Go big or go home

Let me see if I’ve got this right: The RCMP busts a whole bunch of people who want to plant bombs and blow stuff up, but we’re not really sure what they were going to try to blow up. Fine, I understand why this is significant. So why are we paying all this attention to a guy who wanted to behead the Prime Minister. As in, get close enough to the PM not to blow him up, or shoot him, but to actually cut his head off.

I don’t know why, but I’ve got a weird, nagging feeling that this is, like, the terrorist equivalent of wanting a pony.

Moving target

A. and I were chatting (briefly) today about my upcoming vacation in Europe. “Did you hear about the new terrorist incidents in Turkey?” she said. I had not. She didn’t have any links (bad journalist! no gin for you!), but I’m guessing she was referring to this report of a small explosion, injuring about a dozen people in Mersin, down on the Mediterranian coast near the Syrian border.

Terrorism in That Part Of The WorldTM is nothing new, and some Kurdish groups have a bit of a problem with this kind of behavior, and so it might not exactly be the safest place to be. That said, staying home might be just as dangerous. So who knows?

Aw, fuckit. Ain’t getting any safer.

This is a security system?

I locked myself out of my online banking application the other day, the result of having flunked its “are you really you” verification system twice. It was asking me, after having punched in my giant bank card number and my password, what my favorite author was. You know why it does this, of course. But I was thinking that it might be kind of pointless.

The challenge-response system of security is great as an additional level, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably the weakest part of the system. Weirdly my banking password is stronger than any of the challenge-replies I could think of, inasmuch that it would be much harder to break my password than break any of the challenges. If you could guess my password, the odds are really good you could guess the answer to any challenge-response system out there on the Internet. Obviously this is entirely dependent on you knowing me, but consider the number of people in the world who know

  • your mother’s maiden name…
  • what your first pet’s name was…
  • who your favorite sports team is…
  • where you were born…
  • what year you graduated from high school…
  • what your first job was…

… among many others. OK, so the list is basically confined to your mom and your spouse and maybe some other family members, but the point is still the same: this kind of attack is trivial if you know anything about the person who owns the account you’re trying to compromise. And you may only need to know one of those things, depending on how broken the system is. Arguably, the dumber you are, the easier it is (though in fairness it should be pointed out that this kind of system may or may not have played a role in the break, not that this excuses anything).

There’s an obvious fix for this — let users craft their own questions — but I’m not sure why it isn’t more widely deployed.

And why did I manage to lock myself out? Because I couldn’t remember who my favorite author was. Was it author C, who’s been on my mind a lot lately? Was it author O, who I used to like a lot and haven’t read much of lately (okay, she’s dead and I’ve read everything)? Was it author F, who I use when I’m trying to sound smart and sophisticated (what, was I trying to impress the security robot)? Was the answer case-sensitive?

I never found out. The bank gave me two strikes; I blew it both times, and that was it.

Feel the pain! Feel it!

This is way too true. But I can go one better. I had a standardized patient once tell me that he was such a good standardized patient, he could mimic physical signs. Hepatojugular reflex? Yup, no problem. Lateralized lung sounds to simulate pneumothorax? Uh-huh, he could do that. Full control over his heart rate so he could pretend to be tachy or brady? Sure, piece of cake. Except, you know, that he couldn’t. That didn’t stop him from trying and repeating this assertion over and over again, and it certainly didn’t stop us from laughing about it every time he left the room.

The best story, I think, came one day while we were standing around one day on break and he told a bunch of us that he didn’t mind it in ATLS sims where people would try to stick airways into him. “I have a well-controlled gag reflex,” he said.

Um… yeah. I’m not sure that’s something you want to be bragging about there, pal.

Some days (or: why this is an LJ and not a blog)

I was joking with Frink last week that if blogs hadn’t jumped the shark sometime back in 2004, they certainly had as of last week. The defining moment was, I think, the appearance of Duncan Black as himself in an episode of The West Wing. Secretly, I was pleased that I’d managed to avoid being associated with that medium for over a full year, and I said that while I had a LiveJournal, it was in no way, shape, or form a blog. If people want to harbor the illusion that LiveJournal is full of emo-listening teenagers whining at each other, so much the better: nobody, and I mean nobody, will ever take this seriously, nor will I ever be in a position to ask that people take it seriously.

