http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 7 May 2005 20:53:56 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/07/205356.php Carpe BonumThe Jawa Report's series of interviews with family members of American hostage Roy Hallums is a gut-wrenching look at a little-noticed front in the War on Terror. So far, America has an inauspicious record on dealing with hostage situations. Here I offer my suggestion for a better hostage policy.In a nutshell: Eliminate both the propaganda and financial value of taking hostages. Make it extremely expensive and dangerous to play any role in hostage-taking, in either the financial or propaganda realms.Why bother?First of all, the hostages are our countrymen and deserve to be protected. Also, public humiliation of Americans is an extremely powerful propaganda tool for the terrorists. We are fools to let them have it without cost.How to do it? I don't have all the answers, but I would start with the following:Make the military responsible for hostages. It appears that the State Department is handling this now. Hand it off to doers rather than talkers. The military objective will be to rescue hostages and capture or kill the hostage-takers.Use the same intelligence methods to hunt for hostage-takers that were used to find Saddam. It is a difficult, exhaustive and labor intensive process, but we know how to do it. Dedicate Special Operations forces to the hostage hunt, with special rules of engagement. Make ordinary Iraqis understand that we are extremely serious about finding and rescuing our hostages, so we will be forceful and quick where hostages are concerned.Where ransom is asked, pose as a sincere payer, then use all available overt and covert means to infiltrate, compromise, capture or destroy individuals and financial institutions in payment chain.Where the Internet is used to distribute hostage-related propaganda, attack the web sites, message boards and ISPs involved. Americans have the technology to block, disable or destroy hostile Internet sites. Let's use it.Infiltrate Al Jazeera and other media outlets used to distribute terrorist propaganda. Capture individuals providing videos to these outlets.Work with legitimate media to establish reporting guidelines in this area. Freedom of the press does not include freedom to cooperate in distributing enemy propaganda.Intercept, disrupt or destroy hostage broadcasts, by capturing the physical media, disrupting satellite transmissions or other methods.Flood the Internet and pro-terrorist television networks with fake hostage videos. Don't forget peer to peer and Bittorrent networks. Additionally, download real hostage video files, infect them with useful trojans and reintroduce them to the propaganda distribution network.Of course there are serious objections to following such a plan.For example:Too aggressive, will get some hostages killed: Unfortunately I believe this is true. But I think taking aggressive action with the intent of rescue is better than paying ransom or doing nothing.Ties down resources: Yes. This kind of action would tie down a disproportionate number of Americans compared to how many hostage-takers the enemy would be using.The "sincere payer" trick will only work once: Maybe. If it does work only once, then ransom will be removed as a kidnapping motive. If it works repeatedly, we get a chance to capture or kill terrorists every time. Either way, it is good for us.Too aggressive against banks and media: I don't think so. This is a war of propaganda and illicit money as much as it is of bombs and bullets. Our right of self-defense entitles us to act against these institutions. Where practical I advocate cooperation. Where it is not practical, act.Too expensive: Here is another judgement call. I'd venture to say that a single hostage is of more propaganda value to the enemy than $1 billion worth of public works projects in Iraq. Suppose the effort I propose takes 2000 people. At $200,000 per year per person in personnel and operational costs and another $100 million in procurement costs (for satellite jammers and the like), plus a 100% fudge factor, the total cost would be $1 billion per year. We break even if we rescue one hostage or prevent one from being taken.In her interview on the Jawa Report, Carrie Hallums Cooper recognizes that simply ransoming her father is not the answer. But, she says, "there has got to be a better policy than to just not deal with the terrorists." I agree, and here is what I think is a better policy.What do you think?The preceeding was first posted to the Carpe Bonum blog. For more bloviations about the Global War on Terror, take a gander at Carpe Bonum's War archive. Politics29152@blogcritics.org Sat, 7 May 2005 20:53:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/20/155605.php Carpe BonumHabemus Papam, we have a new Pope!Who is Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI?BiographicalBirth Date: April 16, 1927Age: 78 this past SaturdayBirth Place: Marktl am Inn, Bavaria, GermanyEarly life: Son of a staunch anti-Nazi police officer, unwilling Hitler Youth member and Wehrmacht soldier during WWII until he deserted in 1944.Health: I heard a snippet on Fox News that the new Pope is in generally good health for a man of his age, with high