Goodbye, and R.I.P.

Ronald Reagan has passed away. I wasn't his biggest fan at the time, though I've since come to appreciate him more, but either way, it's a sad day.

In his memory, a link to his greatest speech: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004

Let Them Not Eat Cake

Paul Campos writes:

Fifty years ago, America was full of people that the social elites could look upon with something approaching open disgust: blacks in particular, of course, but also other ethnic minorities, the poor, women, Jews, homosexuals, and so on. Nowadays, a new target is required.

Sounds like another run-of-the-mill P.C. rant, doesn't it? Perhaps, but I still think it's an interesting theory as to what's driving today's "War on Obesity". It's not the entire story; the potential to bring down successful and influential American corporations is an attractive enough reason for some. But everyone can come together and believe - and feel comfortable saying so in public - that fat people are gross. The Left demonizes McDonald's, but everyone demonizes the obese.

Someone who belongs in Abu Ghraib

A least a small measure of justice:

A man who sent 850 million junk e-mails through accounts he opened with stolen identities was sentenced to prison Thursday after telling the judge the case against him was overblown and had no victims.

"I obviously regret this whole involvement," Howard Carmack began before being sentenced to 3-1/2 to 7 years in prison on charges including forgery, identity theft and falsifying business records.

Good deal. A drop in the bucket, of course; given that I get about 850 million junk e-mails every day, there's obviously a lot more where he came from. But for once the government did something right.

The strange, depressing thing:

Prosecutors estimated Carmack was making $60,000 to $70,000 annually before his arrest last May.

Assuming that these estimates refer to his spam-related income, I have to wonder what kind of morons there are in this country. I'm not sure who buys "get-rich-quick schemes and sexual enhancers," but more importantly, who on earth buys them based on spam? Are there really people who get one of those Vi@gra emails and think, "Gosh, I was going to go to a doctor, but ooh! Look at this colorful email! I'll just click on this unknown link and send my money to some anonymous person on the internet"?

I've posed this question before on this blog, and I know the answer: obviously there are. If there weren't such people, then spammers would have to get real jobs. But what makes it really puzzling is that, in order to bypass all the filters out there, the spam is becoming more and more abstract; it's harder and harder to figure out what the spammer is selling based on his emails. So who is clicking on the links? Are they all the same retarded elderly people who buy magazine subscriptions because they're sure it will help them win the Publisher's Clearinghouse sweepstakes? Can't be; those people don't use computers. So I give up.

[Anybody who wishes to comment on this entry: please note that if you use the name of any of the "sexual enhancers" that are commonly sold via spam, your comment may be blocked by my spam-catcher.]

Point, click and shoot

If we stop taking pictures, the terrorists will have won: New York City's Transit authority, which operates the city's mass transit, has made a proposal: "a ban on unauthorized photography, filming, and videotaping  city subways, buses and Staten Island Railway trains. The press and businesses or individuals with permits would be exempt."

What possible reason could there be for such a ban? According to the story, the reason is the new all-purpose excuse for every idiotic government proposal:

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the bombing that killed hundreds on a commuter train in Madrid earlier this year, tighter security has been a high priority, Mr. Seaton said. The other proposed rule changes are also needed, he said.

Ah, yes. Tighter security. Of course. Let me count the ways that this is stupid.

1. How on earth does this enhance security? One might be able to argue that we don't want people taking pictures in the subway because it could allow terrorists to study the area, see where the guards are, see where bombs could be planted, etc. But how could that possibly apply to buses? And since people can stand around the subway station and observe the security measures firsthand, what good is it going to do to keep them from having photographs? And if the media, "advertisers, artists and others, 'would all be allowed' to take pictures as long as they obtained written permission in advance," then who exactly does that leave out? People who write "To blow it up, praise Allah!" on their permit applications under "Reason"?
   
2. Even if it did enhance security, how could this possibly be enforced? Digital cameras are getting smaller and smaller -- this is the era of the camera phone, after all. Is everyone who enters the subway system and/or gets on a bus going to be frisked?
   
3. Even if it did enhance security and could be enforced, they're not planning to enforce it. From the article:

   While transit officers would make common-sense judgments about issuing summonses to tourists who take pictures without knowing the rules, even visitors would be subject to fines, Mr. Seaton said, although there is no provision for confiscation of cameras. He said taking a picture or filming without authorization would be subject to a relatively low $25 fine.

Oh, I see: a $25 fine. That changes everything. Maybe the plan is to bankrupt Al Qaeda... . very slowly.

