have you herd of freedom?

I think I'm going to have to move Ran Prieur's link up to permanent status, 'cause here's another gem from his way in which a Pentagon organized "Freedom Walk" has more constraints than movie night in a high security prison.

Three More Years!
Three More Years!
Three More Years!

tin-foil hat time, part III

I find myself bemused by this little curiousity from the bottom of Evil Twin's toy. It's something I've never noticed before, but now that I am aware of it, I may have to check the bottom of everything I own. What could possibly be the purpose of such rules:

This Device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation subject to the following two conditions:

1. This device may not cause harmful interference.
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation

The only reason that I could think of why a toy would be required to be unshielded, is so that it could be subverted somehow. Yeah, I know. Whacked, right?
Well, there's a book that you might want to read, called The Men Who Stare At Goats, by Jon Ronson.Now, as tin-foil hat subjects (hereafter refered to as "TFHs") go, the subject of this book is pretty out there. But Ronson is no 21st century von Daniken. He reports on largely secret military experiments in paranormal phenomena which include subliminal interrogation techniques, psychic "tracking" of targets, and attempts to kill using pure mind-power. While the documentation on this stuff is largely that of interviews with subjects that some might consider a bit "unreliable" (such as General Stubblebine, who blames his inability to walk through walls on the distraction of the Afghanistan situation), considering the subject matter, this shouldnt come as a great surprise. However serious the military may have been about these experiments (probably not very, what we call "secrecy" may have been merely embarassment), I personally suspect that eveything Ronson is reporting is more-or-less true. The military has an obligation to at least try anything that might give it a tactical advantage, how ever much a TFHs it might be.
Those are my words, not Ronson's, but the story he tells doesnt make any of the early history in this book (with one dark, LSD-laced CIA exception) seem threatening. At one point, his description of the brief fight against Manuel Noriega in Panama sounds like something out of a Tim Powers book.
Where things begin to turn distrurbing is with the current administration. "Reactivated" psychics, interrogations involving the Barney Song (the silliness of which undermines its true sinisterness), gung ho martial artists armed with a toy-like piece of equipment capable of creating excruciating pain, and subliminal conditioning; these items in context of the BushCorp's enthusiasm for war are worrying. Ronson also implies the need for concern by saving for last a story of the CIA, secret keeping, loyalty testing, and probable murder in the 1953 death of Frank Olsen. Intelligence gathering, secrecy and loyalty issues... sound familiar?
Anyway, the point of bringing up this book was this: Who's to say that this rather bizarre rule #2 isnt there to allow the subversion of said toy, or anything else to which it applies, by some Intelligence organization? Not that they had a plan, or that it would work if they had one, but just that it might leave the door open, that some day they might figure out how to slip through. Now how's that for Tin Foil Hat Subject!

Purging myself of a meme

Okay, I've got to pass this thing I've got in my head along. It's one of those Strong Memes, the kind of idea that gets stuck in your brain and refuses to dislodge. Sometimes they're songs, sometimes they're words, sometimes they're full-blown plans of action, and sometimes they're just plain embarrassing. I've never told anybody this idea since it popped into my head, though it's not any kind of a secret or anything. (If you want secrets, you'll have to go elsewhere.) This is just an idea I had about a year ago, and since then I havent been able to get rid of it.
There's this girl at work, we'll call her The Quartermaster. Last year, she had a nasty break-up with her fiancé, and became rather, shall we say, grumpy. For some reason, the idea came into my head that she would make a good match with the Brother.
Why? I dont know why.
They both enjoy drinking. They're both reasonably attractive people. They're both opinionated and acerbic people who are decent human beings underneath. I guess they both give me a similar kind of vibe.
And, really, that's what makes the idea so ridiculous. When was the last time you or anyone you know put two similar people together, thinking "perfect match", only to have them loath each other almost to the point of weaponry. The meme infecting my brain says "Get them together!", while the logical backpart of my brain (what Terry Pratchett might refer to as "second thoughts") says, "are you kidding, they'd hate each other!"
All of this is thoroughly moot anyway, because the Quartermaster is here in The City, while the Brother lives in the SouthEast. He's not going to come here, and if she left, it would only be to head West. None of that matters anyway. It's all just a silly, stupid meme running around in my head shouting "look at me! look at me!".
Okay, I've looked, and I've listened long enough. Maybe now, with the thought down in black and white, or, in this case white and black, I can get some peace.

curious compliance code can cripple kiddie's calliope

This is a Baby Einstein Toy. Aside from it's model number (printed on the bottom), I cannot find out anything about it, even from the Baby Einstein website itself. But that's not what this post is about.
This post is about the curious compliance message on the bottom:

This Device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation subject to the following two conditions:

1. This device may not cause harmful interference.
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation

Ok, I can understand why the FCC would want it to not create interference. What I dont understand is why the FCC would forbid it to be interferred with. Seems to me that a lack of shielding in a children's toy would probably come about for economic reasons all by itself. And if someone did want to build a fully shielded toy, well, so what? The toy was made in 2000, so it's not even some wierd post-9/11 rule. I am confused.

