On The Third Hand

Warblog Archives

Thursday, 10 Jan 2002

• NYPD detectives to interrogate Taliban in Afghanistan I don't envy those Taliban.
• Bogus report derails Portland protest Domestic psyops disinformation. Good idea!
• FAA Wants Public Opinion on Arming Pilots Yes Please! Here's the link. You do have to register.
• Quote of the day: Crime is caused by the decision to commit it.
• Tim Blair didn't get invited to brunch, so he invited himself. Funny stuff.
• Jason Soon argues against the war on drugs -- because it is environmentally destructive and culturally imperialist. Honest!!
• The Kolkata Libertarian has been added to the blog list. Suman Palit is another anti-idiotarian, and has some fascinating insights into Indian politics and thought. If you are following the India and Pakistan news, this blog should be on your daily reading list.

Wednesday, 09 Jan 2002

A female pilot is suing the military. According to the Washington Post: "Last month, she sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, contending that the abaya policy is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women and violates their religious freedom by forcing them to adopt the garb of another faith. The suit seeks no monetary damages." The abaya policy applies in Saudi Arabia, along with some far more restrictive policies. I would back this woman if she were suing over the policy that women cannot drive, or the policy that women must always have a male escort. That is not what her lawsuit declares. She objects to the dress code.

Dress codes are a matter of modesty, whether or not they are the "law of the land". The Saudis think western dress is immodest. This is cultural, whether or not they claim religion behind it. In a matter of cultural modesty, the most cover wins. A European in the US who wants to strip on the beach will be arrested, no matter what the dress code is in their country.

There may be a point of compromise here, where western women could wear western styles that cover them just as completely. But... until all the US states allow women to go topless, as they do men... I am not going to fault the US government for following Saudi standards of modesty for womens' dress.

I really do think those who write viruses for computers should be subjected to the most ingenious forms of non-physical torture we can devise. I say we lock them in a cell with a wide-screen TV showing nothing but the purple dinosaur for the rest of their lives. The latest one targets Flash. (Thanks to MommaBear for the heads up.)

I send messages out to our servicemen through e-mail. I'm glad I do it, because they are in a dangerous business. We've just lost some more of them. In the 'old days', non-combatants could knit bandages, or send packages. Knitting bandages has long been out of style, and after the anthrax scare we can't even send packages. We can still; however, send warm words. They risk their lives, the least we can do is tell them we appreciate it.

Perhaps Reuters is right to not use the word 'terrorism'. Everyone seems to have their own pet definition of the word. I've been looking at the various definitons because of the disagreement over whether the kid in Tampa was a terrorist. My definition basically is concerned with violence directed at civilian targets that is not committed by a state (in that case, I consider it a war crime -- and yes, I do think the US has committed war crimes in the past), and aims to cause terror and harm to a state.

Thus, I would call ObL and 'the kid' terrorists (even if the kid's primary motive was suicide, the act was intended to be a terrorist attack). I would not call the guy who was threatening his co-workers at a nuclear plant a terrorist, even if he could have been far more dangerous, had he actually attacked.

Most governments go through all sorts of semantic contortions in their attempts to define as 'freedom fighters' those they like, and 'terrorist' those they don't like. Maybe we should just drop the word entirely and use phrases such as 'murderer' and 'suicidal murderer' and 'incompetent wannabe suicide bomber (Reid)'.

That makes the kid a suicidal would-be (and luckily unsuccessful) murderer. OK? But that doesn't change the fact that he succeeded in crashing a plane into a building, and that we non-suicidal-non-murderous civilians need to remember that the government cannot protect us, and keep on the alert.

Tuesday, 08 Jan 2002

• Natalie Solent just posted a great common-sense commentary about spam over on Libertarian Samizdata. I agree completely. I (being an incorrigible geek) use filters on my e-mail program to get rid of most spam. My program catches about 90% of the stuff and diverts it into a folder called (with great originality) 'spam'. Once a day, I open the folder and give it the hairy eyeball... and then usually delete everything in it. I could set my program to just delete it... except that about once a month someone sticks one of my keywords into a legitimate mail. Just a note to prospective spammers: I don't need any Viagra or Free Vacations in Florida. Honest! I'm female and I live in Florida. Oh... and if you are going to send me porn... at least make it pictures of men? Pretty please!
• Is common sense overtaking the US? Heaven forbid!
• The press could make a difference. According to an AP summary (that is it on this particular story) : "Illustrating the country's deep suffering, an Associated Press reporting team discovered a village in remote northern Afghanistan where people are slowly starving to death, struggling to stay alive on bread made from grass. Mothers whose milk has dried up feed their babies grass porridge." Ok, we do understand. Sounds very nasty. So why don't you AP reporters tell the relief agencies where this village is, and help us get some food to them? Or even tell the US military so we can bomb them with our infamous 'yellow thingies'? Are you afraid you might have to give USAID some credit? And I'd also like to know if the oh-so-compassionate AP team gave their food to these starving people before leaving? (I'd bet on 'no')

