Specioprin Hydrochloride

If the online trailer is any guide, then Special looks like it will be a pretty good--though cringe-inducing--film. I can't find a release date anywhere, though.

UPDATE by Jim Lippard (August 2, 2009): Looks like it never saw theatrical release, but I just watched it on Netflix-on-Demand via TiVo HD. It was pretty good--not fantastic, and indeed occasionally cringe-inducing, but far better than many films that make it to the theaters.

Those who stand up against torture

Jane Mayer has written a moving article in The New Yorker about how Albert J. Mora, former general counsel of the U.S. Navy and David Brant, former head of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service, took a stand against torture and cruelty in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, but were mostly thwarted by "a small group of lawyers closely aligned with Vice President Cheney"--Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker, and John Yoo.

A scientist walks into a bar...

A scientist walks into a bar. More than 100 people are there, eager to hear all that she has to say and ask a lot of questions. No joke.

That's what happens at the Wynkoop Brewing Company here every month when Cafe Scientifique is held.

More at News.com. Here's a strategy Randy Olsen might like...

UPDATE: The international website for Cafe Scientifique is here. There's not one here in Phoenix yet; the closest is in San Diego, which apparently broadcasts live on the Internet.

Real political reform

Matt McIntosh has an interesting article on how, if we want different results from our political institutions, we need to change the institutions, not just the players and which party is in power. Requiring spending items to be unbundled and holding individual Congressmen responsible for each item and term limits are two specific suggestions. (Via Catallarchy.)

Malkin on the ports and CFIUS

Michelle Malkin argues that the CFIUS process is a "rubber stamp" and complains about the fact that financing for the Dubai Ports World acquisition of P&O was underwritten by Barclay's and Dubai Islamic Bank, which were "both cited as probable conduits for bin Laden money."

This latter point, at least with regard to Barclay's, is about as meaningful as claiming that Verizon Wireless is linked to terrorism because a terrorist used a Verizon Wireless phone, and arguing on that basis that Verizon should not be allowed to conduct business in the United States. Barclay's is a global banking and investment company headquartered in London's Docklands, operating the fourth largest bank in the UK.

On the former point, the CFIUS investigation I am most familiar with involved a fairly extensive review, the rejection of one potential acquirer (the application was withdrawn and resubmitted without that acquirer, so doesn't count as a CFIUS rejection), and the implementation of significant and ongoing security restrictions and review prior to approval. It wasn't a rubber stamp, though it did seem clear that most of the government agencies involved were pretty clueless about the technical details (with the exception of the representatives from the NSA and some from the DOD, who were very sharp), and the government ended up outsourcing most of the ongoing oversight of the deal to a D.C.-area private contractor after the acquisition was completed.

Trying to file a complaint against a police officer in South Florida

This is an eye-opening hidden camera investigation showing South Florida police officers' completely inappropriate responses to requests for a complaint form. They clearly do not see their role as "to protect and to serve" the general public. Again and again, the response is "you've gotta go through me first," followed by accusations that the person requesting the form is being unreasonable by not wanting to discuss the issue with the front-line officer, and occasionally graduating to threats, insults, or demands to leave. Tallahassee PD, at the beginning, shows the right way to handle the process. (Via The Agitator.)

Nellie adopted

Last weekend, our foster dog Nellie was adopted. We fostered her for the past five months, a little longer than our average foster time of three months per dog since we started fostering dogs in October 2003 for R.E.S.C.U.E.

Nellie was an owner turn-in to Maricopa County Animal Care & Control. She's a very shy dog who did not do well in the noisy kennel environment and was on her way to euthanization. While in our care she did not fully overcome her shyness and skittishness, but she got much better and was very happy in our house. Our house is quieter without her and we miss her, but she found a great home.

Ports acquisition issue

As someone who has seen the CFIUS process first-hand, I agree with Kevin Drum on the ports issue. This isn't a matter of the existing company, the London-based P&O (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.), being replaced by a Dubai company, Dubai Ports World, it's a matter of acquisition. This will likely legally involve the transfer of the assets to a new corporate entity to replace the existing top-level structure of P&O, with a new board of directors, but if it's like the process I've seen, there may be restrictions on the composition of that board to make sure that U.S. interests are protected. There will probably be few changes in the staff actually performing jobs at the ports, and there will likely be screening requirements for employees as part of the security requirements that the acquirer has agreed to through the CFIUS process. If any of the agreement documents that came out of the CFIUS process are a public record (as was the case when the company I work for was acquired by a Singapore company), we'll be able to see some of the specific requirements that will have to be put in place, which will most likely be greater than the requirements that P&O has today.

Sean Lynch at Catallarchy calls this a win for free trade, which is disputed by The Modulator on the grounds that the acquiring company is owned by a government--the United Arab Emirates. The alternative acquirer, PSA International of Singapore, is also owned by a government (the Republic of Singapore), through Temasek Holdings. It's clearly not "free trade" in the sense of a normal voluntary transaction between two private entities both in light of the government ownership and the whole CFIUS process and mandated agreements imposed by the U.S. government.

UPDATE: Ed Brayton argues against the deal at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and I've offered some comments there, including this paragraph that I think Sean Lynch would agree with:

I'm not sure I see what the big deal is about P&O being owned by Dubai Ports World being owned by the Dubai government (the Hong Kong of the United Arab Emirates), vs. P&O being owned by PSA International being owned by Temasek Holdings being owned by the Republic of Singapore--apart from a general objection to government-owned businesses. I also don't see a big deal in Haier (Chinese company) making Maytag washing machines, or Lenovo making IBM ThinkPads. It seems to me that the more economic interests that cross national boundaries, the less likely we are to have wars.

