women was sent back to her home country (after a dreadful life in forced sex work), only to be caught again by her trafficers and exploited again.

Rather than go after the easy hit of jailing poor (often drug addicted) women with little options open to them, perhaps the authorities should try protecting, supporting and actually helping them - and think about why they need to do why they do and who pays them.

I think indoor prostitution should be decriminalized, not legalized as there is a HUGE difference.

http://www.alternet.org/books/148327/how_19th_century_prostitutes_were_…

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/on-the-records-a-well-pres…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

Once you do a bit of reading what you find out is that back in the 19th century, marriage WAS SLAVERY. Women were not allowed to leave home till they married and marriage was a BUSINESS. Women were not allowed to go in public alone, nor work or vote and if they inherited property it became their husbands and the husband was FREE to beat and rape his wife.
In 1910 we created the MANN ACT (the white slavery act) that was suppose to be to stop Human Trafficking, yet the real reason was to stop white women from fraternizing with black men. The Mann Act also gave CONGRESS its power and formed the FBI.
Our federal law states that each state has the right NOT make its own prostitution laws and in order to be charged with the Mann act one would have to exploit another person into prostitution and cross state lines. This was the way the Fed's are suppose to intervene.
Yet in 2010 the FBI spend a 800,000 grant in just 3 days supposedly to do a 3 day nationwide child prostitution sting. After arresting 884 people, we had 69 TEEN RUNAWAYS, along with their 99 pimps boyfriends and also caught up in the mix were over 700 adults looking to meet with another consenting adult in private. During this sting, more middle aged people were arrested than THE TEENS THEY WANTED TO RESCUE.

Now we have Bill hr 5575 gong to congress which is to ask for hundreds of millions for services for these TEEN victims and the bill clearly states that any women over the age of 20 would NOT be eligible for services, and most of the money would be spend training FBI and vice to STALK MIDDLE AGED ESCORTS ONLINE.
Now every city already has a whole juvenile court, a dept of child services, foster homes, boot camps and reform schools, but the women OVER 20 years of age have NO SERVICES. These people are trying to convince us that these RUNAWAY TEENS ARE VICTIMS and they are really UNGOVERNABLE TEENS that ran off with their boyfriends that exploited them. Are we not suppose to hold these teens accountable for their own behavior, why return them them with no real intervention to just run off again, and why is the parents not being held accountable for the COST OF RESCUING THEIR UNGOVERNABLE TEEN. Why not lock these teens up to protect them from themselves?
Original prostitution laws were created "to stop a women from showing her wares in public" The media likes to portray all prostitutes as curb crawling drug addicts and yet most are really middle aged single parents desperately trying to escape POVERTY.
Last year we spend 250 million to arrest 80,000 people for prostitution, that 250 million could have housed 80,000 women and children long term.

Yet anyone wanting to legalize prostitution wants the women to help pay off the deficit, nobody is even considering creating long term services for women who do want to exit the industry. Or they want these women to be forced to work in brothels where they would have to give half their earnings to the brothel owner, pay rent and then pay taxes and not be able to refuse any clients.
We are no dumb women, we know how to screen clients, advertise and choice our rates for our time. We not not need to be regulated anymore than any other business does, so why would we place regulations on this industry that is not placed on any other business. Why do we make it our business?
In Rhode Island, in 1976 a federal laws suit was filed in RI by a women named Mona St.James who later formed the organization COYOTE . The complaint was what right did they state have in the sexual conduct of consenting adults, and also they were only arresting the women and not the men. The case was dismissed by a compromise and indoor prostitution became legal in RI in 1979.
For 30 years there was never one case of human trafficking, women could work for massage spas or from their homes. There was never one public nuisance complaint in over 30 years (too bad we can't say that about nightclubs). The police never bothered to go into any spa, and check for ID to make sure the girls were of legal age and in the country legally. Yet they did run front page news articles about how sad it was that one could buy sex a block from city hall. These businesses were licensed and paid taxes and they even donated money to the state police and other local charities and the women spend their money in the other local businesses.
In 2009 the Craigslist killer, killed a girl in Boston and then went to RI and robbed a escort and he was CAUGHT because the escort dialed 911 as she had PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

