26 February 2007

TSA Backscatter Tech

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

The big story in transportation security this weekend was the implementation of the first backscatter X-rays. These, as you recall, were condemned by some privacy advocates. The Christian Science Monitor got the ACLU's view on the device:
Privacy advocates remain wary of backscatter technology. Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program for the American Civil Liberties Union, likens it to a "virtual strip search." He hasn't seen a demonstration of the latest version of the technology, but he saw an earlier one at a Los Angeles city jail.

"The one I saw was very graphic, almost like a nude picture," he says. The technology has not been installed at airports until now because of questions about privacy and how well it can detect possible weapons, adds Mr. Steinhardt. "Utility is ... important here. People are being asked to trade their privacy for security. But first show us there is some security [benefit]."
Nonetheless, as the New York Times reports, the Transportation Safety Administration is taking steps to ensure a relative amount of privacy:
Security officials examining the head-to-toe images work in a closed booth, hidden from public view, agency officials said. Special “privacy” software intentionally blurs the image, creating an outline of a body that is clear enough to see a collarbone, bellybutton or weapon, but flattens details of revealing contours.
To give you some idea of what's under discussion, here are some pics.

This is the body scan before it's run through the special blurring software. In other words, this is an image that no one would normally see.


This is the body scan after it's cartoonified. This type of image will be viewed by screeeners.

A few comments:

1.) I'm not sure why the blurring technology is even needed; the first pic has all the sexiness of walking in on your mom in the shower. The dummy effect -- no hair, no eyes, weird mouth -- makes this about the same as looking at an unclothed mannequin. It's funny to me that privacy-conscious people would have a problem with people viewing an image like this but would have no problem with being patted down or strip-searched BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE.

2.) I really think that the only reason this has caught the media's attention is because the establishment is run by randy men who have always dreamed of finding a working version of those incredibly disappointing X-Ray Glasses that they used to naively -- and furtively -- order from the backs of comic books.

3.) Cheers to the ACLU for trying to ensure that the technology doesn't violate privacy, but you guys ought to take a look at the real thing before commenting on it. I'm hearing shades of "I haven't acutally read this, but..." And we know how well that particular line of thought normally goes over with the ACLU. Just sayin'.

20 February 2007

How Are You In Love?

Wifey's Results:

How You Are In Love

You fall in love quickly and easily. And very often.

You give completely and unconditionally in relationships.

You tend to get very attached when you're with someone. You want to see your love all the time.

You love your partner unconditionally and don't try to make them change.

You stay in love for a long time, even if you aren't loved back. When you fall, you fall hard.

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

Wow. I guess I'm pretty boring.

Your Linguistic Profile:
70% General American English
5% Dixie
5% Midwestern
5% Upper Midwestern
5% Yankee

19 February 2007

Man sues IBM over firing, says he's an Internet addict - CNN.com

Interesting AP story:
A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.
A few observations:

First, who still visits chat rooms, for crying out loud?! I didn't know they still existed.

Second: Everyone's messed up. Everyone has challenges and problems. That's not your employer's fault. If you've got PTSD, get counseling; don't steal time and productivity from the company, and certainly don't flip out when your employer fires you for your unacceptable behavior at work, using company resources.

Third: I would really like to know how this offense is any more severe than, say, posting in a gardening blog at work. I know people who are addicted to some much less offensive-seeming things than "adult chat rooms," and I would hope that IBM has a uniform policy about firing people for misuse of company time and resources, rather than simply witch-hunting teh s3xx0r addicts. In the article, they claim to have a standard policy for all employees, but one wonders how objectively it is applied.

15 February 2007

Hooray for Bernanke

I don't know how many of you listen to the radio, but I know I've noticed a surge in advertisements that say things like, "Bad credit? No credit? No problem! If you have a job, you can get a new car using your old car as a down payment at X Chevy in Kansas City!" I have wondered for as long as I've heard these kinds of ads about how much these dealers really help people with bad credit. It seems to me that if you're in debt with a $200/week job, buying a new car at what will almost certainly be a ruinous interest rate is not the way to get out of it.

It turns out Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke agrees:
"There's been a surge in delinquencies and foreclosures, particularly in subprime lending with variable rates that adjust ... and that is a concern to us."
He has suggested national standards to prevent such lending. Three cheers for a Federal Reserve Chairman who recognizes that building a culture of high-interest debt is not the smartest way to generate economic prosperity!

(I probably feel especially strongly about this at the moment because I've been reading Bleak House, and characters like Richard and Mr. Skimpole and Mr. Jellyby and Mr. George just make me crazy with how far they get into debt, and then can't get out!)

13 February 2007

Mrs. L. Is a Better Supervillain Than I!

