I was doing my first session of brain calisthenics this morning, figuring that I should start now before I get old, and get my cerebellum into really good shape. I know you’re supposed to ease into a new exercise regime, but who knew that translating Proust into Esperanto would really be that hard?
Now I fear I may have pulled or strained something in the noggin department. But maybe if I rest it really hard, it should be better soon.
Anyway, I suspect I won’t be posting much this week.
Military considers recruiting foreigners – The Boston Globe
I don’t want to sound like I’m catching creeping Spenglerism, after all this is only a trial balloon albeit one with antecedents (see #5 on this generally horrifying list), but isn’t recruiting foreign legions said to be one of the (many) causes of the downfall of the Roman empire?
The introduction of barbarians into the Roman armies became every day more universal, more necessary, and more fatal . . . As they freely mingled with the subjects of the empire, they gradually learned to despise their manners and to imitate their arts. … and though most of them preferred the ties of allegiance to those of blood, they did not always avoid the guilt, or at least the suspicion, of holding a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, of inviting his invasion, or of sparing his retreat.
— Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 397 (1776)
And, yes, the headline may be a cheap shot, since Caligula was part of the Western (Roman) empire, and I think in in the quote above Gibbon was writing about the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. But “Who does that cast as Diocletian?”, or Theodosius I, Flavius Zeno or Justin II, would all be better questions, but wouldn’t have the same zing.
Whatever Gibbon meant, given the state of things inside the Beltway and outside our borders, it’s to the Byzantine and not the Roman Empire that we should be looking to for models. So here’s a nice academic parlor game: Which Byzantine Emperor does W most resemble?
Genuine user review of a wireless repeater:
Experience with product: 1 Weeks
Strengths: THE COLOR IS SILVER
Weaknesses: EVERYTHING ELSEFull User Summary
THIS PRODUCT SIMPLY DOESN’T WORK. SAYING THIS PRODUCT SETS UP WITH SIMPLY A PUSH OF A BUTTON IS LIKE SAYING YOU CAN BUILD CITY IN 30 SECONDS. IT’S JUST NOT TRUE. THIS PRODUCT MAY WORK FOR A FEW MINUTES, BUT THEN YOU MUST RESTART EVERYTHING IN YOUR ENTIRE HOUSE, INCLUDING YOUR LIGHTS AND WATER, IN ORDER FOR IT TO PICK UP A SIGNAL AGAIN. IF YOU BUY THIS PRODUCT YOU WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. I TRIED TO SET UP FOR DAYS, TALKED TO TECH SUPPORT (DUMBER THEN A RAT) AND STILL DIDN’T WORK. I AM VERY COMPUTER LITERATE AND HAVE SET UP MANY ROUTERS AND EXTENDERS BEFORE–THEY ACTUALLY WORKED THOUGH. SAVE YOUR MONEY, INSTEAD OF BUYING THIS, OR ANY OTHER LINKSYS PRODUCT FOR THAT MATTER, JUST GO OUTSIDE, FIND A STICK, AND PLACE IT IN A POTATO-bc that wil extend your range of your network much more than this silver box of nothing.
Good thing I was shopping for an access point, not a repeater.
About as un-graciously as humanly possible, my Congressional representative has admitted that she’s a liar, and that she slandered filmakers last week when she accused them of doctoring tape to put words in her mouth.
Last week, Ros-Lehtinen was still denying that the tapes showing her calling for Castro’s assassination were accurate, and was accusing the filmmakers of doctoring the tape. Then they released the raw tapes, and we found out who was telling the truth. And it’s not Ros-Lehtinen.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen admitted on Friday, through a spokesman, that she did call for the death of ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro during an interview with a British documentary-maker whom she had earlier accused of altering the video.
”Yes, it’s in the documentary, she said that,” said Alex Cruz, the congresswoman’s spokesman.
Ros-Lethinen did not want to respond further, Cruz said, because “she’s focused her energies on issues that are more important for the community.
”Neither she nor I have seen the raw footage, without editing, but if that’s in the documentary, she said it,” Cruz said.
Having wrongly and cravenly accused the documentary makers of the most serious professional misconduct, Ros-Lehtinen is waiting to see how the wind blows before deciding if she has to apologize:
”Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has made a very serious accusation against the documentary’s crew,” [director Dollan] Cannell said. “Her accusation is totally false and I would like her to retract what she said and to apologize.”
Cruz did not respond directly to whether Ros-Lehtinen plans to apologize to the director.
Ed Hasbrouck has been talking about this issue for a long time. Today, the Washington Post has an update, Report Says TSA Violated Privacy Law:
Secure Flight, the U.S. government’s stalled program to screen domestic air passengers against terrorism watch lists, violated federal law during a crucial test phase, according to a report to be issued today by the Homeland Security Department’s privacy office.
The agency found that by gathering passenger data from commercial brokers in 2004 without notifying the passengers, the program violated a 1974 Privacy Act requirement that the public be made aware of any changes in a federal program that affects the privacy of U.S. citizens. “As ultimately implemented, the commercial data test conducted in connection with the Secure Flight program testing did not match [the Transportation Security Administration’s] public announcements,” the report states.
It took two reporters — Ellen Nakashima and Del Quentin Wilber — to fail to answer all the interesting questions. First, is anyone going to be held accountable? Second, are these potential criminal violations or not? It doesn’t sound like it:
TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the agency has “already implemented or is in the process of implementing” the recommendations contained in the privacy office report. She said the report’s conclusions were not surprising, adding that they were “very similar” to those reached last year by the General Accounting Office, the government’s auditing arm.
So, what was the purpose of this report, given that the GAO ventilated many of the facts a year ago? Does the rest of the TSA care about what its privacy office says? The story doesn’t tell us. It took two reporters to do this?
And, the Post makes no mention of what appear to be the follow-on illegalities.
On this stuff, you’re much better off reading blogs than the Post. Is Brad DeLong right? Is the paper (as opposed to online) Post toast?
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw