« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 29, 2006
Public testimony on a top secret program
Apparently, Able Danger - which was disbanded in 2001 - is still too top secret to have public hearings on, but hearings are scheduled to discuss the NSA eavesdropping program - which is still up and running.
Of course, the key will be who actually testifies, and who does not.
From the Senate Judiciary Committee:
""Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full CommitteeDATE: February 6, 2006
TIME: 09:30 AM
ROOM: SD 226NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in a Senate Office Building Room to be announced.
By order of the Chairman
Posted by Mike at 12:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 22, 2006
Only the best for our troops
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails."We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.
"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate.
The company's former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said that he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.
While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.
Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps — problems he also suffered.
The first memo on the problem — written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 — was an "incident report" from tests Carter performed the previous day."It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria," Carter wrote. "There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.
"Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure."
Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.
The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. "They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut," he said.
Posted by Mike at 05:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Acronym dictionary
Useful site, for all those abbreviations no one explains.
Posted by Mike at 01:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 21, 2006
They still don't need the Sunni votes
The first official results in Iraq's landmark December elections showed Friday that the Shiite and Kurdish coalitions once again dominated the voting, but came up just short of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government on their own.
Let's review.
Hakim controls 130 votes
United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite): 128
Risalyoon (non-UIA al-Sadr supporters): 2
Talabani controls 58 votes
Kurdish Alliance: 53
Islamic Union of Kurdistan: 5
Dulaimi controls 87 votes
Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44
Iraqi List (secular Allawi): 25
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq): 11
Musalaha wal Tahreer (al-Juboori): 3
Turkman Front: 1
Rafidain (Assyrian): 1
Yazidi Movement (non-Islamic minority religion): 1
Mithal al-Alusi (Sunni politician): 1
It would be good for all parties involved if the UIA reached out to Dulaimi, but the truth is that they do not really need his votes. Of course, Al Sadr is the wild card. Unlike Hakim and the Kurds, he has voiced support for a strong central government, which is more in line with the thinking of the Sunni alliance than his own UIA slate. Allawi could change sides too, but I doubt he will.
Remember, Al Sadr has 1/4 of the UIA seats, not just those extra two.
Posted by Mike at 03:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Funny but also mostly true
Sure, he's trying to win over moderate Muslims, most of whom hate him as much as they hate Bush, but stealing crib notes from the DNC? He started down that path in October 2004 with "the goat and its butting" but it's been all down hill since. The Sheik needs some new material:
CARLSON: By the merchants of war who financed Bush`s presidential campaign, in the words of Osama bin Laden and many on the left. In other words, Halliburton is responsible for this war, every single talking point.I hate to think of Osama bin Laden reclining in his cave in Waziristan, reading the op-ed page of "The New York Times."
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But, clearly, he is. He`s got every talking point. It`s uncanny.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, seriously, and, of course, a lot of Democrats are going to be enraged that I would compare the words of Osama bin Laden to these Democrats.
And you always have--you had this battle in Vietnam. You have had it in Iraq, where a lot conservatives will say, well, gee, when you attack the president this way, you`re offering aid and comfort to the enemy. But, my gosh, it certainly looked like Osama bin Laden picked up all the talking point from these Democratic leaders and Michael Moore.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I don`t think the implication is that Howard Dean is evil, like Osama bin Laden.
SCARBOROUGH: No, absolutely not.
CARLSON: Of not. Howard Dean is not evil. He is just wrong.
Osama bin Laden is, of course, evil. But it is exactly the same rhetoric. And I`m amazed by what an astute student of that rhetoric Osama bin Laden has proved himself to be, I mean, every single line. There`s none of this sort of crackpot, "We will fulfill the prophecy of Allah" stuff that his previous communiques have been stuffed with.
This is not an Islamic tape. It`s a propaganda tape parroting the DNC. It`s bizarre. And I wonder what the Democrats think tonight.
SCARBOROUGH: It is bizarre. What`s the political fallout?
CARLSON: I`m not sure there is any. I think Republicans would be wise not to press too hard.
I mean, I find it incredibly amusing. I`m not exactly sure what conclusions to draw from it. I don`t think you are going to see the RNC out there tomorrow saying Osama and the Democrats singing off the same hymnal. That probably wouldn`t be a wise idea, but it`s got to be kind of embarrassing.
I mean, people should read this, if they haven`t read it. If you`re used to reading boring Osama communiques, this one is just riveting. Every single line, you will recognize all of it. He even attacks Bush for his aircraft press conference, the "Mission Accomplished" one.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: I mean, really, you couldn`t make this up.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes.
CARLSON: Is this really from Osama? I guess it is.
But if the CIA hadn`t verified it, if NBC News hadn`t verified it, I wouldn`t believe it.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes.
I wouldn`t either, Tucker. And when I read it, I started laughing and I was thinking the same thing. And, of course, the RNC shouldn`t come within 100 miles of this.
CARLSON: I agree.
SCARBOROUGH: But, at the same time, the parallels are really surprising.
CARLSON: No blood for oil!
Posted by Mike at 02:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 20, 2006
Chalabi was shut out!
I'm so excited, I'm taking the entire weekend off. From Iraq the Model:
The Final Results!Here are the results as announced by Safwat Rasheed of the board of the election committee in a press conference in Baghdad:
UIA ~ 5021000….109 seatsfrom the province +19 compensatory=128
Accord Front :~1840000 votes…37 from the province +7 compensatory=44
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq) : ~499000 votes… 9 seats from the province+2 compensatory=11
Iraqi List (Allawi) :~977000 votes….21seats from the provinces+4 compensatory=25
Kurdish Alliance : ~2642000 votes…43 seats from the rpovinces+10 compensatory=53
Islamic Union of Kurdistan : ~157000 votes 4 seats from the provinces+1 compensatory=5
Risalyoon: ~145000 votes 1 from the provinces +1 compensatory =2
Musalaha wal Tahreer (Misha’an al-Juboori) : ~129000 ...votes 3 seats from the provinces.
Rafidain (Assyrian): ~ 47000 votes…. 0 seats from the provinces+1 compensatory=1 seat.
Turkman Front: ~ 87000 votes….1 seat
Mithal al-Alusi : ~32000 votes…1 seat from the provinces
Yazidi Movement: ~ 21000 votes…1 seat (compensatory)
TOTAL 275 Seats.
Update:Ironically, the first objection to the results came from the UIA!
Al-Arabiya TV reported that Ammar al-Hakeem (AbdulAziz’s son) and Hussein al-Shahristani announced that the UIA objects to the way seats were distributed among provinces and they think that this “unfair distribution has cut down the UIA’s share by 10 seats”.
Al-Hakeem and al-Shahristani reportedly said that they’ll be writing a memo with their objections to the electoral authorities.
There is a more readable table here:
United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite): 128 (46.5%)
Kurdish Alliance: 53 (19.3%)
Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44 (16.0%)
Iraqi List (secular Allawi): 25 (9.1%)
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq): 11 (4.0%)
Islamic Union of Kurdistan: 5 (1.8%)
Musalaha wal Tahreer (al-Juboori): 3 (1.1%)
Risalyoon (non-UIA al-Sadr supporters): 2 (0.7%)
Turkman Front: 1 (0.4%)
Rafidain (Assyrian): 1 (0.4%)
Yazidi Movement (non-Islamic minority religion): 1 (0.4%)
Mithal al-Alusi: 1 (0.4%)
Posted by Mike at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 19, 2006
Message from Osama
The only question now is when it was recorded:
Here is the full text of the message, as carried on al-Jazeera's website.My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it.
I had not intended to speak to you about this issue, because, for us, this issue is already decided on: diamonds cut diamonds.
Praise be to God, our conditions are always improving and becoming better, while your conditions are to the contrary of this.