My Sweet Little Wifey's results:
You are The Joker

The Joker
71%
Mystique
61%
Riddler
60%
Apocalypse
59%
Magneto
57%
Dark Phoenix
55%
Lex Luthor
53%
Poison Ivy
50%
Catwoman
49%
Juggernaut
45%
Dr. Doom
43%
Kingpin
43%
Green Goblin
41%
Mr. Freeze
33%
Two-Face
33%
Venom
19%
The Clown Prince of Crime. You are a brilliant mastermind but are criminally insane. You love to joke around while accomplishing the task at hand.
Click here to take the Super Villain Personality Test

10 February 2007

I'm a Joker, but neither a Smoker nor a Midnight Toker

You are The Joker
The Joker
54%
Mr. Freeze
50%
Riddler
47%
Venom
42%
Green Goblin
40%
Two-Face
40%
Lex Luthor
34%
Dark Phoenix
33%
Apocalypse
30%
Dr. Doom
29%
Poison Ivy
29%
Magneto
28%
Kingpin
25%
Mystique
24%
Juggernaut
20%
Catwoman
11%
The Clown Prince of Crime. You are a brilliant mastermind but are criminally insane. You love to joke around while accomplishing the task at hand.
Click here to take the Supervillain Personality Quiz

On Katherine Paterson

The Lizard Queen recently brought to my attention that, in anticipation of the release of the film version of Katherine Paterson's Bridge to Terabithia (how's that for a complex system of genitives?!), the book-banners are out in force against Paterson's work. Their criticisms range from "you shouldn't use 'Lord' as an expletive!" to "this book promotes witchcraft!" to "it's just too depressing for the kids!"

Hearing these objections took me back to my own readings of Paterson's work -- and also made me realize again why I respect her more than just about any other author I've ever read.

I must begin with a caveat: I have read only three of Paterson's novels. I have, however, enjoyed them enormously, and I'm planning to read as many of her other books as I can once I'm out of school. And besides, most of those who are against Paterson seem to have read virtually none of her work, so I would consider myself at least as well qualified to comment on it as they are.

The first Paterson novel I ever read was Bridge to Terabithia at the age of eleven. I got the book for Christmas from my Grandma Clarke, and I remember being a little annoyed; my younger brothers had received personalized stories and songs on tape, which I thought was pretty cool, but all I got was a Newbery-winning book. C'est la vie.

As soon as I started reading the book, my annoyance melted away. It was a marvelous story; I could tell that from the very first chapter, when Jesse goes for a run before sunrise. I loved the realistic style and the many details that Paterson used to move her narrative along. It was like Dickens, but simpler and cleaner, somehow. And, unlike Dickens, she never imposed her own voice on the narrative; it was all Jesse.

I finished the book with a broken heart on New Year's Eve. I won't tell you what drove me to such depths of sadness because if you've read the book you already know, and if you haven't, you need to. But I will say that Paterson deals with tragedy in a straightforward, caring way, and she leaves room for hope even in the darkest moments of her writing.

Fast-forward to my senior year in college. I was 21, and I had enrolled in an adolescent literature class because I wanted something easy to go along with my Honors Colloquium and History Thesis hours. The teacher, Anne Phillips, was marvelous and very stimulating, and in retrospect, I would gladly have taken the class even if it had been much more difficult than it was.

At this stage of my life, I was beginning serious struggles within myself about issues of faith and reason. I had some very disturbing experiences that shook my belief to its core, and meanwhile, I was becoming more and more familiar with what St. Paul calls "the World." In the midst of these crises and experiences (that seemed so important at the time), I read Paterson's Jacob Have I Loved for my adolescent lit. class.

It was a phenomenal book. It gripped me and guided me through questions of predestination, choice, and what it means to be a human individual. It made me realize how difficult life can be, and how sometimes we just don't have the ability to get what we want most. Most importantly, it, like Bridge to Terabithia, showed me hope in dark places. It explored painful corners of human existence in a genuine and intellectually honest way and, in the end, portrayed a deep, unaccountable peace despite disappointment.

While reading Jacob Have I Loved, I realized that Paterson's views toward religion were very understated. Indeed, she seemed almost to skirt the issue. This was fascinating to me, because I identified very strongly as a theologically conservative Christian, and in my mind, those who were in that particular religious tradition would make it obvious that they were. From some of what Paterson wrote, I thought I could see glimpses of the Christian principles that I held, but it certainly wasn't obvious if you weren't looking for it. This puzzled me a great deal at the time.

Fast forward once more to January of this year. My wife was listening to Paterson's The Great Gilly Hopkins on CD, and I managed to catch most of the story. I was once more thrilled by Paterson's writing, but Gilly's language sometimes shocked me. The story made me think again about Paterson's religious position. In Gilly, Paterson writes a few things that sound very Christian, but if that's the case, then how can she allow the character of Gilly, who is so profane and opposed to religion -- and, it would seem, moral behavior in general -- to flow freely from her pen?

