This was a very interesting article about psychology and philosophy.
The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. - NYTimes.com:
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com
I'm a fan of Thomas Friedman, and have enjoyed his books and columns. He points out in this editorial that Iran and Egypt have a Population and Resource "bomb" that is about to explode and contribute to disaster's throughout the Middle East
Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com:
I think those countries are only precursors for the situation that much of the world will be in if we don't do something to slow the population growth in the world.
Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com:
I think those countries are only precursors for the situation that much of the world will be in if we don't do something to slow the population growth in the world.
The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com
The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com
It is a shame that Charlie Rose didn't ask Assad if his regime would condone torture of children . Absolutely absurd! Evil!
It is a shame that Charlie Rose didn't ask Assad if his regime would condone torture of children . Absolutely absurd! Evil!
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was generally a good idea at the time in the 1970s. I believed at the time that it was necessary, but it went a little too far. However it was better to have the act as it was passed than to not have it. The Coastal Protection Act was another similar measure that was needed but was written a little too broadly.
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA - Conservative News:
Now that we have 30 years of experience with these laws, I do agree it is time to "tune them" to make a little more sense. Both of these laws have caused our State to be considered "business unfriendly." They provide opponents of any sort of progress to have an almost unlimited set of tools to delay, stall or stop projects. Anyone who wants to invest and start something new can be stopped by a very small minority using these laws. In addition, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that the laws have actually had the unintended consequence of having the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve. For example environmentalists want to keep things natural and pristine --so they generally prefer no development. However by not developing some areas, non-native plants and animals take over, erosion can fill streams etc. By doing nothing, we may be damaging the environment. Housing studies have shown that by making it very difficult to build in the coastal zone, the Commission has contributed to the "gentrification" of the coast. If developers were free to build high-rise condos and apartments along the beach, more middle-class citizens could be enjoying the beach areas.
The problem is that the various special or "vested" interests scream when any minor change is made to these laws.
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA - Conservative News:
Now that we have 30 years of experience with these laws, I do agree it is time to "tune them" to make a little more sense. Both of these laws have caused our State to be considered "business unfriendly." They provide opponents of any sort of progress to have an almost unlimited set of tools to delay, stall or stop projects. Anyone who wants to invest and start something new can be stopped by a very small minority using these laws. In addition, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that the laws have actually had the unintended consequence of having the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve. For example environmentalists want to keep things natural and pristine --so they generally prefer no development. However by not developing some areas, non-native plants and animals take over, erosion can fill streams etc. By doing nothing, we may be damaging the environment. Housing studies have shown that by making it very difficult to build in the coastal zone, the Commission has contributed to the "gentrification" of the coast. If developers were free to build high-rise condos and apartments along the beach, more middle-class citizens could be enjoying the beach areas.
The problem is that the various special or "vested" interests scream when any minor change is made to these laws.
The Real Right to Bear Arms by Joseph J. Ellis
I read this editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week. I think he makes a very good point and I'm now interested in reading his books!
The real right to bear arms
There is an opinion abroad in the land that the right to bear arms is unlimited, an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial.
This heartfelt conviction has surfaced lately in state legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun regulations. For the nullifiers, and many others, the broadest possible right to bear arms is purportedly enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and recognized in the Supreme Court case Heller vs. District of Columbia.
And yet, no matter how prevalent or fervently held, the opinion that the Bill of Rights supports and the high court acknowledges an absolute right to gun ownership is just plain wrong.
The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As the minority in the Heller decision argued, and more than a century of judicial precedent at the federal level established, the right to bear arms was not an inherent right of citizenship but rather a right that derived from service in the militia.
The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison’s mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.
When Madison sat down to write what became the Bill of Rights in the summer of 1789, those 124 proposed amendments served as the basis for his deliberations. He distilled from them an essence of 12 amendments, subsequently reduced by the states to 10. The 2nd Amendment represented Madison’s attempt to respond to the fears of a standing army by assuring that national defense would reside in the states and in militias, not at the federal level in a professional army. The right to bear arms derived from the need to assure that state militia could perform its essential mission.
