perfidy

Ben and Jennifer have set a wedding date of September 14!

It's good that they're getting this out of the way, because their divorce has been scheduled for January 6, 2004 for a while now.

Can you say..... Mmmmmmmmartyr?

The beautiful and talented Erin O'Connor has posted an excerpt from an article she wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education about the flapdoodle down at UNC. The freshman reading this semester is "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, and campus conservatives are concerned that Ehrenreich's propaganda will rot the little heads of freshmen before they have a chance to grow.

A fair point, but I dunno. I agree with O'Connor's conclusion-- that "Nickel and Dimed" isn't the best reading for Freshmen-- though I think it's a decent choice-- but I partly disagree with her reasons why.

When I started college, the entire incoming class had to read Being There by Jerzy Kosinski. I think that was a good choice-- it was a fairly simple book about American media-mindedness that lent itself well to freshman-level exegesis. Even better, we got to watch the Peter Sellers movie. Yeah!!

But the discussion we had wasn't very spirited. It was fine, and a few people got into some pretty good debates over the greater meaning of the book, but I think it could have been a little more fun.

Which is why I'm not sure I agree with the O'Connor or the Conservatives at UNC....I'll give you a minute... go read.

So... O'Connor calls the idea that freshmen should be discussing partisan politics "astounding." I couldn't disagree more. Any freshman class at any college can hold a rousing, if not openly rancorous debate on politics which I guarantee will contain more substance than Hannity and Colmes. Besides, the kids are going to spend the next four years flitting from cause to cause-- why pretend otherwise?-- so why not help to guide their educational experience in a way that might be constructive?

I think Ehrenreich's book is a good choice for freshmen. It's heart-breaking, passionate, and polemical. It's thinly argued, anecdotal, and full of holes. It invites debate and discovery as freshmen brainstorm ways to defend their position. It allows students to take positions and defend them, and I don't think it hurts anything that the discussion is inherently political. Perfect, right?

Well, yeah, except for one thing. The risk the discussion sinking to the mere level of Hannity and Colmes. To me, this would be the biggest reason not to assign Ehrenreich or her ilk. O'Connor puts it well, writing about the Conservative protesters:

The committee's seemingly unimpeachable plea for "greater fairness and balance" in the reading program conceals a less savory jockeying for ideological position.

"It's intellectually dishonest to present only one side," says the group's founder, Michael McKnight. That's true. But couched in that demand for balance is the committee's conservative agenda. The group seeks more balance not because balance is inherently desirable, but because of the committee's interest, as its Web site announces, "in promoting conservative and free market ideas and perspectives on the UNC campus." It is protesting because Nickel and Dimed gives conservative politics a bad rap. As McKnight told The Herald-Sun, "as a Christian, I was offended, and as a conservative I was really offended. It's one thing to disagree with someone's point of view, and it's another thing to ridicule them." Tellingly, McKnight frames his complaint in terms borrowed wholesale from the liberal identity politics that he and his group oppose.

The tacit assumption by both liberals and conservatives that Chapel Hill's summer reading program is more about politics than about reading should give us pause. We ought to be asking what it means to read opinionated works as either a confirmation or negation of identity -- but instead we are fighting endlessly about whose identity gets top billing when readings are assigned.

And that's the problem. As I said above, discussing an easy target like Ehrenreich's book does foment discussion and mixing. But it's not very deep. Popular political debate these days is all surface, surface, surface (and hell, when has it been any different?), and maybe colleges could do a little more to encourage deeper thought. Even popular political writers like P.J. O'Rourke might be an improvement. Even better, actual literature, such as Elie Weisel, the aforementioned Kosinski, Milan Kundera, Zora Neale Hurston, or Toni Morrison might do the trick. Except maybe for Morrison, these authors aren't very hard going, and their work inspires thoughtful discussion from many sides. Moreover, these authors are more, what the hell, collegiate than Ehrenreich and "Nickel and Dimed," and for some student's it's the last elevated thing they'll do for four years. So, I agree with O'Connor's argument (as usual), but I do not share her conviction that a little political heat is a bad thing.

... as for the ostensibly adult people arguing about whether a book can rot the brain, for shame!

[note] Edited to remove gibberish and non sequiturs 9/4/03

Jeez... this is the week of light posting and crappy headlines. Sorry about that. It's the first week of school, and the particular Perfidous Indoctrination Center I work for is in full swing, as the Evil Geniuses of the future pursue their degrees in Evil Medicine, Mendacious Lawyering, Interrogative Dentistry, and Advanced Theoreticial Malingering.

But whatever. I see that the 9th Circuit Court, in a rare high-profile decision that doesn't make me grit my teeth as they skate back and forth over the line between reason and excess, have overturned 111 death penalty sentences imposed by judges (not juries) in three states.

Great. The facts of the main case that this decision hinged on are outrageous enough, without getting into the utterly nondemocratic, old-school-Whiggish phenomenon of one magistrate deciding the ultimate fate of a defendant. From the article:

The case that led to the appeals court ruling was described in the decision as "the raw material from which legal fiction is forged."

