Eric the Red

I’ve said for some time that the Bush administration cherry-picked evidence prior to the Iraq war. Those who know me personally know I am not a Bush apologist. Finally, Bush admitted it.

I wonder how the drum-beating rank-and-file on both sides of the fence will react to this bit of news….

Welcome to the beginning of the end…..of internet anonymity. When the TPM chip makes its way into computers and a variety of mobile devices, it will be possible for your activity to be tracked by almost anyone.

Though its uses are neither totally good nor totally evil, I wonder if there isnt a less invasive way to provide secure electronic systems.

EHOWA.com is running its “Lets Bring ‘Em Home” project. Please consider contributing via paypal to help one of our men or women in uniform to be home with their family during the holidays. Donations are tax deductible.

A recent episode of Boston Legal featured a released pedophile kidnapping a young boy. This episode made me wonder: how possible is this really?

The U.S Department of Justice has these figures. In sum:

As far as repeating a crime:

So are you, or your child, most likely to be sexually assaulted twice or mugged twice by the same person?

To help you get an idea, the FBI maintains an electronic database (here) so concerned citizens may see if a sex offender may be present in their neighborhood. Additionally, many states maintain similar databases (here). Here is a useful google map. Oregon refuses to put such a registry online, probably due to some left wing concept that sick criminals deserve to live private lives. If I’m wrong, please send me a link. The one provided by the FBI doesn’t lead to anything informative.

Florida passed legislation requiring sex offenders to wear electronic tracking devices at all times. A list of states that have passed, or are considering such legislation may be found here.

So, does viewing child porn result in the sexual abuse of children? The US Postal Inspector’s service determined that 34% of those arrested for abusing or molesting viewed child pornography. Many authorities believe that viewing such material convinces the perpetrator that their desires for children are normal. In other words, frequent viewing desensitizes. Perhaps this is one reason why Australia is requiring ISPs to block pornographic content, forcing those who wish to view it to apply and be given permission.

Are those who watch and distribute child porn really more likely to attack children in the real world? That debate will last as long as any over video game violence. Then again, the American people were outraged over a few seconds of Janet Jacksons nipple. Politicians breathed fire and brimston over a brief sex scene in Grand Theft Auto. Interestingly, they were in uproar over a cartoon sex scene in a game centered around brutally killing everyone from police officers to children to the elderly. So we rant and rave about video games and how should protect our children, but when it comes to a childs actual physical safety we are silent? Priorities please, idiots!

Oh, it starts early. Since I enrolled at the University of Maryland, at least two students were arrested for distributing kiddy porn using university networks. The most recent is Benjamin Aurich. The earlier is Brent Machado (US v Brent Machado, # 8-03-cr-74), who was fined $3,000 and spent 18 months in federal prison (PACER record here). Now his name is used to spam google with porn sites.

Aurich was turned in by a roomate and mentally evaluated. If you ran across someone like him, would you have the courage to do that?

For more information about sex offenders, start here [sex criminals.com].

Boi From Troy just had to hit the nail on the head. Good playing doesn’t always mean good commentary.

BO Nation (hmmm) can keep his QB.

I like hockey. There is something fun about a being able to beat the crap out of your opponent. Here are some shots from last nights Caps vs Redwings game. I’m not going to give play-by-play commentary, though I would like to say that its nice to know that my team can keep the ‘wings from scoring with half their team — and goalie — sitting out because of penalties. Enjoy!

Redwings taking a penalty shot.

A pee-wee team (Huskies), during halftime.

An early fight, being broken up.

A huge fight, near the Redwings goal.

Read the rest of this entry »

Those in the third world will have to wait a little longer for a full-featured media powerhouse. In the meantime, they can make do with a $100 hand-cranked laptop developed by MITs media lab and Nicholas Negroponte.

Students in Brazil, Nigeria, Thailand and Egypt will receive the first million or so of these machines early next year.

Heres a revolutionary idea: instead of developing “neat” little gadgets as techno-cocaine, why not provide those in the third world with such non-necessities as:

Is technology the next opiate for the masses? I think so.

