picture of me

Chaos Manor Home Page > View Home Page > Current Mail Page > Chaos Manor Reviews Home Page


View 649 November 15 - 21, 2010


read book now





BOOK Reviews

Chaos Manor Reviews

Platinum Subscription:



Last Week's View         Next Week's View

emailblimp.gif (23130 bytes)

For Current Mail click here.

Atom FEED from Chaos Manor

This site looks better if you set your default font to Georgia.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Highlights this week:

  For boiler plate, search engine, and notes on what in the world this place is, see below.


For Previous Weeks of the View, SEE VIEW HOME PAGE

read book now

If you intend to send MAIL to me, see the INSTRUCTIONS.



 read book now


This is a Day Book. Pages are in chronological, not blogological order.

line6.gif (917 bytes)

This week:


read book now


Monday, November 15, 2010

I remain pretty well under the weather. I posted some matters of interest over the weekend, including some works by Stephen Vincent Benet that influenced me as a youngster. I also added another of his poems that has haunted me ever since I read it.

And if you have not seen it, I recommend my notes on the lost debates on Global Warming, and the shameful tactics that the Believers have resorted to in their attack on Freeman Dyson. Apparently it is now a consensus belief that Deniers are insane, and subject to psychological analysis. Actual questions of physics are ignored. That is settled. What's needed is research into why the Deniers or even the Skeptics have gone mad.

It is clear that Congress must demand an actual scientific debate on the whole AGW issue. There are billions of dollars at stake, and all attempts to conduct a cost/benefit analysis, or even to ask questions of the Believers are ignored in favor of speculation about the sanity of the questioners. The new House will be able to demand that debate, and it will be important that it be conducted properly, as a scientific debate rather than a series of set piece diatribes. This is a matter of importance, after all: if the Believers are right, there is a great deal at stake; but there is also a lot of money at stake and it is far from proved that the remedies proposed by the Believers will have the desired effect even assuming that the Believers are correct in their main hypotheses.

When I recover I'll try to address this issue; meanwhile I encourage suggestions. Again, we are not looking for diatribes; we are looking for science.

Inventing the Future

As I observed to Congressman Rohrabacher the other day, you can't predict the future, but you can invent it.

That phrase isn't original with me, of course. The first attribution of it I know is to Dandridge Cole. I have certainly written about it before. In any event it has resonance now, and with the incoming House. I am collecting notes and dicsussions of futures to invent. Inventing a future is an exercise in the Strategy of Technology, and requires describing a relatively clear path from where you are to where you want to be: the essential part is identifying technologies that must be developed to get there from here.

Incidentally, today's Wall Street Journal has an opinion piece by James Woolsey on a matter that is straight out of THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY by Possony, Pournelle, and Kane. (link to Woolsey op ed) It is worth your time. Arms Control is a serious matter, and it is not clear that the Obama White House is fully aware of the implications. Woolsey was one of the Clinton people I respected.


In any event, we have two issues to work on for the next couple of months before the new Congress is sworn in. One is how to conduct a meaningful scientific debate including cost/benefit analysis as well as confidence in the basic theories in the climate change discussions, and the second it looking at futures to invent and specific paths to get to them.


Here's a news article illustrating how many surprises lurk in the ocean depths ...


"They unexpectedly saw hot magma flowing under seafloor mud for up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) on both sides of the 34-mile-long (55 km) rift. This is 10 times farther than magma flow seen in ridges without sediment cover, probably because such mud blankets - some 0.6 to 1.2 miles (1 to 2 km) thick - keep seawater from cooling and solidifying the molten rock."


For platinum subscription:

Platinum subscribers enable me to work on what I think is important without worrying about economics. My thanks to all of you.