By the way, this device is also featured in a post here, which is the kind of thing that'll happen when you combine two blogs into one.

This post got this comment from Anonymous then: "This is strange, I came across your site, because I also am trying to find out information about the baby einstein toy. I purchased it for my son at a second hand children's toy store. He loves it, but I can not find anything about it either."

now YOU can be the spook

This site is so damn cool, I gotta share it. I'm sure I'm not the first person to see one of these, but these are satellite images of the coast where Katrina hit. You have to pick your shot using a drawn map, rather than zoom in on a large photo, but it's still darn nifty!
Of course, I should maybe temper my enthusiasm (boy with new toy, sorry) with the sober statement that what you can see in these nifty shots is an astonishing level of destruction. Check out Biloxi, for instance. In the wake of the fiasco in N.O., most people have forgotten that the worst part of the storm, and its accompanying 30' surge, went through Mississippi. For an example, check out the blue building, at the top, in the middle, that's been moved out into the road. A whole building!

An Aside: If this is what the public can see, what do the government spy-sats show? Zowie!

daveawaydownunder

I'd like to extend a hearty welcome to Dave in Australia. Dave is the third actual human being to make a comment on my blog, and the first non-family person to link my blog (2 now! 2!! Woo-hoo!) I encourage you to read Dave's blog, Sympathetic Stupid. It's both funny and informative, a lot like I'd like my own blog to be if I werent so caught up in my addiction to political ire. I'm only sorry that my own link to his blog (now definitely moved to a permanent link spot) wont be producing much readership in return (except maybe the boys from Homeland Security).
I'd also like to extend my confusion to coturnix, who sent me this rather cryptic comment.

WordPad is your friend. Blogger also has a new feature that you can install into your MSWord to publish directly from your word file into Blogger.

At first I thought that it was spam that had penetrated the security, but when I traced the sender it led me to Science and Politics, another blog I like and which is also in my links. I'm confused now, and dont know if coturnix is just weird, or trying to tell me something about my spelling. Or maybe he just really likes Wordpad.

addendum @ 9:30 a.m.: Dave just pointed out to me that coturnix was probably trying to save me the trouble of losing my work by composing on WordPad first. (Boy, do I feel stupid). Actually, when I write an entry at work, I do it that way ('cause I'll do it a sentence or phrase at a time over a whole shift)(plus management watches Net activity), but it doesnt work as well for the links, which is the part I really mind losing (I'm full of words, obviously, but the links take work).

monthiversary

Okay, one month ago, I started this blog (for all intents and purposes, anyway). It wasnt much, just a rant about BushCorp announcing support for teaching "Intelligent Design" in American science classrooms. It wasnt a long rant, and since I hadnt learned any HTML yet, it had no links. But it was a start.
From those humble beginnings I've come so far... okay, maybe not so far.
I'm just having fun. It'd be nice if I thought that someone was reading these, but I know no one is but a few family members (and Homeland Security, of course)(Hi boys!) I'm going to keep on doing this, though. In time, if I feel my writing skills are consistantly up to an acceptable level, then I may start inviting friends to look this over (that seems weirdly egotistical, though; "Hey Y'all, come read my rants!")
I'd like to extend my thanks to David Brin, whose blog was in the right place at the right time to inspire me. Also, I'd like to thank and apologise to my wife, who I know is getting tired of me spending half my time at the computer and the other half trying to get her to discuss politics. And I'd like to apologise to my brother, who informs me that he never voted for BushCo.

By the way, I know the Democratic Party deserves a good rant or three also, but the Neo-Cons just make it so darn easy for me to concentrate on them first. Maybe in October I'll get to them, but I see a busy month ahead for the GOP.

Seven Things I swore I'd never sayorthe foolishness of youth

The other day I was in the dining room, when I heard my child utter words that chilled me to my very soul;
"Yay! David Hasselhoff!"
Had I known twenty years ago that the seed of my loins would use such a phrase, I may well have castrated myself.
Ah, youth!
How many times, as a kid, did I fume to myself, wallowing in self-pity after some punishment or other meted out by my parents. grumble grumble grumble, when I grow up I'm never going to do that to my kids, grumble grumble grumble.
Well, of course you were wrong.

Here's the List:

1. If you two dont cut that out I'm pulling this car over, right now!
2. If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?
3. That is not a toy
4. How would you like it if I did that to you?
5. Aww, did you get a boo-boo?
6. No, grandma is not drunk
7. Do you want me to give you something to cry about?

