no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Are the Russian Spies a Pretext for the Internet Kill Switch?

July 1st, 2010

Earlier this week it was announced that a few Russian spies had been captured operating in the U.S. That’s interesting, and I’m actually surprised that the media hasn’t made a big deal out of it.  Because it’s not. The Wall Street Journal cites a number of sources that say this story, with even as little attention as it has garnered, is still blown out of proportion.

  • Philip Shenon at The Daily Beast indicates that “The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have been unable to point to a single significant piece of classified information that the so-called spies obtained during their many years in the United States; none of the suspects is accused of espionage.”
  • Daniel Drezner, at Foreign Policy calls it the “lamest espionage conspiracy….ever.”

What is notable, is that these “spies” had allegedly been passing information to the Motherland in a manner that was previously only theoretically possible:

The accused spies posted the seemingly mundane photos on publicly accessible websites, but then extracted coded messages from the computer data of the pictures, according to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI. Although computer scientists have theorized about the existence of this communication technique for over a decade, this is the first publicly acknowledged use of the technique.

Off-the-cuff, you kinda have to wonder if this is some sort of pretext for the Orwellian “internet kill switch”, which would really concentrate the dissemination of information and “opinion” among the state-sanctioned media outlets, who would of course remain fair and impartial as they repeat the ruling party’s propaganda, and it would be the coup de grace for whatever vestiges remain of our freedoms of speech and information.

In Which I Respond to Conservatives About Immigration

June 8th, 2010

In case it gets lost in the interwebs, I participated in a discussion on FB last week. A certain Jim Deakin, a “conservative candidate” for Senate in the State of Arizona, posted a comment:

Border patrol picked up 92 illegals aliens last night in Cochise County

Somehow, Deakin made his way on to my ‘friends’ list. So, I inquired, what’s the point of this comment? The ensuing conversation between several others (including Deakin) and myself, I think is revealing of the “conservative” stance on immigration. It reveals hypocrisy and ignorance.

I made it a point to cite recent data from FactCheck.org, which suggests that immigrants (legal or not) have a net neutral or net positive impact on the economy, so they’re not the “parasites” and scofflaws that the conservatives would make them. A Joshua Hoyt was quick to point out that “FactCheck.org is a seriously biased group… that caters to ONLY the democratic/liberal point of view.” He asked for additional sources, and I obliged with one from CATO and one from Fox Business, which indicates that:

According to the [Texas] Comptrollers’ office, state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services like education, health care and safety, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data, the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006

And further to assuage their concerns about the “criminal” aspect, I reiterated the point that they are only “illegal” because of the accident of birth — having been born on the wrong side of some figurative line in the literal sand. Needless to say, neither Hoyt or Deakin responded to either of those comments. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to assume that Deakin even read the comments, because he responded with some talking points from FAIR.

As turnabout is fair play, I noted that FAIR is a “biased” organization with an explicit agenda to end or drastically reduce all immigration to the U.S. If you haven’t heard about FAIR, here is some information about FAIR that you probably don’t know, but should:

FAIR is one of a dozen organizations founded by John Tanton. They vary in the extremes of their policy, but all are essentially either anti-immigrant think tanks, or anti-immigrant activist groups. All their funding comes largely from less than a dozen sources (mostly individuals). Groups like US English, American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF), Center for Immigration Reform, US Inc, NumbersUSA, the 21st Century Fund, Population-Environment Balance, and the Immigration Reform Law Institute, and even the American Patrol (Voice of Citizens Together)…

Some of FAIR’s money comes from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife; founder of the Heritage Foundation. FAIR also has ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and American Renaissance. American Renaissance is the white supremacist academic conference held in Virginia until it was recently shutdown by anti-fascists… Mark Weber, a principal of the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review; White power web maven, former Klansman and ex-con Don Black; Gordon Lee Baum, “chief executive officer” of the CCC; and several members of the neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Again, from the “conservatives”, nothing but silence. Hoyt took the time to quote a certain Thomas Jefferson (wildly out-of-context, I might add) which he presumably found on some conservative forum.

Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures.

I did not mention that this is the same loser argument used against the Chinese, and the Germans, and the Irish, and the blacks etc., etc., ad nauseum, always proven false, but I say “out of context” because he omitted TJ’s conclusion:

If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements…

Deakin finally responded, stating in no uncertain terms that it is his “intention to get rid of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ such as jobs, welfare, healthcare…” Yes, you read that right. Deakin wants to eliminate jobs.

The “conservatives” are afraid of money being “sent back to Mexico” but by the same logic, money sent by Arizonans to Detroit for automobiles is bad for Arizona. They’re butt-hurt because immigrants “don’t pay taxes” while at the same time the conservative tea-partiers scoff at many taxes.

In either case, eliminating the opportunity for black-market employment by removing the prohibitive burdens required of “legal” immigrants, would go a long way to solve both problems (which I think are really canards, anyways). Stop making it so hard for these hard-working people to bring their families with them, and the money stays “here” for whatever that’s worth. And by legitimizing their presence, all of a sudden these workers become taxpayers, so the whole “net loss” economic argument is a moot point, too.

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: people who want to come “here” and work and be productive and contribute economically, who refrain from crimes against person or property, should be allowed to do so.

Why Didn’t BP Implement “Top Kill” Three Weeks Ago?

May 20th, 2010

It’s been a freaking month since that Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil is still pouring into the gulf at an alarming rate. Although BP initially claimed that 5,000 BBLs per day were flowing into the gulf, some independent scients have estimated that the true volume may be nearly twenty times that much — 95,000 BBLs per day.

According to CBS News, The “top kill” method of plugging the leak (which “involves directing heavy mud into crippled equipment on top of the well, then aiming cement at it to permanently keep down the oil”) may be implemented on Sunday, May 23, although it may take a few weeks for it to work its magic.

According to BP:

The procedure begins with the ‘junk shot’ that is a scientifically-designed recipe of various materials that will create a plug in the blow out preventer and choke off the flow of hydrocarbons. Heavy drilling mud is next pumped in to kill the well then followed with cement to permanently plug the well.

Top Kill Diagram (via BP)
The materials used, in a ‘junk shot’ will include well-known materials such as pieces of tires, golf balls, pieces of rope, etc. Each of these has been proven to fill various sized spaces in the blowout preventer until the flow is stopped. While there is no known perfect ‘recipe’, a number of combinations of materials will be used. This procedure will be pursued until it is successful or deemed to be ineffective.

I get that this is an almost incomprehensibly enormous problem. It’s really uncharted territory, the first of its kind, and so developing and implementing a solution is going to take time, involve a great deal of uncertainty, etc. But you’ve got no business drilling oil if you don’t have a contingency plan, and a backup plan, and a backup-backup plan which can be implemented in a matter of days (not weeks), all of which have either been proven to work under same circumstances, or have been independently analyzed and demonstrated to have an extremely high probability of success.

I don’t care if it’s leaking 5,000 BBLs or 95,000 BBLs or 10 BBLs per day.  If the “top kill” method is the solution which is most likely to work, it should’ve been the very first thing they did after clearing the debris and extinguishing the flaming rig.

No. Questions. Asked. BP should simply not have an option to sit and let things play out, to take their time, to delay in order to salvage the well. If it means that BP has to junk the entire well, then that’s just too damn bad.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics