Your very own Do-Not-Text list

LifeHacker snagged a good one from NYT's David Pogue:

How to Block Cellphone Spam

Shortly [after posting a rant about spam text messages] I heard from an AT&T representative who revealed the presence of an astonishing little-known cellular feature: you can block cellular spam.

Yes!

Different providers do this differently - but I was able to get signed up with AT&T in a few minutes (mymessages.wireless.att.com).

It being AT&T - I was (of course) obligated to create another log in for this service (I believe that brings my AT&T login total up to five) - but I was allowed to block all internet driven text that wasn't addressed to an alias I chose.

Nice.

Flood insurance

..here's (yet another) thing I didn't know.

Flood insurance. The best known-little known fact about flood insurance is that your homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage.

Right behind that, is the fact that flood insurance is purchased from the federal government.

And it's expensive.

Those I got.

What I didn't know - what genuinely surprised me was this little item (from Floodsmart.gov):

You must live in a community that participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to qualify for National Flood Insurance.

So, if your community hasn't decided to participate in the NFIP, you can't buy flood insurance even if you want it.

It gets worse:

Moreover, if a President declares a disaster as a result of flooding, federal financial assistance will not be available for the permanent repair or reconstruction of insurable buildings.

The good news: if your community is accepted into the NFIP within 6 months of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, you can get federal assistance.

I have to wonder though - if you want flood insurance and can't get it because your municipality hasn't signed up - what do you do if you get wiped out?

And how fast is the approval process? Can a devastated community reasonably expect to get signed up after the fact within 6 months. Do they ever wave the deadline?

Yeeg.

Honesty in advertising

(H/t to Sivacracy - and whoever made this)

Shades of the Monster ad:

I'm voting Republican

Dear Senator

I'm writing to express my exasperation with the Democratic leadership on Telecom Immunity as it relates to NSA wiretapping of US citizens.

According to The Hill

“Congressional Republicans are reviewing a Democratic proposal to break the logjam on electronic-surveillance legislation by allowing federal district courts to determine whether telephone companies seeking legal immunity received orders from the Bush administration to wiretap people’s phones.”

I realize that negotiations are still ongoing and that nothing is final – but for some reason news on this issue always seems to come in the middle of the night on a Friday.

As it stands now, it appears that the only public line of inquiry into the wiretapping program lies in the civil suits pending against the telecoms. If immunity is granted – these cases will cease and the public will be left in the dark about what happened.

Americans deserve better than that.

The idea that Congress would sidestep the discussion of immunity by allowing a court to say the telecoms had “received orders” is a stunning abdication of Congressional oversight. It isn’t a question of whether or not orders were given, but ‘*what* orders were given. More to the point: were the orders legal or not?

It doesn’t seem likely that Congress will seek answers to these questions, but they surely shouldn’t preempt court proceedings that could. As your colleagues, Sens. Dodd and Feingold have already pointed out, “existing law already immunizes telephone companies that respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements.”

If they’ve done nothing wrong – they are already immune. If they have stepped over the line – we should find out where they’ve transgressed before we immunize them. In my view, civil damages against the telecoms are beside the point. It’s more important to find out what has been happening.

I know you have previously voted in favor of granting immunity to the telecom industry and while I’m disappointed – I’m more than curious to have the pro-immunity position explained to me in an intelligent fashion. The only statements that appear in news reports seem little more than transparent attempts to frighten the public. “Time is running out!” we are told. “We’ll be less safe,” and all manner of foolishness. For the sake of honest debate, separate surveillance from immunity. If there is a good reason for immunity – a public benefit – let someone explain it to the public.

The usual fear-mongering just serves to calcify the public’s skepticism of what their government has to say.

Tell us why immunity is necessary – in the full light of day. If that can’t be done – than we will all have learned something from this discussion.

Thank you.

"That fantasy is gone in Europe..."

Beegobug passed along a Harper's article by Mark Shapiro called Toxic Inaction which is the reaction I'd have had to the CJR article I'd mentioned earlier (if I were a better writer, more informed and had lots of time).

In it, Mr. Shapiro lays out the reasons that Europe has decided to be proactive about regulating chemicals in commercial use:

[in 2005,] World Wildlife Fund International tested the blood of three generations of women from twelve European countries. The largest number of chemicals—sixty-three—was found in the group of grandmothers. Given the number of years they had had to accumulate exposure, this result was perhaps not surprising. But the next-highest level was among their grandchildren, aged twelve to twenty-eight, who in their short lifetimes had amassed fifty-nine different toxic chemicals.

Now, I know - discussions of chemical safety are areas where amateurs should tread lightly. Silent Spring wasn't exactly ironclad science - and outright bans of substances may limit scientific or industrial uses that do not threaten the public or pose environmental hazards.

However-
It would seem that the model of "let's test chemicals on the public at large" is just flat out insane. Europe seems to get it:

Europeans have recently decided to do something about all the untested chemicals that are ending up in their blood. “The assumption among Americans is, ‘If it’s on the market, it’s okay,’” explained Robert Donkers, an E.U. official who was asked to review Europe’s regulatory laws after the baby-product scare. “That fantasy is gone in Europe.” Donkers’s efforts were the first steps in what became, seven years later, a new E.U. chemical regulation called REACH—Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. REACH amounts to a revolution in how chemicals are managed, and in how production decisions around the world will be made from now on. Regulations set by the most powerful countries have quickly become, through trade, the international standard.

It goes without saying that the US chemical industry is militantly opposed to these regulations. They of course, have political backing:

The changes in Europe follow eight years of vigorous opposition from the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration. Four U.S. agencies -- the EPA, the Commerce Department, the State Department and the Office of the Trade Representative -- argued that the system would burden manufacturers and offer little public benefit.
In 2002, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell directed the staffs of American Embassies in Europe to oppose the measure. He cited talking points developed in consultation with the American Chemistry Council, a manufacturers trade group.

The ACC wants the status quo. You know, the one where they supply the government agencies with the science - so they can make informed decisions?

How's that working out?

Let's try a test case. Bisphenol A (or BPA). (via Bill Moyers Journal):

Bisphenol A is actually the chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic. It's the hard, clear plastic used in baby bottles, and it also is the lining of all metal cans made in the United States - beer cans, soda cans, food cans. And this chemical leaches out of all of these products into any kind of food or beverages that come in contact with it.

Okay. BPA is a chemical. It's in contact with a lot of substances we ingest. So?

Bisphenol A, BPA, is what is known as an endocrine disruptor...

The manufacturers of BPA, and their lobbyists, say it is safe. U.S. regulators agree. One team of investigative journalists decided to ask…why? Susanne Rust is a science reporter with the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

[snip]

Endocrine disruptors were first identified as the cause of wildlife abnormalities in the early 90s. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, though, repeatedly reassured the public that BPA, at least, was safe.

So, the regulators say it's safe. What's the problem? People always say things are dangerous, did anyone look into the new claims?

...prompted by an outcry from advocacy groups, President Bill Clinton signed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. That same year, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended.
The combined legislation promised a chemical screening program of endocrine disruptors to be overseen by the EPA. The goal was to determine whether or not they were dangerous to human beings.
1998 - the EPA, headed by Carol Browner, sets a deadline to fast track the testing of 15,000 chemicals suspected as endocrine disruptors….
1999 - the EPA misses the deadline. The Natural Resources Defense Council sues the agency to enforce screening. 2001 - a new administration takes office; Christine Todd Whitman becomes head of the EPA.
2003 - two more suits are brought against the EPA, one by a coalition of environmentalists and advocacy groups…the other by the attorneys general of four states. The suits attempt to force the agency into compliance with the food quality protection act….
2007 - 11 years after the laws were passed…the EPA had yet to screen its first chemical.

Eleven years - that's pretty lousy. But, again - the regulators had reams of studies that demonstrated the safety of BPA. A single study citing a risk isn't exactly a reason to get all excited. I mean the companies who make this stuff have studied it to death...

In defense of the safety of Bisphenol A, the companies and the ACC cited studies they funded themselves, some paid for by the ACC, which has an annual 75 million dollar budget.
[Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter] SUZANNE RUST: They say the reason they get these, these results is that their studies are better than any of the academic studies, any of the government studies. They can use more animals; they have better controls in their laboratory.

See? More money = better research. Who cares what some underfunded university lab rat thinks? I mean how good can their research really be?

Reporter Suzanne Rust was given the task of looking at all the the state of BPA research.

In all, Rust evaluated 258 studies done over two decades involving lab animals with spines, the type scientists consider most relevant to human beings.
SUZANNE RUST: Right away, you could see that 80% of these studies all found that this chemical caused harm.

But, why does the government regulatory body say it's safe? How does that make sense?

More than half the studies, 168 of them, evaluated Bisphenol A at low doses. The vast majority of those - 132 of the 168 - showed harm to lab animals. And, Rust would report, "nearly three-fourths of the studies that found the chemical had no harmful effects were funded by industry." Rust's overall conclusion: an overwhelming majority of the studies found BPA to be harmful in lab animals - causing breast and testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and other reproductive failures. Studies paid for by the chemical industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease.

What the...?

All of the studies Rust had evaluated were in the public domain, as available to government regulators as they were to a reporter in Milwaukee.

Yeah. The guys who make the stuff pay for their own studies. They give their studies to the regulators - who dutifully file them away in case there are questions - and the FDA never goes out and does research on their own. Nor do they keep abreast of the latest findings.

The FDA takes what it is given and asks no questions.

And they are merely the latest example of a regulatory body that has been co-opted by the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

The BPA battle is still being fought.

Arrgh!

If Europe's no longer trusting the assurances of the chemical industry - why do we? We are sure to get some benefit from overseas regulation - but stuff that can't be exported will simply be sold here.

Makes you wonder.

Euro

I've laid off on posting on Euro 2008 –because, there's not a lot for me to add – but ya can't just keep quiet about some things:

Scoreline - June 9, 2008
Netherlands: 3
Van Nistelrooy 26'; Sneijder 31'; Van Bronckhorst 79'
Italy: 0

Holy damn. Italy gets spanked. Yes, that first goal was just awful, but the next two were ample proof that Italy was totally outclassed. Pirlo's probably wondering if he should stop taking frees.

Go Orange – if today's Italy-Romania match is all Italy can muster, they deserve an exit.

----
And then there's the match from yesterday.

Now, this is pretty much the dream setup. The home team is down by one. They have to get a point out of the match or they are doomed. They've attacked like banshees for the first half but nothing went in – then the visitors bash in a goal.

Abject, the home team struggles against the tide- presses the attack and gets - nothing.

No goals – the clock shows the 92nd minute – the game is lost.

And then - there's a penalty. The home team got a free kick, and during the scrum one of the defenders pulled down his marker right in front of the ref- in the 18 yard box.

The home team puts up their veteran – the oldest man in the tournament – to take the kick. The entire stadium of home supporters goes quiet…

He misses, it's four years lost and a lifetime of shame. He makes it, he's a national hero. 80% of all penalties go in – but the 20% that don't are blamed on the shooter.

He sets up, steps up – and nukes it into the net.

The crowd goes insane. The last minute or so of the game play out, but the visitors are so shattered that the draw is written in the books even before the whistle blows.

The home team takes their victory lap, the veteran works the crowd - it's a madhouse.

Storybook ending.

Now I ask you – Why the hell did it have to happen to Austria?

Scoreline - June 12, 2008
Austria: 1
Vastic 93' (pen)
Poland: 1
Guerreiro 30'

The most aggravating, overrated bunch of undeserving wanna be footballers.

They never go anywhere, but they keep managing the late goal heroics anyway.
I mean, Ivica Vastic? – it's like Austria-Chile ten years ago!

Yo, Soccer Gods? If you're going to write a storybook ending, how's about casting a likable hero, eh?

You out there....?!!

Arrrrgh!

Making news by seeking it

Nukes & Spooks details the DoJ's scrambled reaction to the Boumediene et al v. Bush decision (that reversed attempts by the Bush administration and both houses of Congress to deny Enemy Combatants the right to judicial review in US Courts).

Justice Department media representatives set up a briefing with department lawyers, but insisted the question-and-answer session be off-the-record. They acknowledged it was an unusual demand, but said they couldn’t discuss the decision because they were still reviewing it.

That DoJ was flat-footed and heavy handed is not what surprised me - this is:

Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo quickly objected, saying the off-the-record rule "does nothing to help anybody understand anything."

When he said he would consider the discussion on the record, he was told he should get off the call. Apuzzo refused, saying "there’s just no reason for this to be an off-the-record call." A conference call mute button prevented 40 other reporters from chiming in.

But Justice Department officials wouldn’t budge and the call was cut short.

Right there - this is what a reporter should do. Not just take what you are given - "Oh, you want me to listen and say nothing, okay," but actually force the government official to say something on the record. Even if it is by press release, or a "no comment" comment - they are not allowed to say they've addressed the issue by swearing you to silence.

Memo to network news types - do your F-ing job, already.
(H/t Glenn, again)

Iran vs. Pakistan

Iran. Bad guys. Why?

• History of aiding terrorists (Hezbullah, Hamas, Imad Mugniyah) and suspected of involvement in terrorist acts beyond their borders (Beirut embassy bombing, Marine Barracks Bombing, TWA hijacking)
  
• History of conflict with neighboring states (Iraq)
  
• Suspected of aiding anti-US forces in Iraq
• Suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapon program.
  

Bad, bad, bad Iran.

Pakistan. Good guys.

• History of aiding terrorists (Taliban) and suspected of involvement in terrorist acts beyond their borders (India parliament attack)
• History of conflict with neighboring states (India, Afghanistan)
• Suspected of aiding anti-US forces in Afghanistan.
• Oh, and they actually have nuclear weapons

Why are they good guys again?

Listen to the right honorable gentleman...

(H/t to Glenn Greenwald)

Former UK PM John Major has written a spectacular Op-Ed opposing proposed expansions in police power to fight terrorism:

I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

Read Glenn, read John. Amen and Amen.

