Filed under: Amazon, Emergency, Flu, Government, Health, Pharyngula, Predictions, Preparedness, PZ Myers
I need to run out foraging this morning, now that the WHO has gone to DefCon 4 but I have a question that I hope someone can help me with.
I was doing my usual poking around online this morning, hitting my usual haunts, and saw a comment over at PZ’s that caught my attention. It referenced the “Black Swan Theory” of Nassim Taleb.
Hmm. That rang a bell somewhere deep in my memory. I did some poking around, and found that it was from a book that came out in 2007. Well, I think I heard about it, but I never did get around to reading much of Taleb’s work. What I found looks intriguing – but is it worth my time to get a copy and actually read it?
Jim Downey
Just curious – how are people here responding to this news?
US declares public health emergency for swine flu
WASHINGTON – The U.S. declared a public health emergency Sunday to deal with the emerging new swine flu, much like the government does to prepare for approaching hurricanes.* * *
At a White House news conference, Besser and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to assure Americans that health officials are taking all appropriate steps to minimize the impact of the outbreak.
Top among those is declaring the public health emergency. As part of that, Napolitano said roughly 12 million doses of the drug Tamiflu will be moved from a federal stockpile to places where states can quickly get their share if they decide they need it. Priority will be given to the five states with known cases so far: California, Texas, New York, Ohio and Kansas.
I posted an item about it here yesterday, and for the most part I see this simply a prudent step in preparation. But I find it very interesting that the US government is moving *very* quickly over this – perhaps this was a factor:
Swine flu confirmed in NYC high school students
NEW YORK – New York City was dealing with a growing public health threat Sunday after tests confirmed that eight students at a private Catholic high school had contracted swine flu. Some of the school’s students had visited Mexico on a spring break trip two weeks ago.
New York officials previously had characterized the cases as probable, but Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that it was swine flu, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
About 100 students at St. Francis Preparatory School complained of flu-like symptoms; further tests will determine how many of those cases are swine flu.
Bloomberg stressed that the New York cases were mild and many are recovering, but said that parents of the students also had flu symptoms, “suggesting it is spreading person to person.”
Thoughts? Do you have the basic preparations for coping with a generalized emergency? I think I’m in pretty good shape, though I might pop out and stock up on my usual scotch . . .
Jim Downey
(Slightly different version cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, NYT, Privacy, Society, tech
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
Hey, it’s no big deal. Just a small bout of ‘overcollection’. Like having a few too many Tupperware containers, right? Or like being a bit ‘overdrawn’ at the bank. You know, to the tune of $1.3 Trillion or something. Easy mistake for anyone to make.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Religion, Society, Violence
(I posted this over on dKos, thought it might be of interest to people here.)
* * *
xxdr zombiexx’s diary on Thursday provoked a lot of good discussion, and brought out in high relief some of the differences here on the left regarding attitudes towards guns. One very insightful thing he said in the 3rd update to his diary particularly got me to thinking:
The point is that I do think that some people take this “right to own guns” bit too seriously and have elevated it to a religion.
OK, let’s use that as the launching point for an analogy. It is not a perfect analogy, but I hope it is an illustrative one – please keep an open mind, and give it a chance to work. My intent here is to explain, not argue.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I want to focus on the first two parts of that, concerning religion, which are commonly referred to as the “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” clauses.
(I am not an attorney, and am not trying to argue legal history – I just want to provide a basic premise for the analogy.)
We tend to think that these clauses mean that an individual American has the right to believe (or not believe) as he or she sees fit, and to exercise their belief freely, without the interference of the government. And by & large, this is true. There are disputes concerning what constitutes any kind of government recognition or support of one religion or another (things like having the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, et cetera), and there are problems which occur with how some people exercise their religion (as in considering otherwise illegal drugs to be a sacrament). But for the most part, you can believe as you see fit, and exercise that belief within the normal constraints of the law. This is how the vast majority of Americans live their lives.
[Here comes the speculative part. Bear with me.]
