Magpie

Saturday, February 4, 2006

Crime doesn't pay.

Unless you're a member of Dubya's administration or the Republican party, that is. But we're not talking political crimes here — we're talking Ebay scams.

You've probably heard of a story like this: Someone is selling an expensive item — a laptop, say — and an anxious buyer pops up from somewhere out of the country, offering to pay a price that just can't be turned down. The buyer gets the item sent to a fake escrow service and then absconds with it, leaving the seller high and dry.

Your P-p-powerbook is ready!

What the scammer wanted [left] and what the scammer got [right]

Sometimes, though, the scam doesn't work out as planned, such as in this tale about a UK scammer who tried to finagle a Powerbook off of a seller who had a posse.

Via Neatorama.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:11 PM | Get permalink

'When the president does it that means that means that it is not illegal.'

This magpie's gotta admit that I'd run this picture even if I had no idea where it came from.

Tricky Dick and Dubya

Two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
[Image: MoveOn.org]

But in this case, I do know the story: MoveOn.org is running a new ad, which calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Dubya's authorization of the illegal domestic wiretapping by the NSA.

You can read the press release about the new ad here [PDF]. MoveOn has a detailed explanation of why a special prosecutor is needed here.

By the way, the quote in the headline comes from David Frost's 1977 interview with ex-president Richard Nixon, in which Tricky Dick attempted to justify his own program of illegal wiretaps and surveillance against his domestic political opponents. [More here.]

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:11 AM | Get permalink

Somebody's watching you.

And me. And any of us who make phone calls to the US or within it, and any of us who send email that passes through the US. While we're busy communicating, an uninvited guest may be checking out what we're saying or emailing: The US National Security Agency.

To keep an eye on us, the NSA has a huge and complex infrastructure in place on the ground in the US and above it in space, the precise extent of which is not known outside the inner circles of the NSA. With the current scandal around Dubya's authorization of illegal NSA wiretapping inside the US, however, more information about the NSA's 'octopus' has been coming to light. The ACLU's NSA Watch project has been collecting that information and has used it to prepare a map showing how the surveillance system is believed to work.

The NSA octopus

For a larger view of the Octopus, click here. [Graphic: ACLU]

The map shows how the NSA's tentacles reach into much of the country's civilian communications network, including [according to the ACLU's best information] 'the "switches" through which international and some domestic communications are routed, Internet exchange points, individual telephone company central facilities, and ISPs.' [A version of the map with a detailed explanation of the octopus' elements in on page 2 of this PDF file.]

The recent revelations about illegal eavesdropping on American citizens by the U.S. National Security Agency have raised many questions about just what the agency is doing. Although the facts are just beginning to emerge, information that has come to light about the NSA's activities and capabilities over the years, as well as the recent reporting by the New York Times and others, allows us to discern the outlines of what they are likely doing and how they are doing it.

The NSA is not only the world's largest spy agency (far larger than the CIA, for example), but it possesses the most advanced technology for intercepting communications. We know it has long had the ability to focus powerful surveillance capabilities on particular individuals or communications. But the current scandal has indicated two new and significant elements of the agency?s eavesdropping:

The NSA has gained direct access to the telecommunications infrastructure through some of America's largest companies. The agency appears to be not only targeting individuals, but also using broad "data mining" systems that allow them to intercept and evaluate the communications of millions of people within the United States.

The ACLU has an excellent overview of the NSA octopus here, which includes details on how the NSA is believed to choose the targets of its spy efforts and how US corporations are helping to make domestic spying easier for the feds. It's very much worth your while.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:00 AM | Get permalink

Friday, February 3, 2006

Are we seeing the end of democracy in the US?

From this article by lawyer Martin Garbus over at the Huffington Post, it's obvious that I'm not the only one worrying about this:

No president in over 200 years of our history has ever before claimed the "unitary powers" that Bush claims are his. Not President Lincoln during the Civil War, not President Wilson during World War I, not President Roosevelt during World War II, not President Truman during Korea, and not Presidents Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison all saw the danger -- they never arrogated that power to the presidency.

Alito and Roberts, Thomas and Scalia, claim it, Bush claims it. Kennedy, who said in Bush v. Gore the Court was reconsidering the design of the government, will surely go along. [...]

What does "unitary powers" mean? It means that if the President alone decides that the country is faced with what he alone defines to be a critical problem, his authority is unchecked. In other words, he decides where the powers lies in the Constitution -- he decides the contour of his power. This sounds more like a monarchy, more like authoritarianism than a democracy.

The taking of this power is not a coup d'état because the people today have the power of the vote in 2008. But it is dangerously close on that path -- the Founders recognized the danger of a too-powerful President.

The Bush Administration told us it does not deal with reality -- it creates reality -- Bush has created a legal façade allowing him to create his own world and then react to it as he chooses. Unfortunately, we are all dragged into his make-believe world with its make-believe legal system.

Thanks to Gordon.Coale for the pointer.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:09 AM | Get permalink

Thursday, February 2, 2006

Technical difficulties.

No, it's not another hiatus. I've been in severe Computer Hell for much of the day, and without a working internet connection.

I finally figured out that the problem was on my end, and discovered that Win XP's system restore — can be a lifesaver when you really can't figure out the source of your problem.

But if you tell anyone that I said Microsoft did something right, I'll deny it.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:27 PM | Get permalink

Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Something Dubya forgot to mention ...

... in last night's State of the Union address:

All of the job growth in the last five years has come from government spending, not from the prez's much-ballyhooed tax cuts.

