Who can be the first to give me any kind of translation help with the following:
Beisichsein
Prizes will be awarded
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Bush, relating you to the Other
Bush Shifting Public Focus to Terrorism and Iraq War - New York Times:
"We face an enemy that has an ideology," Mr. Bush continued. "They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.?"
"We face an enemy that has an ideology," Mr. Bush continued. "They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.?"
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Free Energy?! Perpetual Motion Machine!?
So, Funga got me back in and here is one thing for your consideration.
Steorn, an Irish company, announced with a full page ad in The Economist that they have successfully developed a machine that outputs more energy than you put into it with no degradation of the component parts. The stated purpose of the Economist ad was to get everyone's attention in order to put together teams of engineers and scientists to do independent tests of 'the gadget.' Of course, if true, the first law of thermodynamics is out the window. Thus, by modus tolens, it is not true? Might also check out SteornWatch or the Wikipedia entry.
Steorn, an Irish company, announced with a full page ad in The Economist that they have successfully developed a machine that outputs more energy than you put into it with no degradation of the component parts. The stated purpose of the Economist ad was to get everyone's attention in order to put together teams of engineers and scientists to do independent tests of 'the gadget.' Of course, if true, the first law of thermodynamics is out the window. Thus, by modus tolens, it is not true? Might also check out SteornWatch or the Wikipedia entry.
Friday, August 25, 2006
How clearly he puts it...
President meets with soldiers' families:
"One anti-war widow said she used the opportunity to voice her objections to Bush's policies.
'I said it's time to stop the bleeding,' said Hildi Halley, whose husband, Army National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, died June 15 in Afghanistan. 'It's time to swallow our pride and find a solution.'
She said Bush responding by saying 'there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war.'"
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Lebanon satellite images - Amnesty International
From the story about Israeli war crimes in Lebanon here, the images below are disturbing. There are no corpses, just aerial pics, but the devastation was on a scale I hadn't realized...
Lebanon satellite images - Amnesty International: "Before and after images of Lebanon. "
Lebanon satellite images - Amnesty International: "Before and after images of Lebanon. "
Monday, August 21, 2006
Background on the domestic wiretapping debate
Finished teaching this (and the Hamdan case right before that) in my phl of law class a couple of days before the ruling came down. Here are some more resources. Fun reading, seriously.
The main letters from the DOJ justifying the program along with resposnses by an organization of lefties including Dworkin, Tribe, and David Cole.
David Cole arguing that the Hamdan decision is basically a rejection of Bush's assertion of Presidential power."Why the Court said No."
My humble opinion, the cout is saying "look congress, get off your asses and actually authorize something if you're going to authorize it. You might be up for reelection, but we're here for life." The claim never really goes beyond that. Though, interestingly, if you look at the War Crimes Act of 1996, which says that any violation of the Geneva conventions is a war crime that can be prosecuted in the United States, and read it together with the Hamdan decision, which does come out and say that the Military Tribunals had already violated Hamdan's Geneva Convention rights, you have a case for trying a big chunk of the administration for War Crimes. Now, if we can just find a prosecutor.
I haven't read this most recent court decision from the Detroit district court, so I don't know if she sites Hamdan or what.
The main letters from the DOJ justifying the program along with resposnses by an organization of lefties including Dworkin, Tribe, and David Cole.
David Cole arguing that the Hamdan decision is basically a rejection of Bush's assertion of Presidential power."Why the Court said No."
My humble opinion, the cout is saying "look congress, get off your asses and actually authorize something if you're going to authorize it. You might be up for reelection, but we're here for life." The claim never really goes beyond that. Though, interestingly, if you look at the War Crimes Act of 1996, which says that any violation of the Geneva conventions is a war crime that can be prosecuted in the United States, and read it together with the Hamdan decision, which does come out and say that the Military Tribunals had already violated Hamdan's Geneva Convention rights, you have a case for trying a big chunk of the administration for War Crimes. Now, if we can just find a prosecutor.
I haven't read this most recent court decision from the Detroit district court, so I don't know if she sites Hamdan or what.
ACLU v NSA
I thought we probably should take note of the recent decision by a US district court that the Bush administration's program of unwarranted wiretapping of US to Outstide US calls is unconstitutional and possibly a violation of criminal law.
I personally don't know how to evaluate this decision. To me the basic points of the judgment jive nicely with what my sense of constitutional law tells me a correct judgment in the case is. From the parts of it I've read, this extends to both the specific conclusions and reasoning used to justify the conclusions. But I've also seen a lot of sympathetic summaries of the judgment by those who adamently reject the rationale and use of precedent while accepting the judge's basic findings. So, just don't know how to judge this myself anymore. The facts of the case seem clear so it seems odd to me to think that a seasoned judge -- predisposed or not to supporting Bush's War on Terror -- would write a poor judgment. For those who see constitutional problems with warrentless wiretapping, the problems are fundamental ones that are obvious to anyone who understands what a law is and how it functions. The Judge's conclusions, as I understand them, are just reiterations of the basic point that the executive is not magically beyond the law (either constitutional or as passed by Congress). So, again, how couldn't any capable constitutional lawyer write a competent argument on the subject?
