Caterpillar invasion!

A series of photographs of cocoon-encased trees and bicycles from Sweden, via jwz's blog.

Enforcing the world's Internet laws in the U.S.

The United States Senate has, after a three-year delay, ratified the Convention on Cybercrime. This treaty requires United States law enforcement to help other countries enforce their cybercrime laws against offenders in the United States--even if the actions are not illegal in the United States.

There was an option for the Senate to attach an amendment to the treaty that said the FBI would only aid in cases where the crime in the foreign country was also a crime here ("dual criminality"), but they did not take that option, at the behest of the Bush Administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The result is that other countries that have ratified the treaty can force U.S. law enforcement to conduct searches, seizures, and surveillance on U.S. citizens who are doing things that are legal in the U.S., but illegal in those countries, which is the main concern that has been raised by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Technology Liberation Front, Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and Declan McCullagh in his discussion of the treaty at ZDNet.

A list of current signatories can be found at the Council of Europe's website.

Looking at the actual content of the treaty, I don't think it's as bad as the critics have made it sound. The treaty targets specific crimes in chapter II, section 1, Titles 1-5, and I don't see how it could be expanded to cover things like the Internet sale of or discussion of products that are illegal in other countries.

Title 1 covers crimes which involve "Offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems," which include illegal access to computers, illegal interception of data traffic, data interference (intentional damage or destruction of data), system interference (e.g., denial of service), and misuse of devices. The last item seems to be the most potentially problematic, but it is qualified to say that the signatories need not enforce that one, and that it only applies to devices intended to be used for the other offenses (i.e., it carves out an exception for security testing).

Title 2 covers computer-related forgery and computer-related fraud.

Title 3 covers child pornography.

Title 4 covers copyright, which imposes nothing worse than is already in place in the United States.

Title 5 covers ancillary liability--aiding and abetting the aforementioned offenses, and corporate liability for participation in such offenses.

The problematic provisions are in chapter III, on international cooperation. Title 3 on mutual assistance provides for the possibility of requiring dual criminality--which I agree is the way the Senate should have gone. But it appears to me that the wording is such that it only mandates mutual assistance for the offenses listed in titles 1-5 (articles 1-11 within those titles).

If this really mandated the U.S. to go after people in the U.S. who are doing things like selling Nazi memorabilia in violation of French law, wouldn't other countries be worried about the U.S. ratification on the grounds that they could go after online gambling in their countries?

Star Trek Sings Knights of the Round Table

This is a pretty well-edited mashup... the original Star Trek cast sings Monty Python's "Knights of the Round Table."

Hat tip to Ed Babinski, and I see Alex Palazzo at "The Daily Transcript" at Science Blogs has also already pointed people to this.

Jeff Flake's anti-earmark pork-fighting amendments

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ District 6) proposed 19 amendments in order to force yes-or-no votes on earmarks in a bloated appropriations bills. They were all defeated by a wide margin, but the result produced a scoring of members of the House of Representatives who support earmarks and those who don't. (Each amendment proposed removing funding for a particular earmark, so a YES vote on each amendment is an anti-pork, anti-earmark vote; a NO vote is to keep the earmark.)

The specific earmarks were:

House Vote 190 - Dairy education in Iowa ($229,000)
House Vote 191 - Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio ($180,000)
House Vote 192 - National Grape and Wine Initiative ($100,000)
House Vote 204 - Virginia Science Museum ($250,000)
House Vote 205 - Juniata Locomotive Demonstration ($1,000,000)
House Vote 277 - Swimming pool in Banning, CA ($500,000)
House Vote 278 - “Facilities” in Weirton, West Virginia ($100,000)
House Vote 279 - Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California ($500,000)
House Vote 280 - Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York ($250,000)
House Vote 298 - Mystic Aquarium in New London, Conn. ($1,000,000)
House Vote 299 - The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, VA ($1,000,000)
House Vote 302 - Northwest Manufacturing Initiative ($2,500,000)
House Vote 303 - Lewis Center for Education Research ($4,000,000)
House Vote 304 - Leonard Wood Research Institute ($20,000,000)
House Vote 334 - Arthur Avenue Retail Market ($150,000)
House Vote 335 - Bronx Council for the Arts in Bronx, N.Y. ($300,000)
House Vote 336 - Johnstown Area Regional Industries ($800,000)
House Vote 337 - Fairmont State University ($900,000)
House Vote 338 - Tourism Development Association in Kentucky ($1,000,000)

