Magpie

Saturday, June 24, 2006

We all know that the feds lie about how bad US unemployment is.

Over at BOPNews, Ian Welsh explains how to get past the lies and figure out the real unemployment situation, using the feds' own statistics.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:04 PM | Get permalink

Good-bye Harriet.

One of the world's oldest living creatures has died. Harriet, a Galapagos tortoise, was 176 years old.

Harriet the tortoise

Harriet in happier days.
[Photographer unknown.]

Senior veterinarian John Hangar said the 150-kilogram (330-pound) reptile died on Thursday night after a short illness.

"She had been sick yesterday with, in effect, heart failure," Hangar told ABC radio.

"She had a fairly acute heart attack and thankfully passed away quietly overnight."

Hangar said Harriet, who had made it into the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living animal, had been credited with helping Darwin pioneer his theory of evolution.

"It's thought she may have been taken off there (Galapagos) by Charles Darwin," he said. "She's spent a period of time in Britain and found herself at the Botanic Gardens in Brisbane from about 1850 or 1860 onwards and eventually she found her way up to Australia Zoo."

Via AP.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:17 PM | Get permalink

It's Carnival of Feminists time again!

Actually, it was Carnival time a few days ago, but the shock of finally landing a paying job after 10 months of unemployment rendered me temporarily speechless — blog-wise, anyway.

The Carnival is now up to its 17th edition, which you'll find right over here at Bitch | Lab. Even by Carnival standard, the collection of feminist blog posts is amazingly huge this time.

Lady Bracknell takes her mordant wit and, I like to imagine, a handy umbrella to a L'Oreal advertisement. Enjoy!

The advertisment begins with a patronising, pseudo-scientific voice-over which attempts to browbeat men into the conviction that what they consider to be attractive 'expression lines', women view with horror and disgust as 'ugly wrinkles'.

Michelle at LonerGrrrl takes us through a tour of the misogyny n rock music, reminding us that it's easy to see buoyz in a Girls Gone Wild scene as outrageously misogynist. Sometimes, though, the men who are supposedly on our side can come up with some whoppers.

Personally? I stopped dead in my tracks when I read Eddy Vedder call her a coquette and I read the misogyny toward women's bodies, a misogyny deployed in the name of his Big, Bad Me-Man-Feminism.

Uma at Indian Writing points us to a report on how the scarcity of women in Gujaret means that men have to pay a bride-price. Bad enough, right? The report makes it worse by describing the situation as 'an irresistible business opportunity':

poverty-stricken tribal families are virtually selling off their daughters. A man has reportedly 'allowed' (out of greed? desperation? no choice?) his farm labourer wife to stay with her employer for a monthly rental.

Kalinara at Pretty Fizzy Paradise was in the mood for a bad fantasy movie, so she watched Red Sonja and was pleasantly surprised:

Now maybe it's just because I'd just finished watching a much worse movie (starring a 3 time Mr. Universe, which should tell you enough right there, and sadly he was the second best actor in the movie. Just after the vacant looking kid.), but I actually liked it.

Irrational Point has some points about That Woman the one endlessly air-brushed, posed, pushed up, flattened, and duct-taped. More and more, That Woman is computer-generated. For IrrationalPoint, That Woman isn't just an image. That Woman has consequences for us, real live women:

In the world that wants That Woman, everyone else has breasts that are too big or too small or lopsided. In the world that wants That Woman, everyone else is fat. And fat people aren't supposed to have sex or want sex or even think about sex. Fat is undesirable — no one will love you because you're too fat to fuck. Fat is anyone and everyone who doesn't conform to That computer-generated Image.

At Purple Elephant's Corner you can learn more about the UK show, ‘Peppa Pig' and Why Mumma Pig should file for divorce in ?Mummy Pig at Work?.

There's a ton more, on a variety of subjects, if you go look at the rest of the 17th Carnival over here.

The 18th Carnival is coming up on Wednesday, July 5, and it will be hosted by Clare at Ink and Incapacity. Feminist posts on any subject will be accepted, but Clare is especially interested in getting posts on women and religion, and on alternative feminisms. (More details here.) To nominate a post, — and it's definitely okay to nominate one of your own — send your suggestions to the-ninth-wave AT hotmail DOT co DOT uk, or use this submission form at the Blog Carnival home page. Posts should be submitted by Sunday, July 2.