OK, now consider how most people would view the Democratic party if it had a history of supporting limitations on the exercise of religion. Let’s say that during the 1960s, following the death of President Kennedy, there was an effort made to promote Catholicism, in respect for the religion of the slain president. After all, a substantial number of Americans at the time were Catholics, including a large percentage of the working-class base of the Democratic Party in the big cities of the North East. Oh, you could still believe as you saw fit, still be Baptist, or Jewish, or Mormon – but let’s say that there was legislation proposed that would make the Pope the nominal head of all religions in the US, just as a sign of respect to President Kennedy.
Of course, such legislation would be seen as completely inappropriate, there would be a backlash, and Democrats would pay a heavy price in following elections. After wandering in the political wilderness for a generation, most Democrats would know not to get involved in such a mess, to leave religion well enough alone.
Time passes. But then along comes a new religion. A bit of a weird one. Scientology. A lot of people see it as a cult. Its power and influence is seen to grow, though in fairly limited ways. Still, it makes a lot of people uneasy. Several European countries decide that it is something of a threat, and pass laws against it, some harsher than others.
A new Democratic president decides to do something, and is instrumental in passing a new law in an effort to protect people from perceived dangers of Scientology. But the wording is sloppy (as any such effort to limit a religion while trying to stay Constitutional would be), and as more people become aware of the implications of the law, the more different religions seem to be threatened by it. Over the course of a decade, even though the Democratic president and his Republican successor don’t really use the law to do anything against most people, the general consensus comes about among believers that this law should be allowed to lapse when it comes up for renewal.
And still, even so, there are those Democrats who think that Scientology is a real threat, and they lobby hard to keep the law. Their intention is completely honorable – all they want to do is have what they see as reasonable limits on this one particular ‘weird’ religion. But their actions remind people of the ill-fated (though again, well-intentioned) efforts to promote Catholicism, no matter how much they profess that *that* is not what they mean to do at all. Fed by the Republican noise machine, fear of Democratic interference in the free exercise of religion is kept alive, even while the anti-Scientology law is allowed to expire.
A new Democratic president comes on the stage. He seems to be honest, and forthright, and has a lot of messes to clean up from his inept Republican predecessor. He says that he has no interest in limiting anyone’s religion, that he is a non-Catholic himself, and most people believe him. But he did slip up once during the campaign, and made an unfortunate comment about small-town Americans bitterly clinging to religion. That made a lot of people nervous, even good Democrats who were people of faith. And he had been on record previously in supporting the anti-Scientology legislation. And someone remembers that he was raised an atheist. A couple of his top cabinet members make comments which can be understood to be hostile to Scientology, perhaps to religion in general. Oh, and his official government website says that he still supports making the anti-Scientology law permanent.
Then, still very early in his administration, there are several high-profile instances where Scientology is in the news and seems to be as much of a threat as ever, if not moreso. Demands on left-leaning political blogs increase for a renewal of the anti-Scientology law, as poorly written and ineffectual as it was. Some vocal atheists weigh in, say that the problem goes well beyond just Scientology, that it is religion itself that is the problem, and that we should all just grow the hell up and get past this infantile fascination, be more like the Europeans. People of faith – not just Scientologists, but all those who remember what has happened in the past – start to eye the Democrats with increasing unease and suspicion.
Jim Downey
Filed under: ACLU, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Predictions, Privacy, Society, tech
Huh, a couple of weeks ago I complained about this:
The city of Columbia has installed a cluster of four surveillance cameras at Ninth Street and Broadway as a demo for a larger project to monitor and deter downtown crime.
Well, seems that my bitching (along with a lot of others), had an effect:
Council kills surveillance camera plan
In a move that surprised city staff and the downtown business community alike, the Columbia City Council last night on a 6-1 vote denied a transfer of funds that would have allowed the lease of surveillance cameras for downtown streets.
The mobile camera units, perched on trailers at downtown intersections for the past month during a trial period, will soon be hauled away, Assistant City Manager Tony St. Romaine said.
What started out as a transfer of funds from one account to another to cover a budgeted expense became a lengthy discussion of privacy, safety and civil rights among council members and members of the public.
