Gadling

The US Senate, whose public approval rating has been hovering around the high single digits, has finally done something right.

After fifteen years on the books, a law allowing border officials to refuse entry to HIV-positive visitors to the United States may finally be repealed. The bill, already passed by Congress, will be sent to the president's desk in the near future. He is expected to sign it.

As we wrote four months ago, the US is one of only a dozen countries-- including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the Sudan-- with such a law. Even China decided last year to relax its restrictions on HIV-positive travelers.

The passage of the bill was a bipartisan effort, headed by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic, whom we quoted in our previous post calling the ban "anachronistic and stigmatizing," is understandably elated. Sullivan is an HIV-positive British citizen who lives in America-- he was the recipient of a hard-to-obtain entry waiver-- and says he wants to become an American citizen, but cannot because of his HIV status. Sullivan writes:

"Barring some unforeseen event, the HIV Travel Ban - a relic of the days when HIV was a source of fear and stigma and terror - is finally over... I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's one of the happiest days of my whole life. For two and a half decades, I have longed to be a citizen of the country I love and have made my home. I now can. There is no greater feeling."

So a thumbs up to Congress, for once.

Over at Slate, Tim Hardford, the "Undercover Economist" and a favorite economist of mine*, tells people to stop blaming speculators for high oil prices. It's an often-repeated myth that oil speculators-- investors who bet on whether the price of oil will rise or fall-- are responsible to a large extent for the increase in oil prices.

Some of the major airlines even spammed their customers last week, asking them to raise a stink to their elected representatives about these greedy, America-hating speculators.

Harford contends that some speculators-- the profitable ones-- actually help stabilize the price of oil. For this he calls them "veritable philanthropists." He writes: "When they think oil is going to become more expensive, they buy and hoard oil, or they buy oil futures, encouraging others to buy and hoard. This raises oil prices when they are relatively cheap and lowers them when they are relatively expensive."

So it's the bad speculators we need to worry about then? Not so fast. "True, when speculators make mistakes, that is destabilizing. But in the case of oil prices, it's hard to see that speculators are playing much of a role. For one thing, inventories don't seem to be rising. If the inventory data are correct, consumers were burning all that $135 oil."

So maybe it's our fault for using so much oil. But how satisfying is it to blame ourselves?

[*Yes, I have a favorite economist-- actually several. They're like my baseball players.]

Attention US citizens: Here are your tax dollars at work. This video of a hard(ly) working TSA agent was apparently taken at Amtrak Union Station in Chicago.

Note the sunglasses-indoors look sported by the sleeping officer, undoubtedly worn to hide his closed eyes. Perhaps he needs a pair of these instead?

More on the TSA and Amtrak here.

Amtrak officials have announced that this fall, rail passengers should expect random security sweeps, including having their luggage scanned for explosives. This comes as a (somewhat belated) response to the Madrid and London terrorist attacks of 2004 and 2005, in which hundreds of people were killed on the cities' public transportation systems.

Here, according to the USA Today, is how the new security checks will take place: "Teams of counterterrorism agents swoop into rail stations unannounced and randomly select passengers to place their bags on a table to be swabbed for explosives before they board their train. If there's a positive readout, the passengers' bags are opened and searched by hand."

But that's not all. While the security sweeps are taking place, undercover agents "dressed as everything from businessmen to homeless people to hip-hoppers" will survey the waiting passengers for any suspicious activity.

While some wonder why these heightened security measures for our nation's railways took so long to develop, others decry the new security sweeps as unnecessary. As Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie writes, "The Department of Homeland Security notes there is no imminent threat to AMTRAK (arguably that's because terrorists want to kill people, not depopulated legacies of the Nixon years).

The TSA blog: I read it so you don't have to.

Yesterday I highlighted some fun bits from the Q&A over at the TSA blog about the new ID requirements for flying. As promised, here are some entertaining and insightful posts from the comments following that exchange.

• One commenter wonders whether the "No Fly List" isn't more trouble than it's worth: "What kind of threat do they pose if they have already been screened for weapons? They going to punch a hole in the plane?"
• Chris (the TSA blogger) writes in the comments that his original snark was merely an attempt "to bring some levity to a long drawn-out discussion of a serious matter while providing some insight into why we think ID is important." Another commenter responds: "Christopher, while I understand your intent, you did not succed at either of your goals. Address the hard queston with some real answers, let Leno and Letterman handle the comedy."