However, what prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of the US opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said that the withdrawal of troops would send a wrong message to the enemy.
Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground.
In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging, and the operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favour, praise be to God.
The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses, and let alone the collapse of the morale of the soldiers there and the increase in the suicide cases among them.
So, just imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts the soldier while collecting the remnants of his comrades' dead bodies after they hit mines, which torn them. Following such situation, the soldier becomes between two fires. If he refuses to go out of his military barracks for patrols, he will face the penalties of the Vietnam butcher, and if he goes out, he will face the danger of mines.
So, he is between two bitter situations, something which puts him under psychological pressure - fear, humiliation, and coercion. Moreover, his people are careless about him. So, he has no choice but to commit suicide.
What you hear about him and his suicide is a strong message to you, which he wrote with his blood and soul while pain and bitterness eat him up so that you would save what you can save from this hell. However, the solution is in your hand if you care about them.
The news of our brother mujahideen, however, is different from what is published by the Pentagon.
This news indicates that what is carried by the news media does not exceed what is actually taking place on the ground. What increases doubts on the information of the White House's administration is its targeting of the news media, which carry some facts about the real situation.
Documents have recently showed that the butcher of freedom in the world [US President Bush] had planned to bomb the head office of al-Jazeera Space Channel in the state of Qatar after he bombed its offices in Kabul and Baghdad, although despite its defects, it is [Al-Jazeera] one of your creations.
Jihad is continuing, praise be to God, despite all the repressive measures the US army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam.
These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage instead of their husbands. There is no power but in God.
The torturing of men has reached the point of using chemical acids and electric drills in their joints. If they become desperate with them, they put the drill on their heads until death.
If you like, read the humanitarian reports on the atrocities and crimes in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
I say that despite all the barbaric methods, they have failed to ease resistance, and the number of mujahideen, praise be to God, is increasing.
In fact, reports indicate that the defeat and devastating failure of the ill-omened plan of the four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - and the announcement of this defeat and working it out, is only a matter of time, which is to some extent linked to the awareness of the American people of the magnitude of this tragedy.
The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq.
If you compare the small number of the dead when Bush made that false and stupid show-like announcement from an aircraft carrier on the end of the major operations, to many times as much as this number of the killed and injured, who fell in the minor operations, you will know the truth in what I am saying, and that Bush and his administration do not have neither the desire nor the will to withdraw from Iraq for their own dubious reasons.
To go back to where I started, I say that the results of the poll satisfy sane people and that Bush's objection to them is false.
Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as he claims.
In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.
On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.
The evidence of this is the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition.
As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to failure to breach your security measures.
Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished, God willing.
Based on the above, we see that Bush's argument is false. However, the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land.
We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect.
We are a nation, for which God has disallowed treachery and lying.
In this truce, both parties will enjoy security and stability and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by the war.
There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.
Hence, we can understand the insistence of Bush and his gang to continue the war.
If you have a genuine will to achieve security and peace, we have already answered you.
If Bush declines but to continue lying and practicing injustice [against us], it is useful for you to read the book of "The Rogue State", the introduction of which reads: If I were a president, I would halt the operations against the United States.
First, I will extend my apologies to the widows, orphans, and the persons who were tortured. Afterwards, I will announce that the US interference in the world's countries has ended for ever.
Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help.
If you win it, you should read the history. We are a nation that does not tolerate injustice and seek revenge forever.
Days and nights will not go by until we take revenge as we did on 11 September, God willing, and until your minds are exhausted and your lives become miserable and things turn [for the worse], which you detest.
As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way.
You tried to deny us the decent life, but you cannot deny us a decent death. Refraining from performing jihad, which is sanctioned by our religion, is an appalling sin. The best way of death for us is under the shadows of swords.
Do not be deluded by your power and modern weapons. Although they win some battles, they lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are better than them. What is important is the outcome.
We have been tolerant for 10 years in fighting the Soviet Union with our few weapons and we managed to drain their economy.
