Ok, lotsa noise about the latest bubbling scandal. I'm sure that it will be lots of fun, and folks on all sides will have plenty of chances to get apoplectic. I just have one request from everyone:
Can we quit tacking "gate" onto every new scandal that comes down the pike? I'm starting to see some folks refer to this as "Wilsongate," which is really pretty lame. What's next, a NASCAR scandal over car #2 called "Rustygate"?
Been busy the last couple of days playtesting the new game, and trying to find a way to make it challenging without it being impossible. At the same time I'm finding that the overall pacing is a little slow, so in addition to the gameplay tweaks I'll be needing to re-do some of the animation sequences to give the thing a little more pizzazz.
Gosh, that may necessitate a trip back into Maya. Too bad for me.
Courtesy Wil Wheaton.
Those who know me might find it ironic that I would link to this, since I'm not actually a drinker. Since we do occasionally have beer drinkers over, however, we usually try to keep some Guinness and Sam Adams on hand. We figure that if we're going to have the stuff taking up room in the fridge, we might as well have the good stuff, and folks generally seem to appreciate that. (The Schlitz malt liquor is another story, however...)
Looks like the Moussaoui case may get dismissed, and the prosecution doesn't mind. Seem strange? Maybe not:
While dismissal of the case would be an obvious symbolic blow to the Justice Department and its larger prosecution strategy against terrorists, the department insisted today that the prosecution of Mr. Moussaoui was far from over and that the government was hopeful that an appeals court would allow the trial to proceed.The Justice Department is seeking the death penalty in the case, the most prominent terrorist prosecution to result from the Sept. 11 attacks.
Officials of the Bush administration have also made clear that if Mr. Moussaoui cannot be prosecuted in a civilian court because of the question of defense witnesses, he will be moved to a military tribunal, where he may have fewer rights to seek testimony from the captured terrorists.
In other words, if they can't win playing by the rules, then they'll change the rules to suit them. Am I the only one who finds this alarming? Y'know, Dubya, Ashcroft and the gang talk a lot about "justice," but the more I learn the more I think they're really about vengeance, and the truth be damned.
I'm not really a Dixie Chicks fan, but this piece on their web site is great.
On the whole "Do not call" list thing:
Now, when I heard the latter ruling, I thought it was ridiculous. [The first one wasn't because I think the Court was right that the FCC and FTC overstepped their authority in creating the list. I thought the pending Congressional act giving them the authority would solve the problem].But, after hearing it expalined, I am not so sure. Apparently, the "Do Not Call" list treats "for profit" telemarketers DIFFERENTLY than "not for profit" telemarketers even when they engage in exactly the same behavior. The example used was that a for-proft group couldn't call you to sell a magazine, but a not-for-profit group COULD.
That, my friends, raises some serious 1st Amendment problems.
It'll be interesting to watch this thing play out. I still don't think selling should equate to speech, but I can see how some would argue that. I'd say just shut them all down and let them use some other way to reach people.
U.S. Government to Discontinue Long-Term, Low-Yield Investment in Nation's Youth
Our neighbors are putting up a fence today. [sniffs armpit] What's up with that? I'm finding the construction banging a little distracting, but if it'll keep their yippy little dogs from thinking they own our yard, then so much the better.
Now this is what free speech is all about:
According to ACLU legal papers, local police, acting at the direction of the Secret Service, violated the rights of protesters in two ways: people expressing views critical of the government were moved further away from public officials while those with pro-government views were allowed to remain closer; or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a "protest zone," leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer.�. . . .
In one example, retired steelworker Bill Neel, 66, was handcuffed and detained by local officials at a rally in western Pennsylvania last year after he refused to be herded into a remote "designated free speech zone" located behind a six-foot chain-link fence.
Here's a tip: if it's behind a fence, it's not free.
From NY Times, Court Blocks Do-Not-Call List:
The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to a court decision filed late Tuesday. The FTC has signed up some 50 million phone numbers for the list, which was due to take effect on Oct. 1.The Direct Marketing Association sued to block the list shortly after Congress approved it in January, saying it would violate free-speech laws and discriminate against an industry that provides millions of jobs.
Free speech?
NY Times article discussing some growing concerns at the White House:
At the same time, Bush advisers acknowledge a high level of anxiety among House Republicans over what they perceive as the White House's inability to communicate its policies on Iraq effectively.
Is what's going on over there really a communications issue? Well, if by "communicate" they mean "tell the truth" then maybe.
Ok, so I linked to myself. Big deal. I'm tired of linking to Al Franken. You get the idea.
Check out this week's cover of The Economist. It's a dilly.
Piece in Salon about the new electronic voting machines everyone's getting, and the potential for fraud. A couple excerpts:
Specifically the flaw was that you can get at the central vote-counting database through Microsoft Access. They have the security disabled. And when you get in that way, you are able to overwrite the audit log, which is supposed to log the transactions, and this [audit log] is one of the key things they cite as a security measure when they sell the system.So you can break in and then hide your tracks.
You don't even need to break in. It will open right up and in you go. You can change the votes and you can overwrite the audit trail. It doesn't keep any record of anything in the audit trail when you're in this back door, but let's say you went in the front door and you didn't want to have anything you did there appear anywhere -- you can then go in the backdoor and erase what you did.
. . . .
The other situation would be supposing someone gets in by either hacking the telephone system or by going backwards in through the Internet, because the Internet does connect to these GEMS computers, even though they deny it. A lot of the press watches election results come in on the Web and what they're watching is actually being uploaded directly off the GEMS computer.
Here's the really alarming part:
I got a call from one of our more brilliant computer programmers -- he's got quite a few advanced degrees -- and he called me on a weekend and he said, "I want you to go to your computer." And he walked me through it just like a support tech does -- open this panel, click this, do this, do that. And as I'm doing this it was appalling how easy it was. Once you know the steps, a 10-year-old can rig an election. In fact it's so easy that one of our activists, Jim March in California, put together a "rig-a-vote" CD. He's been going around showing it to elections officials, and now this CD has been making its way to Congress members.It's shocking. All you do is double-click the icon. You go backwards through the Internet to that county computer, and if you have Microsoft Access on your machine you can walk right into that election database while it's open. It's configured for multiple access at the same time. You can be in there changing things and you can change anything you want.
God help us if the contents of that CD ever get out onto the Internet. I imagine there are script kiddies out there would love nothing better than to throw an election to some oddball candidate and then watch the mayhem.
Honestly, I don't really see why everyone's jumping on these computer-voting systems. I don't like the idea of everything being wrapped up in bits & bytes where you can't always track what's going on, and little in the way of physical artifacts. Personally, this is a case where I think I prefer a system that uses paper ballots. That way even if they're scanned into a computer to be counted and someone hacks into the system, you can still go back to the original paper ballots and re-count them. With a wholly electronic system, it just seems too easy to go in and wipe the entire trail.
So yesterday I fired up my audio recording setup to do some work (heh, "work"), and my MOTU 828 doesn't turn on. Swapped power cables, verified the voltage switch, etc. Nothing. Looked online. Nothing. It's Sunday, so of course I can't talk to anyone. Grr-ARRGH!
Today I talk to someone at MOTU, and he suggests I've probably blown a fuse. This is something I had guessed at myself, but with no documentation describing where such fuse is and how to get at it, I'm reluctant to take a screwdriver to the thing. Anyway, he's going to send me a couple fuses so I should be back in business soon (I'll be checking with some local shops as well since fuses are cheap & I hate to wait). He also described how to access the fuse.
What I don't get is why the process for replacing fuses isn't documented anywhere. Turns out it's a piece of cake to open the 828 up, and the fuse is really easy to get at. With the right documentation online I might have been able to take care of this myself yesterday and avoided a phone call to tech support.
Over at The Agonist I see there's a posting about an advertisement for CIA language instructors in the NY Times. He says:
Not sure what to make of it.
Seems like a strange response, since it seems pretty self-evident to me-- the CIA needs people who speak different languages. Contrary to popular belief, the CIA is not all about subverting foreign governments, funneling arms to insurgents, and other assorted mayhem. A lot of what goes on there is simply combing through data from newspapers, television, and other sources of information to try and get a handle on what's going on (a.k.a., gathering intelligence). To do this, they need people who speak and read the languages these materials were generated in. No big mystery there-- the NY Times reaches a huge, reasonably cosmopolitan audience, so it makes sense that they would use that strategy for recruitment.
Just heard that another former Iraqi official has been rounded up. That brings the total up to 39 collected from the infamous deck of cards. At this point, however, I have to say "who cares?" I find it hard to believe that these captures will have any impact on security in Iraq, and I doubt any of them will have information to help yank Dubya's cojones out of the fire as far as WMD's go. I can't help thinking that this is kind of like the Beanie Baby collector who keeps buying the latest toys even after the collecting craze is gone and folks have moved on to the next hot thing.