All this was what constitutional scholars call “settled law” until Heller, in which the high court ruled that the right to bear arms, despite the language of the 2nd Amendment and the historical context of its creation, existed independent of service in the militia. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is a tour de force of legalistic legerdemain, a lengthy journey through English common law, colonial charters, state constitutions and obscure 19th century court cases. Given Scalia’s judicial philosophy as an “originalist” — meaning he believes his opinions should be guided by the original intent of the framers — his failure to assess Madison’s motives in drafting the 2nd Amendment is strange, much like a devout Christian explaining his faith without mentioning Jesus.
But even Scalia, fully aware of the legal precedents he was overturning, saw fit to insert the following caveats near the end of his opinion:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
These caveats create a crack through which significant gun control legislation might flow. Indeed, expanded background checks and limits on automatic weapons, the key provisions in the post-Sandy Hook gun legislation debated (and defeated) by Congress earlier this year, fit comfortably within this space.
But gun control advocates need to be realistic. The Heller decision, no matter how misguided, is itself “settled law,” and the current composition of the Supreme Court will defeat any challenge to its sweeping, if limited, mandate. In addition, Congress is demonstrably hogtied by the National Rif le Assn., and even though many states (Colorado, Connecticut and New York among them) have tightened gun ownership laws since the massacres in Newtown, Aurora and Tucson, another half a dozen are trying the nullification gambit.
Given all this, the only alternative is to go back to “the people” themselves, where there remains good reason to believe a clear majority wants sensible reform at odds with the agenda of the NRA and the nullifiers. Remember: As 2013 began, an astonishing 89% of voters, including 75% of NRA members, were in favor of expanded background checks, and sizable majorities favored a ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons. Months later, polls still find most Americans are in favor of checks, “assault rif le” bans and restrictions on who is allowed to purchase guns.
The terms of a national discussion would no doubt include the gun violence tragedies we’ve faced, but it should also focus on the legal core of the gun rights issue: the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision. These two tools, so often used to fight gun control, can and should be used to affect reasonable reform.
The intent of the founders needs to be heard and understood. The men who hammered out the Constitution, argued for its ratification and underlined our liberties with the Bill of Rights, would urge us to think about the issue this way: How do we balance the right to bear arms against the collective security of the American people?
Framed in this fashion, we can all come together as fellow citizens to discuss in a sensible rather than strident tone where the line needs to be drawn between our rights and our responsibilities.
All that’s required is that we channel our inner James Madisons, and even our inner Scalias. There is no unlimited right to bear arms — on that these two men agree, and so should we.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment - Salary.com
I've always wondered about the supply & demand balance between demand for college graduates and the various degrees offered by colleges and universities. When I went to college in the 1960s we were told that the country needed more engineers and scientists. However it appeared that all of the colleges made it more difficult to get into those degree programs, by requiring higher test scores and GPAs. They also seemed to make it more difficult to "stay in" those programs, by requiring heavier course loads, more homework and had more difficult tests. When I started my third year of college in engineering the number of engineering students in my class had dropped to one tenth of the number who had started their freshman year. Some students dropped out, but most moved to much "easier" majors, such as liberal arts, communications, accounting, or other arts-type programs.
Twenty-five years later, when our oldest son applied to colleges, the situation didn't seem to have gotten better. In fact, it seemed to have gotten worse. UC San Diego, for example, required a MUCH higher GPA and SAT score to be able to be accepted into an engineering program than any other program on campus. They said that the engineering programs were "impacted" --which I learned meant they had many more applicants for engineering programs than they had "slots" for. So they could raise the standards higher for those applicants. I'm not sure if the engineering drop-out rate was higher. I have not seen any statistics on that.
This recent article on "Salary.com" 8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment - Salary.com: points out that many college degrees have a very low return on investment. Note that there are no mention of positions in science, math, engineering, law, business, or medicine on this low return list.
If we lived in a dictatorship, the Government could easily solve this problem by decreeing that universities would offer fewer programs in sociology, psychology, communications, liberal arts, fine arts, etc --and expand their departments in science, engineering, law, business & medicine. That would make it more difficult to get into (and stay in) universities in the fields we don't need, and easier to get into the ones we do need. It appears that China has been able to do this, for example. Now they are cranking out many engineers, and apparently have a overabundance of scientists and engineers --so their supply & demand curve is out of balance the other way.
We can't do that in the United States, of course. We have to use some sort of economic incentives to channel students into the fields we need, and encourage universities to balance their degree offerings with the needs of the country and the demands of the students applying to their schools. We do have some "perverse incentives" that somewhat distort the economics. For example, universities are "graded" on the number of students they can get through to graduation. They don't get a higher score for graduating more students in math, science, engineering, or medicine. So the leaders and decision-makers don't have any reason for expanding those departments. Also, universities seem to work on a fixed cost per student. Everyone pays the same tuition per credit-hour. It's pretty clear that it costs more to teach classes in science, engineering or medicine. For those classes, the university needs more laboratories, more computers, and generally higher paid professors. Of course the reason those professors can command higher salaries is because they are in shorter supply in the first place. So, the university chancellors have to make rational decisions using these costs. If it costs 50% more to educate an engineer than a communication major, it is much easier to produce more communication majors. So those departments are expanded, of course.
I think articles like this in magazines, newspapers and websites is a help in that it can inform students of the value of the various types of degrees. It may help students demand for courses that will give them a better return on the investment they are making in higher education. However, it appears that universities are not very sensitive to the demand from students. I think we also need help from national and state policy. State university systems should consider adjusting their degree offerings to meet the requirements of their states in the various fields --even if the total number of graduates are less. Possibly some sort of weighting could be used in determining university performance where degrees in higher demand fields are scored higher than those in lower demand fields. I think that ultimately, the solution will have to be financial and from the Federal level. The US Department of Education needs to determine the nation's needs in various educational fields and then tailor their student loan and grant programs to provide incentives to get more students in the needed fields. Higher loan amounts or lower interest rates could be offered for students in degree fields we need, while lower amounts or higher interest rates could be attached to student loans for degrees in less-needed fields.
The universities also need to do something about keeping students in the degree programs we need, and discourage transfers into the perceived "easier" programs. There is no reason that the science, engineering & medical programs need to be "harder" than the liberal arts programs. Part of the problem, I believe, is that those courses are taught by practitioners of those fields -- the experts. An professor with a PhD in engineering may be a very good engineer, but is not necessarily a good "teacher." -- Even looking at the textbooks used for the various programs shows that. Engineering texts are typically very dry with lots of equations, while liberal arts books are much more interesting. Hopefully, the internet will help change that.
Twenty-five years later, when our oldest son applied to colleges, the situation didn't seem to have gotten better. In fact, it seemed to have gotten worse. UC San Diego, for example, required a MUCH higher GPA and SAT score to be able to be accepted into an engineering program than any other program on campus. They said that the engineering programs were "impacted" --which I learned meant they had many more applicants for engineering programs than they had "slots" for. So they could raise the standards higher for those applicants. I'm not sure if the engineering drop-out rate was higher. I have not seen any statistics on that.
This recent article on "Salary.com" 8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment - Salary.com: points out that many college degrees have a very low return on investment. Note that there are no mention of positions in science, math, engineering, law, business, or medicine on this low return list.
If we lived in a dictatorship, the Government could easily solve this problem by decreeing that universities would offer fewer programs in sociology, psychology, communications, liberal arts, fine arts, etc --and expand their departments in science, engineering, law, business & medicine. That would make it more difficult to get into (and stay in) universities in the fields we don't need, and easier to get into the ones we do need. It appears that China has been able to do this, for example. Now they are cranking out many engineers, and apparently have a overabundance of scientists and engineers --so their supply & demand curve is out of balance the other way.
