Should this worry me?
Posted at 05:43:28 PM on August 18, 2008

Here's the full story because it's so short:

Security officials to scan D.C. area license plates
August 18, 2008 - 10:24am

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland security officials in the Washington area plan to dramatically expand the use of automated license plate readers to prevent possible terrorist attacks.

Officials from Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have agreed to install 200 license plate readers on police vehicles, at airports and along roads. The plan announced Friday will be funded by federal homeland security grants for the area.

Britain used the readers in the 1990s to deter Irish Republican Army attacks. But in the United States, the devices have mostly been used to regulate parking or catch car thieves.

The readers will scan every license plate that passes by and will run the numbers through federal criminal and terrorist databases.

New York officials recently said they plan to scan license plates of all cars entering Manhattan.

Privacy experts say it's a vast expansion of the use of technology for security.

I'm actually considering a move to DC at some point, and so I ask ya, should this worry me? Because it doesn't. I don't mind technology--on the streets--being a cop's extra eyes. I don't want people peeking into our homes, but seeing what anyone could see and check if they stood around and watched? It just doesn't bother me.

The way I see it, if some cop sat in a car with binoculars and checked license plates on a laptop, how would that be different? Why would people object to an automated system, but not one run by a person?

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Milestones you can't deny
Posted at 05:05:19 PM on August 01, 2008

Oh, this one is a gem!

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”

The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

So, I get to pay HIGHER prices than what I'm now paying, for people... say, in NYC who don't have cars, when I drive 30 miles to work every day? Niiiice. The story gets better:

Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.

That's the best part--he doesn't say it will CREATE jobs, just SAVE them. And who could argue. You know, I just yesterday saved you from being hit by a car. Prove me wrong! Love the political double-talk.

We're so fucking doomed.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Spider-Man: Web of Shadows
Posted at 06:14:12 AM on July 29, 2008

It's not often I get totally geeked by a video game, but I can't wait for "Spider-Man: Web of Shadows." The game play in the X360/PS3 "Spider-Man 3" game is pretty fun--especially the webswinging, but finally they've married both the swinging and the agility of Spider-Man into the combat system. Below is a very low quality video which doesn't do justice to the HD version I've seen at the website.

I want this game. Now. Instantly. Yesterday.

I highly recommend, if you're a fan of such things, checking out the game's website and looking at the MEDIA link and the "Combat Redefined" video that the scenes above were taken from. You'll be jazzed.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Susan Estrich -- see why I love her?
Posted at 08:04:13 AM on July 22, 2008

Susan Estrich and I don't agree on a lot of politics, but we do some. But I've always loved her and here's one of the reasons. I quote it so fully in case the link changes later on:

What to Say

When my father died, so many years ago, my heart was broken. And then it got broken again. In the hours and days after his death, I was comforted by family and friends. But I couldn't help but notice who was missing, people I cared about, people I thought cared about me, who didn't call, didn't come, weren't there. Later, much later, I asked a few of those people why: Where had they been? Why didn't they come? And the answer was always the same.

They didn't know what to say. They didn't know what to do. So they didn't say anything. They didn't come.

Here is the truth. It isn't hard. It isn't scary. Death is not contagious. The answer is: Go. Say you are sorry. Tell a funny story. As my friend Jack used to say, 90 percent of life is just showing up. In hard times, it's probably closer to 99 percent.

It's easier, of course, when the person who died was very old, when they lived a good life, had the chance to follow their dreams and see their children and even their grandchildren grow up. Then you can say, it is God's will, the way of the world, a life well-lived. Then you can smile and say, look what they left behind, all the children who live on. Let's drink to him. Then you can say, if you're younger still, this is not about me.

My father died at 54. There were children, not grandchildren. My best friend died at 53. Her mother was still alive. Her oldest grandchild was a baby. God's will? I don't know.

I am sitting on a plane flying to my friend Tony Snow's wake. He was 53. He had a wife he loved, three children he adored. In a business that is full of snakes and sleazebags, of cheaters and charlatans, he was a sweetheart, a decent and honorable man who loved his family, his country and his work. Why him? Because his mother died of the same disease when she was 37? Bad genes is just not a good answer.

Here is what I know. You never stop missing the people you love.
It never gets "all better," the way the scrapes and bruises of childhood do, the way career disappointments and broken romances do. It never goes away. It just becomes part of your history.

It was my friend Patrick who told me that, after my father died. At a time when others were pulling away, he would sit with me. His brother had died when he was a kid. His family was ripped apart. And then time passed. Life went on. And his brother, and his brother's death, became part of his history, a scar and not a gaping wound.