Then in Nov 2009 they criminalize indoor prostitution (putting all the women in the state in harms way) as they claimed they could not investigate human trafficking without criminalizing us.
Ironically the police go in to strip clubs all the time and do ID checks and ask the girls if they are OK but for some reason they insisted this would not work in RI.
Now we have 10 women who have murdered in Long Island and even though they knew at least 5 of these girls were online escorts, the cops told the media that serial killers rarely murder hookers, one man on Long Island reported the women coming to door asking for help and when he told her he was calling the cops to help her, she ran off and has never been seen again. The man reported this in May 2010 and it took till Aug 2010 for them to follow up, and even a CNN reported wants to know if a prompt investigation was not done because after all these girls were JUST HOOKERS.
Theproviderpage.com/cms is a place dedicated to THE SAFETY & PROTECTION of escorts, we are trying to find services for women WHO do want to exit the industry and we are also trying to create new laws to protect sex workers and stop the discrimination against them.
Some cites want to create JOHN school so the men can walk away within criminal record. Even if a women has a 20 year old prostitution conviction, she can never get a job, or even rent an apartment.
Law enforcement is in the news weekly, for exploiting these TEENS themselves, or for abusing hookers and some of these women are even raped and beaten while in custody just because they are prostitutes.
To go a step further we ENCOURAGE society to hate these women with the "they get what they deserve attitude". The cops brag to the media that they will continue to run these women from there communities. Do we really think these women would be better off or an safer living in the streets?

Since they criminalize all the women in RI, the homeless rate for women in RI has increased 20% so far this year and the shelters are FULL.
Now lets look at MORALS. It is legal and even sociably acceptable for a women to pick up a strange man in a nightclub, bring him he and have unprotected sex with him, while her small children are in the home. Men are now reporting that most women give it up by the 3rd date.
Then we have the REAL HATERS that say they do NOT want it in their neighborhoods, while I agree with no allowing BROTHELS or Spa's In a residential neighborhood, but wha about the independent escort. If you can have sex with whoever in your home, why can't I, and we seem to only have issues with sex WHEN ITS NOT FREE.
A Canadian judge ruled last year "that no public nuisance equals allowing women to be murdered" of course its ow in appeals court and they are trying to stop the sex workers from being able to testify in court.
Then lets look at how the cops investigate these women, they use SWAT TEAMS to kick in the doors or these women homes, and then issue them a summons to appear, and some of these women are held on bonds as high as 20,000 even though they have not been charged with a felony.
Sex workers are always court ordered for STD testing but the MEN/CLIENTS are not, even though they are the ones with the riskiest behaviors and even though our own heath dept studies show that "hookers have less std's than the general public does and this is also true in Canada and these facts were presented to RI politicians by a Canadian Dr.
NY has created a law that ANYONE CAN BE ARRESTED FOR CARRYING CONDOMS, that is not the way to promote safe sex, I think law enforcement WHO is swore to PROTECT & SERVE should be out handing out condoms to the street girls to help protect them and the public.

Now lets look a the Human Trafficking adovactes that have bene collecting donations for the fight against human trafficking for years, the provide no services to the victims; instead the spend the money touring the country, like a politcan, lying to the media about how many teens are being exploited. These groupd are anit prostition groups in disguise and are the one PUTTING OUR YOUTH & WOMEN AT RISK by RWEFUSING US the same SANCTION & PROTECTION under the law given to all other citizens. Now if this is really about human trafficking, then why when they find a midlde aged escort do they arrest her?
THE SOLUTION:
If we decriminalize and make these women pay for a year license which would go to the heath dept so these women would have access to Health care, the women could pay taxes into state, federal and social security and even unemployment, but part of their taxes would go directly for services for women WHO want to exit the adult industry.
I always want to ask one of these DO GOODERS that if they were cold enough and hungry enough don't they think they would turn a trick for a blanket and burger, so why be so JUDGMENTAL about SEX.