According to the ruling, that "raw material" included:

• A police tip from the defendant's mother-in-law based on her daughter's "extra-sensory perception"

• An alleged romantic encounter between one of the defense attorneys with the first prosecutor in the case during negotiations on a possible plea agreement

• The judge imposing the death sentence while allegedly under the influence of marijuana. The judge was later disbarred.

Jeebus. The best case for jury sentencing I have ever read.

This is a good point for me to discuss why, in my political-science naivete, I am a self-described "centrist" (Buckethead would write that, "handwringing anklebiter," and he wouldn't be wrong). My personal ethical and moral systems make me ambivalent about the death penalty. While I am in favor of the death penalty when applied by jury to the most horrible of capital crimes, I feel it is meted out too liberally and for too many offenses. Regardless of any cost/benefit analyses which show that keeping a multiple-murderer locked up for life costs a fortune whereas killing them is cheap, I don't like to measure life by that metric.

The point at which my support of the death penalty breaks down is where my faith in humanity breaks down. Lassiez-faire is a great idea in theory, but at some point, somebody is going to do something completely shit-headed that ruins the party for other people. Circumstances like the aforementioned capital case, which apparently hinged on psychic evidence, for example, make me gibber and howl in fury. If a person's life is in the balance, I feel that a standard of evidence beyond "no reasonable doubt" should apply-- there should be ironclad proof. Obviously psychic evidence doesn't make this cut. Yet, here it apparently did. Exhibit A in shit-headed party ruining.

There's a line, let's call it the "shithead line," beyond which my nanny-state instincts step in and I want to buy the world a helmet. A similar argument applies to, say, capital markets, since we're talking about capital things today. An unregulated market is theoretically "fair," as long as all players are assumed to be rational and optimally situated to take advantage of opportunities. But neither circumstance really applies. The "shithead line" has been crossed many, many times in the last few years by companies I'm sure I don't need to mention. On the near side of that line, I prefer a lightly regulated market. On the far side of it, I prefer the swift hammer of armed response.

However, my rational mind understands that buying the world a helmet would cost a bundle and break the bank, thereby doing more harm than the high-minded good that was originally intended. A balance must be struck between swift-hammer justice and other regulation, and just letting people do what they think is in their best interest. The constant question for me is to clarify just where that line falls.

But I digress. Regarding the death penalty, I have been heartened over the last few years to see a serious inquiry into how death sentences are given out-- first in Illinois, and now at the Federal level. Perhaps it will lead to a clarification of the shithead line as pertains to capital punishment. Life is precious, and even though I'm no Christian (and I'll see YOU in hell), I feel that even the worst among us deserve small mercies, especially if a little more attention to process keeps innocent (that is, less guilty) people from being put to death.

Psychic evidence, indeed. . . goddamn twinkie defense rassen rissen d'hoy glaven

Pursuant to a recent thread on this very website, here's an article from the Boston Globe about how budget constraints are hindering Boston public school students' access to things like books, sports, or gifted & talented programs.

That's the problem with money and education. More money doesn't make schools better, but money sure makes them worse.

And just wait 'til NEXT year, when No Child Left Behind kicks in and the Division of Enforced Mediocrity of the Department of Ed. knocks out the federal funding to Boston's notoriously ailing public schools. Ya can't leave kids behind if the bus never goes anywhere.

Actually, the likelihood of an impact is only one in 909,000. More information can be found here and here.

Go here for a really cool java animation of the the object's, and earth's, orbit.

From Reason comes this mind-bending story by Jacob Sullum: Forest Tennant has spoken out against the War On Drugs-- the war he helped start.

[W]hen the folks at the Hoover Institution who produce the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge were looking for someone to debate drug policy with me, Tennant must have seemed like a natural choice.

Imagine their surprise when he ended up agreeing that the war on drugs has been a disastrous mistake. To be sure, Tennant is not completely comfortable with the idea of treating all psychoactive substances the way we treat alcohol. Among other things, he worries about underage access and legal liability issues.

But Tennant concedes that only a small percentage of drug users become addicted, that the drug laws are not very effective at preventing abuse, and that any increase in addiction that follows the repeal of prohibition is apt to be small. Equally important, he has come to realize after decades of dealing with addiction that the war on drugs imposes tremendous costs in exchange for its dubious benefits. . . .

Sullum also notes that other old-school drug warriors are coming around to the side of cautious legalization. This is very encouraging. Maybe in a decade or two we'll begin to see actual changes in drug policy, with attendant beneficial effects for our society, economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, and ability to smoke a giant fatty while watching a Mel Brooks film festival.

My response to Trish's fears in my recent big brother post was lighthearted. But when I think about the real problems of increasing surveillance, out of control federal agencies, the erosion of civil liberties and the prospect of ubiquitous law enforcement I oscillate between long periods of complacency punctuated my moments of extreme paranoia.

On the one hand, the traditions of the republic are still strong, as witnessed by the consensual freak out when poindexter revealed the TIA with its ubercreepy eye-in-the-pyramid logo. There are well funded organizations that fight the good fight in our stead, like for example the EFF.