Here's how Arizona's Representatives fared:

19 out of 19 NO (anti-earmark):
Flake (R, AZ District 6)
Franks (R, AZ District 2)
Hayworth (R, AZ District 5)
Shadegg (R, AZ District 3)

0 out of 19 NO (pro-earmark):
Grijalva (D, AZ District 7)
Kolbe (R, AZ District 8)
Pastor (D, AZ District 4)
Renzi (R, AZ District 1)

I'm sorry to see that my representative, Ed Pastor, voted in full support of these earmarks, though it does seem to me that both all YES and all NO votes are suggestive of a failure to judge them on individual merit. I do find an all YES (anti-earmark) vote more principled, as the practice of inserting earmarks has been an "invitation to corruption" (as Talking Point Memo puts it).

Flake plans to continue challenging every earmark that does not include the name of a sponsor, and posts an "egregious earmark of the week" on his website under the "earmark reform" category.

Mormon theology

Via Deep Thoughts, here's a short (six minutes or so) animated film about Mormon theology as made in the 1970s by a Christian group designed to debunk the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I find the South Park episode more entertaining (on YouTube in three parts: one two three). There's a description of this episode (712, "All About the Mormons") at the website Rethinking Mormonism.

Hot enough for blood popsicles

How hot has it been this week? Hot enough for the lions at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston to be fed frozen blood:

In Boston, animals at the Franklin Park Zoo were kept cool with sprinklers and frozen treats. The African wild dogs and lions got frozen blood; the primates received frozen fruit juice.

(Hat tip to Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator.)

Jesus Camp, Camp Quest, and Eagle Lake Camp

Pharyngula points out David Byrne's review of a documentary film called "Jesus Camp" and contrasts it with Camp Quest. First, Byrne on "Jesus Camp":

Saw a screening of a documentary called Jesus Camp. It focuses on a woman preacher (Becky Fischer) who indoctrinates children in a summer camp in North Dakota. Right wing political agendas and slogans are mixed with born again rituals that end with most of the kids in tears. Tears of release and joy, they would claim — the children are not physically abused. The kids are around 9 or 10 years old, recruited from various churches, and are pliant willing receptacles. They are instructed that evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences, that we must band together to insure that the right judges and politicians get into the courts and office and that global warming is a lie. (This last one is a puzzle — how did accepting the evidence for climate change and global warming become anti-Jesus? Did someone simply conflate all corporate agendas with Jesus and God and these folks accept that? Would Jesus drive an SUV? Is every conclusion responsible scientists make now suspect?)

And Pharyngula on Camp Quest:

Which leads me to mention Camp Quest, where I spoke last week. It's the diametric opposite of Jesus Camp. Kids are taught the tools of skeptical thought—I saw that they were learning a little probability theory and the scientific method, and were learning how to test claims about dowsing—and they go out of their way to expose the kids to the diversity of religious thought (a tactic which may be even more effective than insulating them from all religious thought). Right after my session, they had a pair of pagans give a talk on their belief system, and they were more than a little loopy…but nobody had to tell the kids that, everyone was nice and polite, and you could tell that no one was fooled.

My own talk was a bit about the scientific method, a short overview of some creationist claims, and some easy ways to refute them (the index to creationist claims is the instrument of choice there). I also taught them the most useful question they can apply anywhere: "How do you know that?" I told them that they should apply it to teachers and scientists as well as creationists…I noticed that one clever fellow applied it to the pagans that followed me.

The discussion of these camps reminds me of a childhood Christian camp I attended, Eagle Lake Camp in Colorado, run by the Navigators. It was not at all like the "Jesus Camp" is described above. We slept in teepees and did the usual camp things, with a variety of mandatory and elective activities that included working with leather, canoeing, archery, shooting .22 rifles, hiking, morning exercises, and great food. Added to this was a generous dose of Bible study and discussion of Christian topics. On one evening, we were all victims of a mock kidnapping, taken out into the woods, and asked to recant our faith by fake anti-Christian captors who demanded that we give reasons to support what we believed in.