Apparently NASA is thinking about going back to the future, in a sense:
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) -- NASA may replace its troubled fleet of space shuttles with a new generation of Apollo-type space capsules, a top space agency official said.. . . .
The resurrection of space capsules, which last launched three decades ago, is gaining favor among astronauts, space agency officials and congressional staffers after the shuttle Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts on February 1.
First, a quibble: the Russians never quit using space capsules, so the only resurrection being done is on the U.S. side.
Second, this isn't really earth-shaking news. Back in high school (in the 80's, kids!) I did a research report on the space program, and learned back then folks have been arguing for a long time for what some have called "Big Dumb Rockets," rather than the complicated and expensive shuttle. My understanding then (and now) is that rockets such as the Russians have always used are much cheaper to operate, and arguably safer.
Still, it will be interesting to see what public reaction is if this comes to pass.
A whole messa falsehoods from Senor Cheney. My favorite excerpt:
Cheney said that "we don't know" if there is a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He's right only in the sense that "we don't know" if the sun will come up tomorrow. But all the evidence available says it will -- and that Iraq was not involved in Sept. 11.
Lots more stuff there.
The end pin that holds the strap on my acoustic guitar has been falling out lately, so I took it in to have it looked at. I figured I'd need a new pin, or that it would need some sort of special glue specially made for guitars, or who knows what. So I show it to the repair guy, who whips out a roll of masking tape, wraps a little bit of it around the pin & shoves it back into the guitar. Took all of 10 seconds.
Check this out:
State Department types were taken aback last week to find that a longtime diplomatic photo exhibit along a busy corridor to the cafeteria had been taken down. The two dozen mostly grainy black and white shots were a historic progression of great diplomatic moments, sources recalled.There was an original political cartoon from the Jefferson era showing Britain and France pick-pocketing the Americans; there were pictures of negotiations with Indian tribes over land; President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles; former secretary of state Elihu Root somewhere; Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter; former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze in cowboy boots at Jackson Hole; a splendid shot of the old State Department building; and a photo of President Ronald Reagan at a meeting with a very young Colin L. Powell seated behind him.
Then they were gone. And what was put up in their place? What else? A George W. Bush family album montage of 21 large photos of the president as diplomat.
Amazing. I'm surprised we haven't heard people referring to him as The Great Leader, and been subjected to patriotic poetry readings extolling his virtues on Fox News. Give it time, I guess.
They've got an electronic gizmo now to replace real buglers at veteran's funerals:
It looks like a bugle. It sounds like a bugle — hauntingly enough to move a funeral mourner to compliment Glenn Hasheider on his rendition of taps last week at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery near St. Louis.But what Mr. Hasheider did not have the heart to tell the mourner was this:
It's not a bugle, exactly.
It is a bugle discreetly fitted with a battery-operated conical insert that plays the 24 notes of taps at the flick of a switch. It is all digital, with no human talent or breath required. All you do is hold it up, turn it on and try to look like a bugler.
Apparently there's a shortage of buglers, especially given the rapid demise of WWII vets, etc. So...I guess it's better than playing taps on a boombox (the other option mentioned in the article), but I still don't like it. When my grandpa died it was the bugler playing taps that really got to me, and I just can't believe that an electronic replacement could have had the same effect. There are times when you need the imperfections of a human performance.
*sigh*
This should be an interesting site to watch. I'll probably pass on the email notifications, but may pop in on the site from time to time. The banner ad has a photo of Bush looking particularly snarky...
From Yahoo! News:
In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.. . . .
"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Just goes to show, no matter how much you may want to, you can not trust those in authority not to abuse whatever power they are given.
It looks like after the Alabama mess, the Ten Commandments show will be playing locally. These people are so over the top, it's unbelievable:
The crowd heard former Republican presidential candidate Alanan Keyes say a requirest from the American Civil Liberties Union that the plaque come down is an assault on the very fabric of the country."They're not just after the Ten Commandments," said Keyes, who sought the GOP nomination three years ago. "They'll be after the cross on your church next."
. . . .
''We are sick and tired of the ACLU making unconstitutional demands, sick and tired of the power-hungry federal judges legislating from the bench the various desires of liberal groups,'' said Jody Hice, pastor of First Bethlehem Baptist Church. ''It's time we put a stop to it.''
When the hell has the ACLU ever gone after religious symbols in a church, for chrissake? These appeals to emotion and religious fervor are disgusting. I know that shepherding is a major metaphor in Christianity, but just for once I'd like to see people using their brains and quit acting like sheep. Here's a quote, directly from the ACLU web site:
The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.