Patron Subscription:

Did you subscribe and never hear from me? Click here!.



 read book now


Monday   TOP   Current Mail

This week:


read book now


Tuesday, November 16, 2010   

My head still isn't working properly, so I am not going to try any profundities. I hear a great stir about the new Congressional members-elect and the tons of advice being handed them. Rush Limbaugh is making fun of some of it, to wit, that incoming Congresscritters will be showered with attention from attractive women, some of them lobbyists, others just power freaks, and this will be a danger to all, but particularly to the unattractive incoming Congresscritters. I suppose it's easy to make fun of the notion, but it certainly is true, and it's not really a laughing matter. Power and fame are aphrodisiacs, and there will be professional lobbyists targeting the incoming Members and Senators. You never know how many friends you have until you are in Washington with power.

There is a strange malady that afflicts those who come to Washington. It is sometimes called Beltway Fever. The symptoms are a delusion that only what happens inside the Beltway -- the Freeway system that encircles the District -- matters. There may be a country out there beyond the Beltway, but what's important is that which happens inside. Everyone I know is subject to Beltway Fever, and it is surprising how quickly it can take hold and change behavior. The only long time resident of DC I know who resisted this disease was the late General Dan Graham, and even he was susceptible while he had his office suite on K Street, and some of his staff were definitely infected. It became easier to resist when they moved High Frontier out of K Street to a more suburban location.

We may be sure that some of the Tea Party members will be infected, and it will be interesting to chart the progress of the disease. Perhaps their constituents will keep reminding them of why they were elected.


The Republicans must always keep in mind that this wave election was not a validation of the Republican Party, just as the 2008 wave election was not a validation of the Democratic Party. Both were cries of anguish and demands for a change of course. The Republican establishment doesn't want to believe that, but they disbelieve at their peril. This election was an opportunity, not a validation. Validation will come with some dramatic changes. Those changes must be large, significant, and very visible.

One such change of course will be a real debate on the cost/effectiveness of "green" technologies and the entire Global Warming question. Is the Earth warming? (Probably.) Is this a disaster? (Probably not; depends on how much.) (Should we be concerned about rising CO2 levels? (Short term, probably not, but we should not ignore it. We ought to be looking for geo-engineering ways to reduce atmospheric CO2.) Should we reduce our CO2 output? (Depends on how we do it, and how much we have to spend to do it. Costs should include the cost of reduced energy available for economic growth. Note that nuclear power plants do not give off CO2 and do produce energy.)

And I suspect I am rambling. I do hope to recover from this bug.


Regarding the TSA incidents:

The new backscatter X-ray machines sound formidable, but as I understand it, any passenger on an hour or more flight is going to get more radiation from being at altitude than from the x-ray, and that by a factor of more than 2.

Low-Level Radiation Exposure

Your correspondent "Pilot" asserts "(R)epeated exposure to even very low radiation doses is undeniably dangerous...".

While the evidence either way is slim, there is one large-scale human study, done entirely by accident, facilitated by an incredible feat of human stupidity, that argues just the opposite.

See http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf  for the detailed writeup.

In 1982 or 1983, at a hospital in Taiwan, radioactive medical cobalt-60 (1/2 life 5.3 years) sources were somehow thrown into normal trash, rather than sequestered properly. These sources, resembling chunks of steel, were recycled into rebar, and apartment buildings built. People moved in, lived, loved, raised children, all while being exposed continuously to low-level radiation many times higher than background, and several times higher than the maximum allowed dosages.

Eventually, someone noticed that the buildings were "hot". Someone else realized that this was a once-in-human-history opportunity to get priceless human experimental data, that could never be gotten any other way. They tracked down everyone they could find who had ever lived in those apartments, 4000 families. Those people will be followed and medically monitored, closely, for the rest of their lives. According to one source, the preliminary result is that the cancer rates for those 4000 families are 3.6% of the rate for Taiwan as a whole.

A *reduction* in cancer rate of over 90% is not a result that can be dismissed easily.