They became history, with God's help.
You should learn lessons from that. We will remain patient in fighting you, God willing, until the one whose time has come dies first. We will not escape the fight as long as we hold our weapons in our hands.
I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed.
Peace be upon those who follow guidance.
Posted by Mike at 05:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Iraqi election results
There is still no official announcement, but Reuters has the latest:
Electoral Commission sources say the Shi'ite Islamist Alliance will win about 128 of the assembly's 275 seats. The main Sunni bloc should get 43 or 44 seats, with another Sunni group taking 11 and a third three.The main Kurdish bloc secured 52 seats, the sources said, secular former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's group 25 seats.
Some doubt remains over a handful of seats distributed by a complex system of allocation under proportional representation.
To summarize:
Unified Iraqi Coalition of Hakim 128
Kurdistani Gathering of Talabani 52
Tawafoq Iraqi Front of Dulaimi 44
Iraqi National List of Allawi 25
Hewar National Iraqi Front of Mutlak 11
Unnamed Sunni Political Party 3
Total number of seats listed 263
Others parties who won seats:
Islamic Union of Kurdistan
Iraqi Turkuman Front
Progressives
Liberation and Reconciliation Gathering
There are 12 seats up for grabs among these and other small parties - including the Iraqi National Congress - who did not get enough votes to earn a seat, but still get one thanks to the complex election law.
In my view, it would be better for those seats to be redistributed among the parties who did get enough votes to earn a set, but I am still not sure if I understand the seat allocation rules correctly.
Overall, the Sunnis did better as well as I had expected. The UIA and Kurds are the ones who should be disappointed. The UIA lost five to ten seats due to the odd means of allocating the remainers. The Kurds were doomed from the start, due to the regionial allocations and relatively mixed population in two of the four Kurdish provinces.
Posted by Mike at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 17, 2006
Gone fishing
McClellan should get his own late night comedy show:
WASHINGTON - The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. "I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that," he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. "And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon."
McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. "We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition," he said.
In other words, he met with Rove or Libby.
Posted by Mike at 08:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 16, 2006
Krauthammer jumps the shark, again
Jumping the shark is a metaphor used by US television critics and fans since the 1990s to denote the moment when a pop culture icon is (in retrospect) deemed to have passed its peak. Once a show has "jumped the shark," fans sense a noticeable decline in quality, or feel their show has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm.The phrase was popularized by Jon Hein on his website, jumptheshark.com. It alludes to a goofy scene in the TV series Happy Days when its popular character, Fonzie, is on water skis and literally jumps over a shark.
Maybe goes off the deep end is a better analogy, but bear with me.
If you have seen the movie Munich, you know how the movie starts out completely sympathetic to the Mossad. You are practically cheering when they kill the first few terrorists in retaliation. Then something goes wrong. That woman you were kissing at the bar turns out to be a prostitute soliciting, instead. Suddenly, things start to spin. In fact, there is a similar scene that is a key to Munich's disorienting effect. You walk out of the theater feeling like you might be sick.
You are left wondering why. The answer is, you know you were wrong.
Which is clearly not where Krauthammer wanted to go. He would much rather have this preview to the war on terror played out in clear black or white. They must all die, we are superior to those animals, and so forth. What he is forgetting is the first rule of war and the streets. When you kill someone else in cold blood you are giving up your own life, too. Whether it's the nightmares, the payback, or prison - the price is always the same. Sane people do not go around killing other sane people in cold blood. If you set out to try to do that but want to maintain your humanity, you have already failed.