You know, I could go on...but I don't think it would do a damn bit of good. I do find this interesting, however.
Just read an article in the NY Times talking about soldiers coming home from Iraq, and how some are having trouble re-adjusting:
For the soldiers of the First Brigade, accompanied by this reporter during their surge into Baghdad in the messy aftermath in June and again now that they have returned, coming home has been a far more complicated, even conflicted, experience than it seemed it would be back in Iraq when they thought of little else.They have returned to wives and girlfriends, husbands and boyfriends, and to new babies born while they were overseas. They have returned to families who lived in fear of the news and could not stop following it. They have returned to face emotions they expected and others they did not.
Sergeant Jordan, whose scouts fought in some of the First Brigade's fiercest clashes, seethed with anger at the lurid curiosity of those who would never know what he now knew.
"The first thing he asked me was, `Did you kill anyone?' " he said after the gathering in the auditorium, referring to someone he asked not be identified. "Then it was, `How did it feel?' What kind of stupid thing is that to ask?"
The article struck me, because a week or so ago I watched a movie called "The Best Years of Our Lives" that took a look at the lives of three WWII vets after they came home from the war. A lot of what the NY Times article describes could have been taken directly from that movie. Nightmares, marital problems, kids they don't recognize, dealing with disabilities, etc. They even had people telling them that their service in the war had been a waste of time, with the growing threat from the Soviet Union.
Amazing.
A piece about the Ashcroft Over America tour:
I wanted to talk with John Ashcroft, but the door was closed.I wanted to ask a few questions about the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law taking fire from the left and the right. But the only media allowed a post-speech audience with the attorney general were local TV reporters - one at a time, three minutes apiece. No print journalists. No radio broadcasters.
It reportedly has been the same in every city on the Ashcroft Over America tour. The former Missouri governor has hit the road to counter attacks that the Patriot Act is unpatriotic.
The speeches are open to media and law enforcement officials. The public is barred, and, afterward, only TV reporters ask questions. After Monday's speech at the downtown Hyatt, a Justice Department official politely but firmly shooed away print and radio journalists.
September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie September 11 pecan pie
...or as it is sometimes referred to around here, "'temba leva blah blah 'temba leva blah blah 'tembaleva blah blah blah..." Not to minimize what happened on that day, but it sometimes seems like people try to attribute everything that's happening on this planet to that day.
"I hear miniskirts are coming back in vogue."
"Yes, well in this post 9/11 world it's important to see as much leg as possible. You see, a nice pair of gams stands in tribute to the twin towers that fell."
"Yeah, and them Ay-rabs don't like either. Take that Saddam!"
Which brings me to the next point. If around here we say "'tembaleva blah blah," you could accuse the Bush administration of saying "'tembaleva IRAQ 'tembaleva IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ..." Quickie reminder for those who forget: there wasn't a single Iraqi involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as anyone can tell. Every time Dubya & the gang says "'tembaleva IRAQ" they're just trying (and god help us, succeeding in many cases) to push your emotional buttons. The war in Iraq may get wrapped up in the guise of fighting terrorism, but until we went there Iraq really had nothing to do with terrorists. So now we've got soldiers all wrapped up in the 9/11 thing, where they really don't belong.
And we seem to have completely lost Osama. Remember him?
Anyway, I figure I'll be paying as little attention to the media today as I possibly can, because a good chunk of coverage will probably be wallowing in "tembaleva blah blah". Again, not to minimize what happened, but grieving is something personal. It doesn't do me any good to watch others deal with their pain, and I seriously doubt it helps those grieving to be doing it in the full glare of television lights with some blow-dried "news" person shoving a microphone in their face.
From Joe Conason, in Working For Change:
The sum that the President requested from Congress for Iraq happens to be roughly double the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, which is currently set at $36 billion. It also happens to equal the combined deficits of the 50 states this year, more or less, as they struggle with the aftermath of Sept. 11.
A shrink's take on Dubya. Make of it what you will.
Editorial in Salon, mostly rehashes stuff other people have said elsewhere, but this bit caught my attention:
What is needed instead is a reappraisal of U.S. policy and a good-faith move to share the leadership role with countries like France, Germany, China, Russia and Japan. If the president, like his predecessors Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, refuses to cut his losses and admit the error of an unwise military adventure, he will be judged and rejected as they were for the waste of American resources and the lives of our young people.