Of course, "Pilot"'s assertion may be checked a bit more easily, by looking at airline pilots and flight attendants flying US coast-to-coast, trans-Atlantic, and especially trans-Pacific hops. A 6-hour US coast-to-coast hop gives everyone on the airplane radiation exposure equivalent to a chest X-ray. The trans-Pacific hop, Dallas-Tokyo Narita, is 13 hours one-way: call it two chest X-rays. (I fly that hop typically four times a year: two out, two back.) Considering that pilots, and especially flight attendants, routinely fly those hops day in, day out, if there is in fact elevated risk associated with daily chest X-ray equivalent exposure, we would reasonably expect aircrew to be dropping like flies, from cancer. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard about astronomical cancer levels among former airline pilots and retired flight attendants. (Also note that aircrew health insurance premiums would be sky-high if such a concentration of cancer cases had been found: insurance companies are not stupid.)

--John R. Strohm

With a few exceptions by "radiation is bad for you, period" protestors, the hormesis argument -- a little radiation is better for you than none, but more is not better, and a lot is dangerous -- seems to be prevalent among those who have studied the matter. My friend Klaus Nordquist was formerly the medical colonel of the Swedish Life Guards regiment, and one of his studies involved conscripts from various areas of Sweden, some with high natural background radiation, some with none; his conclusion was that conscripts from the high background areas were actually healthier than those from other areas. Given that he had access to what amounts to the entire male population of Swedes of a certain age, this seems close to definitive. There are many other published studies of hormesis vs. the linear (all radiation causes damage) hypothesis, and the principle of hormesis seems to me to be established, but I note that Wikipedia and other pop science sources tend to be doubtful. There are many studies. (1) (2)


Pilots and general doctors are laymen too when it comes to radiation. All your talk about flux rates and skin concentration comes from the UCSF letter ( http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=
2010/05/17/concern.pdf&pli=1 ) written by four UCSF professors in relevant fields.

The FDA response  ( http://www.fda.gov
SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm ) goes through their list of concerns point by point and refutes it all. The UCSF guys still aren't satisfied, though, but until they respond again, we won't know why. I'd suggest reading both fully if you want to speak with any authority on the subject.

Since you want to talk about rems, let's talk about rems. Specifically, the upper limit for a backscatter scan in terms of effective dosage is 0.01 millirems (mrems). The effective dose received from an hour of flight at cruising altitude is 0.5 mrems. If your average pilot flies 75 hours a month, 12 months a year, for a total of 900 hours * 0.5 mrems, he's getting 450 mrems of radiation from cosmic rays. Let's add this to the 360 mrems your average American receives annually from all sources: bananas, old eye-glasses, television sets, concrete, the natural background and cosmic rays, medical imaging, and whatever else. Now, the single-source yearly limit for radiation is 25 mrems, which is what you'd get from 1,000 backscatter scans once you correct for flux and "concentration" and all that. I doubt pilots are getting scanned nearly three times a day, every day. Add all of this up for a whopping 835 mrems out of the occupational yearly limit of 5,000. Sorry, but flying is more dangerous to your health in terms of radiation than backscatter scans, and the amount they pile on to whatever you receive already is statistically insignificant. A single banana doses you with as much radiation as a backscatter scan.

These machines have been around since 1992. We've known about x-rays for 115 years. None of this is new to us. Additionally, backscatter technology utilizes the Compton effect to get its images (radiation bounces back to a camera), unlike medical imaging which sends radiation straight through you to a camera on the other side (causing the photoelectric effect instead). They're both ionizing, but Compton scattering photons impart less energy to the electrons they knock out of orbit, while the photoelectric effect photons completely add their energy to electrons and disappear. Also, the state of California says nearly everything causes cancer.

On privacy concerns: if you've seen the real images ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/
Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg ), you'll notice this is slightly less detailed than a woman in a bikini. Backscatter nearly penetrates your skin and shows what's slightly underneath, so there is no real surface detail. TSA's machines also have a filtering program that blurs the face and other features for privacy, without detracting from the object-detection potential of the machine. On top of all of this, the person viewing the images is in an off-site location, removed from the screening floor. He cannot personally see the person corresponding to the images coming up on his screen. He communicates the location of objects to the person on the screening floor via radio. Additionally, it's TSA policy that during shift changes, the person in the viewing room wait five minutes from the time of his last scan before exiting, so there's little chance he will bump into anyone he saw recently. It would be extremely difficult to pick someone out of a crowd and say, "Yes, that's the person I saw on the machine." I'm not saying no one should be offended or embarrassed by the scans, but just drawing attention to how the procedure actually works for those who formed opinions based on misinformation.