Pool your money.
Find a congressman, judge, leader of the business community.
Tape him proposing or agreeing to noncommercial oral sex.
Privately prosecute him for sodomy. Get "sex offender" on his license.
Rinse and repeat, until they repeal this stupid, stupid law.

If you have been recently diagnosed with STD, you may be upset and confused and think your sexual life is over. However, it's not the end of the world, and it's not the end of your social life. You are not alone! Check STDmingle. com. Many cities in the US and around the world have herpes/HIV/HPV social and support groups that you can join to meet others who are in the same situation.

Each year by some estimates, hundreds of thousands of girls and boys are trafficked globally. Human trafficking is a global issue.
Very few people are actually aware of how large the problem is. Even if people are aware, they generally turn a blind eye towards the entire situation. For this reason, the level of awareness needs to be increased drastically.
"Sold: An MTV EXIT Special", a gripping documentary presented by Indian actress and UNFPA Ambassador, Lara Dutta. The Program introduces the tragedy of trafficking in South Asia where thousand of young girls and boys are sold into modern-day slavery and shows how each one of us can help to prevent modern-day slavery.
To watch this documentary online visit http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/479

The TSA Liquids and Gels Farce

mikethemadbiologist — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:01:30 +0000

The TSA Liquids and Gels Farce

By way of Jay Ackroyd, we come across this article about the whole "liquids and gels" silliness. If you fly regularly, it's nothing you don't normally experience:

My carry-on goes through the scanner and comes out the other side. One of the guards squints at his monitor, then shoots me a hostile look. What's this, no plastic baggie? He pulls my luggage aside, opens it, and asks me to repack my liquids and gels "the right way."

I do as he wants. When I'm finished, I hand him the baggie so he can run the items through again.

To my surprise, he won't take them. "No," he says. "Just put them in your suitcase and go."

But ...

"Just put them in your suitcase and go."

I look at him for a minute. Apparently my having to repack them was a punishment exercise? All right, fine. Lesson learned, I unzip the approved, one-quart zip-top bag, and begin to dump the containers back into my toiletries kit.

"No!" interjects the guard. "Leave them in the plastic!"

"Huh?"

"You have to leave them in the plastic bag!"

"But I'm already through the checkpoint. You already screened them."

He shrugs. "They need to stay in the bag."

"No they don't."

"Yes they do."

"Why?"

"They need to stay in the bag. You should know better."

He was not giving in. And so I tucked away the baggie full of liquids and walked off, puzzled and annoyed.

The purpose of having your containers sequestered is to make it easier for the screeners to inspect them. What you do with them before or after the X-ray machine is nobody's business. The guard had the right to have me repack them, but only for the purposes of putting them through the scanner -- which he didn't do. There is no requirement to have your items in a baggie anywhere other than at the inspection point -- not in the terminal, not on the plane, not in your bathroom and not in your car. Even if such a rule had a useful purpose, all a person would need to do is duck away, open up his luggage, and rearrange the liquids and gels any way he sees fit.

Which is exactly what I did. I took 15 steps, unzipped my suitcase and emptied the containers into my toiletries bag the way they were originally.

I would just add that after mentioning to a colleague that I had flown to DC recently, he told me that he and his girlfriend had done so too. Not only did she accidentally have a can of liquid in her bag that went through unstopped, it was a spray can of mace.