Ok, so here's the deal-- I don't think Bush actually cares how he'll be judged by history. He seems to be perfectly happy to just do his time in office, make his buddies happy along the way, and then collect a pension when he's done. If you think back to when Clinton was in office, it seems like we were always hearing stories about how concerned Bill was about his legacy. You never hear that about the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
From what I gather, this extends from Dubya's primary flaw, which is laziness. A lot of people think he's dumb, but I would disagree with that. Granted, he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on English, but his dad has that same problem and no one ever accuses Bush Sr. of being dim. Some other folks might point to Dubya's performance in school as evidence of low brain wattage, but here again I would disagree. The way I see it, if Bush were really that dumb he would have had to have worked his tail off to get the middling grades he received, but by all accounts he was hardly industrious in his studies. So...I have to conclude that rather than being dumb, the guy's just lazy & did the minimal amount to get by. He didn't care if he succeeded & just went through the motions until the next gig came along.
Why does this matter? Well, because he's gotten us into a real fix here between Iraq, the economy, etc. In order to fix these problems he's going to have to really apply himself to figure out what's going on and determine the best path to fix it. Unfortunately, this requires someone who 1) cares, and 2) isn't afraid of tough mental challenges. I don't think Dubya fits either of those criteria.
We didn't get any comics on Sunday. Kind of a drag, but I just chalked it up to some sort of snafu at our local paper and went on with life. Well guess what-- looks like there was no snafu, just people too squeamish to run Doonesbury. Links for your enjoyment:
Something new to add to the health regimen, guys. I guess now we can say that we don't only subscribe to Playboy for the articles, but also for its curative properties.
Here's an interesting idea: the $87 billion request for Iraq could be a trap for Democrats.
From the NY Times, today's Paul Krugman editorial:
Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes major concessions, forget about it.But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about money or control-- it's about truth-telling. He squandered American credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid.
Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?
So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.
It's that last paragraph that has me thinking. While I agree that this is a problem of Bush's own making, we're all going to have to live with the consequences of his mistakes. If you buy the notion that getting Iraq back on its feet is vitally important, then you also have to be willing to pony up to do that, no matter who screwed it up. That means he probably should get the money he's requesting (as long as it's not all destined to line the pockets at Halliburton, ahem). The big question is how much screaming there will be about it. I don't have much hope from Congress, given past behavior, but hopefully we'll hear more from the guys who want to replace Dubya.
Some with more eloquence then I have expressed, too.
The Agonist
Atrios
Calpundit
Tim Dunlop
Arthur Silber
This Modern World
Billmon
Check out Silber's page...some historical stuff that's worth noting.
From the NY Times:
With costs and casualties rising in the war on terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld struck back today at the administration's widening circle of critics, saying they were complicating an already difficult task.Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.
"We know for a fact that terrorists studied Somalia, and they studied instances that the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
"The United States is not going to do that; President Bush is not going to do that," he said.
But, he went on: "To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe he might, or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."
Where the hell do these people get off trying to tell us that criticism is helping "the enemy"? This is only a more genteel version of the kind of crap that Ann Coulter spews, and I'm getting really sick of hearing it. Open, vigorous, even heated criticism and debate is what makes this country strong. Trying to shut down dissenting voices is the kind of thing that people like Stalin, Hitler, and yes-- Saddam Hussein have been pilloried for, and yet there are people in this country who seem to think we should be doing the same thing. Go to hell, Donald.
From Newsweek:
But soon patriotism moved from a comfort to a cudgel. An impulse that had briefly united now often divided, as it did in the past. At the turn of the last century, Samuel Clemens (better known as Mark Twain), who was deemed a traitor for opposing U.S. policy in the Philippines, derided what he called "monarchical patriotism." The old royal idea that "the king can do no wrong," Clemens reported with disgust, had been changed to "our country, right or wrong."
Lots of good stuff in the article, go check it out. I'd say more, but I have to go to the bank.
Now they're saying that the Blaster worm may be in part responsible for the blackout. (See NY Times for vague article, Computerworld for more specifics). The jist of the story is that the worm was degrading network traffic, which kept operators from being able to get timely data.
To be fair, the above equation should probably read something like this:
bug-ridden MS software + underpaid (and/or undertrained and/or over-worked) IT staff + antique power grid + rat chewing through cable = blackout
More Latin today, another reference to "Dulce Et Decorum Est", the poem by Wilfred Owen. Those are some literate protesters...
Seems like I first heard about this story ages ago, when Michael Moore was on the Daily Show promoting "Stupid White Men."
Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.