The only thing I can't figure out from this story is whether this proposal comes from some petty bureaucrat who came up with a stupid idea because he likes to throw his weight around (as petty bureaucrats so often do), or whether this is simply a (poorly) disguised fund-raising measure.

You say to-may-to

Bush's speech tonight, otherwise known as "How many different ways can George Bush pronounce Abu Ghraib?", was good, but probably too little, too late. Listening to the post-speech callers on CSPAN, it seems clear that even the people who watched the speech didn't listen to it; everyone's mind is already made up. Bush needed to give this speech weeks ago.

At this point, I think it's clear that words are irrelevant, and the only issue that matters is June 30. If there's a smooth, peaceful, transfer of power, and if the terrorist attacks can be kept to a minimum, then Bush wins on the Iraq issue. If it degenerates into a fight over power, or if a car bomb wipes out half the new government, Bush is in serious trouble.

Thanks, Mom

Missing the point once again, the New York Times editorial board has retroactively endorsed New York Mayor Bloomberg's anti-smoking campaign:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg took a lot of ridicule for his crusade against smoking, but now it looks as if he will have the last and best laugh. After a decade of only limited progress, New York City has just recorded an 11 percent decline in the number of adults who smoke, in little more than a year.

Even if you believe those numbers (and see below for a comment on that) that's not the point. Bloomberg wasn't being ridiculed for making ineffective anti-smoking proposals; Bloomberg was being ridiculed for sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. Nobody elected Michael Bloomberg to be the city population's mother. What's really sad is not that the Times editors disagree with this, but that they don't even realize that this is the issue.

As to the actual decline, while the press release is prominent on the city's website, damned if I can find the actual report. Which I'd like to find, so I can see the fine print about the methodology, because I find this number awfully suspicious; a sudden sharp spike --

-- sounds more like a survey design or measurement error than a true change. (On the other hand, the cigarette tax was hiked significantly in that time, so it's possible.)

By the way, note that the "11% decline" in smoking is from 22% to 19%; while that's approximately mathematically accurate, I suspect many readers would assume that an 11% decline describes a drop from 22% to 11%. If the Times editors wanted to avoid ambiguity, they should have provided the actual numbers.

Testing 1, 2, 3

When I was growing up, I thought my parents put too much pressure on me about getting into college; it seemed absurd to me that they were obsessed with me building the perfect "resume" starting as early as middle school. None of my friends' parents were that obsessed.

Whether I just lived a sheltered life or whether things have changed -- for the worse -- I can't say, but now I read with a mixture of amusement and horror the stories of parents who spend thousands of dollars on private college admissions planners, essay coaches, SAT prep tutors, trips around the world so those kids will have something about which to write their essays, etc. (And then there are the parents who game the system and then file lawsuits when that doesn't work perfectly.) Of course, stories of Manhattanites trying to get their children into the "right" preschools are still absurd. (Right?)

With that in mind, read this New York Times article on whining, obsessed parents who seem to have lost perspective, although with an interesting twist. The trend nowadays is to complain about too much standardized testing in schools; these parents are complaining about too little.

The short version: there's a private school in New York called the United Nations International School, which primarily (though not exclusively) serves children of diplomats. As such, the curriculum is oriented towards the International Baccalaureate program. Most families intend to send their children to the school all the way through high school, and hence do not care about the workings of the public school system. However, a small segment of the student body will be attending public high schools, and for that reason their parents want the UNIS to prepare students for that path, a significant part of which involves standardized tests:

Many say their children need the standardized scores to apply for summer enrichment programs on college campuses or to qualify for transfer to selective New York City public high schools.

The UNIS has done away with the tests, and these parents are upset. All that makes sense, until you see what the complaint of the parents is. In fact, the UNIS has done away with the tests only before the fifth grade, and has made them voluntary after that. And that's what worries the parents:

While the assessment test will still be available in middle school, these parents say their children will be introduced late to the tricks of the trade: pacing themselves on timed tests, knowing when to guess on a multiple choice question, carefully marking the bubble next to the right answer.

"My fear is the school is not preparing my children properly and they'll be at a disadvantage relative to other kids," said Jeffrey Sovern, a law professor at St. John's University and a leader of the protest.

That's right; these obsessed parents are worried that their kids will be at a disadvantage because they won't be taught in third grade how to color in a circle with a pencil. They're worried that their kids won't get into selective high schools because their kids aren't taught in elementary school how to guess on a multiple choice question. Hello, people! If your kids can't pick these complex skills (Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe) up within four years starting in the fifth grade, they don't deserve to be going to selective high schools!

Sheesh.