We can't do that in the United States, of course. We have to use some sort of economic incentives to channel students into the fields we need, and encourage universities to balance their degree offerings with the needs of the country and the demands of the students applying to their schools. We do have some "perverse incentives" that somewhat distort the economics. For example, universities are "graded" on the number of students they can get through to graduation. They don't get a higher score for graduating more students in math, science, engineering, or medicine. So the leaders and decision-makers don't have any reason for expanding those departments. Also, universities seem to work on a fixed cost per student. Everyone pays the same tuition per credit-hour. It's pretty clear that it costs more to teach classes in science, engineering or medicine. For those classes, the university needs more laboratories, more computers, and generally higher paid professors. Of course the reason those professors can command higher salaries is because they are in shorter supply in the first place. So, the university chancellors have to make rational decisions using these costs. If it costs 50% more to educate an engineer than a communication major, it is much easier to produce more communication majors. So those departments are expanded, of course.
I think articles like this in magazines, newspapers and websites is a help in that it can inform students of the value of the various types of degrees. It may help students demand for courses that will give them a better return on the investment they are making in higher education. However, it appears that universities are not very sensitive to the demand from students. I think we also need help from national and state policy. State university systems should consider adjusting their degree offerings to meet the requirements of their states in the various fields --even if the total number of graduates are less. Possibly some sort of weighting could be used in determining university performance where degrees in higher demand fields are scored higher than those in lower demand fields. I think that ultimately, the solution will have to be financial and from the Federal level. The US Department of Education needs to determine the nation's needs in various educational fields and then tailor their student loan and grant programs to provide incentives to get more students in the needed fields. Higher loan amounts or lower interest rates could be offered for students in degree fields we need, while lower amounts or higher interest rates could be attached to student loans for degrees in less-needed fields.
The universities also need to do something about keeping students in the degree programs we need, and discourage transfers into the perceived "easier" programs. There is no reason that the science, engineering & medical programs need to be "harder" than the liberal arts programs. Part of the problem, I believe, is that those courses are taught by practitioners of those fields -- the experts. An professor with a PhD in engineering may be a very good engineer, but is not necessarily a good "teacher." -- Even looking at the textbooks used for the various programs shows that. Engineering texts are typically very dry with lots of equations, while liberal arts books are much more interesting. Hopefully, the internet will help change that.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security | World news | Guardian Weekly
I'm afraid that this news will be a "bombshell" for our intelligence system.
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security | World news | Guardian Weekly:
I was always suspicious that Government agencies, and in particular NSA, may have been able to break even the most complex encryption algorithms, given enough time and computer processor power. However, this news report, if correct, implies that NSA had powers far beyond what I envisioned them having. The "outing" of this information concerning "sources and methods" used will certainly destroy the sources of intelligence that the US has been depending upon. In one news article, billions of dollars in investment has been wiped out.
I've always thought that NSA should be continually working on cracking the most difficult encryption, as well as developing the most difficult-to-crack codes. This is critical to be able to defeat enemies and protect our national secrets. I think almost all Americans would agree with that. Development of those capabilities is one thing -- but actually deploying them against citizens is something else. By putting "backdoors" into encryption systems used by banks, and other industrial uses, the agency has weakened the security of those systems. Even if the agency didn't listen to my conversation, browse through my bank's records, or snoop through my files, they have weakened the limited amount of protection that I thought I had. If the "agency" has this capability to use as an enterprise, what is there to stop a "rogue" individual within the agency from using this power for political purposes (like Watergate?). What is to stop them from using it for financial gain? What checks and balances are levied on those capabilities? I doubt if any agency employee will "go to jail" for doing what they've been doing. I know that all of the employees felt they were working to defend our country against "adversaries." --Even though some of them thought of their fellow Americans as adversaries. On the other hand, it may be time for a change of their "culture."