Airlines test out 'clean' lists

In tomorrow's security-conscious world, you will either volunteer personal information in advance to the airline you want to fly on - and get onto a "clean" list once your details are verified - or submit to lengthy questioning each time you board a plane.

This strikes me as a bad idea. They are intending to identify people by iris scan, which I think makes them feel good. That will stop people from stealing identities -- unless, of course, someone breaks into the database. I doubt many would bother. They'd just get themselves put on the list as themselves, either by bribing an official or being a sleeper agent that has no known ties to anything, flies often, and never causes problems.

Security can be improved by better technology, better questioning, and careful passenger profiling (not just ethnic). It would be improved greatly if everyone were searched. No matter what, it will never be perfect. Making some people safe from search will make us less secure, not more. A terrorist could even conceivably plant something on one of these 'safe' people, and then use it once on board.

Monday, 07 Jan 2002

• A Religious Moment [ via Rallying Point ]
  Every time Bush does his 'God Bless', it becomes more obvious to me that he does not really consider anything but the monotheistic Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions to be true faith. He is -- at least implicitly -- with his singular "God", rejecting Buddhists, Hindus and other major religions. He explicitly rejects atheists, agnostics and others who do not follow any religion, with his periodic comments about Americans rediscovering the important things--like "faith". There is nothing wrong with an individual having a particular faith, and showing it, but when government officials do so in their official role, I think they are getting very close to crossing a line that should not be crossed.
• A family at peace with a decision to die I wonder if the Attorney General will try to prosecute someone.
• Home Planet Defence Why we need to have a space program [ via Justin Slotman ]
• Brits better be careful. The British government seems to be underestimating the Islamists.
• Witnesses are often unreliable, but I'm wondering about Flight 587. There was an article I read a while back that mentioned a 'trace' of a chemical explosive (the article emphasized that it was only a tiny trace, and probably meant nothing).
• Another 'troubled' youngster shot our soldier? I suspect if the US catches him, he'll be treated as a terrorist.
• The Bellicose (even belligerent) women of the AFA think the NRA compromise too much.

I have mentioned once or twice before, that we in the US can write to our military. Just because the holidays are over, doesn't mean an e-mail would not be appreciated. Last time I blogged this one, I asked if there was a similar site for other military. The Brits have said they don't have one, I'm not sure about Canada. However, (once again thank you to the indispensable Momma Bear) the Australian troops can be sent to via messagestothetroops -AT- defence.gov.au. I'm not writing that down as a regular address to keep them from getting spammed. If you can't figure out how to translate it, contact me!

[update] I've got some really quick readers. You can leave messages for Canadian military at their message board. They also have addresses where postcards may be sent (no letters or packages). Now, when are the Brits going to get with it?

Will Vehrs doesn't see the point of declaring the kid a terrorist. He quotes Ken Layne, who says:"It's a terrorist act. Deal with it, Tom. Or go back to goddamned Pennsylvania." Will replies:"If "dealing with it" involves turning on a dime to address the sudden new threat of Future al Qaida of America student pilots, then I think Ridge's critics have as big a prioritization problem as he allegedly has."

Now, I don't know why Ken and all the other bloggers who agree want the government to admit that flying a plane into a building and declaring solidarity with terrorists is a terrorist act. My best guess; though, is because it is an act of terrorism. That makes the kid a terrorist, whether he was a mixed-up kid or not. The kid qualifies as a domestic terrorist, just like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber (even if he was less successful than either). The anthrax that was being mailed around was also terrorism (domestic or international).