I used to work for TSA and quit a while back. I'm not the organization's biggest fan, but I also can't stand the allegations made against them, like that the new pat-downs are somehow "groping". There's no cupping of the breast or testicles. The policy states you slide a flat hand up the side of your thigh until it hits resistance. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying out of their ass or had the world's worst screener. There's enough wrong with TSA that you can argue against it until the cows come home without inventing stories.

I have bold-faced two statements in the above. I believe they are true, and if true, are definitive; hormesis is not involved. The additional radiation from the x-ray is lost in the noise. Regarding the privacy concerns, I have no confidence in Wikipedia as a primary data source where there is any controversy at all, but I don't find the privacy concerns very important here.

I have long been of the opinion that TSA is not very effective and its major purpose is to convince the American Citizen that he/she is no longer a citizen, but a subject to be ordered about by "Federal Officers." I have long argued that in the normal course of events, "Federal Officers" ought never to be able to act without cooperation of the local sheriff; the Constitution did not contemplate routine law enforcement by Federal Agents in matters other than customs and immigration. The "Revenue Agents" created to enforce the Whiskey Tax were the first exception to this rule and in my judgment it was a mistake: they were exempted from having to work with local law enforcement because local law enforcement in those days was greatly in sympathy with the Whiskey Rebellion. The eventual result of that was the Waco Massacre, which would never have happened had the BATF -- the Revenoors -- had to work with the local sheriff. Same with Ruby Ridge and other such sporting events for Lon Horiuchi.

But if we assume that TSA is needed, then the backscatter X-ray is probably as non-intrusive a way to implement its primary mission of keeping passengers from carrying weapons or infernal machines. I suspect that if we abolish the TSA and go back to each airline implementing its own system we would be just as safe, but then I said that back when they were forming TSA. The 9/11 attacks can't happen now. Bringing down an airplane if you don't mind being killed in doing it has always been a possible option and seldom happens; and it's not all that likely that TSA is able to prevent it. The American public seems to have been convinced that TSA security (or security theater) is necessary. If so, the new system is probably as good as any.

I know that's not going to be a popular opinion with my readers. Today's mail will have a lot of alternate views.

But assuming that the ratio of radiation received on a normal flight to that received by a backscatter xray is really 0.5/0.01 = 50/1, it does not seem to be a health hazard, and is less offensive to me than the unctuous Uriah Heep "deference" of the TSA agents, who continue to make us understand that we are subjects, not citizens. And I suspect that many of them like that job.










 read book now


Tuesday   TOP  Current Mail


This week:


read book now


Wednesday,  November 17, 2010

I'm recovering but not as rapidly as I should. We went for a short walk this morning. Heard on the radio yesterday that my neighbor Bill Nye the Science Guy collapsed on stage last night. We walked past his house today and he was out in the front yard giving instructions to painters who are working on his house, and half a dozen other neighbors with dogs were standing on the sidewalk in front of the house, so we didn't stop except to wish him a good morning, but clearly he has recovered. I suspect he has something similar to what's got me, and just got overwhelmed trying to keep a previous engagement. This stuff is insidious. I'm getting over it, but I have to be careful not to take on too much.

I have a great deal of mail, particularly on the TSA "get a radiation dose or get groped or don't fly: choose one" policy. I don't disagree with most of it, but I have always said that TSA is Kabuki Theater, Security Theater -- I may not be the inventor of those phrases but I might be; I have been using them for a long time, and I don't know where I got them, they seemed obvious. I have never thought TSA did much for security compared to its enormous costs. I knew when it was instituted that it would be arrogant, intrusive, inefficient, and eternal. What other kind of people would take TSA jobs? There is a rule in science fiction fandom among those who run SF conventions: never allow anyone who volunteers to "work security" to have anything to do with security. They may not all be incipient petty tyrants but that's the way to bet it. Those who want the job of searching other people's underwear may in fact be dedicated to the security of the people of the United States, but it's far more probable that they just like to be in positions of authority and are unable to join real security forces. Or they just want jobs and will be timeservers, which induces boredom which -- well, you get the idea.

