George Bush hypocrisy on medical marijuana

He was in favor of states deciding the issue for themselves, until he was against it.

There are lots more examples of this kind of hypocrisy across a wide range of issues documented in James Bovard's The Bush Betrayal.

Above link is to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where readers have offered additional examples in the comments.

Italian court to decide if Jesus existed

While it's not quite as spectacular as the story in James Morrow's Blameless in Abaddon, in which God is put on trial before the International Justice Court for crimes against humanity, an Italian court will be having a hearing to see if atheist Luigi Cascioli can proceed with a case against priest Enrico Righi. The charges are violations of "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (abuse of popular belief, a law designed to protect against con artists) and "Sostituzione di Persona" (impersonation). Cascioli, who, like defendant Righi is a man in his seventies from the town of Bagnoregio, accuses the priest of fooling the people by teaching that Jesus was a historical figure and that he's his representative. Cascioli is the author of a book, "The Fable of Christ," which argues that Jesus never existed.

The view that Jesus didn't exist is a minority position even among atheists--advocates include G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty (whose book, The Jesus Puzzle, is critically reviewed here by Richard Carrier).

Phyllis Schlafly defends liars, by lying

Ed Brayton gives a rebuttal to what is perhaps the most egregiously dishonest critique of the Dover decision so far, by Phyllis Schlafly. John West of the Discovery Institute links to the Schlafly piece with approval.

Two examples which support the heading I've chosen: Schlafly writes of Judge Jones:

He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.

Judge Jones' accusations of lying were directed at two individuals who testified in the trial, Dover board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, not at "fundamentalists" or "those who disagree with him." And he made the accusations because those two board members were lying, as I've previously described (about Bonsell here, about Buckingham here, and there's more in the decision here) and may end up facing perjury charges.

Schlafly further expands upon her misrepresentation of Jones' criticism of these two dishonest board members:

He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."

Jones never mentions his religious views, and does not denigrate these board members for expressing religious views different from his own, but for lying. Here is the passage from Jones' decision that Schlafly is dishonestly commenting on:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. (p. 137 of the decision)

Ed addresses more of Schlafly's dishonesty at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Remarkable evidence of evolution

Tara Smith comments on Olivia Judson's piece in the New York Times about the wonder of living organisms and the evidence for evolution at Aetiology. Judson is the author of Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, a book that describes some of the wide variety of sexual practices in nature, some of which make the wildest human perversions look tame by comparison.

An excerpt from Judson's op-ed:

Organisms like the sea slug Elysia chlorotica. This animal not only looks like a leaf, but it also acts like one, making energy from the sun. Its secret? When it eats algae, it extracts the chloroplasts, the tiny entities that plants and algae use to manufacture energy from sunlight, and shunts them into special cells beneath its skin. The chloroplasts continue to function; the slug thus becomes able to live on a diet composed only of sunbeams.

Still more fabulous is the bacterium Brocadia anammoxidans. It blithely makes a substance that to most organisms is a lethal poison - namely, hydrazine. That's rocket fuel.

And then there's the wasp Cotesia congregata. She injects her eggs into the bodies of caterpillars. As she does so, she also injects a virus that disables the caterpillar's immune system and prevents it from attacking the eggs. When the eggs hatch, the larvae eat the caterpillar alive.

It's hard not to have an insatiable interest in organisms like these, to be enthralled by the strangeness, the complexity, the breathtaking variety of nature.

Bush's warrantless interception program

In a New York Times followup about the Bush-approved program to engage in interception of email and voice calls to international destinations without warrants approved by the FISA Court, it is stated that

The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

[...]

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

[...]

Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages.

This has led to some speculation that the reason the Bush administration didn't even try to get FISA Court approvals is because what is going on here is not wiretapping in the ordinary sense, but data mining along the lines of the "Total Information Awareness" program that was supposedly shut down by Congress after public protest.

Telecommunications companies, either voluntarily or under government duress, are apparently giving the government direct access to voice switches (and perhaps data switches or routers) to enable them to intercept any or all traffic passing through them, using automated tools to examine traffic patterns or content for "interesting" traffic.

Gary Farber has blogged on this at Amygdala. Noah Schactman at DefenseTech. Tim Sandefur has blogged on Robert Levy's criticism of the Bush administration's argument for warrantless wiretaps (FISA has a provision for warrantless wiretaps during the first 15 days after Congress declares war; thus if the September 18, 2001 Joint Resolution by Congress which authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the perpetrators of 9/11 counted as a declaration of war, warrantless wiretaps would only be allowed until October 3, 2001). Ed Brayton has more on that subject at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

(Disclosure: I work in network security at a global telecommunications company which, to the best of my knowledge, is not participating in a program like what is described above.)

Abramoff-connected politicans

Think Progress has a list of politicians who received $10,000 or more in Jack Abramoff-related contributions and how they are associated with Abramoff. A few of these are probably a bit concerned now that Abramoff has pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion and agreed to cooperate with federal investigations.