The Roberts Court will soon decide if a University is eligible to receive federal funding if it bars military recruiters. The law in question is called the Solomon Amendment, which withdraws federal funding from universities that do not allow military recruiting on their campuses.

Representative Solomon, after whom the law in question is named, stated:

“[Tell] recipients of Federal money at colleges and universities that if you do not like the Armed Forces, if you do not like its policies, that is fine. That is your First Amendment right. But do not expect Federal dollars to support your interference with our military recruiters.”

Representative Richard Pombo urged Congress to

“…send a message over the wall of the ivory tower of higher education [that colleges’ and universities’] starry-eyed idealism comes with a price. If they are too good—or too righteous—to treat our Nation’s military with the respect it deserves[,] then they may also be too good to receive the generous level of taxpayer dollars presently enjoyed by many institutions of higher education in America.”

This inflammatory rhetoric implies that schools will be punished for having a dissenting point of view. The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), the Society for American Law Teachers (SALT), and several individual plaintiffs filed suit to have the Solomon Amendment overturned.

The schools argue that they have free-speech rights to bar those whose practices they disagree with.
While a university is free to have whatever opinions it wants, refusing to allow military recruiters access to their campus will result in loss of federal funding. The schools, greedy as schools are, want to have their cake and eat it too. They argue that they have the right to millions in federal research money regardless of their behavior. Duke law professor Erwin Chemerinsky stated, “As a law professor, I think it essential that every aspect of law school where I teach be open to all students,”. He continued by stating that prospective employers of those students should be required to adhere to the same standard, he said. Like professor Chermerinsky, the universities are wrong. The Supreme Court appears likely to agree. Here’s why:

A university does not have the right to determine hiring policies at a private firm or a government agency. Despite this, a university is allowed to post an alternative view, such as a poster or table with fliers, if they wish to send a dissenting message. The Solomon Amendment does not restrict this freedom. A University is not restricted in its ability to disagree with the government, as long as military recruiters have access to the campus.

The constitution does not protect the schools in this case. While the government has a reserved right to raise and maintain an army (Article I, s. 8 ), a university posseses no right to receive federal funding for research. Why should an institution profit from an institution they are at odds with, idealogically?

Legal precedent allows the government to attach strings to funding.The federal government routinely attaches mandates to funding packages, and private schools were punished in the past for refusing to comply with policy. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 because of its ban on interracial dating. Bob Jones U argued that its ban on mixed-race couples was fundamental to its religious beliefs, and thus entitled to constitutional protection.

Why should universities respect constitutional ethics when money is in play?Wouldn’t government money, particularly DoD money, be filthy as all hell? Oh wait, we are talking about billions of dollars in R & D money. Did you know that as much as 50% of grant money may go to salaries and fringe benefits [PDF]? And this 50% is on top of regular salaries. The federal government contributed $234 million in grants to the University of Maryland (not necessarily a party in this lawsuit) in 2005. Harvard, which is a party in the case, would lose $400 million if it does not allow recruiters on its campus.

In short, government interest may outweigh individual beliefs, especially when those beliefs violate state interest. If customers can stop patronizing artists and charities for their views, the government may withold funding from a university that refuses to follow its conditions for accept it. The case is known as FAIR v. Rumsfeld.

Guy Fawkes is accepting nominations for Press Plasgarist of 2005. Starting today, I will accept nominations for the Wing Nut awards for 2005.

In addition to being an oh-so-fine piece of hardware, a wingnut is someone who follows political (or any other) idealogy against all reason. A wingnut may also be someone who breaks from their alleged idealogy against all reason.

To nominate your nutz, send an email and a reason to ericdared -at- gmail.com or reply to this post.

I started playing Ogame. Its kinda like Risk, Diplomacy and Command & Conquer rolled into one.

You are given a planet to build on, gather resources and expand to other planets. You form alliances and trade resources. The downside: its very time consuming.

Playing is free, go check it out.