Security

I Hate Flying

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

I really hate flying. Actually, it’s not the flying that I hate, it’s all the BS at the airports.

Here is a story by a travel writer – someone who flys all the time – about how he got harrassed and almost arrested for asking some simple questions about who was asking to see his identification at the airport.

This is a story of TSA officials and police officers run amok. And the fact that there is NO accountability for their actions make this really scary.

The TSA can (and does) refuse to let you fly for ANY reason they like. They can detain you without counsel, strip search you without permission, and have you arrested without cause.

I hate interacting with the security people at the airport and I don’t create waves. It is tempting to me to do some of these simple push-backs, but I hate the idea of getting hassled by the rent-a-thugs. And I can’t afford the lawyers to fight a case.

I’ll close this entry with the last paragraph from the story – which you should really go read – and tell you that it sums up my feelings exactly.

To give an added frisson of resemblance to countries with corrupt or dysfunctional police and governments, the people in uniform demanding people’s credentials are lying about being government employees. The real government employees watching them don’t care. And if, like me, you so much as ask a few polite questions about what is going on, you are detained, threatened with arrest, searched, investigated, your papers copied by the government for your permanent (I can only presume) dossier, and the unaccountable third party (and, in the case of an RFID passport, anyone else within range with a reader in their luggage) left with the unregulated legal “right” to use and sell any data obtained from its government-coerced scrutiny of your credentials.

Oh yeah, and the best part? The ‘regulations‘ about what the TSA can and can’t do? They are secret. You can’t see them. ‘Security‘ don’t you know. Can’t have the terrorists finding out what we check for.

Accountability? Not here.

Makes my blood boil.

Politics

DIY Impeachment!

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

I intend to do this and urge you to do so also.

Impeach for Peace, a Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives (“Jefferson’s Manual”). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

The “Jefferson’s Manual” is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

I don’t know if it will work, but it will demonstrate how we feel.

Impeach for Peace

Misc

Bad News for the Star Wars Fans

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

You may have heard that they are releasing the original versions of the first three Star Wars movies. The ones where Han shoots first, etc.

Sadly, they are using the Laserdisc masters without anamorphic widescreen and with 2 channel stereo sound.

George, George, George, why are you such a putz?

Details here.

Life

Dumb Law Part II

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

I actually got incensed enough to write to my city councilmember. You should write yours if you live in Minneapolis.

Mr. Remington

Regarding the proposal to make it illegal to walk in an alley that is not your own: I think this is a stupid idea that will not solve any problems.

Quoting from the Star Tribune article:
“I see so much crime occurring in the alleys. It’s a quick getaway,” said Minneapolis police officer Mike Killebrew.

“If you don’t live there on that block there’s no reason to be in the alley,” said Killebrew, who proposed the ordinance to the city attorney.

If Mr. Killebrew sees a crime occuring in an alley, the response should be to arrest the criminal, not to suggest another unenforcable law.

Creating a law making it illegal to be in an alley will not stop the criminals and will create another excuse for the police to hassle people by asking them for ID to determine if they have a right to be there. It also strikes me as a further erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties and another step closer to a police state.

It sounds to me like they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

People talk about criminals ‘escaping into the alleys’. What does that mean? Alleys are not something you just walk into and dissapear. If a criminal walks or drives into an alley, why can’t the police follow them? How is that different than the criminal driving down a street and turning a corner?

Just creating this law will not change anything without increased patrols to enforce it. I think you might find that just increasing the patrols without creating a new law will reduce the crime rate.

I urge you to reconsider and not create this law.

Respectfully,

Timothy Foreman

Find your city councilmember here if you don’t know who it is.

Life

Dumb Law Proposal

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

Some idiot police officer wants to make it illegal for people to be in an alley if it’s not the alley for the block they live on.

“I see so much crime occurring in the alleys. It’s a quick getaway,” said Minneapolis police officer Mike Killebrew.

“If you don’t live there on that block there’s no reason to be in the alley,” said Killebrew, who proposed the ordinance to the city attorney.

If he sees crime occuring in the alley, he should arrest the people.

Creating a law making it illegal to be in an alley will not stop the criminals and will create another excuse for the police to hassle people by asking them for ID to determine if they have a right to be there.

It sounds to me like they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

People talk about criminals ‘escaping into the alleys’. What does that mean? Alleys are not something you just walk into and dissapear. If a criminal walks or drives into an alley, why can’t the police follow them? How is that different than the criminal driving down a street and turning a corner?

Welcome to the police state of Minnesota.

Life

Fear is neutering our children’s growth

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

The latest fear induced casualty is kids chemistry sets. Many of the chemicals that used to come in chemistry sets are now considered too dangerous to sell.

PZ Meyers has an excellent entry on his blog about this. He says (among other things):

There was stuff in there that would burn, or blow up, or stain the furniture irreparably, or kill someone…that was the fun and the thrill of it all. I had one, although I quickly moved on to more ghoulish occupations (most of the boys I knew could be separated into several tracks: the ones fascinated with road kill, and the ones making homemade explosives, and the ones with the soldering irons);

I was one of the kids with the soldering iron and I still tinker with electronics (but not as much as I’d like to.)

I’d like to get my kids interested in science, but it’s hard to find good, dangerous, things to get them.

Life

Fuck!

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

Here is an interesting paper on the legal implications of the word “Fuck“.

From the abstract:

This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context. To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists, linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural taboo. Fuck is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.

It’s a well written paper with wry humor in it. 78 pages of heavily footnoted discussion.

Well worth a fucking read, I think.

Computers

Outage Last Night

Posted on by Timothy Foreman

We had a short (about an hour and a half) outage last night while I moved all the servers and gear into the new rack.

It looks pretty nice now – I’ll have to get a picture up pretty soon.

Anyway, we are back now.