And if you want to keep posted on what's up with the Carnival of Feminists in general, bookmark the home page.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:46 PM | Get permalink

A really bad day on planet Earth.

A Japanese animation shows the effects of a giant meteor slamming into the Pacific Ocean. I'm pretty sure I've seen pieces of this video before in TV documentaries, but watching the entire seven-minute sequence at once is pretty overwhelming.

London after a meteor impact

London after being hit by a global firestorm.

The scenario shown in the video is based on the probable effects of a collision between the Earth and a Mars-sized body that's believed to have occurred about 4.6 billion years ago. That collision resulted in the creation of the Moon. The notes in 'About this Video' contain a rough English translation of the original Japanese commentary.

The video is excerpted from the first program of a Japanese documentary series The Great Evolution of Planet Earth, which aired in 2004 on the NHK network.

Via YouTube.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:27 AM | Get permalink

Friday, June 23, 2006

Unplanned hiatus.

I guess I didn't post anything yesterday, huh?

Well, I do have an excuse: I had a job interview yesterday and, to my surprise, they hired me before I left. It's only a contract, and it's only going for a few months, but it means that I finally have a regular paycheck again after 10 months of being unemployed.

I've got a bunch of posts that you'll start seeing after I go do all the paperwork for the new job. Stay tuned.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:08 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

All your data are belong to me.

Our good pals at AT&T — you know, the company that's been helping the NSA eavesdrop on phone calls since 2001 — have figured out yet another way to keep from paying the price for their illegal cooperation with the feds: They've issued a new privacy policy for its internet and video customers that makes their confidential data the property of AT&T, and allows the company to pretty much do what it wants with that data. Under current policy, confidential data belongs to customers, and the corporate use of that data — including sharing it with the feds — is greatly limited.

The new policy says that AT&T [can use customers' confidential information] "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service -- a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers' recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others....

Under its former privacy policy, introduced in September 2004, AT&T said it might use customer's data "to respond to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to the extent required and/or permitted by law."

The new version, which is specifically for Internet and video customers, is much more explicit about the company's right to cooperate with government agencies in any security-related matters -- and AT&T's belief that customers' data belongs to the company, not customers.

"While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the new policy declares. "As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

It says the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process," omitting the earlier language about such processes being "required and/or permitted by law."

The new policy states that AT&T "may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud (or) situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person" -- conditions that would appear to embrace any terror-related circumstance.

It's not hard to understand what the new policy means: In order to get service, you have to agree to let AT&T collect information on your usage that goes far beyond what they [or any other company] is currently collecting, and you have to agree that AT&T can surrender any or all of that info to the feds — even if the feds haven't bothered to get a warrant.

Welcome to the 'land of the free.'

Via SF Chronicle.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:22 PM | Get permalink

It's not Dubya's fault.

In fact, nothing is Dubya's fault. Mikhaela fingers the culprit.

Dubya's nemesis: Milly Jones

[© 2006 Mikhaela B. Reid]

To see the rest of the cartoon, go over here.

And if you want to see w whole bunch more of Mikhaela's political cartoons, take a look at this.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:11 AM | Get permalink

So funny it hurts.

Microsoft redesigns the iPod package. [Flash req'd]

Via BOPNews.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:04 AM | Get permalink

They're back!

The Taliban isn't hiding in caves any more. They're now waging a full-fledged insurgency in Afghanistan.

Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country....

Even before fighting heated up this spring, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, warned Congress that the insurgents "represent a greater threat" to the pro-U.S. government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai "than at any point since late 2001...."

Despite the damage they can do, the insurgents do not have enough support to topple Karzai, who was elected two years ago and enjoys international support. "We are not in a situation yet where the Karzai government is threatened," says Joanna Nathan, Afghan analyst for the International Crisis Group, a non-profit research organization. But in places where they are strong, the insurgents have been able to harass government operations and relief efforts — so much so that reconstruction has come to a virtual standstill in the south and east.

"It is hurting us," says Afghan Finance Minister Anwar ul-Haq Ahady. "We build a school, and they come and they burn it. We build a clinic, and they come and burn it. We build a bridge, and they knock it down. Security is the No. 1 issue."

With the occupation of Iraq going so well, I'm sure that Dubya's administration can spare the troops needed to put the Taliban back in their place in no time.