blood pressure the only concern. But I couldn't find any additional references for this.Church CareerOrdained: June 29, 1951Vatican II: Chief theological expert, to Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne, GermanyBishop: Named archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1977Cardinal: Named a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in June 1977Vatican Assignments: Appointed prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition!) in 1981 by Pope John Paul II, elected Dean of the College of Cardinals in 2002.IssuesAs Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI was considered the bad cop to Pope John Paul II's good cop, enforcing adherence to doctrine. He even engaged in a famous Ratzinger-Kasper debate which exposed the natural tension between Ratzinger's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Kasper's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.It remains to be seen what he will do as Pope, but here are some of his positions up to this point.Abortion and Euthanasia: "Grave sin"Priestly Celibacy: Perhaps at odds with John Paul's strong view, Pope Benedict XVI says priestly celibacy is, "Not a dogma of the faith." (Ref or Google cache)Sex-Abuse Scandal: Appointed by John Paul II to investigate the scandal. Called for day of penance in May 2002, but victims' advocates not satisfied with the Church's response.Vocations: Cautioned against the Protestant view of a, "Priesthood of all believers," which can dilute the attraction of priestly vocation (Ref or Google cache)Women Priests: Enforced John Paul II's uncompromising view ("no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women") in 1995 and 2002.Homosexuality: Not equivalent to heterosexuality (Ref or Google cache). Labeled by some, of course, as homophobic.Liberation Theology: "Constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church," but contains "a grain of truth." (Ref)Feminism: Responsible for a Letter to Bishops seen as denouncing feminism while ignoring its positive contributionsPre-Conclave HomilyThe new Pope delivered the homily at the last Mass before the Conclave started. Here are some bites that give some insight in what kind of Pope he will be.Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching," looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.We must be inspired by a holy restlessness: restlessness to bring to everyone the gift of faith, of friendship with Christ. In truth, the love and friendship of God was given to us so that it would also be shared with others.But at this time, above all, we pray with insistence to the Lord, so that after the great gift of Pope John Paul II, he again gives us a pastor according to his own heart, a pastor who guides us to knowledge in Christ, to his love and to true joy. Amen.And most important of all, his Italian nickname (heard on Fox News): Papa Ratzo!(Unattributed facts from Wikipedia)See Also:A good Biography on EWTN (ht Powerpundit)The Ratzinger Fan Club (overloaded today for obvious reasons)Normally known for his right-wing political blather, Carpe Bonum also posts on the news of the day. For more on (what were then) current events, check out his News Archive. Culture28433@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:56:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/191753.php Carpe BonumIt was clear that their network was being targeted for attack. It was clear that the adversary he was up against was no monkey. It was clear that he was going to win!--Aggressive Network Self-Defense, p. 241Has your PC ever been infected by a virus or spyware? Has your web site been hacked? You are not alone.Millions of computer users and system administrators spend enormous effort protecting their systems from attack -- virus scanners, software patches, firewalls, etc. Legitimate users have plenty to worry about from attackers, but attackers have little to worry about from their victims. Until now.Aggressive Network Self-Defense, edited by Neil Wyler. presents the leading edge of network security: moving beyond protecting systems from attack to striking back at attackers.If you are interested in exploring the concept, this is a must-read.The book is divided into two parts. Part One contains eight fictionalized accounts of strike-backs against network attackers. Part Two presents four academic papers discussing strike-back issues. The fictionalized cases cover several different types of systems being attacked, various motives for the attacks, different types of responses and a range of consequences for attackers and defenders. They provide detailed information on the attacks and strike-backs, including specific tools, web sites, command sequences and source code. Along the way, readers learn terms like "jump boxing" and "honeypot." For me, the stories took on a techno-thriller feel, especially chapter seven, which describes the digital knife fight between an international corporate spy and a system security specialist. (The opening quote is from this chapter.)As enjoyable as they are, the fictionalized accounts are just examples. They illustrate but don't generalize the concepts they present. Part Two begins to address this. The papers have some solid descriptions and background on strike-back concepts