The two experiences are just not compatible. So, if you're like me, and you have trouble sleeping, or feel sick, after watching Munich? Don't worry. At some point, everyone has set out with the best intentions, only to see them perverted into something beyond recognition. It just makes you human. Krauthammer? He's a shark:
It takes a Hollywood ignoramus to give flesh to the argument of a radical anti-Semitic Iranian. Jewish history did not begin with Kristallnacht. The first Zionist Congress occurred in 1897. The Jews fought for and received recognition for the right to establish a "Jewish national home in Palestine" from Britain in 1917 and from the League of Nations in 1922, two decades before the Holocaust.But the Jewish claim is far more ancient. If the Jews were just seeking a nice refuge, why did they choose the malarial swamps and barren sand dunes of 19th-century Palestine? Because Israel was their ancestral home, site of the first two Jewish commonwealths for a thousand years -- long before Arabs, long before Islam, long before the Holocaust. The Roman destructions of 70 A.D and 135 A.D. extinguished Jewish independence but never the Jewish claim and vow to return home. The Jews' miraculous return 2,000 years later was tragic because others had settled in the land and had a legitimate competing claim. Which is why Jews have for three generations offered to partition the house. The Arab response in every generation has been rejection, war and terrorism.
And Munich. Munich, the massacre, had only modest success in launching the Palestinian cause with the blood of 11 Jews. "Munich," the movie, has now made that success complete 33 years later. No longer is it crude, grainy TV propaganda. "Munich" now enjoys high cinematic production values and the imprimatur of Steven Spielberg, no less, carrying the original terrorists' intended message to every theater in the world.
This is hardly surprising, considering that "Munich's" case for the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli cause -- not just the campaign to assassinate Munich's planners but the entire enterprise of Israel itself -- is so thorough that the movie concludes with the lead Mossad assassin, seared by his experience, abandoning Israel forever. Where does the hero resettle? In the only true home for the Jew of conscience, sensitivity and authenticity: Brooklyn.
If anything, the theme of Munich is that humanity means compromise. The whole point of the film is that absolutism corrupts everything. It sounds like Kraut got sick but then puked all over his keyboard.
As an interesting footnote, I got home from the movie just in time to watch the first reports that the US had bombed another family home in Pakistan, killing at least seventeen people in an attempt to kill one.
That gave me some pause.
Posted by Mike at 11:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 14, 2006
The network is the server, stupid
Barring some actual election results from Iraq, I will not be posting much the next few weeks. I could not resist a chance to make fun of Dave Winer though, so here goes. In a post Thursday he asks himself:
The mystique of desktop web serversQ: What is a desktop web server?
I guess it should be no mystery, it’s a web server that runs on your desktop.
Q: What makes a desktop web server different from one that runs on a server?
Not much. You could run Apache on your desktop. In fact, if you’re using a Mac, you are. When the time came for Apple engineers to decide to turn off the server, they thought, what the heck, let’s leave it on and see what happens. Unless I’m missing something, so far not much has, but it could....
To prove the point, I put a copy of the NewsRiver aggregator on a server of mine in Massachusetts that I’ve never actually seen. It’s definitely not running on my desktop. Here’s a link to the aggregator running on that computer. Go ahead and try it out.
http://test27.newsriver.org:5337/newsRiver/
Note, this link may not work tomorrow or the day after. ;->
PS: Another example of desktop web servers, Google’s desktop search. You access it through a web browser, but the software is running on your computer. Ever stop and think how that happened? It’s so simple people don’t even notice.
PPS: I wrote a piece that attempted to define desktop web servers at the beginning of 2001. I thought that would be the year of DTWS’s. It wasn’t. We still haven’t had an explosion of creativity in this area, but I think there’s still reason to believe we’ll see it, eventually.
For one thing, most DSL and cable modem contracts prevent users from using those services to run a web server, but assuming you have a business class connection, would you really want your desktop to have to choose between responding to a burst of traffic and processing the next screen of your document or computer game? Virtualization is an important and growing aspect of desktop computing, but virtualization can not create computing power from thin air. It can only limit and compartmentalize what is already there. Let's assume that in the next ten years, Linux provides a secure enough means of running both a web server and a desktop computer at the same time, and can compete with Microsoft Windows in terms of desktop applications. You will still need to upgrade to server class hardware in order to have a professional hosting environment, with RAID disks and RAM to spare. Then you will have to determine how much of these resources to devote to web serving and how much for your personal use? Then do you really want to be calling up your cable or phone company's customer service when your server can't connect to the network? Even worse, if someone hacks your server will they see your tax returns now, too?