An aside: I always put my liquids in bags long before the TSA even existed (hipster!), but that's so they wouldn't accidentally spill onto my other stuff--the three ounce size is really stupid.
I feel safer, don't you?

mikethemadbiologist Fri, 04/29/2011 - 06:01

Tags

Civil Liberties

Transportation

During some recent fieldwork, a collaborator of mine found a scalpel handle and 4 fresh blades in his carry-on. A bit of backtracking led to the realization that he'd flown across the country 4 times with them, and never once been stopped.

On the other hand, I will never forget the look on the TSA screener's face when I put through a bag containing a 2 foot long gator skull.

Here is my anecdote. The spring break we flew from Toronto to Jamaica. Security checks in Toronto were something out of the 90s: no taking off shoes, liquids stayed in the bags, no OCD-level passport checks. The craziest part of all this -- majority of flight was over the US.

A few years ago, going through security at Tampa, didn't take my laptop out of it's case because there were no signs telling me to.

I guess that is probably my fault. I naively assumed that because when I came through the same checkpoint a month prior there were signs that in the absence of signs laptop removal was no longer required. So I allowed it to go through the scanner still in the bag.

Wrong.

My assigned TSA representative glares at me,

"Is this your laptop."
"Err, yes."
"Why didn't you take it out of the bag?!"
"There's no ..."
"You should have known! Now we have to test it!"

Testing it apparently involved subjecting it to a 10-minute battery of swabs and some sort of chemical analysis.

Having become quite attached to my balls I didn't ask why they couldn't just take it out of the bag (which they had done anyway) and run it through the scanner.

Mike.

PS In Heathrow terminal 3 there are signs at the security checkpoint telling people to leave their shoes on unless asked.

Everyone takes their shoes off anyway.

At BWI in 2004 they searched a book I was carrying. It was a Poe anthology. It is about 1000 pages. They searched each page individually.
They also scrutinized the little silky bookmark thing that hangs out of the top.

We had brought a cucumber along as a snack on the plane. The screener started to chew my wife out for not putting her liquids in the little ziplock. When she protested that she hadn't packed any liquids, he opened the bag, rummaged around, and produced the cucumber, to much mirth. Apparently, they are so saturated with water that they show up as liquids on the scanners.

On a flight a few years ago I was wearing a full-zip fleece and my wife was wearing a 1/4-zip fleece. I was required to remove my jacket where my wife was allowed to keep hers on. Same weight. Same color. Same number of pockets. Different length zipper.

Shortly after the Chicago shoe-bomber incident, I was also required to remove my shoes for scanning. I happened to be wearing flip-flops...

I feel safer.

meanwhile, a guy I know was on a hunting trip in Colorado last fall and in deer camp, took his handgun and put it into the inside pocket of his day pack, with a full box of ammunition in the pocket next to it.

Came time to go home, he decided to use his day pack as his carry on, forgetting that his handgun was in it (and yes, he'll be the first to tell you he would have deserved whatever legal shit happened to him for his astounding stupidity).

He realized his error when he got home and started unpacking and his handgun wasn't in the checked gun case. He blanched, remembered, and retrieved the handgun and ammo from his day pack - which had been his carry-on for his flight from Denver to New York - JFK.

I feel much safer.

The TSA is security theatre, nothing more. It's the illusion of feeling safer for the ignorant and the enabling the politicians to claim they're 'fighting the war on terror' as well as making some people a lot richer (like Michael Chertoff, who now works for the company selling porno scanners) but actually accomplishing absolutely nothing.

The real threat (a mass-casualty terrorist incident, stopping transport to, from, and in the US for economic impact) is still there. All the TSA has done is moved the target from a hard(er) to a soft target; from air-side (e.g. semi-secure) to ground-side (e.g. unsecured). How many casualties would result from driving a truck bomb into the airport arrivals lounge of a major metro airport at say 5pm? How much good would the TSA do in stopping this?

@8: I wonder how much money could be saved (and perhaps spent on *real* security measures) by not going through all these ridiculous motions. What say we suggest it to the Congressional Cutmongers? (Somehow I don't think they would want to touch this one.)