But owning a blog these days is, for the most part, an exercise in seriousness. Sure, you’ll run into people who are damn funny and know that it’s all a big joke and aren’t interested in changing the nature of dialogue — they’re just being funny as best they can. Some of them are really damn funny, and others (like me) are.. well, the less said about that, the better. The upshot is that blogging is mostly an exercise in pretentiousness, and “serious” blogging seems to require an outsized belief in the ability of the medium to somehow influence the world outside of the community of your readership.

Let’s put it another way: I don’t know a single person who reads blogs because they want to be challenged with truly new information. They want their biases and their beliefs confirmed. I slogged my way through a 750 page biography on Brian Mulroney back in the day because I wanted to understand something about the guy; it was really more of a hagiography rather than an actual biography and after I was done I needed to take a drink of cold water because I thought the dude was actually OK. Then I came to my senses and realized that he was a jackass and I’m still glad he’s out of politics. But this frequently happens when I’m reading something in The Atlantic or The New Yorker — I’ll think, “hey, this isn’t what I expected” and I’ll end up having to think about it later. But you don’t do that with blogs, because a blog’s readership self-selects and if you challenge them, they’ll self-select off somewhere else. Self-selecting to read the oppositions’ postings doesn’t work, either, because they’re so snotty and obnoxious that you don’t want to spend any time around them at all. So blogs really serve to reinforce the impressions of their readers: you guys, what you think, and what you believe, are OK. When the conventional wisdom is challenged, viciousness usually results. (Just ask Kevin Drum how much love he gets for being a “reasonable Democrat” who picks his fights carefully!)

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we’re doing anything magnificent or remarkable in the greater sense of the world, nor should we believe that what we hold as dear are necessarily true all over. Nor should we pretend that the outside world cares about what we think.

This point was dramatically rammed home over and over again every time Xeni would post about Jill Carroll, who we are all thankful is home safe and sound, as though somehow, the collective will of the Boing Boing readership would make a difference in whether she was released alive or not. Don’t get me wrong — I’m really happy she’s home safe, mostly because nobody deserves to be taken hostage and threatened with death as part of their job, especially if they have to do that job unarmed. But seriously, who are we fooling here? Boing Boing readers are not going to get hostages released in Iraq, they aren’t going to get Senate legislation overturned, and they aren’t going to get major companies to stop being jackasses. The organizational power of a blog is limited to the collective power of the group it organizes, and let’s face it, most people who read Boing Boing aren’t the sort of demographic that people listen to.

(I will not go so far as to call them geeks or nerds because that would imply that some of them have technical skill. Xeni is not a geek. She’s a wanna-be geek, but so far as I can tell her technical skills consist of being able to write some HTML, use a Web browser, and work a tape recorder. Great! I got a dog that can do that, who, by the by, is a lot cuter than Xeni.)

(Incidentally, the reason that guys like Atrios and Kos can be powerful is because his readership acts with something other than a fax machine: it acts with money. And not just threats to withhold it, either — they give it out, and that always buys you at least an audience.)

The actual effectiveness of the move doesn’t matter, though. The Boing Boing crowd, and bloggers more generally, likes to think of themselves as participating in some kind of journalism project and so therefore the plight of actual journalists (who have to wear clothes to do their jobs) is intriguing and important to them. They probably won’t kick any cash towards RSF and that’s OK, because they’ll have the pose and raise awarness, whateverthefuck that’s supposed to mean. None of them are ever going to be at the mercy of a bunch of insurgents weilding AK-74s (TANIII) because none of them would ever be in that situation in the first place. (Cell phones don’t work over there, for instance, and you can’t get EVDO access, and nobody will fix a Prada bag, and how in the hell are you supposed to charge a widescreen iBook when the electricity is only on for an hour a day?)

It’s a lot like the argument about Google and China (which summed up really well a couple months ago): We agree, in the abstract, that network freedom is a very good thing, and worth fighting for, but most of us aren’t really in a position to do anything about it, and the vast majority of us will merely blog really furiously about it and then do nothing else. Rest assured it was not blogbursts about Jill Carroll that saved her life — it was the fact that a bunch of insurgents decided to let her go on their own. Believe me, outside of the people who read blogs.. nobody gives a shit about blogs.

