April 17, 2007

Virginia Tech: Guns and Defense

While details are still emerging from yesterday's tragic events on campus, there have been a variety of reactions in the news and articles expressed in the media.

According to Steve Pavlina, there are several common reactions to these types of events:

Interpretations and reactions to such events are heavily culture-bound. In the USA the popular media typically encourages us to react roughly as follows:

* Drop into a fear-based state of consciousness. "Oh my goodness. Would you look at that!"

* Feel shock, disgust, or outrage. "Somebody ought to do something about that."

* Experience reassurance the situation is being handled. "I see cars with flashing lights and people in uniformed clothing."

* Do nothing. "Glad that's over. What's on TV next?"

And I have already seen news articles from other countries saying that these types of events only happen in America, because of America's glorification of violence.

Even yahoos in this country have started coming out of the woodwork with finger pointing:

* Dr. Phil blames video games.

* Ken Hamm blames evolution and atheism for the school shooting.

* And some, of course, are questioning Virginia's "lax" gun control laws.

Unlike the first two, the gun control argument is not a joke. There are many people who feel that if there are no guns, then we will all be safe. In fact, it is now somewhat ironic, and very unfortunate, that Virginia Tech itself recently successfully lobbied to prevent the licensed concealed-carry of firearms on public college campuses in Virginia.

Virginia Tech alumni Aaron quotes Tech University spokesman Larry Hincker on the bill's defeat:

I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

I wonder if Larry now realizes the tragic and foolish consequences of defeating that bill. By not allowing citizens to lawfully be able to defend themselves against killers like Cho Seung-hui, events like Virginia Tech and Columbine will only proliferate, since the killers will have the weapons and know that their victims do not. Note that these mass-killing events occur in "gun-free" zones, such as schools and universities. In fact, reports say that Cho chained shut the doors of Norris Hall at Virginia Tech so that the students and faculty could not escape. Since he knew that no one else would have a gun, and thereby fight back, he could leisurely have his way with the victims.

From an editorial after last summer's shooting at Virginia Tech, graduate student Bradford Wiles comments in an editorial "Unarmed and Vulnerable" on not being armed during such an event:

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Finally, here is a great episode of Penn and Teller on Gun Control. Pay particular attention to the issue of gun-free zones at about 19 minutes.

There is also a segment of the community who says that you should not have guns also because if you need help, just call the police. After all, the police are there to help you. You also hear this sort of advice from "experts" about car-jackers ("just give them your keys"), hijackers ("just sit in your seat"), and rapists ("just lie there"). In other words, don't fight back.

Forensic psychologist Helen Smith comments on this phenomenon:

Have you noticed that most of the tips you get in recent years for how to survive a violent crime involve an accompanying psychological maneuver of first trying to make you feel impotent? And instead of suggesting remedies to overcome this impotence, these survival tips usually just tell you to give the criminal what they want. But what they typically don't say is that you can get killed using that approach also.

And as we saw with 9/11, and with the students and faculty at Virginia Tech, depending on "someone else" to show up and help you does not always work.

We cannot know what would have happened if someone had tried to fight back against Cho. But we see the result when we prevent the possibility of anyone fighting back. Draconian gun control will only remove the guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens---it will not prevent the Cho's of the world from having them and using them. Moreover, as we have seen at Virginia Tech, the results of preventing citizens from defending themselves and their loved ones will only be tragic.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted by keg at 4:15 PM

April 11, 2007

Most Dangerous and Livable States

Two interesting lists are The 2007 Most Dangerous States and The 2007 Most Livable States.

Most Dangerous U.S. State (rank = 1): Nevada
Least Dangerous U.S. State (rank = 50): North Dakota

Most Livable U.S. State (rank = 1): New Hampshire
Least Livable U.S. State (rank = 50): Mississippi

Virginia ranks # 36 on the Most Dangerous State list (well below average, where a higher ranking is worse) and # 12 on the Most Livable State list (well above average, where a higher ranking is better).

Where does your state rank?


Technorati Tags:

Posted by keg at 8:14 PM

March 10, 2007

Being Fake

The path to succeed often leads people to show their true nature.