Dave mentions the problem of not being able to access your webserver from a plane, but for most people the point of having a web site is so other people can access it, too. If your laptop is the web server as he implies, does that mean your web site is unavailable whenever you get out of WiFi range, your battery runs low, or you reboot? To most people that would not seem like any way to run a web server. As more people move to laptops or smart phones, PDAs, and so forth, the idea of a "desktop" web server becomes less and less likely every day.
If you need to have both a desktop and a laptop, why have a desktop at all? Why not let the web server run somewhere else, where someone else can manage and secure it for you? Then replicate the files you need, when you need them, to you personal device. Ideally, you could edit and manage files on your own computer then have your PC upload them seamlessly to the server and vice versa on it's own. Not only does that keep your desktop or laptop secure, but it allows you to benefit from the economies of scale and virtualization that make a lot more sense with a web hosting environment than a personal PC. In fact, as wireless connections improve and advanced mobile devices get smaller, they could eliminate the need for your own high powered CPU.
Your mobile device would still need to handle keyboard or mouse I/O and would probably need a graphics card, but if the applications can all be run remotely, you don't need to manage any data on your remote device at all. If you always need a copy on hand, they you add a hard drive and remote replication. If not, you can cut half the cost.
In other words, Dave's dream of the desktop web server overlooks the fact that desktops are becoming less and less important to most users.
Posted by Mike at 09:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 12, 2006
Scalito to SCOTUS and Bennett to CNN
It's official. Liberal democracy is dead. The corporations won.
A few months ago, we demanded that right-wing talk show host Bill Bennett take responsibility and apologize for racist remarks he made on his national radio show. He never did. Now, CNN is preparing to hire him. Please join us in telling CNN to not hire Bennett--that it would be a huge mistake:In September, Bill Bennett said the following:
I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
Bennett's words perpetuated the idea that Black people are part of a criminal class. At the time of Bennett's remarks, we put pressure on the Salem Radio Network -- which distributes his show -- to fire Bennett unless he apologized. He has not apologized, and he has not addressed the racist logic at the core of what he said. Now, only a few months later, it has been reported that CNN is about to hire him. We need your help in putting pressure on CNN. They haven't yet confirmed their decision, and they need to know that hiring Bill Bennett would be wrong. Please join us in asking CNN to reconsider:
Posted by Mike at 08:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
January 09, 2006
Election results? What election results?
Iraq's final election results may not come for 2 weeks
BAGHDAD - Final results from Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections may not be announced for another two weeks, and an international team reviewing election complaints has begun its work, an official from Iraq's election commission said Tuesday.The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has finished reviewing complaints filed after last month's elections and will announce the findings on Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
But the IECI won't announce final election results until the international team finishes its work, meaning results might not be ready for two weeks, said IECI member Safwat Rashid.
Officials had previously said final results would be announced in early January.
Posted by Mike at 11:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Does Bush enforce the law or is he above it?
In order to graduate from eighth grade or become a naturalized United States citizen you have to know one thing. "Congress writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws." It seems that most of the Bush administration would fail this simple Constitutional test.
WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.
In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.
"It's nothing short of breath-taking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and pre-empted the judiciary."
Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.
In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority.
"They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."
This is why people assume the worst about things like the NSA scandal.
Via Laura Rozen, blogger Mort Halperin adds this comment:
Presidential signing statements were, in fact, invented by Judge Alito, whose hearings for a Supreme Court seat starts on Monday. The original purpose was to enable the President to participate in creating legislative history. Now President Bush uses the statements to identify some of the provisions he plans to ignore.There are several such assertions in this single signing statement, but I want to comment only on the provision relating to torture. Here is what the President said about that provision:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
In other words, if the President wants to direct the CIA to torture captives held in secret prisons around the world, he will feel free to do so. Senators McCain and Warner reacted sharply to this extraordinary challenge to the Congress's constitutional right to enact the laws, saying this:
“We believe the President understands Congress’s intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees included in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills. The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration’s implementation of the new law.”
