Hello World

Some jerk's trying to rename 16th St. in DC "Ronald Reagan Boulevard." This was first reported by my internet friend Catherine at DCist, and then the Post picked it up today without naming DCist in the story. That's lame, but not as lame as the horrific idea by South Texas Rep. Henry Bonilla, of totally screwing up DC's street naming conventions and costing the district $1 million it can't afford to waste. Said Mayor Anthony Williams, with whom I don't often agree: "It's been a long time since I've heard of a plan that made so little sense. . . . Changing the unique and beautifully mapped street system in Washington would mean undoing . . . a design that has inspired millions of people from around the world." Just another example of why DC would be better off with home rule.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has sued New York City over the egregious and reprehensible (not to mention essentially useless) random bag searches in the subway. The best point made in the article, is that the searches are almost completely ineffective--if you are approached to be searched, you can just turn around and leave. Because anyone with a bomb would do that, this ensures that the only people who are subjected to the inconvenience of a search are those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. It's as stupid and pointless as confiscating swiss army knives at airports (I'm sorry, but if you think that the no-utility-blades rule is preventing terrorism you're crazy/deluded--and don't get me started on the prohibition of lighters, scissors, and nail trimmers).
(related links from this blog: My first rant on the subject and my favorite response to the situation.)

This country is so absurd!

Yes. YES.

I was waiting for a Metra train to get into downtown Chicago yesterday and heard an announcement like "Due to the recent events in London, we're asking our passengers to be aware of their surroundings, and report any suspicious people or packages they may see, blah blah blah." My first thought was: "yeah, Chicago, you're next. Keep dreaming, you deluded rubes." You'll all be happy to know that I managed to navigate the rough-and-tumble world of the Chicago commuter train system without a scratch.

Which brings me to my actual topic: they've started random bag checks in the New York subway. It seems that people are pretty much okay with this:

"I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact," Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.

At the multiple-tiered Atlantic Avenue station in Brooklyn, Xavier Rodney toted a small black backpack past four National Guardsmen holding M-16 rifles. He wore an oversize Los Angeles Lakers jersey and long shorts, and he spoke of supporting the searches, in part because as a black man, he does not think he fits the profile of a terrorist.

"I don't have anything to hide . . . I guess they stopped looking for gangbangers," he said. "If I was in the position of the people they are profiling, I'd feel differently."

Of course, immediately after that passage they make clear that the searches aren't based on profiling. They're random. But that's not really the point--the point is that this is yet another completely ineffective security measure aimed to reassure people that the government is conspicuously doing something. It really bothers me that people seem to crave the loss of their civil liberties--how many times in the last 4 years have you heard a quote along the lines of "I'm happy to give up a little bit of my privacy to ensure our security"? I wonder if people recognize the irony of reducing liberty to preserve freedom. I suspect not.

At any rate, I'm utterly sick of the daily hassles caused by these symbolic but pointless security measures, and I truly hope that my last month in DC isn't marred by anything more annoying than tourists who don't know to stand on the right and walk on the left.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is going to jail because she won't reveal a source to a grand jury investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity (as a CIA agent). Matthew Cooper, who reports for Time Magazine, is going free after agreeing to testify--he says his source has permitted him to talk.

As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

Yeah, and you're really taking a stand against that problem by testifying. Very courageous, rolling over in the face of injustice. I mean, I guess I don't blame him, especially considering his source has (according to Cooper) released him from his obligation, but I think it would be a lot more admirable for him to make a sacrifice to defend the rights of journalists (and sources). Easy for me to say, though, since I'm not the guy, with a wife and kids, facing possible imprisonment.

Anyway, this is not exactly a legal victory for the free press, if you ask me. I suppose it's not over yet, but I don't like the idea that a journalist can be jailed for preserving the integrity of their reporting.

Developing...