it's appalling how celebrity figures and artistes get instant recognition, and some of the best thinkers of our time don't. this was brought to my attention recently when i was conversing with a friend and i mentioned isaac newton. sir isaac newton, pardon me. and he didn't know who that is. he is, thankfully from a social science background, studying social and political sciences, so i guess that's an excuse. but really, isaac newton? (sir isaac newton). i mean when he mentioned otto von bismarck, at least i knew who that is. i may not remember what he did and what his role was, but i remember he was involved in WWI and i recall distinctly his bushy beard from our history textbook back in grade 11.
conversely, both of us know who michael jackson and kobe bryant is (him not being a fan of pop music nor basketball).
now before you crucify me, and my high horse, some of the 'great thinkers' i speak about aren't even known to me. my friends studying philosophy, for example, don't know who barry mashall is, but neither do is know their list of 279.38 philoshophers, whom not only do they know by heart, but memorise their philosophies, mode of thoughts, birthdates, blood types and favourite pokemons. and this all happening in the so called 'intellectual circle' i preach but do not presume to be part of. so, now having saved my skin from the stake, let us proceed to burn my high horse and have a barbie. horse meat is delish.
i'm not trying to belittle the accomplishments of artistes, either. for all her ho-baggery-shenanigans, brittney spears deserves her spot in the limelight for entertaining us (and i hate that bish, so that's saying a lot). so does the fotm borat/ali-g/bruno, neither of whom i will link to, though, for i personally hate them. him. whatever.
my point is, why don't we wear socrates jerseys or commemorate the death of schrodinger by buying 'schrodinger cat' paraphanelia? instead we worship the ground upon which the skank-a-licious pussycat dolls walk? the proportion of contribution to society is without question of great contrast (even if they may be in different fields. i clause entertainment under a field very loosely).
in my opinion, these men (and especially women) of the category i have mentioned are deserving of more, and they should receive more recognition, if at least, than they get. i guess, though, that being the unsung heroes of the world is what makes the cut for 'geekiness cool factor' which is worth way more per point than 'jock cool factor' i.e. loosely translated to: uncool being the real cool. or something like that. it's hard to put into words and i'm hungry. don't hate.
anyway, those who do reach the fame and glory (or lack thereof. i like saying this) in the non-entertainment world (i use an exclusion phrase because it's hard to define what exactly i'm talking about, but it definitely isn't the artistes i was talking about earlier. again refer to the 'hard to put into words and i'm hungry. don't hate' part of last paragraph), there is eternal recognition, which i suppose is way better than its fotm form. we probably will still remember who ben affleck is 30 years from now and our great grandchildren will recognise the name hugh hefner without needing to know who he is to live (now i think of it, he might still be alive then. he is kind of immortal, having the libido he has at his age). but that won't change the fact that einstein will be just as well known, and to those that matter, so will his lesser known compatriots). for those who ascend those heights,
in biology - have a process named after you.
in medicine - have a disease named after you.
in chemistry - have a reaction named after you.
in physics - have an equation, law or entity named after you.
in astronomy - have a planet named after you (even if it is X 13-7 NN).
in mathematics - have a theory, equation or law named after you. (refer to physics)
in philosophy - have a book (which you wrote anyway) become a text.
in religion - just be remembered for who you are. especially if you're defined as god (way to go sweet christianity jesus!)
in sports - have a play or stadium named after you.
...
so on and so forth... you guys rock.
and in 'entertainment' - have a 5 dollar pornstar adopt your name (albeit still being legally different enough to avoid infringement). think Xtina A Gorilla or something like that. idk, be creative for me because i can't.
p/s: i actually don't hate the people in the entertainment business. i even respect a lot of them, like steven spielberg and freddie mercury. without them there wouldn't be t3h aw3szumz jurassic park or queen. i just generalise to include the trash of the industry to prove my point today. apologies to those who are undeservedly offended.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
great questions of the universe
__________________a long time ago_____________________
_________________in a galaxy far, far____________________
_______________away, lived a sage who was________________
_____________adamant about finding the answers____________
____________to the many irresolvable questions of____________
__________the universe. amongst them, he could answer________
________few, and among those few, are the great questions_______
______of which none can mortally come to an answer - questions____
__so metaphysical, that they are said to transcend the knowledge__
of even the great, sweet genetically-manipulated einstein jesus during his prime years. these questions are the ones which we shall attempt to solve today by entering the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge . This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone...
(cue The Outer Limits's theme song)
i've always been a fan of the x-files (also know as an x-phile). at least up to season 5 where it got a bit out of hand with mulder's alien obsessions. heck, as soon as season 6 rolled in it was basically the all-about-aliens-and-them-kidnapping-my-sister files. i liked the earlier seasons where you could watch the episodes independent of each other, each was a stand alone 30 minute story which was on random paranormal activity. towards the end, it progressively became more and more like a segmented movie on an alien, one with a very complex but dull storyline, and the only reason you kept watching was to
1. see the ending, and get this crap over with
2. because you were a fan to begin with
3. scully was pretty hot at the time?
4. mulder was pretty hot at the time (???)
5. cigarette smoking man. his name. now. NOW.
6. ???
7. profit
but really, it was still an awesome series. the theme song freaked my nephew out, and i think at some point it did the same to me as well. now i could go into a whole post about how awesome x-files was, and have the bashers hate, and the philes un-hate, but that's not the purpose of me writing today.
instead, i'd like to address a great question of the universe. one which ranks high up with the following questions:
1. cake > pie? (as discussed briefly in an earlier post)
2. which variant of sweet ______ jesus is the most powerful?
3. is life really like a box of chocolates? compare and contrast.
