NYT: NSA eavesdropping wider than W.House admitted - Yahoo! News

NYT: NSA eavesdropping wider than W.House admitted - Yahoo! News

Perhaps it is time for me to blog on the NSA. My favorite lunatic, Randi Rhodes, has already contributed many ways, via broad conspiracy theories, for the government to abuse the average citizen with this information. She has said the government will use this to keep you from getting a job ("yup--they didn't hire me. Musta been that darned wiretapping!") to refusing a loan ("I am sure it couldn't be the debt, and lack of income--the government is meddling in my finances again!")

This story provides some interesting tidbits. For instance, while the title talks about eavesdropping, the story states that the major action they are taking is identifying calling/information patterns. This is often done without actually listening/reading anything. "Government and industry officials with knowledge of the program told the newspaper the NSA sought to analyze communications patterns to gather clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, as well as the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages."

Let's be honest--we have known the NSA is a large eavesdropping organization ever since the book Puzzle Palace was published. That book ignited several firestorms when it was first published, as well, from people concerned about individual privacy, to those concerned about a government exercising total tyranny. Perhaps the NSA has already been used for all these, we shall never know.

Many years ago, the debate around the NSA actually included a discussion about whether the NSA would provide the action agencies (CIA, DIA, FBI) with any information they gathered, since to do so would reveal the capability of their sources. I believe we should be happy that they have at least been willing to use the information.

The question I have concerning the use of the NSA without warrant is this: If the intelligence gathered is used to identify, and stop, terrorist actions, and doesn't go beyond that, what is wrong with that? I realize the information could be "mis-used" but that is true of any government agency that collects any information. How much information do you think the Social Security Administration already has on you? Thankfully, the history of the NSA has been one of not using or sharing information, even when useful.

I do not necessarily like anyone eavesdropping on my conversations. Those who know me have heard me argue for more, not less, protection of privacy. In this case, however, the NSA's commitment to secrecy makes me feel more comfortable that they are actually watching the bad guys--and most likely couldn't care less about the rest of us!

So, students--worry that your professor may catch you plagiarizing, but don't worry that the NSA will try to stop you from getting that dream job. What is most likely going to get in the way there is yourself.

Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough - Yahoo! News

Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough - Yahoo! News

Students, it's time for me to tackle research methods, and underlying assumptions. Specifically, the hubris shown by scientists when they fail to check their assumptions.

As the story linked above notes, there has been much research into "origins" in the past few years, resulting in "the journal Science on Thursday proclaimed evolution the breakthrough of 2005." The article also points out that "Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution." In fact, the next paragraph states that "The journal's editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged this was a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued."

So, let's talk about this for a moment. All research carries into it assumptions. One assumption that scientists tell you they cannot carry into their research is the existence of a diety--or an "intelligent designer." That makes sense, since to allow for that assumption would provide a convenient way out of any apparently unsolvable conundrum. However, this also excludes the possibility of finding what may be the actual answer. If one evaluates data, and must assume that a common creator does not exist, then one would most likely reach a conclusion of a common ancestor--evolution. On the other hand, when one looks at results, such as that noted in the article "including a study that showed a mere 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA" one who assumes a diety could argue that we have a common creator. In both cases, the assumption is that commonality relies on having some source in common, but that source cannot be a diety when viewed from the scientific perspective.

My only point is this--be honest. Scientists cannot prove God through any of their work because they have, a priori, assumed God away to allow for their work.

It is quite simply, like telling someone to walk into a room with no windows, but having light, and telling them they must assume away the existence of electricity. They will create many interesting, and perhaps plausible, explanations. They will just never be right.

Scientific history is actually replete with similiar examples--examples where scientists created very elaborate theories to explain the world as they understood it, but "modern science" has since proved wrong. Remember "ether?"

I would recommend reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, if you want a "philosophy of science" perspective on the way scientific paradigms have shifted--and more interestingly how scientists throughout history have been dogmatic, and wrong.

Enjoy the holiday break, students!

Q & A

Q & A

Okay, time for me to rant about Randi... LOL. I recommend you go watch this video show from CSPAN where Randi is interviewed on Q&A. within the first10 minutes of the show, they play a clip where she had "fought" with Janet Parshall. Randi thinks it is "big thing" that President Bush suspended the "Davis-Bacon Act of 1931." In fact, Randi brings this up as an example of Bush "lying." Now, I am not sure of the connection between the suspension of the Act, and lying, but I am sure of one thing--this was not without precedent. As the quote below from the "CRS Report for Congress" regarding the suspension points out, the Act has been suspended several times. Admittedly, most suspensions were by Republicans, but only the suspension by Roosevelt was identified as "administrative convenience."

The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions. (a) In 1934,
President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for
administrative convenience associated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to
full strength in less than 30 days with few people, seemingly, aware of the
suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the act as part of a
campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the construction
industry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to
different approaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew
and Iniki, President George H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render
reconstruction and clean-up in Florida and the Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more
efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act was suspended on
October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clinton
restored the Act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George
W. Bush suspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and cleanup
of Florida and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act may also
have been suspended during World War II as part of the generalized emergency.

Sharing Steve :: New Stuff

Steve Sponsors Corcoran Gallery show on Banjo

Okay, so now I know I am a leech... I am blogging a blog. But not just any blog. I am blogging Steve Martin's Blog. And about banjos!!

Yes, Banjos, my latest hobby--and Steve's passion.

Go read the article.

See you at the Gallery!!

Cheney visits Iraq and hails 'tremendous elections' - Yahoo! News

Cheney visits Iraq and hails 'tremendous elections' - Yahoo! News

Amazing news, don't you think?

Dick Cheney, the oft maligned Vice President, has once again gone to Iraq, showing support not only for the troops, but for democracy. What could be wrong with that? Hmmm....

Let me be the first to predict that the indefatigable Randi Rhodes will attack Dick Cheney. In fact, I suspect, but cannot prove, that in the Monday show she will rant and rail against the Veep, with much hot air, little substance, and broad conspiratorially minded accusations. Oh wait, that's cheating on my part--that's what she does on all her shows.

You don't believe me? Go listen yourself...The Randi Rhodes Show.

Okay, let me toss a little ad hominem her way. I find her show entertaining, because she is so soooo... crazy. I find a small problem with her show, however. She used to have on her Bio at her site that she had been "voted" the most outstanding woman in the US Air Force in 1979. There are a few interesting tidbits here. That info is no longer listed. Perhaps because the Air Force doesn't actually have such an award, I am told. I am not accusing her of lying, just mis-representation. I suspect she received that award not from the Air Force, but from another agency or perhaps a magazine, such as Good Housekeeping. You can still find this information on some places, if you google "Randi Rhodes" and "Outstanding Air Force." One such link can be found here.

You know, I will continue this later. In the mean time, I actually want to recommend her show to you. If you are an educated individual, you will find it to be several hours of hilarity. If you are not, or choose to believe anything, you might find it... ummmm... enlightening? Either way, it will amaze you.

The professor.