Abramoff is expected to plead guilty next week to fraud in the SunCruz casino boat case in Florida--the list of politicians associated with that case includes Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) (and his former chief of staff, Neil Volz).

(Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, which has further commentary on how this is business as usual for Congress.)

The Windows Meta File (WMF) exploit

The Windows Meta File vulnerability, a problem that seems to be particularly bad in Windows XP, is without an official patch from Microsoft until next week. There is an unofficial patch which is available from the SANS Internet Storm Center, which I would recommend only for organizations that have the ability to install and uninstall patches on user desktops in an automated manner, as the unofficial patch will have to be uninstalled before installing the official patch. For ordinary users, it is an extremely bad habit to download patches from unofficial sources in response to an announcement of a vulnerability like this. It's a habit that is likely to be exploited in the future to get people to install malicious software, so it should be discouraged.

An alternative remedy is to unregister the vulnerable DLL, shimgvw.dll, until the official patch is out next week. This remedy will prevent the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer from being started when you click on an image that is associated with that application.

The WMF vulnerability is currently being exploited through the web, email, and instant messaging, but so far it looks like the main use has been to install spyware and adware on vulnerable machines. It could, however, just as easily be used to install bots or other more seriously damaging malware.

2006-2007: Years of Mortgage Default?

Over the next two years, $2.5 trillion in U.S. mortgages that are based on adjustable rate mortgages will reset to higher interest rates. There is little question that many people who have been using creative financing to speculate in the real estate market are going to have some serious financial difficulties as a result. More at Ben Jones' Housing Bubble blog.

On never admitting you are wrong--Dembski and Wolfram

Jeff Shallit has an interesting comparison of Stephen Wolfram and William Dembski, and their shared apparent unwillingness to admit mistakes. Over at Recursivity.

Religious spammer in Scottsdale files lawsuit

Charles E. "Chuck" Carlson (not to be confused with convicted Watergate conspirator turned evangelical prison ministry mogul Chuck Colson) runs something called "Strait Gate Ministries" and assorted websites (including one called "Al-Jazeerah") which seem to focus on arguing that the U.S. should not be supporting Israel. He has a history of advertising these websites by sending unsolicited bulk email, also known as "spam."

He has clashed with a number of anti-spammers, which has led to multiple terminations of online services that he's used--his DSL connection as well as web hosting. He has characterized this as mugging and assault as well as censorship. (Here is a list of some of Carlson's domains blocked by rhyolite.com for sending spam.)

In August, he filed a lawsuit (PDF) in Arizona Superior Court (CV2005-052008) against Robert Poortinga, his own providers who had terminated service, and Missouri Freenet Corporation. In his complaint, he argues that Poortinga and others have defamed him by calling him a "spammer" and accusing him of sending "spam," on the grounds that his emails do not meet the criteria in the CAN-SPAM Act.

"Missouri Freenet Corporation," named as a defendant in Carlson's suit, doesn't actually exist--the person he's intending to sue is Alif Terranson (on whose site the above lawsuit complaint PDF is hosted), who is a well-known anti-spammer and formerly ran the abuse team at Savvis. Terranson has supplied Carlson with information about how to properly name and serve him.

Carlson's complaint appears to me to be without merit. His argument based on CAN-SPAM fails because that act does not define the term "spam," which is a well-known term of art in the Internet world, not a legal term.

"Spam" originally meant bulk postings to Usenet newsgroups (an action associated with a couple of immigration attorneys also based in Scottsdale, Arizona), but quickly came to mean unsolicited bulk email (UBE)--email that is both (a) not explicitly requested by the recipients and (b) sent to multiple recipients. Although the most common form of UBE is unsolicited commercial email (which is what CAN-SPAM regulates), UBE and "spam" are broader than UCE and can include religious spam, insane spam, etc. Internet RFC 2505 endorses this broader notion of "spam," as does this definition from Spamhaus.

Although there are no legal penalties for spam that falls outside of what is regulated by federal and state laws (or laws in other countries), most online providers have stricter guidelines than what the law requires as part of their Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs). Customers of online providers are contractually bound by those AUPs, and can find their service terminated for violations even if they haven't violated the law. This has been the case since long before CAN-SPAM went into effect.

Another form of social penalty for spam is having one's email blocked by those who operate mail servers on the Internet--companies, organizations, and individuals have a variety of tools which can be used to block the vast quantities of unwanted email being spewed out daily by compromised machines as well as by those operating in a more aboveboard manner. Included in those tools are the ability to block by domain name or using IP-address-based blocking lists. What Carlson calls censorship is really just the owners of private mail servers setting rules by which their property may be used by others. (The issue is a bit more complicated in the case of an ISP, but so long as the ISP accurately informs its customers of what they've signed up for, they can apply filters consistent with their service. In general, ISPs want their customers to receive what the customers want to receive, as blocking wanted email leads to complaints.)

I'll keep tabs on this suit as it progresses (if it does).