But those who do give a shit about blogs give a really big shit, because it’s supposed to be this new way to think about the world. It’s kind of sick, actually; you have to pander to readers, or people buzz off and leave. Frauf has, for instance, had this weird obsession with earwax picking for about a week now, and keeps posting stuff about how to pick your ears, even after an otolaryngologist told him (much as any otolaryngologist worth the vowels in his name will) that it’s a really dumb idea to shove objects into your ears. Boing Boing’s readership likely buys into this new paradigm, that the Internet can substitute for expert judgment, and well, hell, if everyone does it and says it’s OK, what does the ENT guy know about it? Hack your body, man. Basically, I conclude that Frauf is continuing to post about this subject because he’s either ignoring the doctor because he’s pandering, or actually doesn’t believe him, because he (Frauf) is stupid, or because he (Frauf) believes that all viewpoints are equally valid, like on cable news. (This third option does not in any way, shape, or form imply that Frauf isn’t any less stupid, btw. Yeah, I know this is not clear. Do you know what time it is right now?) At no point has anyone said, “gee, you know, if I keep posting stuff like this someone might poke a big ol’ hole in their eardrum, and that doesn’t seem like a very good idea.”

There’s nothing very wrong with pandering but it does get old after a while, and I’ve often thought about setting up some kind of a game where you can pick from a list of well-known bloggers and figure out who said what from their archives. (Obviously, in the interests of being fair, you’d have to get rid of catch phrases, but this would be pretty heh-worthy, I think.) We shouldn’t think we’re doing anything remarkably amazing here. As TNH said once, cranks have always found a way to self-publish their ravings to people who are eager to listen. The only difference today is that nobody has to learn how to run a mimeo machine.

Kikyomon

Hard it is to be born into human life; now we are living it. Difficult it is to hear the Teachings of the Blessed One; now we hear them. If we do not gain emancipation in this present life, how may we be freed from sorrow in the ocean of births and deaths?

Let us reverently take refuge in the Three Treasures.

I go to the Buddha for guidance. May I always walk in the way that leads to Enlightenment.
I go to the Dharma for Guidance. May I be submerged in the depth of the Teachings and gain Wisdom as deep as the ocean.
I go to the Sangha for guidance. May we all with one accord live the life of harmony in the spirit of brotherhood, free from the bondage of selfishness.

Don't you miss him, too?

I was poking around my bookmarks in an attempt to distract myself this afternoon and found myself at James Wolcott’s place. He’s got an item up there right now that talks about the rhetorical excesses of some dip who writes for the National Review. It seems that Andrew Sullivan, who is still not being directly linked from any Web site that I have any control over, used the word “fellatial” to refer to someone else’s writing. Personally, I’m more than happy to compare sycophantic writing to a hummer; I think it’s funny. But J-Pod goes all non-linear over this point (which is odd, if you consider J-Pod’s posting history and his proclivity to express a subtle, wink-wink-nudge-nudge interest in teh gay).

Wolcott, however, said this: “Shouting in caps like a crazy person, Podhoretz is understandably…”

And you know what the very first thing I thought of was?

UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.

If you came late to this party known as thu Innernet, you probably don’t get this joke. That’s fine; I’m making this joke for about six people out there, all of whom will think that we had a much higher caliber of kooks and nutters on Usenet than we do on the Web today. Whether that was a self-selecting thing, or a concentration thing, or a representational thing is a question for another day.

I never thought I’d be in the position of saying I missed people like Serdar Argic and Robert McElwaine, but here I am. At least everyone thought they were nutty…

"This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly."

Are you starting to sense a trend?

This isn’t about the spying, although that’s a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago — on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly.

In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It’s a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country … merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world. …

The result is that the president’s wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical “War on Terror”: a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and — most ominously — no knowable “victory.” Investigations, arrests, and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain “at war” for as long as he chooses.

There’s lots more. As they say, read the whole thing. But it doesn’t matter, because Michael Moore is still fat.