Okay, I'll admit it. That list is a real cliché. Hell, this whole post is a real cliché. But I think the reason that it's such a chestnut is because it's also a sort of rite of passage. The first time you catch yourself utter one of those phrases, you're stunned. But after a few times, you realise that it's OK. That they really shouldnt be putting that up their nose, that you really will turn the car around and go back home. Later you'll meet with your old friends from high school or college, and you'll all laugh about the things you find yourself saying, and no one will apologise for any of it. Because you are a Grown Up.

Daveawayfromhomeland Security

Okay, I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat now. Twice now I've written posts which contained criticisms of Michael Chertoff, the director of Homeland Security. Twice, when I went to post them, I got the log-in screen, resulting in the complete loss of all I had written. Admittedly, the first time it happened I had been a long time writing it, and may have just timed out. But the second time had only been about a half an hour. Maybe that one timed out, too, but it was the fastest that it ever happened, if so.
Yes, perhaps I am being paranoid, and No, I dont really think that Homeland Security is watching me. Not really. I dont think.

What set all this off was something the New York Times reported Chertoff as saying:

Louisiana and New Orleans have received a total of about $750 million in federal emergency and terrorism preparedness grants in the last four years, Homeland Security Department officials said. Mr. Chertoff said he recognized that the local government's capacity to respond to the disaster was severely compromised by the hurricane and flood. "What happened here was that essentially, the demolishment of that state and local infrastructure, and I think that really caused the cascading series of breakdowns," he said. (thanks again to Librarybitch)

You know, I always thought that the whole point of FEMA was to be there after the "demolishment (sic) of that state and local infrastructure". Okay, so Homeland Security threw money at the area for four years, what was that money intended for? Obviously not improvement of the area's levee system.
There was more ranting and more links, but after losing it all twice my brains gone all soft. I tell you what, just read this:

Last year an emergency exercise run by the federal, Louisiana and New Orleans governments, featuring a fictional Hurricane Pam, almost exactly foretold the disaster now unfolding. But officials said plans to prepare for an actual catastrophe were abandoned because of cuts.

"No one can say they did not see it coming," reported the The Times-Picayune from New Orleans this week. The newspaper published a five-part series predicting the disaster five years ago. Officials and experts last week wearily recalled their attempts to make the government take action. "It's frustrating to have planned, begged and pleaded that this could happen," said Walter Maestri, emergency management director of the now submerged Jefferson Parish. "They would say, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah.'" (from The Independent)

Oh yeah, the reason this comment struck me: I'm sorry that I cannot provide a link for you, but Michael Chertoff was interviewed on All Things Considered in the latter part of last week. Chertoff was unaware of the situation at the Convention Center, but it took four repetions of the question before he finally quit squirming and was forced to admit he didnt know anything about it. I'm not sure that Chertoff is qualified to run a 7-11, let alone Homeland Security.

Okay, one last thing, from Ran Prieur: An article from the Washington Post on the absorption (and reduced effectiveness) of FEMA by Homeland Security. What will we do in the future in case of a major castrophy?
I dont know. Maybe Martial Law.

halliburton. proud.

Okay, I just read this on Library Bitch: Guess who's got a contract (made in JULY no less) for "debris removal and other emergency work associated with natural disasters" at Mississippi naval airbases? Give up? Of course not!
We all know who gets government contracts out of this administration, that's right (all together now, keeds:) HALLIBURTON!!! Of course, the administration's incompetence in the face of Katrina is once again demonstrated by a complete lack of a Halliburton clean-up contract for New Orleans. Talk about your missed opportunities! BushCo cant even do it's graft well! It's not like after gutting the budget for flood control in New Orleans that a need for clean-up couldnt have been foreseen by all but the stupidest of people.
Still, it's not too late. After all, one of the reasons KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) got the Iraqi oil-field contract without having to compete for it was...

because, according to the Army's classified contingency plan for repairing Iraq's infrastructure, KBR was the only company with the skills, resources and security clearances to do the job on short notice.

Of course, who wrote the Army's contingency plan? Duh, KBR, a division of <fanfare> Halliburton! </fanfare>. But wait, there's more:

From 1997 to 2000, when Cheney was running Halliburton, two of its subsidiaries sold Saddam Hussein's government a total of $73 million in oil-field supplies. The deal didn't violate U.S. sanctions because the subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Company, were foreign. KBR/Halliburton, then, has rounded the bases when it comes to Iraq. It got rich doing business with Iraq, it got rich preparing to destroy Iraq and it's now getting rich rebuilding Iraq. (from the NYTimes, by way of the Technical Outlook blog, now appearantly abandoned)

So there you go, We've got another big job requiring skills, recources, and, probably (this is the Bush Administration), security clearances. As for short notice, well, that is perhaps debatable, but then everyone knew we were going to Iraq long before it happened, too (though I think most people didnt want to believe it).
Anyway, if the BushCorp needs an arguement that they were shortsighted in their preparedness for the possibility of hurricane damage, they can always point out this contract as proof that they had done all they needed to; they'd taken care of their friends, not some immoral city full of Democrats.