Full disclosure

Trust CJR's The Observer to point out something that has escaped scrutiny:

Which presidential candidate has been more forthright about their medical history?

Sen. McCain:

John McCain...released 1,173 pages of his medical records to the press. He did so only after a series of delays, however, and then granted a pool of about a dozen news outlets access to them for three hours, with no photocopying allowed.
(Via CJR)

or Sen. Obama:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released a [six paragraph] health summary from his longtime physician Thursday that pronounced the Illinois senator in "excellent health" as he struggles to quit smoking.
(via ABC)

It is fair to say there are more concerns with McCain's health, but Obama's letter is not his medical records. It's a short, undated letter from his physician.

The McCain campaign is being disingenuous when it claims to release medical records - when they in fact are merely allowing a few reporters to speed skim almost 1,200 pages in three hours.

The Obama campaign is being similarly disingenuous when it releases an undated letter that says his last "medical checkup" was in January of 2007. These are smart people - and it is no great stretch to say that there is wiggle room in there for Sen. Obama to have had some medical procedure in the last year that is not addressed by this letter.

Someone should press on this issue - and see if they squirm.

Come to think of it, why haven't we always done it that way?

All too often, when you take a moment to think about how something works - it suddenly occurs to you to ask why it works that way.

In this case - there is an answer, it's just not a particularly satisfying one.

The Washington Post on A1 writes that a tough new European law regulating the chemical industry is affecting the way U.S. products will be made—and its sounds like that’s a good thing.

The new regulations will force companies to prove chemicals are safe before they start selling them, as opposed to how it is in the U.S., where “where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market.”

(via CJR's Opening Bell)

Yeah, why the hell is that, anyway?

And while we're on the subject - anyone care to explain this little factoid (via WaPo)?

In the United States...the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.

So the 62,000 chemicals already in use as of 1976 have not been subject to government scrutiny. After 1976, manufacturers will be asked to provide information about their dangers to the government.

So the government can follow up. If it wants to.

How's that going, so far?

In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals...

So, of the 18,000 chemicals introduced into the market in the last three decades, the EPA has asked for studies of 200 of them.

*calculator sound*

1%

Okay, sure - that sounds bad, but -

The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976. The hurdles are so high for the agency that it has been unable to ban asbestos, which is widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and is barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on industry to voluntarily cease production of suspect chemicals.

Well... that sucks.

Postscript:

Oddly enough - When I went looking for the five substances that the EPA has managed to ban, I came across the same WaPo article - as presented in the Seattle Times. This version spells out what got banned and adds a bonus:

Only five chemicals have been banned by the EPA since 1976: polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs; fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes; dioxin; hexavalent chromium; and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, or DDT.
Asbestos was banned for a while, although the ban was overturned in 1991. Asbestos, widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen, is barred in more than 30 countries.

-and if Truthdig is accurate, DDT was banned prior to the TSCA, which would lower the EPA's post 1976 count to a measly four:

In the three decades since the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law in 1976, the EPA has banned only five chemicals or chemical categories: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes, dioxin, asbestos (though this ban was overturned in 1991), and hexavalent chromium. The pesticide DDT, which was banned in 1972 (before TSCA was enacted), is still being found in people’s bodies today.

Ahhh, good times....

Habeas Corpus - still not dead in America

The good news:

Washington

Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

By DAVID STOUT

Published: June 13, 2008

The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that the Guantánamo Bay detainees had adequate protections under a 2005 law.

The bad news:

...the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

Yeah, four Justices thought that prisoners of our government did not have the right to habeas corpus. No surprise who they were, but it's nice to know that three of them are under 60.

Justice Stevens (who voted in the majority) is 88.

Late Edit:
The case is Boumediene et al v. Bush PDF

Justice Kennedy is in good form (emphasis added):

the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177.

Division of labor

I need to stop reading the New York Times:

The most recent figures from the University of Wisconsin’s National Survey of Families and Households show that the average wife does 31 hours of housework a week while the average husband does 14 — a ratio of slightly more than two to one. If you break out couples in which wives stay home and husbands are the sole earners, the number of hours goes up for women, to 38 hours of housework a week, and down a bit for men, to 12, a ratio of more than three to one. That makes sense, because the couple have defined home as one partner’s work.
But then break out the couples in which both husband and wife have full-time paying jobs. There, the wife does 28 hours of housework and the husband, 16. Just shy of two to one, which makes no sense at all.

I have a job that is about streamlining workflow. I take complex tasks and boil them down to preconditions and desired endstates and then streamline the task progression so that everybody's happy. Worker feels efficient, management gets accuracy, stuff gets done.

The more I think about this, the more I think how laughable this is.

At home, I have no workflow. Things get done in tantrums. Some days, I come home energized and attack some home task until it is dead, dead, dead. Other days, I sit on the couch - turn the TV on for the kids and veg out while E makes dinner.

This past week has been an pretty solid illustration of how the wheels are off the wagon. Stuff is not getting done - I'm annoyed by it, by the fact that I'm making it happen - and I still can't muster the energy to get up and do something as basic as laundry.

This makes no sense. I do not have a particularly exhausting schedule - but most days I get home and there's nothing I want to do more than just sit down.

Take dinner: I'm sure everyone has had the discussion about "we need to cook large meals on weekends and have leftovers for the week." This is a good goal - and sometimes we've even managed it. But more typically, the evening meal is a mad scramble by whoever happens to have an idea for supper.

There is no plan, there is no routine - and lately E has taken it upon herself to go home from work early to get cracking on dinner. This is a great idea, but means that now it's all on her for dinner most weeknights.

Our history has been one of us steps up and plays hero until they can't take it anymore. Then by unspoken agreement, its time to switch roles. No way this works out equitably and there will invariably be those weeks when neither of us feels like stepping up.

The NYT article describes people who have pink and blue post-its and all kinds of easy to seize on things - but I'm not sure there's any solution there. A schedule of some kind would seem to make the most sense - it's just so hard to catch up when you're as behind as I feel. The laundry situation is getting pretty sad - and I still have wiring to do - and the lawn - and the basement, and -

E's going out of town with the kids in about a week - and I plan on going ape on the house while they're away - but I've done that kind of thing before. Housework doesn't stop. The hardest things in life are the things we have to do every day.

Cheryl Mendelson wrote a book called Home Comforts that has been plaguing me. A list of things that ring true and accuse at the same time.

She has this bit on Broken Windows where she describes urban planners and police worrying about whether or not windows are broken in a neighborhood. They try to keep the windows fixed up - because as soon as people see a broken window that stays broken - they assume that the neighborhood is derelict. Broken window = anything goes. And then comes the graffiti, the dumped garbage, and everything else.

At our house, we have a host of broken windows - my son's room is a junk collection that is never put away. I half suspect he watches TV because he can't find toys to play with. The area between the coffee table and the couch is always covered in whatever junk was just set down for a moment until it stayed there.

And I know I do this. I just set something down because I'm working on something else - I'll get back to it, I'm sure. This morning I almost left a gallon of milk out on the counter all day because I'd set it aside to help baby E with a paper towel.

I'd decided that I would defend the living room against clutter - and told no one. So, when the inevitable clutter accumulated - I'd be all hacked off because you suddenly couldn't see the floor anymore. I keep telling people this at work, yet miss it myself: If you are the only one who knows about a system, it is not a system - it is a mental note.

Mendelson describes a regimen I aspire to, but looks to be so complete that I wonder if there is any room for enjoying the wonders you have wrought. Surely her extreme is more than we can expect, but its becoming abundantly clear that a schedule must be set.

Between saving the day and feeling put upon - to soaking up "me time" and feeling like a total heel - all signs point to an oppressive existence.

It has to get better. E's been the hero way too much lately - and the thought of airing out the things that have been bugging us both is a necessary evil. But, really - making a list of all that needs to get done and then - what? punch cards? More details for people who aren't exactly micromanagement material.

Uncle.

Suffering succotash...

Okay, here's my quote of the day:

“You want a dark, Goth version of Tweety Bird? Have at it,” said Lisa Gregorian, executive vice president for worldwide marketing at Warner Brothers Television.

(Via NYT)

She's referring to a KidsWB.com an website that will allow people to customize the appearance of Looney Toons characters - to what end I'm not entirely sure - but if I could make a goth Tweety, I'm sure I would find a use for it.

DoD robs Peter, pays Paul

(H/t Nukes & Spooks)

Last month, we wrote about a looming budgetary crisis, which threatened to stop soldiers’ pay after June 15. It all stems from the emergency war supplemental funding bill, which Congress has refused to pass over key disagreements...Back then, I thought that Congress and the Pentagon would posture until the last minute, and the crisis would be averted. As it turns it, this game will instead be prolonged.

Congress has now said the Pentagon can move money from Air Force and Navy personnel accounts over to the Army so that the paychecks could go out this week, which solves part of the problem.

Nice.

Middle class in the big picture

CJR's The Audit posts a snapshot of financial trends. It's yet another example of how context is everything.

There's been plenty of bad financial news out there - but chart it over time and you can get a feel for what kind of pain this country is in.

Here's a sampling - they start with an article from the Wall Street Journal:

(graph via the Wall Street Journal)

We learn, first, that nine of ten Americans average $30,000 a year, and, second, that that number has been going in the wrong direction. But wait. The economy was in a period of economic growth from 2001 through 2006. Where did the money go?

But back to the Journal story.

[snip]

It also makes the makes the point that income declines for the middle class during periods of economic growth are basically unheard of.

Recessions often depress middle-class incomes and moods. What’s unusual about these declines is that they occurred during the economic expansion that began in 2001 — the first time that’s happened during a prolonged expansion in at least 40 years. The main reason: The benefits of prosperity have gone disproportionately to the families at the very top.

No, this isn’t a Democratic National Committee press release. It’s the world’s leading financial news publication.

There's a lot more. Give it a look.

Late edit:
The Audi also highlights data from CNN Money that charts real estate price changes and foreclosure rates across the country.

Look at the top 10 cities (in their chart, at least) with the highest increases in foreclosure rate:

Metro Area    % change in foreclosure rate (1 year)
Sarasota  458%
Fort Lauderdale  450%
West Palm Beach, FL 435%
Little Rock  405%
Orlando   399%
Bakersfield, CA  391%
Stockton, CA   379%
Miami           370%
San Jose   347%
Riverside, CA   299%
Santa Ana, CA   290%

CJR asks the obvious question - why are the south and west getting pummeled while places like Newark, NJ and Austin, TX are seeing their foreclosure rates go down?

Hmmm.

Ransom-ware?

(H/t Lifehacker and the Washington Post)

A dangerous new strain of malicious software that holds the victim's computers files for ransom has been unleashed, and Kaspersky Lab is warning that security researchers have yet to crack the encryption key.

[snip]

Once a system is infected and the files are encrypted, it leaves the following message in a pop-up alert:
"Your files are encrypted with RSA-1024 algorithm.
To recovery your files you need to buy our decryptor.
To buy decrypting tool contact us at: ********@yahoo.com"

Okay, sounds like most of the victims are in Russia/Eastern Europe - so I wouldn't exactly press the panic button, yet.

But still, rather creative.

Provided that you made the fee reasonable and the method of payment easy - you might even get a few bucks. You just have to wonder how on earth this guy expects to get paid without leaving tracks.

Enough with the mommy porn

Penelope Trunk on media portrayal of parenting (mostly of mothers) in the media:

Angelina Jolie, and her fifty kids. She has a rule that the nannies (plural, yes, each kid has their own) cannot be photographed holding the kids, because it’s bad for Angelina’s image as a mom. But this is the problem: It looks like these very successful women have it all, even though they don’t.

Here’s what happens: Some reporter interviews someone about their big job. And then the person ends up talking about the mythic work-life-balance topic. And they say something like, “Throughout my career I did [insert something that is supposed to be wonderful for children] for my kids.” And now, of course, we must assume that the kids are doing fine. But why do we believe that? Why do we even ask? We have no hope of learning the truth.

This is why I read her blog - the heartfelt rant that provides clarity. When you've really had it up to here- you're too pissed to bother with pretension.

The lifecycle of Joe: D.I.N.O > I.I.N.O. > GOP bootlicker

TPM pegs my feelings on the Lieberman situation exactly. (Last two paragraphs)

Arsenal! (oh, and Nike, too)

Nike has always been better at making ads than at making shoes.

Here's their latest ad for Euro 2008

It rocks. If only because it features Arsenal
(earphones recommended)

Go Arsenal!

Obama on religion

Another home run for Obama on (of all things) religion:



(H/t to tristero)

Smut

(via Sivacracy)

Knee jerk legislation isn't limited to national security. Alice Marwick of U of Illinois at Chicago's First Monday details the sad, reactionary story of the Communications Decency Act (CDA):

On 3 July 1995, Time magazine published a photo of a horrified child on their cover with the tagline “Cyberporn: A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids — and free speech?” (Elmer–DeWitt, 1995). The article was precipitated by a new study released by Carnegie Mellon, one of the premiere computer science schools in the country. The study found that 83.5 percent of online images were pornographic, and that adult material available online was more extreme and problematic than its print and video equivalents (Rimm, 1995).

[snip]

The Cyberporn scare story and Rimm study gave concrete evidence to Exon’s claims that pornography ran rampant on the Internet, was readily available to children, and needed to be tightly controlled. The Time magazine story spawned a nation–wide media interest in the topic and the CDA passed the Senate 84–16. The Telecommunications Act, including the Exon Amendment, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

[snip]

The Rimm report, though, was far from a typical peer–reviewed scholarly source. Marty Rimm was a 30–year–old undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon (CMU) who had finagled publication in the Georgetown Law Journal by promising spectacular results in exchange for complete secrecy.

[snip]

Unfortunately for all parties involved, Rimm’s results were found to be a combination of shoddy social science methodology, questionable research ethics, and wishful extrapolation. Far from analyzing all online images, Rimm had looked solely at adult bulletin boards and the alt.binaries hierarchy of newsgroups, places where adult content was prevalent (Hoffman and Novak, 1995a; Mullin, 1996). Less than a month later, two marketing professors at Vanderbilt University wrote a lengthy critique of the study that threw its results into question. The 83.5 percent statistic which had prompted the Time story and fueled the entire cyberporn panic turned out to be largely made up (Hoffman and Novak, 1995b).

Ready, fire, aim.

The CDA got struck down, but remains a rallying cry for outraged conservatives who feel there's just way too much freedom going on out there. And the same forces that spawned CDA have not been idle:

This is of particular interest currently as a new Internet content bill, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), is being debated in the U.S. Congress. The technopanic over “online predators” is remarkably similar to the cyberporn panic; both are fueled by media coverage, both rely on the idea of harm to children as the justification for Internet content restriction, and both have resulted in carefully crafted legislation to circumvent First Amendment concerns. Research demonstrates that legislation proposed — or passed — to curb these problems is an extraordinary response; it is misguided and in many cases masks the underlying problem.

No one's against protecting kids - but legislation that purports to defend children should be scrutinized as rigorously as one that that vilified them.

There's a big difference between what a bill says it will do, and what it would actually do if enacted.

It's a great report.

3G iPhone: 8GB for $199 - Pity the early adapters...

(H/t to C|Net's Crave)

Yep, Steve Jobs just let the cat out of the bag.

By July 11 the new 3G iPhones will be available for purchase.

GPS and all the trimmings.

It must suck to have bought in too early. Wonder if Apple's throwing the current iPhone owners a bone?

NYT has the rundown.

Take that, posers

(H/t to Crave)

To get why I like this movie - you have to pretend that all the people in it are models in TV commercials.

That, and wait past the first minute or so.

The next debates will be televised...

...just not exclusively by one media outlet.

(via TPM)

...both Obama and McCain have turned down ABC's invitation for an ABC-controlled 'townhall meeting' in Manhattan moderated by Diane Sawyer.

That's actually encouraging. Now if we could just break the stranglehold the parties have on debate access - we might see some more viewpoints on our screens.

You never win with a bigot

...and Sadly, No! has found the mother load of outraged bigots.

What are they upset about?

Michelle and Barack Obama doing the fist-bump before his announcement speech in Minnesota.

Seriously.

Mission Creep

Nieman Watchdog has an great post on the expanding role of the Pentagon:

1. The Budget-busting Pentagon: The Pentagon's core budget -- already a staggering $300 billion when George W. Bush took the presidency -- has almost doubled while he's been parked behind the big desk in the Oval Office. For fiscal year 2009, the regular Pentagon budget will total roughly $541 billion (including work on nuclear warheads and naval reactors at the Department of Energy).

Rather hard to see how nuclear warheads and reactors will help us ferret out insurgents or find Bin Laden - but the DoD does love their shiny new toys, don't they?

2. The Pentagon as Diplomat: [snip]

Since the late eighteenth century, the U.S. ambassador in any country has been considered the president's personal representative, responsible for ensuring that foreign policy goals are met. As one ambassador explained; "The rule is: if you're in country, you work for the ambassador. If you don't work for the ambassador, you don't get country clearance."
In the Bush era, the Pentagon has overturned this model. According to a 2006 Congressional report by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Embassies as Command Posts in the Anti-Terror Campaign, civilian personnel in many embassies now feel occupied by, outnumbered by, and subordinated to military personnel. They see themselves as the second team when it comes to decision-making. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates is aware of the problem, noting as he did last November that there are "only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers -- less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group."

When the department that is in charge of administering violence is in charge of diplomacy, you're going to throw a lot of elbows.

3. The Pentagon as Arms Dealer: [snip]
By 2006 (the last year for which full data is available), the United States alone accounted for more than half the world's trade in arms with $14 billion in sales. Noteworthy were a $5 billion deal for F-16s to Pakistan and a $5.8 billion agreement to completely reequip Saudi Arabia's internal security force. U.S. arms sales for 2006 came in at roughly twice the level of any previous year of the Bush administration.
Number two arms dealer, Russia, registered a comparatively paltry $5.8 billion in deliveries, just over a third of the U.S. arms totals. Ally Great Britain was third at $3.3 billion -- and those three countries account for a whopping 85% of the weaponry sold that year, more than 70% of which went to the developing world.

And on and on until...

6. The Pentagon as Humanitarian Caregiver Abroad: The U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department have traditionally been tasked with responding to disaster abroad; but, from Indonesia's tsunami-ravaged shores to Myanmar after the recent cyclone, natural catastrophe has become another presidential opportunity to "send in the Marines" (so to speak). The Pentagon has increasingly taken up humanitarian planning, gaining an ever larger share of U.S. humanitarian missions abroad.

I know we did Somalia with Seal Teams and Marines, but did anyone else think it was odd that the spokesperson for US aid to Myanmar was a US Admiral?

Sure, the military has planes that are just itching to fly - but the the mission is take aid supplies and workers to the affected zone, why is the US Navy speaking for our government? Don't we have a State Department? Oh yeah, that's right. Never mind.

Read more.

Hello. Mind if I make a copy of your housekeys?

Coding horror explains at length the stupefyingly naive behavior of new social networking sites:

I've enjoyed using Yelp, and I wanted to participate by submitting my first review, so I created a new account there. As part of the account creation process, I was presented with this.

The idea is that I tell Yelp what email service I use, then provide my login and password information so Yelp can determine if any of my email contacts are Yelp members. How convenient!

I recently got hooked on GoodReads - and they have the same interface and my reaction was identical to Atwood's:

Are you fricking kidding me?

Maybe they want to spend more time with family

(H/t to DangerRoom)

The recent head rolling over at the Air Force may be more than initial press releases suggest.

DangerRoom is reporting that:

Last fall, the Pentagon's civilian chiefs shot down an Air Force move to take over almost all of the military's big unmanned aircraft. "There has to be a better way to do this," Moseley complained at the time. Things only got more tense when Gates said that the future of conflict is in small, "asymmetric" wars -- wars in which the Air Force takes a back seat to ground forces. Then Gates noted that the Air Force's most treasured piece of gear, the F-22 stealth fighter, basically has no role in the war on terror. And when a top Air Force general said the service was planning on buying twice as many of the jets -- despite orders from Gates and the rest of the civilian leadership -- he was rebuked for "borderline insubordination."

I'm no fan of Sec. Gates - but if he's canning military leadership for buying high price toys that aren't any more effective at killing insurgents than our current inventory - I'm on his side.

There's more:

"The problem seems to be a philosophical difference between Gates and the USAF [U.S. Air Force], not anything to do with nuclear weapons," another adds. And Moseley and Wynne may not be the last to go. Rumors are swirling of more top-level Air Force officers getting the axe. Stay tuned.

Oh, we can only hope.

What if it were all a set up?

Iraq that is?

(Via Nukes and Spooks)

What we find far more intriguing is a second report issued by the committee on the activities of former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and other underlings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In the second report we learn that Rummy's close aide, Steve Cambone, shut down a counter-intelligence investigation after only a month that questioned whether the Pentagon might have been fed misleading information by Iranian agents.

Now, there's any number of good reasons that Cambone might have put the kibosh on an investigation like that. But, given all the rumblings about Ahmad Chalabi and Iran, you have to wonder if a thorough investigation would have found something.

Dennis Prager, friend of the working girl

Clif, over at Sadly, No! has some priceless quotes from Dennis Prager.

Confronted with a study that finds that 9 out of 10 American girls between the ages of 12 and 18 have been sexually harassed - Prager hones in on the root of the problem:

“The study found that girls who had a better understanding of feminism … were more likely to recognize sexual harassment.” There is no question that this is true. Girls subjected to feminist indoctrination are undoubtedly more likely to interpret innocuous behavior as sexual harassment. Almost the entire liberal-left Weltanschauung is predicated on portraying every group in America except white, male, heterosexual Christians as oppressed. … If either sex is “oppressed” today, it is far more likely to be males. If women were incarcerated, let alone murdered, as disproportionately as men are … there would be a national outcry. It is men who are, in fact, suffering.

I just want to read that last part again for a second:

If women were incarcerated, let alone murdered, as disproportionately as men are … there would be a national outcry.

The suggestion that men are disproportionately incarcerated and murdered, where would that come from exactly?

Prager's a dork and I only bring him up as he keeps grabbing headlines going to bat for complete fools like Rev. Hagee.

With a mindset like that - you have to wonder how a news organization will uncritically accept his defense of anyone.

Late edit:
Prager goes on to add these completely out of his @ss assertions:

What this thinking [Feminism] leads to is girls and women seeing themselves as victims, and almost as often to the emasculation of boys. (And then women looking to marry a man wonder where all the masculine men are).
And third, "Latina and Asian American girls reported less sexual harassment than the other girls who participated in the study." One wonders whether this is one reason increasing numbers of American men seek Latina and Asian American women for marriage. Women who have been less influenced by feminism probably appreciate men more.

Saying feminists should avoid the trap of encouraging victimhood is curious talk coming from a man who just declared that it was his own gender was the true victim.

Prager does not explain how girls and women who see themselves as victims emasculates boys. How would that work exactly?

But if it did, Prager wants you girls to know you'll never find the kind of man he's sure you'll be craving. 'Cos he knows what you want. Oh, yeah, he knows...

The second paragraph is the best example of Prager's pulling things out of his @ss:

One wonders whether [Latina and Asian American girls reported less sexual harassment than the other girls] is one reason increasing numbers of American men seek Latina and Asian American women for marriage. Women who have been less influenced by feminism probably appreciate men more.

"Increasing numbers of American men...?" You got any studies to back that up, Dennis? or is it just because you think Asian girls are hot?

I know you couldn't be bothered to actually read the study you're lambasting:

I therefore went to a leading feminist magazine's website, Ms. Magazine (msmagazine.com), and found this summary of the report...This confirmed my suspicions.

-but maybe you might have looked for some context for the report. Read an interview with the people who published it maybe? (emphasis added)

"The more girls feel encouraged to adopt traditional gender roles, the more sensitive they are to sexism," said [UCSC Prof. and co-author of the study Campbell] Leaper, who likened sensitivity to sexism to awareness of racism. "In order to recognize sexism, you probably have to believe it's wrong."

But being aware of sexism doesn't predispose girls to overreport it, noted Leaper.

"We know from previous studies that people tend to underreport discrimination," said Leaper. "After Anita Hill, reports of sexual harassment increased dramatically in the United States, because it gave people a label for their experience. So, if anything, sexism is probably occurring more than the girls in this study are saying it is. Our research suggests that parents, teachers, and the media can help girls to learn about discrimination and recognize when it occurs."

Nah, that'd be too hard. Better just speak from your gut.

Two billion of your tax dollars...up in smoke

(From LiveLeak via DangerRoom)

The B2 Bomber (yet another plane without a mission) suffered its first crash back in February of this year.

Thanks to the miracle of the internet - you can watch.


AV-12, the Spirit of Kansas, is the second plane to take off at about 1:50 in.

This plane would be yet another reason heads should roll in the Air Force - not to mention in the DoD at large.

And no, this isn't just a "it costs too much" rants. I recognize that defense costs money - but the world has changed dramatically since this plane was requested.

This plane was originally going to be a high altitude bomber. Which makes sense, it's huge. Now it's supposed to be a terrain following stealth penetrator.

But to deliver what? We have ICBMs for long range nuke delivery (and they don't need stealth) - so that's redundant.

So it's to deliver conventional munitions?
Okay - we have that capability in the F-117 stealth fighter (which yes, is short range) but we also have cruise missiles (TLAMs) that cost a (mere) half million a shot. TLAMs can be launched from ships and submarines and have a range of 1,500 miles. There's not a lot that doesn't cover.

For the price of a single B2 we can have over 3,500 TLAMs.

So, that leaves what - loitering time/ ability to change targets mid-flight and penetrating munitions.

The only solution to these issues is a 2 billion dollar manned aircraft? Hah.

It's been true for a long time that the most limiting part of the aircraft is the pilot. You can build an airframe that can take turns that will kill a human. You have to wonder why a pilot is required at all. The plane/pilot dynamic is changing and the B2 is the most expensive example of us building pricier versions of what we've always built instead of looking to see if there's really a return for all those extra dollars.

Plus:

A TLAM crashes - you send another TLAM. A B2 crashes - you've lost 2 billion just for starters. You've also lost two pilots, and there's no such thing as a long-range stealth rescue chopper.

Charge! (it)

Reason Magazine paints a rather stark assessment of how we are paying for Iraq.

Not exactly new information - but a good cluster of data:

At the end of December, Congress approved $70 billion in bridge funding—a down payment to cover the gap between the beginning of the fiscal year and the passage of the actual appropriation bill—to keep financing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Legislators at the time were still chewing on the rest of President George W. Bush’s request for a fiscal year 2008 war budget of $196 billion. Should that funding be appropriated—and if recent history is any guide, it certainly will—then the total price tag for America’s present wars will rise to at least $822 billion, approximately 80 percent of which will be spent on Iraq. That surpasses the cost of the Vietnam War ($670 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars).

[snip]

These runaway costs do not include a single dollar from the Pentagon’s annual operating budget, which in 2008 reached a whopping $481 billion. If the war were being accounted for based on a rational, transparent budget process instead of an opaque and politicized shell game, Americans would be painfully aware that we are now in the seventh year of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has called a $1 trillion war.

And it just goes downhill from there.

"All this civil rights legislation is un-American."

(H/t to digby)

When it comes to a racial divide in this country - I've lost the capacity to be shocked.

Rick Perlstein on OurFuture.org, detailing the fate of Chicago demonstrators for equal access to housing:

On July 31 [1966] five hundred open housing marche[r]s were met by a mob of 4,000, and cherry bombs, bottles, and rocks. Priests and nuns ("whores!") were singled out for abuse. A first grade teacher, Sister Mary Angelica, was pummeled to the ground. A cheer went up: "We've got another one!" Marchers returning to their cars found them torched, overturned, or rolled into the muddy Marquette Park lagoon.

Between all-caps references to his book, Perlstein publishes a string of letters sent to a pro-civil rights democratic senator, one Paul Douglas.

The letters contain undiluted racism. Perlstein holds them up to the light and then draws an interesting line from them to Sen. Obama's speech on Tuesday.

Worth reading.

The charisma of the common housefly

This is all over the place, but you have to see this. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he was God-awful.



I'm with Toobin. The speech was so bad, I turned the channel out of embarrassment for the guy. His out of sync applause lines - combined with a crowd that vacillated between coma and forced enthusiasm made this memorably bad (even without comparing it to Obama's).

People are all about the green screen (whatever) but this was practically a Dukakis moment. I'm wooden, artificial and unable to read my teleprompter - vote for me!

A question of timing

digy brings me to my senses:

Clinton will officially end the campaign on Friday, (which is perfectly in keeping with the usual timing of these things contrary to the gasbags' ahistorical and overwrought blathering of last night.)

Guilty.

Yeah, I mean no one listens to me - but I'd said any number of stupid things about Sen. Clinton not conceding on the night of the final two primaries.

It's hard to consider the duration between Tuesday's result and (what will be) tomorrow's announcement by itself. Three days. Two if you count the email.

The more I think about it, that's completely reasonable. I know I'd been tacking the previous 16 months onto that interval, and that's really not right. Years past, there had always been more primaries to run.

Any other year, three days is perfectly reasonable.

This time, they've actually run out the schedule - and there's nothing to do but wait. Oh, and freak out because the news channels have to have a lead story and they've got the video all cued up. Greenlight us, already! scream the talking heads.

The night of your last primaries, having won one of them - no less - is not the time to quit.

So she took a few days. Big deal.

Let the sun shine...

Obama's early advocacy for transparency in government was a winner for me - but it's nice to see he hasn't lost a step.

(H/t Secrecy News)

On the same day that he became the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama introduced new legislation to expand public access to information about government spending.

[snip]

The new bill would build upon and improve previous efforts by Senators Obama and Coburn to provide public access to federal grant and contract information through the USASpending.gov web site. Among other things, it would require copies of each federal contract and details of the bidding process to be published online.

Hell, yeah.

Un-natural selection

(Via CJR's Campaign Desk)

This past Sunday The New York Times revealed another questionable insurance company practice—denying women insurance if they’ve had a previous Caesarean section. C-sections now fall into the bucket of pre-existing conditions that insurers will either deny coverage for or charge a much higher premium for. The Times told the story of a Colorado woman named Peggy Robertson whose application for coverage from Golden Rule Insurance was denied. Robertson, who says she’s in perfect health, told the Times that Golden Rule, notorious for cherry picking only the healthiest people, said it might have insured her if she were over forty, had given birth two or more years before applying, or had been sterilized. What a deal!

[snip]

All this is significant because it foretells what Americans will be up against with health reform. Unless there is strict regulation of these kinds of insurance company practices, companies will be able to pick and choose who gets the magic ticket to health care.

Exactly. The competition for the healthy people started a long time ago (probably with the creation of insurance itself). But anyone who thinks that just getting coverage to people doesn't understand the endless legal possibilities that exist for screwing people.

Coverage of any kind is just a starting point. Quality coverage and eligibility are prime areas for reform.

Dear Congresswoman - Encore

Re: Telecom Immunity

What does the public have to do to get through to the Democratic leadership on FISA?

"CongressDaily is reporting that House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes is “fine” with “a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation’s electronic surveillance laws.” The GOP compromise, written by Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), “would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity” to telecoms that helped the Bush administration’s warrantless conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens." (Via Think Progress)

After grabbing headlines by standing up to the president in February, House Democrats are quietly acquiescing to a GOP plan to hand their oversight duties over to a secret court?

How does this happen?

What public interest is served by Congress avoiding this issue? More to the point – what public interest is served by immunizing the telecom industry *without* a detailed understanding of what actions have taken place?

If the FISA court is to be the arbiter of this issue – what guarantee does the public have that their privacy concerns will be addressed? Every single member of this court was appointed by the same President who has demanded that this immunity be given. Even if the FISA court should rule against immunity, it would surely be appealed, and every member of the FISA Court of Review was also selected by this President.

The public or their elected representatives deserve to know the full extent of what surveillance has been taking place. Those who are given this information should not be merely informed and then sworn to secrecy. A powerless advocate is no advocate at all.

The President has asserted that no wrongdoing has occurred, but if immunity is given – there will be no way for the public to verify this. The check on this extraordinary assertion of Presidential power surely should not be a secret court of Presidential appointees.

Do something – tell the House leadership that sidestepping their responsibility in unacceptable. This is a debate that should take place in the full light of day – not hidden away so that the public's concerns can be dismissed by actors who are beyond their reach.

Stone glories in his wallow

(H/t to digby) Roger Stone has achieved a bogeyman status on par with Scaife and Rove - but you really have to meet the guy to understand how completely nuts he is.

Jeff Toobin's piece in The New Yorker (held in a sex club and complete with Iggy Pop-like posings of Stone) is a window into the world of full-on crazy political operatives.

Beyond narcissism, Stone is all tactics and strategy. To say he is without scruples is like saying the sky is blue:

He was just nineteen when he played a bit part in the Watergate scandals. He adopted the pseudonym Jason Rainier and made contributions in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance to the campaign of Pete McCloskey, who was challenging Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1972. Stone then sent a receipt to the Manchester Union Leader, to “prove” that Nixon’s adversary was a left-wing stooge. Stone hired another Republican operative, who was given the pseudonym Sedan Chair II, to infiltrate the McGovern campaign. Stone’s Watergate high jinks were revealed during congressional hearings in 1973, and the news cost Stone his job on the staff of Senator Robert Dole.

There is no ideology - just a manic devotion to whomever he's decided to back, or a white hot hatred for whomever he's decided to destroy.

He [added: claims to have] started the ball rolling on the Spitzer scandal, and is proudly part of the right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clintons.

Stone sounds pretty convincing when he's telling you how to destroy people:

“Attack, attack, attack—never defend” and “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.”

“Remember,” Stone said. “Politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one per cent.”

But he sounds absolutely ridiculous when he tries to express admiration for people:

“The reason I’m a Nixonite is because of his indestructibility and resilience,” Stone said. “He never quit."

“Roy [Cohen] was not gay,” Stone told me. “He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn’t discussed."

I'm not sure anyone needs to know much about Roger Stone, but it's worth knowing what kind of character the phrase "partisan attack dog" encompasses.

Read the full story.

*Poof* goes the driveway fairy

Since moving into our new house - E and I have enjoyed a small amount of magic.

Every morning, our morning paper appeared on our front step.

Yes- that's hardly magic. But here's the thing: It's right up against our house. Getting the paper is as simple as open door, reach down, grab. Again, small thing - but it's every day. Rain or shine, I don't have to put a foot out the door to get my paper. It rocks.

Now, a paper carrier might have a practiced throwing arm, but Nolan Ryan couldn't be this precise every day.

Plus, there's this little bit:

I look around the street, and every other house has a newspaper in the driveway. Down by the sidewalk, no less.

Being me, I start to imagine reasons why this would be: the former residents were big tippers, or people of respect, or crime lords who killed the last delivery boy for hitting a window.
I start to wonder what's going to happen when the delivery person figures out that somebody new is in the house. Schmucks, no less.

How will they react? Paper in the gutter? The street?

I've been cursed with a wildly active imagination, so I entertain thoughts of calling the paper, asking our neighbors - eventually ending up with getting up early to spy on our front door, buy a webcam, or hire a PI.

Yeah, I know - wake up early... hah!

Insanity aside - I could just ...do nothing (I can do that!) and enjoy it.

Except there's this other thing: every week we put our garbage cans down on the curb in the morning and in the afternoon our garbage cans are up by our house. Tucked in where I usually leave them.

Okay, that's not the paper carrier. That's like... the Driveway Fairy.

So after yet another week of easy access newspapers, I change the location of where I put the garbage cans. No biggie - just move them off the driveway more and put the recycle can in back this time. Trash day comes, I put them out on the curb and -

Yeah, they're back next to the house, partly on the grass with the recyc bin in the back. Once again - I should just sit back and enjoy this. Somebody's doing something nice for us, two things actually. Before 7am each day, and after 9am on trash day.

Presto! Thank you, mysterious Driveway Fairy!

So, last weekend we're going out the door, and a neighbor lady is walking by and starts chatting up E while I'm loading baby E in the car. I miss most of the conversation - except I hear 'newspaper' and E saying 'Thanks!'

-And right then, I can feel the magic going away. I look up and this lady owns up to the whole thing and I know with absolute certainly that this is it. "Thank you," I say - but what I really want to do is rewind the morning about 5 minutes so we can never meet this person. She smiles and says her goodbyes - but she is now a known quantity.

And known quantities don't do magic.

The next day, I open the door, reach down and - nothing. I'm groggy, so I try again a few times before it dawns on me.

I have to stand up to look out the door's window - but there's absolutely no point. As sure as a sunrise - my paper is sitting in my driveway. By the sidewalk, no less.

Damn. I'm going to miss that.

Now where am I going to get a $200 foot massager?

Another sign of the times...?

Sharper Image is going belly up.

Gadget retailer The Sharper Image plans to close all of its remaining stores, its new owners announced Sunday.

The company expects to sell $50 million in inventory as it shutters 86 stores across the United States, joint owners The Hilco Organization and Gordon Brothers Group said in a statement.

(H/t to Crave)

Hmmm... maybe a victim of the Post-Latté economy?

Oh well - time to feast on another corporate carcass...

Black Sunday Hack

(via Coding Horror)

This is just too good - even though it's quite dated by internet standards (2001).

It's the deliciously evil story of a hacking exploit of DirectTV - and the coding catfight that ensued.

It all begins with a batch of DirectTV smart cards...

One of the original smart cards, entitled 'H' cards for Hughes, had design flaws which were discovered by the hacking community. These flaws enabled the extremely bright hacking community to reverse engineer their design, and to create smart card writers. The writers enabled the hackers to read and write to the smart card, and allowed them to change their subscription model to receive all the channels.

Since the technology of satellite television is broadcast only, meaning you cannot send information TO the satellite, the system requires a phone line to communicate with DirecTV. The hackers could re-write their smart cards and receive all the channels, and unplug their phone lines leaving no way for DirecTV to track the abuse.

It just gets better from there, Read on.

Can it be true?

Via HuffPost (H/t to TPM)

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama - if not that night, within a day or two.
Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities, according to reliable sources.

Obviously, time will tell. But here's hoping the Long, Flat Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House is nearing its end.

When the best thing to do is do nothing - why say anything?

Mental exercise time:

How many times in the past year have we heard the networks rabbit on about economic indicator X indicating that things are improving - only to have that number revised downward in the following months?

I would be very interested to see a study of economic indicators that appear in network broadcasts - cross referenced with their frequency of use and their accuracy over time.

Surely when things are bad and counterintuitive data is released the media is obligated to someone should at least look into the historical validity of that data. (How has it performed over time? Has it been an accurate forecaster of events?)

'Cos (But) it's for damn sure you're never going to get that analysis from the stenographers who call themselves reporters the major outlets are just relaying whatever they are told at this point:

(Via CJR's the Audit)

We learned from countless outlets that sales of new, single-family homes were up 3.3 percent in April, in comparison to the previous month.
Reuters told us. MarketWatch told us. Agence France Presse told us. Bloomberg told us. The AP told us. And so, with less fanfare, did The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Financial Times.
Such a prestigious journalistic consensus must be true, right?
Um, no.

[snip]
It’s all here in black-and-white: a joint report by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The report does list a 3.3 percent increase, but a couple of pixels away from it we get a more significant number: the margin of error—11.7 percent.
That’s right.
A margin of error larger than the statistic itself...

They go on to illustrate that the press does address the fact that the number was an increase likely because the March numbers had been revised downward. But I'd share CJR's incredulity on this point:

...we don’t criticize reporters for an omission here. But it does point to a broader issue: The practice of comparing revised to unrevised figures. This doesn’t make sense.

Exactly Why do these comparisons keep getting made? If the numbers are preliminary, why given them any media play at all?

So the news outlets are given that number and run with it:

ABC News
New Home Sales Increased in April
The Commerce Department Reports Sales of New Homes Rose 3.3 Percent Last Month

CBS News
Home Sales Post Unexpected April Increase
Home Sales Post Unexpected Increase In April But Remain Near Lowest Level In 17 Years

NBC News
New home sales rise unexpectedly in April
Despite upbeat report, activity near the lowest level in 17 years

Now, again - each of these stories contain disclaimers (fittingly, ABC News is the only one to have both a rosy headline and dec) about why there is room for doubt - but NONE of them is saying what they ought to be saying, given the evidence:

We don't know what the numbers are, but here's a guess that is likely wrong.

Why were these stories even written? Because the Commerce Department asked them to?


Late edit: Cleaned up some poor wording.

Anyone can be replaced...

I need to start this out by saying:

I. Am not. A Journey fan.

But I saw this on CBS Sunday Morning, and it just spun my head a bit.

Let's say you're Journey - the band. You've had a falling out with your lead singer - and without Steve Perry - you're just a bunch of old musicians who want to tour again. You're hosed.

I mean, it's not like you're going find someone who can belt it out like -



Yeah. That's not Steve Perry - his name is Arnel Pineda.

That's just uncanny.

The Journey guys saw a YouTube video of him covering their songs in Hong Kong. So they call him and say "wanna tour?"

The interview with the band is hilarious. I mean, the Journey guys are so obviously like "we SO lucked out - I TOTALLY need this money" and Pineda comes across like a nice guy who won the lottery.

I wonder how long it will take for the pretend chemistry to wear off and Pineda realizes he can dump these guys and go solo.

Late Edit: The original video got pulled - but I've replaced it with Pineda playing in his band Zoo from Hong Kong.

Later Edit: Rrrg. They keep pulling videos. Search YouTube yourself for this guy. Seriously. He sounds EXACTLY like Steve Perry. It's just freaky.