4. where's wally?
etc etc etc.
which, if i had the time and opportunity, i would like to cover in due time, but we'll address what we can at random: the topic for today is, pirates vs. ninjas.
it's obvious that pirates never met ninjas in the same temporal or spatial existence, else there might be a battle of such magnitude that the earth would tremble. volcanoes would bleed lava and the sky would be set ablaze with the fiery spirit of the dying warriors engaged in eternal battle for their pirate- or ninja-race. the earth would run damp with the blood of innocents collateral to the bloody onslaught lasting dawn to dusk. the echoing sound of nocturnal creatures feasting on the carcasses of the fallen dankly filter the screams of torture in the night, and the day would be greeted by death, anew. or the pirates would just join up with ninjas and the world would be a better place.
it's complex to think about ninja and pirates as a whole - the number and demography of each has not been documented - the pirates probably slew any who would attempt to census them:
'good day, sir, i am bartholomew christopher hills. if it would not inconvenience you and your merry crew, i would like to ask you a few questions... OH GOD THE PAIN. MY SPLEEN. IS THAT MY SPLEEN? WHY ARE YOU FEEDING ME MY SPLEEN BWALKJEAKJWEAJKALJ'
and the ninjas would probably just be untraceable.
so let's approach this in a scientific way, with as much controlled parameters as possible such that we can exclude all external factors and have the only manipulated variable be 'being a ninja' or 'being a pirate'. in fact, we'll do it in a humane way, such that we violate no human rights laws or create unethical code of conduct. with such limitations, there's only one sane way of pitting the two against each other. MANO E MANO FIGHT TO THE DEATH. somewhat like celebrity deathmatch, without the drama and wwf (wwe?) faked and staged fights.
think mortal kombat meets street fighter. except that's kind of like ninja vs. ninja. we need more pirate video games so i can make better analogies. anyhow. one on one. pirate vs ninja. doesn't get any more hard core than that. each has their own strengths and weaknesses. pirates being the most ruthless, powerful, dirty and dastardly scallywags with or without scurvy (depending on their lime consumption) to walk the earth. by definition, though, REAL pirates are the ones that never walk on land. born, live and die on a ship. REAL pirates. they're as hard to come across as rainbow unicorns with chocolate filling. and ninjas - masters of disguise and deception, who attack from the shadows and leave no trace. they'd kill so quickly you didn't know you were dead. your body would go around doing it's normal routine for months or years thinking it's alive, but it was actually dead. like a walking zombie. in fact, some theologians postulate that this is how sweet zombie jesus came into being: sweet living jesus got assassinated by a ninja and, well, the shit just hit the fan.
so really, with such strong competitors, how is it possible to determine a winner? especially for someone so far below them as ourselves? see, there's a reason this is called a great question of the universe. so i did a bit of research. there's not many pirates to be found on the interwebs, but i did find a ninja who gave us the answer on how to kill a ninja. that's some hard core information leak right there. now all i need to do is find out how to kill a pirate, and compare the methods - the harder one belonging to the winner, being the obvious conclusion. but then nothing is obvious as it seems, and i will strive evermore to find a REAL pirate and an authentic ninja (preferrably azn, instead of white like demonstrated in my link) and have them slug it out. random things do happen and will affect the outcome (as elaborated in my 'basic' probability post).
p/s: i'm a big fan of ask a ninja, and if you haven't watched it yet, feel free to start watching from question 1.
p/p/s: feel free to comment on which you think would win. pirate? ninja? radioactive hamsters from alpha centauri?
_________________in a galaxy far, far____________________
_______________away, lived a sage who was________________
_____________adamant about finding the answers____________
____________to the many irresolvable questions of____________
__________the universe. amongst them, he could answer________
________few, and among those few, are the great questions_______
______of which none can mortally come to an answer - questions____
__so metaphysical, that they are said to transcend the knowledge__
of even the great, sweet genetically-manipulated einstein jesus during his prime years. these questions are the ones which we shall attempt to solve today by entering the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge . This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone...
(cue The Outer Limits's theme song)
i've always been a fan of the x-files (also know as an x-phile). at least up to season 5 where it got a bit out of hand with mulder's alien obsessions. heck, as soon as season 6 rolled in it was basically the all-about-aliens-and-them-kidnapping-my-sister files. i liked the earlier seasons where you could watch the episodes independent of each other, each was a stand alone 30 minute story which was on random paranormal activity. towards the end, it progressively became more and more like a segmented movie on an alien, one with a very complex but dull storyline, and the only reason you kept watching was to
1. see the ending, and get this crap over with
2. because you were a fan to begin with
3. scully was pretty hot at the time?
4. mulder was pretty hot at the time (???)
5. cigarette smoking man. his name. now. NOW.
6. ???
7. profit
but really, it was still an awesome series. the theme song freaked my nephew out, and i think at some point it did the same to me as well. now i could go into a whole post about how awesome x-files was, and have the bashers hate, and the philes un-hate, but that's not the purpose of me writing today.
instead, i'd like to address a great question of the universe. one which ranks high up with the following questions:
1. cake > pie? (as discussed briefly in an earlier post)
2. which variant of sweet ______ jesus is the most powerful?
3. is life really like a box of chocolates? compare and contrast.