If you want to know why I am getting on my soap box about it (or even if you don't), I'll tell you. The government has been doing their best to lull the populace. They've been implying that we are much more secure than on September 11, and that we can all go out and shop like good little citizens, while they take care of everything. I understand WIll's fears about more stupid laws, but what I want is to force the federal government to admit that it cannot protect us. I want them to take this seriously, and help us figure out how to protect ourselves.

Local governments and businesses should put their own disaster contingency plans in place, as Andrew Olmstead argues. I would add that individuals should also do the same! What worries me is that the federal government may succeed in lulling everyone to sleep, and if another massive attack happens -- unpreparedness could cost a lot of lives.

Interesting stuff:Just as I finished this, the inimitable Momma bear gave me a heads up to this Tampa Tribune article . Note the last line: "According to public records, the family name was once Bishara."

Sunday, 06 Jan 2002

The 15-year old who ran the plane into the Bank of America building in Tampa left behind a note expressing support for Osama bin Laden. I wish I'd been wrong. Call it what they will, and young as he was--copycat or not... that was a terrorist attack. You say no? What are you anyway, ageist?

Sunday's Pundit Watch is up! I must admit that I unequivocally agree with Tony Snow. Go read the watch if you want to know what I mean.

Homeland Security D. We just had a plane crash into a building last night, not too far north from where I live. Admittedly, the teen involved killed only himself, but it was still a security breach. I'm also betting that there's a connection with the terrorist attacks, even if only in the kid's mind (I'm not betting we'll ever be told this).

We also had the 'shoe bomber' (who gets to go through life known by that sobriquet -- good punishment). That was a lapse of French security, but could easily have happened here. It also means we cannot completely trust any plane coming in from anywhere (except perhaps Israel, which has good security).

If you watch TV, you will also see periodic 'helpful' specials describing the vulnerability of attractive targets in exquisite detail ("here are the maps, just so Al Qaida knows how to get there"). We also get nice television and print pundit descriptions of various weapons of destruction that would work nicely against us (give them some more ideas, thanks guys).

Our government agencies are still clueless about where the anthrax came from; the Justice department nonetheless seems to have plenty of time to harass doctors they disagree with.

We haven't had any large planes crash into buildings lately; I doubt we will unless a pilot steals a plane. The passengers will stop any attempts from now on (if you think I trust us more than I trust government security, you are right).

I suspect that without the roundup, we would have had some more attacks, and maybe major ones. The fact that we are still "on alert" indicates that the government does not think we got them all. That's a reasonable assumption, since it is highly unlikely we have.

I'd give our present homeland security a pretty low grade. It's all show and reassurance, with no real substance. I'm sure you all know about airport security checks in particular, other areas are also iffy.

Back on November 9, President Bush gave a speech in said he had created a Task force to give us information on what we can do. He even mentioned the words 'civil defence'. The mention of that task force is still on the unhelpful 'Homeland Security' page at whitehouse.gov.

I've heard nothing about 'civil defence' since that speech (as involving us -- I've heard a bit about doctors, drug and vaccine stockpiles, and such). Have I missed a speech or article? If so, I'd appreciate you letting me know. If not, I think we are going to have to stop waiting for the task force to finish yammering, and organise ourselves.

Tim Blair takes on 'Arrogant Westerners' with a bit of his own down-under arrogance. They all deserve what they get.

Andrew Hofer has already paid to get rid of the blogspot ad on the brand new Happy Fun Pundit, probably in payment for the good postings already to be found there. I've already added that one. [update: or maybe it was Damian Penny--seems to have been a blog-pile on the newbie!]

James Lileks, writing off-blog, has a very funny piece looking back on the year 2002.[Link via lgf]

USS Clueless is watching itself watching itself watching itself. I'm going to stop before I start doing the same.

Glenn Reynolds nominates the new Happy Fun Pundit's slogan of "Standing Athwart History Yelling, "Yee-Haw!"" as the best blog slogan. I think I'm going to like this blog, the writer has a good sense of humor -- though I thought Canadians said "eh", not "Yee-Haw". But I digress.

I'd like offer a few more nominations for best blog slogan.
• "Cry Havoc, and let loose the Blogs of War!" Fred Pruitt
• "Going after starry pan-Islamic futurists with a rubber glove and a sharp stick." Muslim Pundit
• " You report. I decide." Daimnation!
• "Answering questions that nobody was asking" Liberty Blog

Bloggers are a pretty clever bunch, it seems.