Via USA Today.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:49 AM | Get permalink

Oh, does this ever explain a lot of things.

Overconfident people are more likely to wage war, but less likely to succeed at warfare. That's the conclusion of a US university study that looked at the fortunes of 200 players in a computer war game.

The results of the study appears to back up a theory that 'positive illusions' can contribute to real-world conflicts; in other words, having a positive attitude can cause people to become overconfident. While having optimistic expectations in everyday life can help people deal with problems and bluff opponents, overconfidence on the battlefield can lead to disaster.

In that study, each of the 200 participants played the leader of a country in conflict with another over diamond resources that lay on a disputed border, and their goal was to amass the most wealth or to beat their opponent in war. Before the game started, each person was asked how they thought their performance would compare to that of the other people in the experiment.

Each player began with $100 million in game money to invest in their military or industrial infrastructure, or to reserve as cash. The program gave them constant updates about the offers and actions of their opponents.

Careful negotiations with opponents could win players additional resources in exchange for the diamonds. But they also had the option of waging war. Their victory in battle was determined by how much they had invested in their military, along with an element of chance.

Players who made higher-than-average predictions of their performance — those who had higher confidence — were more likely to carry out unprovoked attacks. These warmongers ranked themselves on average at number 60 out of the 200 players, while those who avoided war averaged out at the 75 position.

A further analysis showed that people with higher self-rankings ended up worse off at the end of the game. "Those who expected to do best tended to do worst," the researchers say. "This suggests that positive illusions were not only misguided but actually may have been detrimental to performance in this scenario."

The obvious real-world conclusion that can be drawn from the study's results didn't escape researchers:

"This study fits within a relatively new field of research which connects motivations of individual people to their collective behaviour," says [University of Connecticut researcher Peter] Turchin.

"One wishes that members of the Bush administration had known about this research before they initiated invasion of Iraq three years ago," he adds. "I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of political scientists is that the Bush administration was overconfident of victory, and that the Iraq war is a debacle."

Via New Scientist.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:14 AM | Get permalink

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

US can't monitor for bird flu in poultry or wild birds.

Given how Dubya's administration won't adequately fund federal agencies unless they deal with the 'war on terror' or funnel money to GOP backers, it shouldn't be a surprise that the feds' efforts to track avian flu in domestic and wild birds is ~~pathetic~~ almost nonexistent:

In a 38-page report, the inspector general said USDA relies too heavily on voluntary state and commercial programs to monitor and test domestic and wild birds.

The voluntary reporting makes it difficult for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to draw conclusions, know how much surveillance is taking place in different states and uncover changes in the disease such as rate of prevalence.

APHIS officials later told the inspector general that the agency had only recently received adequate funding to bolster its surveillance program and was working to increase monitoring in areas where it was needed most....

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said the audit was further proof USDA was not prepared for an outbreak of avian influenza.

"This report reiterates my concerns about USDA's preparedness plans in the event of a potential avian influenza outbreak, especially if a strain like H5N1 is found in the United States," said Harkin. "The federal government continues to push the responsibility of finding and responding to a possible outbreak of avian influenza on states." [Emphasis mine]

That 'adequate funding' that the Ag Department received for bird flu surveillance was US$ 91 million for 2006. For comparison, the occupation of Iraq is costing US$ 8 billion per month.
Thousands of us may die from avian flu because its presence among US poultry wasn't detected early enough but — dammit — those terrorists will get stopped in their tracks in Iraq.

Via Reuters.

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

The country's in a sad state when something like this is business as usual.

Consider this item:

One year and about 840 American soldiers ago, Dick Cheney said that we were seeing the "last throes" of the insurgency in Iraq. The vice president was asked today whether he still thinks that's true.

"I do," he said.

Cheney pointed to the Iraqi elections in 2005 and the formation of a government this year as the beginning of the end of the war. "I think that will have been, from a historical turning point, the period that we'll be able to look at and say, 'That's when we turned the corner, that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq.'"

Via Salon's War Room.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:47 AM | Get permalink

The war in Iraq is over.

In fact, says Thom Hartmann, it's been over since 2003. What's been happening since then is the US-led occupation of Iraq.

This may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but Hartmann makes a persuasive case that there are serious political consequences from continuing to talk about the 'Iraq war' — and that those political consequences work to the advantage of Dubya and the Republicans.