On a totally irrelevant note, I think you meant "i.e.," not "e.g."
e.g. = exempli gratia (for example - literally, "for the sake/purpose of [an] example")
i.e. = id est ("that is")
(If only such simple explanations would suffice to get us through airport security....)

The Ongoing Insanity of the Theopolitical Right: The Marilyn Musgrave Edition

mikethemadbiologist — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:53:49 +0000

The Ongoing Insanity of the Theopolitical Right: The Marilyn Musgrave Edition

You might remember the recent assault on Planned Parenthood by the rightwing. Well, I forgot that former congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave also got in on the act:

Former Congresswoman and anti-abortion rights advocate Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) suggested Planned Parenthood covers up sexual assaults against underage girls during the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines on Saturday.

When asked by another advocate in the audience how to best pressure the Senate into defunding Planned Parenthood, Musgrave recalled watching a recent interview with former star NFL linebacker Lawrence Taylor discussing allegations he had sex with an underage prostitute.

"You know what I thought about? Underage prostitutes, runaway girls, girls in crisis. Guess what folks? Planned Parenthood will readily give them birth control. Planned Parenthood will cover up statutory rape, incest, whatever," Musgrave said.

Because the only thing better than a teenage prostitute is a pregnant teenage prostitute with a sexually transmitted disease.

If there's one thing that the supposed Lila Rose sting did not prove, it's that Planned Parenthood is in cahoots with pimps. All it did is establish that Planned Parenthood follows the law and does not physically confront potentially violent pimps in order to protect their staff and patients.

As Thers put it:

This is something we've been over in regards to the other recent O'Keefe "sting," of Planned Parenthood. That "sting" depended upon the right-wing fantasy that there exist extensive well-organized juvenile "sex-trafficking" rings, something that upon even cursory examination turns out to be utter crap.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think it is at all recognized the degree to which right-wing "ideas" are merely the emanations of a carefully constructed, internally coherent, yet deeply nonsensical folklore. It's a hothouse cargo cult that scavenges in plain sight, battening off frequent, generous Fox News airdrop cultivation.

What the O'Keefe "stings" should reveal, objectively, is that Matt Taibbi was far too kind to them, but basically correct: they have no capacity or desire to cope with empirical reality.

mikethemadbiologist Sat, 04/02/2011 - 05:53

Tags

Blastocyst Liberation

Civil Liberties

Conservatives

Saying that Planned Parenthood "covers up" for crimes against women by giving them basic healthcare is like saying that the ER "covers up" for crimes like vehicular manslaughter and attempted murder by saving the victims.

Why, the ER is clearly just a liberal ploy to help criminals get lower sentences by preventing 'attempted murder' from becoming 'murder'! We should defund it right away!

Mokele -- don't give them any ideas! Seriously, these people couldn't decipher snark if it bit them on the ass. They read "1984" and "The Handmaid's Tale" as instruction manuals.

Reportedly US prospective presidential candidate Mike Fuckabee - er, Huckabee - would like to indoctrinate everyone with fundamentalism at gunpoint.

Can we strap him down in a university lecture hall and force him to listen to lectures on, well, things that actually exist?

Oh, but the bit about making people watch a video at gunpoint was a joke.
Why exactly conservatives think guns are funny escapes me, however. By the time I was 22 there had been, in my lifetime, six attempts on the lives of presidents or presidential candidates, resulting in two dead Kennedys, George Wallace in a wheelchair, and Ronald Reagan with a bullet in his lung. Throw in Martin Luther King, John Lennon and the Pope, and I lost the ability to laugh at gun threats 30 years ago.
I guess the humor of the situation depends on who is holding the gun.

You are not alone even though you Have STD. Find others with STD positive singles at site named POZmingle,com. you may be upset and think your sex life is over. However, once you settle down and learn the facts, you'll realize that having HIV is not the end of the world, and it's not the end of your social life.