After my father died, I was sad all the time. I worked and I cried. I looked at the world through tear-stained eyes. I took pills to sleep. I tried not to dream. I put one foot in front of another and tried my best not to fall. I would see people laughing, partying and having fun, and think, that will never be me. I will never be happy again.

And then one day, I realized I had gone a whole hour without reliving my father's final days, without feeling angry with every middle-aged man I saw. An hour became two. I started being able to remember my father as he had been when he was well, when he was truly alive and not lying in a hospital bed with tubes everywhere.

When I quit smoking for the last time, I thought about cigarettes all the time — when I had my first cup of coffee or my second, when I talked on the phone, when I got in the car or ordered a drink or finished dinner. And then I started getting used to doing all those things without my trusty Marlboro. I went an hour without thinking about smoking, and then two hours and then a whole day, and then I was an ex-smoker, someone who used to smoke and not someone who does.

Death is harder. I never stopped missing my dad. It never went away. The list of those I miss just keeps growing. But life goes on. I became who I am. Tony will live on in Jill and their children, and in all of us he touched with his kindness and decency. There should be more to say, but for now, that will do. I will be there. It is not so hard.

What sweet, human advice she gives. It's not about politics, which can be serious but is often silly, and unlike a lot (but I don't think the majority) of political folk--and by that I don't mean politicians but people who are political by nature--Estrich isn't saying "good riddance" or "next: Cheney" upon hearing about Snow (as some DailyKooks did)....

No, Estrich is a human being. In Yiddish: a mensch. I didn't know Tony Snow personally, though I often enjoyed his work, but the main reason his death saddened me is personal. I lost my mother to cancer when she was barely 66. My dad lost his mom to cancer. Many friends have lost their relatives quite young to cancer... I feel for them, and I feel for myself. Being reminded we are mortal (and that we lose our friends, relatives -- especially parents) is one of the hardest things with which we must deal.

Susan Estrich knows it, and tries to make it easier for all of us--and herself--in times such as this. If that's not a reason to appreciate her, and her humanity, despite her political leanings, then I don't know what is.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

I am a techaholic
Posted at 07:38:15 AM on July 18, 2008

Back at the end of last November, I was very hot to get a new phone, and while the iPhone seemed cool, it wasn't cool enough to make me switch from Verizon's good network to AT&T's so-so one. Also, the iPhone, while excellent for email and web, according to reviews was only meh-ish on call quality and its speakerphone sucks the nipples off a dead monkey.

Aside from all that, I really wanted a phone with which I could text a lot. I never cared for the texting via dial pad on most normal phones as it took too long to tap out a message. (Isn't it funny how text became a verb.) With its clamshell opening to offer a full qwerty keyboard (heh--qwerty, another new word thanks to technology), the LG Voyager seemed like the perfect phone for me. Okay, it wasn't, necessarily, but if I include cool factor as a necessity, it was, because I loved the idea of a touch screen phone too.

Well, the Voyager has been a very good phone for me. While the touch screen isn't as sensitive as an iPhone, and the phone has its quirks, it has been great for texting, I love the VZ Navigator, it surfs the web okay, and while the email application leaves much to be desired, it functions basically and I can always go to mobile-gmail via the browser so it's not a deal-killer.

All that said, I have now been destracted by the new shiny and want to give up my Voyager for Verizon's ALL touch screen (so the qwerty is virtual) LG phone: the Dare. (I don't get giving phones the cute names, and yet I use them, so...)

The LG Dare isn't an iPhone, as really what Apple is making and AT&T is selling is a PDA/handheld computer/media player that doubles as a phone, whereas LG is making phones for Verizon (and others) that also do some PDA/multimedia functions. The Dare has a good speakerphone and better touch responsiveness (though not quite as good as the iPhone) and is smaller and lighter and the cool-factor is high. Therefore, I must have it.

So, I'm gonna slap my Voyager on ebay to cover the upgrade cost, with which a car charger and vehicle holder that attaches to the windshield, should about cover it.

If anyone is interested in my Voyager (it works fine, just is a little scuffed from dropping it and the power connector cover is wonky but could just be removed), let me know. I can upgrade to the Dare on July 31, so I'll be looking to send someone my Voyager soon after.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Racist babies!
Posted at 12:45:57 PM on July 08, 2008

Yes, I said racist babies. At least they if they don't like spicy food. Look:

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives".