Questions to ponder next time you're waiting to hand over your ID at the airport:

• "Why is a guy who says he lost his ID less dangerous than a guy who says he prefers not to show his ID?"
• "I show up a the airport and say I forgot my ID, because I have memory loss. You ask me questions I can´t answer because I have memory loss. Can I fly?"
• "Let´s say I turn up at an airport and say I forgot my ID, and that my name is John Smith. There are probably a few thousand John Smiths. How will you 'establish my identity'?"

Grant reported a couple weeks ago on the TSA's new ID requirement for airline passengers. In case you missed it, last week the snark-tastic security whiz named Christopher over at the TSA's Evolution of Security blog (sort of) answered your questions about the new rule. Here are some highlights from the Q&A:

Q: So it only took 48 hours before the first reported instance of a question about political affiliation being required [to verify identitiy after a passenger forget his ID]. I'll make two predictions: 1) The TSA employees who did this will never be reprimanded in any serious manner; the worst thing they will face will be some additional "training".

A. Nostranonymous, I think Kip [Hawley, TSA's head honcho] was pretty clear when he wrote, "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."

The person that did this made a mistake and has been corrected. Hope you never make a mistake at your job.

[The person has been corrected? If that's not accountability, what is? Also, "hope you never make a mistake at your job"? What the hell kind of a statement is that? If an employee in any other job responded in such a flippant way to a customer complaint, you can be sure he'd be "corrected" by his boss real quick.]

Q: If requiring ID is truly instrumental in keeping the flying public safe, why did it take the TSA until June of 2008 to institute that policy?

A: Good question. We've been increasing layers of security for years and now that TSA officers check documents at every airport in the country, we've effectively moved the issue and are trying to address this threat.

[Wait, what? What does that mean?]

Is this a meaningful sign of China's impending reformation or merely cosmetic?

China's new Olympic-inspired 10 yuan notes show no sign of former Communist leader and all-around bad guy Mao Zedong. Mao is replaced on the currency by, among other things, the new Beijing National Stadium (aka the "Bird's Nest"), a scantily-clad (if at all clad) discus thrower, and the Beijing 2008 Olympics logo.

Lest you think this marks a definitive change in China's attitude, note that "only" 6 million of these are being printed. In a country of over a billion people, these notes may be more like collectors' items than widely-traded currency.

More here.

Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution asks, What loanwords does English need from other languages?

Loanwords, of course, are words borrowed from other languages, often to express ideas or identify items not already present in the borrowing language. Schadenfreude, for example, is a German word often used by English-speakers to describe the enjoyment of another's pain or misfortune. (Leave it to the Germans, Dennis Miller once said, to develop such an intricate vocabulary revolving around pain.) Other examples include "faux pas," "casino," "entrepeneur," and so on.

So back to the original question: What foreign words should English borrow? Commentors to the original post at MR have a number of suggestions. Among them:

• sobutilnik -- someone you share a bottle with [from Russian]
• hygge -- the comfortable and pleasant feeling of being together with friends or family [from Danish]
• picante and caliente -- spicy hot versus temperature hot [from Spanish]
• l'esprit de l'escalier -- thinking of a witty comeback too late [from French]
• otsukaresama -- "You have done hard work." A good example is when a family member gets home from a particularly long day at work - saying otsukaresama succinctly conveys your appreciation for their hard work even though they weren't doing anything specifically for you. [from Japanese]

I think the last one is my favorite. Any other additions, Gadling faithful?

This photo, from RuthAnnOC, is an affront to those of us stuck in places without beaches, sailboats, and mindblowing sunsets-- places unlike Oahu, Hawaii, where this gorgeous picture was taken.

Got a photo you want considered for Gadling's Photo of the Day? Submit it here and cross your fingers.

The Netherlands has long been known as one of the most tolerant countries in the world. But as of July 1, that famous live-and-let-live attitude will no longer extend to tobacco. That's the day a ban on smoking in public places of employment takes effect in the Netherlands. Well, not all smoking.

Yes, while smoking tobacco in public is soon to be verboten, smoking a joint (that's a "marijuana cigarette" for you squares) will remain legal in the Netherlands. But, as this article notes, Dutch potheads don't feel too lucky that their drug of choice is still legal. That's because many of them cut their joints with tobacco.

The Dutch government is not prohibiting marijuana smokers from rolling "pure" joints, and it's likely that many smokers who had previously mixed marijuana and tobacco will switch to smoking "pure." Interestingly, there's not yet a way for government inspectors to determine whether a joint is "pure" or cut with tobacco (other than testing it themselves, I suppose.)

Smoking tobacco will still be permitted inside the famous Dutch coffee shops, but only in separate rooms without employees, which many shop owners say they can't afford to provide.

More here.