But having said all that, I do have to insist that the danger of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is quite small compared to the radiation you will receive just by taking the flight. One engineer reader has a bit more to say on that -- see Mail. As to the privacy issue, I guess I'm in a minority, but I just don't care. The picture obtained in the X-ray looks a bit like the one in the Movie "Total Recall", and while I don't like the crazy procedure it's not a lot more obtrusive than what we have to put up with now.  If this is the straw that breaks the TSA camel's back and gets us closer to real security,  then I'm all for using it, but I do insist that we have the facts right. Having said that I sure would like to get rid of the TSA as presently constituted.

The problem is that "real security" is not a lot of fun either. I first ran into real security on a trip to South Africa in the 1970's, when the Bureau of State Security teams questioned us. They were not told that we were guests of the government -- at least I insisted that they not be told in advance and that our handler go through the security after we did, and I think I got my way -- and they were quite thorough. We were, after all, foreigners from a country officially rather hostile to the Republic of South Africa (that was in apartheid days), and journalists to boot. It wasn't really unpleasant because the agents, who were real professional career security officers, were very professional, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

We encountered "real security" again in our trip to Israel, where the Shin Bet agent at our dawn departure was about 21 years old, wore a somewhat soiled shirt, and acted like a stereotype of an arrogant wisecracking Jew with too much authority. It was only later that I realized that he was probably doing that intentionally to see what kind of reaction he would get. I didn't like him and I didn't like the disrespect he showed to several of the clergy who were part of our Israeli tour. It wasn't fun at all, but one supposes it was effective: the record shows that whatever Shin Bet does, it must be working. I don't know of any El Al planes that have been high jacked and this in an area there jihadists are not thin on the ground. It works. It's not cheap, and employs career security officers, not recruits from the TSA.

The security issue isn't anywhere near as simple as either side makes it. Of course it requires profiling: after all, every single major incident has involved Muslim males, and not one has involved blonde girls. On the other hand, if blondes get a guaranteed wave-through, you may be certain that plots involving recruiting blonde females or people who can be made to look like blonde females will begin. How successful the plotters will be isn't so clear. And legislating common sense isn't easy. Maybe I'll think of something profound when my head is working better, but most of what I have seen on this subject doesn't seem to have been thought through. There are a lot of airplane flights in the US. It only takes one success on the part of the terrorists to cost us billions and billions in "security" -- or security theater -- costs. But as the memory of those successes fades the enthusiasm for spending money on real security as opposed to security theater diminishes. And whatever solution you come up with must get past five or six committees plus get the approval or at least avoid the opposition of unions, airlines, vocal politicians, and a thousand ethnic and religious watchdog groups. It makes my headache worse just to think about it.

What is it we are trying to prevent? If it is preventing the highjacking of airliners and their subsequent use as cruise missiles to destroy buildings, that is rather easily accomplished, and could have been accomplished without creating the TSA at all. It only took making cabin doors secure and giving different instructions to passengers and flight crews. It took removing the threat of prosecution for passengers who refused to cooperate with the highjackers. Nothing else needed to be changed. Making it risky to bring firearms aboard aircraft could have been beefed up a bit, and we could actually have relaxed the searching for pocket knives, scissors, box cutters, screwdrivers, and other such weapons of non-mass destruction. We might even have experimented with my proposal of issuing ball peen hammers to adult male passengers as they boarded the airplane, or equipping each seat with a billy club. We certainly didn't need the TSA and the confiscation of a Medal of Honor from a retired general as the early TSA Gomer Gestapo thought fit to do.

But if we are trying to prevent the destruction of an airplane by someone who is willing to be killed by doing it, we have taken on a much more difficult project.

We are for the moment restricting devices, not people, from going aboard airplanes. That is a very difficult task. Perhaps we should rethink the mission. What we want to do is keep people willing to die crashing the airplane from getting aboard. Perhaps that would be easier.