It was odder in hindsight than it seemed at the time. I suspect there was a bit of adrenaline rush, but I don't recall feeling threatened or in danger. The exercise we were required to perform seems to me one that should be encouraged. In my case, questioning why I believe what I believe resulted in atheism. I've never attributed the cause to Eagle Lake Camp, but now that I think back to it, it may have played a small part.

BTW, Camp Quest people--check out the Eagle Lake Camp link above. It looks like they are very experienced at producing fun and exciting camp activities, and have gone well beyond what they offered when I was there (which was about 25 years ago).

Discovery Institute repays kindness with slap in the face

After Paul Nelson was misquoted in the Guardian, this was discovered by Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education and pointed out at the Panda's Thumb blog. Here's how Robert Crowther at the Discovery Institute reports the misquotation and Nelson's letter and blog post thanking Matzke for pointing out the misquotation:

Today there is another urban myth building up a head of steam, and being helped along by Darwinists, about Discovery Fellow Paul Nelson. Gaurdian [sic] reporter Karen Armstrong reports: 'Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,' says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, 'but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light.' And yet this is pure rubbish because Nelson never said anything like this, and it turns out that Armstrong never even interviewed him. Nelson points this out in his letter to the Guardian demanding a correction. (Note to Paul: don’t hold your breath)

Emphasis added.

I can think of numerous examples of nonsense, misquotes, bad arguments, and urban legends that are spread around by the creationists (there are many in Mark Isaak's index to creationist claims, including the "Lucy's knee joint" issue that I tried for years to stop creationists from spreading), but real examples of urban myths "being helped along by Darwinists" are much harder to come by. Crowther supplies no evidence that this spurious Paul Nelson quote has been "helped along by Darwinists"; the evidence I have shows that evolutionists were the first to try to stamp it out.

(Hat tip: Dave Thomas at the Panda's Thumb.)

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Vanity Fair's website has published "United 93" producer Michael Bronner's article, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes," including audio excerpts. Bronner was given three CDs containing the Northeast Air Defense Sector audio files for September 11, which he summarizes in his very interesting article.

It turns out that there was some inaccurate and misleading testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

In the chronology presented to the 9/11 commission, Colonel Scott put the time NORAD was first notified about United 93 at 9:16 a.m., from which time, he said, commanders tracked the flight closely. (It crashed at 10:03 a.m.) If it had indeed been necessary to "take lives in the air" with United 93, or any incoming flight to Washington, the two armed fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia would have been the ones called upon to carry out the shootdown. In Colonel Scott's account, those jets were given the order to launch at 9:24, within seconds of NEADS's receiving the F.A.A.'s report of the possible hijacking of American 77, the plane that would ultimately hit the Pentagon. This time line suggests the system was starting to work: the F.A.A. reports a hijacking, and the military reacts instantaneously. Launching after the report of American 77 would, in theory, have put the fighters in the air and in position over Washington in plenty of time to react to United 93.

In testimony a few minutes later, however, General Arnold added an unexpected twist: "We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way."

How strange, John Azzarello, a former prosecutor and one of the commission's staff members, thought. "I remember being at the hearing in '03 and wondering why they didn't seem to have their stories straight. That struck me as odd."

But the facts are not supportive of conspiracy theories--rather, the facts indicate that the misleading testimony was an attempt to make a simpler story out of what actually happened:

As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, NEADS wouldn't get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while NORAD commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. NEADS was entering the most chaotic period of the morning.

There was a lot of confusion about which planes had gone where due to lack of radar or electronic transponder data--although American 11 had already hit the World Trade Center, it was that plane that they thought they were tracking.

The release of this information presents a wealth of data that is inconsistent with the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. If history is any guide, conspiracy theorists will scour it for any data points that they can fit into a conspiracy theory while ignoring the rest. Rather than collecting all of the best data and using it to construct the big picture and best explanation, they collect lots of individual data points that strike them as somehow salient, and build fanciful theories that are at odds with most of the actual data.

Flock of starlings land on tree that can barely support their weight

This nice video from Scott Fraser via Rocketboom shows a large number of starlings landing on a tree that can barely support their weight. One viewer comments:

• it is a sign in the form of a angel.

  08-01-2006by bpsolka@verizon.net

the family who filmed this show were meant to see this and show us.if you notice the branches bent into angel shape wings. I don,t know what sign it is.but it must be gods way of showing himself through the birds.and have the birds done this again after this video was shot.