and an automatable response model called ADAM. There is also a disturbing chapter on a very simple way for content providers to insert arbitrary data into their files while leaving the file's MD5 hash unchanged. If you need to be absolutely sure that files are remaining unchanged, use some other hash!What I hope to see in the future is a practical guide for what system administrators should do. But for this to happen, the network security community needs to come up with legal and ethical standards for the legitimate use of force for self-defense. The military calls these standards rules of engagement. As long as soldiers are are following those rules, they are professionally and legally protected. System administrators need the same thing.There are nits to pick, such as some typographical errors, and a number of screen shots with poor image quality. And some of the code listings got a little tedious. But these are minor complaints.Wyler and his stable of authors have done an excellent job of presenting the major concepts and techniques of network strike-back. Now it will be up to the network security community to set the standards that will allow strike-back to come into general use.When that happens, watch out, attackers!Normally known for his right-wing political dreck, Carpe Bonum is also an enthusiastic geek. For proof, check out his Geekdom Archives. Sci/Tech28088@blogcritics.org Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:17:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/05/142052.php Carpe BonumI, for one, admire and appreciate the FEC taking on this new challenge to protect all us easily-confused citizens from them wily old bloggers. I'll be danged if I couldn't use some oversight myself!So here is what I propose: Let's set up a trackback bot. Anytime somebody posts something dangerous (i.e. political, contains original thinking, etc.), send the bot a trackback. The bot will instantly generate a message to the FEC:To: speechenforcement@fec.gov From: Extremely Concerned Blogger <$$AuthorEmail$$> Date: $$CurrentDateTime$$ Subject: Please protect my country from this EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SPEECH: "$$PostSubject$$"My Dear FEC,Thank you SO SO SO SO much for being right there on the front lines, protecting us VULNERABLE CITIZZENS [sic] from dangerous unregulated speech! To assist you in this CRITICAL MISSION, it is my duty to report to you that I, myself, have just made a posting on my blog, $$BlogName$$. It is located right out there on the INTERNET where ANYONE CAN SEE IT. See for yourself right here: $$PostURL$$. Why, this posting has all kinds of ...THOUGHTS... in it, like this:$$PostExcerpt$$I must also inform you, Dear Commission, that this posting was NOT AUTHORIZED OR SCREENED BY ANYONE, including:* My Congressperson * Either of my Senators * The President, or his Chief of Staff * Howard Dean * The Chief of Police * The boys down at the Local 142 * The New York Times * Not a single Justice of the Supreme Court, not even that Souter guy * Heck, I can barely even get my wife to read these thingsAnd I didn't prescreen this content with YOU, MY DEAR COMISSION.So PLEASE STOP ME before I speak again!Sincerely,$$AuthorName$$ $$AuthorEmail$$ $$AuthorPostalAddress$$ $$Author"Diversity"Code$$ $$AuthorDriversLicenseNumber$$ $$AuthorSocialSecurityNumber$$ $$AuthorCreditRating$$ $$AuthorEmploymentHistory$$ $$AuthorHealthHistory$$ $$AuthorAnyOtherInfoWeMightBeAbleToUse$$See where I'm going with this, folks?For serious coverage of the issue, check out Cyber Conservative, who's doing a bangup job.Oh yeah, almost forgot: Hey Arizona, please pick someone other than McCain on next go around. (Now where do I send that trackback...) Sci/Tech26335@blogcritics.org Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:20:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/19/000502.php Carpe BonumDr. Sanity reminded me of a homily given by Father Bill (God rest his soul) years ago. Father Bill was discussing his work with drug addicts and alcoholics. His basic point was that you have to remember that no matter how rational they seem, no matter how well they can repeat the reasons they shouldn't use, they will do it anyway. Because with respect to their addiction, they are insane. Father Bill then extended this concept to moral questions like abortion. He viewed many abortion proponents as incapable of rational discourse on the topic. No matter what facts are brought to bear, nothing will make them change their mind. When I get into a debate on such a topic, I think of that homily. If it becomes clear that facts and logic are irrelevant to the other person, I gracefully exit the discussion because I know it is pointless. In her "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?" Dr. Sanity explains the concept as a trained Psychiatrist. (Lynne Stewart is an attorney who has just been convicted of giving material support to terrorists, in this case her client the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. See Andrew C. McCarthy for more.):As in a case of hysteria, or a conversion disorder--where the symptoms are not intentionally produced but are the result of unintentional motives--the Lynne Stewarts of the Left are not deliberately being obtuse. They