It needs a thorough examination of the goals and the costs and effectiveness of actions, and none of that has been done. The TSA "just growed" from the early Gomer Gestapo of its beginning days to the -- well, to what we have now. Not much thought went into any of this. It needs a ground up examination of the goals, costs, and potential effectiveness of its activities. That won't happen. The TSA like a prison guards union has become a political player and will prevent any real reform. It might be abolished and replaced, but it is not likely to be reformed. Or perhaps I am just mud headed this morning.


Now for something completely different:

Thinking like an octopus


The eye of the octopus is famously similar to the human eye. Peter Godfrey-Smith thinks the brain may be nothing like ours.

 ...Is an octopus a creature ruled by a single consciousness centered in its large brain, or, by dint of its nerve-infused legs, a collaborative, cooperative, but distributed mind? ....

Octopuses have large nervous systems, centered around relatively large brains. But more than half of their 500 million neurons are found in the arms themselves, Godfrey-Smith said. This raises the question of whether the arms have something like minds of their own. Though the question is controversial, there is some observational evidence indicating that it could be so, he said. When an octopus is in an unfamiliar tank with food in the middle, some arms seem to crowd into the corner seeking safety while others seem to pull the animal toward the food, Godfrey-Smith explained, as if the creature is literally of two minds about the situation.

There may be other explanations for the observations. But whatever the answer, it seems likely that octopus intelligence is quite different from that of humans and, as researchers ponder the broader meaning of intelligence, may be as different as is likely to be encountered, short of finding it on other planets.




Reminding us of Minsky's theory of consciousness and personality, The Society of Mind. Niven and I tried to imagine the ways of thinking of a herd animal in Footfall. And then there are the Moties...

Space-Time Cloak

To paraphrase Sir Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from weavings of the Elves:


New materials with the ability to manipulate the speed of light could enable the creation of a "space-time cloak" capable of masking events or even creating an illusion of "Star Trek"-style transportation, according to scientists in London.

The cloak, while currently only existing in mathematical theory, takes advantage of the potential properties of "metamaterials" -- artificial materials designed and manipulated at a molecular level to interact with and control electromagnetic waves.

...[Professor Martin McCall of Imperial College London] said current optical-fibre technology could be used to construct a "poor man's cloak" capable of demonstrating "proof of concept" by imperfectly hiding events taking place over a few nanoseconds.


--Mike Glyer

One of the Deathly Hallows?








 read book now


Wednesday  TOP  Current Mail



This week:


read book now


Thursday,  November 18, 2010

Proud, I tell you.

The Christian Science Monitor says:

In a major setback for Obama administration plans to try terror suspects in US civilian courts, a New York jury on Wednesday acquitted a Tanzanian man of 284 counts related to his alleged involvement in Al Qaeda terrorism. (link)

The Federal Judge in the trial is proud:

Kaplan Lauds Jurors After Ghailani Verdict

MANHATTAN (CN) - "Our nation is a better place because of you and others like you," U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told jurors after they announced their verdict in the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court. "You have demonstrated also that American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours," he said.

Ghailani was acquitted of 284 murder, conspiracy and related charges involving to the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa on Aug. 7, 1998. He was convicted of conspiring to destroy U.S. buildings, which carries a mandatory sentence of 20 years to life in prison.

Kaplan's full remarks to the jurors are below:
"Members of the jury, it is my practice never to comment on the substance of a jury's verdict. I am not going to do so today. It's your job to find the facts and to determine whether the government has proved its case, not mine. But there are just a couple of things that I do want to say.
"First of all, jury service is a duty that comes along with all of the benefits of citizenship. You all have done your duty. Our nation is a better place because you and others like you do that.
"Second, I and I think everyone else has been particularly struck by the manner in which you did your duty. You obviously paid close attention, you followed the evidence despite the fact that there was a lot of it and that fitting all the pieces together required quite a good deal of concentration and effort. Your requests during deliberations made it absolutely clear that you reviewed the evidence with great care and paid close attention to the law. You deserve a lot of credit for that.
"You have demonstrated also that American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours. It can be rendered with fidelity to the Constitution. You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."