This table from the Economic Policy Institute tells the tale.

Jobs? What jobs?

[EPI graphic squished in to fit Magpie's column width]

Here's how the EPI's Lee Price explains where the last five years of job growth has occurred:

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.

To put it into simpler language: Dubya has done just what those 'tax-and-spend' liberals that he and the GOP hate so much always did when jobs were needed: He spent federal dollars to create 'em. Just like LBJ and FDR. Without that spending — especially the Iraq war spending — the US would be several million more jobs in the hole than it already is.

No wonder Dubya didn't want to talk about it last night, eh?

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:34 PM | Get permalink

This about says it all.

Doesn't it? Once again, John Sherffius nails it.

Dubya's State of the Union

[Cartoon © 2006 John Sherffius]

You can see more of Sherffius' cartoons here.

Via Association of American Editorial Cartoonists.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:13 AM | Get permalink

Dubya's State of the Union speech.

I didn't watch it. I didn't even listen to it. The prez came on just after 6 pm Portland time, right when my pizza was coming out of the oven, and I didn't feel like drastically increasing my chance of heartburn. Or projectile vomiting. Years of watching Nixon and Reagan on television taught me to keep eating and watching speeches by Republican presidents as separate as possible.

I've looked briefly at the text of the speech, and the simple fact that Dubya had the nerve to start out by lamenting the lack of civility in the country's political discourse has made me nauseous. I don't even want to think about what he might have said later on.

So I won't. Not until later.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:31 AM | Get permalink

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The filibuster that didn't happen.

You'll find our full rant about the failure of Senate Democrats to filibuster Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court below. But for the record, here are the spineless Dems who decided that protecting their political asses were more important than preventing years, probably decades, of right-wing judicial activism.

Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Max Baucus (MT)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Robert C. Byrd (WV)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Thomas R. Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Daniel K. Inouye (HI)
Tim Johnson (SD)

Herb Kohl (WI)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Joseph I. Lieberman (CT)
Blanche L. Lincoln (AR)
Bill Nelson (FL)
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE)
Mark L. Pryor (AR)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
Ken Salazar (CO)

If either of your senators are on the list, you might want to call, write, or email them and give them a piece of your mind. If both of your senators are on the list, god help you.

Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers has a more colorfully annotated version of this list that you should definitely check out.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:06 AM | Get permalink

This figures, doesn't it?

From the man who, in 2001, authorized the National Security Agency to begin carrying out warrantless wiretapping of thousands and thousands of phone and email communications:

You know, I don't email, however. And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to be a certain sense of privacy. You know, you're entitled to how I make decisions. And you're entitled to ask questions, which I answer. I don't think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters and me. [Emphasis added]

And no, this isn't an apocryphal remark, as I thought when I encountered a version of this quote, without a source, here at DED Space. A quick Googling showed that Dubya indeed made pretty much the comment that DED Space quoted, speaking last April 14 at the annual convention of the American Association of Newspaper Editors. [If you want to double-check me, the prez's full remarks are here.]

I'd comment more, but I think Dubya's provided sufficient rope that he can do the hanging by himself.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:21 AM | Get permalink

Ooooooh, shiny!

Phytoplankton blooming in the Black Sea, as viewed by the Terra satellite this past Sunday.

What are phytoplankton, you ask? Well, NASA's David Herring can tell you.

[Image: Jeff Schmaltz,
MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC]

The region suffers from numerous environmental issues, including overfishing, urbanization along the coastline, industrial pollution, and the construction of hydroelectric projects that restrict movement and disrupt habitat. Images such as this one can be used to assess water quality by using the ratio of reflectance from the blue and red channels. High amounts of blue light reflecting off of the surface of water and low amount of red indicates good water quality, while bodies with poor water quality tend to reflect less blue and more red light.

For more information on this image [and to see the full version of the image I've used in this post] go here. And for a much larger version of the image, look over here.

Via NASA/MODIS.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:03 AM | Get permalink

Monday, January 30, 2006

Black Monday.

The rain here in Portland let up for awhile earlier this afternoon, so I went for a walk. I even [almost] managed to beat the rain home, too. Not a bad day, it seemed.

When I got inside and logged on, though, I saw that the vote to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court had failed. Not only that, but it failed big — by a 72-25 vote. [41 votes were needed to sustain a filibuster.] Given that most predictions I'd heard said that there would be at least 30 to 35 votes in favor of the filibuster, I want to know: What the fuck happened? Where is the backbone in the US Senate?

Yeah, some senators will say that they weren't going to hurt their chances for re-election by supporting a filibuster that couldn't succeed. And they'll point to their vote later this week against Alito's nomination. But, from where I sit, the vote against the nomination is easy. A senator can vote their conscience, knowing that the GOP has enough votes to put Alito onto the High Court. When re-election time comes around, nobody will be able to say that their incumbent senator cast the vote that torpedoed the Supreme Court nomination of that fine jurist, Sam Alito.

But the vote for the filibuster was hard. This was a vote with potential political consequences. And only 25 senators were able to face up to those consequences and cast their vote against absolutism and for the Constitution. The Democrats and moderate Republicans who couldn't summon up the nerve — or conscience — to support the filibuster and slow down the nomination process appear to have decided that their personal political future was more important than acting to protect what's left of our tattered Consitution from the depradations of a president who thinks he's above the law.

Those senators have a lot of explaining to do.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:12 PM | Get permalink