i can't emphasize enough how important it is you watch this

Atomic Testing News Story

I have always been obsessed with nuclear proliferation and testing. Trinity and Beyond is one of my top ten favorite movies. So I just had to post this article from the Orange County Register about the soldiers who were sent into battle simulations at ground zero of U.S. nuclear tests.

"About it they would later agree on something. With eyes clenched tight, kneeling at the bottom of a trench, they both saw the same thing at detonation – the bones in their arms."

Damn.

Unlawful Internet Gaming Act

I'm continually disturbed by this nanny-state that we're living in. I don't understand how the Libertarian concept of "if you're not hurting anyone it shouldn't be illegal" is so lost on this modern American populace...well, at least on Congress.

Fortunately, there are some out there who do understand and are willing to stand up for the founding principles of this country. One such person is Radley Balko, senior editor of Reason and former policy analyst of The Cato Institute.

In case you aren't familiar with it (and why would you be, since the media hasn't touched it), the Senate tacked a piece of legislation onto a port security bill at the last minute, on the last day of the session, at night, with no floor debate, called the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act, essentially banning any online gaming for money, like the online poker that is so popular right now. Mr. Balko testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee. A transcript is here. This is some of the best-worded arguments against such legislation that I've ever read, and could apply to about 70% of what Congress passes these days.

Credit for this find goes to geek, poker player, and budding Libertarian Wil Wheaton.

Montessori Education

Once again I turn to Volokh for a great article on Montessori education here by David Kopel. An excerpt:

Last Saturday, Slate's Emily Bazelon, the mother of a child in an Montessori pre-school wrote an article titled "The Cult of the Pink Tower: Montessori turns 100—what the hell is it?" She stated that "In many ways, Montessori education remains a cult: No one outside the fold (and lots of families inside it) really knows what exactly it is." So I will now reveal the secret; there's much to explain, in terms of pedagogical technique, but here's the deep philosophy of Montessori education. Montessori is not for everyone, but I believe that the world would be a much better and kinder place if every family had the opportunity to choose a Montessori school....

Not all schools who call themselves a Montessori get it right, and that style of education certainly isn't for every child. But with the right child, and a true Montessori school, amazing things can be achieved.

Opposing Viewpoints.

To show that I'm not a close-minded idiot, today I am going to post a quote from someone I highly respect, giving his opinion of a common argument against hate crimes...one which I myself have used many times.

From Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy:

I'm skeptical of hate crimes laws for various reasons, but I don't agree with the oft-heard argument that there's something unconstitutional or inherently wrong about enhancing punishments based on motivation.

Consider this comment: "I simply can not abide these 'hate crime' laws and am amazed that they have not been struck down. A murder is a murder; these laws criminalize speech, plain and simple." A murder is a murder -- yet the law has long distinguishes between different motivations for homicide.

Killing someone because you're enraged over his having attacked your family members (or even seduced your wife, a more controversial matter) is manslaughter. Killing someone because you just don't like them is often second-degree murder. Killing someone for financial gain may be more likely to be first-degree murder. Your motivation matters; and it will often be proved using your speech. Does it follow that these doctrines unconstitutionally "criminalize speech, plain and simple," or violate the principle that "[a] murder is a murder"?

Or consider treason law. Blowing up part of a defense contractor's plant in time of war is a serious crime. But it's treason only if it's done with the purpose of helping the enemy. If you blow up part of the plant because you're on strike and you're angry at the plant's management, it's still a felony, but it's not treason. Here the matter turns not just on motivation, but politically laden motivation (are you on our side, or the Communists' / Nazis' / jihadists'?). Still, motivation quite properly matters. We don't say "arson is arson; these laws criminalize speech, plain and simple" -- we distinguish between arson caused by anger or a desire for economic retaliation (bad though it is) and arson caused by a desire to help the enemy (worse).

The same is true with antidiscrimination law generally, though it's enforced through civil litigation: Motive is what turns perfectly permissible conduct into civilly actionable conduct. If a university is sued for expelling a student because of the student's conservative political speech, and its defense is that expelled the student for other reasons, the litigation will be all about motive. Likewise if an employer is sued on the grounds that if fired an employee because the employee was Catholic, black, white, female, or whatever else. The legal system does not say "firing is firing; these laws criminalize speech, plain and simple."

Now it may well be that a crime in which the victim was picked out because of his sexual orientation isn't materially different from a similar crime committed for most other reasons. It may well be that, even if there is a material moral and practical difference, drawing the line between the different motivations may be socially corrosive in various ways. It may well be that, even if there is such a difference, determining the speaker's motivations may too often require a focus on the speaker's political views, and might thus have too much of a deterrent effect even on lawabiding people. And it may well be that the laws are sometimes abused to actually punish constitutionally protected speech (rather than just using it as evidence of intent to commit a nonspeech crime).

As I said, I generally oppose hate crime enhancements, for a mix of these reasons. But "A murder is a murder; these laws criminalize speech, plain and simple" (and variants of this) is not, I think, a sound ground for opposition.

Year Zero

I'm trying to believe...

Gay Marriage

What a topic to start on, eh? It's not a tech-related topic, but that's good - I don't want to set all of you up for that. My opinion on this topic will, however, draw on my Libertarian leanings. My biggest reason for starting with this is that my opinion is one that I rarely hear put forth. It's radical, but it just might work.

But let's start at the beginning. With any discussion of this type, the best way to start is to treat it like a mediation. What is the major sticking point for both sides? On the pro-gay marriage side of the fence, the biggest issue is that of rights and privileges. This is definitely a valid issue. There are many gay couples who cannot get insurance for their partner, whose partner cannot adopt the child they raise together, not to mention if they break up. Visitation is nearly impossible (except in Minnesota).

However, the anti-gay marriage side's primary argument is just as valid. This side is worried about the erosion of the meaning and concept of marriage. Marriage originated in, and it could be argued belongs to, religion. The very concept of gay marriage flies in the face of the religious underpinnings of the institution.

So how do we solve this seemingly uncrossable breach? How do we get COMPLETELY equal rights for gay couples without eroding the religious definitions of marriage? Some states have come close. The answer lies in civil unions. However, not one state has gotten it right. The answer lies in one of the founding principles of this country: The Separation of Church and State. The solution is to take marriage ENTIRELY out of the hands of the State. Marriage is a religious institution and the State has no place in it. The solution is to issue civil unions, and ONLY civil unions, to everyone. A crucial part of this is to retroactively convert all existing marriages to civil unions.

Warning: Here comes a curve ball. As a Libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of states' rights, a limited Federal Government, and major restrictions on the currently out-of-control commerce clause. However, if there's ever been a case for the Federal Government to step in, this is it. There are so many interstate and Federal benefits tied to marriage: taxes and health care are but two. The Federal Government needs to define civil unions, what they mean and how you get them, and ban states from endorsing the religious institution of marriage. And if people want to be married, they can do exactly what they were originally intended to do - they go to their favorite religious body.

Welcome!

Welcome to the newly-revamped Geek-Spot.com! Before this was used to feed stories that I was interested in...but there are tons of sites for that which do a much better job. So the site has been re-purposed to be a place express my views on a wide range of topics, from the perspective of a Libertarian Techno-Geek (or LTG). Feel free to comment on this post with your opinions on the layout of the site, possible topics, etc. Thanks, and welcome!