The airline pilots who overflew Minneapolis by 150 miles are now claiming that they were using their laptops and were not (as had been speculated) asleep.
According to the pilots, they were checking their schedules using their laptops.
Somehow, I don't see even the most riveting schedule could keep a pilot incommunicado for over an hour.
You have to wonder what they were really up to.
Monday, October 26, 2009
NYT calls him out
Mr. President, you had this coming:
The NYT does well to put this down in print - here's hoping this issue gets regular coverage until something is done.
This president should not be allowed to silently collect on the Bush administration bets. Nor should they be allowed to keep playing the same game.
I don't for a moment think this will be a turning point editorial, but the facts need to get a wider audience.
The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.
We have had recent reminders of this dismaying retreat from Mr. Obama’s passionate campaign promises to make a break with Mr. Bush’s abuses of power, a shift that denies justice to the victims of wayward government policies and shields officials from accountability...
...the Obama administration has repeated a disreputable Bush-era argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever it makes a blanket claim of national security. The ruling rejected that argument and noted that the government’s theory would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.”
The Obama administration has aggressively pursued such immunity in numerous other cases beyond the ones involving Mr. Mohamed. We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security.
The NYT does well to put this down in print - here's hoping this issue gets regular coverage until something is done.
This president should not be allowed to silently collect on the Bush administration bets. Nor should they be allowed to keep playing the same game.
I don't for a moment think this will be a turning point editorial, but the facts need to get a wider audience.
Friday, October 23, 2009
In defense of the post office
Tom Schaller has a great post on that perennial whipping boy, the US Postal Service.
I've always said the Post Office is a classic government role. Nobody wants to pay the freight to do door-to-door service to every address in America, or they'd be doing it. FexEx and UPS cherry pick the stuff they can make money on - and leave the rest to Uncle Sam.
Don't miss the comment from the Oklahoma postal worker in Tom's post - it's priceless.
So, next time you hear somebody say they don't want their health care run like the Post Office, you can ask them "You mean, you don't want it to be universally accessible and cheap?"
(and only because I cannot resist repeating this - you could also ask them if they would prefer to have a post office run like the insurance companies "We've decided not to mail your letter...because it's just too far).
The idea that a private company would both deliver mail to every office and home six days a week, and collect it from the same plus thousands of drop boxes scattered across the nation-- all the while maintaining walk-up offices in every town--and still be able to deliver a first-class envelope to any address for a mere 44 cents (an amount that hasn't changed in real terms after 30 years) is simply an absurd expectation.
I've always said the Post Office is a classic government role. Nobody wants to pay the freight to do door-to-door service to every address in America, or they'd be doing it. FexEx and UPS cherry pick the stuff they can make money on - and leave the rest to Uncle Sam.
Don't miss the comment from the Oklahoma postal worker in Tom's post - it's priceless.
So, next time you hear somebody say they don't want their health care run like the Post Office, you can ask them "You mean, you don't want it to be universally accessible and cheap?"
(and only because I cannot resist repeating this - you could also ask them if they would prefer to have a post office run like the insurance companies "We've decided not to mail your letter...because it's just too far).
Thursday, October 22, 2009
I'm really starting to like this guy
Rep. Grayson is every inch a drama queen - but as Glenn points out they guy knows how to beat on stupidity.
Unimpeachable
A WWII vet speaks his peace on Question 1 in Maine.
Kick crazy @ss
(Via Where's the outrage and DailyKos)
Kick crazy @ss
(Via Where's the outrage and DailyKos)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Goo: name your price
The World of Goo had a promo where users were allowed to buy the game at whatever price they wanted to pay.
How did it go?
I'd say so.
How did it go?
2D BOY made around $100,000 in a week. That’s $50,000 each for writing a blog post about a game they finished a year ago. By letting people pay whatever they wanted. That’s damned important information.
I'd say so.
Gitmo scorecard
ProPublica has a really nice interactive scorecard for the Gitmo prisoners. Current status of all prisoners whose cases have been put before US courts.
A great reference and worth a look.
A great reference and worth a look.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Lead poisoning = crime?
(Via Emptywheel)
Okay, this freaked me a bit:
This is from a book by Mark Kleiman - and there's more to boot. Seriously weird correlation. If that holds ups to scrutiny, you gotta wonder what the hell is going on there.
Okay, this freaked me a bit:
Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion — certainly more than half — of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period.
This is from a book by Mark Kleiman - and there's more to boot. Seriously weird correlation. If that holds ups to scrutiny, you gotta wonder what the hell is going on there.
Philip Howard, corporate slut
Yesterday I watched perhaps the most obvious corporate shill I've ever seen. His name was Philip Howard, and he was on CBS Sunday Morning to do two things:
1) pitch his new book; and
2) sell corporate privilege to the masses, disguised as a populist cause
CBS treated him at his word - which was maddening. The standard, reverent hook intro-
He's a maverick you see - a high powered corporate lawyer speaking against lawyering. Oooh, iconoclast! He zigs where other lawyers zag!
We have too much law - he argues. Lawsuits, they've made playgrounds too safe - you see...
And what lawsuits in particular? Surely this corporate soldier wasn't writing a book to save hugless children from boring playgrounds.
Here's the CBS article:
And THERE we are.
After all the fluff about playgrounds and life being full of disappointments -we find out what Mr. Howard is really about.
He's no maverick - he's just the latest tool whining about how corporations need to be protected from litigation. He wants special courts. And we're all familiar with how corporate alternatives to civil courts have protected people's rights so well in the past. Like Binding Arbitration - where consumers are forced to sign away their right to litigate as a condition of sale. Then arbitratration judges screened by the corporations hear the case and (in the case of California) rule in favor of the corporation 94% of the time.
Civil courts are scary to Mr. Howard, because his corporate masters don't control the outcome enough. Never mind they have the dollars to outclass the majority of their potential adversaries. They don't utterly dominate - and therefore, the law must change.
Having seen the benefit to the corporate interests - less damages - let's look at the cost. Here's CBS reporter, Jeff Greenfield:
Howard's response? "That's absolutely right."
Got that? Suck it up, America - we're tired of paying every time we grieviously injure your loved ones - or when your child gets strip-searched unjustly.
Howard's saying there's too much law, but his proposed remedy reveals what he's really saying.
We don't have too much law in the US, we just need to stop allowing citizens to use it so much.
To it's credit, the Sunday Morning report points out that medical malpractice and personal injury claims have gone down over the last decade. I'd add that the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits (while arguably too high) is the barest fraction of what we spend on health care in this country. I'm all for minimizing the effect of medical malpractice costs to certain medical specialties - but denying a citizen the right to sue in court?
Screw that.
I'll give CBS props for rebutting a few of Howard's points, but surely they could have winnowed through his fluff to expose him as the corporate tool he was and is. He's got every right to shill for his point of view, but this man-of-the-people common sense persona he's selling should never have been allowed to stand.
1) pitch his new book; and
2) sell corporate privilege to the masses, disguised as a populist cause
CBS treated him at his word - which was maddening. The standard, reverent hook intro-
He's a maverick you see - a high powered corporate lawyer speaking against lawyering. Oooh, iconoclast! He zigs where other lawyers zag!
We have too much law - he argues. Lawsuits, they've made playgrounds too safe - you see...
There is literally nothing in a playground in America for a child over the age of four. There are no jungle gyms. There are no seesaws. There are no climbing ropes. There are no high slides. It's very important for children to learn to understand their own limits, to take care of themselves.Alright, set aside the fact that modern playgrounds have all these things - they just no longer have them over bare asphalt. Let's ignore the fact that 9 year olds will play on any structure they can climb. Let's just focus on Mr. Howard's [utterly disingenuous] argument.
It's about getting rid of law in people's daily lives...Teachers feel that they can't maintain order in the classroom, and doctors go through the day seeing every patient as a potential plaintiff. Camp counselors won't put an arm around the crying child. It's this idea that anything that goes wrong can be a lawsuit, and no one's drawing a boundary about what's a valid lawsuit and what's not.Ahh, getting rid of law in people's daily lives. We're getting closer to what he's after. Dial down the image of a crying kid not getting a hug from their counselor - focus on that last sentence:
...no one's drawing a boundary about what's a valid lawsuit and what's not.Now we're getting somewhere. This guy wants to get rid of lawsuits he thinks are invalid.
And what lawsuits in particular? Surely this corporate soldier wasn't writing a book to save hugless children from boring playgrounds.
Here's the CBS article:
...when it comes to medical claims, he indeed has no faith in juries . . . none at all . . . and wants the law changed.
Today, says the medical profession, fear of lawsuits has pushed medical malpractice insurance through the roof, and forced doctors to practice what's called "defensive medicine," meaning more tests and higher costs.
Howard wants malpractice cases decided not by a jury of laymen and women, but by special courts.
And THERE we are.
After all the fluff about playgrounds and life being full of disappointments -we find out what Mr. Howard is really about.
He's no maverick - he's just the latest tool whining about how corporations need to be protected from litigation. He wants special courts. And we're all familiar with how corporate alternatives to civil courts have protected people's rights so well in the past. Like Binding Arbitration - where consumers are forced to sign away their right to litigate as a condition of sale. Then arbitratration judges screened by the corporations hear the case and (in the case of California) rule in favor of the corporation 94% of the time.
Civil courts are scary to Mr. Howard, because his corporate masters don't control the outcome enough. Never mind they have the dollars to outclass the majority of their potential adversaries. They don't utterly dominate - and therefore, the law must change.
Having seen the benefit to the corporate interests - less damages - let's look at the cost. Here's CBS reporter, Jeff Greenfield:
It sounds as if one of the trade-offs we would have to make as a society to get law out of our hair is indeed to accept the fact that sometimes I'm going to be hurt and there's nothing I can do about it...Sometimes I'm going to be treated badly and there is no remedy.
Howard's response? "That's absolutely right."
Got that? Suck it up, America - we're tired of paying every time we grieviously injure your loved ones - or when your child gets strip-searched unjustly.
Howard's saying there's too much law, but his proposed remedy reveals what he's really saying.
We don't have too much law in the US, we just need to stop allowing citizens to use it so much.
To it's credit, the Sunday Morning report points out that medical malpractice and personal injury claims have gone down over the last decade. I'd add that the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits (while arguably too high) is the barest fraction of what we spend on health care in this country. I'm all for minimizing the effect of medical malpractice costs to certain medical specialties - but denying a citizen the right to sue in court?
Screw that.
I'll give CBS props for rebutting a few of Howard's points, but surely they could have winnowed through his fluff to expose him as the corporate tool he was and is. He's got every right to shill for his point of view, but this man-of-the-people common sense persona he's selling should never have been allowed to stand.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Got Bank Statements? Get approved!
When big banks claimed they had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, Joe Nocera threw their own sales brochures back at them.
(H/t CJR)
Also Dean Starkman has a nice write up on how Citi was up to its eyes on subprime.
(H/t CJR)
Also Dean Starkman has a nice write up on how Citi was up to its eyes on subprime.
Flip the lights on...
...and watch the roaches scatter.
The British courts have ruled against American and British assertions of national security in the Binyam Mohamed case.
I have to say, I'm completely unimpressed with the Obama administration's reflexive defense of Bush era secrets. So it's good to see some daylight finding its way to the public, even if it had to happen overseas.
The British courts have ruled against American and British assertions of national security in the Binyam Mohamed case.
I have to say, I'm completely unimpressed with the Obama administration's reflexive defense of Bush era secrets. So it's good to see some daylight finding its way to the public, even if it had to happen overseas.
Friday, October 16, 2009
David eats Goliath
Why is this man going crazy?
Ask Brazil.
Hee hee hee
Oh, that was frickin' beautiful. Down a man and extra time.
Rock on.
Ask Brazil.
Hee hee hee
Oh, that was frickin' beautiful. Down a man and extra time.
Rock on.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Cash and Carry
In the course of some recreational research into firearms laws in my state - I ran across the gunshow loophole.
I thought I'd found it closed, too - but apparently I was wrong.
Short version is that buying a gun requires a background check - so long as you are buying from a licensed dealer. That dealer will collect your name and address and send it to to the Fed's background check to see if you should be allowed to buy a firearm.
At gun shows, however private party sales do not require this kind of check. I had thought that the transaction would still be recorded. Who sold what to who. Not an ironclad method - just a record of the sale.
But apparently that's not so. Dealers deliberately avoid getting licenses and sell as collectors - and do not collect any record of the sale.
That... is seriously messed up.
I mean- have a law, don't have a law... but if you're going to have a law - don't leave loopholes you could drive 348 SKS rifles through.
(H/t FiveThirtyEight)
I thought I'd found it closed, too - but apparently I was wrong.
Short version is that buying a gun requires a background check - so long as you are buying from a licensed dealer. That dealer will collect your name and address and send it to to the Fed's background check to see if you should be allowed to buy a firearm.
At gun shows, however private party sales do not require this kind of check. I had thought that the transaction would still be recorded. Who sold what to who. Not an ironclad method - just a record of the sale.
But apparently that's not so. Dealers deliberately avoid getting licenses and sell as collectors - and do not collect any record of the sale.
That... is seriously messed up.
I mean- have a law, don't have a law... but if you're going to have a law - don't leave loopholes you could drive 348 SKS rifles through.
(H/t FiveThirtyEight)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Yanks are Coming
Yeah, I know the US qualified for South Africa in the Honduras match, but they just pulled out a barn burner against Costa Rica - and it feels pretty good.
Here's the setup.
Rising star Charlie Davies is out (injured in a horrific car crash) - the US is down 2-1 and playing with ten men.
Five minutes into injury time. The ninety-fifth freaking minute.
They get a corner kick - the ref's looking at his watch and -
-Jonathan Bornstein heads the ball in seconds before time.
Ahhh... poetry. The US wins the group and Costa Rica has to go play Uruguay to qualify.
I know, big picture this isn't a lasting win - and Onyewu's injury could be costly.
Still - it's good to see the US dig one out in front of the home team.
Here's the setup.
Rising star Charlie Davies is out (injured in a horrific car crash) - the US is down 2-1 and playing with ten men.
Five minutes into injury time. The ninety-fifth freaking minute.
They get a corner kick - the ref's looking at his watch and -
-Jonathan Bornstein heads the ball in seconds before time.
Ahhh... poetry. The US wins the group and Costa Rica has to go play Uruguay to qualify.
I know, big picture this isn't a lasting win - and Onyewu's injury could be costly.
Still - it's good to see the US dig one out in front of the home team.
We'll have to leave it there
Odds are, you've seen this already - but if you haven't watched Jon Stewart beat the daylights out of CNN - you should.
(H/t TPM)
(H/t TPM)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)