Here is a Test for the Foes of Abortion

I'm holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding an embryo in the other.
I'm going to drop one. You choose which.
If you really, truly believe an embryo is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin; that's how impossible the decision should be.
Shot in the dark? You saved the baby.
Because you're aware there's a difference.
Now admit it.

Oh No He Di'n't!

Oh yes he did. What an fuckin' ASSHOLE.

From AMERICAblog:

In a lengthy interview with Yahoo News, Trump promised to deport Syrian refugees who are already in this country, doubled down on his promise to monitor mosques and, when pressed by Yahoo News as to what other drastic actions he would take, expressed an openness to warrantless and widespread surveillance on the general Muslim population:

Donald Trump's historical precedent, via Wikimedia Commons

"We're going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule," Trump said. "And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we're going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn't rule it out.

Trump didn't elaborate on whether the "form of special identification" could be, say, a yellow crescent that every Muslim would be required to sew into their clothing. But he may as well have. I'm a big proponent of reserving Hitler comparisons for the most extreme circumstances, but this is one of them. Donald Trump just pulled a policy proposal straight out of the Nuremberg Laws.

What's more, unless he's called on it, he's going to say something worse tomorrow. Since the attacks in Paris, Trump has been inching further and further toward advocating for open fascism. First he said we should "seriously consider" closing mosques associated with extreme clerics. When that claim didn't hurt him, he went a step further, saying we have "absolutely no choice" but to close them. He's going to keep going back to the anti-Muslim bigotry well until the Republican base signals for him to stop. And they've shown no intention of doing so.

Yesterday, we heard an elected official say that Japanese internment wasn't actually that bad of an idea. Now we have the frontrunner for the Republican nomination seriously considering a policy that was one of the defining characteristics of pre-war Nazi Germany. All over a contrived threat and an irrational bout of Islamophobia.

America needs to chill the hell out. This is going south fast.

Quote of the Day

Religious pluralism in U.S. foreign policy predates our own Constitution. Which, by the way, makes no reference to God.

There is no doubt that the Islamic State poses a threat to the Western world, including the U.S., its allies and global interests. Still, we needn't turn this campaign against terrorists into something that it isn't—a holy war. Doing doesn't just go against the First Amendment, but it also runs counter to everything our founders tried to establish.

Cruz, Bush, Kasich and others that would have American foreign policy end with "in Jesus name amen" are foolish and, as President Obama would correctly say, un-American.

Suffice it to say that they either don't understand America's history with regards to religious pluralism here and abroad, or they've chosen to ignore it." ~ Chris Walker at AMERICAblog

Apple Is Right To Stand Firm On Encryption However Much Terrorist Attacks Ramp Up The Pressure

From 9to5Mac:

Nobody who watched the news coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris could fail to be moved by the scenes and the stories emerging from it. It was undeniably a horrific series of events, and it's only human nature to want action to be taken to reduce the likelihood of future such atrocities.

But there is always a danger at such times that emotion, rather than rational thought, will drive government policy-making. I won't get into the broader theme there, as there are more appropriate forums for that, but there is one aspect that is very much on-topic for us: the battle between Apple and governments over encryption.

There have already been unattributed reports that the terrorists in Paris used encrypted communication. I have no idea whether there is any specific evidence for that, but it would hardly be damning were such evidence to emerge: it would be frankly astonishing if they hadn't.

There are three reasons why Apple is right to maintain that it will continue to offer end-to-end encrypted communication no matter how much governments in the USA, UK and elsewhere may protest… 

But let's begin with a reminder of Apple's position. Apple uses end-to-end encryption for both iMessages and FaceTime. As Tim Cook told Charlie Rose last year, this means that it would be impossible for it to decrypt the messages even if a government insisted.

"We're not reading your email, we're not reading your iMessages. If the government laid a subpoena on us to get your iMessages, we can't provide it. It's encrypted and we don't have the key."

The company also introduced strong encryption for iPhones and iPads in iOS 8 so that it would againbe impossible for the company to break into the device locked with a passcode.

So Apple is going further here than most companies. It is not just saying it would push back against government pressure to reveal user data, it is saying that it has deliberately arranged things so that it is completely unable to do so.

That's a strong position, and there's some pretty heavy-duty opposition to it – including the United States Attorney General, the FBI, the DOJ and other law-enforcement agencies. Among the claims you'll find in those links are that Apple is putting people beyond the law, risking the life of a child and that the iPhone would be the terrorists' "communication device of choice." Since the Paris attacks, the Homeland Security Committee and CIA have joined in.