I’ll be damned. Maybe there’s hope for us, yet.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Bruce Schneier, Emergency, Failure, General Musings, Government, Health, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Science, Society, Survival, Terrorism, Violence
The annoying cold I mentioned the other day seems to be trying for an upgrade to bronchial infection, perhaps with delusions of becoming pneumonia. So I’m not feeling particularly creative or insightful. Maybe I used up too much outrage yesterday. Anyway, since I am a bit under the weather, let me just post an excerpt from something you ought to read. This is the closing of The Most Dangerous Person in the World?:
Security itself is an illusion. It is a perception that exists only between our ears. No army, insurance policy, hazmat team, video surveillance or explosive sniffer can protect us from our own immune system, a well-intentioned but clumsy surgeon, failing to look before crossing the street, an asteroid randomly hurtling through space or someone willing to die in order to do others harm.
In this sense, the only things that can truly make us more “secure” are not things. They are the courage to face whatever comes with dignity and intention, and the strong relationships that assure we will face the future together, and find comfort and meaning in doing so.
Imagine, then, what might happen if we simply quit listening to the scaremongers and those who profit from our paranoia. Imagine what the world could look like if we made a conscious choice to live out whatever time we have with courage, compassion, service and joy.
Terrorism is an act of the weak. But so is walking through the airport in our socks.
We can make better choices.
Go read the whole thing.
Jim Downey
(Via Bruce Schneier.)
Filed under: BoingBoing, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Privacy, Society, Terrorism, Travel, YouTube
So, there was a convention in St. Louis weekend before last. No big deal – just the sort of regional thing that is held in cities around the US regularly. This was a political convention, for a group which is a little out of the mainstream, but just a bit: Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty. Not my cup of tea, but like I said, no big deal.
And at this convention they sold the usual books and bumper stickers and t-shirts you might expect, and there were probably ticket sales to special events and whatnot. All this is standard fare. Following the convention, one young man who had responsibility for handling some portion of the sales receipts was trying to get home, and went to the airport to catch his flight back to Virginia. There, going through the security checkpoint . . .
Oh, wait – first, let me give a little bit of background. See, recently there was a big flair-up here in Missouri over a government report issued by the Department of Public Safety which caused a huge uproar. The document, titled “Modern Militia Movement”, was sent to law enforcement agencies around the state, outlining what potential threats might come out of right-wing groups. Problem is, a lot of people took the report as being hostile to legitimate political groups. Here’s the relevant passage:
Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with third party groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.
This created such an uproar that the the governor intervened and told the head of the DPS to correct the problem. From a newspaper report on the 24th:
In a letter dated March 23, Public Safety Director John Britt told third-party presidential candidates U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party that he was ordering the “Modern Militia Movement” report altered to delete their names and the names of their political parties as possible indicators of militia involvement.
* * *
The inclusion led members of these parties to fear they would be profiled by police based on political bumper stickers or other paraphernalia.
Britt, who oversees MIAC, writes: “Portions of the report may be easily construed by readers as offensive to supporters of certain political candidates or to those candidates themselves. I regret those components were ultimately included in the final report issued by MIAC.”
Britt also wrote that any characterization of the three presidential candidates or their parties as possible militia members was “an undesired and unwarranted outcome.”
OK, so there’s that. Now, back to our story.
. . . Steve Bierfeldt was stopped. He had a metal lockbox which contained Ron Paul & Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers, and $4700 in sales receipts. He was asked why he had such a large sum of cash. He asked whether he was required by law to answer the question. Things predictably degenerated from there. Here’s the TSA’s version of events:
Incident at St. Louis International Airport
At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.
Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.
Now, take a few minutes to watch the following video. Yes, it is a clip from FOX News. My apologies for that – but it contains about 70 seconds worth of recording from the event itself, which clearly gives an indication of the type of tactics and behaviour being employed by the TSA:
Let me sum up for those who don’t wish to watch the video. Mr. Bierfeldt is repeatedly asked why he has such a large sum of money. He in turn asks whether he is *required by law* to answer that question. He is then told that he will be “taken downtown” and turned over to the FBI and/or DEA if he doesn’t answer the question. He is further threatened with missing his flight, arrest, et cetera for not cooperating. One of the four or five TSA officials in the room even states directly “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
This evidently went on for the better part of 25 minutes. At the end, a plainclothes police or FBI official came into the room, whispered to the TSA officials, who then gave Bierfeldt back his things and got him on his scheduled flight.