So, when it comes up for appeal, either there are lots of people who accept the judgment's conclusions yet grossly misjudge the strength of its reasoning (which I find hard to believe, personally, but it remains a hopeful possibility) or I have to come to terms with the fact that a clearly capable federal judge is unable to defend the rule of law.
Perhaps there is a kind of third alternative. I read one theory that claims that the decision was a kind of "punt" by the judge. Knowing that there are several basic issues at play that haven't typically been the subject of judicial review (perhaps because they just are so fucking obvious), she writes something in the spirit of the law, but doesn't bother to work out much of a decision because she knows its all going to be decided anyone it higher courts. Again, I haven't much of a clue how to evaluate the possibility of such a scenerio, but I find it hard to believe that a judge would have the obvious antipathy for the administration and its odious contempt for the law, and also know a little old case called Bush v Gore, and not want to go on the record making the strongest possible judgment you could make.
Some links
ACLU v NSA Decision
Different Programs in the Administration's unwarranted surveillance campaign and different pending lawsuits (Emptywheel is great, if you don't know her work yet!)
Sympathetic critique of Judge's Decision
I personally don't know how to evaluate this decision. To me the basic points of the judgment jive nicely with what my sense of constitutional law tells me a correct judgment in the case is. From the parts of it I've read, this extends to both the specific conclusions and reasoning used to justify the conclusions. But I've also seen a lot of sympathetic summaries of the judgment by those who adamently reject the rationale and use of precedent while accepting the judge's basic findings. So, just don't know how to judge this myself anymore. The facts of the case seem clear so it seems odd to me to think that a seasoned judge -- predisposed or not to supporting Bush's War on Terror -- would write a poor judgment. For those who see constitutional problems with warrentless wiretapping, the problems are fundamental ones that are obvious to anyone who understands what a law is and how it functions. The Judge's conclusions, as I understand them, are just reiterations of the basic point that the executive is not magically beyond the law (either constitutional or as passed by Congress). So, again, how couldn't any capable constitutional lawyer write a competent argument on the subject?
So, when it comes up for appeal, either there are lots of people who accept the judgment's conclusions yet grossly misjudge the strength of its reasoning (which I find hard to believe, personally, but it remains a hopeful possibility) or I have to come to terms with the fact that a clearly capable federal judge is unable to defend the rule of law.
Perhaps there is a kind of third alternative. I read one theory that claims that the decision was a kind of "punt" by the judge. Knowing that there are several basic issues at play that haven't typically been the subject of judicial review (perhaps because they just are so fucking obvious), she writes something in the spirit of the law, but doesn't bother to work out much of a decision because she knows its all going to be decided anyone it higher courts. Again, I haven't much of a clue how to evaluate the possibility of such a scenerio, but I find it hard to believe that a judge would have the obvious antipathy for the administration and its odious contempt for the law, and also know a little old case called Bush v Gore, and not want to go on the record making the strongest possible judgment you could make.
Some links
ACLU v NSA Decision
Different Programs in the Administration's unwarranted surveillance campaign and different pending lawsuits (Emptywheel is great, if you don't know her work yet!)
Sympathetic critique of Judge's Decision
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
An unlikely source (and for some, a tired issue), but a good summary of the evidence thus far.
Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:
A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush...A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004
''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''
Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:
A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush...A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004
''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''
Friday, August 18, 2006
Iran and Turkey
Now Turkey has a partner in its operations we posited earlier
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to
their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a
coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region
after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had
also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
Living frugally on your 6-figure salary at Northwest Airlines
This is in response to the recently publicized tips on living with a smaller paycheck given to Northwest Airlines flight attendants by management. The tips included things like going through your neighbors' garbage.
Just a sample From Brain Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press:
? Energy-smart appliances pay. Over the course of a year, a cappuccino or espresso maker equipped with automatic shutoff can save savvy homeowners enough money to pay for another premium cable channel.
Get your kids involved. If your teenage son wants a new SUV, insist that he pay for at least a portion of the new vehicle's satellite radio service.
? Disconnecting towel heaters and bathroom floor warmers during the summer months can keep energy bills down without perceptible discomfort.
Just a sample From Brain Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press:
? Energy-smart appliances pay. Over the course of a year, a cappuccino or espresso maker equipped with automatic shutoff can save savvy homeowners enough money to pay for another premium cable channel.
Get your kids involved. If your teenage son wants a new SUV, insist that he pay for at least a portion of the new vehicle's satellite radio service.
? Disconnecting towel heaters and bathroom floor warmers during the summer months can keep energy bills down without perceptible discomfort.
Monday, August 14, 2006
democracy died today...Or maybe it was yesterday
Bush reads Camus's 'The Stranger' on ranch vacation - Yahoo! News:
CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: 'The Stranger.'