The Christian Science Monitor coverage continues:

The trial is significant because Ghailani is the first Guantánamo detainee to be transferred to the US for a civilian trial. It was seen a test case by administration officials to clear the way for similar civilian trials for other Al Qaeda terror suspects – including accused 9/11 mastermind Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

Some analysts now predict that Mr. Mohammed will likely remain at Guantánamo and face a military commission proceeding – or no proceeding at all – rather than a federal judge and jury in the US.

All of which ought to be disturbing. This is not the way a Republic acts. Our previous attempts to deal with people like Ghailani were not all that reassuring, but at least they did have the merit that when the detainees are no longer dangerous, they can be released. Ghaliani was acquitted of being a mastermind but was convicted of somehow being involved: now he faces twenty years to life, which I suspect is about the same result that would have been obtained had he been convicted on all counts.

The Administration seems determined to establish its control over everything according to policy, not to law. While making life difficult for the troops who have to fight the war, the Administration is determined to give more and more power to Federal Officers over American citizens,  making certain these uppity citizens understand they are not subjects and all potential terrorists. The TSA says so.

Salve Sclave

The reaction to TSA's arrogance continues. There is a proposal for passive resistance: everyone refuses the new X-ray scan and insists that TSA molest them. As to the use of the term "molest": looking at the legal definition of molestation in this and other states, I cannot find a distinction between what the TSA is doing and what legislators have described as molestation. Of course the TSA has your "consent", more or less.

I find the recent furor a bit inexplicable: we agreed long ago to allow these collaborators to treat us as subjects, not citizens, and even when the insanity led to the attempted confiscation of a retired general's Medal of Honor as a possible dangerous weapon. We didn't abolish this Gomer Gestapo then. We didn't treat TSA agents -- all of them -- as we would treat collaborators with an occupying power. We accepted it as if this would somehow make us safer. We still accept TSA agents as patriots, not quislings. Of course Vidkung Quisling believed he was a patriot, and one supposes that Marshal Petain thought he was working for the good of France.

Of course there is no end to what powers the TSA needs in order to make us safe so long as it tries to intercept objects rather than terrorists. On the other hand, we haven't looked at all at the implications of installing "real security" of the kind used by Israel's Shin Bet and the former Bureau of State Security of the Republic of South Africa. Those are not without costs either.

All of which is to say: Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. But many of us have known this for a long time.


In another conference a well known female science fiction editor has proposed that all females insist on the pat down, and moan in ecstasy as it is being conducted. Watch Meg Ryan in the restaurant scene in When Harry Met Sally for inspiration. I haven't seen a similar proposal for men, and after all, this is a Don't Ask, Don't Tell situation....

Some states attorneys are now proposing to arrest TSA agents performing their duties as collaborators. It is unlikely that they'll get away with that: they'll soon learn that the States no longer have the right of Interposition. I don't suppose that has much meaning to graduates of modern public schools, but it used to be part of State History in about 4th or 5th grade in Capleville unified (two grades to a room, about 25 pupils per grade, a school for farmer's children mostly). See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

In the words of the Virginia Resolution of 1798,

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

By this statement, Madison asserts that state bodies are "duty bound to interpose" or stand between federal encroachment on the rights of a sovereign state.

Note that this was introduced by James Madison, who can be presumed to have some understanding of the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. They were drafted in part by Thomas Jefferson, then the Vice President of the United States.

It is not likely that that the Democratic Party, which claims to be heir to Thomas Jefferson, will support this notion. I suspect that the result will be even less flexibility on the part of the Federal occupation force in our airports. The notion that the people of the United States are free citizens, not potential terrorists is considered bizarre today.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.


Should we have everyone punch a TSA collaborator day?

Even Salon gets it sometimes:


We have had terrorists attacking airplanes for a long time. We endured without TSA.