4. where's wally?
etc etc etc.
which, if i had the time and opportunity, i would like to cover in due time, but we'll address what we can at random: the topic for today is, pirates vs. ninjas.
it's obvious that pirates never met ninjas in the same temporal or spatial existence, else there might be a battle of such magnitude that the earth would tremble. volcanoes would bleed lava and the sky would be set ablaze with the fiery spirit of the dying warriors engaged in eternal battle for their pirate- or ninja-race. the earth would run damp with the blood of innocents collateral to the bloody onslaught lasting dawn to dusk. the echoing sound of nocturnal creatures feasting on the carcasses of the fallen dankly filter the screams of torture in the night, and the day would be greeted by death, anew. or the pirates would just join up with ninjas and the world would be a better place.
it's complex to think about ninja and pirates as a whole - the number and demography of each has not been documented - the pirates probably slew any who would attempt to census them:
'good day, sir, i am bartholomew christopher hills. if it would not inconvenience you and your merry crew, i would like to ask you a few questions... OH GOD THE PAIN. MY SPLEEN. IS THAT MY SPLEEN? WHY ARE YOU FEEDING ME MY SPLEEN BWALKJEAKJWEAJKALJ'
and the ninjas would probably just be untraceable.
so let's approach this in a scientific way, with as much controlled parameters as possible such that we can exclude all external factors and have the only manipulated variable be 'being a ninja' or 'being a pirate'. in fact, we'll do it in a humane way, such that we violate no human rights laws or create unethical code of conduct. with such limitations, there's only one sane way of pitting the two against each other. MANO E MANO FIGHT TO THE DEATH. somewhat like celebrity deathmatch, without the drama and wwf (wwe?) faked and staged fights.
think mortal kombat meets street fighter. except that's kind of like ninja vs. ninja. we need more pirate video games so i can make better analogies. anyhow. one on one. pirate vs ninja. doesn't get any more hard core than that. each has their own strengths and weaknesses. pirates being the most ruthless, powerful, dirty and dastardly scallywags with or without scurvy (depending on their lime consumption) to walk the earth. by definition, though, REAL pirates are the ones that never walk on land. born, live and die on a ship. REAL pirates. they're as hard to come across as rainbow unicorns with chocolate filling. and ninjas - masters of disguise and deception, who attack from the shadows and leave no trace. they'd kill so quickly you didn't know you were dead. your body would go around doing it's normal routine for months or years thinking it's alive, but it was actually dead. like a walking zombie. in fact, some theologians postulate that this is how sweet zombie jesus came into being: sweet living jesus got assassinated by a ninja and, well, the shit just hit the fan.
so really, with such strong competitors, how is it possible to determine a winner? especially for someone so far below them as ourselves? see, there's a reason this is called a great question of the universe. so i did a bit of research. there's not many pirates to be found on the interwebs, but i did find a ninja who gave us the answer on how to kill a ninja. that's some hard core information leak right there. now all i need to do is find out how to kill a pirate, and compare the methods - the harder one belonging to the winner, being the obvious conclusion. but then nothing is obvious as it seems, and i will strive evermore to find a REAL pirate and an authentic ninja (preferrably azn, instead of white like demonstrated in my link) and have them slug it out. random things do happen and will affect the outcome (as elaborated in my 'basic' probability post).
p/s: i'm a big fan of ask a ninja, and if you haven't watched it yet, feel free to start watching from question 1.
p/p/s: feel free to comment on which you think would win. pirate? ninja? radioactive hamsters from alpha centauri?
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
on references and credibility
i never have taken university for granted. and i never took lecturers lightly either. some of them are just amazing, and i am humbled to be in their presence. so far i've met 2 or 3 nobel laureates, which is 2 or 3 more than most people can say. as a little tribute to them:
stephen hawking - i don't understand most of what he postulates, i'm not an astrophycisit. before anyone points out the obvious 'he didn't win a nobel prize!', yes, i know this. he's still super smart, though, so he still counts. probably the only household scientist name since einstein. met him (more like saw him) once while walking down Trumpington Street.
tim hunt. nobel laureate in physiology 2001. met him at the award-giving ceremony, and i think he gave a lecture at his alma mater, cambridge university, which i may have attended (?) can't exactly remember if it was him i'm thinking about.
ryoji noyori. another 2001 laureate, this time in chemistry, whom i met at the ceremony. i conversed with him at the dinner party the day before, but his english was a bit muddled. i seem to recall his speech and it was full of technical stuff which, at the time, i could not comprehend. upon asking another attendee, i was told that he was lecturing to a target audience way above our heads.
barry mashall. saw him at the department, and hoping to speak with him at some point. the thing i remember most so far about him is we were having a talk about referencing our research and the lecturer said 'you have to have proper referencing for your work to be credible. unless you're barry (marshall); when he talks, all of us (fellow lecturers) know it's something credible'.
keep churning those wheels of discovery /salute.
stephen hawking - i don't understand most of what he postulates, i'm not an astrophycisit. before anyone points out the obvious 'he didn't win a nobel prize!', yes, i know this. he's still super smart, though, so he still counts. probably the only household scientist name since einstein. met him (more like saw him) once while walking down Trumpington Street.
tim hunt. nobel laureate in physiology 2001. met him at the award-giving ceremony, and i think he gave a lecture at his alma mater, cambridge university, which i may have attended (?) can't exactly remember if it was him i'm thinking about.
ryoji noyori. another 2001 laureate, this time in chemistry, whom i met at the ceremony. i conversed with him at the dinner party the day before, but his english was a bit muddled. i seem to recall his speech and it was full of technical stuff which, at the time, i could not comprehend. upon asking another attendee, i was told that he was lecturing to a target audience way above our heads.
barry mashall. saw him at the department, and hoping to speak with him at some point. the thing i remember most so far about him is we were having a talk about referencing our research and the lecturer said 'you have to have proper referencing for your work to be credible. unless you're barry (marshall); when he talks, all of us (fellow lecturers) know it's something credible'.
keep churning those wheels of discovery /salute.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
quoting a quoted quote
"Preventive detention, at what cost?