Libertarians and others fear that the erosion of liberty is a ratchett effect, where there is an ever tightening grip of law and regulation and surveillance, and that every liberty lost is nearly impossible to regain. I have sympathy for this position - for example, the RICO statutes have proved impossible to remove, despite their manifold flaws, and their frequent abuse.
There are legitimate security considerations to be weighed - we should not ignore reasonable measures for the sake of protecting against a minor infringement. Its hard to enjoy liberty when you're dead.

I think that we should in the interest of protecting liberty use the following criteria to evaluate any new security legislation:

• How easy would it be to abuse this law/police power - to use it for purposes other than those intended? Like the RAVE act, for example, or the RICO statutes.
• Does this power actually mirror some older power? (For example, the cell phone taps in the Patriot act just extend the traditional wiretap power into the world of modern telecommunications - it allows the police to tap the person, even if he is rapidly switching phones. This is reasonable, and only technically an extension of police powers.)
• Does it effect citizens or non-citizens, and how easy would it be to blur the line? Increasing surveillance of non citizens is not a problem for me. Inspections on entry, tracking them while here, etc. Non citizens are a potential threat, and they have far less claim to privacy protections than citizens. (Sorry, Ross.)
• Does it create new enforcement agencies? I am of mixed mind about this. On the one hand, a thousand competing LE agencies would probably help us, as it would be less effective. On the other, it would be less effective. But the idea that every federal agency has its own paramilitary special forces style swat team is unnerving, and completely unnecessary. The only agencies that should have them are the Secret Service, the FBI and maybe the DEA. No one else, period.
• How much does it actually restrict our freedom, as opposed to how much does it invade our privacy? Both are bad, but the first is more important. We are not going to escape record keeping. That is out of the bag, and won't be put back. What we need to be careful of now is how that information is used, and who can use it. Problematical, I know, but a government file does not infringe my right to say what I want, believe what I want, live where I want, etc. Even if that file makes me nervous. Anyway, something to think about over your holiday weekend. 

I am an optimist though, and think that if we could repeal Prohibition, we can unpass some laws.

This article about John Carmack (developer of Doom and Castle Wolfenstein) and his efforts to get into space hits at one of the key problems we've had in space development over the last forty years:

Testing is key for Carmack, who doesn't want to work for months only to find out a rocket doesn't work. He believes the more testing done, the faster the crew can work out any kinks.

"Some people have commented that I am trying very hard to make aerospace like software, and that's the truth," he says. "If we looked at what we do in software, if we could only compile and test our program once a year, we'd never get anything done. But that's the mode of aerospace."

Only one space program since the end of Apollo has used a rapid development process, and that was the DCX. Typical NASA programs involve millions of dollars and years of testing before there is even an attempt to cut tin and actually construct a prototype. Aerospace engineering is not so cut and dried that we can make a perfect design on the computer, build it, and expect that it will fly.

Cost overruns, failed expectations and cancelled programs are the result of this design centric philosophy. The key to success is to build early, test early. Lessons are learned quicker, and applied easier through a regime of rapid prototyping and testing. Just like in software development. In a matter of months, the DCX team went from a standing start to a 1/3 scale flying prototype. And spent a fraction of the money that was ultimately spent on the X-33 which replaced it, and which never once flew.

The growing provate space industry is largely funded, if not actually run by successful software magnates. They seem to be applying the lessons they learned in developing other technologies to the problems of space. They are expending effort where it does the most good - gaining experience in building spacecraft. Even if the first, second, third attempts fail, at the end they will have a wealth of experience that NASA has lost in the days since Apollo. NASA has not designed a new working vehicle in almost thirty years. They have forgotten how it was done in the golden age, for what was the sequence of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo but a series of prototypes and testbeds to gain the practical engineering skills to reach the moon? Test early, test often.

What would have happened if NASA had spent the period between the launch of Yuri Gagarin and Apollo 8 designing, redesigning - on paper - the perfect launch vehicle? A giant explosion, most likely. And that is why I am certain that of the twenty teams now competing for the X-Prize, at least several will have successful flights by the end of next year.

Loyal Reader #0008, Trish, emails with concerns over the growth of big brother and the erosion of liberty in this nation. Perfidy is nothing if not responsive to its readers, so after some googling and random clicking on the interweb, we have found some solutions.

Here we have a counter-tips program, where we the free citizens of the republic can keep track of nosy neighbors, narcs and informants.

Here we see the efforts of RSA Labs to develop RFID blockers to keep big brother out of our undersclothes.

Enjoy Protection Services Incorporated's Hospitality Weekend, where you can learn to defend yourself with a wide range of firearms, and learn about guarding against surveillance.

The Big Brother Awards keep track of what bad people are doing to our privacy. Naturally enough, Poindexter's TIA won this year. Here is the award:

To fight back, and set up your own surveillance networks, you can go to spyville.com.

For some background on the surveillance and freedom arguments, these articles are good places to start.

For those who need more fuel for their paranoia, this story about MIT's efforts to develop a RFID tag replacement for the barcodes in current use will help. A barcode could handle different codes for different brands of rice. A 96 bit code, this new development could have a unique code for every songle grain of rice on the planet.

Finally, when nothing else seems to work, there is always the tin foil hat.