Take Laura L. Callahan. She was hired in 2003 as the Department of Homeland Security's deputy Chief Information Officer. However, her degrees were fake:

Laura L. Callahan was very proud of her Ph.D. When she received it a few years ago, she promptly rewrote her official biography to highlight the academic accomplishment, referring to it not once or twice but nine times in a single-page summary of her career. And she never let her employees at the Labor Department, where she served as deputy chief information officer, forget it, even demanding that they call her "Doctor."

Callahan's management style had always been heavy-handed. Once, while working in a previous supervisory role at the Clinton White House, she reportedly warned computer workers to keep quiet about an embarrassing server glitch that led to the loss of thousands of archived e-mails covered by federal subpoena. But with her newly minted Ph.D., Callahan became intolerable, several employees say, belittling and even firing subordinates who did not understand the technical jargon she apparently picked up while studying for her doctorate in computer information systems.

One employee was skeptical of Callahan's qualifications, however, and began quietly asking questions. The answers worried him, especially after Callahan was hired in 2003 as the Department of Homeland Security's deputy chief information officer. His concerns and the resulting investigation ultimately revealed a troubling pattern of résumé fraud at federal agencies, including several charged with protecting Americans from terrorism. The scandal raises serious doubts about the government's ability to vet the qualifications of public employees on whom the nation's security depends.

Wikipedia also had a recent debacle with one of their editors---a professor of religion who published and edited Wikipedia pages, turned out to be a 24 year-old kid:

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.

The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.

And a report from the General Accounting Office found 463 government employees who received degrees from three unaccredited schools, in "Diploma Mills: Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools, Some at Goverment Expense."

But do not think such activity is limited to the US. Even members of the U.N. pad their resumes in order to be given top posts:

The United Nations fired a staff member in November because his academic degrees turned out to have been bought from a well-known Internet-based agency, not earned at an accredited university, a U.N. official said.

The incident was especially embarrassing because Trinity College and University is on a list of universities and colleges offering degrees for life experiences rather than formal education that had been circulated at the United Nations, U.N. staff members said Friday.

Jonathan Blankson, chief of the Human Resources Information Technology Section, had been suspended for 11 months before he was terminated, the staff members said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

And a candidate for Israel's tourism minister, Esterina Tartman, tried faking her degrees. The amazing thing is the response these people give when caught:

"She acknowledged that her claims to a master's degree were wrong but suggested that was a minor issue because she had studied for an MA."

Even Arnold is affected by fake people:

In another recent example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced March 1 that he had appointed Jack Corrie to a high-level information technology position in the state's Department of Motor Vehicles.

But Corrie's credentials include a bachelor's and a master's from the University of Palmers Green, which is a fake university, according to John Bear, an expert on online learning and diploma mills.

Just remember, trust, but verify---the US Department of Education maintains a searchable online database that includes the names and addresses of all schools accredited by organizations recognized by the federal government.

And, we are our deeds.

Technorati Tags:

Posted by keg at 3:58 PM

July 15, 2006

The Government's Right to Tap

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, is a 1994 law that requires telecommunications companies to provide special access to their data by government officials -- the usual requirement is to gather evidence for criminal investigations:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.

However, with the tremendous growth of the Internet, the government has long been trying to apply CALEA laws to Internet service providers too. It was pointed out that network traffic is different from telephone calls, that it would place an undue burden on often small ISPs to fund out of their own pockets the overhauling of their networks to provide network taps for government triffic sniffers and collectors, and many other concerns. However, last year the FCC issued regulations to apply the law to Internet networks.

There is an article at Inside Higher Ed that discusses the dilemma posed for colleges and universities:

Because colleges have taken numerous steps in recent years to make their networks more secure, making changes throughout their networks to make it easier for the government to monitor activities could have been hugely expensive. Colleges were particularly frustrated because they only rarely get requests (with warrants) from the government for such monitoring, and there has been no instance in which a college has been unable to comply promptly. The ACE sued the FCC over the regulations and a federal appeals court last month rejected the suit and said that the rules could be enforced. But the appeals court carved out an exception for "private networks," whose definition colleges have been trying to pin down.

Note that there are two perspectives to consider in this debate, as there are two sides of the network connection (collector and collectee).

,

Posted by keg at 2:42 PM