Warrantless domestic spying, detention without trial, torture, and excessive secrecy raised concerns across the political spectrum and fueled recent change in the White House. But these policies remain equally noxious under the new administration, which entertains proposals beyond even its predecessors' wildest plans.
By Shahid Buttar, July 22, 2009
Spy vs. I
A family vacation over Independence Day offered a poignant reminder of why, over 30 years ago, my parents sought refuge in the U.S. Fleeing the racial hostility they encountered in Britain after escaping the brutality of the Indian Subcontinent's Partition, they found in rural Missouri economic opportunity, political freedom, and small town Midwestern hospitality. Today, the specter of preventive detention calls into question whether my parents' grandchildren will enjoy the same freedom.
Warrantless domestic spying, detention without trial, torture, and excessive secrecy raised concerns across the political spectrum and fueled recent change in the White House. These policies, however, remain equally noxious under the new administration, which currently entertains proposals beyond even its predecessors' wildest plans.
We should begin by removing the beltway spin. Whether called "preventive," "indefinite," or simply "prolonged," prevention detention schemes are essentially lawless, unconstitutional, and un-American. And whether established through an executive order or an act of Congress, they would undermine -- not enhance -- our national security.
At root, detention without trial threatens democracy. According to NYU law professor David Golove, "The struggle for constitutional liberty," wherever people have sought it, includes "a struggle against preventive detention." Our Founders did not champion the rule of law in a vacuum. They confronted threats, including arbitrary detention, and intended the Bill of Rights to end and prevent them.
The rights to Due Process, legal representation, and to examine one's accusers, witnesses and evidence are fundamental. Beyond mere technicalities, these procedural protections are necessary to protect the innocent and lend legitimacy to judicial decisions.
Benjamin Wittes and others propose limiting these rights and detaining individuals accused of being "dangerous," based on hearsay evidence. But they overlook the central problem: accusations are unreliable.
Courts admit evidence of actual events, rather than predictions or hearsay, precisely to exclude irrelevant or unreliable information. Torture, for instance, is notorious for yielding inaccurate intelligence and forcing false confessions. Equally unreliable are individuals who identify suspects in exchange for payment, such as tribesmen who captured many Guantanamo detainees, or ex-convicts hired by the FBI to infiltrate mosques across the country.
Our intelligence agencies, whose hearsay evidence would be admissable under some detention proposals, have proven their unreliability. Time and again, attempts to identify dangerous individuals have instead swept up innocent people, including U.S. citizens of all colors.
Most of Guantanamo Bay's hundreds of detainees have been either released or declared harmless. We have abducted law-abiding people from allied countries and outsourced their torture (Canadian Maher Arar); detained and smeared law-abiding Caucasian and Asian American citizens (attorney Brandon Mayfield and Chaplain James Yee); and tortured a U.S. citizen of Latino descent (Jose Padilla). In addition, government "watch lists" continue to cast unjustified suspicion on over a million law-abiding Americans.
Given the unreliability of intelligence sources, indefinite detention based on evidence inadmissible in federal courts would hardly enhance security. It would, however, undermine freedom and -- by removing checks on executive avarice and arbitrariness -- leave no one safe: under an administration hostile to dissent, an unpopular bumper sticker or dispute with a neighbor could land you in prison.
Even if hearsay evidence were reliable, the security benefits of preventive detention would be trivial. Individuals can be imprisoned by federal courts under existing laws for even providing humanitarian support to regions governed by militants -- let alone actually planning terrorist attacks. The only potential "threats" addressed by preventive detention, then, are individuals accused without reliable evidence.
Whom, exactly, would these individuals be? In both the distant and recent past, America has criminalized law-abiding people for their politics (through the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Palmer raids, COINTELPRO, and the Red Scare, for example) or race, ethnicity or religion (through NSEERS, border interrogations, and Operation Frontline, for example). By expanding this shameful list -- and by further eroding our international claims to defend the rule of law -- preventive detention would only undermine the security of law-abiding Americans and help our enemies in their efforts to recruit foot soldiers.
Our Founders crafted the Constitution over 200 years ago to balance strong government against individual rights. Their vision has served us well through the World Wars, periods far more dangerous than ours, and is fundamentally incompatible with proposed detention schemes. For the Constitution to survive today's "war on terror," we Americans who value freedom must once again raise our voices to defend it.
Shahid Buttar is a civil rights lawyer, non-profit leader, hip-hop & electronica MC, independent columnist, grassroots community organizer, singer and poet. Professionally, he leads the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a national grassroots organization defending civil liberties eroded by the War on Terror. He also serves as co-Director of the Rule of Law Institute, a U.S.-based organization supporting international efforts to defend the Rule of Law against threats imposed by U.S. foreign policy. "
quoted from source, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/preventive_detention_at_what_cost/#When:09:00:40Z
a friend of mine posted this article some time ago, and i had the opportunity of perusing it today. being that i am double quoting the source from his site, and a site that in turn quotes from the original source, i would like to briefly acknowledge that none of these are my words, and i have quoted them for the benefit of the reader.
i did leave a comment on my friend's page, as follows:
big brother is watching you. imo the extent of preventive detention far overshadows the infringement of privacy and undermining of security as portrayed by the author. the development of a more 'inorganic dictatorship' from the paranoia that stems from irrational need of control (irrational here being highly debatable) is something we've learned ... Read Morefrom history time and again (french revolution, WWII, even the meiji reformation). governments taking the proactive step in nipping problems in the bud is not something new, and neither is it undesirable, but when the regulation of such drastic measures becomes commonplace (as is the abuse of ISA laws seen in malaysia over the past few years), we should question where the line is drawn; what right does the governing body have to call itself a democracy if it breaches it's own preached values? hypocricy, thy name is ...