Posted by Mike at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 08, 2006
Jawbreaker is #32 on Amazon
Looks like the word is getting out:
Amazon.com Sales Rank:
Today: #32 in Books
Yesterday: #40 in Books
Posted by Mike at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It's not the NSA you should be worried about
I've made the point before, but government overreach should really be the last of our concerns when it comes to safeguarding our privacy. Lack of government oversight in the private sector is the problem.
The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.Criminals can use such records to expose a government informant who regularly calls a law enforcement official.
Suspicious spouses can see if their husband or wife is calling a certain someone a bit too often.
And employers can check whether a worker is regularly calling a psychologist -- or a competing company.
Some online services might be skirting the law to obtain these phone lists, according to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has called for legislation to criminalize phone record theft and use.
In some cases, telephone company insiders secretly sell customers' phone-call lists to online brokers, despite strict telephone company rules against such deals, according to Schumer.
And some online brokers have used deception to get the lists from the phone companies, he said.
"Though this problem is all too common, federal law is too narrow to include this type of crime," Schumer said last year in a prepared statement.
In other words, Kossacks want to provoke a constitutional crisis because the NSA did something like this to track Al Qaeda, but anyone with $100 bucks can already do it today. During the Able Danger story "information brokers" and "buying information online" were mentioned several times. Frankly, it makes me wonder if they might have used a service like this in order to locate Al Qaeda agents.
Posted by Mike at 11:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 04, 2006
This about sums it up
Gary Berntsen, a CIA veteran who headed a paramilitary team called “Jawbreaker” during the Afghan war, said in a book published last week that one of his Arabic-speaking operatives found a radio on a dead al-Qaeda fighter during the Tora Bora battle and heard the terrorist leader repeatedly try to rally his troops.“After the Spectre [gunship aircraft] cleared the area, Bilal heard a voice he recognised from dozens of tape recordings,” Mr Berntsen wrote, using a pseudonym for an Arab-American former Marine who was part of the CIA team. “It was Osama bin Laden telling his troops to keep fighting.”
Later on the same captured radio, “Bilal” and a second CIA agent, another American of Middle Eastern origin, reported hearing Mr bin Laden apologising for getting his men trapped in the mountains and killed in large numbers by American bombing, Mr Berntsen wrote. The book, titled Jawbreaker, was heavily edited by CIA censors.
Mr Berntsen also wrote that on the recommendation of a former Special Forces officer who was part of his team as a CIA contractor, he made a formal request for 800 US army Rangers to be deployed along the Pakistani border to prevent Mr bin Laden’s escape, a request that was never granted.
Posted by Mike at 06:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 03, 2006
Twenty years for taking a cell phone?
Sorry, this one just sets off my BS meter. I hope this bartender and his pals are aware of the penalty for filing false charges:
Former Ohio State football star Maurice Clarett appeared in court in handcuffs and jail-issue clothing Tuesday when a judge set bond at $50,000 on charges that he robbed two people with a gun in an alley behind a bar...."We are looking forward to investigating the allegations," Clarett's attorney, William Settina, said outside court. "That's all I can say."
Each of the two charges of aggravated robbery carries a possible sentence of three to 10 years....
The 22-year-old Clarett was wanted since early Sunday, when police said he flashed a gun and demanded property from a man and a woman behind the Opium Lounge in downtown Columbus.
Police said he fled with two men in a sport utility vehicle after he was identified by the bar owner, who happened to come out into the alley. No one was injured, and only a cell phone was taken from the alleged victims, police said.
There is a simple way to check the story. See if any calls were made on the cell phone. Why else would he have taken it?
Posted by Mike at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)