This is old but amusing: http://tinyurl.com/2l3ag




 read book now


Thursday   TOP  Current Mail



This week:


read book now


Friday,  November 19, 2010

Here are two views of the TSA situation:

Happy Patdown Fun Times

"In another conference a well known female science fiction editor has proposed that all females insist on the pat down, and moan in ecstasy as it is being conducted."

Does she also suggest that females moon the security checkpoint, call the TSA officers "doody dum-dum dingheads", and demand candy and Disney movies? Because all of those things sound about equally mature.

There's plenty to complain about, but I don't see how acting like a four-year-old (or a fourteen-year-old) is going to help. It's a lot easier to convince people that your position is intellectually superior when you aren't faking an orgasm in the middle of a crowded airport.

Of course, some people just want to be the center of attention. And, as anyone with a four-year-old knows, children figure that bad attention is just as good as good attention.

-- Mike T. Powers

As opposed to:

Doctor P,

An acquaintance at another forum has a modest proposal re; TSA Pat Downs, He suggests that if air travelers all acted as if they really, REALLY enjoyed the "attention", did so rather loudly, perhaps even asked "How much for a Happy Ending?", the Instrumentality of Security might just decide public genital manipulation by Myrmidon was not such a Good Idea after all.

Ridicule is the one thing Power up with which will not put.

I call it the Meg Ryan (When Harry Met Sally) Strategy.

It might just work!



As for me, I think it's time to ask some basic questions. We are now spending $7 billion a year in tax money on TSA; some 60,000 employees who will doubtless be given large pensions on retirement. The budget can only rise.

Is is not time to have some kind of cost/effectiveness analysis of TSA contribution to public safety? And perhaps ask some hard questions.

I had this from a reader:


What happens when TSA pats down the three year old daughter of a TV reporter...


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

Is it likely the TSA officer, who is merely following "standard procedure", is increasing the security of the people of the United States? Or is she contributing to the making of another Timothy McVeigh? Of course the next step is to jail everyone whose  child has been abused by a Federal Officer since they may harbor burning resentment, and perhaps the child ought to be raised in a crèche.

Are we getting $7 billion a year in increased security?









 read book now

Friday   TOP  Current Mail


This week:


read book now


Saturday,  November 20, 2010


Reflections on genius. Does US education admit that there is such a thing? http://online.wsj.com/






Saturday   TOP  Current Mail

This week:


read book now


Sunday,  November 21, 2010

.I am still trying to shake this cold/flu and I am falling behind in work.740 There is mail posted for the day.







 read book now

 Sunday   TOP        Current View  

 Current Mail

This is a day book. It's not all that well edited. I try to keep this up daily, but sometimes I can't. I'll keep trying. See also the  COMPUTING AT CHAOS MANOR column, 5,000 - 12,000 words, depending.  (Older columns here.) For more on what this page is about, please go to the VIEW PAGE. If you have never read the explanatory material on that page, please do so. If  you got here through a link that didn't take you to the front page of this site, click here for a better explanation of what we're trying to do here. This site is run on the "public radio" model; see below.

If you have no idea what you are doing here, see  the What is this place?, which tries to make order of chaos. 

Boiler Plate:

If you want to PAY FOR THIS, the site is run like public radio: you don't have to pay, but if no one does, it will go away. On how to pay, I keep the latest HERE.  MY THANKS to all of you who have sent money.  Some of you went to a lot of trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. For a patron subscription click here:

For a regular subscription, click here:

 For platinum subscription:

If you subscribed:

atom.gif (1053 bytes) CLICK HERE for a Special Request.

If you didn't and haven't, why not?

If this seems a lot about paying think of it as the Subscription Drive Nag. You'll see more.

If you are not paying for this place, click here...


For information on COURSE materials, click here





Strategy of Technology in pdf format:

For platinum subscription:

For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:


For the BYTE story, click here.


Search: type in string and press return.

For Current Mail click here.

 The freefind search remains:


   Search this site or the web        powered by FreeFind
  Site search Web search

Here is where to order the nose pump I recommend:



Entire Site Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 by Jerry E. Pournelle. All rights reserved.


birdline.gif (1428 bytes)