* * *
OK, several things. If you want a very enlightening insight into the functioning of the TSA mindset, go look at their official blog post and read comments from multiple TSA employees, who make incorrect claims about the law about transporting money saying that such a large sum gives them the right to investigate, that they are required to watch for drug law violations, et cetera.
It is *not* illegal to carry large amounts of cash. I would even say that $4700 doesn’t even qualify as a large amount of cash, though that’s more than I ever carry. Detaining someone for having that kind of money on them is nothing short of harassment.
Was Bierfeldt singled out for his political beliefs? Remember, that Missouri Department of Public Safety bulletin was still fresh, and had only been ‘rescinded’ a week previously. I think a reasonable person could conclude that there was a likelihood that it played a part.
Did Bierfeldt ask for this kind of problem? Wouldn’t it have been easier for him to just answer the stupid question and be done with it? Yeah, probably. But I consider the man a hero for sticking up for his rights. More of us should.
While I have some libertarian leanings, as I said at the beginning of this post Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty are not my cup of tea. And I find it a bit telling that only now when a nice white kid gets hassled by the TSA during the Obama administration does FOX News find it worth covering. But I certainly do hope that this is the start of people becoming more aware of what kinds of threats we all face to our liberties by the ‘security theater‘ which is the TSA. After all, what threat to airline security is presented by someone with a wad of cash?
Jim Downey
(Via BB and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: ACLU, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Predictions, Privacy, Science Fiction, Society, tech
I’m becoming a crank.
Yeah, yeah, I know, what do I mean “becoming?”
But seriously, I am starting to worry a bit. Why? Because I am having a probably unnecessary overreaction to a couple of bits of news here in my hometown. I think it’ll become obvious what I mean, when I tell you what they are:
The city of Columbia has installed a cluster of four surveillance cameras at Ninth Street and Broadway as a demo for a larger project to monitor and deter downtown crime.
Watchtower Security is stationing security cameras on Broadway.
The cameras, which are suspended in the air on a post and resemble black fish eyes, were installed Monday by Watchtower Security, a St. Louis-based manager of surveillance equipment. Each camera has “pan, tilt and zoom” capability, allowing a viewer to read a license plate number or identify facial features from several hundred feet away.
* * *
Each of the camera groups is a fixed to a mobile pole that can be installed anywhere with a 110-volt outlet and moved as crime activity dictates. The cameras will all be placed downtown — the Special Business District contributed half of the $50,000 budget for the project — at intersections or alleys.
That was last month. Here’s this month’s:
City negotiates deal for camera use at red lights
Although negotiations on red-light cameras for Columbia have been stop-and-go for more than a year, city officials have given the green light for a contract with a new company, and test cameras could be up by July 1.
* * *
Another feature unique to Gatso was the “Amber Alert” camera setting. With the flick of a switch, St. Romaine said, the cameras can scan every license plate that passes through the intersection and look for matches if an abductor’s plate number is known.
“It’s not only for Amber Alerts, either,” St. Romaine said. It could be used “if there was a bank robbery and we could get the plate number. It’s a feature that’s not been out long. It was introduced in Chicago in the last four or five months. They would bring that added value to the system.”
I must admit, I agree with the comments of our local head of the ACLU, who last week said this about the Downtown cameras:
ACLU finds camera plan ‘creepy’
Where Columbia city leaders and some downtown businesses see added security and comfort in new surveillance cameras planned for downtown, others see government invasion of personal activities.
“It makes my skin crawl that we would just accept this so unquestioningly,” said attorney Dan Viets, president of the Mid-Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
* * *
“It boils down to safety,” police Capt. Zim Schwartze said. “We’re going to use every tool we can that the budget will allow. … It’s unfortunate that people think we’re trying to watch them just to watch them. You’d be amazed how many cameras are in the city right now in private businesses, out in the mall, bank, grocery stores. … People are being watched and have been watched for a long time.”