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Even domestically, It gets worse and worse
From a Harris Poll taken from July5-11.
"Despite being widely reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005."
I heard the head of Harris Poll on "On the Media," and he speculated that the increase could because people don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq, but that he didn't have any data on it. [The other possibility mentioned: they closely read obscure reports released by Rick Santorum about 70 shells from the 80s and misconstrue those.]
As if that weren't bad enough:
"* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).
* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005)."
Good, Good.
Well, at least the poll accurately reports what it itself actually means:
"This Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between July 5 and 11, 2006 among 1,020 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.
All surveys are subject to several sources of error. These include: sampling error (because only a sample of a population is interviewed); measurement error due to question wording and/or question order, deliberately or unintentionally inaccurate responses, nonresponse (including refusals), interviewer effects (when live interviewers are used) and weighting.
With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite "margin of error" for any survey and the use of these words should be avoided.
With pure probability samples, with 100 percent response rates, it is possible to calculate the probability that the sampling error (but not other sources of error) is not greater than some number. With a pure probability sample of 1,016 adults one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points. However that does not take other sources of error into account."
"Despite being widely reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005."
I heard the head of Harris Poll on "On the Media," and he speculated that the increase could because people don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq, but that he didn't have any data on it. [The other possibility mentioned: they closely read obscure reports released by Rick Santorum about 70 shells from the 80s and misconstrue those.]
As if that weren't bad enough:
"* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).
* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005)."
Good, Good.
Well, at least the poll accurately reports what it itself actually means:
"This Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between July 5 and 11, 2006 among 1,020 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.
All surveys are subject to several sources of error. These include: sampling error (because only a sample of a population is interviewed); measurement error due to question wording and/or question order, deliberately or unintentionally inaccurate responses, nonresponse (including refusals), interviewer effects (when live interviewers are used) and weighting.
With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite "margin of error" for any survey and the use of these words should be avoided.
With pure probability samples, with 100 percent response rates, it is possible to calculate the probability that the sampling error (but not other sources of error) is not greater than some number. With a pure probability sample of 1,016 adults one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points. However that does not take other sources of error into account."
Friday, August 11, 2006
Bush and Islam and Fascism
Today Bush called the planners (or someone) of the UK plane bombings "fascists." "They try to spread their jihadist message -- a message I call, it's totalitarian in nature -- Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom."
Well that really is the point of terrorism: kill the set of all people that love freedom.
Ridiculous. Even libertarians think so.
Anyway, that is not my worry. There are fascists in the world and they really are the folks that Bush is talking about. So, what does one do when Bush calls it like it is or at least gets an adjective right?
In a related story...A movie came out today.
And also there were primaries in which incumbents were actually defeated. We're almost back to soviet level democracy.
Well that really is the point of terrorism: kill the set of all people that love freedom.
Ridiculous. Even libertarians think so.
Anyway, that is not my worry. There are fascists in the world and they really are the folks that Bush is talking about. So, what does one do when Bush calls it like it is or at least gets an adjective right?
In a related story...A movie came out today.
And also there were primaries in which incumbents were actually defeated. We're almost back to soviet level democracy.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
September 11 -- what year?
AP/Yahoo! News: WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the
Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.
Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Monday, August 07, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Not Exactly Fun With Google Earth:
Points of destruction in the current conflict, though, of course, the satalite images have not been updated recently.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Washington Post (on page A3, mind you) 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon:
"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."
[snip]
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
[snip]
"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center."
Israeli hackers target hezbollah tv
From Agence France Presse via Aljazeera
One of the images shown on al-Manar television portrayed the body of a fighter lying face-down, wearing khaki trousers with a text in Arabic beneath: "This is the photograph of a body of a member of Hezbollah's special forces."
[snip]
Israel also recently hacked into FM radio stations and instead of normal programmes a two-minute recording was repeatedly broadcast.
"Hassan sent men to fight the Israeli army, an army of steel, without preparing them. Stop listening to patriotic hymns for a moment, reflect and bring your feet back to the ground," said the Arabic message.
Israel has reportedly used a variety of technological weapons to add a psychological dimension to its war in Lebanon.
Lebanese mobile phone users have also received text and voice messages saying the Israeli offensive was aimed against Hezbollah and not the Lebanese people.
One of the images shown on al-Manar television portrayed the body of a fighter lying face-down, wearing khaki trousers with a text in Arabic beneath: "This is the photograph of a body of a member of Hezbollah's special forces."
[snip]
Israel also recently hacked into FM radio stations and instead of normal programmes a two-minute recording was repeatedly broadcast.
"Hassan sent men to fight the Israeli army, an army of steel, without preparing them. Stop listening to patriotic hymns for a moment, reflect and bring your feet back to the ground," said the Arabic message.
Israel has reportedly used a variety of technological weapons to add a psychological dimension to its war in Lebanon.
Lebanese mobile phone users have also received text and voice messages saying the Israeli offensive was aimed against Hezbollah and not the Lebanese people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