So what are the three reasons that I still think Apple's position is right?

First, there is nothing new about having to balance out the conflicting demands of freedom and security. Or, to use Benjamin Franklin's terms, liberty and safety.

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We live in a world where it would be technologically feasible to ensure that virtually no crime could go undetected. We could fit CCTV cameras on every street, in every home, in every building. We could all have trackers embedded beneath our skin. We could force everyone to provide both fingerprints and DNA samples to hold in a global database. We could make it illegal to fit curtains or blinds to windows. And so on.

We don't do any of these things because we value freedom and privacy, and we consider that the risks involved are a price worth paying for the ability to live our lives free from tyranny and surveillance.

The Snowden revelations woke the world to the extent to which we'd already headed down this slippery slope, and the general view of the population has been that indiscriminate mass surveillance is a step too far. We take the view that wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance will of course be necessary to facilitate investigations by police and security services, but that such surveillance should be both targeted and subject to judicial oversight.

Second, Apple is absolutely right to say that the moment you build in a backdoor for use by governments, it will only be a matter of time before hackers figure it out.

You cannot have an encryption system which is only a little bit insecure any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. Encryption systems are either secure or they're not – and if they're not then it's a question of when, rather than if, others are able to exploit the vulnerability.

Couple a deliberately weakened form of encryption to laws requiring Internet service providers and telecoms companies to stockpile large volumes of user data and you'd create the biggest goldmine the world has ever seen for criminals to commit identity theft and other forms of fraud. Not just private enterprise criminals, either, but rogue nations too.

Think how cautious we have to be today. We've all received convincing-looking phishing emails in amongst the laughable ones. Most of us these days, when we receive a phone call claiming to be from a bank, take their name, hang up and then call them back on the main switchboard number. Just imagine how much more paranoid we'd have to be if a fraudster could 'prove' that they are the claimed bank or other company by providing some transaction data.

A world in which all of our data is 'protected' by encryption systems with loopholes would be a nightmare.

Third, it won't work. It's technological illiteracy to imagine that breaking encrypted messages is any kind of solution.

Do governments seriously imagine that if we pass laws banning fully-encrypted communications that terrorists would suddenly abandon them and use the new, deliberately weakened versions? Or if doing so drew too much attention to them that they wouldn't find other ways to hide their communications?

Steganography, for example. It's technically trivial to embed hidden messages inside what appears to be a perfectly ordinary family photo in such a way that it's almost impossible to detect. There are literally scores of apps to do that, and that's just a single method. There are almost endless numbers of ways to disguise messages.

As Tim Cook has said:

"We shouldn't give in to scare-mongering or to people who fundamentally don't understand the details."

So weakening encryption would mean sacrificing core principles of civilized societies in the name of security. It would provide not just our own government but foreign governments and criminals with access to our data. And it would do absolutely nothing to prevent terrorists from communicating in secret.

There is not one single reason for Apple to give in to government pressure to abandon its stance on customer privacy, and three very good reasons for it not to.

Do you agree? Or do you think that governments are right to insist that security must take precedence over privacy?

I Just Realized…

…that there are multiple deaths-by-firearm in almost every show we watch in the evening. Got a problem? Put a bullet in someone. Need to neutralize the bad guys? Go in with guns blazing. It's become a seemingly inexorable part of our popular entertainments.

And still we (as in the American public) wonder why this country experiences so many real life gun deaths.

I don't know what it says about me, but I will admit that I generally enjoy these shows, whether it's Agent X, The Blacklist, or any of the various sundry shows containing some combination of the letters "C, I, and S." But tonight, after the umpteenth gratuitous brain splattering and the events of Paris still fresh in my mind, I couldn't take any more. I had to get up and leave the room.

Other recent realizations?

I'm now older than the younger owner of the architectural firm in San Francisco that I called home for so many years was when they first hired me.

And I've now been away from—and haven't set foot back in—San Franciso for almost as long as the total time I lived there.

This was especially poignant after exchanging a recent email with said owner of the architectural firm who wrote, "Most of the clients we had when you worked for us are now dead."

Life is passing way too quickly.

How to Fight Terrorism

From Skeptic Ink:

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, many are asking how we should fight terrorism. I think this is an important question and I have a really good answer for it.

First, let us be clear here. While obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, the fact is that the terrorists that attacked Paris were Muslims and when we think about terrorism around the world today, most people are thinking about Muslim terrorists (i.e. terrorists claiming to be inspired my the religion of Islam). Republicans and hawkish Democrats want to wage war on the Arab world. The conventional wisdom is to use drone strikes, train foreign fighters, put boots on the ground, and create no-fly zones. Some have even promoted the idea of torturing Muslims for information (Dick Cheney, I'm looking at you).