which i would have liked to extrapolate upon, but neither do i have the expertise nor the inclination to toss myself into a political-opinion fray. disregard the fact that the author writes as a muslim, or that the text is mouldable around the USA government (just as much as it is around any governing body you may chose, they all have their 'redeeming' factors). i know i did upon starting and finishing the text.
i'm not a big fan of political opinions, more of a bleachers guy who enjoys the show and would speak up from time to time if something interesting crops up (such as now) and i'm sure for those who have read orwell (specifically 1984, and animal farm to a lesser extent, although they address similar issues, to different extents and ends) you would be ashamed to pass by this article without comparing what's happening in real life to literature. it's not surprising to find such blatant similarities, since we've seen it all in history time and again (as per my caption in itallics above!); for those uninitiated, do find the time to at least read the summary of 1984 - the literature value i found personally enriching and stimulating, but the content, if only that would be what you would take away, is more than enough to rank the author amongst the best you've read (or not, in the case of you being one of those uninitiated). forgive me for my holier than thou air should it come across that way, i do not intend to sound pretentious having read a book some may have not - it is only because i would highly recommend such book, and would like to bring into light such compelling foresight into where we may end up in the near future; by all means, read the quoted text and skip my comments if this post is tldr - there is far more knowledge to gain from it than my ramblings.
Warrantless domestic spying, detention without trial, torture, and excessive secrecy raised concerns across the political spectrum and fueled recent change in the White House. But these policies remain equally noxious under the new administration, which entertains proposals beyond even its predecessors' wildest plans.
By Shahid Buttar, July 22, 2009
Spy vs. I
A family vacation over Independence Day offered a poignant reminder of why, over 30 years ago, my parents sought refuge in the U.S. Fleeing the racial hostility they encountered in Britain after escaping the brutality of the Indian Subcontinent's Partition, they found in rural Missouri economic opportunity, political freedom, and small town Midwestern hospitality. Today, the specter of preventive detention calls into question whether my parents' grandchildren will enjoy the same freedom.
Warrantless domestic spying, detention without trial, torture, and excessive secrecy raised concerns across the political spectrum and fueled recent change in the White House. These policies, however, remain equally noxious under the new administration, which currently entertains proposals beyond even its predecessors' wildest plans.
We should begin by removing the beltway spin. Whether called "preventive," "indefinite," or simply "prolonged," prevention detention schemes are essentially lawless, unconstitutional, and un-American. And whether established through an executive order or an act of Congress, they would undermine -- not enhance -- our national security.
At root, detention without trial threatens democracy. According to NYU law professor David Golove, "The struggle for constitutional liberty," wherever people have sought it, includes "a struggle against preventive detention." Our Founders did not champion the rule of law in a vacuum. They confronted threats, including arbitrary detention, and intended the Bill of Rights to end and prevent them.
The rights to Due Process, legal representation, and to examine one's accusers, witnesses and evidence are fundamental. Beyond mere technicalities, these procedural protections are necessary to protect the innocent and lend legitimacy to judicial decisions.
Benjamin Wittes and others propose limiting these rights and detaining individuals accused of being "dangerous," based on hearsay evidence. But they overlook the central problem: accusations are unreliable.
Courts admit evidence of actual events, rather than predictions or hearsay, precisely to exclude irrelevant or unreliable information. Torture, for instance, is notorious for yielding inaccurate intelligence and forcing false confessions. Equally unreliable are individuals who identify suspects in exchange for payment, such as tribesmen who captured many Guantanamo detainees, or ex-convicts hired by the FBI to infiltrate mosques across the country.
Our intelligence agencies, whose hearsay evidence would be admissable under some detention proposals, have proven their unreliability. Time and again, attempts to identify dangerous individuals have instead swept up innocent people, including U.S. citizens of all colors.
Most of Guantanamo Bay's hundreds of detainees have been either released or declared harmless. We have abducted law-abiding people from allied countries and outsourced their torture (Canadian Maher Arar); detained and smeared law-abiding Caucasian and Asian American citizens (attorney Brandon Mayfield and Chaplain James Yee); and tortured a U.S. citizen of Latino descent (Jose Padilla). In addition, government "watch lists" continue to cast unjustified suspicion on over a million law-abiding Americans.
Given the unreliability of intelligence sources, indefinite detention based on evidence inadmissible in federal courts would hardly enhance security. It would, however, undermine freedom and -- by removing checks on executive avarice and arbitrariness -- leave no one safe: under an administration hostile to dissent, an unpopular bumper sticker or dispute with a neighbor could land you in prison.
Even if hearsay evidence were reliable, the security benefits of preventive detention would be trivial. Individuals can be imprisoned by federal courts under existing laws for even providing humanitarian support to regions governed by militants -- let alone actually planning terrorist attacks. The only potential "threats" addressed by preventive detention, then, are individuals accused without reliable evidence.
Whom, exactly, would these individuals be? In both the distant and recent past, America has criminalized law-abiding people for their politics (through the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Palmer raids, COINTELPRO, and the Red Scare, for example) or race, ethnicity or religion (through NSEERS, border interrogations, and Operation Frontline, for example). By expanding this shameful list -- and by further eroding our international claims to defend the rule of law -- preventive detention would only undermine the security of law-abiding Americans and help our enemies in their efforts to recruit foot soldiers.
Our Founders crafted the Constitution over 200 years ago to balance strong government against individual rights. Their vision has served us well through the World Wars, periods far more dangerous than ours, and is fundamentally incompatible with proposed detention schemes. For the Constitution to survive today's "war on terror," we Americans who value freedom must once again raise our voices to defend it.
Shahid Buttar is a civil rights lawyer, non-profit leader, hip-hop & electronica MC, independent columnist, grassroots community organizer, singer and poet. Professionally, he leads the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a national grassroots organization defending civil liberties eroded by the War on Terror. He also serves as co-Director of the Rule of Law Institute, a U.S.-based organization supporting international efforts to defend the Rule of Law against threats imposed by U.S. foreign policy. "
quoted from source, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/preventive_detention_at_what_cost/#When:09:00:40Z
a friend of mine posted this article some time ago, and i had the opportunity of perusing it today. being that i am double quoting the source from his site, and a site that in turn quotes from the original source, i would like to briefly acknowledge that none of these are my words, and i have quoted them for the benefit of the reader.
i did leave a comment on my friend's page, as follows:
big brother is watching you. imo the extent of preventive detention far overshadows the infringement of privacy and undermining of security as portrayed by the author. the development of a more 'inorganic dictatorship' from the paranoia that stems from irrational need of control (irrational here being highly debatable) is something we've learned ... Read Morefrom history time and again (french revolution, WWII, even the meiji reformation). governments taking the proactive step in nipping problems in the bud is not something new, and neither is it undesirable, but when the regulation of such drastic measures becomes commonplace (as is the abuse of ISA laws seen in malaysia over the past few years), we should question where the line is drawn; what right does the governing body have to call itself a democracy if it breaches it's own preached values? hypocricy, thy name is ...
which i would have liked to extrapolate upon, but neither do i have the expertise nor the inclination to toss myself into a political-opinion fray. disregard the fact that the author writes as a muslim, or that the text is mouldable around the USA government (just as much as it is around any governing body you may chose, they all have their 'redeeming' factors). i know i did upon starting and finishing the text.
i'm not a big fan of political opinions, more of a bleachers guy who enjoys the show and would speak up from time to time if something interesting crops up (such as now) and i'm sure for those who have read orwell (specifically 1984, and animal farm to a lesser extent, although they address similar issues, to different extents and ends) you would be ashamed to pass by this article without comparing what's happening in real life to literature. it's not surprising to find such blatant similarities, since we've seen it all in history time and again (as per my caption in itallics above!); for those uninitiated, do find the time to at least read the summary of 1984 - the literature value i found personally enriching and stimulating, but the content, if only that would be what you would take away, is more than enough to rank the author amongst the best you've read (or not, in the case of you being one of those uninitiated). forgive me for my holier than thou air should it come across that way, i do not intend to sound pretentious having read a book some may have not - it is only because i would highly recommend such book, and would like to bring into light such compelling foresight into where we may end up in the near future; by all means, read the quoted text and skip my comments if this post is tldr - there is far more knowledge to gain from it than my ramblings.
whatever floats your boat
i have a friend who regularly blogs, and is very effeminate about the things she writes about. miss clique is an appropriate pseudonym, i think. ms clique, amongst other persons whom i know, have a fond affinity for the touchy-feely (upon re-reading this paragraph, i think i'm not being specific enough about the topic - when i say touchy-feely, i'm referring to the self-help section in the bookstore. the best friend's advice when you just got kicked in the balls, etc etc), and i'm all for that. i would be hypocritical if i, as a person who is a self-acknowledged former-depressive individual, thought that it's all in your head. to the masculine among us, we've all heard the cliches: 'it's bs that people feed you to make you feel better about yourself', 'it's a state of mind; you are who you think you are', 'only for the weak', etc etc.
now contrary to what you may think, i am not about to advocate the cause. and neither am i berating it. i'm all about things in moderation. balance. neutrality. and i just wanted to point out that as much as i endorse ms clique's musings of the soft-hearted encouragement, i think it's getting to our heads. the extreme of this feeling is best examplified by telling special kids that they're special. sure, they are. i don't want people calling them retards, that's just wrong. i don't want people telling them they're special in the way that misleads them to think that they're unimpaired. this doesn't mean they won't overcome the impairment, though.
okay, i'm just juggling my words trying to be politically correct, while trying to make my point, and it's not working. do you remember watching a movie where some crippled guy needs help getting something off the top shelf, but won't accept help and ends up 1. not getting it 2. getting it after a lot of trouble 3. getting it after smashing the other items on lower racks 4. pissing the person who offered help off 5. summoning sweet mutilated jesus from the grave to levitate him to appropriate height, but in the process recieves enlightenment and can walk again 5. shooting the guy who offered help and using his body as a stepping stone to get the item. my mind wanders. i'm just saying we all have our faults and we should acknowledge them and move on. having someone or something to make you feel better about it is fine and even encouraged, but deceiving yourself to the point that you may feel you were never flawed in the first place is a bit ridiculous. mutilated jesus shuns you.
i hope nobody misinterprets my message and starts throwing stones at my metaphorical wall. if it helps, read this entry again with a squeaky mouse voice and add appropriate rainbows and kittens. preferably fried, not roasted.
the reason i write this is because a couple of posts ago i berated myself for living in my own shadow, and now i see ms clique's blog in a new light - one that may not have been intended by her but i feel the touchy-feely had to be toned down. or as i would say in the company of my friends, ctfd. in any case, i would like to remind you (and especially myself) that the reason we couldn't dance isn't because our shoes are lopsided, or the floor is uneven, or our dancing partner sucks balls, or genetically enhanced dragonflies from the future are executing a plan to make humankind unable to perform complex hand-eye coordination - sometimes it's just us. and there's nothing wrong with that. take dance classes. not modern dance, that stuff's just wrong. pretty sure if the dragonflies are doing anything with our coordination, that would be the likely method of execution. or just for the touchy-feely, still, dance like nobody's watching; even if you're the laughing stock of your peers, at least you can say you gave it all your heart (? wtf hell no. go take those dance classes)
again digressing. um. well the point of it all, it's nice when you have an excuse, and especially so if it's a true or justifiable one. it's not cool to go looking for one every time you slip up. kids, stay in school.