How superficial can you get? If I don't like the food of Thailand (which I don't), I suddenly have some disdain for the Thai people? That's insane. I don't like lots of food because of its taste and texture--I don't care who makes it. Why do we think babies would be different? Or, more on point, why do these morons think it?

The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".

I notice we don't wait for there to be an actual problem here--we are to be on the looking for possible problems. Wouldn't that tend to make people hypersensitive?

Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Jesus, they're going to make these kids neurotic and resentful, where the mildest utterance is clamped down on.

What about waiting for someone's feelings to be hurt, and then dealing with the problem individually--with the child's parents--rather than deciding what thoughts are hurtful and not, and how to deal with it? As a for instance, I have a deaf brother. I insult him about it ALL the time. He knows it's said with teasing affection, and he makes fun of my "small hearing brain" and so do I. Anyone who doesn't know us might think we were insulting one another, but we're merely being... well, guys.

Little boys--and big boys--make fun of one another. Often there's something to it, but just as often there's not. Are cases at this preschool going to go to some court to decide which is which, or will some regulation just decide and dictate how we deal with one another verbally?

Sounds like creepy 1984 stuff to me.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Stop reading this! Turn off your LCD monitor now!
Posted at 02:41:32 PM on July 03, 2008

At least, that's how you can save the environment from DOOM!

Why do I say this? Because here we have a story that claims, in its headline: "Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming"

Most people will probably say, "ZOMG! NO! Not teh TVs! Don't take my TVs!" My reaction, however, was "Okay, what bit of horse shit are they trying to pass as cavier now?"

Let's look at the story:

A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

Right off the bat this is bad journalism. No attribution as to whom is doing the blaming, the first 'graph here merely hope to inflame rather than inform.

Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.

But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.

The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.

So, three more paragraphs, no so far no one has said any of this except the "journalist" (and that's in quotes because all this is as yet is an editorial). And it's 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in what context? Carbon dioxide has what kind of power? Climate destructive power? You realize it's what all plants and animals respire out, right? Carbon dioxide is not some evil Nazi death-camp gas, but the sentence is written as if NF3 is basically Zyclon-B on steroids.

Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.

Who finds this ironic. I don't? Who the fuck is saying this other than, I guess, ABC News (the Australian ABC, not the Disney-owned American one)?

Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.

What scientists? Where? How many? And if it's not been measured, how can it yet be a concern?

Professor Michael Prather from the University of California has highlighted the issue in an article for the magazine New Scientist.

He has told ABC's The World Today program that output of the gas needs to be measured.

FINALLY we get an attribution to a real person! SEVEN paragraphs in! But this is ONE guy, so where are the others? Will they be quoted?

"One of my titles for this paper was Going Below Kyoto's Radar. It's the kind of gas that's made in huge amounts," he said.

"Not only is it not in the Kyoto Treaty but you don't even have to report it. That's the part that worries me."

He estimates 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced in 2008 and that number is likely to double next year.

It worries you because you know it's released from these TVs and causes problems, right?

"We don't know what's emitted, but what they're producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world," he said.

"And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don't know is how much is escaping and getting out."

Wait--you DON'T know if it's in the atmosphere at all, and so... how is this a problem? And 4000 or even 8000 tons of gas isn't that much. The planets' volcanoes put more than 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Do a little math: if there's 8000 tons of NF3 out there, and it's 17,000 as strong as CO2, that's the equivalent of about as much CO2 as is put into the atmosphere BY THE PLANET ITSELF. And that's IF all the NF3 were getting into the atmosphere, which not only wouldn't it be, but this ass-hat doesn't know how much is.

Are you getting the insanity of his worry and the yellow journlism of the headline (and article) yet?

Dr Paul Fraser is the chief research scientist at the CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research centre, and an IPCC author.

He says without measuring the quantity of NF3 in the atmosphere it is unclear what impact it will have on the climate.

"We haven't observed it in the atmosphere. It's probably there in very low concentrations," he said.

"The key to whether it's a problem or not is how much is released to the atmosphere."

So the only other scientist quoted in the article basically--in the last couple of paragraphs, says "yeah, we don't measure it, it's not clear what it would do, and it's probably really small." Why isn't that the headline? Because it doesn't fit the media doom-gloom template that says we're destroying the earth. YOU! You specifically with your HDTV and computer monitors and cell phones and GPS systems are DESTROYING THE PLANET!

Except you're not. One guy is worried about it, and has no evidence to suggest why he should be worried. But it's worth a story, huh?

Morons in the media.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

[ PREVIOUS SNARKS ]