If NSA and GCHQ has this capability, it is likely that other US and British agencies also have similar capabilities. Treasury Department, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA and similar law enforcement agencies may also have capabilities that are similar, or are targeted against specific groups of citizens. What checks & balances are on those agencies? The US Government used the threat of terrorism and the 9/11 attack as justification for increasing the amount of spying and communication intercepts. However, I'm very suspicious that those same resources are also being used to help with illegal drug interdiction. It's a slippery slope! Once they're using it for stopping heroin and cocain, why can't they also use the tools to stop me from buying toenail fungus medicine from England that I'm unable to buy in the US? If the US and Britain have been spending resources to develop these eavesdropping capabilities, it would make sense that other countries are also developing algorithms, computer systems, and permanent "wire taps"on major communication trunks. Wouldn't it make sense that autocratic governments such as Russia and China which have large amounts of high technology and trained scientists would be doing the same thing? Maybe they are already further along! Germany, France, Austria and Sweden may have the capability too. .
I've often wondered why GMAIL, HOTMAIL, AOL, YAHOO and other web-based mail systems did not incorporate any encryption or digital signature system. Now I understand! The US Government restricted them from doing it. When the few small encrypted mail services began shutting down a month or so ago, it was probably because the Government insisted on a back door to their encryption systems. This is another example of how the Government activity has made me more vulnerable, and denied my rights to privacy. I'm probably much more vulnerable to hackers because of it. The NY Times Editorial Board in Oct 2013 now agrees Steven Levy wrote an excellent article in Wired Magazine entitled "How the U.S. Almost Killed the Internet and Why it Still Could" which explains very well the dilemma that Microsoft, Google, Yahoo etc were in, and how they were lied to by the Government and were very surprised when they figured out what NSA was doing
The damage has been done. The cat is out of the bag. We now need the Government to step up and repair the damage.New York Times has called for the US to close NSA's "back door" but didn't really suggest how it could be done. We now need an independent agency or private corporation (whom we can trust) to inspect all of the various algorithms used for encryption and be able to certify that they do NOT have backdoors in them. We need to have confidence that our communications will not be monitored. We need the Government to encourage mail services to employ the latest, state-of-art, encryption systems on their mail and cloud storage systems to allow us to protect our communications and data from snoops -- whether within our Government, by hackers, or by foreign governments.
Update in Mid-October 2013. I read an article by Martha Mendoza in "The Desert Sun" --but could only find a link to the same article in the Denver Post: Now internet users are making NSA's job more difficult by inserting words in their e-mail that could trigger a look. Words like "pressure cooker" and "blow up" are being added into normal email and web sites which will "spam" the NSA systems that are supposed to be looking for those words to help find terrorists. Also, more and more people are starting to encrypt their e-mail using codes that they think will be more difficult for NSA to crack. I think this will now encourage terrorists. I feel bad for NSA. I know those people are hard working and conscientious. They were really trying to do the most they could with the budget they had. Yeah, they could be accused of being "lazy" -- instead of spending the money and effort to break all of the encryption systems, they forced all ISPs to use "dumbed down" encryption algorithms with "back doors." -- It worked! But only for a while. Now the cats are out of the bag -- will be tough to get them back in! .
In November 2013, LA Times Op Ed had a good argument that it is unlikely that the NSA would make any changes. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1123-mcmanus-nsa-20131124,0,3775747.column#axzz2ldFRNHVr In Feb 2014, the Guardian published a Rand Paul commentary that accused Clapper of lying to congress. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/20/nsa-violating-american-rights-rand-paul?CMP=ema_565 .
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security | World news | Guardian Weekly:
I was always suspicious that Government agencies, and in particular NSA, may have been able to break even the most complex encryption algorithms, given enough time and computer processor power. However, this news report, if correct, implies that NSA had powers far beyond what I envisioned them having. The "outing" of this information concerning "sources and methods" used will certainly destroy the sources of intelligence that the US has been depending upon. In one news article, billions of dollars in investment has been wiped out.