p/s: i just played my first tft match on this crappy computer, and i lost. am i going to blame this on the shitty computer? or the fact i hadn't played in 3 years? or my optical mouse freaking out on me because i play on a glass surface? or my opponent being 14 levels above me? yes i am. but i'm sure as hell going to practice so i don't suck as much next time.
or i could study, which i should be doing. also, apologies to ms clique
now contrary to what you may think, i am not about to advocate the cause. and neither am i berating it. i'm all about things in moderation. balance. neutrality. and i just wanted to point out that as much as i endorse ms clique's musings of the soft-hearted encouragement, i think it's getting to our heads. the extreme of this feeling is best examplified by telling special kids that they're special. sure, they are. i don't want people calling them retards, that's just wrong. i don't want people telling them they're special in the way that misleads them to think that they're unimpaired. this doesn't mean they won't overcome the impairment, though.
okay, i'm just juggling my words trying to be politically correct, while trying to make my point, and it's not working. do you remember watching a movie where some crippled guy needs help getting something off the top shelf, but won't accept help and ends up 1. not getting it 2. getting it after a lot of trouble 3. getting it after smashing the other items on lower racks 4. pissing the person who offered help off 5. summoning sweet mutilated jesus from the grave to levitate him to appropriate height, but in the process recieves enlightenment and can walk again 5. shooting the guy who offered help and using his body as a stepping stone to get the item. my mind wanders. i'm just saying we all have our faults and we should acknowledge them and move on. having someone or something to make you feel better about it is fine and even encouraged, but deceiving yourself to the point that you may feel you were never flawed in the first place is a bit ridiculous. mutilated jesus shuns you.
i hope nobody misinterprets my message and starts throwing stones at my metaphorical wall. if it helps, read this entry again with a squeaky mouse voice and add appropriate rainbows and kittens. preferably fried, not roasted.
the reason i write this is because a couple of posts ago i berated myself for living in my own shadow, and now i see ms clique's blog in a new light - one that may not have been intended by her but i feel the touchy-feely had to be toned down. or as i would say in the company of my friends, ctfd. in any case, i would like to remind you (and especially myself) that the reason we couldn't dance isn't because our shoes are lopsided, or the floor is uneven, or our dancing partner sucks balls, or genetically enhanced dragonflies from the future are executing a plan to make humankind unable to perform complex hand-eye coordination - sometimes it's just us. and there's nothing wrong with that. take dance classes. not modern dance, that stuff's just wrong. pretty sure if the dragonflies are doing anything with our coordination, that would be the likely method of execution. or just for the touchy-feely, still, dance like nobody's watching; even if you're the laughing stock of your peers, at least you can say you gave it all your heart (? wtf hell no. go take those dance classes)
again digressing. um. well the point of it all, it's nice when you have an excuse, and especially so if it's a true or justifiable one. it's not cool to go looking for one every time you slip up. kids, stay in school.
p/s: i just played my first tft match on this crappy computer, and i lost. am i going to blame this on the shitty computer? or the fact i hadn't played in 3 years? or my optical mouse freaking out on me because i play on a glass surface? or my opponent being 14 levels above me? yes i am. but i'm sure as hell going to practice so i don't suck as much next time.
or i could study, which i should be doing. also, apologies to ms clique
Saturday, 25 July 2009
happy belated birthdays
i was never a big fan of birthdays but i somehow manage to remember a few. not because they are the birthdates of people close to me or anything like that, but just because they're numbers that just stick.
happy belated birthday adam j - 4th july which is american independence day, which makes this especially easy to remember. and adam is as american as they come. he's whiter than wayne brady.
happy belated birthday gregor mendel - july 22nd. don't ask me why i remember, i just do. and for those interested in mathematics and biology, he's the guy that got me started down the path of statistics. i still remember the day he told me, 'son, one day the world will be attacked by space alien iguanas, and when that day comes only simple statistics will save us all.' true story.
happy belated belated birthday barbara mcclintock which was 16th JUNE one whole month ago but i was too preoccupied at the time to remember.
also today, happy birthday amelia earheart and alexander dumas, two people i admire (admittedly i looked this up since i could not recall off the top of my head anyone's birtday coinciding with today). i did remember that today was the anniversary of the return of apollo 11, so happy birthday to you, you slick old rocket ship.
p/s: i realise now that my post did not post correctly, so instead of 'today' being 24th july, it is posted on 25th july. as i cannot recall, either, anyone's birthday being today, for all purposes and intents you may assume this post was posted on friday, 24th july 2009.
happy belated birthday adam j - 4th july which is american independence day, which makes this especially easy to remember. and adam is as american as they come. he's whiter than wayne brady.
happy belated birthday gregor mendel - july 22nd. don't ask me why i remember, i just do. and for those interested in mathematics and biology, he's the guy that got me started down the path of statistics. i still remember the day he told me, 'son, one day the world will be attacked by space alien iguanas, and when that day comes only simple statistics will save us all.' true story.
happy belated belated birthday barbara mcclintock which was 16th JUNE one whole month ago but i was too preoccupied at the time to remember.
also today, happy birthday amelia earheart and alexander dumas, two people i admire (admittedly i looked this up since i could not recall off the top of my head anyone's birtday coinciding with today). i did remember that today was the anniversary of the return of apollo 11, so happy birthday to you, you slick old rocket ship.
