Bush vetoes anti-torture bill

Just when you think the scumbag in the White House can't sink any lower.

Real ID as political punishment

In May, the federal government will subject the residents of states which refuse to ask for an extension in complying with Real ID to major inconveniences, such as putting everyone who doesn't have a passport through "secondary screening" when boarding planes at Manchester Airport. Better get to the airport at least four hours early.

Not a single state has completely implemented the requirements of Real ID, and most haven't implemented any. New Hampshire isn't being punished because its residents are less able to prove that we aren't terrorists; there's no difference in this respect between New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

The Real ID sanctions are a purely political punishment, aimed at disrupting the lives of people in states that won't grovel before the Bush gang. New Hampshire's Congressional delegation should be formally protesting this treatment. I don't expect anything of Gregg and Sununu, who voted for telecom amnesty, but our Representatives, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, have spoken out against Real ID. They're both first-term Representatives and have limited options, but I wish they would publicly denounce the federal government's political punishment of the state.

Security flaw in Charlie Card reported

A team of three researchers reports that they have been able to break the encryption scheme used in many RFID cards, including the "Charlie Card" which acts as a stored-value ticket for Boston's transit system.

A press release issued by the University of Virginia said Nohl's research team obtained the same kind of chip, then used abrasives to scrape away the chip layer by layer. By examining the chip circuitry, they were able to figure out the encryption algorithm it uses and found weaknesses that made it easy to break. Next, the team was able to use commercially available RFID readers to capture data from any RFID-equipped cards that came within range. They could then decrypt the data on those cards and copy them. Nohl said that his team needed only about $1,000 worth of equipment to dismantle the chip and crack the code.

NXP Semiconductors, the maker of the chip, claims that there are other security layers which have not been cracked. According to another report, NXP also says that the chip which was cracked is not the one used in transit cards. The team has not disclosed the specifics of the encryption scheme and has not, as far as I know, demonstrated the ability to create a counterfeit card. Still, this report highlights the vulnerability of even encrypted RFID chips to malicious action.

Calif. attorney general backs religious firing

I had supposed that the firing of Marianne Kearney-Brown would be quickly reversed once sane legal minds got involved. But California's Attorney General has backed the firing, in spite of the obvious religious discrimination which the refusal to accept modifications to the oath entails.

I'd been considering applying to the California Digital Library to continue working on a project which I had started working on, and which has moved there. I'd already had doubts about moving to California, even on a temporary basis, and this pushes things over the edge, convincing me that I really don't want to deal with it, since I'd be a state employee and would have to take the loyalty oath.

Real ID showdown draws closer

Starting in May, residents of New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, and South Carolina will not be permitted to board airplanes or enter federal offices if they don't have a passport. You would think this would be a major news item, but coverage has been remarkably sparse. I'm wondering if the news media will keep sweeping it under the rug even when the disruption of travel begins.

Some libertarian writers are confident that the moment the federal government discovers it has to enforce its regulations, it will cave in. I find this equally bizarre. In fact, it's the states that are caving in, asking for extensions on compliance. But those libertarian writers assure us that asking for an extension to comply doesn't in any way signal intent to comply.

The news media are quiet, though the number of stories is starting to grow. Many libertarians have their heads in the sand. Four states are about to be treated as foreign states. The showdown isn't far away.

Obama or McCain?

It's getting increasingly likely that this fall's presidential contest will be between Obama and McCain. Hillary Clinton's political death spiral is entertaining, as the public is recognizing what a nasty person she is, and she fights back by getting still nastier.

If things continue as they are, we'll need to ask which candidate would do less damage to liberty, Obama or McCain. I consider Obama the clear lesser evil.

In his stated principles, he really isn't very different from Clinton. He's a tax-and-spend Democrat. He'll put our health in the loving hands of the government if he can. His respect for the Second Amendment is almost non-existent. But he strikes me as a decent person with bad ideas rather than a power-luster. He speaks in glittering generalities while waffling on issues such as Iraq and free trade. Really, he reminds me of Jimmy Carter. But a Jimmy Carter would be quite an improvement over the status quo.

McCain is seriously bad in many ways. The law which bears his name and Senator Feingold's strikes at public criticism of political candidates, which is at the heart of free speech. He voted for amnesty for telecom companies engaging in illegal wiretapping. He is likely to let the Iraq mess drag on forever. He's given encouragement to the religious right, stating that America is a "Christian nation."

Even if both candidates were equally bad, the election of Obama would break the momentum of Bush's assault on liberty, while a McCain presidency would carry it forward for another four years. Democratic attempts to broaden government economic power would require a while to get moving, and some of Bush's more corrupt appointments would be cleaned out. At least we'd buy some time.

On the Cato site, David Boaz discusses the possibility that some libertarians will support Obama. I think he underestimates the possibility -- at least if we define "support" as considering him less repulsive than McCain.

California university fires Quaker

If you teach at California State University East Bay, you must swear loyalty or be fired. A Quaker teacher who tried to modify her oath on religious grounds has been removed from her job.

Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
 
Each time, when asked to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," crossed out "swear," and circled "affirm." All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.

When state universities use loyalty oaths as a weapon against religious non-conformists -- and when it's California, rather than Missouri or Iowa, that does this -- it's a sign that America has rotted even more than I'd thought possible.

Update: See the article on Inside Higher Education's website.