aren't even deliberately evil. They truly don't see anything wrong with being a nice person and kindly grandmother and simultaneously thinking that a terrorist attack in Indonesia where children might be killed is a wonderful thing. This kind of cognitive dissonance is the result of a psychological defense mechanism called "repression". Repression is necessary in the expression of a conversion disorder where some physical symptom (blindness, paralysis, pain) becomes the focal point; so that the individual is able to avoid the unacceptable thought or feeling. For that to occur, the unacceptable thought or feeling must be ruthlessly stashed away from awareness, or repressed.But symbolic physical symptoms like blindness are not the only way that repression can be manifested. Another, and much more frequent psychological strategy to rid one's self of the unacceptable thought or feeling is to display a contradictory and often unbelievable (to an outside observer, anyway) dissassociation, or disconnect, between a person's thoughts and feelings on the one hand; and behavior on another.This is why so often the Lynne Stewarts present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on.So even though they can give every sign of understanding and agreeing with all the reasons not to drink, alcoholics are repressing the fact that they simply love to drink. Anti-war "peace" marches represent repression of the fact that some leftists just don't want others to be free. And "choice-" and "liberation-" spouting abortion proponents are repressing the simple truth that they just don't want more babies to be born.Of course, insanity of this type is in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt that the many BlogCritics commenters would prefer to spin it as conservatives repressing things like their love of war and desire to dictate what women do with their own bodies.Either way, it's nice to get a more clinical view of what is going on with people. Thanks, Dr. Sanity!(Father Bill also had a great homily debunking the warm fuzzy image of the nativity. In truth, Christ was born into squalor. Now why would He do that? But that's another posting...) Politics25697@blogcritics.org Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:05:02 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/14/115250.php Carpe BonumI thought BlogCritics Politics readers might like to get some inside scoop on what it is like to do politics for a living in Washington, DC.Mr. P is a political appointee in a Bush Administration cabinet department. He works on important policy matters and frequently meets with the Secretary. He was kind enough to answer a few questions for Carpe Bonum.Tell us a little about yourself: age, marital status, where you live, etc.I am 27 years old and live with my girlfriend in Alexandria, VA.What do you do for entertainment?On most evenings my entertainment is limited to the queue of programs in TiVoŽ, particularly CSI, NYPD, Lost, Law & Order, West Wing, Joan of Arcadia, and Good Eats. I also make time for reading, live theatre, concerts (Recently: Muse), movies, and fine dining.Aren't you a little young to be a Republican?Not really. Age is not as big a determinant as other factors, and 45% of 18-29 year old voters voted to reelect President Bush. I fit the demographic pattern for males, Caucasians, my income bracket, people who work full-time jobs, and political conservatives. The most important factor that is rarely tracked by statisticians is upbringing.Why are you a conservative? How did your political views develop?I am not sure exactly how or when my political views developed. I was first aware of my political identity when I joined a debate society in high school and the other students labeled me a conservative Republican. Mom and Dad rarely expressed their partisan affiliation but we did discuss contemporary issues, such as taxation, national defense, and affirmative action. Conservative ideas have always made most sense to me.What was your college education like?My college education was not typical. I began as an acting student at the University of Illinois, but graduated with a BA in Political Science from the University of San Diego after nearly seven years of study. I stayed busy during college. I interned with San Diego Congressman Brian Bilbray, studied at Oxford University for two terms, studied in Mexico to observe the presidential election won by Vicente Fox, and worked full-time at a restaurant.How did you get involved in the Bush Administration?Landing my job in the Bush Administration was serendipitous.I decided that it would be fun to spend my winter break volunteering for the 2001 Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) in Washington, DC, so I began calling their offices as soon as the election was concluded. After a number of attempts, I reached a woman who advised me to show up at the headquarters the day after Christmas at 7:30 am to help manage the volunteer office. I immediately bought a plane ticket and headed east.As Deputy Volunteer Coordinator, I staffed PIC offices over the next three weeks. The head of President-elect Bush's motorcade arrived in my office 10 days before the inauguration demanding volunteers because two had not shown up. By then, all of the PIC