p/s: i realise now that my post did not post correctly, so instead of 'today' being 24th july, it is posted on 25th july. as i cannot recall, either, anyone's birthday being today, for all purposes and intents you may assume this post was posted on friday, 24th july 2009.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
'basic' probability
so, following through with my previous post of movies i had wanted to watch, and hadn't got around to 'til recently, i watched a movie today which i'd taken from a friend (N-dizzle rizzle, we'll call him, as he's related to H-dawg if only in the want to be black, as well) many eons ago. in any case, the storyline was wayyyyyyyy familiar kinda like deja vu watching it, so i guess i might have watched it at some point and just not remembered the title. it's an interesting piece titled '21' starring kevin spacey.
now, before i can attempt to launch myself into a repetitive entry similar to my previous one, i'd like to divert the course of my thought instead to something about the movie in particular that i found interesting (that, and the fact that i've not watched any other movie, which makes it slightly difficult to write a review).
as those who have watched the movie would guess (especially after seeing the title of this entry) it is about the probability-related problem posed by spacey in his lecture to the MIT students, as follows:
Suppose you are in a game show where you are presented with 3 doors; behind 2 doors are goats and behind one is a car. now suppose you have chosen door A, and the game show host reveals to you, after you have chosen, that behind door C is a goat. would it be in your best interests to remain with you choice of door A, or would it be advantageous to instead change to door B, given the option to do either?
knowing that this would be a trick question, i paused the movie before i could hear the answer, and began to ponder what i would do. for those interested in doing this yourself, take a time out and think of your solution before continuing. it is, for the mathematically inclined, as you have guessed, the classical Monty Hall problem (which i admit i had discussed during my first year of university, with a mathmo friend). at the time i think he presented me with the scenario word for word, and i did not agree with him, but as we'll proceed you might agree that it's just because of the phrasing of the question. rather, it's all in the wikipedia page dedicated to the Monty Hall problem (as linked above) so go read that if you've done your maths, or even if you haven't and just want the spoilers.
in any case, i won't bore you with the maths readily available from the linked page, but instead give you the conclusion of what i found (and in fact, justifies my answer from those many years ago). given no extra information, you would readily assume that the host has no obligation to show you a door behind which is a goat, and offer you the choice of changing your door A. if this were the case, then by all means, it's just a fresh random choice: it's 50-50.
if the question was (more accurately) re-worded:
Suppose you’re on a game show and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you “Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?” Is it to your advantage to change your choice?
and from this wordy question, it is then easy to draw up a probability tree (or even doing the standard 'given' calculations A|B) and come up with the answer given in the movie that 'it is better to change your choice'. aside from the (rightly deserved, i think!) bragging-rights you have earned if you got the answer wrong (especially if you came up with the alternative answers associated with the myriad of possible interpretations of the question) you can now watch the movie with family/friends and at that precise point in the show, point out that the professor was giving insufficient information, with which there was no way the brilliant student could have come up with the perfect answer (like he did) without prior knowledge of the answer, or at least some understanding of the scenario! how awesome is that. unless you're in a crowd of 'jock-type' people, in which being perceived as the nerd would not be desirable.
ANYWAY. fun stuff, i spent the better part of an evening reading the Monty Hall problem and was thoroughly immersed in it such that i am now behind on what i should be doing. i hope the same fate befalls you all.
now, before i can attempt to launch myself into a repetitive entry similar to my previous one, i'd like to divert the course of my thought instead to something about the movie in particular that i found interesting (that, and the fact that i've not watched any other movie, which makes it slightly difficult to write a review).
as those who have watched the movie would guess (especially after seeing the title of this entry) it is about the probability-related problem posed by spacey in his lecture to the MIT students, as follows:
Suppose you are in a game show where you are presented with 3 doors; behind 2 doors are goats and behind one is a car. now suppose you have chosen door A, and the game show host reveals to you, after you have chosen, that behind door C is a goat. would it be in your best interests to remain with you choice of door A, or would it be advantageous to instead change to door B, given the option to do either?
knowing that this would be a trick question, i paused the movie before i could hear the answer, and began to ponder what i would do. for those interested in doing this yourself, take a time out and think of your solution before continuing. it is, for the mathematically inclined, as you have guessed, the classical Monty Hall problem (which i admit i had discussed during my first year of university, with a mathmo friend). at the time i think he presented me with the scenario word for word, and i did not agree with him, but as we'll proceed you might agree that it's just because of the phrasing of the question. rather, it's all in the wikipedia page dedicated to the Monty Hall problem (as linked above) so go read that if you've done your maths, or even if you haven't and just want the spoilers.
in any case, i won't bore you with the maths readily available from the linked page, but instead give you the conclusion of what i found (and in fact, justifies my answer from those many years ago). given no extra information, you would readily assume that the host has no obligation to show you a door behind which is a goat, and offer you the choice of changing your door A. if this were the case, then by all means, it's just a fresh random choice: it's 50-50.
if the question was (more accurately) re-worded:
Suppose you’re on a game show and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you “Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?” Is it to your advantage to change your choice?
and from this wordy question, it is then easy to draw up a probability tree (or even doing the standard 'given' calculations A|B) and come up with the answer given in the movie that 'it is better to change your choice'. aside from the (rightly deserved, i think!) bragging-rights you have earned if you got the answer wrong (especially if you came up with the alternative answers associated with the myriad of possible interpretations of the question) you can now watch the movie with family/friends and at that precise point in the show, point out that the professor was giving insufficient information, with which there was no way the brilliant student could have come up with the perfect answer (like he did) without prior knowledge of the answer, or at least some understanding of the scenario! how awesome is that. unless you're in a crowd of 'jock-type' people, in which being perceived as the nerd would not be desirable.
ANYWAY. fun stuff, i spent the better part of an evening reading the Monty Hall problem and was thoroughly immersed in it such that i am now behind on what i should be doing. i hope the same fate befalls you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)