I think all of those things are bad ideas. They are strategies that have proven not only ineffective, but counter-productive. Those courses of action have only created more extremists and have pushed moderates into joining the cause of extremism. These are the very strategies that created the Islamic State (ISIS) and have allowed them to recruit less extremists to their extremist cause.

What I am suggesting is to take the gloves off. I don't mean that we should let loose with military might, but instead to let loose with the might of logic and reason. We can't be afraid to spread the reality that Allah is imaginary and that Mohammad was not a prophet. Instead of dropping bombs, we should be dropping facts about reality. We should be out there pointing out the scientific and logical problems with the Muslim religion.

But we can't do that because if we point out the absurdity of the Muslim religion, we would also be pointing out the absurdity of the Christian and Jewish religions. I'm fine with that, but most of the people in our country are not. As a result, we are forced to wear kid gloves and not offend our own population. This prevents us from using our best weapon against terrorism.

The fact is that terrorists around the world would be far less likely to be terrorists if they were no longer religious. In fact, atheism is the cure not just for terrorism, but for a lot of social problems here in America too. There would be far less homophobia and bigotry in America if Christians stopped being Christian. Issues like Climate Change, women's rights, etc. are all propagated by religion. We could drastically reduce the opposition to these issues if we just got religious believers to stop believing in religion.

So here we have a cure not only for many of society's problems but also the current wave of terrorism around the globe. All we have to do is convince people that their deity of choice is imaginary and that their ancient superstitions don't match up with reality. Unfortunately, because of the superstitious beliefs of many in our own country, we are prevented from even trying.

Susie Bright on the Sex-Obsessed Paris ISIS Manifesto

From Towleroad (emphasis mine):

Voila, the "manifesto" of the Paris suicide bombers, in their own words.

Their obsession with sexual revenge, the revenge of the sexually rejected, is intense: They referred to the Bataclan nightclub as a place where where hundreds of "apostates" had gathered in a "profligate prostitution party"—that means a rock concert.

Bohemian Paris is on top of ISIS' target list because it is the country of "obscenity and perversity." Again, it's Paris' mythic reputation for the libertine, for free sexual exchange, for romance and unashamed ecstasy.

This "faith army," this death cult built on sexual repression masked as religious purity—has a detailed manual about how to run a sex-slave market of their war captives, including rules of inheritance. Essentially, you can't be a soldier in their army unless you buy into the faith that beautiful women everywhere are taunting and rejecting you, but you will teach them all a lesson by enslaving and raping them all day long—same with young boys. Everything "depraved" is holy when you're inflicting it upon a slave—makes perfect sense, right?

At some point your Grand Wizard arranges a marriage with an appointed virgin your parents picked out for her dowry. She is of no erotic interest; she is a nonperson except as your baby-receptacle and income source. Siring sons is her husbandry.

Meanwhile, you monitor all the women's menstrual cycles and the puberty of the young boys and girls in your slave pen so you can be sure to rape the right person on the most advantageous day, repeatedly shouting God's name when you come.

VOMIT. Vomit. Vomit.

Every fundamentalist religion today is running on the fumes of sexual psychosis. They are huffing and huffing and huffing until they annihilate everything including themselves.

Terrorism Works

From Gawker:

Terrorism persists because terrorism works. Terrorism works because we let it.

It takes a great deal of violence to wipe out an army. But it only takes a tiny bit of violence to instill a sense of fear in a population. Terrorism is not meant to conquer through force; it is meant to conquer through fear.

How did you feel when you heard that men with machine guns had murdered a dozen people at a French newspaper because they did not like its political content? Angry. Afraid. Those of us in the media felt these twin emotions most of all. "I am shaking with rage at the attack on Charlie Hebdo," wrote the New York Times' Roger Cohen. "It's an attack on the free world. The entire free world should respond, ruthlessly."

Rage and fear. These are the twin goals of terrorists. And terrorism is wonderfully effective at achieving these goals. All of our rhetoric about bravery and freedom and honor and Settled Determination to Push Forward After This Tragedy rarely adds up to anything more than rage and fear. Our responses to terrorism are based on rage and fear. Because of this, terrorism works.

The attacks of September 11 were a spectacular success. Is there any other honest interpretation? They were a success not because of the Americans they killed that day, but because we chose to spend the next decade mired in hopeless, counterproductive global wars that cost us trillions of dollars and killed thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorists wanted to show the world that we were brutal and unjust, and we did our best to help them do that. Terrorists wanted a war, and we gave them one. And we lost. We lost by giving them the stupid, fearful, angry response that they wanted.