Why there hasn't been a huge stink about this is baffling. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor FDR had whisked members of the Hirohito family off to Japan so they'd be safe, or if after the Oklahoma City bombing Clinton had packed the McVeigh clan off to say, Canada. The press (or at least Fox) would have gone completely ballistic. If the administration was so concerned about their safety, why not just put them in a safe house? While they were there they might have been able to get some information to help the investigation. And how in the hell could the FBI have been able to vouchsafe for, by some accounts, up to 140 Saudis when they were still trying to figure out who exactly was involved in the first place? Smells like a cover-up to me...where's Mulder when you need him?
From the US Senate web site:
Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that many of our allies are reluctant to commit their own troops to the aftermath of a pre-emptive war, considering how the Administration tried to bully them during our headlong rush to war against Iraq? While the White House was furiously trying to twist arms in Berlin, Paris, Ankara, and Moscow to gain acquiescence to a war in Iraq, millions took to the streets to protest the President's policy toward Iraq.According to polls released by the Pew Research Center on March 18, 2003, the day before the war began, opposition to a war in Iraq was at 69 percent in Germany, 75 percent in France, 86 percent in Turkey, and 87 percent in Russia. Yet the White House scoffed at this opposition and belittled the need to unify the world in confronting Saddam Hussein. Could it be that our troops are now paying the price for the Administration's bullheaded rush to war without the broad and active support of the international community?
Personally, what I think really sucks about all this is precisely the answer to that question, which is undoubtedly "yes." There is no joy in seeing the Administration have to backpedal and beg the UN for help when people on all sides are getting killed and maimed so that Dubya could get his war on.
They're going to kill a guy in Florida for killing someone who thought it was wrong to kill unborn children?
Maybe it's the sinuses, but ow my head hurts.
From the NY Times:
The Bush administration is relaxing rules that say hospitals have to examine and treat people who require emergency medical care, regardless of their ability to pay.
There's more, including rule changes to exempt senior medical staff from having to be on-call, etc. So I guess if you're poor (hell, or middle-class without health insurance) & get sick you might as well go buy a shovel & start digging, because the chances of you getting help just went down.
Work on the game continues...after writing up a back story calling for an "improvised" rover, it occurred to me that the initial design was no good. Check it out:
Hardly looks cobbled together from spare parts lying around the spacecraft, does it? So, back to the drawing boards...at first I tried to modify the original design, but only ended up with something that looked like a well-designed rover put together by a team of five-year olds. What I needed was something that looked like it might come from "Junkyard Wars." So, after a bit of rethinking, I've come up with this:
You can't tell from this angle, but the bucket is off-kilter by a couple degrees. Looks good from above at 60x60, though.
Interesting piece by a self-confessed "ad man." Takes a shot at TV news (more designed to push product than to inform), and then offers this:
Consider the following scenario: a series of TV ads begin to appear nightly immediately after the Republican convention is over next year. They will be negative ads. They will promote no Democratic candidate. They will therefore not be under the tight restrictions of the Federal Election Commission.Each ad will begin with a video clip of President Bush's "Bring 'em on!" challenge. Then the screen will shift rapidly to the burned-out remains of a building or a Humvee. Underneath will be these words: a date, a location, and a death count.
Then a black screen with white print will announce: America needs a new policy.
There will be an ID of some kind: "Citizens for a Lasting Peace" or "Mothers to Stop the Bloodshed."
There will be no bodies on screen. There will be only bombed-out buildings and equipment.
Each ad will last no longer than 15 seconds.
There will be a new ad every night � same time, same station.
Every night. Same time, same station.
Also includes a quick dig at Fox. Definitely worth a read.
As some readers may be aware, in addition to writing in this fine blog, I also have a small business. Income has been sporadic of late, and there is a chance that I may have to seriously look for a "real job" in the near future.
However, I have hit upon a sure-fire new business plan. I just came across an item at The Agonist that gave me some hard numbers to work with. Turns out they're working on a legal system in Iraq, and the company selected to head this up is one of Bush's big campaign donors. They "donated" a total of $41,350 to the Bush campaign. I say "donated," because a better term would probably be "invested," as you'll see. This same company has received a contract "worth up to $79.6 million." So, I did a little math:
$79,600,000 contract / $41,350 "investment" = 1925.03
So, I figure that if I donate $2000 to the Bush campaign for the 2004 election, I should be entitled to a contract of, let's see...
$2000 "donation" x 1925.03 = $3,850,060
Of course, given the ballooning budget deficit I can probably realistically only expect a contract worth about $3 million, but I can live with that. Hey Dubya-- the check's in the mail!