UPDATE 2: At least some provisions of the agreement (presumably negotiated as part of the CFIUS process) have come out, and while the DHS described the terms as "unprecedented among maritime companies," they sound lax by comparison to the terms that have been used in such agreements for foreign acquisitions of U.S. telecommunications companies. Apparently the Bush administration is more concerned about the flow of information than the movement of physical materials.

Outrageous Manassas Park law enforcement raid on Rack n' Roll Billiards Club

From the Agitator:

On June 2, 2004, police in the the Washington, D.C. exurb of Manassas Park, Virginia brought in a multi-jurisdictional narcotics tax force and officers from several surrounding cities and counties to conduct a massive, 70-90 officer SWAT raid on the Rack n' Roll Billiards Club.

The raid took place on Ladies' Night, a Wednesday. Though the intent of the raid was to collect evidence of drug use and drug distribution by David Ruttenberg, the club's manager, it was conducted under the auspices of an Alcohol Beverage Control inspection. Because ABC is primarily a regulatory agency, the guise of an ABC inspection enabled the raid to take place without a search warrant.

After hours of scouring the club, searching every nook and cranny, and generally turning the place upside down, the only charges to follow against Ruttenberg were for two bottles of beer a distributor had left for sampling that weren't clearly marked "SAMPLE." The bar would later be charged with a few other minor offenses: one incident of serving alcohol to a minor, and with several incidents of flashing from customers during Mardi Gras.

The account at The Agitator goes on to describe continued police harassment of Ruttenberg. Radley Balko suggests that this all began because David Ruttenberg and a Manassas Park police officer (who is now head of the narcotics task force) had a romantic interest in the same woman, and that the continued harassment is an attempt to find a post facto reason to justify the original outrageous raid. If that's correct, the law enforcement officials responsible for this should not only be fired, they should be jailed.

UPDATE (December 19, 2006): Things are not looking good for Ruttenberg, as Radley Balko has described. And it looks like there's serious corruption in Manassas Park.

UPDATE (December 23, 2006): Balko presents evidence that the harrassment of David Ruttenberg has to do with the fact that he's sitting on the prime location for off-track betting in Manassas Park, which could potentially bring in tens of millions of dollars of revenue for the city. The harassment began four months before a referendum on the matter, which was defeated.

UPDATE (December 31, 2006): Here's video footage that depicts two men openly using cocaine in Ruttenberg's bar. He calls police, who refuse to take witness statements, escort the men outside, and let them go. (More info at The Agitator.)

UPDATE (January 8, 2007): And here's a link to some more video of harassment.

UPDATE (January 11, 2007): And here's some more background information on the harassment of David Ruttenberg, where a violent incident at another pool hall across town was added to a report about Rack and Roll.

UPDATE (September 11, 2007): Radley Balko reports that the appropriately-titled vice mayor of Manassas Park, who also worked as a DJ at Rack and Roll, was encouraging lewd behavior and nudity in the club which he photographed, and which ended up in a file in the possession of the city which was used to motivate officials to go after the club. At the same time, however, the city denied the existence of the file when Ruttenberg inquired after it, and Ruttenberg, to the extent he was aware of the activities in question, attempted to prevent them from happening.

Leon Wieseltier's negative review of Dennett's new book

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, has written an strongly negative review of Daniel Dennett's new book, Breaking the Spell. Wieseltier maintains that religion is beyond the scope of scientific examination, and so takes issue with a key aspect of Dennett's project.

Wieseltier's review has been critiqued by Brian Leiter (at Leiter Reports, here), P.Z. Myers (at Pharyngula, here), Taner Edis (at the Secular Outpost, here), and Michael Bains (at Silly Humans, here). I disagree with Bains about the term "scientism," even though I am quite sympathetic to "naturalized epistemology" and giving science a major role in philosophical questions. There is clearly quite a lot of room for disagreement about the idea that science should be the primary mechanism of inquiry in all domains--most scientists regularly argue that science draws no moral or ethical conclusions, which means they leave that area to philosophy or (a mistake, in my opinion) religion.

There is a key passage of Wieseltier's review that I partly agree with:

It will be plain that Dennett's approach to religion is contrived to evade religion's substance. He thinks that an inquiry into belief is made superfluous by an inquiry into the belief in belief. This is a very revealing mistake. You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason.

In general, the origin of a belief is irrelevant to its truth or falsity. However, if Dennett's mission is like Pascal Boyer's, to give an account of why people believe in religion in general, rather than to prove that religion is false, then this is not an objection to what Dennett is doing. Further, if the explanation produced is the best explanation around, then that is good reason to believe that explanation (over an explanation that says religion is divinely inspired).

The fact is that there are lots of different religious beliefs that people hold, and they contradict each other. We know from the outset that all religions cannot be true--in fact, the mere existence of the contradictions is sufficient to show that much of the content of most religions must be false. Why people continue to believe it is something that requires explanation.

If the best such explanation is a naturalistic one, and that explanation fits the evidence for all religious belief better than supernatural explanations, then that is good reason to favor the naturalistic explanation over the supernatural explanations.

Wieseltier seems to reject "inference to the best explanation" as a form of reason.

UPDATE: Dennett has responded with a letter to the New York Times, and Wieseltier responds immediately following.