I've always thought that NSA should be continually working on cracking the most difficult encryption, as well as developing the most difficult-to-crack codes. This is critical to be able to defeat enemies and protect our national secrets. I think almost all Americans would agree with that. Development of those capabilities is one thing -- but actually deploying them against citizens is something else. By putting "backdoors" into encryption systems used by banks, and other industrial uses, the agency has weakened the security of those systems. Even if the agency didn't listen to my conversation, browse through my bank's records, or snoop through my files, they have weakened the limited amount of protection that I thought I had. If the "agency" has this capability to use as an enterprise, what is there to stop a "rogue" individual within the agency from using this power for political purposes (like Watergate?). What is to stop them from using it for financial gain? What checks and balances are levied on those capabilities? I doubt if any agency employee will "go to jail" for doing what they've been doing. I know that all of the employees felt they were working to defend our country against "adversaries." --Even though some of them thought of their fellow Americans as adversaries. On the other hand, it may be time for a change of their "culture."
If NSA and GCHQ has this capability, it is likely that other US and British agencies also have similar capabilities. Treasury Department, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA and similar law enforcement agencies may also have capabilities that are similar, or are targeted against specific groups of citizens. What checks & balances are on those agencies? The US Government used the threat of terrorism and the 9/11 attack as justification for increasing the amount of spying and communication intercepts. However, I'm very suspicious that those same resources are also being used to help with illegal drug interdiction. It's a slippery slope! Once they're using it for stopping heroin and cocain, why can't they also use the tools to stop me from buying toenail fungus medicine from England that I'm unable to buy in the US? If the US and Britain have been spending resources to develop these eavesdropping capabilities, it would make sense that other countries are also developing algorithms, computer systems, and permanent "wire taps"on major communication trunks. Wouldn't it make sense that autocratic governments such as Russia and China which have large amounts of high technology and trained scientists would be doing the same thing? Maybe they are already further along! Germany, France, Austria and Sweden may have the capability too. .
I've often wondered why GMAIL, HOTMAIL, AOL, YAHOO and other web-based mail systems did not incorporate any encryption or digital signature system. Now I understand! The US Government restricted them from doing it. When the few small encrypted mail services began shutting down a month or so ago, it was probably because the Government insisted on a back door to their encryption systems. This is another example of how the Government activity has made me more vulnerable, and denied my rights to privacy. I'm probably much more vulnerable to hackers because of it. The NY Times Editorial Board in Oct 2013 now agrees Steven Levy wrote an excellent article in Wired Magazine entitled "How the U.S. Almost Killed the Internet and Why it Still Could" which explains very well the dilemma that Microsoft, Google, Yahoo etc were in, and how they were lied to by the Government and were very surprised when they figured out what NSA was doing
The damage has been done. The cat is out of the bag. We now need the Government to step up and repair the damage.New York Times has called for the US to close NSA's "back door" but didn't really suggest how it could be done. We now need an independent agency or private corporation (whom we can trust) to inspect all of the various algorithms used for encryption and be able to certify that they do NOT have backdoors in them. We need to have confidence that our communications will not be monitored. We need the Government to encourage mail services to employ the latest, state-of-art, encryption systems on their mail and cloud storage systems to allow us to protect our communications and data from snoops -- whether within our Government, by hackers, or by foreign governments.
Update in Mid-October 2013. I read an article by Martha Mendoza in "The Desert Sun" --but could only find a link to the same article in the Denver Post: Now internet users are making NSA's job more difficult by inserting words in their e-mail that could trigger a look. Words like "pressure cooker" and "blow up" are being added into normal email and web sites which will "spam" the NSA systems that are supposed to be looking for those words to help find terrorists. Also, more and more people are starting to encrypt their e-mail using codes that they think will be more difficult for NSA to crack. I think this will now encourage terrorists. I feel bad for NSA. I know those people are hard working and conscientious. They were really trying to do the most they could with the budget they had. Yeah, they could be accused of being "lazy" -- instead of spending the money and effort to break all of the encryption systems, they forced all ISPs to use "dumbed down" encryption algorithms with "back doors." -- It worked! But only for a while. Now the cats are out of the bag -- will be tough to get them back in! .
In November 2013, LA Times Op Ed had a good argument that it is unlikely that the NSA would make any changes. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1123-mcmanus-nsa-20131124,0,3775747.column#axzz2ldFRNHVr In Feb 2014, the Guardian published a Rand Paul commentary that accused Clapper of lying to congress. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/20/nsa-violating-american-rights-rand-paul?CMP=ema_565 .