Two men with a rifle paralyze Washington, DC for weeks. Two men with a couple of homemade bombs paralyze Boston for days. One man on a plane witha dud bomb packed inside his boots has an entire nation taking off its shoes at the airport for years to come. A small group of religious zealots send three U.S. presidential administrations down a nightmarish rabbithole of drone war, torture, and total surveillance of the citizenry.

Terrorism works. Against us, terrorism works very, very well. Our collective insistence on treating terrorist acts as something categorically different than crime—as something harder to understand, something scarier, something perpetrated not by humans but by monsters—feeds the ultimate goals of terrorists. It makes us dumb. It makes us primitive. It is our boogeyman, and no amount of rational talk will drive it out of our minds.

Terrorists who despise freedom of speech shoot up a satirical magazine. How do we respond? We respond with fear, by censoring ourselves and refusing to showthe very images that prompted the attack in the first place. (Nothing new about that—the free press has demonstrated its cowardice on this issue for years now.) We respond with rage, by condemning all of Islam and instinctively calling for a response violent enough to dwarf the violence of the initial attack. We cower in fear and cry for war. We countenance any countermeasure as long as it will keep us safe. We let the ideal we once proclaimed so strongly sink into a pool of terror, and drown.

Sound familiar? It is always the way. We are richer, and mightier, and far more deadly than any of our terrorist foes could dream of being. And yet we happily play into their hands. We declare a "War on Terror" of our own making, an absurd construct with no possible victory. We overreact so harshly to every injury that our reputation as bullies and savages is confirmed. We allowourselves to be cowed by fear. We allow ourselves to be rendered senseless by rage. The terrorist lays the bait, and we give him the terror he seeks. The terrorist may be the criminal, but we are the hapless suckers who make his act worthwhile.

Terrorism works. But it does not have to. Terrorism reduces us to the sort of society that we claim to despise. But it does not have to. The ideals we espouse when times are calm—justice, understanding, rationality, proportionality, a love of peace—are the ones that we must cling to most tightly when things get scary. If we discard them, we have lost the game from the start.

We cannot control the terrorist. We can only control our response. Let that response be just, and wise, and proportional. Let that response embody the best of who we are, and not the worst. Terror is momentary. A loss of our ideals can last forever.

My Favorite Example…

…of mid-century multi-family residential building in the entire valley, Phoenix Towers.

My mom's long-time employer owned one of these condos from the 1960s until her death. I'd only visited once, but I was impressed by the design as well as the incredible view she had.

I'd been itching to get out and take some photos, and since the weather has been gorgeous lately I had no excuse to stay home. I also wanted to check out the camera on my new phone (since it was basically the only reason I upgraded) to see if I'm at the point yet where I can ditch the DSLR.

The results? Damn good, I will admit. Perfect for 90% of the things I photograph. But am I ready to ditch the DSLR yet? Not yet, but I think we're getting close.

Advice to My 20 Year Old Self

A meme I've noticed making the rounds recently is "Things I Would Tell My Younger Self."

As fascinating as this little thought experiment might be, I long ago realized that alerting my younger self to any of the myriad major things I might wish to warn him about—assuming he would even listen—would ultimately fundamentally change the course of my life, and as much as I bitch and complain about aspects of it at times, I wouldn't change it for the world.

So to prevent any major life alterations—as much as I might want to tell him to buy a thousand dollars worth of Apple stock in July 1982 and hold onto it no matter what, if I had to offer up advice, I'd ask him to only do three things:

  • Do not toss out the notebooks of classic audio gear brochures he collected in the late 1970s, because he'll want them someday to remind himself that audio equipment wasn't always black plastic crap—and if nothing else, they'll be worth a lot of money.
  • Do not toss out any of his architectural drawings. I know they're a pain in the ass to move, but trust me…he'll want them someday to remind himself that he actually once knew how a house went together.
  • Do not give the notebooks of Hallcraft floor plans and renderings he collected into Dad's care. He'll just throw them out, and someday he'll will want them to scan and post on a website. Never mind he doesn't understand what those words mean. He will soon enough.

Because in the area of things, these are the only items he will regret no longer possessing.

Health issues, jobs, friends, and love affairs…just let them unfold on their own. Own the scars. Each and every one of them will put him on the course that will ultimately lead him into Ben's arms, and when that time comes, he wouldn't want to change that for the world.