The Great Gilly Hopkins is, any way you look at it, a funny and entertaining book, but it isn't without its requisite dose of heartache. Again, Paterson's message is that pain happens in this life; you just can't avoid it. And, infuriatingly, not everything can be fixed once it's broken. Our actions always have consequences, and sometimes other people's actions have consequences that we simply can't overcome.

After hearing The Great Gilly Hopkins, I was so curious about Paterson's convictions that I went to her Web site and looked for anything that might clue me in about her beliefs and her aesthetic approach to children's literature. Here's what I found:
I think it was Lewis who said something like: "The book cannot be what the writer is not." What you are will shape your book whether you want it to or not. I am Christian, so that conviction will pervade the book even when I make no conscious effort to teach or preach. Grace and hope will inform everything I write. ...

We live in a Post-Christian society. Therefore, not many [children's book] writers will be Christians or adherents of any of the traditional faiths. Self-consciously Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) writing will be sectarian and tend to propaganda and therefore have very little to say to persons outside that particular faith community. The challenge for those of us who care about our faith and about a hurting world is to tell stories which will carry the words of grace and hope in their bones and sinews and not wear them like fancy dress. ...

Gilly is a lost child who lies, steals, bullies, despises those who are different or perceived to be weaker —- a child like this does not say "fiddlesticks" when frustrated. I could not duplicate her real speech with out drowning out the story in obscenity, but I had to hint at her language. She would not be real if her mouth did not match her behavior.
I love this approach to fiction, and it's one that I would like to emulate if I ever write seriously. Paterson is committed to realistic storytelling, and although she recognizes that her ideology informs her writing style, she also resists the urge to turn her art into propaganda. The reason her writing "feels" Christian to me is because it is -- but its Christian identity is present in the "bones and sinews," not paraded on the outside like "fancy dress."

I'm a sucker for stories with happy endings, but I love Paterson even though the endings of her stories could rarely be called "happy." People are hurt, hearts are broken, dreams are crushed... but ultimately, there is a peace, a grace, and a hope in a place deeper than outward circumstances, and that is what makes her writing so very effective for readers like me.

08 February 2007

Indian Health: Icing on the cake

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

You know an editorial is going to be good when it starts out with a metaphor like this:
If our outrage toward President Bush's budget proposal were a cupcake, this would be the thick layer of fury icing:

And the good folks at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer don't disappoint. That thick layer of fury icing is President Bush's determination to eliminate public funds to support the Indian Health Service's Urban Indian Health Program, and it's an outrage.

There are tens of thousands of American Indians in cities across the nation who benefit from this program. Many of them are poverty-stricken, and urban Indians often are afflicted with serious family problems that spring from their decisions to go to the cities in order to try and make better lives for themselves. It's something of a Catch-22: staying on the Rez means they can maintain vital family ties, but it also generally means they're dependent on welfare for survival. Urban Indians have made the very difficult choice to leave family and friends and to seek some level of financial independence. If we remove the UIHP's funding, who knows how many Indians will become frustrated, lose hope, and return to the Rez (and to a cycle of welfare checks and extended poverty)?

Here's some more of what the ed board has to say on the matter:
Ralph Forquera, executive director of the Seattle Urban Indian Health Board, said the cut (which he anticipated) honors neither the government's commitment to addressing health disparities affecting urban Indians nor tribal sovereignty. How does Bush feel about sovereignty issues? Here it goes: "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereignnininity."

That explains a lot, I suppose. It also makes me much more prone to buy the ed board's conclusion:
This is the second year that Bush has tried to eliminate funds for UIHP. Lawmakers teamed up with tribal leaders and community activists last year and restored the money.

Steps already have been taken to do the same thing again. It's too bad undoing the handiwork of this administration is a full-time job.

05 February 2007

A Smart Solution

Last week, Turner Broadcasting wrought havoc in Boston by putting up electronic Mooninite signs throughout the city to promote Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The signs held up traffic and cost emergency responders a lot of time and trouble as they tried to deal with the devices, which many alert Bostonians reported as possible bombs. (Interestingly, Turner displayed the same types of signs in New York, where no one at all seemed to notice or care).

Kudos to the folks at Turner who decided to pay $2 million to fix the Mooninite-related woes. According to E! News,
Of the $2 million settlement, $1 million will be divided among city and state enforcement agencies who turned out in force to subdue the Mooninite threat by removing the offending circuit boards from bridges, subway stations and commuter hubs around the city (where they had been placed about two weeks earlier).

This is a brilliant strategy, and I wish more corporations did things like this. Turner has simultaneously fixed its huge PR problem and promoted itself as a pro-Homeland Security corporation. Nice move, dudes. Seriously.