Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

On Terror Alert Levels

Posted

In the United States we have the much-maligned color-coded National Threat Advisory level, which has basically moved back and forth between ‘Elevated’ (yellow) and ‘High’ (orange) since it was established. Other countries have similar systems with various nuances, but they’re all apparently designed to give you a general idea of how likely you are to be blown up by a terrorist on a given day.

I can’t figure out what purpose they’re supposed to serve. As best as I can tell, they’re just a kind of ‘general information’ deal to let us know when there’s an increased risk of terror attacks, but I’m not sure what we’re expected to do about that. Invariably, we are told when the threat goes up that we should just go about our business like normal. Right now, threat levels in Europe are up and the U.S. State Department is warning U.S. citizens that al-Qaeda is planning attacks in Europe . . . yet, at the same time, State Dept. officials are saying, “We are not, repeat not, advising Americans not to go to Europe. We’re not saying don’t visit major tourist attractions or historic sites or monuments.”

So Europe is dangerous and at immediate risk of terror attacks, but we should go there anyway and not change any plans. Clear as mud.

Read more . . .

Government Booze

Posted

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, liquor is only available from state-owned ‘ABC Stores.’ Beer and wine are available from grocery stores and other retailers, and restaurants can be licensed to serve liquor and mixed drinks, but if you want to pick up a bottle of Bacardi Superior for home use your only legal source in the state is . . . the state itself.

Our state liquor stores are a historic anachronism left over from the end of prohibition. When national prohibition was repealed in 1933, whether to permit or prohibit production and consumption of alcohol was left to the individual states. Many states with strong ‘temperance’ (i.e., prohibitionist) movements, primarily led by religious conservatives with a curiously un-biblical position on alcohol, chose to either continue state-level prohibition policies or use a state-controlled alcohol monopoly to limit the availability of strong drink.

So, in an indefensible act of utter absurdity, conservative states like Virginia decided to go into the alcohol business to discourage the drinking of alcohol. As if this weren’t silly enough, they were doing so to kowtow to Christian conservatives who didn’t even understand what Holy Scripture has to say about the stuff (which is, to paraphrase, ‘it’s fine in moderation, just don’t overdo it’).

Maybe this all made some kind of sense in 1933, although I sincerely doubt it. It certainly makes no sense in 2010.

Read more . . .

No-Nonsense Weather 0.6.0 for WebOS (Now Available)

Posted

I’ve just submitted an update to No-Nonsense Weather for Palm WebOS, which will bring the version to 0.6.0. The new version has several new features and improvements to the application:

  • Adds weather alert content in-app (no more needing to click out to the NWS web site).
  • Adds local doppler radar (animated or static, decide in the settings).
  • Adds a refresh button.
  • Clarifies error text (usually errors happen because of NWS web site problems, not because something is wrong with the app).

You can see screenshots of the new version on the app’s information page here on Off on a Tangent.

As I mentioned, I have submitted the app to Palm and it should be included in the App. Catalog some time in the next two weeks (assuming they don’t find any problems). As soon as it’s posted I’ll update the entry here. If you have the previous version (0.5.0), your phone will give you the option to upgrade it once it’s published.

If you’re daring, you can download the source code (it’s open source under the GNU-GPL license) and package and install it using the Palm SDK.

Available now from the Palm App Catalog! Click here.

Why You Should Read Something Horrifying

Posted

I have had a long-standing fascination with World War II because, as I see it, the conflict marked an unprecedented turning-point in human civilization. It was the quintessential ‘good vs. evil’ story on a scale that had never been seen before and, through the incredible sacrifice and dedication of the soldiers of the Allied Powers, the good guys ultimately won. We have never come closer to the forces of evil ruling the face of the Earth.

Every element of the story is interesting to me: The individual story of Adolf Hitler. How the Nazi movement rose to power and how the outcome of World War I and the catastrophic economic policies of the Weimar Republic made it possible. The terrible European policies of appeasement that emboldened Hitler’s megalomania. How the Nazis embarked on the ‘final solution’—the senseless murder of millions of innocent Jews—with the silent assent of an otherwise perfectly civilized people. The technological developments made on both sides during the war in aviation and weaponry—including atomic weapons.

It’s tempting, when faced with the incredible evil that surrounds the World War II story, to ignore it and focus on other things. For many, it’s not pleasant to think of how a liberal democratic republic like Weimar Germany—not much different, really, than our own American republic—gave birth to an evil, murderous dictatorship. It’s not pleasant to think of millions of people carted away into camps and murdered because of their race and religion. It’s hard to imagine that an emaciated, pacified, vanquished nation can turn, in less than a decade, into a military powerhouse that threatens the entirety of Europe. It’s easier to learn the basics from a distance and, in blissful ignorance, imagine that nothing like that can ever happen again.

Read more . . .

Your Tax Money Going to Political Campaigns?

Posted

How would you feel if a federal government agency, funded from a combination of tax dollars and fees, used some of its money to fund political campaigns? You’d be pretty pissed, wouldn’t you? Your tax dollars shouldn’t be going to fund political campaigns!

I agree. Private companies have the right, as free associations, to engage in political speech and make political donations if they wish, but the federal bureaucracy is a different animal. Of course individual bureaucrats can do whatever they want, and can even create their own free associations if they want, but government agencies themselves have a responsibility to serve the American public under the guidance of their elected or appointed leaders. They are not permitted to engage in political campaigns.

Well, according to the Wall St. Journal (as reported on AutoBlog), federally owned General Motors has broken its self-imposed moratorium on political donations and has spent $90,000 on its preferred candidates in the upcoming elections.

General Motors, despite the appearance of being a private company, is 61 percent owned by the United States government, and it’s ‘profit’ of late is probably some combination of tax money ‘investment’ and sale of product. The company’s very existence is predicated on many billions of that tax dollar ‘investment.’ As long as the government owns any of General Motors it is a government agency, not a private company. As such, it has no right to make political donations of any kind. Period.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.