offices were fully staffed and I had sent all of our excess volunteers home, so I decided to fill one of the motorcade slots myself. I spent the next 10 days driving Bush's senior staff van to meetings and inaugural events around town.After the inauguration, I returned to San Diego and prepared to graduate but within a couple days the head of the motorcade called me and invited me back to Washington, DC, to interview in the administration.Ever met any famous political figures? What are they like?I have met many famous political figures. When first meeting political figures they are almost always charming; politicians succeed by making good first impressions. For instance, I had a fairly long conversation with Senator Kennedy at an event. He knew that I worked in the Bush administration and so he studiously avoided politics. He was engaged, insightful and funny. Except in rare moments, most horror stories concerning political figures come from people who know them well. Many politicians are abusive to their staffs.I find the behavior of famous political figures' staffs to be more variable and much more interesting. The worst I have ever experienced was Senator Clinton's staff. I cannot share the details but I had to work closely with her staff at an event and I found several of them to be hostile, rude, abusive and manipulative.Who is the most influential person no one has ever heard of?I will answer a slightly different question: "Who is the most influential person no one outside 'the Beltway' has ever heard of?"John D. Graham is the Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). According to the OIRA website, Dr. Graham's responsibilities include "coordination of regulatory review, paperwork reduction, statistical policy and information policy in the Federal government." This may not sound like much but it means that Dr. Graham must approve every regulation that is implemented by the federal government. He has tremendous power to sculpt regulatory policy and control the burdens that the government imposes upon the American public.I find that he is well-known in Washington, DC, but virtually unknown around the country.Don't you agree it's a bit unmanly to like cats?I think it is unmanly to ask leading questions. But to answer the question, it is manly, and quintessentially American, to maximize the utility of all things in nature including household pets. I may prefer dogs, but I have learned to appreciate the unique companionship of cats.Yeowch. Good one, P! I'm going to need a Band-Aid for those claw marks on my cheek...Thanks for your answers, and your public service. Politics25497@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:52:50 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/24/164256.php Carpe BonumThe smirking continues about our not finding a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Attempting to psychoanalyze Bush voters, Atrios says:We went to war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. In the aftermath of 9/11 a lot of otherwise semi-sensible people were too easily led down the path of supporting the endeavor. When weapons were not found, ex post it became a humanitarian mission about spreading freeance.As I documented earlier, the administration was clear that there were many reasons for removing Saddam by force in addition to an Iraqi WMD stockpile. Now, let's take a look at why Congress authorized force. The resolution passed by both houses was H. J. Res. 114, Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. The resolution contains 23 "Wheras" paragraphs. In a Congressional resolution, the "Wheras" paragraphs supply historical background and reasoning behind the resolution. In HJ Res 114, the "Wheras" paragraphs break down as follows (sum exceeds 23 since some paragraphs have multiple categories):12 General information or history (Kuwait invasion/liberation, 9/11 attacks, etc.)6 Previous acts of Congress (most double categorized as historical)5 Findings of Iraq's support for or harboring of terrorists3 Findings of Iraqi violations of cease fire agreements or UN Security Council Resolutions, many of which were concerned with humanitarian issues3 Findings of Iraqi WMD use or capability (but not currently existing stockpiles of WMDs), all of which were combined with concerns about Iraq's connection to terrorists1 Mention of direct Iraqi attacks on American and Coalition forces enforcing UN-mandated no-fly zones1 Finding that Iraq posessed a stockpile of WMDsYes, the stockpile justification got the most airtime in the media, especially when the stockpile didn't turn up right away after the war. But it was hardly the only reason. And humanitarian concerns were hardly added "ex post."Some of our friends on the left are fond of calling themselves members of the "reality-based community" (a snark at President Bush's Faith-Based Community Initiatives). But one wonders how they can be "reality-based" when they are so unfamiliar with the record?(To find lots more information about the resolution, go to the Library of Congress Thomas Search page, select the Summary and Bill Number radio buttons, type "hj res 114 eh" in the search box, select 107th Congress and click Search.) Politics24629@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:42:56 EST