Americans don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won — even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada — it tends to create a national good feeling.

On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war — like the German loss of WWI — can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor." [...]

While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)

If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.

On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.

The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month — far longer than necessary. [Emphasis mine]

You know what to do when you go over here.

Via Common Dreams.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:10 AM | Get permalink

US politics: More vicious than ever.

And we can thank the GOP for most of that viciousness, says Paul Krugman.

In his latest NY Times column, our favorite economist points out how the increased political polarization that that's characterized US politics over the past 30 years or so has gone hand-in-hand with growing economic inequality. As the rich have gotten richer, their Republican minions have turned government into little more than an efficient vehicle for moving money and power into the hands of the wealthy.

Before the 1940's, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite's privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.)

When the elite once again pulled away from the middle class, however, Republicans turned their back on the legacy of Dwight Eisenhower and returned to a focus on the interests of the wealthy. Tax cuts at the top — including repeal of the estate tax — became the party's highest priority.

But if the real source of today's bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public's attention elsewhere. And there's no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless.

Thus in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America's defender against gay married terrorists. He waited until after the election to reveal that what he really wanted to do was privatize Social Security.

Pre-New Deal G.O.P. operatives followed the same strategy. Republican politicians won elections by "waving the bloody shirt" — invoking the memory of the Civil War — long after the G.O.P. had ceased to be the party of Lincoln and become the party of robber barons instead. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, was defeated in part by a smear campaign — burning crosses and all — that exploited the heartland's prejudice against Catholics.

So what should we do about all this? I won't offer the Democrats advice right now, except to say that tough talk on national security and affirmations of personal faith won't help: the other side will smear you anyway. [Emphasis mine]

If you have a NY Times sub, you can read Krugman's full column here, behind the pay firewall. If firewalls aren't your style, you might want to look for the column over here.

Yet another big Magpie thank-you goes to the Peking Duck.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:25 AM | Get permalink

Monday, June 19, 2006

Pot ... kettle.

The ability of the US right wing to project their own worldview and political mindset onto their opposition frequently beggars the imagination. Take, for example, this comment on progressive bloggers from Dubya's political advisor Karl Rove:

The Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger -- hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and Conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent.

Do I really need to say any more?

Via AlterNet's Peek.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:50 AM | Get permalink

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Since it's Paul McCartney's 64th birthday ...

... I'm just going to ignore him like I do most other days.

Instead, take a look at this clip of George Harrison singing 'The Pirate Song' on the Christmas, 1975 show of the Monty Python spin-off, Rutland Weekend Television. Can you tell why, in my younger days, I always preferred Beatle George to Beatle Paul?

It's a pirate's life for George Harrison, 26 December 1975.

Oh, I like to be a pirate, a pirate's life for me.
All my friends are pirates and they sail the b.b. sea.
I've got a jolly roger, it's a black and white and vast.
So get out of your skull and crossbones
and I'll run it up your mast.

The song, incidentally, was written by Harrison and Rutle Eric Idle.

Via Grow-a-Brain.

| | Posted by Magpie at 6:04 PM | Get permalink

Life is oh-so-good in 'free' Iraq.

Last week, Dubya made his 'secret' trip to Baghdad and came back with tales of the big differences that democracy and freedom have made in the lives of people in post-Saddam Iraq. Only a few days later, the Washington Post obtained a copy of a cable from the US embassy in Baghdad [PDF file], which shows what life is really like.

Here are some excerpts from the cable. I doubt you'll be surprised to find out how big Dubya's lies are.

Excerpts from US embassy cable

Over at our other roost, Mary makes some revealing comparisons between the content of the cable, Dubya's remarks after coming back from Baghad, and Riverbend's latest post.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:35 PM | Get permalink

So what has been happening to Dubya over the past 12 years?

This video isn't new — I remember seeing it during the runup to the 2004 US presidential election. Old or not, the differences it shows between Dubya's speaking skills in 1994 and 2004 are disturbing.

Dubya 1994 vs Dubya 2004

Dubya 1994 (L): Confident, coherent, unscripted, used big words.
Dubya 2004 (R): Stumbling, semi-coherent, unable to construct complete sentences.

Definitely another reason to wonder who really is making the decisions at the White House.

From YouTube via Majikthise.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:43 PM | Get permalink