Ah, yes, “safety.” Of course, that makes everything OK. Same excuse has been given for the red-light cameras. It’ll stop people from running red lights, doncha know. And the ability for the “Amber Alert” feature, which will allow the cameras to scan *every* license plate that passes through the intersection? Well, that’s to protect the children. We must do everything we can to protect the children, right?
And yes, there are lots of cameras in private businesses and at the mall, or in the parking lot at Sam’s & WalMart. That bugs me enough as it is. But all of those are private property – not public streets. And they are not being monitored by government agencies.
See, right there – I’m becoming a crank. I’m becoming one of those guys who is a bit paranoid of his own government, even though I am friends with one of our city council members, and on good terms with at least two others. Even though my wife serves on an important city government board, and I’m involved in the city government at the neighborhood association level. Why am I becoming a crank?
Because I value my privacy. No, I don’t have anything particular I wish to hide. My life is entirely too boring, and has been for a long long time. But while I am happy to comply with government requirements for paying taxes and getting licenses, making sure my car is inspected and properly insured, and obey driving laws to an absurd degree, I don’t want my government, even at the local level, to be able to track my movements around town. I don’t want to have myself monitored if I choose to go for a stroll downtown (which is now less likely – seriously, I *avoid* this crap when I can). Oh, sure, I’m a former downtown business owner, and a solid member of the community – a white, middle-aged guy who respects cops and is on a first name basis with the mayor. I’m not going to be hassled, and I won’t be targeted for increased scrutiny.
But why should any law abiding citizen be subject to this invasion?
Jim Downey
*From the 2006 Census estimates. Title refers your choice of dystopian, authoritarian futures as outlined in countless books and movies. Cross posted to UTI.
Pub evacuated after Monty Python prop mistaken for grenade
Bomb disposal teams were called in and buildings evacuated after workmen mistook a Monty Python film prop for a hand grenade.Water company engineers spotted the object when they lifted up a fire hydrant cover during work on a street in Shoreditch, east London.
The road was cordoned off and a nearby pub was evacuated amid fears that the “grenade” could explode.
But after nearly an hour of analysis bomb experts realised that the cause of the scare was in fact a copy of the “Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” used by Eric Idle to slaughter a killer rabbit in the 1975 film Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
Makes me wonder whether there isn’t a new version of the DVD coming out – this’d be a brilliant marketing gimmick.
Jim Downey
(Via BB. Cross posted to UTI.)
In a letter to [Treasury Secretary] Geithner yesterday, Liddy agreed to restructure some of the payments. But Liddy said he had “grave concerns” about the impact on the firm’s ability to retain talented staff “if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”
Bwahahahaha!! *sniff* Hehehehehehe… Go on, pull the other one:
AIG officials say that some of the upcoming bonuses are relatively modest once they are divided among employees. About 4,700 people in the company’s global insurance units are receiving $600 million in retention pay. In addition, about $121 million in corporate bonuses will go to more than 6,400 people, for an average payout of about $19,000, according to AIG.
“These are not Wall Street bonuses,” said one AIG executive, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “This is an insurance company.”
Heh. Hehehehe.
>wipes eyes, catches breath<
Whew. Gods, I’m glad that those are not Wall Street bonuses. I mean, who in this economy can begrudge a mere average $19,000 bonus for the middle-managers there at AIG? Not to mention the average $127,000 retention pay to the upper management? I know if *I* didn’t get that kind of bonus annually, I’d just leave. I mean really.
Heh.
OK, in all seriousness, if these people have contracts stipulating these bonuses, without some kind of escape clause pertaining to the performance of the company, then it would probably cost us more in lawsuits for violating those contracts. Yeah, I said “us” – because we’re talking about AIG, which has received some $170 billion (and which as a result the US government owns 80% of). Does that make you feel better about the whole thing?
No, me neither.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Communion Of Dreams 