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy | Assembly Internet
I recently learned that there is a committee in our California Assembly called:
Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy | Assembly Internet:--all members are listed on this page. It interested me that both Rocky Chavez from our District and Toni Atkins from San Diego serve on that committee.
It appears that the committee members are looking long term, which is a good idea. They recently heard from a Stanford University Professor Rosemary Knight concerning measurements of the effects of rising ocean on ground water: https://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/enviro/news/features/rosemary-knight-stanford-professor-geophysics-testifies-california-assembly-select-com
In May, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute gave a presentation to the committee:
Here is a transcript of his testimony. I was surprised to learn that the ocean water level along the California coast has risen 8 inches over the past 100 years, and the rate is increasing.
I think that the findings of this committee are in conflict with some of the activities of our California Coastal Commission. The Commission fights any homeowner who wants to protect their property from rising oceans by making it difficult to get a permit to build or maintain sea wall protection. It seems to me that the State should be encouraging owners to build sea walls and maybe integrate those walls into large regional protection systems that will protect large areas of our coast.
'
Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy | Assembly Internet:--all members are listed on this page. It interested me that both Rocky Chavez from our District and Toni Atkins from San Diego serve on that committee.
It appears that the committee members are looking long term, which is a good idea. They recently heard from a Stanford University Professor Rosemary Knight concerning measurements of the effects of rising ocean on ground water: https://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/enviro/news/features/rosemary-knight-stanford-professor-geophysics-testifies-california-assembly-select-com
In May, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute gave a presentation to the committee:
Here is a transcript of his testimony. I was surprised to learn that the ocean water level along the California coast has risen 8 inches over the past 100 years, and the rate is increasing.
I think that the findings of this committee are in conflict with some of the activities of our California Coastal Commission. The Commission fights any homeowner who wants to protect their property from rising oceans by making it difficult to get a permit to build or maintain sea wall protection. It seems to me that the State should be encouraging owners to build sea walls and maybe integrate those walls into large regional protection systems that will protect large areas of our coast.
'
Sunday, September 1, 2013
U.S.-Russia feud over Snowden cuts both ways - latimes.com
I found this article to be very enlightening! I wondered why Russia agreed to allow Snowden to stay there. Now I completely understand!
U.S.-Russia feud over Snowden cuts both ways - latimes.com:
Why would Russia send Snowden back to us, when we don't do the same thing for them! In addition we grab their citizens from other countries and try them for offenses. I wonder if those Russian citizens actually received a fair trial in the US? Will require some additional research, I suppose.
Many people say Snowden was a hero --but I think most Americans believe he was a traitor. He did expose some questionable practices within NSA. I think if he wanted to take his concern through the proper channels, he probably would have been thrown in jail for a long time --even if the information didn't make it to the public.
I hate seeing classified information be released without careful thought. Snowden's release was disastrous! There really needs to be an agency where citizens can take such complaints and know that they would be handled fairly. Would he take it to Congress? A Judge? The Attorney General? Where would a person with a concern like that go? Certainly not to his company management, and not to his "customer" at NSA.
U.S.-Russia feud over Snowden cuts both ways - latimes.com:
Why would Russia send Snowden back to us, when we don't do the same thing for them! In addition we grab their citizens from other countries and try them for offenses. I wonder if those Russian citizens actually received a fair trial in the US? Will require some additional research, I suppose.
Many people say Snowden was a hero --but I think most Americans believe he was a traitor. He did expose some questionable practices within NSA. I think if he wanted to take his concern through the proper channels, he probably would have been thrown in jail for a long time --even if the information didn't make it to the public.
I hate seeing classified information be released without careful thought. Snowden's release was disastrous! There really needs to be an agency where citizens can take such complaints and know that they would be handled fairly. Would he take it to Congress? A Judge? The Attorney General? Where would a person with a concern like that go? Certainly not to his company management, and not to his "customer" at NSA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)